From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 16:59:46 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re: Space >>As we perceive/live it, time and space are separate - not Einsteinian. Well, this may be your perception, but it is not mine. Instead of the word time, Blavataky used motion, which implies some mass moving through space, and speed or velocity always implies time. So how can anyone move through space (i.e., exist) and not have a sense of time? All bodies (anything with a mass) moves through both time and space together. Maybe you don't perceive it that way, but once we are aware of it, its pretty easy. >>We do not perceive relativity. Not as a physical object maybe, but we do as a concept or idea. Actually, the whole idea of everything being relative to everything else is close to a Buddhist view. In the Einsteinian sense, though, all that is really relative is motion (which includes aging as a time-dependent process). >> 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). >> While what you saying is certianly true, it is not fair to limit the theory of relativity to a mathematical plaything. If physics is not applicable or relevent to life, then what good is it? Math is a language of relationships, and those relationships are very real. My point in the essay that you disliked so much is that time, space, and form all come into existence together, and are only meaningful together. Pure space with nothing in it is a meaningless concept, and does not exist anywhere except in our imaginations. Same with form without space to contain it. >>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>> And the fifth dimension is consciousness. Have a nice day. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:03:42 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re Space >>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.>> Right. Actually, what I was getting at is that time differs on different planets with here in the same physical plane. In addition to time, every monad maintains its own sense of time, a subjective measure that seldom agrees with external measured time. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:15:23 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Christian Scientists >>As a matter of fact I have personally had many conversations with Christian Scientists, and it has been my experience that in many ways they are an extraordinarily open-minded body of people. >> Well, this has NOT been my experience, and I was one for many years. I got into a lot of trouble as a Sunday School teacher when I tried to teach the older kids meditation ala Eddy. Meditation, I was told, is an Eastern magical practice that is neither scientific nor Chrisitian. That was the straw that finally broke my back and made me leave the Church after 10+ years. Mrs. Eddy says in her "bible" that "nothing good will ever come out of the East" and so for any Christian Scientist to acknowledge an Eastern teaching, Leader, or philosophy would be considered heresy. Mrs Eddy also had nasty things to say about Theosophy. When I left the Church I was treated as a black sheep of the family for many many years. An atmosphere of distrust and selfishness pervaded the CS Churches that I attended and it was the compassion of Theosophy that got me to finally trade horses. Jerry S From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:09:38 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Dallas on mantras and HPB This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BF0C16.990022C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dallas wrote: > And where did you ever read that HPB wrote that she used mantras or > prescribed them to anyone ? Dallas, I guess it might hinge on how you define the word "prescribed". My understanding is that HPB "prescribed" the use of certain mantras to = her E.S.T.S. students. See her E.S. Instructions 1, 2 and 3. In regards to meditation, Mahatma KH prescribed the following to select members of the E.S.T.S.: "Concentrate on the idea of the Higher Self, say for half an hour at first. Permit no other thought. By degrees you will be able to unite your consciousness with the Higher Self. . . . "Your best method is to concentrate on the Master as a living man within you. Make His image in your heart, and a focus of concentration, so as to lose all sense of bodily existence in the one thought. The = idea of the Master will prove the best safeguard against spooks, etc. . . . "Masters are those who are born with a Nirmanakaya in them. Every one = of you create for yourselves a Master. Give Him birth and objective being = before you in the Astral Light. If it is a real Master, He will send his = voice. If not a real Master, then the voice will be that of the Higher Self. . = . . " Copies of the KH manuscript are among the papers of W.Q. Judge and Alice Cleather. Portions of this KH MS were published by Julia Ver Planck in Mr. Judge's PATH magazine. See issues of July 1889, pp. 102-3 and Sept. 1890, pp. 177-8. Julia writes in the July 1889 issue: ". . . let us read some remarks = from an Oriental adept which came into our possession many months ago." Interested student should compare these KH quotes with the material in Fragment I of the VOICE OF THE SILENCE. Daniel ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BF0C16.990022C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dallas wrote:

> And where did = you ever=20 read that HPB wrote that she used mantras or
> prescribed them to = anyone=20 ?

Dallas, I guess it might hinge on how you define the word=20 "prescribed".

My understanding is that HPB "prescribed" the use = of=20 certain mantras to her
E.S.T.S. students.
See her E.S. = Instructions 1, 2=20 and 3.

In regards to meditation, Mahatma KH prescribed the=20 following
to select members of the E.S.T.S.:

"Concentrate on = the idea=20 of the Higher Self, say for half an hour at
first.  Permit no = other=20 thought.  By degrees you will be able to
unite your = consciousness with=20 the Higher Self. . . .

"Your best method is to concentrate on the = Master=20 as a living man
within you.  Make His image in your heart, and a = focus=20 of concentration,
so as to lose all sense of bodily existence in the = one=20 thought.  The idea
of the Master will prove the best safeguard = against=20 spooks, etc. . . .

"Masters are those who are born with a = Nirmanakaya in=20 them.  Every one of
you
create for yourselves a Master.  = Give=20 Him birth and objective being before
you in the Astral Light.  = If it is=20 a real Master, He will send his voice.
If not a real Master, then the = voice=20 will be that of the Higher Self. . . .
"

Copies of the KH = manuscript=20 are among the papers of W.Q. Judge and = Alice
Cleather.

Portions of=20 this KH MS were published by Julia Ver Planck in Mr. Judge's
PATH=20 magazine.  See issues of July 1889, pp. 102-3 and Sept. 1890,=20 pp.
177-8.

Julia writes in the July 1889 issue:  ". . . = let us=20 read some remarks from
an Oriental adept which came into our = possession many=20 months ago."

Interested student should compare these KH quotes = with the=20 material
in Fragment I of the VOICE OF THE=20 SILENCE.

Daniel

------=_NextPart_000_004A_01BF0C16.990022C0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 22:30:38 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Re: Last go-round on Tantra Rich, I am sensing a great deal of frustration in your latest writing (BELOW). I can certainly understand why. But at the same time I think this discussion can provide an opportunity for everyone on the list to learn something new. To possibly look at other points of view. I believe Peter has raised some very good points in commenting on TSONGKHAPA'S SIX YOGAS OF NAROPA. His impressions may be wrong, etc. but they are still his impressions and deserve careful consideration and a thoughtful reply. In response to one of his comments, you wrote: > This is PRECISELY the problem. Since most Theosophists have not taken the > time (or to be fair, have been able to take the time) to investigate the > SOURCES of HPB's teachings, almost no Theosophist is able to understand HPB's > cautions. From the vantage point of reading ONLY Blavatsky, one cannot > distinguish white or black, green red or yellow. It all looks ritualistic, > none of the symbolism is understood, and then of course the poor student > stands ripe for abuse of all kinds, from greedy gurus to self-deception. > Tantras do NOT deal with sex, or with the lower chakras for that matter -- > but with the supreme state which transforms the impure into the pure. > Nothing could be more Theosophical Rich, in your reply to Peter, you seem to be telling him (in an indirect way) that his impressions are wrong. But you don't give any detailed feedback as to why those impressions might be wrong. What is he not taking into account, etc.? You go on to say that: > Tantras do NOT deal with sex, or with the lower chakras for that matter -- And yet this is exactly Peter's impression after reading the Mullin translation. And I must say that is also my impression. And I've reread for about the 8th time the Cozart book and I get the same impression. And both Mullin and Cozart admit themselves that the tantras under consideration deal with hatha yoga and physical sex. Now if Peter's and my impressions are wrong (due to whatever) please explain to us what we are missing and overlooking. You need not write a treatise but some detail would help in our learning experience. HPB and her Teachers give warnings about hatha yoga, pranayama and "sexual" tantric techniques. This message is pretty clear over a number of years in both HPB's writings and in the Mahatma Letters. They must be warning their readers about something. What were they telling their readers to avoid????? Maybe there are different kinds of pranayama and the pranayamas mentioned in Cozart's book are not the same as the kind HPB and KH warned about. Etc. etc. You have not said anything up this aspect of the subject. I would suggest that most theosophists reading the Mullin and Cozart books would agree with Peter's impressions. I'm not saying that because a majority might agree that therefore those impressions are right. Maybe those impressions are ill-founded. What I want to know is why you seem to insist that Peter's (and my) impressions are wrong, misguided, etc. How can we ever correct our misguide views without some substantive input? Since you have mentioned David Reigle at least once in these discussions on Tantras, etc. I will tell you that I have discussed all of these subjects with him in some detail in the last year or so. I don't want to put words in his mouth. I may certainly have misunderstood some of his points and may possibly misrepresent his views. But here goes: I believe it is his contention that the Gelugpa tradition is NOT necessarily the esoteric view of HPB's Masters. In fact, there is a orthodoxy in the Gelugpa religion just as one finds an orthodoxy in all other religions of the world. And that over the centuries since Tsongkhapa's death a literalism has become predominant in the Gelugpa tradition. For example, the Gelugpa lamas believe in reincarnation of humans into animal forms. They literally believe this. As far as I know this is not a tenet of Blavatsky's teachings. Many if not most Gelugpa lamas believe that a "karmamudra" means literally a real physical woman who becomes the tantric partner of a lama. But could this "karmamudra" have other meanings symbolical in nature. Could there be other valid interpretations of this word? Various passages in HPB's writings would suggest these other alternative interpretations and meanings. I believe David Reigle is of the opinion that the literal meaning given by most Gelugpas is not valid and certainly is not in accordance with the esoteric teachings of Blavatsky and her teachers. David Reigle also questions Mullin's translation of the Tibetan word for "karmamudra." You would have to discuss this with Reigle to get his exact view and argument. Again I stress that I may be oversimplifying Reigle's view. Take Reigle's name out of the discussion and I think the arguments I just advanced are worthy of some thought and consideration. Just as many Blavatsky students believe that certain Theosophical writers soon after HPB's death misinterpreted her teachings and even changed and deleted material in her published and unpublished writings, could not this have happened to Tsong-Kha-Pa's writings? Could not disciples and followers in the years after Tsong-Kha-pa's death altered his writings? Could they have misunderstood and even literalised many of his teachings? I'm not saying that this happened but surely it is a consideration to ponder on. If it happened with HPB's writings and teachings, why not with Tsong-Kha-Pa's? Rich, I would appreciate it if you would deal with Peter's and my impressions which apparently you think are unwarranted. Here is a chance ofor valuable dialogue. Maybe we can all learn something from this give and take??!! Rich, I must agree with you that it is also my impression that Dallas and a number of other students who have written about the Tantras apppear not to know a great deal about the Tantras---Hindu or Buddhist. Here I will state that this may be an MISimpression on my part. In any case, I wish Dallas and others would read some of the books on Tantra recommended by both Rich and Nicholas. Such reading can only expand one's understanding of the subject and possibly help one to understand and appreciate HPB's own words on these subjects. For all I know Dallas and the others may have already studied the recommended items!! Sorry if I've offended anyone. I'm just trying to communicate my impressions which are of course subject to correction and further clarification. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 21:19:29 +0200 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: Re: In support of theosophy This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0186_01BF0D1B.CFBE5A60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > 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. >=20 > 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. On the contrary, KH says in the Mahatma Letters about HPB that = they were searching a hundred years for a chela fit enough to be trained = for the outer world. =20 > 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!!!!!!! It should not be forgotten that there are several degrees of = chelaship. A higher chela works under other conditions and restrictions = than say a lay chela. That makes the difference. > mkr >=20 > PS: Olcott had himself stated that he was a man of bars and women = before he > got in touch with Theosophy. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for his own ring-pass-not, = his failing as a lay chela and the loss of contact to the Masters = through HPB - at least when she was kicked off from Adyar and launched = her own body for the loyal chelas. Frank ------=_NextPart_000_0186_01BF0D1B.CFBE5A60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> On the other hand, when They chose = the=20 founders who were meat eaters and
> smokers etc while there were = 10s of=20 1000s of people who would fit the
> traditional stereotype of = leading pure=20 lives.
>
> It appears that when They were looking for = people to=20 launch TS, they were
> not looking for people who would fit the=20 traditional stereotype. They were
> obviously looking a lot beyond = the=20 personal physical habits. They had to
> get a job done and so = found those=20 who can get the job done.
    =    =20 On the contrary, KH says in the Mahatma Letters about HPB that they = were=20 searching a hundred years for a chela fit enough to be trained for the = outer=20 world.
 
> If today, were HPB, HSO, = and other=20 leaders were to reappear magically, they
> would not be allowed to = stay/live  in TS owned properties and lead the kind
> of = lives they=20 led!!!!!!!
         It should = not be=20 forgotten that there are several degrees of chelaship. A higher = chela works=20 under other conditions and restrictions than say a lay chela. That makes = the=20 difference.

> mkr
>
> PS: = Olcott had=20 himself stated that he was a man of bars and women before he
> got = in=20 touch with Theosophy.
    =    =20 Perhaps that is one of the reasons for his own ring-pass-not, his = failing as a=20 lay chela and the loss of contact to the Masters through HPB - at least = when she=20 was kicked off from Adyar and launched her own body for the loyal=20 chelas.
 
Frank
 
------=_NextPart_000_0186_01BF0D1B.CFBE5A60-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 20:49:39 +0200 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: Fw: In support of theosophy This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BF0DE0.CF512420 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: Frank Reitemeyer=20 > Date: Saturday, October 02, 1999 9:19 PM > Subject: Re: In support of theosophy > 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. >=20 > 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. On the contrary, KH says in the Mahatma Letters about HPB that = they were searching a hundred years for a chela fit enough to be trained = for the outer world. =20 > 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!!!!!!! It should not be forgotten that there are several degrees of = chelaship. A higher chela works under other conditions and restrictions = than say a lay chela. That makes the difference. > mkr >=20 > PS: Olcott had himself stated that he was a man of bars and women = before he > got in touch with Theosophy. Perhaps that is one of the reasons for his own ring-pass-not, = his failing as a lay chela and the loss of contact to the Masters = through HPB - at least when she was kicked off from Adyar and launched = her own body for the loyal chelas. Frank ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BF0DE0.CF512420 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Frank = Reitemeyer=20
Date: Saturday, October 02, 1999 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: In support of theosophy

> On the other hand, when They chose = the=20 founders who were meat eaters and
> smokers etc while there were = 10s of=20 1000s of people who would fit the
> traditional stereotype of = leading pure=20 lives.
>
> It appears that when They were looking for = people to=20 launch TS, they were
> not looking for people who would fit the=20 traditional stereotype. They were
> obviously looking a lot beyond = the=20 personal physical habits. They had to
> get a job done and so = found those=20 who can get the job done.
    =    =20 On the contrary, KH says in the Mahatma Letters about HPB that they = were=20 searching a hundred years for a chela fit enough to be trained for the = outer=20 world.
 
> If today, were HPB, HSO, = and other=20 leaders were to reappear magically, they
> would not be allowed to = stay/live  in TS owned properties and lead the kind
> of = lives they=20 led!!!!!!!
         It should = not be=20 forgotten that there are several degrees of chelaship. A higher = chela works=20 under other conditions and restrictions than say a lay chela. That makes = the=20 difference.

> mkr
>
> PS: = Olcott had=20 himself stated that he was a man of bars and women before he
> got = in=20 touch with Theosophy.
    =    =20 Perhaps that is one of the reasons for his own ring-pass-not, his = failing as a=20 lay chela and the loss of contact to the Masters through HPB - at least = when she=20 was kicked off from Adyar and launched her own body for the loyal=20 chelas.
 
Frank
 
------=_NextPart_000_004C_01BF0DE0.CF512420-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 10:30:10 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: TS I have always wondered about the decision to launch TS in 1875 and many of the comments here and there as well as the enormous amount of time the many Adepts personally spent in the early days, including the numerous letters that were written. Take for example the comment that it took 200 years before a suitable western body was found in the person of HPB. So the effort seems to have been started two centuries before 1875. So something very critical in the progress and welfare of the masses (not the elite and previleged) was developing. Again in ML 65, there is the statement: "Could but your L.L. (London Lodge) understand, or so much as suspect, that the present crisis (Columb Affair) that is shaking the TS to its foundations is a question of perdition or salvation to thousands; a question of the progress of human race or its retrogression, of its glory or dishonour, and for the majority of this race -- of being or not being, of annihilation, in fact -- perchance many of you being guided by false appearances and scientific decisions, you would set to work and save the situation by disclosing the dishonourable doings of your missionary world." A very very strong statement and a very serious one coming from the Founder. ....mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 17:04:24 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 30, 1999 Dear Bart: Once, in a past life regression, I had a vision of being involved in a gun duel with another gentleman who, I have concluded, must have been you. >> [Kym] 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. > >[Bart] 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. Well, "trying" isn't the word I would use; I declare it a fact that spousal abuse was the rule, rather than the exception and that society/family circles served to fortify women's oppression; in addition, such practices resulted in the death of many young women. Sources? Well, as far as marriage serving as an "early death" for women, a simple jaunt through any old cemetery will speak of that. The number of married women (as noted on the tombstone) will show that the majority of them were under 30. The tombstones of men, on the other hand, show a much longer life span. Since you brought up "plantation" issues: Catherine Clinton, a history professor, writes in her book "The Plantation Mistress": "Apprehension clouded the joy of expectancy, for whenever a plantation mistress faced childbirth, she literally prepared to die. ..... In order to ensure safe and healthy pregnancies, some plantation mistresses continued to exercise, especially during the early months - a not uncommon medical practice during the early nineteenth century. ...in 1847, chloroform finally began to be used to relieve the pain of childbirth. ....Confinement was a time of crisis for husband and wife alike. While women went through the pain and anxiety of delivery, expectant fathers feared the death of their spouses." > 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. Bart, for pete's sake, women did not get the right to vote until 1920! How can you say that the "tight control of women" was not the rule in the United States? Women and men were not "equally controlled" in early Western thought. Take a peek at Genesis where it declares that a man shall "rule over" a woman in marriage, or when Mohammed declares that women are merely "vessels" for childbearing and little more. In Jewish tradition, a woman (if you can call a 13 year old a "woman") was to be chosen from the "family line" to ensure "purity" of such family line. Clearly, both the family and society believed and propagated the custom that a 13 year old was to become subject to her husband's rule. These customs are more than 300 to 400 years old - unless my math is in error. Women, in the 1800's, were not allowed to go attend universities and were often prevented from attending any kind of public school at all. In present day, medical insurance will cover Viagra for men, but not birth control for women. In present day, a woman who kills her husband will, according to the Justice Department, receive, on average, a 15 year LONGER prison sentence than a man who kills his wife. How can you say, Bart, that women and men were/are controlled "equally" in latter-day United States thought and practice? >> [Kym ]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. > >[Bart] 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. This is illogical. It will not "remedy the situation" if women simply engage in the same practice as men do - writing and acting as if the world sees through only their eyes. A form of reverse discrimination is what you are advocating here. It is true that men and women view the world differently due, mainly, to societal treatment, but to write "sacred" text to only a select group of folk is irresponsible. Too many highly quoted, revered, and directive texts are written by and for men - and the people of present day continue the cycle of perpetuating that line of thought. Instead of examining spiritual texts in a more panoramic "world-view" - the same old quotes are tossed around, expected to address today's society. Bull. The example Grigor gave, "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" will not work if we replace "he" with "she." For, to do so, will endorse physical, mental, and sexual abuse of women. It is much more difficult, although not impossible, for a woman to "assault" her husband - odds are he's bigger, stronger, and may hit back with bolder force. It is more difficult, althought not impossible, for a woman to engage in the marital rape of her husband. The very quote itself endorses a dissatisfaction, a violence, within the marriage relationship. It implicitly suggests that to be married is to expect suffering and physical/mental abuse. This is not acceptable, in my opinion, for neither men nor women. Because men have less fear about violence in marital relationships, this quote probably caused a few snickers, winks, and understanding nods among some males; however, this same quote, if we replace it with "she," sends cold shivers down the spine of a woman. Just because something is written by so-called learned men does not mean that it is a learned phrase. The men who wrote this quote paid NO heed of women when writing it. Those of us who claim to be educated need to examine a bit more deeply currently acceptable "words of wisdom." Do such "words of wisdom" apply to most people and will they work in current daily life? Do such "words of wisdom" promote peace and harmony, or violence and suffering? > 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. This reasoning, to me, is also illogical. Since so few people actually "saw" the Mahatmas for what they claimed to be - what difference would it have made if they were male or female? Are you suggesting that Blavastky would have discounted their words if they had come from females? Since it was important for Mahatmas to "blend in," what better way to remain anonymous in their time but to be female? Neither does it make sense that male Mahatmas would chose a female messenger - ESPECIALLY if they were so concerned about "societal reasons." It would have been less problematic if they had chosen a male. Again, the reasoning you offer just doesn't add up. Oh, and I almost forgot. . .regarding the duel. . .you were fatally wounded. I tried to save you. . .I really did. . .honest. . .I really tried. . .but since I wasn't allowed to go to medical school. . .well, you know. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 21:52:40 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Peter on the Mullin translation of Tsong Kha Pa's "The Six Yogas of Naropa" Peter on the Mullin translation of Tsong Kha Pa's "The Six Yogas of Naropa" Peter wrote ( I quote only the most significant parts of his email summation): > As for the text in question, The Six Yogas of Naropa. . . . The edition I > am referring to is introduced and translated by Glen Mullin, Snow Lion > Books, 1997. It is said to contain important Tibetan texts on the Six Yogas > by Tsong Kha Pa, the First Panchen Lama, Gyala Wensapa and others > > A great deal that is found in this book seems to me to be an an example of > the very Tantric and hatha yoga practices that HPB and the Masters warned > against and distanced themselves from. Below is an extract from "Notes on a > Book of Three Inspirations". ....... > This represents the final doctrines of the Six Stages. Does this sound like > an esoteric doctrine indentical to the fundamental teachings and aims of > Theosophy? To me this comes across as black magic. The above extracts are > from the chapter by Jey Sherab Gyatso (1803-1875) but other chapters of the > book, including that of Tsong Kha Pa explain hatha yoga style forced > breathing practices, forced visualisations and sexual tantra, all mixed up > with allusions to higher states of spiritual attainment - very seductive..... > ........ > Yes, I am aware of what HPB and the Masters say about Tsong Kha Pa just as I > am aware of what I read in Mullins translation of the Six Yogas of Naropa > and to be frank I find it hard to see how the writings found therein have > anything at all to do with the personage HPB and the Masters refer to. > Rich, I sincerely hope that you are refering to a different translation > which sounds a completely different note. Peter, I think you have done an excellent job of summarising much of what I ALSO got out of the book. Yes, I believe Rich is referring to this very same translation by Mullin. I see that Rich also refers to another book: HIGHEST YOGA TANTRA by Daniel Cozort. Peter, this book appears to me ALSO to be full of "hatha yoga style forced breathing practices, forced visualisations and sexual tantra, all mixed up with allusions to higher states of spiritual attainment." I have to agree with you Peter that both books are good examples of "the very Tantric and hatha yoga practices that HPB and the Masters warned against and distanced themselves from." How can this be since both books are in the Gelugpa tradition---one being by the very founder of the Yellow Hats whom KH and M praise in very high terms?? I ask Rich, Steve and Nicholas, what's going on here? Read what is said on these subjects as found throughout HPB's writings as well as what is in the Mahatma Letters. Compare them to what is found in just these two book mentioned above. Are any of you suggesting that these are the kinds of practices that HPB's Masters M, KH, Serapis and others of the Occult Brotherhood would practice or instruct their students to practice? Colonel Olcott spoke of the Schools of HPB's Masters as follows: ". . . the Brothers. . . have told me that there are schools, under appointed living adepts, where their Occult science is regularly taught." Are any of you suggesting that the Brothers of HPB condone such "tantric" practices in their schools??? Can we just sweep all of this under the "theosophical" carpet and ignore it? Especially in light of what Mahatm Koot Hoomi writes about Tsong Kha pa: ". . . that is the highest form of adeptship man can hope for on our planet. But it is as rare as the Buddhas themselves, the last Khobilgan who reached it being Sang-Ko-Pa of Kokonor (XIV Century), the reformer of esoteric as well as of vulgar Lamaism." (Mahatma Letters, Letter 9). IMHO, all of this is not some minor contradiction but a crucial, extremely crucial issue that needs to be carefully discussed and studied by all serious students of Madame Blavatsky's writings. I write this in a rush, but does anyone see what I'm getting at? Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 17:10:08 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: The Straight Stuff on Tantra There is great confusion over tantra. It is best to begin, I think, by noting that there are two tantric traditions. The first, and older one, is the Buddhist tantra. The second, and less old, is Hindu tantra. Hindu tantra is the one most closely associated with sexual yoga in rare circumstances. The Tantra HPB seems to refer to is connected to her references to "Bodhism as a northern school" in contrast to the relatively corrupt Buddhism o the south. So, we are dealing, for the most part, with Tantric Buddhism. The Buddhist tantra is actually not focussed on sex or sex as means as it is an internal alchemy/yoga that works with the transmutation of the lower to the higher. The first mention of Buddhist tantra is in Central Asia (second-century CE, where Shambhala is Shamsi i Balkh or present-day Balkh, see David Snellgrove's two volume history of Indo-Tibetan Tantric Buddhism, Powers' Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism, and Tucci's The Religions of Tibet) even before it goes into India or before Buddhism has even entered Tibet (ninth-century CE). To understand the basic symbolism of Buddhist Tantra, we must turn to the surprisingly common Zoroastrian, later Manichaean/gnostic, and early eastern Christian symbolism that appears to reflect and express a spiritual teaching that subsequently took these Zoroastrian, Manichaean, gnostic, early eastern Christian, and Buddhist forms (again, refer to Snellgrove, ibid. Leuf, Secret Doctrines of the Tibetan Books of the Dead, Tucci, ibid. Rudolph, Gnosis, Klimheit, Gnosis on the Silk Route, Russell, Zoroastrianism in Armenia, and Manichaean Fragments from Turfan Oasis,). In its original form, the ancestral vesion of the Arthurian and Graal story appears in its original form (with Germanic, Celtic, and Christian versions being third and fourth diffusionary versions (see Corbin, Man of Light, Bruce Lincoln, Myth, Ritual, and Cosmology in Indo-European Antiquity and his Priests, Warriors, and Cattle, Dumezil's Destiny of the King, Johnson, Poetry and Speculation in the Rigveda, Griswold, The Religion of the Rigveda, Miler, The Vision of Cosmic Order in the Vedas, Pulhvel, The New Comparative Indo- European Mythology). A Zoroastrian source (repeated in a later Buddhist and Sufi source) says this spiritual teaching comes from before the destruction of the civilization at the pole (there is disagreement whether north or south, the earliest strata in Zoroastrianism says both while indicating that the south pole was not the south pole when, so the story goes, Ahriman attacked the earth, set it a wobbling on its axis/equinoxes, and caused a great winter to destroy the civilization of Yima/Yama. This is also the fall of Yima/ Yama, who subsequently, in both Persian and Indian (Buddhist and Hindu) traditions becomes King of the Dead. With this fall, humanity takes on physical bodies/chemical crusts/animal skins (getik i tanu) to protect the higher spiritual bodies from destruction (menok i tanu) which at the same time introduces mortality or mortal life (gayo mar i tan) into the human order (arta, asha, rta). This fallen physical estate later is represented as the legendary figure Gayomart. This fall or disaster is also involves the loss of Yima's/Jimshid's Serving Cup/Bowl of Immortal Elixir (Ambrotas, Ambrosia) and the separation of the solar path of immortal gods and human ancestry (reflected in Indian Vedic and Epic materials, Zoroastrian Avestan and Epic materials, early Roman legends, Celtic and Germanic legends) from the lunar path of the mortal fathers (pitars) and ancestry (Mahabharata is the battle between the solar and lunar descendents of earlier humans). This fall also involved a separation of the prime lower human impulses from their proper harmonious function with the higher or severance of the bottom chakras with top. Tantra is about the transformation of this fallen situation. In essence, a serious malfunction of the cycles of spiritual involution and evolution have occurred on this planet so the path, according to Tantra, is both a restoration but also further evolution. So, in Zoroastrianism, we are told that pre-fallen humanity were one with their celestial twin/consort/double, which is called in Zoroastrian sources the "Daena" (Avestan) or "Den" (Pahlavi). She is Divine Wisdom. Daena or Den, depending on context of what phase of spiritual development one is speaking about is variously translated as conscience, wisdom, illumination, or revelation. The basic idea is that this Daena, in ordinary humans, is the innate divine wisdom is it undeveloped or embryonic form. That is, conscience is the legacy of a lost higher gnosis and is the outline/blueprint or inner compass of the higher gnosis or wisdom we are to regain. In the post-mortem Judgment scene of Zoroastrianism that takes place across the Chinvat Bridge in the Hidden Realm of the Dead or the Kingdom of Yima, symbolically, the Daena meets the (male) soul (urvan) either as a beautiful maiden or ugly crone depending upon the soul's deeds in life. In the fully perfected soul, daena becomes what in the Persian is Pragma (the cognate to Prajna). This process is the movement from the fallen realm of mortal life ruled by Yima to a higher realm. We find this same symbolism in eastern Christianity where the spiritual life is partly about developing our innate inner feminine celestial spouse or conscience (syneidesis) into its fully manifest form as the Divine Wisdom (Sophia). Through Armenian and Georgian sources, this spiritual tradition gets transmitted to Germany where the key figure representing it is Jacob Boehme. His way is to re-unite the lower powers of the soul (diagrammed by Gichtel) with its higher Wisdom in an inner marriage of the soul to its conscience/Sophia (as brought out in the book on this subject by Boehme's follower Gottfried Arnold). We find this same symbolism in Buddhism. Here, ordinary humans contain within themselves the bodhi-seed or potential Buddha-hood. According to Tantric Buddhist sources (Central Asian, Indian, Tibetan, and Japanese, where Tantric Buddhism is called Shingon), the other term for this bodhi-seed is conscience (Gampopa speaks of this in his Way to Liberation as Evans Wentz and Garma C. Chang both note). Conscience is a feminine figure, just as in the other traditions, that will evolve into the Buddha's Wisdom or Prajna. Just like the appearance of conscience /Daena in the Zoroastrian judgment in Yima's kingdom where there appears a fair maiden or ugly crone to the soul according to its merits, so in the Bardo Theodol or Tibetan Book of the Dead, a Tantric text, we find the Buddhist version of this motif where in the Judgment Court of Yama the sentient being in the afterlife is confronted with the projections of his own good and bad conscience, according to karma, in the form of a lovely maiden or ugly crone. The spiritual path of Tantric Buddhism is to reunite the potential Buddha with his reawakened Prajna (conscience now evolved into Wisdom) which is his consort. So, putting together Tibetan symbolism, the realm of samsara is the fallen realm of Yama (thus, the wheel of Samsara is iconographically held within the claws of Yama or is the bowels of Yama. The process of spiritual transformation is to transform the violent forces that are the energies of samsara (sort of a malfunction of higher energies) and mortal life into the enlightened energies of a Buddha's Wisdom. So, the five skandhas become transformed into the five Buddhas of the Mandala. Each of these five Buddhas of the Mandala have their Wisdom Consorts or Prajnas. And all of them, i.e. the five Buddhas of the Mandala and their Wisdoms/ Prajnas, are merely the fivefold aspects of the supreme Adi Buddha and his Prajna Consort, Samanabhadra. The highest Yoga Tantras of Tibet are all about accomplishing the above described process. But each has a slightly different focus depending on character of the practitioner. So, there is Ati Yoga Tantra or Dzog chen of the Nyingmapas. This is the form of the tantra as purely an interior meditative way that most closely resembles Zen (some scholars, western and asian have noted that Dzog chen and Zen may be related to a common ancestor). Dzog chen is about the immediate transformation of consciousness/energy into the enlightened state/process. Then there is Kalachakra Tantra. This has close ties to Zoroastrian traditions. In Zoroastrianism, the mortal soul is "urvan." It is the vitality/life infected and haunted by death. Urvan is related to the god of finite time (zurvan) of the long dominion. By marrying itself to the Daena, the mortal urvan begins to become animated with the higher immortalizing energies of the fravashi (immortal-life-restoring spirit - fravashi is cognate to the English "fresh") by which the spiritual body is regenerated (menok i tan) into the crystalline Diamond Body (ken i tan or Gurdjieff's Armenian kesdjian). This is done by a yoga of time-transformation. If we look at time as mortals, a whole lifestyle is built up (rat race). If we look at time as immortals in the making according to conscience, time becomes the vast expanse of possibility along with space. The Buddhist Kalachakra is the equivalent to this Zoroastrian way of time-alcemy. Kalachakra is the alchemical yoga of transforming the leaden darkness of rat race time into the eternity of a Buddha's infinite field of possibility to exercise his Wisdom/Prajna. Then there is Mahamudra of the Kagyupas of Tibetan Buddhism where the focus is on the transformation of the emptiness of space into the vast plenum of the Buddha's spacious field of Wise/Prajnic action (upaya). So, the highest Yoga Tantras all are a transformative means of fusing and transmuting the energies of human existence into the energies of a Buddha's union with his Conscience or Wisdom. As slightly variant ways to this end, Dzog chen focusses on transmuting consciousness/energy, Kalachakra focusses on transmuting time/motion, and Mahamudra focusses on transmuting space/relation. As for the sexual symbolism of Tantra, here is what I was taught in a Tibetan monastery. Tantra is not a sexual method as is now widely documented contrary to the Victorian fantansies of those discoverers of it around the turn of the century who hoped to find a "religiously legitimated" outlet for their repressed sexuality. Tantra uses sexual symbolism to make the following point. As strongly as we are driven, attached, identified with, or one with the passionate and violent forces that fuel the vicious round of samsara, which are depicted in the center of the Buddhist Wheel of Samsaric life as lust, hate, greed (the three ropes of tanha or "depairing emptiness seeking fulfillment") and as weakly we are therefore bound to the call of conscience, so a Buddha is driven, attached, identified with, or one with his Wisdom. The point is we are inwardly married to our darker passions while a Buddha is inwardly married to his Wisdom/Conscience. This is represented by the sexual symbolic motif called Yabyum in Tibetan. In the hell worlds, yabyum depicts a sentient being terrified, repulsed, and horrified with the ghastly and terrorizing apparition he/she is sexually bound to for one cannot get away from one's conscience. To conscience one is eternally wedded for better or worse, forever. But, in the Buddha realm, the Buddha's are rapturously in an inner sexual embrace with their lovely conscience turned Wisdom. There is another teaching that one is presented in Buddhist monasteries when the meaning of this sexual symbolism is the topic. When one is confronted with a difficult moral decision often what makes it difficult is the inner conflict between our desire and our knowledge of what we ought to do. In these situations, doing the right thing feels like a cost or loss that we would rather not perform. We have to overcome our spontaneous and egocentric impulses of serving number one in order to do what is right. The call of conscience is weaker than passion, here. By contrast, the spontaneous impulses or instincts of a Buddha are precisely to do the right thing. There is no inner conflict because all the energies of a Buddha are fused to his conscience. But what is more, his conscience has been trained into a wisdom or consummate moral competence. Even when we decide to do the right thing, we may not know how or we screw it up. A Buddha is ethically omni-competent skill (upaya) motivated by compassion (karuna) enlightened by wisdom (prajna). So, the sexual symbolism of Tantra poses two questions to anyone who aspires to the spiritual path. First, what in you is the stronger force, sex/passions or one's conscience? If the former, one is only beginning. Second, when you choose to do the right thing according to one's conscience, does it (1) express the spontaneous impulses and habits/skills of one's being or is it an effort against them, and (2), even if you know how to avoid that wrong, do you know how to perfectly do the good with expert skill and consummate mastery? Are you trained to be a wise-moral person whose ethical skills are highly developed forms of self-mastery comparable to those of an Olympic athlete? Grigor V. Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 17:23:25 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 30, 1999 In a message dated 10/3/99 2:32:57 PM Central Daylight Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > Sources? Well, as far as marriage serving as an "early death" for women, a > simple jaunt through any old cemetery will speak of that. The number of > married women (as noted on the tombstone) will show that the majority of > them were under 30. The tombstones of men, on the other hand, show a much > longer life span. > I talked to my granddaughter about this. She is a MD, a feminist, and a mid-wife OB. She said there are no strong figures on spousal abuse before the mid-20th century. And there are not any strong figures about such things and families for the more distant past because (1) they didn't have statistics until 1950 (Pascal started to develop the field) and (2) our knowledge of the common family is extremely fragmentary. She also said, in light of this observation by you, that the tombstones reflect that death by childbirth is the explanation for the high incidence of women dying before they are 30 just as the higher number of tombstones found for children reflect the high mortality rate from disease of children. To infer wife or child abuse because most women and children died before men is unwarranted. She suggests researching it a bit more and/or contact any number of support groups if you have been a victim. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 23:20:32 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Quite right, Kym. This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BF0DF5.E39366E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kym wrote to Bart (amongst a lot of other stuff): "Too many highly quoted, revered, and directive texts are written by and for men - and the people = of present day continue the cycle of perpetuating that line of thought. Instead of examining spiritual texts in a more panoramic "world-view" - = the same old quotes are tossed around, expected to address today's society. Bull." =20 Quite so. Having examined spiritual texts over many years, especially = in the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is very interesting to observe that = *the translations* are mostly written by men, for men, as well as in = order to "reinforce" a translator's/author's particular theological = preferences. In the text of the New Testament (which should be New Covenant) Jesus = is made to say in the older English versions, "He that has ears to hear, = let him hear." The Greek text (and finally the New Revised Standard = Version) has him say, "Whoever has ears to hear - listen!" Experienced = students of these things might detect traces here of the Judaic/Aramiac = idiom. The idea of "Heaven" also comes from translations. Both in the Hebrew OT = and the Greek NT the word is plural - "Heavens." In the NT, only = Matthew refers to "The Kingdom of the Heavens." The other gospels use = the term "Kingdom of God." Interestingly, the Hebrew word for "Kingdom" = is "Malkuth" - from Malech (King) or Malcha (Queen) and is feminine = plural. IOW, the "Kingdom" is a state of plurality within which is = intended to be understood the entirety of humanity - the meaning, BTW, = of "Adam" in Genesis. If anyone cares to look up the quote (I'm old, lazy, and tired) there is = a passage referring the the Temple of the Old Testament in the days of = the uxorious (hehehehe) King Solomon, where there are women at the = Temple Gate "weeping for Tammuz." Tammuz was the deceased son of the = Hebrew version of the Great Mother Goddess who, like Osiris, was done to = death in one season to be reborn again in the next. Maybe Solomon was = not the good Jewish boy he is made out to be? Advice to all, from long experience: Don't believe something just because it is written down in a book, = whether by a man, woman, mahatma, newspaper editor or (especially) a = theosophist. Love to all, Alan the Avatar of the West, Mahatma of Middle Earth, and reincarnation = of the god of your choice :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BF0DF5.E39366E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Kym wrote to Bart (amongst a lot of other stuff):
 
"Too many highly quoted,
revered, and directive texts are = written by and=20 for men - and the people of
present day continue the cycle of = perpetuating=20 that line of thought.
Instead of examining spiritual texts in a more=20 panoramic "world-view" - the
same old quotes are tossed around, = expected to=20 address today's society.
Bull." 

Quite so.  Having = examined=20 spiritual texts over many years, especially in the Judeo-Christian = tradition, it=20 is very interesting to observe that *the translations* are mostly = written by=20 men, for men, as well as in order to "reinforce" a translator's/author's = particular theological preferences.
 
In the text of the New Testament (which should be New Covenant) = Jesus is=20 made to say in the older English versions, "He that has ears to hear, = let him=20 hear."  The Greek text (and finally the New Revised Standard = Version) has=20 him say, "Whoever has ears to hear - listen!"  Experienced students = of=20 these things might detect traces here of the Judaic/Aramiac idiom.
 
The idea of "Heaven" also comes from translations. Both in the = Hebrew=20 OT and the Greek NT the word is plural - "Heavens."  In the NT, = only=20 Matthew refers to "The Kingdom of the Heavens."  The other gospels = use the=20 term "Kingdom of God."  Interestingly, the Hebrew word for = "Kingdom" is=20 "Malkuth" - from Malech (King) or Malcha (Queen) and is feminine = plural. =20 IOW, the "Kingdom" is a state of plurality within which is intended to = be=20 understood the entirety of humanity - the meaning, BTW, of "Adam" in=20 Genesis.
 
If anyone cares to look up the quote (I'm old, lazy, and tired) = there is a=20 passage referring the the Temple of the Old Testament in the days of the = uxorious (hehehehe) King Solomon, where there are women at the Temple = Gate=20 "weeping for Tammuz."  Tammuz was the deceased son of the Hebrew = version of=20 the Great Mother Goddess who, like Osiris, was done to death in one = season to be=20 reborn again in the next.  Maybe Solomon was not the good Jewish = boy he is=20 made out to be?
 
Advice to all, from long experience:
 
Don't believe something just because it is written down in a book, = whether=20 by a man, woman, mahatma, newspaper editor or (especially) a = theosophist.
 
Love to all,
 
Alan the Avatar of the West, Mahatma of Middle Earth, and = reincarnation of=20 the god of your choice :0)
 
Alan@ambain.softnet.co.ukhttp://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/
 
