From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:04:31 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Halloween/Y2K Hello, I sent some follow up email on HPB and Dzog chen. I wondered if it got to list. I didn't even get the lyris acknowledgment. So, spooks or technology? Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:26:26 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: near-death experiences Randy wrote: > 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. oops. Since those experiences are so very subjective, it is not at all tangible evidence to a sceptic. (I'll play one today) Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:46:08 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: near-death experiences 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. >> Christine: > 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. Well, we discussed one that Krishnamurti used, this weekend (we had a lively, honest weekend in which a lot got said, and sometimes very directly): Krishnamurti used to put someone in front of the person in the audience that was sending out negative vibrations, so he did not have to see them. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:49:59 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Fw: Text from a pagan correspondent On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 23:51:46 +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 etc. Is it possible for you to send this story without the many +AD4-'s in there? I will now read it at home where my word-machine will filter out the garbage. But I don't like. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:53:32 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: near-death experience On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 05:08:12 EDT WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > 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 My idea is that him/her is not a him/her and does not allow anything. I think that if we keep our window clean, we will see the sun. If we don't do that, then we will not. Death takes us out of the house, so that the sun is suddenly seen. (unless it is cloudy, or is that taking the example to far?) Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:58:29 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: 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. Well, perhaps it is not killing but symbiosis that makes life develop new forms. I know that this is sidestepping the issue a bit, but our eukariotic cells (that is the cells of plants, animals and us: with a nucleus and other organs in the cell) are probably evolved from cells that ate other cells, but instead of being destroyed, the eaten cells continued existence and added to the functioning of the original cell. So perhaps a lion eating a small animal is just natures way of making sure the lion can live? But I know that that does not really answer the question, it may help growing thought, though. > Why would whoever is responsible for the world create such atrocity when so > many other options would be available to someone with omnipotence.? I don't believe in anybody with omnipotence, so the question is unanswerable for me. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:00:27 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Collective Karma as Creator Jerry wrote: > 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). I would personally think that there where there is action, there is also karma (or reaction). If that is what you mean, I agree. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:20:57 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: carnivorism question On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 18:50:32 EDT WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > 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 I think he was sarcastic, because many people interested in theosophy (in whatever form) have found that proof is difficult to find, even about truth. In fact (now the mathematician in me takes over) not all truth is provable according to Godel. So asking for proof is touching a raw nerve with many of us. Is there any proof for reincarnation that a sceptic would accept? How is even the most cincere *rememberance* proof of reincarnation? So many other explanations are possible. (like akasha cronicles, a divine self that knows everything anyhow etc.) So I am used to travel on logic, instinct and intuition, and yes, that is risky, I may just be developing my prejudices, but I am taking that risk, and I think many on this list share the sentiment? Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:29:17 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: near-death experience On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 08:56:58 EDT WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > 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 It would be less confusing if you based your questions simply on what YOU think, because neither believing in a God or in an abstract Force (outside the universe, that is, because force plays a roll in the physical universe at least), I found it difficult to know what you meant and wanted to know. As an educator, I know that before answering a question, or trying to help someone understand how I think (which is less paternalistic) I have first to find out exactly how the other thinks on that question, so please: just be you! Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:33:10 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Response to Alan Jerry writes: > 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. I am a bit confused here. What gods and goddesses does the modern TS give? I have not come across it (and I am an active member). > 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. Yes, but the creativity of the monad (which is us, I think?) is still active, isn't it? Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:40:58 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Karma vs Paranirvana Jerry writes: > 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. The way I understand it, and the way it has been explained to me, (so I am copying the idea's of TS-Adyar-The Netherlands here - or at least of a majority of *us*) is that freedom from karma, for the Jivamukti means that he/she is no more attached to the karma, so that that specific Ego is no longer attracted to the results of the action. But the action still has results, so that another jivamukti may have to bear the results. An example in Secret Doctrine 3 is clear about this, for me: one jivamukti (or saint, buddha or Mahatma, I do not remember) withdrew from the world and left his body at 30, because he felt he had done all he needed. Then another one, later on, was killed at that exact age, because the karma had to go somewhere. The cause has to have an effect, but the jivamukti is so impersonal that he is no longer attached to what we would call his personal karma. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:51:36 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Randy to Dallas/carnivorism On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:39:03 EDT WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > 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?) No heresy, and you are not the only one, Dallas just comes across as rather more than usually Blavatsky-only-ish. Just don't mind that part of him (at least, I have learned to just not look at it, it gets to tiresome otherwise. Sorry Dallas - these are the facts) Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 12:38:42 -0500 From: John E Mead Subject: Tibetan Nun Imprisonment; Amnesty International letter campaign to Chinese Gov't I'm forwarding this, in case anyone wants to help (taken from Tibet-L) peace - john e. mead ---- begin tibet-l excerpt----- > From: Daniel King > Subject: international action Hey People, We got the word out about our unhappiness regarding the imprisonment of the Drapchi 12 with over 1400 people contacting the Chinese Embassy in the United States. Lets go up one level, shall we? We can now hit up the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and let those in charge of foreign relations know we are not happy with the nuns continued imprisonment. If everyone who glimpsed the previous email action took part we should have had over 10,000 participants. So please do not let this opportunity pass you by, you can affect change with the simple use of your computer. We find ourselves many times hoping for change and wishing for change well here comes our opportunity to stand up for change. I ask you to take a moment out of your day and send the below message to the two emails indicated below and to your friends and colleagues who may also share a concern or desire to help. One of the lyrics these nuns have been given extra sentences is: "No matter how hard we are beaten, Our linked arms cannot be separated... The time will come when the sun will shine through the clouds." Lets bring attention to the plight of these 12 imprisoned Tibetan Buddhist nuns. You can speak out DIRECTLY to the Chinese government!! All you need to do is copy and send the below message to: Cc: amnestyaction@yahoo.com (to get a count) Spread this far and wide. If you are taking part in this action after January 31, 2000 please contact me and I will tell you if it is still pertinent. Peace Dan King www.amnesty133.org daking@lynx.neu.edu ======================= TANG Jiaxuan Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China Waijiaobu 225 Chaoyangmenneidajie Beijingshi 100701 The People's Republic of China, Your Excellency, I would like to request the immediate and unconditional release of the following 12 Tibetan Nuns who have been imprisoned for singing songs while at Drapchi Prison. Name Age* Date 1st 2nd Total Arrested Sentence Sentence Ngawang Choezom 22 03/21/92 5 years 6 years 11years Gyaltsen Choezom 21 08/21/90 4 5 9 Gyaltsen Drolkar 19 08/21/90 4 8 12 Ngawang Sangdrol 15 06/17/92 3 6 21** Lhundrup Zangmo 23 08/21/90 4 5 9 Phuntsog Nyidron 23 10/04/89 9 8 17 Tenzin Thubten 20 08/21/90 5 9 14 Ngawang Lochoe 19 05/14/92 5 5 10 Ngawang Tsamdrol 21 05/14/92 5 5 10 Jigme Yangchen 23 10/01/90 7 5 12 Rigzin Choekyi 20 09/22/89 7 5 12 Namdrol Lhamo 28 05/12/92 6 6 12 * Age at time of first sentencing. ** Has had sentenced extended two more times since her second sentence; one increase was 8 years and that was further extended by 4 years. The twelve nuns are Prisoners of Conscience who have been imprisoned solely for the peaceful expression of their beliefs. I am also deeply concerned at reports that the nuns have been ill-treated while in prison. You have the opportunity to show the world that you respect human rights. Please do so by immediately releasing the aforementioned nuns. Finally, I request information regarding the above individuals current conditions, and any action you may already be taking to protect them and other victims of human rights violation in Tibet to be sent to Amnesty International Group 133, 251 Albany Street, Cambridge, MA, USA 02139. Thank you for your time and concern in this matter of utmost importance. Sincerely, ---- end tibet-l excerpt----- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:02:31 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Randy to Dallas/carnivorism Nov 2nd Dear Katinka: Everyone is entitled to their views. Sure I am interested in Theosophy as HPB presented it. I am her devotee and student. When questions arise that relate to Theosophy I try to put what I have learned from her teachings before those who question. If one desires to know what Theosophy has to say, they do not need the filters of others' views -- which admittedly seem to satisfy their selectivity. That cannot be helped, or altered. You would be just as welcome to say that what I present is my opinion -- and you would be correct. But why not let those who desire to find out what THEOSOPHY says and is, go to HPB ? After all she was the one who started the whole thing, and provided the basis for its study. She did not try to "please" anyone (no more do I) and the presentation of the basis and essentials of Theosophical philosophy is due to those who ask about it. At least that is my opinion and in fairness to all three of us: HPB, you and I. To make selections as one pleases in not very useful I think, but then we all do that. That does not make them any the less useful, if only as contrast to the original teachings. Best wishes Dallas Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: hesse600 [mailto:hesse600@tem.nhl.nl] > Date: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 1:52 AM > Subject: Re: Randy to Dallas/carnivorism On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 11:39:03 EDT WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > 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?) No heresy, and you are not the only one, Dallas just comes across as rather more than usually Blavatsky-only-ish. Just don't mind that part of him (at least, I have learned to just not look at it, it gets to tiresome otherwise. Sorry Dallas - these are the facts) Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl --- 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: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:02:35 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: carnivorism question Nov 2 1999 Fortunately the world is not based on a dog-eat-dog condition. That is an exaggerated view of the situation. Why not listen to what the Buddha said" "Kill not--for Pity's sake-- and lest ye slay The meanest think upon its upward way. Give freely and receive, but take from none By greed, or force, or fraud, what is his own. >From "The Light of Asia" -- Sir Edwin Arnold Dallas Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: hesse600 [mailto:hesse600@tem.nhl.nl] > Date: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 12:58 AM > Subject: Re: 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. Well, perhaps it is not killing but symbiosis that makes life develop new forms. I know that this is sidestepping the issue a bit, but our eukariotic cells (that is the cells of plants, animals and us: with a nucleus and other organs in the cell) are probably evolved from cells that ate other cells, but instead of being destroyed, the eaten cells continued existence and added to the functioning of the original cell. So perhaps a lion eating a small animal is just natures way of making sure the lion can live? But I know that that does not really answer the question, it may help growing thought, though. > Why would whoever is responsible for the world create such atrocity when so > many other options would be available to someone with omnipotence.? I don't believe in anybody with omnipotence, so the question is unanswerable for me. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl --- 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: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 23:16:36 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: October 31, 1999 Alan wrote: >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. It doesn't look like anyone is willing or able to take on TI-L. I personally think that you and John have come up with a worthy and workable idea. And, eventually, in the end, we are all supposed to "merge" anyway. I guess the unification of TI-L and theos-l could be considered a sign of evolution. But, on the other hand, I get really wiggly when corporations "merge." How does one know when a uniting of two or more entities is "growth" or merely a clandestine violation of anti-trust laws whose true intent is world domination? Give it a break, Kym. Whatever you and John decide is fine with this member. . .how's that? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 23:46:06 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 02, 1999 Katinka wrote: >No heresy, and you are not the only one, Dallas just comes >across as rather more than usually Blavatsky-only-ish. Just >don't mind that part of him (at least, I have learned to >just not look at it, it gets to tiresome otherwise. Sorry >Dallas - these are the facts) Dallas is used to being accused of being a fundie, I'm sure. He seems unmoved, though. A very stalwart gentleman. Sometimes, I wish I could find someone - a writer, philosopher, teacher - who I would be able to love as much as Dallas loves HPB. I often wonder what it feels like to respect someone that much - but, alas, I've never found anyone who, in my mind, is worthy enough for my adoration. Wonder what that makes me? (that's a rhetorical question, no one need answer it) Side note: I just saw the movie, The Matrix, last weekend. I was stunned at the Gnostic, Christian, and Eastern symbolism is contained. I wasn't particularly interested in seeing it, as I had heard little about the content, other than the great "special effects." This movie, though, was so much more than that. I don't expect a lengthy discussion on this subject, but I am curious whether anyone else saw it and what they thought. If this movie has been examined before on this list (it came out last year), then we need not engage in redundancy. But I wish someone had had the decency to tell me sooner! A bit too much violence, but the messages and questions the movie centered on was an unexpected treat for the mind. And why is it, currently, that the "good guys" wear black. It's definitely sexy, but I wonder why society changed the dress of "heroes" from white to now black. I've noticed it in Star Wars, the Matrix, and numerous other recent films. Maybe it is just the power that the color black imparts upon a person - I don't know. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:58:26 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Dallas carnivorism Dallas- Unfortunately this IS a dog eat dog world. Life cannot be sustained in health for any extended time without killing other life for food. If I were god- which I'm working on-I would do it differently I think, but maybe there is a real good eithical/moral reason for our blood(or protoplasm, if you are a vegetarian) thirsty world that escapes me. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:07:00 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 02, 1999 In a message dated 11/3/99 12:45:37 AM Central Standard Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > And why is it, currently, that the "good guys" wear black. It's definitely > sexy, but I wonder why society changed the dress of "heroes" from white to > now black. I've noticed it in Star Wars, the Matrix, and numerous other > recent films. What makes you think it is recent. Doctors of Philosophy in medieval universites in Muslim, Orthodox, Roman Catholic coutries wore black, Rennaissance doctors wore black, clergy wear black, Ninja wear black, nuns wore black, jurists wore and wear black, Lakota winter eagle shamans wear black/silver, .... Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:31:16 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: November 02, 1999 Nov 3 Dear Kym: It isn't adoration, rather I would like to think it is a deep respect based on understanding. It is also a sense of very deep gratitude that I feel for HPB. If you read a good account of her life and work as for instance the one that Sylvia Cranston wrote recently (it is now in paperback) you may get an idea of her worth and work and sacrifice. From 1875 to 1891 (16 long years) she worked day and night. So we owe to her what we know of the vast roots of our past philosophies and religions and how they interacted when originally started. That alone entitles her to universal respect in my book. It would be of course quite wrong for me to rub people's noses in attributing what I write to her. to some her name is not pleasant to hear -- for their own reasons. But I cannot take to myself that which is lawfully hers to say. I am quite convinced that Theosophy is a coherent and useful system and anyone can use it if they are accurate, honest, and true to what they study. Unfortunately there are many who have taken Theosophical ideas and, so to speak, made them their own -- and in the process of spreading them about, they have distorted them. I try to avoid that. If I give "quotations" it is because I think that everyone has the right to go back to a source and verify for themselves the importance of what is to be found there. No more Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: kymsmith@micron.net [mailto:kymsmith@micron.net] > Date: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 10:46 PM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 02, 1999 Katinka wrote: >No heresy, and you are not the only one, Dallas just comes >across as rather more than usually Blavatsky-only-ish. Just >don't mind that part of him (at least, I have learned to >just not look at it, it gets to tiresome otherwise. Sorry >Dallas - these are the facts) Dallas is used to being accused of being a fundie, I'm sure. He seems unmoved, though. A very stalwart gentleman. Sometimes, I wish I could find someone - a writer, philosopher, teacher - who I would be able to love as much as Dallas loves HPB. I often wonder what it feels like to respect someone that much - but, alas, I've never found anyone who, in my mind, is worthy enough for my adoration. Wonder what that makes me? (that's a rhetorical question, no one need answer it) Side note: I just saw the movie, The Matrix, last weekend. I was stunned at the Gnostic, Christian, and Eastern symbolism is contained. I wasn't particularly interested in seeing it, as I had heard little about the content, other than the great "special effects." This movie, though, was so much more than that. I don't expect a lengthy discussion on this subject, but I am curious whether anyone else saw it and what they thought. If this movie has been examined before on this list (it came out last year), then we need not engage in redundancy. But I wish someone had had the decency to tell me sooner! A bit too much violence, but the messages and questions the movie centered on was an unexpected treat for the mind. And why is it, currently, that the "good guys" wear black. It's definitely sexy, but I wonder why society changed the dress of "heroes" from white to now black. I've noticed it in Star Wars, the Matrix, and numerous other recent films. Maybe it is just the power that the color black imparts upon a person - I don't know. Kym --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.NET List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=3Dtheos-l To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:12:55 -0800 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Blavatsky Unveiled! by Elliott Coues BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm I've just published online the following item: "Blavatsky Unveiled!" by Elliott Coues. Reprinted from The Sun (New York), Sunday, July 20, 1890. I've also reproduced the facsimiles of two Mahatma Letters that were printed in the original Coues article. At BAO, see the ARCHIVES page under "New" items. Walter Carrither's OBITUARY: THE HODGSON REPORT will be published on the WWW in the next few days. Daniel H. Caldwell blafoun@azstarnet.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:00:13 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 02, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 6:46 AM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 02, 1999 > I've never found anyone who, in my mind, is > worthy enough for my adoration > Kym > What have I done? I am desolate! [sobs bitterly] 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: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:39:06 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 02, 1999 In a message dated 11/3/99 5:20:30 PM Central Standard Time, ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > > I've never found anyone who, in my mind, is > > worthy enough for my adoration > Does that include yourself? G.V.A From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:42:36 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: ISP addresses Hello, I may be physicist but that makes me no general all around smart. Why did I get the IBM Update page with a $90 deal when I clicked on the Blavatsky Archives? Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:06:48 -0800 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Facsimiles of Mahatma Letters in Coues' article I've changed the color of these Mahatma letters in order to make the reading somewhat easier. See what you think. http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/serapis1.jpg http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/serapis2.jpg Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:24:06 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Randy to Dallas carnivorism ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 1:58 PM > Subject: Randy to Dallas carnivorism Alan interrupts (nothing unusual there) > If I were > god- which I'm working on- > Randy Forget it. I already got there, and am preparng plans even as you read this. [Heheheheheheheheheheheh - in evil tones] Alan :0) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:03:36 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Theosilliness BELIEVE IT OR NOT! A UK Newspaper cutting from the Bristol Evening Post. A ONE-million word manuscript written by a Bristol artist is at the centre of a row after claims that it is possessed. Beverly Skinner had worked on the project for nearly 30 years until her death, aged 60, during the summer. Her son handed the manuscript to an organisation for safe-keeping after she died. But members now want it removed from their centre in Clifton because they believe it is surrounded by evil spirits. Mrs Skinner was one of Bristol's most controversial artists in the 1970s. She produced powerful paintings in support of Women's Lib, including one set which attracted a visit from Scotland Yard's obscene publications squad when it was shown in London. Mrs Skinner, who lived in Westbury Road, Henleaze, began the manuscript in 1970. It was called The Book of Paradise on Earth and was about people living in peace and harmony. She said it was being written on the instructions of a divine being who appeared to her in a dream. Her son, Cameron, 40, flew in from Pittsburgh and nursed his mother, who was suffering from cancer, during the last months of her life. While sorting through her belongings after her death last June he came across the manuscript, written on more than 10,000 sheets of paper. Mr Skinner said he contacted an organisation called the Theosophical Society to ask if it would look after the manuscript with a future view to having it published. The work was taken away by society members and is currently stored at its centre in Tyndall's Park Road. The society's aims include the study of comparative religions, philosophy and science. It also exists to investigate "unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man". Mr Skinner said: "I was told my mother was sympathetic to the ideals of the society and that it would look after the manuscript. I have since been approached by a member of the society, David Harvey, who came to see me to say the manuscript was haunted. He said there was an evil presence about it, which upset me very much. The implication was that it was something to do with my mother, but she never had an evil bone in her body. The society still has the manuscript and I am waiting to hear what will happen to it. Mrs Skinner's long-time friend, Poppy Green, of Belle Vue, Clifton, said: "One of the society's objectives is to examine the unexplained and I cannot believe that members have voted to remove it." Mr Harvey, from the society, said: "We were getting bad vibes from the manuscript. People who are psychically sensitive were concerned about what they were picking up from it. We are trying to find an alternative place for it to be stored. It may be that we have to return it to Mr Skinner." ..... more to follow. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:02:34 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Theosilliness In a message dated 99-11-03 20:05:33 EST, you write: << Mr Harvey, from the society, said: "We were getting bad vibes from the manuscript. People who are psychically sensitive were concerned about what they were picking up from it. We are trying to find an alternative place for it to be stored. It may be that we have to return it to Mr Skinner." >> Well, golly gee! Here I thought that only happened to people who read my stuff. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 00:10:37 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: RE: theos-l digest: November 02, 1999 Dallas is only one of the many who adore HPB for what she gave to the world at what personal sacrifice. Modern Theosophy that we have access to is due to her great sacrifice.=20 One cannot force anyone to adore anyone else. It seems to develop as time goes on and one sees the monumental contribution a person makes either to another person or to a cause which benefits humanity.=20 Let me add myself as one of those who carries the motto "Ingratitude is not one of our vices." even though I may not display the adoration of HPB as well as others may. mkr At 09:31 AM 11/03/1999 -0800, Dallas Wrote: Nov 3 Dear Kym: It isn't adoration, rather I would like to think it is a deep respect based on understanding. It is also a sense of very deep gratitude that I feel for HPB. If you read a good account of her life and work as for instance the one that Sylvia Cranston wrote recently (it is now in paperback) you may get an idea of her worth and work and sacrifice. From 1875 to 1891 (16 long years) she worked day and night. So we owe to her what we know of the vast roots of our past philosophies and religions and how they interacted when originally started. That alone entitles her to universal respect in my book. It would be of course quite wrong for me to rub people's noses in attributing what I write to her. to some her name is not pleasant to hear -- for their own reasons. But I cannot take to myself that which is lawfully hers to say. I am quite convinced that Theosophy is a coherent and useful system and anyone can use it if they are accurate, honest, and true to what they study. Unfortunately there are many who have taken Theosophical ideas and, so to speak, made them their own -- and in the process of spreading them about, they have distorted them. I try to avoid that. If I give "quotations" it is because I think that everyone has the right to go back to a source and verify for themselves the importance of what is to be found there. No more Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: kymsmith@micron.net [mailto:kymsmith@micron.net] > Date: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 10:46 PM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 02, 1999 Katinka wrote: No heresy, and you are not the only one, Dallas just comes across as rather more than usually Blavatsky-only-ish. Just don't mind that part of him (at least, I have learned to just not look at it, it gets to tiresome otherwise. Sorry Dallas - these are the facts) Dallas is used to being accused of being a fundie, I'm sure. He seems unmoved, though. A very stalwart gentleman. Sometimes, I wish I could find someone - a writer, philosopher, teacher - who I would be able to love as much as Dallas loves HPB. I often wonder what it feels like to respect someone that much - but, alas, I've never found anyone who, in my mind, is worthy enough for my adoration. Wonder what that makes me? (that's a rhetorical question, no one need answer it) Side note: I just saw the movie, The Matrix, last weekend. I was stunned at the Gnostic, Christian, and Eastern symbolism is contained. I wasn't particularly interested in seeing it, as I had heard little about the content, other than the great "special effects." This movie, though, was so much more than that. I don't expect a lengthy discussion on this subject, but I am curious whether anyone else saw it and what they thought. If this movie has been examined before on this list (it came out last year), then we need not engage in redundancy. But I wish someone had had the decency to tell me sooner! A bit too much violence, but the messages and questions the movie centered on was an unexpected treat for the mind. And why is it, currently, that the "good guys" wear black. It's definitely sexy, but I wonder why society changed the dress of "heroes" from white to now black. I've noticed it in Star Wars, the Matrix, and numerous other recent films. Maybe it is just the power that the color black imparts upon a person - I don't know. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 00:13:38 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: ISP addresses May be because Netscape provided free web space which is supported by advertisement revenues? At 06:42 PM 11/03/1999 EST, Hazarapet@aol.com wrote: Hello, I may be physicist but that makes me no general all around smart. Why did I get the IBM Update page with a $90 deal when I clicked on the Blavatsky Archives? Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 00:25:25 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Theosilliness Here is a possible explanation. Beverly Skinner's document could be genuinely inspired one which envisages an ideal society living at peace. Thought forms surrounding such a good ideal could be so powerful that those who are generally used to deal with day to day pettiness find themselves knocked off their feet and imagine that the influence is evil, because they do not understand. Those who are strong willed and emanate good vibes will never be affected by so called evil influences as the latter will take off in the presence of the good vibes. Do not we find many times what people preach and practice are entirely different? mkr At 01:03 AM 11/04/1999 -0000, ambain wrote: BELIEVE IT OR NOT! Beverly Skinner had worked on the project for nearly 30 years until her death, aged 60, during the summer. Her son handed the manuscript to an organisation for safe-keeping after she died. But members now want it removed from their centre in Clifton because they believe it is surrounded by evil spirits. It was called The Book of Paradise on Earth and was about people living in peace and harmony. She said it was being written on the instructions of a divine being who appeared to her in a dream. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 00:27:15 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Theosilliness Alan has just invented a new word which should be added to theosophical vocabulary. Any dictionarians lurking here? mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 23:32:46 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 03, 1999 Grigor writes: >What makes you think it is recent. Doctors of Philosophy in medieval >universites in Muslim, Orthodox, Roman Catholic coutries wore black, >Rennaissance doctors wore black, clergy wear black, Ninja wear black, nuns >wore black, jurists wore and wear black, Lakota winter eagle shamans wear >black/silver, .... First of all, the people you name above are not what the general public consideres action "heroes" in films. Except maybe Ninjas - but they are often portrayed as the "bad guys" or extremely violent "good guys." When is the last time you saw a black frocked philosopher, priest, nun, judge, or shaman as the leading heroic character in a movie meant to please the general public? I can't recall any right now. In films of the past, the "bad guy" usually wore a dark color, but Superman, Wonderwoman, the Lone Ranger, angels, God, Jesus, and the like are garbed in either in strong primary colors or white. I'm not saying it's ALWAYS that way, but Hollywood, which reaches the "masses" (whether we like it or not), usually matched the character to color. It's been relatively consistent throughout history - angels are white and demons are black. The Devil gives off a reddish-black glow and God gives off the much talked about "brilliant white light." There may be nothing behind the change in movie-making or it may be that I am oversimplifying, but I, the mighty I, think it is a wee intriguing. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:55:52 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Randy to Dallas/carnivorism Dallas TenBroeck" wrote: > When questions arise that relate to Theosophy I try to put what I > have learned from her teachings before those who question. Yes, I know, but when instead of answering a question you asume that someone has read or should imediately read the Key to Theosophy, it just does not always fall right. There are so many books and we cannot judge whether or not Randy is served best by reading the Key to Theosophy, or if not. You tend to come across a bit more dogmatically than is usually pleasant. > If one desires to know what Theosophy has to say, they do not > need the filters of others' views -- which admittedly seem to > satisfy their selectivity. That cannot be helped, or altered. But those filters are also simply our tries at understanding. Very often it is easier to turn to the explanations of people who can respond to exactly the question, than it is to read all of Blavatsky hoping that the answer is in there somewhere. Though I do agree that on many questions she give important stimulation for thought, I am always the first to know and acknowledge (spelling?) that different books are best for different people. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:49:42 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 03, 1999 In a message dated 11/4/99 12:32:14 AM Central Standard Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > First of all, the people you name above are not what the general public > consideres action "heroes" in films. And who is the general public? Is your definition of general public such that only those who watch American films are considered the general public? If so, how very ethnocentric. > In films of the past, the "bad guy" usually wore a dark color, I see you assume Hollywood is the [film] universe. In the Soviet films of the past, good guys and bad guys were distinguished by camera angle. The good guys were shot at a lower angle looking up at them, making them look like soviet workers posters, while bad guys were shot slightly from above to look small and petty. So, the world at large, even movies, is not as your Hollywood matrix tells you. > It's been relatively consistent throughout history - angels are white and > demons are black. The Devil gives off a reddish-black glow and God gives > off the much talked about "brilliant white light." Now you generalize, again, about history from the matrix of your Hollywood experience, which is what I was originally responding to. In Taoism, the demons are white or yellow and the powerful immortals or gods are a very bright fire engine red or dark redish brown (like a glowing coal). In west Africa, demons are white and gods are black. In eastern Africa, Ethiopian/Somalia/Kenya/Sudan, ghosts/demons are white and gods/heroes are black or almost a glowing krishna blue. In south India, most depictions of demonic asuras have them white while the gods are blue/black. In the northern Vaisnavite cult, the god and hero, and the avatar Krsna, is black or dark blue (although Krsna means black) while the demons and Rakshasas are pale white. And in Indian movies, that is how good guys and bad guys are depicted. In Armenia, Georgia, and some isolated parts of the Caucasus where one can still find the pre-Zoroastrian and pre-Christian Ossets, demons were a sickly pale grey or white and gods/heroes were red or green or golden. And the demons of Iran, Zoroastrian or Muslim, are all sorts of colors, whereas jinas are black or blue and ambivalently neutral, while the forces of good are golden or emerald green. Emerald Green is the light of Kibr, the column of light from God on down to new initiates of Naqshibandhi Sufism, the color of the seven keshvar holders of the world's spiritual cardinal points, and the color of those one by blood or spirit with Mohammed. And such is the canonical style in middle eastern movies. And since places like San Francisco, LA Seattle, NYC, Boston, Atlanta, Nashville, Chicago, and so on have large emigre populations from these countries, there are theatres and video stores for them. Or are you saying the general public is the WASP American public found outside major cosmopolitan metroplexes? Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:05:33 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 03, 1999/PS PS. Most of the nomadic peoples of Central Asia still seem to have a burial practice that goes back to Neolithic times, the "good" guys are buried with red ochre and the "bad" guys with grey ash or chalk. G.V.A. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:34:14 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Randy to Dallas/carnivorism Nov 4th Dear Katinka: If anyone desires to confute Theosophy it is wise to offer more than opinions or sentiments. As I see it, Theosophy is anything but sentimental. Like Nature which we all live in it speaks of "principles" which anyone can verify, after testing. In that Science resembles it, But Theosophy covers a far wider horizon than any one of the mane departments of analytical science does. I do not try to be dogmatic, but only to present for consideration that which THEOSOPHY offers us to look into -- a "point of view." How anyone may receive such contributions is their affair, as is their opinion. After all, this is a Theosophical discussion group? HPB (as well as anyone else) might as well be given her chance to speak as well as anyone else can -- if someone cars to quote them exactly to demonstrate a point of importance. Let us then consider : -- what are the points, if any, of philosophical difference? There is difference to be sensed between "belief" and "faith." Perhaps "belief" is very rigid and dogmatic." Whereas "faith" is constantly renewed and adjusted through questioning. One is static and the other is dynamic. The first indicates a closed mind, the second indicates an open mind seeking for the Truth of things. Best wishes, 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 -----Original Message----- > From: hesse600 [mailto:hesse600@tem.nhl.nl] > Date: Thursday, November 04, 1999 4:56 AM > Subject: Re: Randy to Dallas/carnivorism Dallas TenBroeck" wrote: > When questions arise that relate to Theosophy I try to put what I > have learned from her teachings before those who question. Yes, I know, but when instead of answering a question you asume that someone has read or should imediately read the Key to Theosophy, it just does not always fall right. There are so many books and we cannot judge whether or not Randy is served best by reading the Key to Theosophy, or if not. You tend to come across a bit more dogmatically than is usually pleasant. > If one desires to know what Theosophy has to say, they do not > need the filters of others' views -- which admittedly seem to > satisfy their selectivity. That cannot be helped, or altered. But those filters are also simply our tries at understanding. Very often it is easier to turn to the explanations of people who can respond to exactly the question, than it is to read all of Blavatsky hoping that the answer is in there somewhere. Though I do agree that on many questions she give important stimulation for thought, I am always the first to know and acknowledge (spelling?) that different books are best for different people. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:43:36 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 03, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Thursday, November 04, 1999 6:32 AM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 03, 1999> > The Devil gives off a reddish-black glow and God gives > off the much talked about "brilliant white light." > > Kym > "It's something Gabriel keeps putting in my food." God. [signed] "It's something Gabriel keeps putting in my food." The Devil [signed] http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:49:58 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Godd guys. bad guys and demons Woe! Woe! It is getting so that we demons just don't know WHAT to wear any more. Curse the Internet, we say! (Depending on the moon's phases). ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Thursday, November 04, 1999 1:49 PM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 03, 1999 > In a message dated 11/4/99 12:32:14 AM Central Standard Time, > kymsmith@micron.net writes: > > > First of all, the people you name above are not what the general public > > consideres action "heroes" in films. > > And who is the general public? Is your definition of general public such that > only those who watch American films are considered the general public? If so, > how very ethnocentric. > > In Taoism, the > demons are white or yellow and the powerful immortals or gods are a very > bright fire > engine red or dark redish brown (like a glowing coal). In west Africa, demons > are white and gods are black. In eastern Africa, > Ethiopian/Somalia/Kenya/Sudan, > ghosts/demons are white and gods/heroes are black or almost a glowing > krishna blue. In south India, most depictions of demonic asuras have > them white while the gods are blue/black. In the northern Vaisnavite cult, > the god and hero, and the avatar Krsna, is black or dark blue (although > Krsna means black) while the demons and Rakshasas are pale white. > And in Indian movies, that is how good guys and bad guys are depicted. > > In Armenia, Georgia, and some isolated parts of the Caucasus where > one can still find the pre-Zoroastrian and pre-Christian Ossets, demons > were a sickly pale grey or white and gods/heroes were red or green or > golden. And the demons of Iran, Zoroastrian or Muslim, are all sorts > of colors, whereas jinas are black or blue and ambivalently neutral, > while the forces of good are golden or emerald green. Emerald Green > is the light of Kibr, the column of light from God on down to new > initiates of Naqshibandhi Sufism, the color of the seven keshvar holders > of the world's spiritual cardinal points, and the color of those one > by blood or spirit with Mohammed > Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 22:41:17 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Godd guys. bad guys and demons In a message dated 11/4/99 8:33:26 PM Central Standard Time, ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > > Woe! Woe! It is getting so that we demons just don't know WHAT to wear > any more. > Thought you literally ran around naked/invisible or ran for office? Tis rumored that PM Thatcher wore saints' guts for garters and had late night rites to summon the shade of Mary the Scot using Anglican priests' scalps as, well, that's another story....G.V.A. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:09:46 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 04, 1999 Grigor wrote: >And who is the general public? Is your definition of general public such that >only those who watch American films are considered the general public? If so, >how very ethnocentric. Oh, please! Yes, ok, Grigor - I'm talking about the American public. Since I do not live in multiple countries, I cannot speak for what residents of other countries may enjoy. It doesn't matter, though, really, as American films are very popular in many countries besides America. The Matrix made the biggest profit in Japan, from what I hear. Anyway, now that I have provided you an opportunity to flex your muscle-knowledge regarding every color of every demon that has ever existed, let's just close the subject by acknowledging your brilliance and my "ethnocentricity." Okey dokey? That means "all right?" in American. Titanic, Grigor? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 08:51:28 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 04, 1999 In a message dated 11/5/99 1:09:14 AM Central Standard Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > every color of every demon that has ever > existed Well, notice that it is mostly the gods that vary. Demons tend to uniformedly be white. Hmmm.... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:28:40 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Responses to Katinta >>I am a bit confused here. What gods and goddesses does the modern TS give? I have not come across it (and I am an active member). << Katinka, the SD is full of Manus, Cosmocratores, Rishis, Builders, Solar and Lunar Pitris, and so on and on, all names (Hindu, I think) given to various hierarchies of creators. I can't think of any feminine creative Beings in the SD off hand, but surely each of these creative beings can be divided sexually. Even HPB mentions Kundalini, the feminine creative force/energy who impells evolution. >>Yes, but the creativity of the monad (which is us, I think?) is still active, isn't it? Katinka >> Here we are in an area where words simply fail. "Creativity" by definition is an action through time, and our divine Monad is outside of time and needs no evolution (it is, by definition, already perfect)and so to say that the Monad is creative is a paradox. I find paradoxes like this a lot when trying to use words to describe spirituality. I think you will find that ALL models that try to describe the universe and how it came into being will have this problem - even the Big Bang Model! Steven Hawking's No-Boundary Model is an attempt to get around this and is somewhat comparable to HPB's Great Breath Model, but neither can answer the all-consuming question of why? >>The way I understand it, and the way it has been explained to me, (so I am copying the idea's of TS-Adyar-The Netherlands here - or at least of a majority of *us*) is that freedom from karma, for the Jivamukti means that he/she is no more attached to the karma, so that that specific Ego is no longer attracted to the results of the action. But the action still has results, so that another jivamukti may have to bear the results.>> This is pretty much how I understand it too. The jivamukti is no longer associated with any personal karma -- but still is under collective karma so long as they are alive in a physical body. A jivamukti still must breathe and eat and sleep/rest, and will still bleed if cut, and will someday die like everyone else. >>No heresy, and you are not the only one, Dallas just comes across as rather more than usually Blavatsky-only-ish. Just don't mind that part of him (at least, I have learned to just not look at it, it gets to tiresome otherwise. Sorry Dallas - these are the facts)>> Dallas is a Theosophical purist. He uses what we can call the Blavatsky Model as close as anyone I have ever seen. He deliberately stays within its definitions and seldom, if ever, ventures outside. That's OK. We all have to have some kind of model in order to cope with life. I tried to live within it myself, and found that I just couldn't do it. So, I expanded into my own model (alias worldview) a bit. As long as Dallas is happy with the Blavatsky Model, I say he should stick with it. Besides, this gives me a real nice Theosophical yardstick that I can use to measure other models against. However, I also find myself skipping many of his postings just because they seem so tiresome (after all, I can just read Blavatsky directly whenever I want to), but his postings are probably a good read for most newbies. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:05:10 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Responses to Katinta In a message dated 11/5/99 1:28:04 PM Central Standard Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > I can't think of any feminine creative Beings in > the SD off hand First Stanza of Dyzan. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 20:24:44 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Power of Internet Internet is the medium of immediate distribution of information. When Jude Penfield Jackson released his finding of fact on Microsoft Antitrust case, within the hour the full text of 200+ pages were available for download and read from various sites on the Internet including the GPO website, even though GPO also sells print version for $25.00. What this demonstrates is that Internet is the default medium of choice. Theosophical organizations are still in the stone age; may be they are mimicking the days when paper medium and traditional postal service was the king (many of the letters to APSinnett were precipitated on paper and were sent by Registered Post). Anyone from the organizations lurking here??? Hope that during their daily meditations, one of these days they will discover Internet and its power as a medium of communication. In the meanwhile all we can do is to pray that to happen soon in the best interests of Humanity. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:14:08 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Godd guys. bad guys and demons ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Friday, November 05, 1999 3:41 AM > Subject: Re: Godd guys. bad guys and demons > In a message dated 11/4/99 8:33:26 PM Central Standard Time, > ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > > > Woe! Woe! It is getting so that we demons just don't know WHAT to wear > > any more. > > > Thought you literally ran around naked/invisible or > ran for office? Tis rumored that PM Thatcher wore > saints' guts for garters and had late night rites to > summon the shade of Mary the Scot using > Anglican priests' scalps as, well, that's another > story....G.V.A. > [Sounds of demonicrage] - Who told you? WHO TOLD YOU! We will get them, you may be sure! Chief Demon. (Satan is on Vacation in Wheaton, Illinois). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:17:45 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Godd guys. bad guys and demons In a message dated 11/5/99 9:01:30 PM Central Standard Time, ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > Satan is on Vacation in Wheaton, Illinois). > Funny, I heard he was a guest of Bill Gates since his birthday on Tuesday.G.V.A From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:27:25 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Godd guys. bad guys and demons In a message dated 11/5/99 9:01:30 PM Central Standard Time, ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > Chief Demon. > Then there is the Zoroastrian argument. Out of the total power of the universe, if it was all good, there would be no evil, there is evil so either the good power of the universe is either not singlely the total power or the single total power is not all good. But if it was all evil, there would be no good, there is good so either the evil power of the universe is either not singlely the total power or the single total power is not all evil. Since, per contra, a single item cannot have contrary properties at the same time in the same respect (i.e. a colored object cannot simultaneously be red all over and green all over at the same time), the good power and the evil power cannot be a single power. QED The total power of the universe is the sum of a good power and a evil power. Corollary: dualism is true. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:00:59 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Feminine Creative Deities >> I can't think of any feminine creative Beings in >> the SD off hand >First Stanza of Dyzan. Grigor This applies to highest planes above Abyss. I was really referring to feminine creative deities below the Abyss, which is to say on the lower four cosmic planes that include HPB's seven Globes. Let me know if you find some. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:56:46 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Dyzan, Dzan, chan and Tarim HPB, in defending drawing upon a book (Stanzas) that she knows the existence of which she will be accused of making up in the Introductory of SD, makes a number of unusually indicative remarks. First, she gives, as variants, of Dyzan, dzan and Chan. This is significant on the hypothesis that the esoteric philosophy discovered by her was indeed Bon Dzog chen. She is discussing the inter-related meanings of "budhism," "Buddhism," "bodhi" (note she calls it the "divine conscience" - this is the phrase Central Asian Dzog chen practitioners, under Zoroastrian influence, call the Buddha seed.), and "buddhi." Much later, returning to the criticisms made of the book Esoteric Buddhism, where she once again says it should have been "budhism," she also says it is an esoteric lamaism that IS NOT the Buddhism of Gautama, even though some Tibetan Buddhist claim that they are this esoteric lamaism (SD vol. 539). This points to Bon. Anyway, in the Introductory, she identifies the terms "dhyan," "dzan," "dyzan," and "chan." This is a significant identification. "Dhyana" is meditation. The Central Asian Iranian Kushan word would be "dzan." But there has been much recent interest in whether Chan Buddhism (otherwise known as Zen Buddhism) isn't a "stream-lined" offshoot of Dzog chen (for discussions of this, see Namkhai Norbu, Dzog chen and Chan, and in his commentary in John Reynold's book, Golden Letters). Second, HPB keeps making references to the Tarim Basin. This area is a new archeological treasure-trove. The westernmost extreme of this basin ends up on the road to Shamis en Balkh (modern day Balkh and the original Shambhallah) along the old Silk Route, in the center is a series of seven lost cities around what is called the Turfan oasis, and in the eastern edge Tun huang. There are buried libraries and whole cities throughout the region. Excavation of them began in 1910 and has proceeded slowly. Here we have pulled out gnostic texts, Manichaean texts, Nestorian Christian texts, Zoroastrian texts, Taoist texts, and Buddhist texts. The find is already bigger than Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea combined. Just like we find in the Nag Hammadi tests a situation where pre-Christian gnostic texts are being converted into Christian gnostic texts, so we find Manichaean texts being converted into Taoist and Buddhist texts, Buudhist texts being translated into Iranian and Aramaic out of which Chinese and Turkish translations are made. Significantly, at Tun huang, sealed caves were found that have pulled out a lot of Dzog chen texts. This find has two implications. First, contrary to scholarly opinion up to the time of these finds, Dzog chen is immensely older (as Bon and Nyingmapas have claimed) than either the rival Gelukpas or modern scholars were willing to accept. Second, since Tun huang also contained Taoist texts, it is reasonable to surmise that Zen/Chan is an offshoot of an earlier form of Central Asia Dzog chen than found in the Tibetan Nyingmapa tradition (which only dates from the ninth century when Buddhism began to enter Tibet.). In any event, HPB, in defending herself in advance of the accusation that she is quoting from a "mythical book," namely the Stanzas, in giving these equivalents, in distinguishing esoteric lamaism from Buddhism (even Buddhism in Tibet), and in referring repeatedly, as if pointing, to what might be found in the Tarim Basin, also seems to be providing definite clues that her source is Bon Dzog chen. Since she also says (1) her budhism is the same as the Vedic and since (2) it is Bon that has been accused of being a Hindu import because it has a "soul doctrine" that looks heretical to the orthodox Buddhist schools that teach no-self and since she (3) contrasted her esoteric lamaism from orthodox Buddhism of both northern and southern schools and (4) since Bon claim that their religion and founding guru came from the Persian empire and was Persian, this is further four bits of evidence that her source was the Bon Dzog chen. G.V.A From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:17:06 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Dyzan, Dzan, chan and TarimPS I forgot two other bits of evidence. Item One. As mentioned before, both HPB's Stanzas of Dyzan and the probable section of the larger and esoteric Kanjur that both the Bon and Nyingmapas have, in contrast to the other Tibetan Buddhist schools, has a Motherly Buddha or Mother as the Supreme Source. The Dzog chen texts recovered from Tun huang also have this motif. Item Two: an Iranian fragment of a Dzog chen text from this region is called "zan-akasih." Regionally, like D-zog, c-han, T-sar, or c-zar, the first letter is an unvoiced way of pronouncing the next letter hard. So, hard zog chen, hard zar. Zan-akasih, with pronouncement marks, since it is a hard z, would be dzan-akasih. Literally, zan- akasih means the "book and commentary." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:36:06 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Dyzan, Dzan, chan and TarimPS Nov 6th Dear Friend: Please do not feel that I am being curt or neglectful of your excellent scholarship, but when you consider the whole of what Mme. Blavatsky presented, then this is only a very small part of a philosophy that has the whole world as a base and further, is also a continuation of the ancient wisdom of the remote past, fragments of which have come down to us in such MSS and other relics as are available. Theosophy is not a patch work of material collected and somehow made into a "collage," or, the semblance of a philosophy, or even an attempt of filling some gaps in the pre-history of the ancient world. It is a part of the records of the work of an ancient school of Adepts and their pupils and is presented as such. Therefore such variances as you notice are probably more in the nature of corroboration than anything else. If you have a copy of THE SECRET DOCTRINE (Original Edition) you will find in vol. 1, pp 272-3 a brief account of the "ancient source" of Theosophy. Many thanks for your most interesting contributions. With best wishes, Dallas Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D -----Original Message----- > From: Hazarapet@aol.com [mailto:Hazarapet@aol.com] > Date: Saturday, November 06, 1999 2:17 PM > Subject: Re: Dyzan, Dzan, chan and TarimPS I forgot two other bits of evidence. Item One. As mentioned before, both HPB's Stanzas of Dyzan and the probable section of the larger and esoteric Kanjur that both the Bon and Nyingmapas have, in contrast to the other Tibetan Buddhist schools, has a Motherly Buddha or Mother as the Supreme Source. The Dzog chen texts recovered from Tun huang also have this motif. Item Two: an Iranian fragment of a Dzog chen text from this region is called "zan-akasih." Regionally, like D-zog, c-han, T-sar, or c-zar, the first letter is an unvoiced way of pronouncing the next letter hard. So, hard zog chen, hard zar. Zan-akasih, with pronouncement marks, since it is a hard z, would be dzan-akasih. Literally, zan- akasih means the "book and commentary." --- 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, 6 Nov 1999 23:39:53 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Godd guys. bad guys and demons ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Saturday, November 06, 1999 3:27 PM > Subject: Re: Godd guys. bad guys and demons > a colored object cannot > simultaneously be red all over and green all over at the same time Wrong. Green is the complementary color of red, so that when we see red, we see green simultaneously. At the physical level, our physical eyes see only red, but the green is as equally present, including shades of red/green. NQED? Bather blather blather ...... Alan :-\ http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 23:42:00 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Feminine Creative Deities Ahem. There are, by definition, NO creative Beings below the Abyss. Alan ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Saturday, November 06, 1999 8:00 PM > Subject: Feminine Creative Deities > >> I can't think of any feminine creative Beings in > >> the SD off hand > >First Stanza of Dyzan. Grigor > > This applies to highest planes above Abyss. I was > really referring to feminine creative deities below the > Abyss, which is to say on the lower four cosmic > planes that include HPB's seven Globes. Let me > know if you find some. > > Jerry S. > > > > --- > 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: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 23:50:11 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Dyzan, Dzan, chan and Tarim ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Saturday, November 06, 1999 9:56 PM > Subject: Dyzan, Dzan, chan and Tarim > Here we have > pulled out gnostic texts, Manichaean texts, Nestorian Christian texts, > Zoroastrian texts, Taoist texts, and Buddhist texts. The find is already > bigger than Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea combined. Just like we find in the Nag > Hammadi tests a situation where pre-Christian gnostic texts are being > converted into Christian gnostic texts, so we find Manichaean texts being > converted into Taoist and Buddhist texts, Buudhist texts being translated > into Iranian and Aramaic out of which Chinese and Turkish translations are > made Fascinating. Are there any English translations available of any of the Nestorian Christian texts? Or indeed any works in English on this research in general (not just the Nestorian textx)? Any information gratefully received. Alan ambain@ambain.screaming.net http://members.tripod.co.uk/ambain/SaintJust.HTM/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 21:33:17 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Feminine Creative Deities > There are, by definition, NO creative Beings below the Abyss. You know, with all its problems, one of the truly delightful things about theos-l is that fact that someone can make an offhand statement like this, and reasonably assume that at least some part of the audience will actually know what the hell they are talking about. (-:), -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 02:22:00 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Feminine Creative Deities Nov 7th Dear JRC: One need only open the SD and use the INDEX (not that at the end of the book which is too brief) but one of the good ones like the one that ULT publishes or the TS in Pasadena. With that in hand one need only review the many references that are noted there, and be assured that every one who is a Human being endowed with emotions and with MIND is momentarily, all the time, creating. Their own future is created as they choose. The future of their surroundings is always participated actively in, but their choices. Finally the great Buddhas and Dhyanis are not "dead and gone." But they remain at their posts as creative actors so long as the MANVANTARA of evolutionary progress is active. The whole is karma. The "abyss" is only a concept that separates the manifested (where we now are as minds) and the non-manifested, which is the ever unknowable and eternal background which in theosophy is called the ABSOLUTE, or Parabrahm. [ See SD I pp 14 to 19 ] Our own reflections ought to make this quite clear to us, regardless of any silly or careless statements. All of us are able to read and think independently, what else is creativity? Dallas Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: JRC [mailto:jrc@texas.net] > Date: Saturday, November 06, 1999 7:33 PM > Subject: Re: Feminine Creative Deities > There are, by definition, NO creative Beings below the Abyss. You know, with all its problems, one of the truly delightful things about theos-l is that fact that someone can make an offhand statement like this, and reasonably assume that at least some part of the audience will actually know what the hell they are talking about. (-:), -JRC --- 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: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 09:36:04 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Sources on Tarim/was Dyzan, Dzan, chan and Tarim In a message dated 11/6/99 9:29:41 PM Central Standard Time, ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > Fascinating. Are there any English translations available of any of the > Nestorian Christian texts? Or indeed any works in English on this > research in general (not just the Nestorian textx)? > > Any information gratefully received. > > Alan I divide the list into works the discuss the Tarim finds and works that have published a portion of them. 1.David Snellgrove, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, 2 vols. discusses the Tarim/Turfan oasis finds as well as Central Asian Buddhism and the discovery of Dzog chen texts at Tun Huang as well as Dzog chen Bon and Nyingmapa originally being the same movement. 2.Tucci, Religions of Tibet, discusses the finds of the Tarim Basin, the Zoroastrian influence upon Central Asian and Tibetan Buddhism and Bon and finds of Tun huang. 3. John Reynolds and Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, The Golden Letters, discuss the Tarim finds as well as the Tun huang finds of Dzog chen texts as "rewriting Tibetan Buddhist history" in favor of Bon and Nyingmapa claims that they and Dzog chen are an earlier and authentic transmission from Central Asia and not just a later fabrication, supported by fake "Terma" finds, along with connections between Dzog chen and Chan. 4. Thomas Mether, The Letters of Evans Wentz, Blavatsky, and the Tarim Basin, a conference paper/ AAR Pacific Division which discusses Central Asian Buddhism, Dzog chen, and that an unpublished letter of Evans Wentz identifies the finds of Dzog chen texts at Tun huang as (1) substantiating the claim of both Bon and Nyingmapas to have an earlier Central Asian and Persian transmission and (2) going a long way to substantiating historically the claims HPB makes about her sources. 5. Julian Pas and Nam Kam Leung, Historical Dictionary of Taoism, where the Taoist finds of the Tarim Basin as well as Tun huang are repeatedly mentioned in the context of dictionary entries on other topics including the view that The Secret of the Golden Flower is originally a Persian Dzog chen or a Nestorian Christian Dzog chen text (there appears to have been a lot of ecumenism in these cities). Earlier, in an earlier translation, Wilhelm argued that it was a Manichaean or Nestorian text but had no proof. Now it points to either a Persian or Nestorian form of Dzog chen. 6. Eva Wong, The Shambhalla Guide to Taoism, discusses the Taoist finds of the Tarim Basin as well as Tun huang. 7. Stephen Bokenkamp, Early Daoist Scriptures, discusses and publishes some of the lost but now recovered Taoist texts from Tarim Basin and Tun huang as well as describing some of the art and contents of the underground grottos there. 8. Mary Boyce, Catalogue of the Iranian Texts in Manichaean Script from the Turfan Oasis, lists some of the Manichaean texts recovered as well as offering a brief discription of the underground libraries where they were found as part of standard archeological cataloging. 9. Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, second edition, does not discuss, much, the finds of Tarim but re-writes his chapter on Manichaeanism as a result of finds while adding to his Bibliography the then available works recovered there. 11. First International Conference on Manichaeanism, Manichaean Studies: Proceedings. Different discussions of the significance of the Tarim finds plus one paper by a Lin Wushu on a Manichaean text "Compedium of the Teachings of Mani" being the same text as a Central Asian/western Chinese Buddhist text titled The Buddha of Light. 12. Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis, is a comprehensive account of Gnosticism in west and east, where he discusses the finds of the Tarim Basin, the recovered texts, as well as recovered art along with pictures of art and ruins of temples and monasteries. 13. Burkitt, The Religion of the Manichees, while too early to have the Tarim finds have much impact, they are mentioned and briefly discussed. 14. Society of Biblical Languages of American Academy of Religion, The Autobiography of Mani: literally "why do I have a Body" this is the long lost autobiography of Mani recovered from Tarim and published by Scholars Press. 15. Jes Asmussen, Manichaean Literature, translation of selected Manichaean Texts actually recovered from Tarim. 16. Hans Joachim Klimkeit, Gnosis on the Silk Road, a fairly complete discussion of the finds of the Tarim Basin, with maps and photos, as well as translations of Manichaean texts. These books, along with the bibliographies to follow up on, should give you a good start on what has been found there and the scale of it. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 09:48:53 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Dyzan, Dzan, chan and TarimPS In a message dated 11/6/99 5:43:51 PM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > Theosophy is not a patch work of material collected and somehow > made into a "collage," I never claimed it was. But if you are doing historical detective work, you end up with a patch work of material because of the vagaries of history. What we find is the debris of whathas not been destroyed in the past. The claim was that HPB's esoteric source was most likely Dzog chen, which claims to be a buddhism older than Gautama's Buddhism. Dzog chen is not a syncretistic mixture of mutually alien elements. Yet, digging up its history may give the appearance of that because of the nature of the flotsam and debris washed up of buried on the shore of the present that constitutes the physical evidence and residue of the past. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:21:41 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Dyzan, Dzan, chan and TarimPS Nov 7th Dear Grigor I appreciate the difference you indicate. To make myself clearer (at least to myself) let me say that you probably will never find all the evidence in objective artifacts or relics that will enable you to confirm every least detail of what HPB and Theosophy teach. They are simply not available physically. And as I look over the ever increasing numebr of commentaries and translations or texts as now emerge I can sense where many key statements have been altered by or changed by sectarians. We simply do not have access to the secret libraries of the Occult Fraternity of which HPB speaks so often with utter clarity and confidence in their actuality. To modern physical based scholarship this will mean nothing except, perhaps increased skepticism and derision. They can find nothing to prove that what she says is either correct or incorrect. Also, their inner perception along the lines of the HEART-DOCTRINE not being developed, they cannot even intellectually confirm the exactitude, or the reverse, of what she says. It remains a mystery, also a puzzle, and possibly it may be true. those who desire to arrive at a closure arbitrarily, will reject in derision what she says, but, later may find their conclusions quite premature. The future will tell. I would however recommend a most careful reading of SD and ISIS with a view to at least secure some view of the possibilities of the esoteric information that she places before us. The whole and not the minutiae ought to be considered. It is written as a synthesis, that resolves the differences of many analyses. As I think of it, I would put it in this way: The starting point is to look at ourselves as eternal pilgrims, as on going minds and eternally learning in many bodies in succession -- reincarnation and karma being facts to consider. The next is the concept that this is essentially a moral universe and that fairness and justice rules. But what I have just written is outside the rules of dry and dusty academic consideration as those can only be apprehended in the depths of one's own private consideration. It is really unfair to say this, as it seems almost as though one is accusing ones' correspondent with some lack, and that is certainly not my intention. I would rather like to place it in another light: To one who is groping in the dark the lighting of a candle is of assistance. If what I write ,lights such a candle, then my purpose in writing and noticing your good work is served. best wishes to you, Dallas PS May I add ? But to a trained metaphysician who would probe all the data available from the "EYE-DOCTRINES" the work so far is only a part of the evidence, the "HEART DOCTRINE" emerges. from them, but is never entirely contained by all of them. The "HEART-DOCTRINE is essentially synthetic and creative, not destructive, critical or analytical. 