 
Alan@ambain.softnet.co.ukhttp://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BF0DF5.E39366E0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 23:35:37 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 30, 1999 Alan Writes: Good grief! This isn't about statistics, it's about history. It is only in very recent times that the promise to OBEY her husband has been made *optional* (but no longer usually used) in the Marriage Vows of the Church of England. For centuries before the 20th (minimum) such obedience was both expected and was the norm in British society, as in many other cultures. AND, it was given. In my own 1930s childhood, many a request to my mother was answered by "You'll have to ask your father," and what Dad said went. Even in not-so-old American movies we see the standard stereotype of the dominant male who thows his beloved across his lap and gives her a good (?) spanking. (I have heard rumours that there are men who *pay* for the reverse of this procedure, so perhaps there is a kind of balancing factor ..... er ..... probably not: the man is simply paying to get his own way. Life gets complicated, don' it?) Historically, in some cultures, wives could be bought and sold. Go read. Sigh. Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Sunday, October 03, 1999 10:23 PM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 30, 1999 > In a message dated 10/3/99 2:32:57 PM Central Daylight Time, > kymsmith@micron.net writes: > > > Sources? Well, as far as marriage serving as an "early death" for women, a > > simple jaunt through any old cemetery will speak of that. The number of > > married women (as noted on the tombstone) will show that the majority of > > them were under 30. The tombstones of men, on the other hand, show a much > > longer life span. > > > I talked to my granddaughter about this. She is a MD, a feminist, and a > mid-wife OB. She said there are no strong figures on spousal abuse before > the mid-20th century. And there are not any strong figures about such things > and families for the more distant past because (1) they didn't have > statistics until 1950 (Pascal started to develop the field) and (2) our > knowledge of the common family is extremely fragmentary. She also said, in > light of this observation by you, that the tombstones reflect that death by > childbirth is the explanation for the high incidence of women dying before > they are 30 just as the higher number of tombstones found for children > reflect the high mortality rate from disease of children. To infer wife or > child abuse because most women and children died before men is unwarranted. > She suggests researching it a bit more and/or contact any number of support > groups if you have been a victim. > > Grigor > > --- > You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk > 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, 3 Oct 1999 18:57:14 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 30, 1999 In a message dated 10/3/99 2:32:57 PM Central Daylight Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > The very quote itself endorses a dissatisfaction, a violence, within the > marriage relationship. It implicitly suggests that to be married is to > expect suffering and physical/mental abuse. No, it only presupposes that all humans are violence prone, anger prone, greed prone, or assholes in their undeveloped state. To discover one is such or has such tendencies even in the deepest and most intimate relations of love provides a deeper shock that leads to a critical transformative mass. Otherwise one is just evasively playing the spiritual masterbation game. No, the entire import of the quote is that one does not grow up until one does not have the freedom to sow wild oats or skip out or otherwise be non-commital to people and situations in ones life that come with choices you made but which you did not yourself choose with those choices. I choose a wife, not her parents or siblings. I choose to have children but not the children I have. I choose to be a parent but that does not make me instantly know how to be one perfectly. I choose a long-time commitment to these individuals but that does not mean it is bed of roses. I choose a life but that does not mean I choose all the hard knocks that come with any life chosen. The issue is what do you do with those hard knocks, shocks, fights, arguments, sad times, deaths, illnesses, grief, and all the accompanying pains that come with any life with anyone. Do you skip out and run away from circumstances and self or stay and learn what they have to teach you about yourself that you didn't want to know? Committed life is a moral boot-camp where the first step is to honestly confront your own malevolent dispositions (to put it in polished terms that many pseudo-theosophists never come to terms with, get to know who you are as defined by one's past bad karma). To act out beating wife is to flunk (to see that disposition, be shocked by it, to be changed by it, to be transformed by it into one who will never do such thing and who eventually dissolves that inner temptation/disposition is step to a higher state of being). To become angry is to flunk (to see that disposition, be shocked by it, to be changed by it, to be transformed by it into one who will never do such thing and who eventually dissolves that inner temptation/disposition is step to a higher state of being). To become irritated at the a--hole that cut you off on freeway is to flunk (to see that disposition, be shocked by it, to be changed by it, to be transformed by it into one who will never do such thing and who eventually dissolves that inner temptation/disposition is step to a higher state of being). To not know how to be good parent, good wife, good husband, good teacher, or whatever and not study that question is to flunk (to see that disposition, be shocked by it, to be changed by it, to be transformed by it into one who will never do such thing and who eventually dissolves that inner temptation/disposition is step to a higher state of being if one now studies how to be parent and let children have role in teaching you how). These forms of failure are of more or less gravity. But that is not the point. The point is none of us is perfect, our imperfections are truly brought out when we are non-optionally with others, and to counter our inflated positive idealizations we have of ourselves, we need to see ourselves in the negative situations and moods we find ourselves in. If we don't see the negativity, we can't learn how to change it, prevent it, and eventually not be it. The idea is partly conveyed in western saying you can choose your friends but not your family. One who evasively is always running away from commitments over the hill to the next broad horizon and who doesn't get involved-stuck in the limits, failures, and frustrations of a committed life will always be running away from self, from the very conditions that make for self-knowledge. I once had interview with Sufi shaikh about self-knowledge. He said most people don't want it because the initial picture it presents is not pretty picture. To begin to get it, he said, one doesn't chant om over incense and have positive thoughts. Rather, it is catching oneself in the act in what seem to be the unimportant and trivial and habitual moments when we "have nothing important to do." So, he said, catch a glimpse of self waiting in line at bank. Is mood negative (even if mild irritation or impatience) or positive? Or driving in rush hour traffic, is mood that of road-rager or positive? At party, is mood fear, timidness, resentment, or genuine good to see ya'll? Who are you routinely and habitually? Do you like gossip (which is usually something negative about someone)? Who you are in those moments is who you are most of the time. And unless one is involved over the long-haul with other persons at some degree of depth of involvement, the deeper stuff about you won't emerge in the inevitable joys, but also, pains, griefs, and frictions that arise. To the extent knowledge of others remains on surface and casual, to just that extent one's knowledge of self remains on surface and casual. Who you really are is what, how, and who you are with others. if you keep them are superficial arms distance, you will be a superficial person in turn. If you realize this life is not forever, and that no real life is free of negativity, and one becomes one defined by commitments and the burdens they bring, then one becomes a person of "substance" that has strengths and weaknesses, flaws and good things, that emerge in interaction with these others who sometimes you hate and sometimes you love and sometimes who just boggle your mind and sometimes need help you can give and other times need help you can't give. This substantiality is the real grist for the mill of self-knowledge or our leaden selves to transmute. It is the bardo of earthly life. If one is to learn from this life and not waste it, one will have to confront this grist. And what comes up first is what vicious and irritable bitches and assholes we all are under our hypocritical fascade of civility. That is the creature on the threshold. The first step in self-knowledge is knowledge of the uncomplimentary things about oneself that one has been trying to hide from or evasively defend with a long line of self-justifications and rationalizations. And having a family one deeply loves and who loves you to be the arena where you see, honestly (here, sitting meditation is to intensify awareness but mindfulness is the exercise to extent that into movement, and finally, into one's life so that when you see you are being an irritable crank with wife, son, stranger, it is a stronger shock to one's ego than just noticing it without the inner opening and intensification provided by meditation), that you, in relation to them (whether they provoked you or not, whether they started it or not, that is an inner bullshit evasion of seeing yourself), become impatient, angry, irritable, cold, spiteful, and sometimes, downright mean is one of the very best means of practicing karmayoga (not identifying with negativity or reactions interaction and especially deep interaction with others gives rise to - so that practice of kindness for insult can be practiced at later stage) and jnanayoga (self-knowledge, first phase, seeing one's own potrait of Dorion Gray, later, knowing the complexities involved in changing that potrait, changing one's karma). That is why these two forms of yoga were first called the householder yoga. Deep commitments is the boot camp of self-knowledge and it is at first not a pretty sight for anyone. Ms. Smith seems to have mistaken view that we practice perfection in isolation from others or that violence, greed, anger, or lust (others as mere object whether sexual or social or political raw material for my ego project of self-glorification) are somehow exceptional in this world or something only "they" (not me, for heaven's sake!) are infected with as the bad karmic threads that make up that fabric of our ordinary psyche. My family suffered through three genocides, war, near starvation, forced re-locations, and so, I am well acquainted with the underbelly of this world. But instead of playing the whining game of I'm more a victim than you or demonizing the one's who victimized us (such games whither the soul and waste time and keep the cycle of samsara going), I sought how to transcend it inwardly, and the first very unpleasant step is in seeing how one is inwardly the same as this world of mutual destruction, and that true change is first change of oneself. We are all the strangely anonymous "they did it" who is responsible for the evil in this world. "They" is the evasion of "we" and specially "me." Contrary to what Ms Smith seems to believe, to become better parent, husband, or person in relation to others, I can't go off and be hermit practicing my people skills anymore than I can become a concert pianoist by staying away from pianos until I am expert pianoist. Youth and immaturity, whether natural or artificially prolonged, is the time of envisioned forevers, envisioned possibilities, no past, no mistakes, no disappearance of options, no rootedness, no being stuck with one's past choices, no grist for one's moral mill of self-knowledge, and no conscience. Grigor Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 19:23:29 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Quite right, Kym. In a message dated 10/3/99 5:57:59 PM Central Daylight Time, Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk writes: > "He that has ears to hear, let him hear." The Greek text (and finally the > New Revised Standard Version) has him say, "Whoever has ears to hear - listen! > " The second isn't any more accurate than the first. The first has a male pronoun. Greek has a gender-neutral pronoun just as German does but English doesn't. "Whoever" is more a paraphrasal gloss than a translation. Closer, but still gloss, would be "The one that...., let that one hear!" Also, the passive conative form (to wish, to allow, to permit, etc.) "let hear" has been changed into the imperative, "hear!." So, that is not literal either. And, even though not literal semantically, given the context, some have argued that ideomatically a closer equivalent would be "The one who can listen, let that one hear." Not "the one who can hear, let that one listen." "Hear" contextually meant an awakening while the ability to listen was the prepared ability to hear or to harken (an older English usage closer to Greek). Just a few technicalities... Grigor Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 20:21:27 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 30, 1999 In a message dated 10/3/99 5:57:53 PM Central Daylight Time, Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk writes: > Alan Writes: > > Good grief! This isn't about statistics, it's about history. I wondered who you were responding to but since it is my post on bottom I assume it is to me. First, as I immediately indicated in the next post, I intended it to be a private email. But since it is now out in the open, in responding to Bart, Kym Smith made a statement about the relative frequency of how often and how widespread a type of event (i.e. marriage killing women) was. That kind of statement, while about the historical past, is nevertheless a statistical one. A pure historical statement would be about a singular and unique event such as Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, Hitler committed suicide in 1945, Kennedy was killed in Dallas. But if one is making a claim about how often something happened (past, present, future), one is making a statistical statement. For most of the past, we lack that knowledge about everything. We don't know the murder rates in ancient Rome, the rates of food-poisoning in the Renaissance, crop yields for Egypt, and etc. Sometimes we can predict the relative frequency of certain kinds of geological events from the geological record but not social ones. Spousal and child abuse are doubtless widespread. But how widespread or its relative frequency is a statistical statement. We don't have that kind of knowledge about any past further back than 20th century. Women statisticians I've talked to say we are just now collecting the relevant statistics now. Further, we don't have much knowledge of anything except what was recorded by social elites. The peasants/slaves of Babylon were not literate, nor had clay tablets to write their expose' version of history to be preserved. With literacy being restricted to an elite, what was recorded (and what could be the only thing preserved) was that of some elite. So while these is itself a clear indication of the social inequities of the past upon which it is reasonable that the lower 98% of society suffered under, it is still not an evidential basis for making statistical predictions about how the underclass lived nor for reconstructing their story. And I'm sure that spousal abuse and child abuse would not have been something that a state would have concerned itself with in the ancient or medieval world. That it was a patriarchal world is not doubtful. That it was a violent world is not doubtful although I point out that ability to carry our mass genocide requires a technological degree of development to have an advanced transportation and communication system to carry it out. The Holocaust was barely technologically feasible. So, to the extent that degrees and scope of violence needs technology to be possible, the medieval and ancient world doesn't compare to our own. Nevertheless, to make a statement of how frequent an occurrence was, such as Kym Smith made in response to Bart, is to make a statistical statement whether or not one has the data to back it up. Since originally she made an unconditional statement about what marriage itself does to women rather than what many marriages do to many women, her unqualified statement indicated a personal animosity rather than a balanced opinion. When challenged (not by me) for some evidence, she made a statement about predicting the relative frequency of domestic violence by counting the tombstones of how many women died before they were 30. That is a statistical statement. But the data offered does not itself support the claim that it indicates the frequency of domestic violence since other writers, mainly women by the way, have attributed it to the dangers and high mortality rate of child-birth. Notice I did not rush to defend Bart's counter-claims amounting to "it wasn't that bad." I challenged the offered evidential basis of Kym's statements. In the post you respond to, I challenged her use of tombstones as data supporting a statistical statement about how marriage kills women. In this post, I elaborated on that challenge plus added the point that she initially made an unqualified statement about marriage itself (not some, many, nor most - but an unconditional staement meaning all the time, everywhere, to every woman) killing women. That seems a bit much. Do you agree with the unconditional version, Alan? Never Make General Statements, Categorical or Statistical Around a [Retired] Physicist - He'll Always Ask For The Evidential Basis To Make Such a Claim (or its a pet peeve as a professional legacy or liability) Grigor P.S. Or, as happened in posts about Space, be careful talking about physics around a physicist. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 21:24:21 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Quite right, Kym. > Alan wrote: > "Kingdom" is "Malkuth" - from Malech (King) or Malcha (Queen) Small correction; the Hebrew word for king is Melech (the ch pronounced like the Scottish "loch"), and the word for queen is Malkah (Malka if you speak with a Sephardic accent). "Malach" means "messenger", and is also the term used for angels (in Genesis, if you read "God sent a messenger" rather than "God sent an angel", there are parts which make somewhat more sense). > to death in one season to be reborn again in the next. Maybe Solomon > was not the good Jewish boy he is made out to be? Certainly not; that is why the Kingdom of Israel divided into the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. > Don't believe something just because it is written down in a book, > whether by a man, woman, mahatma, newspaper editor or (especially) a > theosophist. Always good advice. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 21:30:06 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 30, 1999 > >> [Kym] 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. > > > >[Bart] 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. > > Well, "trying" isn't the word I would use; I declare it a fact that spousal > abuse was the rule, rather than the exception and that society/family > circles served to fortify women's oppression; in addition, such practices > resulted in the death of many young women. Note that your sources (quoted below) are almost entirely death in CHILDBIRTH, not spousal abuse (unless you are about to say that pregnancy IS spousal abuse, in which case you follow a brand of postmodernism which has no place in a Theosophical discussion list). > Sources? Well, as far as marriage serving as an "early death" for women, a > simple jaunt through any old cemetery will speak of that. The number of > married women (as noted on the tombstone) will show that the majority of > them were under 30. The tombstones of men, on the other hand, show a much > longer life span. > > Since you brought up "plantation" issues: Catherine Clinton, a history > professor, writes in her book "The Plantation Mistress": "Apprehension > clouded the joy of expectancy, for whenever a plantation mistress faced > childbirth, she literally prepared to die. ..... In order to ensure safe > and healthy pregnancies, some plantation mistresses continued to exercise, > especially during the early months - a not uncommon medical practice during > the early nineteenth century. ...in 1847, chloroform finally began to be > used to relieve the pain of childbirth. ....Confinement was a time of > crisis for husband and wife alike. While women went through the pain and > anxiety of delivery, expectant fathers feared the death of their spouses." > > 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. > > Bart, for pete's sake, women did not get the right to vote until 1920! How > can you say that the "tight control of women" was not the rule in the > United States? And most men didn't have the right to vote until the 19th century. > Women and men were not "equally controlled" in early Western thought. Take > a peek at Genesis where it declares that a man shall "rule over" a woman in > marriage, Look at the context of the sentence; the idea is that a man can impregnate a woman who is not sexually aroused, but a woman cannot become pregnant from a man who is not sexually aroused, at least until technology fixed that little problem. Most of the so-called "anti-woman" verses in the Old Testament are the result of mistranslation and misinterpretation in the King James version and by fundamentalist Christians, and the rejection of the Talmud. > or when Mohammed declares that women are merely "vessels" for > childbearing and little more. Islam is not mainstream Western culture, nor a source of it. > In Jewish tradition, a woman (if you can > call a 13 year old a "woman") In ancient farming communities, you did. And a 13 year old male was a man. > was to be chosen from the "family line" to > ensure "purity" of such family line. Clearly, both the family and society > believed and propagated the custom that a 13 year old was to become subject > to her husband's rule. These customs are more than 300 to 400 years old - > unless my math is in error. No. You are just taking misinterpretations of language, and applying it to a history of which you have no record except what some scholars used "postmodernist interpretation" which is another term for "we made it up because it suited our politics". > Women, in the 1800's, were not allowed to go attend universities and were > often prevented from attending any kind of public school at all. And that was the period when women WERE the victims of oppression, due to technology making the previous male-female relationships unnatural. > In > present day, medical insurance will cover Viagra for men, but not birth > control for women. It will also cover reconstructive surgery for mastectomies, but not penile enlargement. It's the difference for restoring a natural condition, and preventing it. Of course, that is assuming that your statement is right; every medical insurance plan I have ever been on includes sterilization procedures for both men and women. > In present day, a woman who kills her husband will, > according to the Justice Department, receive, on average, a 15 year LONGER > prison sentence than a man who kills his wife. How can you say, Bart, that > women and men were/are controlled "equally" in latter-day United States > thought and practice? Did you ever hear of the statistician who drowned in a lake with an average depth of two feet? Before I accept your statement (do you have a source for the Justice Department statement?) I would have to see if there are any other factors involved (for example, are you lumping 1st degree murder, 2nd degree homicide, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and accidental killing all in one lump? If that is the case, then the statistic is bullshit, combining apples and oranges. > >> [Kym ]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. > > > >[Bart] 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. > > This is illogical. It will not "remedy the situation" if women simply > engage in the same practice as men do - writing and acting as if the world > sees through only their eyes. A form of reverse discrimination is what you > are advocating here. No. My statement was dependent on your definition of "revolving around the perspectives of men" (which you STILL haven't given). > It is true that men and women view the world > differently due, mainly, to societal treatment, but to write "sacred" text > to only a select group of folk is irresponsible. Too many highly quoted, > revered, and directive texts are written by and for men - and the people of > present day continue the cycle of perpetuating that line of thought. > Instead of examining spiritual texts in a more panoramic "world-view" - the > same old quotes are tossed around, expected to address today's society. > Bull. And your suggested solution? > The example Grigor gave, "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" will not work if we replace "he" with "she." Why not? My standard test for gender bias is to reverse genders, and see if the situation still works out the same (an excellent example is the Tom Hanks movie, "Big", where if you reverse the gender of the title character, the sex scenes have a far more sinister aspect in our current society). > For, to do so, will > endorse physical, mental, and sexual abuse of women. It is much more > difficult, although not impossible, for a woman to "assault" her husband - > odds are he's bigger, stronger, and may hit back with bolder force. Which shows that you clearly do not understand the saying. It is not "salted assualted and insulted by his wife", it is "salted, assaulted and insulted by the INSTITUTION of holy wedlock", unless, of course, you think it is OK for a wife to beat her husband (I don't). > It is > more difficult, althought not impossible, for a woman to engage in the > marital rape of her husband. I see you DO understand the meaning of that verse in Genesis... > The very quote itself endorses a dissatisfaction, a violence, within the > marriage relationship. It implicitly suggests that to be married is to > expect suffering and physical/mental abuse. This is not acceptable, in my > opinion, for neither men nor women. Because men have less fear about > violence in marital relationships, this quote probably caused a few > snickers, winks, and understanding nods among some males; however, this > same quote, if we replace it with "she," sends cold shivers down the spine > of a woman. Only if you're looking for something wrong; believe me, if you think the whole world is against you, you can find evil under every rock and behind every corner, whether or not it's actually there. > Just because something is written by so-called learned men does not mean > that it is a learned phrase. OK, I can certainly agree with that (especially if you change "men" to "people"). > The men who wrote this quote paid NO heed of > women when writing it. Those of us who claim to be educated need to > examine a bit more deeply currently acceptable "words of wisdom." Do such > "words of wisdom" apply to most people and will they work in current daily > life? Do such "words of wisdom" promote peace and harmony, or violence and > suffering? There is a difference between "words of wisdom" and a joke. Those who buy the radical femnist revisionist history hook, line, and sinker, have yet to learn the difference. > > 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. > > This reasoning, to me, is also illogical. Since so few people actually > "saw" the Mahatmas for what they claimed to be - what difference would it > have made if they were male or female? Because the Mahatmas needed to influence bigoted people with minimal interference. > Are you suggesting that Blavastky > would have discounted their words if they had come from females? No, but we cannot completely discount the possibly. > Since it > was important for Mahatmas to "blend in," what better way to remain > anonymous in their time but to be female? They did not "blend in"; they kept themselves separate unless it was necessary. > Neither does it make sen0se that > male Mahatmas would chose a female messenger - ESPECIALLY if they were so > concerned about "societal reasons." It would have been less problematic if > they had chosen a male. Again, the reasoning you offer just doesn't add up. They stated that, while Blavatsky was far from their ideal, she was by far the best they could find. Gender may or may not have had a role in their choice, but, if it wsa, then it was only one part in a far more complex decision. > Oh, and I almost forgot. . .regarding the duel. . .you were fatally > wounded. I tried to save you. . .I really did. . .honest. . .I really > tried. . .but since I wasn't allowed to go to medical school. . .well, you > know. Well, it wasn't me in the duel, because I certainly was no gentleman in any of my past lives. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 04:09:41 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Quite right, Kym. ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bart Lidofsky > Date: Monday, October 04, 1999 2:24 AM > Subject: Re: Quite right, Kym. > > Alan wrote: > > "Kingdom" is "Malkuth" - from Malech (King) or Malcha (Queen) > > Small correction; the Hebrew word for king is Melech (the ch pronounced > like the Scottish "loch"), and the word for queen is Malkah (Malka if > you speak with a Sephardic accent). "Malach" means "messenger", and is > also the term used for angels (in Genesis, if you read "God sent a > messenger" rather than "God sent an angel", there are parts which make > somewhat more sense). Only if you accept the vowel points which are as recent as 10th century ce - another interpretation! As the Lingua Franca of the time was more likely Aramaic, it would be different again, wouldn't it? Sigh. > > > to death in one season to be reborn again in the next. Maybe Solomon > > was not the good Jewish boy he is made out to be? > > Certainly not; that is why the Kingdom of Israel divided into the > Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. > > > Don't believe something just because it is written down in a book, > > whether by a man, woman, mahatma, newspaper editor or (especially) a > > theosophist. > > Always good advice. > > Bart Lidofsky Verily. Alan > Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 11:31:31 -0700 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: The October THEOSOPHY WORLD Is Out The October issue of THEOSOPHY WORLD is out. It's contents are: "Tribute to L. Gordon Plummer," by Dara Eklund "Gottfried de Purucker: A Biographical Sketch," by Boris de Zirkoff "On Monads, Rounds, and Astral Molds," by G. de Purucker "The Karma of Addiction and Obsession," by Dallas TenBroeck "A Backyard Meditation," by Walter Eugene Kent "Spirit in Crisis: Preface," by H. Groot "Spirit in Crisis: Introduction," by H. Oosterink "Blavatsky Net Update," by Reed Carson "Self-Directed Evolution," by James Neil Feinstein "Theosophy and Christian Science," by A. Trevor Barker 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: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 00:37:59 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: In support of theosophy At 09:19 PM 10/02/1999 +0200, Frank Reitemeyer wrote: MKR wrote: >> 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.> 0000,0000,8080 On the contrary, KH says in the Mahatma Letters about HPB that they were searching a hundred years for a chela fit enough to be trained for the outer world. > 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!!!!!!!> 0000,0000,8080 It should not be forgotten that there are several degrees of chelaship. A higher chela works under other conditions and restrictions than say a lay chela. That makes the difference. > PS: Olcott had himself stated that he was a man of bars and women before he got in touch with Theosophy.<< 0000,0000,8080 Perhaps that is one of the reasons for his own ring-pass-not, his failing as a lay chela and the loss of contact to the Masters through HPB - at least when she was kicked off from Adyar and launched her own body for the loyal chelas. 0000,0000,8080Frank ====================== While what you say is true, we should also not forget that the Adepts chose to correspond extensively with Sinnett and Hume. Both are meat eaters and consumed alcohol. It was at a time there were thousands of others who led a pure life with whom the Adepts had nothing to do. It was Hume who was instrumental for organizing the Indian Independence movement and perhaps that was one of the areas where the Adepts were interested in. Who knows, but for this effort India may still be a colony of UK or some kind of dominion over India. Also Sinnett's books were instrumental in introducing Theosophy to many in the English speaking world. For the last 99 years, we have not had a single letter from the Adepts to anyone (as far as I know). Also, beyond finding "chelas", I suppose They had other major objectives having far reaching consequences to the world at large. Let us also keep in mind that again and again it was emphasized that Universal Brotherhood is the prime objective of launching TS. So giving some thoughts on the broader picture may throw some light. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 01:21:38 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 03, 1999 Grigor wrote: >> She suggests researching it a bit more and/or contact any number of >support >> groups if you have been a victim. I am pleased to hear that your granddaughter is an MD, a feminist, and an OB midwife. Good for her. Her ability to become such is a rather recent development in the history of humankind. Her accomplishments honors the memories of those who endured imprisonment, persecution, and death (both male and female) in fighting for human rights. However, while pursuing a minor in women's studies, my conclusion from research is different from hers. One of the reasons women died so early was because they were forced into very early marriage; the earlier a female body reproduces, the greater the incidence of complications and death. I am almost certain that your granddaughter would agree with the connection between the two (youth and birth). Therefore, forcing a teenage girl to marry and give birth is, in my conclusion, a form of spousal/societal/familial abuse. Whether or not your granddaughter, you, or others on this list will agree that early marriage, which, again, may threaten the life of the female should conception occur, is spousal abuse is another matter. Neglect of children has yet to be classified as a form of "child abuse" in the juvenile justice system - neglect, to me, is abuse, but the justice system does not agree. I am not surprised that what consistutes abuse serves to divide many in debates. And, no, I haven't been a "victim," of spousal abuse, although, among women who have endured rape, abuse, and discrimination, the preferred term is "survivor." Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 02:39:54 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 03, 1999 Grigor wrote: >> [Kym] The very quote itself endorses a dissatisfaction, a violence, within the >> marriage relationship. It implicitly suggests that to be married is to >> expect suffering and physical/mental abuse. >No, it only presupposes that all humans are violence prone, anger prone, >greed prone, or assholes in their undeveloped state. The quotation is speaking about marriage as an avenue of growth. I see nothing in it that suggests that all humans are innately violence prone, anger prone, or whatever. If you see it as assuming such things about humankind, then so be it. I do not see humans in that way, either "developed" or "undeveloped." I have seen anger in the writings of the Mahatmas and HPB, so, if one consideres them "developed" then your observation may be incorrect. If people do not see the Mahatmas or HPB as "developed," then your interpretation of what the Caucasus meant may be correct. >the entire import of the quote is that one does not grow up until one does >not have the freedom to sow wild oats or skip out or otherwise be >non-commital to people and situations in ones life that come with choices you >made but which you did not yourself choose with those choices. Again, many people learn the most just when they DO have the freedom to "sow wild oats." Keeping people in a box, surrounded by rules, is not conducive to some people's growth - it simply makes them dependent and unthinking. For many, the "Dark Night of the Soul" does not come until one has exhausted and learned from sowing wild oats. After the night, morning. Marriage may help some, but many people have the happiest marriages when choosing to marry AFTER they have sown their oats. >The issue is what do you do with those hard knocks, shocks, fights, >arguments, sad times, deaths, illnesses, grief, and all the accompanying >pains that come with any life with anyone. No one that I know of, including myself, disagrees with that summation. Nor have my posts been declaring any disagreement with that summation. >To act out beating wife is to flunk (to >see that disposition, be shocked by it, to be changed by it, to be >transformed by it into one who will never do such thing and who eventually >dissolves that inner temptation/disposition is step to a higher state of >being). Fine, for those husbands who do learn from it, but Grigor, but what about the wife? Is this all about the husband? >If we >don't see the negativity, we can't learn how to change it, prevent it, and >eventually not be it. Then you believe that "evil" is necessary? One cannot see good or understand good without "evil" or "bad happenings?" >Ms. Smith I appreciate the formality, but you can refer to me as "Kym." >seems to have mistaken view that we practice perfection in >isolation from others or that violence, greed, anger, or lust (others as mere >object whether sexual or social or political raw material for my ego project >of self-glorification) are somehow exceptional in this world or something >only "they" (not me, for heaven's sake!) are infected with as the bad karmic >threads that make up that fabric of our ordinary psyche. No, I don't hold those views. My whole point was that any committment we enter into should take into account the others that we may encounter in taking on that committment. Again, I repeat - (as a simple example) if one is entering marriage as an attempt to learn patience, then one needs to think about what that learning process will do (hurt or help) those who will end up be involved. Marriage and family, in my opinion, should be reserved for those who have learned much already. Too many people can be deeply injured (mentally, physically, emotionally) in the family unit if the parental figure is immature and still self-centered. I believe one should learn to be patient and unselfish in another arena. >My family suffered >through three genocides, war, near starvation, forced re-locations, and so, I >am well acquainted with the underbelly of this world. My heart goes out to you. No one should have to endure what you and your family have suffered. >But instead of playing >the whining game of I'm more a victim than you or demonizing the one's who >victimized us I do not agree that those who are in pain are "whining." Grief is grief and it exposes itself in different ways. There is nothing wrong, in my opinion, for a person or group of people to express anguish. Society and individuals may not like the manner in which it is displayed; nevertheless, we should never silence nor shame those who are hurting. We can learn much from them. Many societal changes have come from individuals and groups repeatedly "whining" over past or current persecutions. And, sometimes, Grigor, just sometimes, it is the "other person's fault." For example, I see no fault on the side of the Jews (men, women, and children) in the case of the Holocaust. And since I cannot possibly know the karma of the Jews, I refrain from blaming it on that. >(such games whither the soul and waste time and keep the cycle >of samsara going), I sought how to transcend it inwardly, and the first very >unpleasant step is in seeing how one is inwardly the same as this world of >mutual destruction, and that true change is first change of oneself. Not ALL people are at the stage of development you claim to be at, so we can not expect them to react the same way. Although Gnosis is always preferable, not everyone is ready. Pushing people too quickly into self-knowledge can be detrimental - their season may not yet have come. We can certainly try and should coax people to look inwardly, but not deem them "whiners" if they are not yet ready. >We are >all the strangely anonymous "they did it" who is responsible for the evil in >this world. "They" is the evasion of "we" and specially "me." Being protective of oneself is part of being in human form - you are right, we need to move beyond "we" to "oneness." Again, though, for some, baby steps is all they can handle right now. >Contrary to what Ms Smith seems to believe, to become better parent, husband, >or person in relation to others, I can't go off and be hermit practicing my >people skills anymore than I can become a concert pianoist by staying away >from pianos until I am expert pianoist. I have not advocated becoming a "hermit," I am only advocating that we need to think of others at the same time we think of ourselves. Growth is a "universal" process; we cannot do without others. One of my favorite sayings is: it is "easy to be a holy man [woman] on top of a mountain." Obviously, I do not believe isolation is the key to spiritual unfoldment. >Youth and immaturity, whether natural >or artificially prolonged, is >the time of envisioned forevers, envisioned possibilities, no past, no >mistakes, no disappearance of options, no rootedness, no being stuck with >one's past choices, no grist for one's moral mill of self-knowledge, and no >conscience. There is nothing wrong with "envisioned possibilities," "envisioned forevers," "no disappearance of options," etc. That is called HOPE, Grigor. And not only those who are young have problems with "no conscience" - I have come across all ages of humans who lack conscience. It's not a matter of youth - it's a matter of "wisdom." Jesus, Buddha, and others, were, by most standards, quite young. And, just for tidbits sake, Jesus never married; Buddha, by today's legal terms, abandoned his marital committments; and HPB married, but then would not have intercourse with her husband(s). Obviously, none of them should have married in the first place, but that lack of marriage would not have hindered their spiritual growth. And, just in case some are wondering, I am very happily married; I am not a "single woman with a chip on her shoulder" or whatever other cool conclusion some may have come to regarding my purpose for targeting the "marriage" quote. And I am experiencing mild queasiness for thinking I had to "justify" myself - but it is easy to dismiss someone as merely "angry" or "needing counseling" simply because his/her perceptions and conclusions differ. Then again, WHAT THE HELL AM I SAYING? I have told innumerable people in the last few years on theos-l that they needed to see a doctor! Whoooo! Ok, just ignore the above paragraph. I want to hold onto the option of declaring people crazy or "bedlamites." Without that, there would be no reason to live. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:11:35 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: To pay or not to pay? Mkr 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. > In Holland most lodges ask for a small sum, for people who are not TS members. It is almost symbolical, in fact, in my lodge. But I know what you mean. I picked up a flyer from a 'Raja yoga' group lately, they hold meetings free of charge. That gave me two thoughts, first: who pays for this and second: at least it is certain they not do it for the money. We had a lot of discussion when we installed the fee (it is a recent development for us), because we wanted to be accessible to anybody. On the other hand people pay for all kinds of things and our lodge is small, the rental of the hall where the meetings are held, is expensive, even if cheap in its kind. It is a difficult subject. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:25:04 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Space Gerald and Jerry wrote: (or are you the same?) > 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. > 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. However much relativity claims that space is a finite thing, I still have trouble believing and understanding it. It reminds me of the very simple explanation why there is not a number which is the greatest. say that 100000 is the highest number, one can always add one to it. Even with space being curved (which seems to be how it is explained) I do not see how beyond the curve there isn't space, even if it is 'empty' space. Also: the astral seems to me to be linked to the physical. One does not exist without the other. Spirit without matter is an abstraction, according to theosophy (as in HPB and the Mahatma's). So if physical space is finite, how can spiritual space be infinite? But I think the solution is that physical matter is finite. Our science knows a lot about matter. There is a certain mass of matter, that's clear, and also a logical necessity. The space it is embedded in gets curved by the matter, but need not, in my opinion, be finite as well. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:26:34 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Space Grigor wrote: > 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. Well, could you then please enlighten us to where Gerald goes wrong? Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:29:29 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Space Alan: > At other levels of being, different laws apply. What about the hermetic axiom: as above, so below? Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:34:29 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: In support of theosophy Bart wrote: > 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. Holland certainly does, or it has other rules. > 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. Are you saying the Mahatma's created the ES as a wistle for the people complaining? Anyhow, the rules about homosexuals etc. were not made in HPB's time, so why presume the Mahatma's had anything to do with it? Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:37:29 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 27, 1999 Katinka 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.. >> Christine wrote: > 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. Good point, though my tutoring is in fact freelancing. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:38:17 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 27, 1999 Katinka wrote: > << > 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) I think so, are there more? Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:48:42 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Last go-round on Tantra Daniel wrote: > I believe it is his contention that the Gelugpa tradition is NOT necessarily > the esoteric view of HPB's Masters. In fact, there is a orthodoxy in > the Gelugpa religion just as one finds an orthodoxy in all other religions > of the > world. And that over the centuries since Tsongkhapa's death a literalism > has > become predominant in the Gelugpa tradition. For example, the Gelugpa lamas > believe in reincarnation of humans into animal forms. They literally > believe this. I can second that. We have in Holland a Tibetan Buddhist-tempel, with corresponding monestary. With our lodge we went there and had a great time (also met by pure accident some TS-members from ROtterdam). That is not the point of course. THe point is that the people there absolutely believed that bad people do reincarnate into animals, and that it happens often. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 05:00:54 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 03, 1999 Bart wrote: > Note that your sources (quoted below) are almost entirely death in >CHILDBIRTH, not spousal abuse (unless you are about to say that >pregnancy IS spousal abuse, in which case you follow a brand of >postmodernism which has no place in a Theosophical discussion list). For brevity's sake, please see my post reponding to Grigor connecting early marriage and childbirth to spousal abuse. Regarding you statement about my "brand of postmodernism" (whatever that means): Fortunately, Bart, you do not control what can be discussed on a Theosophical discussion list. > And most men didn't have the right to vote until the 19th century. Bart? WHO was making the LAWS of society in the 19th century? I'm not even sure if you statement is correct, however, for argument's sake I will assume it is and respond with the following: Voting wasn't necessary because there was no need for it - what was considered democracy did not include ethnic minorities or women. It was the classical "good ole boys network." Male aristocrats, including the revered Founding Fathers, ran the whole show. Give me a break. > Look at the context of the sentence; the idea is that a man can >impregnate a woman who is not sexually aroused, What!? Are you saying that this is what Genesis was suggesting in stating that a man shall "rule over" his wife? I've never heard that before. Nor have I gone back and consulted the chapter to check this theory out - I shall do so. >but a woman cannot >become pregnant from a man who is not sexually aroused, at least until >technology fixed that little problem. Oh, well that throws the Biblical story of Lot and his daughters right down the toilet. It's about time. > Islam is not mainstream Western culture, nor a source of it. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world; it does not matter whether or not it is the source of "anti-woman" sentiment. The sources of Western culture, Greece and Roman, were no more benevolent in their treatment of women. Did you know that, on the wedding night, men did not engage in vaginal intercourse with their wives, but, instead sodomized them? Hardly a kind act towards a woman who knows nothing about sex. The founders of Western culture and their outlook towards women, marriage, society, and the like, is outlined in the book series "A History of Private Life: from Pagan Rome to Byzantium." The maltreatment of women cannot solely be blamed on a "misinterpretation of the Bible." >> In Jewish tradition, a woman (if you can >> call a 13 year old a "woman") > > In ancient farming communities, you did. And a 13 year old male was a >man. Men do not give birth; therefore, the marriage contract is less endangering for a male. >> was to be chosen from the "family line" to >> ensure "purity" of such family line. Clearly, both the family and society >> believed and propagated the custom that a 13 year old was to become subject >> to her husband's rule. These customs are more than 300 to 400 years old - >> unless my math is in error. > > No. You are just taking misinterpretations of language, and applying it >to a history of which you have no record except what some scholars used >"postmodernist interpretation" which is another term for "we made it up >because it suited our politics". Well, then the Rabbi's I have spoken to are "postmodern." I doubt they would concur, but if you insist. . .. I may agree with you if I had heard this from only one or two, but, in order to write one of my academic papers on Judaism, I was required to speak to no less than five sources and I received the same interpretation (on this particular subject) of Jewish history. >> Women, in the 1800's, were not allowed to go attend universities and were >> often prevented from attending any kind of public school at all. > > And that was the period when women WERE the victims of oppression, due >to technology making the previous male-female relationships unnatural. How was this oppression due to "technology?" >> In >> present day, medical insurance will cover Viagra for men, but not birth >> control for women. > > It will also cover reconstructive surgery for mastectomies, but not >penile enlargement. It's the difference for restoring a natural >condition, and preventing it. Wait a minute. Are you saying that performing mastectomies are "restoring a natural condition" (which I agree) and that penile enlargement is "preventing" a natural condition? This doesn't make sense. How is penile enlargement preventing a "natural" condition. I fail to see how the ravages of cancer and the desire for a bigger penis fall into the same category. A penis, no matter what size, still has sensation - a woman loses a fundamental part of her sexual pleasure when she loses her breasts, gaining only a visible, and often, unsightly scar. >Of course, that is assuming that your >statement is right; every medical insurance plan I have ever been on >includes sterilization procedures for both men and women. Bart, sterilization is not the form of birth control most women desire. They would like to retain their choice on when to have children. If they know they do not, sterilization is fine - but placing sterilization and controllable birth control in the same category is not practical, nor very compassionate. > Did you ever hear of the statistician who drowned in a lake with an >average depth of two feet? Before I accept your statement (do you have a >source for the Justice Department statement?) Yes, the Justice Department. >I would have to see if >there are any other factors involved (for example, are you lumping 1st >degree murder, 2nd degree homicide, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary >manslaughter, and accidental killing all in one lump? If that is the >case, then the statistic is bullshit, combining apples and oranges. This is far too lengthy to go into; besides, Bart, I honestly believe you know exactly what I am talking about. If there are any women in your life you care about, I suggest you learn a bit more regarding societal treatment of women. If something should happen to a woman you love, ignorance of what faces them will not be helpful in their case. You will be surprised at the difference in treatment men and women receive in institutions such as medical, legal, academic, and, dare I say it?, car repair. >> It is true that men and women view the world >> differently due, mainly, to societal treatment, but to write "sacred" text >> to only a select group of folk is irresponsible. Too many highly quoted, >> revered, and directive texts are written by and for men - and the people of >> present day continue the cycle of perpetuating that line of thought. >> Instead of examining spiritual texts in a more panoramic "world-view" - the >> same old quotes are tossed around, expected to address today's society. >> Bull. > > And your suggested solution? To think about what is really being said in story or statement meant to teach and if it will aid both males and females in their desire and pursuit of spiritual growth. You may remember the story "A World Without a Woman" by R. Bates, in the Theosophist (October 1879). It's supposed to be a story praising the virtues and value of women, but it has some puzzling passages: "(Soron telling his brother, Lyoro) Soron states that a woman is a "female man" and goes on to say about women - "Neither superior nor inferior [to males], but different. Her faults are not his, neither are her qualities. She cannot boast of courage, nor he her gentleness. She has not his power of diligent application, and he lacks her quick intuition. He leans to the material side of life, she has a deeper feeling for its poetry and aspirations. She relies on his strong arm and strong will, and he turns to her as the tranquil light that illumines his heart and home. Rivalry between the sexes is worse than useless, for their interests are identical, and nature designed them to form but the two halves of one harmonious whole." We may agree with the last statement, but is it wise to accept the statements that men are materially oriented and lack gentleness? Is it wise to accept that that women cannot boast of courage and lack diligent application? For me, these untruths mar the truth of the story. In present day, statements such as these should not be tolerated. A story meant to teach something beautiful and profound, yet, it manages to also teach untruths. Even if a person learns that rivalry between the sexes is useless (a good lesson), he/she may also walk away with harmful stereotypes of men and women. Connecting this back to my main peeve: I believe the statement offered by the Caucasus did the same thing. > Why not? My standard test for gender bias is to reverse genders, and >see if the situation still works out the same (an excellent example is >the Tom Hanks movie, "Big", where if you reverse the gender of the title >character, the sex scenes have a far more sinister aspect in our current >society). Sorry, I never saw that movie. > Which shows that you clearly do not understand the saying. It is not >"salted assualted and insulted by his wife", it is "salted, assaulted >and insulted by the INSTITUTION of holy wedlock", unless, of course, you >think it is OK for a wife to beat her husband (I don't). The institution of marriage is a male and female (or, for homosexuals, same gender). We may want to refer to it as an institution to compartmentalize the people involved in it, but it still involves a man and a woman. They are the ones who will experience joy or pain. Bart, you have way overstepped in suggesting that I may advocate the abuse of a woman (or anyone). If it had come from someone newer to this list, I could have taken it in stride and tried to clarify. You, however, have been on this list long enough with me to know that I would never endorse such a thing. >> The men who wrote this quote paid NO heed of >> women when writing it. Those of us who claim to be educated need to >> examine a bit more deeply currently acceptable "words of wisdom." Do such >> "words of wisdom" apply to most people and will they work in current daily >> life? Do such "words of wisdom" promote peace and harmony, or violence and >> suffering? > There is a difference between "words of wisdom" and a joke. Those who >buy the radical femnist revisionist history hook, line, and sinker, have >yet to learn the difference. Are you suggesting that the Caucasus quotation was a joke? I am not attacking Grigor, as I have stated before in a post to him. I am taking umbrage with the statement itself. Or was this just an opportunity to bash feminists? I know it's popular these days, and lord knows, some feminists deserve to be redressed, but not all feminists are daffy. Just as I am aware that not all men oppress women. For instance: Alan, a companion theos-l participant and a male, certainly cannot be accused of being insensitive to women - so I have an example of enlightened males right on this list; hence, I can never believe that ALL men are oppressors. >> Since it >> was important for Mahatmas to "blend in," what better way to remain >> anonymous in their time but to be female? > > They did not "blend in"; they kept themselves separate unless it was >necessary. Then why did they have to choose to be males? I still do not understand why, if they were hidden, a female form wouldn't have served just fine. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:27:50 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: culture... Alan wrote: > > or when Mohammed declares that women are merely "vessels" for > > childbearing and little more. > Islam is not mainstream Western culture, nor a source of it. Is this supposed to be a mainstream western-list? Anyhow, in Holland, as everywhere in Europe, Islam is fastly becoming a major cultural influance, and already is far stronger than theosophy in the sense of the word where specifically Blavatskyan idea's and ideals are concerned. New Age is a cultural movement of comparable size as Islam, in Holland, I would guess. (Not a statistically based statement :-) ) Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:39:59 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Space In a message dated 10/1/99 3:05:13 PM Central Daylight Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > >>As we perceive/live it, time and space are separate - not Einsteinian. > > Well, this may be your perception, but it is not mine. Oh? So, can you legally drive? What optics does your eyeballs work on? Surely your perception is not at the c boundary, is it? Traveling at the at the speed of light? >Blavataky used motion, which >implies some mass moving through space, and speed >or velocity always implies time. Of course it does, in the simplest formula S= d/t (spedd equals distance over time). Your point? Meanwhile, I suggest comparison of one not fully understood system of thought with an even less understood system of thought leads to a componded confusion of both. >>>We do not perceive relativity. >Not as a physical object maybe, but we do as a concept or idea. Concepts are not seen. What does the concept of the join of two sets look like? Concepts are discursive not imagistic. In every tradition there is a distinction between the awareness part of mind and the conceptualizing, discursive part of the mind. Concepts are discursive elements of thought and thought is inner talking. That's what some discover in the early phases of meditation when they are to get the inner thought, inner talking and chatter, to be still. Concepts are like simple theories and theories are groups of propositions interconnected logically. >> 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). >> >While what you saying is certianly true, it is not fair to limit >the theory of relativity to a mathematical plaything. If physics >is not applicable or relevent to life, then what good is it? >Math is a language of relationships, and those relationships >are very real. I implied no such thing that the theory of relativity is a mere plaything. But when non-physicist take literally its use of spatial analogy to mathematically model space-time, they go off track. The spatial analogy is applied to time not because time _is_ space but because the mathematical modelling leads to true predictions. A theory is not a picture. And just to say the theory is about something real does not mean the real thing it is about is _like_ the theory. We have several areas where there are two overlapping theories or mathematical modellings that are incommensurate with each other yet model the same real thing. The particle/wave theories in quantum mechanics both work as models for something that is neither a particle nor a wave. Likewise we model time as a spatial dimension yet time is not space. Mathematics is about relations, as you say, but that leaves a host of issues unanswered. First, is studying how something interacts with something else (a relation) a study of the thing itself or only how it appears in relation? Our science is an experimental one. That means we just don't go out and observe how nature happens. It means we intervene and manipulate a natural process to see what we can make it do under certain conditions we set up and see if it conforms, as so manipulated, to the predicted parameters set out by theory. There is a very big debate in physics now about whether the laws of physics are exactly the same as the laws of nature because experiment is really an exploratory manufacturing process (manufacturing processes are fossilized experiements instutionalized into standardized technological and productive forces serving social ends). We don't know if our laws are of nature in and of itself or whether they are of nature-and-our-control. David Bohm has recently argued the laws of physics are about the technology-nature interface and not about nature by itself. That is the true meaning of the saying the observer interacts with the observed. Literally it means the production process produces the product. Experiment is fundamentally a making-relation. Second, in light of the first, the phenomena dealt with in physics is not nature in the raw but natural processes that can be mathematically modelled so that they become quantified magnitudes. But there is much that eludes such measurement and quantifying. One basic branch of both mathematics and physics is to come up with new forms of mathematics that may be useful to quantify previously neglected aspects of natural process. Two points follow from this second claim. First, all such modelling is abstract. That is, like any conceptual grasp, it is simpler than the infinitely rich reality it models. Ever see a map? Road maps don't include trees, geological features you find in a geodesic survey map, nor is a photo of the area it maps. To be clear, it simplifies and highlights what is relevant for the purposes at hand while leaving out much. The turf it maps is not the sole or exclusive determinant of what the map will be. The human purpose is also a determinate. Since it has a different purpose, stratigraghy map looks very different from a road map. Concepts, theories, maps, representations, and mathematical models are simpler than the turf. The menu is not the meal. The description of an experience is not the experience itself nor is there such a thing as a complete description. In all these cases, what determines the properties of the map is not exclusively the turf that is mapped but also the purpose for the map. The same for physical theories, what determines a theory is not just the reality it is about but also the purposes we have in so measuring it the way we do. That is, the theory models a natural process not just in terms of itself but in terms of expanding our experimental control over it. Secondly, all the basic data, as quantified magnitudes, are measurements. Measurements are relations but of a special kind. They are a comparing of the time, length, mass of some phenomenon in terms of the time, length, mass of some other phenomenon we have conventionally chosen to be a measure. So, we invent a foot or a meter. But it is a physical length compared to other lengths. Now, time is more complex. People loosely talk about Newton believing in absolute time and Einstein saying time is relative. But both Newton and Einstein state they are not dealing with time itself. It is one of those things that still eludes our comprehension much less our ability to measure it. What is physical time? It is like the foot or meter stick. We have taken one physical motion (not time itself but a temporal process) as the standard by which to measure the start, duration, and finish of other physical motions. In physics, what is called "time" is just this comparison of two physical motions where one is arbitrarily set up as a standard. What kind of physical motion do we use in these comparisons? Uniform mechanical motion. A clock is a uniform mecahnical motion by which we measure other processes and events. Is a clock time itself? No. Is the comparison of two different rates of motion time itself? No. As Einstein himself put it in his paper on Special Relativity, he doesn't know what time is. He is going to accept the "conventional time" of physics. This is a reference back to Newton who said he could not find any means to measure absolute time so he was going to replace it, as conventional time, the uniform mecahnical motion of a clock. So, relativity theory says, really, that uniform mechanical motions, all motions, all space-time motions, are relative to the absolute invariant value of the speed of light. So, yes, the physiological motions of an astronauts body, in theory, would slow down - aging would slow down. But really, not time but temporal and spatial motions other than light are relativized to lights speed as an invariant constant in special relativity. And this brings out again physics only reflects that aspect of things that we can quantify using our mathematics and our technology. Grigor V. Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 20:54:42 +0200 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: Re: In support of theosophy This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01BF0EAA.AE5071C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >While what you say is true, we should also not forget that the Adepts = chose to correspond extensively with Sinnett and Hume. Both are meat = eaters and consumed >alcohol. It was at a time there were thousands of = others who led a pure life with whom the Adepts had nothing to do. KH wrote to Sinnett that his bad aura (meat eating and wine drinking) is = one of the reasons which prevents deeper connections. Both Sinnett and = Hume very not to be trained chelas and both soon failed morally and = mentaly (Sinnett becoming a Spiritist, trying to reconnect to the = Mahatmas, Hume also broke with the Mahatmas when he tried to destroy the = TS in trying to change its aims into merely a socio-cultural = organization. >It was Hume who was instrumental for organizing the Indian Independence = movement and perhaps that was one of the areas where the Adepts were = interested in. Who >knows, but for this effort India may still be a = colony of UK or some kind of dominion over India. Nevertheless he did a good job for India. But not for the theos. cause = when he attacked the Masters and HPB with his selfish character. >Also Sinnett's books were instrumental in introducing Theosophy to many = in the English speaking world. Also true. But that says not that he remained a Theosophist of a good = standing. >For the last 99 years, we have not had a single letter from the Adepts = to anyone (as far as I know). And? Is that necessary? And for what? For blind believers? >Also, beyond finding "chelas", I suppose They had other major = objectives having far reaching consequences to the world at large. Let = us also keep in mind that again and >again it was emphasized that = Universal Brotherhood is the prime objective of launching TS. So giving some thoughts on the broader picture may throw some light. mkr To promote this objective and do other work to be done in the outer = world the Masters need co-workers which are living in the outer world. = This is what we call a chela-life, don't? Frank ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01BF0EAA.AE5071C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>While what you say is true, we = should also not=20 forget that the Adepts chose to correspond extensively with Sinnett and = Hume.=20 Both are meat eaters and consumed >alcohol. It was at a time there = were=20 thousands of others who led a pure life with whom the Adepts had nothing = to=20 do.
KH wrote to Sinnett = that his bad aura=20 (meat eating and wine drinking) is one of the reasons which prevents = deeper=20 connections. Both Sinnett and Hume very not to be trained chelas and = both soon=20 failed morally and mentaly (Sinnett becoming a Spiritist, trying to = reconnect to=20 the Mahatmas, Hume also broke with the Mahatmas when he tried to destroy = the TS=20 in trying to change its aims into merely a socio-cultural=20 organization.

>It was Hume who was = instrumental for=20 organizing the Indian Independence movement and perhaps that was one of = the=20 areas where the Adepts were interested in. Who >knows, but for this = effort=20 India may still be a colony of UK or some kind of dominion over=20 India.
Nevertheless he did a = good job for=20 India. But not for the theos. cause when he attacked the Masters and HPB = with=20 his selfish character.

>Also Sinnett's books were = instrumental in=20 introducing Theosophy to many in the English speaking = world.
Also true. But that = says not that he=20 remained a Theosophist of a good standing.

>For the last 99 years, we have = not had a=20 single letter from the Adepts to anyone (as far as I = know).
And? Is that necessary? = And for what?=20 For blind believers?

>Also, beyond finding "chelas", = I suppose=20 They had other major objectives having far reaching consequences to the = world at=20 large. Let us also keep in mind that again and >again it was = emphasized that=20 Universal Brotherhood is the prime objective of launching = TS.
So giving some thoughts on the broader = picture may=20 throw some light.

mkr
To promote this = objective and do=20 other work to be done in the outer world the Masters need co-workers = which are=20 living in the outer world. This is what we call a chela-life,=20 don't?
Frank


 
------=_NextPart_000_0041_01BF0EAA.AE5071C0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:51:34 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: In support of theosophy In a message dated 10/4/99 2:05:28 PM Central Daylight Time, ringding@blinx.de writes: > >For the last 99 years, we have not had a single letter from the Adepts to > anyone (as far as I know). > > And? Is that necessary? And for what? For blind believers? > Maybe they are dead. I suspect the truth about them is somewhere in between Johnson's book (especially in light of the Russian documents on them, HPB, and Gurdjieff, coming out of KGB vaults from Imperial times - along with a lot of stuff on the Masonic Grand Orient Lodge, Strict Observance, etc. etc.) and some of the outlandish Alice Baileyish stereotype of them common in theosophy. In fact, it was the Johnson book that convinced me of their actual existence instead of being some symbolic truth or mythic source of letters that HPB preferred over revealing their real (letters) source. But Johnson uses a historical methodolgy that presupposes telepathy doesn't happen, etc. He is too reductionistic. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 20:46:07 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: In support of theosophy hesse600 wrote: > > 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. > Are you saying the Mahatma's created the ES as a wistle for > the people complaining? Figuratively speaking, yes. There was one group who felt that only the teachings of the Mahatma's should be studied or presented by the Theosophical Society, and the teachings of other religions, even when they were completely in synch with what the Mahatma's taught, should be forbidden. The Mahatmas said that each person should find the truth through their own religion, and let those who wish to follow only the words of the Mahatma's should form their own special section. > Anyhow, the rules about homosexuals etc. were not made in > HPB's time, so why presume the Mahatma's had anything to do > with it? Radha Burnier, head of the Esoteric Section, is STRONGLY against homosexuality. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:25:21 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Space ----- Original Message ----- > From: hesse600 > Date: Monday, October 04, 1999 10:29 AM > Subject: Re: Space > > Alan: > > At other levels of being, different laws apply. > What about the hermetic axiom: as above, so below? > Katinka Aha! Another chance to correct a misquote. The axiom states That which is above is LIKE (similar) to that which is below. In other words, it is not exactly the same, but shares many charaxteristics. See my "Keys to Kabbalah" (Free download from website below). Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:31:47 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: culture... ----- Original Message ----- > From: hesse600 > Date: Monday, October 04, 1999 1:27 PM > Subject: culture... > Alan wrote: > > > or when Mohammed declares that women are merely "vessels" for > > > childbearing and little more. Alan did not write this. It appeared in an e-mail to which I responded. If Mohammed did declare this, I am not surprised. As we all know [heavy sarcasm] a woman's place is in the home. As I am writing, some of the misogynist (sp?) remarks on this list are a long way from the first principle of the TS. Alan :0( Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:29:43 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 03, 1999 > From: > Date: Monday, October 04, 1999 12:00 PM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 03, 1999 > Bart wrote: > > >> Since it > >> was important for Mahatmas to "blend in," what better way to remain > >> anonymous in their time but to be female? > > > > They did not "blend in"; they kept themselves separate unless it was > >necessary. > > Then why did they have to choose to be males? I still do not understand > why, if they were hidden, a female form wouldn't have served just fine. > > > Kym > Because - surprise! - they were not stupid, and knew where the power lay. Their alleged* writings mention "power" and "powers," both of which are methods of control over others. In the same way we get this curious distinction made recently between different "levels" of chelas. Poor ol' Sinnett. We are the chosen few, there ain't no room in heaven for you ..... [all join in ....] *Alleged. I use the term because such exalted beings as the mahatmas are supposed to have been would not, in my opinion and from my perspective (if I am worthy enough to be allowed one) have descended to writing about the intrigues etc. within the TS and its London Lodge. Ergo, a) The writers were not mahatmas, or b) mahatmas are not all they are cracked up to be, or c) they were written by someone else (singular or plural). Alan the disobedient. (I prefer to call it "divine discontent" as this is permitted) :0))))))))))))))))))) De dum de dum de dum ..... Kym is hereby given a break, as requested. (Signed): The Mahatma BS. Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 02:10:03 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: In support of ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bart Lidofsky > Date: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 1:46 AM > Subject: Re: In support of theosophy > Radha Burnier, head of the Esoteric Section, is STRONGLY against > homosexuality. > > Bart Lidofsky > Noted. Homosexual theosophists are, so I have heard, STRONGLY against the Esoteric Section and Radha Burnier. One time homosexuals of both (or any) sexes were benevolently regarded in theosophy as between genders by reason of being in transition from male to female or vice versa on the way to the next incarnation. I am not a homosexual theosophist, and am also STRONGLY against the Esoteric Section and Radha Burnier. Made bed; lying on it. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 22:01:56 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 03, 1999 kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > Bart wrote: > > > Note that your sources (quoted below) are almost entirely death in > >CHILDBIRTH, not spousal abuse (unless you are about to say that > >pregnancy IS spousal abuse, in which case you follow a brand of > >postmodernism which has no place in a Theosophical discussion list). > > For brevity's sake, please see my post reponding to Grigor connecting early > marriage and childbirth to spousal abuse. OK, let me be straight with you. There is a technique among certain radical groups, called "consciousness raising". A person, classifying him/herself as a "victim" and the person to whom they are talking to as the "oppressor", makes outrageously false statements with absolutely no backing (after all, according to radical post-modernism, you don't need backing if you really FEEL that it's true. Research is unimportant, too, since there is no such thing as expertise and everybody makes it all up anyway). In any case, the "oppressor", being raised in a society which demands politeness, and trying to prove that he/she is not an oppressor, is tricked into a position of trying to meet the "victim" halfway, and thereby agreeing to compromises that go way beyond truth. The only way to deal with it is to recognize it as the bullshit that it is, and recognize that one is NOT the oppressor, and that the motto of the Theosophical Society is correct: "There is no religion higher than Truth". So, it is better to be rude and truthful than it is to be polite and lie. While what you are writing does not qualify as "consciousness raising", it is clearly the product of such techniques (I am not at all surprised that your professors in college taught this to you; radical postmodernism has infected many universities. You should see the garbage that comes out of the Black Studies department at the City University of New York, a mild example being "it is impossible for a black person to be bigoted") > Regarding you statement about my "brand of postmodernism" (whatever that > means): Fortunately, Bart, you do not control what can be discussed on a > Theosophical discussion list. I never said that it was yours, I said IF it was yours. Do you really believe that pregnancy is a form of spousal abuse? > > And most men didn't have the right to vote until the 19th century. > > Bart? WHO was making the LAWS of society in the 19th century? I said UNTIL. Even in the United States, only men who owned at least $50 worth of property were allowed to vote. The people who moved out into the "frontier", who actually went back to an era when men and women both had to work as hard as they could just to survive, brought the concept of every person being able to vote, brought back the concept of men and women as partners, and was the origin of much of the thinking that generated the concepts of equal rights for women. > I'm not > even sure if you statement is correct, however, for argument's sake I will > assume it is and respond with the following: Voting wasn't necessary > because there was no need for it - what was considered democracy did not > include ethnic minorities or women. It was the classical "good ole boys > network." Male aristocrats, including the revered Founding Fathers, ran > the whole show. > > Give me a break. There is nothing in your paragraph which contradicts anything I stated before. > > Look at the context of the sentence; the idea is that a man can > >impregnate a woman who is not sexually aroused, > > What!? Are you saying that this is what Genesis was suggesting in stating > that a man shall "rule over" his wife? I've never heard that before. I got that straight from Rashi, who is generally considered to be the greatest commentator on the Torah in Jewish history. > treatment of women. Did you know that, on the wedding night, men did not > engage in vaginal intercourse with their wives, but, instead sodomized > them? In which culture? I am most familiar with Judaism, and in that culture, it was customary for the husband and wife to have their first vaginal intercourse right after the wedding ceremony, in a separate room while the guests wait outside (the custom today is for the wife and the husband to just spend some time alone together in the room). > Hardly a kind act towards a woman who knows nothing about sex. How do you know that she knew nothing about sex? > > And that was the period when women WERE the victims of oppression, due > >to technology making the previous male-female relationships unnatural. > > How was this oppression due to "technology?" Not the technology, directly, but the fact that you no longer had a situation where both earning a living and childrearing were from waking up to going to sleep. Largely, what became easier was earning a living, so that the husband started interfering with the childrearing, trying to (and succeeding) in taking charge of that, too. Also, it became much more possible for women to earn a living without a man. The few men who were in power saw this, and saw that there were areas where their power did not touch. And they couldn't take it, so they started passing laws to limit the power of women. And there was the origin of the modern oppression of women. Note, for example, that women's medicine used to be handled mainly by midwives, rather than male doctors. Abortion was usually handled by midwives, and was legal (at least by Catholic Church rules) until the fetus started to kick. When men started taking over medicine, they marginalized and minimized midwifery, and that is when abortion was made completely illegal (mid 19th century). > >> In > >> present day, medical insurance will cover Viagra for men, but not birth > >> control for women. > > > > It will also cover reconstructive surgery for mastectomies, but not > >penile enlargement. It's the difference for restoring a natural > >condition, and preventing it. > > Wait a minute. Are you saying that performing mastectomies are "restoring > a natural condition" (which I agree) Actually, I said restoring the breasts after mastectomies, via plastic surgery > and that penile enlargement is > "preventing" a natural condition? This doesn't make sense. How is penile > enlargement preventing a "natural" condition. You're right; it is altering a natural condition to a non-natural one. > I fail to see how the > ravages of cancer and the desire for a bigger penis fall into the same > category. A penis, no matter what size, still has sensation - a woman > loses a fundamental part of her sexual pleasure when she loses her breasts, > gaining only a visible, and often, unsightly scar. It is comparing restorative plastic surgery on a woman to elective plastic surgery in a man. > >Of course, that is assuming that your > >statement is right; every medical insurance plan I have ever been on > >includes sterilization procedures for both men and women. > > Bart, sterilization is not the form of birth control most women desire. > They would like to retain their choice on when to have children. If they > know they do not, sterilization is fine - but placing sterilization and > controllable birth control in the same category is not practical, nor very > compassionate. Reversible sterilization is now very reliable (98% last I heard). > > Did you ever hear of the statistician who drowned in a lake with an > >average depth of two feet? Before I accept your statement (do you have a > >source for the Justice Department statement?) > > Yes, the Justice Department. In other words, you called the Justice Department, and the Department spoke to you? Or was it some publication of the Justice Department? Or was it someone quoting it? > >I would have to see if > >there are any other factors involved (for example, are you lumping 1st > >degree murder, 2nd degree homicide, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary > >manslaughter, and accidental killing all in one lump? If that is the > >case, then the statistic is bullshit, combining apples and oranges. > > This is far too lengthy to go into; besides, Bart, I honestly believe you > know exactly what I am talking about. The penalties for each individual type of killing are not broad enough to allow for an average of a 15 year difference; that is why I am asking if you are comparing killing apples to killing oranges. > If there are any women in your life > you care about, I suggest you learn a bit more regarding societal treatment > of women. If something should happen to a woman you love, ignorance of > what faces them will not be helpful in their case. You will be surprised > at the difference in treatment men and women receive in institutions such > as medical, legal, academic, and, dare I say it?, car repair. I know quite a bit about it. My sister-in-law is a PhD (sponsored by her biochemistry department), and, where she was doing research, if a man had a child, it was no big deal, but if a woman has a child, it is highly unprofessional. Realistic estimates show that about 75% of hysterectomies are unnecessary. A woman who knows nothing about cars will get charged much higher for fixing the same problem in a car repair shop than a man who knows nothing about cars. There is definitely still plenty of oppression of women going on. But let's concentrate on where it really exists, rather than looking for it where it isn't. > We may agree with the last statement, but is it wise to accept the > statements that men are materially oriented and lack gentleness? Is it > wise to accept that that women cannot boast of courage and lack diligent > application? For me, these untruths mar the truth of the story. In > present day, statements such as these should not be tolerated. A story > meant to teach something beautiful and profound, yet, it manages to also > teach untruths. Even if a person learns that rivalry between the sexes is > useless (a good lesson), he/she may also walk away with harmful stereotypes > of men and women. Connecting this back to my main peeve: I believe the > statement offered by the Caucasus did the same thing. There are characteristics which can be defined as feminine (not necessarily the ones you give as examples) and characteristics that can be defined as masculine. Everybody has a mixture of both characteristics, although women, on the average, lean more towards the feminine, and men, on the average, lean more towards the masculine. But, once again, we must consider the statistician who drowned in a lake with an average depth of two feet. We cannot judge any individual by the statistical tendencies of his or her gender, nor can we criticize an individual for having them. > > Which shows that you clearly do not understand the saying. It is not > >"salted assualted and insulted by his wife", it is "salted, assaulted > >and insulted by the INSTITUTION of holy wedlock", unless, of course, you > >think it is OK for a wife to beat her husband (I don't). > Bart, you have way overstepped in suggesting that I may advocate the abuse > of a woman (or anyone). If it had come from someone newer to this list, I > could have taken it in stride and tried to clarify. You, however, have been > on this list long enough with me to know that I would never endorse such a > thing. Good. But your interpretation of the that stupid joke logically implied that you did. All that means is that you did not think it through, and all I did was point out that if your misinterpretation was correct, then it led to a ridiculous conclusion. Realizing that you come from a country where, while literacy in English is extraordinarily high for a non-English speaking country, English is not the primary language, the additional "of course" implies that it is a throw-away phrase, highly unlikely but needs to be said. > >> The men who wrote this quote paid NO heed of > >> women when writing it. Those of us who claim to be educated need to > >> examine a bit more deeply currently acceptable "words of wisdom." Do such > >> "words of wisdom" apply to most people and will they work in current daily > >> life? Do such "words of wisdom" promote peace and harmony, or violence and > >> suffering? > > > There is a difference between "words of wisdom" and a joke. Those who > >buy the radical femnist revisionist history hook, line, and sinker, have > >yet to learn the difference. > > Are you suggesting that the Caucasus quotation was a joke? Yes, it is supposed to be humorous. I am really surprised that you took it otherwise (albeit not in the best of taste). The comment about radical femnism is based on the radical femnist tenet that if you have a sense of humor, you cannot be a femnist. Hence the joke: Question: How many radical femnists does it take to change a lightbulb? Answer: That's not funny! > feminists? I know it's popular these days, and lord knows, some feminists > deserve to be redressed, but not all feminists are daffy. Agreed, on both counts, even going as far to say that MOST femnists are not daffy, and many are ashamed to admit they are femnists because the daffy ones have poisoned the well. > Just as I am > aware that not all men oppress women. Which the radical femnists are not. > For instance: Alan, a companion > theos-l participant and a male, certainly cannot be accused of being > insensitive to women Alan can't be accused of being insensitive to ANYONE. > >> Since it > >> was important for Mahatmas to "blend in," what better way to remain > >> anonymous in their time but to be female? > > > > They did not "blend in"; they kept themselves separate unless it was > >necessary. > > Then why did they have to choose to be males? I still do not understand > why, if they were hidden, a female form wouldn't have served just fine. They didn't all choose to be males, only mostly. The American Section of the Theosophical Society in Wheaton, IL should have a tape of a lecture given by Carol Ward on the Female Mahatmas. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 20:18:48 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: A Few Comments and Questions to Ramprakash and an aside to Rich and Nicholas A Few Comments and Questions to Ramprakash and an aside to Rich and Nicholas Ramprakash wrote: > NOW, THERE IS NO POINT IN CARRYING ON THIS FUTILE CONTROVERSY. MY > REQUEST TO THE BN MANAGERS IS TO ARRANGE FOR PRESENTATION OF THE BRAND OF > TANTRA OUR GOOD FRIENDS ARE TIRELESSLY ADVOCATING FOR JUXTAPOSING THE SAME > WITH THE PUBLIC TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY AS RECORDEDE BY H.P.B. AND W.Q.J. WE > DO NOT WANT TO COMMIT THEFT BY PRYING INTO WHAT H.P.B. AND MASTERS WANTED > TO BE STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL -- THE E.S. TEACHINGS ARE NOW > PUBLICLY SOLD AND TRADED IN. WE RESPECT THE RIGHT TO CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE > GREAT TEACHERS AND WILL NOT THEREFORE REFER TO THEM IN OUR COMING CONTEST. > WE WILL HOLD TO THEIR PUBLIC TEACHINGS ONLY. LET THE MANAGERS THEN FRAME THE > GROUND RULES. THIS IS DEMANDED IN THE FAIR NAME OF THEOSOPHY, TO PUT AN END > ONCE AND FOR ALL FOR ITS MISREPRESENTATION, AND DESECRATION OF SACRED NAMES. (1) I really don't think that this is a "futile" controversy. I think a great deal has already been learned by anyone truly interested in the subject-matter and the various issues raised. In fact here is a golden opportunity to further clarify various issues that still are obscured and/or misunderstood on the subject of the Tantras. (2) An aside: I really don't understand why Nicholas and Rich apparently are hesitant to state their views on these tantric issues and to clarify various points. IMHO, communication is very important and sharing one's knowledge and understanding is also very important. Let all views be heard as fully as possible. Maybe both sides in the controversy may learn something!! (3) Are some of us somewhat timid and afraid to enter the controversy and ensuing fray? Thanks to the gods that HPB was bold and most willing to enter the arena of controversy in order to throw conflicting views into greater perspective!!!!! (4) Ramprakash---I think it's an excellent idea to provide a "PRESENTATION OF THE BRAND OF TANTRA OUR GOOD FRIENDS ARE TIRELESSLY ADVOCATING FOR JUXTAPOSING THE SAME WITH THE PUBLIC TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY." Put the teachings side by side and let each of us make the necessary study and judgements. (5) Ramprakash, you wrote: "THE E.S. TEACHINGS ARE NOW PUBLICLY SOLD AND TRADED IN. . ." I have a number of replies to your comments about the E.S. Instructions of HPB. But before I give them, I'm curious: Have YOU read these published "E.S. Teachings" of HPB that you make reference to? More later. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 22:14:53 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: In support of > I am not a homosexual theosophist, and am also STRONGLY against the > Esoteric Section and Radha Burnier. > > Made bed; lying on it. Alan - I am not a homosexual theosophist either, and am also strongly against the Esoteric Section - so I guess that means I'm, um, er, lying in bed with you? (HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!) -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 23:34:03 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: In support of Alan wrote: > Noted. Homosexual theosophists are, so I have heard, STRONGLY against > the Esoteric Section and Radha Burnier. One time homosexuals of both > (or any) sexes were benevolently regarded in theosophy as between > genders by reason of being in transition from male to female or vice > versa on the way to the next incarnation. My uncle, whom I loved deeply, was a gay activist. Kind of hard to have anti-homosexual feelings when you used to love one (the popular term in the U.S. is "straight but not narrow"). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 21:35:24 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Correction Dear Bart and all: Well, seems both my criminal justice professor and I may be wrong about the sentencing length of women. This 1994 report (I'm unable to locate a more current one) may show my assertion that women serve 15 years longer for homicide is in error. He did state that, according to the Justice Department, "women who kill their husbands get, on average, 15 years longer prison time than men who kill their wives." I'm not super sure that this study addresses that specific topic. (I am curious about length of time women serve before being paroled compared to men's times served before parole) Wonder what he will say when I present this to him. Do you think he will commend me for double-checking his statement (thanks to Bart) or present me with an "I'll teach you to doubt my word" grade? Hmmmmm. I hate it when this happens. . .. ----------------------- Women in Prison U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin Women in Prison NCJ-145321 Full text with tables available from: Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse 800-732-3277 Box 179 Annapolis Junction, MD. 20701-0179 FAX Number (for report orders and mail list signup only): 410-792-4358 March 1994 Sentence length Overall, female prisoners had shorter maximum sentences than men. Half of the women had a maximum sentence of 60 months or less, while half of the men had a sentence of 120 months or less. Excluding sentences to life or death, women in prison had received sentences that, on average, were 48 months shorter than those of men (mean sentences of 105 and 153, respectively). An estimated 7% of the women and 9% of the men received sentences to life or death. Maximum Percent of inmates sentence length Female Male Less than 36 months 24.2% 12.4% 36-59 18.7 15.0 60-119 20.5 22.3 120-179 11.9 13.2 180 or more 17.7 27.9 Life/death 7.0 9.2 ************************************************************ The differences in sentence length are, in part, the result of variation in the distribution of offenses among female and male inmates. Women were more likely than men to be in prison for drug and property offenses, which had shorter average sentences than violent offenses. For each category of offense, women received shorter average maximum sentences than men. For property offenses, female prisoners had a mean sentence 42 months shorter than men; for drug offenses, 18 months shorter; and for violent offenses, 39 months shorter. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:35:58 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: TS-work ... (again) Hi all, The discussion on this list about how the TS should function has died down a bit, but there is an interesting quote of Subba Row, about this subject, I would like to share with you all. Subba Row who presented in some ways the purely Brahmanan (and therefore secretive) atitude of some initiates, in fact knew very well the neccessity of diverse thoughts cross-fertilising each other: from 'Esotheric Writings', Subba Row, p. 452 > Looking around the universe nothing so strongly impressed me, as the system of division of labour which pervades it. Practical results never spring from solitary causes; they are ever the resultants of the more or less divergent effects of an inextricable plexus of diverse causes; It is from contrasts, that all the joys and beauties of the world arise; it is from the equalibrium of antagonistic forces that the Universe subsists. All progress springs from difference; all evolution is the result of differentiation; as in the great, so in the spiritual; as in the visible so in the unseen universe.> > How, then can men fail to see that differences of opinion on matters spiritual are parts of the necessary mechanism of the spiritual organism that everywhere underlies (as the bones underlie the flesh and skin) the physical or visible world? How can they find fault with others for holding views different from their own? How fail to realise that those others are as truly working in harmony with the pervading design or law of the ALL as themselves? Night is as needful to our mundane economy as day; shall the night revile the day, for its glare, its noise, its heat, or the day reproach the night for its dusky stillness? > Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:52:52 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: In support of theosophy it was written: > > >For the last 99 years, we have not had a single letter from the Adepts to > > anyone (as far as I know). > > > > And? Is that necessary? And for what? For blind believers? > > > Maybe they are dead. Even if the specific Mahatma's that wrote or precipitated or mentally dictated the Mahatma Letters are dead, and after a century I would think that they are... still it seems to me that if they existed, there must now be people who replace them and their function in humanity. These might still comunicate with people, but perhaps it is not necessary now to do so openly, or by physical means. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:58:24 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: In support of theosophy Bart Lidofsky wrote: > hesse600 wrote: > > > 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. > > Are you saying the Mahatma's created the ES as a wistle for > > the people complaining? > > Figuratively speaking, yes. There was one group who felt that only the > teachings of the Mahatma's should be studied or presented by the > Theosophical Society, and the teachings of other religions, even when > they were completely in synch with what the Mahatma's taught, should be > forbidden. The Mahatmas said that each person should find the truth > through their own religion, and let those who wish to follow only the > words of the Mahatma's should form their own special section. I have noticed that high functionary's in the ES often study the Mahatma Letters more than usual, but the way I have always understood it, the ES was meant to make brotherhood more real, and promote the esoteric kind of living. That is, living for humanity and serving humanity the best way posible. And if those who wanted to follow the words of the Mahatma's were ES-members, then why was not Sinnet an ES-member? > > Anyhow, the rules about homosexuals etc. were not made in > > HPB's time, so why presume the Mahatma's had anything to do > > with it? > Radha Burnier, head of the Esoteric Section, is STRONGLY against > homosexuality. SO WHAT? That may just be Indian prejudice speaking. Are you presuming she is personally in contact with the Mahatma's and therefore infallible? Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:04:41 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Mahatma's it was written: > > Then why did they have to choose to be males? I still do not > understand > > why, if they were hidden, a female form wouldn't have served just > fine. > > > > > > Kym > > > Because - surprise! - they were not stupid, and knew where the power > lay. Their alleged* writings mention "power" and "powers," both of > which are methods of control over others. In the same way we get this > curious distinction made recently between different "levels" of chelas. > Poor ol' Sinnett. > We are the chosen few, there ain't no room in heaven for you ..... [all > join in ....] > *Alleged. I use the term because such exalted beings as the mahatmas > are supposed to have been would not, in my opinion and from my > perspective (if I am worthy enough to be allowed one) have descended to > writing about the intrigues etc. within the TS and its London Lodge. > Ergo, a) The writers were not mahatmas, or b) mahatmas are not all they > are cracked up to be, or c) they were written by someone else (singular > or plural). I think they were simply not all they were cracked up to be (in fact they said so). On the other hand, knowing how emotional and complicated lodge-life sometimes is, it is not so surprising to me that they were human enough to give their opinion, which everybody was asking for anyhow. > Alan the disobedient. > (I prefer to call it "divine discontent" as this is permitted) Surely that is permitted :-), everything is permitted. Even asuming this list is only for western theosophists is permitted, though the assumption will of course be questioned. > :0))))))));-))))))))))) Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:07:45 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Islam hi all, About the Islam not being a sourse of western culture: Islam is certainly part of the sourse of western culture. Here in Europe we would not have had the Greek and Roman texts to study from in the Middle Ages, if it had not been for the way the Muslims preserved these texts in their library's and university's. This is not a widely known fact, but it is a fact nonetheless. And since American culture owes a lot to European culture, the same goes for american (US) culture. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:09:38 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Space ; hermetic axiom Alan wrote: > > > > Alan: > > > At other levels of being, different laws apply. > > What about the hermetic axiom: as above, so below? > > Katinka > Aha! Another chance to correct a misquote. The axiom states That which > is above is LIKE (similar) to that which is below. In other words, it > is not exactly the same, but shares many charaxteristics. See my "Keys > to Kabbalah" (Free download from website below). > thanks, I will look it up, and what would we do without theos-l? Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:21:38 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: hi Bart Bart wrote: > Alan can't be accused of being insensitive to ANYONE. and you (Bart) come acros as a lot more sensitive in long e-mails than in short ones. By the way, I had the impression Kym was from the US, so her English should be all right, my own is not always such, because I am from that country where the English literacy is high, I suppose. So I think you got us mixed up. But I do not know why I am writing this, I should let Kym fight her own battles. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 07:54:46 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Space ; hermetic axiom In a message dated 10/5/99 3:09:57 AM Central Daylight Time, hesse600@tem.nhl.nl writes: > thanks, I will look it up, and what would we do without > theos-l? > Maybe meditate more and post less? Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 09:20:42 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Buddhist Tantra and Theosophy Some short responses to Daniel: >>I see that Rich also refers to another book: >> >>HIGHEST YOGA TANTRA >>by Daniel Cozort. This is a "must" book for anyone interested in Tibetan Tantra. I think that most Theosophists will still be trying to figure out the sutras, and will not be ready to understand this book. >>Peter, this book appears to me ALSO to be full of "hatha yoga style forced breathing practices, forced visualisations and sexual tantra, all mixed up with allusions to higher states of spiritual attainment."<< Yes. It is, and there is no guru to hand to help you. However, it should be clear that these "allusions" are core teachings of Tibetan Buddhism. The "sexual" elements can be physical (karmamudra) or mental (jnanamudra) as I have pointed out many times. >>I have to agree with you Peter that both books are good examples of "the very Tantric and hatha yoga practices that HPB and the Masters warned against and distanced themselves from."<< They take one up the spiritual mouontain at a steep rate and are dangerous for all that. HPB was writing for the West, people who had no time or inclination to "do it right" and thus who would likely dabble and get burned. Thus the warning. But anyone who yearns for spiritual understanding has to ignore her warnings. >>How can this be since both books are in the Gelugpa tradition---one being by the very founder of the Yellow Hats whom KH and M praise in very high terms??>> There are at least three basic stages to Tibetan Buddhism (actually many others exist). First is the sutras which is mainly reading and ethical development. This is where 99.99% of all Theosophists are and probably 99% of Buddhists. Second is tantra which has two stages: the developing or generation stage and the completion stage. HIghest Yoga Tantra concerns the completion stage and should only be practiced after success with the generation stage. Highest Yoga Tantra is just that -- the highest form of tantra practiced in Tibetan Buddhism. It is also the most dangerous because it does ignite the kundalini (a physical expression of spiritual insight). >>I ask Rich, Steve and Nicholas, what's going on here? I think that this should be obvious by now, Dan, especially for a person of your intellect and insight (you know more than you let on). HPB practiced these things while fully realizing the dangers of condoning them to the public. This is in keeping with almost all Teachers (i.e., he who has ears, let him hear, etc). >>Read what is said on these subjects as found throughout HPB's writings as well as what is in the Mahatma Letters. Compare them to what is found in just these two book mentioned above.>> I agree that every Theosophist should do this as a personal developmental task. I did so, years ago. Also read Je Tzongkapa and compare him to HPB's writings. A great deal of his writings are in English translation now. >>Are any of you suggesting that these are the kinds of practices that HPB's Masters M, KH, Serapis and others of the Occult Brotherhood would practice or instruct their students to practice?>> Yes, they would have to practice these things, and if they seem disgusting to you, then you are not ready for them. According to virtually all of the modern Tibetan writers, generation and completion stage tantra is practiced by all of the Tibetan leaders of note including HH the Dali Lama. However, it should be very clear that only a handful of people are spiritually ready to actually practice this. Most can barely get through the sutras and ethical development that is basic before starting on tantra. Anyone still hung up on ethics should stay away from tantra, and probably will anyway. HPB deliberately wrote in such a way as to encourage just this built in safety measure. >>Colonel Olcott spoke of the Schools of HPB's Masters as follows: ". . . the Brothers. . . have told me that there are schools, under appointed living adepts, where their Occult science is regularly taught." Are any of you suggesting that the Brothers of HPB condone such "tantric" practices in their schools???>> If they had any regard or respect for Tibetan Buddhism, then yes they did. But they carefully and deliberately kept away those who were not ready--a situation that I still see in today's Tibetan writers. >>Can we just sweep all of this under the "theosophical" carpet and ignore it? Especially in light of what Mahatm Koot Hoomi writes about Tsong Kha pa:>> Dan, I can only see two choices here: (1) argue that Theosophy is not Buddhism (I hear this on theos-l and theos-world a lot and it seems to work for some Theosophists), and (2) try to find common ground (my own personal choice that comes from my own experience rather than anything I have read) between Theosophy and Tantricism (there is no common ground with Hindu Tantricism, only with the Buddhist version). >>". . . that is the highest form of adeptship man can hope for on our planet. But it is as rare as the Buddhas themselves, the last Khobilgan who reached it being Sang-Ko-Pa of Kokonor (XIV Century), the reformer of esoteric as well as of vulgar Lamaism." (Mahatma Letters, Letter 9).>> It is not called *Highest* Yoga Tantra for nothing. >>IMHO, all of this is not some minor contradiction but a crucial, extremely crucial issue that needs to be carefully discussed and studied by all serious students of Madame Blavatsky's writings.>> And I discovered years ago that this seeming disconnect can, in fact, be resolved. But I suspect that each Theosophist should do so on their own, and in their own way. >>I write this in a rush, but does anyone see what I'm getting at? Daniel>> Its obvious now as it was obvious tome years ago that HPBs diatribe against tantra was directed toward the Hindu version. She never mentioned any difference between Hindu and Buddhist tantricism, did she? Yet they are day and night apart because their motives are different. Think about it. How could she possibly argue in favor of Buddhist Tantras to the very Victorian audience she was trying to invite into Theosophy? It would turn most peope off. Heck, it turns most Theoophists off even today. She did, I think, what she felt she had to do. Today is a whole different world thanks to China forcing the Tibetans into the West. Jerry S From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 18:32:16 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re Space >>However much relativity claims that space is a finite thing, I still have trouble believing and understanding it. >> Basically, everything material is limited. >>It reminds me of the very simple explanation why there is not a number which is the greatest. say that 100000 is the highest number, one can always add one to it. >> Yes, numbers are infinite, but numbers are not material objects. >>Even with space being curved (which seems to be how it is explained) I do not see how beyond the curve there isn't space, even if it is 'empty' space. >> I suspect that beyond our curved space, lies the curved space of countless other universes. >>Also: the astral seems to me to be linked to the physical. One does not exist without the other.>> Why do you think that? The physcial plane is said to be an expression or manifestation of the astral, and so yes, you can have astral things without any physical counterpart. But you can't have anything physical without its astral counterpart. >> Spirit without matter is an abstraction, according to theosophy (as in HPB and the Mahatma's). So if physical space is finite, how can spiritual space be infinite?>> Because physical space is a manifestation of spiritual space. >>But I think the solution is that physical matter is finite. Yes. >>Our science knows a lot about matter. There is a certain mass of matter, that's clear, and also a logical necessity. >> Matter and energy are two aspects of the same thing. >>The space it is embedded in gets curved by the matter, but need not, in my opinion, be finite as well. Katinka>> We don't really know if "empty" space goes on forever. But we do know that the concept of empty space is meaningless and that space, per se, is not empty at all. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:18:57 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: In support of --- Original Message ----- > From: JRC > Date: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 5:14 AM > Subject: Re: In support of Alan wrote: > > > I am not a homosexual theosophist, and am also STRONGLY against the > > Esoteric Section and Radha Burnier. > > > > Made bed; lying on it. > > Alan - I am not a homosexual theosophist either, and am also strongly > against the Esoteric Section - so I guess that means I'm, um, er, lying in > bed with you? (HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!) -JRC > That's fine. Your side of the bed is far enough away for me to feel safe! (HAR HAR ..... etc.!) Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:21:43 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: In support of ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bart Lidofsky > Date: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 4:34 AM > Subject: Re: In support of > Alan wrote: > > Noted. Homosexual theosophists are, so I have heard, STRONGLY against > > the Esoteric Section and Radha Burnier. One time homosexuals of both > > (or any) sexes were benevolently regarded in theosophy as between > > genders by reason of being in transition from male to female or vice > > versa on the way to the next incarnation. > > My uncle, whom I loved deeply, was a gay activist. Kind of hard to have > anti-homosexual feelings when you used to love one (the popular term in > the U.S. is "straight but not narrow"). > > Bart Lidofsky > What then. Bart, ws the point of your heavy emphasis regarding Radha Burnier's views, tied to the fact that she heads the Esoteric Section? Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:30:02 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Space ; hermetic axiom ----- Original Message ----- > From: hesse600 > Date: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 9:09 AM > Subject: Re: Space ; hermetic axiom > thanks, I will look it up, and what would we do without > theos-l? > > Katinka Something else. [Slaps own wrist again] Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:28:16 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Mahatma's ----- Original Message ----- > From: hesse600 > Date: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 9:04 AM > Subject: Mahatma's > > Alan the disobedient. > > (I prefer to call it "divine discontent" as this is permitted) > Surely that is permitted :-), everything is permitted. Even > asuming this list is only for western theosophists is > permitted, though the assumption will of course be > questioned. > > :0))))))));-))))))))))) > > Katinka As of course it should be! Alan :0)) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 00:44:15 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: In support of theosophy At 08:46 PM 10/04/1999 -0400, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Radha Burnier, head of the Esoteric Section, is STRONGLY against >homosexuality. > > Bart Lidofsky How did you find out? mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:13:59 +0000 From: "mika perala" Subject: Reborn in animal form > > Daniel wrote: > > I believe it is his contention that the Gelugpa tradition is NOT necessarily > > the esoteric view of HPB's Masters. In fact, there is a orthodoxy in > > the Gelugpa religion just as one finds an orthodoxy in all other religions > > of the > > world. And that over the centuries since Tsongkhapa's death a literalism > > has > > become predominant in the Gelugpa tradition. For example, the Gelugpa lamas > > believe in reincarnation of humans into animal forms. They literally > > believe this. > I can second that. We have in Holland a Tibetan > Buddhist-tempel, with corresponding monestary. With our > lodge we went there and had a great time (also met by pure > accident some TS-members from ROtterdam). That is not the > point of course. THe point is that the people there > absolutely believed that bad people do reincarnate into > animals, and that it happens often. > Katinka Is there buddhists that do NOT believe that humans may reborn as animals?? mika From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:33:52 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Confusion >>Meanwhile, I suggest comparison of one not fully understood system of thought with an even less understood system of thought leads to a componded confusion of both.>> I am sorry your are so confused. Maybe you should study up on these things? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:41:26 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Physics vs Nature <> My own opinion here is that they are not, and this comes from 35+ years of being an engineer and trying to use the idealistic equations of physics in real-world applications. Besides, virtually all dynamic equations for systems are time reversible. Physics recognizes no Arrow of Time (except in thermodynamics) but nature seems to. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:50:59 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Time >>In physics, what is called "time" is just this comparison of two physical motions where one is arbitrarily set up as a standard. >> I think that this is pretty much what I said at the beginning. Time requires motion, which requires space to move in and something to move within that space. Each depends on the other for its existence or at least for its meaning. This is a basic formula of Mahayana Buddhism called dependent origination. Although I am not a physicist, I did write a physics book some years ago and I do have two Ph.D.s one of which is in interdisciplinary studies comparing chaos theory to Jungian psychology. I think I understand very well what you are saying and where you are coming from. Nevertheless, I still stand by everything I have written or said, which does (I have to admit) mesh Theosophy, occultism, and physics together somewhat (too bad I don't make the kind of money out of this that Capra and others do...). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:53:18 -0700 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Confusion > >>Meanwhile, I suggest comparison of one not fully > understood system of thought with an even less understood system of thought > leads to a componded confusion of both.>> Yep ... just read something by Richard Dawkins (the evolutionary biologist) that was viscously funny about the many new age books that mangle eastern mysticism with modern physics (you know the type ... "Quantum" healing, etc., etc.) ... he said, in essence, that the underlying formula was something like this ... "Hhhmmm, quantum mechanics are mysterious and hard to understand, eastern mystics have always been mysterious and hard to understand, therefore quantum physics must be related to eastern mysticism ...". Tee Hee, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:00:50 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Buddhist Tantra and Theosophy In a message dated 10/5/99 7:27:03 AM Central Daylight Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > This is a "must" book for anyone interested in Tibetan > Tantra. Cozort's book includes practices common to sutra and tantra but only covers the generation stage and completion stage yogas of the Kalachakra and Guhyasamaja Highest Yoga Tantra. Power's book, Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism, is where theosophists should start. Then they should study the difference between lam rim and sudden paths. Then, they will have the information base to understand the difference between the Nyingmapa Highest Yoga Tantra, Ati Yoga or Dzog chen, and the rest of the lam rim of graduated path Highest Yoga Tantras. HPB's Central Asian and western Tibet/Bhutan/Kashmir contacts would have most likely have been Dzog chen. As I posted here over a year ago. The Stanzas of Dyzan are identifiably a bad paraphrase (from memory?) of the Central Asian Dzog chen root text that is used by the Kalmucks (with whom HPB had early contact in the Caucasus) and Mongols. Also, that the Stanzas of Dyzan are of Dzog chen origin was stated by the Dalai Lama in 1992. Although, if Power's is correct that the Bon religion is not really the indigenous pagan religion of Tibet but a reworking of it by an earlier non-Buddhist form of Dzog chen (that also influenced alchemical Taoism), then some things HPB says about the 8th or 9th(?) sphere may indicate she got the pre-Buddhist/pre-Nyingmapa form of Dzog chen. If so, one would naturally find reincarnation into animal form absent as well as the Buddhist doctrines of anatman/sunyata absent, which is what we do find in HPB. Grigor V. Ananikian (one who spent last 30 years, off/on, in Afghan and Tibetan monasteries of Kalugpa, Nyimapa, and Bon lineages as practitioner of Mahamudra/Dzog chen). P.S. Dzog chen also infiltrated Naqshibandi Sufism of Dagestan, Armenian Zoroastrianism, Uigherian Manichaeaism, and Northern Complete Reality School of Taoism through Liu I-ming. As Chogyal Namkhai Norbu has recently suggested, Dzog chen may reflect a very ancient spiritual path that pre-dates Buddhism and is to be found under a variety of religious guises. G.V.A From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:01:32 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Absolute Time? >>As Einstein himself put it in his paper on Special Relativity, he doesn't know what time is. He is going to accept the "conventional time" of physics. This is a reference back to Newton who said he could not find any means to measure absolute time so he was going to replace it, as conventional time, the uniform mecahnical motion of a clock. >> Physics can't tell us what absolute time is. I agree, because I am not so sure that such a thing exists. In fact, I have recently come to suspect whether any absolutes at all exist (Dallas will take gas at this one). But we each have an inner sense of time, of events passing by one after the other in serial order, sometimes fast and sometimes slow. This is basically an inner conviction or experience of what thermo calls the Arrow of Time, and it has a lot to do with entropy. I can't really find anything in your postings to argue with, but you do seem to find much faulty thinking in mine. You need to be more specific if you want me to try to make my thoughts clearer. Casually throwing flames and concluding off the cuff that I do not understand physics like you do will not get us anywhere at all. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:13:51 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: In support of theosophy In a message dated 10/5/99 2:53:09 AM Central Daylight Time, hesse600@tem.nhl.nl writes: > Even if the specific Mahatma's that wrote or precipitated > or mentally dictated the Mahatma Letters are dead, and > after a century I would think that they are... still it > seems to me that if they existed, there must now be people > who replace them and their function in humanity. I think one of the "fictions" of HPB to protect their identity (ala Johnson) was to convey they were part of a single group rather than a federation of leaders from different brotherhoods. I know for a fact that some Tulkus, Naqshibandi Shaiykhs, and leaders of other lesser known Central Asia "brotherhoods," like the ishraqiyya, the shaiykhi school, and the asholki meet from time to time in a way the functions like a great white lodge but the idea of there being such a thing, I think, is window dressing. So, the descendent lineage-holders of whoever the mahatmas were may in fact be communicating today but not as "mahatmas of the TS." Grigor V. Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:15:00 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: In support of theosophy In a message dated 10/5/99 2:58:39 AM Central Daylight Time, hesse600@tem.nhl.nl writes: > she is personally in contact with the > Mahatma's Who says mahatmas are infallible? G.V.A From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:16:23 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Confusion In a message dated 99-10-06 12:39:20 EDT, you write: << I am sorry your are so confused. Maybe you should study up on these things? Jerry S. >> Now now, there is nothing wrong with being confused. It is the natural state of theosophists. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:17:08 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Mahatma's In a message dated 10/5/99 3:05:05 AM Central Daylight Time, hesse600@tem.nhl.nl writes: > Ergo, a) The writers were not mahatmas, or b) mahatmas are not all they > > are cracked up to be, or c) they were written by someone else (singular > > or plural). > I think they were simply not all they were cracked up to > be (in fact they said so). Again, I think people have too much of a high exalted view of the mahatmas. Even mahatmas are fallible. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:19:00 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Physics vs Nature In a message dated 99-10-06 12:46:52 EDT, you write: << Physics recognizes no Arrow of Time (except in thermodynamics) but nature seems to. Jerry S. >> Another good reason to dislike nature. The arrows of time are turning me into a pincushion. OUCH!!! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:15:05 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re Space & Time >>So, yes, the physiological motions of an astronauts body, in theory, would slow down - aging would slow down. But really, not time but temporal and spatial motions other than light are relativized to lights speed as an invariant constant in special relativity. >> What is the difference between your "aging would slow down" and my "time slows down?" Aging is a time-dependent process. Of course, when I state that time goes slower as mass increases, I am speaking of relative time or time as it is measured by any observers on that mass in comparison with observers far from that mass. I do not believe that absolute time or absolute space exist in any meaningful way. For purposes of Theosophical discussions we can talk about spiritual space and spiritual time or time on the such-and-so plane, but to talk about absolutes is beyond our mortal minds to comprehend and is thus pretty much meaningless (nor can we really grasp the concepts of infinities and complex numbers that we use in mathematics). My own experiences suggest to me that at the spiritual or divine level, there is no time and no space at all. The notion of space and time going on and on forever appears to me to be a human concept that has no reality. Of course, your own experiences may be quite different... Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:22:23 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Physics vs Nature In a message dated 10/6/99 11:46:56 AM Central Daylight Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > Besides, virtually all dynamic > equations for systems are time reversible. Physics > recognizes no Arrow of Time (except in thermodynamics) > but nature seems to. Besides thermodynamics, non-linear (chaos) systems, in some cases, have asymmetry and so does the measurement relation in quantum mechanics (which is part of basis for poor Schrodinger's cat or Schrodinger's poor cat). Grigor Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:25:36 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Confusion In a message dated 99-10-06 12:56:48 EDT, you write: << Yep ... just read something by Richard Dawkins (the evolutionary biologist) that was viscously funny about the many new age books that mangle eastern mysticism with modern physics (you know the type ... "Quantum" healing, etc., etc.) ... he said, in essence, that the underlying formula was something like this ... "Hhhmmm, quantum mechanics are mysterious and hard to understand, eastern mystics have always been mysterious and hard to understand, therefore quantum physics must be related to eastern mysticism ...". Tee Hee, -JRC >> My personal favorite was a short piece in the Chicago Tribune years ago when some new age type person was enthusing over her crystals and the article ended like this: " 'This is proven in the theories of Einstein.' 'Einstein, spinning in his grave, was unavailable for comment.' " Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:26:41 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Confusion In a message dated 10/6/99 11:56:49 AM Central Daylight Time, jrc@texas.net writes: > Yep ... just read something by Richard Dawkins (the evolutionary biologist) > that was viscously funny about the many new age books that mangle eastern > mysticism with modern physics There is one very very good physicist in Canada who can do this. He is Indian who is Brahmin, trained in Vedanta, and a physicist. He knows how to compare. his nickname for Capra is Crapa. He is Ravi Ravindra. Grigor V. Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:34:46 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Confusion PS/HPB/GURDJIEFF Ravi Ravindra is working out a detailed comparative study of cosmology of Theosophy and of Gurdjieff's along with a historical study of how HPB and Gurdjieff knew each other, had paths crossed often, and had same contacts. It should come out from the Esoteric Studies Department, headed by Antoine Faivre, at the Sarbonne. Grigor Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:36:11 -0700 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Physics vs Nature > My own opinion here is that they are not, and this > comes from 35+ years of being an engineer and > trying to use the idealistic equations of physics in > real-world applications. Besides, virtually all dynamic > equations for systems are time reversible. Physics > recognizes no Arrow of Time (except in thermodynamics) > but nature seems to. Very difficult to really know ... and while I've heard many of those arguments (for and against the physics=nature notion), none of them make particular sense to me, because they generally are vague about what they mean by "laws of physics" and what they mean by "nature". And the core of the argument seems to be more about epistemology (what we mean when we say we "know" something - be it knowing physics or knowing nature) that about the specifics of the laws of physics. Nature may seem to recognize the arrow of time, however, we have no way of knowing whether this is a function of nature, or a function of our (extremely) limited perception of it. Our physical perception, for instance, is clearly constrained to two dimensions (the *eyes* are only a collection of nerve endings - rods and cones - that either trigger or don't trigger depending on a set of criteria ... it is the *mind* that takes that input and adds the third dimension - i.e., to the physical eyes there's no difference between a picture on a TV screen and actual street; we don't *see* the back of a coffee cup, but when we see the front view of it we paint the rest of the picture according to a internal map). And just as a one dimensional perceiver might be able to imagine two, but couldn't imagine 3, and a two dimensional perceiver (like us) can imagine three, but couldn't imagine 4 (at least not without considerable work) ... so too it may be that we are currently *constrained* to only perceiving time as a (unidirectional) line - and couldn't even begin to imagine what a *plane* of time, or a "solid" of time might be. For instance, constrained to a single dimension, we nonetheless do have an internal sense, at times, that time is moving (relatively) faster or slower ... some days just fly by, and others seem to crawl (committee meeting especially seem to be able to severely restrict smooth movement along the axis of time (-:)). This makes no sense at all if time is one dimensional, but make it a plane (for instance), and envision it as a street with a number of lanes ... because we have no notion that it exists, we simply wind up carried along in the slower lanes or faster lanes at any particular moment depending upon random chance (or at least upon some set of determinants that we haven't a clue about). So we find ourselves subject to a default set of conditions upon birth: perception of a single dimension of time, and movement in only one direction along that dimension. Naturally all of our perceptions of nature, organized on top of this underlying constraint, can't appear to be anything *other* than what it is: That there is a unidimensional arrow of time that exists as a natural law (which is really nothing other than saying "*all* the traffic in my lane is moving at roughly the same speed, and in the same direction - and since I cannot perceive anything other than that, it is the "arrow of traffic" the there is no way of breaking free of ...). In other words, the idealistic equations of physics may sometimes actually be much closer to the truth of "nature" in and of itself ... but *don't* work when we try to apply them to the "real world", because our "real world" is the one we "compile at runtime" (as we programmers say) according to the assumptions generated by our limited perceptions. But, because it *is*, to us, real ... some laws of physics that *may* actually be true to a multi-dimensional perceiver cannot be fully applied within our perceptual world ... we need to bend them, adjust them, fiddle with them, to actually get bridges built that don't fall down (as it were). It may, however, be that just as the mind permits us to build our three dimensional world out of single or unidimensional sensory input (though it really does often make mistakes ...) - the mind may also, through the language of mathematics, enable us to at least somewhat engage aspects of nature that will *never* be accessible to our physical selves, but nonetheless have considerable truth to them. Just ponderin' on this fine fall day ... -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 13:40:08 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Time In a message dated 10/6/99 11:56:29 AM Central Daylight Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > I think that this is pretty much what I said at > the beginning. Time requires motion, Generally, motion requires time. But in physics, what is called "time" IS a motion - uniform mechanical motion. which > requires space to move in and something to move > within that space. Each depends on the other for > its existence or at least for its meaning. This is > a basic formula of Mahayana Buddhism called > dependent origination. But mutual dependence in Buddhism is not Einsteinian relativity. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 12:53:53 -0700 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Confusion > There is one very very good physicist in Canada who can do this. He is Indian > who is Brahmin, trained in Vedanta, and a physicist. He knows how to compare. > his nickname for Capra is Crapa. He is Ravi Ravindra. Tarthang Tulku has also done some relatively interesting work in this area. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:17:33 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Absolute Time? In a message dated 10/6/99 12:07:11 PM Central Daylight Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > I agree, because I am not so sure that such a > thing exists. First issue is to dig deeper into what it is that is referred to by the term "time." I give following diagram as first approximation of structure of time. I leave out issues of duration and infinitesimal instants and nature of continuum. Traditionally, time is said to have the following properties. There is a before-after or earlier-later sequence. Now, there is debate whether this sequence might be a spatial arrangement in a higher space like a line. Some have stated this means time does not exist without taking account that even this "line" in an alleged higher space would have to have duration in time. Regardless, time cannot be itself motion, despite physic's convention, for if all motion stopped there would still be the duration of all things stopped. Anyway, there is before-after series. Then there is past-present-future series that seems tied to a consciousness because this series depends upon knowledge of what time it is now. For example, lets say a god knew a before-after series but was timeless in such way he or she did not know past-present-future series. 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, etc.... So, this god would know that WW I started in 1914 and that that was before WW II ended in 1945. Lets say he or she could survey the entire time line of before and after series. Lets say he had to be an avatar who had to rescue world in year 2000. If he or she had no knowledge of past-present-future series, he or she would not be able to incarnate because he or she would not know where in the before-after series "now" was. He or she might know that he or she has to incarnate in 2000 and that 2000 is after 1990 and before 2010, but without sense of what part of before-after series is NOW past, and what part of before-after series is NOW yet to happen, based on knowledge of what time it is NOW (i.e. if he or she has no ability to locate themselves temporally in time by knowing what time it is now or which before is past because it is before now), this poor god would not know if now or later was time to appear in 2000 or if he or she missed it. He or she would only know 1990 is before 2000 and 2000 is before 2010 but not whether it was NOW 1990 (get ready!), 2000 (do it!), or 2010 (missed it!). So, minimum, structure of time for a consciousness that knows at least as much as we do (we know what time it is now and what is now past) must be the following. b past-present-future e v f past-present-future o v r past-present-future e v v past-present-future v v a past-present-future f v t past-present-future e v r past-present-future Now, if emailers and ISPs and list preserve diagram, I make few beginning comments before proceeding further. First notice that left side has a vertical series of one before->after sequence. Second, notice that horizonal past-present- future sequence at diagonal is due to earlier presents (the present before or higher on vertical axis) becoming pasts later (afterwards or lower on vertical axis), which means past futures become presents too. Third, time seems to be a series of presents becoming the past for the presents that come after them, and so. To account for this graphically in diagram, one must have diagram that has all elements the one above does. To mathematically represent the above diagram leads to significant ramifications about further properties of time. More later if diagram is not screwed up by all the various protocols. Grigor Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:44:08 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Re Space & Time In a message dated 10/6/99 12:21:24 PM Central Daylight Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > My own experiences suggest to me that at the > spiritual or divine level, there is no time and no > space at all. See previous post on time. A higher mind has to have more, not less than what we have. But for what that means, see prior post on Absolute Time. Grigor Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:48:10 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Confusion/Chuck So, reading up on Sun Tzu's Art of Psychologizing where he says confusion is the natural state of mind of Confucians? G.V.A From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:57:46 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: In support of theosophy, not pseudosophism In a message dated 9/22/99 3:46:12 PM Central Daylight Time, jrc@texas.net writes: > 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. Thank you. I don't want the job. Maybe anyone who does should automatically be disqualified. Plus, efforts on such big scale are likely to have no effect. it would be like a bee stinging a big mass of jello. What is needed is something like a yeast. A small high quality critical mass/catalyst. A new ES. An underground ES. Forget the current one or let it go on doing whatever it is that it, well, "does" (molluscoidal molt?). Anyway, Thank you. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:09:33 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: In support of theosophy, not pseudosophism In a message dated 9/22/99 9:39:37 PM Central Daylight Time, Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk writes: > Dear Grigor, > > A most refreshing post! Thank you. > > I have met the wolf! The wise call him brother wolf. > > ... or sister wolverine. Wolverines are not wolves plus they are meaner. > > Reminds me of passages in the bible where 1, God, and 2, Jesus agree > that Satan has a job to do. Yep, as they say in the Georgian Orthodox Church (quietly when bishop not around hunting for non-conformists), he might be the outside auditor of Jesus' job performance (and his crew). Thus old custom exists that even the Greeks picked up. In village you will often observe that when a priest is walking on one side of road, villagers who are going in other direction on same side will cross street before meeting him. Western tourists think it is sign of respect and copy behaviour. That is not what it means at all. Saying is where ever priest is, a devil is close-by checking up on job performance. > > 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 ..... Well, I will make no personal observations there. So, in spirit of exchange on this topic, you know why the Titanic has never been raised? At $6-9 dollars a pound for Viagra, it was too expensive. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 23:44:52 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: E.S. Just curious: why are some people so strongly against the Esoteric Section? I don't know much about it, except my impression is that it has some strict lifestyle rules and is somewhat secretive. But I recall that my grandmother was a member, and she was a wonderful lady, so I'm wondering what the problem is. Any light you can shed would be appreciated. Don't be shy - I can take it, as long as you're not rude! Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 00:50:50 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Confusion/Chuck In a message dated 99-10-06 15:48:35 EDT, you write: << So, reading up on Sun Tzu's Art of Psychologizing where he says confusion is the natural state of mind of Confucians? G.V.A >> Sortakinda Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:56:17 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re Space hi all, I have not left out everything in this mail, that I might have, because otherwise understanding it would get difficult, in my mind. Katinka: > >>However much relativity claims that space is a finite > thing, I still have trouble believing and understanding it. >> Jerry: > Basically, everything material is limited. Katinka: > >>It reminds me of the very simple explanation why there is > not a number which is the greatest. say that 100000 is the > highest number, one can always add one to it. >> Jerry: > Yes, numbers are infinite, but numbers are not material > objects. Katinka: I was trying to make an analogy from numbers to space. My thought was not that there is an infinite amount of matter. > >>Even with space being curved (which seems to be how it is > explained) I do not see how beyond the curve there isn't > space, even if it is 'empty' space. >> Jerry: > I suspect that beyond our curved space, lies the curved > space of countless other universes. Katinka: And what connects these would be space in my idea. Jerry: > >>Also: the astral seems to me to be linked to the physical. > One does not exist without the other.>> > Why do you think that? The physcial plane is said to > be an expression or manifestation of the astral, and > so yes, you can have astral things without any physical > counterpart. But you can't have anything physical > without its astral counterpart. Katinka: Yes, one can have astral *things* without their physical counterpart (I put that a bit unnuancedly) , but things are limited. My point was that space is (even in the physical sense) infinite, according to my idea's. Though perhaps it is meaningless to talk about physical space. Space is perhaps something abstract, like time, that we can only measure when cutting it up into compartments, or comparing objects IN SPACE to each other. Katinka: > >> Spirit without matter > is an abstraction, according to theosophy (as in HPB and > the Mahatma's). So if physical space is finite, how can > spiritual space be infinite?>> Jerry: > Because physical space is a manifestation of > spiritual space. This discussion is leading me to the thought that there is only one space, which then would pervade all else. Jerry: > Matter and energy are two aspects of the same thing. Katinka: the point being? Jerry: > We don't really know if "empty" space goes on forever. > But we do know that the concept of empty space is > meaningless and that space, per se, is not empty at all. interesting discussion :-) Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:02:42 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Dzog Chen >>Power's book, Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism, is where theosophists should start. Then they should study the difference between lam rim and sudden paths.>> Good suggestion. I am a believer in the sudden path, but only because that is the one that works for me. Early Theosophical writers (I am especially thinking of de Purucker here) were of the gradual school. >.Then, they will have the information base to understand the difference between the Nyingmapa Highest Yoga Tantra, Ati Yoga or Dzog chen, and the rest of the lam rim of graduated path Highest Yoga Tantras.>> As Rich once said, most Theosophists get their Buddhism solely through Blavatsky. >> HPB's Central Asian and western Tibet/Bhutan/Kashmir contacts would have most likely have been Dzog chen. As I posted here over a year ago. >> I said things to this effect back when this list began, but at that time no one knew what I was talking about. >> The Stanzas of Dyzan are identifiably a bad paraphrase (from memory?) of the Central Asian Dzog chen root text that is used by the Kalmucks (with whom HPB had early contact in the Caucasus) and Mongols. Also, that the Stanzas of Dyzan are of Dzog chen origin was stated by the Dalai Lama in 1992.>> OK. >>Although, if Power's is correct that the Bon religion is not really the indigenous pagan religion of Tibet but a reworking of it by an earlier non-Buddhist form of Dzog chen (that also influenced alchemical Taoism), then some things HPB says about the 8th or 9th(?) sphere may indicate she got the pre-Buddhist/pre-Nyingmapa form of Dzog chen. If so, one would naturally find reincarnation into animal form absent as well as the Buddhist doctrines of anatman/sunyata absent, which is what we do find in HPB.>> If true, this would explain much. >>Grigor V. Ananikian (one who spent last 30 years, off/on, in Afghan and Tibetan monasteries of Kalugpa, Nyimapa, and Bon lineages as practitioner of Mahamudra/Dzog chen).<< I am delighted to have someone on this list who understands Tibetan Buddhism. >>P.S. Dzog chen also infiltrated Naqshibandi Sufism of Dagestan, Armenian Zoroastrianism, Uigherian Manichaeaism, and Northern Complete Reality School of Taoism through Liu I-ming. As Chogyal Namkhai Norbu has recently suggested, Dzog chen may reflect a very ancient spiritual path that pre-dates Buddhism and is to be found under a variety of religious guises. G.V.A>> It may, in fact, be the "esoteric tradition" that Blavatsky keeps talking about. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:15:26 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re Physics vs Nature >>Just ponderin' on this fine fall day ... -JRC Great post! The possibility that you present is thought provoking and very likely the case. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:26:11 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Buddhism & Relativity >>But mutual dependence in Buddhism is not Einsteinian relativity. Grigor >> Agreed. Relativity would have space and time depend on mass while Buddhism would have every single "thing" on the physical, astral, and mental planes depend for its existence on other "things." But there is a further analogy, so to speak, in the sense that Relativity has virtually the only independent "thing" as the speed of light while Buddhism has the only independent "thing" as absolute truth (vs relative truth in the two-truths doctrine). Dzog Chen, as I understand it, would have no independent "thing" at all because even independence is a relative (and thus dependent) concept. Jerry S From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:39:48 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: More on Time >>Regardless, time cannot be itself motion, despite physic's convention, for if all motion stopped there would still be the duration of all things stopped.>> According to physics, velocity = mass x time which says that time, mass, and motion are all related together. My thesis is that when mass = 0, then motion = 0, and so time is meaningless (except perhaps to an outside observer). Also, velocity is motion through space, and so this simple equation of physics relates time, space, and mass (alias form) together. It is a mathematical way of saying that all mass must move through time and space. Without some kind of movement, there can be no mass. Physics applys this equation to the physical plane, but there is no real reason why it shouldn't hold on all planes. My thesis also suspects that motion can never be zero for anything in manifestation (i.e, for any aggragate within our 7-plane solar system described by Blavatsky). Aging, for example, is a type of motion all by itself (motion through time is aging, while motion through space is velocity). In short -- everything in existence has motion through either time or space or both. Everything changes... Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 01:44:39 +0200 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: Re: Buddhist Tantra and Theosophy Do you have any source? Frank > Mongols. Also, that the Stanzas of Dyzan are of Dzog chen origin was stated > by the Dalai Lama in 1992. > G.V.A From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:14:05 -0400 From: John E Mead Subject: Women's Freedom and Spiritual Liberation Tour: Tibetan Nuns of Kathmandu hi - FYI --- The Charlotte event is planned for sunday Oct 10 at 4:30pm Unitarian Universalist Church 214 N Sharon Amity, Charlotte, NC it is a fund raiser for the exhiled Tibetan Nuns and their work in India with tibetan refugees from China The web site has locations and events for the entire North American tour. web site is: http://members.tripod.com/~Lhamo/Nuns/index.htm They will in the Raleigh-Durham area for about 10 days. john e. mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:24:41 -0400 From: John E Mead Subject: Re: Women's Freedom and Spiritual Liberation Tour: Tibetan Nuns ofKathmandu sorry -- address was wrong > Unitarian Universalist Church > 234 N Sharon Amity, Charlotte, NC > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 09:31:43 -0400 From: John E Mead Subject: Re: Women's Freedom and Spiritual Liberation Tour: Tibetan Nuns of Kathmandu this is NOT my day... try: The Charlotte event is planned for sunday Oct 24 at 4:30pm Unitarian Universalist Church 234 N Sharon Amity, Charlotte, NC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 06:58:23 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Art Gregory and his "Spirit Guides" Speculation This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01BF1091.5889EE40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Art Gregory and his "Spirit Guides" Speculation Art Gregory (see his email BELOW) keeps insisting that HPB's Masters = were nothing but "spirit guides". Yet when was the last time you saw a "spirit guide" outdoors on a horse? Or a "spirit guide" outdoors in broad daylight or being seen by a group of people not = at a seance? I could multiple the examples. Compare Art's "interpretation" with the actual testimonial evidence. = See http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/paranormal.htm#Appendix and http://www.blavatsky.net/gen/refute/caldwell/johnson1.htm Three examples will suffice for this forum. Col. Olcott wrote: Example 1: "This same Brother once visited me in the flesh at Bombay, coming in = full day light, and on horseback. He had me called by a servant into the = front room of H.P.B.'s bungalow (she being at the time in the other bungalow talking with those who were there). He [Morya] came to scold me roundly = for something I had done in T.S. matters, and as H.P.B. was also to blame, = he telegraphed to her to come, that is to say, he turned his face and = extended his finger in the direction of the place she was in. She came over at = once with a rush, and seeing him dropped to her knees and paid him reverence. = My voice and his had been heard by those in the other bungalow, but only = H.P.B. and I, and the servant saw him." (Extract from a letter written by = Colonel Olcott to A.O. Hume on Sept. 30, 1881. Quoted in Hints On Esoteric Theosophy, No. 1, 1882, p. 80.) Example 2: "Describing a visit to the Golden Temple in Amritsar on 23 October 1880, [Olcott]. . . writes: '...at a shrine where the swords, sharp steel = discs, coats of mail, and other warlike weapons of the Sikh warrior priests are exposed to view in charge of the akalis, I was greeted, to my surprise = and joy, with a loving smile by one of the Masters, who for the moment was figuring among the guardians, and who gave each of us a fresh rose, with = a blessing in his eyes....' [Old Diary Leaves, volume 2, pp. 254-255, 1974 printing.]" Example 3 from the testimony of William T. Brown: "...Lahore has a special interest, because there we saw, in his own = physical body, Mahatma Koot Hoomi himself. On the afternoon of the 19th November [1883], I saw the Master in broad daylight, and recognized him. . . ." Art, in these three cases, do you really believe that these Masters are nothing but "spirit guides"? K. Paul Johnson's "theories" appear more substantial than your "interpretation"!!! You keep insisting that you want us to "put childish things away and = truly embrace Satya, the Truth." You might heed your own words and reconsider whether your own = interpretation of "spirit guides" is nothing but a "childish" explanation of your own making. Art, please look at the DETAILS of the testimonies about the Masters = instead of glossing over them in your attempt to consign these so-called "shadowy beings to the shadows from which they emerged." Hopefully other readers of these emails will first look at the facts and pay less attention to pre-conceived theories such as your spirit guide one. OBTW, Olcott's testimony that you related below did not concern Master KH as you contend. His testimony related to Master M. Again details are important. Daniel Caldwell Art Gregory's original email is below: > From Art Gregory lgregory@discover.net > Subject: Will the real Mahatma please stand up? It is not my purpose to attack the good work of Col. Olcott. His contributions have been made and are historically verifiable = particularly to the Buddhist community. As a man he had shortcomings as all of us = must and history has already judged his efforts as the first President of the Society. Let his memory remain for the positive contributions he made. As for the psychic episodes reported one need but cite the quotation = below in which he wrote of the some twenty times the Master KH was seen in the Astral body. His further remark that he saw the Master KH more than = three or four times "but not under circumstances where it would be evidence = for others," is telling enough for me. Recall that both Olcott and Madame Blavatsky were avid Spiritualists and very familiar with seances and = such phenomena as "spiritual guides." Such guides are commonplace in spiritualist literature and not that unusual. >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. The mistake here is to confuse the "spirit guides" common in = Spiritualism with true in the flesh masters and to give the "spirit guides" a greater place than the verifiable, historical Masters, thus devaluating the very legitimate contributions of historical real Masters. As an example I = will cite the practise of the daily life of the Ashram of Mahatma Gandhi: >Many highly educated persons joined his ashram to learn yoga under him. = They >thought that Gandhiji would teach them yoga in some mysterious manner, = in a >private room. They thought that he would teach them pranayama, = meditation, >awakening of the kundalini, etc. They were asked to clean the latrines >first. >Gandhiji used to mend his own shoes. He himself used to grind the = flour. He >would take upon himself the work of others when they were unable to do = their >allotted portion of work. When an educated person, a new ashramite, = felt shy >to do grinding work, Gandhiji himself would do the work in front of = him. And >then the man would willingly do the work the next day. >Try to do daily as many virtuous actions as possible. When you go to = sleep >have a review of your day's actions. Mark them in your spiritual diary. >Performance of virtuous actions is the beginning of spiritual life. I can cite numerous examples of historically verifiable instances of Masters in the flesh educating humanity and teaching the soul that makes the interaction of KH and Col. Olcott cited by others as mere romantic fantasies compared to true life episodes of instruction and learning. Examples of this can be found in the late life of Leo Tolstoy wherein he adopted the style of life of the serfs and personally educated them to = read and write; The example of Vinobe Bhave who single handedly built a = movement intyhe 1950's of the greatest voluntary contribution of land to the poorest, landless people of India; The above example and the principles = of Mahatma Gandhi in his Satya Agraha movement; The countles and little = known Jaina saints who have lived lives dedicated to total Ahimsa; there are = of course many others. The deeper question to me is as follows: How much longer will = theosophists cling to the phantoms of the distant past on entering the new millenium? Isn't it time to put childish things away and truly embrace Satya, the Truth, that the theosophical movement may once again assume some beacon = of leadership light in the next century? Or will we continue to tell tired old tales to each other, waisting valuable energy and time. I'm for the option of consigning these = spectral missives and shadowy beings to the shadows from which they emerged. Let these past shadowy beings be an interesting historical note in the development of a world movement for truth and let us forge ahead daring = to experiment and daring to question being in the forefront of a new world brotherhood. ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01BF1091.5889EE40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Art Gregory and his "Spirit Guides"=20 Speculation

Art Gregory (see his email BELOW) keeps insisting = that HPB's=20 Masters were
nothing but "spirit guides".  Yet when was the = last
time=20 you saw a "spirit guide" outdoors on a horse?  Or a = "spirit
guide"=20 outdoors in broad daylight or being seen by a group of people not=20 at
a
seance?  I could multiple the examples.

Compare = Art's=20 "interpretation" with the actual testimonial evidence.  See
htt= p://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/paranormal.htm#Appendix
and=20 http:/= /www.blavatsky.net/gen/refute/caldwell/johnson1.htm

Three=20 examples will suffice for this forum.

Col. Olcott = wrote:

Example=20 1:

"This same Brother once visited me in the flesh at Bombay, = coming in=20 full
day light, and on horseback. He had me called by a servant into = the=20 front
room of H.P.B.'s bungalow (she being at the time in the other=20 bungalow
talking with those who were there). He [Morya] came to scold = me=20 roundly for
something I had done in T.S. matters, and as H.P.B. was = also to=20 blame, he
telegraphed to her to come, that is to say, he turned his = face and=20 extended
his finger in the direction of the place she was in. She = came over=20 at once
with a rush, and seeing him dropped to her knees and paid him = reverence. My
voice and his had been heard by those in the other = bungalow,=20 but only H.P.B.
and I, and the servant saw him." (Extract from a = letter=20 written by Colonel
Olcott to A.O. Hume on Sept. 30, 1881. Quoted in = Hints On=20 Esoteric
Theosophy, No. 1, 1882, p. 80.)

Example = 2:

"Describing=20 a visit to the Golden Temple in Amritsar on 23 October = 1880,
[Olcott]. . .=20 writes: '...at a shrine where the swords, sharp steel discs,
coats of = mail,=20 and other warlike weapons of the Sikh warrior priests are
exposed to = view in=20 charge of the akalis, I was greeted, to my surprise and
joy, with a = loving=20 smile by one of the Masters, who for the moment was
figuring among = the=20 guardians, and who gave each of us a fresh rose, with a
blessing in = his=20 eyes....' [Old Diary Leaves, volume 2, pp. 254-255,=20 1974
printing.]"


Example 3 from the testimony of William = T.=20 Brown:

"...Lahore has a special interest, because there we saw, = in his=20 own physical
body, Mahatma Koot Hoomi himself. On the afternoon of = the 19th=20 November
[1883], I saw the Master in broad daylight, and recognized = him. . .=20 ."


Art, in these three cases, do you really believe that=20 these
Masters are nothing but "spirit guides"?

K. Paul = Johnson's=20 "theories" appear more substantial than = your
"interpretation"!!!

You=20 keep insisting that you want us to "put childish things away and=20 truly
embrace Satya, the Truth."

You might heed your own words = and=20 reconsider whether your own interpretation
of "spirit guides" is = nothing but=20 a "childish" explanation of your own
making.

Art, please look = at the=20 DETAILS of the testimonies about the Masters instead
of glossing over = them in=20 your attempt to consign these so-called
"shadowy beings to the = shadows from=20 which they emerged."

Hopefully other readers of these emails will = first=20 look at the facts and
pay less attention to pre-conceived theories = such as=20 your spirit guide
one.

OBTW, Olcott's testimony that you = related below=20 did not concern
Master KH as you contend.  His testimony related = to=20 Master M.  Again
details are important.

Daniel=20 Caldwell

 
Art Gregory's original email is = below:
 
From Art Gregory  lgregory@discover.net
Subjec= t: Will=20 the real Mahatma please stand up?

It is not my purpose to attack = the good=20 work of Col. Olcott. His
contributions have been made and are = historically=20 verifiable particularly
to the Buddhist community. As a man he had=20 shortcomings as all of us must
and history has already judged his = efforts as=20 the first President of the
Society. Let his memory remain for the = positive=20 contributions he made.

As for the psychic episodes reported one = need but=20 cite the quotation below
in which he wrote of the some twenty times = the=20 Master KH was seen in the
Astral body. His further remark that he saw = the=20 Master KH more than three
or four times "but not under circumstances = where it=20 would be evidence for
others," is telling enough for me. Recall that = both=20 Olcott and Madame
Blavatsky were avid Spiritualists and very familiar = with=20 seances and such
phenomena as "spiritual guides." Such guides are = commonplace=20 in
spiritualist literature and not that unusual.


>MR. = MYERS:=20 Have you seen him three or four times in the flesh?

>COLONEL OLCOTT: Yes, more than = that, but=20 not under circumstances where it
>would be evidence for=20 others.

>MR. MYERS: And about how many = times [have=20 you seen him] in the astral body?

>COLONEL OLCOTT: Oh, at least 15 = or 20=20 times.


 The mistake here is to confuse the "spirit = guides"=20 common in Spiritualism
with true in the flesh masters and to give the = "spirit=20 guides" a greater
place than the verifiable, historical Masters, thus = devaluating the very
legitimate contributions of historical real = Masters. As=20 an example I will
cite the practise of the daily life of the Ashram = of=20 Mahatma Gandhi:


>Many highly educated persons joined his = ashram to=20 learn yoga under him. They
>thought that Gandhiji would teach them = yoga in=20 some mysterious manner, in a
>private room. They thought that he = would=20 teach them pranayama, meditation,
>awakening of the kundalini, = etc. They=20 were asked to clean the latrines
>first.

>Gandhiji used to mend his own = shoes. He=20 himself used to grind the flour. He
>would take upon himself the = work of=20 others when they were unable to do their
>allotted portion of = work. When=20 an educated person, a new ashramite, felt shy
>to do grinding = work,=20 Gandhiji himself would do the work in front of him. And
>then the = man=20 would willingly do the work the next day.

>Try to do daily as many = virtuous actions as=20 possible. When you go to sleep
>have a review of your day's = actions. Mark=20 them in your spiritual diary.
>Performance of virtuous actions is = the=20 beginning of spiritual life.

I can cite numerous examples of = historically=20 verifiable instances of
Masters in the flesh educating humanity and = teaching=20 the soul that makes
the interaction of KH and Col. Olcott cited by = others as=20 mere romantic
fantasies compared to true life episodes of instruction = and=20 learning.
Examples of this can be found in the late life of Leo = Tolstoy=20 wherein he
adopted the style of life of the serfs and personally = educated=20 them to read
and write; The example of Vinobe Bhave who single = handedly built=20 a movement
intyhe 1950's of the greatest voluntary contribution of = land to=20 the
poorest, landless people of India; The above example and the = principles=20 of
Mahatma Gandhi in his Satya Agraha movement; The countles and = little=20 known
Jaina saints who have lived lives dedicated to total Ahimsa; = there are=20 of
course many others.

The deeper question to me is as = follows: How=20 much longer will theosophists
cling to the phantoms of the distant = past on=20 entering the new millenium?
Isn't it time to put childish things away = and=20 truly embrace Satya, the
Truth, that the theosophical movement may = once again=20 assume some beacon of
leadership light in the next century?

Or = will we=20 continue to tell tired old tales to each other, waisting
valuable = energy and=20 time. I'm for the option of consigning these spectral
missives and = shadowy=20 beings to the shadows from which they emerged. Let
these past shadowy = beings=20 be an interesting historical note in the
development of a world = movement for=20 truth and let us forge ahead daring to
experiment and daring to = question=20 being in the forefront of a new=20 world
brotherhood.
----------------------------------



















------=_NextPart_000_0038_01BF1091.5889EE40-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 08:23:56 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Stanzas of Dyzan: Of a Dzog chen Origin? This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0092_01BF109D.4C71CEA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Grigor V. Ananikian wrote: "HPB's Central Asian and western=20 Tibet/Bhutan/Kashmir contacts would have most likely have been Dzog = chen. As=20 I posted here over a year ago. The Stanzas of Dyzan are identifiably a = bad=20 paraphrase (from memory?) of the Central Asian Dzog chen root text that = is=20 used by the Kalmucks (with whom HPB had early contact in the Caucasus) = and=20 Mongols. Also, that the Stanzas of Dyzan are of Dzog chen origin was = stated=20 by the Dalai Lama in 1992." Grigor, what you write is quite interesting. But could you expand on = this somewhat so that those of us interested might pursue this for ourselves. What is this Dzog chen root text that you refer to? Can you give us some references for the text? Is there a translation of it into = English? Again can you tell us your source for the Dalai Lama's statement? Thanks. Daniel ------=_NextPart_000_0092_01BF109D.4C71CEA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Grigor V. Ananikian wrote:
 
"HPB's Central Asian and western=20
Tibet/Bhutan/Kashmir contacts would have most likely have been Dzog=20 chen.  As
I posted here over a year ago.  The Stanzas of = Dyzan are=20 identifiably a bad
paraphrase (from memory?) of the Central Asian = Dzog chen=20 root text that is
used by the Kalmucks (with whom HPB had early = contact in=20 the Caucasus) and
Mongols.  Also, that the Stanzas of Dyzan are = of Dzog=20 chen origin was stated
by the Dalai Lama in 1992."
 
Grigor, what you write is quite = interesting. =20 But could you expand on this
somewhat so that those of us interested = might=20 pursue this for ourselves.
 
What is this Dzog chen root text that = you refer=20 to?  Can you give us
some references for the text?  Is = there a=20 translation of it into English?
 
Again can you tell us your source for = the Dalai=20 Lama's statement?
 
Thanks.
 
Daniel
 


 
------=_NextPart_000_0092_01BF109D.4C71CEA0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 18:02:47 -0700 (PDT) From: alice chee Subject: Re: Women's Freedom and Spiritual Liberation Tour: Tibetan Nuns of Kathmandu Hi John Poor u, what's on your mind. :-} --- John E Mead wrote: > this is NOT my day... > try: > > > The Charlotte event is planned for sunday Oct 24 at 4:30pm > Unitarian Universalist Church > 234 N Sharon Amity, Charlotte, NC > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: alicechee@yahoo.com > List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 00:22:55 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 05, 1999 Katinka wrote (responding to Bart's post): > By the way, I had the impression Kym was from the US, You're right, I am from the US. I have no idea why Bart implied that I wasn't; I can't believe, after a couple years of exchanges, he doesn't know where I 'm from. Bart may just be getting senile or something. The only other thing I can think of is that the state of Idaho is so embarrassing to the US that many would prefer it to be another country. I can understand that, except that in doing so, we are grossly insulting other countries. > But I do not know why I am writing this, I should let Kym > fight her own battles. I appreciate you acknowledging my independence, but, if I start to go down and become pitiful, please feel free to step in. However, if you find you agree with the other person. . .hmmm. . well, I'm stumped there. :-) Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 00:26:40 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 06, 1999 >Well, I will make no personal observations there. So, in spirit of >exchange on this topic, you know why the Titanic has never been >raised? > >At $6-9 dollars a pound for Viagra, it was too expensive. > >Grigor Uh, I don't get it. I mean, aren't ships and boats referred to, by captain and crew, as "she?" But, I'm all for penis humor. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 01:12:37 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: E.S. Christine wrote: >Just curious: why are some people so strongly against the Esoteric Section? >I don't know much about it, except my impression is that it has some strict >lifestyle rules and is somewhat secretive. I can't help you much here as I have no experience with the ES. However, from what I've gleaned from posts about it, it appears many consider it a form of "fundamentalist" theosophy, with grand arrogance to boot. But that's just a thought off the top of my head. What scares me the most in Theosophy is the ULT. Just reading the ULT webpage was enough to make me get up and bolt my doors. >But I recall that my grandmother >was a member, and she was a wonderful lady, so I'm wondering what the problem >is. I'm curious. Did your grandmother ever mention her awareness that other Theosophists treated or thought of her, or the ES in general, as yucky? What was her take on the obvious divisions between branches of Theosophy? >Any light you can shed would be appreciated. Don't be shy - I can take >it, as long as you're not rude! Sorry, my guidance light in this area is pretty dim; watch your step! As far as being "rude" on this list - well, for some of us, the definition of rude is ambiguous. Some people just naturally come across "rude" when writing - that's a downside of e-mail, one can't monitor facial or other physical gestures. I am forced to be a bit more tolerant of "rude" persons as I have been known to cross that boundary way too frequently myself. I've never observed you being rude, though; I wonder how you do it actually. The temptation on this list to be so is often overwhelming. That being said, I must say I have personally found that, both in writing and in society, a female often has to engage in aggressive or "rude" behavior in order for many men to stop and pay attention. If a female, or even a male, seems "nice" or "compliant," she/he is easily ignored or dismissed, or even thought of as "dumb." It is a cultural reflection. "Threatening behavior" gets one noticed; "peaceable behavior" blends one into the woodwork. The gentle and sensitive humans among us pay the highest price for this sad fact; competition is paramount, both on this list and in life. I hope, as societies evolve, this will cease to be the case, but for present day, as my own grandmother used to say, "the squeaky wheel gets the oil." Humans. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 19:00:17 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: TS organizations today In 1875 when TS was launched, world conditions were very different. Primarily transportation and communication was difficult at best. While TS was launched as an organization for the encompassing the whole world - Universal Brotherhood, it had to be organized within in geographical boundaries due to political and linguistic reasons including the need to have people meet and interact in various cities within each country. So this in turn lead to amassing of real estate wealth due to donors who thought their generosity will further the progress of Theosophy. This in turn degenerated into local politicking that always follows money and the desire to control the congregation by one technique or the other. This has ultimately led to the organizations end up being lead by greying leadership. Considering the fact that all major advancements in the world has been led by young men and women and not by greying leadership. All one needs is to refresh one readings in history. So we seem to be at a stage where the organizations as they are now have no where else to go but South. In today's world, the current transportation and communication technology coupled with the entire world getting used to use English as a general medium of communication one can think in terms of the entire world not in terms of a particular country or nation with its geographical and political boundaries. So there appears to be no reason for any theosophical purpose for organizations organized on geographical or political boundaries; and as a matter of fact such artificial organizations are fast giving way to transnational worldwide approach. All this is furthered primarily due to what Internet is able to do. One is now able to "organize" internationally and be active round the clock round the year. We can all communicate on equal footing with no national or political boundaries and this is taking place everyday on this forum and others. With the above scenario, we can see in a couple of years, all the traditionally organized theosophical organizations by passed by serious students who are interested in theosophy and not in theosophical politics, even though some may feel being immersed in theosophical politics they are furthering the interests of theosophy. Any thoughts? Mkr PS: the above reasoning may suggest one of the possible reasons why the elected officials at national and international levels (and their followers) have kept away from maillists such as these whether on their own or due to being influenced by the leadership above it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 01:31:32 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: E.S. > Humans. > > > Kym > I did hear that some E.S. Members are humans. Seriously (to Christine) some of us have seen to much *hidden* interference in TS local affairs from E.S. members. This may not have been a problem in Grandmother's day. My grandmother knew nothing of wither the TS or the ES. Guinness and gin, yes. Love ya, Kym! Alan :-) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 01:42:04 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: TS organizations today > we can see in a couple of years, all the > traditionally organized theosophical organizations by passed by serious > students who are interested in theosophy and not in theosophical politics, > even though some may feel being immersed in theosophical politics they are > furthering the interests of theosophy. > > Any thoughts? > > Mkr > Yes. all the traditionally organized theosophical organizations *are* by passed by most serious students who are interested in theosophy and not in theosophical politics. This began even before the Internet tool off, and will continue until the greys turn white and finally into ashes. I expect we are all doomed - doomed, I say! [except Chuck, who does his own dooming] Alan the Grey Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 21:45:33 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: nameless faceless people In a message dated 9/19/1999 12:02:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << 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." >> Just had to comment that what attracted me to T.S. in the first place was my grandmother, who never waved banners about her membership. She simply was about the only person capable of communicating with me in a deep way about my spiritual experiences, mostly through letters (she lived far away), and I responded to that, and she sent me books, and I asked questions, and one thing led to another, and that's why I'm a member, really. I found a great feeling of peace and truth in reading the books she sent, and loved my visit to Ojai (Krotona). I was impressed that she never proselytized or preached, but simply shared "that's how it seems to me" information, for me to agree or disagree with as I saw fit. In fact, she bent over backwards *not* to try to persuade me in any particular direction, probably mainly because my parents would have had a fit and she desired not to cause any trouble in the family. She also told me that many people will agree with the *ideas* of theosophy, but once you put a label on it, they get nervous. (Kind of like vegetarian food...) My grandmother was anything but nameless, faceless, or bland - what she did have was a marvelous sense of judgment and dignity, which informed her choices about what to reveal of herself and what was better left for some other time. Her wonderful housemate and dear friend, who was at Grandmother's bedside when she died, said that she read aloud my last letter to Grandmother; in it, I told her that I had joined the T.S. My grandmother reportedly said, "Tell Christine I am thrilled." And those were her last words to me. Amazing to me that I felt a sudden urgency to join about two weeks earlier, and a need to tell her that I had joined, even though I had been "flirting" with the idea for years. Just felt like sharing. Would be interested to hear others' stories about how they first heard about theosophy, or what attracted them to T.S. in the first place. Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 18:27:42 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: More on Space >>Jerry: >> I suspect that beyond our curved space, lies the curved >> space of countless other universes. >> >>Katinka: >>And what connects these would be space in my idea. I seem to keep losing you. What I have been trying to say is that space goes with time and form as a tri-group that depends on each other for existence. We can sort of image space all by itself as an infinite empty nothingness, but this is only our imagination. Its rather like imaging a self or subject without any not-self or object. Subjective consciousness has to have an objective external "world" or else it loses meaning. Beauty only means something to us when we compare it to ugliness, and so on for all polar opposits. The only connection between universes is consciousness, not space. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 18:29:05 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re: Space >>Space is perhaps something abstract, like time, that we can only measure when cutting it up into compartments, or comparing objects IN SPACE to each other. Katinka:>> Thats pretty much how I see it. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 18:30:43 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re: Space >>Jerry: >>> Matter and energy are two aspects of the same thing. >> >>Katinka: >>the point being? Simply that in much the wsame way, space, time, and form are aspects of the same thing. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 19:03:20 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Response to Doss >>With the above scenario, we can see in a couple of years, all the traditionally organized theosophical organizations by passed by serious students who are interested in theosophy and not in theosophical politics, even though some may feel being immersed in theosophical politics they are furthering the interests of theosophy. Any thoughts?>> What is your definition of "serious students?" I consider myself a serious student, and have never been bothered by politics at all. I agree that a few "serious students" are leaving because of politics. Most, I fear, are leaving because of the current read-study-in- this-life-so-you will-better-your-chances-in-the-next is what is turning folks off (it certainly turns me off). The bottom-line message of Christianity is to be ethical in this life and you will be rewarded in the hereafter. Pray tell me whats the difference? HPB's Theosophical Movement is now just another religion. I have, so far, ignored the silly warnings about the dangers of psychism and what not, and long ago struck out on my own path of yoga, meditation, and development. I have stuck by Theosophy, largely out of gratitude for the initial help I received, but not for much else. In ancient times, and I suppose in the East, when a student learns all that the Master can teach, that student becomes a Master in turn and carrys on the work. This can't happen in any of the TSs today because of the absolute fear of anything said that is not engraved in stone by HPB, etc. New thoughts and new views, and largely even new words for the same ideas are ignored or shunned. Any Theosophical Master or Leader today HAS to teach exactly what HPB did, and nothing more. While this has the advantage of maintaining purity, it also has the disadvantage of ensuring stagnation. I don't know what the answer to this problem is, but if it is not solved soon, the Theosophical Movement will doubtless become a footnote in history. Case in point: When I try to discuss some Buddhist teachings that I learned from Buddhist Masters, I get a lot of flack from Theosophists who know only what HPB taught. HPB taught a lot, and for her day it was a significant accomplishment. But today we have Buddhist Masters themselves talking, and we have modern translations of the old Masters, and when they disagree or go beyond what Blavatsky wrote, to flame them and quote Blatvatsky instead is rather narrow-minded (faithful, but narrow-minded nonetheless). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 19:01:03 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Dzog chen and HPB Dear Sirs, I have tried to answer questions. I may have missed some. Much of my knowledge is autobiographical but sources on Dzog chen that suggest it Persian origin are easily found. There are many overlapping questions from various posts that I thought a single response to all of them might be more useful and clear (in that there would be one post to refer to instead of three or four). I have a number of relatively independent lines of research that I offer as evidence that the core of HPB's esoteric tradition is a non-Buddhist form of Dzog chen. First, Dzog chen is found throughout Central Asia and not always in Buddhist form. Lets mention a few groups that most westerners know nothing about. There are Armenian Zoroastrians, Arewordi, that have an inner way that is recognizably Dzog chen (more on that later although see straight dope on tantra too). There is the bardic brotherhood of the Asholkhs (Gurdjieff says his father was one - independent confirmation of their existence can be obtained from anyone from Armenia or Georgia or from the travel account of the Caucasus published in German in 1930 by Essad-Bey, titled, Zwolf Geheimnisse in Kaukasus. Deutsch-Schweizerische Verlagsanstalt (Eigenbrodler-Verlag, A.G.) Berlin-Zurich. The Asholkhi religion is said to be a very ancient Jewish-Zoroastrian syncretism that later took on a Christian overlay for much the same reasons that there arose "marrano" Jews in Spain. So, their beliefs reflect things found in the Talmud and HPB's writings: reincarnation, astral zombies, that this world has been re-made over and over with many different races that are eventually destroyed. The Asholkhs are bards of the Caucasus that orally preserve things like the Epic of Gilgamesh, some lost Zoroastrian Nasks, old Hittite stories, and they recite, in Persian, Armenian, or Khutsuri, the Dzhvari littiya which is a recognizable selection from what in Tibet is called the Kanjur collection of Shensrab (Dzog chen). But they claim that this Dzhvari littiya collection is from a time before there were Buddhists and that the Buddhist forms of it are derived from the very ancient "bhaudha svastika teachings" (this is interesting since HPB uses the backward swastika and says she and Olcott were not speaking of Buddhism but of a northern school of Bodhism. This is interesting because the Iranian name in Afghanistan for the Bon is the Bodhi religion, represented by a swastika, and the inner third degree teaching of the Bon religion is Dzog chen which is also called "svastika Bon" or g.yung drung bon) Then there are the Ossets. Their religion looks like a syncretism of shamanism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism. But their Buddhism is not Buddhism but something closer to Bon with Iranian names. Their spiritual tradition is Dzog chen. They claim to be the Tajiks from which Shenrab gave Dzog chen to the Mustang region of western Tibet/Nepal. Finally, a group that we know HPB knew and had ties with, is the Kalmucks. They are Buddhists. Their scriptures are Kanjur. Their elite spirituality is Dzog chen and what in Tibet is called the "gradual path" or lam rim is just the normal path of those who do not undertake the spiritual path. Then there are two "schools" within Persian and Central Asian Islam that have a marked Dzog chen element from what source I don't know. Suhrawardi says his sources were the secret teachings of Zoroastrianism and the tradition of "tasted light" (dhawq i nur? - my Arab sucks, or bod - the last is Persian for light and consciousness). His school becomes the Ishraqi school. It is a sudden-path form of "Sufism" (if one is loose about that word) that experientially feels and develops like Dzog chen practice although I am unaware of any textual links. Then there is the Naqshibandhis. Within that order, there is a Dzog chen lineage which extends from the Caucasus (Dagestani Naqshibandhiyyi) to the outer edges of Mongolia or western edge of the Takan Maklan (where there is the Oman monastery or tekkia right on the Chinese, Tibetan, and Afghanistan borders, where the Kun Lun, Himilayan, and Tien Shah ranges meet, and where the Amu Darya begins, which has Kanjur (Shensrab) Dzog chen texts in Persian and Aramaic which are said to be older than the Tibetan and Buddhist texts they were allegedly "translated" from. Given the fact that at the Turfan oasis, which is sort of northeast and in the Tarim Basin "straight down" from the mountains where the Oman monastery is, we find older Kushan and Khotanese Buddhist texts in Iranian dialects (Kushan and Saka) and Aramaic being translated into Tibetan and Chinese (see Emmerich, Snellgrove, and Rudolph), and given the intense patriotic (identity tied to the stories of who one is as part of this people) conservatism of oral traditions throughout the region in terms of family history, teaching lineages, migrations, whose well is whose, and so on., I am inclined to believe these groups, especially since they share the same story, that Dzog chen was originally a Persian teaching, and that, the Bon and Buddhist forms of it, respectively, are younger and derivative diffusions of it. Bon certainly has a Zoroastrian myth of a good high god whose two twin sons are good and evil battling it out, destroying the harmony of the spheres, creating winters and deserts, destruction of continents, polar reversals, and so on. In fact, in some places, Dzog chen and Kalachakra are combined within this Zoroastrian framework. This may be why HPB spent so much time in Persia, the Caucasus, and not only in the outskirts of Tibet. Because the complete and original form of this teaching is in Central Asia, and not, in Tibet. And it may be why she seems to have only been in the outskirts of Tibet instead of Lhasa. Because Bon is on the eastern (not after Communists) and western, especially Mustang, regions of Tibet and not the central basin. If Dzog chen is her esoteric source, questions arise about TS. First, in Central Asia, the gradual approach is tantamount to the ordinary life of gradual evolution through repeated lives. Any accelerated undertaking, that is "religious life" itself as an actual path to undertake, is Dzog chen. By contrast, Tibetan Buddhism "tolerantly" says both are two spiritual paths. So, one wonders what early ES would have been like since (given my ignorance of early TS history) I know of it in the post-Leadbeater days and it would be, contrary to the Central Asian perspective, lam rim. But lam rim would just be exoteric life as part of evolutionary cycle. I don't know answer here. Second, although a Besant/Leadbeater royal screw-up, Krishnamurti impresses me as something like an accidental Dzog chen prodigy, or in any event, a phenomenon superior to his alleged causes (Besant/Leadbeater - unless one argues seriously the lotus grows well from shit). I don't know but his teaching seems to be attempt to communicate the way of Dzog chen without being able to trigger that state in others in first place. He can describe but he can not initiate. As far as when and where Dalai Lama said Stanzas of Dzyan were Dzog chen, I can not exactly recall. Maybe later. I know of others mentioning it. So ask around. He said they were culled from the Kanjur collection. Now for those of you who asked about Gelukba sources, each school is not exclusive in practices. Gelukba has both Dzog chen and lam rim practices. But it teaches the Madhyamaka (Madhyamika is adjectival form) and anatman doctrines. The Bon and Central Asia versions don't - just as HPB doesn't. Bon and Central Asian forms of Dzog chen have cosmology of ages, races, and cataclysms that Tibetan Buddhist Dzog chen does not have but HPB does. So, I think HPB's real Tibetan sources weren't Buddhist but Bon. And Panchen Lama is known for ties to Bon. Grigor Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 19:44:23 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Dzog chen and HPB/ps PS. Hello, I have more considerations but will give them later. For example, there is a distinctive motif in Dzog chen scriptures that set them apart from other Buddhist scriptures. This motif is found in Stanzas of Dzyan. Read them. I post on this later. I have life better than being keyboard slave. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 19:54:23 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: The Book of Dzyan Research Reports by David Reigle on BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm NOW AVAILABLE --- WEB EDITIONS OF FOUR ARTICLES BY DAVID REIGLE "The Book of Dzyan Research Reports" by David Reigle The Book of Dzyan is the name given by H.P. Blavatsky to the secret source of the stanzas given in her book "The Secret Doctrine." David Reigle's research on the Book of Dzyan attempts to trace its ideas to known sources. Four of his articles on this subject are now available through Blavatsky Archives Online. Information is also given on how to order Reigle's new work "Blavatsky's Secret Books" published by Wizards Bookshelf. Daniel H. Caldwell BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 13:39:47 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Never Published Before ---- Koot Hoomi Letter to Gustav Gebhard This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF1324.EB749620 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm Just Published! A Letter from Mahatma Koot Hoomi to Gustav Gebhard. This letter from the Master K.H. was received August 25, 1884 in the = house of Gustav and Mary Gebhard of Elberfeld, Germany. It was addressed to Mr. Gebhard. This letter has never been published before. Daniel H. Caldwell BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF1324.EB749620 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE
http://sites.nets= cape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm
 
Just Published!  A Letter = from=20 Mahatma Koot Hoomi  to Gustav Gebhard.
This letter from the = Master K.H.=20 was received August 25, 1884 in the house of
Gustav and Mary Gebhard of Elberfeld, Germany. It = was=20 addressed to Mr.
Gebhard. This letter has never been published=20 before.
 