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 -----Original Message----- > From: Hazarapet@aol.com [mailto:Hazarapet@aol.com] > Date: Sunday, November 07, 1999 6:49 AM > Subject: Re: Dyzan, Dzan, chan and TarimPS In a message dated 11/6/99 5:43:51 PM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > Theosophy is not a patch work of material collected and somehow > made into a "collage," I never claimed it was. But if you are doing historical detective work, you end up with a patch work of material because of the vagaries of history. What we find is the debris of whathas not been destroyed in the past. The claim was that HPB's esoteric source was most likely Dzog chen, which claims to be a buddhism older than Gautama's Buddhism. Dzog chen is not a syncretistic mixture of mutually alien elements. Yet, digging up its history may give the appearance of that because of the nature of the flotsam and debris washed up of buried on the shore of the present that constitutes the physical evidence and residue of the past. Grigor --- 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: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:56:03 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Feminine Creative Deities ----- Original Message ----- > From: JRC > Date: Sunday, November 07, 1999 3:33 AM > Subject: Re: Feminine Creative Deities > > There are, by definition, NO creative Beings below the Abyss. > > You know, with all its problems, one of the truly delightful things about > theos-l is that fact that someone can make an offhand statement like this, > and reasonably assume that at least some part of the audience will actually > know what the hell they are talking about. > > (-:), -JRC > Fun. isn't it! [Chuckles happily] Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:59:14 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Feminine Creative Deities ----- Original Message ----- > From: W. Dallas TenBroeck > Date: Sunday, November 07, 1999 10:22 AM > Subject: RE: Feminine Creative Deities > Nov 7th > > Dear JRC: > > One need only open the SD and use the INDEX (not that at the end > of the book which is too brief) but one of the good ones like the > one that ULT publishes or the TS in Pasadena. With that in hand > one need only review the many references that are noted there, > and be assured that every one who is a Human being endowed with > emotions and with MIND is momentarily, all the time, creating. > Dear Dallas, I suspect, with your LIMITED resources - or at least that's how they appear - that you do not know what JRC and I are talking about, which has nothing to do with the SD model ...... sigh..... Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 22:39:05 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Feminine Creative Deities > which has nothing to do with the SD model ...... Ah ... yes. In fact, I've found the TS model to be ornately, even embarressingly intellectual - but perhaps its main purpose is to train the mind , to force it to wrestle with concepts that are open ended ... in fact to spark the development of the "formless" aspects of intellect (to use the TS model itself). But so far as practical models that - for me - resonated far more deeply, and at much more than simply an intellectual level, the Kabalah kicks spiritual butt (as it were). I remember the exact *moment* - in my early 20's, when I stumbled across that single sentence in Dion Fortune's classic: "God is Pressure" And in a single moment of lucidity, induced by that sentence, caught a glimpse of the entire scheme behind all the models ... *felt* in the core of my bones the continual flow of energy from the heart of the Ain Soph Aur, down into fully manifested physical matter, and its torturous climb back upwards - felt the single process that was at once universal and personal. For another decade or so I was pretty intense about trying to find models that would even hint at articulating everything that was contained in that moment ... and certainly Theosophy was part of that quest (come now Alan, don't you recognize precisely where Dallas is? ... did you not at one time yourself experience the deep pleasure he gets from writing everything he writes? of *course* virtually no one reads any more than the first couple of sentences those tomes ... but did you not at one point in your life also write *to digest*? (-:)). Ultimately though, all models are things to master and discard. The final and highest act of magic will always be to toss all magic in the wastebasket. The map is not the mountain, and deep study of the lines of the map is not the same thing as the actual climbing of the mountain. But the people that study the maps *do* stand a chance of one day getting bored and deciding to find the trailhead (which may, after all, be what the adepts were aiming at anyway). Omar Khayyam is priceless: "Myself when young, did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, about it and about, but evermore, came out by the same door as in I went ..." Or, as the infamous Richard Nixon (who would have thought *he* was a master har har har) put it even more succinctly, "It don't mean nothin' 'till you prove it all night ...". Alan Bain, you nasty old English wizard, don't be mean to the poor apprentice! You, who have passed what is now widely recognized amongst masters as being the final initiation below the Abyss - i.e., disturbing the official TS leadership badly enough ... by having the balls to actually try to put theosophy into *practice* with TI ... to be demeaned and lied about and banished from the Society (an initiation that, despite my best efforts, I still have not yet quite been able to achieve har har har har har har) ... come come ... use your secret decoder ring to look a bit into the future for goodness sake! Can't you see the moment, probably not too far down the road, when Dallas, in a paradoxical moment of spiritually pure cognitive dissonance (tee hee) is going to suddenly *see* what he's been doing? And will start laughing and laughing and laughing and laughing and laughing and laughing ..................................... -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:20:25 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 03, 1999 On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 08:49:42 EST Hazarapet@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/4/99 12:32:14 AM Central Standard Time, > kymsmith@micron.net writes: > > > First of all, the people you name above are not what the general public > > consideres action "heroes" in films. > > And who is the general public? Is your definition of general public such that > only those who watch American films are considered the general public? If so, > how very ethnocentric. Thank you very much for all the examples. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:32:58 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: dogmatism ? Hi Dallas, > Dear Katinka: > > If anyone desires to confute Theosophy it is wise to offer more > than opinions or sentiments. > As I see it, Theosophy is anything but sentimental. I agree, all I am trying to say is that to reach someone, it is more effective to give a personal view, instead of referring to books, but you reacted well to Randy's frustration that there is so much to read (and he has a point, as you well know), so I am not really in opposition to you. All I am saying is that their are different ways of presenting yourself and your viewpoints, and that some are more effective than others. > Like Nature which we all live in it speaks of "principles" which > anyone can verify, after testing. Yes, but simple explaining is also usefull, sometimes. > In that Science resembles it, But Theosophy covers a far wider > horizon than any one of the mane departments of analytical > science does. Yes, which is why this discussion list covers so many diverse topice (isn't it great! :) ) > I do not try to be dogmatic, but only to present for > consideration that which THEOSOPHY offers us to look into -- a > "point of view." I said you came across as such, not that you were dogmatic. I do not know you well enough to know anything about how stuck your views are in your brain. I try to not judge peoples insides by the way they come accross, because I know how very different the two can be, from personal experience ( :-( ) > How anyone may receive such contributions is their affair, as is > their opinion. After all, this is a Theosophical discussion > group? HPB (as well as anyone else) might as well be given her > chance to speak as well as anyone else can -- if someone cars to > quote them exactly to demonstrate a point of importance. yes, you are free to do what you want. > Let us then consider : -- what are the points, if any, of > philosophical difference? > There is difference to be sensed between "belief" and "faith." > Perhaps "belief" is very rigid and dogmatic." Whereas "faith" is > constantly renewed and adjusted through questioning. One is > static and the other is dynamic. The first indicates a closed > mind, the second indicates an open mind seeking for the Truth of > things. As I said before, I said something about how you came across, and about how I deal with that, not about what you are, which I do not presume to judge. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 06:31:55 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Interesting statistics Here is some interesting info. How long it took inventions to reach 10 million housholds. Telephone --- 38 yrs Fax --- 22 yrs Cable TV --- 25 yrs Cell Phones - 9 yrs VCRs - 9 yrs Personal Computers -- 7 yrs Internet -- 4 yrs While thesophists may be interested in "Ancient" Wisdom, and some may not understand or avoid Internet and want to mimick the living conditions in Tibet, the fact of the matter is modern technology should be fully utilised to make theosophy reach as many people as possible. I suppose there may be many greying lurking undecided skeptics of Internet. There appears to be many "theosophists" who may think or imagine they are closer to the being initiates, on the way to adeptship and who care less or do not understand Internet. Hopefully the statistics may make them think and meditate to find out what Internet can do for theosophy, do it quickly. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:42:50 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Responses to Katinta: gods On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 15:28:40 -0500 Gerald Schueler wrote: > >>I am a bit confused here. What gods and goddesses does the modern TS give? > I have not come across it (and I am an active member). << > > Katinka, the SD is full of Manus, Cosmocratores, Rishis, Builders, Solar and > Lunar Pitris, and so on and on, all names (Hindu, I think) given to various > hierarchies of creators. I can't think of any feminine creative Beings in > the SD off hand, but surely each of these creative beings can be divided > sexually. Even HPB mentions Kundalini, the feminine creative force/energy > who impells evolution. Well, yes, but personally I never interpreted them as gods, more as people-like beings, perhaps with, perhaps without a body. As for kundalini, that is obviously a force that has also a form of consciousness. If that is your deffinition of a god, I agree, than I do think there are gods. Personally I tend to focuss more on the force+consciousness part of them, (which I find very puzzling, by the way) and do not tend to call them gods, for some reason. But I do understand now why you do call them Gods. I think of the Pitris for example as beings who set things in motion and sometimes *plant seeds* for change, if we are collectively ready for new information. If that is what a god does, I'll call it god, but it is certainly not the pitris (except as far as we are pitris incarnate) that are responsible for our trouble. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:48:15 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Responses to Katinta Jerry wrote: > >>Yes, but the creativity of the monad (which is us, I > think?) is still active, isn't it? > Katinka >> > Here we are in an area where words simply fail. "Creativity" by > definition is an action through time, and our divine Monad is outside of > time and needs no evolution (it is, by definition, already perfect)and so to > say that the Monad is creative is a paradox. I find paradoxes like this a > lot when trying to use words to describe spirituality. I think you will > find that ALL models that try to describe the universe and how it came into > being will have this problem - even the Big Bang Model! Steven Hawking's > No-Boundary Model is an attempt to get around this and is somewhat > comparable to HPB's Great Breath Model, but neither can answer the > all-consuming question of why? It seems to me, and that is why I bring up creativity, that science has the most problem with creativity, which (for the scientists here) may be described as that which goes against entropy. This is indeed a great mystery, and may be very close to the FINAL MYSTERY or what HPB calls the first Cause. Because something happens so that there is creation, so that inertia is fought. And what is that? I call it creativity, but it might be called intelligence. From what you say above I gather that you do not mean That when you use the word monad. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 06:50:43 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: ES-stuff At 11:42 AM 10/18/1999 +0200, hesse600 wrote: > 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. < In the recently re-published Elliott Coues article, there is a reference to the ES. Here is an excerpt. '2. I pledge myself to support before the world the Theosophical movement, its leaders and its members, and in particular to obey without cavil or delay the orders of the head of the Esoteric Section." ==== It is the requirement above that has greatest potential for control of members of TS that alarmed Olcott that he feared that a small group could have a stranglehold on the society which was set up as a democratic one. While I do not know for sure what the current status is, there is a great potential for loss of "freedom" to follow one's conscience. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:58:40 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Godd guys. bad guys and demons > > a colored object cannot > > simultaneously be red all over and green all over at the same time > > Wrong. Green is the complementary color of red, so that when we see red, > we see green simultaneously. At the physical level, our physical eyes > see only red, but the green is as equally present, including shades of > red/green. NQED? reminds me of a comment by Mahatma KH in trying to explain his phylosophy in one of the early letters: he talks about a dichromatic body (as being difficult to immagine). Has had me thinking. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:52:56 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: dogmatism ? Nov 8th Thanks Katinka, I now understand. Have been jammed with work, and hence may have reacted a bit hastily. Do excuse me. See some more notes below, please. Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: hesse600 [mailto:hesse600@tem.nhl.nl] > Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 4:33 AM > Subject: dogmatism ? Hi Dallas, > Dear Katinka: > > If anyone desires to confute Theosophy it is wise to offer more > than opinions or sentiments. > As I see it, Theosophy is anything but sentimental. I agree, all I am trying to say is that to reach someone, it is more effective to give a personal view, instead of referring to books, but you reacted well to Randy's frustration that there is so much to read (and he has a point, as you well know), so I am not really in opposition to you. All I am saying is that their are different ways of presenting yourself and your viewpoints, and that some are more effective than others. DTB I personally think that Randy ought to become familiar with a basic text on theosophy, such as the KEY. The value to him is that he can get some of the vocabulary and certainly some of the main doctrines are well explained. Then his questions will acquire depth (in my esteem). > Like Nature which we all live in it speaks of "principles" which > anyone can verify, after testing. Yes, but simple explaining is also usefull, sometimes. > In that Science resembles it, But Theosophy covers a far wider > horizon than any one of the mane departments of analytical > science does. Yes, which is why this discussion list covers so many diverse topice (isn't it great! :) ) DTB Yes, it is. But there are also many "opinions." Such are inescapable, but in many cases they can be individually resolved by a familiarity with the main objects and tenets of Theosophy: Universality, fraternity, Law all-pervasive, Karma, Reincarnation and the ultimate perfection of all beings -- since even the life-atom (Monad) is a potential man and a potential Mahatma -- given the ample time of eternity within which to learn all that can be learned -- Now that is a great vista for me and an encouragement. > I do not try to be dogmatic, but only to present for > consideration that which THEOSOPHY offers us to look into -- a > "point of view." I said you came across as such, not that you were dogmatic. I do not know you well enough to know anything about how stuck your views are in your brain. I try to not judge peoples insides by the way they come accross, because I know how very different the two can be, from personal experience ( :-( ) DTB Quite true and understood. I do not speak entirely for myself, as I am aware that my views are also opinionated. I try to de-personalize them ( if that is allowed) and thus refer to the Philosophy whenever possible. > How anyone may receive such contributions is their affair, as is > their opinion. After all, this is a Theosophical discussion > group? HPB (as well as anyone else) might as well be given her > chance to speak as well as anyone else can -- if someone cars to > quote them exactly to demonstrate a point of importance. yes, you are free to do what you want. > Let us then consider : -- what are the points, if any, of > philosophical difference? > There is difference to be sensed between "belief" and "faith." > Perhaps "belief" is very rigid and dogmatic." Whereas "faith" is > constantly renewed and adjusted through questioning. One is > static and the other is dynamic. The first indicates a closed > mind, the second indicates an open mind seeking for the Truth of > things. As I said before, I said something about how you came across, and about how I deal with that, not about what you are, which I do not presume to judge. DTB I guess that we really cannot do any judging, since at the core of each of us is the Divine HIGHER SELF (Atma-Buddhi). The Monad in its learning phases passes through many trials and different kinds of ideas and places. That also cannot be "judged" since each has to find or make their own path. But when a friend sees another straying, then ought we not to speak and perhaps indicate a simpler and less harmful way, if such has been our experience ? Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl --- 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: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 01:06:39 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Har har har ----- Original Message ----- > From: JRC > Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 4:39 AM > Subject: Re: Feminine Creative Deities > > which has nothing to do with the SD model ...... > > I remember the exact *moment* - > in my early 20's, when I stumbled across that single sentence in Dion > Fortune's classic: > > "God is Pressure" I doubt if *any* serious student could ever forget it! Although dated, her book still has its place of honour upon my bookshelves. > > (come now Alan, > don't you recognize precisely where Dallas is? ... did you not at one time > yourself experience the deep pleasure he gets from writing everything he > writes? of *course* virtually no one reads any more than the first couple of > sentences those tomes ... but did you not at one point in your life also > write *to digest*? (-:)). You are a naughty and mischievous JRC! But yes, I too wrote in order to digest, from time to time. But NEVER at sych great length. > > Ultimately though, all models are things to master and discard. The final > and highest act of magic will always be to toss all magic in the > wastebasket. The map is not the mountain, and deep study of the lines of the > map is not the same thing as the actual climbing of the mountain. But the > people that study the maps *do* stand a chance of one day getting bored and > deciding to find the trailhead (which may, after all, be what the adepts > were aiming at anyway). Indeed, the maps are also signposts. There is little point (some, but just a little) in studying the map and looking at the signposts without then taking the road and attempting to climb the mountain. > Omar Khayyam is priceless: > > "Myself when young, did eagerly frequent, > doctor and saint and heard great argument, > about it and about, but evermore, > came out by the same door as in I went ..." > A point also made, in her own way, by Dion Fortune, bless her cotton socks (English saying denoting affection). > Or, as the infamous Richard Nixon (who would have thought *he* was a master > har har har) put it even more succinctly, > > "It don't mean nothin' 'till you prove it all night ...". > > Alan Bain, you nasty old English wizard, Enough with the compliments already! > don't be mean to the poor > apprentice! You, who have passed what is now widely recognized amongst > masters as being the final initiation below the Abyss - i.e., disturbing the > official TS leadership badly enough ... by having the balls to actually try > to put theosophy into *practice* with TI ... to be demeaned and lied about > and banished from the Society (an initiation that, despite my best efforts, > I still have not yet quite been able to achieve har har har har har har) ... Next intitiation, maybe? (Har har har). > come come ... use your secret decoder ring to look a bit into the future for > goodness sake! Can't you see the moment, probably not too far down the road, > when Dallas, in a paradoxical moment of spiritually pure cognitive > dissonance (tee hee) is going to suddenly *see* what he's been doing? And > will start laughing and laughing and laughing and laughing and laughing and > laughing ..................................... -JRC No ..... but then even I, from my exalted position somewhere on the mountain (the precise location is known only to Initiates) do, occasionally, make a teeny weent mistake. In Omnibus Unum, 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: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 01:32:08 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: dogmatism ? ----- Original Message ----- > From: W. Dallas TenBroeck > Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 6:52 PM > Subject: RE: dogmatism ? > But when a friend sees another straying, then ought we not to > speak and perhaps indicate a simpler and less harmful way, if > such has been our experience ? >From The Teaching as I receive it: Do not give directions to anyone who has not asked for them. Do let it be known that you are available to be asked. Do not forget that you could easily give wrong or misleading directions. .... which reminds me of asking directions to places in the valleys of South Wales. The landmarks one is told to look out for depend very much on the giver of directions. Some tell you which pubs to look out for, some which churches, some which chapels, and others which social clubs. On one visit I was directed via the location of different public toilets .... I am sure it is out of print, but if one could consult THE KEY TO SOUTH WALES PUBS ..... (Naughty Alan) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 01:18:17 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: ES-stuff ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 12:50 PM > Subject: Re: ES-stuff > In the recently re-published Elliott Coues article, there is a reference to > the ES. Here is an excerpt. > > '2. I pledge myself to support before the > world the Theosophical movement, its > leaders and its members, and in > particular to obey without cavil or delay > the orders of the head of the Esoteric > Section." Nein, Ich will nich ein Fuhrer habe! So there. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 23:58:32 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 08, 1999 Dallas and Katinka wrote: >>[Dallas] As I see it, Theosophy is anything but sentimental. >[Katinka] I agree, all I am trying to say is that to reach someone, Why is it so important, especially for those in the Western world, for doctrines to be void of sentimentality and emotion in order for them to be taken seriously? Why do many theosophists (some on this list and many who write books on theosophy) attempt to make sure that doctrines, and opinions, avoid emotion as much as possible, focus primarily on logical and objective theory. I can't think of one "enlightened" being, including HPB, who wasn't jammed full of emotion and sentimentality - both in person and in their doctrines. The emotions displayed by the "enlightened" ones tend to be glossed over, or named "something else," made excuses for, or ignored altogether. Does the presence of emotion or sentimentality make something less valid or truthful? Does the presence of emotion or sentimentality make something more dangerous? Is emotion or sentimentality a sign of weakness or ignorance? On the other hand, does objectivity make something more valid or truthful? Does objectivity make something less dangerous? Is an objective person stronger or more knowledgeable? Main point: Is the objective, or scientific (logical), path more conducive to Truth and Compassion than subjective, or emotional, path? Clearly, many theosophists think the objective is the best way, and that even "God" is objective, but I fail to see any 'objective proof or reasonings' for those conclusions. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:43:02 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: sentimentality Kym wrote: Dallas and Katinka wrote: >>[Dallas] As I see it, Theosophy is anything but sentimental. >[Katinka] I agree, all I am trying to say is that to reach someone, Kym: Why is it so important, especially for those in the Western world, for doctrines to be void of sentimentality and emotion in order for them to be taken seriously? Why do many theosophists (some on this list and many who write books on theosophy) attempt to make sure that doctrines, and opinions, avoid emotion as much as possible, focus primarily on logical and objective theory. I can't think of one "enlightened" being, including HPB, who wasn't jammed full of emotion and sentimentality - both in person and in their doctrines. The emotions displayed by the "enlightened" ones tend to be glossed over, or named "something else," made excuses for, or ignored altogether. Katinka (now): The way I see it, emotions can be a major block for understanding. Which is why I am rather wary of them. But sentimentalism is something other than emotions. Sentimentalism usually (in my experience) makes some things bigger and others smaller: in short works as a sort of *funny mirror* (if that is how those country-fair-mirrors are called). Emotions in themselves are important to know and examine in getting to know yourself (myself), and also in trying to find truth it is important to know where emotions are probably interfering, but you are right, I do view them mainly as an interference, even the positive ones. Kym: Does the presence of emotion or sentimentality make something less valid or truthful? Does the presence of emotion or sentimentality make something more dangerous? Is emotion or sentimentality a sign of weakness or ignorance? Katinka: Not in my point of view. Kym: On the other hand, does objectivity make something more valid or truthful? Does objectivity make something less dangerous? Is an objective person stronger or more knowledgeable? Katinka: Well, any point of view is subjective, even the seemingly objective, so I understand your difficulty here. Kym: Main point: Is the objective, or scientific (logical), path more conducive to Truth and Compassion than subjective, or emotional, path? Katinka: To truth - emotions seem to me to be a hurdle (that keeps coming back), whereas for compassion emotion is probably essential. Where would compassion come from if not from the knowledge that other people have the same kind of emotional problems as I do? Sorrow is clearly an emotion and being compassionate clearly includes dealing as well as possible with other peoples sorrows (and their causes). Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:04:09 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l: Nov. 08, 1999 SENTIMENTALITY and REASON Nov 10th 1999 Dear Kym:, and Katinka: We seem to be conducting a three party discussion which is most interesting. Let's continue. What I mean is that sometimes sentimentality ( non-reasoning) overwhelms us all. And I mean All, since it is one of the dominant qualities ( or "principles" -- named KAMA in Hindu philosophy and Theosophy) . It is difficult to hold it in control, and when it goes of at some tangent or another, it drags the "mind" or "reasoning faculty" with it, usually. But who or what is the "WE" that even considers "to control, or "not to control?" One of the peculiarities of the sentimental, and desire nature is that it does not consider consequences. It desires to enjoy, and looks forward to continued "enjoyment." In itself this is not wrong, but, in my esteem it needs to be balanced with reasonableness, and the necessities of our duties and responsibilities. I am quite sure (at least in my experience) that they need guidance and control when they run off in some exaggerated area or other. I think we all do this, anyway. And I would add that the addition of the mind-faculty to desire is that it can look back in MEMORY to the past; and also look FORWARD in anticipation to some desired FUTURE. Without the mind offering these faculties the desire nature alone deals only with the present in a reactive and an instinctual manner. But, one needs to verify this statement, individually, by introspection. Next I consider: What is dominant in Man and Woman ? What makes them unique -- is it not the power to think, to reason, to anticipate, to remember and to IMAGINE ? "WHAT IF.....? " Where do we get our idealism from? What is excellence? Is "Perfection" in any area possible? Where do we secure Inspiration? What is Genius or Talent in some art or science or philosophy? Those unusual faculties need to be reconciled with our usual endowment with reflective and anticipatory natures. While I would be one of the first to admit that the intertwining of the feelings and the mind is in all of us, I would also like to make sure what they are when separated, and why they are so mixed when we do our thinking or desiring ? How is it that psychology makes these distinctions and Theosophy seems to add a wider dimension to their consideration? Finally, what power is it in us that enables us to change our desires and to vary them? How is it that we can perceive areas of uncertainty ? Where is there some "stability" that makes this possible, so that we can have a "dialog with ourselves ?" Where does that Power come from? Is it an attribute of the REAL HUMAN BEING ? Is it possibly superior even to the Mind ? Best wishes -- and see if you can help clear up some of my questions, please Dal Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: kymsmith > Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:59 PM > Subject: Re: SENTIMENTALITY Dallas and Katinka wrote: >>[Dallas] As I see it, Theosophy is anything but sentimental. >[Katinka] I agree, all I am trying to say is that to reach someone, Why is it so important, especially for those in the Western world, for doctrines to be void of sentimentality and emotion in order for them to be taken seriously? Why do many theosophists (some on this list and many who write books on theosophy) attempt to make sure that doctrines, and opinions, avoid emotion as much as possible, focus primarily on logical and objective theory. I can't think of one "enlightened" being, including HPB, who wasn't jammed full of emotion and sentimentality - both in person and in their doctrines. The emotions displayed by the "enlightened" ones tend to be glossed over, or named "something else," made excuses for, or ignored altogether. Does the presence of emotion or sentimentality make something less valid or truthful? Does the presence of emotion or sentimentality make something more dangerous? Is emotion or sentimentality a sign of weakness or ignorance? On the other hand, does objectivity make something more valid or truthful? Does objectivity make something less dangerous? Is an objective person stronger or more knowledgeable? Main point: Is the objective, or scientific (logical), path more conducive to Truth and Compassion than subjective, or emotional, path? Clearly, many theosophists think the objective is the best way, and that even "God" is objective, but I fail to see any 'objective proof or reasonings' for those conclusions. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:47:46 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 03, 1999 In a message dated 11/8/99 6:20:46 AM Central Standard Time, hesse600@tem.nhl.nl writes: > Thank you very much for all the examples. Well, the postmortem state is very democratic and eclectic - anyone can get in. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:52:54 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 08, 1999 In a message dated 11/9/99 12:57:47 AM Central Standard Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > Why is it so important, especially for those in the Western world, for > doctrines to be void of sentimentality and emotion in order for them to be > taken seriously? Why do many theosophists (some on this list and many who > write books on theosophy) attempt to make sure that doctrines, and > opinions, avoid emotion as much as possible, focus primarily on logical and > objective theory. What makes you think somehow logic = objective and emotions = subjective? And if objective, in your usage, is not just a redundant synonym for logic (i.e., it adds no modifying content to the other), and if subjective, likewise, is not just a redundant synonym for emotion, what else does objective and subjective mean besides, respectively, logical and emotional? Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:57:07 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: sentimentality In a message dated 11/9/99 3:43:18 AM Central Standard Time, hesse600@tem.nhl.nl writes: > Katinka (now): > The way I see it, emotions can be a major block for > understanding. Which is why I am rather wary of them. But > sentimentalism is something other than emotions. > Sentimentalism usually (in my experience) makes some things > bigger and others smaller: in short works as a sort of > *funny mirror* (if that is how those country-fair-mirrors > are called). Emotions in themselves are important to know > and examine in getting to know yourself (myself), and also > in trying to find truth it is important to know where > emotions are probably interfering, but you are right, I do > view them mainly as an interference, even the positive > ones. > This seems to be truncated view of emotions. I make three observations. First, emotions are movers - e-motors. They had been evolved to be rapid bodily responses to situations. Thus, they have a bodily aspect as moving or e-moting. Muscles are prepped to be flexed for action or relaxed by bio-chemical, neural, and lymphatic signals sent to prompt for a line of action. And they have a psychological aspect where they are experienced as a strong imperative "do this." At least in effect. As evolved patterns of almost automatic response, they are the legacy/replacement of behavioural instincts. They boot up body and urge the mind. But they stop. Then it is time for mind and/or training to take over. And further, as almost automatic patterns of rapid response, they have to have been correct enough of the time to allow the body to survive. So, most the time (maybe with few defective bodies that can't harm overall viability of a species) they correctly respond appropriately to situations. Imagine animal that had fear/flight in face of food and anger/aggression at predator for which it was food. Soon the whole species would be dead. The human trick is to train and refine these patterns of emotional response from their endowed primitive forms into higher and more nuanced forms. Because emotions are movers, they can enhance or interfere or interrupt other mental processes in the mind. This does not mean that this is what they must always do. More on this latter. Besides being patterns of response, emotions are cognitive. They are forms of perception beyond the five senses. There has to be a correct recognition of a situation for the emotion to be a correct response. But what is more, without emotion, sometimes what the situation is is left unknown especially if it is an emotional or social situation. A memorable night is not one where the flatware is vividly remembered on its own or whether ones female companion had pearls or diamonds, or whether there were 10 or 15 courses. No, these are remembered as part of a meaningful collage surrounding the core memory of the evening as a meaningfully collage the core of which is the felt meaning of the evening as an emotional event whether pleasant or political/espionage. Many brilliant people are socially/politically stupid because their are not emotionally tuned in. Emotions can only cognitively mislead us only if we are rightly relying on them to see or get information. The eye can deceive as well as the ear for same reason. If we rely on them to perceive, they sometimes will mislead. Same with emotions. Who has the most perceptive insight into a piece of music? The acoustical physicist who is deaf or the emotionally enraptured conductor? The problem with emotions as both movers and as perceivers in modern society is that they are not trained. Recently, Dan Goleman has done research on Emotional IQ as an essential feature of intelligence as has the brain neurologist Antonio Damascio (who says even certain logical competences are inhibited in patients with brain damage that prevents them from feeling). All this the ancients knew and moderns have forgotten. Third, modern ethics is rule-based deontological-rights ethics or utilitarian-consequences calculation. These are mainly how to manage large social groups (despite Mr. Kant's emphasis on inner decision of individual). Ancient ethics, receiving new attention now, was a virtue ethics. A virtue is a well-crafted competence that has been cultivated into a high degree of excellence. The Greek arete (virtue) literally means excellence. Virtue ethics was not about finding correct rules to manage large social group (decide how to behave in one) but often said to be training persons to be of good character. Goal was to create not good rules but good people. In Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Greek philosophy, importance component of ethical training was training emotions (dispositions of heart, of thymos, etc.) into reliably and as excellent patterns of emotional insightful response as possible. There was training of emotions. This is part of any Buddhist meditation training as well as yogic training. First step, meditational separation of awareness from the inner useless and usually negative chatter of thought driven by emotional resentments and identifications until at least dhyana (pure awareness without thought or emotional interference or distraction) or samadhi is achieved. Most westerners mistakenly think this is the whole of meditation. WRONG. There are three crucial aspects to first stage of spiritual training in every system. Through the practice of right concentration/awareness training, ability to be purely aware is achieved (right concentration). But there has to be a discipline of thought by its learning correct information correctly understood and logical training in non-formal mental reasoning into a very high state of logical expertise (right views or right discrimination/inferencing). Third, there is crucial training in ethical practices which are training of emotions, cleaning out resentments/crap, etc. Once these three absolutely necessary and separate lines have reached a certain level of proficiency, they begin to enhance the other lines. Thought, instead of distracting and clouding awareness, in its disciplined form sharpens it into sharp analytic, clear, and distinct awareness. Clear pristine awareness that is a gathered and concentrated focus that cannot be distracted can give enhanced attention to the implications and ramifications of a line of logical inference. Purified emotions no longer disturb (in their moving aspect) reasoning processes or awareing processes and no longer (in their cognitive aspect) cause awareness to misperceive or reason to falsely or fallaciously mis-infer. Positively, they become enhanced forms of insight integrating the five senses into a total empathetic response or taking in of a situation in an insightful fashion. Then, these three aspects of human development, beyond enhancing each other, begin to fuse and interpermeate each other. They become fused into one consciousness. So, from ancient perspective of living spiritual traditions which in their authenticity were not products of a half--blind mix and match process that is the basis of whatever mis-information most modern people have about spiritual development, the status of emotions is relative to where you are in the path. The ultimate objectivity is a Buddha's insightful compassion - the SOLE emotion of a Buddha, and thus, the SINGLE-FOCUSSED INSIGHT of a Buddha (the cognitive aspect) and SOLE MOTIVE of a Buddha (the moving aspect). Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:10:29 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: echo eecchhooo, ccchhhoooo, chhhhooooo, hhhhhoooooo, oooooooooooo Its definite. Elvis has left the planet, forever. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 19:13:05 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: echo eecho, eeeecho, beeeecho, beeeetleee, beatle... Its definite. The Beatles forever. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 01:35:50 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: echo ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 12:10 AM > Subject: echo > eecchhooo, ccchhhoooo, chhhhooooo, hhhhhoooooo, oooooooooooo > > Its definite. Elvis has left the planet, forever. > WHY didn't someone tell me? Elvis. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:47:09 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 09, 1999 Katinka wrote: >The way I see it, emotions can be a major block for >understanding. Which is why I am rather wary of them. Ok, but why? How or in what way are emotions a major block for understanding? Can logic or reasoning serve as a block for understanding? >But >sentimentalism is something other than emotions. >Sentimentalism usually (in my experience) makes some things >bigger and others smaller: in short works as a sort of >*funny mirror* (if that is how those country-fair-mirrors >are called). I don't see how sentimentalism is different from emotions. Emotions, also, can make things seem bigger or smaller. For example, as one develops compassion (in the human sense), "evil" becomes smaller, and "acceptance" becomes bigger. Another example: John the Baptist claimed that he must decrease so Jesus could increase - was John the Baptist being sentimental, emotional, or reasonable? If sentimentality REALLY is seeing some things as bigger (or more important) and others smaller (less important), then sentimentality seems to be a necessary component to spirituality and understanding. >Well, any point of view is subjective, even the seemingly >objective, so I understand your difficulty here. This statement seems to suggest, then, that there really is no such thing as objectivity. Yes? No? If so, what is the difference between subjectivity and emotions? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 02:01:35 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Dallas - theos-l digest: November 09, 1999 Dallas wrote: >What I mean is that sometimes sentimentality ( non-reasoning) >overwhelms us all. How is sentimentality "non-reasoning?" Sentimentality is another term for "tenderness." Is tenderness "non-reasoning?" To me, tenderness is a very reasonable response to many events, persons, animals, experiences, etc. >It is difficult to hold it in control, and when it goes of at >some tangent or another, it drags the "mind" or "reasoning >faculty" with it, usually. Agreed, but I postulate that logic, objectivity, and reasoning can veer off into a tangent, causing harm, havoc, and pain. Therefore, I still do not see how reasoning is "superior" to emotions, including sentimentality. >But who or what is the "WE" that even >considers "to control, or "not to control?" I was going to say that the "we" is what makes us human, but that is not correct as even the Demiurge (a supposed non-human) seems to have a problem with control issues. >One of the peculiarities of the sentimental, and desire nature is >that it does not consider consequences. I totally disagree. Desire does not have to be only a self-serving mechanism. Sorry to use the sex example, but it applies: One can desire to be excessive in their sexual activity, but this same desire can bring pleasure to others. Even if one only experiences physical enjoyment from something, this same physical enjoyment can serve as a doorway, or guidepost, on understanding the feelings and reactions of the body. A person learns to understand pain or pleasure; hence, this can be transferred to another. Example: If a person finds out, during sex, that being slapped causes pain, they may learn to refrain from slapping others because of their own uncomfortable experience. >It desires to enjoy, and >looks forward to continued "enjoyment." In itself this is not >wrong, but, in my esteem it needs to be balanced with >reasonableness, and the necessities of our duties and >responsibilities. Regarding my example above, one does not need to even factor in duties and responsibilities when refraining from hurting others. If I don't like something done to me, I probably won't do it to another, but it doesn't mean I consider it a duty or responsibility. Children are a good example. Dallas, to me, you seem to speak in a manner that expects most people to already be rather advanced along the "Path." But many people are not and talking to someone who has no concept about duties and responsibilities will make little headway if they are not yet prepared. Each person, regardless of their own national language, has an "internal language" and that is what needs to be focused on. If we speak another language, they will not understand and they will not learn. >And >I would add that the addition of the mind-faculty to desire is >that it can look back in MEMORY to the past; and also look >FORWARD in anticipation to some desired FUTURE. Without the mind >offering these faculties the desire nature alone deals only with >the present in a reactive and an instinctual manner. I do not believe that the desire state needs the addition of the mind-faculty so it can remember or anticipate. The statement you made above - "It desires to enjoy, and looks forward to continued "enjoyment" - AUTOMATICALLY assigns memory and anticipation to the desire state. So, obviously, desire does not need mind to perform those functions. Also, there is a reason for the maintaining of humanity's "reactive and instinctual manner." Humanity would have never survived without it, and may not yet be able to. I agree that anger needs to be tempered, but not necessarily done away with - not yet. Anger and fear still serve humanity as creative forces, and yes, also destructive forces - but those emotions still have a place in the current state of human evolvement. At this stage of evolution, if humanity were to lose anger and fear, the lack of understanding is such that I predict what would take its place is hopelessness and apathy. I am not being pessimistic, quite the contrary, but humanity is only now learning what the alternatives are. For many of us, even actions that could be considered "altruistic" may be based in fear, rather than true understanding. Example: I believe that NATO attempting to stop the genocide in Kosovo had the components of both altruism and fear. And I am glad NATO and the world was fearful of what was going on in Kosovo - fearful that it may spread to neighboring countries - because that fear prompted NATO to save a people (altruism) and to stop an aggressive army from marching further (fear). >Next I consider: What is dominant in Man and Woman ? What makes >them unique -- is it not the power to think, to reason, to >anticipate, to remember and to IMAGINE ? "WHAT IF.....? " For me, it is the desire to "create." The creations can be "bad" or "good" but creativity and expression seems to be the prime motivator for humanity. Create cures, create computers, create people, create art, create music, create money, express pain, express emotion, express joy, express desire. Expressing desire is the expressing of a thought which in turn creates something, both tangible and intangible. >Where do we get our idealism from? Creativity, in my opinion - whose source could be from THE God. >What is excellence? Excellence is a subjective human reaction. I consider Mozart to epitomize excellence in music - another may consider Bach to be the expression of excellence. >Is >"Perfection" in any area possible? No, not to me, because "perfection" declares finality. Nothing can be better than perfection. Perfection is a great big stop sign. Once one believes something is "perfect," the object of perfection remains forever stagnant. >Where do we secure >Inspiration? >From dog, cats, loved ones, God, music, pain, poetry - creativity is merely inspiration fulfilled. >What is Genius or Talent in some art or science or >philosophy? A genius is only a genius for a certain length of time. Eventually, someone will surpass the thought - "greater works." Genius-ness is always fluctuating, always changing. Talent is something that one can be born with or acquire, and it, too, is always in flux. A talented pianist may find him/herself unable to play as well as he/she did when he/she were younger. A talent can last a few years, a lifetime, or many lifetimes. >Those unusual faculties need to be reconciled with our usual >endowment with reflective and anticipatory natures. I'm afraid I don't understand this statement. Could you clarify? >While I would be one of the first to admit that the intertwining >of the feelings and the mind is in all of us, I would also like >to make sure what they are when separated Why, Dallas? What would you do with the knowledge? >and why they are so >mixed when we do our thinking or desiring ? Because this mix is the foundation of "balance." One without the other is not a balance, but a one-sidedness. A half-life. >How is it that >psychology makes these distinctions and Theosophy seems to add a >wider dimension to their consideration? Psychology is not interested in the metaphysical or spiritual - it is not part of the scientific criteria. Psychology wants to know how the brain works in the world. Theosophy, on the other hand, does claim the link between the brain, mind, and spiritual as part of its philosophy. >Finally, what power is it in us that enables us to change our >desires and to vary them? I'm getting quite redundant here, but I must answer that it is creativity. As we experience more and more, our desire to create or express different ideas tends to change. As we become exposed to more, we see wider and greater potentials for our expressions. >How is it that we can perceive areas >of uncertainty ? Uh, probably what is unknown or just raw fear. What makes one uncertain is the unknown and the unknown, to many, is fearful. >Where is there some "stability" that makes this >possible, so that we can have a "dialog with ourselves ?" Again, for me, since nothing is really "stable," it is my memory that provides stability. I remember how I dealt with something, I remember how I hate carrots, I remember how much my loved ones love me, I remember that scientists are working on cures, etc. . .this provides reference which leads to a sense of stability both within myself and the world. >Where >does that Power come from? You got me there. . .. >Is it an attribute of the REAL HUMAN >BEING ? I don't know what you mean by a "REAL HUMAN BEING." >Is it possibly superior even to the Mind ? Which "mind" are you referring to? >and see if you can help clear up some of my >questions, please Is this a double dog dare??? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 02:06:02 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 09, 1999 Grigor wrote: >What makes you think somehow logic = objective and emotions = subjective? >And if objective, in your usage, is not just a redundant synonym for logic >(i.e., it >adds no modifying content to the other), and if subjective, likewise, is not >just a >redundant synonym for emotion, what else does objective and subjective mean >besides, respectively, logical and emotional? Titanic, Titanic, Titanic, Titanic, Titanic, Titanic, Titanic . . .. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 05:13:00 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Dallas - theos-l digest: November 09, 1999 Nov 101999 Dear Kym: You are right that I speak as best I can. I do not intend to overwhelm anyone with my conclusions. I ask questions, or make statement so that they can be thought over. I review them too, as I know they are incomplete and may not be as accurate an expression as I might make, so be generous to them, if you will. I do not wish to enter into any "argument" as that is fruitless. "the soft answer turneth away wrath." People may place different values on words. I try to use the obvious ones given in the dictionary. and when I am unsure I launch into an explanation. I said there was confusion over the areas in which emotionalism (including sentimentality, love, tenderness, fear, pain anger, desire, etc...) and "mind" (analysis and synthesis, logic, imagination, memory, etc...) operate. Most (including me too) cannot distinguish accurately between them. But it is possible and worth trying to do that as an exercise. How do we get greater precision unless we try ? And that is about all I can add to what is already offered. Allow me , please to insert some comments below in the body of your responses Best wishes Dal 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 -----Original Message----- > From: kymsmith@micron.net [mailto:kymsmith@micron.net] > Date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 1:02 AM > Subject: Re: Dallas - theos-l digest: November 09, 1999 Dallas wrote: >What I mean is that sometimes sentimentality ( non-reasoning) >overwhelms us all. How is sentimentality "non-reasoning?" Sentimentality is another term for "tenderness." Is tenderness "non-reasoning?" To me, tenderness is a very reasonable response to many events, persons, animals, experiences, etc. DTB What is the QUALITY of tenderness ? Is "Reasoning" different from the "feeling" of tenderness and love ? Does it in any way detract from "tenderness ?" Or does it seek to explain it? >It is difficult to hold it in control, and when it goes of at >some tangent or another, it drags the "mind" or "reasoning >faculty" with it, usually. Agreed, but I postulate that logic, objectivity, and reasoning can veer off into a tangent, causing harm, havoc, and pain. Therefore, I still do not see how reasoning is "superior" to emotions, including sentimentality. DTB Agreed -- but then, What is it that causes such divergence ? "Superiority" implies (to me) that one can substitute for and understand the other (with or without sympathy) How is it possible to take either or both of those positions? What does the "Mind" do in order to take either of those two views? >But who or what is the "WE" that even >considers "to control, or "not to control?" I was going to say that the "we" is what makes us human, but that is not correct as even the Demiurge (a supposed non-human) seems to have a problem with control issues. DTB Relentlessly, I ask myself " What is Human?" What is that mix? Do you have THE SECRET DOCTRINE? I would refer you to pages Vol. 2, 79-80, 167 and we might then discuss what is written there as a starting point. It is quite technical but also very interesting. >One of the peculiarities of the sentimental, and desire nature is >that it does not consider consequences. I totally disagree. Desire does not have to be only a self-serving mechanism. Sorry to use the sex example, but it applies: One can desire to be excessive in their sexual activity, but this same desire can bring pleasure to others. Even if one only experiences physical enjoyment from something, this same physical enjoyment can serve as a doorway, or guidepost, on understanding the feelings and reactions of the body. A person learns to understand pain or pleasure; hence, this can be transferred to another. Example: If a person finds out, during sex, that being slapped causes pain, they may learn to refrain from slapping others because of their own uncomfortable experience. DTB But don't you see, your analogy speaks mainly of the feelings one experiences in reaction to events. It does not speak of the "reason" why they happened. I am interested in "the reason why." Not, in how I may feel about an event. There will be vast differences in feeling, but to get at the cause narrows and focuses the attention. that is something we can better share, I think. >It desires to enjoy, and >looks forward to continued "enjoyment." In itself this is not >wrong, but, in my esteem it needs to be balanced with >reasonableness, and the necessities of our duties and >responsibilities. Regarding my example above, one does not need to even factor in duties and responsibilities when refraining from hurting others. If I don't like something done to me, I probably won't do it to another, but it doesn't mean I consider it a duty or responsibility. Children are a good example. DTB I used "duties and responsibilities" only as the result of careful study and decisions made in regard to actions one initiates or employs in the future, to further the ease of ones' self or of others, once that it is determined (by ones' self) that those are needed, or beneficial. Dallas, to me, you seem to speak in a manner that expects most people to already be rather advanced along the "Path." But many people are not and talking to someone who has no concept about duties and responsibilities will make little headway if they are not yet prepared. Each person, regardless of their own national language, has an "internal language" and that is what needs to be focused on. If we speak another language, they will not understand and they will not learn. DTB Kym I fully agree with you in this observation. But, while one's 'position' on the "Path" is a variable, it seems to me that no matter where one is in life, beginner, or practitioner, etc... there has to be a starting point. This can start with a challenge to one's accepted concepts -- the blow or startling effect, is to find that someone else has a different concept. "If so, Why ?" >And I would add that the addition of the mind-faculty to desire is >that it can look back in MEMORY to the past; and also look >FORWARD in anticipation to some desired FUTURE. Without the mind >offering these faculties the desire nature alone deals only with >the present in a reactive and an instinctual manner. I do not believe that the desire state needs the addition of the mind-faculty so it can remember or anticipate. The statement you made above - "It desires to enjoy, and looks forward to continued "enjoyment" - AUTOMATICALLY assigns memory and anticipation to the desire state. So, obviously, desire does not need mind to perform those functions. DTB I RATHER WANTED TO CONVEY THE IDEA THAT THE DESIRE BORROWED THE MIND FACULTIES AND MADE USE OF THEM. (sorry - not shouting, just pressed the Caps key in error) Also, there is a reason for the maintaining of humanity's "reactive and instinctual manner." Humanity would have never survived without it, and may not yet be able to. DTB Buddhists might disagree in this view. What is the value of a life preserved? How is that to be estimated? who estimates? Is this a reasoned concept of one that has been adopted because "everybody assumes it to be true ?" Is there any way we can determine the value of such a question or shall it be laughed out of court? Is the idea of reincarnation incorrect? Is there no permanency to man's existence and the goals that she/he selects? If death ends all, then why set any? How are pain, illness and accidents to be explained? To say "they happen" -- is that enough of an explanation? Why is it that the protective instinct is so strong? These are questions I have mulled over for years, and gradually have arrived at the conclusion that the Theosophical views seemed to be the most comprehensive and reasonable in answering them. But that is not my surrendering my independence of thought to them -- it is only my confirming that their doctrines appear (so far) to be the best (and the most complete) I have yet met. I agree that anger needs to be tempered, but not necessarily done away with - not yet. Anger and fear still serve humanity as creative forces, and yes, also destructive forces - but those emotions still have a place in the current state of human evolvement. DTB Again I agree, but besides stating these facts, How do we go about explaining them? This is why I said that the mind can act in a superior manner. It accepts the emotion, but then acts using the Why and How (if it gives itself the time to do this) and if it does, then it seeks for the causative side of the event, or the proposed reaction, does it not? At this stage of evolution, if humanity were to lose anger and fear, the lack of understanding is such that I predict what would take its place is hopelessness and apathy. I am not being pessimistic, quite the contrary, but humanity is only now learning what the alternatives are. DTB This argument has been around for a very long time. I can recall it in school and college -- but it has never been demonstrated that the general nature of humanity in any way reflects such a result (apathy and hopelessness -- you are an outstanding example of resistance to such a concept, an so am ) -- as and when non-violence has been adopted. Under Gandhi's influence (I was there in India during that time) the great majority of the Indian people, disarmed by the British who ruled, sacrificed themselves as a mass before brutality, murder and oppression and caused the "humanity" and the innate "humanness" to surface (among the British) and a great ill to be abandoned. Political victory -- yes. But at the cost of many of my intimate friends and their families lives and health and pain and suffering and even in some cases life itself -- it was quite a lesson -- I was in school and college in Bombay at that time. The phenomena of self-sacrifice was wide-spread and spontaneous all over India. It was not only non-violence, but it was non-cooperative also. For many of us, even actions that could be considered "altruistic" may be based in fear, rather than true understanding. Example: I believe that NATO attempting to stop the genocide in Kosovo had the components of both altruism and fear. And I am glad NATO and the world was fearful of what was going on in Kosovo - fearful that it may spread to neighboring countries - because that fear prompted NATO to save a people (altruism) and to stop an aggressive army from marching further (fear). DTB But there was also (possibly) some feelings of compassion for a people that were made the victims of insane oppression on religious feuding grounds. The insanity of blaming the present generation for the violence and oppression of past generations (a feud) is quite ridiculous. What about tolerance? Live and let live? Does another person alive represent, reasonably, a threat and an object to be obliterated out of fear or one's parents simmering anger brought forward? What is nature's law in such a case ? Under Tito (although that was a repressive and regimented rule - a virtual dictatorship) was there such a genocide? I speak of this not to argue, but only to present another side of the "coin." >Next I consider: What is dominant in Man and Woman ? What makes >them unique -- is it not the power to think, to reason, to >anticipate, to remember and to IMAGINE ? "WHAT IF.....? " For me, it is the desire to "create." The creations can be "bad" or "good" but creativity and expression seems to be the prime motivator for humanity. Create cures, create computers, create people, create art, create music, create money, express pain, express emotion, express joy, express desire. Expressing desire is the expressing of a thought which in turn creates something, both tangible and intangible. DTB I agree that the driving power of creativity is a fundamental urge. But I would also ask if one creates, then does one's ensuing responsibility cease? After the birth of a baby, who nurtures it for the next 15 to 20 years till it is able to fend for itself? I would offer that as an example of the after-effects of a creative act -- consequences always follow choice and action, don't they? Are we willing to assume the job of continued care? Many create objects so as to secure approval, etc... and the motives behind any act are always significant. Is it not motive that drives us forward? How are we to discover and know our own? Are they rooted in thought or in desire? >Where do we get our idealism from? Creativity, in my opinion - whose source could be from THE God. DTB I have always felt that taking refuge in "a" or "the" "GOD" is a cop-out resorted to when one's power of reasoning meets (temporarily) a "dead-end." Since creativity is your expression of a selected drive, then what has creativity to say in this ? If that does not provide an answer, what shall one look for? Kym: It is such "dead-ends" that have plagued me all my life. I want to know why I can't think around them. That is my drive, I guess I would say, It is my desire to know with certainty. I just won't "give-up." I have to find out what is the cause of things? I am quite sure that vast Nature has answers, and these I seek. I presume that Nature contains all and our Science is developed and developing in the attempt to find out what rules and laws Nature has laid down in specified areas. It is Nature that is full of laws and guides all relationships. Karma is the reaction of Nature to our individual and personal choices. >What is excellence? Excellence is a subjective human reaction. I consider Mozart to epitomize excellence in music - another may consider Bach to be the expression of excellence. DTB Excellent examples and I love to listen to both of them, and to some others too. But there is more than "subjectivity" in this. As I understand it, this "subjective" relates to one's personal reaction, and this may be shared, or not, with others. But then I also see that everything in the world that is of the nature of experience has to pass into the inner thought processes of ourselves. I mean by that, that even the "objective" has to become "subjective" for us to grasp and understand it. These two ideas or words serve (to me) only to express the difference between the visible and the invisible--between that which only we can discuss with ourselves (again that curious duality) and that which anyone can observe and derive conclusions about. Does this make sense? >Is >"Perfection" in any area possible? No, not to me, because "perfection" declares finality. Nothing can be better than perfection. Perfection is a great big stop sign. Once one believes something is "perfect," the object of perfection remains forever stagnant. DTB I agree and so "Perfection" ought to be qualified with the word/idea of "relativity." No one is ever totally perfect, but one can always strive to become more adept and perfect at whatever one does ? OK so far ? The parameters of excellence seem to be so vast that one life-time is too short to encompass all. How about an immortal inner Self, that uses successive bodies to learn through? Would one's character and capacities (in general) , talents, genius, or the reverse indicate what our efforts so far, have produced? How do we get to know our Inner Self better ? So relative perfection, might be only the "passing exam." [ In passing below you ask about the Mind, which I say is 3-fold. In what I just write, there is a curious duality here. There is the One Self (as I call it) which does not change. It is the seat of my "identity." I would use the word "Individuality." Then, there is the 2nd Self, that which is embodied and uses the brain and the body as its tools. This is the one that gets mixed up with emotions and desires and passions, etc... To me, when I try to choose, and think out the possible results of my choices in the future, these 2 Selves discuss the subject and one or other of them makes the resulting decision. The process can be lightning fast or very slow.] >Where do we secure >Inspiration? >From dog, cats, loved ones, God, music, pain, poetry - creativity is merely inspiration fulfilled. DTB But, fulfilled only for a while, since, as we live on, there occur moments when our progress (as goal seeking) is seen to be only relatively attained, and some further vista opens, No? >What is Genius or Talent in some art or science or philosophy? A genius is only a genius for a certain length of time. Eventually, someone will surpass the thought - "greater works." Genius-ness is always fluctuating, always changing. Talent is something that one can be born with or acquire, and it, too, is always in flux. A talented pianist may find him/herself unable to play as well as he/she did when he/she were younger. A talent can last a few years, a lifetime, or many lifetimes. DTB I recall Rubenstein saying that if he did not practice daily, after 4 days he could hear the difference, and if he did not practice for a week, Mrs. Rubenstein could hear the difference in his piano playing. I used the ideas of talent and genius to indicate a facility that long practice had built into ones make-up. For instance, when I was 14 or 24, I could not have written what I am saying or writing now. I have been dong a lot of think-practice and trying to sharpen it with the 5 questions. But that is personal and not a very good example. >Those unusual faculties need to be reconciled with our usual >endowment with reflective and anticipatory natures. I'm afraid I don't understand this statement. Could you clarify? DTB I think we always try to set goals to anything we do -- as in this answer to you, trying to make myself as clear as possible. Not to provoke, but to ask that you will go along with my way of thinking, and if you find it obscure, you will tell me where and how -- and of course you do that. >While I would be one of the first to admit that the intertwining >of the feelings and the mind is in all of us, I would also like >to make sure what they are when separated Why, Dallas? What would you do with the knowledge? DTB Always test it, and try to share it with others who would look at it independently and shoot holes in it when it goes unreasonable. I think that any great University or academy serves as a repository of thinking and examining Nature. In fact one might say that Nature has it all figured out, and that we fit into some aspect of Nature which accommodates us, and adjusts our angularities with others' and tries for a continually dynamic harmony. Not static, but always moving forward. One can learn a lot, but if it is not shared, it is pretty useless, isn't it? >and why they are so >mixed when we do our thinking or desiring ? Because this mix is the foundation of "balance." One without the other is not a balance, but a one-sidedness. A half-life. DTB So true. >How is it that >psychology makes these distinctions and Theosophy seems to add a >wider dimension to their consideration? Psychology is not interested in the metaphysical or spiritual - it is not part of the scientific criteria. Psychology wants to know how the brain works in the world. Theosophy, on the other hand, does claim the link between the brain, mind, and spiritual as part of its philosophy. DTB And that I think is where psychology limits itself. But fortunately there are some good psychologists who do not adopt those limits. They are investigating the fringes where that science in the art of living merges with other things. Analysis has to give way to synthesis in an harmonious and dynamic LIVING world. One might as well ask: Why is there anything? Why do I exist? You might answer " I have an inexhaustible urge to create." I admit that and still would ask: "Why?" and also "Where does that come from?" And I am pretty sure that some answers are there. But I do not know them, and only you are close enough to find them for yourself. >Finally, what power is it in us that enables us to change our >desires and to vary them? I'm getting quite redundant here, but I must answer that it is creativity. As we experience more and more, our desire to create or express different ideas tends to change. As we become exposed to more, we see wider and greater potentials for our expressions. DTB Just as above. >How is it that we can perceive areas of uncertainty ? Uh, probably what is unknown or just raw fear. What makes one uncertain is the unknown and the unknown, to many, is fearful. DTB Doesn't fear disappear when we have secured a view of the parameters of that which faces us? could we live for even an instant more if "fear" alone daunted us? what gives us any confidence at all to continue living? What counterbalances "fear ?" Breathing the air and drinking water are both dangerous. Anything we do is always novel for that instant. We are always adventuring into the unknown and the inexperienced, every moment of our life. Somehow, don't we rely on past experience, to be able to cope with most new events and adventures? Not all are unpleasant. What about strokes of "good fortune?" Do we deserve them? [ Did you ever read Plato/s "THE LAWS " ? He seems to cover this rather well there. ] Where does trust and reliance arise unless it is in some sense that we trust the general law of fairness and justice in nature will also serve to protect and help us ? What is the memory of our past experiences, but is that not an ally which reassures? What is reassurance? How does it arise? >Where is there some "stability" that makes this possible, so that we can have a "dialog with ourselves ?" Again, for me, since nothing is really "stable," it is my memory that provides stability. I remember how I dealt with something, I remember how I hate carrots, I remember how much my loved ones love me, I remember that scientists are working on cures, etc. . .this provides reference which leads to a sense of stability both within myself and the world. DTB Agreed, But do you tolerate raw carrots? I know some who can't stand them cooked? what about carrot cake? Where do you get your Vitamin A from? Memory is not emotion, but memory can be about an emotion. >Where does that Power come from? You got me there. . .. >Is it an attribute of the REAL HUMAN BEING ? I don't know what you mean by a "REAL HUMAN BEING." DTB Essentially one who makes choices. We do this all the time and perhaps we do not realise how important that is. To me humanity resides in the possession and use of the mind-faculty. I would rather a real human being as one who practices (or rather, tries to practice) all the virtues. >Is it possibly superior even to the Mind ? Which "mind" are you referring to? DTB I think that there are 3 aspects of the mind. 1. the Cold hard investigative type. Perhaps the astronomer or the mathematician or of chemist and the physicist are types where this is used. They want facts and knowledge. They desire to demonstrate the Laws that rule the Universe and our environment. 