 
Daniel H. Caldwell
 
 
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE
http://sites.nets= cape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm
 
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF1324.EB749620-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 18:44:23 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Theos-World TS organizations today At 04:37 PM 10/09/1999 +0200, Frank Reitemeyer wrote: >I am sure in one or two decades the Theosophical Movement is quite different >to look than it was before the Internet time. The Internet is the upadhi for >all Theosophists world wide and outdated Adyar and Pasadena may die. No one >will miss them. THERE IS NO TS HIGHER THAN TRUTH. > >Frank Well said, Frank. In just a couple of years, Internet has already broken through in three fundamental ways. First it has internationalize those whose interest lies in Theosophy. Second it has broken the walls that has always kept TS organization from each other. Third it has made organizations less necessary for anyone interested in Theosophy. In Internationalizing theosophy and almost all other activities on Internet, all artificial national, ethnic, religious, regional has been relegated to the background. Unless one is willing to disclosed one's background, no one will know anything about you except for your views expressed on mail lists or news groups. That makes communication between human beings on an even plane thus reduces distortions that take place in communication due to biases and preconceived stereotyping. For the last 100 years, while several organizations have been trying to spread Theosophy in their own way and as they see it, organizations rarely had interacted with each other even though all of them are working towards the same goal. See what is happening today. While the organizational leadership continue on the same track as in the past, the ordinary members/nonmembers talk to each other because of Internet. While I may belong to an organization or none, if I am visiting another city and is able to visit with another organization or a member of that organization I have met on these groups, I am sure I would be welcomed and both would be free to one on one communicate with each other as two human beings interested in theosophy. In order that we discuss on theosophical matters or even personally meet when it is physically possible, it can be done with Internet. Organizations become less and less a necessity for a serious student of theosophy who is in search of Truth and not positions and titles which look impressive to a man/woman of the world. Theosophy has been there from time immemorial. Organizations, being creations of human beings have to come and go, and the natural progression of growth will find new organizations when the old one's have served their purpose and are no longer useful to the world. One indication of latter declining stage of life of all entities is the lack of vigorous life energy and lack of adaptation to present ideas in a creative manner suited to the changing world conditions. Looking back, historically when great changes to the humanity has taken place, it has always been by young and middle age leadership who should great creativity and energy. Lord Buddha was enlightened when he was in the prime of life. Shri Shankaracharya, the greatest reformer of Hinduism, who also was responsible for setting up a religious infra structure which prevented India becoming an Anglican nation after British Colonized India, was just 16 when he started on his mission and died when he was 32. Lord Jesus was in his early 30s when he started delivering his message to the world. Jiddu Krishnamurti was just 32 when he made his famous "Truth is a Pathless Land" and disbanded all organizations of which he was the head or was set up for the Coming of the World Teacher. Both Olcott and HPB were in their prime of life when they took on the job of launching TS. Judge was in his early 20s. The Keightly brothers who helped HPB in SD were young men in their mid 20s. So age may help one become worldly wise (and learn are the tricks one plays to get on in worldly matters), past track record does show that all pioneers are young and did their work full time and not part-time. So looking around the organizations, all one see is older generation sitting tight on leadership positions and have created legal and other impediments for any younger person to take up the leadership and blaze a trail in furtherance of the welfare of the world. So nature has no other choice but to bypass the current organizations and let them pass into obscurity slowly but surely. It would be interesting to revisit the state of affairs say 10 years from now. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:13:15 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Theos-World TS organizations today In a message dated 10/10/99 6:45:18 PM Central Daylight Time, RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM writes: > >I am sure in one or two decades the Theosophical Movement is quite different > >to look than it was before the Internet time. The Internet is the upadhi > for > >all Theosophists world wide and outdated Adyar and Pasadena may die. No one > >will miss them. THERE IS NO TS HIGHER THAN TRUTH. > > > >Frank > > Well said, Frank. > > Not so well said, I suggest. Upadesha is person to person contact in flesh. There is a force to be communicated thereby that this forum cannot touch. There is a certain quality of force in the personal presence/aura. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 02:23:06 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Theos-World TS organizations today ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Monday, October 11, 1999 2:13 AM > Subject: Re: Theos-World TS organizations today > In a message dated 10/10/99 6:45:18 PM Central Daylight Time, > RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM writes: > > > >I am sure in one or two decades the Theosophical Movement is quite > > > different to look than it was before the Internet time. The Internet is the upadhi > > >for all Theosophists world wide and outdated Adyar and Pasadena may die. No > > >one will miss them. THERE IS NO TS HIGHER THAN TRUTH. > > > > > >Frank > > > > Well said, Frank. > > > > > Not so well said, I suggest. Upadesha is person to person contact in flesh. > There is a force to be communicated thereby that this forum cannot touch. There is > a certain quality of force in the personal presence/aura. > > Grigor > I agree. Much "head" learning can be done by Internet study, but only by being in the presence of a teacher can The Teaching - by whatever name - be truly communicated. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:48:43 -0700 From: "Philalethes" Subject: Re: Buddhist Tantra and Theosophy In other words, theosophy is nothing more than warmed-over Buddhism - a rehash for Western consumption. Seeing how many of the early theosophists were formally inducted into Buddhism (HSO, CWL, etc.)and the fact that the TS had a Buddhist Lodge in London (Humphreys), this all makes sense. philalethes Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 00:24:29 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 08, 1999 In a message dated 10/9/1999 12:22:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << serious students who are interested in theosophy and not in theosophical politics. >> and < Subject: Reborn in animal form Mika wrote: > Is there buddhists that do NOT believe that humans may reborn as > animals?? HPB was a Buddhist and she believed that it is very rare for humans to be reborn as animals. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:42:42 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: In support of theosophy > In a message dated 10/5/99 2:53:09 AM Central Daylight Time, > hesse600@tem.nhl.nl writes: > > > Even if the specific Mahatma's that wrote or precipitated > > or mentally dictated the Mahatma Letters are dead, and > > after a century I would think that they are... still it > > seems to me that if they existed, there must now be people > > who replace them and their function in humanity. Grigor wrote: > I think one of the "fictions" of HPB to protect their identity (ala Johnson) > was to convey they were part of a single group rather than a federation > of leaders from different brotherhoods. I know for a fact that some Tulkus, > Naqshibandi Shaiykhs, and leaders of other lesser known Central Asia > "brotherhoods," like the ishraqiyya, the shaiykhi school, and the asholki > meet from time to time in a way the functions like a great white lodge > but the idea of there being such a thing, I think, is window dressing. > So, the descendent lineage-holders of whoever the mahatmas were may in fact > be communicating today but not as "mahatmas of the TS." I agree with the last bit, at least: the white brotherhood must of course be involved with the whole of humanity. So their relation with the TS had a goal which may very well be over. I think them being human means they are probably in correspondance with people. And the amount of spiritual teachers in the world today suggests it would be pretty safe for them to claim to be such, without getting into all kinds of trouble, so they are probably in correspondance with people, also about spiritual subjects. As to the white brotherhood itself. All spiritual leaders having the same goal, and being telepatically-gifted, probably means they work together in some form or other, whether meeting on the physical plane or not. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:53:42 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Mahatma's > In a message dated 10/5/99 3:05:05 AM Central Daylight Time, > hesse600@tem.nhl.nl writes: > > > Ergo, a) The writers were not mahatmas, or b) mahatmas are not all they > > > are cracked up to be, or c) they were written by someone else (singular > > > or plural). > > I think they were simply not all they were cracked up to > > be (in fact they said so). Grigor wrote: > Again, I think people have too much of a high exalted view of the > mahatmas. Even mahatmas are fallible. In order to make it a bit more clear what I do and don't think about Mahatma's I will summarize my views for you: I will start with the bottom rung of the ladder. In my opinion a lay-chela is anyone of us: a person studying theosophy, philosophy, psychology or LIFE and trying to live the best way they can, but still very often selfish, often ignorant of pain (in others) and turning away from helping an outcast for social reasons. (why do people get harassed emotionally or sexually in the workplace? -> people avoid helping each other, for fear of the group and the Power that be) The lay-chela is therefore a normal person who differs from the rest of humanity only in that he/she tries to be better. There are obviously very many of these. The chela is more devoted to truth and justice. Those concerns have become a central part of their being. He/She will try actively to remedy small or bigger wrongs in his/her environment, regardless of social or economical consequences (not without reason though). THeir eyes are ever on the alert - is it neccessary for me to step in and help at this moment? Chela's have had many of their unconscious motivations, dreams and fears brought to the surface of their consciousness and in dealing with them has been able not to totally succumb: has not become insane or a thief for instance. The Mahatma still has personal defects, his/her divine self is not always in control of what he/she does, but the maya's of emotions and fears do not control his words and actions. So, my idea is not at all that the Mahatma's are infallible, the idea is that they are closer to their divine self and less guided by the delusions of emotions. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:57:09 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Confusion > In a message dated 10/6/99 11:56:49 AM Central Daylight Time, jrc@texas.net > writes: > > > Yep ... just read something by Richard Dawkins (the evolutionary biologist) > > that was viscously funny about the many new age books that mangle eastern > > mysticism with modern physics Grigor writes: > There is one very very good physicist in Canada who can do this. He is Indian > who is Brahmin, trained in Vedanta, and a physicist. He knows how to compare. > his nickname for Capra is Crapa. He is Ravi Ravindra. Katinka: Unfortunately (?) he does not talk about quantum mechanics much. He prefers the Bhagavad Gita, the Bible and Patanjali's Yoga Sutra's. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:09:40 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: adresses > Katinka wrote (responding to Bart's post): > > > By the way, I had the impression Kym was from the US, Kym: > You're right, I am from the US. I have no idea why Bart implied that I wasn't; I > can't believe, after a couple years of exchanges, he doesn't know where I 'm from. > Bart may just be getting senile or something. > The only other thing I can think of is that the state of Idaho is so embarrassing to > the US that many would prefer it to be another country. I can understand that, > except that in doing so, we are grossly insulting other countries. > > > But I do not know why I am writing this, I should let Kym > > fight her own battles. Kym: > I appreciate you acknowledging my independence, but, if I start to go down and > become pitiful, please feel free to step in. However, if you find you agree with > the other person. . .hmmm. . well, I'm stumped there. :-) By the way, I am from Holland, for anyone who had not figured it out yet. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:18:25 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: More on Space > >>Jerry: > >> I suspect that beyond our curved space, lies the curved > >> space of countless other universes. > >> > >>Katinka: > >>And what connects these would be space in my idea. Jerry: > I seem to keep losing you. Yes, we do seem to talk at different *wavelengths* or something, to put it new-agey. > What I have been trying to say > is that space goes with time and form as a tri-group that > depends on each other for existence. We can sort of > image space all by itself as an infinite empty nothingness, > but this is only our imagination. Katinka: Yes, you certainly do (lose me I mean) what on earthe is a tri-group? And how are we going to think anything about infinity, if not by using our imaginations? > Its rather like imaging a self or subject without any > not-self or object. Subjective consciousness has to > have an objective external "world" or else it loses > meaning. Loses meaning for you and physics, clearly not for me. > Beauty only means something to us when we compare > it to ugliness, and so on for all polar opposits. > The only connection between universes is consciousness, > not space. Depends on your definition of space or consciousness, I suppose. I would think that there is a lot of unconsciousness in the *space* between universes. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:13:56 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Confusion In a message dated 99-10-11 04:57:24 EDT, you write: << Unfortunately (?) he does not talk about quantum mechanics much. >> An heartfelt chorus arises from the peanut gallery: "ALLAH BE PRAISED!!!!" Ravi is a learned man, but he is so deadly dull as a speaker that the last time he spoke at Olcott one of the Mahatmas was flying over while listening to him, fell asleep and crashed his flying carpet into the sacred and holy labyrinth. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:21:07 -0700 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Confusion > Ravi is a learned man, but he is so deadly dull as a speaker that the last > time he spoke at Olcott one of the Mahatmas was flying over while listening > to him, fell asleep and crashed his flying carpet into the sacred and holy > labyrinth. Hey Chuck, be coooool! That maze is the perfect operative metaphor for the current TS! Bunch of people walking slowly in circles in a maze ... believing that this somehow has something to do with being "spiritual" and serving humanity. Yeesh - I can only imagine Helena "The Body" Blavatsky's reaction to *that* piece of sublimated spiritual narcissism. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:12:26 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Theosophical Flames Alive & Well >>Adyar never told us officially the truth about Leadbeater and Besant, and Pasadena never told us officially the truth about the black magician Conger, who declared himself as envoy of the Masters forcing the members to belief this blindly...>> Frank, you have a real problem with history. Hope your karma brings you around some day. Wow. Such compassion, forgiveness, and understanding here... sad sad sad (its was exactly this kind of hateful attitude that Conger faught against) Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 11:08:22 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Confusion In a message dated 99-10-11 08:23:10 EDT, you write: << Hey Chuck, be coooool! That maze is the perfect operative metaphor for the current TS! Bunch of people walking slowly in circles in a maze ... believing that this somehow has something to do with being "spiritual" and serving humanity. Yeesh - I can only imagine Helena "The Body" Blavatsky's reaction to *that* piece of sublimated spiritual narcissism. >> So can I. "FLAPDOODLE!!!!!!" Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:22:17 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: In support of theosophy hesse600 wrote: > > > Anyhow, the rules about homosexuals etc. were not made in > > > HPB's time, so why presume the Mahatma's had anything to do > > > with it? > > > Radha Burnier, head of the Esoteric Section, is STRONGLY against > > homosexuality. > > SO WHAT? That may just be Indian prejudice speaking. Are > you presuming she is personally in contact with the > Mahatma's and therefore infallible? No. My statement is significant because she has the power to unilaterally dissolve any national section, or any section of the ES. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:33:52 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: hi Bart I admit it; I screwed up. I have no idea why I thought at the time I wrote the message that Kym came from a non-English speaking country (perhaps I was thinking of you instead of Kym). Bart Lidofsky hesse600 wrote: > By the way, I had the impression Kym was from the US, so > her English should be all right, my own is not always such, > because I am from that country where the English literacy > is high, I suppose. So I think you got us mixed up. > But I do not know why I am writing this, I should let Kym > fight her own battles. > Katinka > ---------------------- > NHL Leeuwarden > hesse600@tem.nhl.nl > > --- > 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: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:55:02 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: E.S. Cybercmh@aol.com wrote: > > Just curious: why are some people so strongly against the Esoteric Section? > I don't know much about it, except my impression is that it has some strict > lifestyle rules and is somewhat secretive. But I recall that my grandmother > was a member, and she was a wonderful lady, so I'm wondering what the problem > is. Any light you can shed would be appreciated. Don't be shy - I can take > it, as long as you're not rude! There are a lot of wonderful, dedicated people in the Esoteric Section. But the E.S. also is an attractant for those who wish to consider themselves "more equal than others", so to speak. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:27:50 +0200 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: Re: Theosophical Flames Alive & Well You don't need to care for my karma, think of your own - that's enough. BTW, where was that compassion, forgiveness and understanding when Conger and your friend Long canceled the memberships of the personal pupils of Katherine Tingley and G. de Purucker? As your are a fan of psychology of the book science it is not much surprising that people like you always pray of compassion with the doers and not with the victims. Conger kicked the old Point Loma students out because they knew too much for his plans to dissolute the TS and change the theos. doctrines (which followed the Original Programme from HPB onwards) into his black make-believe. Conger did much more to destroy the TM than Coloumb, Collins and Coues together. That says much for the interested student. After Conger's split when the Pasadena "TS" was invented all their further leaders (Long, Knoche) followed this dissolution aims, i.e. all the books they sells are only versions of the originals, not to say they were faked. That is not only against mundane rules, but the more against esoteric rules as taught by the messengers of the Masters. And if Conger was a messenger, then certainly not from the same teachers like Blavatsky, Judge, Tingley or Purucker, because a teacher is known by his fruits, as the bible says. And where is your forgiveness and compassion with the slanders and attacks Alan Donant made against GdeP's closest co-workers and friends? Why do you not protest openly against Donant if your call for compassion is not merely hypocrisy? Or are there two kinds of moral (a word you hate)? The devil attacks the innocent and shouts: Have compassion with me... Of course you are free to believe what you want - as I too. But don't make the newbies on the list make-believe that the evil doings which happened in the history (and until today) in the TM can be called white magic. Against that kind of twisting history I will always protest - even at the risk you give me names for my defending of the victims. That's all. Frank > Frank, you have a real problem with history. Hope your karma > brings you around some day. Wow. Such compassion, forgiveness, > and understanding here... sad sad sad (its was exactly this kind > of hateful attitude that Conger faught against) > > Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:33:57 +0200 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: Re: Buddhist Tantra and Theosophy > In other words, theosophy is nothing more than warmed-over Buddhism - a rehash for Western consumption. Seeing how many of the early theosophists were formally inducted into Buddhism (HSO, CWL, etc.)and the fact that the TS had a Buddhist Lodge in London (Humphreys), this all makes sense. > > philalethes The Ancient Wisdom is many ages older than Buddha or Buddhism. There were in England also Christian Lodges - does that mean that Theosophy is not the mother but the child of Christianity? Surely not. Frank From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:44:58 +0200 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: Re: Theos-World TS organizations today > Well said, Frank. > > In just a couple of years, Internet has already broken through in three > fundamental ways. First it has internationalize those whose interest lies > in Theosophy. Second it has broken the walls that has always kept TS > organization from each other. Third it has made organizations less > necessary for anyone interested in Theosophy. > mkr Doss, I can agree as nearly always with what you write. Organizations are indeed necessary (even K who was against all organizations have had an organization...), but surely NOT than TS organizations we have today, they have next to nothing to do with the Original Programme of the Masters, which launched the TS in 1875. If the internet is not able to change the TS organizations radically in the next time (and I feel time is running out - or can anyone see the messenger of 1975 among us?) - it would be better for Theosophy and for Theosophists if the Theos. Societies of today would CLOSE - it is for me the same thought which the Dalai Lama had in mind when he suggested to destroy all Religions as they brought humankind more evil than good. The organized theosophical bodies should go back to their roots - to HPB and her teachers, in theory and in practice. What a luck we have the internet. I have learned here more in weeks about Theosophy and HPB than in years before, esp. the boring magazines of today. Frank From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:57:21 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Dzog chen,HPB,help Dear Dzog chen/HPB Friends, I will post more when I get time (within week) but I thought some "expert" help might be needed for this discussion. I can only share a layman's experiences and information and surmises. I suggest you invite to this discussion the following people who have interest in Theosophy or are theosophists and are academically trained experts in fields relevant to our discussion. I personally would like their input too for many questions I have. The first is Professor Santucci at California State University-Fullerton. The second is Professor James Robinson, Tibetan Buddhism expert also interested in Theosophy, at University of Northern Iowa. The third is Professor Thomas Gaskill, Central Asian medievalist expert and Central Asian Buddhism expert, at Southern Illinois University. The fourth, a theosophist, is Professor Mether, Philosophy, Dzog chen, Zoroastrian expert, at Vanderbilt University. I don't know all email addresses but found three: jsantucci@fullerton.edu James.Robinson@uni.edu thomas.r.mether@vanderbilt.edu I have heard these four and was quite impressed. I am sorry that I could not find email address of Professor Gaskill. Grigor Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:30:30 -0700 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Theos-World TS organizations today > If the internet is not able to change the TS organizations radically in the > next time (and I feel time is running out - or can anyone see the messenger > of 1975 among us?) - It certainly has occurred to me that the "messenger" in the last quarter of this century *IS* the internet. People - not just Theosophists - seem so intent on trying to find the next leader, the next teacher, the next savior (or are anxiously awaiting the return of some previous leader/teacher/savior) that they may be missing the birth and development of the most remarkable one in the world. The internet does not spout one sectarian philosophy - hell, it spouts *all* of them - credible and profound as well as deeply disturbed and twisted - and places the responsibility for filtering, for discerning the true from the false, squarely on the shoulders of each individual (as any great "master" does). Spiritual powers? You can spend three decades learning to do funny stuff in your energy system that gives you access to people and places at a distance ... but I've got instant messengers running on my desktop that let me converse in real-time with an economist in Dallas, an artist in Paris, or a Buddhist in India. The next century (IMO) is not going to be about *personalities*, but rather about *process*. And its spiritual leadership will not be a matter of a few secret people that "know" graciously condescending to enlighten those who "don't", nor a single figure that all the world acknowledges as some sort of "master" ... but rather will be in the *environments*, the *forums* where people of radically different perspectives, sensibilities, value systems and religious and philosophical beliefs and assumptions rub up against one another. Fight with each other. Agree with each other. But, more important than any of that *communicate* - however poorly - with each other. A tiny group of people sitting in a room at Wheaton listening to some dolt deliver ponderous "courses" on the deeper meanings of karma is *not* spiritual growth. This active discussion list - with its phases - and with almost shockingly different sorts of people on it - *here* some measure of growth perhaps *can* be found. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:45:25 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Confusion ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Monday, October 11, 1999 1:13 PM > Subject: Re: Confusion > Ravi is a learned man, but he is so deadly dull as a speaker that the last > time he spoke at Olcott one of the Mahatmas was flying over while listening > to him, fell asleep and crashed his flying carpet into the sacred and holy > labyrinth. > > Chuck the Heretic > I had similar problems once listening to a UK TS lecture. Fell off my flying pig right right into the Sacred Hole of International Theosophy (acroynym hidden here). Alan :-) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:52:35 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Hoo-Radha! ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bart Lidofsky > Date: Monday, October 11, 1999 5:22 PM > Subject: Re: In support of theosophy > > SO WHAT? That may just be Indian prejudice speaking. Are > > you presuming she is personally in contact with the > > Mahatma's and therefore infallible? > > No. My statement is significant because she has the power to > unilaterally dissolve any national section, or any section of the ES. > > Bart Lidofsky > Think you could talk her into dissolving ALL of them? [Chuckles naughtily] Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:03:06 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Buddhist Tantra and Theosophy ----- Original Message ----- > From: Frank Reitemeyer > Date: Monday, October 11, 1999 9:33 PM > Subject: Re: Buddhist Tantra and Theosophy > The Ancient Wisdom is many ages older than Buddha or Buddhism. There were in > England also Christian Lodges - does that mean that Theosophy is not the > mother but the child of Christianity? Surely not. > > Frank > Of course not. It also means that the Ancient Wisdom (I call it The Teaching) is older than Theosophy, and while giving rise to Theosophy, did not give it birth, and is not its mother. If Theosophy claims to be its child, that is a matter for opinion, belief, or better, study and research. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:07:36 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Theos-World TS organizations today ----- Original Message ----- > From: JRC > Date: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 2:30 AM > Subject: Re: Theos-World TS organizations today > nor a single figure that all the world acknowledges as some sort of > "master" ... but rather will be in the *environments*, the *forums* where > people of radically different perspectives, sensibilities, value systems and > religious and philosophical beliefs and assumptions rub up against one > another. You sexy beast! Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:03:39 -0700 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: October 10, 1999 Oct 11 1999 Dallas comments on this positing below it: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:48:43 -0700 From: "Philalethes" Subject: Re: Buddhist Tantra and Theosophy PHIL In other words, theosophy is nothing more than warmed-over Buddhism - a rehash for Western consumption. Seeing how many of the early theosophists were formally inducted into Buddhism (HSO, CWL, etc.)and the fact that the TS had a Buddhist Lodge in London (Humphreys), this all makes sense. philalethes =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 Dallas says: I am afraid this is inverted. Theosophy is far older than Buddhism. The Buddha was a Theosophist and is one of the Patrons of the Theosophical Movement as is made plain in one of the letters from the Mahatmas to Mr. Sinnett in the early days of the TS.. Buddhism as it has developed into various sects is perhaps the closest thing to a non-religion that exists and yet it advocates the highest possible morals and full personal responsibility of all actions by each one who calls himself or herself a "follower of the BUDDHA." It does not make of the Buddha a "God" nor does it advocate "prayers" be addressed to him. It presents certain simple and time-work moral verities and illustrates from its literature the way in which those are explained. It is always educative and readily welcomes anyone who comes to inquire into its tenets and beliefs. Dear P. do acquaint yourself with the fundamental ideas of both Theosophy and Buddhism and compare them, as many of us have. The superficial correlation's you speak do not (to me) seem to prove anything. Perhaps I am dense. But let me offer the following: On one side there are the metaphysics which expose that which the Adepts have witnessed in the formation of the Universe and our World. These are followed by a summary history of the development of the human race -- not as forms and fossil remains, but as INTELLIGENCES, as MINDS. Also the sources of all religions, myths and philosophies are well investigated. One thing that emerges loud and clear (to me) and that is there is an invisible universe within the visible one that we are all aquatinted with. It is the Universe of force and energy and it is essentially a moral/ethical Universe because it speaks (and demonstrates metaphysically) the inevitable results that emerge from all our most secret thoughts, feelings and actions. It explains Karma, cooperative brotherhood, progress towards perfection, and individual immortality. It offers a full and total purpose for our existence. It is a grave error to believe that Theosophy is a new-fangled thing and that HPB and her "mythical Adepts" were responsible for mystifying us with a recondite shower of incomprehensible words, and that these have been somehow collated from various sources into a collage. The word THEOSOPHY was apparently to be traced to Pythagoras -- a contemporary of the Buddha, and it means Divine Wisdom. That is a very inclusive claim. I say: If a sincere, honest, unprejudiced and conscientious reader engages himself to study ISIS UNVEILED and the SECRET DOCTRINE, even with a view to try to destroy any or all of the material and propositions that are offered there, they will emerge (I said if unprejudiced, honest and serious) with a knowledge of the history of the world religions, traditions, myths and antiquity such as they can acquire nowhere else. Further, their understanding of the development of modern religions, and sciences will improve immensely. Additionally, they, themselves are psycho-mental beings, and Nature all around, will be found open to their vastly sharpened and greater perceptive capacities and quality. I freely suggest and open this challenge, and I think that any one who takes it up will be, in a year's time, say, in a far better position to renew the debate than any of us are right now. There are many who speak about Theosophy (as I look at what they write publicly) without adequate depth of study, basing themselves on hearsay and a very superficial skim (sometimes, showing elements of prejudice) of some of the literature--those are SECOND and THIRD level data. Rarely are they aware of what HPB wrote, and consequently they are unable to offer or deal with responses that quotes from those FIRST LEVEL data and facts. Theosophy is not inimical to any of the original and basic teachings offered by any of the great prophets and reformers who are today taken to be the originators of a religion. There is, usually to be seen, a vast difference between what is taught today in temple, mosque or church, when that is rigorously compared with the original words and deeds of the selected Prophet, or TEACHER, who may have also been called a "Son of God," and whose "return" has been prophesized. Such a difference has arisen in the so-called popular versions of Theosophy today, when they are compared with the original words and teachings of HPB. Any one can do that comparison. But, 108 years time has made a lot of difference. And then one hears some who ask "Why does HPB not return?" My question is (and I ask this of myself, also) : "Who would be able to recognize and welcome her ?" Dallas Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 22:42:50 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Hoo-Radha! > > No. My statement is significant because she has the power to > > unilaterally dissolve any national section, or any section of the ES. > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > > Think you could talk her into dissolving ALL of them? > > [Chuckles naughtily] > > Alan Not to worry ... they're dissolving just fine all on their own (-:). (SSHHHH! Don't tell anyone! Everything's going according to plan!) Myself and a few close friends decided to use our powers (as usual, only for the good) to decree that *every* religion, creed, and cult gets exactly everything it wants and desires. First off, the Christian True Believers will get caught up for all eternity in the Rapture and be taken to a heaven full of harps and white puffy clouds all presided over by a curiously northern-european looking Jesus (though the smart money is betting that after less than even a century of that eternity they are literally begging Jesus for at least a *little* vice to break up the mind-numbing monotony of being "pure" and prasing god - and its likely god will grant the wish just to get a bit of a break (-:)). Then, with them gone (hence easing perhaps half of the angst currently running around earth), we can move onto all the various different folks afraid of the "one world government" - in whatever form ... be it idiots in rural America fearing the United Nations, Islamic militants paranoid about "western" values, the Chinese govt., (paranoid about just about everything other than Chinese values), the French intellectuals - paranoid about the immanent takeover of their entire culture by Rambo, and every spy on earth that is currently deeply immeshed (for the cause of the good guys of course) in the intrigues created by themselves and other spies. All of these people will be shipped to Antarctica, and allowed to live in villages populated by only themselves and their antitheses, and once a month formal rule of each village will flip-flop. So one month people in UN Uniforms will totally rule the neo-nazi militias (and take all of their cars and handguns away) and the next month *they* will successfully overthrow the "new world order" in a triumphant revolution. Then it'll switch again. Etc., etc. They'll all be able to dive so deeply into their wondrous battles and delusions (and won't be able to hurt anyone other than themselves) that they'll be in their own sort of heaven (and it'll probably, parenthetically, be at least more interesting than that of the Rapture crowd. At least they'll have a little sex and violence now and then). Then, to the Arctic will be shipped every politician and bureaucrat of any ilk or organization on earth. And they'll each get to take turns calling meetings, debating highly significant issues of their own choosing. Every month alternating between oppressing, being oppressed, fighting for the oppressed, or excusing the oppressors. Most important, however, will be the fact that every single person will have their own fax machine, their own cell phone, and every day be handed many forms that it will be desperately important for them to sign. Then (to honor that 18th century philosopher that held that life will be much better when "the last King is hung by the entrails of the last Pope") we'll move onto the publically enlightened ... I'm not talking here about people who have - by dint of a lot of damn effort (and motivated neither by the quest for power or coin) - managed to claw their way to a slighter wider perceptual/conceptual realm, but rather about the people who publically claim, or imply, wisdom well beyond the norm, and look down upon the rest of humanity as a sort of amorphous mass of sheep that needs "guidance" and "enlightenment". And even better, demand to be acknowledged as wise and worthy of "honor" and "respect" (and, by the by, expect to be allowed to live comfortably on the "alms" or "dues" - curious words - paid by those very sheep). Hoooraaay! They get their wish. All of them will be locked permanently in their ashrams/churches/headquarters/huts/palaces (depending upon the particular flavor of their enlightenment), given a very pleasent monthly stipend, and (here's the good part) they'll all be given a large lecture hall full of actual sheep. They can lecture at great length (even award degrees if they want, but only - because they take their sacred duty do seriously - to the more advanced sheep of course), delight themselves to no end in the painful agony of worrying about what to do for the suffering sheep that simply cannot grasp their high point of enlightenment and only seem to want to indulge their "base" desires. And they'll never have to worry about any of the sheep actually achieving parity with them (or hell, of even understanding a word they say) - so they'll stay comfortable for all eternity buzzin' on their guru mojo. (And as a unique gift to Radha, a Special Dispensation will be made that allows them all to formally dissolve a hall of sheep once every month, and have them all immediately bleat that they are sorry and beg forgiveness and promise to behave if only they can be reconstituted as a sheep society for another month). SO then ... now that we've taken care of this whole lot - what would we have left? Weirdly enough, the vast bulk of humanity. And almost immediately (I suspect) a god-awful enromous global party that would last about a quarter of the way through the next century before Earth had to go on a beer run. Masters? Hell they'd be comin' out of our ears - we would have made an earth that a *genuine* master would positively get off on - any HPB leg-o-lamb-eatin', wine drinkin, Djwahl Kuhl cigar-smokin' son-or-daughter of Zeus and Thor and Diana master would say - "well its about damn time ... *finally* we've got a race full of people who we don't need to hide from ... no indeed ... that we can *talk* to. Drink with. *Finally* it is worth incarnating again. Christ (forgive the pun - but I'll bet the masters are always joking with each other that way - you know, like "Jesus H. Christ in a green felt hat Jesus, you've just let the damn Baptists get all out of hand!" or like going up and pretending to rub Buddha's belly for luck, stuff like that ...) anyway "Christ", they'd say, "how *many* damn times did we have to bloody waste painful days on earth, saying over and over again, from pretty much every direction and culture we could, that to get *ANYWHERE*, individually or collectively, the first damn thing you've gotta do is kick every secular leader off their throne. Smash every pedestal on earth. UPSET the reverent, bother the control freaks, trouble the pious." So now you know the secret. Myself and a few friends of mine are doing this teensy little act of magic. The mechanics are unimportant, but everytime you see Radha dissolve a national section (which is not all that infrequently), or a vapid political party start eating its own young, or the hyper-controlling being faced with those most paranoid about being controlled, every time you see swine trampling pearls (and that parable has really cool wisdom in it - unfortunately its exactly the opposite wisdom of what its commonly taken for in Christian churches ... the pigs *rightly* trampled little pieces of oyster plaque whose only value is the completely arbitrary one assigned by a completely artificial culture ... much like the words of preachers ... ) ... ANYway ... when you see these things and more - smile to yourself and secretly think "the plan is moving right on schedule". But don't tell anyone. For now. Soon, we see each other at the Party. Run with scissors, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:59:30 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: in person or virtual? In a message dated 10/11/1999 12:02:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << I agree. Much "head" learning can be done by Internet study, but only by being in the presence of a teacher can The Teaching - by whatever name - be truly communicated. >> Wow, I have to agree too, even though I recognize the marvelous benefits of the Internet in allowing people to communicate who would never do so otherwise, and allowing people who have similar interests to find each other. But - I remember a man I once knew who fell in love with a woman over the Internet, via e-mail, and was convinced he wanted to marry her before meeting her. Well, in one weekend of meeting her, the whole thing fell apart - apparently, she was living with another man and was using this guy just to make the other one jealous. All things that were not apparent in e-mail but became obvious in just two days in person. I'm not equating spirituality with romance, but I think a similar dynamic may operate, in that you can get to know only part of a person via e-mail, but you may think you know more than you do, because it is easy to put only one's best self forward in writing, and leave out all the nasty habits of mind and personality that may afflict one, and may hurt one's relationships in the "flesh." Some folks sound just great on paper, but spend a little time with them and you'll be begging for mercy! Just my "two cents" and the voice of some experience. Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:20:50 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 11, 1999 Alan wrote to JRC: >You sexy beast! Hey! I thought you said you "loved" me. So like, WHO IS your favorite - me or JRC??? Huh??? Well??? And, which is better - being a "sexy beast" or "loved?" Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:02:15 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Hoo-Radha! In a message dated 99-10-11 23:46:18 EDT, you write: << ANYway ... when you see these things and more - smile to yourself and secretly think "the plan is moving right on schedule". But don't tell anyone. For now. Soon, we see each other at the Party. Run with scissors, -JRC >> Yeehaaaawwwww!!!! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 01:04:08 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: in person or virtual? In a message dated 99-10-11 23:59:55 EDT, you write: << Some folks sound just great on paper, but spend a little time with them and you'll be begging for mercy! Just my "two cents" and the voice of some experience. Christine >> And of course it can work just the opposite. A person can be deadly dull on a screen but fascinating in person. After all, I met my wife online and I'm sure I was much more boring as disembodied typescript. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:21:27 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 11, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 5:20 AM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 11, 1999 > Alan wrote to JRC: > > >You sexy beast! > > Hey! I thought you said you "loved" me. So like, WHO IS your favorite - > me or JRC??? Huh??? Well??? And, which is better - being a "sexy beast" > or "loved?" > > > > Kym > Loved. Alan [in humble mode] Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk.ambain/stjust.htm/ > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk > 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: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 14:15:44 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Theos-World TS organizations today > What a luck we have the internet. I have learned here more in weeks about > Theosophy and HPB than in years before, esp. the boring magazines of today. I agree, the theosophist is usually not even near the level of my newspaper, which is again far less interesting than the Collected Writings is to me. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:21:19 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Conger was Lily White as Snow >>I gave one or two examples, one of them was the recent ill-famed and ugly Alan Donant article about Colonel Conger, where Donant tries to whitewash the black magic actions from Colonel Conger against the old chelas (draw back their membership cards, kick them out), which could never be, under no circumstances, I am sure, be considered as reasonable in any way for anyone from the white side.>> Dear Frank, although I am doubtless wasting my time trying to be reasonable with you, I will give it just one shot. The bullshit that you are throwing around in the above paragraph exists all in your own mind. White and dark, good and evil exist only in the human mind, not in the world (This comes from the MLs, Frank, so flaming on this idea will just show more ignorance). You are obviously new to the spiritual path, and the whole idea of good and evil has you terrified. But anything Conger did was actually white as snow. He acted out of compassion, for those who wanted to learn. Lets face it, Frank, if all of a sudden I was promoted to Leader of this list with the objective of actually trying to teach something, one of the first things that I would do is expel all of those irritating trouble-makers like yourself in order to leave a more calming and accepting atmosphere. Please think about this. What Conger did has been done in all Schools throughout history. The trouble-makers get expelled in order to reduce stress. What Conger did was perfectly within his rights, and it did, in fact, leave a smaller but more dedicated body of people. Your throwing names around, calling him a Black Magician and such, is childish and shows your ignorance. Fortuneately for you, there is lots of time for you to grow. Also, fortuneately for you, I can't kick trouble-makers off this list. BTW, I agree 100% with Donant's little book on Conger and from my viewpoint you are causing more strife within the TS ranks than Conger ever did (but then again, I know that this is just my opinion and don't confuse opinion with history like you do). Have a nice day. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:32:03 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re: Sapce >>Katinka: Yes, you certainly do (lose me I mean) what on earthe is a tri-group? >> A triad or three-in-one. >>And how are we going to think anything about infinity, if not by using our imaginations? >> We generally like to think that space goes on and on forever without any end, much like whole numbers. I certainly thought so. Until I have some spiritual experiences from meditation. Out-of-body meditational experiences have left me with the impression that time and space cease altogether at high spiritual levels rather than going on forever. >>Loses meaning for you and physics, clearly not for me. If you stop and think about this, I suspect that you will see my point. Subjective self and objective world are two sides of a duality and always go together. They are inconceivable by themselves, just like up and down only have meaning in their relationship together. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:37:23 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Response to Frank's Version of TS History >>Conger kicked the old Point Loma students out because they knew too much for his plans to dissolute the TS and change the theos. doctrines (which followed the Original Programme from HPB onwards) into his black make-believe. Conger did much more to destroy the TM than Coloumb, Collins and Coues together.>> The only response I can think of here is FLAPDOODLE. Do you check under your bed at night before going to sleep, Frank? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:06:52 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 05, 1999 kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > Katinka wrote (responding to Bart's post): > > > By the way, I had the impression Kym was from the US, > > You're right, I am from the US. I have no idea why Bart implied that I wasn't; I > can't believe, after a couple years of exchanges, he doesn't know where I 'm from. > Bart may just be getting senile or something. Or something. Sorry about the mistake, in any case (when you replied to the message, and didn't mention the mistake, I hoped you hadn't noticed. THANKS A BUNCH, KATINKA!!!!!) Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 11:47:40 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: in person or virtual? ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 6:04 AM > Subject: Re: in person or virtual? > In a message dated 99-10-11 23:59:55 EDT, you write: > > A person can be deadly dull on > a screen but fascinating in person. After all, I met my wife online and I'm > sure I was much more boring as disembodied typescript. > > Chuck the Heretic > Ummmmmm ....... well ...... let's put it this way ..... on the other hand ..... You mean you're *not* disembodied typescript? Chucky Baby is *real?* I guess you're not boring on the list. As for the rest, how do we get to ask your wife? [Hehehehehehehehe!] Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 18:35:17 +0200 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: Re: Response to Frank's Version of TS History > >>Conger kicked the old Point Loma students out because they knew too much > for his plans to dissolute the TS and change the theos. doctrines (which > followed the Original Programme from HPB onwards) into his black > make-believe. Conger did much more to destroy the TM than Coloumb, Collins > and Coues together.>> > > The only response I can think of here is FLAPDOODLE. > > Do you check under your bed at night before going to sleep, Frank? > > Jerry S. As you like blind belief or merely psychic beliefs in the Conger and Long style (the last your great teacher) your reaction is in no way surprising because against statements of truth about bad events of which there are unnumbered eye-witnesses - there remains only the personal attack. Coloumb, Collins and Coues - are the first three "Co's" of the deadly enemies of the true pukka Theosophy of HPB. Conger was the 4th - therefore his dissolutions have had a greater success than the attacks of the first three ones. HPB NEVER- NEVER forced her members to blind belief in her authority combined with the threat to cancel their membership - as Conger did, claming to be the messenger of the same Masters. But such Masters which force the people to drop thinking, to drop their free will and to threat them with canceling of the membership are regarded in the unaltered true Theosophy as Mamos and surely NOT as representatives of the White Lodge. The true reason for glassing over the Conger affair and for misleading and twisted statements in the Alan Donant style is simple: When the story one day will be covered up by recent Theosophist who seek for Truth (and in my humble view have a RIGHT TO KNOW) - then is would be crystal clear that the new TS that Conger launched (the Pasadena "Theosophical" Society) was build on lies from the first day on. Add the faking of the theosophical books over the decades by Pasadena (lead by Conger, Long and Knoche) and one knows why they always shout: "Compassion, Peace" if a undaunted researcher covers up the Conger affair. It's equal to the Anthrophosophic Society which began under lies - so they are forced to remain to the lies until days, otherwise such Societies would soon break away. No TS is higher than the TRUTH. Hate the hate and love the love. And the love for truth. Frank From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 18:57:36 +0200 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: Re: Conger was Lily White as Snow > The bullshit that you are throwing around in the above > paragraph exists all in your own mind. White and dark, good > and evil exist only in the human mind, not in the world > (This comes from the MLs, Frank, so flaming on this > idea will just show more ignorance). How would you describe the twisted things you write? Sheepshit? Since when are you, a follower of psychology and of Long, a trained explainer of the ML? If you would ever read or understood a sentence of the ML you probably would have known that no thouhgts are coming from our minds, dear learned Brother. > You are obviously new to the spiritual path, and the whole > idea of good and evil has you terrified. But anything Conger Why do you know how old or new I am? Ironically, it was just Conger's justification to kick off the half of the membership because they were too well trained by Tingely and Purucker, in other words: They all knew too much. Strange... > did was actually white as snow. He acted out of compassion, > for those who wanted to learn. Lets face it, Frank, if all And were are the proofs? What DID the Knoche and Long gang learn? How to fake books? How to twist the original teachings? How to make money for their swimming pool? One time the secretary of GdeP, Miss elsie Benjamin, was terrible ill and unable to assist him. Grace Knoche was in attempt to substitute. GdeP was full of horror and said: Never, never, this woman. Strange, that persons of such a character some years after GdeP's death are forced the members to believe their self proclaimings. O holy truth. O holy madness. > of a sudden I was promoted to Leader of this list with the > objective of actually trying to teach something, one of the > first things that I would do is expel all of those irritating > trouble-makers like yourself in order to leave a more calming > and accepting atmosphere. Please think about this. What > Conger did has been done in all Schools throughout history. May be. But surely not the schools from were HPB and GdeP came. > The trouble-makers get expelled in order to reduce stress. Mmmmh. Protest against forcing to blind belief, sweet words instead of actions and hypocrasy is - "stress", for you. So you have good reasond to ignore the Secret Doctrine and the Mahatma letters, it would be too much stress again for you. > What Conger did was perfectly within his rights, and it did, > in fact, leave a smaller but more dedicated body of people. > Your throwing names around, calling him a Black > Magician and such, is childish and shows your ignorance. Or yours. What you fail to mention is that the kicked off members, who denied to break their vows for the truth, were working and still do work for the cause of Theosophy. So every newbie and student is ABLE to come to his own conclusions when he/she/it compares the different versions of the books. > Fortuneately for you, there is lots of time for you to grow. Also, Perhaps for you not as it seems you have stand all classes well. > fortuneately for you, I can't kick trouble-makers off this list. Yeah, Jerry Conger, you can take away my membership card, you can gives me names, you can tell lies about me, but you NEVER will kick me out of the cause of Theosophy. Not at least thanks to the internet. > BTW, I agree 100% with Donant's little book on Conger and > from my viewpoint you are causing more strife within the TS > ranks than Conger ever did (but then again, I know that this > is just my opinion and don't confuse opinion with history > like you do). > > Have a nice day. > > Jerry S. What a luck that it is not to be judged by you, who of us caused strife or not. You may twist the historical facts a thousand times, but truth stands for itself. Have a day without maya. Frank From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 19:10:43 +0200 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: Re: Theos-World TS organizations today > > What a luck we have the internet. I have learned here more in weeks about > > Theosophy and HPB than in years before, esp. the boring magazines of today. > I agree, the theosophist is usually not even near the level > of my newspaper, which is again far less interesting than > the Collected Writings is to me. > Katinka Nice to hear, Katinka. I think it's the only way for us to go up on the path: Think for ourselves, no blind beliefs in persons and doctrines, there more if they come under the flag of "humanity" and other sweet words. The Dugpas inside and outside of the Theosophical Movement try always to catch the innocents with sweet fashioned and gently sounded things. The Adepts of the Dark Brothers can quote as good from holy scriptures as the White ones. The difference is very very little. And that difference is always the *motive*. Unless a student has developed from his innermost the power for discrimination he/she/it is in danger to follow the false leader. Keep on to study the BCW and the other primary sources and you are on the save side. You (speaking generally) will soon be able to judge things quite sure from your own insights above brain minded discourses. The Black Magicians don't want people to read the unaltered books. They try to get power in the TS to be able to change them. That has happened under Besant and Leadbeater as well as under Conger, Long and Knoche. Thanks to the internet the seekers for truth have now a powerful tool in their hands to prevent remote controls of their minds. The Adyar TS and the Pasadena TS will and must change their policy radically back to the Original Programme of the Masters. Otherwise it is better to CLOSE them. The Dalai Lama just suggested to close world wide all religious movements. HPB suggested the same. If organizations which should be helpful and good are turning into the opposite, them there is no more need for them. Frank From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 19:41:28 +0200 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: Re: Theos-World TS organizations today Well said, JRC, sounds reasonable. What a luck we have the Internet. Gives me more than attending boring lodge meetings and discourse about books which one has read rightly. OTOH hand, we should not forget that working for Theosophy is much more than discussions (as important as they are). We need also people who care for assembling books (may be e-books), collecting documents of historical importance etc. If we, the Theosophists do not this job, our enemies, the churches and missionaries etc. will to it for us - with best known results. The Internet is not the replacement for the TS'ies, but the healing MEDICINE fro them. May we hope the cure comes not TOO LATE... Just my 0.01. Frank > It certainly has occurred to me that the "messenger" in the last quarter of > this century *IS* the internet. > > People - not just Theosophists - seem so intent on trying to find the next > leader, the next teacher, the next savior (or are anxiously awaiting the > return of some previous leader/teacher/savior) that they may be missing the > birth and development of the most remarkable one in the world. The internet > does not spout one sectarian philosophy - hell, it spouts *all* of them - > credible and profound as well as deeply disturbed and twisted - and places > the responsibility for filtering, for discerning the true from the false, > squarely on the shoulders of each individual (as any great "master" does). > Spiritual powers? You can spend three decades learning to do funny stuff in > your energy system that gives you access to people and places at a distance > ... but I've got instant messengers running on my desktop that let me > converse in real-time with an economist in Dallas, an artist in Paris, or a > Buddhist in India. > > The next century (IMO) is not going to be about *personalities*, but rather > about *process*. And its spiritual leadership will not be a matter of a few > secret people that "know" graciously condescending to enlighten those who > "don't", nor a single figure that all the world acknowledges as some sort of > "master" ... but rather will be in the *environments*, the *forums* where > people of radically different perspectives, sensibilities, value systems and > religious and philosophical beliefs and assumptions rub up against one > another. Fight with each other. Agree with each other. But, more important > than any of that *communicate* - however poorly - with each other. A tiny > group of people sitting in a room at Wheaton listening to some dolt deliver > ponderous "courses" on the deeper meanings of karma is *not* spiritual > growth. This active discussion list - with its phases - and with almost > shockingly different sorts of people on it - *here* some measure of growth > perhaps *can* be found. -JRC > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: ringding@blinx.de > 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: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 18:27:53 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: in person or virtual? In a message dated 99-10-12 11:57:34 EDT, you write: << I guess you're not boring on the list. As for the rest, how do we get to ask your wife? [Hehehehehehehehe!] Alan >> Well, if you ever find yourself trapped in Wisconsin... Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 19:55:55 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Confusion Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Ravi is a learned man, but he is so deadly dull as a speaker that the last > time he spoke at Olcott one of the Mahatmas was flying over while listening > to him, fell asleep and crashed his flying carpet into the sacred and holy > labyrinth. And you said it was my boomerangs that did the damage!!!! Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:00:11 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Islam That was the Arabic peoples, not the religion of Islam. This is significant considering the context of the original discussion. Bart Lidofsky hesse600 wrote: > About the Islam not being a sourse of western culture: > Islam is certainly part of the sourse of western culture. > Here in Europe we would not have had the Greek and Roman > texts to study from in the Middle Ages, if it had not been > for the way the Muslims preserved these texts in their > library's and university's. This is not a widely known > fact, but it is a fact nonetheless. And since American > culture owes a lot to European culture, the same goes for > american (US) culture. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:02:16 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: In support of Alan wrote: > > Alan wrote: > > > Noted. Homosexual theosophists are, so I have heard, STRONGLY against > > > the Esoteric Section and Radha Burnier. One time homosexuals of both > > > (or any) sexes were benevolently regarded in theosophy as between > > > genders by reason of being in transition from male to female or vice > > > versa on the way to the next incarnation. > > > > My uncle, whom I loved deeply, was a gay activist. Kind of hard to have > > anti-homosexual feelings when you used to love one (the popular term in > > the U.S. is "straight but not narrow"). > > > What then. Bart, ws the point of your heavy emphasis regarding Radha > Burnier's views, tied to the fact that she heads the Esoteric Section? Because if sections declare too publicly that they allow homosexual members, Radha may decide to take action against them. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:15:30 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Katinka did it! Bart wrote: > Or something. Sorry about the mistake, in any case (when you replied to >the message, and didn't mention the mistake, I hoped you hadn't noticed. >THANKS A BUNCH, KATINKA!!!!!) I did notice, but merely thought you were trying to trick me into saying something lame (rare as it is!). So, you're right - it is Katinka's fault! Maybe everything is Katinka's fault?! I think so - from now on, any misfortune I suffer I shall blame on Katinka. I can cope with life now. Kym Just joshing, Katinka. . .. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:51:12 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Confusion In a message dated 99-10-12 19:55:08 EDT, you write: << And you said it was my boomerangs that did the damage!!!! Bart Lidofsky >> Well, we could hardly admit that one of the Mahatmas crashed! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:55:22 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 12, 1999 Frank wrote: >Unless a student has developed from his innermost the power for >discrimination he/she/it is in danger to follow the >false leader. Ok, but. . .I can see the "she" in danger and I can see the "he" in danger. I ponder, though - "it" in danger? This "it" entity. . .how will I know one when I see "it?" I applaud your use of gender-inclusive language, but is my chair in danger? Well, looking at "it" in a mega universal way, I guess my chair could be in danger, although I wonder about its "power of discrimination." And, Rilke, my fave rave poet, did speak admirably of "Things." I'm going to, after sending this, give my chair a great big hug. Seriously. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:28:51 -0700 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: October 11, 1999 ANIMAL SOUL -- Oct 13 Dallas asks: RE REINCARNATION INTO ANIMALS OF HUMAN SOUL Dear Katinka: Where have you ever found that HPB said that the human soul would reincarnate in an animal? As far as I know the "skandhas" (the "life-atoms" or little lives) that we impress with animal-like feelings and thoughts may be attracted for a while to animals -- where they experience an embodiment of the Kamic quality present in such animals - but for the actual HUMAN SOUL "Manas" to incarnate in an animal form -- never. The Theosophical teaching is" Once a Man, always a Man." HPB wrote an extensive article on the subject of the "animal soul" under the article title HAVE ANIMALS SOULS? "Theosophist Jan, Feb, March 1886. Again in LUCIFER for May 1888 HPB wrote WHY DO ANIMALS SUFFER? There she deals with vivisection and human cruelty to animals. But in neither of those 2 important articles does she say that the HUMAN SOUL (Manas) incarnates in animals. But I may be wrong and you have another reference that contradicts that ? Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:33:24 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Reborn in animal form Mika wrote: > Is there buddhists that do NOT believe that humans may reborn as > animals?? HPB was a Buddhist and she believed that it is very rare for humans to be reborn as animals. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl *********************************************************** From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 06:49:58 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 11, 1999 ANIMAL SOUL -- How could I get copies of the references you site on animal souls? I am a neophyte on thsosophy. Thanks for the help. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:11:44 +0000 From: "mika perala" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 11, 1999 Katinka wrote: > Mika wrote: > > Is there buddhists that do NOT believe that humans may reborn as > > animals?? > HPB was a Buddhist and she believed that it is very rare > for humans to be reborn as animals. But HPB was not a 'normal' buddhist. Sangharakshita says in 'The Three Jewels' that what incarnates is not a human ego but a 'constantly changing flow of psychic energy' and if this flow is made of lifetime long thoughts mainly of sex and food then this psychic energy is connected to animals consciousness (or not-yet-born animals) when reincarnation is at hand. I have thought this is the general view among buddhists and that theosophists just have their own interpretation which is not originated from buddhist texts. mika perala From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:27:47 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Theosophical Fanaticism >>No TS is higher than the TRUTH. Hate the hate and love the love. And the love for truth. Frank>> Truth is in the eyes of the beholder. We all see it differently. Hatred is ALWAYS wrong. I wish that all of this hate-mongering would go away from these lists. Especially since Theosophists are supposed to be developing compassion. I am very tired of all of the CWL bashing, Conger bashing, Adyar bashing, Pasadena bashing, ULT bashing and so on and on like a bunch of children. As far as I am concerned, Frank and anyone else who sends personal flames against people are hypocrites. Dallas has argued that we should not flame Blavatsky or Judge because they are dead and cannot defend themselves. Yet I don't hear this same argument in any defense of CWL or Conger. Strange huh... I don't object to civil historical discussions. Dan, I think has done this very well. We should be able to discuss both sides of CWL, Conger, and so on without hatred and bitterness in our words. I am a liscensed professional counselor with a PhD in Human Services and a lot of psychology courses etc, and my professional opinion is that Frank is exhibiting a compulsive obsessive behavior disorder, and I strongly recommend that he gets some professional help. While he may honestly feel that Conger was wrong, the emotional tone elicited by his choice of words suggests fanaticism, which is the very opposite of what Theosophy teaches and Frank himself espouses (and I am sure that his response here will be filled with emotional invectives that will further convince me that he really needs help). In short, if we can't talk like adults about Theosophical history, then we shouldn't talk about it at all. Anyone, not just Frank but anyone, who flames people and espouses compassion, is a hypocrite (nothing wrong with flaming ideas) pure and simple. Calling other people names like "Black Magician" is childish and as Theosophists we should have grown out of that phase of our development. Jung would say that such a person is projecting from their own shadow. Furthermore, to denigrate modern psychology as an excuse for one's childish behavior is also childish. We need to grow up before our Theosophical Movement becomes a laughing stock. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:36:48 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: What is the Cause of Theosophy? >>>What you fail to mention is that the kicked off members, who denied to break their vows for the truth, were working and still do work for the cause of Theosophy. >> What you fail to mention, Frank, is that they were working for their own brand/version of Theosophy, as was CWL and everyone else. We can't all agree on what "Theosophy" is, even on this list. How much more so in a TS? You seem to have such an incredibly narrow sense of right and wrong that I suspect you may have an borderline personality disorder. You really do need professional help, Frank. This is not a flame but a concern. Whether you seek help or not, you need to get a grip. With love, Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:42:54 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Islam/Byzantium In a message dated 10/12/99 6:59:26 PM Central Daylight Time, bartl@sprynet.com writes: > hesse600 wrote: > > About the Islam not being a sourse of western culture: > > Islam is certainly part of the sourse of western culture. > > Here in Europe we would not have had the Greek and Roman > > texts to study from in the Middle Ages, if it had not been > > for the way the Muslims preserved these texts in their > > library's and university's. This is not a widely known > > fact, but it is a fact nonetheless. And since American > > culture owes a lot to European culture, the same goes for > > american (US) culture. > There is another fact that most Europeans and Americans neglect. There was the eastern Roman Empire, Byzantium, next door until its fall in 1453. It NEVER had a dark ages. It had ALL the texts of antiquity.When western Europe wanted better translations of Aristotle from the Greek originals to debate the Arab interpretation called Averroism, they bought them from Byzantium. Byzantium's imperial libraries and monastic libraries are turning up new finds to this day such as Piri Reis map. Some fantasize that the Vatican has lost manuscripts buried in its vaults that would be of interest to theosophists. No, it is the old Byzantine libraries in Istanbul. It is these libraries that HPB tried to get into, Gurdjieff tried to get into, RA Schwaller de Lubicz got into, and many new and strange things come out of like some of the maps of Hapgood. Byzantium's libraries were the source by which Renaissance scholars (and later scholars) recovered the classics (which Byzantium had throughout the middle ages - neither the west nor Muslims did) and some studies suggest the Renaissance was triggered by Byzantine refugees from Turkish rule who brought such things to Italy (off and on parts of it were a Byzantine colony in the middle ages - especially Venice which is a Byzantine town architecturally including its cathedral) as the Dialogues of Plato (the west never had those until then) and Corpus Hermetica. Byzantium had, before it fell, battles in the universities between the monastic clergy of the theology faculty representing Orthodox Christianity and the Neoplatonic Humanists who were accussed of just being nominal Christians but really pagans. So, there was Gemistho Pletho, well-known in Byzantium as a Neo-Platonist/Hermeticist, who is later a name associated with Marsilio Ficino. It was from Byzantium that Arabs were getting their Greek versions too. Finally, as is well known to those of us from the east, by imperial edict and according to the cataloging operations of the University of Constantinople throughout the middle ages (preserved along with the annual inventory taken right up to the time the library was handed over to the Turkish Sultan), what had been left of the great library at Alexandria was brought to Constantinople. Finally, while European and Muslim schools were closed to women, the Byzantine schools, including the imperial University of Constantinople, were co-ed. The West owes much more to its forgotten parent than it has so far acknowledged. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:59:44 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: ES-stuff Hi Christine, You wanted to know why so many of us have something against the ES, so I will give you my reasons for having trouble with it. I agree mostly with Kym: First, let me quote you part of the Preliminary Memorandum, that HPB wrote and can be found in the Collected Writings volume XII, p 488 et seq. HPB in this article explains her goals for the ES, also in relation to the TS. I think (hope) it speaks for itself: > It is only by a select group of brave souls, a handful of determined men and women hungry for genuine spiritual development and the acquirement of soul-wisdom, that the Theosophical Society at large can be brought back to its original lines. It is through an Esoteric Section alone - i.e., a group in which all the members, even if unacquainted with one another, work for each other, and by working for all work for themselves - that the great Exoteric Society may be redeemed and made to realize that in union and harmony alone lie its future growth and power. The object of this section, then, is to help the future growth of the THeosophical Society as a whole in the true direction, by promoting brotherly union at least among the few. > Now, believing as I do, that individuals in a group can change a group, not only by their actions (though action at the proper time is neccessary), but also by their *aura's* or *atmosphere* or *thought-forms*, I see nothing wrong with HPB's objective. THe problem comes in when people today seem to think that not only was the ES created to save the TS, but that today it is still the lifeline of the TS. So that, no TS-member is taken seriously by some, untill they have become not only active, but also ES-members. In fact, some seem to think that one cannot be devoted to *The Life* without being an ES-member. THis prejudice is so strong that one cannot understand TS-politics, without understanding the place of the ES. Almost all national presidents (also called general secretary's) are ES-members. My original approach to the ES was much different. I had read about it in the Key to THeosophy, and wanted to join, vowing myself (inwardly) to the service of humanity, I was determined that this was a place to meet soul's who were similarly inclined. But then I found I could not join, because I was too young and had not been a member long enough. I started thinking out the posibilities. If the ES had all the knowledge and insight to offer me and others that is implicite in all the talk about it, then I was being refused entrance and refused bread on very superficial reasons. That could not be right. How can one refuse spiritual knowledge to someone merely because they are only 20 years old? I could not reconcile that with Love and Wisdom. Because, most of us believing in reincarnation, physical age should not be such an issue. This started me off, then I found out about all the other rules that are strictly enforced, and now I have stopped taking the ES seriously as an esoteric school. I have decided it is not for me, and the whole mystiek around it, appals me. My dislike for the ES is therefore in direct proportion to the pretentions at wisdom, and the lack of flexibility in the way the rules are applied. In HPB's days the rules were meant as advice. When one broke a rule, one was responsible to one's own consciousness. All this is gone. Recently in Brasil a man was expelled from the ES because of his sexual orientation. I wish for an ES with more flexibility and less pretention, and then it might even be a blessing to the TS. As it is, it drags the TS down, as far as I'm concerned. Is it karma that it was meant to save the TS (and perhaps did?) and now it is a milestone around the TS's neck? Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:14:21 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Islam/Byzantium In a message dated 99-10-13 09:43:21 EDT, you write: << The West owes much more to its forgotten parent than it has so far acknowledged. Grigor >> Like the fact that it didn't become Islamic. Three cheers for Greek Fire! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:54:23 +0200 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Theosophy? I strongly protest against the uninterrupted slanders you make against Blavatsky's Theosophy. All the true standing pupils of KT and GdeP like Dr. Edge, Emmett Small, Elsie Benjamin, Boris de Zirkoff or G. Barborka which were persecuted by the jealousy and dark minded Conger gang remained to follow the Original Programme. It was Conger/Long/Knoche who forced the people to blind beliefs and changed the teachings, not their victims as you are twisting. Your attacks against me personally doesn't concern me much for two reasons: First I know who you are, Second I don't enter your psycho games, I was always mentioning historical facts of which we have dozens of eyewitnesses. You may support or reject this. But calling someone ill says many about the person who does so. Obviously I stated the truth, otherwise there would have been no reason for such an outburst from you. Frank > What you fail to mention, Frank, is that they were working > for their own brand/version of Theosophy, as was CWL and > everyone else. We can't all agree on what "Theosophy" is, > even on this list. How much more so in a TS? You seem to > have such an incredibly narrow sense of right and wrong that I > suspect you may have an borderline personality disorder. > You really do need professional help, Frank. This is not > a flame but a concern. Whether you seek help or not, > you need to get a grip. > > With love, > > Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:09:55 +0200 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: Re: Theosophical Fanaticism > >>No TS is higher than the TRUTH. > Hate the hate and love the love. And the love for truth. > Frank>> > Truth is in the eyes of the beholder. We all see it differently. > Hatred is ALWAYS wrong. I was merely quoting G. de Purucker. No wonder you hate the followers of GdeP. > I wish that all of this hate-mongering would go away from > these lists. Especially since Theosophists are supposed > to be developing compassion. I am very tired of all of > the CWL bashing, Conger bashing, Adyar bashing, Pasadena > bashing, ULT bashing and so on and on like a bunch of > children. As far as I am concerned, Frank and anyone else > who sends personal flames against people are hypocrites. Don't tell us such silly lies. You know well that I don't have attacked the person Conger. I have attacked his black actions in his office as leader of the TS. If you forbit us to critisize the evil doings which resulted in the greatest dissolution in the history of the TM, then I have to ask your view of Theosophy and the TS: Do you want the TS to be a sect where the members have not the right to critizise the elected ones? G. de Purucker always fought against such a policy and invited his members to think for themselves and even to learn to critizise. > Dallas has argued that we should not flame Blavatsky or Judge > because they are dead and cannot defend themselves. Yet > I don't hear this same argument in any defense of CWL or > Conger. Strange huh... > > I am a liscensed professional counselor with a PhD in > Human Services and a lot of psychology courses etc, and Applause, all will be proud of you. > my professional opinion is that Frank is exhibiting a > compulsive obsessive behavior disorder, and I strongly > recommend that he gets some professional help. While You want me to say, that only your lies about the victims of Conger's attacks are ill and that you are well? It is a matter of fact that many pychologists are themselves a little bit crazy. And as pyschology says that persons like the Dalai Lama, Jesus Christ and also H.P. Blavatsky are suffering on psychical illness I really don't worry about that you now include me in that list. > In short, if we can't talk like adults about Theosophical > history, then we shouldn't talk about it at all. > Anyone, not just Frank but anyone, who flames > people and espouses compassion, is a hypocrite > (nothing wrong with flaming ideas) pure and simple. Everyone who has followed the discussions and your attacks can decide for him-/herself who is adult and who is not, I'm sure. I repeat that I didn't attacked the person Conger, but only the then leader of the TS. I was judging his threats to the Point Loma peoples to blindly believe that he has the same occult powers as HPB, whereas he teached and acted in the opposite way. I am sorry that in your twisted version of Theosophy there is no place for critisism. > Calling other people names like "Black Magician" > is childish and as Theosophists we should have What name then you have to offer when someone says he has the same occult powers as HPB, but shows not a little sign that his words are true? Is that White Magic? > grown out of that phase of our development. Jung > would say that such a person is projecting from their > own shadow. Furthermore, to denigrate modern > psychology as an excuse for one's childish behavior is > also childish. We need to grow up before our > Theosophical Movement becomes a laughing stock. > > Jerry S. The more we need to care for that the Theosophical Movement don't turns into a PSYCHLOGICAL Movement, O son of the moon. Frank From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:12:47 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Huggy ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 5:15 AM > Subject: Katinka did it! > I can cope with life now. > > Kym Thank you Kym for this reassuring message. It inspired me to hug my chair. Sadly, the chair suggested it was time I took a bath ...... LOVE, Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk.ambain/stjust.htm/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:01:24 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Huggy In a message dated 10/13/99 4:54:15 PM Central Daylight Time, Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk writes: > > > I can cope with life now. > > > > Kym > > Thank you Kym for this reassuring message. since when is scape-goating reassuring? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:17:38 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Theosophical Fanaticism ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 2:27 PM > Subject: Theosophical Fanaticism > In short, if we can't talk like adults about Theosophical > history, then we shouldn't talk about it at all. This is very true, and very important, not only for theosophists, but for anyone. So far as possible, Theosophical history needs, like any history, to present as much *fact* as possible, ideally supported by historical documents bearing witness to these facts. The importance, if any, of this history, is something to be considered by individuals, inasmuch as they feel it is relevant to (in this case) theosophical ideals. IMO, for example, CWL told many lies which later did the TS much harm - but this appears to have been taken on board by later generations of theosophists, and where possible the harm has been redressed and the errors corrected. The Ancient Teachings which underpinned the theosophical movement begun by Blavatsy *and others* brought, it seems to me, an influence into the Western world which had long been lacking, and which has borne some unexpected fruit, the most abundant of which seems to be found not in the theosophical societies, but among the adherents and students within the very broadly-based "New Age" movement, which has largely - in the popular arena - *replaced* the TS approach. "New Age" is, indeed, very new in historical terms, but who are we to say that it may not be the child which may grow up to become the vehicle for greater truths yet to be discovered? Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:28:29 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 13, 1999 Jerry wrote: >I am very tired of all of >the CWL bashing, Conger bashing, Adyar bashing, Pasadena >bashing, ULT bashing and so on and on like a bunch of >children. As far as I am concerned, Frank and anyone else >who sends personal flames against people are hypocrites. Hypocrites maybe, but I've yet to meet a human who has been able to, in some way or another, avoid personal comparisons. Some may not be as blatant, but, nevertheless, even the "most enlightened" people fall into the trap of suggesting that others may not be up to their belief system par. It's called being human, I think. As far as "bashing," well, some people have some very serious concerns about personalities in Theosophy and life itself. What one terms "bashing," another may believe it is genuine distress. Labeling those who vent their disagreement with others as "children" is an example of someone believing that because others do not agree or approach life in the same way are somehow less mature than themselves. "Bashing" others for "bashing" others is yet another example of being human, Jerry. >I am a liscensed professional counselor with a PhD in >Human Services and a lot of psychology courses etc, and >my professional opinion is that Frank is exhibiting a >compulsive obsessive behavior disorder, and I strongly >recommend that he gets some professional help. I highly respect you, Jerry, and often agree with your observations about life. However, I am surprised that, as a professional counselor, you would announce to the cyber world that Frank is "exhibiting a compusive obsessive behavior disorder." Surely more information about Frank is needed to come to such a conclusion. A writer is often much different in person. If Frank chooses to vent his frustration out in e-mail, rather on family members or other people he may come in contact with, I say "Go, Frank!." I would rather see an furious e-mail poster than an enraged parent, co-worker, or spouse. The reasons for Frank's behavior in writings are so unknown at this point that I shudder to think that a professional counselor would make such a judgment. >In short, if we can't talk like adults about Theosophical >history, then we shouldn't talk about it at all. Requiring a person to be an "adult" all the time is not the sign of a healthy society. Too much of our time is spent being "grown-up" and not feeling free enough to say what we feel. I personally think Frank is over the top in his use of personal barbs and if I were the target, I would, indeed, feel attacked and unnecessarily subjected to terms and mannerisms that attempt to diminsh my personhood. My feelings would be hurt. Often other readers avoid making comments or stand by as another is verbally assaulted, but it doesn't mean they don't notice who is doing what to who. Perhaps it is those of us, including myself, who are more at fault for a person's suffering than the person who inflicts the suffering - if more people became "involved" there would be far less crime, anguish, and death in this world. One of the hardest tests in life is managing to avoid becoming "like those we despise" in the heat of the moment. I've yet to pass that test. Good luck to you and Frank. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:46:55 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 13, 1999 Grigor wrote (I assume as the post wasn't signed): > >> >> > I can cope with life now. >> > >> > Kym >> >> [Alan] Thank you Kym for this reassuring message. >since when is scape-goating reassuring? "Scape-goating" if often reassuring to humans - it is a coping mechanism for many; not a compassionate or valid mechanism, but effective nonetheless. Now, having said that, in this particular case, Grigor, neither Alan nor I are in any way "scape-goating." Perhaps you overlooked my final statement which informed Katinka that I was "just joshing" (which means "just kidding" or "just joking")? Please clarify your response. Say what's on your mind - or are you really just fuming about me not getting your "Titanic joke?." (hehehehe) Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 04:13:38 -0400 From: Robert Cain Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 13, 1999 I am fully enlightened and have no belief system does that mean I'm not human. kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > Hypocrites maybe, but I've yet to meet a human who has been able to, in > some way or another, avoid personal comparisons. Some may not be as > blatant, but, nevertheless, even the "most enlightened" people fall into > the trap From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:02:04 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: ANIMAL SOUL -- Hi Dallas, > Oct 13 > > Dallas asks: RE REINCARNATION INTO ANIMALS OF HUMAN SOUL > > Dear Katinka: > > Where have you ever found that HPB said that the human soul would > reincarnate in an animal? I don't remember where, but I suppose it was the Secret Doctrine or the Key to theosophy, because I read about it a long time ago. What she said was that very egoistical people: black magicians who give up all unselfishness, love and other higher aspirations, glide off, down the evolutionary road the rest of us is climbing. They lose all contact with their higher selves, and eventually the manas also looses speed, untill it disappears and the consciousness goes into an animal. > As far as I know the "skandhas" (the "life-atoms" or little lives) > that we impress with animal-like feelings and thoughts may be > attracted for a while to animals -- where they experience an > embodiment of the Kamic quality present in such animals - but for the > actual HUMAN SOUL "Manas" to incarnate in an animal form -- never. > The Theosophical teaching is" Once a Man, always a Man." I would modify that into "Once a man, usually always a Man." > HPB wrote an extensive article on the subject of the "animal soul" > under the article title > HAVE ANIMALS SOULS? "Theosophist Jan, Feb, March 1886. > Again in LUCIFER for May 1888 HPB wrote WHY DO ANIMALS SUFFER? There > she deals with vivisection and human cruelty to animals. > But in neither of those 2 important articles does she say that the > HUMAN SOUL (Manas) incarnates in animals. But I may be wrong and you > have another reference that contradicts that ? You're right there. The manas does not incarnate into the animal, but the entity that once *had* a human soul or manas, can reincarnate into an animal. At least that is how I understood it. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:05:12 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: HPB - Buddhism > Katinka wrote: > > > Mika wrote: > > > Is there buddhists that do NOT believe that humans may reborn as > > > animals?? > > > HPB was a Buddhist and she believed that it is very rare > > for humans to be reborn as animals. > Mika wrote: > But HPB was not a 'normal' buddhist. No, I suppose not. > Sangharakshita says in 'The Three Jewels' that what incarnates is > not a human ego but a 'constantly changing flow of psychic energy' > and if this flow is made of lifetime long thoughts mainly of sex and > food then this psychic energy is connected to animals > consciousness (or not-yet-born animals) when reincarnation is at > hand. > > I have thought this is the general view among buddhists and that > theosophists just have their own interpretation which is not > originated from buddhist texts. I suppose I am one of those theosophists that needs to study more Buddhism, because I do not know much about Buddhist texts. My only excuse is that I have been in this business for such a short time. (6 years) Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:14:19 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Theosophical Fanaticism Gerald Schueler wrote: > >>No TS is higher than the TRUTH. > Hate the hate and love the love. And the love for truth. > Frank>> > > Truth is in the eyes of the beholder. We all see it differently. > Hatred is ALWAYS wrong. but also very human. > I wish that all of this hate-mongering would go away from > these lists. Especially since Theosophists are supposed > to be developing compassion. I am very tired of all of > the CWL bashing, Conger bashing, Adyar bashing, Pasadena > bashing, ULT bashing and so on and on like a bunch of > children. As far as I am concerned, Frank and anyone else > who sends personal flames against people are hypocrites. > In short, if we can't talk like adults about Theosophical > history, then we shouldn't talk about it at all. > Anyone, not just Frank but anyone, who flames > people and espouses compassion, is a hypocrite > (nothing wrong with flaming ideas) pure and simple. I have noticed that it is very difficult to keep our emotions clear and calm, on this list. It is difficult to put our words in such a way that they don't arouse negative emotions because people feel threatened. I think it is part of learning how to deal with an e-mail-list. E-mails are tricky because contrary to physical mail, sending one's reaction is one move of the Mouse away. Carefully thinking through a response is not the most efficient way of doing things, also because a member of an e-mail-list receives so much mail. So I think that that is part of the problem. Contrary to physical-presence-communication we cannot see directly how the other person reacts, how he/she looks when giving feedback. I think we have to learn how to deal with this new form of communication. > Calling other people names like "Black Magician" > is childish and as Theosophists we should have > grown out of that phase of our development. Jung > would say that such a person is projecting from their > own shadow. Furthermore, to denigrate modern > psychology as an excuse for one's childish behavior is > also childish. We need to grow up before our > Theosophical Movement becomes a laughing stock. The Theosophical Movement is already a laughing stock to many people, except those in it, of course. I don't know if that is something to worry about. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:08:51 +0200 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 12, 1999 Kym, may I be your chair??? Serioulsy too. Promoting Brotherhood/Sisterhood/Siblinghood is not enough. I only want to get sure that I not exclude someone/something anyhow somehow anytime. To be religious correct. Ha! Chairs are the Humankind of Globe XYZ in anyone Mahamanvantara. I love chairs. And Rilke. The Armchair poet (hugging him/her/it). > Frank wrote: > > >Unless a student has developed from his innermost the power for > >discrimination he/she/it is in danger to follow the > >false leader. > > Ok, but. . .I can see the "she" in danger and I can see the "he" in danger. > I ponder, though - "it" in danger? This "it" entity. . .how will I know > one when I see "it?" > > I applaud your use of gender-inclusive language, but is my chair in danger? > > Well, looking at "it" in a mega universal way, I guess my chair could be in > danger, although I wonder about its "power of discrimination." And, Rilke, > my fave rave poet, did speak admirably of "Things." > > I'm going to, after sending this, give my chair a great big hug. Seriously. > > > Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:17:30 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Theosophy? On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:36:48 -0400 Gerald Schueler wrote: > >>>What you fail to mention is that the kicked off members, who > denied to break their vows for the truth, were working and still do work for > the cause of Theosophy. >> > > What you fail to mention, Frank, is that they were working > for their own brand/version of Theosophy, as was CWL and > everyone else. We can't all agree on what "Theosophy" is, > even on this list. How much more so in a TS? I do wonder why it is so difficult to unite different versions of theosophy into one organisation? Are you saying Jerry that to defend that ideal is wrong? Should it not be our aim to unite different ways of thinking about theosophy into one organisation? What else does the second object (Adyar or Theosophy International - versions ) mean, in combination to the first? katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:20:11 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Islam/Byzantium Thanks Grigor, I did not know this. You wrote: > There is another fact that most Europeans and Americans neglect. > There was the eastern Roman Empire, Byzantium, next door until > its fall in 1453. It NEVER had a dark ages. It had ALL the texts > of antiquity.When western Europe wanted better translations of > Aristotle from the Greek originals to debate the Arab interpretation > called Averroism, they bought them from Byzantium. Byzantium's > imperial libraries and monastic libraries are turning up new finds to > this day such as Piri Reis map. Some fantasize that the Vatican > has lost manuscripts buried in its vaults that would be of interest > to theosophists. No, it is the old Byzantine libraries in Istanbul. > It is these libraries that HPB tried to get into, Gurdjieff tried to get > into, RA Schwaller de Lubicz got into, and many new and strange > things come out of like some of the maps of Hapgood. (etc.) Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:24:37 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Huggy On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:01:24 EDT Hazarapet@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/13/99 4:54:15 PM Central Daylight Time, > Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk writes: > > > > > > I can cope with life now. > > > > > > Kym > > > > Thank you Kym for this reassuring message. > since when is scape-goating reassuring? Well, as I am the scapegoat here... I thought scapegoating was always reasuring, whether or not it should be is another question, but it is always easy on the mind to blame someone else. And in this case I do not mind being the scapegoat, obviously, I am sure the whole list had a good laugh. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:53:53 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Theosophical Blinders >>Obviously I stated the truth, otherwise there would have been no reason for such an outburst from you. Frank>> You stated the truth as you see it. I, in turn, have stated the truth as I see. The idea that we can possibly see truth differently is as foreign to you as it was to Dallas and Leon when I tried to explain it to them. Oh well, Frank. Have your fun. But your karma for flaming honest and decent people will come back to haunt you some day. Now that my outburst is over I will go fix some coffee ... Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:11:13 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Some Free Counseling for Frank >>I was merely quoting G. de Purucker. No wonder you hate the followers of GdeP>> Frank, you are taking the words of G de P (whose "followers" are Pasadena TS) way too seriously. This is normaly a classic indication of obsession-compulsion as well as fanaticism. Your defense is to denigrate psychology using emotion rather than facts, which is also a classic type of resistance. When people have differences, and an observer sees the people on one side as the "good" guys and the other side the "bad" guys, then that observer is often projecting and has a shadow problem that needs professional help. Unfortunately most such observers won't accept the idea that there is anything wrong with them preferring to blame anyone and everyone else. This is typical borderline personality disorder behavior. I don't think I can help you Frank. Sorry, but if you persist in your hate-filled attitude, you will have to find your own way... Otherwise, have a nice day. Jerry S. PS. Although I can't help you, I will nevertheless refuse to let you flame honest and decent people. Everyone on this list has the right to defend people or positions that that feel are under attack. I have found myself defending CWL simply because no one else would, and he couldn't. In the same way, I will defend Conger. I do not see his actions as either good or bad (which are cultural and social labels that encourage emotion and hide truth) but rather that he did what he felt he had to do under the circumstances at the time. Many people thought badly of Blavatsky when she insisted that members sign that infamous pledge (its in CW Vol XII) and she was attacked with the very same words that Frank is using now against Conger. Frank has what I call selective compassion, as do most people. Hopefully the Theosophical Movement will slowly change this attitude into a universal compassion for all people, but its clear that we are not there yet. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:33:29 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Response to Frank >>Don't tell us such silly lies. You know well that I don't have attacked the person Conger.>> Although your English is poor, I think I see what you mean. However, I always considered calling a person a "black magician" as you did was a personal attack. I am attacking your position, Frank, because I think you are misguided. I don't think that things happened the way you say they did. Pasadena and Point Loma have two very different views of Theosophical history and it is not a case of one being wrong/satanic while the other is right/angelic as you keep suggesting. >> I have attacked his black actions in his office as leader of the TS.>> You can't seem to see the forest for all the trees in your way. There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing with what Conger did. There is nothing wrong with you trying to defend the Point Loma position. The "wrongness" is in your accompaning baggage of emotion. Why "black" in the above sentence? Its used because you are filled with hatred, which is a deadly poison to your whole system and also poisons others and so generates "bad" karma. I am at a loss to see how you can study Blavatsky and G de P without seeing what you are doing to yourself, except for the possibility that you are pathological (which I am going to assume is not so). >>If you forbit us to critisize the evil doings which resulted in the greatest dissolution in the history of the TM,>> Here again you are terribly wrong in your history. Krishnamurti, not Conger, has this distinction. (I would guess CWL could take second). It is rather clear to me that your emotions are getting the best of your reason. >> then I have to ask your view of Theosophy and the TS: Do you want the TS to be a sect where the members have not the right to critizise the elected ones?>> Most people consider it to be a sect now anyway. There is nothing wrong with criticism, Frank. But I feel that calling a Leader a black magician is stepping over the line. Also, to suggest that Knoche or Donant could possibily lie is ridiculously absurd. They are both so squeeky clean that if you pointed a gun to their head and told them to lie or be shot, they would prefer to be shot. You have a right to call them wrong, if you want to, but when you call them evil or liars then you are past criticism and into slander. >> G. de Purucker always fought against such a policy and invited his members to think for themselves and even to learn to critizise.>> I have absolutely no doubt, after studying G de P for over 35 years, that he would tell you exactly the same thing that I am trying to tell you now. I can't stop you from malicious slander, but I can at least present an opposing viewpoint. My view is that Conger did what he felt he had to so for the harmony of the TS, and it was all brought on by the overzealous actions and constant disharmony caused by those he felt the TS would be better off without. As Leader he had no other choice, and I would probably do the same thing, but I wasn't there and so don't really know. All I know about Conger is what I read, and I have read the views of both sides. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:46:48 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Teachers The Bodhisattva takes a vow to help others and tries to alleviate their suffering. He becomes a Teacher. In order to help those who feel there is no justice in the world, the Teachers have taught the Law of Karma. In order to help those who feel that this one life is too short, the Teachers have taught the Law of Reincarnation. In order to help those who feel there is no meaning to life, the Teachers have taught the Law of Evolution. In order to help those who feel isolated, estranged, or disconnected, the Teachers have taught the Law of Cycles. In order to help those who feel there is nothing but matter in the world, the Teachers have taught the existence of Cosmic Planes. In order to help those who feel there is no permanence to life, the Teachers have taught the Doctrine of Monads. In order to help those who feel there is no God, the Teachers have taught the existence of Beness. In order to help those who feel there is no escape from suffering, the Teachers have taught the existence of the Absolute. and so it goes... Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:31:33 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Theosophical Fanaticism ----- Original Message ----- > From: hesse600 > Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 10:14 AM > Subject: Re: Theosophical Fanaticism > The Theosophical Movement is already a laughing stock to > many people, except those in it, of course. I don't know if > that is something to worry about. > > Katinka It is nothing to worry about - if the TM can make people laugh, then maybe it is doing its job! Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 22:22:24 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Theosophy? ----- Original Message ----- > From: hesse600 > Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 10:17 AM > Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Theosophy? > Should it not be our aim to unite different ways of > thinking about theosophy into one organisation? What else > does the second object (Adyar or Theosophy International - > versions ) mean, in combination to the first? > > katinka The important aim, in my opinion, is indeed to unite different ways of thinking about theosophy in the way you suggest. However, the paradox of Theosophy International is that it is a kind of non-organisation. The commitment that TI members make is basically to themselves. There are no committees, no leaders, no followers. To "sign up" for TI is simply to state one's intention to pursue theosophical ideals, and furthermore to actively study. Anyone can sign up, but no one can be thrown out! Alan :-) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:14:52 +0530 (IST) From: "H. C. Dhariwal" Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Theosophy? Alan, I am ispired to submit the following for your due consideration after reading your thoughts on the aim of theosophy and shall be grateful if you can offer your comments on the same. Husiar SOME THOUGHTS ON THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEMS FACED BY THE HUMAN RACE All the problems which are there today as well as in the past, the agonising period of development of humanity, are because of the historical conditions. The communication was very poor. The technology at the disposal of humanity was very primitive. The religious scriptures were few in number(perhaps the sole single copy in the possession of the Rishis and Acharyas, whether of Hinduism, Islam, Budhism, Jainism or christianity) and were not available for every body to read understand, analyse and practice. The most important goal was to preserve them faithfully and transmit them to future generations. The time has now come when we should read, understand and analyse in an unbiased manner (i.e. scientific manner) to be practiced in the society at large. I am enclosing below some thoughts and facts which have occurred to me in after reading Bhagwad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam of ISKCON translation, which are now available in an authentic, As It Is, translation in various languages of the world. SCIENTIFIC REALISTIC SPIRITUALISM 1. Every body on earth whether one lives in the cities or jungles believes in GOD who created everything including us. The focal point of every spiritualism is this all encompassing God. 2. That whenever any thing is created, like when we create tv, fridge, car or any other device, before it is put into users hands detailed instruction manuals are written. One for the user, another for the service people, third for the repair and maitenance personnel etc. 3. When using servicing or repairing these devices we have to follow these instruction manuals word by word. We know the consequences if we ignore them or even do not follow them properly. 4. How is it that the creator of such a big creation has not supplied us with similar INSTRUCTION MANUALS. HE has obviously supplied them to us, but we are ignoring them due to whatever reasons and that alone is the reason for all the problems afflicting the humanity today. 5. These are the manuals supplied at the beginning of the creation. From time to time depending on the historic and geographic requirements of the development of the creation, experts have been sent to steer the course of development of the creation. These are JESUS, BUDDHA, MAHAVIR,MOHAMMAD AND SO ON who have further elaborated on some of the points which were important for that particulat geographical location and historical development. 6. My humble submission is that we should not ignore the original instruction manuals when following the messages of any of the subsequent messengers. The messages of all of the messengers are also for whole of the humanity and not confined to a particular sect or religion. In order to root out all the evil from the human society, and usher in an era of scientific and realistic spiritualism, Universal Brotherhood and live the life for the purpose for which the God has created us,the instuctions contained in the original instuction manuals together with the subsequent supplementary manuals should be followed in an integrated manner. Instead we have divided them all into mine and yours due to various reasons. It is also very interesting to note that though every body on earth and all the religions on earth believe in the creator, The God who has created everything including us, nobody except one person has ever said that He is the creator who has created everything and given the scientific details of how He created everything out of the Adi Jal (Eternal Fluid). I found this information in Bhagwad Gita and Srimad Bhagwatam of ISKCON. Dr. H.C.Dhariwal Tel : (+91-22) 5767536, 5782545 Associate Professor Res. : B104, IIT Bombay Mech. Engg. deptt. Fax : (+91-22) 5783480 Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay Extn : 7536 (O), 8536 (R) Powai, Mumbai - 400076 Tel(R): 5792747, 5768536 I N D I A E-mail:hcd@me.iitb.ernet.in On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Alan wrote: > The important aim, in my opinion, is indeed to unite different ways of > thinking about theosophy in the way you suggest. However, the paradox > of Theosophy International is that it is a kind of non-organisation. > The commitment that TI members make is basically to themselves. There > are no committees, no leaders, no followers. To "sign up" for TI is > simply to state one's intention to pursue theosophical ideals, and > furthermore to actively study. Anyone can sign up, but no one can be > thrown out! > > Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:11:44 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 14, 1999 Robert wrote: >I am fully enlightened and have no belief system does that mean I'm not human. Ok - I'm trying to figure out if you are being serious or tongue-in-cheek here. Hmmmm. Ok, I'll bite the apple. . .you know us women and all. First, if you were "fully enlightened," (I like how you said "fully" rather than "almost" or "a little" - clarification is always good - but I digress). Let me start over. . .if you are, as you say, "fully enlightened," tell me why you believe you are. Second, it is impossible to be a human and not have a belief system, unless you're in a coma. Do you believe you are a human? Do you believe you have legs? Do you have ANY opinions about ANYTHING? If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you have a belief system. When you hear your phone ring, do you answer it? - if so, I bet you do so because you believe that someone will be on the other end - hence, a belief system. Third: No, it does not mean you are not human if you don't have a belief system and you are fully enlightened - but you'd be a monk in a veggie state. However, not having a belief system and being fully enlightened does not mean you ARE a human. I believe that there are entities (animals, spirits, etc.) that are fully enlightened and may not have a belief system (although I hesitate on that point). I believe, as Tibetan Buddhists do, that enlightened souls/spirits can incarnate into animals or anything else that will serve a particular purpose. I do not buy the "human hierarchy" philosophy. So, were you serious in your query or simply yanking my chain? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:50:50 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 14, 1999 Jerry wrote: >I do not see his actions as either >good or bad (which are cultural and social labels >that encourage emotion and hide truth) but rather >that he did what he felt he had to do under the >circumstances at the time. Jerry, I understand, and agree, with the crux of what you are saying, but to utilize the classic example of Hitler and his henchmen in WWII, how would you term Hitler's actions if using terms such as "good" or "bad" are unacceptable? In your post, "Response to Frank," you mention that "Conger did what he felt he had to so for the harmony of the TS." People do many things in the name of "harmony" or "unification," but does it always deserve defending? Hitler and many Germans really believed that their country was under threat due to the Vienna Convention and economic crisis, along with beliefs about historical lands once claimed as theirs. They feared complete dissolution. I do not know anything about Conger, so you may be right on about him, or not - again, I have no clue. But, how does one teach Compassion while accepting the sometimes terrible, sometimes wonderful, things people do under the cloak of "harmony?" If someone were flaming Hitler - and I'm not being flippant, I'm very serious - wouldn't you find yourself bound by your statement above to defend him? If not, why? And how would you "label" what Hitler and his followers did? More to the point: How would you explain it in terms that non-Theosophists would understand if you couldn't use the term "bad?" Just so you know, I ask the above questions both for general purposes and for personal guidance/advice. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:06:15 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Response to Frank >> If others therefore attacking me as having "borderline disorder" and the like as Jerry S. (Heavens, forgive him) it cares me not much, as such attacks are only against the personality and not against my Higher Self.>> I am sorry that you think I was personally attacking you, Frank. I was trying to warn you out of a concern for your health, nothing more. Yes, of course, sickness and health apply only to the personality. >>I am still waiting for facts or any good reason why in worldly ways or after occult laws any leader of any organizations has the right to threat and force pupils to believe blindly anything he claims and then, after not doing so, lies and attacks them and withdraws the membership cards.>> You are waiting for "facts" to substantiate events that exist only in your own mind. The events that you talk about happened, but your emotional inflectives such as "lies" and "attacks" show your hidden obsessive attachment to your own interpretation of these events. This is exactly why I worry about your mental health. Mental health is very funny in this country because no one thinks a thing about going to a doctor for a physical problem, but at the suggestion of a mental disorder we think we are being personally attacked. Very strange social attitude. Anyway, Fact: Conger never lied about anything. Fact: Conger never attacked anyone (My Websters says that to attack means "fall upon with force or violence; assault" which is exactly what Frank means to imply and borders on slander which I find very sad in any self-proclaimed Theosophist. This kind of emotional crap conjures up an image of an old Army Col in a wheelchair striking his TS members with a cane or somesuch, which is downright silly). Fact: Conger warned disruptive members what would happen. Fact: Conger basically withdrew membership for all whom he considered to be disruptive after warning them first (which is all Frank's "attack" comes down to). Fact: As Leader he was within his rights to do so. Fact: Any guru can drop any chela for just about any reason at any time and some would say that a TS Leader is a guru of sorts by definition. Fact: HBP also had many disruptive pupils and finally made them sign very strong pledges to her with the provision that they could be expelled if they did not honor the pledge. Hows that Frank? >>Would HPB ever did such things? In a New York minute. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:20:41 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Conger Throwing Out His Students >>It was Conger who launched a new TS called Pasadena and left the pupils of KT and GdeP alone - not the contrary as Jerry S. will us make belief.>> Here you are mixing fact with your own fantasy. Indeed, Conger did launch the Pasadena TS, just as Donant says in his accurate historical essay. (Do you see, Frank, how by sliding in the word "accurate" here I reveal a hidden bias to what I am saying? The problem is that you do this all the time and apparently don't even realize it.) Please quote anything I ever said to the effect that I ever said anything to "the contrary" as you say above. When did I ever say that he did not leave some "pupils of KT and GdeP alone?" ) Frank, your poor choice of wording suggests an image of the old Colonel bodily tossing out his very best students into the night without food or shelter, from his wheelchair, just because he was following the Dark Brothers (which is the TS equivalent to the Christian Satan and has just as much reality). Your sense of history is so entirely misbegotton and distorted that I can only wonder at the hatred of those who can tell what happened in such a twisted manner. Hatred twists history, and this has happened throughout countries and in all times, and is why any good historian will always look carefully at both sides of any historical event. Truth is usually somewhere in between the views of the two sides. Slander, whether it be against Conger, CWL, Krishnamurti, or anyone else whom we disagree with, is always wrong because it comes not from any truth but from our own hidden emotional contents and will poison us in the end. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:00:47 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Response to Kym >>As far as "bashing," well, some people have some very serious concerns about personalities in Theosophy and life itself. >> Having concerns and disagreements does not give anyone the right to slander or vent their emotional baggage. As Theosophists we are supposed to be trying to get rid of such baggage, not increasing it. Finding a target for our inner hatreds and angers is no excuse, although it is a human tendency to rationalize it that way. If this were any "normal" list, it would be OK, but I like to think that we Theosophists are a bit more mature than most. Hatred is immature, a sign that we are not spiritually advanced very far. Anger, on the other hand, is OK as long as we are aware of it and it doesn't control us. > What one terms "bashing," another may believe it is genuine distress. >> This is no excuse. We have had some very mature discusions in the past on Theosophical history without throwing mud around. Dan and Paul went at it for awhile while being relativity kind to each other. Of course, we have also thrown a lot of mud around, probably against CWL more than anything else but I opposed all of that too. I have opposed certain teachings of Blavatsky, G de P, Judge, and just about everyone else but I did so without any emotional "bashing" because I have no hatred for those persons, only a disagreement over a few specific issues. Frank, Leon, and others have accused me of being anti-Blavatsky because I dared to disagree with her on a point (to wit, sex) but that is their problem, not mine. >> Labeling those who vent their disagreement with others as "children" is an example of someone believing that because others do not agree or approach life in the same way are somehow less mature than themselves.>> Not at all. I have never said such a thing to Dan, for example, who always forms his criticisms in an adult manner. No, its the emotional undertones and choice of wording that reveals immaturity, and I am sorry if this seems to come out like I am bashing anyone, but I don't know any other way to do this on an impersonal list like this (you can't see if I'm smiling, or my body movements while you read my words, etc). I do not really mean to imply that Frank is immature, but rather than his choice of words used against Conger reveals an inner immaturity due to strong emotional currents overriding the cognitive processes that probably function just fine on other subjects (when a person gets fixated on a topic that topic becomes an obsession fueled by any strong emotion such as hatred -- which is always rationalized away by the belief that one is acting "rightly" such as having God on their side, or taking up for an underdog, etc etc). I can't really explain psychology here, but those on this list who understand even a little of how the human mind works will follow what I am saying here. >> I am surprised that, as a professional counselor, you would announce to the cyber world that Frank is "exhibiting a compusive obsessive behavior disorder." Surely more information about Frank is needed to come to such a conclusion. To conclude that Frank, or anyone else, is a compulsive obsessive or borderline or anything else is indeed impossible to do based on just this list. What I said was that his choice of words suggested such a possibility and that he should seek professional help. The first thing that such "help" would do is to diagnose. It may be nothing at all. Why is it that we can do this kind of thing with our physical body, but it appears "wrong" to do it for our mind? If someone sneezes, we would think nothing at all about suggesting going to a doctor for a checkup. What should we do if someone exhibits characteristics of a personally disorder? Keep quiet and just let them continue on their merry way? >>A writer is often much different in person. If Frank chooses to vent his frustration out in e-mail, rather on family members or other people he may come in contact with, I say "Go, Frank!." >> Again, I have no problem with an adult discussion of Theosophical history. But this can't be done with someone who refuses to listen to a possible difference of opinion. Anyway, I find it hard to just sit back and listen to Frank spouting off silly nonsense about poor old Conger without offering some defense, since he is dead and can't defend himself. But Frank's response is to attack me because he sees me as an opponent of something that he very deeply believes in. If he listens to me, then he may realize his mistake and his whole worldview will crash down around him. Heavens know that we will all fight to the end to maintain our cherished worldviews. So, while I see where Frank is coming from, I am still left in the awkward position of having to defend the good Colonel. Notice that I have never accused Frank of "lies" like he does against all of the Pasadedna Leadership. This is because I realize that lying is a deliberate twisting of the truth. I do believe that Frank is sincere and honestly beleives in the outrageous events that he claims took place. But I still have to try to tell the other side, which is that Conger and Long and Knoche never lied about anything and that Frank is plain wrong. This is hard to do without sounding personal and emotional myself, but I am trying... >>Requiring a person to be an "adult" all the time is not the sign of a healthy society. Too much of our time is spent being "grown-up" and not feeling free enough to say what we feel.>> I agree with you here, and I have to admit that I am having a great deal of fun with Frank on this. Have a good day, Kym. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:38:20 -0700 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 14, 1999 > Ok - I'm trying to figure out if you are being serious or tongue-in-cheek > here. Hmmmm. Ok, I'll bite the apple. . .you know us women and all. Sometimes you just *slay* me. (-:), -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 16:47:46 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re to Katinka >> What you fail to mention, Frank, is that they were working >> for their own brand/version of Theosophy, as was CWL and >> everyone else. We can't all agree on what "Theosophy" is, >> even on this list. How much more so in a TS? >I do wonder why it is so difficult to unite different >versions of theosophy into one organisation? >Are you saying Jerry that to defend that ideal is wrong? >Should it not be our aim to unite different ways of >thinking about theosophy into one organisation? What else >does the second object (Adyar or Theosophy International - >versions ) mean, in combination to the first? What are we defending? We can only "defend" our belief system. My belief system is not yours, even though we are both Theosophists. When we think that we are "right" and others "wrong" then we wrongly conclude that we are defending "truth" and can, if not careful, become a zealot. As Theosophists, we should be striving to unite if nothing else because of our purported belief in brotherhood. But different paths have been taken and it is doubtful that they can ever come together at this point. For one thing, Adyar went the route of having open elections while Pasadena went the route of selecting a Leader who then appoints committee people etc. Which is right or wrong???? How can they ever hope to unite? On top of that, we have deep-seated hatreds such as that espoused by Frank which woud have to be overcome. I suspect that there will always be fragmentation in the TSs. But as individuals, we still need to develop compassion and forgiveness for whatever wrongs we think may have been done in the past. It helps neither ourselves or the Movement to throw stones at other TSs. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 16:56:57 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re to Alan >>To "sign up" for TI is simply to state one's intention to pursue theosophical ideals, and furthermore to actively study. Anyone can sign up, but no one can be thrown out!<< Hi Alan. Gee, with you and Chuck back it seems like old times again. While I do agree with what you say above, I don't see how anyone can "pursue theosophical ideals" while slandering the leaders of other TSs? Doesn't throwing stones at ourself (we are, after all, all Theosophists) just hurt the entire Movement? History is such a touchy subject... Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 03:35:15 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Theosophy? ----- Original Message ----- > From: H. C. Dhariwal > Date: Friday, October 15, 1999 6:44 AM > Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Theosophy? > Alan, > > I am ispired to submit the following for your due consideration after > reading your thoughts on the aim of theosophy and shall be grateful if you > can offer your comments on the same. > > Husiar I will do my best! > > SOME THOUGHTS ON THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEMS FACED BY THE HUMAN RACE > > > All the problems which are there today as well as in the past, the > agonising period of development of humanity, are because of the historical > conditions. The communication was very poor. The technology at the > disposal of humanity was very primitive. The religious scriptures were few > in number(perhaps the sole single copy in the possession of the Rishis and > Acharyas, whether of Hinduism, Islam, Budhism, Jainism or christianity) > and were not available for every body to read understand, analyse and > practice. The most important goal was to preserve them faithfully and > transmit them to future generations. > Agreed. Sadly, this has clearly not always been done, and parts have errors into them due to faulty transmission. This is certainly true of the Christian writings with which I am most familiar. > The time has now come when we should read, understand and analyse in an > unbiased manner (i.e. scientific manner) to be practiced in the society at > large. > A difficult task, but I agree, a necessary one. > I am enclosing below some thoughts and facts which have occurred to me in > after reading Bhagwad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam of ISKCON translation, which > are now available in an authentic, As It Is, translation in various languages > of the world. > > > SCIENTIFIC REALISTIC SPIRITUALISM > > 1. Every body on earth whether one lives in the cities or jungles > believes in GOD who created everything including us. The focal point of > every spiritualism is this all encompassing God. > This requires a definition of the term, "God." From my own studies over many years, I perceive and experience "God" as a continuum of Being, a universal Totality of Being which some call Spirit or Breath. As individual "breaths" of the One Breath, we are continually exhaled and inhaled. > 2. That whenever any thing is created, like when we create tv, fridge, > car or any other device, before it is put into users hands detailed > instruction manuals are written. One for the user, another for the service > people, third for the repair and maitenance personnel etc. > Whilst this is true, such creations are not creations from nothing, but are essentially the rearrangement of existing parts of a pre-existing pool of substance(s). If human beings are being considered here as analagous to such creations, then the pre-existent pool of substances from which they are made becomes part of the process. > 3. When using servicing or repairing these devices we have to follow these > instruction manuals word by word. We know the consequences if we ignore > them or even do not follow them properly. > Problems arise here. Experience shows that even with tv, fridge, etc., detailed instruction manuals sometimes contain errors. The "Instruction Manuals" for human beings also appear to contain errors, and many manuals contradict other manuals which also claim to contain vlaid instructions. > 4. How is it that the creator of such a big creation has not supplied us > with similar INSTRUCTION MANUALS. HE has obviously supplied them to us, > but we are ignoring them due to whatever reasons and that alone is the > reason for all the problems afflicting the humanity today. > What evidence is there that 1. Such a creator of a big creation exists? 2. That if such a creator exists, that creator is "HE," and by such designation, similar in nature to the human male? 3. That the suggested creator has personally supplied instruction manuals for humanity? > 5. These are the manuals supplied at the beginning of the creation. From > time to time depending on the historic and geographic requirements of > the development of the creation, experts have been sent to steer the > course of development of the creation. These are JESUS, BUDDHA, > MAHAVIR,MOHAMMAD AND SO ON who have further elaborated on some of the > points which were important for that particulat geographical location and > historical development. > Such manuals, commonly called scriptures (writings) of various religions whose foundations are attributed to persons such as you name, have clearly been written by human beings, and transmitted through time by human beings. There are many problems with this. Apart from one letter, the authenticity of which is disputed, and mostly rejected as false, we have no writings directly attributed to Jesus, for example, only the writings of those who claim to be his followers, who do not always agree among themselves. There is also a presumption in your statement that "creation" has a "beginning." If, as is usually or often held, "God" and "Creation" are "Eternal" then how can Eternity have either a beginning or an end? The teaching that it does not means that time is an illusion. But time is nothing more than a measurement of the motions of physical matter in space, *as perceived by human beings.* As we know from the widely different accounts given by people of the details of a road accident which many people have observed, human perception, when it comes to detail, is extremely unreliable. That the road accident happened is agreed by all; how it happened is often not clear to the observers of it, as they may give conflicting accounts. > 6. My humble submission is that we should not ignore the original > instruction manuals when following the messages of any of the subsequent > messengers. The messages of all of the messengers are also for whole of > the humanity and not confined to a particular sect or religion. That the persons you mention as examples are messengers is usually a claim made by them, or for them. If we are to be scientific, we have to find a way to verify these claims by asking whoever it is that is supposed to have sent them if these claims are true. > > In order to root out all the evil from the human society, and usher in an > era of scientific and realistic spiritualism, Universal Brotherhood > and live the life for the purpose for which the God has created us,the > instuctions contained in the original instuction manuals together with > the subsequent supplementary manuals should be followed in an integrated > manner. Instead we have divided them all into mine and yours due to > various reasons. > We have certainly devided the writings of the world religions in this way, and human beings have gone to war with each other over the "true" interpretations. This suggests two things: 1. Human beings are not very good at interpretation, and become aggressive when their interpretations are questioned (as sen on Theos-L from time to time). 2. There are possibly major errors, or even falsehoods contained within the writings concerned, > It is also very interesting to note that though every body on earth > and all the religions on earth believe in the creator, The God who has > created everything including us, nobody except one person has ever said > that He is the creator who has created everything and given the scientific > details of how He created everything out of the Adi Jal (Eternal Fluid). > I found this information in Bhagwad Gita and Srimad Bhagwatam of ISKCON. I too have found useful information and wisdom in English translations of the Bhagwad Gita, and have been helped by this in my journey through this life. Whether it is a true and accurate representation of the nature of existence, human or otherwise, neither I, nor anyone else, in my opinion, is able or qualified to say. What I *can* say on my own behalf is that your premise must be incorrect, as not every body on earth believes in a male creator god. This I can say with authority, as I am myself such a person. > Sorry about that. With my very best wishes, Alan :-) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 03:49:37 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Response to Kym ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Friday, October 15, 1999 3:00 PM > Subject: Response to Kym > I like to think that > we Theosophists are a bit more mature than most ROFIH! [Rolls on floor in hysterics] Sorry, Jerry! I am often tempted to think that our brains are more addled than most. A nice word, "addled." Robert Neill, a novelist, writing in his book, "Moon in Scorpio" has the famous 17th Century astrologer Gadbury say of an acquaintance in a coffee house in 17th Cent. London, "He hath Mercury in the Fishes, and his brain is addled with it!" A friend of mine once remarked (of the astrological "fishes") that the world was in need of a Piscean-English dictionary. One Piscean I know once said (among many similar sayings) "My birthday was on Friday 13th this year. It's on the 13th next year as well." I mention this. because whether or not he is a Piscean, Frank's command of English is clearly not as yours or mine. Love to all, with extra to Kym. Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 04:13:51 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Re to Alan ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Friday, October 15, 1999 9:56 PM > Subject: Re to Alan > >>To "sign up" for TI is > simply to state one's intention to pursue theosophical ideals, and > furthermore to actively study. Anyone can sign up, but no one can be > thrown out!<< > > Hi Alan. Gee, with you and Chuck back it seems like old times > again. Fun, ain't it? :0) > > While I do agree with what you say above, I don't see how > anyone can "pursue theosophical ideals" while slandering > the leaders of other TSs? I suppose one *can* - but it don't make us look good, do it? OTOH, if one's perception of this or that leader of any TS is that he or she is an umnitigated asshole, what is one supposed (theosophically) to do, when we proclaim that there is no religion higher than truth - a statement I am coming to perceive increasingly as plain daft. Pilate was no fool when has asked, "What is truth?" > Doesn't throwing stones at > ourself (we are, after all, all Theosophists) just hurt the > entire Movement? History is such a touchy subject... > I agree on both points. However, it must be observed - correction, is may be useful to observe (don't want to issue imperatives) that insider stone-throwing seems endemic to organisations per se. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 05:14:10 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: ES-stuff Your response was wonderful. At 03:59 PM 10/13/1999 +0200, hesse600 wrote: >> It is only by a select group of brave souls, a handful of determined men and women hungry for genuine spiritual development and the acquirement of soul-wisdom, that the Theosophical Society at large can be brought back to its original lines.> Don't we have such a group here on the Internet? with no financial, ethnic or other axes to grind and attitudes more reflecting the First Object -- without discrimination of any kind? Of course 100 years ago there was no Internet so HPB was addressing the needs of that time, IMHO. Also we have to keep in mind that great achievements were made by individuals and not groups or masses. >Now, believing as I do, that individuals in a group can change a group, not only by their actions (though action at the proper time is neccessary), but also by their *aura's* or *atmosphere* or *thought-forms*, I see nothing wrong with HPB's objective. THe problem comes in when people today seem to think that not only was the ES created to save the TS, but that today it is still the lifeline of the TS. So that, no TS-member is taken seriously by some, untill they have become not only active, but also ES-members. In fact, some seem to think that one cannot be devoted to *The Life* without being an ES-member.< Fools are they who think so! Olcott himself who had personal contact with the Founders and the Brotherhood was not a member of ES. > THis prejudice is so strong that one cannot understand TS-politics, without understanding the place of the ES. Almost all national presidents (also called general secretary's) are ES-members. < >My original approach to the ES was much different. I had read about it in the Key to THeosophy, and wanted to join, vowing myself (inwardly) to the service of humanity, I was determined that this was a place to meet soul's who were similarly inclined. But then I found I could not join, because I was too young and had not been a member long enough. I started thinking out the posibilities. If the ES had all the knowledge and insight to offer me and others that is implicite in all the talk about it, then I was being refused entrance and refused bread on very superficial reasons. That could not be right. How can one refuse spiritual knowledge to someone merely because they are only 20 years old? I could not reconcile that with Love and Wisdom. Because, most of us believing in reincarnation, physical age should not be such an issue. This started me off, then I found out about all the other rules that are strictly enforced, and now I have stopped taking the ES seriously as an esoteric school. I have decided it is not for me, and the whole mystiek around it, appals me. > Have you read Ernest Wood's book "Is This Theosophy?" In it he describes how he joined the ES and was given some practical instructions on meditation and how he found that his own method which he was using for a long time (based on his reading books) was working better for him. He also mentions that what is secret is the practical techniques, the details of which of course he did not discuss. I also heard of an instance when two members who were single at that time decided to live together and one of the other members spied on them and reported their action and seems to have been told to leave and they left for good. Probably if you had joined, you may not be posting any messages here!!!! > My dislike for the ES is therefore in direct proportion to the pretentions at wisdom, and the lack of flexibility in the way the rules are applied. In HPB's days the rules were meant as advice. When one broke a rule, one was responsible to one's own consciousness. All this is gone. Recently in Brasil a man was expelled from the ES because of his sexual orientation. > Again may be someone spied on the sexual orientation? > I wish for an ES with more flexibility and less pretention, and then it might even be a blessing to the TS. As it is, it drags the TS down, as far as I'm concerned. Is it karma that it was meant to save the TS (and perhaps did?) and now it is a milestone around the TS's neck?> You may be on target on your assessment. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 05:25:52 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Theos-World TS organizations today I agree with your assessment with a comment. Invention of microprocessor (chip) seems to be the key. The design was made in 1975 even though the reality of a chip occured couple of years later. However from a practical application, it is the Internet which as a stealth technology suddenly came into the forefront taking the world by surprise. Had the governments and business and politicians known and were able to influence, we would not have Internet as we know it today. Another indication is that the established order of things does not want any change -- established order will always oppose the change agent or new messenger and would try to kill if feasible. Organizational theosophists are no exception. mkr At 06:30 PM 10/11/1999 -0700, JRC wrote: > If the internet is not able to change the TS organizations radically in the next time (and I feel time is running out - or can anyone see the messenger of 1975 among us?) -> It certainly has occurred to me that the "messenger" in the last quarter of this century *IS* the internet.> > People - not just Theosophists - seem so intent on trying to find the next leader, the next teacher, the next savior (or are anxiously awaiting the return of some previous leader/teacher/savior) that they may be missing the birth and development of the most remarkable one in the world. The internet does not spout one sectarian philosophy - hell, it spouts *all* of them - credible and profound as well as deeply disturbed and twisted - and places the responsibility for filtering, for discerning the true from the false, squarely on the shoulders of each individual (as any great "master" does). Spiritual powers? You can spend three decades learning to do funny stuff in your energy system that gives you access to people and places at a distance ... but I've got instant messengers running on my desktop that let me converse in real-time with an economist in Dallas, an artist in Paris, or a Buddhist in India.> >The next century (IMO) is not going to be about *personalities*, but rather about *process*. And its spiritual leadership will not be a matter of a few secret people that "know" graciously condescending to enlighten those who "don't", nor a single figure that all the world acknowledges as some sort of "master" ... but rather will be in the *environments*, the *forums* where people of radically different perspectives, sensibilities, value systems and religious and philosophical beliefs and assumptions rub up against one another. Fight with each other. Agree with each other. But, more important than any of that *communicate* - however poorly - with each other. A tiny group of people sitting in a room at Wheaton listening to some dolt deliver ponderous "courses" on the deeper meanings of karma is *not* spiritual growth. This active discussion list - with its phases - and with almost shockingly different sorts of people on it - *here* some measure of growth perhaps *can* be found. -JRC> From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 05:37:06 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: In support of theosophy At 10:42 AM 10/11/1999 +0200, hesse600 wrote: >As to the white brotherhood itself. All spiritual leaders having the same goal, and being telepatically-gifted, probably means they work together in some form or other, whether meeting on the physical plane or not.< Before we get the telepathic faculties, the next best means is Internet and could be effectively used to work together. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 05:43:38 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Mahatma's At 10:53 AM 10/11/1999 +0200, hesse600 wrote: >The chela is more devoted to truth and justice. Those concerns have become a central part of their being. He/She will try actively to remedy small or bigger wrongs in his/her environment, regardless of social or economical consequences (not without reason though). THeir eyes are ever on the alert - is it neccessary for me to step in and help at this moment? < Your comment is on target. Anyone who is sensitized to truth and justice and has the welfare of humanity at the back of their thinking and action, whether a formal chela or not, is IMHO, likely to be more perceptive and thus is likely to see opportunities to help. Krishnamurti describes this as being "responsible". >So, my idea is not at all that the Mahatma's are infallible, the idea is that they are closer to their divine self and less guided by the delusions of emotions. > In the physical world, everyone is likely to make mistakes. It is said that even Lord Buddha made some mistakes and it was left to Shri Shankaracharya to set them right. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 05:46:17 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: adresses > The only other thing I can think of is that the state of Idaho is so embarrassing to the US that many would prefer it to be another country. I can understand that, except that in doing so, we are grossly insulting other countries.< Not so for me! I love Idaho potatoes; who does not? mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 05:48:46 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Confusion At 08:13 AM 10/11/1999 EDT, you wrote: >Ravi is a learned man, but he is so deadly dull as a speaker that the last time he spoke at Olcott one of the Mahatmas was flying over while listening to him, fell asleep and crashed his flying carpet into the sacred and holy labyrinth.< >Chuck the Heretic I always wondered about the enormous attention being paid about the labyrinth. Now I Know! mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 04:53:55 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 15, 1999 Alan wrote to Jerry: >>[Jerry] I like to think that >> we Theosophists are a bit more mature than most > >ROFIH! [Rolls on floor in hysterics] > >Sorry, Jerry! > >I am often tempted to think that our brains are more addled than most. >A nice word, "addled." Maybe all those "entities" seeking housing are the cause, or could be the paper manufacturing/ink chemicals reeking from the book pages, or could be that mostly only borderline-wacky people to begin with gravitate to Theosophy. Who knows? A profound question, indeed. The TS should place a disclaimer on books of self-discovery - "Warning: Reading this may cause one's brain to become addled." Since many people will not understand what "addled" means, it will be a profit-clever and legally effective way to dodge any potential lawsuits. >"He hath Mercury in the Fishes, and >his brain is addled with it!" > >"My birthday was on Friday 13th >this year. It's on the 13th next year as well." Now, goddess bless those folks! If nothing else, the comic relief they provide is certainly priceless. >Love to all, with extra to Kym. Check's in the mail, Alan! Love you lots, too, my friend. By the way, thoroughly enjoyed your reponse post to Husiar. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 05:17:46 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 14, 1999 Frank wrote: >Kym, may I be your chair??? Serioulsy too. Depends. How fuzzy are you? How wide are you? Do you stand unforgivingly upright or are you for the casual sitter? You needn't be super stain-proofed as no children live here. Will you accomodate animals comfortably? And the shape of your legs are important. Are they knobby, bowed, or straight? What color are you? What era are you representing - modern, Victorian, classic? Sorry, but must keep my decor in mind - yeah, yeah, yeah, spirituality is important, but a tastefully arranged house keeps gossip at bay. >I love >chairs. And Rilke. I once had the audacity of using the name of "Rilke" as my e-mail name. Shameful. I earnestly hope he forgives me. . .. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 07:33:02 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Theosophy? Alan--The notion that THE word of god comes from holy books is a mere assertion. Seems highly unlikely that the creator of the universe would depend upon language, writing, printing presses, U.S. mail and an elite group of scholars to get the mesage to us about why we are here. Having a holy book and a religion organized around it merely creates comfort for the adherents and power for the leaders. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 13:39:10 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: God >>1. Every body on earth whether one lives in the cities or jungles believes in GOD who created everything including us. The focal point of every spiritualism is this all encompassing God.>> Well, I woudn't say "every body." Buddhists don't. I don't. The Mahatmas who taught HPB don't. Materalists, which include most scientists, don't. I believe in divinity as an impersonal universal force or energy, but not in any supreme God. I agree with Buddhism that our world was created by our own collective karma. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 14:04:53 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Response to Kym >>Jerry, I understand, and agree, with the crux of what you are saying, but to utilize the classic example of Hitler and his henchmen in WWII, how would you term Hitler's actions if using terms such as "good" or "bad" are unacceptable? >> First of all, I would remind everyone that "vengence is mine, sayth the Lord" and not worry too much about "justice." Is killing people a "bad" thing? I think so, yes, and I would not do it if it could be avoided (I just missed being drafted into the Army by 2 days by having a son, and then later by 1 week with my second son). Hitler killed a lot of people under the guide of the ends justifies the means. I do not subscribe to that guide. Conger, on the other hand, killed no one. Did his actions produce karma? Of course they did, but I suspect he weighed that fact and decided it was worth it (remember, all he did was throw out some folks he considered to be troublemakers, which guru-leaders have done from from the beginning). >>In your post, "Response to Frank," you mention that "Conger did what he felt he had to so for the harmony of the TS." People do many things in the name of "harmony" or "unification," but does it always deserve defending?>> I have never defended his actions. Grace Knoche did, but she was there as a witness. I wasn't there. What I am defending, is Frank's vicious and outrageous namecalling (slander is what it is). Conger was not a black magician and his actions were only seen as "black" to those who ignored his warnings and were expelled. Adyar does its share of expelling too. I have never once faulted them for doing so, because I am am not privy to all of the facts. I am saddened whenever anyone is expelled, because it demonstrates that we are all too human. And I agree that those expelled have a right to protest. But they have no right at all to sling the kind of mud like Frank is doing. When I hear this kind of response, I can only assume that such attitudes were why they were expelled in the first place. >>Hitler and many Germans really believed that their country was under threat due to the Vienna Convention and economic crisis, along with beliefs about historical lands once claimed as theirs. They feared complete dissolution.>> Yes, and there was justification for their fear. But they "wrongly" thought that the ends would justify the means (that killing all Jews would be justified by having a better world). I don't believe that mass murder can ever be justified. >>I do not know anything about Conger, so you may be right on about him, or not - again, I have no clue. >> All I know is what I have read, and Donant.s account is the official Pasadena view of what happened. Frank's position is that those expelled were eye witnesses. He forgets or ignores that Pasadena folks were also eye witnesses to those same events and that the two sides saw things very differently. >>But, how does one teach Compassion while accepting the sometimes terrible, sometimes wonderful, things people do under the cloak of "harmony?" >> We can only be responsible for ourself. We cannot and should not try to control others. We need to be compassionate as much as possible and not judge others. Let their own karma work things out for them. >> If someone were flaming Hitler - and I'm not being flippant, I'm very serious - wouldn't you find yourself bound by your statement above to defend him? If not, why? >> I probably would not defend him. No. I only defend people whom I think are being unjustly accused. >> And how would you "label" what Hitler and his followers did?>> Misguided. High karma stuff that they will pay and pay for in the future. >> More to the point: How would you explain it in terms that non-Theosophists would understand if you couldn't use the term "bad?">> I quite often use right and wrong in "normal" circumstances. I think it is important to try to communicate with people at their level, or at a slightly higher level, so they can understand what you are saying. I do this on the list too, and sometimes Leon or someone will say that I double-talk and that I am not consistant. He is right. I am not. Well, I can only try ... Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 14:16:25 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Response to Alan >>I suppose one *can* - but it don't make us look good, do it? OTOH, if one's perception of this or that leader of any TS is that he or she is an umnitigated asshole, what is one supposed (theosophically) to do, when we proclaim that there is no religion higher than truth - a statement I am coming to perceive increasingly as plain daft. Pilate was no fool when has asked, "What is truth?">> Agreed. Truth is the elephant that we blind people feel parts of and thus can never agree on. I don't have a problem with calling a Leader an asshole. But to call him/her a black magician is a bit much. You have called CWL a liar, and from your perception he was. But I never heard you say he was black magician (maybe he wasn't smart enough for that??) etc. And to say that someone disrupted the TS and caused a drop in membership is only stating historical facts. I only usually jump in when I feel someone is going over the line with their emotions. There are no easy answers here. Since I am a member of Pasadena and have met, and have great respect and admiration for, both Grace Knoche and Alan Donant, I can't help but defending them. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 15:16:06 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: God In a message dated 10/16/99 11:45:11 AM Central Daylight Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > Well, I woudn't say "every body." Buddhists don't. I don't. The > Mahatmas who taught HPB don't. Materalists, which include > most scientists, don't. God's in laws don't believe in God (course the fact they don't exist may be part of the reason but even if they did, in-laws being, well,....). Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 16:59:19 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: ES-stuff There appears to be a requirement to conform to other areas of activities, violation of which appears to be asked to leave or being thrown out. I have not seen anyone talk about it anywhere. When I was young, I always wondered why ES members were not active in the Indian Independence movement, especially the non violent protest movements pioneered by Gandhi when led India to become an independent country. Some years ago I read that when Besant was at the helm, she forbade the ES members from participating in the Indian nonviolent movement pioneered by Gandhi. While I had been around several ES members, no one talked about this. Had the Indian Public listened to Besant and followed her strategy, perhaps India would still be a dominion of England and continue to lack industrialization of the country. Better judgement of the masses was to follow Gandhi's strategy which did succeed and British left India. There was a msg posted on this maillist several years ago about the personal experience of a member who was alleged to have violated some official policy of TSA which resulted in her being asked to leave and of course several months later she was invited to join back. Once bitten twice shy, as I recall it, she wanted to get an answer if a certain course of action demanded of her was in conflict with her own conscience, would she be allowed to follow her conscience and it appears she got no reply and did not join back. It would be good for all theosophist to know some of the instances because rarely anyone talks about these things. There may be other instances others maybe aware of and sharing them would get a flavor of what is expected of its members. mkr At 03:59 PM 10/13/1999 +0200, hesse600 wrote: Hi Christine, You wanted to know why so many of us have something against the ES, so I will give you my reasons for having trouble with it. I agree mostly with Kym: >clip<<< From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 16:06:00 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: New Item on BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BF17F0.56C675E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm A new item has been added to the archives: Portrait of the Master Morya by J.D. Buck A brief description by Buck about this portrait and=20 an accompanying photographic reproduction. =20 =20 More rare items added later today or on Sunday. Daniel H. Caldwell BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BF17F0.56C675E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE
http://sites.nets= cape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm
 
A new item has been added to the=20 archives:
 
Portrait of the Master Morya by J.D.=20 Buck
 
A brief description by Buck about this = portrait and=20
an accompanying photographic reproduction. 
 
 
More rare items added later today or on = Sunday.
 
Daniel H. Caldwell
 
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE
http://sites.nets= cape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm
= ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BF17F0.56C675E0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 01:28:28 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: adresses > I love Idaho potatoes; who does not? > > mkr > Are you sure this is theosophically correct? Maybe your question is research? Answers on a postcard to mkr .... ? [Is it time for my next pill, nurse?] Alan Addled@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 01:33:36 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Theosophy? ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Saturday, October 16, 1999 12:33 PM > Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Theosophy? > Alan--The notion that THE word of god comes from holy books is a mere > assertion. Seems highly unlikely that the creator of the universe would > depend upon language, writing, printing presses, U.S. mail and an elite group > of scholars to get the mesage to us about why we are here. > Having a holy book and a religion organized around it merely creates comfort > for the adherents and power for the leaders. > Randy Up to a point, Randy. The holy books etc. are also designed to create confusion, in order that people start asking questions which will lead them to the truth. It's not my fault that that go for each others' throats as well. Creator of the Universe [signed] Yegods@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 01:38:55 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: God ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Saturday, October 16, 1999 6:39 PM > Subject: God > I believe in divinity as an impersonal > universal force or energy, but not in any supreme God. Me too - Alan. > I agree > with Buddhism that our world was created by our own > collective karma. > > Jerry S. > This is - forgive me - reminiscent of the famous oozlum (sp?) bird that flies round in ever-decreasing circles until it disappears up its own fundament. Maybe you need to supply a teeny weeny bit more data? Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 01:45:36 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Misguided! ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Saturday, October 16, 1999 7:04 PM > Subject: Response to Kym Kym: > >> And how would you "label" > what Hitler and his followers did?>> > > Misguided Like the bombs that flattened my aunt's house in 1941? And the rest of the street? All within an hour? I think they were intended. Mental note to self: "The use of terror and intimidation is misguided." Nope. Doesn't fit. I still suspect it is plain evil. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 07:41:04 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: God Jerry--What is the basis for your belief that the universe was created by "our" collective Karma? Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 07:50:26 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Theosophy? Alan--Who "designed" the holy books to be confusing? Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 11:41:16 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: God In a message dated 99-10-16 15:16:37 EDT, you write: << God's in laws don't believe in God (course the fact they don't exist may be part of the reason but even if they did, in-laws being, well,....). Grigor >> From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 11:42:32 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: God In a message dated 99-10-16 15:16:37 EDT, you write: << God's in laws don't believe in God (course the fact they don't exist may be part of the reason but even if they did, in-laws being, well,....). Grigor >> and if they are anything like my in-laws god would not want to believe in THEM. Chucke Ye Heretik From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:16:50 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Mistakes? >>In the physical world, everyone is likely to make mistakes. It is said that even Lord Buddha made some mistakes and it was left to Shri Shankaracharya to set them right. mkr>> Doss, does this also apply to Blavatsky? I am willing to bet some on this list will say no. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:22:34 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: God's In Laws >>God's in laws don't believe in God (course the fact they don't exist may be part of the reason but even if they did, in-laws being, well,....). Grigor>> Excellent point. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:26:12 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: TS Expectations >>It would be good for all theosophist to know some of the instances because rarely anyone talks about these things. There may be other instances others maybe aware of and sharing them would get a flavor of what is expected of its members. mkr>> Doss, speaking for Pasadena, they have high expectations for their staff, but don't seem to expect much from members at large like myself. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 13:33:15 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Some More on Right & Wrong >>Like the bombs that flattened my aunt's house in 1941? And the rest of the street? All within an hour? I think they were intended. Mental note to self: "The use of terror and intimidation is misguided." Nope. Doesn't fit. I still suspect it is plain evil. Alan>> >From your perspective (and for most of the world including me) it was evil indeed. But I suspect that Hitler & Company believed they were doing the "right" thing. All I was trying to say is that we need to purge revenge and hatred from ourselves and let karma take care of sorting out right/reward and wrong/punishment. If an assassin shot HH the Dali Lama, would he shoot back or would he forgive? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 11:31:54 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: 2 More Items added to BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF1893.36AB0520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm Two more quite interesting items have been added to our online archives: ITEM 1 THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY: The Lamasery at New York. =20 Interviews with Madame Blavatsky --- The Wonderful Author=20 of the Book of Wonders, "Isis Unveiled, etc. [Reprinted from the Hartford Daily Times (Connecticut),=20 December 2, 1878, p. 1.] =20 ITEM 2 >From Hinduism to Hinduism by Parbati Churn Roy =20 In this extremely rare 1896 work Parbati Churn Roy devotes=20 three chapters (pp. 36-58) to his personal reminiscences of=20 H.P.Blavatsky, H.S. Olcott, the Mahatmas and The=20 Theosophical Society.=20 NOTE: I'm always looking for more articles and materials on HPB's life, work and teachings. If you have any materials you think might be of interest to others, please let me know.=20 They probably need to be published at BAO. Daniel H Caldwell danielhcaldwell@hotmail.com ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF1893.36AB0520 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE
http://sites.nets= cape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm
 
Two more quite interesting items have = been added to=20 our online
archives:
 
ITEM 1
 
THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY: The Lamasery = at New=20 York. 
Interviews with Madame Blavatsky --- The Wonderful = Author
of=20 the Book of Wonders, "Isis Unveiled, etc.
[Reprinted from the = Hartford Daily=20 Times (Connecticut),
December 2, 1878, p. 1.] 
 
 
ITEM 2
 
From Hinduism to Hinduism by Parbati = Churn=20 Roy 
In this extremely rare 1896 work Parbati Churn Roy devotes =
three chapters (pp. 36-58) to his personal reminiscences of=20
H.P.Blavatsky, H.S. Olcott, the Mahatmas and The
Theosophical = Society.=20
 
NOTE:  I'm always looking for more = articles=20 and materials on
HPB's life, work and teachings.  = If you have=20 any materials
you think might be of interest to = others, please=20 let me know.
They probably need = to be=20 published at BAO.
 
Daniel H Caldwell
danielhcaldwell@hotmail.com
------=_NextPart_000_003C_01BF1893.36AB0520-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:50:10 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Theosophy? ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Sunday, October 17, 1999 12:50 PM > Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Theosophy? > Alan--Who "designed" the holy books to be confusing? Thanks, Randy > I only forwarded this one. You will note that is signed by the creator of the universe, and comes from "Yegods" e-mail address. You will also note that I am quite crazy. Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 01:24:16 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Some More on Right & Wrong ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Sunday, October 17, 1999 6:33 PM > Subject: Some More on Right & Wrong > From your perspective (and for most of the world including > me) it was evil indeed. But I suspect that Hitler & Company > believed they were doing the "right" thing. For *themselves* they were doing the "right" (necessary) thing. It was still (vide Auschwitz, etc. etc.) evil. I have little doubt that evil exists as such within the human potential. Give it an excuse and it will act. The same goes for good as well, though good needs a reason, reather than an excuse. Some people may be born evil. I was once introduced by a proud mother to her new born child (a boy, for the record). I looked, he looked. If looks could kill, I'd be dead. > > All I was trying to say is that we need to purge revenge > and hatred from ourselves and let karma take care of > sorting out right/reward and wrong/punishment. Karma, as I undersatnd karma, will do this anyway, whether or not we purge. How do I understand karma? suppose we meet and I am able to deeply hurt you. In the moment of hurting I am hurting myself, as we are connected through the threads of universal Being. Come the judgement (life review during the death sequencing process) I will experience the emotions of both of us simultaneously as I relive that moment. Why do I understand it this way? Like some others on this list, I've been there, but got brought back to temporal existence. > If > an assassin shot HH the Dali Lama, would he shoot > back or would he forgive? If an efficient assassin shot him, he would be dead. Either way, being the Dalai Lama, he would probably forgive, as that would be part of his belief system. If a less efficient assassin shot me, and failed to kill me - and I had a gun - I would almost certainly shoot back before he got a second shot, as bodily reflexes will always promote self-preservation. I wonder if the Dalai Lama carries a gun? Do his attendants carry them? Reminds me of the tale of the Quaker who had an early homestead in the US. Two bad guys rode into his yard thinking to have an easy time of it, as Quakers are known pacifists. "Friend," said rhe Quaker, pointing a fully loaded shotgun directly at them, "I would not harm a hair of thy head, but thou art standing where I am about to shoot." Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:32:26 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Cable Modems and Security I received the following from a friend. As many in the USA are planning to use cable modem, everyone should be aware of the security issue before it is too late. mkr -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Johnston [mailto:johnston@syrres.com] > Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 7:09 AM > Subject: Re: Unknown internet traffic I agree with you. Time Warner (RoadRunner cable modems) told me there is absolutely NO security between customers and the Internet. You are ON the Internet and security is the customer's problem, not theirs. They would do nothing to help me. I was told this by multiple technicians at Time Warner. Since I installed Nukenabber, I have noticed attacks on my home PC from a wide variety of states AND countries. ISPs need to get serious about security. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:17:22 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Response to Frank Jerry S. wrote: > Fact: HBP also had many disruptive pupils and finally made > them sign very strong pledges to her with the provision that > they could be expelled if they did not honor the pledge. I am not going to say anything about Conger, as I know nothing whatsoever about him. But sending out people on the basis of whether or not they agreed with him does sound rather untheosophical to me. About HPB, she did not expel people from the TS because they did not comply to her rules or agree with her. She did have her own studygroup composed of TS members (called the ES) in which she had stronger rules (though these were not enforced as far as I know). There is in my opinion a very big difference between deciding who shall be a member of a private studygroup or not and deciding the same about the TS, since the TS is a body that proposes to be undogmatic. At least the Adyar-TS does, I do not know about the others. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:25:39 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: re: Response to Kym Kym wrote: > >> Labeling those who > vent their disagreement with others as "children" is an example of someone > believing that because others do not agree or approach life in the same way > are somehow less mature than themselves.>> Jerry wrote: > Not at all. I have never said such a thing to Dan, for example, > who always forms his criticisms in an adult manner. No, its the > emotional undertones and choice of wording that reveals immaturity, > and I am sorry if this seems to come out like I am bashing > anyone, but I don't know any other way to do this on an impersonal > list like this (you can't see if I'm smiling, or my body movements > while you read my words, etc). I do not really mean to imply > that Frank is immature, but rather than his choice of words > used against Conger reveals an inner immaturity due to strong > emotional currents overriding the cognitive processes that probably > function just fine on other subjects (when a person gets fixated > on a topic that topic becomes an obsession fueled by any strong > emotion such as hatred -- which is always rationalized away > by the belief that one is acting "rightly" such as having God on > their side, or taking up for an underdog, etc etc). Are you not a bit unkind here? Frank's English is clearly not so good, so why put salt on every snail here? (Dutch proverb) It does seem to me that you are fighting so hard against any negative feeling, that that fighting itself seems to come from some frustration of your own. > I can't really explain psychology here, but those on this list > who understand even a little of how the human mind works will > follow what I am saying here. Yes I do, but it would be a pleasant surprise to have some serious psychology explained here, instead of people telling each other how to be more *brotherly*, which discussion in this case is clearly (as far as I am concerned) not going anywhere. > But I still have to try to tell the other side, which is > that Conger and Long and Knoche never lied about anything and > that Frank is plain wrong. This is hard to do without sounding > personal and emotional myself, but I am trying... I would say you are not succeeding in that. > I agree with you here, and I have to admit that I am having a great > deal of fun with Frank on this. Ah, is that it! Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:34:37 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Re to Alan jerry wrote: > > Doesn't throwing stones at > > ourself (we are, after all, all Theosophists) just hurt the > > entire Movement? History is such a touchy subject... > > Alan wrote: > I agree on both points. However, it must be observed - correction, is > may be useful to observe (don't want to issue imperatives) that insider > stone-throwing seems endemic to organisations per se. What is endemic? (I ask on behalf of all the English as a second language-members of this list) I interpret as follows: insider stone-throwing (or simply feedback) is good for an organisation. At least that is what I think Alan would say. :-) Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:42:24 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: ES-stuff RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM wrote: > Your response was wonderful. thanks. > hesse600 wrote: > >> It is only by a select group of brave souls, a handful of > determined men and women hungry for genuine spiritual > development and the acquirement of soul-wisdom, that the > Theosophical Society at large can be brought back to its > original lines.> > Don't we have such a group here on the Internet? with no financial, ethnic > or other axes to grind and attitudes more reflecting the First Object -- > without discrimination of any kind? Of course 100 years ago there was no > Internet so HPB was addressing the needs of that time, IMHO. nice thought. In fact any meeting of people who search after truth is such and I am lucky enough to have such meetings regularly inside the TS-Adyar :-), (had one this weekend) , but I know I am an exception in that, on this list. > Also we have to keep in mind that great achievements were made by > individuals and not groups or masses. Good point, but those individuals can only achieve anything if the world respondes apropriately. In short: if the time is right. > Have you read Ernest Wood's book "Is This Theosophy?" It is on my list of *should read*, but the Collected Writings are first :-). I suppose I should squeeze it in somewhere. > In it he describes how he joined the ES and was given some practical > instructions on meditation and how he found that his own method which he > was using for a long time (based on his reading books) was working better > for him. He also mentions that what is secret is the practical techniques, > the details of which of course he did not discuss. > > I also heard of an instance when two members who were single at that time > decided to live together and one of the other members spied on them and > reported their action and seems to have been told to leave and they left > for good. > > Probably if you had joined, you may not be posting any messages here!!!! Well, I cannot imagine anyone curtailing my freedom for long. But yes, one of the reasons for not joining the ES was that I was afraid my own conscience would have to be made (by that vow) subsurvient to somebody elses. > > > My dislike for the ES is therefore in direct proportion to > the pretentions at wisdom, and the lack of flexibility in > the way the rules are applied. > In HPB's days the rules were meant as advice. When one > broke a rule, one was responsible to one's own > consciousness. All this is gone. Recently in Brasil a man > was expelled from the ES because of his sexual orientation. > > > Again may be someone spied on the sexual orientation? No, what I heard was that he was simply honest enough to come out of the closet. But some Brasilian friend on this list may know more? Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:46:01 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Mahatma's Mkr wrote: > Anyone who is sensitized to truth and justice and has the welfare of > humanity at the back of their thinking and action, whether a formal chela > or not, is IMHO, likely to be more perceptive and thus is likely to see > opportunities to help. Krishnamurti describes this as being "responsible". what does IMHO mean? Again on behalf of all the English as a second language-members of this list. (agree with what you write - which makes no discussion at all ;-) ) Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:55:08 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Mistakes? Gerald Schueler wrote: > >>In the physical world, everyone is likely to make mistakes. It is said > that > even Lord Buddha made some mistakes and it was left to Shri Shankaracharya > to set them right. > mkr>> > > Doss, does this also apply to Blavatsky? I am willing to bet > some on this list will say no. Well, that someone will not be me, even if I love what she wrote awfully. In fact she admits to so many mistakes, that it would not really be logical to believe she made none. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 05:40:33 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Mahatma's At 11:46 AM 10/18/1999 +0200, you wrote: >what does IMHO mean? Again on behalf of all the English as >a second language-members of this list. IMHO = In my humble Opinion This is a new word used in e-mail discussions. BTW (By the way), English is also my second language. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 07:06:38 -0700 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Re to Alan > > > Doesn't throwing stones at > > > ourself (we are, after all, all Theosophists) just hurt the > > > entire Movement? History is such a touchy subject... *NO* - in my opinion it doesn't. "Stone-throwing" is another one of those highly subjective terms like "brotherhood". What is perceived as "stone-throwing" to one person is honest, well-intentioned criticism to another ... "you aren't acting compassionate" has been a concept that has permitted TS leaders to get away with outrageous things over the years. Brand your critics as "unbrotherly", paint yourself as a saint suffering for Theosophy - and then do what you want with the Society's publications and funds. Yes, we are all Theosophists - but we are also presumably adults - one of the greatest errors that has been made over the years is to confuse "brotherhood" - a concept arising out of the deep-level spiritual affinity between the immortal aspects of our beings, and that holds regardless of which sort of skin we wear in an incarnation, with "being nice" - a completely fleeting and entirely personality-level concept that varies not only from era to era, but within a single era among different races, and within races even amongst different regions. The adepts in the ML were clearly compassionate - it runs like a thread throughout all of their writings - but they most definitely - *often* - were *not* nice. They didn't give a fig for cultural sensitivities, and quite often engaged in what by many would be called "stone-throwing". Achieving an entirely superficial accord in which we all relate to each other as though we're in a damned Victorian parlour, taking enormous care that we say nothing that will be perceived as "unbrotherly" - these thing have *nothing* to do with the quest for either personal growth and development, nor the formation of a dynamic, living Theosophical Society. Learning to create a place in which the full power - the apparent good and the apparent "bad" - is drawn out of all of us, where our sensibilities *are* periodically seriously upset, where we *are* forced at every turn to question our ideas, our values, to feel the point of contact with what is temporary within us and what is permanent, *and* to learn how to discern between the huge variety of different personality types in an international society, *that* is what creates a genuinely growing individual, and such an environment is what would create a TS that might survive. The final image of a fully realized humanity is *NOT* one in which we all dissolve into one big collective mush, but one in which we each become fully realized stars in our own right. Its not a bowl of oatmeal, its a galaxy. The point is not to keep attempting to reach one single *form* of interaction where everyone agrees with everyone else, and none of us ever say anything that can be perceived by anyone else as "stone-throwing", or "unbrotherly", but one in which our *own* beings have become so large, so developed, so flexible that they are able to let embrace people with vastly different viewpoints, and styles of expressing them. And the way to *reach* this point is not by stifling disagreement, by avoiding conflict ... but indeed is often to engage deeply *in it*. -JRC -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:11:00 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Creative Karma >>Jerry--What is the basis for your belief that the universe was created by "our" collective Karma? Thanks, Randy>> This idea can be found in many many of the new books available today on Tibetan Buddhism. "...manifestations of mind (sems snang), that is, manifestations of the creative potentiality of Awareness (rig-pa'i rtsal) ... This is what is meant here by "the creator" (byed-pa-po) and not some transcendental God (or Supreme Person) who creates the universe." (THE GOLDEN LETTERS, p 241) "Candrakirti's Introduction to the Central Way states: The mind itself creates living beings And the great variety of worlds where they live. It is also taught that all forms of life are produced from evolutionary actions; But without the mind, there would be no action. Thus, generally speaking [the agent that creates the world] is the minds of being in general and in particular the minds of those beings who have performed concordant actions (such as those that impel them to be born in the same world-system). Principally, [the agent[ is the radiant awareness nature of the mind of each being." (MYRIAD WORLDS, pp 176-177 In the above quote, "concordant actions of the mind," refer, I think, to our collective karma. Gaytso, in one of his books says specifically that the world was created and is maintained by our karma. I can find this for you later if you want. I have not seen the term "collective karma" used in Tibetan Buddhism as such, but they do use terms that mean much the same thing. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:15:21 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Theosophy? WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > > Alan--Who "designed" the holy books to be confusing? Thanks, Randy They were written by those who wrote them to be confusing, and yea, they read them, and were confused. For those who wrote them did indeed write them in a confusing way, to be confusing. Confused they were, as they were confused. Understand? Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 21:30:30 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Cable Modems and Security RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM wrote: > > I received the following from a friend. As many in the USA are planning to > use cable modem, everyone should be aware of the security issue before it > is too late. Now that you have succeeded in scaring everybody who is not computer literate, please explain to us what the difference is between security concerns with a cable modem and any other kind of modem? Answer: There IS none. If you have no server software running, and you almost certainly don't unless you put it up on purpose, you can get attacked again and again, and nobody will get through. Bart Lidofsky > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Johnston [mailto:johnston@syrres.com] > Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 7:09 AM > To: Sweeney, Patrick > Cc: 'The Firewalls List' > Subject: Re: Unknown internet traffic > > I agree with you. Time Warner (RoadRunner cable modems) told me there is > absolutely NO security between customers and the Internet. You are ON the > Internet and security is the customer's problem, not theirs. They would do > nothing to help me. I was told this by multiple technicians at Time > Warner. > Since I installed Nukenabber, I have noticed attacks on my home PC from a > wide variety of states AND countries. ISPs need to get serious about > security. > > --- > 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: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:45:37 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Cable Modems and Security Yes there is. While I am not a computer "expert", there were cases where neighbors can get into others files and cases where the print outs got printed in a printer in the neighbor's home. The basis issue is buyers beware. If they have any questions, they should address it to their ISPs. mkr At 09:30 PM 10/18/1999 -0400, you wrote: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM wrote: I received the following from a friend. As many in the USA are planning to use cable modem, everyone should be aware of the security issue before it is too late. Now that you have succeeded in scaring everybody who is not computer literate, please explain to us what the difference is between security concerns with a cable modem and any other kind of modem? Answer: There IS none. If you have no server software running, and you almost certainly don't unless you put it up on purpose, you can get attacked again and again, and nobody will get through. Bart Lidofsky -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Johnston [mailto:johnston@syrres.com] Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 7:09 AM To: Sweeney, Patrick Cc: 'The Firewalls List' Subject: Re: Unknown internet traffic I agree with you. Time Warner (RoadRunner cable modems) told me there is absolutely NO security between customers and the Internet. You are ON the Internet and security is the customer's problem, not theirs. They would do nothing to help me. I was told this by multiple technicians at Time Warner. Since I installed Nukenabber, I have noticed attacks on my home PC from a wide variety of states AND countries. ISPs need to get serious about security. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 02:55:39 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Re to Alan ----- Original Message ----- > From: hesse600 > Date: Monday, October 18, 1999 10:34 AM > Subject: Re: Re to Alan > Alan wrote: > > I agree on both points. However, it must be observed - correction, is > > may be useful to observe (don't want to issue imperatives) that insider > > stone-throwing seems endemic to organisations per se. > > What is endemic? " .... regularly found among a particular people" - Concise Oxford Dictionary. It is used also about organisations. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 23:50:38 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: near-death experiences In a message dated 10/18/1999 12:05:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << Like some others on this list, I've been there, but got brought back to temporal existence. >> I would absolutely love to hear more details about this and other similar experiences, from your own personal perspectives, not based on theories. Christine Hanson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 23:53:42 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: where I am about to shoot In a message dated 10/18/1999 12:05:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Alan writes: << "Friend," said rhe Quaker, pointing a fully loaded shotgun directly at them, "I would not harm a hair of thy head, but thou art standing where I am about to shoot." >> That was a great story - reminds me of the saying that "your right to throw a punch stops where the tip of my nose begins." Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 22:53:01 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 18, 1999 Bart wrote: > They were written by those who wrote them to be confusing, and yea, >they read them, and were confused. For those who wrote them did indeed >write them in a confusing way, to be confusing. Confused they were, as >they were confused. Understand? Bart! Have you been drinking? Such a burst of merriment from your direction. Almost scary. . .. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 07:34:51 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Theosophy? Bart--that was confusing but now I "understand". Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 07:40:50 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: near-death experiences Christine--Near death experiences and communication with the dead by psychics are probable the most tangible and powerful evidences that we are spirit creatures incarnate. Everything else seems to be a bunch of philosophical gobbledygook. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 07:41:44 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: near-death experiences Christine--would you relate your near-death experience please. Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:13:05 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re to Katinka >>Are you not a bit unkind here? Frank's English is clearly not so good, so why put salt on every snail here? (Dutch proverb) It does seem to me that you are fighting so hard against any negative feeling, that that fighting itself seems to come from some frustration of your own. >> I was trying to respond with a minimal emotional level. Sorry. My frustration level is actually pretty low. I have nothing against Frank at all, only with his view of the Pasadena TS (which many others share although they are not so emotionally entangled). I promise to do better in future responses. I thought I was doing pretty well (I only said bullshit and flapdoodle once each while sitting on my hands!)... As far as I am concerned, Frank is just the messenger, and I am trying very hard to shoot at the message without hitting the messenger. My apologies. I will do better in future. I am one of the original members of this list. It has been pretty clear to me by observing things that there are two possible outcomes here. A person will either leave the list with hard feelings (or out of boredom) or will soon develop a thick skin in the sense of learning how to ignore apparent attacks on their ego. My skin has thickened a lot over the years. In some ways, this list is a good test of our Theosophy because we can use it to learn ways to get over our normal human urge to attack in revenge and to return flames with yet more flames. Anyone who knows a little psychology can read the emotional undertones of someone's postings. On a Theosophy list, I would hope that these would be minimal. But we all have hurts and sore subjects and these are usually revealed in our choice of words. For some reason, Frank appears to me to have been hurt badly by events that happened in the past. I would like to help him, but how? Encouraging him in his distorted (from my perspective) history is no real help. Logic and reason won't work. All I can really do is to offer an alternative viewpoint so that others know such a viewpoint exists. I can't just sit back and let fellow Theosophists think that Pasadena is a nest of black magicians (as far as I know, only Chuck and I could come under that label since we have both written books on magic). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 09:24:12 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Theosophical Brotherhood >>Brand your critics as "unbrotherly", paint yourself as a saint suffering for Theosophy - and then do what you want with the Society's publications and funds.>> God, I hope not! The problem here, as I see it, is one of motive or intent. The above may be an honest perception from an observer, but what if one is doing this with good intentions; his/her observation would be just the opposite from the other observer. We all know that people can observe the same events very differently, and it is devilishly hard to know one's inner motive or degree of sincerity. I have no experience at all with Conger. My experiences with Long, Knoche, and Donant demonstrated that they are honest and sincere (have you seen Grace's aura? I have and I was impressed). I don't have any easy answer here and compassion, like most things, can be faked or it can be sincere. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 08:14:46 -0700 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Cable Modems and Security > Now that you have succeeded in scaring everybody who is not computer > literate, please explain to us what the difference is between security > concerns with a cable modem and any other kind of modem? > Answer: There IS none. If you have no server software running, and you > almost certainly don't unless you put it up on purpose, you can get > attacked again and again, and nobody will get through. > Yes there is. While I am not a computer "expert", there were cases where > neighbors can get into others files and cases where the print outs got > printed in a printer in the neighbor's home. > > The basis issue is buyers beware. If they have any questions, they should > address it to their ISPs. No *kidding*. I'm not sure if I'm a computer "expert" - but I am an internet administrator, and do have to fiddle with security in a significant way at times. In fact, now and then I have to hack (not in an evil way ... but because the only real way to learn how to secure one's own networks and severs is to get at least a bit of experience trying to crack them). And cable modems *are* dangerous, for a number of reasons. They are *different* than analog modems or any of the DSL flavors in several significant respects ... some of them behavioral and some technical. For instance, the average modem user (often sharing a phone line in their house) dials in while they are active on the internet, is assigned an IP address by the ISP that only lasts through that session, browses, and then logs off (Note: an IP is a unique numerical address that identifies the location of the computer to other computers on the internet - for instance, simply type the number "207.46.130.14" into your browser, hit enter, and you'll go to Microsoft's home page) . With a cable modem, it is more like a local area network. The user is assigned a permanent unique IP, and many cable modem users (because their ISP doesn't log them off after 20 minutes of idle time to conserve IP addresses, and because the user isn't sharing a phone line) simply leave their connection up 24 hours a day. So to a hacker, a cable modem user *appears* to look far more like an internet server than a home user, in that it has a stable IP address bound to a particular user, and it can often be on - and idle - for many hours at a time. And BTW, hackers most definately *can* get into a Windows machine without server functions being enabled - in fact, one can just go download, for free, things like "Back Orifice", a beginners hacking program that exposes numerous security flaws in Windows, and allows people to take almost complete remote control over a Windows machine. Many cable ISP's will implement proxy servers and various kinds of firewalls - meant to mask those those IP addresses to the outside world, and try to block common hackers tools - but users need to know they are dependent upon the security skills of the ISP ... guarding a network is *not* something that can be done once and forgotten ... every time a new sort of wall is built, groups of hackers figure out how to get around it. Additionally, all other users of that particular cable service are, in a sense, *inside of* the firewall. What does this mean? Just as a for instance - many of the cable modem ISP's (including @Home and Time Warner) basically configure like a big LAN (Local Area Network). What does this mean? First, say you have "File and Print Sharing" turned on on your PC. If someone *else* on your cable modem system goes to their "network neighborhood", and clicks on "Entire Network", they very well may see your entire hard drive as though you are on a LAN with them. (This was first brought to light by a now almost infamous article in late 1997, a computer consultant in California had just signed up with "@Home", the largest provider at the time, and was surprised to find, in his Network Neighborhood, close to 150 other compters - he browsed through their hard drives, look at a number of Turbo Tax, Quicken and banking files, saw personal letters in Word, etc., etc.). A second for instance ... if you have Windows 95, and you install the network card you need to use cable modem, it generally automatically binds itself to both MS Networking and TCP/IP. It *needs* to be bound to TCP/IP to use the cable modem, but when it is also bound to Networking ... well ... this is a big 'ol security hole that can allow a hacker to plant files on your hard drive. Yes, both of these security holes (and many others unique to cable modems) can be protected against, and often the cable modem ISP will configure both the modem and the user's PC to be safe. But, as a computer professional, I'd like to suggest that people *don't trust computer professionals* (-:), not every tech is exactly fully experienced, and not every user knows enough not to inadvertantly open a big security hole - for instance, a person buys a new PC, Time Warner hooks it up correctly, makes sure everything is safe. Then a month later, the family decides to have two different login accounts to the machine, one for the kids ... with content-filtering software enabled ... and one for the adults. However, they do want to share some files between the two accounts, so (reading right out of a Windows 95 book) they turn File and Print Sharing on. They are now sharing those files. With each other, but also potentially with the cute little 10 year old next door that is just learning to hack. Etc., etc. Anyway - I've probably gone on too long here ... point is, while cable modem security *can* be made relatively robust, it is simply wrong to say that there is no difference between going online with a 56k dial-up modem and going online with a cable modem. There are significant differences, several additional steps need to be taken, a number of additional potential security holes exist. People considering going to a cable modem should *not* just look at it as just a faster connection - it is a fundamentally different *kind* of connection, and (IMO) the ISP should be questioned at length both about what security measures *they* take on their side, and that the user needs to take on the PC side. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 11:26:49 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theosophical Brotherhood >>>Brand your critics as "unbrotherly", paint yourself as a saint suffering >for Theosophy<<<< "unbrotherly" is a code word I have frequently heard being used by those who profess to further the interests of Universal Brotherhood. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 11:33:15 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Cable Modems and Security At 08:14 AM 10/19/1999 -0700, JRC wrote: > >No *kidding*. I'm not sure if I'm a computer "expert" - but I am an internet >administrator, and do have to fiddle with security in a significant way at >times. Thanks for taking the time to explain. The msg I posted was from a local maillist where many of the participants are firewall experts and so I felt comfortable in the alert posted. With your detailed explanation, all cable modem users should be alerted to potential problems of security. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 16:15:24 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Cable Modems and Security In a message dated 10/19/99 8:16:22 AM Central Daylight Time, jrc@texas.net writes: > Anyway - I've probably gone on too long here ... point is, while cable modem > security *can* be made relatively robust, it is simply wrong to say that > there is no difference between going online with a 56k dial-up modem and > going online with a cable modem. Why don't you mention the problems with the new satelite-cellular style modems and ISPs? They have all the security problems of early cellular phones and the technology to solve them is classified (Air Force 1 had the setup first so they could email etc. via satelite. There is the funny but true story of the email sent by then NSC advisor Oliver North to Dan Quayle, "I returned your wig and dress. Sorry that the heal to one of the pumps is broken."). The story was published by Peter G. Neumann, Head of the Computer Section at SRI International Labs and moderator of the RISKS Forum. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 19:54:39 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: near-death experiences ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 12:40 PM > Subject: Re: near-death experiences > Christine--Near death experiences and communication with the dead by psychics > are probable the most tangible and powerful evidences that we are spirit > creatures incarnate. Everything else seems to be a bunch of philosophical > gobbledygook. > Randy > I agree entirely. Some of the gobbledygook is good gobbleddygook though ... Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ ambain@ambain.screaming.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 23:21:35 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: near-death experiences ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 4:50 AM > Subject: Re: near-death experiences > In a message dated 10/18/1999 12:05:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: > > << Like some others on this > list, I've been there, but got brought back to temporal existence. >> > > I would absolutely love to hear more details about this and other similar > experiences, from your own personal perspectives, not based on theories. > Christine Hanson > Right. Short version. (I think I wrote this one to theos-l or ti-l once before). Age 14, swimming in the sea. Caught in outgoing current. Tried to swim back, but became exhausted. Gave up trying, realising that I was bound to drown, as cries for help had not been heard. It was as if a key was pressed in my mind/brain which said "Begin dying procedure" (having received message that I was about to drown). As the story goes, my entire life to that moment passed before my "eyes" like a silent movie, very fast, yet I was able to watch and note every scene and frame. Then the process went back to the beginning, and a slower life review began. This time I was in the movie experiencing again all the *emotions* and *feelings* than accompanied the events. The difference from life as we usually experience it was 1) that I knew I was in a movie, and most importantly, 2) that I experienced the emotions and feelings of all the people with whom I had *direct* contact through *word* or deed. I got to around the age of seven going on eight. I was in the school playground, and as kids do, I flung some innocent but derogatory remark at one of the girls there as I was running past her. My remark *hurt* her - a lot. In that moment, *her* hurt was *my* hurt. I felt exactly what *she* felt in that moment, *as my own hurt.* I began to wonder about this, but then a pair of very strong arms grabbed me, and was pulled, in classic life-saving manner, gasping for breath, back to the shore. This, I suspect, is the reality of "karma" and needs no reincarnation for its experience. It is also the "last judgement" in Christian teaching. So when, if he said it, Jesus said, "Inasmuch as you do harm one to of these little ones, you do it to me" he was not being symbolic, metaphorical, philosophical, or anything of that sort. He was just telling it how it is. Since then I have tried to develop this same awareness in life as we ordinarily experience it, with a degree of success, though not as powerful as during the drowning experience. It would be regarded by some as a "power" or "siddhi" a knowing the mind of another person during a period of interaction with that person. This is very educational, and teaches some very special lessons. Some follow: 1. If you are going to seek "powers" be careful - it may not be fun. It can be downright nasty. 2. You may often listen while someone piles lie upon lie to you. You *know* they are lying, even if they believe their own lie. 3. Don't tell them! They will hate you forever. 4. It can be great. Someone may be radiating friendship or even love directly to you. You will feel it as they feel it. 5. Don't tell them! Be grateful. (This works very strongly with animals, which is one reason I joined the RSPCA). 6. I can enable you to take preventative measures against persons with malicious intent. 7. It can also enable you to influence people, as you are able to experience their responses to your words and deeds. 8. By extension, it can enable you to manipulate people. Don't do it - they will know (albeit unconsciously) that they are being manipulated, and will feel very angry and very bad. It follows that you will experience this anger and badness as your own, and you won't like it either. In short, being friendly, nice, "brotherly" and "sisterly" to one another has to be the best option. "Universal Brotherhood" a la TS is a fact of life. As no one is perfect, many of our brothers and sisters are quite horrible people, just as they may be in many smaller "families." Soooo.... watch what you so, and watch what you say. It is, as the man himself is quoted as saying, that what comes *out* of our mouths is more "defiling" than anything that goes into it. [Slaps wrist for naughty thought]. I have other experiences, but maybe it would serve our pupose best if we discussed this one, and shared others, before I offer any more. Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:54:10 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: near-death experiences ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alan > Date: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 11:21 PM > Subject: Re: near-death experiences Correction > 6. I can enable you to take preventative measures against persons with > malicious intent. should have read: 6. *It* can enable you to take preventative measures against persons with malicious intent. Alan :-\ Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:04:06 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 19, 1999 Jerry wrote: >My skin has >thickened a lot over the years. In some ways, this >list is a good test of our Theosophy because we can >use it to learn ways to get over our normal human >urge to attack in revenge and to return flames >with yet more flames. Amen. One benefit of having been on this list is not only developing a thick skin regarding flaming or disagreement, but also taking that thick skin out into daily life. A thick skin does not mean one is arrogant; it is a just a growth in self-confidence and tolerance. Just today, I announced in class that I believed we were all gods and then, stupidly, tried to introduce the concept of the Demiurge. That thick skin came in real handy today. I can't say that some of the negative comments pertaining to my mental state from students didn't sting, but they certainly didn't hurt as much as they would have previously. Everything is so intertwined - from this list to life to life to life. Amazing. Humanity really has been imprisoned by the idea that we are mere sinners and/or impotent mortals. This has kept us from developing a responsible philosophy to go along with technological and creative advances. Specific example: humanity is learning how to create life - a god attribute. Some say that to be genuinely god-like is to create something from nothing - but I do not recall there being anything in Genesis that claimed God created the world out of nothing and humanity (Western) is willing to crown Yahweh of the bible as God. Those who desire the "apocalypse" seem to want some being (be it God or whatever) to come in, clean up our mess, and then lead us around by the snout for eternity. I understand that recognizing our own divinity requires taking on the responsibility of being god-like, and for some, including myself at times, responsibility is a scary idea. But, most of the time for me, the idea that we are the creators of our world, destiny, and self is a joyful liberation. I don't want to 'return' to the symbolic Garden of Eden, I want to surpass it - create something better, and then better yet again - the 'Garden of Eden' seems just another stop sign, another prison. I don't know how long we can pretend that we don't actually have power - scientists experiment, clone, and modify in secrecy for fear of public backlash. So, consequently, what we deny with closed minds and eyes goes on anyway and then, when we find out about Dolly, we flip out with shock and then wonder what the hell to do now. Why do we insist on being ambushed by our own divinity? It's like a dirty little family secret that we don't want the neighbors to know and it eats at us, slowly yet surely. We can either face it or go mad. I've unloaded now - thank you for your time and attention. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 08:56:50 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: near-death experiences Alan--I'm trying to find the good gobbledygook that is grounded some way. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:43:20 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: near-death experiences ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 1:56 PM > Subject: Re: near-death experiences > Alan--I'm trying to find the good gobbledygook that is grounded some way. > Randy > That's real nice. It may be good gobbledygook, but it's still gobbledygook. Useful as thought fodder. Let us all know how you get on! Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:24:01 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: IMHO In a message dated 10/19/1999 12:02:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << >what does IMHO mean? Again on behalf of all the English as >a second language-members of this list. >> Other popular ones: LOL = laughing out loud ROTFL = rolling on the floor laughing TTFN = ta ta for now [a cute way of saying goodbye] FYI = for your information Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:31:40 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: brotherliness In a message dated 10/19/1999 12:02:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << Learning to create a place in which the full power - the apparent good and the apparent "bad" - is drawn out of all of us, where our sensibilities *are* periodically seriously upset >> I agree with this line of thinking up to a point - but just as brotherliness can be an excuse for superficial "niceness" and maintaining the status quo, so can "telling the naked truth" be an excuse for abusiveness. So I would advocate for the capacity to respectfully disagree with each other, maintaining enough civility that the other person feels disagreed with but not personally attacked - and thus acknowledging our common humanity, one of the Objects. I also think that people can criticize the T.S. without necessarily ripping it to shreds, keeping in mind the sensibilities of others on the list who have found some meaning or goodness in it, and may not be privy to the same level of inside knowledge. Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:37:47 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: confused In a message dated 10/20/1999 12:06:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << > They were written by those who wrote them to be confusing, and yea, >they read them, and were confused. For those who wrote them did indeed >write them in a confusing way, to be confusing. Confused they were, as >they were confused. Understand? Bart! Have you been drinking? Such a burst of merriment from your direction. Almost scary. . .. Kym >> I thought Alan wrote that. Or am I confused?.... Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:42:50 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: near-death experience In a message dated 10/20/1999 12:06:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Randy writes: << Christine--would you relate your near-death experience please. Thanks, Randy >> I haven't had any near-death experiences per se, although I've had a couple of what I consider "mystical" experiences, where I perceived a direct connection or communication with a divine Energy, something I call God. It's really hard to describe, except that at those few moments, I absolutely *knew* that a God exists, to the point that somebody could have shot me dead on the spot and I wouldn't have minded. I haven't had any lately, and keenly feel the difference - although I can't imagine dealing with daily, mundane reality in a constant state of divine ecstasy. I suppose a few saints have pulled it off. My grandmother once wrote to me that she had a near-death experience, and was convinced by it that "we cannot die." I have also had a few experiences that I would characterize as psychic or telepathic, further evidence that there's more to the mystery we call life than meets the eye. Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:48:24 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 19, 1999 In a message dated 10/20/1999 12:06:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << > Christine--Near death experiences and communication with the dead by psychics > are probable the most tangible and powerful evidences that we are spirit > creatures incarnate. Everything else seems to be a bunch of philosophical > gobbledygook. > Randy > I agree entirely. Some of the gobbledygook is good gobbleddygook though ... Alan >> Or at least thought-provoking... Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:50:18 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: More internetese Smile :) Laugh :D Wink ;) lips are sealed :X frown :( crying :'( surprise :O puke :Q sarcastic smile :-> hate >:( crazy orgasm %O bored }-o zzzzzz floored (drunk) %~) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 19:53:36 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: near-death experiences In a message dated 10/20/1999 12:06:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Alan writes: << I have other experiences, but maybe it would serve our pupose best if we discussed this one, and shared others, before I offer any more. >> Wow, thanks for sharing all that, Alan. That was fascinating. I'm going to print it out and save it. Would be happy to hear more too. Also would love to hear any tips you may have on dealing with persons with malevolent intentions - or with persons who believe their intentions are good, but whose effects on you are bad. Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 23:51:46 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Fw: Text from a pagan correspondent ----- Original Message ----- > From: Margaret Wilkins +ADw-M.Z.Wilkins+AEA-zoo.co.uk+AD4- > Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 7:01 PM > Subject: Fw: Text from a pagan correspondent +AD4- Dear Alan +AD4- +AD4- This is from the same source as the pope website (Jean-Francois is the +AD4- noisiest Swiss I've ever met and seems to come across some very intereesting +AD4- people) and is entirely bishop-free. +AD4- +AD4- +AD4APg-From: +ACI-Jean-Francois Mayer+ACI- +ADw-JFM+AEA-mcnet.ch+AD4- +AD4- +AD4APg-Subject: Text from a pagan correspondent +AD4- +AD4APg-Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 22:13:37 +020- +AD4- +AD4APg-X-MSMail-Priority: Normal +AD4- +AD4APg-X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APg-Dear correspondents, +AD4- +AD4APg-The following and rather funny text was sent to me by a pagan +AD4- +AD4-correspondent. While some of you may already know it, since it is obviously +AD4- +AD4-circulating on the net, I have thought that you might be amused to read it +AD4- +AD4-anyway. +AD4- +AD4APg-Yours. +AD4- +AD4APg-Jean-Francois +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APg-Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road? (Neo-Pagan-style) +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Alexandrian/Gardnerian: To reveal this would be to break my oath of +AD4- +AD4-secrecy. I can say, though, that it +ACo-really+ACo- is an ancient rite, dating far +AD4- +AD4-back in time, back even before 1951, and I have learned it from an unbroken +AD4- +AD4-lineage. As Gerald said, it takes a chicken to make an egg. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Asatru: First, we don't believe in a +ACI-One Chicken+ACI- or a +ACI-Hen and Rooster.+ACI- +AD4- +AD4-We believe in many chickens. Second, +ACI-crossing the road+ACI- is part of the +AD4- +AD4-three levels, or worlds, and the chicken simply crossed from one level to +AD4- +AD4-another. Hail to the Chickens+ACE- +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-British Traditional: The word +ACI-chicken+ACI- comes from a very specific Old +AD4- +AD4-English word (+ACI-gechekken+ACI-), and it only properly applies to certain fowl of +AD4- +AD4-East Anglia or those descended therefrom. As for the rest, I suppose they +AD4- +AD4-are doing something remotely similar to crossing the road, but you must +AD4- +AD4-remember that traditional roads are not to be confused with the modern +AD4- +AD4-roads.... +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Celtic: In County Feedbeygohn on Midsummer's day, there is still practiced +AD4- +AD4-St. Henny's Dance, which is a survival of the old pagan Chicken Crossing +AD4- +AD4-fertility rite. Today, modern pagans are reviving the practice, dedicated +AD4- +AD4-to the Hen and the Green Rooster. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Ceremonial: +ACI-Crossing the road+ACI- is a phrase that summarizes many magical +AD4- +AD4-structures erected and timed by the chicken to produce the energy necessary +AD4- +AD4-for the intention of the travel across the road. For example, the +AD4- +AD4-astrological correspondences had to be correct, the moon had to be waxing +AD4- +AD4-(if the chicken intended to come to the other side of the road) or waning +AD4- +AD4-(if the chicken intended to flee to the other side of the road), and the +AD4- +AD4-chicken had to prepare herself through fasting and proper incantations. +AD4- +AD4-Note: certain forms of invocation (summoning an egg +AD4- +AD4APgAq-inside+ACo- your chicken self) can produce abnormal or even dangerous eggs +AD4- +AD4-and should only be conducted inside a properly erected barnyard. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Chaos: Thinking in terms of +ACI-roads+ACI- and +ACI-crossings+ACI- is simply looking at +AD4- +AD4-the formal, typically perceived structure of chicken crossing space-time. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APg-We, instead, focus on the possibility of chicken crossing itself+ADs- what +AD4- +AD4-appears to be a random act is thus actually the norm - it is the +ACoAKg-road+ACoAKg- +AD4- +AD4-which is the freak of chance. Indeed, quantum mechanics now demonstrates +AD4- +AD4-what we knew all along: two roads can simultaneously exist in the same +AD4- +AD4-place at the same time. Thus, by attuning ourselves to the dynamic energy +AD4- +AD4-(called +ACI-crossing+ACI-), we can manifest the road. Of course, to the +AD4- +AD4-unknowledgeable, this appears as a chicken crossing the road. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Dianic: The chykyn (+ACI-chicken+ACI- is a term of patriarchal oppression) sought +AD4- +AD4APg-to reclaim for herself the right to be on the other side of the road, +AD4- +AD4-after it had been denied to her for centuries. By doing so, she reawakened +AD4- +AD4-the power of the Hen within herself. +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Discordian: cock-a-doodle-doo +ACE- +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Druid: To get to the sacred grove, of course+ACE- Keep in mind that 99+ACU- of +AD4- +AD4-everything written about chickens-crossing-the-road is pure hogwash, based +AD4- +AD4-on biased sources. Yes, there were a few unfortunate chicken sacrifices in +AD4- +AD4-the past, but that is over now... +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Eclectic: Because it seemed right to her at the time. She used some +AD4- +AD4-Egyptian style corn and a Celtic sounding word for the road and +AD4- +AD4-incorporated some Native American elements into her Corn-name, +AD4- +AD4-Chicken-Who-Dances-and-Runs-with-the-Wolves. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Faery: In twilight times and under sparkling stars, those properly trained +AD4- +AD4-can still see the chickens crossing the roads. Reconnecting with these +AD4- +AD4AIg-fey-fowl+ACI- as they cross is crucial to restoring the balance between the +AD4- +AD4-energies of modern development and living with the earth. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Family Traditional: Growing up, we didn't think much about +ACI-crossing the +AD4- +AD4-road.+ACI- A chicken was a chicken. It crossed the road because that was what +AD4- +AD4-worked to get her to the other side. We focused on what worked, and we +AD4- +AD4-worked more with the elders of the barnyard and less with all this +AD4- +AD4AIg-guardians of the chickencoop+ACI- business. We didn't get our concepts of +AD4- +AD4AIg-chickens+ACI- or +ACI-the other side+ACI- from Gardner, either. You can choose not to +AD4- +AD4-believe us since we did not +ACI-scratch down+ACI- on paper what was clucked to us +AD4- +AD4-orally (which, at certain times in history, was the only way to avoid +AD4- +AD4-becoming Easter chicken soup+ACE-), but that doesn't change the facts: +AD4- +AD4APg-there +ACo-were+ACo- real chickens, and they +ACo-really did+ACo- cross the road+ACE- +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Kitchen Witch: The chicken crossed the road to get food, to get a rooster +AD4- +AD4-or to get away from me after I decided to have chicken for dinner+ACE- +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Left Hand Path: White, fluffy chickens prancing across the road+ACE- Do you +AD4- +AD4-think that is +ACo-all+ACo- there is to crossing the road? Do you +ACo-dare+ACo- to know +AD4- +AD4-the dark side of crossing the road and the +ACo-other+ACo- path to +AD4- self-development? +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-New Age: The chicken crossed the road because she chose this as one her +AD4- +AD4APg-lessons to learn in this life. Besides, there was so much incense and +AD4- +AD4-bright, white corn to explore on the Other Side. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Newbie: well, 'cause I read in this really kewl book that said, like, +AD4- +AD4-chickens are supposed to cross the road, right? +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Posting on an Online Discussion Group: What do you mean why did the +AD4- +AD4-chicken cross the road????+ACEAIQAh-??? Haven't you read +ACoAKg-any+ACoAKg- of the previous +AD4- +AD4-posts? We've been +AFs-expletive deleted+AF0- debating every word of that question, +AD4- +AD4-painstakingly trying to come to some kind of answer. I know you wrote all I +AD4- +AD4-wanted to know was why chickens cross the road, I'm not +AD4- +AD4APg-looking for any chicken spells but I'm fed up with newbies who can't +AD4- +AD4APg-even bother to REEEEEEEEAAADDD the posts on that very topic+ACE- No, this is +AD4- +AD4APgAq-not+ACo- a flame. But, I and several others here have the +ACo-maturity+ACo- to +AD4- +AD4APg-properly explore and respond to this question, and we were properly +AD4- +AD4-trained+ADs- we +AD4- +AD4APgAq-didn't+ACo- just read a book and think we were full-fledged chickens. Whew, +AD4- +AD4APg-feeling much better after ranting... +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Solitaire: The chicken didn't want to be part of a coven or an oven. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Shaman: Crossing the road is a way to reconnect with the healing, +AD4- +AD4-visionary lifeways of the past. Chickens have long known this, but +AD4- +AD4-increasingly the Rooster's Movement is adding more roosters to the +AD4- +AD4-crossings too. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Snert: Hey, are you guys really chickens? Can you give me a spell that +AD4- +AD4-will make a chicken cross the road? +AFs-amf: got me. dunno what a snert is+AF0- +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Wiccan: The chicken crossed the road because she felt like she was finally +AD4- +AD4AIg-coming home.+ACI- She could do it alone or with others, but she +AD4- +AD4APg-had to call to the Guardians of the Watchtowers of the Barnyard first ... +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APg-uhm, after casting the circle. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-How Some Pagan Authors Might Respond: +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Margot Adler: The recent chicken resurgence, it can be argued, is directly +AD4- +AD4-based on a response to the suburban middle class experience. While I found +AD4- +AD4-that chickens-who-cross-roads who responded to my survey are of a wide +AD4- +AD4-range of ages and backgrounds, I discovered some trends in +AD4- +AD4APg-the +ACI-why+ACI- of crossing the road. For some it is was freedom. For some it is +AD4- +AD4-chickenism. Many chickens told me they crossed the road for intellectual +AD4- +AD4-satisfaction. One thing is clear: the growth of road crossing by chickens +AD4- +AD4-is expanding in the numbers of chickens and in the ways they cross the +AD4- +AD4-road, including at chicken festivals and for political blocking of roads. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Isaac Bonewits: Real crossing-the-road, we have seen, is a very interwoven +AD4- +AD4-and complicated subject. Our conclusion could be that real +AD4- +AD4-crossing-the-road is the build up of chicken emotion in conjunction with +AD4- +AD4-chicken concepts to vary the modulation of chicken energy so as to +AD4- +AD4APg-effect the modulation of the road's energy. That's all+ACE- Perhaps it is +AD4- +AD4-unfortunate, though, to use the word +ACI-chicken+ACI- in relation to it, since the +AD4- +AD4AIg-C+ACI- word is being used now in a way it was never used before in the English +AD4- +AD4-language and is an utterly meaningless term without a qualifying adjective. +AD4- +AD4-And this, of course, is the fault of the medieval Christian Church, through +AD4- +AD4-the Gothic Chickens it invented and used as the basis of persecuting men, +AD4- +AD4-women and chickens. The word +ACI-chicken+ACI- itself comes from an Indo-European +AD4- +AD4-root, +ACI-cheeka/e+ACI- meaning +ACI-one who lays eggs,+ACI- and it has no relation to the +AD4- +AD4-later Anglo-Saxon word for +ACI-wise spirit of flight,+ACI- as so often stated by +AD4- +AD4-certain contemporary +ACI-Chics.+ACI- An'Chk'Rrhod (+ACI-Our Own Chickens on Our Own +AD4- +AD4-Roads+ACI-), an authentic Neo-Chicken Rooster tradition, offers the best of +AD4- +AD4-paleo-, meso- and neo- Chickenism ...+AFs-amf again: we KNOW that Isaac can +AD4- +AD4-practice magic: He has a BA diploma for the University of California, in +AD4- +AD4-Thaumaturgy, no less--signed by Ronald Reagan+AF0-. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Carlos Castenada 4/10/1964 I spent 14 hours, without food or water, +AD4- +AD4-sitting on the dirt and under the sun in front of Don Juan's house, +AD4- +AD4-grinding chicken feed. I asked Don Juan if I could have a drink of water, +AD4- +AD4-and he told me that it was always this way, that a man who wanted to cross +AD4- +AD4-the road with the chicken cannot have any food or water till the chicken +AD4- +AD4-feed is ground. I asked Don Juan if the chicken is an ally, like the little +AD4- +AD4-smoke. Don Juan seemed to get angry and stayed silent. After I completed +AD4- +AD4-grinding the corn, I hallucinated from heat exhaustion, and Don Juan said I +AD4- +AD4-was ready. As I collapsed to my side, I spilled the chicken feed around me. +AD4- +AD4-A chicken appeared to be eating the feed around me, and I became strangely +AD4- +AD4-absorbed in the vision. I heard Don Juan's voice tell me, +ACI-You must let the +AD4- +AD4-chicken cross the road into you. It is very painful, but for a man of +AD4- +AD4-knowledge it is easy.+ACI- +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Scott Cunningham: A chicken passes between the grasses, clucking. The wind +AD4- +AD4-blows, and the chicken knows, +ACo-knows+ACo-, that this is the time. She puts her +AD4- +AD4-energy into taking the steps, in harmony with the gravel and the stones of +AD4- +AD4-the road. She is across+ADs- it is over, and the chicken stands in the field on +AD4- +AD4-the other side of the road. ... Natural chicken crossing +AD4- +AD4APg-is unique among most other branches of the art of chicken road crossing. +AD4- It +AD4- +AD4APg-doesn't require years of collecting or fashioning coops, feeders or hen +AD4- +AD4-houses. Indeed, the most important tools of natural chicken crossing are +AD4- +AD4-free: the road, the chicken and you, your personal chicken power. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APg-You're already familiar with it. You've felt it. You +ACo-are+ACo- a chicken. +AD4- +AD4-Crossing the road is you, with your chicken need. And, you can do it on +AD4- +AD4-your own. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APg-After all, who initiated the first chicken? +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Janet and Stewart Farrar: Since so many editions of Gardner's Chicken Book +AD4- +AD4-of Crossings have appeared in print (some accurate, some not), we think it +AD4- +AD4-won't +ACI-lay an egg+ACI- too much if we clearly present +ACI-The Chicken Crossing +AD4- +AD4-Rite,+ACI- especially if we do so after two and half pages of well researched +AD4- +AD4-introduction set in six-point type. In version A of the Chicken Crossing +AD4- +AD4-Rite, we find many pseudo-archaisms (e.g., +ACI-Yea, Ye Anciente Rite of Ye +AD4- +AD4-Chiks and Ye Rodes is a moste powerful Crafting, taking thy athame ...+ACI-)+ADs- +AD4- +AD4-however, Doreen Valiente notes (in version C, which is +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APg-what we present), and we agree, that underlying it all is a basic ritual +AD4- +AD4-for summoning the astral road through the spirit of the Chicken (drawn down +AD4- +AD4-in the person of the High Priestess, holding the black handled feed bin+ADs- of +AD4- +AD4-course, a second degree may assist or perform the rite when.... +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Llewellyn's Practical Chicken Magick Series: To some people, the idea that +AD4- +AD4AIg-chickens crossing the road+ACI- is practical comes as a surprise. It +AD4- +AD4-shouldn't. The whole idea of Crossing the Road is practical for chickens. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APg-While Crossing the Road is also, and properly so, concerned with spiritual +AD4- +AD4-growth and psychological transformation -- the +ACI-why+ACI- of crossing the road-- +AD4- +AD4-every chicken's life must rest firmly on material roads. Crossing the Road +AD4- +AD4-is the flowering of chicken potential. And the profits from publishing all +AD4- +AD4-those books on how to do so? Well, that ain't chicken feed... +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Starhawk: The chicken crossed the road to reclaim the crossing experience, +AD4- +AD4-the experience of being fully alive, with streams and earth and rocks and +AD4- +AD4-road, in the fullness of her chickenhood after thousand of years of +AD4- +AD4-roosterarchy. The chicken crossing the road --not a chicken laying eggs, +AD4- +AD4-not a chicken being roasted and eaten-- a chicken strong and free, crossing +AD4- +AD4-the road, this is something I can believe in. We chickens, as chickens, can +AD4- +AD4-reclaim this in harmony with the Earth who gives life to all chickens and +AD4- +AD4-Who has been terribly scratched by roosters. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APg-Exercises: +AD4- +AD4APg-Dance the Spiral Chicken. +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Doreen Valiente: Old Chicken really did exist, and she really did cross +AD4- +AD4-the road. Gerald talked about her often, but she didn't cross the road till +AD4- +AD4-before I began studying with Gerald. Still, there are records of Old +AD4- +AD4-Chicken which confirm her reality. As for all the comments that Gerald had +AD4- +AD4-a +ACI-thing+ACI- for chickens, that is simply not true. The reason we worked with +AD4- +AD4-chickens is really quite simple: it worked+ACE- +AD4- +AD4APg- +AD4- +AD4APgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACoAKgAqACo- +AD4- +AD4APg-Silver Raven Wolf: Although many times people have asked me why exactly +AD4- +AD4-the chicken crossed the road, I often wonder myself. My point is that every +AD4- +AD4-chicken comes to the road in a different way, and there is no one correct +AD4- +AD4-way for the chicken to get to the road to be crossed. The study of crossing +AD4- +AD4-the road is hard work if the chicken is going to develop any degree of +AD4- +AD4-proficiency. It is not something where you can just cluck yourself across +AD4- +AD4-the road. The first time my chicken crossed the road was for my chicken's +AD4- +AD4-friend, whose rooster was being abusive. The chicken worked the steps for +AD4- +AD4-crossing the road after carefully considering all the reasons for crossing +AD4- +AD4-the road and all the steps she would have to take. Finally, my chicken just +AD4- +AD4-started clucking and flapping her wings and started across the road. When +AD4- +AD4-she reached the other side, her friend's rooster was respectful+ACE- +AD4- +AD4-Afterwards, the chicken ate some corn to ground herself. +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 00:19:22 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 19, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 7:04 AM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 19, 1999 > I don't want to 'return' to the symbolic > Garden of Eden, I want to surpass it - create something better, and then > better yet again - the 'Garden of Eden' seems just another stop sign, > another prison. Dear Kym I'm not surprised. Returning to something which is symbolic would, I suspect, be impossible. My own take of the Garden of Eden equates it with the World of Briah in Kabbalism, which is a real place in a different dimension, akin in some ways to the theosophical Devachan. >From here we can occasionally peep over the hedge, but no more, except in rare Out of the Body experience. One reason it is rare is that it tends to frighten the S..T out of us. For the record, the "myth" of the Garden of Eden is part of the same esoteric tradition as Kabbalism, which helps me to be a great and wise person in these matters. I realise that this last statement will generate huge amounts of negative karma. If you find this happens, I suggest you don't read it. [Carried back to cell by compassionate guards] Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:02:27 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: brotherliness At 07:31 PM 10/20/1999 EDT, you wrote: In a message dated 10/19/1999 12:02:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << Learning to create a place in which the full power - the apparent good and the apparent "bad" - is drawn out of all of us, where our sensibilities *are* periodically seriously upset >> >I also think that people can criticize the T.S. without necessarily ripping it to shreds, keeping in mind the sensibilities of others on the list who have found some meaning or goodness in it, and may not be privy to the same level of inside knowledge. Christine< I do not think anyone is critical about the organization. It is the people who are in the leadership that people are critical. Also this is a free forum out of any one's control and has no membership dues, no fees no passing of cyber-plate or seeking donations for one or more good causes for the welfare of humanity. All one needs is access to a computer connected to Internet. It should be easy to refute/correct any incorrect or inaccurate info anyone uses to make their statement and/or conclusion and that has not happened. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:07:14 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: near-death experiences At 07:53 PM 10/20/1999 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 10/20/1999 12:06:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Alan writes: > ><< I have other experiences, but maybe it would serve our pupose best if we > discussed this one, and shared others, before I offer any more. >> > >Wow, thanks for sharing all that, Alan. That was fascinating. I'm going to print it out and save it. Would be happy to hear more too. Also would love to hear any tips you may have on dealing with persons with malevolent intentions - or with persons who believe their intentions are good, but whose effects on you are bad. Christine<< Here are some: 1. Keep as far away as possible from persons with malevolent intentions or with persons whose effects on you are bad. 2. Just ignore them. Don't even think of them. 3. Be patient and silent. Sooner or later they will go away for lack of response. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:10:23 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Fw: Text from a pagan correspondent There was too much noise characters in the post. Can it be re-posted deleting the extra characters? mkr At 11:51 PM 10/20/1999 +0100, Alan wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Margaret Wilkins +ADw-M.Z.Wilkins+AEA-zoo.co.uk+AD4- >To: +ADw-Alan+AEA-ambain.softnet.co.uk+AD4- >Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 7:01 PM >Subject: Fw: Text from a pagan correspondent > > >+AD4- Dear Alan >+AD4- >+AD4- This is from the same source as the pope website (Jean-Francois is the >+AD4- noisiest Swiss I've ever met and seems to come across some very >intereesting From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 03:03:47 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Fw: Text from a pagan correspondent ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Thursday, October 21, 1999 2:10 AM > Subject: Re: Fw: Text from a pagan correspondent > There was too much noise characters in the post. > Can it be re-posted deleting the extra characters? > > mkr > I will send it to a text file and upload it again. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 05:08:12 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: near-death experience Thanks for your relating your experiences. Too bad we all can't have regular tastes to help keep us on track. I wonder why god would not permit such access if the goal is for us to ultimately reach him/her. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 05:29:31 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: carnivorism question Is there a sage out there who can answer this question: Why is the world based upon carnivorism? Even in a broader sense all life depends for its sustenance on the destruction of other life. Even vegetarians are killers. Why would whoever is responsible for the world create such atrocity when so many other options would be available to someone with omnipotence.? (I understand the balances in nature, natural selection, etc. so please don't address just the issue of present biological balance. I'm interested in the motives of whoever conceived of what appears to most humans as macabre at best. It is of interest that the rest of creation does not seem to have these sensitivities.) It's hard to extract the lesson of love in creation when watching a snake swallow a mouse, a lion fall a baby zebra or a tarantula devouring its sister. Or go visit a slaghter house or a factory chicken or hog farm if you think the packages of meat you buy come from animals that have died natural deaths after a delightful life of browsing on amber waves of grain. Gotta go. There's a special on the Nature Channel about how cocodiles rip apart wildebeests as they come to the last water hole to get a few sips because of the drought Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:50:50 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Collective Karma as Creator I have finally found the reference by Geshe Kalsang Gyatso I talked about earlier on collective karma: "As with all other things, this world came into being in dependence upon causes. Had there been no causes, there would be no world. The main cause of this world was the collective karma of the beings who inhabit it. Since karma originates in the mind, it follows that this world was produced principally by mind...It can only have been produced by the collective karma of the beings inhabiting this world. There is no valid reason for saying that it was created by Brahma, or any other god. The entire world arose due to karma, and karma arises from mind; therefore the actual creator of this world is mind." OCEAN OF NECTURE, p. 168 Here Gyatso, a Tibetan Buddhist, uses the term collective karma directly. There are two seemingly large differences between this Buddhist view and that given by Blavatsky in her SD. One is that she has a hierarchy of creator-gods, and the second is her idea that karma is universal and somehow transcends mind. My own personal take on this is to see her Manus and Cosmocrators and so on as personifications of collective karmic forces, and I have never thought that her "universal" law of karma was all that universal, but rather applicable only to our 7-plane solar system and thus relative only to samsara and nirvana (i.e., there is no karma in paranirvana). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 05:01:19 -0700 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: carnivorism question Oct 21 1999 Dear Randy: Briefly and theosophically it is NOT. Any one who truly looks into their own physical existence has to realize that the law of cooperation and brotherhood alone provide us with the bodies we use. It takes a little searching to find out what the mind and soul are. And regarding your question on sex. Why is it done? Only an ethical basis will answer you several questions. Either it is a plaything, or it is a serious and important thing that ought not to be trifled with -- as is now ever more commonly done. In any case should we not be acquainted with the physiological and "transmission of diseases" aspects of its usage ? The suggestion of a Universal of brotherliness and cooperation far outweighs any concept of a purely "dog eat dog" concept. None of us would be alive right now if that were the basic underlying rule of life. To be useful one cannot be selective in one's discovery of Nature's laws and being. All has to be considered. Have you consulted HPB's THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY on this subject ? Is there some statement there that is not clear? Best wishes, Dallas Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: WLR7D@aol.com [mailto:WLR7D@aol.com] > Date: Thursday, October 21, 1999 2:30 AM > Subject: carnivorism question Is there a sage out there who can answer this question: Why is the world based upon carnivorism? Even in a broader sense all life depends for its sustenance on the destruction of other life. Even vegetarians are killers. Why would whoever is responsible for the world create such atrocity when so many other options would be available to someone with omnipotence.? (I understand the balances in nature, natural selection, etc. so please don't address just the issue of present biological balance. I'm interested in the motives of whoever conceived of what appears to most humans as macabre at best. It is of interest that the rest of creation does not seem to have these sensitivities.) It's hard to extract the lesson of love in creation when watching a snake swallow a mouse, a lion fall a baby zebra or a tarantula devouring its sister. Or go visit a slaghter house or a factory chicken or hog farm if you think the packages of meat you buy come from animals that have died natural deaths after a delightful life of browsing on amber waves of grain. Gotta go. There's a special on the Nature Channel about how cocodiles rip apart wildebeests as they come to the last water hole to get a few sips because of the drought Thanks, Randy --- 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: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:45:44 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Collective Karma as Creator Dear Jerry--Do you believe any part of the material on karma and creation to be true? If so, why? Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 09:07:29 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: carnivorism question --part1_0.be490307.25406a11_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dallas please see attached re your response to carnivorism and sex. --part1_0.be490307.25406a11_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; name="SEX2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline; filename="SEX2" 
Thank you Dallas
>You have lost me that "cooperation and brotherhood provide our bodies".  Ho=
w would you prove such a statement?
>What does ethics have to do with sex?  Whose ethic?  What kind of sex?
>Sex is both serious and fun.  So is eating, hearing, smelling and seeing.  =
Who is going to decide what fun there is about any of these physical senses =
we should eliminate?
>I'm not sure what you mean by physiological and disease transmission.  If y=
ou are suggesting that disease attendent with sex proves it should be avoide=
d that is not valid since disease is also associated with eating, breathing,=
 touching, exercise, hard work(stress),  and wearing chastity belts too tigh=
t(or underwear).  Which of these should we abstain from too?

I have not read the reference yet, but I will when I can find it.  Neverthel=
ess I am going to ask the same sorts of questions because I am interested in=
 the logical or empirical underpinnings.

Randy
--part1_0.be490307.25406a11_boundary-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 16:20:00 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: carnivorism question In a message dated 10/21/99 8:07:47 AM Central Daylight Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > Nevertheless I am going to ask the same sorts of questions because I am > interested in the logical or empirical underpinnings. > And what is empirical? And how does it underpin? Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 18:50:32 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: carnivorism question Grigor--and has to do with substantive proofs not mere babel or references to writings or scriptures. If your question was sincere, I can elaborate but I sense it was sarcastic. Forgive me if I misinterpret. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:47:26 -0700 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: carnivorism question Oct 21 Randy: Get a text on basic bodily structure and physiology 101 -- what causes the cells to die and then be carted away in the blood stream ? What cause their replacement ? How is the entire digestion, respiration, blood circulation, etc.. set of cycles done in the body. What in the earth is the "Water cycle?" the "Nitrogen cycle ?" etc... why do things repeat analogetically ? Like most of us we accept but do not investigate, or the power of the obvious intelligence in nature and in cooperative and interactive working would be obvious to you as well as to me -- but it would seem that so far it has not been your area of study, as it has mine, ever since I took science courses in college. Hermes of ancient Egypt said: "Man know thyself." It is a worthwhile study? Why do you ask questions and offer opinions? Are you seeking for actual knowledge, or trying to see if you can find those who agree with you ? -- And what are your tenets? How do you visualize your existence vis a vis the Earth. What is Life for you, and for the rest of us ? Where do you think we are all going? To me, it is perfectly clear that I am a RESPONSIBLE being. and I live amid other such. beings. Some have an intelligence comparable to mine, some are of a lesser attainment, and some I can easily see are far superior to that level which I am seeing to reach even now. I therefore study my own make-up. And I divide it into: 1. Physical body. 2. Astral body on which the physical is molded. 3. Life principles borrowed from nature. 4. Desire and Passion principle (Kama). 5. Mind (Manas) principle with which I investigate, think, inquire, doubt, remember, forget, imagine, fancy, etc... 6. Buddhi-Wisdom -- or the gathered supply of memories of the past which speak of the totality of my experience as an Immortal Being. 7. Atma the "Ray" from the One Universal SPIRIT-- I conceive that this "ray" resides in me and that Wisdom (Buddhi) must be its mirror and vehicle. It is the source of my sense of immortality. and that I perceive with Manas-mind the 5th "principle." I also hold that this is a general description of each human being, and further we can trace these 7 divisions in all of nature's creatures that live with us and interact with us.. Therefore, what I present are the conclusions that emerge from that and which are supplemented by my study of the Theosophical propositions and doctrines. My sole testimony as to their usefulness need only stimulate you to try and demonstrate them to yourself. There is no other sure way in which anyone can do any proving of anything to themselves. As to sex. To me it is basic that it has one definitude purpose and that is to produce children. If I am responsible for that along with someone of the opposite sex, then the only way in which I/we could do that sex-act, would be if we agree to establish a bond that will last for a life-time of mutual assistance and cooperation. If we also have children it becomes our joint responsibility to give them support, protection and education. Any other approach is (in my way of understanding) only that of irresponsibility and selfishness in the extreme. I deplore the various attempts that have been made to apparently do away with the "responsibility" aspect of such a relationship in favor of immoderate "enjoyment." I think that a good definition of "fun" and "pleasure" ought to be attempted. How is that done in a universe that is run by laws of responsibility. I repeat what I said: If you think that this is an entirely irresponsible and promiscuous Universe, then what I write will have no meaning to you. But it might have the effect of getting you to realize that there are other points of view. If so, why so ? Dal Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: WLR7D@aol.com [mailto:WLR7D@aol.com] > Date: Thursday, October 21, 1999 6:07 AM > Subject: Re: carnivorism question Dallas please see attached re your response to carnivorism and sex. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 20:34:08 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: carnivorism question In a message dated 10/21/99 5:50:47 PM Central Daylight Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > Grigor--and has to do with substantive proofs not mere babel or references to > > writings or scriptures. If your question was sincere, I can elaborate but I > > sense it was sarcastic. Forgive me if I misinterpret. > Randy > You misinterpret. I am a retired physicist as most know on this list so when someone wants to use especially the term empirical I want to know exactly what they mean especially when they seem to be demanding more conceptual and argumentative rigor from others. So again, what do you mean by "empirical" and what do you mean by it "underpinning" beliefs, theories, or attitudes, etc. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 00:56:23 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: near-death experience ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Thursday, October 21, 1999 10:08 AM > Subject: Re: near-death experience > Thanks for your relating your experiences. Too bad we all can't have regular > tastes to help keep us on track. I wonder why god would not permit such > access if the goal is for us to ultimately reach him/her. > Randy > As you will gather from my other, longer post, I doubt if "god" has anything much to do with it. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 00:07:27 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Collective Karma as Creator Dear Jerry, If this is true - and in its own way it seems to me to offer no better "answer" than creation ex nihilo by some god or another - then this world can only get worse. Also, in its own way, it is just as simplistic as the "creator-god" explanation. Sorry about that, if you believe it. Alan ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Thursday, October 21, 1999 1:50 PM > Subject: Collective Karma as Creator > I have finally found the reference by Geshe > Kalsang Gyatso I talked about earlier on > collective karma: > > "As with all other things, this world came into > being in dependence upon causes. Had there been > no causes, there would be no world. The main cause > of this world was the collective karma of the > beings who inhabit it. Since karma originates > in the mind, it follows that this world was > produced principally by mind...It can only have > been produced by the collective karma of the > beings inhabiting this world. There is no valid > reason for saying that it was created by Brahma, > or any other god. The entire world arose due to > karma, and karma arises from mind; therefore > the actual creator of this world is mind." > OCEAN OF NECTURE, p. 168 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 00:55:04 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: carnivorism question ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Thursday, October 21, 1999 10:29 AM > Subject: carnivorism question > Is there a sage out there who can answer this question: > > Why is the world based upon carnivorism? Even in a broader sense all life > depends for its sustenance on the destruction of other life. Even > vegetarians are killers. I doubt if anyone, sage or not, can answer the question, "Why." All human beings ever seem to discover is "How." Even vegetables are killers in this scenario, as they feed on various bacteria, etc. which are present in the soil. A lot of our thinking depends upon the "spin" we put on it. I am a vegetarian, for example, for I observe that the basic structure of animal, bird, and even fish life forms share a great deal in common. To me, therefore, it is an avoidance of cannibalism. Many of the creatures that humans eat are also vegetarian, especially sheep and cattle. > > Why would whoever is responsible for the world create such atrocity when so > many other options would be available to someone with omnipotence.? (I > understand the balances in nature, natural selection, etc. so please don't > address just the issue of present biological balance. I'm interested in the > motives of whoever conceived of what appears to most humans as macabre at > best. It is of interest that the rest of creation does not seem to have > these sensitivities.) This presupposes that someone, or some intelligence, *created* such atrocity in the first place. It posits a creator "god" whether Christian, Judaic, or any other "aic" or "istic." Whilst our world is clearly sustained - at the level of manifest life at least - by what is often called the food chain - why should we suppose that "someone" is responsible? Another way of looking at it is that everything material is recycled. This, in today's view, is a Good Thing. > > It's hard to extract the lesson of love in creation when watching a snake > swallow a mouse, a lion fall a baby zebra or a tarantula devouring its > sister. Or go visit a slaghter house or a factory chicken or hog farm if you > think the packages of meat you buy come from animals that have died natural > deaths after a delightful life of browsing on amber waves of grain. Of course it is. But it is easy when mice tend baby mice, lions nurture their cubs, etc. It is easy when we read stories of fathful dogs giving up their lives to save their owners from life-threatening situations. > We can suppose various things, but "suppose" is all we can do. One is that if there is a creator god, then this being is an evil bastard. We can sugar the pill by supposing that this being is saying to us, "This hurts you more than it does me," or "Sorry, it's your karma inherited from a life in the Arcturus system." There is an honest but awful truth suggested in the Hebrew scriptures (in Hebrew) when the "name" of God is examined. In Hebrew, "God" is a four-letter word, the closest translation into English being "That-which-is" in the sense of eternal and ubiquitious (everywhere all at once, Katinka). Many of the early church fathers referred to "God" in this sense, using the expression, "The Eternal." Randy - we simply do not *know* why it it is like this, and all of the teachings offer only explanations of *how* it works, including for our solace tales of how we can fix it by being good boys and girls, whether through karma or judgement day. In sage mode, I offer the following: Our physical world is as it is simply because that is how it is. Much of it is, as you observe, atrocious. Another part of it is that whatever form of life we are (including zebras, cabbages, etc.) we all die, either from "natural causes" or from being slaughtered. Some of us are afterwards eaten, though this practice has been drastically curtailed among humans over some hundreds of years. I recently posted a near death experience to the list, which to me, and others who have had similar experiences, makes it very clear that when we leave this world, by whatever means, we continue to BE. The "how" of this is a mystery, but much of what I usually call "The Teaching" (to avoid sectarian labels) is concerned with *this* mystery, of which our life on earth is only a segment. In my time to date, I have sometimes "prayed" and had my prayer answered, sometimes dramatically or even sensationally. At the tender age of 66 (another 600 and I become the Beast of Revelation) I tend to the view that looking for a "god" to blame or praise is based upon real, but simplistically interpreted experience. Having had the good fortune to experience something of what are usually called "higher" worlds or levels I have discovered that the ancients were right in some unexpected ways. Many of those who have helped *me* in answer to prayers or simple wondering have turned out to be *former humans* - ancestors! They seem to know more than we do, are unable to explain much of what they know to us because our present equipment mostly blocks our understanding of it. They also diasgree among themselves about many of the same puzzles that we try to solve. Tricky business, life. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ http://members.tripod.co.uk/ambain/SaintJust.HTM/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 00:10:50 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Collective Karma as Creator ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Thursday, October 21, 1999 1:50 PM > Subject: Collective Karma as Creator > I have never thought that her > "universal" law of karma was all that > universal, but rather applicable only to > our 7-plane solar system and thus relative > only to samsara and nirvana (i.e., there > is no karma in paranirvana). > Roll on paranirvana! Are you saying that causes have no part in the rest of the Universe? (Those samsaras can be really sweet - just peel of that thin orange skin .....) Alan :-) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 15:49:34 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: carnivorism question ----- Original Message ----- > From: W. Dallas TenBroeck > Date: Thursday, October 21, 1999 1:01 PM > Subject: RE: carnivorism question Oct 21 1999 Dear Randy: Have you consulted HPB's THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY on this subject ? Is there some statement there that is not clear? > This reads just like the answer one might expect from a "God wrote the Bible" evangelist. The answer, Dallas, to these questions will never be found in a book. We can share our experiences, the opinions we derive from them, and in so doing - thus facilitating "brotherhood" - we may get closer to some of the answers. Books give us food for thought, and a basis for discussion. What is your take on the "New Testament" letter of Paul known as 1 Corinthians? It addresses the question of "wisdom in a mystery" directly. See what I mean? Anyone can refer to a book, but will it make the contents of the book reliable, 100% truth, thereby solving all mysteries? Or maybe we haven't yet found the right book? Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:37:25 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: carnivorism question Thank you Dallas Why would questions make you so testy? JUust because I am asking questions does not mean I am a total ignoramous. I am familiar with the sciences you mention. Further study would not give me the answers I seek or I would not be doing this. An understanding of "cycles" for example does not answer the moral/ethical questions raised by carnivorism, i.e., if all this is the result of a loving omnipotent force, or if we as spirit creatures had a part in the creation, or if the lesson of life is love and oneness, where does carnivorism or having to kill plants to survive fit in? I have no position I am trying to win anyone to other than the open pursuit of truth. Isn't that what theosophy is about? It is not of interest to me to step into the middle of a belief system. That is why I am asking for the fundamentals. They are not answered by mere reference to tenets, doctrine or preconceived ethic. All can be challenged. If believe holding beliefs which cannot logically or experientially be proven to another is nothing more than blind religious faith--the cause of more human misery and misdirection than any other thought system. I still hope for some direct ansers to the questions I have raised. Perhaps there is someone out there who understands my quest and would be kind enough to show me how theosophy (or whatever) can help. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:39:05 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Karma and Creation >>Dear Jerry--Do you believe any part of the material on karma and creation to be true? If so, why? Thanks, Randy>> Yes, I do. We are each consciousness centers, and the Creator of our own inner self image and outer universe. To blame God or Brahma or the Cosmocratores or Manus for the terrible state of this world is misguided. We should rather look within ourselves. In the mystical sense of the oneness of all things, the whole hierarchy of creators described by Blavatsky (which is Hindu, not Buddhist) can be considered as parts of ourselves. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:52:28 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: carnivorism question Thank you Grigor. That's a relief. I am searching for an understanding based upon reason, logic, data, believable experiences. These are the underpinnings and the empirical evidence I'm looking for, not references to dogma or mere fanciful mental constructions. I got on this list because I was drawn to the truth seeking aspect of theosophy. I too, have a heavy science background and would appreciate your thoughts. Also, one responder suggested that an atom was a perpetual motion machine. This struck me as very interesting but I'm wondering how an atom in a closed system could escape the Second Law. What's your take as a physicist? Many thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:56:58 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: near-death experience Alan--My reference to "god" was just to get on the same wavelength as someone. Some on the list apparently believe in an intelligent creator others are into a force. I need to start with one of these to question. Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:00:15 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Response to Alan >>If this is true - and in its own way it seems to me to offer no better "answer" than creation ex nihilo by some god or another - then this world can only get worse. Also, in its own way, it is just as simplistic as the "creator-god" explanation. Sorry about that, if you believe it. Alan>> Alan, it is not a question of truth or falsehood. Blavatsky gave us a model. Tibetan Buddhism gives us a model. Christianity gives us a model. There are lots and lots of models. As we "progress" through evolution and experience we cast away old models and accept new ones that seem to better fit our experience. I think that is about all that we can do. I am a bit of a mystic and prefer the Buddhist model of karma=creator because I see this model as giving me some degree of responsibility and control. Those folks who are more religious make good devotees and do well with the god=creator model (which gives us little responsibility and all control is via prayer). The modern Theosophical model is in between, giving us some control and responsibilty over our own lives while giving more worldly control to a hierarchy of gods and goddesses. In mathematics an "elegant" solution to any problem is one that is simplistic. Einstein's energy equals mass times light speed is a good example. Somehow I think that we will find that ultimate Truth (whatever that is) is also very simplistic and therefore elegant. When I criticize folks on this list for what they say, it is usually because my own experience has suggested to me that they are living with an outdated model (i.e, outdated relative to me) and I feel the need to shake them up a bit so that they will see the holes in it themselves and move on to a better model. If you can find holes in the Buddhist karma=creator model, then please do so and I will listen. My own model suggests that creativity itself is an inherent divine characterisitic of the Monad, because this is the only way that I can logically explain creation to myself. Once creation=manifestation begins, then karma takes over. It works for me, but probably only because every other model I have looked at has even worse flaws. Belief is a funny thing. It is, on the one hand, terribly important for us humans to belive in something. The placebo effect in medical testing is about 20%, which shows the power of belief. I learned a long time ago that healing comes from belief, and it dosen't much matter what you believe in, its the belief itself that heals. On the other hand we tend to dismiss belief as "mere" or imaginary as contrasted to what we like to think of as "truth." I have discovered that my own beliefs change as my view of truth changes and will likely continue to do so. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:05:50 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Sacrifice >> Is there a sage out there who can answer this question: Why is the world based upon carnivorism? Even in a broader sense all life depends for its sustenance on the destruction of other life. Even vegetarians are killers.>> Annie Besant occassionally came up with some very interesting ideas. In one of her books she discusses at some length this idea, crediting it to what she calls "sacrifice" and that the whole world is based on the sacrifice of life in order to sustain life. Its a good read if you have it or can get it. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:19:22 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: carnivorism question Alan--That was some excellent stuff. I understand but am trying to take things as far as I reasonably can. I'm content with the fact that I will be frustrated in finding out all the answers. Well, content is not the right word. I guess resigned like I'm pretty sure I'm never going to be able to jump high enough to slam dunk. Sure wish I could though. Must be a little bit of earthly nirvana up there above the rim. So whats's wrong with cannabalism? We are the perfect food for one another. Accounts of communication with the dead, NDEs, etc., are what recently moved me off my nihilistic bent. It would seem that an assembly and concatenation of all information gathered from the other world(s) would be most enlightening. Know of such a thing? A compelling argument can be made that you are genetically programmed as a carnivore. There is also much evidence clinically that this is true since you will increase your risk of various diseases by abstaining from animal products. Wish it were not that way but it is. Just want to keep you kickin til I have cannabalized the rest of your brain. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:21:48 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: carnivorism question Alan--Glad to see you agree re Dallas response to me Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:22:55 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Karma vs Paranirvana >>Roll on paranirvana! Are you saying that causes have no part in the rest of the Universe?>> Alan, the teaching that karma can be eliminated or consumed is an ancient one, and is in both Hinduism and Buddhism. I was trying to put the view of the jivamukti into a Theosophical perspective mainly because Blavatsky didn't, although she does imply it. Karma is either throughout her 7-plane solar system, or at least in the lower planes. I have searched long and hard for an overall Cause for the whole bag, with no luck (except as having creativity an inherent divine characteristic which I don't like because it implies an initial assumption, and one assumption is pretty much as good as any other. However, there is an unwritten law that says that all models require initial assumptions so I don't think we can ever get out of this one). Most Theosophists want to make karma universal and applicable everywhere period. This implies that many Hindu and Buddhist saints and Teachers were wrong about karma being eliminated (Buddha taught that nirvana eliminates suffering, not karma). I don't see much point to evolution unless its goal is to free us from karma. Freedom from karma implies action without cause or effect, a concept that is paradoxical at best. However, logically we can say that karma as causation requires time and divinity=paranirvana is outside of time and so is outside of karma. While being perfectly logical, it is not at all clear to the human mind what this means. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 06:41:18 -0700 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: carnivorism question Oct 22 Do consider with me the following: If we could live without destroying any forms of life then good. The Jains of India try to do this by subsisting on fruits, seeds, and certainly not eating plants, roots, or animals. Their focus is on "escaping" the dreariness of repeated earthly incarnations. Like Theosophists they hold that the human is a mind-soul and the body is its temporary vehicle. To escape such bondage is of course selfish to the extent that it disregards the good they can do for others by right living. They want a very personal and exalted "salvation" -- Mukti or Nirvana or Moksha. There is a place where there is nothing that need be done. But that is also complete isolation. It is not a melding with the Life forces and purposes of a Universe (which is what Theosophy opts for.) The question of morals and ethics relies on giving their fair share of living space to all beings. If through our sophisms we try to cramp this and make of ourselves the arbiters of the fate of lesser beings -- employing them for our enjoyment, we fail in the moral test of living. To me that is fundamental and simple. It is giving the other fellow and especially those who are far weaker than I a fair chance to live their lives free of interference of a destructive type from me. Carnivorism or the eating of flesh is by definition a killing of other beings for our food and living. Draw your own conclusions. It is completely unnecessary to our living. We do it because we like the taste and try to fool ourselves that for us it is healthy. Also we place our living and pleasure ahead of the rights of others. We play the bully. And then we try to justify it, thus compounding the basic offense. Theosophy is the philosophy of common-sense and responsibility it does not set out to cajole people into considering it. It provides a sound basis for anyone to evaluate their lives and the principles that they have adopted for living those. Basically is BROTHERHOOD carried out to its utter and complete PRACTICAL IDEALISM in our own personal lives. It also recognizes that this has to be entirely self-generated and self-sustained. It cannot be enforced on anyone else but our own lower natures by the Higher that is interior to us -- and this Higher is common to all. If you find me "testy" it is because I expect that those who approach Theosophy and ask questions of have at least read and absorbed some of the principal ideas of Theosophy and its underlying philosophy. That is all. I would expect that there is some questioning of the logic and reasoning of Theosophical philosophy. Between us we can rewrite the whole thing -- but why not take advantage of what is already available. Which of HPB's writings are you familiar with? If you use them and base what you ask on them, and let me know which, then I can point to explanations there that are already on record. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Dal Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: WLR7D@aol.com [mailto:WLR7D@aol.com] > Date: Friday, October 22, 1999 5:37 AM > Subject: Re: carnivorism question Thank you Dallas Why would questions make you so testy? JUust because I am asking questions does not mean I am a total ignoramous. I am familiar with the sciences you mention. Further study would not give me the answers I seek or I would not be doing this. An understanding of "cycles" for example does not answer the moral/ethical questions raised by carnivorism, i.e., if all this is the result of a loving omnipotent force, or if we as spirit creatures had a part in the creation, or if the lesson of life is love and oneness, where does carnivorism or having to kill plants to survive fit in? I have no position I am trying to win anyone to other than the open pursuit of truth. Isn't that what theosophy is about? It is not of interest to me to step into the middle of a belief system. That is why I am asking for the fundamentals. They are not answered by mere reference to tenets, doctrine or preconceived ethic. All can be challenged. If believe holding beliefs which cannot logically or experientially be proven to another is nothing more than blind religious faith--the cause of more human misery and misdirection than any other thought system. I still hope for some direct ansers to the questions I have raised. Perhaps there is someone out there who understands my quest and would be kind enough to show me how theosophy (or whatever) can help. Randy --- 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, 22 Oct 1999 13:47:03 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Lost Souls!!! Southern Baptists target Hindus October 22, 1999 Web posted at: 8:11 a.m. EDT (1211 GMT) NEW YORK (AP) -- The Southern Baptist Convention -- the nation's largest Protestant denomination -- is urging its members to pray for the millions of Hindus "lost in the hopeless darkness of Hinduism." Some 30,000 booklets to be issued Monday in time for Divali, the major Hindu festival of lights, calls for the conversion of those "who worship gods which are not God." The booklet says that Hindus have no concept of sin or personal responsibility. The denomination previously published booklets soliciting prayers for Muslims and Jews, offending leaders of those faiths. The language in this publication is harsher, said Louis Moore, the book's editor. "There is a clearer definition that Hindus are lost," he said, adding: "We're all lost without Jesus Christ." Divali is a major festival, dedicated to Laksmi, goddess of prosperity and goodness. Umaa Mysorekar, president of the Hindu Temple of Flushing in New York and secretary-treasuer of the Council of Hindu Temples, said the timing of the publication is insulting. Mysorekar said the thinking contained in the guide is "not only absurd but also ignorant. I don't think Jesus himself would have said not to respect other religions." Hari Sharma, president of the Hindu Temple of Greater Chicago, said: "Whoever publishes such a book does a disservice to the society. People should understand one another's religions, not go back into history when we were attacking one another. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 16:50:00 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Sacrifice In a message dated 10/22/99 8:12:03 AM Central Daylight Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > Annie Besant occassionally came up with some very > interesting ideas. In one of her books she discusses > at some length this idea, crediting it to what she calls > "sacrifice" and that the whole world is based on the > sacrifice of life in order to sustain life. Its a good read > if you have it or can get it. > It is basic idea of Rgveda. The world is a sacrificial system that the Vedic sacrifice "re-produces." Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 19:03:16 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Lost Souls!!! In a message dated 10/22/99 1:42:05 PM Central Daylight Time, ramadoss@eden.com writes: > Southern Baptists When I came to this country, I was warned that Southern Baptists was a synonym for Stupid Bastards. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:01:39 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: near-death experience ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Friday, October 22, 1999 1:56 PM > Subject: Re: near-death experience > Alan--My reference to "god" was just to get on the same wavelength as someone. > Some on the list apparently believe in an intelligent creator others are into > a force. > I need to start with one of these to question. > Thanks, Randy > Rather obvious, now you mention it. To question requires a subject for the verb! Cheers! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:31:45 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: carnivorism question ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Friday, October 22, 1999 2:19 PM > Subject: Re: carnivorism question > Accounts of communication with the dead, NDEs, etc., are what recently moved > me off my nihilistic bent. It would seem that an assembly and concatenation > of all information gathered from the other world(s) would be most > enlightening. Know of such a thing? No, there have been some attempts, but I can only think of UK writers. One of the first (and best) which consisted almost entirely of case histories and orally communicated accounts from history was way back in the 1960s or 70s. The book was called "The Supreme Adventure" by Robert Crookall, published (initially) by James Clark(e) [?] for the Churches' Fellowship for Psychical Research. Alas, I no longer have a copy, so cannot offer an ISBN. > > A compelling argument can be made that you are genetically programmed as a > carnivore. There is also much evidence clinically that this is true since > you will increase your risk of various diseases by abstaining from animal > products. Wish it were not that way but it is. Interesting. Vegetarians (I am now one) claim the reverse, but I haven't looked at the arguments on either side. I find meat-eating so repulsive that I have stopped doing it. This is an emotional response, I realize, but after 10 years as a practicing veggie I have not had "various diseases" apart from ongoing arthritis, which is genetically inherited. But then, I didn't have much in the way of "various diseases" before! > > Just want to keep you kickin til I have cannabalized the rest of your brain. Still kickin' Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:48:24 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Karma vs Paranirvana ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Friday, October 22, 1999 3:22 PM > Subject: Karma vs Paranirvana > I have searched > long and hard for an overall Cause for the whole bag, with no > luck (except as having creativity an inherent divine > characteristic which I don't like because it implies an > initial assumption, and one assumption is pretty much > as good as any other. However, there is an unwritten > law that says that all models require initial assumptions > so I don't think we can ever get out of this one). Where do I find this unwritten law? Or via the above, have you just written it? The kabbalist model is interesting in that it begins with the assumption of Nothing, and proceeds ex nihilo via emanation (not creation) towards manifestation. In practice, the top end of the model has little real value in this life, as our physical equipment seems to be incapable of verifying it. Further down the scale we *can* verify quite a lot from personal experience (eventually) but there is a cut-off point beyond which our tiny minds cannot go. For this reason, I like to use that part of the kabbalist model which can be demonstrated to work as advertised (once I can get behind the jargon to the facts). As for the rest, everything suggests that more answers come in Part Two - after physical death, but I doubt that even then I shall know ALL - so far, all the dead people I have met don't know everything, just more than I do, which they find almost impossible to convey ..... > > Most Theosophists want to make > karma universal and applicable everywhere period. This > implies that many Hindu and Buddhist saints and Teachers > were wrong about karma being eliminated (Buddha taught > that nirvana eliminates suffering, not karma). I don't see > much point to evolution unless its goal is to free us from > karma. I don't see much point to evolution. I am not even sure that such a thing is anything other than another postulate. As for "karma" well, as I have been know to say before, karma = "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Simple, obvious, and no need to add nirvana. > > Freedom from karma implies action without cause or > effect, a concept that is paradoxical at best. However, > logically we can say that karma as causation requires > time and divinity=paranirvana is outside of time and so > is outside of karma. While being perfectly logical, > it is not at all clear to the human mind what this means. > My own experience suggests that our "true" being also lies outside of time, or better, has no need of it. If this experience could be confirmed, then karma/causation (whatever) doesn't mean anything except in our perception of time. But time is nothing more than a measurement of movement in space, which is fine, except we don't really have the faintest idea what "space" really is, only theories about it. We can't eat theories, we can't breathe theories, we can't live theories. Taking up Randy's points (to a degree) we *can* eat life, breathe life, live life. There's a lot of it about. Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:56:50 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: carnivorism question ----- Original Message ----- > From: W. Dallas TenBroeck > Date: Friday, October 22, 1999 2:41 PM > Subject: RE: carnivorism question Between us we can rewrite the whole thing -- but why not take advantage of what is already available. Which of HPB's writings are you familiar with? If you use them and base what you ask on them, and let me know which, then I can point to explanations there that are already on record. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. > Not for me. There are more than enough "explanations" on record already. I have read nearly all Blavatsky's writings (and rantings) as well as "explanatins offered by other "systems" and "models." The contradictions between the various "explanations" are the very things which bring about the misunderstandings. HPB had explanations. Then she died. Einstein had explanations. Then he died. Jesus had explanations. Then he died. Buddha .... (No significance in the above order) Need I go on? In 50 years from now people will be able to say, "Alan had opinions, and maybe explanations which suited him. Then he died." Sigh. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 01:22:31 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Response to Alan ---- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Friday, October 22, 1999 3:00 PM > Subject: Response to Alan > Alan, it is not a question of truth or falsehood> > > If you can find holes in the Buddhist karma=creator > model, then please do so and I will listen. I thought I had found at least one hole. As you presented it, it seemed to me to be a circular argument depending more upon a given premise than an empirically-based opinion or working hypothesis. > My own > model suggests that creativity itself is an inherent > divine characterisitic of the Monad, because this > is the only way that I can logically explain creation > to myself. Once creation=manifestation begins, > then karma takes over. It works for me, but > probably only because every other model I have > looked at has even worse flaws. How does creation=manifestation *begin*? This is another "given" based upon a model. Is not the only certainty simply that things happen? > > I have discovered that > my own beliefs change as my view of truth changes > and will likely continue to do so. How do you conduct your research? Can you offer verifiable evidence to support your model(s)? I am genuinely curious, and not trying to score points or play mind games. Alan > > Jerry S. > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk > 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: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 04:10:44 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Response to Randy Dear Randy, >Why is the world based upon carnivorism? Even in a broader sense all life >depends for its sustenance on the destruction of other life. Even >vegetarians are killers. > >Why would whoever is responsible for the world create such atrocity when so >many other options would be available to someone with omnipotence.? I ask the same questions you ask and have yet to find a completely acceptable answer. Through my own readings, I have come to the tentative conclusion that carnivorism, suffering, pain, and the like is because: a) The creator of this universe was imperfect - NOT omnipotent, did not comprehend perfect love, did not understand perfect compassion. b) All living beings, bugs to animals to humans, because of an imperfect creator, have "adopted" these imperfections which can manifest themselves in ugly ways (murder, rape, carnivorism, etc.) c) The only thing that will allow the beings of this universe to SURPASS their imperfect parent creator is that the geniunely Divine spark of the Most High God which lurks within all beings. d) Our imperfect parent is evolving along with us - learning about its mistakes as we learn about our own and our creator's mistakes. e) We can evolve zillions of times, but until every being understands that the creator of this world - masking as God of the bible, Quran, etc - is not our TRUE parent, beings will continue to engage in atrocious behavior. A truly Compassionate and Omnipotent God most certainly could have created a universe where bloodshed is UNNECESSARY to survival. And any truly Compassionate and Omnipotent God WOULD have. So, in order to cope with life, I dismiss the God of the bible as the Most High God and recognize it to be a god of a "lower rung." Each of us has the capacity, and are even promised in spiritual writings, to create our own worlds according to our knowledge - so why is it so easy to overlook the fact that the creator of this universe may be only an enlightened being, but not a perfected one - not the MOST HIGH GOD? I am sure there are other worlds which are bloodless and bloodier - depending upon their creator. I do not believe that Earth or this universe is the be all and end all. I'm ticked that I wasn't "born" from a more enlightened creator, but it seems, even in the spiritual world, we may not be "allowed" to choose our parents. Who knows. I'm attempting to communicate with the Divine spark within and have made the god of the bible little more than a respected buddy (this creator, did after all, do something I'm not yet capable of doing, but was arrogant enough to think he/she/it could do it right - like all of us, I suppose). But anyway, Randy, I applaud your questions. I've asked them a hundred times myself - still do. My philosophy may not help you, but it, at least, gets me through another day. I mean, who would WANT a creator who created the need for carnivorism as the Most High God? Not me and I shall not cowtow, worship, pray, or dance to such a creator. I'll sleep with the devil first - at least I know where he/she/it is coming from. And when the false god named the devil actually evolves into a enlightened, loving god, his/her/its creation will probably one of the best. He/she/it will truly understand both sides. Maybe that's the trick. And that's not comforting, either. Oh, and about the karma stuff - I believe all karma came AFTERWARDS, so it is not the CAUSE of suffering, only the extender of it. Karma is the lack of recognition of our True Parent. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 10:46:09 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Jerry/karma Jerry--I agree we are responsible for our own mess. Who is responsible for the cruelty within nature over which we have no control? Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 10:52:28 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Response to Alan Jerry--would you mind giving me a short-form version of your karma=creator model. Thanks, Rand From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 10:56:23 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Jerry/book Jerry-Do you have the name of the book by Besant? Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:39:03 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Dallas/carnivorism Dallas--Thank you for the thoughts. I am in the process of reading several works, but don't much like one-sided conversations. I am not interested in Blavatsky per se(is this heresy on this list?) but only what she and others can reveal to help me in my quest for understanding. If theosophy/Blavatsky holds important answers and well-read students such as you are familiar with the teachings, then this will help short-cut my search. I'm not expecting you to teach me theosophy fundamentals but rather address concisely questions or concerns I might raise. As for carnivorism being a choice because of taste, I might agree this is true for some, but does not deny the fact that humans eating a diet free of animal products put themselves at great risk of chronic degenerative diseases. Additionally, taste is the program within us that should be followed to achieve good nutrition. I'm speaking here of natural, not processed, foods. Our natural foods, those we are genetically programmed for, are those we could find in nature and digest in their natural form. These foods are meats, organs, insects, nuts, fruits, honey and some vegetables. Note rice, pasta and tofu are not on the list. These and other modern processed foods must be heat processed and denatured in order to be properly digested and have their inherent toxins neutralized. Also, if you were in the wild with the onus of feeding a family, how many grains of wheat, soy, or rice would you find? Choosing foods based on "ethics" creates a paradox, a discordancy with the truth of our genetic heritage. We follow the "ethic" to the peril of our health. I understand this flies in the face of current dogma about eating lots of carbohydrate and avoiding cholesterol and fat, but they are wrong. I wish it were different because I loathe killing to live. But perhaps this is a luxury of "conscience" created by our modern world of convenient grocery stores and abundance. If I were really hungry, maybe I would not be so "ethically" picky. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:50:06 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Alan/carnivorism Alan--if you want to find out the evidence that elimination of animal products is health destructive, let me know. The diseases caused are chronic degenerative that occur in later adult life(although incubating within for decades) such as diabetes(adult onset), heart disease, obesity, dental disease, cancer, arthritis, autoimmunities, digestive problems of all sorts, etc. Also see my recent response to Dallas. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:40:04 -0700 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Randy to Jerry/karma Oct 23 Randy: Certainly if you desire to compare your speculations or studies with theosophy you can. But to make it easier on you try and get a copy of W. Q. Judge's AN EPITOME of THEOSOPHY. It is about 30 pages -- or less than an hours' reading, (and "food" for several years of serious study). At least you will get an idea of the scope of Theosophy. Then take any statement and apply it to your own work. Since you seem unaware of this I append a brief survey -- If you agree to read it it will tell you what and how the philosophy of theosophy views our world and being. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Here goes: THEOSOPHY GENERALLY STATED [From the Official Report, World's Parliament of Religions, 1893, Chicago.] "The claim is made that an impartial study of history, religion and literature will show the existence from ancient times of a great body of philosophical, scientific and ethical doctrine forming the basis and origin of all similar thought in modern systems. It is at once religious and scientific, asserting that religion and science should never be separated. It puts forward sublime religious and ideal teachings, but at the same time shows that all of it can be demonstrated to reason, and that authority other than that has no place, thus preventing the hypocrisy which arises from asserting dogmas on authority which no one can show as resting on reason. This ancient body of doctrine is known as the "Wisdom Religion" and was always taught by adepts or initiates therein who preserve it through all time. Hence, and from other doctrines demonstrated, it is shown that man, being spirit and immortal, is able to perpetuate his real life and consciousness, and has done so during all time in the persons of those higher flowers of the human race who are members of an ancient and high brotherhood who concern themselves with the soul development of man, held by them to include every process of evolution on all planes. The initiates, being bound by the law of evolution, must work with humanity as its development permits. Therefore from time to time they give out again and again the same doctrine which from time to time grows obscured in various nations and places. This is the wisdom religion, and they are the keepers of it. At times they come to nations as great teachers and "saviours," who only re-promulgate the old truths and system of ethics. This therefore holds that humanity is capable of infinite perfection both in time and quality, the saviours and adepts being held up as examples of that possibility. >From this living and presently acting body of perfected men H. P. Blavatsky declared she received the impulse to once more bring forward the old ideas, and from them also received several keys to ancient and modern doctrines that had been lost during modern struggles toward civilization, and also that she was furnished by them with some doctrines really ancient but entirely new to the present day in any exoteric shape. These she wrote among the other keys furnished by her to her fellow members and the world at large. Added, then, to the testimony through all time found in records of all nations we have this modern explicit assertion that the ancient learned and humanitarian body of adepts still exists on this earth and takes an interest in the development of the race. Theosophy postulates an eternal principle called the unknown, which can never be cognized except through its manifestations. This eternal principle is in and is every thing and being; t periodically and eternally manifests itself and recedes again from manifestation. In this ebb and flow evolution proceeds and itself is the progress of the manifestation. The perceived universe is the manifestation of this unknown, including spirit and matter, for Theosophy holds that those are but the two opposite poles of the one unknown principle. They coexist, are not separate nor separable from each other, or, as the Hindu scriptures say, there is no particle of matter without spirit, and no particle of spirit without matter. In manifesting itself the spirit-matter differentiates on seven planes, each more dense on the way down to the plane of our senses than its predecessors the substance in all being the same, only differing in degree. Therefore from this view the whole universe is alive, not one atom of it being in any sense dead. It is also conscious and intelligent, its consciousness and intelligence being resent on all planes though obscured on this one. On this plane of ours the spirit focalizes itself in all human beings who choose to permit it to do so, and the refusal to permit it is the cause of ignorance, of sin. of all sorrow and suffering. In all ages some have come to this high state, have grown to be as gods, are partakers actively in the work of nature, and go on from century to century widening their consciousness and increasing the scope of their government in nature. This is the destiny of all beings, and hence at the outset Theosophy postulates this perfectibility of the race, removes the idea of innate un-regenerable wickedness, and offers a purpose and an aim for life which is consonant with the longings of the soul and with its real nature, tending at the same time to destroy pessimism with its companion, despair. In Theosophy the world is held to be the product of the evolution of the principle spoken of from the very lowest first forms of life guided as it proceeded by intelligent perfected beings from other and older evolutions, and compounded also of the egos or individual spirits for and by whom it emanates. Hence man as we know him is held to be a conscious spirit, the flower of evolution, with other and lower classes of egos below him in the lower kingdoms, all however coming up and destined one day to be on the same human stage as we now are, we then being higher still. Man's consciousness being thus more perfect is able to pass from one to another of the planes of differentiation mentioned. If he mistakes any one of them for the reality that he is in his essence, he is deluded; the object of evolution then is to give him complete self-consciousness so that he may go on to higher stages in the progress of the universe. His evolution after coming on the human stage is for the getting of experience, and in order to so raise up and purify the various planes of matter with which he has to do, that the voice of the spirit may be fully heard and comprehended. He is a religious being because he is a spirit encased in matter, which is in turn itself spiritual in essence. Being a spirit he requires vehicles with which to come in touch with all the planes of nature included in evolution, and it is these vehicles that make of him an intricate, composite being, liable to error, but at the same time able to rise above all delusions and conquer the highest place. He is in miniature the universe, for he is as spirit, manifesting himself to himself by means of seven differentiations. Therefore is he known in Theosophy as a sevenfold being. The Christian division of body, soul, and spirit is accurate so far as it goes, but will not answer to the problems of life and nature, unless, as is not the case, those three divisions are each held to be composed of others, which would raise the possible total to seven. The spirit stands alone at the top, next comes the spiritual soul or Buddhi as it is called in Sanskrit. This partakes more of the spirit than any below it, and is connected with Manas or mind, these three being the real trinity of man, the imperishable part, the real thinking entity living on the earth in the other and denser vehicles by its evolution. Below in order of quality is the plane of the desires and passions shared with the animal kingdom, unintelligent, and the producer of ignorance flowing from delusion. It is distinct from the will and judgment, and must therefore be given its own place. On this plane is gross life, manifesting, not as spirit from which it derives its essence, but as energy and motion on this plane. It being common to the whole objective plane and being everywhere, is also to be classed by itself, the portion used by man being given up at the death of the body. Then last, before the objective body, is the model or double of the outer physical case. This double is the astral body belonging to the astral plane of matter, not so dense as physical molecules, but more tenuous and much stronger, as well as lasting. It is the original of the body permitting the physical molecules to arrange and show themselves thereon, allowing them to go and come from day to day as they are known to do, yet ever retaining the fixed shape and contour given by the astral double within. These lower four principles or sheaths are the transitory perishable part of man, not himself, but in every sense the instrument he uses, given up at the hour of death like an old garment, and rebuilt out of the general reservoir at every new birth. The trinity is the real man, the thinker, the individuality that passes from house to house, gaining experience at each rebirth, while it suffers and enjoys according to its deeds--it is the one central man, the living spirit-soul. Now this spiritual man, having always existed, being intimately concerned in evolution, dominated by the law of cause and effect, because in himself he is that very law, showing moreover on this plane varieties of force of character, capacity, and opportunity, his very presence must be explained, while the differences noted have to be accounted for. The doctrine of reincarnation does all this. It means that man as a thinker, composed of soul, mind and spirit, occupies body after body in life after life on the earth which is the scene of his evolution, and where he must, under the very laws of his being, complete that evolution, once it has been begun. In any one life he is known to others as a personality, but in the whole stretch of eternity he is one individual, feeling in himself an identity not dependent on name, form, or recollection. This doctrine is the very base of Theosophy, for it explains life and nature. It is one aspect of evolution, for as it is reembodiment in meaning, and as evolution could not go on without reembodiment, it is evolution itself, as applied to the human soul. But it is also a doctrine believed in at the time given to Jesus and taught in the early ages of Christianity, being now as much necessary to that religion as it is to any other to explain texts, to reconcile the justice of God with the rough and merciless aspect of nature and life to most mortals, and to throw a light perceptible by reason on all the problems that vex us in our journey through this world. The vast, and under any other doctrine unjust, difference between the savage and the civilized man as to both capacity, character, and opportunity can be understood only through this doctrine, and coming to our own stratum the differences of the same kind may only thus be explained. It vindicates Nature and God, and removes from religion the blot thrown by men who have postulated creeds which paint the creator as a demon. Each man's life and character are the outcome of his previous lives and thoughts. Each is his own judge, his own executioner, for it is his own hand that forges the weapon which works for his punishment, and each by his own life reaches reward, rises to heights of knowledge and power for the good of all who may be left behind him. Nothing is left to chance, favour, or partiality, but all is under the governance of law. Man is a thinker, and by his thoughts he makes the causes for woe or bliss; for his thoughts produce his acts. He is the centre for any disturbance of the universal harmony, and to him as the centre, the disturbance must return so as to bring about equilibrium; for nature always works towards harmony. Man is always carrying on a series of thoughts, which extend back to the remote past, continually making action and reaction. He is thus responsible for all his thoughts and acts, and in that his complete responsibility is established; his own spirit is the essence of this law and provides for ever compensation for every disturbance and adjustment for all effects. This is the law of Karma or justice, sometimes called the ethical law of causation. It is not foreign to the Christian scriptures, for both Jesus and St. Paul clearly enunciated it. Jesus said we should be judged as we gave judgment and should receive the measure meted to others. St. Paul said: "Brethren, be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth that also shall he reap." And that sowing and reaping can only be possible under the doctrines of Karma and reincarnation. But what of death and after? Is heaven a place or is it not? Theosophy teaches, as may be found in all sacred books, that after death the soul reaps a rest. This is from its own nature. It is a thinker, and cannot during life fulfill and carry out all nor even a small part of the myriads of thoughts entertained. Hence when at death it casts off the body and the astral body, and is released from the passions and desires, its natural forces have immediate sway and it thinks its thoughts out on the soul plane, clothed in a finer body suitable to that existence. This is called Devachan. It is the very state that has brought about the descriptions of heaven common to all religions, but this doctrine is very clearly put in the Buddhist and Hindu religions. It is a time of rest, because the physical body being absent the consciousness is not in the completer touch with visible nature which is possible on the material plane. But it is a real existence, and no more illusionary than earth life; it is where the essence of the thoughts of life that were as high as character permitted, expands and is garnered by the soul and mind. When the force of these thoughts is fully exhausted the soul is drawn back once more to earth, to that environment which is sufficiently like unto itself to give it the proper further evolution. This alternation from state to state goes on until the being rises from repeated experiences above ignorance, and realizes in itself the actual unity of all spiritual beings. Then it passes on to higher and greater steps on the evolutionary road. No new ethics are presented by Theosophy, as it is held that right ethics are for ever the same. But in the doctrines of Theosophy are to be found the philosophical and reasonable basis for ethics and the natural enforcement of them in practice. Universal brotherhood is that which will result in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and in your loving your neighbour as yourself--declared as right by all teachers in the great religions of the world. WILLIAM Q. JUDGE =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 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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D -----Original Message----- > From: WLR7D@aol.com [mailto:WLR7D@aol.com] > Date: Saturday, October 23, 1999 7:46 AM > Subject: Randy to Jerry/karma Jerry--I agree we are responsible for our own mess. Who is responsible for the cruelty within nature over which we have no control? =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D DTB. If the spirit/soul in man is an immortal being then the continued responsibility that results in reincarnation, as a process makes us jointly responsible for "this mess." No one else and nothing else could have done it -- fairly and logically. Theosophy holds that we have both the knowledge (intuition if you wish) and the power to choose to live righteously and fairly with and for all, whether we are under public scrutiny or not. In my view, the question ought to be changed and perhaps we ought to be asking how it happens that we have been so trained in hypocrisy that we give automatic lip-service to the "good" and the "cooperative," and yet fear to be discovered to be selfish, tyrannical and oppressive ? That quirk of character needs discovery and explanation. Dal Thanks, Randy --- 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: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 14:51:32 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Grigor/sacrifice The notion of sacrifice as an explanation of biological balances seems rather superimposed. I would like to read Besant, but the reason life is destroyed in order to create life is because that is how we are designed genetically. There are elements within living cells that create the food to sustain other living cells that eat them. We are not photosynthetic, breatharian or nuclear fueled. Some would also argue that the cerebral development in humans is a direct result of the cunning required to pursue prey. A cow is as smart as it has to be to consume the food which is always underfoot. A human, without claw, fang, speed or strength, needs brains. In other words, if we weren't carnivores(at least historically), we wouldn't be as sharp as we are. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:18:04 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Collective Karma as Creator/Dzogchen In a message dated 10/21/99 6:56:55 AM Central Daylight Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > There are two seemingly large differences > between this Buddhist view and that given > by Blavatsky in her SD. One is that she > has a hierarchy of creator-gods, and the > second is her idea that karma is universal > and somehow transcends mind. > > My own personal take on this is to see her > Manus and Cosmocrators and so on as > personifications of collective karmic > forces, Except, in the parts of Dzog chen that I will be posting shortly on (as soon as I find the stuff I need since the questions asked go beyond what I can answer on just memory) that may be the location within the Kanjur for where the Stanzas of Dyzan may be derived (I don't think it is a book but a synopsis of several Kanjur texts that Central Asian and Bon groups have collated), some Buddhas create Buddha-fields, and so, not all karmic manifestation is a fall - and is not such in Dzog chen. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:45:28 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: carnivorism question In a message dated 10/22/99 7:52:44 AM Central Daylight Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > Thank you Grigor. That's a relief. > > I am searching for an understanding based upon reason, logic, data, > believable experiences. > > These are the underpinnings and the empirical evidence I'm looking for, not > > references to dogma or mere fanciful mental constructions. Fine, but what is empirical evidence is itself an issue and can not be taken as an immediately obvious concept that allows us to use the phrase "empirical evidence" without examination. "Logic" I will grant is clear enough but the concept of reason is another one that needs further examination. It is either an equivocal term or there are five or six different concepts that share the same word or there is a single concept of what reason is that unites these meanings in an illuminating and explanatory fashion. For example, reason can be used to mean 1. logically consistent or not contradictory, 2. "He has utterly lost his reason;" where the word seems to be a synonym for sane, not logical because an insane person can be extremely logical. 3. "come on, can't you be reasonable" seems to use the word to mean "socially cooperative" 4. "The plan seems reasonable" seems to mean, depending upon context, either that the means chosen are likely to realize the goal, or the goal itself is probable of success, or the plan is a social compromise that will please all parties, and so on. I could give more but it should be evident that the word "reason" apparently has many meanings and so it is not clear what you mean by the term. And now, you've added "believable experiences" to the list. What is the criteria that demarcates a "believable experience" off from the more general category of experience? Long time ago, I took my son to see Father Frost (Russian and Armenian Santa Claus). It was a guy dressed up but he was convincing actor who provided my son with what could be called a "believable experience" since the phrase has so far been left undefined. If I'm in desert and see water, the experience may be belief-producing (even if belief that there is water may be mistaken) or if I am at Holy Roller frothing at the mouth and rolling on the floor prayer meeting, it may look like psycho-somatically self-induced spiritual rabies to me, but those undergoing the experience come to believe. Without specification of what you mean, all these are believable experiences because they are convincing (with my son) or because they cause belief states in those who undergo them (my desert mirage or holy rollers self-induced seizures). Then there are other experiences that seem to be cause beliefs in those who undergo them that are true. If you mean the later and not the former, what is it that makes the later indeed the later? Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:49:21 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: carnivorism question In a message dated 10/22/99 8:19:51 AM Central Daylight Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > > So whats's wrong with cannabalism? We are the perfect food for one another. > I don't know if the USDA would pass my in-laws' carcasses. If fact, I think the FDA and EPA is after their hides. Plus the last time my mother-in-law went in for a pap smear, it prompted the gynecologist to leave the field and become a forensic pathologist.:) Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:53:08 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Response to Randy In a message dated 10/23/99 5:10:22 AM Central Daylight Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > ) Our imperfect parent is evolving along with us - learning about its > mistakes as we learn about our own and our creator's mistakes. > > e) We can evolve zillions of times, but until every being understands that > the creator of this world - masking as God of the bible, Quran, etc - is > not our TRUE parent, beings will continue to engage in atrocious behavior. > Kym is a Paulician! Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:55:29 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor/sacrifice In a message dated 10/23/99 1:52:03 PM Central Daylight Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > The notion of sacrifice as an explanation of biological balances seems rather > > superimposed. I was not offering it as explanantion. I was making a historical reference to where the idea sketched by Besant first appeared (she plagiarizes too much). Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 14:47:17 -0700 From: "Philalethes" Subject: More Gov't intrusion - help defeat this Bill Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 07:13:15 PDT Bill 602P will permit the Federal Govt. to charge a 5 cent charge on every delivered email. Please read the following carefully if you intend to stay online and continue using E-mail: The last few months have revealed an alarming trend in the Government of the United States attempting to quietly push through legislation that will affect your use of the Internet. Bill 602P will permit the Federal Govt. to charge a 5 cent surcharge on every E-mail delivered, by billing Internet Service Providers at source. The consumer would then be billed in turn by the ISP. Washington D.C. lawyer Richard Stepp is working without pay to prevent this legislation from becoming law. The U.S. Postal Service is claiming that lost revenue due to the proliferation of email is costing nearly $230,000,000 in revenue per year. You may have noticed their recent ad campaign "There is nothing like a letter". Since the average citizen received about 10 pieces of email per day in 1998, the cost to the typical individual would be an additional 50 cents per day, or over $180 dollars per year, above and beyond their regular Internet costs. Note that this would be money paid directly to the U.S. Postal Service for a service they do not even provide. The whole point of the Internet is democracy and non-interference. If the federal government is permitted to tamper with end. You are already paying an exorbitant price for snail mail because of bureaucratic efficiency. It currently takes up to 6 days for a letter to be delivered from New York to Buffalo. If the U.S. Postal Service is allowed to tinker with email, it will mark the end of the "free" Internet in the United States. One congressman, Tony Schnell (R) has even suggested a "twenty to forty dollar per month surcharge on all Internet service" above and beyond the government's proposed email charges. Note that most of the major newspapers have ignored the story, the only exception being the Washingtonian magazine which called the idea of email surcharge "a useful concept who's time has come" (March 6th 1999 Editorial). Don't sit by and watch your freedoms erode away! Send this e-mail to EVERYONE on your list, and tell all your friends and relatives to writet to their congressman and say "No!" to Bill 602P. It will only take a few moments of your time, and could very well be instrumental in killing a bill we don't want. -------- Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 02:54:54 +0100 From: "ambain" Subject: ISP Switch Dear All, A short note to let you know that my *personal* e-mail address is now: ambain@ambain.screaming.net Postings to theos-l will reach me as usual. "Simply Occult" files are still on the soft.net.uk URL below. Alan ambain@ambain.screaming.net http://members.tripod.co.uk/ambain/SaintJust.HTM/ http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:34:27 +0100 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Randy to Alan/carnivorism ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Saturday, October 23, 1999 4:50 PM > Subject: Randy to Alan/carnivorism > Alan--if you want to find out the evidence that elimination of animal > products is health destructive, let me know. The diseases caused are chronic > degenerative that occur in later adult life(although incubating within for > decades) such as diabetes(adult onset), heart disease, obesity, dental > disease, cancer, arthritis, autoimmunities, digestive problems of all sorts, > etc. > Also see my recent response to Dallas. > Randy > Seen your Dallas response. As I already am in later life, any cautionary evidence would be a little late. I do have severe osteo-arthritis, but that is inherited from my mother, who delevoped it in her 40s. I lost what few remaining teeth I had at around 37 owing to a calcium deficiency I was born with. My digestive system works fine. Rather larger than I used to be, but hard to diagnose whether this is a fault - I have always been physically idle with a deep loathing for "exercise." I have met many theosophical vegetarians, all 80-90 years old. Mind you, any others who died of an autoimmunities aged 25 I wouldn't meet anyway, vegetarian or not. Needless to say, evangelist veggie advocates all claim emphatically that "scientific studies have shown ....." However, scientific studies have shown that thalidomide was safe in the 1960s, and that Mad Cow Disease is of no risk to humans, and that black people are morally and intellectually inferior to white ones. I don't trust scientists. Watch two food comapnies engaged in a lawsuit produce scientific experts who can "prove" that *their* clients' interpretation is accurate, and that the other side is poisoning the world. Yeah, of course ..... I guess you pick your data and get the conclusions you would most like to have. "Science" to me is an approach to study, which, like statistics, can be used most UNscientifically. Did you know that recently published figures show that 99% of the population in the USA who died in 1998 were known to have eaten tomatoes on a regular basis for most of their lives? (Except in Idaho) Alan :0) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ ambain@ambain.screaming.net http://members.tripod.co.uk/ambain/SaintJust.HTM/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 23:10:22 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 23, 1999 Grigor wrote: >Kym is a Paulician! About the only thing I believe the Paulicians and I agree on is the difference between the creator of this world and the Most High God - they appear to be a bit more fundamental than I would find comforting. Scholars have yet to agree if Paulicians followed the teaching of St. Paul OR Paul of Samosata. Most everyone seems to agree that Paulicians were "heretics." Unfortuately, most of the knowledge about Paulicians is written by those who disagree with them or participated in the genocide of the Paulicians. Oh, and one more thing, all agree that Paulicians no longer exist. So if I am a Paulician, I do not exist. Hmmmmm. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 23:26:36 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 23, 1999 Alan wrote: >Did you know that >recently published figures show that 99% of the population in the USA >who died in 1998 were known to have eaten tomatoes on a regular basis >for most of their lives? > >(Except in Idaho) Truly, my brother. Most of the deaths in Idaho are a result of people marching out to shoot innocent and defenseless animals in the name of "sport" and end up shooting their own head off, the head off of another hunter, or falling off cliffs after drinking large amounts of alcohol squeezed from rotten potatoes which prompted a belief in the ability to fly. If it wasn't for all the animals dying, I'd might be tempted into becoming a gun and potato-wine advocate. Ok, that was too mean, but it's too late to take it back - I already sent this message out. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 08:19:11 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Dallas/theos Dallas--Thank you for the text summarizing theosophy. I am working on getting a copy. What is best about it is a committment to an all-embracing truth. Everything else is assertion needing verification: seven planes, karma, evolution, adepts vs leaders(clergy?), etc. That which can be verified by a reasoning open mind should be accepted, the rest should be put into the realm of mere religious doctrine. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 08:40:41 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Grigor/reason Grigor--You are pulling me into a semantic tussle. I'll try as best I can to explain what is to me proof: Fits the world I perceive Fits science that has been proven Fits experiences I have had or can have Fits logic Fits evidence that can be marshaled Fits intuition or common sense More subjective: Feels right Feels good Is comforting Creates peace Expresses love, kindness, justice, mercy, forgiveness If something fits all of the above that would be the ideal. I might be convinced with just some combinations however. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 09:03:28 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Alan/carnivorism Alan--Ok, if you've got one foot in the grave, I won't try to save you. Here's how I solved the questions about what is or is not healthy. If you were to draw a line representing the time life is estimated to have been on earth and make every inch 100 years, the line would be about 276 miles. The time since the Industrial Revolution wherein we have created a synthetic world and eaten processed foods would only be about 2 inches on the line. Which are we genetically adapted to, the two inches or the 276 miles? Pretty clear by this we are out of genetic context. Put a creature out of genetic context and disease is the liely consequence. Our genes expect that we would be born dropped onto the forest floor, suckle real milk for a couple of years(carnivorism, cannabalism) and then wean to foods which could be eaten from nature exactly as they are--meat, insects, fruits, nuts, honey, some vegies, maybe milk if you could run a nursing animal down. The scientific evidence supports this as well in spite of anomolies. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:32:11 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor/reason In a message dated 10/24/99 7:41:05 AM Central Daylight Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > Creates peace > Expresses love, kindness, justice, mercy, forgiveness > Why do you put these things under subjective? Most traditions say morality or ethics (despite the travesty most traditions have made of it) is an objective cosmological structure in which we participate. So, in Buddhism, it is not the ordinary human being that is the microcosm but the bodhi-seed in him or her. The bodhi seed is sometimes given another term which translates as conscience. In Zoroastrianism, the microcosm is den (conscience) as well as syneidesis is in Orthodox Christianity and conscientia (as the core skeletonal outline of a complete scientia) is in medieval western philosophy. Conscience is part of our inside information about the cosmos in these traditions. The point is that it seems an important part of our sense of how it hangs altogether is moral or ethical. First, we make true or false moral statements expressing judgments. So, since true statements express what is real and some of these are ethical ones, the ethical seems to be an objective dimension of the real. Second, we often reject someone's arguments and worldview (like the NAZIs) on moral grounds. Third, some of the sense we use to raise questions about different theories or religious "answers" or to protest them or to reject them because they don't make sense is because they seem morally absurd or objectionable. So, maybe our moral sense is part of our objective truth-finding compass, part of our inner organon like logic. > Fits the world I perceive That just you perceive? That seems a bit narrow. So whether or not I perceived the place of my childhood in the Caucasus is determined by whether you saw it? >Fits science that has been proven Several comments. I would argue that the idea of something "proven" in science is a misconception of the whole enterprise. Scientists are not "true believers" in their theories like religious fundamentalists. We take a provisional, tentative, and even skeptical attitude to them. Models and theories are themselves provisional. They have some standing in that they have not yet been disconfirmed in testing. But that does not make them in part or in whole proven to be true. For 300 years, Newtonian physics had this status. Second, what do you mean by "fits"? Some take the line that if science hasn't "accepted" it, it should be rejected. Others take the more generous line that even if it goes beyond current science, if it does not contradict it then it can be accepted. And to both these epistemic tactics, there are exceptions. For example, there are always anomalies and often new discoveries that conflict with established theories. When should we stop regarding anomalies as that and begin to see them as counter-evidence and same with discoveries? The point is there seems to be a lot to unpack behind that little word "fit" (three letter words are worse than four letter words). >Fits experiences I have had or can have What is the scope of human experience? Most traditions say our waking state is like being asleep. We can study the sleep world, build a science of it, explore it, but when we wake up, we find such to only be part of reality based on a lower level or inferior quality of experience. So what do you mean by "can experience"? > Fits logic That leaves a lot. Anything that is not contradictory fits. >Fits evidence that can be marshaled vague. > Fits intuition or common sense Peoples intuitions can conflict and common sense is a suspicious quantity. It appears to be a mixed bag of widely held social beliefs, practices, prejudices, and expectations that comes from a variety of sources of varying epistemic quality which if systematized reveals a number of these elements of common sense to be contradictory. For example, a number of studies in the "physics" of common sense showed a number of beliefs that were wrong, or based on a medieval superstition, or out of date physics. The case I have in mind was people's common sense about how a household thermostat worked (with a cross section of people from various walks of life and degrees of education). And there were studies of the common sense conceptions of how economics and money works that were more myth than true. One striking aspect of this was the common sense about lotteries and contests and card games. Common sense seems almost incapable of not committing the gamblers fallacy and the laws of large numbers seem to also be counter-common sensical. That's why Plato downgraded common sense to the rumors of the Cave. Its reliability is not its truthfulness but its collectivity in getting masses to react and respond the same to social situations. Just like traffic lights, common sense seems to be a social means of getting on and getting along smoothly with others. When I visited south in 1950s, segregation was common sense. Not knowing or understanding the situation, I'd have blacks and whites ask me where my common sense was out of concern for my safety. So, it seems common sense is functionally social (common) instinct (sense). Hardly a well-founded theory. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:21:33 +0100 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Randy to Alan/carnivorism ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Sunday, October 24, 1999 2:03 PM > Subject: Re: Randy to Alan/carnivorism > Alan--Ok, if you've got one foot in the grave, I won't try to save you. > I prefer to think of it as a toe. A little toe. On the left foot. Alan ambain@ambain.screaming.net http://members.tripod.co.uk/ambain/SaintJust.HTM/ http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:37:49 +0100 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 23, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Sunday, October 24, 1999 6:26 AM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 23, 1999 > Most of the deaths in Idaho are a result of people > marching out to shoot innocent and defenseless animals in the name of > "sport" and end up shooting their own head off, the head off of another > hunter, or falling off cliffs after drinking large amounts of alcohol > squeezed from rotten potatoes which prompted a belief in the ability to fly. > > If it wasn't for all the animals dying, I'd might be tempted into becoming > a gun and potato-wine advocate. > > Ok, that was too mean, but it's too late to take it back - I already sent > this message out. > Keep it mean! Keep it mean! I note with some trepidation that I am now your "brother." Does this mean that our love is incestuous? Gulp. Alan :0\ ambain@ambain.screaming.net http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ http://members.tripod.co.uk/ambain/SaintJust.HTM/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:54:16 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 24, 1999 Randy wrote: >That which can be verified by a >reasoning open mind should be accepted, the rest should be put into the realm >of mere religious doctrine. Randy Verify love. Verify compassion. Verify God. Verify faith. Verify hate. Verify evil. Verify fear. Verify the soul. Verify spirit. If one can't, are you saying that these should be dismissed as "mere religious doctrine?" Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 01:29:05 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Circular arguments Randy wrote: >Our genes expect that we >would be born dropped onto the forest floor, suckle real milk for a couple of >years(carnivorism, cannabalism) and then wean to foods which could be eaten >from nature exactly as they are--meat, insects, fruits, nuts, honey, some >vegies, maybe milk if you could run a nursing animal down. Some evolutionists say we originated from the sea - so our genes do not expect to be "dropped onto the forest floor." Since some scientists and I do not agree with your summation, I guess I can only chalk it up to the fact that it "fits the world you and some scientists perceive" and may even "feel good." So now what? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 01:34:16 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 24, 1999 Alan wrote: >I note with some trepidation that I am now your "brother." Does this >mean that our love is incestuous? Gulp. Hey, some literalists of the bible claim incest was THE way Adam, Eve, and Cain managed to be fruitful and multiply. But, be not afraid here - I use the term "brother" loosely. Besides, women like to keep men guessing. . .. ;-) Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 07:18:00 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Kym/verification Kym--Love, compassion, faith, hate, evil and fear can all be verified. The others on your list- god, spirit, soul-are tougher. How do you feel these last three are known to be real if not by the means of verification I described? Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 07:39:53 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Kym/forest floor Kym-You have missed the point. When we are born, our genes expect that we(figuratively please) would be dropped onto the forest floor. I was trying to explain genetic context. This has nothing to do with biopoiesis from the ocean. It does not make me "feel good" to recognize that we are designed to eat other creatures. I do expect though that it makes you feel good(even superior) to impose your artificial ethic about not eating animal products(an ethical luxury afforded only be modern food processing and distribution) upon the natural order. Unfortunately, nature will not be impressed and will exact a health toll upon those who live in discord with her. Oneness is not just spiritual abstraction, but is also grounded in the laws of nature. It's very simple, you were designed to eat foods which could be eaten raw exactly as found in nature. Picture yourself in the woods having to feed a family and see what you come up with. Convince me otherwise with some good science, medicine and logic or you lose. And, there is nothing wrong with admitting such a loss. It is even spiritually correct. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 07:56:02 -0700 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Randy to Kym/forest floor > It does not make me "feel good" to recognize that we are designed to eat > other creatures. I do expect though that it makes you feel good(even > superior) to impose your artificial ethic about not eating animal products(an > ethical luxury afforded only be modern food processing and distribution) upon > the natural order. Unfortunately, nature will not be impressed and will > exact a health toll upon those who live in discord with her. Oneness is not > just spiritual abstraction, but is also grounded in the laws of nature. > It's very simple, you were designed to eat foods which could be eaten raw > exactly as found in nature. Picture yourself in the woods having to feed a > family and see what you come up with. > Convince me otherwise with some good science, medicine and logic or you lose. > And, there is nothing wrong with admitting such a loss. It is even > spiritually correct. This is absurd on so many levels as to be close to humorous. "Convince me otherwise with some good science, medicine and logic or you lose". Lose? You mean its *either* your point of view or hers? The utter arrogance of believing that science, medicene, or logic at their current state of development (barely even a few centuries out of the dark ages) are capable of explaining larger truths is magnificent. So you think that these by-products of a few pounds of gray matter sitting in the head of a minscule dot of organic life on this little pinprick of a minor planet, and severely constrained by the evidence of a terribly partial sensory apparatus that organizes perception according to an almost laughably limited conception of the world, that is only capable of grasping three dimensions of space and a single, linear dimension of time - you think they are capable of actually grasping the "laws of nature"? Even funnier, that arguments about these "laws" can actually be reduced to a boolean either-or choice between two perspectives? Its nobody's duty to try to "prove" anything within *your* paradigm of the world. By the rules of your game, of course you'll always "win" - however, that doesn't mean you are *correct* it only means that you've created a self-consistant illusion. Just as by the rules of beings living on a two-dimensional plane, the third dimension doesn't exist, and according to all the "science, medicene and logic" created by these beings within the assumptions of a two dimensional world, absolutely no proof will ever be found that there is such a thing as a third dimension. And even if a three dimensional being happened to move through that two-dimensional plane, all that would be perceived is a series of changing shapes ... the cross-sections of those beings. Every perception they have will be crunched, flattened within a conceptual world composed of two dimensions. Any of them that, for whatever reason, intuit the existance of a third dimension, or start trying to grasp the implications of a third dimension - and the complete and utter re-formulation of all sciences and medicene that would be required if it existed - would of course be called (at best) "mystics", and (at the worst) locked up in psychiatric wards (which in a two-dimension world would, of course, be nothing but a square on a piece of paper). Even worse, if those two dimensional creatures were *actually* three dimensional, but because of a lack of evolutionary development the senses necessary to perceive three dimensions were dormant - hence constraining them to believe they were nothing but one of their own cross-sections and the world only two-dimensional, and one of those "mystics", through meditative techniques, accessed a portion of their awareness that in most others is quiescent ... that is, first became aware of *themselves* as three dimensional beings, and because of that, began to be capable of perceiving and conceiving a three dimensional world - and they actually made the mistake of trying to *convey* this to the limited beings ... they too would likely get the same response - "prove it or admit defeat". Certainly only an analogy - but say someone *wanted* to prove a point to you according to even your limited standard of "science, medicene or logic" - are you even vaugely capable of understanding current neurophysiology? Cellular biology? The current state of the art of physics - superstring theory - has arrived at a conception of the universe that postulates strings that move in precisely 10 and 26 dimensions, and from who's vibratory states can be derived not only Einstein's formulations linking space, time, mass and energy, but the entire family of categories of sub-atomic particles defined by (and in many cases experiementally found) the current Standard Model of quantum mechanics. Do you know who Witten is? Have you worked through Riemann's geometry? Can you manipulate the Euler Beta function? Do you even know why you would need to before you could even begin to understand the expanation you are demanding? No, I suspect what you are really saying is that you want someone to try to explain a relatively universal principle within the confines of your extremely partial knowledge of the current state of the extremely limited sciences of the human world. And that if someone *can't*, they should admit that they are "wrong" because it is "spiritually correct" to do so. Do you grasp how *humorous* this is? Are you willing to admit that *your* demands are absurd? That *you* are wrong to even frame the question as you do? After all - won't it be "spiritually correct" for you to do so? - Tee Hee, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 23:55:55 +0100 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 24, 1999 Dear Kym, Right. I am your loose brother, and incest by e-mail is fine. Phew! .... "keep men guessing" ? You don't fool me! [I think] Alan :0) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ ambain@ambain.screaming.net http://members.tripod.co.uk/ambain/SaintJust.HTM/ ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Monday, October 25, 1999 8:34 AM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 24, 1999 > Alan wrote: > > >I note with some trepidation that I am now your "brother." Does this > >mean that our love is incestuous? Gulp. > > Hey, some literalists of the bible claim incest was THE way Adam, Eve, and > Cain managed to be fruitful and multiply. > > But, be not afraid here - I use the term "brother" loosely. Besides, women > like to keep men guessing. . .. > > ;-) > > > Kym > > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: ambain@ambain.screaming.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: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 00:04:48 +0100 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Randy to Kym/forest floor ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Monday, October 25, 1999 12:39 PM > Subject: Randy to Kym/forest floor > ... nature will not be impressed and will > exact a health toll upon those who live in discord with her. Oneness is not > just spiritual abstraction, but is also grounded in the laws of nature. > Hey Randy! You are personally acquainted with, and can scientifically delineate "Nature" ? No doubt the health toll being exacted upon wicked humanity is that of our being forced by our evil ways and modern technology (derived from "nature") to live even longer on this planet. My little toe bleeds for you. Alan (interrupting) ambain@ambain.screaming.net http://members.tripod.co.uk/ambain/SaintJust.HTM/ http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:04:44 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 24, 1999 In a message dated 10/25/99 7:11:08 PM Central Daylight Time, ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > Dear Kym, > > Right. I am your loose brother, and incest by e-mail is fine. > > So, you are both virtuals!!!!! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 21:11:33 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Kym/forest floor In a message dated 10/25/99 7:11:14 PM Central Daylight Time, ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > Hey Randy! You are personally acquainted with, and can scientifically > delineate "Nature" ? Does he itch, take a shit, or age? > > No doubt the health toll being exacted upon wicked humanity is that of > our being forced by our evil ways and modern technology (derived from > "nature") to live even longer on this planet. Technology IS nature re-arranged (sometimes in a life-threatening de-ranged form). > > My little toe bleeds for you. Stop picking it! I was always more irritated with people when I had to wear Russian boots that gave various in-grown maladies and the popcorn ran out during boring Russian movies -- we'd all pick. Big mistake! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 01:18:47 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 25, 1999 Randy wrote: >This has nothing to do with biopoiesis >from the ocean. Excuse me, but what is this "biopoiesis?" "Biopoiesis" is not in my 3000 page Webster's Dictionary - surely they could have found room to put it in there. What is the definition of this term? >I do expect though that it makes you feel good(even >superior) to impose your artificial ethic about not eating animal products(an >ethical luxury afforded only be modern food processing and distribution) upon >the natural order. Ok, I cannot condemn your butt-crunching shots over my bow - i.e. implying I feel superior (which I do) and that my ethic about vegetarianism is "artificial." I have, while on this list, among other things, threatened a gentleman's testes and sent more than one incoherent post after having partaken of nature's green gift (marijuana). My faults are your fortune. All I can say is vegetarianism is not a bogus ideal and is something that humanity should attempt to strive for - if technology will help humanity alleviate bloodletting, then technology we should use. "Artificial" does not automatically mean "bad." I mean, think of all the hospital bills saved by people telling each other off over e-mail rather than face-to-face. "Natural" does not automatically mean "good," either. Go eat a nightshade mushroom - and see where Nature will take you. Nature and technology can work harmoniously, enhancing Life and each other. It's a matter of balance. Due to the "natural" process of birth, humanity has reached 6 billion. The "old ways" of bug-grubbing, hunting, and gathering cannot meet the enormous demand. Have we become too disconnected to Nature - yes. But the "old ways" or the "natural order" were cruel; survival of the fittest. No, that is not the way, either. We can do better. >Convince me otherwise with some good science, medicine and logic or you lose. > And, there is nothing wrong with admitting such a loss. It is even >spiritually correct. It ain't about winning or losing. Nor does "losing" an argument mean one has lost something. Often, a person gains in "losing" a debate because they have learned something new. In this case, though, Randy. . .the only spiritually correct thing I can think of is to sum up my thoughts toward your rhetoric in true Greek style: I have forgotten the beginning of your harangue; I paid no heed to the middle of it, and nothing has given me pleasure in it except the end. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 07:10:37 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Kym/life span We don't "live longer". Average life span has increased due to a decrease in infant mortality, that's all. Medicine and technology is not adding years to life as popularly believed. Food distribution and plumbing are the causes of the majority of whatever better health we have today than in the past. We're off the point of this list, and you don't seem willing to reason, so I won't continue. Peace, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:47:56 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re Karma vs Paranirvana >>Where do I find this unwritten law? Or via the above, have you just written it? >> I can't take credit for it, no. I have taken courses etc on modeling and all of the text books point out that ALL models require basic assumptions and that any model's output is only as good as its input and no matter how good any model is, one can always argue that they simply don't like the initial assumptions. Theosophy, Qalabala, etc are no different. >> The kabbalist model is interesting in that it begins with the assumption of Nothing, and proceeds ex nihilo via emanation (not creation) towards manifestation.>> As in virtually all models (certainly all that I am aware of) there is some kind of assumption about initial conditions. Science models our universe by going back to some kind of initial Big Bang. Theosophy assumes Beness or divinity. Christianity assumes God, and so on. Qabala assumes Ain Soph, and also the initial assumption of some kind of divine creative force (which I place as an inherent characteristics osf the Monad but most models prefer some kind of divine supreme Creator). >>In practice, the top end of the model has little real value in this life, as our physical equipment seems to be incapable of verifying it.>> No one can "verify" the assumptions built into a model. Thats why they're called assumptions. You have to take something as a given and then work logically from that point. As far as I know, ALL universe models work this way. >>Further down the scale we *can* verify quite a lot from personal experience (eventually) but there is a cut-off point beyond which our tiny minds cannot go. For this reason, I like to use that part of the kabbalist model which can be demonstrated to work as advertised (once I can get behind the jargon to the facts).>> Exactly. This is why I like my version of the Theosophy model. I also like the Enochian Model, but I have never felt comfortable with the Qabalistic Model so I don't use it. I tend to be eclectic. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:51:38 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re to Alan >>I don't see much point to evolution. I am not even sure that such a thing is anything other than another postulate. As for "karma" well, as I have been know to say before, karma = "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Simple, obvious, and no need to add nirvana.>> I agree with you as to the "point" or purpose of life. It would seem to be simply that we like to incarnate and play games. Nirvana has to exist simply because we know that samsara does. Everything has its opposite. But of course we can define it in many different ways... Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:57:11 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re to Randy >>Jerry-Do you have the name of the book by Besant? Thanks, Randy I think its in Ancient Wisdom. As someone pointed out, she did not develop this idea on her own, but got it from Hinduism. However, she does put it into English in a nice easy-to-understand way. BTW life-eating-life in the sense of sacrifice is the meaning of the Tarot card called The Hanged Man. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 10:02:36 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Good and bad manifestations >>some Buddhas create Buddha-fields, and so, not all karmic manifestation is a fall - and is not such in Dzog chen. Grigor>> Absolutely. Good or bad karmic manifestations are labels in the eyes of the beholder. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 01:16:55 +0100 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 25, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 8:18 AM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 25, 1999 > In this case, though, Randy. . .the only spiritually correct thing I can > think of is to sum up my thoughts toward your rhetoric in true Greek style: > > I have forgotten the beginning of your harangue; I paid no heed to the > middle of it, and nothing has given me pleasure in it except the end. > C....rrrrrrrrr.......unch! Chewing Randy's nuts? [Enter comments here] Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ ambain@ambain.screaming.net http://members.tripod.co.uk/ambain/SaintJust.HTM/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 01:32:18 +0100 From: "ambain" Subject: Eclectic and Spiritual ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 2:47 PM > Subject: Re Karma vs Paranirvana > >>Further down the scale we *can* verify quite a lot from personal > experience (eventually) but there is a cut-off point beyond which our > tiny minds cannot go. For this reason, I like to use that part of the > kabbalist model which can be demonstrated to work as advertised (once I > can get behind the jargon to the facts).>> (Wrote Alan) > > Exactly. This is why I like my version of the Theosophy model. > I also like the Enochian Model, but I have never felt comfortable > with the Qabalistic Model so I don't use it. I tend to be eclectic. Interesting. There is a difference of convention among most latter-day students between Qabalistic and Kabbalistic. The Q people are usually Golden Dawn and "magic(k)ally" based, with a fondness for much ritual etc., while the K people are not keen on this aspect, and are, in the main - apart from the strictly Jewish 'Hasidim - eclectic, with more emphasis on the spiritual path. Have you had a serious look at my own "Keys to Kabbalah" ? Although it incorporates many aspects found in the GD model, its approach is a kind of practical theosophy, especially in Part Two, which uses the Tarot as a basis for its presentation. It also corrects serious deficiencies found in the earlier GD models of Mathers and Co. On the spiritual side, it shows where "Jacob's Ladder" connects with the Christian Church and (possibly) The 33 degrees of Masonic usage. Also, it is FREE for download from http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ For those who have it already, I have available for the asking a zip file of Cathedral and Abbey Church diagrams showing how the correlation is to be found in living stone upon British foundations. It is probably true for European ones as well, but I ran out of research materials. Alan ambain@ambain.screaming.net http://members.tripod.co.uk/ambain/SaintJust.HTM/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 01:37:52 +0100 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Re to Alan ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 2:51 PM > Subject: Re to Alan > Nirvana has to exist simply because we know that samsara does. It must be jelly 'cos jam don't shake like that? Not everything necessarily has an opposite. Around here we have a number of country lanes. All are one way in both directions. Here and there there is (fortunately) a farm gate or grass verge where a car can squeeze in to let another one through. Sometimes it is necessary to go backwards a fair distance first ..... Or maybe the "opposite" is NO country lane! Ho hum. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 22:18:52 PDT From: "Joshua Gulick" Subject: How to Make Gold Hello friends, I know this is off-topic, but two days ago, while pacing back and forth behind the counters at work, (I think better while pacing) I figured out how to do transmutations. It came like a flash from nowhere! I just thought that you might appreciate this. Atomic Transmutation October 26, 1999 By Joshua Gulick The basis behind the "alchemical" idea of elemental transmutation (changing one element into another -- mercury to gold, etc.) is to kick a proton out of an atomic nucleus and therefore drop it's atomic number to the element that is desired. Scientists have already done this by accelerating protons and ramming them into nuclei at wildly high speeds, but this method is quite inefficient and this inefficiency has been accepted by most as proof that the concept is unworkable. However, this ramming method is poorly conceived at best. To accomplish efficient transmutations, the material to be transmuted must be allowed to change in a more natural manner. First, it is wise to have the smallest amount of free electrons possible in the mass to be transmuted. This creates a gradient towards proton expulsion and provides a more natural environment for the resultant reduced atomic nuclei as they stabilize. This can be accomplished by hooking the mass to the bottom of a Van de Graff generator. Also, an important aspect is to provide an object or objects nearby with an excess of electrons to provide an additional attractive force on the protons in the transmutation mass so as to control the proton ejection directions as much as possible. This can be accomplished by hooking up these objects to the top of a Van de Graff generator. So far, so good... now we have a proper environment for controlled proton expulsion. What next? I hate bringing quantum theory into this discussion, but as electrons behave as quanta, so do protons. What I mean by this is that the position of an electron is a just a probability -- an electron could be anywhere. The same holds true for protons. There is a slight probablity that a proton may actually be beyond the electron shell at any particular instant. When this occurs, the proton may be lost. The trick is to increase the probability of the electron passing the point of no return. This may be accomplished by using attractive and repulsive gradients as described earlier, but highest efficiency is found by deforming the "electron shell" and also changing the position of the atomic nucleus relative to that shell. The cheapest method to accomplish this is to hit the sample repeatedly with a good sized hammer. This sudden pressure causes electron shell deformation and also causes the electrons that make up the shell to change position at a greater rate than their nucleus due to the vast difference in their masses. This brings the nucleus much closer to the proton "point of no return" and increases greatly the chance of transmutation. Hit the sample say once or twice a second for several days. One could, of course, mechanize the pounding using a piston or some other such thing. [Note: make sure the sample and hammer are equally charged.] However, this "brute force" method may be improved upon. The next step up is to use resonant sonic vibrations to accomplish the same effect. One would shape the sample into a flat disk and inject sound waves into the disk from the center at the disk's resonant frequency, or a harmonic or harmonic undertone of that resonant frequency. A harmonic undertone of the nuclear magnetic resonance frequency of the original element is desirable, but is most difficult to construct a disk of such resonance. Multiple frequencies or chords can be advantageous, especially Trinity chords using the base frequency, three times the base frequency, and nine times the base frequency. To further increase transmutation probabilities the sample can be irradiated with electro-magnetic radiation of a powerful harmonic undertone of the nuclear magnetic resonance of the initial element. Again, multiple frequencies and Trinity chords should be used if possible. One may want to experiment with multiple e-m sources as interference effects may increase efficiency as well. And last, but not least, one should include a high-gauss magnetic field with the frequency of a powerful harmonic undertone of the NMR of the element that is the desired end-product. This magnetic field encourages deformation in a manner that provides a natural pressure towards transmutation to the desired element. It also stabilizes transmuted atoms and helps to prevent further unwanted transmutations. Copyright 1999 -- Joshua Gulick This document may be reproduced freely only in it's entirety. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:46:14 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 26, 1999 Alan wrote: >Chewing Randy's nuts? Well, it was, after all, Randy who insisted that "nuts" are part of a healthy diet. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 01:08:56 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 26, 1999 Randy wrote: >We don't "live longer". Average life span has increased due to a decrease in >infant mortality, that's all. Medicine and technology is not adding years to >life as popularly believed. Food distribution and plumbing are the causes of >the majority of whatever better health we have today than in the past. >We're off the point of this list, and you don't seem willing to reason, so I >won't continue. Peace, Randy Since you didn't address this post to a particular person, but keeping in mind I didn't mention "living longer" in one of my posts (Alan the Evil did, though), I'm doubting this post is directed at me. Nevertheless, using this post as an opportunity for a springboard, I still really would like to know the definition of the word "biopoiesis." I just hate it when someone may know something I do not. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 06:38:18 -0700 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 26, 1999 > Nevertheless, using this post as an opportunity for a springboard, I still > really would like to know the definition of the word "biopoiesis." I just > hate it when someone may know something I do not. Kym ... "Biopoiesis" is the term used to describe the beginnings of life on earth. (It is not evolution, which has to do with the processes by which existing life develops towards higher scales of complexity and adaptability, rather, it has to do with the initial process by which inorganic chemicals achieve a state we'd define as organic - scientists in labs, for instance, that mix the set of gases and minerals they believe were present on earth in its first billion years, and then stimulate the mixture with electricity (to mimic lightening) or bombard the mix with radiation (to mimic in a short time what the sun might have done to the primordial soup over millennia) in an effort to watch the process of life emerging from non-life ... are attempting to reproduce "biopoiesis"). You probably won't find the word in a standard collegiate dictionary (though you may find its root ... "poiesis"), but you might find it in a graduate level biology textbook. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 07:45:34 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy's nuts Alright already on my nuts you silly guys. "Biopoiesis" is the spontaneous generation of life from the ancient soupy milieu. (I'm not buying this "spontaneous" thing given laws as we know them.) Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 06:50:05 -0700 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: How to Make Gold You are a *riot* ... welcome to the list! - this is some of the best satire I've read in awhile ... very subtle (the copyright notice at the end is just a priceless touch). -JRC ----- Original Message ----- > From: Joshua Gulick > Date: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 10:18 PM > Subject: How to Make Gold > Hello friends, > > I know this is off-topic, but two days ago, while pacing back and forth > behind the counters at work, (I think better while pacing) I figured out how > to do transmutations. It came like a flash from nowhere! I just thought > that you might appreciate this. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:46:28 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Theosophical Universe Model >>Jerry--would you mind giving me a short-form version of your karma=creator model. Thanks, Randy>> OK. Here is a brief synopsis (4 steps) of the universe model that I like and use: Step 1. Basically, it all begins with the assumption of a divine Monad that has inherent self-creativity. This Monad is an expression of Beness. There are countless such Monads, all exactly alike and all outside of space and time. This Monad is truly monadic in that it can't be divided into parts (this is how a monad is defined). It is a consciousness-center, so that we actually have a monad with two distinguishing characteristics: consciousness and creativity, where these are inherent characteristics, not components. Step 2. This monad self-manifests into space and time as a "ray" called the spiritual monad. The spiritual monad is a triad: a self (purushsa), a not-self (prakriti) and a connecting force called Fohat. This spiritual monad is the beginning of what is called duality, and the I and Not-I form the first basic dual polarity. These spiritual monads together form the Cause or impetus for the entire 7-plane solar system of our universe. At this point, they are karmaless except in the sense that they are themselves the karmic manifestation of the divine Monads. They carry the skandhas or shistas remaining from the previous manvantara, and use these to form this one. Step 3. Because the divine Monad is self-creative, its manifestation, the spiritual monad, is self-creative also. So just as the divine Monad sent out a ray from itself, so do these monads. These manifested monads fill the upper three cosmic planes, with slightly more definition on each plane down. Then we have an Abyss, which is a kind of demarcation line dividing spiritual from the material, the nirvanic from the samsaric, the formless from form, and so on; this is yet another play on the theme of dualities and the Abyss serves as a cosmic Fohat connecting the two. Step 4. The "rays" now join together to form what is called atma or atman, a kind of spiritual collection of triadic monads located just above the Abyss on the third plane down. Here they also form what is called a lifewave, a collection or host of individual living conscious beings called jivas. We are a part of the lifewave that is manifesting as human beings and is therefore called the human lifewave. As this lifewave descends through the Abyss into the lower planes, it develops more and more individuals; again the collective vs the individual is another play on the overall duality theme of our universe. On the fourth plane down it manifests individual vehicles called buddhi and now we have atma-buddhi as the spiritual or "higher" man, also called the individuality. Then comes manas on the fifth plane down, and kama on the sixth, and finally a physical body on the seventh, the physical plane. All of this creativity is through karmic processes, and caused or driven by our own inner spiritual/divine natures working together. Karma is both individual and collective. We all pretty much see karma in the individual sense, but the collective sense is harder to see for most people. Sometimes things happen to us without any known cause, and we can say that this is either karma from a past life or collective karma; it can be either and I would challenge anyone to know which is working at any time because I haven't been able to see any real difference between the two. Collective karma and karma from past lives are pretty much two views of the same thing. As a fallout from collective human karma, for example, we all have to eat and breathe air. We all laugh when happy and we all cry when sad. Science calls these things "instincts" but they are really part of our collective karma (Jung's collective unconscious fits nicely here). I see no real need to project gods and goddesses, unless we want to personify spiritual forces (which is OK, so long as we know we are doing it). This is a very brief look at a universe model that "feels right" to me at this time in my development. And it incorporates a lot of what Blavatsky gave out in the Secret Doctrine. It also incorporates a lot of Buddhism. It also "fits" with my experience to date. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:08:46 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Jerry/model Yee gads, you lost me after the definition of what a monad was. I can also "get" the karma thing since it seems to happen in real life. You have some evidence for the rest or is this just a distillation of your studies? Anyone thought to ask any of the "masters" about these things during regressions and the like? Thanks for the answer though. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:13:58 EDT From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Theosophical Universe Model The idea of collective karma is a tidy way to explain the bigger ills that befall us via nature, politics, macro-economics. Hard to figure what one could have done to cause thousands of deaths in a war, earthquake, famine, etc. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:41:22 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Stanzas of Dyzan: Of a Dzog chen Origin? Hello, I finally dug up my notes. There is a group of Dzog chen texts that are used by Central Asian tribes, Bon, and Nyingmapa traditions. According to Central Asian Buddhists (substantiated by David Snellgrove as being highly likely), Bon and Nyingmapa traditions were originally one Tibetan "Old" group from an earlier infusion of Tantric Buddhism into Tibet from Central Asia. The split, both my Central Asian sources told me (again, Snellgrove agrees), between the two was a gradual process stemming from the fact that those whom later would be called "Nyingmapas" would make extensive use of the "new translations" whereas those who would become Bon did not. The differentiation of the two was never formalized and so we find Kongtrul having both Bon relatives who were his first teachers, Bon friends who were also Nyingmapas, as well as Kongtrul having both lineages. Now, this history had its impact upon the structure of the Buddhist canon. This canon is Kanjur and Tanjur. Roughly, Kanjur is scripture and Tanjur is commentary. Both Nyingmapas and Bon share with the Gelukpas, Kagyupas, Sakyapas, and so on (the newer groups) the Kanjur except it is larger than what the newer groups have. So, it is said by the Tibetans there is the common Kanjur that everyone knows and then there is the uncommon Kanjur only a few know. According to Geshe Sopa and a Professor Thomas Mether, this distinction, which originally pointed out that the Kanjur of the older groups (Bon and Nyingmapas) was larger, eventually evolved into the idea originally sold by the Nyingmapas that there were secret and better or more esoteric books containing teachings that were unknown to others who had only the common or exoteric Kanjur. All the texts of this secret or uncommon portion of the Kanjur are Dzog chen texts. It is selections from these books that Central Asian Buddhists recite and which according to the two authorities just mentioned is where the sources for Blavatsky's Stanzas of Dyzan are located. When hearing these root texts recited, they sound like a paraphrase of the Stanzas except it is the other way around. There are some strange features to the Stanzas that also strongly point to their origin being this uncommon or secret portion of the Kanjur. First, strangely, while the most plausible location for the Stanzas would be this hidden Dzog chen portion of the Kanjur, they read like Sutras and not Tantras. But these uncommon Kanjur Dzog chen texts, even though they are root Tantras, look like Sutra texts. The Nyingmapas even debated whether the should be classed as sutra or tantra, according to the two authorities mentioned above. Second, I had Central Asian Buddhists tell me that they first recited these sutra-tantras to HPB and that this was where she got the Stanzas. But it was the Bon and Nyingmapas that could identify where these texts recited by the Central Asian Buddhists were located, namely, in that part of the Kanjur only Central Asian, Bon, and Nyingmapas possess. Third, the Stanzas begin in a most unusual way with a most unusual motif that definitely seems non-Buddhist (so apparently being counter-evidence to the hypothesis that the Stanzas are Dzog chen), namely, the phrase - 1. The Eternal Parent...in HER.... Two observations. Buddhism typically addresses the cure but not the cause of samsara. It tends to not be interested in a "creation myth of origins" or it posits that the universe has always existed. The Stanzas of HPB begin with a "creation myth." Second, the reference to the "eternal parent" and the fact that the "parent" is a "her" (a mother!) is apparently very un-Buddhist-like since (1) the idea of a cosmic parent is apparently not a Buddhist motif and (2) Buddhism is rather paternalistic (there is the famous story about the woman who said she would become a Bodhisattva which her contemporaries, Buddhist monks, said was impossible - that she had to merit a male body in a future life). But here, a female parent, a mother, is at the origin. Now all this put me off the scent a while despite what the Kalmucks told me about their relation to HPB. But then I learned that this uncommon portion of the Kanjur, that not everybody has, has (1) texts that look like sutras even though they are tantras, (2) texts that present a "creation myth," and (3) have the cosmic origin of it all, a universal mind, depicted as a female parent or mother. So, the Stanzas are not that anomalous after all on the view they are Dzog chen texts. So, what is this uncommon portion or secret portion, unknown to others, of the Kanjur? The Bon and Nyingmapas call it the "old tantras." One of the core root tantras, that has a number of associated texts, is also one recited by Kalmucks and Mongols. It is the Kun byed rgyal po'i mdo. I don't think it is, itself, the Stanzas' original but I was told their origin is part of its group of texts. And guess what, it starts off about the sovereign mind of the eternal motherly Buddha. And the Bon version looks like it was influenced by Vedanta because it has positive and substantial conceptions of self (not anatman) which Geshe Sopa speculated once might have been the legacy of the Vatsiputriyas which were widespread in Central Asia from second century to the seventh. Or, as the Kalmucks claimed, this whole collection of motherly Buddha Dzog chen Old Tantras, that they have synoptically as their root text, may be the collective source from which both they and HPB "culled" from. This stuff was buried from the 1970s. Sorry it took a while. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:53:46 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 27, 1999 Thank you, JRC and Randy, for the definition of biopoiesis. Seriously. To JRC - Yeah, I attempted to look up "poiesis" also, but did not find a listing for it. Now that I know its meaning, the word is definitely a keeper. Don't tell anyone, but I was hoping there was really no such word - finding such errors in people's assertions cuddles me in self-righteousness that is as comfy as cashmere. But, this time, alas, it was not meant to be. . .. Guess I'll have to settle for the second rate high of "learning something new." Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 23:03:07 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 27, 1999 JRC wrote to Joshua: >You are a *riot* ... welcome to the list! - this is some of the best satire >I've read in awhile ... very subtle (the copyright notice at the end is just >a priceless touch). It was satire? Oh, of course, I knew that. Help me, Jesus!! I'm beginning to think that popular quote, "all you need to know is what you learned in kindergarten," is bogus. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 07:30:00 -0700 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 27, 1999 > To JRC - Yeah, I attempted to look up "poiesis" also, but did not find a > listing for it. Now that I know its meaning, the word is definitely a > keeper. Don't tell anyone, but I was hoping there was really no such word > - finding such errors in people's assertions cuddles me in > self-righteousness that is as comfy as cashmere. But, this time, alas, it > was not meant to be. . .. Guess I'll have to settle for the second rate > high of "learning something new." Ach! You, a philosophy major, haven't heard of poiesis?!!! What are they teaching kids these days (-:). Go to ... "Poiesis" is the name of a major online philosophical search & research tool ... indexes and allows searching of 50 or 60 different academic philosophical publications. Sort of the "Lexis-Nexus" of philosophy. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 08:00:42 -0700 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 27, 1999 > >You are a *riot* ... welcome to the list! - this is some of the best satire > >I've read in awhile ... very subtle (the copyright notice at the end is just > >a priceless touch). > > It was satire? Oh, of course, I knew that. > Help me, Jesus!! I'm beginning to think that popular quote, "all you need > to know is what you learned in kindergarten," is bogus. Well, er, at least I'm assuming its satire - but hell, the only thing funnier than the piece as satire would be if it *wasn't* intended as satire, in which case, it would simply be a far deeper kind of satire - a case of the collective unconscious itself satirizing the intelligent foolishness of the conscious mind. (Once, in an argument Bohr was having with Einstein about quantum mechanics, Bohr became frustrated, threw up his hands and said "Well now you aren't even *thinking*, you're merely being *logical*" - one of the worst insults imaginable among genuinely brilliant scientists ... who understand the uses of logic, but also know it is relatively useless in the effort to actually discover and comprehend the world in entirely new ways, and has the nasty habit of leading people down all sorts of circuitous and absurd paths towards positively ridiculous, yet curiously self-important conclusions - and I figured that gold article was a brilliant satire on how this works ... imagine, the secret of turning base elements into gold - after having been sought for literally centuries, and having remained undiscovered even in modern times, where our chemistry and physics have drilled down into an understanding and classification of even sub-atomic particles ... and suddenly AHA! ... here it is, fully explained in a couple of pages, in a way even a college freshman with one semester of physics and a couple of pop science books on quantum physics under their belt could understand, and requiring little more than the equipment one could patch together from stuff bought at the local hardware store! I particularly liked the "sound" part of things. Was thinking how wonderful it would be to hire someone to sit in front of a lump of lead and simply hum for a few weeks - think I could get a grant???!!! But the best part was the copyright notice, which - mind you - did not say the article could not be *used*, but merely said it had to be reproduced in *full* - I literally laughed out loud and almost choked on my coffee - why? WHY? Out of concern that just in a case an experimental physicist with a lab capable of applying the process happened to stumble across the "secret", they might not be successful if a couple of the key paragraphs were *missing*??? It was at this point I suddenly realized this *had* to be satire). -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:51:12 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: HPB's Theosophical Glossary: My Thoughts About Her Glossary On two separate occasions on Theos-Talk, a discussion has ensued about HPB's THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY. Below is a very rough draft summary of what I've written on various occasions about BdZ's contentions. My article is at: http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/glosaryone.htm I've also put BdZ's original article about TG online: http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/glossaryparttwo.htm Daniel Caldwell danielhcaldwell@hotmail.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:02:15 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: FW: HPB, Dyzan, Dzog chen >From a Dr. Thomas Mether Grigor Dear Grigor, In answer to your questions, I do not recall exactly when the Dalai Lama said that the Stanzas of Dyzan were derived from the Kanjur but I know the occasion and rough time period. It may have been the early 90s but I recollect it was in the 80s. It was actually at a special tea held in his honor (sometime around the Kalachakra intiations in Wisconsin) in Wheaton, Ill. Professor James Robinson would probably know exactly because he was a participant in those intiations. The one who has done a lot of the real work of bringing Central Asian Buddhism to light is not me. I run into it because of the cultural mileau. I am more up on Central Asian Zoroastrianism and Manichaeanism with their influence on Buddhism being a side line. I found evidence to suggest that the motherly Buddha symbol that is found in the Dzog chen texts of the Old Tantras, for instance, is derived from the Mother of Life symbol of Manichaeanism. One must remember that Manichaeanism worked with the religious material of the culture it was in. So, in the west, it took on a Christian disguise. In Persian, it took on a Zoroastrian disguise. In Central Asia, it took on a Buddhist disguise. Heinrich Klimkeit is one who discusses the Central Asian Manichaeanism in Buddhist clothing. But it is Emmerich who is the real expert. He uncovered those Buddhist texts that have Persian or Aramaic names or have unidentifiable names. For example, if I remember correctly, the Dhammapada is called the "Zambasta." And it is certainly possible that "dyzan" is a Persian way of saying the Tibetan "Dzog chen" but not that Dzog chen reflects an earlier Persian "dyzan." The classical high period for Persian, Bactrian, Kushan, and Khotan, Buddhism is from the second century to the Mongol invasions. Tibet did not become buddhist until the ninth century. But it is not impossible that it reflects a secondary re-diffusion out from Tibet of Dzog chen teachings among Persian tribes after the Mongol invasion. So, "dyzan" might be a way later Persian tribes said "dzog chen." I know for certain that the Kalmucks, as you know also, are Dzog chen as are the isolated group of Kafiristani's south of Kashi. Sincerely, Thomas Mether Dr. Thomas Mether thomas.r.mether@vanderbilt.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 06:38:12 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 27, 1999 JRC wrote: > and I figured that gold article was a brilliant satire on how this works ... > imagine, the secret of turning base elements into gold - after having been > sought for literally centuries, and having remained undiscovered even in > modern times, where our chemistry and physics have drilled down into an > understanding and classification of even sub-atomic particles ... and Throwing some unwelcome logic into the situation, base elements HAVE been turned into gold, using controlled nuclear reactions, at least in atomic quantities. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:02:55 -0800 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Blavatsky/Tantra/Tibet Study: Some 'Points' of Context, History, and Philosophy Blavatsky/Tantra/Tibet Study Some 'Points' of Context, History, and Philosophy. Contributed by Ken Small of Point Loma Publications, San Diego, California 1) Blavatsky stated she was a Tibetan Buddhist : Letter to Alexander Wilder in 1877 - "it seems to me that it will be difficult for me to explain what I am not allowed to, or say anything about the exoteric part what intelligent people do not already know. I am a Thibetan Buddhist, you know, and pledged myself to keep certain things secret." -The Word, vol. 7, p. 139. 2) Blavatsky differentiated between white and black tantra: BCW IV, 360 ".there are both magic (pure psychic science) and sorcery (its impure counterpart) so there are what are known as the "white" and "Black" tantras. The one is an exposition, very clear and exceedingly valuable, of occultism in its noblest features, the other a devil's chap-book of wicked instructions to the would-be wizard and sorcerer." 3) Blavatsky's Teacher, Mahatma Morya used tantric imagery: As noted by Evan- Wentz: "In cosmogony and the work of nature the positive and the negative or the active and passive forces corresond to the male and female principles. Your spiritual efflux comes not from 'behind the vale' but is the male seed falling into the veil of cosmic matter. The active is attracted by the passive principle and the Great Nag, the serpent emblem of the eternity, attracts its tail to its mouth forming thereby a circle (cycles in the eternity) in that incessant pursuit of the negative by the positive. Hence the emblem of the lingam the phallus and the eteis.[kteis, meaning yoni] fn:Cf. The Mahatma Letters, page 71. "Eteis", an error in transcription or typography, should be either cteis or, more correctly, kteis, a Greek-derived term, meaning yoni, the female organ." p. 10 Right View versus Wrong Views by W.Y. Evans-Wentz. 4) Blavatsky's Teacher, Koot Humi considered "Tantrika" reference a compliment: ML p 303: "In the letter enclosed he says-we 'may be tantrikists' (better ascertain the value of the compliment paid) --." 5) Blavatsky affirmed the Panchen Lama lineage: ".the.Tashilhunpo Lama Rinpoche. is a 'Panchen', or great teacher, one of themost learned theologians of Northern Buddhism and esoteric Lamaism." BCW III, p. 398 and many more citations. 6) The Panchen Lamas practiced Tibetan Tantric Vajrayana Buddhism or what HPB is referring to as "esoteric Lamaism": See "The Great Seal of Voidness: The Root Text for the Gelug/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra"Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1974, pp. 8 - 11 "There are numerous oral tradition teachings, such as those of simultaneous Production and Union, the Joined Amulet Box, Possessing Five, the Six Equal Tastes, the Four Letters, the Pacifier, the Cutting- Off [Chod], the great Encompassment [Dzogpa Chenpo or Great Perfection Dzogchen] and the Profound Madhyamika Theory.""p. 8 and on p. 11 ""These individual oral tradition teachings have different names and titles. But, if an experienced yogi, who is truly a master of scripture and of definitive and interpretive meaning, were to examine them all, he would see that all these theories and teachings are non-contradictory. He would see how all these different explanations and methods lead in the end to the same point-a true understanding of Voidness." See also : The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra by H.H. the Dalai Lama with Alexander Berzin, Snow Lion, 1997. 7) Blavatsky on Tashilhunpo spiritual practice: "Within the cloister of Tashilhunpo and Sidzang, these powers, inherent in every man, called out by so few, are cultivated to their utmost perfection." 8) Blavatsky on ultimate realization: "...the Arahant secret doctrine on cosmogony, admits but of one absolute, eternal, and uncreated UNCONSCIOUSNESS. of an element (the word being used for want of a better term). a Presence which ever was, is and will be.and this is SPACE, the field for the operation of the eternal Forces and natural Law, the basis.upon which take place the eternal intercorrelations of Akasa-Prakriti, guided by the unconscious regular pulsations of Sakti-the breath or power of a conscious deity, the theists would say-the eternal energy of an eternal, unconscious Law, say the Buddhists. Space then, or "Fan", Bar-nang" (Maha Sunyata) or, as it is called by Lao-Tze, the "Emptiness" is the nature of the Buddhist Absolute." etc. Tibetan Teachings pp.11-12 HPB notes to an article by Subba Row. 9) Blavatsky affirmd Tsong Khapa as a realized being: refs: BCW XIV, 427, Mahatma Letters 43-44 3rd edition. 10) Tsong Khapa studied and practiced with all schools of Tibetan Buddhism, Kadampa, Kagyu, Nyingma, Sakya and Dzogchen with more than sixty teachers and practiced and taught Tantric Vajrayana Buddhism. 11) Blavatsky drew a Tibetan/Mongolian Buddhist Tantric protection symbol in Tibetan and Mongolian (The Theosophist vol. ? I'll locate the reference for any who wish it.) see also The Encyclopedia of Tibetan Symbols and Motifs by Robert Beer - Shambhala 1999pp. 116-121. 12) Blavatsky used a Buddhist mala or rosary for some kind of mantric recitation practice: "She always wore a loose gown, over which she sometimes put a yellow robe like what is used by the Buddhist nuns. She often had a rosary in her hand, which she counted as she inaudibly repeated to herself certain words." - From Hinduism to Hinduism by Parbati Churn Roy p. 2 of chapter 8. Roy describing his meeting with Blavatsky in Darjeeling in the autumn of 1882. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:51:32 -0800 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: The November THEOSOPHY WORLD Is Out The November issue of THEOSOPHY WORLD is out. It's contents are: "Spirit in Crisis: Chapter I: The Antithesis," by H. Oosterink "Promoting the Wisdom Religion in Modern Times," by Martin Euser "Nature: The Mighty Mother," by Katherine Tingley "Lightbulb on the Path," by Bart Lidofsky "How I Came to Join the Theosophical Society," by Christine Hanson "Blavatsky Net Update," by Reed Carson "The Land of Magical Poetry," by James Neil Feinstein "In Support of Genuine Theosophy," Part I, by Grigor Vahan Ananikian "There Were Such Great Men," by G. de Purucker "Visit the Blavatsky Archives Online," by Daniel H. Caldwell "The Creative Power of Thought," by A. Trevor Barker 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: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:58:55 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: oct 31 To the Americans, Americans,BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBb bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! Grigor ):-> From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 04:23:06 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: TI-L Dear All, As no one seems to be using TI-L any more (including me) I have suggested to John Mead (after consultation) that TI-L be merged with THEOS-L. TI members know who they are and can always raise TI matters here. Any contrary opinions? I am no longer in a satisfactory position to administer TI-L, and I personally think it is now an unnecessary duplication. If, on the other hand, anyone wants to take it on, then let me or John Mead know. Verily. Alan. http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ ambain@ambain.screaming.net http://members.tripod.co.uk/ambain/SaintJust.HTM/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:50:52 -0800 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: The November THEOSOPHY WORLD Is Out The November issue of THEOSOPHY WORLD is out. It's contents are: "Spirit in Crisis: Chapter I: The Antithesis," by H. Oosterink "Promoting the Wisdom Religion in Modern Times," by Martin Euser "Nature: The Mighty Mother," by Katherine Tingley "Lightbulb on the Path," by Bart Lidofsky "How I Came to Join the Theosophical Society," by Christine Hanson "Blavatsky Net Update," by Reed Carson "The Land of Magical Poetry," by James Neil Feinstein "In Support of Genuine Theosophy," Part I, by Grigor Vahan Ananikian "There Were Such Great Men," by G. de Purucker "Visit the Blavatsky Archives Online," by Daniel H. Caldwell "The Creative Power of Thought," by A. Trevor Barker THEOSOPHY WORLD is a free Internet monthly available via email (about 100,000 bytes in size). To subscribe, write to editor@theosophy.com.