2. The Mind that is involved in sentiment, emotions, pain and pleasure, desire and a million other kinds of emotions relating to one's ordinary daily life -- a thing that is ours, and is operating all the time we are awake and making choices and decisions. Essentially it is self-centered. 3. The mind that is moved by compassion, generosity, love, altruism the desire to Protect the helpless, the young, and the aged. It desires to learn, to know and to fit itself to be better able to assist others. It is self-sacrificial -- not "goody-goody," but very sincere, honest, truthful, and always creative. If anything we might say that it tends towards universals, seeking them and trying to make application of them in its living. >and see if you can help clear up some of my questions, please Is this a double dog dare??? DTB Whatever that is -- you betcha. Lets get to trying it out. Thanks for a good hour's work and thought Kym Best wishes to you Dal Kym --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.NET List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=3Dtheos-l To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:08:25 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Evolution >>Theosophy posits that there is a double line of evolution, the material and the Spiritual. ... The independent Minds, >> Dallas, while you are simply quoting Blavatsky, I would like to make a small point here. "Evolution" by its very definition implies progress=change over time. Depending on how we want to define "spiritual" we could, in fact, say that anything spiritual is perfect and therefore in no need of any "progress." This idea of a spiritual evolution is, IMHO, plain crazy, unless we define "spiritual" as something below "perfection." Some would separate spiritual from divine and have the divine as perfect and the spiritual as still evolving. If this is how you see it, then you are at least consistant. But the offhand use of the term "spiritual evolution," as if we know what it means, throws off a lot of people and some outsiders read this and conclude that Theosophy is full of fruitcakes. As to matter evolving, we have to recall that Blavatsky said that no plane can ever be skipped insofar as manifestation is concerned. What this means, is that all planes evolve, not just spirit (the highest three) and matter (the seventh and lowest). My own take is that to say there are two evolutions, spiritual and material, is misleading. Blavatsky came out with this for a reason -- in her day only physical evolution was acknowledged. Today, just about everyone will agree that the human mind or psyche also evolves. But the fact is that all planes evolve, and so our physical, affective, cognitive, and spiritual aspects all evolve over time and they do so interactively. Each is dependent on the others. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:18:23 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Ultiamte Use of Models <> Well said John, and a great post. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:32:56 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Response to Katinka >>It seems to me, and that is why I bring up creativity, that science has the most problem with creativity, which (for the scientists here) may be described as that which goes against entropy. >> No, entropy is not the problem. The idea of increasing entropy (chaos) only applies to closed systems, and virtually all real-world systems are open. Prigogine's Entropy is applicable to open systems in the same way that Shannon's Entropy applies to information. No, the problem of origins and evolution is in the idea of a beginning. The Big Bang Model begs the question of what happened before it. Blavatsky solved this problem by contrasting evolution with involution and made the whole thing a circle. But Theosophists since then have misconstrued this and have insisted that the purpose of evolution is to somehow evolve the Monad into something "better." Any time anyone, science or Theosophy, tries to describe manifestation as a linear process, they get into trouble. Evolution is not linear because there is also involution, and my Monad doesn't think it needs any improvement, thank you very much... >>This is indeed a great mystery, and may be very close to the FINAL MYSTERY or what HPB calls the first Cause.>> Looking for a First Cause is a logical necessity, but you won't actually find one. >> And what is that? I call it creativity, but it might be called intelligence. From what you say above I gather that you do not mean That when you use the word monad. >> No, I wouldn't use intelligence with monad, but rather with mind. Intelligence, like beauty and art, is much in the eyes of the beholder. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:07:36 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: gradual/sudden path/wasRe: sentimentality Hello, I should say the description of the spiritual path in Sentimentality was the gradual path (lam-rim) one. The Sudden path is similar in how it relates the three practices and spheres of functioning but the process is different. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:43:19 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: more gradual/sudden path/wasRe: sentimentality Hello, I thought I would develop the gradual path and sudden path comparison. It seems to be a cross-cultural phenomenon. In the west (pagan Neo-Platonism, Hellenistic Judaism, and Christianity), the gradual path is characterized as three stages of purgation, illumination, and union. The two premier early Christian representatives of this gradual path are Dionysius the Areopagite and John the Silent. Later, John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila are representatives of the gradual path. The representatives of the sudden path, in the west, were Evagrios, R. Bacon, and Eckhart. In the Buddhist east, the representatives of each are well know. To repeat, the first phase of the process of transformation in the gradual path is purgation. Purgation has three components. Purgation of the awareness (nous, the Greek for buddhi) is the practice of samadhi or as the Neo-platonists and Eastern Christians put it, enstasis. This process overcomes the clouded distractibility of the awareness as it becomes a stable, lucent, presence of sober wakefulness. This intial phase is the purgation/purification of awareness of disruptive and interfering thoughts and emotions by separating it from them. Purgation of the reasoning/conceptualizing part of mind (dianoia, Greek for manas) is the development of its powers of analysis and logical reasoning. The initial phase is purgative because it is a training of the reasoning/logical powers of mind to not be distracted, fuzzy-headed, or fallacious by separating it from other factors like emotion. Purgation of emotions is developing them into well-crafted patterns of response and perceptive insight by purging them of patterns of resentment, hurt, and other crap of an emotional past haunting the mind as baggage and bad habits. Illumination has the same three corresponding aspects. Where the initial phase of purgation was to separate and normalize the three functions without mutual interference and disruption, the illuminative phase starts to bring them back together in mutually supporting roles. Union is where these three spheres have be fully fused with each other and with the higher guiding reality the controls/is how the universe flows (to put it as broadly as possible). Thus, contemplation (theoria) has three components in all these phases. Theoria = enstasis/hesychia of the nous + diakrisis (discriminative powers of rational mind) of dianoia + praxis of the eso kardia and thymos. Once harmonized, theoria leads to episteme, gnosis, or sophia (depending on which tradition you refer to). The gradual path seeks to remove obstacles to clear/correct functioning first, and then, bring on the enlightened state of functioning. By contrast, the sudden path says the enlightened state is automatically self-correcting. The trick is to find it and learn how to stay in it in a variety of situations just as if one was learning how to stay on a surf board through all sorts of waves/conditions. Thus, for Evagrios, one found the unitive state which was automatically an illuminative and purgative state. This was also the view of Eckhart. It was also, I'd argue, what Krishnamurti discovered. In a theosophical context, I'd say Krishnamurti became a teacher of the sudden path while books such as Taimini's Self Culture is a gradual path text. So, again, emotions are movers - e-motors. They had been evolved to be rapid bodily responses to situations. Thus, they have a bodily aspect as moving or e-moting. Muscles are prepped to be flexed for action or relaxed by bio-chemical, neural, and lymphatic signals sent to prompt for a line of action. And they have a psychological aspect where they are experienced as a strong imperative "do this." At least in effect. As evolved patterns of almost automatic response, they are the legacy/replacement of behavioural instincts. They boot up body and urge the mind. But they stop. Then it is time for mind and/or training to take over. And further, as almost automatic patterns of rapid response, they have to have been correct enough of the time to allow the body to survive. So, most the time (maybe with few defective bodies that can't harm overall viability of a species) they correctly respond appropriately to situations. Imagine animal that had fear/flight in face of food and anger/aggression at predator for which it was food. Soon the whole species would be dead. The human trick is to train and refine these patterns of emotional response from their endowed primitive forms into higher and more nuanced forms. Because emotions are movers, they can enhance or interfere or interrupt other mental processes in the mind due to the legacies of bad karma as chronic malfunctioning. Besides being patterns of response, I said emotions are cognitive. They are forms of perception beyond the five senses. There has to be a correct recognition of a situation for the emotion to be a correct response. But what is more, without emotion, sometimes what the situation is is left unknown especially if it is an emotional or social situation. Emotions can only cognitively mislead us only if we are rightly relying on them to see or get information. The eye can deceive as well as the ear for same reason. If we rely on them to perceive, they sometimes will mislead. Same with emotions. The problem with emotions as both movers and as perceivers in modern society is that they are not trained. The gradualist approach seeks to train each main power, buddhi-nous-intellectus, manas-dianoia-ratio, and the emotions first to work correctly alone (purgation), and then, in tandem (illumination - in lam rim, "higher insight"), and finally, as one integrated power of being (union - in lam rim, "perfect insight" or "enlightenment."). The sudden approach says finding the unitive state is self-correcting (automatically illuminative and purgative), and the task, is learning to maintain it and practice it in a variety of situations. Anyway, last time I mentioned virtue ethics. The standard conceptions of it are mostly gradualist in approach. A virtue is a well-crafted competence that has been cultivated into a high degree of excellence. The Greek arete (virtue) literally means excellence. Virtue ethics was not about finding correct rules to manage large social group (decide how to behave in one) but often said to be training persons to be of good character. Goal was to create not good rules but good people. In Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Greek philosophy, importance component of ethical training was training emotions (dispositions of heart, of thymos, etc.) into reliably and as excellent patterns of emotional insightful response as possible. There was training of emotions. This is part of any Buddhist meditation training as well as yogic training. On the gradualist path, the first step is the meditational separation of awareness from the inner useless and usually negative chatter of thought driven by emotional resentments and identifications until at least dhyana (pure awareness without thought or emotional interference or distraction) or samadhi is achieved. And I said that most westerners mistakenly think this is the whole of meditation. Through the practice of right concentration/awareness training, ability to be purely aware is achieved (right concentration). But this is a mere means to an end. Most western meditators get no further than this thinking this is meditation. Again, this is wrong. On the gradualist path there is also, as I said, a discipline of thought by its learning correct information correctly understood and logical training in non-formal mental reasoning into a very high state of logical expertise (right views or right discrimination/inferencing). This is why debates, mental math, and mental logic are part of the training of Buddhist monks. They perform, in their head in an instant, astounding feats of mental contraposition, conversion, and obversion of the categorical propositions of a syllogistic argument that it takes western logicians a pencil and paper to work out. They do this in debates. Third, the gradualist path has the crucial training in ethical practices which are training of emotions, cleaning out resentments/crap, etc, as I said. The main characteristic, again, of the gradualist path, is the three phases of this development. Once these three absolutely necessary and separate lines (at the purgative stage) have reached a certain level of proficiency, they begin to enhance the other lines (at the illuminative stage). Thought, instead of distracting and clouding awareness, in its disciplined form sharpens it into sharp analytic, clear, and distinct awareness. Clear pristine awareness that is a gathered and concentrated focus that cannot be distracted can give enhanced attention to the implications and ramifications of a line of logical inference. Purified emotions no longer disturb (in their moving aspect) reasoning processes or awareing processes and no longer (in their cognitive aspect) cause awareness to misperceive or reason to falsely or fallaciously mis-infer. Positively, they become enhanced forms of insight integrating the five senses into a total empathetic response or taking in of a situation in an insightful fashion. Then, these three aspects of human development, beyond enhancing each other, begin to fuse and interpermeate each other (at the unitive stage). They become fused into one consciousness. The sudden path, again, says find the unitive state first, and the illuminative and purgative processes happen automatically. Then, they are trained together, as a form of enlightened functioning, as we practice being enlightened in various situations that are sort of like tests at the skill of being enlightened within them. Anyway, on both approaches, emotions had their role. Thus, as I said, the ultimate objectivity is a Buddha's insightful compassion - the SOLE emotion of a Buddha, and thus, the SINGLE-FOCUSSED INSIGHT of a Buddha (the cognitive aspect) and SOLE MOTIVE of a Buddha (the moving aspect). Grigor Vahan Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 13:40:37 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Dyzan, Dzan, chan and TarimPS In a message dated 11/7/99 2:29:13 PM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > I appreciate the difference you indicate. > > To make myself clearer (at least to myself) let me say that you > probably will never find all the evidence in objective artifacts > or relics that will enable you to confirm every least detail of > what HPB and Theosophy teach. They are simply not available > physically. > I never said they were. The Dzog chen is supposed to have been brought here from another world/planet at a higher plane and its texts are said to be fragments of the fuller tradition of that higher world. All I'm claiming is that HPB does give physical/historical indications of her "earthly" source or her source in its "earthly" aspects. When these are compared to known and/or newly discovered texts/traditions/locales, the "earthly" aspects of her source most closely matches that of the "earthly" aspects of Dzog chen. > And as I look over the ever increasing numebr of commentaries and > translations or texts as now emerge I can sense where many key > statements have been altered by or changed by sectarians. I don't know what you are referring to here. In former Soviet Union/Caucasus, we did not have much post-HPB. Krishnamurti's conflict with the schemes of AB, CWL, and Arundale seemed to be indicative of what went wrong with the TS after HPB. After that, we became somewhat isolated from outside world, few in number (Stalin didn't like theosophists either), and maybe, something like a time-capsule. I don't mix my vodka and I don't mix my theosophy with AB, CWL, or Arundale developments or any afterward because it seemed that Krishnamurti, while a genuine product of ES training (world-teacher, as he said, is a state anyone can reach, I'd say), was not what the leaders of the TS really wanted with their little power intrigues and need to pass out intiations like glorified fraternity memberships. While they warned people that the "expected world teacher" would not be what people would expect, they found themselves in the same boat. They themselves rejected the very thing they worked so hard for. Again, I do not say Krishnamurti was the world teacher. To conceptualize him as such, whether at first proclaiming him as such and then rejecting him as such, was a total misconception of what the state of world teacher is. So, in Caucasus, it appeared that this whole episode was one that indicated what would happen to anyone who genuinely progressed along the path. He or she, while the acknowledged goal of the ES of the TS to be supported by the leaders, would in fact be what they most feared as threatening the cozy little game of "lets play lodge politics." So, when I got out of the isolated world of Soviet Union, I saw in the current state of the TS little to change the perception that Russian theosophists had of the sorry state of the TS of AB, CWL, and Arundale, as a result of the Krishnamurti fiasco, before they lost contact with world theosophy. And there is too much lead in the TS to dump our philosopher stone time capsule into in the forlorn hope to transmute it. Anyway, if you think I'm one of the "changers of texts" into alpha and beta versions and so on, I'm not. But that time capsule theosophy from Russia seems in spirit to be at least kin to Dzog chen, and in the "earthly" pointers left by HPB, theosophy seems to match the the "earthly" aspects of Dzog chen. And wouldn't it be odd that the hidden Wisdom that is supposed to be behind all traditions was only known and represented by the TS. I think so for two reasons. First, if it did exist apart from HPB's imagination as the esoteric Wisdom of other traditions, then "earthly" embodiments of it should be found apart from the TS. Second, if the Wisdom religion is eternal and cannot fail, then given the current sorry state of the TS, the TS cannot be the only "earthly" place where it is found for the TS has failed. I am one of those who believe that that non-Buddhist, that Budhism that is neither the exoteric southern Buddhism of Gautama nor wholly the northern Buddhism of Tibet, and that esoteric lamaism that HPB found, in its earthly manifestation, is otherwise know as Dzog chen. And, being born in the same region, following up what is known of her travels and contacts east, I found centers or practitioners of Bon Dzog chen, some whose teachers remembered that HPB had been there. She tried to defend her status as a legitimite teacher by giving clues to sources, by using the scholarship of the day that supported her claims, and I don't see why that can't be continued. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:58:50 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Evolution ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 2:08 PM > Subject: Evolution > "Evolution" by its very definition implies > progress=change over time. Is it not usually used to describe change *for the better* over time? I fear I see no evidence for evolution that fits this ideal. Even the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" idea should allow for the possibility that "fittest" is not necessarily "best." I agree with the I Ching that there IS change, and observe that there is a process of *development* constaqntly taking place which does produce change over time. Whether this is "progress" depends on how we choose to define "progress." > Depending on how we want to > define "spiritual" we could, in fact, say that anything spiritual > is perfect and therefore in no need of any "progress." This > idea of a spiritual evolution is, IMHO, plain crazy, unless we > define "spiritual" as something below "perfection." Some > would separate spiritual from divine and have the divine as > perfect and the spiritual as still evolving. If this is how you > see it, then you are at least consistant. But the offhand use > of the term "spiritual evolution," as if we know what it means, > throws off a lot of people and some outsiders read this and > conclude that Theosophy is full of fruitcakes. I conclude that Theosophy is full of fruitcakes, whatever Theosophy may be. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:50:41 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Dallas - theos-l digest: November 09, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 9:01 AM > Subject: Re: Dallas - theos-l digest: November 09, 1999 > I postulate that logic, objectivity, and reasoning can veer off > into a tangent, causing harm, havoc, and pain. Therefore, I still do not > see how reasoning is "superior" to emotions, including sentimentality. > Logic "objectivity" and reasoning all too often depend upon a given premise. In Hitler's National Socialist Philosophy, the "Aryan" white race was superior. IF that is accepted then everything that the NAZIs did in WWII, including the mass extermination of Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals, was logical and reasonable. IF, for example, the Russians decide that Chechnya is "bad" for Russia, then it is logical and reasonable to destroy it in order to protect Russia. IF, for example, the US administration decided that Lincoln was wrong, and that slavery was fine, then it would be logical and reasonable to re-introduce it. Emotion, on the other hand, while it can easily over-react to events, comes from depth of feeling, and, at its best, from the heart. There can be a Bill of Rights which, logically and reasonably states that we are all born equal, but no legislation, however logical or reasonable, can impose *Compassion* upon those for whom it legislates. All "logic" and "reason" depend upon a starting "IF" - and as for "objectivity," it lies in the eye of the beholder. We don't know everything, cannot see everything, for the equipment we walk around in does not have the capacity. We do not have infra-red sight or X-ray vision, nor perfect intuition, and have absolutely no idea of what may go on outside our own Universe (and our personal little "universes." Humanity is an ignorant child, but alas, not an innocent one. Let's try to get real. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 22:28:06 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Evolution In a message dated 11/10/99 7:21:26 PM Central Standard Time, ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > > "Evolution" by its very definition implies > > progress=change over time. > > Is it not usually used to describe change *for the better* over time? I > fear I see no evidence for evolution that fits this ideal. Even the > Darwinian "survival of the fittest" idea Evolution needs careful defining. Darwinian evolution means that the fittest, at any inopportune moment, survive. That does not mean they are better. In essence, the Darwinian formula is the survivors survive. Pure accident. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:15:11 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Dallas - theos-l digest: November 09, 1999 > Dallas wrote: > > >What I mean is that sometimes sentimentality ( non-reasoning) > >overwhelms us all. > > How is sentimentality "non-reasoning?" Sentimentality is another term for > "tenderness." Is tenderness "non-reasoning?" To me, tenderness is a very > reasonable response to many events, persons, animals, experiences, etc. Sentimentality in my understanding is quite different from tenderness. Sentimentality is there where a memory of some kind is combined with some positive feeling. therefore, I do not agree with Dallas that the positive aspect of mind is that it can look back. many things we call emotions are in fact emotions+memory+thought and acquire their strength and persistence from the combination. > >It is difficult to hold it in control, and when it goes of at > >some tangent or another, it drags the "mind" or "reasoning > >faculty" with it, usually. > > Agreed, but I postulate that logic, objectivity, and reasoning can veer off > into a tangent, causing harm, havoc, and pain. Therefore, I still do not > see how reasoning is "superior" to emotions, including sentimentality. To me it seems that both have their place in things. When the mind interferes with emotions, it usually does not work well, especially if the mind has not taken the time to observe emotion. On the other hand if emotion interferes with mind (for instance when I am doing my math-homework) it usually does not exactly help with that either. both have their place. > >But who or what is the "WE" that even > >considers "to control, or "not to control?" I suppose it is that something that makes us individual..Atma? But this is a beautiful example of how theosophical labeling does not get us anywhere, because we can decide together to call it Atma, but that does not explain anything. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:41:40 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: emotions, sentimentality On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:47:09 -0700 kymsmith@micron.net wrote: Kym: > Katinka wrote: >The way I see it, emotions can be a major block for >understanding. Which is why I am rather wary of them. Kym: Ok, but why? How or in what way are emotions a major block for understanding? Can logic or reasoning serve as a block for understanding? Katinka Yes, I also think logic or reasoning can be a block for understanding. An example of that is very simple: the mind is very good at looking at only a part of what is relevant to a certain problem, and reasoning from there can reach conclusions that are quite logical, but do not have much to do with a new understanding of reality or even the problem involved. Emotions can do the same. If love for my husband (a fictive one in my case) prevents me from seeing the harm he is doing to others, than my emotions are blocking a real understanding of the situation and perhaps what I could be doing to help. Katinka wrote: >But sentimentalism is something other than emotions. >Sentimentalism usually (in my experience) makes some things bigger and others smaller: in short works as a sort of *funny mirror* (if that is how those country-fair-mirrors are called).> Kym: I don't see how sentimentalism is different from emotions. Katinka: Yes, you got me there. sentimentalism is obviously an example of an emotional response. What I mean is that sentimentalism is usually an atachment to a particular set of emotions+memories and that atachment can stop us from seeing things as they are now, thereby stopping us from living with the problems and happynesses in the now. Kym: > Emotions, also, can make things seem bigger or smaller. For example, as one develops compassion (in the human sense), "evil" becomes smaller, and "acceptance" becomes bigger. > katinka: agree. This is an example of how emotions can work positively. Kym: > Another example: John the Baptist claimed that he must decrease so Jesus could increase - was John the Baptist being sentimental, emotional, or reasonable? If sentimentality REALLY is seeing some things as bigger (or more important) and others smaller (less important), then sentimentality seems to be a necessary component to spirituality and understanding.> Katinka: This discussion is a classic example of the mind or heart-dispute in theosophy. I am not trying to minimize the factor Heart in spiritual life. Obviously the heart has a lot to do with what gets us on this path and what keeps us from straying to egoistical grounds. All I am saying is that they each have their place and when emotions (not the overall LOVE feeling, but annoyance, anger, inner unrest, but also likes for individuals sometimes) interfere with what I feel to be my duty, I do not like the emotional world. It is too messy for my taste, but I am forced to live in it, so I do, but I would like more of those experiences of inner calm... That inner calm could be called an emotion too, but it is only such in the way that a calm summer day is weather, as much as an autumn storm. Katinka: >Well, any point of view is subjective, even the seemingly >objective, so I understand your difficulty here. kym: > This statement seems to suggest, then, that there really is no such thing > as objectivity. Yes? No? If so, what is the difference between > subjectivity and emotions? Katinka: Well, in subjectivity our past and present thoughts come in as much as our present emotions. Consciousness is messy too. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:56:17 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Response to Katinka Jerry wrote: > No, the problem of origins and evolution is in the idea > of a beginning. Is it? Are you then of the opinion that the whole thing is a giant machine that after it started just kept on going and acidentally created man? Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:52:30 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Jerry:First Cause Why, if finding the First Cause is a logical necessity, do you argue it cannot be found? Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:54:41 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to anyone: physical evolution Does theosophy espouse physical evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense? If so, what is the evidence used to support this? Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:45:19 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Alan:logic Why is it that logic is used to prove that emotion, sentimentality, intuition, etc. are superior to logic? The examples you sight where logic would fail us are examples of just incomplete logic. For example, "slavery" is not necessarily bad and war is not necessarily a logical solution if the premises are wrong. As I see it, reason and logic(and direct experience, which is logic in itself) are the only tools we have to achieve whatever surety we can get. Furthermore, I feel this in my heart, and really really really have faith in it, and it makes me feel secure warm and fuzzy, and I get really mad when others don't agree and sob in glee when they do. There that's the best of all worlds, logic supported by emotion. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 06:32:11 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. Nov 11 Re; Evolution, physical, psychic and mental Dallas offers for consideration: Get a copy of the SECRET DOCTRINE by HPB and start looking at the Table of Contents for Vol. 2. Evolution in the Darwinian sense is only partially supported by Theosophical teachings as that relates to the physical side of evolution. The Evolution of the psychic and the intellectual aspects has to be also considered. This is what the SD does. The answer is not simple, but requires a study of what is taught in the SD. Further the development of the science of Geology is progressing, and there are many anomalies which ought to be detailed and explored. The changes in the distribution of Earth's continents and the cataclysms that have caused those changes ought to be also considered as historically reported by the ancient School of the Adepts, which far outdates the last 300 years of our developing geological and archaeological sciences. The theory of plate tectonics is not entirely endorsed by Theosophical doctrines., for reasons given in SD Vol. 2 Any one who has visited ancient monuments in Peru, Cambodia, China, Mongolia, India, Java, Egypt, Guatemala, and around the Mediterranean [ the pages and issues of NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC over the past 70 years makes this relatively easy] where the remains of "cyclopean" structures are still to be seen, knows that there is ample evidence of civilizations which far anteceded ours and the small slice of history allowed to us by modern speculations and hypotheses, which barely exceeds 5,000 years. Further one finds evidence in those artifacts of a sophistication in engineering and mathematics, in astronomy and material sciences that in some cases exceeds even ours today. We have tried, but not succeeded in building even a small pyramid. I find it strange that we place reliance on the soft estimates of current science and treat them as facts, whereas in reality the real Professors and authorities at the base of every one of our Sciences will confess that they are constantly pushing at the frontiers of discovery. What are offered to the "average man" today is theory, and some popular writers treat those as "facts." The dusty shelves of hundreds of colleges and dozens of museums are crowded with anomalies that remain to be analyzed and dated. Much of the so called evidence that has been used to base our scientific theories of evolution on is fragmentary, and chosen deliberately to suit the fancy of some one or other of earlier authorities, whose ideas remain to be fully authenticated. Hypothesis and theory ought to be honestly labeled. It only takes a little effort to review the development of hypothesis over the past 60 years to determine how much has been the actual dramatic change in terms of additional antiquity that is assigned to pre-historical relics, artifacts, and concepts. I went to school in the 1920-30 period, and I have watched those changes in the pat 60/70 years. One need only compare the articles in ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA on any of our sciences and their estimates of time and antiquity, as published in that time, with those of the present to see detailed the changes I speak of. One ought to become familiar with FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY or THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE by M. Cremo to assure ourselves of this statement that I make has a fair basis of soundness. Dallas Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: WLR7D@aol.com [mailto:WLR7D@aol.com] > Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 4:55 AM > Subject: Randy to anyone: physical evolution Does theosophy espouse physical evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense? If so, what is the evidence used to support this? 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, 11 Nov 1999 06:32:19 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Evolution Nov 11 See below please Dal 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 -----Original Message----- > From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@iximd.com] > Date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 6:08 AM > Subject: Evolution >>Theosophy posits that there is a double line of evolution, the material and the Spiritual. ... The independent Minds, >> Dallas, while you are simply quoting Blavatsky, I would like to make a small point here. "Evolution" by its very definition implies progress=3Dchange over time. Depending on how we want to define "spiritual" we could, in fact, say that anything spiritual is perfect and therefore in no need of any "progress." DTB Not entirely correct. "Spiritual" indicates to me an ideal base or starting point. It would be silly to deny that there are changes all around us. But grasping opportunity to progress and using one's mind are progressive (to me). "Perfection" is not something definite, but infinitely regressive, just as graduation from one educational "class" to another is also regressive in terms of both past and future progress and achievement. Actually what happens (as I see it) is that our minds grow to accommodate more information and simultaneously we process this seeking for those correlates that lead to an appreciation of the laws of analogy. These analogies can be traced everywhere in the vast economy of Nature. This idea of a spiritual evolution is, IMHO, plain crazy, unless we define "spiritual" as something below "perfection." Some would separate spiritual from divine and have the divine as perfect and the spiritual as still evolving. If this is how you see it, then you are at least consistant. But the offhand use of the term "spiritual evolution," as if we know what it means, throws off a lot of people and some outsiders read this and conclude that Theosophy is full of fruitcakes. DTB Anyone might arrive at any conclusion, but like you those who are truly interested question for meaning. To me "spiritual evolution" means the seeking for and application of "BROTHERHOOD" in all aspects of life. The implications of a "Universal Brotherhood" are tremendous -- and for those who use that as a commencement they can occupy a lifetime of inquiry and search, as well as practice and experience. As to matter evolving, we have to recall that Blavatsky said that no plane can ever be skipped insofar as manifestation is concerned. What this means, is that all planes evolve, not just spirit (the highest three) and matter (the seventh and lowest). DTB I see it that way also, but there are interrelations between the planes that have to be described and then used by that Intelligence that is able to do that. To me that signifies the mind. So if one speaks of perfection, one also seeks to show how right choosing is a part of right living, and in a way we get back to the injunctions of the Buddha as to how we ought to conduct our lives ideally. and that leaves lots of room for trial and error. My own take is that to say there are two evolutions, spiritual and material, is misleading. Blavatsky came out with this for a reason -- in her day only physical evolution was acknowledged. Today, just about everyone will agree that the human mind or psyche also evolves. But the fact is that all planes evolve, and so our physical, affective, cognitive, and spiritual aspects all evolve over time and they do so interactively. Each is dependent on the others. DTB Agreed in general. HPB came to show that the Spiritual at one end and the Material at the other were constantly in relation with each other and Perceived by a sense that might include what is called, broadly, the psycho-mental. She also tried to demonstrate that the Mind is able to independently view both the extremes and was itself an evolving faculty. The real question is WHO ARE WE WHO USE AND DIRECT THE MIND ? That question of WE is to my mind important. Best wishes, Dal Jerry S. --- 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, 11 Nov 1999 09:48:37 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Desire There is a lot of discussion going on about emotions and desires. Please keep in mind that compassion and love are emotions, and that the desire to help others is itself a desire. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:03:35 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Gradual vs Sudden Paths Grigor, thanks for the very nice discussion of sudden and gradual paths. The distinction is important. According to the proponents of the sudden path (and probably Zen is the best known), the gradual path is itself sort of a prerequisite or training period. However, they claim that no one can possibly gradually rise into spirituality. The gradual path, they say, only takes you so far and no farther. A leap is required. A jump in attitude and perspective. The gradual path suggests that we can just keep learning and studying and doing good and purifying ourselves until we rise into spiritual insight. The sudden path folks say that this is a deception of the human mind, which must be left behind. The suuden school says that the human mind cannot be gradually transcended, but must be transcended in a leap of consciousness, so to speak. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:25:40 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Gradual vs Sudden Paths In a message dated 11/11/99 9:04:05 AM Central Standard Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > According to the proponents of the sudden path > (and probably Zen is the best known), the gradual > path is itself sort of a prerequisite or training period. This is a compromise view sometimes found in Nyingmapa circles combining Atiyoga with Mahayoga (or the Anuttara of new schools) or combining sudden and gradual paths. It should not be confused with the sudden view strictly speaking. This combined approach arises because some need a prerequisite training stage. But all such training, if unenlightened (which it is), still has the problems of unenlightenment, so to speak. That is, unenlightenment is malfunction, period. Training may lessen the severity of unenlightened malfunctioning but it is still fundamentally malfunctioning just as a disease can have milder symptoms in some yet they are still infected. The pure sudden path view says there is no need for preliminary training. Rather, training comes after basic enlightenment. Instead of training, wrongly, the mind, thoughts, emotions to malfunction less severely, one first finds the enlightened state of mind that is self-healing and self-correcting. Then subsequent to that, there is training in the enlightened state within which the training of awareness, thought, and emotion is directly a practice of their enlightened correct functioning. In essence, gradual path says training comes first, then, enlightenment. By contrast, sudden path, in its pure form, says enlightenment comes first, and then, enlightenment training or practice. Namkhai Norbu once said it this way. Sudden view is first step is to be born a Buddha. Now imagine a Buddha baby born in a perfect Buddha-world. Whereas we, in samsara, learn all sorts of bad ways to get along in this world via awareness, thought, and emotion, the baby Buddha learns all the enlightened ways to function via awareness, thought, and emotion. To train awareness, thought, emotion to be the awareness, thought, emotion of a Buddha, one must first be a Buddha, who subsequently, practices the awareness, thought, and emotions of Buddhahood. That is sudden view, first BE a Buddha, then practice it. Even in Zen, the practice of zazen (samadhi) is to realize satori. But, satori or enlightenment experience is not complete Buddhahood. After one finds satori, one has to practice it dynamically in situations, and this practicing of satori after it has been reached is kensho. Kensho is the real training that comes after satori. Again, the gradual view is training, then, enlightenment. The sudden view is basic enlightenment (satori) first, and then, training in that state to deepen, consolidate, and perfect it (kensho). In Dzog chen, the best or luckiest way is the direct transmission of the enlightened state from the mind of the master to the mind of the student, who then, subsequently, practices that state under the improvising conditions of life as on-going drama. If that is not possible, then something like the practice of Zazen (samadhi) is done. But when the pure state of mind is found, THEN begins the training in being that state of mind in all conditions. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:53:02 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. Dallas: I concur. Our knowledge is a drop, our ignorance a sea. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:55:03 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. In a message dated 11/11/99 2:53:30 PM Central Standard Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > Dallas: I concur. Our knowledge is a drop, our ignorance a sea. > Randy > So knowledge and ignorance are made out of the same stuff?! Hmmm, either way, then, we are all wet.:) Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:40:39 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Krishnamurti Hello, In response to Dallas on Dyzan, Dzan, Chan, and Tarim, I mentioned the Krishnamurti affair. I recollect a print source(s) that documented that he was slipping out on his Theossophical mentors to visit first Ramana Maharishi, and then, Tibetan Buddhist contacts. The source is not the Lutyen books. It may have been a biography by an Indian author. And/or part of it may be in materials about the visitors to Ramana Maharishi, for interview dates, I recall, had Krishnamurti and Evans Wentz in the same "audience" with Ramana Maharishi. Anyone know what sources I may be talking about? Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 20:26:04 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Krishnamurti K met a lot of people -- well known and little known during his life. So nothing surprises me. I have posted your msg on Krishnamurti maillist and hope someone may respond. Recently I was informed that he met with Sai Baba. This is from a fairly reliable source and I do not have independent corroboration. mkr At 05:40 PM 11/11/1999 EST, Hazarapet@aol.com wrote: >Hello, In response to Dallas on Dyzan, Dzan, Chan, and Tarim, I mentioned the Krishnamurti affair. I recollect a print source(s) that documented that he was slipping out on his Theossophical mentors to visit first Ramana Maharishi, and then, Tibetan Buddhist contacts. The source is not the Lutyen books. It may have been a biography by an Indian author. And/or part of it may be in materials about the visitors to Ramana Maharishi, for interview dates, I recall, had Krishnamurti and Evans Wentz in the same "audience" with Ramana Maharishi. Anyone know what sources I may be talking about? Grigor --- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:43:56 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Randy to Alan:logic ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 1:45 PM > Subject: Randy to Alan:logic > The examples you sight where logic would fail us are examples of just > incomplete logic. For example, "slavery" is not necessarily bad and war is > not necessarily a logical solution if the premises are wrong. How do we judge whther a premise is wrong or right? I *did* state that all logic depends upon an "IF" - e.g., "It must be jelly because jam don't shake like that." Nor did I say that slavery was either good or bad, only that IF it was perceived as "good" or "right" then it would be LOGICAL and REASONABLE to re-introduce it. > > As I see it, reason and logic(and direct experience, which is logic in > itself) are the only tools we have to achieve whatever surety we can get. Please explain how direct experience = logic. > > Furthermore, I feel this in my heart, and really really really have faith in > it, and it makes me feel secure warm and fuzzy, and I get really mad when > others don't agree and sob in glee when they do. > This deep faith inspires in me a response that can only be described in the testicular. Alan :0) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:54:26 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. Nov 11th 1999 Looking at the question of "ignorance vs. knowledge" as Theosophy seems to put it in my experience, I think I can safely offer the following for consideration. Let's slightly compound the problem: Man's constitution is said to mirror that of the Universe. The Universe is considered to be SPIRIT-MATTER conjoined at all points in an infinity of Monads (life-atoms) which fill all manifested "Space." They are essentially force fields of electro magnetic substance focused on an immaterial point which is alive, conscious and the source of their being. If SPIRIT and Matter emanate from the same one ABSOLUTE SOURCE in non-manifestation, when manifestation occurs, you have them as polar opposites, or one of these might well be considered as Knowledge of EVERYTHING and knowledge of NO THING. Hence, from SPIRIT, CONSCIOUSNESS in manifestation is deemed to emanate -- Perception. From MATTER -- all forms and limitations. A paradox arises: How are forms designed? In Manifestation, there have to be pattern, plan and design. Is there a "Designer?" Does it not take a MIND to do the memorizing of designs, or their imagining (out of the memory of earlier manifestation periods) , planning (out of the substance of thought) and creation (out of the grossness of electro-magnetic matter) ? If so, then, from the ABSOLUTE emanates along with SPIRIT and MATTER -- the Universal Mind or (MAHAT) and it uses as its executive agent FOHAT or "intelligent electricity", the universal designer. (in the setting of the electro-magnetic fields, whether micro or macro in the entire Universe).. The primordial emanation from the non-manifest ABSOLUTENESS is the three-fold SPIRIT-MATTER-MIND. Man being the microcosm that epitomizes the Universal Macrocosm is Spirit (Atma), Matter (mulaprakriti -- or root matter) and Manas (mind and all its attendant faculties). We may observe that Manas, the mind is independent of either Spirit or Matter yet it sees their interaction and is able to build from that perception: memory. This in turn is added to the accumulation of experience (past memories) -- and that is "knowledge." Ignorance may be inexperience, or a deliberate refusal to grasp and make use of facts. This choice is open to all Humans at all times. I hope this may be of some help. Best wishes, Dallas Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: Hazarapet@aol.com [mailto:Hazarapet@aol.com] > Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 12:55 PM > Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. In a message dated 11/11/99 2:53:30 PM Central Standard Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > Dallas: I concur. Our knowledge is a drop, our ignorance a sea. > Randy > So knowledge and ignorance are made out of the same stuff?! Hmmm, either way, then, we are all wet.:) Grigor --- 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, 11 Nov 1999 20:27:17 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Krishnamurti Here is a msg of interest. Anyone in K-list has any info? mkr >From: Hazarapet@aol.com > Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:40:39 EST > Subject: Krishnamurti List-Unsubscribe: Reply-To: "Theosophy Study List" Hello, In response to Dallas on Dyzan, Dzan, Chan, and Tarim, I mentioned the Krishnamurti affair. I recollect a print source(s) that documented that he was slipping out on his Theossophical mentors to visit first Ramana Maharishi, and then, Tibetan Buddhist contacts. The source is not the Lutyen books. It may have been a biography by an Indian author. And/or part of it may be in materials about the visitors to Ramana Maharishi, for interview dates, I recall, had Krishnamurti and Evans Wentz in the same "audience" with Ramana Maharishi. Anyone know what sources I may be talking about? Grigor > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:12:31 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Alan:logic Alan-- >We can judge whether a premise is incorrect by evaluating it with reason, logic, observation, experience >Direct experience is logical on the face of it. Since logic is a means to truth, and direct experience is truth, experience is logical. >We can judge whether matters are "good" or "right" based upon logic. This of course requires a starting point such as, for example, things that are good create peace and health. I understand this is taking license with the rules of logic perhaps, but I think it is important to understand that the only reliable tool we have for reaching toward truth is our reasoning mind. Every thought we have, every experience we assimilate, every emotion we judge, every sentence you write in reply will be grounded in and filtered by reason. Every time I get along in a discussion like this with one of you folks I always wonder whether we agree or disagree. Playing mishy mush with words tends to create the feeling there can be no common ground. Do we agree on anything? Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:27:17 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. Dallas I appreciate your reply but you lost me after the first sentence. To a novice in the vernacular this seems like mumbo jumbo. It appears you make a wide range of assumptions and then build a philosophical/religious edifice thereon. I would challenge almost every one of the assertions you pile on one another. I could start with the first sentence suggesting that man mirrors the universe. What precisely do you mean by this and what are the proofs? Until this is resolved, all else you have said is dubious. When this is resolved, I will want to go on to the next sentence and ask the same questions. If theosophy is based on the belief that there is one all pervading truth, it seems that any discussion based upon it should have as its first objective reaching agreement on what aspects of this universal truth are known. If agreement cannot be reached at this foundation level, then all further discussion is babble. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:26:52 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > > Does theosophy espouse physical evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense? If so, > what is the evidence used to support this? First of all, remember that when the TS was founded and the Primary Literature was written, there was a major hole in Darwinian theory: it was unknown how physical traits were passed from parent to child. Although Gregor Mendel had done his experiments years earlier, his work was not made known to the public until the early 20th century. Unfortunately, a lot of Theosophists consider that science today is at the same level as it was in the late 19th century, and will give opinions based on that. One of the key problems in Darwinian/neo-Darwinian evolution is, as the overwhelming majority of mutations are unfavorable, how do new species get formed? The biological mechanisms are certainly there, but the odds are way against us, even over the amount of time we have. This is where Theosophy parts from neo-Darwinism: Theosophical writings reveal evolution to be a "push" rather than "pull" process. Evolving consciousness, in search of bodies that will hold it, are the cause the mutations; natural selection is just a fine-tuning mechanism. This would explain the "apes are descended from man" idea; the 4th root race, finding their bodies not sufficient to hold their consciousness, in reincarnating, caused mutations to attempt to create bodies that could hold them. The apes were a failed experiment (recent scientific findings have found that Neanderthal Man is another failed experiment; they were our cousins, not our anscestors); good, but not quite good enough. Now, mind you, this is just one interpretation, and one made on the basis of current science. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:08:05 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Dallas - theos-l digest: November 09, 1999 Nov 12 Dallas offers: Let me try and make clear my meaning, Katinka. Please allow me to insert some comments in the body of your answer below. In regard to the use of technical terms, like Atma -- the "labeling" was used because I was under the impression that all those (or most of those) who exchanged ideas over this study group had read TEH KEY TO THEOSOPHY by HPB and knew those basic "labels" and what they meant. Dal 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 -----Original Message----- > From: hesse600 [mailto:hesse600@tem.nhl.nl] > Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 12:15 AM > Subject: Re: Dallas - theos-l digest: November 09, 1999 > Dallas wrote: > > >What I mean is that sometimes sentimentality ( non-reasoning) > >overwhelms us all. > > How is sentimentality "non-reasoning?" Sentimentality is another term for > "tenderness." Is tenderness "non-reasoning?" To me, tenderness is a very > reasonable response to many events, persons, animals, experiences, etc. Sentimentality in my understanding is quite different from tenderness. Sentimentality is there where a memory of some kind is combined with some positive feeling. DTB Of course "sentimentality" and "tenderness" are separate. But taking both together they are aspects of the "emotional nature -- of that which could be "labeled" "Passions and Desires." therefore, I do not agree with Dallas that the positive aspect of mind is that it can look back. many things we call emotions are in fact emotions+memory+thought and acquire their strength and persistence from the combination. DTB I agree with what you say, Katinka: "emotions + thought" is what I call Kama (desires and passions principle) PLUS Manas (the Mind principle). The combination is referred to by HPB as the "Lower Mind" or the "Embodied Mind." > >It is difficult to hold it in control, and when it goes of at > >some tangent or another, it drags the "mind" or "reasoning > >faculty" with it, usually. > > Agreed, but I postulate that logic, objectivity, and reasoning can veer off > into a tangent, causing harm, havoc, and pain. Therefore, I still do not > see how reasoning is "superior" to emotions, including sentimentality. To me it seems that both have their place in things. When the mind interferes with emotions, it usually does not work well, especially if the mind has not taken the time to observe emotion. On the other hand if emotion interferes with mind (for instance when I am doing my math-homework) it usually does not exactly help with that either. both have their place. DTB Agreed -- and yet if we observe ourselves carefully we will find that the embodied mind (whether doing homework, or anything else) the "reason why" we do those things is largely "emotion" or "desire". Consider what the ancient Vedic sages said: "Desire first arose in IT which was the primal germ of mind, and Sages seeking with their "intellect" in their "heart" discovered to be the bond between Being and Non-Being." Cosmically, or individually, there is "desire" as a cause for thought and mind-action. At this point I would still say: What is it in us that is able to look at both the mind (thinking) and the emotions (feeling, desire, passions) and apparently detached from either ? It is this One Consciousness which is derived from the "ray of the One spirit, the ATMA" which is resident in each of us and forms the undying basis of our existence. > >But who or what is the "WE" that even > >considers "to control, or "not to control?" I suppose it is that something that makes us individual..Atma? But this is a beautiful example of how theosophical labeling does not get us anywhere, because we can decide together to call it Atma, but that does not explain anything. DTB I try not to indulge in just "labeling" to no purpose -- but as I said above I had assumed that we were all familiar with what HPB wrote at least in the KEY to THEOSOPHY. When I consider what someone else writes, I try to give it the broadest parameters and see if there is something in the doctrines of Theosophy that explains what is being said or offered. Best wishes, Dal ----------------------- Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl --- 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, 12 Nov 1999 06:08:12 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality Nov 12 Dallas offers: This is (to me) a valuable review of this subject. Taking reincarnation into account and the progressive learning process implied in the cumulative experience of many births directed at acquiring a wisdom (meaning a complete knowledge of Self and self, as well a the laws and purposes of the Universe) Would not the "sudden" realization in any one life be the result of the striving for that end in perhaps many previous lives? There has to be (logically) a point in any one life when the past is made available and usable. As to "sentimentality" I had used this word so as to be included among the "passions and desires -- the Kamic, feeling principle," rather than one of the faculties of the Mind or "thinking principle." Best wishes, Dallas Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D -----Original Message----- > From: Hazarapet@aol.com [mailto:Hazarapet@aol.com] > Date: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 9:43 AM > Subject: more gradual/sudden path/wasRe: sentimentality Hello, I thought I would develop the gradual path and sudden path comparison. It seems to be a cross-cultural phenomenon. In the west (pagan Neo-Platonism, Hellenistic Judaism, and Christianity), the gradual path is characterized as three stages of purgation, illumination, and union. The two premier early Christian representatives of this gradual path are Dionysius the Areopagite and John the Silent. Later, John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila are representatives of the gradual path. The representatives of the sudden path, in the west, were Evagrios, R. Bacon, and Eckhart. In the Buddhist east, the representatives of each are well know. SNIP From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:21:33 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. Nov 12 Dear Randy: If you approach any science to learn it, you have to teach yourself what are its basis for work and some of its vocabulary. That is also true for theosophy. Have you any familiarity with some of its literature? At the risk of seeming to be abrupt, it is very difficult to try to rewrite all that theosophy teaches when it is possible for both of us to arrive at a joint understanding if you could familiarize yourself with the KEY TO THEOSOPHY. It is not a long read, but it would make for you a bridge of understanding as to what students of theosophy deal with, and why. Is this possible? It is not that anyone refuses to answer you, but the terms you use and the theosophical ones are widely separated by the limitations of our average education, even that which is given at the colleges. To bridge that gap is important -- have you any theosophical texts that you can refer to? If I knew about those, then I wold have an easier time. Man is said to "mirror the Universe" because in Man can be traced in embryo every one of the divers potentials that the Universe represents. Best wishes, Dal 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 -----Original Message----- > From: WLR7D@aol.com [mailto:WLR7D@aol.com] > Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 4:27 AM > Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. Dallas I appreciate your reply but you lost me after the first sentence. To a novice in the vernacular this seems like mumbo jumbo. It appears you make a wide range of assumptions and then build a philosophical/religious edifice thereon. I would challenge almost every one of the assertions you pile on one another. I could start with the first sentence suggesting that man mirrors the universe. What precisely do you mean by this and what are the proofs? Until this is resolved, all else you have said is dubious. When this is resolved, I will want to go on to the next sentence and ask the same questions. If theosophy is based on the belief that there is one all pervading truth, it seems that any discussion based upon it should have as its first objective reaching agreement on what aspects of this universal truth are known. If agreement cannot be reached at this foundation level, then all further discussion is babble. 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, 12 Nov 1999 08:37:53 -0800 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Rich Taylor on a very disturbing issue with far reaching implications Rich Taylor writes in the rough draft of his dissertation on Blavatsky an= d Buddhism: "I merely state here the objective fact that Blavatsky's writings contain the words and ideas of other Western writers, unacknowledged, and that th= ese appropriations sometimes are made to appear as emanating from a hidden or occult source like Tibetan Buddhist Tantras." See http://www.blavatsky.net/forum/taylor/tibetanSources10.htm One should be aware that Rich's contention of "appropriation" is in GLARI= NG contrast to what Anita Atkins (Sylvia Cranston) and Michael Gomes have publicly stated in their biographical writings on Blavatsky. See Rich's dissertation for his detailed documentation. Earlier in the same section, Rich gives more details: "HPB has altered Schlagintweit's text [in his THE BUDDHISM OF TIBET] especially the correspondences in the three realms-but there is no questi= on that overall she has lifted this passage from his book originally. Nota b= ene Blavatsky's footnote, where she claims to be giving out statements from t= he secret portions of the K=E5lachakra Tantra. However, HPB's statements are merely rephrasings of Schlagintweit, taken from his chapter on K=E5lachak= ra, where he gives the Tibetan translation Dus Kyi Khorlo-a technically corre= ct and not a phonetic spelling, which as we have seen (at length above) was = the habit of HPB. In HPB's ten-page chapter entitled "The Mystery of Buddhism= ," which this passage is taken from, Blavatsky does not mention even once Schlagintweit, his book, or any contemporary Western author except A.P. Sinnett, her student. For all HPB's unique knowledge of K=E5lachakra Tant= ra, as described in the previous section, this appropriation of published wor= k (and many others like it) would appear to be quite damaging to her claims= ." If the unacknoweledged appropriations appear damaging, what appears even worse is that "these appropriations sometimes are MADE TO APPEAR as emanating from a hidden or occult source like Tibetan Buddhist Tantras." Why would Blavatsky attribute appropriated material from Schlagintweit's book to a hidden or occult source? And I believe there is at least one example of this in HPB's translation = of the VOICE where she appropriates text from Schlagintweit and makes it app= ear to be from a "hidden or occult source"! How many more examples are there of this kind of which we are absolutely ignorant????!!! I'm curious Rich: Has anyone written to you about any of this after read= ing your dissertation on Blavatsky Net? Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:36:21 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Randy to Alan:logic ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 12:12 PM > Subject: Re: Randy to Alan:logic > Alan-- > Every thought we have, every > experience we assimilate, every emotion we judge, every sentence you write in > reply will be grounded in and filtered by reason. To be serious in this, as in so many things, it becomes necessary to define one's terms, and then to agree - so far as is possible - on our mutual use of them. As an example, take some of the differences between UK and US English. Here we call pencil erasers "rubbers," because we use them to "rub out" pencil marks. Asking for these by their UK name in a US store can cause confusion and embarrassment, as you may well imagine. So hoe do *you* define "reason"? > > Every time I get along in a discussion like this with one of you folks I > always wonder whether we agree or disagree. Playing mishy mush with words > tends to create the feeling there can be no common ground. Do we agree on > anything? I expect we agree on the value of e-mail for communication, even if we are not always perfectly understood! It's interesting to be a "you folks." Do you have mushy peas where you live? Over ..... Alan :0) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:50:28 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 12:27 PM > Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. > If theosophy is based on the belief that there is one all pervading truth, it > seems that any discussion based upon it should have as its first objective > reaching agreement on what aspects of this universal truth are known. If > agreement cannot be reached at this foundation level, then all further > discussion is babble. > Randy > There is a LOT of babble among theosophists. For me, *all* Theosophical "givens" can be no more than working hypotheses, to be tested as best we can for plausibility and empirical evidence. As many on this list will know, I do not support the general view - often presented as Theosophical "dogma" that reincarnation is a fact of life (or life and death - joke). While there is evidence which tends to support this assertion (for that its what it is) there are other possible explanations for this seeming evidence. There *may* be one all-pervading truth (if we know what the hell we mean by such a description) but I seriously doubt if we, as some kind of entity recognised by its physicality, are anywhere near equipped to handle it (whatever it is). What we *discover* we can share, discuss, and maybe use to make our bit of the world a slightly better place - something we seem to want to do. I like that, so I go for it. Astronauts in space, like emperors, presidents and paupers, all s*** out of a more or less identical hole. That's a fact. There have been people on this list from time to time who, IMHO, talk out of the same orifice. Which for some reason remonds me of the constipated mathemetician who worked it all out with a pencil. Sorry. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:57:48 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bart Lidofsky > Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 1:26 PM > Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution > WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > > > > Does theosophy espouse physical evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense? If so, > > what is the evidence used to support this? > > The apes were a failed experiment (recent scientific > findings have found that Neanderthal Man is another failed experiment; > they were our cousins, not our anscestors); good, but not quite good > enough. Whoah! Assuming that some form of "creation" occurs, may it not be that this process looked at Neanderthal Man and thought that it was good? Why should apes be a "failed experiemnt" any more than turkeys or rabbits? If there is a deity, maybe she likes apes, turkeys, and rabbits? On the evidence to date, a case could seriously be made that we ourselves are a "failed" experiment. But this begs the question - who or what is doing the experimenting? > > Now, mind you, this is just one interpretation, and one made on the > basis of current science. Doesn't look good for current science, IMO. > Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:02:08 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality ----- Original Message ----- > From: W. Dallas TenBroeck > Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 2:08 PM > Subject: RE: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality > Nov 12 > > Dallas offers: > > Taking reincarnation into account and the progressive learning > process implied in the cumulative experience of many births > directed at acquiring a wisdom (meaning a complete knowledge of > Self and self, as well a the laws and purposes of the Universe) > Would not the "sudden" realization in any one life be the result > of the striving for that end in perhaps many previous lives? As I find the case for reincarnation "not proven" then the above becomes speculation on a hypothesis. > > There has to be (logically) a point in any one life when the past > is made available and usable. > Why? (The above statement, interestingly, could be made with or without the use of the reincarnation model.) Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:13:33 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. ----- Original Message ----- > From: W. Dallas TenBroeck > Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 2:21 PM > Subject: RE: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. > Nov 12 > > At the risk of seeming to be abrupt, it is very difficult to try > to rewrite all that theosophy teaches when it is possible for > both of us to arrive at a joint understanding if you could > familiarize yourself with the KEY TO THEOSOPHY. It is not a long > read, but it would make for you a bridge of understanding as to > what students of theosophy deal with, and why. > Dear Dal, Over 43 plus years, I have studied and read many theosophical works, the above included. These studies also include the Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled - both seminal works for *modern* theosophy as expressed by and from Blavatsky onwards. I still regard myself as a student of theosophy, but have to say that I have found these works flawed. I have also made an extensive study of biblical literature realting to the Judaic and Christian traditions, with similar results. One form of theosophy began pre-Blavatsky with Jacob Boehme, and another even older form with the 'Hasidic students of Kabbalah. It is possible that the great Rabbi Hillel, in his own way, in his own day, was a "theosophist" of sorts, as was his "Christian" disciple, Paul the apostle. Continually referring modern, intelligent people to just *one* source book, could be regarded as uncomplimentary to their intelligence. How about some references to Pirke Avot? (I got some) Alan :0) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:17:34 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Rich Taylor on a very disturbing issue with far reaching implications ----- Original Message ----- > From: D.Caldwell/M.Graye > Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 4:37 PM > Subject: Rich Taylor on a very disturbing issue with far reaching implications > Why would Blavatsky attribute appropriated material from Schlagintweit's > book to a hidden or occult source? Possibly because she held the view that Schlaginweit's work was istelf derived from a hidden or occult source? Burble burble burble ..... Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:03:08 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution ambain wrote: > > WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > Does theosophy espouse physical evolution in the neo-Darwinian > sense? If so, > > > what is the evidence used to support this? > > > > The apes were a failed experiment (recent scientific > > findings have found that Neanderthal Man is another failed experiment; > > they were our cousins, not our anscestors); good, but not quite good > > enough. > > Whoah! Assuming that some form of "creation" occurs, may it not be that > this process looked at Neanderthal Man and thought that it was good? > Why should apes be a "failed experiemnt" any more than turkeys or > rabbits? If there is a deity, maybe she likes apes, turkeys, and > rabbits? On the evidence to date, a case could seriously be made that > we ourselves are a "failed" experiment. But this begs the question - > who or what is doing the experimenting? WE are. Consciousness pushes forward evolution. The etheric body forms the mold for the physical. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 22:31:41 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 10, 1999 - Dallas Dallas wrote: >DTB What is the QUALITY of tenderness ? Is "Reasoning" >different from the "feeling" of tenderness and love ? Does it in >any way detract from "tenderness ?" Or does it seek to explain >it? I believe that reasoning is different from tenderness and love. Each can exist without the other. And I do believe that, at times, reasoning can detract from tenderness. For a being to have to engage, every time, into the reasons and logic behind why they feel tenderness toward someone or something risks turning the experience of tenderness into an analytical exercise rather than an experience of simple joy. There are times that call for such self-examination, but to require a 'reason' behind every feeling of sentimentality or tenderness is, to me, a taking away of what it means to be "in the moment" of happiness. >DTB Agreed -- but then, What is it that causes such divergence ? Any number of things can cause a "divergence" of emotion or logic into a harmful manifestation: a misunderstanding of the situation, a misunderstanding of one's own or another's motives, another emotion or reason coming into play that distorts the original picture or motive, or simply using logic when emotion was called for or using emotion when logic was called for. Anything and everything we do can "diverge" because we are not the only ones usually involved in the situation - we cannot account for nor predict the reactions and responses of other beings. >"Superiority" implies (to me) that one can substitute for and >understand the other (with or without sympathy). How is it >possible to take either or both of those positions? What does >the "Mind" do in order to take either of those two views? My apologies, Dallas, but until I can attempt to address these questions, I would like to understand what you mean by "one can substitute for. .." What do you mean in using the term substitute and who or what is being substituted? >DTB Relentlessly, I ask myself " What is Human?" What is that >mix? Do you have THE SECRET DOCTRINE? I would refer you to >pages Vol. 2, 79-80, 167 and we might then discuss what is >written there as a starting point. It is quite technical but >also very interesting. For me, it is the story of the Demiurge; the creator of the current global forms (human, animal, planets, trees, flowers). But the Demiurge was unable to infuse the material forms with "Manas" - thus, we were given the spark of the Most Divine, each of us a living god in this physical shell. The passages also suggest that suffering is NECESSARY in order to reach Nirvana - I wonder if such a thing is true. Anyway, the crux of the passages, to me, is that we were created, as all things, and that we have the potential of all things. The potential to become creators of worlds of our own, both here and other "places." We can thank the Demiurge for desiring to create our forms, but as any child must to honor a "parent", we should become our own individuals and create our own "families" and "worlds." The pages you cited discuss our ancestry, but also tells us our "future." The human (and other beings, I personally believe) are transitory forms which already possess everything necessary to attain "Nirvana," but when and how we do so is up to us. >DTB But don't you see, your analogy speaks mainly of the feelings >one experiences in reaction to events. It does not speak of the >"reason" why they happened. I am interested in "the reason why." The reason, in my opinion, is that we are not satisfied unless we explore. Experiencing things helps us learn - lead by our desire to create ourselves and our world. We are part of a cycle, and being in Motion we are prompted to examine and involve ourselves in both physical, emotional, and spiritual experiences. In a word, it is our NATURE. >This can start with a >challenge to one's accepted concepts -- the blow or startling >effect, is to find that someone else has a different concept. >"If so, Why ?" Are you asking why it is startling? If that is your inquiry, I can only answer that the shifting and adjusting of one's paradigms are usually startling, for that involves the movement of one's foundation. It is a natural reaction to be startled at newness - and we can choose to accept or refuse a new idea or concept. But for someone NOT to experience discomfort or some kind of reaction to a new idea is someone that has not been involved in putting together a puzzle of "self and the world." To casually accept anything that comes one's way is, to me, a lack of just plain passion and seriousness. This conclusion of mine, though, is not one I am more than convinced as being correct - there may be very passionate people who do not experience any reaction to new ideas, but, still, I doubt it. >DTB I RATHER WANTED TO CONVEY THE IDEA THAT THE DESIRE BORROWED >THE MIND FACULTIES AND MADE USE OF THEM. (sorry - not shouting, >just pressed the Caps key in error) Ok. But I do not believe that desire "borrows" from the mind faculties for memory and anticipation. I believe that everything is a "package" - mind itself cannot do without desire nor desire without mind. I know that desire is used in a different context in Theosophy, but I think Theosophy errs in doing so. There is nothing base in desiring something - it is part of creativity. One cannot even reason without a desire to do so. Even the Most Divine had a desire to create, and further, to infuse the creations of other gods with the spark that these creations would not have had without intervention. Apparently, the Most Divine desires an equality - a shared mutuality with all. Without the "drive" of desire, nothing would exist. >What is the value of a life preserved? How is that to be >estimated? who estimates? Is this a reasoned concept of one >that has been adopted because "everybody assumes it to be true ?" >Is there any way we can determine the value of such a question or >shall it be laughed out of court? That's a weighty question - personally, politically, socially, spiritually. I do not believe that life should be preserved for the "sake of life." Since I am an advocate of the right for a woman to choose whether or not to terminate or carry a pregnancy, I have to admit that some lives take precedence over other lives. I do believe a person has a right to end their own life if they so choose, although I feel sad when it is a young person for I feel it is an act of desperation rather than careful thought. On the other hand, I do not believe in the death penalty, unless the convicted person wants to die. In short, at this time, there really is no consistent and fool-proof method on how to judge life and its quality. If every being were to disappear off the face of the earth, Life itself would still go on - so Life is not threatened by our death. It may be that our own "growth" may be temporarily stunted, but ultimately, even our "growth" speed and manner is up to us. Remember the classic boat problem? It asks what you would do if you were in a life boat and unless you tossed a few people overboard, the entire boat would sink, killing all. How would you choose? What criteria would you use? You are not allowed to throw yourself out, for you are the only one who can navigate and control the boat - but you must choose who will live and who will die. There is also the question of why have ANYTHING at all? Why even have humanity? Is the existence of humanity so important that all the suffering, joys, mistakes, lessons learned, etc., are worth it in the end? I wonder. >Is the idea of reincarnation >incorrect? Not to me - reincarnation seems necessary and, dare I say it?, logical. >Is there no permanency to man's existence and the >goals that she/he selects? If death ends all, then why set any? No, there is not permanency to our existence, for there will come a time, I believe, in which the human form will be obsolete. But death does not end anything except the existence of a particular form. Since I believe that the number of forms possible are innumerable, there will always be another form in which a "soul" can enter in order to further its education. >How are pain, illness and accidents to be explained? To say >"they happen" -- is that enough of an explanation? To say "they happen" is not enough, and can even be callous - but that doesn't mean it is not true. But, having said that, I do not believe that pain, illness, and accidents "just happen." The reasons are so complex that I don't believe anyone can really, genuinely, "trace back" a cause for an event - it could result from a lifetime of long ago. Who knows. But illness, pain, and accidents can serve as teaching mechanisms - we can learn patience, compassion, and a reverence for life from them - but, I still wonder if such "evil" is really necessary. I think it is possible that we can learn compassion, love, and such from other classrooms. But most philosophies, including Theosophy, tend to disagree and I haven't yet formed a argument solid enough to support my belief. It's just a nagging "feeling" I have. . .. >Why is it >that the protective instinct is so strong? Because something has to sustain a form until the form learns enough to choose whether or not to sustain itself. There may be no need for the form's existence, but only time will tell, and if the form doesn't have something built in to 'keep it going' in order to find out if the form is necessary, the "gods" will never know. The experiment must have some time in existence to observe what "purpose" it can serve. >DTB Again I agree, but besides stating these facts, How do we go >about explaining them? >This is why I said that the mind can act in a superior manner. >It accepts the emotion, but then acts using the Why and How (if >it gives itself the time to do this) and if it does, then it >seeks for the causative side of the event, or the proposed >reaction, does it not? Not necessarily, for in order to "learn" something, we do not necessarily need to learn the "why." But as a philosophy major, I too share your wish to learn the reasons "why." But I have found that sometimes learning the "why" doesn't always aid in understanding or wisdom. Sometimes, the "why" can get in the way - what if we don't like the "why?" For example, what if the "why" turned out to be a vengeful god that just liked playing games - how would that help us to learn compassion? Instead, we may become bitter and resentful - loathe our parenthood and ourselves, believe we are from a "bad seed." I do not believe, of course, that this is the case, but I offer this imaginary "why" as an attempt to show that knowing the "reason" behind something may or may not be conducive to Compassion. A further question might be: are we READY for the ANSWER to our seeking of the "why?" >Political victory -- yes. But at the cost of many of my intimate >friends and their families lives and health and pain and >suffering and even in some cases life itself -- it was quite a >lesson -- I was in school and college in Bombay at that time. >The phenomena of self-sacrifice was wide-spread and spontaneous >all over India. It was not only non-violence, but it was >non-cooperative also. I do believe that there are those out there who truly manifest altruism. I believe in altruism and I believe it exists. However, I postulate that most people on the planet still perform what seems "altruistic" acts due to other motives besides pure altruism. This does not, in any way, "cheapen" their good actions, but I think that many look upon good acts with the additional thought of how it can help their own self. Churches give out food to the poor, but require the receivers to listen to sermons. The giving out of food is admirable, but it also has the motive of bringing in members. A person may arrange a community project to paint or fix up the houses of the elderly in their neighborhood, but they may also have as part of the motive the concept of heightening property values. Again, I do not believe that the "questionable motives" lessen the greatness of the helping actions, just that the pure concept of altruism is not the underlying factor. Did Ghandi act out of pure altruism, or did he, down deep, hope that such an act would further his OWN spiritual and historical growth? I believe that those who were never recorded in the history books, such as your friends who died in the cause, may have been acting out of a purer altruism than Ghandi may have been. He knew he was a leader, he knew his acts would be remembered - your friends did not have that guarantee. But, again, I could be blowing smoke here. >DTB But there was also (possibly) some feelings of compassion for >a people that were made the victims of insane oppression on >religious feuding grounds. I agree, that's why I stated that I believed that NATO did encompass altruism in stopping the Serbian army. >What about tolerance? Live and let >live? Does another person alive represent, reasonably, a threat >and an object to be obliterated out of fear or one's parents >simmering anger brought forward? What is nature's law in such a >case ? The Serbs chose to NOT "live and let live" and suffered the consequences of their actions. It is the nature of humans to fight back in some way when threatened. If one wants to call it "nature's law" than so be it, but one cannot act aggressively towards another and not at least expect that there may be some reaction. The Serbs chose to take the gamble and eventually lost. Unfortunately, the Kosovars and Bosnians lost even more during the "game" between Serbia and the rest of the world. The rest of the world was in danger of losing their "souls" - but rose up just in the nick of time. But still, we suffered some spiritual damage due to our hesistation. >Under Tito (although that was a repressive and regimented >rule - a virtual dictatorship) was there such a genocide? I >speak of this not to argue, but only to present another side of >the "coin." It does seem that a dictatorship can, for a while, reduce violence. The tensions were squashed temporarily - some lost their lives, suffered torture, and other horrendous things under Tito, but the widespread devastation we just witnessed probably would not have happened under Tito. However, it is impossible for humans to exist in that kind of state of being - expression, creativity, different religious beliefs, etc., all make it impossible for a dictorship to ever work in the long run. A benevolent dictator would probably last the longest, but eventually, that too would falter. >>Next I consider: What is dominant in Man and Woman ? What >makes >>them unique -- is it not the power to think, to reason, to >>anticipate, to remember and to IMAGINE ? "WHAT IF.....? " No, Dallas, because if that is what makes one human, are those who are autistic or mentally impaired non-human? An autistic child does not have the power to reason, nor does a "normal, healthy" infant have the power to imagine "what if." It cannot be those faculties you state that make us unique and human, for it says that neither infants or the mentally impaired are human. >But I would also ask if one creates, then does one's >ensuing responsibility cease? Of course not - hence, the Demiurge shares some responsibility for the suffering and pain each sentient being endures. >I would offer that as an example of the >after-effects of a creative act -- consequences always follow >choice and action, don't they? Are we willing to assume the job >of continued care? Yes to the first question - No, to the second. After a person reaches an "age" - which can differ according to the person - we are required to let go. We cannot continue to care for a person in some particular ways or we will hinder their growth. For example, a parent who pays the damages of a destructive act of their 30 year old son or daughter is NOT caring for them - they are ensuring that they remain dependent, irresponsible, and immature. Dallas, not to be rude, but I will address the rest of your post in the next couple of days - my post is getting too long! But I will get to it - if you still want me to, that is, after reading this one. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 22:53:57 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 12, 1999 Dallas wrote to Randy: >At the risk of seeming to be abrupt, it is very difficult to try >to rewrite all that theosophy teaches when it is possible for >both of us to arrive at a joint understanding if you could >familiarize yourself with the KEY TO THEOSOPHY. It is not a long >read, but it would make for you a bridge of understanding as to >what students of theosophy deal with, and why. > >Is this possible? It is not that anyone refuses to answer you, >but the terms you use and the theosophical ones are widely >separated by the limitations of our average education, even that >which is given at the colleges. To bridge that gap is >important -- have you any theosophical texts that you can refer >to? If I knew about those, then I wold have an easier time. Wrong, wrong, wrong, Dallas!!!! If we cannot hold discussions with people who we presume are un-versed in Theosophy, then Theosophists have NOTHING to offer. And most importantly, if Theosophists consider themselves more learned than those who do not know Theosophy, then it is the THEOSOPHIST'S RESPONSIBILITY to re-learn the language of those who do not understand, NOT the reverse. In order to be a teacher, one MUST speak the language of the student. Theosophist's are not to seek "an easier time" as you say - Theosophists, if anybody, are required to endure a "harder" time. By the way, I am not saying that Dallas is the teacher and Randy is the student here - I am just trying to show that the more one claims to know, the more responsible one becomes in "bridging the communication gap." It is YOUR responsibility, by your own presentation of yourself, Dallas, to bridge the communication gap. Case in point: Jesus came DOWN, humanity did not go up. There is a lesson in that. (odd, I do not even believe in the historical Jesus, but he sure comes in handy example-wise) Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 03:26:42 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Desire Nov 11 As to "Desire." Let us consider together some thoughts that this brings to mind: What would you say to these ? There are desires high, noble and universal -- such as compassion, love and the benefits that can be extended by any individual to others who are needy in his area. And, there are desires that are base, selfish, isolationist, and acts done for ones' own temporarily and very selfish self. The first class have been named generally the virtues and their reasons and causes are well discussed in Buddhism. THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE is an excellent recap of those and their recommended practice among students of Theosophy who desire to adopt and follow "the Path." The second class are called the vices and few make the time to analyze and carry any one of them into the ultimate resolution of their practice, not only as regards themselves, but also as regards their application to others. They belong in the forest of passions where territorial limits are assumed and enforced, and where the damage to life and limb is pandemic. The kind of excuses that one reads so frequently for the second class, called "enlightened selfishness" are generally sickening to any honest and sincere human. They represent a debasement of the mental faculty. One need only look more closely around us to discover the toleration and latitude that Nature affords us, and as to the nature of our own bodies and the tolerance that exists between dissimilar cells that group to form cooperative structures -- to realize that the law of brotherhood and cooperative interaction far exceeds the laws of ill-health, disease and the permission of the continuation of habits that end in the destruction of our bodies. We could not live a minute as physical humans without this vast cooperative being always active in us and the Quadrillions of cells and uncountable molecules and atoms that aggregate around the SINGLE MINUTE "SELF" (the MONAD) that is our link to the UNIVERSE as a SPIRITUAL BEING. This is a fact that is often overlooked in our questing and reasonings. When the inner cooperative force ends, the body dies. Resting and sleep are evidence of the restorative process that our bodies require to balance the flow of the life force (Prana / Jiva) through them. What is that SELF ? What is the TRUE WE ? What is the cause for our present existence, and where are we leading this agglomeration, and desiring to go with it ? As I see it -- This is what Theosophy is engaged in discovering and it uses the vast range of scientific endeavour, as well as the records of the occult and esoteric Science to do this. Who do this? We all are engaged in some aspect or another of this search and our lives epitomize in fact this work that we do even when we are unconscious of it. And that is my opinion, and it is based on my study of theosophy. Best wishes to all, Dallas Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D -----Original Message----- > From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@iximd.com] > Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 6:49 AM > Subject: Desire There is a lot of discussion going on about emotions and desires. Please keep in mind that compassion and love are emotions, and that the desire to help others is itself a desire. DTB How true, thank you. D. Jerry S. --- 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, 13 Nov 1999 10:08:21 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution Bart--Tell me more about how our evolving consciousness would create mutations. The concept would explain the uniqueness of humans, but what about all other creatures? What troubles me is the lack of any good physical explanation for the existence of life in its incredible complexity and myriad forms. "Evolution" can only explain variation within "kinds". Anything else creates improbabliities far too stretched for credulity. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:13:10 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. Dallas--I'll get a little more up to speed on theosophy but I fear I may not get the grounding proofs I'm looking for. I'm not interested in just another credo. Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:13:54 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Krishnamurti In a message dated 11/11/99 11:43:09 PM Central Standard Time, RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM writes: > have posted your msg on Krishnamurti maillist and hope someone may respond. Thank you From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:23:11 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality In a message dated 11/12/99 8:16:01 AM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > Taking reincarnation into account and the progressive learning > process implied in the cumulative experience of many births > directed at acquiring a wisdom (meaning a complete knowledge of > Self and self, as well a the laws and purposes of the Universe) > Would not the "sudden" realization in any one life be the result > of the striving for that end in perhaps many previous lives? > This is a Mahayana gradualist argument. But the sudden view says no. Remember, I said this two are cross-culturally found. The sudden view types in Christianity, such as Evagrios and Eckhart, do not believe in past lives. In the sudden view traditions that do, the Dzog chen would contend that a past life is no more preparatory than the last second of this one. In fact, the Semde tradition does not even refer to itself as the sudden "path" because it claims there is no path (long or short) leading up to the enlightened attitude. Imagine it like a quantum leap, the electron does not pass from one space through another to arrive at its destination. When it has higher energy, it is radically a discontinuous jump with no intermediate passing there space. It relocates in space without passing through space. There are two energy states. One is either in one or not. There is no path from one to the other. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:23:12 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. Alan--It's my hope that some sort of foundation can be built with "obvious" truths and from there create larger explanations. We must be able to start with something that we can agree is true. We have limitations. I keep coming back to the barriers creatures face in terms of portions of reality. We can't smell like a dog, but a dog can't do calculus--nor does it even know such a thing exists. I understand there may be realms beyond this superhuman body and mind I have, but wonder why the constant questions. A dog does not seem disturbed by the fact that it can't comprehend math. What's the deal?Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:57:41 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality In a message dated 11/12/99 8:16:01 AM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > There has to be (logically) a point in any one life when the past > is made available and usable. > Why? Everyone is moved by their own karma. Why should the malfunctioning of unenlightened living be "progressive" so that there is "logically a point in any one life" where the person begins to learn from it? Again, here is the exact point, the comment assumes two things that might be conflated: first that everyone is driven by their own karma and that there is a inevitable process of progressive evolution. These two seem to be identified in your account. But that seems unwarranted without further justification. To explore whether one concept needs another, you can explore if one can be conceived alone without contradiction or problem. Thus, color cannot be imagined without spatial extension. Now can we do the same with reincarnation? It certainly seems conceivable (logically possible, and following the Indian/Buddhist assumption that the logically impossible is asat while sat (being) is logically possible) that some perverse type could reincarnate again and again and never learn a damn thing spiritually/ethically. They never awaken from their malfunctioning. And while Theosophy has its ninth sphere for such, unknown and ignored by most westerners who want a happy ending no matter how irresponsibly they waste their life (i.e., they will become better in the next life/good in future life), both Hinduism and Buddhism, for example, do have a final and ultimate hell of no-return where the incorridgibly self-condemned take themselves. It is the "deep place of no return" (padam gabhiram) that is the "pit" (vavra) below and beyond all the hellworlds from which one can be reborn out of, it is the self-imposed everlasting prison-house for the spiritual psychopaths (duskritah). In both Hinduism and Buddhism, there is the view that reincarnation is not guarranteed to be a progressive thing of spiritual evolution. Some go to the permanent hell by their own karma. The name of this hell is Narakasthanam. It is already mentioned as early as the Rgveda. In Taoism, generally, you are born mortal. You have one life to waste or become an immortal. Then you can reincarnate. But if all you are at the time of death is the yin and lunar p'o soul or kuei spirit, it dies when the body dies. Sometimes it may last a little longer than the body. One must, in this one life, develop the yang shen soul in order to survive death, reincarnate, and become an immortal. The point is your comments seem to assume, without supporting argument, that in short run or long run, reincarnation = inevitable progress for everyone. The ancient traditions in their authenticity saw the cosmos as a more chancy and risky place in which one could screw up ultimately whether one life or many. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:09:22 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: More on Is reincarnation progress? n a message dated 11/12/99 8:16:01 AM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > Taking reincarnation into account and the progressive learning > process implied in the cumulative experience of many births > directed at acquiring a wisdom Again, to follow up on last post, how does this "progressive learning process" arise? Does it happen automatically? Are many births automatically "directed at acquiring wisdom"? Or is it only for those souls that are so motivated to become wise that reincarnation becomes a process of progressive learning? In Mahayana Buddhism, reincarnation becomes a learning process only for those who have taken on the commitments and vows of a Bodhisattva. For everyone else, it is an out of control process, driven by karma, that resembles a plane spinning to earth in a crash. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:33:19 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution > Bart--Tell me more about how our evolving consciousness would create > mutations. The concept would explain the uniqueness of humans, but what > about all other creatures? What troubles me is the lack of any good physical > explanation for the existence of life in its incredible complexity and myriad > forms. "Evolution" can only explain variation within "kinds". Anything else > creates improbabliities far too stretched for credulity. Randy There are a number of different fully scientific explanations developing for the existence of life. For instance, the complexity theorists studying self-organization and emergent systems. Read Stuart Kauffman's "The Origins of Order". He is, by the way, a biologist - no mysticism involved. Science, until the advent of modern computing, was missing the tools necessary to begin investigating the world from the "ground up" ... i.e., instead of taking realities and using the reductionist method of attempting to break them into their compontent pieces, rather, working from those tiny little pieces upwards. Example ... macroeconomics studies things like "inflation" - but inflation is really a variable that applies at a particular scale of measurement. Economies, however, don't actually exist at that level ... what they really are composed of is millions of daily decisions and transactions between individuals either buying or selling products and services. With large research computers, it is now possible to begin to model the means by which large-scale phenomena arises from individual units. To, for instance, define a bunch of "individuals" ... i.e., agents defined by a computer to have particular characteristics (for instance, they want to "eat" every day, and are each able to perform some sort of "work"), and rules of behaviour (for instance, each will try to maximize the amount of "food" they get from the "work" they do), and then set them free (within the computer program) to interact with each other. This sort of modeling is being done in a number of different fields - from economics to biology to physics to the environment. And across the board, those different sciences are all glimpsing similar things: That there is, apparently at some deep level, a universal tendency towards *order*. When economists set those agents loose to interact, each *only* knowing a small set of things, and governed by a small set of rules, and able to only interact with those in their immediate vicinity, and run this system through several hundred million iterations (which takes a matter of minutes) ... stunning patterns develop. The first people to play with this stuff literally stood back in awe ... as they *watched* economies develop, watched macroeconomic variables form themselves ... watched agents form patterns and break them ... watched some agents die (because they went for a given number of iterations without being able to obtain "food") watched groups of them clump together ... etc., etc. Thing is, things like "markets", and disproportionate accumulations of "wealth" in some areas with a lack of necessities in others, and "inflation" and other macro qualities came into existence ... *emerged* spontaneously - the thing is, none of the *individual agents* planned any of these things - all they knew is micro-level and immediate responses to their local environment. Complexity work really started in the mid 80's ... when someone (in a bizarre intuitive act) decided that one of the problems with science was that each field had become hyper-specialized, developed its own vocabulary, and while this permitted each one to probe very deeply into its own special area, it was also preventing insights to be shared across disciplines. A group of physicists and economists were invited to attend a conference, and attempt to see whether they might discover anything useful in one another's disciplines. Curiously enough, within a day, they had discovered that they *did* speak a common language - mathermatics - and became even more interested when they started realizing that there were some striking similarites across their disciplinary boundaries - for instance, the equations in fluid dynamics that would describe the effects of a rock dropped in a pool of water looked shockingly similar to the equations desribing the effects of a market shock (e.g., the effects on the oil market in the mid-70's when OPEC formed and suddenly affected oil supply and pricing). They caught the first glimpse of the possibility that there might be profound underlying principles governing *every* system ... be it economic, physical, chemical, biological, etc., etc. That each science might really only be an angle of vision on a single whole. (In fact, the Santa Fe Institute, one of the birthplaces of Complexity Theory, has an ongoing project called "CLAW", or "Crude Look At the Whole" ... and they are attempting to (get this) sketch an initial model of *reality*. In other words, say the sun reaches a particular point in its 11 years cycle, this affects weather in a certain way, which affects plant and animal life in a particular way, which affects human agriculture and populations in a variety of ways, which will affect economics systems, political movements, etc., etc. No discipline alone could even begin to glimpse this picture, but using a combination of disciplines, each modeled as systems within a large computer model, and permitted to begin interacting with each other ... well you get the picture.) At any rate, one of the more interesting concepts arising out of all this is the principle that *order at one scale is capable of emerging spontaneously out of individual interactions between agents at the scale beneath it*. In other words, a single living cell is composed of chemical interactions between molecules whose interactions are defined solely by the laws of chemistry. No molecule knows what a "cell" is, all they do is interact, according to basic rules, with its neighboring chemicals. The organs in our body - our heart - is formed of individual cells - none of which is aware of an entity called a "heart", each only following basic biological laws, and interacting solely with its surrounding cells, but out of this emerges a single entity called a beating heart. Point is, there most definately *is* current scientific work going on in multiple disciplines that are looking at order in systems, how it arises, the fact that there seems to be some latent *predilection* towards order govering reality. Yes - it contains what may become potential explanations for why "life" formed in the first place, but more than that, even suggests that the spontaneous emergence of "life" is really only a special case of a much larger principle. The problem with this sort of research, however, and the chief reason it is as of yet hardly ever heard of, is that its chief insights can *only* be understood if one speaks math. I'm not sure if you will be helped by it - you seem to want everything explained in simple english. In response to Dallas, you say you don't want to learn the Theosophical vocabulary, but want basic reasoning established that doesn't require it. Trouble is, you are asking questions that *aren't* capable of being grasped with simple english ... whether it is the Theosophical vocabulary, or the far *more* complex vocabularies of biological or physical sciences, or the even *more* complex and fundamental language of mathematics ... in order to understand and even be able to think about questions like the origins of life ... you're gonna need to grasp far more than simplistic logic framed in simple english. As Crowley put it, english was mostly created by people who wanted to sell cheese to each other with as few misunderstandings as possible, and is hardly suited to even beginning to speak about either scientific or metaphysical realities. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:01:27 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: November 12, 1999 Nov 13 Thank you Kym: You may be missing my point. We do have common ground if we are able to read the language together. My plea is to establish a common speech area, not to shirk explanations. I think you know that having watched what I offer and comment on. I have also read Randy's posts, and I would like to see as much sincerity in his response to me suggestions as he expects to his many questions and objections which are based on assumptions that are only answerable if expressed in terms of assumptions we all can see. I say that Theosophy has expressed in simple terms its philosophy for all to read. If we both do some similar reading we can use those terms and same a lot of physical time. That's my only plea. As to understanding where you, Randy or anyone is "coming from" -- only "those" who know their base can express that. In many cases I find that the objections raised are already answered in the text that I recommend the KEY TO THEOSOPHY by Mme. Blavatsky. I thought I was clear enough. Is my request so out of line? You have a specialty in which you are familiar. And I have mine. We both share a language, but our vocabularies overlap in parts, to better make exchanges we need to become familiar with our specialized words, -- and I think it is a 2-way street. If "they" are desirous of understanding theosophy, then why not make use of what is already there? What is wrong in recommending it? Dal 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 -----Original Message----- > From: kymsmith@micron.net [mailto:kymsmith@micron.net] > Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 9:54 PM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 12, 1999 Dallas wrote to Randy: >At the risk of seeming to be abrupt, it is very difficult to try >to rewrite all that theosophy teaches when it is possible for >both of us to arrive at a joint understanding if you could >familiarize yourself with the KEY TO THEOSOPHY. It is not a long >read, but it would make for you a bridge of understanding as to >what students of theosophy deal with, and why. > >Is this possible? It is not that anyone refuses to answer you, >but the terms you use and the theosophical ones are widely >separated by the limitations of our average education, even that >which is given at the colleges. To bridge that gap is >important -- have you any theosophical texts that you can refer >to? If I knew about those, then I wold have an easier time. Wrong, wrong, wrong, Dallas!!!! If we cannot hold discussions with people who we presume are un-versed in Theosophy, then Theosophists have NOTHING to offer. DTB They are either versed or unversed -- on a 2-way street we can see both sides. A one-sided drive omits many factors that otherwise would help both in arriving at a clear picture. Let's save some time? And most importantly, if Theosophists consider themselves more learned than those who do not know Theosophy, then it is the THEOSOPHIST'S RESPONSIBILITY to re-learn the language of those who do not understand, NOT the reverse. In order to be a teacher, one MUST speak the language of the student. Theosophist's are not to seek "an easier time" as you say - Theosophists, if anybody, are required to endure a "harder" time. DTB Argument understood, but I don't think it is applicable. My point is that it is difficult to explain trigonometry to one who is not pretty well versed in mathematics -- now if we find we both have a similar familiarity with a good part of the mathematical study needed, we can both save time in our work. By the way, I am not saying that Dallas is the teacher and Randy is the student here - I am just trying to show that the more one claims to know, the more responsible one becomes in "bridging the communication gap." It is YOUR responsibility, by your own presentation of yourself, Dallas, to bridge the communication gap. DTB Well I thought I was doing that, and the suggestions was one we could both live with. Do you recall Pythagoras' School and its rules? In those days where there was an equal search for knowledge and wisdom those who approached that School were asked to listen for a period and become familiar with the teachings. Today we have writing and books to help bridge that kind of gap in idea exchange. Why not use it? Case in point: Jesus came DOWN, humanity did not go up. There is a lesson in that. (odd, I do not even believe in the historical Jesus, but he sure comes in handy example-wise) Kym --- 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, 13 Nov 1999 10:01:34 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: November 10, 1999 - Dallas Nov 13 Dear Kym: Some notes below may help further Dal 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 -----Original Message----- > From: kymsmith@micron.net [mailto:kymsmith@micron.net] > Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 9:32 PM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 10, 1999 - Dallas Dallas wrote: >DTB What is the QUALITY of tenderness ? Is "Reasoning" >different from the "feeling" of tenderness and love ? Does it in >any way detract from "tenderness ?" Or does it seek to explain >it? I believe that reasoning is different from tenderness and love. Each can exist without the other. And I do believe that, at times, reasoning can detract from tenderness. For a being to have to engage, every time, into the reasons and logic behind why they feel tenderness toward someone or something risks turning the experience of tenderness into an analytical exercise rather than an experience of simple joy. There are times that call for such self-examination, but to require a 'reason' behind every feeling of sentimentality or tenderness is, to me, a taking away of what it means to be "in the moment" of happiness. =3D=3D=3DDTB Not a "requirement" nut only an assist to correct understanding of the feeling that is meant to be conveyed. Internally when we read what another writes, do we not make an analogy with our own memories and experiences ? As I see it, our "mind" does that. But it is not aimed at depersonalizing the "feelings" involved, only, in understanding them. >DTB Agreed -- but then, What is it that causes such divergence ? Any number of things can cause a "divergence" of emotion or logic into a harmful manifestation: a misunderstanding of the situation, a misunderstanding of one's own or another's motives, another emotion or reason coming into play that distorts the original picture or motive, or simply using logic when emotion was called for or using emotion when logic was called for. Anything and everything we do can "diverge" because we are not the only ones usually involved in the situation - we cannot account for nor predict the reactions and responses of other beings. =3D=3D=3DDTB Friendly analogy would assist, No? >"Superiority" implies (to me) that one can substitute for and >understand the other (with or without sympathy). How is it >possible to take either or both of those positions? What does >the "Mind" do in order to take either of those two views? My apologies, Dallas, but until I can attempt to address these questions, I would like to understand what you mean by "one can substitute for. .." What do you mean in using the term substitute and who or what is being substituted? =3D=3D=3DDTB If one an switch one's mind so as to consider to consider another viewpoint is it not "switching?" The original idea remains intact for reference, but the "What if ?" capacity can be used as a substitution" OK ? >DTB Relentlessly, I ask myself " What is Human?" What is that >mix? Do you have THE SECRET DOCTRINE? I would refer you to >pages Vol. 2, 79-80, 167 and we might then discuss what is >written there as a starting point. It is quite technical but >also very interesting. For me, it is the story of the Demiurge; the creator of the current global forms (human, animal, planets, trees, flowers). But the Demiurge was unable to infuse the material forms with "Manas" - thus, we were given the spark of the Most Divine, each of us a living god in this physical shell. =3D=3D=3DDTB Then the "Demiurge" is subordinate to one who provides the "spark of the Most Divine." Also it would seem that there are those who can visualize (understand) both those positions. I would say that is because there is a continuous link between our mind capacity and that which is its source, the "Most Divine" -- which to my mind is continually present and not separate from any one of us, s it is the ALL, and the ETERNAL BACKGROUND. In that case the "Demiurge" would be responsible for the development of the necessary "vehicles" (body, etc...) in which a "Mind" can reside. The passages also suggest that suffering is NECESSARY in order to reach Nirvana - I wonder if such a thing is true. =3D=3D=3DDTB I would wonder if that is true too. Why should anyone "suffer" for things that they did not start? Does this imply that there is a universal law of equity and fairness which no on ought to transgress -- especially the "strong" in regard to the "weak" ? I think that Nature (the Most Divine being the highest aspect of Nature) is very sensitive along those lines and seeks to restore any broken harmony, by showing the one who breaks it just how much others were affected by those actions. Anyway, the crux of the passages, to me, is that we were created, as all things, and that we have the potential of all things. The potential to become creators of worlds of our own, both here and other "places." We can thank the Demiurge for desiring to create our forms, but as any child must to honor a "parent", we should become our own individuals and create our own "families" and "worlds." The pages you cited discuss our ancestry, but also tells us our "future." The human (and other beings, I personally believe) are transitory forms which already possess everything necessary to attain "Nirvana," but when and how we do so is up to us. =3D=3D=3DDTB Of what value is "Nirvana?" "Stop the train I want to get off !" Is that it, and if so, why ? Logically I don't think that is quite possible. I don't think that we are ever to completely "balance the books." >DTB But don't you see, your analogy speaks mainly of the feelings >one experiences in reaction to events. It does not speak of the >"reason" why they happened. I am interested in "the reason why." The reason, in my opinion, is that we are not satisfied unless we explore. Experiencing things helps us learn - lead by our desire to create ourselves and our world. We are part of a cycle, and being in Motion we are prompted to examine and involve ourselves in both physical, emotional, and spiritual experiences. In a word, it is our NATURE. =3D=3D=3DDTB I agree on exploration, but if I can find a map I would try to make use of it. I am a cartographer and love maps, whether they be of physical things or mental ones. They have some value in that they show outlines of the possible future. >This can start with a >challenge to one's accepted concepts -- the blow or startling >effect, is to find that someone else has a different concept. >"If so, Why ?" Are you asking why it is startling? If that is your inquiry, I can only answer that the shifting and adjusting of one's paradigms are usually startling, for that involves the movement of one's foundation. It is a natural reaction to be startled at newness - and we can choose to accept or refuse a new idea or concept. But for someone NOT to experience discomfort or some kind of reaction to a new idea is someone that has not been involved in putting together a puzzle of "self and the world." To casually accept anything that comes one's way is, to me, a lack of just plain passion and seriousness. This conclusion of mine, though, is not one I am more than convinced as being correct - there may be very passionate people who do not experience any reaction to new ideas, but, still, I doubt it. =3D=3D=3DDTB I love what you say -- it is exactly the way I also approach those things. >DTB I RATHER WANTED TO CONVEY THE IDEA THAT THE DESIRE BORROWED >THE MIND FACULTIES AND MADE USE OF THEM. (sorry - not shouting, >just pressed the Caps key in error) Ok. But I do not believe that desire "borrows" from the mind faculties for memory and anticipation. I believe that everything is a "package" - mind itself cannot do without desire nor desire without mind. I know that desire is used in a different context in Theosophy, but I think Theosophy errs in doing so. There is nothing base in desiring something - it is part of creativity. One cannot even reason without a desire to do so. Even the Most Divine had a desire to create, and further, to infuse the creations of other gods with the spark that these creations would not have had without intervention. Apparently, the Most Divine desires an equality - a shared mutuality with all. Without the "drive" of desire, nothing would exist. =3D=3D=3DDTB Again I am with you on that. The "package" in this case is the combo: mind + desire =3D a cause for thought or action. >What is the value of a life preserved? How is that to be >estimated? who estimates? Is this a reasoned concept of one >that has been adopted because "everybody assumes it to be true ?" >Is there any way we can determine the value of such a question or >shall it be laughed out of court? That's a weighty question - personally, politically, socially, spiritually. I do not believe that life should be preserved for the "sake of life." Since I am an advocate of the right for a woman to choose whether or not to terminate or carry a pregnancy, I have to admit that some lives take precedence over other lives. I do believe a person has a right to end their own life if they so choose, although I feel sad when it is a young person for I feel it is an act of desperation rather than careful thought. On the other hand, I do not believe in the death penalty, unless the convicted person wants to die. In short, at this time, there really is no consistent and fool-proof method on how to judge life and its quality. If every being were to disappear off the face of the earth, Life itself would still go on - so Life is not threatened by our death. It may be that our own "growth" may be temporarily stunted, but ultimately, even our "growth" speed and manner is up to us. =3D=3D=3DDTB Suppose that "death" as a threat to one's continuity as an individual were removed? would that not be a great plus in ones' approach to things ? Remember the classic boat problem? It asks what you would do if you were in a life boat and unless you tossed a few people overboard, the entire boat would sink, killing all. How would you choose? What criteria would you use? You are not allowed to throw yourself out, for you are the only one who can navigate and control the boat - but you must choose who will live and who will die. =3D=3D=3DDTB A good poser -- I had not encountered that. Must think it over. But the problem presupposes that ones' fate is pre-ordained and known to the "navigator." Could that be a sure thing? There is also the question of why have ANYTHING at all? Why even have humanity? Is the existence of humanity so important that all the suffering, joys, mistakes, lessons learned, etc., are worth it in the end? I wonder. =3D=3D=3DDTB I have no pat answer for that. But I observe that we are all in the middle of the situation together, and we ought to be able to "think" ourselves out of it. With our experience, is there anything analogetic which would help? I would take time to analyze and make sure of what my capacities are, and what were the areas of present ignorance, then I would seek to fill in those information gaps, and take the best way of doing so that is available. [ This is what I was referring Randy to. ] >Is the idea of reincarnation incorrect? Not to me - reincarnation seems necessary and, dare I say it?, logical. >Is there no permanency to man's existence and the >goals that she/he selects? If death ends all, then why set any? No, there is not permanency to our existence, for there will come a time, I believe, in which the human form will be obsolete. But death does not end anything except the existence of a particular form. Since I believe that the number of forms possible are innumerable, there will always be another form in which a "soul" can enter in order to further its education. =3D=3D=3DDTB Again I agree. But whether the form alters or not, the capacity to think makes us "human" and not the shape of our bodies, surely ? >How are pain, illness and accidents to be explained? To say >"they happen" -- is that enough of an explanation? To say "they happen" is not enough, and can even be callous - but that doesn't mean it is not true. But, having said that, I do not believe that pain, illness, and accidents "just happen." The reasons are so complex that I don't believe anyone can really, genuinely, "trace back" a cause for an event - it could result from a lifetime of long ago. Who knows. But illness, pain, and accidents can serve as teaching mechanisms - we can learn patience, compassion, and a reverence for life from them - but, I still wonder if such "evil" is really necessary. I think it is possible that we can learn compassion, love, and such from other classrooms. But most philosophies, including Theosophy, tend to disagree and I haven't yet formed a argument solid enough to support my belief. It's just a nagging "feeling" I have. . .. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DDTB Again I fully agree with what you say. The idea= (or teaching) of Karma seems to outline all you state. While we may not be able to trace our "pain" etc. to a specific cause, if "Nature" is just and true in response to our impulses, then we are always facing the results of some earlier choice? >Why is it that the protective instinct is so strong? Because something has to sustain a form until the form learns enough to choose whether or not to sustain itself. There may be no need for the form's existence, but only time will tell, and if the form doesn't have something built in to 'keep it going' in order to find out if the form is necessary, the "gods" will never know. The experiment must have some time in existence to observe what "purpose" it can serve. =3D=3D=3DDTB Agreed. And yet, it nags at me that there is something in me which is "permanent" and on which the experiences, pleasant or the reverse are registered for future use. >DTB Again I agree, but besides stating these facts, How do we go >about explaining them? This is why I said that the mind can act in a superior manner. >It accepts the emotion, but then acts using the Why and How (if >it gives itself the time to do this) and if it does, then it >seeks for the causative side of the event, or the proposed >reaction, does it not? Not necessarily, for in order to "learn" something, we do not necessarily need to learn the "why." But as a philosophy major, I too share your wish to learn the reasons "why." But I have found that sometimes learning the "why" doesn't always aid in understanding or wisdom. Sometimes, the "why" can get in the way - what if we don't like the "why?" =3D=3D=3DDTB May I interrupt your thought there? to "like" the Why -- if you introduce "like" there then I would say you are introducing a "feeling" and adding it to the fact. That is why I try to dissect the "feeling" from the event -- even if that is called a "mind-action." Then in that case (and in most cases) we always have feeling + thought acting together. For example, what if the "why" turned out to be a vengeful god that just liked playing games - how would that help us to learn compassion? Instead, we may become bitter and resentful - loathe our parenthood and ourselves, believe we are from a "bad seed." I do not believe, of course, that this is the case, but I offer this imaginary "why" as an attempt to show that knowing the "reason" behind something may or may not be conducive to Compassion. A further question might be: are we READY for the ANSWER to our seeking of the "why?" =3D=3D=3DDTB My opinion is that e are always ready to sand the answers, no matter how distasteful they might be (in terms of our 'liking') The fact is 'reality.' The liking is a reaction, and that can hurt. I say, if we can anticipate "hurt" as a result of choice, our choosing would improve. You might ask me is there is any way in which we can make "better" and more "pleasant resulting" choices. I would quote the Buddha who said "Cease from evil. Do good. that is the Way." I am of the opinion (and have observed in myself) that the "voice of Conscience" operates to warn us of potential problems. Theosophy claims this to be th e voice of our experience in past lives (and in the earlier years of this one) which cautions us not to repeat unpleasant errors of decision. >Political victory -- yes. But at the cost of many of my intimate >friends and their families lives and health and pain and >suffering and even in some cases life itself -- it was quite a >lesson -- I was in school and college in Bombay at that time. >The phenomena of self-sacrifice was wide-spread and spontaneous >all over India. It was not only non-violence, but it was >non-cooperative also. I do believe that there are those out there who truly manifest altruism. I believe in altruism and I believe it exists. However, I postulate that most people on the planet still perform what seems "altruistic" acts due to other motives besides pure altruism. This does not, in any way, "cheapen" their good actions, but I think that many look upon good acts with the additional thought of how it can help their own self. Churches give out food to the poor, but require the receivers to listen to sermons. The giving out of food is admirable, but it also has the motive of bringing in members. A person may arrange a community project to paint or fix up the houses of the elderly in their neighborhood, but they may also have as part of the motive the concept of heightening property values. Again, I do not believe that the "questionable motives" lessen the greatness of the helping actions, just that the pure concept of altruism is not the underlying factor. Did Ghandi act out of pure altruism, or did he, down deep, hope that such an act would further his OWN spiritual and historical growth? I believe that those who were never recorded in the history books, such as your friends who died in the cause, may have been acting out of a purer altruism than Ghandi may have been. He knew he was a leader, he knew his acts would be remembered - your friends did not have that guarantee. But, again, I could be blowing smoke here. =3D=3D=3DDTB I really cannot answer for Gandhi's motives (although I met and spoke with him as a youngster, and was much impressed then with his quiet dignity and wisdom) but you are right in saying that in many cases the "goodness" that someone might espouse, may be tainted with some degree of self-advantage seeking. Real Altruism is rare, and would have to be accompanied with deep unselfish wisdom to be absolutely pure. >DTB But there was also (possibly) some feelings of compassion for >a people that were made the victims of insane oppression on >religious feuding grounds. I agree, that's why I stated that I believed that NATO did encompass altruism in stopping the Serbian army. >What about tolerance? Live and let >live? Does another person alive represent, reasonably, a threat >and an object to be obliterated out of fear or one's parents >simmering anger brought forward? What is nature's law in such a >case ? The Serbs chose to NOT "live and let live" and suffered the consequences of their actions. It is the nature of humans to fight back in some way when threatened. If one wants to call it "nature's law" than so be it, but one cannot act aggressively towards another and not at least expect that there may be some reaction. The Serbs chose to take the gamble and eventually lost. Unfortunately, the Kosovars and Bosnians lost even more during the "game" between Serbia and the rest of the world. The rest of the world was in danger of losing their "souls" - but rose up just in the nick of time. But still, we suffered some spiritual damage due to our hesistation. =3D=3D=3DDTB So true. >Under Tito (although that was a repressive and regimented >rule - a virtual dictatorship) was there such a genocide? I >speak of this not to argue, but only to present another side of >the "coin." It does seem that a dictatorship can, for a while, reduce violence. The tensions were squashed temporarily - some lost their lives, suffered torture, and other horrendous things under Tito, but the widespread devastation we just witnessed probably would not have happened under Tito. However, it is impossible for humans to exist in that kind of state of being - expression, creativity, different religious beliefs, etc., all make it impossible for a dictorship to ever work in the long run. A benevolent dictator would probably last the longest, but eventually, that too would falter. =3D=3D=3DDTB If the underlying hatred and anger that is so unnecessarily carried forward and adopted (without realizing the consequences) produces such horrors when "restraint" is withdrawn, then the "lesson" -- to live and let live -- still has to be learned. >>Next I consider: What is dominant in Man and Woman ? What >makes them unique -- is it not the power to think, to reason, to >>anticipate, to remember and to IMAGINE ? "WHAT IF.....? " No, Dallas, because if that is what makes one human, are those who are autistic or mentally impaired non-human? An autistic child does not have the power to reason, nor does a "normal, healthy" infant have the power to imagine "what if." It cannot be those faculties you state that make us unique and human, for it says that neither infants or the mentally impaired are human. =3D=3D=3DDTB I am not sure about that, There have been examples where such impaired ones have been reached and their "humanity" drawn our and given expression. Imagine what a horrible trap it is for a mind to be thus imprisoned. One wonders what must be the cause of such a situation in any one life. [ I am trying to remember the name of the famous (born deaf, dumb and blind)woman whom I met many years ago along with her companion and teacher when they visited India.] (I must be having a "senior moment.") That is an outstanding example of what I mean. >But I would also ask if one creates, then does one's >ensuing responsibility cease? Of course not - hence, the Demiurge shares some responsibility for the suffering and pain each sentient being endures. =3D=3D=3DDTB But, are we not all part of the Demiurge? How would you isolate it from us and vice-versa? Surely the Universe is ONE ? If so the Demiurge is an executive agent for a section of the evolutionary program. At least that is what I understand of the matter. All mind-beings are immortals because of the fact that the mind cannot be obliterated (although a body can certainly be destroyed, and the course of the mind thereafter is conjectural, reincarnation being one of the options). >I would offer that as an example of the >after-effects of a creative act -- consequences always follow >choice and action, don't they? Are we willing to assume the job >of continued care? Yes to the first question - No, to the second. After a person reaches an "age" - which can differ according to the person - we are required to let go. We cannot continue to care for a person in some particular ways or we will hinder their growth. For example, a parent who pays the damages of a destructive act of their 30 year old son or daughter is NOT caring for them - they are ensuring that they remain dependent, irresponsible, and immature. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DDTB An example of "Tough Love." But entirely correct, = I also believe. Dallas, not to be rude, but I will address the rest of your post in the next couple of days - my post is getting too long! But I will get to it - if you still want me to, that is, after reading this one. =3D=3D=3D=3DDTB that's not rudeness but well understood. You have given back so much and I appreciate it. I too have time limits. But this is most enjoyable. 'bye. and thanks Dal. Kym --- 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, 13 Nov 1999 10:02:08 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality Nov 13 REINCARNATION 1. Has logic and persuasion in it, if one considers that the Soul (Mind) of a Human being is immortal and eternal. If that is denied, then it is useless to proceed. It is agreed that the "embodied mind" of the present personality is destroyed with the body at death. 2. However there are many accounts of Seances and other experiences that would seem to imply a survival of the personal soul/mind at least for a while after physical death. If those are discarded then the question of reincarnation might be still "sub judice." 3. NDEs (Accounts of NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES) and reports of children and adults who remember "past lives" abound. Are these to be discarded or is the matter to be held "sub judice?" 4. Most religions and philosophies speak of reincarnation although they may not (like Theosophy) give an extensive rationale for consideration. I think these facts ought to be kept in mind. Dallas Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: ambain [mailto:ambain@ambain.screaming.net] > Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 5:02 PM > Subject: Re: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality ----- Original Message ----- > From: W. Dallas TenBroeck > Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 2:08 PM > Subject: RE: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality > Nov 12 > > Dallas offers: > > Taking reincarnation into account and the progressive learning > process implied in the cumulative experience of many births > directed at acquiring a wisdom (meaning a complete knowledge of > Self and self, as well a the laws and purposes of the Universe) > Would not the "sudden" realization in any one life be the result > of the striving for that end in perhaps many previous lives? As I find the case for reincarnation "not proven" then the above becomes speculation on a hypothesis. > > There has to be (logically) a point in any one life when the past > is made available and usable. > Why? (The above statement, interestingly, could be made with or without the use of the reincarnation model.) Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ --- 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: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 02:07:30 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: physical evolution ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bart Lidofsky > Date: Saturday, November 13, 1999 5:03 AM > Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution > ambain wrote: > > On the evidence to date, a case could seriously be made that > > we ourselves are a "failed" experiment. But this begs the question - > > who or what is doing the experimenting? > > WE are. Consciousness pushes forward evolution. The etheric body forms > the mold for the physical. > "Consciousness pushes forward evolution." Another assertion - examples please? "The etheric body forms the mold for the physical." Is this an example in support of the assertion? That there IS an etheric body I accept, if by this is meant a subtle quasi material form which can act outside of and separate from the physical body, as I have experienced what appears to be this phenomenon. Apart from your statement being yet another assertion (familiar in occult teachings generally) where s the evidence to support it? That the two "bodies" are linked I would certainly accept on the basis of the definition I have offered, as this is also my (subjective) experience. QED is still a long way off ........... Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 02:11:56 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 12, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Saturday, November 13, 1999 5:53 AM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 12, 1999 > Jesus came DOWN, humanity did not go up. There is a lesson > in that. > > (odd, I do not even believe in the historical Jesus, but he sure comes in > handy example-wise) There are people, who I am sure you have met, who will tell you that Jesus loves you. Have you neen encouraging him? Tut tut! Alan [creeps futively into a corner] http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 02:16:57 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: more gradual/sudden path/ ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Saturday, November 13, 1999 3:57 PM > Subject: Re: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality > The ancient traditions in their authenticity saw the cosmos as a more chancy and risky place in which one could screw up ultimately whether one life or many. > > Grigor It fits, it fits! Alan :0) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 02:43:10 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality ----- Original Message ----- > From: W. Dallas TenBroeck > Date: Saturday, November 13, 1999 6:02 PM > Subject: RE: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality > Nov 13 > > REINCARNATION > > 1. Has logic and persuasion in it, if one considers that the > Soul (Mind) of a Human being is immortal and eternal. If that is > denied, then it is useless to proceed. It is agreed that the > "embodied mind" of the present personality is destroyed with the > body at death. By whom is it agreed? Many students of theosophy, who are following a given teaching. As for immortality and eternity, then this too is "given" teaching which experience may suggest has some basis in fact, but it still reamains an unproven assertion. > > 2. However there are many accounts of Seances and other > experiences that would seem to imply a survival of the personal > soul/mind at least for a while after physical death. If those > are discarded then the question of reincarnation might be still > "sub judice." Indeed, and I have many personal experiences which support - not prove - this view. We could, however, discard them without thereby discarding reincarnation, as such experiences neither support nor deny it. > > 3. NDEs (Accounts of NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES) and reports of > children and adults who remember "past lives" abound. Are these > to be discarded or is the matter to be held "sub judice?" > They are simply wjhat we call them - accounts of near death experiences. I recently related one of my own. I have also had a number of memories of what appear to be past lives, but research suggests that these pasts lives are not necessarily lives that I - under whatever guise - have been personally engaged in. Some of them seem clearly to be memories of other people's lives. I do not discard them, but neither can I prove that they are true, or that my memory is reliable in all respects. All such evidence is sunjective to the person who experiences it. There is a plausibility to such evidence on the basis of what one writer (Robert Crookall, "The Supreme Adventure") called "Travellers' Tales" - enough people have reported enough similar experience to suggest that there is probably a factual basis underlying it. > 4. Most religions and philosophies speak of reincarnation > although they may not (like Theosophy) give an extensive > rationale for consideration. Most or some? If they do not give an extensive rationale for consideration, then we are considering what is regarded as "revealed truth." This is the base claim of modern Theosophy. At different times under both different and similar circumstances, I have had it revealed to me by what appear to be discarnate intelligence(s) that a) reincarnation is a fact, and b) that it is not a fact. If these communications are what they appear to be, then there are other possibilities. One is that discarnate intelligences, *just like ourselves*, do not agree on the matter! Another is that reincarnation is a fact for some people, but not for others, i.e., some people reincarnate, and some do not. So yes, the teaching on reincarnation IS kind of "sub-judice" or, which I think is better, "not proven." Neither of course is it "proven." > > I think these facts ought to be kept in mind. > As indeed they are, and fitting matters for discussion on a list such as this. A possibly apocryphal tale of Zen Buddhism: The student at the Zen monastery was walking around the top of its very high wall accompanying his teacher. "Tell me, master," said the student, "is there life after physical death?" Without a word, the master pushed him off the wall. After three days some monks were sent to look for him. As he was still alive, they brought him back in and nursed him back to health. The moral of this story is: If you want to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, then you have to suck them yourself for some time first. Or is more vernacular terms, when presented with dogmatic assertions by religions, theosophies and philosophies: Suck it and see. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 02:56:36 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Saturday, November 13, 1999 3:23 PM > Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. > Alan--It's my hope that some sort of foundation can be built with "obvious" > truths and from there create larger explanations. We must be able to start > with something that we can agree is true. We have limitations. I keep > coming back to the barriers creatures face in terms of portions of reality. > We can't smell like a dog, but a dog can't do calculus--nor does it even > know such a thing exists. I understand there may be realms beyond this > superhuman body and mind I have, but wonder why the constant questions. A > dog does not seem disturbed by the fact that it can't comprehend math. > What's the deal?Randy Lucky dog! I agree with all you say above. I am quite convinced to my own satisfaction that there are realms beyond this (superhuman?) body and mind, but I cannot *prove* it to anyone. What I can do is to tell what I have experienced and how it does/does not fit in with various teachings and dogmas (dogma being a non-pejorative term for teaching applied to a particular school of thought). I can also suggest ways to go about attempting to gather evidence for oneself, but for this I need to know the person on a face to face basis for some time, as there are plenty of fruitcakes eagerly waiting to grab the wrong end of the stick, after which I would get the blame for any disasters. So the deal is - from my point of view - "This is The Teaching as I have received it. Don't believe a word I tell you. Go check it out." Over ...... Alan :0) 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, 14 Nov 1999 05:03:03 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: More on Is reincarnation progress? Nov 13 Please see note inserted below as answers to your comments Enjoyed your posts, Dal 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 -----Original Message----- > From: Hazarapet@aol.com [mailto:Hazarapet@aol.com] > Date: Saturday, November 13, 1999 8:09 AM > Subject: More on Is reincarnation progress? n a message dated 11/12/99 8:16:01 AM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > Taking reincarnation into account and the progressive learning > process implied in the cumulative experience of many births > directed at acquiring a wisdom Again, to follow up on last post, how does this "progressive learning process" arise? Does it happen automatically? Are many births automatically "directed at acquiring wisdom"? DTB As I understand from Theosophy ( see Mme. Blavatsky's THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY for instance) reincarnation affords every immortal mind-soul the opportunity of experience. Actually the evolutionary process starts with the "life-atom" or the MONAD (which is said to be a fragment of (or Ray) of the UNIVERSAL SPIRIT SELF and its twin PRIMORDIAL and UNIVERSAL MATTER, or SUBSTANCE). This MONAD (compounded equally of SPIRIT/MATTER) is the immortal INTELLIGENCE that always voyages forward through the many reincarnation experiences when it reaches the "Human stage" -- that is after a vast preliminary travel through the "lower kingdoms" of Nature (elemental, nature-forces, mineral, vegetable, animal). When, finally, it (the MONAD) reaches the Human kingdom, where the physical form is made of substance/matter that is sufficiently sensitive -- so as to receive the reflection of the MIND, and give it embodiment (called in Theosophy "Kama-Manas" or, the Mind that is wrapped in desire and feelings) -- the INDIVIDUAL MIND Is able to live and act in and through the "Personalities" of its many physical bodies (the reincarnation process). Since these bodies "mask it" they are called the "personalities." (persona =3D mask) ---------------------- Or is it only for those souls that are so motivated to become wise that reincarnation becomes a process of progressive learning? In Mahayana Buddhism, reincarnation becomes a learning process only for those who have taken on the commitments and vows of a Bodhisattva. For everyone else, it is an out of control process, driven by karma, that resembles a plane spinning to earth in a crash. DTB Theosophy speaks of the embodied mind seeking to understand itself, and seeking to find the reason for its own existence. In this the (as you say) automatic process of successive reembodiments begins to achieve purpose as this inquiry forces it to delve into the causes and the effects sequences of "Karma." There is in all of us the "VOICE OF CONSCIENCE." This factor ought to be recognized as the "voice" or urge that comes from the highest in us -- the ATMA (Spiritual "ray") This factor plus the Superior mind (called in Theosophy Buddhi-Manas -- or the wise mind) has actual access to the inner records of Karma pertaining to the individual mind that is reincarnating. The BUDDHI (vehicle for Atma is "wise" because it serves as the recording area of all experience for the immortal MONAD); it takes action to provide the embodied mind (Kama-Manas) with its noble impulses, intuitions, altruistic sentiments, and a sense of purpose, universalism and a motive for seeking the better way of choosing to live -- in short, the virtues as practical applications. This would be considered as the beginning of the Bodhisattva path [ Bodhi - wise; sattva - purity ] the actual state of being a BODHISATTVA would then be one in which a human mind has raised itself to the level of a perfect embodiment of wisdom. for us this may seem to be an impossible ideal. yet, it does exist and is spoken of in the annals of Buddhism, which, incidentally go much further back than the life and teachings of Gautama Sakyamuni Buddha. The "commitment and vow" is always interior and to ones' HIGHER SELF -- the ATMA. Then the struggles begin as the "Lower -Mind" enwrapped in Kama (desire and passion) seeks to preserve its status quo, and a great struggle (as illustrated in the life stories of the Buddha Gautama tell) ensues and has to be continued over several lives till success is reached and the HUMAN MIND transforms itself into the DIVINE MIND. This is how I understand Theosophy offers its doctrines on reincarnation and the Path to Perfection. Best wishes, Dallas ---------------------- Grigor --- 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: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 05:03:09 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality Nov 13 As just stated in an earlier posting today, if you consider that SPIRIT is the repository of all that is permanent, then the urge towards perfection on all levels of living would be an automatic one. The real question is even earlier than this. To my mind, it ought to be: What is the CAUSE for the division between SPIRIT and MULAPRAKRITI (primordial, or ROOT-MATTER) . Why is the MONAD formed? Why does the UNIVERSE come into existence? IS THAT NECESSARY? I am afraid have no final answer for that as it seems lost in the non-manifest ABSOLUTENESS from which all springs. It might be called the CAUSELESS-CAUSE, and for us it is an enigma. Withal, we are here, so we might as well find out why, and what we can do with our present set of faculties. At least we can begin to study them. If we can do that then WE are detached from those faculties, which are at best tools and limitations. Apparently WE are a UNIT OF CONSCIOUSNESS and are not limited by our environments, although we can be sensitive in many ways to them. That is about as best I can do. Dal 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 -----Original Message----- > From: Hazarapet@aol.com [mailto:Hazarapet@aol.com] > Date: Saturday, November 13, 1999 7:58 AM > Subject: Re: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality In a message dated 11/12/99 8:16:01 AM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > There has to be (logically) a point in any one life when the past > is made available and usable. > Why? Everyone is moved by their own karma. Why should the malfunctioning of unenlightened living be "progressive" so that there is "logically a point in any one life" where the person begins to learn from it? Again, here is the exact point, the comment assumes two things that might be conflated: first that everyone is driven by their own karma and that there is a inevitable process of progressive evolution. These two seem to be identified in your account. But that seems unwarranted without further justification. To explore whether one concept needs another, you can explore if one can be conceived alone without contradiction or problem. Thus, color cannot be imagined without spatial extension. Now can we do the same with reincarnation? It certainly seems conceivable (logically possible, and following the Indian/Buddhist assumption that the logically impossible is asat while sat (being) is logically possible) that some perverse type could reincarnate again and again and never learn a damn thing spiritually/ethically. They never awaken from their malfunctioning. And while Theosophy has its ninth sphere for such, unknown and ignored by most westerners who want a happy ending no matter how irresponsibly they waste their life (i.e., they will become better in the next life/good in future life), both Hinduism and Buddhism, for example, do have a final and ultimate hell of no-return where the incorridgibly self-condemned take themselves. It is the "deep place of no return" (padam gabhiram) that is the "pit" (vavra) below and beyond all the hellworlds from which one can be reborn out of, it is the self-imposed everlasting prison-house for the spiritual psychopaths (duskritah). In both Hinduism and Buddhism, there is the view that reincarnation is not guarranteed to be a progressive thing of spiritual evolution. Some go to the permanent hell by their own karma. The name of this hell is Narakasthanam. It is already mentioned as early as the Rgveda. In Taoism, generally, you are born mortal. You have one life to waste or become an immortal. Then you can reincarnate. But if all you are at the time of death is the yin and lunar p'o soul or kuei spirit, it dies when the body dies. Sometimes it may last a little longer than the body. One must, in this one life, develop the yang shen soul in order to survive death, reincarnate, and become an immortal. The point is your comments seem to assume, without supporting argument, that in short run or long run, reincarnation =3D inevitable progress for everyone. The ancient traditions in their authenticity saw the cosmos as a more chancy and risky place in which one could screw up ultimately whether one life or many. DTB exactly, but see above, D Grigor --- 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: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 05:03:13 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. Nov 13 Well Randy, I would not invite you into another credo trap for anything. You have the same kind of thinking equipment I have, or which anyone else has. so we ought to use it to the best of our ability, and without using any of the presumptions that are made in such things. Pure thinking (Kant) is what is wanted. All factors out in front of us. So happens that Theosophy was my entrance into that realm. I use it not as a prop, but as a gateway. Hence I recommended some familiarity with its language. It would help in explaining things. Why not try an exercise. On a blank sheet of paper make a list of all the things you are sure of. On another a list of all the things you are partially sure of (and the questions to ask that might cause them to be explained). Then there will be a 3rd sheet of all the things you doubt and are quite unsure of (credos etc...) If this over flows then group together those items that are seemingly relevant to each other, and shorten it. It is a fun exercise, at least I though so, and really, I have not yet finished with the list although I have rearranged many of the listings when the present is compared with the original starting point I noted. In fact every encounter such as we are having makes a change in those lists. (I now keep them in mind for quick and immediate reference.) One of my primary points is: not to try and impose any of my thinking on others, but always to show where my thinking was at, and let them decide if it seems t them to make sense or deserve further questioning. As I said Theosophy offered me the kind of scaffolding and patterns (and also the least of 'credo business') that enabled my mind to embrace a very wide ambit. And that is why I recommend it -- it makes the mind free and can be abandoned at any time. there are no "hooks" there. Ask yourself what is the nature of this environment we all live in. What is a human being basically equipped with? Those were some of my starting points of inquiry. I still have those old sheets I drew up. Dal Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: WLR7D@aol.com [mailto:WLR7D@aol.com] > Date: Saturday, November 13, 1999 7:13 AM > Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. Dallas--I'll get a little more up to speed on theosophy but I fear I may not get the grounding proofs I'm looking for. I'm not interested in just another credo. 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: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 10:12:50 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution JRC--Thank you. This concept of "spontaneous" emergent organization will eventually create a whole new science. At present research in this area is hindered by the old-guard neo-Darwinists who think all can be explained by mutation and selection. I still can't imagine any modeling explaining the anti-entropic phenomena of life. Just looking at the information encoded in DNA(one cell is equal to 100 million pp of Encyclopedia Brit.) defies imagination. Since information only comes from preexisting information at least as complex as the information generated, where did such prodigious genetic information come from? Kind of the old monkeys on a typewriter thing. I will try to get Kauffman's book. On presently working on others related to morphic resonance. I'm not sure I agree on the use of esoteric language by theosophists. It is one thing to know the language of basic sciences such as math and biology, certainly a prerequistie to understanding, but quite another to need to know new vocabulary for agregate disciplines such as religion, Too easy to get caught up in unchallenged assumptions. It is by the use of specialized language. elitism, clergydom, that religion has been able to do the damge to the human mind it has. Yes, I'm looking for simple solid underpinnings. If there is real substance to theosophy, these should be available for easy access by dummies like me. A presumption I am making in this is that such information is somehow important to humans. If it is, it should be evident or easily explained using common forms of communication. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 10:34:22 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. Alan--Love your no-bullshit, skeptical and honest approach. How bout some cyber face-to-face to learn some of the things you have learned. I'm not a fruitcake(my opinion), just interested in taking inquiry as far as I can. Unanswered questions drive me nuts. I would prefer things in neater packages than I've been able to bundle them on these fundamental issues. Appreciate any guidance you can give. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 10:47:08 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. Dallas--I agree about the lists of knowns, unknowns, unsures. My original post to this site was an attempt to find addition, emendation, or even ridicule to a list of "self-evident truths" I was trying to assemble. Still like the idea of beginning with such fundamentals and building from there. Thanks. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:48:36 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Rich Taylor on a very disturbing issue with far reaching implications In a message dated 11/12/99 9:40:11 AM Central Standard Time, blafoun@azstarnet.com writes: > Why would Blavatsky attribute appropriated material from Schlagintweit's > book to a hidden or occult source? > Maybe she was going on memory. I once gave a paraphrased summary of a discussion that I thought was Rene Guenon when it turned out to have been Sayyid Hosein Nasr. And from memory, I once saw Herbert Guenther give what he thought was a nice illuminating summary of a Mahamudra Shastra. Someone in the audience pointed out that he was really quoting a summarized account of Mahamudra given by Lama Govinda. He smiled and said the woman in the audience was correct but it was still a good summary. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 14:02:15 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Rich Taylor on a very disturbing issue with far reaching implications In a message dated 11/12/99 9:58:10 PM Central Standard Time, ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > Possibly because she held the view that Schlaginweit's work was istelf > derived from a hidden or occult source? > Well, that is a German name and German writers can really develop an esoteric German. Read Hegel: his German is VERY esoteric and his manner of expression seems derived from a hidden or occult or ocluded thought. Its amazing how triple negatives make the reader feel he isn't equal to the task of understanding the author. But then when you figure out you can just drop two of the negatives so it is just one, then you learn one of the rhetorical sleight of hands played by German professors to appear impressive. Then there is the British writers such as Hume and Ayer. They write so elegantly in a clear prose style that the reader sees they are clearly wrong very quickly. A friend told me there is a thing called the Philosopher's Dictionary. Under "Ayer," it has a philosophical mistake clearly expressed, see Error. Under error it says, see Ayer. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 14:10:25 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: more gradual/sudden path/ In a message dated 11/13/99 8:58:09 PM Central Standard Time, ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > > The ancient traditions in their authenticity saw the cosmos as a more > chancy and risky place in which one could screw up ultimately whether > one life or many. > > > > Grigor > > It fits, it fits! > > Alan :0) > Well, its got to be true for all possible worlds that have in-laws. ;> Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 17:18:01 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution There were some other, complementary, explanations posted here, but I'm going to start with a question: Are you familiar with the concept of the 7 bodies of humans? If so, I can give you a much less complex information than if you don't. Bart Lidofsky WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > > Bart--Tell me more about how our evolving consciousness would create > mutations. The concept would explain the uniqueness of humans, but what > about all other creatures? What troubles me is the lack of any good physical > explanation for the existence of life in its incredible complexity and myriad > forms. "Evolution" can only explain variation within "kinds". Anything else > creates improbabliities far too stretched for credulity. Randy > > --- > 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, 15 Nov 1999 00:26:36 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Films on-line on Internet I saw the following announcement on theosophy newsgroup. Free Theosophy films on-line: http://www.ult.org/video/index.htm From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 23:43:37 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 14, 1999 Dallas wrote: >Pure thinking (Kant) is what is wanted. All factors out in front >of us. Interesting, since I always viewed the core of Kant as being basically "anti-theosophical." Kant argues that we must assume that nature is ordered in such a way that is is purposeful, which thereby constrains, or forces someone, to approach the study of nature as being formed by an intelligent creator. Such mental "lock-down" seems unacceptable to the mega-exploratory mind. Also, his famous categorical imperative, which he claims is based on pure reason, has been proven over and over again to fail Kant's criteria. So much for reason as the sole standard for moral knowledge. And, for you, Dallas, in your pursuit of knowledge of noumena - Kant says these things can be pondered upon, but never really known. So, in essence, it is a subtle suggestion that our questions of "what is human" are merely an exercise in chasing our tails. Side note: The philosopher P.F. Strawson, in his book "Individuals," intrigingly makes Kant into an empiricist - Kant would not be pleased - but Strawson does an admirable job. Basically, in my opinion, there is no evidence that Kant really represents "pure thinking." On a more personal level, Kant's approach to thinking so carried over into his personal life that he ended up needing such a rigidity to his daily routine, that it interferred with his ability to truly connect with those around him. He began to treat people like objects. Another example of how the dominance of "reason" in one's life can distort what it means to be a caring individual. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:30:08 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Randy to Alan:logic > Every time I get along in a discussion like this with one of you folks I > always wonder whether we agree or disagree. Playing mishy mush with words > tends to create the feeling there can be no common ground. Do we agree on > anything? I know the feeling, the problem is, when we agree, the discussion is ended. So here, the discussion becomes the goal... Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:42:44 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution AND PSYCHO-MENTAL EVOLUTION also. > Dallas I appreciate your reply but you lost me after the first sentence. To > a novice in the vernacular this seems like mumbo jumbo. > > It appears you make a wide range of assumptions and then build a > philosophical/religious edifice thereon. > > I would challenge almost every one of the assertions you pile on one another. That is logical, this is your first contact with theosophy and Dallas is writing like you allready know the lingo. In fact, I thought I knew the lingo, untill Dallas sent that post... > I could start with the first sentence suggesting that man mirrors the > universe. What precisely do you mean by this and what are the proofs? Until > this is resolved, all else you have said is dubious. When this is resolved, > I will want to go on to the next sentence and ask the same questions. Here I have two things... Do you only believe in that which is proved? Do you only think about that which is proved? Because, you may know that in science very little is proved. The laws of Newton are prooved false only by very small deviations of the paths of the planets around the sun.. only there does Einstein's relativity come in (I know I am making simple here, I am just giving an example, do not need scientific lecture)... So, if we start with proof, we can believe nothing, or almost nothing, and you might as well quite this list... (and quite speculating at the same time). Then, of course their might be evidence that human (man or woman) is the microcosm, but I have not heard of it. When I first heard about that, it just clicked. The way I understand it is that for instance physically: we are made of the same substance as the rest of the universe. Then also: the universe is made of the same stuff as we are made: a physical *body*, an astral *body*, something like our emotional selves, their is intelligence in the universe, and our intelligence is derived from that, their is spirituality in the universe, which linkes my personal spirituality with the spirituality of the rest of mankind and eventually with that of the whole universe. For me, these are axioms, proved by my personal instinct/intuition, whichever you prefer. > If theosophy is based on the belief that there is one all pervading truth, it > seems that any discussion based upon it should have as its first objective > reaching agreement on what aspects of this universal truth are known. If > agreement cannot be reached at this foundation level, then all further > discussion is babble. Well, discussion is babble anyhow. Thinking and coming to conclusions is your own business, we are only here to give you food for thought (or that is my opinion of the situation on this list). Of course, by the same reasoning: you are here to give us food for thought. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:57:09 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: RE: Dallas - theos-l digest: November 09, 1999 On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:08:05 -0800 "W. Dallas TenBroeck" wrote: Dallas: > In regard to the use of technical terms, like Atma -- the "labeling" was used because I was under the impression that all those (or most of those) who exchanged ideas over this study group had read TEH KEY TO THEOSOPHY by HPB and knew those basic "labels" and what they meant.> Well, yes Dallas, but still, to read the signpost (in this case the Key to Theosophy) is not the same as having actually reached the goal, and how can we know atma (the highest principle) unless having reached the goal? So that is why I am a bit hesitant (hope the spelling is correct) in assuming I understand what you mean when you write about atma. In fact I am assuming that our ways of thought are so different, that allthough we base ourselves on the same literature (something I don't think we should assume about Kym for instance), we still understand that literature very differently. I am trying to talk to you, not Blavatsky, which is why I build in questions like: what do you mean when you use the word atma? But you explain that very clearly in this post (at least to my understanding). > DTB I agree with what you say, Katinka: "emotions + thought" is > what I call > Kama (desires and passions principle) PLUS Manas (the Mind > principle). The combination is referred to by HPB as the "Lower > Mind" or the "Embodied Mind." Katinka : Yes, I know, but using western words is perhaps a better idea on this list, because it seems to me that the theosophical words are not popular here and with a reason. Dallas: > Cosmically, or individually, there is "desire" as a cause for > thought and mind-action. katinka: Yes, I agree. We might conclude that thought should think and that emotion should fire the thought and the action.. Dallas: > At this point I would still say: What is it in us that is able to look at both the mind (thinking) and the emotions (feeling, desire, passions) and apparently detached from either ? It is this One Consciousness which is derived from the "ray of the One spirit, the ATMA" which is resident in each of us and forms the undying basis of our existence.> Oke, got you. Dallas: > DTB I try not to indulge in just "labeling" to no purpose -- but > as I said above I had assumed that we were all familiar with what > HPB wrote at least in the KEY to THEOSOPHY. Katinka you define Atma beautifully above, so my question has been answered. with best wishes, Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:20:07 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Randy to anyone: physical evolution Hi Randy, we are getting into a vast biological discussion here, and I will try to give the result of my studies. Randy: > Bart--Tell me more about how our evolving consciousness would create > mutations. The concept would explain the uniqueness of humans, but what > about all other creatures? What troubles me is the lack of any good physical > explanation for the existence of life in its incredible complexity and myriad > forms. "Evolution" can only explain variation within "kinds". Anything else > creates improbabliities far too stretched for credulity. Randy Evolution as a result of mutation, can in fact explain more than just variation within kinds. Chromosomes are responsible for so many biological molecules in the cell, that a lot is explainable that way. What is not easily explainable that way, in my opinion, is the difference between eukariote and bacteria-cells: the one has a nucleus, the other not. One has all kinds of organelles (mitochondria, plasmids etc.) that help in making each particular cell more versatile and in fact make it possible for cells to differentiate, the other does not. By recent biologists this is accounted for by one cell eating another, but not being capable of digesting the eaten cell properly. The organelles in plant-cells that with the help of light produce suger from CO2 are an example of that. In the result fused cell, the original cell makes use of the capabilities of the *eaten* cell, and the *eaten* cell is dependent on the cell around it. In this way, working together becomes a major evolutionary factor. Katinka (I can give you sources if you want) ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:39:00 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: reincarnatie "W. Dallas TenBroeck" wrote: > REINCARNATION > > 1. Has logic and persuasion in it, if one considers that the > Soul (Mind) of a Human being is immortal and eternal. If that is > denied, then it is useless to proceed. It is agreed that the > "embodied mind" of the present personality is destroyed with the > body at death. I agree, but... > 2. However there are many accounts of Seances and other > experiences that would seem to imply a survival of the personal > soul/mind at least for a while after physical death. If those > are discarded then the question of reincarnation might be still > "sub judice." Well, even if those are not discarded, they can be explained quite nicely by assuming those gosts (to use a western word, shells is also a good one for me) will also die, but simply have not done so yet. So this is not making reincarnation a neccessity yet. > 3. NDEs (Accounts of NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES) and reports of > children and adults who remember "past lives" abound. Are these > to be discarded or is the matter to be held "sub judice?" Alan can answer this one better than I, because I do tend to explain this by reincarnation. But one might postulate a universal memory and those souls have tuned in for some reason to that aspect: remembering that past live. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:46:44 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality > > 1. Has logic and persuasion in it, if one considers that the > > Soul (Mind) of a Human being is immortal and eternal. If that is > > denied, then it is useless to proceed. It is agreed that the > > "embodied mind" of the present personality is destroyed with the > > body at death. This is funny, I needed Alan to point this out, but Dallas, you seem to me to actually go against Blavatsky here! What you call embodied mind (kama-manas, as you recently explained) is not at all immediately destroyed with the body at death. There is certainly plenty of time for the kama aspect of this to be revived in a medium-circle. At least that is how I understand it. > > 2. However there are many accounts of Seances and other > > experiences that would seem to imply a survival of the personal > > soul/mind at least for a while after physical death. If those > > are discarded then the question of reincarnation might be still > > "sub judice." This is oposed to what you wrote earlier? Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:33:49 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Films on-line on Internet Thanks, Doss. THIS is the way to plug the Internet as a vehicle for Theosophy, not by saying how wonderful it will be when we get it, but to show how it IS being used effectively. In the New York Lodge of the TSA, we get a number of people who had gone to ULT meetings and were upset by the censorship of real questions. We point out, however, that the ULT is COMPLEMENTARY to other TS groups; there is only a certain amount of effort that one can physically give to Theosophy, so they choose to use theirs to present the Primary Literature, and leave it to others to critically examine it. But note that you can't critically examine something you don't know... Bart Lidofsky RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM wrote: > > I saw the following announcement on theosophy newsgroup. > > Free Theosophy films on-line: http://www.ult.org/video/index.htm > > --- > 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, 15 Nov 1999 08:33:19 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 14, 1999 In a message dated 11/15/99 12:42:50 AM Central Standard Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > Also, his famous categorical imperative, which he claims is based on pure > reason, has been proven over and over again to fail Kant's criteria. Oh, how so? Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 06:41:19 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality Nov 15 1999 Thanks Katinka, and see notes below, please Dal Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: hesse600 > Subject: Re: more gradual/sudden path/ Re: sentimentality > > 1. Has logic and persuasion in it, if one considers that the > > Soul (Mind) of a Human being is immortal and eternal. If that is > > denied, then it is useless to proceed. It is agreed that the > > "embodied mind" of the present personality is destroyed with the > > body at death. This is funny, I needed Alan to point this out, but Dallas, you seem to me to actually go against Blavatsky here! What you call embodied mind (kama-manas, as you recently explained) is not at all immediately destroyed with the body at death. There is certainly plenty of time for the kama aspect of this to be revived in a medium-circle. At least that is how I understand it. DTB HPB points out (in KEY TO THEOSOPHY) that the after death states are as follows (this is only an outline of course) and more details are to be found in the KEY, SD, TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE, and in other articles published by HPB in THEOSOPHIST, LUCIFER, etc. Sketch of after-death events between incarnations: 1. death of physical body 2. review by the Immortal SOUL/EGO of all the memories of the last life. 3. These are carried out (transferred) out of the physical centers of the body and brain on and in to the Astral Body (which survives the physical death), -- it is this which can be contacted in seances. 4. On the astral plane and in the astral body the Soul/Ego reviews and separates all the memories of life's experiences into 2 kinds: 1. those that are personal, selfish, gross, "evil" etc...[the LOWER] 2. those that relate to idealism, altruism, unselfishness and universalism [the HIGHER] 5. of these the LOWER group are left to disintegrate with the astral body on the astral plane as a kind of 2nd corpse -- if left undisturbed by mediums or seance-goers, they fade away and as "skandhas" they are distributed to their appropriate place in nature where they have some consubstantiallity. Period of time may be from a few days to several week or months depending on the general "grossness" of the life last lived. If disturbed and reanimated at a seance, an additional life span is acquired by this "astral corpse" -- but from descriptions available, the sensation it endures are then extremely painful to it, one of them compares it to being "skinned alive." This is why Theosophical teachings discourage any attempt at mediumistic contact or evoking such astral corpses. It is out of pity for them, and also out of hope that those who dabble in such contacts will not themselves impose such a dreadful experience on their "2nd corpse" as it disintegrates. 6. The SOUL/EGO abandons the "2nd corpse" allowing it to disintegrate on the astral plane, and it carries the memories that are noble, altruistic, etc into "Devachan" and there reviews and meditates on each least or major impressions, so that it is well understood, and is recorded on the permanent "astral," the Akasic level of the IMMORTAL EGO. 7 At the end of this process the immortal Soul Ego with the Light of the Atmic "Ray" upon it, is able to see and review its Karma in the mode of a panoramic review of its past lives and all the karmic links established, and also those which are to be dealt with in the next incarnation. This is sometimes called the "Universal Vision of Atman," and then, as the stream of skandhas with the Karma that they carry is now becoming operative, and attracts the Soul/Ego back into incarnation -- a new reincarnation is immanent, and then it is taught that the "Panoramic Review" changes into 8. the PROSPECTIVE REVIEW -- in a sketch outline - hazy as Karma is not yet operative -- occurs -- the returning Ego with the light of Atma upon it sees an outline of the next life to be lived.. 9. The return to rebirth of the immortal Soul/Ego is marked by a corresponding gathering of the skandhas that are relative to its last life/lives. These are reassembled so as to provide it with its new incarnation, starting as a baby body with the potential intelligence of the past to manifest as it develops in its new life. 10. The Karma of the incoming (returning) Immortal Soul/Ego into incarnation is adjusted with the Karma of those who are to be its "new" parents. 11. Conception occurs and the round of birth starts again. This is a very rough sketch and many more questions and details are given (in the KEY) in answer to the questions that the Enquirer" poses to HPB as "the Theosophist" in the KEY. It is well worth while consulting this book and reading the whole odyssey. And this is what I have secured out of the study of Theosophical doctrines on this subject. > > 2. However there are many accounts of Seances and other > > experiences that would seem to imply a survival of the personal > > soul/mind at least for a while after physical death. If those > > are discarded then the question of reincarnation might be still > > "sub judice." This is oposed to what you wrote earlier? DTB Not really as you will see above, there is a great deal more to grasp. It will be found to be coherent and consecutive as each stage is related to the past and the future. Karma and responsibility are the links and the justice and fairness of Nature are always at the background. We are the Immortal Actors on this learning, ever learning, stage of living. Really, a reading of the KEY TO THEOSOPHY by HPB is a great assistance if one desires to acquire a knowledge of most of the details that Theosophy offers on our consciousness, and its development and on our Karma and our reincarnations. Best wishes, Dallas Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl --- 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: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 06:41:27 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: reincarnating Nov 15th More notes below, please, Dal Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 - -----Original Message----- > From: hesse600 [mailto:hesse600@tem.nhl.nl] > Date: Monday, November 15, 1999 2:39 AM > Subject: reincarnatie "W. Dallas TenBroeck" wrote: > REINCARNATION > > 1. Has logic and persuasion in it, if one considers that the > Soul (Mind) of a Human being is immortal and eternal. If that is > denied, then it is useless to proceed. It is agreed that the > "embodied mind" of the present personality is destroyed with the > body at death. I agree, but... > 2. However there are many accounts of Seances and other > experiences that would seem to imply a survival of the personal > soul/mind at least for a while after physical death. If those > are discarded then the question of reincarnation might be still > "sub judice." Well, even if those are not discarded, they can be explained quite nicely by assuming those gosts (to use a western word, shells is also a good one for me) will also die, but simply have not done so yet. So this is not making reincarnation a neccessity yet. DTB Agreed. But the necessity lies in karma. Any thought or feeling or deed of ours leaves an impress on the many monads, (skandhas) "little lives," life-atoms," - many names for the same things. The impress may be for "good," or "bad" but since it is there it has to be adjusted eventually in a just fair, and living Universe/World. > 3. NDEs (Accounts of NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES) and reports of > children and adults who remember "past lives" abound. Are these > to be discarded or is the matter to be held "sub judice?" Alan can answer this one better than I, because I do tend to explain this by reincarnation. But one might postulate a universal memory and those souls have tuned in for some reason to that aspect: remembering that past live. DTB Well, as one desires to think, and as things are, may be two different things. Why not read the KEY TO THEOSOPHY and see how HPB dealt with this most difficult subject and its many ramifications. It may save some time and effort. Best wishes, Dallas Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl --- 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: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 06:41:30 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: RE: Dallas - theos-l digest: November 09, 1999 Nov 15 Dear ktinka: Some notes below in answer please Dal 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=3D -----Original Message----- > From: hesse600 [mailto:hesse600@tem.nhl.nl] > Date: Monday, November 15, 1999 1:57 AM > Subject: Re: RE: Dallas - theos-l digest: November 09, 1999 On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 06:08:05 -0800 "W. Dallas TenBroeck" wrote: Dallas: > In regard to the use of technical terms, like Atma -- the "labeling" was used because I was under the impression that all those (or most of those) who exchanged ideas over this study group had read TEH KEY TO THEOSOPHY by HPB and knew those basic "labels" and what they meant.> Well, yes Dallas, but still, to read the signpost (in this case the Key to Theosophy) is not the same as having actually reached the goal, and how can we know atma (the highest principle) unless having reached the goal? DTB The Idea of a supreme, (SPIRIT ?) portions of which are EVERYWHERE in the Universe is not to me repugnant. It gives an idea of completeness in potential. The contrast of "form" or "matter" is also necessary as we deal with them all the time, and we live in a "form." The question of "consciousness" and its many aspects is a continuous one for me, and I suppose for others, too. One may envisage the end of our day (today) but as you say it is only when we review before sleeping all that we have done, that we realise that Night is upon us and Sleeping as an experience is again upon us. Can we be sure of awakening the same tomorrow? Our experience seems to indicate a continuity. Is this not in some way pointing to a "goal" in a broader sense? So that is why I am a bit hesitant (hope the spelling is correct) in assuming I understand what you mean when you write about atma. In fact I am assuming that our ways of thought are so different, that allthough we base ourselves on the same literature (something I don't think we should assume about Kym for instance), we still understand that literature very differently. I am trying to talk to you, not Blavatsky, which is why I build in questions like: what do you mean when you use the word atma? But you explain that very clearly in this post (at least to my understanding). > DTB I agree with what you say, Katinka: "emotions + thought" is > what I call Kama (desires and passions principle) PLUS Manas (the Mind > principle). The combination is referred to by HPB as the "Lower > Mind" or the "Embodied Mind." =3D=3D=3D DTB But I think we try to dialog all the time with HPB. I don't think she is "dead and gone" I think she is quite alive, though in a different shape and place perhaps, but every time that someone thinks of her, her work and tries to understand it, she feels the "pull" and responds in some way that is reasonable and acceptable to the recipient or the inquirer. Fair ? Katinka : Yes, I know, but using western words is perhaps a better idea on this list, because it seems to me that the theosophical words are not popular here and with a reason. =3D=3D=3D DTB Well, we are limited to the use of words that we hopefully use as the same basis for communicating ideas -- it wold be so much quicker if we could think mind-to-mind. But writing has the advantage of giving us time to be more careful in what we say, I think ----------------------- Dallas: > Cosmically, or individually, there is "desire" as a cause for > thought and mind-action. katinka: Yes, I agree. We might conclude that thought should think and that emotion should fire the thought and the action.. Dallas: > At this point I would still say: What is it in us that is able to look at both the mind (thinking) and the emotions (feeling, desire, passions) and apparently detached from either ? It is this One Consciousness which is derived from the "ray of the One spirit, the ATMA" which is resident in each of us and forms the undying basis of our existence.> Oke, got you. Dallas: > DTB I try not to indulge in just "labeling" to no purpose -- but > as I said above I had assumed that we were all familiar with what > HPB wrote at least in the KEY to THEOSOPHY. Katinka you define Atma beautifully above, so my question has been answered. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D DTB So glad, thanks -- great fun -- exchange i= s most valuable Best wishes, Dal --------------------------- with best wishes, Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl --- 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: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 14:13:54 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Some Responses >>If the unacknoweledged appropriations appear damaging, what appears even worse is that "these appropriations sometimes are MADE TO APPEAR as emanating from a hidden or occult source like Tibetan Buddhist Tantras." Why would Blavatsky attribute appropriated material from Schlagintweit's book to a hidden or occult source?>> It is one thing to find examples of apparent plagarism, and quite another to jump to the conclusion that it was deliberate. I found that I had done much the same thing in my own PhD dissertation. I included some quotes without references, with the expectation that I would add the references later -- and then I completely forgot. I had my hands slapped by the university, which picked up on it when they read the draft. We are all human after all, and she admitted to making mistakes. I have to give her the benefit of any doubt on this, because she wrote so much and read so much, it is humanly impossible to keep it all completely straight. Her attribution, IMHO, was probably due to the fact that the ideas were indeed from some hidden source, and when she recalled the ideas, her mind probably formed them in words that were already in her memory but without her conscious recollection. I do not believe that she ever deliberately plagarized, simply because she had no real need to do so. Jerry S. [Jerry] >> No, the problem of origins and evolution is in the idea >> of a beginning. [Katinka] >Is it? Are you then of the opinion that the whole thing is >a giant machine that after it started just kept on going >and acidentally created man? There is no "started." The whole point that I am trying to make here is that there is no beginning or end. If time is linear, as it appears to us to be, then it seems logical to assume that it all had to begin at some point. It logically follows, in that case, that it must someday all end. But this is an illusion. Jerry S. >>Why, if finding the First Cause is a logical necessity, do you argue it cannot be found? Thanks, Randy>> Good question. I can only say that any First Cause is a lot like the Zen koan of one's Original Face. Why can't it be found? Because we are using logic and reason to find something that transcends logic and reason. Jerry S. >>Does theosophy espouse physical evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense? If so, what is the evidence used to support this? Thanks, Randy>> Yes and no. Because spirit evolves, so mind and emotions and physical objects, because the lower expresses the higher. Blavatsky's evolution model is given in some detail in the Secret Doctrine. She does not agree with survival of the fittest, but I'll bet that she would nod her head to the current theory of Margulis having to do with symbiosis and cooperation as well as Lovecock's Gaia hypothesis. Jerry S. [Dallas] >>To me "spiritual evolution" means the seeking for and application of "BROTHERHOOD" in all aspects of life. >> To me, brotherhood is an expression of spirit, which itself needs no evolution. Would you say that spirit evolves, or would you say rather that people evolve by expressing more spirituality in their lives? Does matter evolve? Or is it rather that material forms/aggragates evolve? Jerry S. [Grigor] >>This is a compromise view sometimes found in Nyingmapa circles combining Atiyoga with Mahayoga (or the Anuttara of new schools) or combining sudden and gradual paths. It should not be confused with the sudden view strictly speaking.<< OK, but I was coming at it from the point of view of Zen, which is more familiar to everyone. The Zen idea is that a student studies until "ready" and then just one word or action from the Master will send him/her over the edge. According to Zen, study itself is not enough for satori, but it is a type of preparation. <> Agreed. >>The pure sudden path view says there is no need for preliminary training. Rather, training comes after basic enlightenment.>> This falls in line with a lot of magic schools which use soma or other psychodelic to start things going. >>In essence, gradual path says training comes first, then, enlightenment. By contrast, sudden path, in its pure form, says enlightenment comes first, and then, enlightenment training or practice.>> My take is that both can be right -- it depends on the individual. >>Even in Zen, the practice of zazen (samadhi) is to realize satori. But, satori or enlightenment experience is not complete Buddhahood. After one finds satori, one has to practice it dynamically in situations, and this practicing of satori after it has been reached is kensho. >> Agreed. I found this to be true in my own experience. >>In Dzog chen, the best or luckiest way is the direct transmission of the enlightened state from the mind of the master to the mind of the student, who then, subsequently, practices that state under the improvising conditions of life as on-going drama. If that is not possible, then something like the practice of Zazen (samadhi) is done. But when the pure state of mind is found, THEN begins the training in being that state of mind in all conditions. Grigor>> Agreed. And thanks for the info. [Dallas] >.Is there a "Designer?" Does it not take a MIND to do the memorizing of designs, or their imagining (out of the memory of earlier manifestation periods) , planning (out of the substance of thought) and creation (out of the grossness of electro-magnetic matter) ?>> You are expressing the typical human desire for a parental prototype: a cosmic father figure or mother figure. No, there does not need to be a Mind in the sense of a self-conscious entity or God (I am not saying that there is none, but simply that one is not necessary). Jung once said that the emotionally charged image is the basic building block of the unconscious. If we simply equate "emotionally charged image" with "skandha" or "shishta" then there is no real need for a Creator. Each round of creation is the effect of preceding causes, alias karma in the form of emotionally charged images or shistas. Jerry S. <> Dallas, it is my observation that mind is very much dependent on both matter and spirit. Jerry S. >>Of what value is "Nirvana?" Buddha defined samsara as suffering, and nirvana as an end to suffering. I think that putting an end to suffering has immense value. >>REINCARNATION 1. Has logic and persuasion in it, if one considers that the Soul (Mind) of a Human being is immortal and eternal. If that is denied, then it is useless to proceed. It is agreed that the "embodied mind" of the present personality is destroyed with the body at death.>> I do not believe that the human mind (higher or lower)is either immortal or eternal. Nevertheless, I believe in reincarnation. >>2. However there are many accounts of Seances and other experiences that would seem to imply a survival of the personal soul/mind at least for a while after physical death. If those are discarded then the question of reincarnation might be still "sub judice.">> I have seen "dead" people in my dreams. >>3. NDEs (Accounts of NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES) and reports of children and adults who remember "past lives" abound. Are these to be discarded or is the matter to be held "sub judice?">> I had an NDE myself. However, medical science is offering many alternative physical explanations. >>4. Most religions and philosophies speak of reincarnation although they may not (like Theosophy) give an extensive rationale for consideration.<< Western religions do not. You only find reincarnation in the East. Reincarnation is something that simply has to be accepted on belief -- there will never be any proof for or against. Personally, I find myself reincarnating each second, but I can't prove it. >>What is the CAUSE for the division between SPIRIT and MULAPRAKRITI (primordial, or ROOT-MATTER) . Why is the MONAD formed? Why does the UNIVERSE come into existence? IS THAT NECESSARY?>> Dallas, please allow me to answer your questions. The CAUSE is our own ignorance. The MONAD is not formed, never was formed, and never will be formed. The UNIVERSE never "came into existence" nor will it ever "go out of existence" because existence and non-existence always go together. And yes, it is NECESSARY. Hope this helps. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:40:52 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Some Responses > It is one thing to find examples of apparent plagarism, and > quite another to jump to the conclusion that it was deliberate. > I found that I had done much the same thing in my own PhD > dissertation. I included some quotes without references, with > the expectation that I would add the references later -- and > then I completely forgot. I had my hands slapped by the > university, which picked up on it when they read the draft. > We are all human after all, and she admitted to making > mistakes. I have to give her the benefit > of any doubt on this, because she wrote so much and read so > much, it is humanly impossible to keep it all completely > straight. But (IMO) there's something much bigger here: Thought, at its core, moves in *streams* through the subtle worlds ... its like the huge currents in the ocean that maintain their own characters depending upon temperature and salinity. I remember when I was first reading Kant - I had read one book ... and was writing a long paper about it. Well, *in* that paper, on two separate occasions, I wrote paragraphs that so closely resembled Kant (in fact one varied only by a single word) that my professor accused me of plagiarism ... thing is, the paragraph in question *wasn't* from the book I had read, it was in *another* one that I *hadn't* yet even *picked up*. I don't know how many times this has happened over the years ... a deep immersion into some field, that winds up causing entrance into its "thought-current", that results in thinking, or even writing things that only later do I discover others have also written - i.e., I'm not talking about books I had actually picked up, and perhaps subconsciously remembered and later unintentionally copied in my own writing (which is what Jerry is speaking of - and also happens often), but of the phenomena - that possibly every serious writer has experienced - of dwelling deeply on subject matter, conceiving what I believed to be completely original thoughts, and only later stumbling across another author that has already fully fleshed those thoughts out. The TS model is, I think, useful here ... the 7 subplanes of the manasic plane. At its most dense level, thoughts are "things", almost solid objects. It is *here* where the whole concept of "plagiarism" even has any meaning at all ... here where the idiotic notion that someone can actually "own" a thought arises, where thought "currents" have become crystallized into "ice cubes", discrete objects separate from the stream from whence they came, and capable of being "possessed" by a single individual. The more subtle levels of thought, however, are currents, not cubes ... waves, not particles ... and people working in these layers very commonly pick up things very similar to others also swimming in the same stream (its why, for instance, the history of science has seen so many instances of the identical discovery being made at the almost identical time by people living worlds apart, and having no contact with one another). While the people *capable* of reaching this state of intellectual refinement may well often appear to "plagiarize" one another at least partially, they are also those who would not have the slightest interest in intentionally doing so, and in fact probably would care little if others "plagiarized" them ... because they simply could never *feel* as though a thought was something that they owned in the first place. HPB, for all the weirdness surrounding her, never tried to make a cent off her work, never even attempted to claim personal credit ... and considering the scope of her work, the sheer magnitude of subjects she wrote about, and the depth of her immersion in her subject matter, it would almost be a miracle if her work *wasn't* scattered with striking similarities to the work of others. In my opinion, the sort of people that want to argue endlessly about whether she "stole" ideas from this person or that (and they've been around since she first published), and want to busy themselves with compiling all sorts of delightful evidence to support their clever theories, aren't saying as much about HPB as they are about *themselves*. (And I'm personally hoping that they all eventually collapse into a big puddle of ironic plagiarism ... i.e., wouldn't it just be the coolest thing if someone was studying Rich's thesis next year, and discovered that *he* had inadvertently plagiarized an accusation of HPB's plagiarism from another, earlier HPB critic? har har har har har ...). These folks are simply never going to *get* Theosophy. Thing is, people will probably still be reading HPB a century from now. They probably *won't* be reading Rich Taylor. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:03:18 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Bart:7 human bodies? Sorry Bart, I only know of one. Are you going to be able to give me evidence for another 6? Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:31:07 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Katinka:proofs The proofs that would create comfort for me are more broad than precise mathematical formulas or perfect syllogisms. Experience qualifies. So does intuition. But I may reject anything if it does not jibe with reality, knowledge and reasonings that get me through day to day life. Why be so quick to reject, repudiate or belittle classical proof or reasoning? I'll wager sound reasoning, good science, experimentation and the like have done more for the human condition in a tangible way than speculative spiritual fluff. Thanks, Randy PS Enjoyed your comment on how the purpose of the list is to disagree so discussion continues. I'm still looking for some warm and fuzzy friends to agree with me. That's fun too. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:41:05 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Katinka:macroevolution I would like to see your evidence that mutations have created a new kind of creature. Good luck. The notion that organelles are the remnants of "eaten" bacteria or the like is speculative. If you have proofs I would be interested. Evolutionary theory is riddled with fanciful explanations because clear proof of macroevolution has not been forthcoming. Problem is we are all so schooled that evolution is "science" we tend not to examine the foundations(which rest on sand). Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:42:49 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Randy to Katinka:macroevolution > Evolutionary theory is riddled with fanciful explanations because clear proof > of macroevolution has not been forthcoming. Problem is we are all so > schooled that evolution is "science" we tend not to examine the > foundations(which rest on sand). Another problem is that at least evolution rests on *sand* - most other explanations put forward rest on things far less substanstial than even that. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:49:31 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: November 14, 1999 Nov 15th 1999 Dear Kym: Many thanks for review of Kant-ism I found him most interesting, and perhaps read more into his writing than he meant ? -- but then, I also think he made some good and some (partially good) points -- but don't we all? I think that exchanges of this nature make us all more generous to each other. Dal Some NOTES below 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 -----Original Message----- > From: kymsmith@micron.net [mailto:kymsmith@micron.net] > Date: Sunday, November 14, 1999 10:44 PM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 14, 1999 Dallas wrote: >Pure thinking (Kant) is what is wanted. All factors out in front >of us. Interesting, since I always viewed the core of Kant as being basically "anti-theosophical." Kant argues that we must assume that nature is ordered in such a way that is purposeful, which thereby constrains, or forces someone, to approach the study of nature as being formed by an intelligent creator. Such mental "lock-down" seems unacceptable to the mega-exploratory mind. DTB Agreed -- let's look at him without the "creator" concept (if possible) Also, his famous categorical imperative, which he claims is based on pure reason, has been proven over and over again to fail Kant's criteria. So much for reason as the sole standard for moral knowledge. And, for you, Dallas, in your pursuit of knowledge of noumena - Kant says these things can be pondered upon, but never really known. So, in essence, it is a subtle suggestion that our questions of "what is human" are merely an exercise in chasing our tails. DTB Possibly, as to the real source of all things -- I mean the non-manifest ABSOLUTENESS (to use a Theosophical idea) but, what have we got that is an absolutely sure thing? To me, we have 3: 1. - I know I exist. 2. - You and the rest of the universe "out there" also exist. 3. - We have on-going relationships of many kinds. Consequently we are able to investigate those relationships. Putting it metaphysically (if allowed), Spirit has for opposition Matter. All wisdom vs. ignorance and inexperience. Potential vs. limits of form. The 3rd factor: Perception -- Mind. Intermediate between Spirit & Matter -- and in its purity would be unaffected by either, hence capable of "perceiving" them and all their many kinds of interaction [ Example: mental attitude of a Scientist in his lab, seeking in some aspect of Nature, for the laws that rule its being.] Side note: The philosopher P.F. Strawson, in his book "Individuals," intriguingly makes Kant into an empiricist - Kant would not be pleased - but Strawson does an admirable job. DTB I haven't read him. My loss I guess. so far. Basically, in my opinion, there is no evidence that Kant really represents "pure thinking." On a more personal level, Kant's approach to thinking so carried over into his personal life that he ended up needing such a rigidity to his daily routine, that it interfered with his ability to truly connect with those around him. He began to treat people like objects. Another example of how the dominance of "reason" in one's life can distort what it means to be a caring individual. DTB Probably an exaggeration -- which is unable to bend with the current of other aspects of life and living. All should be balanced. But any over-emphasis leads to some exaggeration and that ought to be identified so that the one who is in an exaggerated mode (if they are willing to listen to another's view) may readjust themselves. What I ken is that we are all multifaceted, and we need to be able to apprehend and use all those faculties so that the real human being is generous (my term) to others. OK ? Best wishes, Dal ---------------- Kym --- 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: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:01:35 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Randy to Bart:7 human bodies? > Sorry Bart, I only know of one. Are you going to be able to give me evidence > for another 6? Randy What's your evidence of the *one*? Are you using your *physical senses* to become aware of and show "evidence" of your *physical body*? Would that be your proof that it exists? Perhaps if you could figure out how to use your *mind* to become aware of your "mental body", or your "intuition" to become aware of buddhic body, you could catch a glimpse of the Theosophical model. However, if you *persist* in the attitude that demands proof within the parameters that you define it, according to the terms you choose ... then you should probably just flee from Theosophy right now - because it will never satisfy you. And frankly, it doesn't want to. One if its most fundamental theses is that it *is* possible for human beings, ultimately, to know the "truth" with a capital T ... but that in their normal state, they are simply far too undeveloped to even begin to understand it. Theosophy *does* suggest that there are means of so changinging one's inner nature that currently latent, dormant qualities of the human constitution may be brought to life by a variety of means, and that these qualities will also produce, as an aftereffect, abilities that *will* permit one to search the nature of reality at a far deeper level than is open to the norm. But from the very beginning of one's search, of one's questioning, every time you demand to know some "evidence" of supersensible worlds, you've got to *also* ask whether *you* have the faculties, the abilities, the point of view necessary to *understand* it. Blind people shouldn't demand to see the sun - at least not without asking whether there is something *they* might need to do to qualify themselves to see it. nor should they demand the existance of the sun be demonstrated to them in a fashion that fits within their limited abilities of perception. It never will be ... never *can* be - all that can happen is that a few hints can be given, and few aftereffects of the sun pointed out. What HPB, and the Adepts behind her (if, that is, you believe they exist) presented in Theosophy is a model - a vocabulary with which to begin thinking about interior worlds, a model within which to understand both cosmogenisis and anthrogenesis, a schema within which human evolution (as well as mineral, plant, and animal) allegedly unfolds, and, given that model, hints at the means by which a person's particular evolution might be considerably speeded. They did not present the core of their wisdom, in fact overtly said that it is only but the barest beginning ... and that western minds, on the whole, would probably too dense to even understand most of *that*. in fact, people have spent decades simply trying to get a handle on just a few pieces of Theosophical Literature ... and each decade discover whole new layers within it - as *they* become refined enough to *perceive* those layers. But get real clear about this - no one will try to *sell* you Theosophy. Its not a religion. No one will try to "prove" anything to you, and its no one's duty to give you "evidence" for anything. Theosophy is simply something offered.The people on this list, on the whole, are not proponents or salespeople. They are people who each has found some value, something interesting in the works, and are each pursuing their own paths ... stopping now and then to talk to one another about the travelling. Fact is, the adepts, in the eariest Theosophical literature, not only didn't try to gain recruits, but actively sought to hide themselves, and in fact considered that it would likely be centuries before the human species as a whole would even want to begin the sort of work necessary to scale the heights. You demand "evidence" now of exceedingly refined bodies and inner worlds - yet do not even wish to take the time to learn the vocabulary necessary to speak of them, let alone the time it would take to develop *yourself* to the point where you *could* directly perceive them. Would you also demand "evidence", from MD's, of the existance of organs in the body, but decline to learn even the vocabulary of anatomy, let alone spend the years needed to qualify yourself to be in an operating theatre? To demand that evidence meet the standard of your "common sense" - hell with Theosophy, you won't even begin to accept quantum mechanics - which pretty much demands that you throw out fully half of the assumptions about "reality" that are derived from "empirical" evidence. At any rate - perhaps I can save you a bunch of time here: No one will prove any Theosophical concepts to you. No one will demonstrate the existance of supersensible worlds. No one will even attempt to give you "empirical" evidence, sufficient to satisy your "common sense" and "reason", that the entire structure described in the cosmo and anthro genesis of Theosophy is anything other than pure fantasy. Even will be completely happy if you wish to believe that none of it exists - in fact, the majority of the world will agree fully with you. If you *persist* in your current attitude, you'll get virtually nowhere in understanding Theosophy. An ultimately will conclude that it would be a waste of time to even try. And from within your worldview - it *will* be. If there is something inside of you, however, that is willing to not only question "empirical evidence", but your own assumptions, your own worldview, your most cherished views of what knowledge itself is - all I can say is a number of people on this list (and there are some pretty damn smart people here), and over the last century some of the world's most creative and intelligent people, have found that the foundational works of Theosphy contained thinfs that *did* challenge them, that made it worth their while to learn its vocabulary, and even engage in what might be called "the work". No one here will try to talk you into it, but should you of your own accord get bitten by the bug, and start pursuing it in earnest ... you'll certainly be welcomed. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:23:44 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Some Responses Nov 15 1999 Dear Gerry: You are entirely right. SPIRIT does not evolve. And what I mean is that those beings that espouse ,after confirming to themselves that there is the probability of SPIRIT (or existing perfection somewhere) , adopt a discipline that improves their motives and their life-objectives. This is, FOR THEM a kind of SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION. In strict terms we could say "Evolution towards SPIRIT." A better question is what in Man is it that can evolve towards SPIRIT ? Dal Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@iximd.com] > Date: Monday, November 15, 1999 11:14 AM > Subject: Some Responses snip [Dallas] >>To me "spiritual evolution" means the seeking for and application of "BROTHERHOOD" in all aspects of life. >> To me, brotherhood is an expression of spirit, which itself needs no evolution. Would you say that spirit evolves, or would you say rather that people evolve by expressing more spirituality in their lives? Does matter evolve? Or is it rather that material forms/aggragates evolve? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:32:18 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 14, 1999 In a message dated 11/15/99 6:57:58 PM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > Dear Kym: > > Many thanks for review of Kant-ism Hegel once asked Kant to go out a night to bag babes in Idaho. The reply was, "I kant, I kant, they're all big round spuds with too many green eyes. Besides, their already buried." Strawnson didn't care, he'd date any C.D Broad, saying better a resusitated rolled Royce than a lingering bad Ayer. Just so he didn't find dewey gooey, or droid named freud. And to Jung, gag!, stick out your tongue! He's archetypical bum! >From college, Grigor (course you could replace Idaho for Minsk) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:59:52 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Responses fillet of philo soul? Would you have a perforated peirce, a bad ayer, an all star russell, in a c. d. broad tussle, a skeptical lotze first or a tankard of Mead with cow's cudsworth, or heart-shorne of mirth, maybr perhaps imblicho-pinole, with a santayana, nietzsche-stromboli, smothered in mediational Ricoeur, with Bradley Bosanquet Soup with TH Greens, finished off with a Lingis delight - an urbane S langer tonight. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:03:07 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Randy to Bart:7 human bodies? In fact, humans have only one body (theoretically, there is only one life, total). However, that body is based on 7 principles. There are a number of descriptions of those 7 principles, which implies a continuity rather than discrete "bodies". However, they are frequently called the 7 bodies. This is an important part of Theosophical doctrine; there are articles and even books written on the 7 principles of humanity. Also, understanding the Theosophical concepts of evolution is probably impossible without an understanding of the 7 principles. I do not, unfortunately, have time to write an article right now. If nobody else writes one (or points you towards one), then I will write one by the weekend. Bart WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > > Sorry Bart, I only know of one. Are you going to be able to give me evidence > for another 6? Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:16:38 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Randy to Bart:7 human bodies? A might harsh, but otherwise right on the money, IMNSHO. JRC wrote: > No one here will try to talk you into it, but should you of your own accord > get bitten by the bug, and start pursuing it in earnest ... you'll certainly > be welcomed. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 01:33:32 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Films on-line on Internet My interest in posting it is simple. I wanted people subscribed to lists such as this one know about the availability of these films. Of course those interested can access it free of cost - any time, any place and anonymously. Glory to ULT and those behind this effort. mkr At 08:33 AM 11/15/1999 -0500, Bart Lidofsky wrote: Thanks, Doss. THIS is the way to plug the Internet as a vehicle for theosophy, not by saying how wonderful it will be when we get it, but to show how it IS being used effectively. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:59:30 -0700 From: "KYM C. SMITH" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 15, 1999 Grigor wrote: >>[Kym] Also, his famous categorical imperative, which he claims is based on pure >> reason, has been proven over and over again to fail Kant's criteria. >[Grigor] Oh, how so? Kant's categorical imperative says 'Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law.' Maxims are general rules or principles which "rational" (I love that) persons are supposed to base their actions on and to additionally ponder the result of choosing such an action in a particular circumstance. Kant wanted to author a universal maxim, one that could apply to everyone and everything and be both rational and morally permissable - hence, his categorical imperative. The important part of his theory, the "test," is that whatever maxim one adopts, an individual, by following it, does not place him/herself separate from others - meaning, if you do it, then you must wish for everyone else to do it. The often used example of putting Kant's maxim in action is the statement 'I will always pay my debts as soon as possible to avoid incurring unnecessary interest.' This is both rational, moral, and universal in the sense that if everyone did it, it would benefit society. However, there are can be, for an individual, maxims that are both rational and moral, but if everyone believed or acted the same way, the action could never be carried through. Example: 'I shall play tennis on Sunday mornings when courts are available since everyone else in in church.' There is nothing immoral or irrational about such a maxim. Remember that Kant requires one to act ONLY upon a categorical imperative. For someone to say, well, 'it's ok for this person to play tennis on Sunday because not everyone is going to do it' does not wash with Kant. That is applying your own ends exclusive of universality. Kant says 'No way, man, forget it, you can't do that.' In other words, under Kant's maxim, the individual would be forbidden to play tennis on Sunday mornings because this person would not will for EVERYONE to play tennis on Sunday mornings. Now, I am grateful to Kant for providing me with an argument to do away with sports on Sunday mornings, but. . .. Kant was, perhaps, in need of a robust emotional outburst, a good cry and wail, to properly clear his head. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:13:01 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 15, 1999 Dallas wrote: >In fact I am assuming that our ways of thought are so >different, that allthough we base ourselves on the same >literature (something I don't think we should assume about >Kym for instance), What!? Wait, what does this mean? "Something I don't think we should assume about Kym for instance" - Dallas, are you suggesting I am theosophically-challenged or something? Are you suggesting that I interpret texts in ways no one else could, should, or would ever admit? Put up your cyber-dukes, Dallas, and let's go. Unless, of course, you really meant the above as a very flattering compliment. Yes, I'm sure that what it was. . .. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:16:02 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: reincarnation Hi Dallas, You wrote: > 5. of these the LOWER group are left to disintegrate with the > astral body on the astral plane as a kind of 2nd corpse -- if > left undisturbed by mediums or seance-goers, they fade away and > as "skandhas" they are distributed to their appropriate place in > nature where they have some consubstantiallity. Period of time > may be from a few days to several week or months depending on the > general "grossness" of the life last lived. If disturbed and > reanimated at a seance, an additional life span is acquired by > this "astral corpse" -- but from descriptions available, the > sensation it endures are then extremely painful to it, one of > them compares it to being "skinned alive." This is why > Theosophical teachings discourage any attempt at mediumistic > contact or evoking such astral corpses. It is out of pity for > them, and also out of hope that those who dabble in such contacts > will not themselves impose such a dreadful experience on their > "2nd corpse" as it disintegrates. I will look this up, but I don't recall a timespan given in the Key, and I am almost certain that it is not in the Key that it is comparable to being skinned alive , though it is not encouraged at all, but that was not the point, was it? The point was, as far as I am concerned that sceances are no proof of reincarnation, which is something that HPB agrees with totally in ISIS. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:19:20 -0700 From: "KYM C. SMITH" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 15, 1999 JRC wrote: >all I can say is a number of people on this list (and there are >some pretty damn smart people here) Oh! [Kym's hand rests humbly above her bosom] Well, thank you, JRC. Really, though, you didn't have to. . .. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:53:35 -0700 From: "KYM C. SMITH" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 15, 1999 Dallas wrote: >To me, we have 3: > >1. - I know I exist. >2. - You and the rest of the universe "out there" also exist. >3. - We have on-going relationships of many kinds. Consequently >we are able to investigate those relationships. Hate to nitpik, but, no, we do not know 1, 2, or 3. We may BELIEVE we exist, we may BELIEVE the universe exists, and we may BELIEVE we have relationships, but we do not KNOW. Descartes believed he was "thinking," - was he really thinking or just believing that he was? I mean, Dallas, do I exist "outside of you" or is my existence in your own mind? If you were to see me on the street, would that mean that I exist? You read my posts, but is it another distinct being writing to you, or your mind using clever means in which to talk to itself? In dreams, I can touch, hear, and feel 'things,' but do they exist? Number three of your argument is especially touchy - how does a relationship exist? Does it cease to exist when you die? If so, was the relationship only in your mind? In order to investigate a relationship, we must become intimate with the one or thing with whom we are having the relationship - if we cannot, then the relationship may only exist in your own mind, whereas for the other person, maybe no relationship existed at all. So, did the relationship exist 'in its ownself' or only in your mind? If something can be considered existing, even if it only exists in one's mind, then does everything we "think" exist? Define "existence." Is it material, thought-forms, both, neither, something more, a combo, what? I'm not being flippant here, really. If one wants to say they "believe" they exist, I do not have a problem with that, but to say "I know I exist" causes a red flag to pop up in my brain. Now, for me, if this red flag is not real, does not really exist, should I ignore it and let my imaginary angst go when people say "I know I exist?" Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:49:48 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Bart: kiicking my ass Bart: You have misundestood motives and expectations. I simply want people to tell me how whatever they say is grounded. If it is intuition, faith in Blavatsky, experience, science, reason...whatever, I don't care. Once I know how it is gounded, I can then decide whether its something I want to pursue. No problem learning a new vocabulary if I feel it is going to get me somewhere. Some of my questions are just probes to see whether I might be chasing doctrine or substance so I can be efficient in my pursuit. The gadfly, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:52:52 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: Piling on See Bart reply meant for you I guess. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:13:37 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: reincarnation In a message dated 11/16/99 4:16:17 AM Central Standard Time, hesse600@tem.nhl.nl writes: > The point was, as far as I am concerned that sceances are > no proof of reincarnation, But a scene never fails to involve an in-law.:)Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:56:38 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Randy to Bart: kiicking my ass > Bart: You have misundestood motives and expectations. I simply want people > to tell me how whatever they say is grounded. If it is intuition, faith in > Blavatsky, experience, science, reason...whatever, I don't care. Once I know > how it is gounded, I can then decide whether its something I want to pursue. > No problem learning a new vocabulary if I feel it is going to get me > somewhere. Some of my questions are just probes to see whether I might be > chasing doctrine or substance so I can be efficient in my pursuit. > The gadfly, Randy Its probably me, not Bart, yer talking to here ... (and let me say, you most definately are the first person on the list that's confused the two of *us* (-:)) ... And all I can do is re-iterate the previous points ... Theosophy is *not* something easily understood or even approached. Look at it the same way you'd look at approaching quantum mechanics. If, without learning the math, and without learning the field's vocabulary, you got on a list of quantum physicists, and starting "probing" them to discover whether there was something of substance, how *could* they answer you? Are their theories and conclusions based on science? Certainly no one has seen, or will *ever* see, a quark. Their theories of hyperspace ... in themselves state that 6 dimensions are "curled up", that we'll never even glimpse them. Is it based in reason? Yes ... but multiple other perfectly reasonable theories are possible. Is it based on faith? Intuition? The lines between these things are not firm at all. Their conclusions often completely confound reason, and in fact are significantly at odds with the worldview constructed out of sensory evidence. And if you did approach them with the attitude of trying to be a "gadfly", telling them you wanted to see whether their thought was "grounded" in anything prior to deciding whether its something you wanted to pursue, well, they'd likely say "who the devil are *you*? what do we care whether you pursue quantum physics or not? You want us to take the time and energy to respond to you - as though it ought to be *important* to us whether you pursue this field or not, as though *you* - who doesn't even want to trouble himself to learn even the basic vocabulary - somehow would be a great prize if we could only convince you to study in this field?" ... hell, you'd need a few years of study before you could even be an novice Theosophical *gadfly* ... Your entire line of questioning, and underlying assumptions, are straight out of the core of western linear thought - and I reiterate ... if you persist in this, you'll never find answers you seek, and Theosophy will just prove deeply unsatisfying - leave now and save yourself a bunch of wasted time. The first people HPB and her adepts worked with ran into the same wall - western attitudes used to questioning in a particular way - a way that *removes* the questioner from the equation and believes "evidence" is not dependent upon the researcher - and they tried (for the most part unsuccessfully) to drill it through people's heads that the inner qualities and abilities of the person *seeking* is fully half of the equation. These are people that, on the whole, spent decades (and within their worldview, actual *lifetimes*) studying and sacrificing to earn the right to that inner core of wisdom, and developing *themselves* to the point where they were *capable* of understanding it and verifying it. In realtion to *that*, the western attitude of people demanding proofs and evidence and foundations - without wanting to do work - the attitude of westerners, filled with the arrogance that that the western mindset so commonly holds ... well, to them it simply looked like foolish children stamping their feet, believing they should just have handed to them what they hadn't earned, and that the people that underwent serious discipline and sacrifices should just give it to them, on their terms, and within parameters that were comfortable. They naturally refused. Made no attempt to persuade. In their own frame of reference, they possessed something of great, almost ultimate value ... they decided to offer, as a *gift*, out of a sense of *service*, a little piece of that to the western world - to those that had something inside of them that could at least *sense* (if not, at first, understand) that value. They introduced a piece of the philosophy underlying their body of wisdom. Hinted at the means by which people, if they so chose, might undertake to refine *themselves*, to qualify themselves to obtain a larger chunk of that wisdom. But they offered it on *their* terms, as they saw fit, and didn't think any but a few would really take to it anyway. Its why you'll never see Theosophists proselytizing in airports ... I understand your attitude, and know that it seems perfectly reasonable and legitimate from within your frame of reference, but again empasize that I believe you'll never get the answers you want, because they don't *exist* in *that frame of reference*. From my experience, the people that decide to pursue Theosophy do so for reason they almost can never, at first, articulate - they simply sense something in it. What I *do* know is this (and perhaps others on the list might agree) - you *cannot* study Theosophy without being willing to deeply *alter* yourself, and in fact the mere act of studying it for a couple of years *initiates* alterations. It is not safe, it is not comfortable, and it is anything *but* easily accessible. But again I'll emphasize that a good number of our civilization's most creative and intelligent people during the last century have found that the effort was more than repaid by the buried value it contained. But decision to pursue it must be *entirely* inwardly driven - and this list is full of people who *are* inwardly driven, most having made a very personal choice to look in depth at a body of knowledge they think might contain the answers they seek, and many choosing to do the *work* they conceive as necessary to obtain it. Because of this, probably *none* of them will try to convince anyone else to make such a decision ... but if it is *made*, will be more than happy to offer whatever insights they've gained from their own pursuits. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:51:10 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Theosophical After-Death Model [Dallas]<< Sketch of after-death events between incarnations:...>> Dallas, your 11-step sketch is what I would call the generalized Theosophical After-Death Model or at least your version of it. I think that you summarize Blavatsky very well at least insofar as the high points are concerned. But I have some problems with this model. 1. It is, after all, a model and not "truth." We do not, in fact, all go through each of these stages or steps each time we die. The model is a general one, and was meant to address the "average" person. 2. This model is exactly what Jung was referring to when he accused Theosophists of "lazy thinking." If we fully understand that it is a model of reality, and not neccesarily what really happens, then we can accept the model without the stigma (and the restriction) of lazy thinking. Lazy thinkers are those who accept a model such as this as reality itself. 3. A short example. First, as I have pointed out before, Tibetan Buddhism, which tracks the after-death processes with almost as fine precision as Theosophy, does not recognize your step 2 at all. I think that most people would agree that the life review comes prior to death (I have had several of these when death seemed imminent but didn't happen). Very few NDEs include it. The Tibetan Book of the Dead does agree with a preview of the next upcoming life, and is in general agreement with the Theosophical model once we get through the semantics. 4. Your version of the model fails to mention the etheric body, which also survives for a time. I think that the etheric (stula-sharia and prana) is the "shade" or "ghost," and not the astral (kama). I admit that this is a nit-pick, but it does demonstrate the very real semantic problem that we have in modern Theosophy. 5. I think that your subjective division of good and bad, or "nobel" and "gross," is a cultural fantasy that varies with each person. Blavatsky gave out this model to a bunch of Christians, and put it into words that they could grasp. We don't have any need today to continue this kind of thing. Nobel actions versus gross actions are such only in the eyes of the beholder. 6. According to the MLs, Devachan is a state and not a location. It exists on the mental plane, which is itself a state and not a location. 7. I still say, for a variety of reasons, that your "immortal ego" is a mayavic illusion. The "akasic" or akashic records are on the causal plane, and it is only the "aroma" of each life that gets stored there. These "records" form the skandhas of each reincarnation. It is the causal body (atma-buddhi-higher manas) that perpetuates reincarnation, not the mental body (manas) which is new each time. In fact, it is because the lower four bodies/principles are newly made with each incarnation, that we can dismiss reincarnation for all intents and purposes as not being applicable to human beings (because human beings can be defined as the lower four of the seven and thus are newly made each time). Only the skandhas or tendencies made in one life are carried over to another, not any "soul" or "immortal ego." 8. Death and sleep are brothers. The after-death states are very much like the dream-sleep states that we go through at night. Nothing terribly mysterious there. The Theosophical After-Death Model can appear intimidating and we need to get past all the big words. But, if you can control your dreams, you can control your after-death experiences too, and can consciously direct your next birth to some extent. Just some thoughts. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:11:16 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Theosophical After-Death Model In a message dated 11/16/99 12:52:06 PM Central Standard Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > I think that most people > would agree that the life review comes prior to death (I have had several of > these when death seemed imminent but didn't happen). Very few NDEs include > it. The Tibetan Book of the Dead does agree with a preview of the next > upcoming life, Hello, There is the judgment scene in Yama's court which is sort of a moral self-assessment. > I still say, for a variety of reasons, that your "immortal ego" is a > mayavic illusion. The "akasic" or akashic records are on the causal plane, > and it is only the "aroma" of each life that gets stored there. These > "records" form the skandhas of each reincarnation. Two issues here. First, according to Tibetan Buddhism, most ordinary humans do not _have_ a "causal body." Or at least, one that is individualized. To review, according to Tibetan Buddhism, the absolute is self-luminous (svaprakasa) intrinsic awareness that has a male karuna-aspect (upaya) and a female wisdom-aspect (prajna) that at the Adi-level, Samanabhadra, is sovereign mind and the great mother of infinite space. There are really three interdependent elements here that will become, in one respect, the three gunas at a lower level, and in another, the spiritual elements (tanmatras) that in their tamasic aspect, combined with the others, become the physical elements. In their subtle form, these five elements correspond to the five skandhas (in their sattvic aspect) and in their purest form to the five wisdom Buddhas, the five winds/energies in their (rajasic aspect). Only Buddhas have the causal body (karana sarira). The causal body is the body of self-origination or the absolute or dharmadhatu. This is the Vajra-Body. Sentient beings have a causal level of support but are precisely in the dependent Non-Buddhas are caught in the co-origination cycle because they have not "their own" causal power to be (causal body). Thus, for non-enlightened sentient beings, instead of the causal body being associated with the indestructible awareness of buddhahood, it is the bliss sheath of undifferentiated ignorance (ananda mayakosa) encountered in deep sleep as turiya. It is this ignorance and lack of being a causal being that is the repository of karmic dispositions that comprise the alayavijnana. By contrast, a Buddha, especially in Dzog chen, does not have a alayavijnana because it is the consciousness continuum (bhavana) of primordial ignorance/bliss within which karmic tendencies accumulate. Depending upon the tenet system, either the skandha of consciousness (vijnana) or a deeper consciousness is the necessary carrier within which this continuum of "karma dispositions/ignorance/no causal power to be" exists. So, in any tenet system, consciousness is the constant between lives (whether it is viewed as the sixth, seventh, eighth (store house of yogacara), ninth (consciousness of the many as one of dzog chen and Shingon), tenth (consciousness of the I as I of Dzog chen and Shingon's himitsu shogon-shin - pudgala as this unigue Buddha sharing one indestructible causal being with all Buddhas, one in essence yet as many persons - like the Christian Trinity). In orther words, Buddhahood _is_ the causal body. To be the causal body is to not be an entity with the alayavijana as a product of turiya. So, your statement that seeds of reincarnation lies at the causal level is half-right, but also, moves too much towards a nihilist/no one reincarnates position. In Buddhism, to review, there are three bodies and five sheaths. There is the stula sarira (gross body). It has two sheaths: the chemical-crust/food sheath (annamayakosa) and the vital-etheric sheath (pranamayakosa). There is the suksma sarira (subtle body). It has two sheaths: the manomayakosa (mental sheath or vehicle of the manas as the internal organ or antahkarana) and the vijnanamayakosa (consciousness sheath with potential-enlightenment or bodhi-citta within it - otherwise it is the clouded vehicle of buddhi). Then, there is the causal (karana) level where sentient beings have the ignorance/bliss sheath or anandamayakosa. At death, at least according to all non-Hinayana Buddhist schools, the only thing that drops off is the gross body and its two sheaths. Skandhas disappear to the extent that there is no field of functioning for them. So, the following statement is incorrect. > It is the causal body (atma-buddhi-higher manas) that perpetuates reincarnation, > not the mental body (manas) which is new each time. In fact, it is because the > lower four bodies/principles are newly made with each incarnation, that we can > dismiss reincarnation for all intents and purposes as not being applicable to > human beings (because human beings can be defined as the lower four of the > seven and thus are newly made each time). And remember, the skandha of consciousness is the thread and continuum (bhavana) between lives even for Hinayanists. So, the following is inaccurate. > Only the skandhas or tendencies made in > one life are carried over to another, not any "soul" or "immortal ego." The point that should be brought out, which may be what is being said here, is that every samsaric state is a "bardo" or "phase of passing" or "phase of transit" or "intermediate phasing." So life, not just the after-death state, is also a "bardo." As such, the whole three body/five sheath complex of a live sentient being "passes away" in the process of this life as well as the next with the thread being consciousness. The Dzog chen point is that the causal level of non-Buddhas, which is the ignorance/bliss sheath or anandamayakosa, which with awareness is either the medium of deep sleep as awareness of undifferentiated ignorance, or is both the dream sleep state and the waking state (look at that verbal form "waking" we, in essence, are stuck in the transition from being asleep to being fully awake, the waking state is less dreamy/suggestible than the dream state but still the state of waking up - not full wakefulness itself) as awareness + ignorance + alayavijanana, is the illusion of not being a Buddha. Or, just as when you wake up from a dream you realize it didn't happen, so when you really wake up you realize reincarnation didn't happen, or rather, past lives are simultaneous aspects of your uniqueness as this Buddha (not that one) that appear as such in deluded conditions. Imagine walking around a mandala/stupa and you thought that each new turn and each new vista came into existence the moment you saw it and went out of existence the moment it passed from view instead of realizing that you are just seeing aspects of a whole mandala/stupa. That's the sudden view. Welcome to the matrix where a mandala/stupa looks like a past, present, and future because of how our anxious grasping geshalts our life(ves), in grief, into at what apparently just passed, in fear, at apparently what may come, and in resentment/anger, at what apparently the present is! Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:05:36 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: November 15, 1999 Nov 16th 1999 Dear Kym -- I know I brought this down on me. and have this to offer: Something basic in me (no name needed) is aware (belief or else) that it IS. It also assumes that others who respond in a similar manner also: ARE. And what I term a "relationship" is any kind of exchange, mental, verbal, visible or invisible, whether in this life or after 'death' -- and, in this I assume that the CONSCIOUSNESS of everyone is continuous and bridges even "death" as it does "sleep." or the gap of unconsciousness when one may be undergoing an operation and such unconsciousness is needed to avoid the pain as trauma. And this is an assumption that I cannot prove except empirically. The Logic appeals to me. it might not appeal to you. Then why and how do such different opinions (sensations, ideas ?) arise? It is also quite probable that we 'exist' separately as individuals, each living our own apparently isolated lives, and yet when we think of each other, or correspond, we send a kind of "force-field" out that probably encompasses the other -- certainly we are gradually building up a mental construct of each other, each on their own. Dreams may not be tangible in the kind of matter we use here physically. Theosophy posits "astral matter" -- which may be true or not. Then we do have senses of an astral type. And when those dream bodies are used and experience (or is it fancy ?) is recorded and reviewed mentally, there seem to be some relation to the physical. In any case I would say that the CONSCIOUSNESS is unbroken and unitary. Also seems to be personal to the individual. Wasn't there some extensive studies on dreams as well as "ESP" conducted at Duke University? By Dr Rhine ? I think that they concluded that there was thought transference over some medium (ether ?) but that was all. I'm inserting a few notes below in the body of your answer, Dal 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 -----Original Message----- > From: KYM C. SMITH [mailto:kymsmith@micron.net] > Date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 2:54 AM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 15, 1999 Dallas wrote: >To me, we have 3: > >1. - I know I exist. >2. - You and the rest of the universe "out there" also exist. >3. - We have on-going relationships of many kinds. Consequently >we are able to investigate those relationships. Hate to nitpik, but, no, we do not know 1, 2, or 3. We may BELIEVE we exist, we may BELIEVE the universe exists, and we may BELIEVE we have relationships, but we do not KNOW. Descartes believed he was "thinking," - was he really thinking or just believing that he was? DTB Objection noted and agreed -- now what would be the paths to finding out a pattern of actuality in this? If a sufficient number of people refer to similar (analogous) experience such patterns arise. Conclusions would then be : 1 phenomena though varied is a common experience. 2. Memory is fragmentary and not uniformly available -- it may be wispy or very detailed. 3. Is there a link between waking and dreaming consciousness? 4. Do minds affect each other at a distance ? Is this only statistical or actual ? Are some persons more reliable than others? Is there a pattern of sensitivity? 5. Is 'thought" the same as or different from a "feeling" 6. Can thoughts be changed at will? 7. What is the will and who uses it? Just a few Ideas I have not completely answered but am working on --------------------------- I mean, Dallas, do I exist "outside of you" or is my existence in your own mind? If you were to see me on the street, would that mean that I exist? You read my posts, but is it another distinct being writing to you, or your mind using clever means in which to talk to itself? In dreams, I can touch, hear, and feel 'things,' but do they exist? DTB Probably not physically, but only as impressions -- and even if tenuous, the experience does leave an impression -- if so, why? Number three of your argument is especially touchy - how does a relationship exist? Does it cease to exist when you die? If so, was the relationship only in your mind? In order to investigate a relationship, we must become intimate with the one or thing with whom we are having the relationship - if we cannot, then the relationship may only exist in your own mind, whereas for the other person, maybe no relationship existed at all. So, did the relationship exist 'in its ownself' or only in your mind? If something can be considered existing, even if it only exists in one's mind, then does everything we "think" exist? DTB I would say that any relationship is automatically a personal mental construct. Anything you hear read, handle, makes a memory impress which can be deep or shallow -- but in hypnosis all such memories seem to be recoverable -- so one might conclude that they are not "lost." You and I exchange ideas over Internet - so I assume you exist, wherever you are, just as I hope you make a similar assumption concerning me. To doubt, to be skeptical is fine, but like everything it can be exaggerated, and then what remains? Only one's own self. But not the physical self - 0 no - only that element of consciousness that cannot be extinguished. Define "existence." Is it material, thought-forms, both, neither, something more, a combo, what? I'm not being flippant here, really. If one wants to say they "believe" they exist, I do not have a problem with that, but to say "I know I exist" causes a red flag to pop up in my brain. Now, for me, if this red flag is not real, does not really exist, should I ignore it and let my imaginary angst go when people say "I know I exist?" DTB Dear Kym I do not know how or why that happens -- I am a great believer in the existence of everything and to share the Universe with them is quite natural. I will willingly grant them every faculty that I possess and without any question at all. Space? It is everywhere and without limits. Life -- again it is present everywhere -- and no limits that I can discern. Now in a body, now outside of one, but always an enigma. It is to me like a seeking for the cause of all things -- it is not to be found, and yet, it is necessary to all that we live in and are. And I think it drives people like you and me on to seek and seek until we have an understanding of ourselves and THAT or is it, IT ?). The theosophical philosophy posits that behind the "atom" there are forces that assemble the needed materials for its "ex-istence." Scientifically, starting from our base of material physical perceptions, We have as yet no sure means of physically determining what those are, so we assume that they are "fields" of elecro-magnetism, of some power, and being very small, that power is enormous and stable. The result is that Science presumes the atom, etc to be in continuous vibratory or rotatory motion and also capable of some degree of consciousness or sensitivity that is individual to itself. Atoms of the same "substance" are deemed to be all closely similar, and yet careful investigation shows them to exhibit anomalies, so that they are not all cut from an indentical pattern, but each seems to have its own peculiarities. On a far larger scale the individuals of any species could be also described similarly. In spite of our many differences, we are all "humans." What Identifies us is the curious power of "thought." What conjoins to form a "human?" Physical evolution for physical sensitivity of form. Mental sensitivity for sbtleness of thought and feeling. Aspiration and a sense of ethics, which seems to indicate an idealism the source of which is not quite identifiable, but appears to be a component. Dal and all good wishes to you Kym --- 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: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:35:23 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: reincarnation Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > From: hesse600 [mailto:hesse600@tem.nhl.nl] > Date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 2:16 AM > Subject: reincarnation Hi Dallas, You wrote: > 5. of these the LOWER group are left to disintegrate with the > astral body on the astral plane as a kind of 2nd corpse -- if > left undisturbed by mediums or seance-goers, they fade away and > as "skandhas" they are distributed to their appropriate place in > nature where they have some consubstantiallity. Period of time > may be from a few days to several week or months depending on the > general "grossness" of the life last lived. If disturbed and > reanimated at a seance, an additional life span is acquired by > this "astral corpse" -- but from descriptions available, the > sensation it endures are then extremely painful to it, one of > them compares it to being "skinned alive." This is why > Theosophical teachings discourage any attempt at mediumistic > contact or evoking such astral corpses. It is out of pity for > them, and also out of hope that those who dabble in such contacts > will not themselves impose such a dreadful experience on their > "2nd corpse" as it disintegrates. I will look this up, but I don't recall a timespan given in the Key, and I am almost certain that it is not in the Key that it is comparable to being skinned alive, though it is not encouraged at all, but that was not the point, was it? The point was, as far as I am concerned that sceances are no proof of reincarnation, which is something that HPB agrees with totally in ISIS. DTB Your are quite right Katinka, the time-span may not be in the KEY and the concept of being "skinned alive" is one I picked up in another of the articles -- my memory and I will have to look up the exact reference if you want it. Eureka - I found them: Time-span Mahatma Letters p. 112. 187 (Barker Edn.) Suffering in K. Loka ML 109 132 198-9 (Barker Edn.) Being "flayed alive" TIBETAN TEACHINGS (ULT Edition of HPB Articles III p. 347) Lucifer Sept & Oct 1894 Vol 18, p. 9; BCW Vol. 6, p. 94 see also additional references: Isis I 432-3 449 342-3 ML 187 You are of course right, that the evocation of the astral corpse (a ghost) does not "prove" reincarnation. I would not offer it as a proof of anything else than what HPB says it is -- that something of the last personality survives for a while. Of course in the Akasic records there will be found a complete record of that life, or of any life, but only Adepts have access to those. Best wishes, Dallas -------------------------- Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl --- 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: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 22:03:33 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 14, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 1:32 AM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 14, 1999 > From college, > > Grigor > > (course you could replace Idaho for Minsk) > Right. Minsk it is (best to be on the safe side) 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: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 22:13:41 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Fw: historical measurements ----- Original Message ----- > From host: SHINES > Posted to conference: MailBox > Message 2 15/11/99 5:20 pm > Subject: historical measurements > From: Richard Granger (Switzerland) > > Subject: historical measurements > Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:20:39 +0100 > > > For your interest ... > > * * * * * * * * * * > The standard railway gauge (distance between rails) in Canada and the United States is 4 feet 8 inches. What a peculiar measurement. Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and it was English expatriates that built the Canadian and US railways. Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who previously built tramways, and that's the gauge they used. Why did they use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the jigs and tools that they used in building wagons, which used that wheel spacing. Okay, why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long-distance roads in England, because that was the spacing of the wheel ruts. So who built those old rutted roads? The first long-distance roads throughout Europe (including England) were built by Imperial Rome for its legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts? Roman war chariots made the initial ruts, which everyone else subsequently had to match for fear of damaging their wagon wheels and wagons. Since the chariots were made for or by Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. Thus, we have the answer to the original question. The standard North American railway gauge of 4 feet 8 inches derives from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Specifications and bureaucracies live forever. And so, the next time you are handed a specification and wonder which horse's rear came with it, you may be exactly right. Because the Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back end of two war horses. And that's not all: this story about railroad gauges and horses' behinds goes further. When we see a space shuttle sitting on its launch pad, we see two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs, and for each shuttle launch two new ones are needed. The firm Thiokol makes the SRBs at its factory in Utah. The engineer who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but they had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railway line from the factory had to run through a mountain tunnel. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railway tracks, and the railway track is about as wide as two horses' behinds. So one of the key design features of what is arguably the world's most advanced aerospace transport system was determined by the width of a horse's ass. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 20:41:47 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: tightening the thumbscrews Ok,I think I get it. Theosophy is a system of belief and study requiring years, decades, millenia to fully understand. Those who do finally get it are content to take the prize and spiritually masturbate with it in a closet somewhere. They have no obligation, nor feel any, to share the truths with the rest of humanity. They will, however, discuss truths with "initiates" who will without question, based on a gut feeling, spend years learning the esoterica. A prerequisit however is that the pupil not have any of that nasty western mentality of expecting reason, proof, evidence or the like. No, don't raise any questions about the foundations of the beliefs, or where-after spending millenia in study-you may be led, just dive in. Ya gotta have faith brother. I was led to theosophy because its central theme is that there is one universal truth. Any claim of truth(or segments thereof) puts the onus on the advocates to do the provings. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me to be looking for some substance, not just vocabulary. If all this rubs anyone the wrong way, just ignore my questions and I'll eventually go away. I'm sticking around though til I'm sure that I've exhausted all I can reasonably do to find out what gems of truth may reside here. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:07:49 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: tightening the thumbscrews At 08:41 PM 11/16/1999 EST, you wrote: >Ok,I think I get it. Theosophy is a system of belief and study requiring years, decades, millenia to fully understand.< Theosophy does not require any belief. Certain doctrines are presented and these are left to the individual to examine and explore and based on personal experience and observation everyone is left to accept or reject or modify any of them. This is my understanding. >Those who do finally get it are content to take the prize and spiritually masturbate with it in a closet somewhere. They have no obligation, nor feel any, to share the truths with the rest of humanity.< What ever that is presented, like all inspired works, discuss and describe some reality which is impossible to put in words how ever one may like it. >They will, however, discuss truths with "initiates" who will without question, based on a gut feeling, spend years learning the esoterica. A prerequisit however is that the pupil not have any of that nasty western mentality of expecting reason, proof, evidence or the like. No, don't raise any questions about the foundations of the beliefs, or where-after spending millenia in study-you may be led, just dive in. Ya gotta have faith brother.< No faith is required. No one expected to accepts any of the doctrines or ideas presented from HPB onwards. The glue that keeps all those interested in theosophy together is the First Object - Universal Brotherhood. How one is expected to get first hand understanding is left to one's choice. The basic approach that personally appeals to me is the one laid out by Krishnamurti in his "Pathless Land" speech. >I was led to theosophy because its central theme is that there is one universal truth. Any claim of truth(or segments thereof) puts the onus on the advocates to do the provings. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me to be looking for some substance, not just vocabulary.< No spiritual leader has ever claimed that any truth or any segments thereof can be communicated verbally or in writing. It is something that one has to discover and experience. If not, long time ago, a text book on truth would have been written and all of us would have understood it. >If all this rubs anyone the wrong way, just ignore my questions and I'll eventually go away. I'm sticking around though til I'm sure that I've exhausted all I can reasonably do to find out what gems of truth may reside here. Randy< The fundamental strength of this maillist and its subscribers is that it is un-moderated and not controlled by any organization either directly or indirectly (though attempts seems to have been made in the past). (It is owned by John E Mead and you rarely see him at all and he lets it on autopilot and you and me and everyone are the pilots!!!) So everyone is welcome no matter what their views are and whether anyone else agrees or disagrees with one's views and opinions.) Personally I have seen many useful information on varied topics in the last three years than in my acquaintance with organizational theosophy in the last thirty years. Hang in there and hopefully you will find some gems from time to time. mkr > > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: RAMADOSS@EDEN.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: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 22:36:52 -0800 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: NEW ITEM added to BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm A new item has been added to the archives: Memorabilia of H.P.B. by James Morgan Pryse [Reprinted from The Canadian Theosophist, March 15, 1935, pp. 1-5.] Another 10 items should be available by this weekend. Daniel H. Caldwell BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:50:05 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: tightening the thumbscrews > Ok,I think I get it. Theosophy is a system of belief and study requiring > years, decades, millenia to fully understand. Actually, according the founders, this statement is exactly correct. >Those who do finally get it > are content to take the prize and spiritually masturbate with it in a closet > somewhere. A cynical way of putting it - in fact according to them, most of them expend the vast majority of their energies in the subtle assistance of the evolution of the human race. And most of the race still thinks of them with all the appreciation you show in this post ... if they are aware of them at all. >They have no obligation, nor feel any, to share the truths with > the rest of humanity. Just as you have no obligation, nor feel any, to share your knowledge of driving with a four year old. Would it not largely be a waste of time, and far more likely to produce injury and death than any benefit? >They will, however, discuss truths with "initiates" > who will without question, based on a gut feeling, spend years learning the > esoterica. As opposed to what you apparently believe ... that they should give it away, simply because what may be an entirely temporary and fleeting mood on your part decides to claim the right to just be given what they've spent decades earning? This is like telling a banker they are *wrong* for lending to people that have proven that they are persevering, and worthy of investment, and should instead simply give money to whomever asks for it - even if it is on a complete whim. And if you think money is an inappropriate analogy - think again - to these beings the wisdom they were seeking, and that some of them found, is significantly rarer than money, far more difficult to obtain, and worth immensely more value. You frame this in such a way as to accuse. Yet how different is it from any other discipline? I repeat, if you went after any Physics Ph.D with your attitude, demanding that he or she had the "obligation" to share the results of decades of research with whomever happened to stumble across their path and demand it, even if that person didn't even want to bother to learn the vocabulary necessary to have an intelligent discussion of the topics. How very strange that people have no problem accepting that it will take at least 6 years, considerable expense, often a life close to poverty, complete focus and dedication (and usually a good deal of soul-searching), simply to earn an MBA - yet when it comes to the possibility of gaining access to a body of wisdom that claims to have knowledge of worlds that our limitations currently prevent us from seeing, that may offer to expose some of the fundamental truths behind realtiy ... suddenly even a couple of books are too much to be asked to read, suddenly if the person isn't given *prior* proof of the value they want to pout, suddenly those who did the work and achieved the knowledge ought to, in your mind, feel a duty to answer you, simply because you've decided you're curious, and oh yes, they should also answer on your terms, and give you proofs that you can understand. Guess what ... trained neurosurgeons, physicists, philosophers, chemists, researchers and scientists of every shape and color ... (gasp) actually believe *they too* have the right to discuss the results of *their* efforts only with those they choose, and actually also have the gall to believe that their "initiates" ought to spend years learning the esoterica of * their* fields prior to even having those discussions. Go to an Ivy League school, and you might even go through your first 2 or 3 years before you even sat in a *class* with a full professor ... they spend their time on research, on applications, and when they teach - it is mostly to graduate level students. But then, perhaps you actually believe that all of *them* have a duty to answer anyone that decides they are "obligated". That Ph.D's are terribly arrogant to withhold their knowledge, but instead should spend piles of time with everyone that demands their wisdom ... even a casual drunk that wandered in off the street ... and in fact would have a lot of gall to even suggest that the person should read the literature of the field for a couple years. >A prerequisit however is that the pupil not have any of that > nasty western mentality of expecting reason, proof, evidence or the like. > No, don't raise any questions about the foundations of the beliefs, or > where-after spending millenia in study-you may be led, just dive in. Ya > gotta have faith brother. This is exactly correct. But your choice to define it in the terms you do means you don't understand what you are saying. It isn't a matter of them copping some attitude, it is, in their worldview, based on the fact that the human constitution needs significant development before it can even begin to formulate a context within which their "truths" will even make sense. This isn't something determined by their whims ... it is in the nature of the reality itself. It *doesn't* easily yield to simplistic anaylsis. The mind, and its treasured "reason", are serfs envisioning themselves to be kings simply because they've managed to "prove" things - within very limited reference frames - and build a few clever toys. They are *not*, however, according to the Thoesophical Adepts, adequate tools to mount a search for larger truths. In fact, they are often the very source of the illusions that *prevent* people from finding those very truths, and recognizing them when they stumble across them.. > I was led to theosophy because its central theme is that there is one > universal truth. Actually, that is *your statement* of its central theme. Read even a few of the books, and you'll expand that central theme to read: "There *is* one body of wisdom on this planet, a single core understanding of what reality is - this body of wisdom is immense, is at the root of most major religions and philosophies on earth, and has been around for millenia ... additionally, the current state of humanity is such that the average individual doesn't have anywhere close to the physical, emotional, intellectual, or spiritual refinement and development to approach it. A four year old simply can't understand career planning. S/he has neither the concepts, the words, nor the experience in the business world necessary for it to even begin to make sense. However, Theosophy *does* hold that it is possible, if one wants to do a great deal of very focussed work, to achieve a state of development in which the approach to that wisdom becomes possible. But until that inner development is pursued, it just isn't possible, because the tools necessary to approach it just don't exist. >Any claim of truth(or segments thereof) puts the onus on > the advocates to do the provings. And anyone claiming the right to such truth puts the onus on *themself* to prove themselves qualified to understand it. I repeat - the attitude of the adepts always was that this was just offered - and they fully expected the attitude of the majority of the western world to be precisely what yours is - and their basic response to it wasn't to say "ok, we desperately want our truths to be proven, to be validated, we'll meet your terms", but rather, "You clearly haven't met *our* terms. We wish you well. Goodbye." Just as with a doctor, or a physicist, *they* might have a wisdom *you* wanted, but *you* have nothing *they* want. Yet you continually act as though they ought to feel some obligation to *you*. They don't. >Doesn't seem unreasonable to me to be > looking for some substance, not just vocabulary. *No* philosophy cares what seems reasonable to you. And to even begin to explain the substance requires the vocabulary. > If all this rubs anyone the wrong way, just ignore my questions and I'll > eventually go away. I'm sticking around though til I'm sure that I've > exhausted all I can reasonably do to find out what gems of truth may reside > here. Randy And I'll keep writing ... if for nothing else than to see what further medival tortures you can work into your subject lines. Believe it or not, compared to those adepts, I'm really really *nice*. Read the Mahatma Letters (by Sinnet) - letters (allegedly) from two or three of those adepts. And believe it or not, I'm bothering to write (they certainly wouldn't) you because I *do* think Theosophy has immense value, think you have a chance of getting interested enough in it to do enough work to tap some of that value, and - its shown me a few things about the "western mentality". Were I to speak with (for instance) many devotional folks in India in this same tone of voice, as even the lowly gatekeeper at a guru's ashram ... many of them would bow their heads in shame and humbly leave in a minute ... taking it as a sign that their path lay elsewhere. But when dealing with the full bore arrogance of the supposedly "objective" western mind, petulant little child-king that it is, the surest way to engage it, the approach most likely to get it to seek at least a little deeper into a philosophy, is, in fact, to make fun of it, to tease it, tell it it is worth very little (in many ways a truth) - tell it it can't possibly understand something. In short, work as hard as possible to try to get it to leave. Almost against its own will it will clamp onto that philosophy like a mongoose on a cobra's neck. (If you think I'm in error here ... look at the selected parts of my post that you responded to ... that your mind immediately jumped at ... look how it *reacted* to them ... how it lead you to respond ... and you think *that* half-unconscious, undisciplined tool is the one capable of grasping transcendent *truths*? The thing Theosphy ought to work to *satisfy* before you give it the great gift of your attention?) Toodles, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:28:38 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: more western lunacy As usual when I get along in a discussion here I soon lose focus of what is even in disagreement. You have imputed to me many things which are untrue, and you feel I have done the same. Back to befinnings. I do not presume the following could provide any value other than to give a humorous view into an infantile mind. So for your further entertainment: 1. A person has questions about origins, destiny, the nature of reality, etc. Needs no proof. 2. It is reasoned that there must be a truth, one truth. Why? It is logical, fits experience, accounts for the universal order we can see. All okay so far by me. These thoughts are also something anybody(even I) could arrive at without any training whatsoever. Very straight forward, linear, simple(sorry I like these "western" qualities) and necessary as a foundation for any subsequent discussion meant to get anywhere(sorry, I like the prospect of real results I might be able to use for self-edification and to help improve the human condition). Continuing. Now it gets hard. 3. Since reason has led me to this point, why not use it to determine what the universal truth is? By reason I mean logic, direct experience, trust and faith in the experience of credible others, experimental results, practical utility(there's that abhorent western thing again, I just can't hold it back), intuition, etc. These are all good tools. But the results gleaned by one should fit the others according to the rule of universal truth. 4. Now just get to it. Assemble the truths and see what they say. Maybe this will not get too far but it is a safe way to go and will prevent wasting a lot of time on detours(which most of the thousands of religious beliefs are). In the alternative to #3, one could go to school under any number of masters, Tammy Faye Baker, Jesus(Although who really knows what he even said Never mind that though, learn the language of christology and show some respect for the clergy masters, right?), Jerry Falwell, Confucious, HPB(oops--covers head defensively to ward off blows) etc. We could trust in the great intellect of these masters, learn the vocabulary they invent, not question their foundations, not apply reason(too western), just follow, that's the essential key here. You seem to be advocating this later alternative(although I'm sure you would deny you are a follower, that's what your argument distills to) if I understand you correctly with my limited linear western mind. You also seem to be using the tools used by religion through the ages to justify their beliefs, e.g., You're an idiot compared to the leaders; don't ask silly proof questions cause even physicists, dealing with chaos, indeterminacy, quarks with their sticky gluons, etas, muons, taus, don't even understand reality(though I must insert they are seeking answers by means of reason, and it is reason that got them to where they are-or if not is at least tested by it-and much of the reality they discover, though not vector or scalar at this point, is believed reducible to the logic of math. For example the eta particle was "discovered" by the use of quantum math, a system of logic.); pay the dues of studying a new discipline with all its attendent vocabulary and presuppositions and then you will "see"(reminds me of brainwashing--that's an eastern thing isn't it?). If theosophy, like any other useful system of thought, has anything of value to say, the essential elements must be able to be clearly articulated with common language and the proofs made obvious. My feeling is that if you are saying that theosophy cannot do this then I am saying it has nothing of value to offer other than mental calisthenics. I find it of interest that we are engaged in this debate using common language, attempts at reason while sitting in homes made with the logic of engineering, resting on chairs utilizing the reason of physics, tapping away on computers based on the surety of math and information science, etc., damn all this western linear crap. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:44:26 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to mkr:hangin Thanks for the thoughts. I find it difficult to believe at this point that anyone could achieve any useful knowledge and not be able to communicate what it is to others. I'm open though. Waiting for the lightening bolt to strike through this thick skull. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:52:52 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: a challenge Please indulge me and describe as best you can one thought, principle, tenet, whatever you might call it, that you have gleaned from theosophy that you would consider to be truth, or real close to it. You can even use those words you don't think I can understand. Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 06:16:55 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Randy to JRC: tightening the thumbscrews Nov 17th Dar Randy: No one is trying to frustrate you. You ask a bunch of questions now for some weeks - have you take a census of the replies? what have you learned about Theosophy? What do you agree with, and what do you not agree with. What are your reasons for the latter? if you are able to set these down, they can be dealt with seriatim. Try. Again In my esteem, you are accelerating. slow down. Theosophy is really very simple, and there are not a lot of basics -- to demonstrate that they are around is what has taken time to record so the details will satisfy inquirers like you, and from all parts of the 'world, not merely America or the "West." 1. Universality of SOURCE, SPIRIT, LIFE and LIVING BEINGS filling all SPACE. This Universe and World are all one vast UNITY. Or to be paradoxical it is UNITY in DIVERSITY. HOW and WHY are the questions to be investigated -- also, HOW IS IT GETTING ALONG ? 2. LAWS rule everything. They are MORAL -- the strong have to protect the weak. Or they get clobbered by Karma, sooner or later. Every being has a right to live. Since we all come from the same ONE SOURCE we are brothers in essence, like it or not. 3. The CONSCIOUSNESS and the INTELLIGENCE of each BEING is immortal and cannot be destroyed, even if it physical form is temporarily vaporized or killed in some way. It comes back or is re-embodied eventually -- Humans reincarnate. But in humans the "personality" (which is the mix of CONSCIOUSNESS and actual living in a specific body for a time) changes. The inner Being that is AWARENESS never dies. Hermes expressed this" "A stone becomes a plant, then an animal, then a Man, and the man develops into a God -- never has any transformation demeaned or destroyed him." 4. The STRONG should protect the WEAK. The LAWS OF NATURE are fair and just and impartial, and work all the time. Human law is an attempt to copy those fundamental laws -- of Karma. 5. The goal of perfection is one that is potential for all beings -- each "immortal" strives for that life after life -- the "atom" seeks to become the Universe. The second seeks to become duration -- eternity. Ignorance seeks to develop into Wisdom. In all cases there is an awareness to one's self and a striving to improve. 6. Immortality starts with the "Life-atom" which is also named a MONAD (Unit) . It is a Being and consists of the combined duality of SPIRIT/MATTER. With each such MONAD is associate a "ray" of primordial INTELLIGENCE, consciousness. And eventually when it reaches the HUMAN STAGE it is endowed (by Mind-beings as its "parents") with an independent Self-Conscious MIND. This individual MIND of ours reflects the UNIVERSAL MIND. There are no limits to its horizons. Death is only an interruption its majestic progress. We are all at this stage . Hermes said: "May know thyself." and that's our present job. 7. Everything is a learning experience, and the development of our own mental perceptions leads to discrimination and to wisdom -- which is a combination of thought and ethics -- again the "protection of all others" is an essential , as they protect us. THE GOLDEN RULE is a basic in all Nature. It is BROTHERHOOD in application. 8. Nature is a cooperative, or nothing could exist. Heat, air, water, food all combine to give us a body in which our Mind dwells and we do not know how this is done, although we can learn about it. Everything can be learned. Nature has no secrets for the determined man. 9. Our future is that of a learner/teacher as we learn to understand and apply these ideas. We can transform ourselves into Professors, Adepts, Buddhas, Rishis, Prajapatis, Dhyan Chohans, Cosmocratores, yes, even "Gods" etc.. by this process of learning how and why NATURE works. Nature contains and is everything. All Science, Philosophy and Religion are - are departments of Nature and studies in her workings and laws. 10. Wisdom that becomes ours may not be used to dominate, tyrannize or to compel others. Nor may it be used for our own personal "pleasure or leisure." Or we loose that power pretty quickly and usually with the most painful of experiences, as our "personal and selfish motives" (that we are interiorly ashamed of anyway) become exposed in their full nastiness to others. Now that pretty much encompasses all that Theosophy deals with. The fundamental add-on to what we already know is the idea that WE CANNOT GET AWAY WITH EVIL THINKING, FEELING AND DOING. There is no "Power" which serves to conceal the selfish attitudes that we can generate. Evil when simply described is breaking of nature's laws. This "breaking" can be through ignorance, or deliberately (which is a greater degree of EVIL). Once that is grasped the road to self-improvement is as plain as the nose on your face (at least to me). Does this help? Dallas ================== -----Original Message----- > From: WLR7D@aol.com [mailto:WLR7D@aol.com] > Date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 5:42 PM > Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: tightening the thumbscrews Ok,I think I get it. Theosophy is a system of belief and study requiring years, decades, millenia to fully understand. Those who do finally get it are content to take the prize and spiritually masturbate with it in a closet somewhere. They have no obligation, nor feel any, to share the truths with the rest of humanity. They will, however, discuss truths with "initiates" who will without question, based on a gut feeling, spend years learning the esoterica. A prerequisite however is that the pupil not have any of that nasty western mentality of expecting reason, proof, evidence or the like. No, don't raise any questions about the foundations of the beliefs, or where-after spending millenia in study-you may be led, just dive in. Ya gotta have faith brother. DTB Wrong every bit of proof is as essential as everything else and ought to be given. No BLIND FAITH or BLIND BELIEF is accepted or demanded in Theosophy. Theosophy is an exposition of the entire fact of Nature and its laws and reasons. ------------------------------- I was led to theosophy because its central theme is that there is one universal truth. Any claim of truth(or segments thereof) puts the onus on the advocates to do the provings. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me to be looking for some substance, not just vocabulary. DTB I would say there is plenty of substance. a vocabulary is one that you have to devise as your appetite for detail grows and you share with others. --------------------------- If all this rubs anyone the wrong way, just ignore my questions and I'll eventually go away. I'm sticking around though til I'm sure that I've exhausted all I can reasonably do to find out what gems of truth may reside here. DTB That's the spirit -- good resolves. do stick around and take notes if you will on what is settled and what is not. The tabulation will do us all good if you use it for us all to see. it will also serve to firm up in your own kind what you have grasped and what I still open-ended. As to vocabulary -- you have our own way of expressing ideas and so do we, but they meet, and the meeting is where the comprehension is generously exchanged. No one is either superior or inferior. We both have to make efforts. If you wish to learn about Theosophy there are short-cuts that help. Reading the 178 pages of the OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY (by Wm. Q. JUDGE) would place in your hands the necessary ideas and words that are used to express that which I outlined above. As old Hillel said once: "Do for others that which you would expect them to do for you. All the rest is commentary." Best wishes in the common struggle Dallas ----------------------- Randy --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.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: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 06:17:04 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theosophical After-Death Model Nov 17th Dear Gerry: Of course it is "model" -- at least my understanding of what happens -- and there are probably errors here and there in expression. Remains for us to look at it critically and compare it with aspects of experience and the doctrines that are offered in articles and in MAHATMA LETTERS. I would say that on the whole it is pretty correct. Dal Dallas -----Original Message----- > From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@iximd.com] > Date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 10:51 AM > Subject: Theosophical After-Death Model [Dallas]<< Sketch of after-death events between incarnations:...>> Dallas, your 11-step sketch is what I would call the generalized Theosophical After-Death Model or at least your version of it. I think that you summarize Blavatsky very well at least insofar as the high points are concerned. But I have some problems with this model. 1. It is, after all, a model and not "truth." We do not, in fact, all go through each of these stages or steps each time we die. The model is a general one, and was meant to address the "average" person. DTB Each builds their own TRUTH, and compares it with others'. 2. This model is exactly what Jung was referring to when he accused Theosophists of "lazy thinking." If we fully understand that it is a model of reality, and not neccesarily what really happens, then we can accept the model without the stigma (and the restriction) of lazy thinking. Lazy DTB Every case is individualized. However there is a framework or a lattice on which most things are "pegged." thinkers are those who accept a model such as this as reality itself. DTB THAT IS LAZY INDEED. 3. A short example. First, as I have pointed out before, Tibetan Buddhism, which tracks the after-death processes with almost as fine precision as Theosophy, does not recognize your step 2 at all. I think that most people would agree that the life review comes prior to death (I have had several of these when death seemed imminent but didn't happen). Very few NDEs include it. The Tibetan Book of the Dead does agree with a preview of the next upcoming life, and is in general agreement with the Theosophical model once we get through the semantics. 4. Your version of the model fails to mention the etheric body, which also survives for a time. I think that the etheric (stula-sharia and prana) is the "shade" or "ghost," and not the astral (kama). I admit that this is a nit-pick, but it does demonstrate the very real semantic problem that we have in modern Theosophy. DTB WHERE DOES HPB SPEAK OF THE ETHERIC BODY? 5. I think that your subjective division of good and bad, or "nobel" and "gross," is a cultural fantasy that varies with each person. Blavatsky gave out this model to a bunch of Christians, and put it into words that they could grasp. We don't have any need today to continue this kind of thing. Nobel actions versus gross actions are such only in the eyes of the beholder. DTB GOOD = OBEYING THE LAWS OF NATURE BAD = BREAKING THE LAWS OF NATURE PROGRESS = KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE 6. According to the MLs, Devachan is a state and not a location. It exists on the mental plane, which is itself a state and not a location. DTB STATE IS CORRECT. LOCATION IS ANYWHERE. 7. I still say, for a variety of reasons, that your "immortal ego" is a mayavic illusion. The "akasic" or akashic records are on the causal plane, and it is only the "aroma" of each life that gets stored there. These "records" form the skandhas of each reincarnation. It is the causal body (atma-buddhi-higher manas) that perpetuates reincarnation, not the mental body (manas) which is new each time. In fact, it is because the lower four bodies/principles are newly made with each incarnation, that we can dismiss reincarnation for all intents and purposes as not being applicable to human beings (because human beings can be defined as the lower four of the seven and thus are newly made each time). Only the skandhas or tendencies made in one life are carried over to another, not any "soul" or "immortal ego." DTB MONAD IS HARDLY AN ILLUSION -- IMMORTAL GIVES COHERENCE TO MEMORY AND TO INCREMENTS IN LEARNING LEADING TO WISDOM OF THE UNIVERSE AND ALL ITS LAWS 8. Death and sleep are brothers. The after-death states are very much like the dream-sleep states that we go through at night. Nothing terribly mysterious there. The Theosophical After-Death Model can appear intimidating and we need to get past all the big words. But, if you can control your dreams, you can control your after-death experiences too, and can consciously direct your next birth to some extent. DTB TRUE -- VERY SIMILAR BUT NOT TOTALLY COMPARABLE. As I read it, only Adepts can control their consciousness so that it is an unbroken continuity with no unconsciousness for either sleep of the body or any Devachan being needed. (as they have the capability of resolving all the karmic links as they are made). THANKS FOR THE NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS Dal Just some thoughts. Jerry S. --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.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: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:37:25 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Provin' theosophy Randy wrote: >Any claim of truth(or segments thereof) puts the onus on >the advocates to do the provings. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me to be >looking for some substance, not just vocabulary. Your questions are no different nor less valuable than any other questions posed on this list. One thing I've learned majoring in philosophy and reading theosophical texts is that those who claim a particular wisdom are often really just gifted in the art of bullshitting. It was devastating to learn, but that insight has fostered both compassion and a sense of equality among all people for me. I can now see the "divine" in everyone in a way I never could before - ok, ok, I make use of my Scorpion stinger on occasion, but I know when I am doing it. I no longer feel the need to lie to myself - sometimes I simply choose to be an ass and I must accept the consequences. If you leave the list, leave because you choose to for your own reasons. Any other factor creates karmic and spiritual harm for both you and everyone else on this list. We are all linked - and any harm, pain, misunderstanding, joy, wisdom, and insight will be shared by each of us. To be a theosophist is to understand and accept a greater responsibility for every being and every action. Having chosen, one cannot go back - alas, 'tis some truth in the idiom that "ignorance is bliss." Choose carefully, Randy. The journey into theosophy is lonely, alienating, and painful - and it's impossible to prove because it is, for each of us, completely unique. We can discuss the theories, but your journey will be your own and no other human will ever be able to explain it or understand it. If you look closely into the eyes and words of those who are "enlightened" you will see that they have understood and accepted that they will walk alone. The "enlightened" beings are not joyful, ebullient, and vivacious - they are surrounded by an aura of melancholy. Hence, their frequent seeking of solitude. You already have the answers within you, Randy. No one here can tell you anything you do not already know - most of the postings on this list, at least for me, are moments of the human needing to "come up for air." And that is the way it is supposed to be, I believe - but, answers? proofs? No, Randy, they aren't here on this list. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:49:39 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: more western lunacy > As usual when I get along in a discussion here I soon lose focus of what is > even in disagreement. Yes - this list is just full of superstitous, illogical people incapable of thinking straight. > 1. A person has questions about origins, destiny, the nature of reality, > etc. Needs no proof. > 2. It is reasoned that there must be a truth, one truth. Why? It is > logical, fits experience, accounts for the universal order we can see. > > All okay so far by me. These thoughts are also something anybody(even I) > could arrive at without any training whatsoever. Very straight forward, > linear, simple(sorry I like these "western" qualities) and necessary as a > foundation for any subsequent discussion meant to get anywhere(sorry, I like > the prospect of real results I might be able to use for self-edification and > to help improve the human condition). "sorry" - this continual little guilt -tripping, the attitude of "silly me, I like that dumb old logic" - is a kind of ridiculous rhetorical trick - attemping to imply that anyone that *doesn't* think in the strraight lines that you prefer somehow is incapable of gaining any "real results", anything useful, or improving the human condition. Is it "logic" that leads you to use it? > Continuing. Now it gets hard. > 3. Since reason has led me to this point, why not use it to determine what > the universal truth is? If you actually think it is unreasonable to *question* reason - to consider, given the immensity of the universe, the complexity of creation, whether reason (or anything else) is a tool sufficient to approach something as enormous as that universal truth - then you simply aren't being reasonable. You claim to want to find this truth, and improve the lot of humanity, but adamently insist that there is a single mechanism that you'll use, a single tool, without any regard for, or even willingness to question, whether that tool is fit for the job. Why *not* use it? A better question is *why* use it? What justifies that choice? Its certainly very useful on the physical plane - but simply because it can design and build a car is hardly evidence that it is capable of approaching universal truths. Some species of monkeys know how to put a stick into an anthole, get them to climb on it, then pull the stick out to eat the ants. To conclude from this that a stick - due to its ability to deliver "experimental results" and "practical utility" - is therefore also the perfect tool with which to discover the nature of reality is not, er, *logical*. > 4. Now just get to it. Assemble the truths and see what they say. Maybe > this will not get too far but it is a safe way to go and will prevent wasting > a lot of time on detours(which most of the thousands of religious beliefs > are). Will do no such thing. Who said the search was supposed to be "safe"? And you actually think it prevents wasting a lot of time on detours? Good lord, have you *studied* science? Its history is littered with detours ... in fact virtually every single small scientific truth was the end result of multiple falsehoods, dozens of trails followed to dead ends. > In the alternative to #3, one could go to school under any number of masters, > Tammy Faye Baker, Jesus(Although who really knows what he even said Never > mind that though, learn the language of christology and show some respect for > the clergy masters, right?), Jerry Falwell, Confucious, HPB(oops--covers > head defensively to ward off blows) etc. We could trust in the great > intellect of these masters, learn the vocabulary they invent, not question > their foundations, not apply reason(too western), just follow, that's the > essential key here. This is *your* fantasy - you continually try to paint Theosophy as being the same as any religion, imply it is similar to Tammy Faye, Jerry Falwell - but this is a concept *you* have, irrationally, decided to hold - and it simply doesn't fit with the *evidence* you so deeply cherish. Has anyone on this list asked you to follow anything? Have they? Told you that they insist that you worship anything? Accept any belief at all? NO, Randy, they haven't. And they never will. And so far as the false dichotomy you continually attempt to create - its bogus. To say that it is a matter of *either* using reductionist western "reason" *or* being a blind follower - well, this is one of the extreme biases invented by that very "reason" ... which in its arrogance believes it reigns supreme, and that anything else is lesser. And guess what? If you want to explore quantum physics, or medicene ... you are (gasp) going to have to study under "masters", at first (until you can understand for yourself how to verify their results) actually (oh no!) *trust their intellect*, they'll even have the unmitigated gall to insist that you *learn the vocabulary they invented*, will consider you (terrible! terrible!) an idiot if you want to question their foundations before you are even capable of understanding the vocabulary with which they name them. In short - at least at first, you'll have to be what in your world you evidently call a "follower". Has anyone here told you to stop questioning? NO. And they never will. What people *have* said is before they take *their* time to answer you, they'd probably prefer some sign that you are something other than a casual, ego-filled questioner on a lark. This list has seen many of them ... people with agendas - who get their rocks off by using either "logic" or religion to demonstrate how idiotic Theosophy is. We even had a couple of Baptist fundamentalists a couple years ago. They were fun to play with, but soon got tiring - though for some of us it *was* deeply pleasurable to be called "agents of satan". You keep asking on this *list* for Theosophical principles to be explained in simple, introductory terms. Several people have told you to read various things ... some suggesting specific short, simple books that contain exactly what you seek. You, of course, apparently decline to read them. No, you insist upon *personal* attention, want *us* to deliver the concepts you seek, framed in the terms you define, and according to the standards of evidence you determine. You conceive of us as religious followers, and hence expect us to act as though we have another potential convert that we'll be happy to spend all sorts of time sucking up to. Go to a Pentacostal church if this is what you want - they'll be happy to deliver it to you. But you won't get it in Theosophy. Or, I might add, in *any* field whose students and specialists spent years of hard work before they even claimed to understand the basics. > You seem to be advocating this later alternative(although I'm sure you would > deny you are a follower, that's what your argument distills to) if I > understand you correctly with my limited linear western mind. You don't. *Your* argument apparently distills to "people are either "reasonable", as I define it, or they are followers, and since you refuse to answer my questions in exactly the fashion I demand, you obviously must be a follower". >You also seem > to be using the tools used by religion through the ages to justify their > beliefs, e.g., You're an idiot compared to the leaders; Tell me what science or philosophy *doesn't* think a beginner is an idiot compared to those who have studied it for years. > don't ask silly > proof questions cause even physicists, dealing with chaos, indeterminacy, > quarks with their sticky gluons, etas, muons, taus, don't even understand > reality *They* are humble enough to admit they don't. And freely admit that many of their foundational theories not only are not, but *can* not ever be proven according the the accepted standards of empirical science. > (though I must insert they are seeking answers by means of reason, and > it is reason that got them to where they are- Completely wrong. In fact the most brilliant scientists of this century freely admit the limitations of reason that you so clearly don't want to accept. They view reason as essentially a useful tool for *digestion*, not for discovery. Its not the ultimate - its merely one of many tools, useful in some instances, completely useless in others. > or if not is at least tested by > it-and much of the reality they discover, though not vector or scalar at this > point, is believed reducible to the logic of math. which ... as Godel showed, will *always* be a closed, self-referential system. It is a very useful language for thinking about things, but is incapable of "proving" anything. > pay the dues of studying a new discipline with all its attendent vocabulary And this differs how from from studying medicene? Or studying Hegel? > and presuppositions and then you will "see"(reminds me of > brainwashing--that's an eastern thing isn't it?). An eastern thing? Really? Its actually been used all over the world ... but in this century was brought to its highest and most effective state by *scientists*, experimenting on prisoners, and using *logic* to refine its techniques. So you actually think that anyone insisting that you study foundational literature, learn a field's vocabulary, not waste their time answering your initial questions until you've read at least a few of the beginner's books that contain most of the answers you seek ... you think *this* person is encouraging you to be "brainwashed"? No one on this list has any motive to brainwash you. In fact, no one is trying to get you to believe or accept anything, are they? This whole massive argument boils down to you asking basic questions, being specifically given the names of books where you might find exactly what you are seeking, you refusing to read the books and claiming you deserve personal attention, assuming that this is some religion that wants you as a follower and that hence we should be accomodating your wishes, and even going so far as to say that the insistance that you at least spend a bit of effort learning the vocabulary before you'll be worth much time is somehow an effort to "brainwash" you. This isn't a religion - no one wants to recruit you. No one has, or will try. It is a list mostly full of scientists, philosophers, mystics, psychologists, professors, writers, and artists. We often have significant disagreements about the very foundational questions you are demanding clarity about. Probably the only common element is that we are each, in our own very different ways, pursuing ultimate questions, seeking to go beyond whatever the science or faith of any single time or place is, attempting to discover universals ... and open to the idea that we may need to do arduous and difficult internal work to qualify ourselves to discover them. This is a community of scholars, not a fundamentalist revival claiming simple answers to complex questions, and eager to be accepted and validated by the general public. In fact, many of us assume we won't be. If you stay on the list, what you have experienced up to now will only get much much worse. Expect every cherished assumption you have - be it the ascendency of "logic" or anything else - to be questioned. Expect no one to just deliver answers in the form you demand them ... but often to instead have the form you are demanding them in disected and critiqued. Curiously enough ... a number of people on the list not only don't find that to be a downside, but indeed see it as one of the more valuable aspects. This place is a free-for-all of conflicting paradigms. If you want neatly packaged answers, if you *want* a cult that will try to "brainwash" you because its so much fun to fight against, don't waste any more time here ... your drug of choice is not on this street corner. If you have *personally*, according to an inner predilection, made to choice to try to scale the Big Mountain of ultimate answers - you probably *will* find valuable food for thought in some Theosophical literature, and *may* find some value in being on a list of people who are also involved, from drastically different directions and perspectives, in many different countries, cultures, and religions, in pursuing a similar quest. > If theosophy, like any other useful system of thought, has anything of value > to say, the essential elements must be able to be clearly articulated with > common language and the proofs made obvious. My feeling is that if you are > saying that theosophy cannot do this then I am saying it has nothing of value > to offer other than mental calisthenics. You're certainly free to believe this - though I hope you look at exactly what you are saying: That what, in the relation to the "universe", is a little spec of temporary dust, tiny even in relation to the small pebble it lives upon, barely a few millenia out of the swamp, containing a pound or two of grey matter that was largely formed merely to keep itself alive, but has clawed its way to the rudiments of what it calls "reason", and has generated 2 or 3 hundred different languages capable of naming different aspects of its limited perceptual world with varying degrees of specificity ... this miniscule being, not even wanting to use an extended vocabulary, but insisting that only a small *subset* of its little concept base be used ... this being should nonetheless be able to frame and understand - in that simplistic vocabulary set - the "essential elements" of a philosophy that attempts to address the nature of reality itself, of universal truths that hold throughout space and time. And if a philosophy *can't* provide this, then obviously (this being concludes) it can't be anything other than "mental calesthentics". Seems as though this attitude says far more about *you* than about Theosophy. > I find it of interest that we are engaged in this debate using common > language, attempts at reason while sitting in homes made with the logic of > engineering, resting on chairs utilizing the reason of physics, tapping away > on computers based on the surety of math and information science, etc., damn > all this western linear crap. So then, this thing that "interests" you - is it grounded in the notion that because reason and logic are capable of wiring a house, therefore one can naturally conclude that it is fully capable of approaching the ultimate questions of life and existence? Because a rusty saw is fully capable of cutting a log, would you therefore conclude that it is perfect for heart surgery? What you may find equally of interest is the fact that long before there was engineering there were homes, inside of which people sat discussing these very issues. That Theosophy hints at a *science* that was around long before the arrogance of western reason, is still developing, and will be around long *after* the need for computers to commicate this way has disappeared ... due to the development of latent traits within human beings themselves - that will eventually permit them to (and already permits a few to) communicate precisely at a great distance using what current "science" would call completely illogical and nonexistant abilities. Oh yeah, I forgot. Shouldn't bring that up - it wouldn't be worth your trouble to read about it. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:30:02 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Dallas:swabbing the wounds Dallas let me ruminate on your points and I'll be back with my thoughts. Appreciate your taking the time. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:46:44 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Kim: karmic damage Soothing words Kym. I'm patient(and persistent) when I think there is hope. The folks on this list-you included-have impressed me much. I just need to get orientated and understand what I can and connot expect. I'm certain we all ultimately have the same objective. Thanks for the gracious thoughts. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:08:59 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: I give You keep body slamming the wrong opponent. I'm not even in the same ring. I've read a few of the books which you're sure I haven't, but I'll do some more so that when I return this won't be a strawman you feel you can so easily defeat. Thanks for the time. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:31:16 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: I give > You keep body slamming the wrong opponent. I'm not even in the same ring. Well, you've hardly simply been a passive recipient (-:). > I've read a few of the books which you're sure I haven't, but I'll do some > more so that when I return this won't be a strawman you feel you can so > easily defeat. Not trying to defeat you. Don't even think in those terms. This is the cyber equivilent of an ancient Greek agora ... a marketplace of thoughts - a place where intense disputes about the nature of reality and the question of what knowledge *itself* is can be actively pursued. There aren't winners and losers. In fact, people rarely change their positions as the result of the deabtes ... but many *do* find that their ability to clarify their beliefs, and their own understanding of them, is greatly improved from the effort of the back and forth with articulate people arguing very different perspectives. I was actually trying, in my own limited fashion, to encourage you to study. If you are seeking what you say you are seeking - you won't find answers in Theosophy - but you probably *will* find many intriguing lines of thought well worth the time and trouble to follow (or at least a lot of quite intelligent and creative people throughout the last century have found much value in taking the trouble to do the work) ... which is really all the founders claimed to offer anyway. But it really *isn't* easy to approach. You might find at least skimming the Mahatma Letters interesting. Cheers! -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:57:18 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re: Theosophical After-Death Model >>There is the judgment scene in Yama's court which is sort of a moral self-assessment.>> According to HH the Dali Lama, Tibetan Buddhism does not recognize a life review as a part of the normal death process. Perhaps the "moral self-assessment" process that you mention is a part of kamaloka? << First, according to Tibetan Buddhism, most ordinary humans do not _have_ a "causal body." Or at least, one that is individualized.>> Well then, here is one more difference between Theosophy and Tibetan Buddhism (makes me wonder why Blavatsky felt the need to go against her Tibetan Teachers so much). Speaking for myself, I have found from out-of-body experiences that there seems to be a "body" of some kind on each plane. This is in accord with the AB/CWL model as well as G de Purucker. My "causal" body or whatever we want to call it, is the one that I seem to have when focusing on the causal plane (4th plane up). I take the "causal" part mainly on faith as I have no personal experience of it actually causing anything. << Only Buddhas have the causal body (karana sarira). The causal body is the body of self-origination or the absolute or dharmadhatu. This is the Vajra-Body.>> As I understand it, the Vajra-body is pretty much equivalent to the subtle body of an Adept -- it is created consciously and its use constitutes the dreaded M word. The idea of creating a subtle body is also in Taoist Yoga, which teaches that only by creating such a body can we hope for immortality. Of course, the Tibetans also teach a "rainbow body" which seems to be much the same thing. The rainbow body got its name from the fact that when an adept dies and enters it, a rainbow appears in the sky (??) If we look behind all of the semantics, the basic teaching is that we either have or must create a subtle body. As I understand Theosophy, we all already have a subtle body, and all that is needed is to learn how to use it (I suspect that this is what Taoism means by having to "create" one). This certainly fits well with my experience. Whether we have only one or a series is semantics and head-knowledge that has no bearing on experience. << By contrast, a Buddha, especially in Dzog chen, does not have a alayavijnana because it is the consciousness continuum (bhavana) of primordial ignorance/bliss within which karmic tendencies accumulate. >> I believe that Dzog Chen teaches that no one has an "alayavijnana" or storehouse, because such an idea smacks too much of an intrinsic reality or soul, alias monad. The storehouse of skandhas, like everything else in the lower cosmic planes (samsara), has only a relative or everyday reality. Buddhas can create a "body" on virtually any plane, and even multiple bodies, if they have need to do so. << So, your statement that seeds of reincarnation lies at the causal level is half-right, but also, moves too much towards a nihilist/no one reincarnates position. >> Seeds of our personal reincarnation only. This idea comes from early Theosophical writers and is, I believe, where the term "causal" came from. The causal body is mentioned by Blavatsky, and not just by CWL. It is the vehicle of the reincarnating Ego. Your idea that " Buddhahood _is_ the causal body " goes farther than Theosophy would take us, but in the sense that buddhahood=divine monad, I agree that this is the "real" causal body. I do believe in reincarnation, but only in the Buddhist sense, not the Hindu. The Gita, which suggests it is only a matter of changing one's outer clothes, is extremely naive and misleading. << And remember, the skandha of consciousness is the thread and continuum (bhavana) between lives even for Hinayanists. >> I think that this skandha equates to what we would call "human consciousness" and not pure consciousness (cit). I would equate it with Jung's Collective Unconscious. Even a Hinayanist would agree that no permanent self or Ego reincarnates. According to Blavatsky, the "thread and continuum between lives" is the sutratma, which is not, I believe, a skandha. The "ignorance/bliss sheath or anandamayakosa" is, I think, equivalent to Blavatsky's Reincarnating Ego. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:11:18 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 14, 1999 In a message dated 11/16/99 7:07:31 PM Central Standard Time, ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > Right. Minsk it is (best to be on the safe side) > > Alan :-) > Minsk isn't safe! Specially on a Saturday night with all those drunk nationalistic Albanians singing the Internationale and ruckusing in Belarusian turf. Its like the neo-Nazis I saw while visiting a breeder plant in Idaho Falls on business. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:57:16 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: between rounds Good to know you weren't actually going for the jugular. Appreciate the thoughts and the debate. Maybe I'll be back with some muscle to win you over to that western "prove it to me" thing. Still seems like the right way to go. Having been burnt a few times by allowing myself to be duped by religion has made me very skeptical of anything other than my own reasoning and open mind. Best to you, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:13:44 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: more western lunacy ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 1:28 PM > Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: more western lunacy > If theosophy, like any other useful system of thought, has anything of value > to say, the essential elements must be able to be clearly articulated with > common language and the proofs made obvious. My feeling is that if you are > saying that theosophy cannot do this then I am saying it has nothing of value > to offer other than mental calisthenics. A good point, though I expect JRC will have more to say. In the meantime, taking up your theme, see "Simply Occult" on my website, where I make a feeble attempt to use the common language in the way you suggest, Alan the apostate. http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:31:20 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: The Dangers of Minsk Dear Grigor, Oh well. There are a few unihabited rocks in these parts, but I suspect Internet facilities are not available on them. I'll have to think about this one. Kym seems to cope with Idaho, though .... (Even if she doesn't write to me any more [sob] ) Alan ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 11:11 PM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 14, 1999 > In a message dated 11/16/99 7:07:31 PM Central Standard Time, > ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > > > Right. Minsk it is (best to be on the safe side) > > > > Alan :-) > > > Minsk isn't safe! Specially on a Saturday > night with all those drunk nationalistic > Albanians singing the Internationale > and ruckusing in Belarusian turf. Its > like the neo-Nazis I saw while visiting > a breeder plant in Idaho Falls on business. > > Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:09:59 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: more western lunacy > > A good point, though I expect JRC will have more to say. > Unfortunately, I may have had a wee bit too much more to say. Damn ... that's what happens whenever I listen to Wagner. While the Ring doesn't (as Dave Barry says it does to him) "fill me with the inexplicable urge to invade Poland", it seems as though it does cause my rhetoric to become insufferably Teutonic. Tee Hee, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:49:00 -0800 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Unique item published on BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm Another new item has been added to the archives: Letter from Mahatma Koot Hoomi to Miss Francesca Arundale [Received sometime in the middle of July 1884. Only a few excerpts have ever appeared in print.] Daniel H. Caldwell BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:11:40 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Randy to mkr:hangin Don't be surprised at anything as anything can happen. I think there are two aspects to theosophy. One is the principle of Universal Brotherhood which is the cement that holds all of us together. When one gets to the doctrines postulated throught HPB, much of it will take time. What is important is the eagerness to learn and keeping an open mind and hold one's judgement. So while I completely agree with what JRC has explained, it is my belief that application of the principle of Universal Brotherhood is productive of a lot of good to everyone (which includes us) and will open up a better grasp of the realities of the doctrines that HPB tried to explain. So hang in there. mkr At 08:44 AM 11/17/1999 EST, WLR7D@aol.com wrote: >Thanks for the thoughts. I find it difficult to believe at this point that >anyone could achieve any useful knowledge and not be able to communicate what >it is to others. >I'm open though. Waiting for the lightening bolt to strike through this >thick skull. >Randy > >--- >You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: RAMADOSS@EDEN.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: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:20:45 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: between rounds At 07:57 PM 11/17/1999 EST, you wrote: > Having been burnt a few times by allowing myself to be duped by religion >has made me very skeptical of anything other than my own reasoning and open >mind. Best to you, Randy It is one thing you will not find among theosophists. It is good to be skeptical and at the same time be open minded and seriously in search. So you are moving in the right direction; and surely from now on no religion or cult can dupe me any more. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:20:29 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: The Dangers of Minsk/Idaho/etc. In a message dated 11/17/99 8:06:36 PM Central Standard Time, ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > Dear Grigor, > > Oh well. There are a few unihabited rocks in these parts, but I suspect > Internet facilities are not available on them. > > I'll have to think about this one. > Consider this, as a former physicist in SU, next instrument of choice for intelligence gathering and for terroism is www. Through commercial and financial channels, foreign governments can collect an immense amount of information on individual citizens of US. For example, the Iraqis (even back in primitive early 90s with 94 really being the watershed for ISPs to take off), through their financial nets, had info on the decline of ATM use, check-verification, and marketing info-demongraphics on who typically buys what and declines on that to indicate to them that a military base in that town was on alert and probably mobilized. They had through same channels info on all US officer corp, were they married, did they have kids, did the kids attend daycare, if so which and when and where, what time and who could pick them up, did they get home from school before their parents (latch keykids), which officers had gambling debts or a heavy alcohol expense, plus info on all US citizens that owned guns. Now this is routine. US citizens have limited protection from only their federal government under 1974 and outdated privacy act but none with respect to state, local governments, private business, or foreign governments (through business nets). There are powerful psychological potraits, built up from insurance billing information, ISP marketing info on subscribers (even if anonymous alone, combined with other data it can often lead to a specific identification -thats what happened when the Navy, using commercial data,its own personnel data, plus data bought from AOL identified and discharged that highest ranking enlisted officer because he was gay), debit card and credit card purchases, grocery store, department store, video store customer records, etc. These potraits depict past buying preferences, typical routines and behaviors that yield powerful predictions about what the indivdual might do. The first step is called "data matching" usually using SS # for US citizens. Next step is "data profiling" that creates this psychological potrait. Plus, with the replacement of digital cameras for video ones, where it is easier to just store the images than erase them, several pictures of individuals at gas pump, ATM or store accompanies rest of data. The same info collection can apply to organizations as well. It is terrorist weapon of choice. Consider, you do not have to leave country that hosts your activity. You do not have to risk smuggling in bomb components, chemical agents, or biological ones and risk exposure. So, in last year, there were two security breaches of Exxon oil refinery/chemical plant/natural gas facility in Richmond CA. This is surrounded by three navy bases close by the most important of which, now, is Alameda where old nuclear boats are mothballed and nuclear material disposed of. The Exxon facility was hacked by foreigners with not an actual attempt but an exploration of the possibility to cause a major explosion and toxic cloud over Bay Area. The Union Carbide plant in West Virginia is very similar to one in Bhopal India. It has had security penetrations to see if explosion and toxic cloud, with prevailing winds,could result in poisoning most of Virginia and DC. Palo, IA nuclear power plant penetrations with exploration of ability to cause disaster whose cloud would drift east over Chicago/Great Lakes. And finally (but not final episode like these), two penetrations into the military controlled Idaho Falls breeder facility that makes weapons grade Plutonium to explore same possibility. British, French, Canadians, and most NATO members have reports of similar incidents where "hackers" are traced to places like Libya, Chechyna, Serbia, etc. There are no remote areas. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:37:58 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Dangers/PS Hello, This is PS. Neo-nazi groups have similar computer capability. During big CA voter-referendum on Props SOS 187 in 1994, denying medical care of children of foreign nationals and affirmative action for UC admissions, etc., Pioneer Fund (the funders of that sloppy work of cooked research, The Bell Curve, the research arm in eugenics of American Nazi party in 1937, and whose leaders in 1942 were convicted on a Justice Department Sedition and Espionage Indictment for spying for the NAZIs), which has a huge database on politically active Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and women, plus a category they dub "race traitors" (i.e., white supporters of same) by same means, was allowed by a former CA commissioner and former Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner, Alan Nelson, to patch into the California DMV/Franchise TAx Board database to collect further info. By this means they tracked, harassed, and/or reported false credit info into the credit nets of opponents of SOS 187. They are also suspected of hacking chemical and biologic level 5 facilities. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:44:31 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Alan: the prescient student Alan, ok let's try one central idea to theosophy, karma. I see this as an "as you sow" concept. An aside. Before this list I spent many years solo just trying to be the best I could be and trying to arrive at some basic life philosophy. All alone, just measuring my life experiences, I determined that there was some kind of law that would ultimately cause consequences if you acted in an unethical way. It might not be immediate, but there would be a price. I wondered a lot about this and saw it perhaps as the outworking of violation of innate conscience, or discord caused in the physical universe by improper behavior. The effect seemed increasingly clear the more life I lived.(It helps to realize the effect of this law by doing a lot of stupid things in life, so I was a good test subject) This discovery/realization help set the moral tone for my life. I teach in to my children and in my writings. I conidered it an "ethical law" as binding as gravity. As I recount the above to you, I'm thinking you might say this was somehow borrowed. But it wasn't. I didn't even know the meaning of karma. I had long ago stopped studying religion or ethics, was unconvinced of God, and was pretty sure death was just a really deep and restful sleep from which I would never awake. Even when religion was a part of my life, it was of the Christion ilk. No karma there, just a big surrogate daddy in the sky with rewards and punishment. Anyway, pretty cool huh. When I stumbled on theosophy(after recently--a couple of months ago- having been reawakened by witnessing what psychics could do) and saw the concept I was pretty irked that you guys stole my idea. Actually it is one of the things that really intrigued me causing me to look further. Nothing like coming up with ideas on your own to create a higher level of surety. Now you can convince others by mentioning this gospel of how the great guru sage Randy discovered karma while in the spiritual desolation between Bible thumping and theosophy. My questions are: Why do theosophists believe karma is a law governing this life? Second, why do they believe it works beyond this life? Third, who invented it and why? Give me the real simple short version and then I'll pursue further that which is troubling. Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:40:41 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: Randy to Alan: the prescient student I don't believe there can be a "real simple short version" to these questions. And any short version obtained would be specific to one individual as a result of a lifetime of experience and learning, and is bound to change from day to day as one hopefully continues learning and accepting the unknown. Yesterday I came across the following, which may or may not be helpful, or even what you're looking for: Glossary entry for Dweller on the Threshold >From the Collation Of Theosophical Glossaries: A literary invention of the English mystic and novelist Sir Bulwer Lytton, found in his romance Zanoni. The term has obtained wide currency and usage in theosophical circles. In occultism the word "dweller," or some exactly equivalent phrase or expression, has been known and used during long ages past. It refers to several things, but more particularly has an application to what H. P. Blavatsky calls "certain maleficent astral Doubles of defunct persons." This is exact. But there is another meaning of this phrase still more mystical and still more difficult to explain which refers to the imbodied karmic consequences or results of the man's past, haunting the thresholds which the initiant or initiate must pass before he can advance or progress into a higher degree of initiation. These dwellers, in the significance of the word just last referred to are, as it were, the imbodied quasi-human astral haunting parts of the constitution thrown off in past incarnations by the man who now has to face them and overcome them -- very real and living beings, parts of the "new" man's haunting past. The initiant must face these old "selves" of himself and conquer or -- fail, which failure may mean either insanity or death. They are verily ghosts of the dead men that the present man formerly was, now arising to dog his footsteps, and hence are very truly called Dwellers on the Threshold. In a specific sense they may be truly called the kama-rupas of the man's past incarnations arising out of the records in the astral light left there by the "old" man of the "new" man who now is. >From http://www.lysator.liu.se/~ceci/current/moon_specific.html In Tarot tradition, the Moon represents unconscious desires and the fears that accompany the sense of losing control or falling into the unconscious realm of sleep and dreams. However, if one is afraid to enter one's own astral territory, one can never truly know oneself - and the mystery of initiation is about little more than this. The real confrontation that the Moon represents is the meeting with the "Dweller on the Threshold" of which occult and esoteric teachers speak. This is the giant force of accumulated evil or wrongdoings, the hideous part of the self that a person would rather not look at and would like to pretend doesn't exist, and which rises up at the point of real psychic growth. This "demon" must not only be looked at, but integrated into the being, in order to establish wholeness. >From http://www.primenet.com/~subru/Alchemy.html So here we have the methodology for accomplishing the Black Stone that will vanquish and transmute our Dweller or Sin-Body: We must enlist our Martian energy or moving spirit--the "purified metallic Sulfur"--by separating it from any connection with the Personality or lower nature, so that our "unripe Mercury" becomes the voice of pure conscience, moderated by a loving spirit of gentleness and patience. Our Mars becomes the warrior of the Higher Ego, and as the Christ Spirit, speaking through the man Jesus, said: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword" and, "A man's foes will be those of his own household." This will be our St. George who will slay the dragon of our lower nature -- the Dweller on the Threshold. >From Treatise On Astral Projection Many people have written to me describing their feelings of fear during projection. This is a kind of natural barrier to some people that must be overcome. Some call it "The Dweller on the Threshold". It is a manifestation of your own inner fears, very much like a child's unreasoned fear of the dark; a fear of the unknown. Many people feel there is something evil waiting for them, or a nasty spirit trying to stop them projecting. This must be faced with courage! Look upon it as a test, an exam, that must be passed before you can project freely. Once you do project, and face it, you will find it is only a hollow threat that will crumple into nothing. Contributed by David Chance More information is available at: The Collation Of Theosophical Glossaries Van references in: "Dweller On The Threshold" (on Beautiful Vision) Part of The Van Morrison Website Glossary entry for glamour In esoteric teachings the word glamour has a particular meaning. Alice A. Bailey defines it as mental illusion when intensified by desire, occurring on the astral plane. "Glamour has been likened to a mist or fog in which the aspirant wanders and which distorts all that he sees and contacts, preventing him from ever seeing life truly or clearly or the conditions surrounding him as they essentially are... He is deceived by the appearance and forgets that which the appearance veils. The emanatory astral reactions which each human being initiates ever surround him and through this fog and mist he looks out upon a distorted world." (Glamour - A World Problem (1950)). The human race is held sway, Bailey says, "by a very ancient glamour or series of glamours, of entrenched desires, potent aspirations of some kind and definitely human-made forms which seek to hold the consciousness of humanity upon the astral plane. Such a glamourous concept is that of money and its materialistic value. This glamourous desire is like a dense fog, cutting off the vision of truth, and distorting a very large number of human values." Contributed by Alan Pert, Sydney, Australia Alice A. Bailey writes about various New Age/New Thought topics such as esoteric astrology. This discipline attempts to understand the energies conditioning life on earth beyond the (traditional astrological) planetary and zodiacal influences to embrace the Seven Rays, their distant star sources and other non-ecliptic fixed stars. Ms. Bailey's book Esoteric Astrology was one of the last in a series of 19 books telepathically dictated and transmitted to her by the Tibetan Master, Djwal Khul, over a period of 30 years in the first half of this century. The reincarnating soul as the purposeful initiator of experience in the human kingdom is the underlying assumption of esoteric astrology, which asserts that all astrological influences are energies the seeker toward mastery must learn to manage wisely. Van alludes to Alice Bailey in the Beautiful Vision liner notes: "Lyrics on 'Dweller on the Threshold' and part of 'Aryan Mist' inspired by Glamour - A World Problem by Alice Bailey and the Tibetan" Contributed by Kimberly Livingston Other books by Alice A. Bailey [and the Tibetan] - click on the links below to order or review them at Amazon.com: Initiation, Human and Solar Letters on Occult Meditation The Consciousness of the Atom A Treatise on Cosmic Fire The Light of the Soul A Treatise on White Magic From Bethlehem to Calvary Problems of Humanity The Reappearance of the Christ Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle The Externalisation of the Hierarchy Esoteric Psychology: A Treatise On The Seven Rays Esoteric Astrology More information on Alice Bailey is available at: http://www.watchman.org/bailypro.htm http://neteze.com/mkthomas/work.htm Van references in: "Dweller On The Threshold" (on Beautiful Vision) "Aryan Mist" (on Beautiful Vision) "Ivory Tower" (on No Guru, No Method, No Teacher) "Green Mansions" (on Hymns to the Silence) Part of The Van Morrison Website Glossary entry for astral According to esoteric doctrine, there are a number of different planes, or levels of reality. The names usually given to these planes, taking them in order of materiality, rising from the denser to the finer, are the physical, the astral, the mental, the buddhic, and the nirvanic. The substance of each of these planes differs from that of the one below it in the same way as, though to a much greater degree than, vapour differs from solid matter. The astral region is the second of these great planes of nature - the next above (or within) the physical world. It has often been called the realm of illusion - not that it is itself any more illusory than the physical world, but because of the extreme unreliability of the impressions brought back from it by the untrained seer. This is because of two remarkable characteristics of the astral world: (1) many of its inhabitants can rapidly change their form, and cast glamour over those with whom they choose to sport; (2) objects are seen from all sides at once. There are three types of inhabitants in the astral world: human, non-human and artificial. The adept and the psychically developed person can gain access to the astral plane at will. Much has been written about astral projection, whereby the adept can leave his/her physical body, and travel great distances in the astral world. When people dream they enter the astral world, but in most cases in an uncontrolled manner. This is why our dreams are so chaotic and unpredictable. The "dead" inhabit the astral plane where they work out their karma, according to the quality of the life they have led. This stage is sometimes called the "summerland". When they are prepared, they leave the astral body and go to the next sub-plane. Among the non-human entities are the elementals: slyphs (air spirits), salamanders (fire), gnomes (earth) and nymphs or undines (water). There are various nature spirits, such as fairies, pixies, elves, trolls, fauns, imps, and goblins. They have their own forms but can assume any appearance at will. Under ordinary conditions they are not visible to physical sight,but they have the power to materialise at will. Normally they are upset by humans and prefer to avoid them. Artificial inhabitants are thought forms, created by people either unconsciously or consciously. Human thoughts create living entities on the astral plane. If the thoughts are weak, the entities only survive for a few minutes. Often repeated and strong thoughts will form an entity whose existence may extend to many days. This is the basis of real magic, and the trained adept uses the mind to create on the astral level, sometimes bringing the creation into the physical world. People from all around the world have in their folklore tales of fairies, ghosts, hauntings, and things that go bump in the night. This is not just superstition, but comes from a time when people were more sensitive to the invisible world. The Irish have a long tradition of contact with the "little people", denizens of the astral world. Contributed by Alan Pert, Sydney, Australia Van references in: "Astral Weeks" (on Astral Weeks) Part of The Van Morrison Website Glossary entry for karma The word "karma" means action, and the derived meaning is "action, and the appropriate result of action". This concept is very important in Hinduism and Buddhism. As applied to the moral sphere it is the Law of Ethical Causation, through the operation of which a person reaps what he sows; builds his character, makes his destiny, and works out his salvation. Karma also applies to groups of people such as families and nations. The doctrine of re-birth is an essential corollary to that of karma, the individual coming into physical life with a character and environment resulting from his actions in the past. Current actions will in turn determine future circumstances. Contributed by Alan Pert, Sydney, Australia More information available at: More information on Buddhism can be found at http://www.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion/Buddhism/ More information on Hinduism can be found at http://www.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion/Hinduism/ Van references in: "These Dreams of You" (on Moondance) "Till We Get the Healing Done" (on Too Long In Exile) "Satisfied" (on Common One) Part of The Van Morrison Website Glossary entry for music of the spheres The concept of the "Music of the Spheres" dates back at least to the 16th century, and is a central idea in the Elizabethan world picture: "The idea that the universe is bound together by harmony or concord is fundamental in Elizabethan cosmology. The music of the spheres orders the heavens, and music alike orders and tempers human passions and social forces." (The Norton Anthology of English Literature, vol 1., p.1049) This phrase and the idea behind it figures prominently in Sir John Davies' "Orchestra, or A Poem of Dancing" from 1596: "The poet recounts how one night when Penelope (Ulysses' Queen) at Ithaca appeared among her suitors, Athena inspires her with special beauty. Antonius, most courtly of the suitors, begs her to dance or in his own words to Imitate heaven, whose beauties excellent Are in continual motion day and night. Penelope refuses to join in something that is mere disorder or misrule, and there follows a debate between the two on the subject of dancing. Antonius maintaining that as the universe itself is one great dance comprising many lesser dances we should ourselves join in the cosmic harmony. It was creative love that first persuaded the warring atoms to move in order. Time and all its division are a dance. The stars have their own dance, the greatest being that of the Great Year, which lasts 25,800 years of the sun. The sun courts the earth in a dance. The different elements have their different measures. The various happenings on the earth itself Forward and backward rapt and whirled are According to the music of the spheres. [...] ...it stands [...] for something central to Elizabethan ways of thinking: the agile transformation from abstract to concrete, from ideal to real, from sacred to profane. And the reason is the one given before for similar catholicity: the Elizabethans were conscious simultaneously and to an uncommon degree of 'the erected wit and the infected will of man'. It was thus possible for Davies to pass from the mystical notion of the spherical music to the concrete picture of Elizabeth's courtiers dancing, without incongruity." (E.M.W. Tillyard, The Elizabethan World Picture, Pelican 1943, pp. 112-114) To relate this back to Van: His world picture seems to me remarkably similar in its ability to incorporate the opposites (say Jellyroll and Spiritual Healing) in one song, one performance, one breath. He certainly has many references to the powers of music and dance, and I think he would gladly agree to the feeling that 'the universe itself is one great dance...' It is possible that Van never read the Elizabethan poets, and that he came to this philosophy via other routes (f. ex. some of the New Age/therapy ways of thinking, that themselves are not original but derivates of Western philosophy and Eastern religion and mysticism), but clearly there are some correspondences here in the lyrics to "Dweller", for instance the phrases "I'll sing the song of ages", "I'm gonna turn and face the music, the music of the spheres", etc. Contributed by B. Sorensen Van references in: "Dweller On The Threshold" (on Beautiful Vision) "Piper At The Gates Of Dawn" (on The Healing Game) Part of The Van Morrison Website From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 07:48:32 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Proving' theosophy Nov 19th 1999 Dear Kym Butting in on yours to Randy (below) I think that is well written, clear and I thank you for it. Sorry about the "bullexcresence" but I guess even those who offered that meant well. Truth involves some very straight talk and a good deal of thinking. Sheathe the Scorpion's tooth. Theosophy is a pursuit of wisdom rather than knowledge when one realizes that it involves application in addition to intellectual grasp. either KARMA is the most real thing in our lives and future or all this is non-sense, and a lot of mental gymnastics. best wishes, Dallas ============================ -----Original Message----- > From: kymsmith@micron.net [mailto:kymsmith@micron.net] > Date: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 6:37 AM > Subject: Provin' theosophy Randy wrote: >Any claim of truth(or segments thereof) puts the onus on >the advocates to do the provings. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me to be >looking for some substance, not just vocabulary. Your questions are no different nor less valuable than any other questions posed on this list. One thing I've learned majoring in philosophy and reading theosophical texts is that those who claim a particular wisdom are often really just gifted in the art of bullshitting. It was devastating to learn, but that insight has fostered both compassion and a sense of equality among all people for me. I can now see the "divine" in everyone in a way I never could before - ok, ok, I make use of my Scorpion stinger on occasion, but I know when I am doing it. I no longer feel the need to lie to myself - sometimes I simply choose to be an ass and I must accept the consequences. If you leave the list, leave because you choose to for your own reasons. Any other factor creates karmic and spiritual harm for both you and everyone else on this list. We are all linked - and any harm, pain, misunderstanding, joy, wisdom, and insight will be shared by each of us. To be a theosophist is to understand and accept a greater responsibility for every being and every action. Having chosen, one cannot go back - alas, 'tis some truth in the idiom that "ignorance is bliss." Choose carefully, Randy. The journey into theosophy is lonely, alienating, and painful - and it's impossible to prove because it is, for each of us, completely unique. We can discuss the theories, but your journey will be your own and no other human will ever be able to explain it or understand it. If you look closely into the eyes and words of those who are "enlightened" you will see that they have understood and accepted that they will walk alone. The "enlightened" beings are not joyful, ebullient, and vivacious - they are surrounded by an aura of melancholy. Hence, their frequent seeking of solitude. You already have the answers within you, Randy. No one here can tell you anything you do not already know - most of the postings on this list, at least for me, are moments of the human needing to "come up for air." And that is the way it is supposed to be, I believe - but, answers? proofs? No, Randy, they aren't here on this list. Kym --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.NET List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 07:48:39 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: November 15, 1999 Hey Kym I stopped boxing long back when I was consecutively floored 4 times and the instructor side-lined me as a dunce -- of course I've never been the same since -- now its "senior moments" that floor me -- hopefully not for too long. Where did I say that about you I don't remember -- and if anyone can think -- you can. Best wishes Dal Dallas -----Original Message----- > From: kymsmith@micron.net [mailto:kymsmith@micron.net] > Date: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 2:13 AM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 15, 1999 Dallas wrote: >In fact I am assuming that our ways of thought are so >different, that allthough we base ourselves on the same >literature (something I don't think we should assume about >Kym for instance), What!? Wait, what does this mean? "Something I don't think we should assume about Kym for instance" - Dallas, are you suggesting I am theosophically-challenged or something? Are you suggesting that I interpret texts in ways no one else could, should, or would ever admit? Put up your cyber-dukes, Dallas, and let's go. Unless, of course, you really meant the above as a very flattering compliment. Yes, I'm sure that what it was. . .. Kym --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.NET List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 15:45:11 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Theosophical After-Death Model In a message dated 11/17/99 1:58:12 PM Central Standard Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > >>There is the judgment scene in Yama's court > which is sort of a moral self-assessment.>> > > According to HH the Dali Lama, Tibetan Buddhism > does not recognize a life review as a part > of the normal death process. In a lecture given at the TS at Wheaton in 1981, in answer to a question, HH said two things. One was that the whole universe could be viewed as a life review process. You reap karmically what you sow. Second that if a review of one's past deeds takes the form of a judgment (that is really a self-judgment) as a manifestation of them, then the Judgment Scene in Yama's court, where one's good conscience and one's bad conscience (both of which are beneficent and wrathful manifestations of your own undeveloped Prajna/consort) recount all your good and bad deeds to see how they balance out is a life-review. That is the original basis for my statement. > << First, according to Tibetan Buddhism, most ordinary > humans do not _have_ a "causal body." Or at least, one > that is individualized.>> > > Well then, here is one more difference between > Theosophy and Tibetan Buddhism (makes me wonder > why Blavatsky felt the need to go against her > Tibetan Teachers so much). I don't think she did. She, and even Taimini (who gets much wrong), claims the higher bodies are undeveloped. Buddhism would acknowledge that one cannot get what one does not have virtually. > > Speaking for myself, I have found from out-of-body > experiences that there seems to be a "body" of some > kind on each plane. This is in accord with the AB/CWL > model as well as G de Purucker. My "causal" body or > whatever we want to call it, is the one that I > seem to have when focusing on the causal plane (4th > plane up). I take the "causal" part mainly on faith > as I have no personal experience of it actually causing > anything. There are two criterion, according to Tantric Buddhism, that conclusively indicate whether or not one has contacted the causal plane and/or have a causal body or an activated causal body. First, in the development of conscious presence one can no longer be hypnotized or be susceptible to other forms of suggestibility (psychedelic trip is mind amplifier but amplifies that mind's on-going inner associative linkages of suggestion). Second, one no longer experiences dreamless sleep. Instead, a lucent state of awareness like a formless samadhi is experienced. If these two are not realized, it is fantasy. > > > << Only Buddhas have the causal body (karana > sarira). The causal body is the body of self-origination > or the absolute or dharmadhatu. This is the Vajra-Body.>> > > As I understand it, the Vajra-body is pretty much > equivalent to the subtle body of an Adept -- it is > created consciously and its use constitutes the > dreaded M word. "Subtle body" in which system? The Sanskrit for the causal body in Buddhism is karana sarira. The Sanskrit for the subtle body is suksma sarira. The Sanskrit for the gross body is sthula sarira. The causal body becomes the dharmakaya, the subtle body of a Buddha is the sambhogakaya, and the incarnate/manifestation body of a Buddha is the nirmana kaya (transfigured stula sarira). The causal body of a Buddha is not "created consciously," it IS consciousness as the creator of all else. I think you are confusing causal with mental body. More on this later... Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:43:49 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Some Responses >>It is reasoned that there must be a truth, one truth. Why? It is logical, fits experience, accounts for the universal order we can see.>> Actually, Mahayana Buddhism postulates two truths. According to the Doctrine of Two Truths, there is an absolute truth that cannot be put into words (esoteric) and a relative truth that can be put into words (exoteric). This is just to confuse Randy a bit more. >> If theosophy, like any other useful system of thought, has anything of value to say, the essential elements must be able to be clearly articulated with common language and the proofs made obvious. My feeling is that if you are saying that theosophy cannot do this then I am saying it has nothing of value to offer other than mental calisthenics.>> You make a good point, but the articulation of Theosophy has already been done ad nauseum. Check out Quest or TUP. << Please indulge me and describe as best you can one thought, principle, tenet, whatever you might call it, that you have gleaned from theosophy that you would consider to be truth, or real close to it. You can even use those words you don't think I can understand. Thanks, Randy>> Although directed to JRC, I can say that I have many. Probably the overall best is the teaching about the cosmic planes given in the Secret Doctrine. Why? Because it gives verbal/mental expression to experiences that I have that are difficult to explain otherwise. Randy, as a newbie you need to understand that not all Theosophists agree on just what Theosophy teaches us. For example, I disagree with Dallas on a number of issues. Dallas writes: <> which shows that he is still working out his shadow problems and is caught up in the wonders of good and evil that to me are all in the human mind. I am a Theosophist, and yet I disagree with the entire thrust of what Dallas says in the above quote. Its no wonder that you can become confused when long-time Theosophists can't even agree. For example, I would challenge Dallas to find me one of nature's laws that can be "broken." If he can do so, then I would have to question what good any such "law" is. In my book, nature's laws cannot ever be broken but rather they have either beneficial or nasty repercussions to them. The primary natural law is to do "this" and good things will happen while to do "that" and bad things will happen. Its called the law of karma and it cannot be broken, but it can be transcended. The fact that we all think differently is, I think , the real power and beauty of Theosophy. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:30:12 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Maureen: choked by modernity Thank you Maureen. That should keep a person busy for a spell. The observation in one section that modern humans leave little time or quiet opportunity for reflection is so true. Remove the radio, tv, computers and lights and we would be spending plenty of time thinking/meditating/contemplating...and interacting on a personal level. We would be creating and searching, not just taking. It is what humans were faced with for eons before the modern era. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:53:54 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Jerry:hung up Thank you Jerry. I still really like the idea that there is one truth, ineffable or not. Perhaps theosophy is a way to get there, I don't know. If theosophy is more like a method, than a doctrine, then all the discordancy is understandable. It would not be good to be content with disagreement however if truth is the goal. I'm reminded of Christendom: hundreds of sects all following the same book, all supposedly having harnassed the truth, and all supposed to be tolerant of one another. I agree with your understanding of natural law. But I think you and Dallas have only a semantic problem. Your view can be the only right one so Dallas must be misunderstood since he is always right too. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 02:18:02 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: prescient student ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Thursday, November 18, 1999 1:44 PM > Subject: Re: Randy to Alan: the prescient student > Alan, ok let's try one central idea to theosophy, karma. > > Now you can convince others by mentioning this gospel of how the great > guru sage Randy discovered karma while in the spiritual desolation between > Bible thumping and theosophy. I doubt it :0) > > My questions are: > Why do theosophists believe karma is a law governing this life? It comes with The Book(s) by Blavatsky and her successors. > Second, why do they believe it works beyond this life? Because (mostly) they believe in reincarnation. > Third, who invented it and why? Much of HPB's work is clearly derived from Buddhist and Hindu sources, which teach this doctrine. As to who invented it, we are unable to tell, as the *extant* source material is itself either very ancient or has internal evidence to show that it is derived from even more ancient sources. This is why so many Sanskrit or Sanskrit-derived terms are used. > > Give me the real simple short version and then I'll pursue further that which > is troubling. I hope this is real simple short enough for now. > > Thanks, Randy My pleasure (but maybe not everybody's). Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:53:13 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Alan: Blavatsky Thank you. That was short and sweet. >Am I clear then that theosophists believe in this doctrine because it was advocated by Blavatsky? >If so, why would people in pursuit of truth lean on another person rather than dig within to find their own treasure? >Is not the lesson from history that we should not trust, rely upon or have faith in another regarding the spiritual? My experience is that since ultimately everyone has their own best interests at heart, not that of of others as a priority, we should carefully measure everything and depend upon our own conclusions. >I have the feeling that most theosophists are not merely queuing up behind Blavatsky to see what they believe, but are using her as a source for consideration. If so, what else convinces them of karma and its origin? Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:17:49 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Randy to Jerry:hung up Nov 19th Randy did you ever hear of the 9 blind men who tried to describe the same elephant ? Its an old Indian story, but gives an idea of our problem. No I'm not "always right." I just speak for the things I have learned and thought about. I also speak with a certain strength o conviction, and really can't help that. But there are scads of things I know nothing about, except that they too are a part of this "WHOLE" and therefore they share in us an we in them -- the law of interpenetration and force-fields seems to apply in various dimensions, but always according to regular principles and laws. Many seem to me to be swimming in a sea of uncertainty -- ell there are things that are certain" 1 They are there. 2. The sea is there. 3. They need each other. 4. Various kinds of relations between them are seen to be present. 5. If one is a human, then having a mind he can start thinking about the situation and noting recurring events and from those deduce "laws, analogies, and conclusions." The possibility o becoming wiser or of remaining static are options. This raises point 6. Every human chooses. 7. They advance or retard or vegetate according to those choices. It is always interesting to observe how everyone is progressing. Best wishes, Dal Dallas -----Original Message----- > From: WLR7D@aol.com [mailto:WLR7D@aol.com] > Date: Thursday, November 18, 1999 3:54 PM > Subject: Randy to Jerry:hung up Thank you Jerry. I still really like the idea that there is one truth, ineffable or not. Perhaps theosophy is a way to get there, I don't know. If theosophy is more like a method, than a doctrine, then all the discordancy is understandable. It would not be good to be content with disagreement however if truth is the goal. I'm reminded of Christendom: hundreds of sects all following the same book, all supposedly having harnassed the truth, and all supposed to be tolerant of one another. I agree with your understanding of natural law. But I think you and Dallas have only a semantic problem. Your view can be the only right one so Dallas must be misunderstood since he is always right too. Randy --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.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: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 03:51:27 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Randy to Alan: Blavatsky ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Friday, November 19, 1999 12:53 PM > Subject: Randy to Alan: Blavatsky > Thank you. That was short and sweet. > >Am I clear then that theosophists believe in this doctrine because it was > advocated by Blavatsky? No. Many theosophists believe it because having read Blavatsky, they find themselves convinced. > >If so, why would people in pursuit of truth lean on another person rather > than dig within to find their own treasure? The best theosophists use the teachings they study as a guide to digging within, etc. > >Is not the lesson from history that we should not trust, rely upon or have > faith in another regarding the spiritual? My experience is that since > ultimately everyone has their own best interests at heart, not that of of > others as a priority, we should carefully measure everything and depend upon > our own conclusions. Yes. > >I have the feeling that most theosophists are not merely queuing up behind > Blavatsky to see what they believe, but are using her as a source for > consideration. If so, what else convinces them of karma and its origin? Ah. In that matter you will need to ask each theosophists individually. In line with your thinking, I can only speak for me! > Randy > 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: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 10:08:15 +0000 From: "mika perala" Subject: More Western Lunacy... Hello! Few years ago I was in the similar situation like Randy that I insisted our local 'theosophical gurus' should speak 'ordinary' peoples language if they want to share anything valuable with those people. I think that it is up to what the 'seeker' wants from a theosophist, advice how to live life better (if any theosophist is an expert with this...)- in which case it would be idiotic to start mumbling atma- buddhi-manas and few manasaputra on top of it - or - explanations about theosophical philosophies or different type of matter than physical which means a need for special vocabulary. Without that vocabulary given explanations would be very allegorical or symbolical and simplistic. This makes any sense? Back to lurking... mika perala Finland From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 07:40:32 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Jerry:hung up Dallas--My reference to you always being right was just a little humor. Always appreciate your thoughts though. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 07:43:57 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Alan: Your view Speak for you if you would please. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 08:00:07 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Mike: the lurker Good point Mike. At this point my interest lies more with how a particular philosophy is rooted in the physical, the scientific, the empirical. From this foundation-provided it's properly gounded-I will venture into the more abstract. Have you been there, done that? If so, give me some leads please. Thanks, Randy PS Are you a badminton player? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 07:31:14 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 17, 1999 JRC wrote to Randy, >>[Randy] They have no obligation, nor feel any, to share the truths with >> the rest of humanity. > >[JRC] Just as you have no obligation, nor feel any, to share your knowledge of >driving with a four year old. Would it not largely be a waste of time, and >far more likely to produce injury and death than any benefit? There is a difference between knowledge and action. The knowledge one would give to a child regarding driving is only dangerous when the child prematurely puts that knowledge into action - but, if taught correctly, that risk is minimized. Obviously, people DO give knowledge about driving to children - what about all those fake little steering wheel toys that parents buy for their children? I am one who - although I have no children - believe that a parent should offer knowledge about driving to a child BEFORE they get behind the wheel. It doesn't matter that the knowledge is not COMPLETE knowledge - as with the driving wheel child seat - but it introduces the child to the concept and then the child takes the concept, absorbs it, and turns it into action in later years. So, yes, I believe we DO have an obligation to provide information about things whether or not a person is actually ready to carry out the action. Same with sex education, theosophy, money budgeting, marriage classes, theories of life, grocery shopping, cooking, reading, playing an instrument, etc. . .. >How >very strange that people have no problem accepting that it will take at >least 6 years, considerable expense, often a life close to poverty, complete >focus and dedication (and usually a good deal of soul-searching), simply to >earn an MBA Many social justice organizations and other individuals DO HAVE A PROBLEM with the fact that SOME people are required to live a "life close to poverty" in order to earn a degree. This economic suffering weeds out many who cannot afford to earn a degree - it is not right and it is very elitist. Only those who know how to seek economic loans and find their way through complex paperwork can manage to secure enough money to go to school - in addition, those who already HAVE the money (via parents or other contacts) DO NOT live lives of near "poverty" when going to school. Education should be a right, not a priviledge - and that education includes theosophy. No one, not one of us, can POSSIBLY KNOW when someone is ready or not for theosophical teachings. Just because they do not meet one's individual standards does not mean knowledge should be withheld. It is just plain arrogant to believe one has such a right to judge and discern the inward capabilities of a person in understanding theosophical teachings. If the person is not ready or does not welcome the teachings, they will leave and our task of passing on information to that particular person will come to an end. It is, whether we like it or not, implicit in all literature of spirituality that we do, indeed, have an obligation to pass on what we have learned - that is why we must be SURE that our knowledge teaches compassion, understanding, and love - if taught correctly, what others do with that knowledge will benefit all. If one feels they are NOT READY to teach, fine. But the excuse by one who believes they have the answers, then goes further to believe he/she dooes not have to teach because he/she does not feel a person ready is simply using their own self as a universal standard. We seem to forget that at some time, somewhere, someone or something took a chance on us, and taught us anyway. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 07:45:32 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 17, 1999 JRC wrote: >Tell me what science or philosophy *doesn't* think a beginner is an >idiot compared to those who have studied it for years. Well, theosophy for one. If someone believes that theosophy IS the Mahatmas, HPB, and such, then I can see where the "idiot" concept comes from. But pure theosophy, undiluted by different human interpretations, thinks no one an "idiot." Compassion and Love do not encompass the concept of "idiot." Except for conservatives - as there are exceptions to everything. Conservatives are idiots. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 08:00:30 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: The handmaid's tale Grigor wrote: >> Minsk isn't safe! Specially on a Saturday >> night with all those drunk nationalistic >> Albanians singing the Internationale >> and ruckusing in Belarusian turf. Its >> like the neo-Nazis I saw while visiting >> a breeder plant in Idaho Falls on business. "Nationalistic Albanians,""Belarusian turf" and "Neo-Nazis." Hmmmm. Sounds like nationalism is an attitude that many people ascribe to - Americans included. Idahoans tend to downplay the neo-Nazi movement and swear that neo-Nazis do not share their views. However, as a white woman with a black best friend, I have to disagree. The treatment I receive in Idaho when I am with my African-American friend as opposed to treatment received with white acquaintaces is quite different. Idaho is a classic example of people pretending something doesn't exist, all the while, this 'thing that doesn't exist' grows and grows and begins to leave seeds in people's minds. One of my philosophy professors, initially from Boston, angry at the quality of essays handed in, exasperatingly bellowed out "Do you all want to be darkies standing on a street corner?" Idaho, and places like it, if not confronted, truly are "breeder plants." And I shudder to think that I have to agree with something that guy named Grigor said. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 08:07:26 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 17, 1999 Alan the Evil wrote: >Kym seems to cope with Idaho, though .... Hmmm. Can't figure out if that is a compliment or an insult. . ..! >(Even if she doesn't write to me any more [sob] ) My grandma, saint as she was, told me to always keep the "mystery" in a relationship. So, see Alan, my ignoring you is logical. Now, don't you feel better now. Love ya. . .too much, I think. You can always push my buttons. Not good. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 07:09:34 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Some Responses Nov 20 Dear Gerry and Randy: I am looking at the end of Jerry's response (quoted immediately below) and would like to comment after that below its reproduction (and also make some insertions in it) Dal ====QUOTED ============ -----Original Message----- > From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@iximd.com] > Date: Thursday, November 18, 1999 1:44 PM > Subject: Some Responses . . . . . . snip . . . . . Randy, as a newbie you need to understand that not all Theosophists agree on just what Theosophy teaches us. For example, I disagree with Dallas on a number of issues. Dallas writes: <> which shows that he is still working out his shadow problems and is caught up in the wonders of good and evil that to me are all in the human mind. I am a Theosophist, and yet I disagree with the entire thrust of what Dallas says in the above quote. Its no wonder that you can become confused when long-time Theosophists can't even agree. For example, I would challenge Dallas to find me one of nature's laws that can be "broken." DTB Quite right. I cannot. I can only short-cut a lengthy explanation by saying as I did that we can deliberately or ignorantly CEASE FROM OBSERVING THE LAWS OF NATURE. A knowledge of those LAWS I hold to be innate in the innermost (SPIRITUAL) consciousness OF EVERY ONE OF US. As we live, (I would say) if our desire TO KNOW is sharpened by a sense of the importance in knowing by us, personally, these things -- we are impelled from within not only by curiosity, but by the challenge to KNOW OURSELVES -- It is a recreation in our present lives of the Hermetic: 'Man know thyself" -- which is a most powerful echo from motives and methods we pursued in our past lives and those searches we prosecuted then. (Excuse my making such an assumption and characterization.) ------------------------------------ If he can do so, then I would have to question what good any such "law" is. In my book, nature's laws cannot ever be broken but rather they have either beneficial or nasty repercussions to them. DTB Jerry is quite right in this expression ------------------------------------ The primary natural law is to do "this" and good things will happen while to do "that" and bad things will happen. Its called the law of karma and it cannot be broken, but it can be transcended. The fact that we all think differently is, I think , the real power and beauty of Theosophy. DTB through our individual line of life's meditation (our motives, in general) we start Nature's reaction to all we do (that "reaction" is called, broadly, "Karma," by me). I would say that we "transcend Karma" (or rather it no longer is sent into motion, personally because of selfishness) when we learn how to harmonize our lives with Nature entirely. Which, to my way of thinking, is to become a Mahatma -- one who KNOWS all that Nature is, and what her purposes are. We then comply to the letter with those (I mean nature's laws, rules and purposes), and yet, we do not become thoughtless and impotent automatons, but rather we graduate into becoming those intelligent forces and powers for the good of all that are described in THE SECRET DOCTRINE as being responsible for the oversight of parts of Natural evolution. I mean that They (the Mahatmas -- Masters of wisdom -- employ that knowledge and compassion and discrimination to act for and in Nature as one of her devoted SERVANTS. I find in (and from what I understand) of their writings, that the Masters of Wisdom seem to express this attitude concerning themselves and their work for Nature and for Mankind. As an example, let us look at our own little Universe -- our physical bodies, and the several "principles" composed of different spheres of intelligent "lives" (jivas) which are involved in its being. We don't yet CONSCIOUSLY know all the ramifications throughout the world around us, that draws specific atoms and molecules of "matter" to us (through air, water, food, ideas, feelings, urges, impulses, etc). Many of these pass through us and are not retained, but are returned to Nature, PLUS whatever impression of our CREATIVE power that is active (and impressed on them) while they are "in" us. Some are incorporated (and impressed by) into our Psychological selves for a longer or shorter period. Next, physically, (it is said that the human body changes to the extent of nearly 97% annually, and in 7 years medical science asserts that physiologically it (the body alone) changes COMPLETELY, and is replaced by a new set of fundamental atoms and molecules. But our identity as CONSCIOUSNESS and sense of EGOITY remains unitary. This opens a whole field of inquiry and research -- not just physically, but metaphysically in the areas of psychology and consciousness. We can question: why does Nature arrange this kind of environment for us -- a Unitary Consciousness ,with its "roots" in the Universal SPIRIT (perhaps only a figment of our imagination at this point) ? [ At least that is how I would express it, Jerry might say it differently, or contradict and challenge this statement -- I am not sure. ] Any way, this illustrates both the complexity of self-study, and the framing of common vocabularies (how the words express ever more accurately ideas that are common). seems to be our present effort. Best wishes as always in our common search for meaning. Dallas =============================== DTB adds: Jerry is quite right. I think that the difference is in our use of words, and the way in which we express ideas. The actual laws of Nature (called KARMA in general, because that is an expression of the reaction that we receive as humans, when our 'motives' -- good or bad -- come home to us) cannot be "broken." We can act individually and selfishly, disregarding others' rights and integrity. The violation then is that of the integrity and the cooperative (law aspect) of Nature, which demands that we all act CONSIDERATELY in regard to others at all times. No one is allowed the luxury" of being a tyrant forever. Hence the idea of a Universal Brotherhood is emphasized as a first principle (or OBJECT) in the Theosophical Movement. As I see it, and as I read Theosophical ideas, the whole thrust of Nature, and her so very intimate sensitivity in all that we are and do, is a vast urge towards conjoint work and the sharing of any progress in UNDERSTANDING her that we may make, with others who are also on the same kind of Path, in their own way, individually. Brotherhood and compassion are the great keys to be seen, grasped and applied. Best wishes, again Dal From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 12:10:02 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Responses >>In a lecture given at the TS at Wheaton in 1981, in answer to a question, HH said two things. One was that the whole universe could be viewed as a life review process.>> In a very real sense, this is true. <> OK. I was referring to his book on Dreaming, Death & Dying where scientists specifically asked him about the lack of an after-death life review, and his answer was that Lamas simply hadn't seen such in the normal after-death processes. Austin's new book on Zen and the Brain states that in a major study, only 11% of NDEs reported a life review. I once had an intense experience where I reviewed an incident in which I had inflicted emotional injury on another person, and I felt that pain myself to the point of crying. This taught me a hard lesson about karma. << I don't think she did. She, and even Taimini (who gets much wrong), claims the higher bodies are undeveloped. Buddhism would acknowledge that one cannot get what one does not have virtually.>> I would agree in-so-much-as my own experience is one of development rather than creation. But Blavasky has the causal body or Reincarnating Ego as working to reincarnate everyone whether developed or not. The development, I think, is more in the nature of becoming consciously aware of it. << There are two criterion, according to Tantric Buddhism, that conclusively indicate whether or not one has contacted the causal plane and/or have a causal body or an activated causal body. First, in the development of conscious presence one can no longer be hypnotized or be susceptible to other forms of suggestibility (psychedelic trip is mind amplifier but amplifies that mind's on-going inner associative linkages of suggestion). Second, one no longer experiences dreamless sleep. Instead, a lucent state of awareness like a formless samadhi is experienced. If these two are not realized, it is fantasy.>> I tend to agree here, that these could serve as barometers. I personally have only had an entire night of dreamless lucid samadhi-like sleep once, many years ago. I can remember it like it was last night. And yes, I always attributed it to being on the causal plane. As a general rule of thumb, I use the idea that if a dream has form and emotion, its probably on the astral, if it has form and is emotionless its probably on the mental, and if its clear or lucid but formless its probably on the causal. <<"Subtle body" in which system?...>> Good question. There seem to be an abundance of subtle bodies. As I understand it, the term "subtle body" is used in a general sense, like aura. It can be divided into sub-divisions or bodies like the astral, mental, or causal. Tibetans have a Vajra (diamond- like because it survives death) body but also a rainbow body. Gatso talks about a dream body in the sense of the vehicle we use for dreams, but I think that we can have dreams with either the astral or mental body. Blavatsky mentions at least four, one of which is created consciously by the Adept in order to do astral traveling. Personally, I think her descriptions of bodies are misleading, and I think that it makes more sense to simply say that we have a body of material and senses corresponding to the substance of each major cosmic plane. As G de Purucker points out, consciousness on any plane requires a vehicle or body, the two forming a basic duality. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 12:48:00 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: The handmaid's tale In a message dated 11/20/99 8:59:38 AM Central Standard Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > Idaho, and places like it, if not confronted, truly are "breeder plants." > > And I shudder to think that I have to agree with something that guy named > Grigor said. > By breeder plant I did not mean something that grows racists, bigots, or extremist nationalists but a nuclear facility whose sole purpose is to produce weapon's grade Plutonium. The worrisome "ists" are everywhere. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 15:11:49 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Randy to Alan: Your view ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Saturday, November 20, 1999 12:43 PM > Subject: Re: Randy to Alan: Your view > Speak for you if you would please. Randy > I already did, remember? Your questions to date have all been surrounded by caveats. Caveat is a technical term used in English to describe a particular situation, as are other words like Empirical and Pragmatic. These words are jargon, which we need to learn in order to communicate with each other. The same is true of philosophical, theological, and theosophical terms and words. If you genuiinely want to know what theosophy of any colour is about, then you will need to learn some of the terms, and read some of the literature. All of us on this list have done this, and we try to communicate our thoughts on spiritual dimensions by using some of the language. So, speaking for myself, I find that the Yetziratic basis for the Assiatic appearance, the Tzelem, or reflection, is only part of the nature of the human condition when applied to the scale of humanity, as distinct from the scale (say) of the solar system. Both the Yetziratic and the Assiatic levels are of course informed by the subtler Briatic and Atziluthic emanatory influences which, if we are prepared to examine ourselves, our motives and - most important - our destinations, will assist us to find some experiential and empirical evidence (at the subjective level of the individual) that our essential condition or essence or Yechidah is a reality which we would be foolish to deny, as it would not alter the apparent laws governing our destinies or paths. The experience of Daath can only be reached via the practice of the "higher" self-nature frim the upper face of Tiphareth, which depends upon the Yesodic foundation first being firmly built upon direct experience and practice. In short, you can't play a violin without strings, and there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. 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, 21 Nov 1999 03:33:47 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 17, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Saturday, November 20, 1999 3:07 PM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 17, 1999 > Alan the Evil wrote: > > >Kym seems to cope with Idaho, though .... > > Hmmm. Can't figure out if that is a compliment or an insult. . ..! It's a compliment. > > >(Even if she doesn't write to me any more [sob] ) > > My grandma, saint as she was, told me to always keep the "mystery" in a > relationship. So, see Alan, my ignoring you is logical. > Right. > Now, don't you feel better now. > I feel better. > Love ya. . .too much, I think. You can always push my buttons. Not good. > Now I feel no so better. Life can be very confusing. > Kym "Protestants are born in hospital. Catholics are born in sin." (TV Irish comedian). 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, 21 Nov 1999 02:56:24 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Some bomb-builders are nicer than others? Grigor wrote: >> [Kym] Idaho, and places like it, if not confronted, truly are "breeder plants." >> >> And I shudder to think that I have to agree with something that guy named >> Grigor said. >> >[Grigor] By breeder plant I did not mean something that grows racists, bigots, >or extremist nationalists but a nuclear facility whose sole purpose is >to produce weapon's grade Plutonium. The worrisome "ists" are everywhere. What?! I fail to see the link between neo-Nazis, breeder plants, Idaho Falls and plutonium. I was unaware that the plutonium manufactured in Idaho was at the behest of neo-Nazis - it seems to be more a government/military/corporate venture. Unless, of course, you assume that all government officials, military, and corporate folks are neo-Nazis. Which would mean that the Chinese, Israelis, French, North Koreans, etc. are neo-Nazis as well. Or, are you suggesting that only in Idaho are the neo-Nazis in charge of building the materials for nuclear weapons. If so, I suggest that you are giving corporate America, Idaho representatives, Idaho senators, and the Pentagon rather undeserved free rides regarding Idaho Falls. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 23:21:42 +1300 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Randy to Alan: the prescient explorer Randy, Something you said to Alan caught my attention - well, quite a few things you've been saying have done that ;-) but I was genuinely delighted to read how you discovered karma. I don't think you're the first person to have discovered new or deeper insights in a spiritual desolation. Not trying to diminish your non-firstness any further, of course, but to find something by your own efforts and experience is by far the most effective way to learn it, as you said so yourself. A few thoughts in answer to your 3 questions. I stress that these are my own opinions, of course. >Why do theosophists believe karma is a law governing this life? 1 First, I don't believe in *believing* things, if that word is taken as a doggedly-held concept, but I do see everywhere a connectedness of things, an unfolding stream of consequences of a given impetus or state, and I often see the same kinds of things resulting from the same kinds of prior conditions. There are repeated patterns of response. This is obvious in the physical world - yes, there is simple physical karma: toaster pops, toast executes parabolic path in the air, falls on floor etc - but can also be seen somewhat in relationships between people and their environment (people, etc). There are a couple of problems in thinking about this kind of thing, though: a) Word meanings - people often have different shades of meaning for words like karma, which is part of the fun of communicating in a place like this. b) Speaking of a law is fraught, too. Science has climbed out of this hole somewhat, but many people don't seem to realise fully that when a human being speaks of a law of nature, that doesn't make it some inviolable stand-alone entity. In this sense, a "law" is a mental construct or abstraction based on a certain amount of repeated experience and an intuitive sense of cohesion and rightness, whatever that means. As a trained scientist, I prefer to avoid talking about "the Law of Karma" in the rather thunderous tone that some people give it :) And yet, having said that, I sense that the *patterns* we see, and come to call laws, are in some way an *expression* of a deep connectedness in reality, a deep geometry in the hardly-fathomed (by me, anyway) spaces where I intuit that energy and consciousness interact intimately and have a completely-unfathomed common source. So what we call a law at the human level, is really a theory that has had good support sofar - and is just as vulnerable to further discovery as Newton's "laws" of motion were when relativity and quantum mechanics came along. It is not so much a question of believing or defending a "law", but rather of deepening our vision of the nature of reality, each individually on their own, at their own time. >Second, why do they believe it works beyond this life? 2 Why do people believe anything that is in a realm where we are all feeling our way? I don't know about you, but I've noticed that people often construct their belief system or world view from a combination of different sources ranging from revelation in some ancient book through to what trusted family and friends say, on to personal intuition and inward experience. And what makes it all so fascinating and hard to converse about, is that different people adopt different amounts of these ingredients. Some base all on a book, others forget books and just trust inner experience. The two extremes are prone to problems, as you are clearly aware. I find that in such relatively uncharted waters, it is best to trust all these different kinds of sources to a degree while holding a certain amount of questioning and challenge towards them. It's a neat trick. In short, we all must construct our best-effort model of reality and be prepared to revise it or even ditch it when something comes along to challenge it, whether it be new information from our physical senses or some deepening or lightening of the interior spaces of our awareness. So from that kind of understanding, I think that theosophists believe that karma operates beyond this life because of some mixture of indications from respected writers, sheer reasonableness, best understanding to date, and in some cases, experience. And it could just be what your parents said, for those who have never challenged it. There is also a sense that some principles seen in the physical world also apply in more subtle realms of being, eg a tendency towards inertia in balance with the stimulation of energy, the connectedness of things, and considering the subtle realms to exist within the same ultimate assumed field of being that physical things do, in an appropriate way. >Third, who invented it and why? 3 Probably some person - no, let's correct that - a *long sequence* of people who found themselves in some momentous journey in their life-awareness, maybe had just escaped from some constricting world-view and, in the ensuing temporary chaos and apparent spiritual desolation, formed or found a principle that seemed to connect a whole lot of experience and deepen the understanding it. Familiar? Of course! :) As for why people "invent" (they don't really) concepts like karma, I guess it's the ever-human impulse to understand, to make sense of one's universe, to explore - to become that which we have the potential to be. Well, that's a not-so-short answer. Thanks for sharing that part of your story. This is what this discussion list is *really* about - one of the reasons. Oh, and as for proof, I'm not sure what you think it is, but to me this is another word like "law" that does not always serve us well. In a mathematical sense, I see it as a set of relationships adhering to some adopted or perceived principle, that connect two things, where we decide to adopt one if the other is given. If you can find the structure and it is connected properly, then we may deign to call it a proof. In a scientific sense, it is obtaining evidence *and* attempting to match that evidence with the results expected from some theory or understanding. We often try one theory after another until we get a best fit - to date. That's where intuition and sheer creativity are so important. Sometimes, the intuitive leap of insight happens first and supporting evidence is only found well afterwards, as in some of Einstein's work. But asking for proof in theosophy, a field where most human minds are reaching to their limits, is actually outrageous ;) Far more so than I suspect you initially realised, for the simple reason that the sensory apparatus for gathering any evidence in the first place is rudimentary or downright dormant in most people, and the conceptual base from which to form an adequate theory is probably just as embryonic! So the request for proof is, in many cases, to match the non-percievable with the inconceivable! It's a bit like travelling into a new country, coming across a wide river, and asking the first explorers who have just returned from the other side in their boats where the bridge is. "Where is the bridge? You mean there's no bridge?" :) I want to find that bridge too and I will, if I have anything to do with it, but I just think it'll take a little while. And this is just one of humanity's interesting joint projects. Best wishes, Randy. Murray ----- Original Message ----- Anyway, pretty cool huh. When I stumbled on theosophy(after recently--a couple of months ago- having been reawakened by witnessing what psychics could do) and saw the concept I was pretty irked that you guys stole my idea. Actually it is one of the things that really intrigued me causing me to look further. Nothing like coming up with ideas on your own to create a higher level of surety. Now you can convince others by mentioning this gospel of how the great guru sage Randy discovered karma while in the spiritual desolation between Bible thumping and theosophy. My questions are: Why do theosophists believe karma is a law governing this life? Second, why do they believe it works beyond this life? Third, who invented it and why? Give me the real simple short version and then I'll pursue further that which is troubling. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 08:02:03 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Kym:conservatives Would you please explain your comment about "conservatives"? Theosophical? Political? Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 08:16:58 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Kym: politically incorrect Bias exists in race relations because different races behave(in general) in ways that may be objectionable to one another. It's a birds of a feather principle. In some cases prejudice is well deserved. In others it is unjust. I know it is politically correct to pretend there are no differences, or if there are it is the blame of society, not the individual or the race, but where does this end? Is not the theosophical thing that we are individually responsible for creating our own destiny? Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 08:41:40 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Alan: obfuscation Cute. My experience in life, in academia, in business, in professional life, in research, in teaching, in personal relations, in family, etc., is that when a question is not answered directly, and instead the questioner is told they are too unschooled to understand, the answerer does not really have the answer. So I take your answer to mean you do not know why you believe in karma(if you do). That is fine with me, I am simply trying to determine what substance lies behind beliefs...a substance I could explain simply to my children or to friends who yearn for some answers or a starting point. Thanks anyway, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 08:58:12 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Murray: wisdom I agree with all you have said. Very wise reply you have given. Some of the words I use on this list are meant simply to create challenge and flush out efficiently what might be there. "Proof" and "belief" are such words. I understand they may be fighting words to some, absurd to others,(this provides information to me in itself), or a bite by someone who has it all figured out. Who knows, maybe God is on this list. Gotta check. Thanks for taking the time to respond, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:04:57 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Some bomb-builders are nicer than others? In a message dated 11/21/99 3:55:40 AM Central Standard Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > What?! I fail to see the link between neo-Nazis, breeder plants, Idaho > Falls and plutonium. I was unaware that the plutonium manufactured in > Idaho was at the behest of neo-Nazis - it seems to be more a > government/military/corporate venture. > I made no such link. As ususal. you missed the point of the post. There are extremist groups hacking such facilities. GET IT? The computer is the terrorist and intelligence-gathering weapon of choice for the 21st century. For example, the neo-NAZI group, Pioneer Fund (funders of the Bell Curve - ask you Black friend about THAT book), founded in 1937, whose leaders were indicted in the 40s for sedition and spying for the NAZIs, and whose current worth is 23 billion dollars, has one of the largest private data bases on selected US citizens. In 1994, during the Prop 187 (SOS - Save Our State) elections, a former Naturaliztion and Immigration commissioner, Alan Nelson (co-author of the Prop 187), allowed Pioneer Fund to patch in the California DMV/Franchise Tax Board database. People were tracked, harassed, credit histories tampered with, end order to affect the outcome of the election. Most recently, they are suspected of hacking into both government (nuclear, chemical, biologic level 5) and private facilities (chemical, nuclear, etc.) to test their ability to cause a toxic disaster. Renegade Communist factions are doing same. Some group in Serbian recently hacked into the Idaho Falls reactor for same purpose as did a Libyan group before. Some one recently hacked the Union Carbide facility in West Virginia. They are all only testing now. But think of it as feasibility studies for future forms of warfare or terrorism. You don't have to be, any longer, a nuclear power or risk getting caught getting bomb components and smuggling them into a country. All you need, big time operator or small terroist group, is ability to hack such sites that would cause similar death and destruction. Your government, NATO, and Russian are currently building defense nets that include ability to tie into commercial nets for intelligence gathering. It is a twofold process. The first phase is called "data matching." Usually, using a SS # all information that is asociated with that number is gathered. Due to the technology, it is an astronomical increase in the amount. When KGB files were raided, people were shocked to learn that it had a mile-long facility full of manila folder files on citizens. But that is nothing compared to info out there on you. Shorter than the time it would take to flip a page of one of those files, ten sectors (storing thousands of such files) could be collected and acessed in 10 milliseconds. Data matching provides such info as all purchases, how purcahsed (is there a pattern to when you use check or credit card - maybe running low at end of mouth?), websites visited, credit history, typical days when shopping is done, car (color, description, and mechanical condition) of car you drive, typical schedule you have day to day, even dozens of pictures of you from the digital security cameras at gas station pumps Walmart, or local supermarket. Then, using new powerful marketing software originally designed to predict accurately market and consumer trends, a powerful psychological and behavioral portrait is made of you indicating your character, routines, typical haunts, various preferences, and what you are likely to do in certain situations. Lately, police forces have bought this originally marketing software. They can have an electronic stakeout. There is currently a woman being tried in thesouthern California courts. She worked for the Anaheim police dept. Using this new technology, she gathered info of predictable schedule and routine of an abortion doctor who worked at Planned Parenthood. She gave the info to a friend in her church. The friend turned out to be a pro-life extremist who used it to track down and kill the doctor. Last year, using same marketing software, Nashville police and TBI were able to arrest 700 felons at large by tieing into commercial nets (with info of who comes into stores when or gets gas -people are predictable) plus matching their criminal files to welfare rolls (and when and where such things as food staps issued to them were used) to apprehend them. Recently, after a former policeman used same technology to map out his ex-wife's routines as provided by databases, tracked her down, and killed her, an internal audit led to the disciplining of 45 officers of the LA dept. for use of this technology for personal reasons. While you have some limited means of protection from the federal government, you have none from state, local government, political groups (extremist or otherwise), foreign governments (oh yes, they collect data on us citizens), or busniess. The 1974 Privacy Act only gives you after-the-fact means of seeking redress against only the federal government (mainly IRS and FBI). The security and safety concerns are such that your DoD proposed having computer technology under military control besides having their own use of it against others. And since I travel almost all the time, I see neo-Nazi types of groups everywhere. The Russian FSB and MVD predict, as does the US counterparts CIA and FBI, that a major nuclear, chemical, or biological disaster will occur in a NATO country within five years and it will be caused by a terrorist group hacking facilities. In anticipation, the Pentagon recently upgraded computer security. It then hired hackers to hack it. The hackers succeeded 86% of the time with the attacked computer not even detecting the penetration 53% of the time, according to the report issued by the NCSC and SRI Labs under Peter G. Neumann. You should learn to read better if you hope for a career in Philosophy or the Justice System. Both involve skills in close-reading. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:12:33 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Kym: politically incorrect In a message dated 11/21/99 7:17:21 AM Central Standard Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > Bias exists in race relations because different races behave(in general) in > ways that may be objectionable to one another. What do you mean by race? According to the science magazine Discover, there is biologically no such thing as race. The genetic difference between any two randomly selected humans on the planet is 2%. Thus, as surgeons have well known a long time, a black donor may be a closer match than any of a white person's relatives. As with the race of dogs, there may be breeds but no separate races: a collie can still get it on with a retriever. A breed is a product of isolating a breeding population. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:27:37 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Murray: wisdom In a message dated 11/21/99 8:01:01 AM Central Standard Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > "Proof" and "belief" are such > words. I understand they may be fighting words to some, absurd to > others,(this provides information to me in itself), or a bite by someone > who > has it all figured out. I've watched this for awhile and will say this. You couldn't define your terms when pressed to do so. You had a loose way of talking about science, reasoning, evidence, and such that indicated they were being used as glorified jargon. You have yet to provide a definition of what you mean by reason, experience, evidence. I showed reason is equivocal by drwing out its various meanings. The whole cottage industry of epistemology runs on the question of what is evidence and what is not, and why (on what reasonable criteria) is such a line drawn. You and Kym like using the word "proof" a lot when its not clear that you mean anything more than a very strong personal conviction/prejudice, epistemic confidence, or strong hope. Physical science hardly ever gives an absolute proof except in falsification of a theory when what it predicts does not happen. Then we KNOW it false. But unfalsified theories, no matter how long they have survived testing, are not KNOWN to be true. Technically, a "proof" in contemporary science and mathematics is that for which there is a (mechanical) decision procedure (like the completeness of first order propositional logic). I see Dalva using reason as competently as you. Your appeals to reason and experience seem to be a dogmatic foreclosure on your part, especially since you do not seem to want to get into defining your concepts of these favorite terms of yours. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:39:25 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Breeder Plant quibble (was: The handmaid's tale) Your definition is a tad off. A breeder plant is a nuclear facility that produces both power and weapons grade plutonium. (Note that the largely correct reports of high school students designing nuclear bombs have been exclusively URANIUM bombs; plutonium bombs are FAR more complex, and there are poisons widely available, mercury salts for example, that make plutonium look like lemonade). Bart Lidofsky Hazarapet@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 11/20/99 8:59:38 AM Central Standard Time, > kymsmith@micron.net writes: > > > Idaho, and places like it, if not confronted, truly are "breeder plants." > > > > And I shudder to think that I have to agree with something that guy named > > Grigor said. > > > By breeder plant I did not mean something that grows racists, bigots, > or extremist nationalists but a nuclear facility whose sole purpose is > to produce weapon's grade Plutonium. The worrisome "ists" are everywhere. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:44:24 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Randy to Kym: politically incorrect My contention is that if the adjective "political" is necessary, then it is not correct (and note that there are many things labelled "politically correct" for which the adjective is NOT necessary). Bart Lidofsky WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > > Bias exists in race relations because different races behave(in general) in > ways that may be objectionable to one another. It's a birds of a feather > principle. In some cases prejudice is well deserved. In others it is unjust. > I know it is politically correct to pretend there are no differences, or if > there are it is the blame of society, not the individual or the race, but > where does this end? Is not the theosophical thing that we are individually > responsible for creating our own destiny? Randy > > --- > You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: BARTL@SPRYNET.COM > List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 12:43:48 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Breeder Plant quibble (was: The handmaid's tale) In a message dated 11/21/99 9:41:36 AM Central Standard Time, bartl@sprynet.com writes: > plutonium bombs are FAR more > complex I don't know about high school students. But are you referring to the difference between a fission bomb and a fission-fusion-fission bomb or some other distinction? Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 16:43:48 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor: Race There may be even a smaller difference between humans and chimps genetically than the two percent you mention between humans. Is a chimp different than a human even though there is the close genotypic relationship? I think so. If you don't want to call the difference between blacks and whites race, call it something else. The point is there is a difference phenotypically and evidenced by what is physically and socially obviously evident between the two. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 16:56:48 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor: more The analogy of dog breeds does not work to show that all humans are identical. Dog breeds can indeed do whoopee with one another, but there are distinct differences among the breeds. These differences are a direct result of the expression of genetics. Some breeds are notorious biters, some love the water, some will voraciously kill and eat cats(Alan, if you don't straighten up I'm going to send one of those over to your house.), others are very loyal, some are natural herders, while others are lovers(platonic please). People choose a breed because of these differences. They have a preference of one over the other. Similarly, people will sometimes choose other people of a certain "type"(boy will you have fun with that label now). If this were not true, why do blacks primarily associate with blacks, whites with whites, yellows with yellows, browns with browns, purples with purples, etc.? Do we really have a point of disagreement? Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 17:16:23 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor: definitions I have not defined words such as proof, reason, logic, evidence and the like because I am not interested in a debate on semantics. If I ask someone for proof or evidence, I am happy for them to provide it in whatever form they choose. This gives them the option of not being hamstrung by my definitions. They can create their own. I just would like to know on what basis they make whatever assertion they make. I'd also just like to see people say something of substance regarding theosophy. Make some assertions, some claims, something other than playing cute with words. (Has Clinton infected theosophists with the what does is mean bug?) How bout something that can be falsified, if you will, Grigor. You also never answered my question about whether an atom is a perpetual motion machine as asserted by one on this list. Does this mean you don't know? Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 17:47:11 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor: Race In a message dated 11/21/99 3:44:16 PM Central Standard Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > There may be even a smaller difference between humans and chimps genetically > than the two percent you mention between humans. Nope, this is incorrect. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 17:50:26 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor: Race In a message dated 11/21/99 3:44:16 PM Central Standard Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > socially obviously evident between the > two. Randy Oh, so if social differences are inherited, why don't blacks retain their ancient languages and cultures? This sounds like that Bell Curve crap again so ably criticized and torn apart by the scientific community. Stephen Jay Gould's review of the book was beautiful. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 18:00:47 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor: more In a message dated 11/21/99 3:57:05 PM Central Standard Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > The analogy of dog breeds does not work to show that all humans are > identical. Dog breeds can indeed do whoopee with one another, but there are > > distinct differences among the breeds. These differences are a direct > result > of the expression of genetics. Wrong again. Breeds are a relflection of genetics and environment (mainly isolation - with dogs, purposeful isolation with respect to reporduction). The whole phrase "direct result of the expression of genetics" is so ambiguous and equivocal that I could write a dissertation on it. Leaving aside the word "genetics" (btw, didn't you mean "genes" since genetics is the study of genes), just the part of the phrase that goes "direct result of the expression" reads, in context, like that first year graduate student disease called "the assertively stated position qualified by a disavowed retraction." Instead of saying "direct result of genes," you thus, as per our hermeneutical hypothesis, fudge by adding "expression." Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 18:22:46 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor: definitions In a message dated 11/21/99 4:17:03 PM Central Standard Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > I have not defined words such as proof, reason, logic, evidence and the like > because I am not interested in a debate on semantics. There are two assumptions made in this statement that I would argue to be false. One is that issues of semantics are completely separate from issues of substance, that meaning and reality or the nominal and the real are two separate spheres so that linguistic knowedge of one's language(s) and extra-linguistic of reality are separate. That assumption is false. So, contrary to what seems to be your second assumption, definition is not a matter of mere semantics. Science and philosophy recognize real definition (defining the substance by an explanatory grasp of the real thing in itself, whether a theorem or a physical object), ostensive definition (showing an example of what one is talking about), or nominal definition (which you seem to mistakenly assume the other two can be reduced to). > If I ask someone for proof or evidence, I am happy for them to provide it in > > whatever form they choose. This gives them the option of not being > hamstrung > by my definitions. They can create their own. Fine, great. I just would like to know on what basis they make whatever assertion they make. Basis determined by whom?, them?, you?, or is basis something itself to be determined and clarified by debate about it? The latter option is what I have been trying to engage you in. Otherwise, basis for one person is not basis for another. Analogy: you're like the Muslim, while saying you won't impose your definitions of things upon others, demands of the Christian that they don't quote the Bible but rather the Koran to establish their Christian case. Unless a mutual ground of what constitutes a reasonable basis is arrived at, one persons's experience is another person's delusion. > I'd also just like to see people say something of substance regarding > theosophy. Make some assertions, some claims, something other than playing > cute with words. Again, the assumption that semantics and substance are strongly separated, plus perhaps, another tacit but unacknowledged application of your own concept of "basis" for unilaterally determining whether someone is talking semantics or substance all the while refusing to allow how you conceive and apply your concept of "basis" to make that distinction from being brought out and discussed in order to critically examined it in the public light of day. I think at this most many of us might like to hear what your "basis" is for distinguishing "substance" from playing "cute with words." As far as atoms as perpetual motion machines, I didn't think the idea warranted serious consideration. My impression was that it was taken as humor by most of us as it was meant to be taken. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 17:01:48 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Randy to Alan: obfuscation ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Sunday, November 21, 1999 1:41 PM > Subject: Randy to Alan: obfuscation > Cute. > My experience in life, in academia, in business, in professional life, in > research, in teaching, in personal relations, in family, etc., is that when a > question is not answered directly, and instead the questioner is told they > are too unschooled to understand, the answerer does not really have the > answer. This is a cop out. I'll try a nother : "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." > > So I take your answer to mean you do not know why you believe in karma(if you > do). If it pleases you - though not much seems to do so. You will recall that privately I referred you to my website and the small article which heads the page called "Simply Occult" in which I do, in fact, address some of these issues in very plain and ordinary English. Your response, rather ungraciously, IMO, appears to have been posted to the list with no reference to my attempt to address your repeated requests *directly* in a manner which suits you. > That is fine with me, I am simply trying to determine what substance > lies behind beliefs...a substance I could explain simply to my children or to > friends who yearn for some answers or a starting point. The substance behind *any* belief - as I imagine you know perfectly well - lies in the subtance of human experience. If you want to explain such things to anyone, then I suggest you draw on your experience. If you want more experience, *go get it.* You won't find much direct and individual experience on an e-mail discussion list other than the experience of others' views and opinions. > > Thanks anyway, Randy > Forget it. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 23:04:01 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Breeder Plant quibble (was: The handmaid's tale) In the United States, there was a furor over several high school and college students who came up with designs and built theoretically working nuclear bombs, provided that they had the fissionable material. These stories were juxtaposed with other stories about bomb-grade plutonium missing. What the news stories failed to mention was that the students' bombs were uranium-based, requiring bomb-grade uranium. To build a plutonium bomb requires far more technical expertise. The point is that the existence of bomb-grade plutonium is not good, but it is not a disaster, either. Bart Lidofsky Hazarapet@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 11/21/99 9:41:36 AM Central Standard Time, > bartl@sprynet.com writes: > > > plutonium bombs are FAR more > > complex > > I don't know about high school students. But are > you referring to the difference between a fission bomb > and a fission-fusion-fission bomb or some other > distinction? > > Grigor > > --- > You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: BARTL@SPRYNET.COM > List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 23:45:44 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 21, 1999 Grigor wrote: >You should learn to read better if you hope >for a career in Philosophy or the Justice System. >Both involve skills in close-reading. No, not this time, Grigor. I really don't feel like dancing right now; but I certainly appreciate the offer. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 00:12:09 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 21, 1999 Randy wrote: >Would you please explain your comment about "conservatives"? Theosophical? >Political? Thanks, Randy There was really nothing "serious" behind it, actually. Just went from pure theosophy into human-dom. But, not to be accused of "wimping out" here, as I did indeed make a comment: I am a liberal, or more accurately, radical democrat in a state and nation full of political conservatives. I believe (sorry about that word, Murray!) that many conservative laws and philosophies unfairly punish and target the economically and socially underprivileged. I believe, for example, that Bill Gates may be brilliant in the area of economic gain, but an "idiot" in the area of "brotherhood." Regarding "conservative" theosophists - well, to be honest, I do not see how theosophy and conservatism can even merge; but there are some conservative theosophists, that's for sure. I just don't understand where or how they manage to do it. But, going back to my original point, pure theosophy - which I strive to adhere to, but often do not - would NOT smile upon my use of words (idiot) regarding my conservative brothers and sisters. So, Randy, ya caught me preachin' and sinnin' all at the same time. And I have a suspicion that you consider yourself a conservy - both spiritually and politically. BUT, the idiot reference was NOT directed at you - I just now, while writing this e-mail, mulled over where I thought you might be on the infamous scale. Am I psychic or what?! Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 00:41:30 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Theosophy and individualism - Randy Randy wrote: > I know it is politically correct to pretend there are no differences Actually, it is NOT politically correct to pretend there are no differences. The worst thing is homogenity or sameness. To assume that a person who is black will respond or react or think the same as a white person is to disregard that person's culture and background. There are even differences in thinking between high-income white people and low-income white people; the same for all races, creeds, and genders. The point is to work toward social equality; not a community of robots. No one I know, at least in the liberal field, believes that treating people as if we ALL have the same ideas, views, experiences, and culture is appropriate. It's just that color, religion, or gender, should not dictate to another what their capabilities might be. The idea that social groups adhere to the "homogenity" concept is bogus and has been used as an effective deterrent in obscuring the message of equality by those who risk losing power should true social equality come into being. >or if >there are it is the blame of society It is society that made laws restricting education and voting rights for women and black people. It is religion (a social institution) that claims women are inferior in power status to men. It is society that overturned affirmative action and it is society that dictates a person's social standing. It is the media (a social institution) that portrays predominately black or Hispanic faces when talking about drug usage, when the same number (some studies claim higher rates) of white people are drug addicts. It is government (a social institution) that has made possession of crack (users are mainly African-American) an immediate prison sentence; yet, has made possession of cocaine (users mainly white) a sentence-negotiable crime. Society DOES decide who will have opportunities and who will not. If society were to declare today that all people named Randy could not go to school, well, Randy, your opportunities for education and employment would be severely weakened. White society declared the same for African-Americans and now society wonders why African-Americans distrust white society. Go figure. Would you trust, Randy? How many years or generations would it take for you and your family to forget all about it, drop all anger and hurt, and buddy-up to those who declared you inferior just because you were named Randy? >but >where does this end? It ends when society quits pretending and actively passes and enforces laws that ensure equality and fair consideration for bank loans, car loans, housing, crime sentencing, health care, rent, insurance, and a myriad of other services and necessities (required both by society and the human condition) that are primarly geared toward those who are already privileged. >Is not the theosophical thing that we are individually >responsible for creating our own destiny? Doesn't seem so since the central theme is Oneness. Theosophy reminds us over and over and over again how OUR ACTIONS affect OTHERS; hence, the greater responsibility of theosophists. We are to create our own destiny by keeping in mind that its purpose is to further all beings - not just ourselves. Their destiny is, in effect, our destiny. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 06:58:54 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor:fightin words >You are the one who claimed there was a 2% genetic difference between humans. I simply said if this were so, then there is less difference between humans and chimps. For example, 139 of the 141 amino acids of the alpha chain of hemoglobin in the gorilla are identical to those in humans. There is no difference in this regard between humans and chimps at all. Of course you will quibble with the use of the words: claimed, between, identical, difference, less, those, etc. Do you even care what the point is I was originally trying to make or is this just a game? >If you are arguing that there are no physical, social or psychological differences between the races, I don't know what further I could say. How do you argue with someone who denies black is black, or white is white? After all, color is just an illusion. Well wait, that's not entirely right since white is not really a color. Or is it? Gosh, let's debate this for a couple of years. Surely that will get us closer to understanding the theosophical truths of the universe. >I have imposed no "proof" criteria on anyone. I simply would like to know what is asserted and the basis for the assertion. This isn't a court of law. I'm not here to hold anyone liable for damages. It appears your interest is primarily winning a war with words. If it will make you feel better, I'll withdraw and you can claim victory. I'm not really interested in such picayune balttles. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 07:00:32 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Alan: obfuscation It's forgotten. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 07:17:38 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Kym:sinner You've pushed so many hot buttons in your post, I don't know where to begin. Everything you discuss though is reducible to questions of: 1. Am I entitled to the fruits of my labors 2...Are women different than men 3. Do I have a right to redress if your ancestors did something to mine 200 years ago. 4. Is the U.S. a constitutional republic or a socialistic/communistic state. My answers in order are: yes, yes, no, the former. If you'd like to debate any of the above, let's get it on. It might be fun since you at least seem willing to argue substance rather than words and seem real warm and cuddly as an added bonus. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:10:19 +0000 From: "mika perala" Subject: Mika -the lurker- to Randy Hello Randy. > > Good point Mike. It is Mika, actually. > At this point my interest lies more with how a particular philosophy is > rooted in the physical, the scientific, the empirical. From this > foundation-provided it's properly gounded-I will venture into the more > abstract. Sounds sensible to me. > Have you been there, done that? If so, give me some leads please. Well, no I haven`t. I have been out of theosophy-circles for a few years now, except for these mailing lists, and I´ve been concentrating on very basic things like emotions (anger, love, tenderness, depression, fear, braveness) since we moved to live together with my girlfriend... Not much use for philosophies right now. And I`m not that scientifically oriented either. > Thanks, Randy > > PS Are you a badminton player? Badminton?? I play it once a week but where did you get that? I`m a piano-player though... :) mika perala Finland From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:36:47 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor:fightin words/race In a message dated 11/22/99 6:12:46 AM Central Standard Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > You are the one who claimed there was a 2% genetic difference between > humans. Yes I did. >I simply said if this were so, then there is less difference > between humans and chimps. Doesn't follow. Genetic variation within one species has no implications about the genetic distance between species. You should really take a logic refresher course and review non sequiturs. > For example, 139 of the 141 amino acids of the > alpha chain of hemoglobin in the gorilla are identical to those in humans. > There is no difference in this regard between humans and chimps at all. So? You'll find most life on this planet has most of the same DNA if looking at one part of the sequence or another. To come up with true values you need to calculate the values for whole sequences. We are just now mapping whole sequences so we don't know the absolute distances yet. But the research is underway. The new genetic based typology is allowing us to give precise mathematical values to the distance between species whereas before this was impossible. So, for example, typing the difference between humans, dogs, and fish, just to take three examples, using several factors such as haemoglobin and cytochrome C to randomly pick two genetic measures for example, gives us a precise mathematical way of distinguishing between species and phylla, so that we know the genetic variation between humans is 0.2 %, between humans and dogs 20.0%, and humans and a fish, 50%. Between humans and chimps, it is, if memory serves, 8%. But again, the whole sequence needs to be known for the final numbers which we do not have yet. Now the prestigious scientific journal, Discover (Nov 1994), had a special issue devoted to "race" (with articles by such as Stephen Jay Gould and such), and claimed it is not a "biological" category at all. To quote from one of the articles, "Most scientists don't even consider 'race' to be a biological category. >From the biological standpoint, 'racial categories' are hopeless arbitrary, confused, and intermingled reflecting social and cultural prejudices." You like science so much except if you have to change your prejudicial mind apparently. You should really read up on these things before spouting off. May I refer you to some basic research in genetic typing where genetic distances, identities of real biological groups (of which race is not one), and genetic variations within groups are being established? Try Dayhovieff, Typing Sequence Variation and Structure. National Bio-Medical Research Foundation, Silver Spring Maryland, vol. 33. Cavalli-Sforrza, L.L. and Bodmer W.F. Genetic Typology and Macro-Evolution. Springer-Verlag, 1999. and still useful although from the 80s, Ferguson, A. Biochemical Systematics and Evolution. Blackie, Glasgow, 156-57, and Drake The Molecular Basis of Mutation. Holden-Day, Inc. San Francisco. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:52:17 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Breeder Plant quibble (was: The handmaid's tale) In a message dated 11/21/99 10:02:51 PM Central Standard Time, bartl@sprynet.com writes: > The point > is that the existence of bomb-grade plutonium is not good, but it is not > a disaster, either. I didn't know about high schoolers but newspapers are all like old Pravda in my opinion. Tis said that shortly before collapse of SU, the Moscow diplomatic corp were had the British Embassy for dinner. As the evening got on, the diplomats started drinking more and bragging about their exploits. Eventually it transpired that the British embassador and the Russian embassador discovered they were both sprinters on their college track teams. A bet was placed on who could still run the fastest. A hallway was cleared for a race. The race started. The drunk Russian embassador fell just after starting to run while the Britisher finished and won. Next day, Pravda, guardian of peoples' truth as public trust, reported the story with the headline "In Race, Russian Embassador Comes In Second, British Embassador Finishes Second to Last." Anyway, my point was not about Plutonium but about computers as next terrorist weapon. Hacking a Union Carbide plant is easier and could make as much a disaster as a nuclear facility. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:39:05 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Evidence for mental events breaking physical speed limit Hello, There is some interesting new research about to be published within the next two years. The question that has been experimentally tested is whether all mental events are physical or not, or rather, is there physical evidence for there being non-physical processes. Now obviously we know little, in science, about the phenomenology of mental events. But we don't have to know. All we need to know is the processing speed of the human brain. If we find that a human can complete a mental task, such as a pattern recognition or problem-solving task, that has been designed, per hypothesis, as one that could not be completed in a given amount of time if all the "mental processing" of it was a physical process, then there is some indirect physical evidence of "mental events," so to speak, not bound by the physical "speed limit," so to speak. Again, without getting too technical, a few clarifications might be in order. The expression "processing speed" is vague. Since events in the brain are not that well mapped (hardly at all), how can we coherently speak of processing speed. An analogy with computers may help. When speaking if the "speed" of a computer, one is speaking either equivocally or one is speaking about one of two separate things. In computer engineering, "speed" is either "processing speed" or "through-put." Processing speed is a measure of how quickly any task is completed, from start to finish, by the CPU. Through-put is how many tasks a computer can perform in a given time. Now, you can increase throughput (but not processing speed) by adding CPUs for parallel-processing. Given more processors, a computer can complete more tasks (doing more than one at once) even though the processing speed of each CPU remains the same. But if one designs a faster processor (i.e., one with a faster processing speed), one can increase both processing time and throughput. Now there are other factors involved on a computer's "speed." For example, I/O devices hamper "speed." Why? Because a signal takes a certain amount of time to transverse a certain distance. The distance to and from the primary I/O devices, namely keyboard and monitor, cannot be practically closed (if humans are going to use the computer). So, the time it takes, on average, for signals to transverse that distance to and from cannot be shortened significantly. Similar constraints apply to accessing CDs, Disks, and tape. Miniaturization has allowed an increase in speed simply for the simple fact that we are talking about a smaller space and thus time for a signal to transverse between components. The old vacuum tube or even transistorized computers had not even a ghost of a chance of being as fast as today's machines because of the distance/size of components through which a signal travelled because longer the distance the longer the time. There are some new emerging speed constraints with the issue of how miniaturized can we get with silicon. Silicon was chosen because it retains its semi-conductive properties at a microscopic level (i.e., in effect, two conducting paths can be extremely close together without "short-circuiting" each other - to speak roughly). But the calculated limits of how small a silicon chip can get before its semi-conductivity breaksdown is already know and the hunt for a new semi-conductive material is underway (although it will be some time before this becomes a real worry). But, it will always remain an invariant limit, no matter how much miniaturization there is, that the time it takes a physical signal to transverse any amount of space, no matter how small, has an upper limit (i.e., speed of light). So, what does all this reflection on computers, speed, and distance have to do with the brain? Plenty, the brain is a given size. Its neurons are of a given size. The length of the neural nets from brain to body is of a known given size. Compared to the modern cpu, the brain, neuron, and nervous system are rather large. So, the time it takes a signal to physically transverse a distance is longer if the distance is longer. But we need to look at material also. A nerve fiber consists of a mixed solution of ordinary salt (sodium chloride). So, there is sodium, potassium, and chloride ions in the nerve fiber. Sodium and potassium ions are positively charged. Chloride ions are negatively charged. Given that there are more chloride ions, the rest state of a nerve fiber is negatively charged. A nerve signal is a region of charge reversal flowing through the fiber. When a signal reaches a synaptic knob, it emits a neurotransmitter that travels to the next neuron to its dendrite or soma. Anyway, in human, this network is insulated by the fatty substance myelin so that signals can travel without much interference even between neurons. Given these materials, the speed of a travelling neural signal, in any and all neurons, is 120 meters per second. So, we can say that the "processing time" of a neuron is this speed. The brain might have a faster through-put if it had something like a parallel processing arrangement. But still, assuming that that might be the case, a minimum amount of time can be calculated based on spaces signals have to travel at 120 meters per second. So, given that number, tests can be preformed even at our limited level of knowledge. So, for example, there is a minimum amount of time that it takes for a signal to transverse the optic nerve from retina to brain, and so on. Given a vague knowledge (but enough) of how the brain is organized (in terms of charge patterns during kinds of activity) and even taking into account the possibility of something like parallel processing in the brain, and despite our huge ignorance about much of how the brain works, we still know the time a given signal takes to transverse a certain physical distance. With this knowledge alone, despite all the things we don't know, a group of physicists and neurophysiologists were able to come up with tasks that it would be physically impossible for the brain to complete within a given amount of time as well as events that should be too fast to be a registered event for the brain. Again, the question was are there non-physical mental events. On the assumption that everything was physical, that mental events were physical (even if we don't know how they are neurally realized), certain assigned tasks could not be accomplished in a given amount of time. Without getting into someone else's research, they studied advanced meditators (who had been found in late 70s and early 80s to have ability to increase "information-processing speeds and problem-solving speeds and for the mathematically trained, computational speeds because while the early stages of meditational practice attempt to become more focussed and aware without thought, distraction, etc., at the advanced level the awareness part of mind and the problem-solving, conceptualizing, analyzing, and reasoning part are re-integrated in a way that mutually enhances these opertations. Awareness becomes sharper and clearer as if the logical part were a lens while the logical part is clearer, faster because less distracted, and tighter in its exactitude in tracing a line of implication). They also studied advanced meditators who were advanced martial arts masters. What they found was that in some instances, given the speed of 120 meters per second for a neural signal, given the length a signal would have to transverse from eye to brain, across physical distances between parts in brain (even on the assumption of parallel processing), and length of neural connection between eyes, brain, and hands and feet (for martial artists' tests), the response time and or information-processing time to a task or problem or stimulus, took less time than it should have if all processes involved were physical. Something happened or some phase of whatever was going on inside their heads violated, so to speak, the physical "speed limit." Most conclude that that since everything physical obeys the "speed limit" and/or the "speed limit" defines the physical that there were some non-physical events that took place in these tests. There is a British physicist that thinks otherwise. He claims that some physical events DO violate the physical speed laws (i.e., quantum events in EPR experiments). Penrose has commented that this might not necessarily be evidence of non-physical mental events, but rather, that some mental events or some aspects of them might be quantum events displaying some of the properties of the EPR experiments. But in my opinion, this is even a stranger view, in its ramifications, than admitting the existence of the non- physical. Grigor Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:41:31 +1300 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Murray to Randy: a bit of bridge building Randy, You are very kind. Well, aren't you? :) Here are a few web references that you and others might like to look at, where people with good academic backgrounds are attempting science at the edges, somewhat out of the mainstream of science. That, of course, is a constantly-moving boundary. The heresy of one century can become the accepted wisdom of another. In fact, the transition is now frequently measured in decades, witness the progress of the plate tectonics concept. Re research into childrens' apparent memories of former lives, see http://www.childpastlives.org/stevenson.htm On a range of topics, try the Journal of Scientific Exploration http://www.jse.com/ and its parent organisation, the Society for Scientific Exploration http://www.scientificexploration.org/ I am aware of other people and organisations working in "young science" or rather "young topics" (they aren't really, of course), including those beginning to bridge science and spirituality, and this is without going to any lengths to make a search. For the interest of those who haven't the means or time to look at the web, I'm quoting a piece from the childpastlives site, below. It is about, but not written by, Ian Stevenson. Stevenson's mass of evidence is interesting - startling, in fact, from what I've seen - but he is the first to emphasise that it is open to different kinds of interpretation and has energetically examined a range of interpretations. Murray By collecting thousands of cases of children who spontaneously (without hypnosis) remember a past life, Dr. Ian Stevenson offers convincing scientific evidence, if not proof, for reincarnation.=20 In each case of children=92s past life memory, Dr. Stevenson methodically documents the child's statements. Then he identifies the deceased person the child remembers being, and verifies the facts of the deceased person's life that match the child's memory. He even matches birthmarks and birth defects to wounds and scars on the deceased, verified by medical records. His strict methods systematically rule out all possible "normal" explanations for the child=92s memories.=20 Dr. Ian Stevenson Dr. Stevenson has devoted the last forty years to the scientific documentation of past life memories of children from all over the world. He has over 3000 cases in his files. Many people, including skeptics and scholars, agree that these cases offer the best evidence yet for reincarnation.=20 Dr. Stevenson's credentials are impeccable. He is a medical doctor and had many scholarly papers to his credit before he began paranormal research. He is the former head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia, and now is Director of the Division of Personality Studies at the University of Virginia.=20 Why Isn=92t Dr. Ian Stevenson Better Known? So why haven't we heard more about this amazing man and his revolutionary research? One answer is that Ian Stevenson publishes only for the academic and scientific community, and his writing =97 densely packed with research details and academic argument =97 is difficult for the average reader to follow. And he intentionally shuns the popular media to prevent reporters from sensationalizing his research. He refuses to appear on TV or radio, and magazine interviews are rarely granted. But that doesn=92t stop us from calling attention Stevenson=92s amazing and vitally important work. We believe his cases are the key to widespread acceptance of reincarnation in the West. And if more people knew about these scientifically documented cases of children=92s past lives, they might be more likely to listen when their own young children begin to speak of "when I died before." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:51:05 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Mika:badminton Just curious, Mika. I play competitively and I know the sport(as it's supposed to be played in gyms, not the silly stuff in back yards) is much more popular in your part of the world. Keep working on those emotions and let me know when you figure out a cure for road rage. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:00:06 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor:fightin words/race I am familiar with the type of studies you cite. It is part of my occupation to be so. Are you suggesting that a reductionistic analysis of genetic material will fully explain the form of organisms? What precisely is the prejudice you feel I have? Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:22:43 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Murray: great bridge The references you gave make all the nosebleeds I'm getting on this site worth it. I am a little familiar with Stevenson's work. Quite an unusual committment to objective science he has. If I encountered the things he has I would be shouting from the rooftops probably. Many thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:10:13 -0800 From: E Subject: With a little help of my friends.... --------------3EFFBC89E90A88454F2C6F39 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, it is been a while since i writed here. The reason for my delay in writing, besides of changing my email adress, it is because of serious difficulties in my schoolwork. the pressure it is been extreme, and i have the feeling that i cannot do it. Well, i am quite young still, but as some of you have experienced once in a while in their lifetime, there are a certain time in your life when you experience what the rolling stones have called "19 nervous breakdown" I am passing now one of those moments. i will not waste time explaining the serious difficulties what i am having in my schoolwork project, but i will resume them in one: Want to get the heck out of here. I claim mercy. I realize that i am doing something that i should have never started, and the major difficulty: I cannot finish it. I am feeling right now like in a bad version of a Kafka book, and the depression it is something more ahead that i can manage. i need help. I do not like to cause compassion or that other pepole do the work i am supposed to do, but, if i am asking for help, it is because this is more than i can handle for the moment. And all of you, dear good folks, maybe true magicians in disguise, i have followed you, even if i do not write, and trying to learn, as i do always all the time, and i like when you make me laugh, and i feel sad when you feel sad. But i know that you always had changed me, for the better: for you make me learn. And that is good. But now i am appealing to your mercy, and your help, as friends that you are, as i consider you. speccialy to the most closest and kind that always have been there when i had asked help. And i really need a big effort of help now. What kind of help?? the best. Just pray. your good will and good taughts. because for me it is a time of emptyness, and i really cannot do more effort. i have tried, but i do not know how to help myself. As you had noticed, i am quite lonely. in fact, i am, as never, or maybe few times in my life. Thank you all, in advance, for your concern, if any. any help is welcome. "Trying to reach the stars, but still in earth, how far am I...." Estrella --------------3EFFBC89E90A88454F2C6F39 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

Hi all, it is been a while since i writed here.
The reason for my delay in writing, besides of changing my email adress, it is because of serious difficulties in my schoolwork. the pressure it is been extreme, and i have the feeling that i cannot do it.
    Well, i am quite young still, but as some of you have experienced once in a while in their lifetime, there are a certain time in your life when you experience what the rolling stones have called "19 nervous breakdown"
    I am passing now one of those moments. i will not waste time explaining the serious difficulties what i am having in my schoolwork project, but i will resume them in one: Want to get the heck out of here. I claim mercy. I realize that i am doing something that i should have never started, and the major difficulty: I cannot finish it.
    I am feeling right now like in a bad version of a Kafka book, and the depression it is something more ahead that i can manage. i need help. I do not like to cause compassion or that other pepole do the work i am supposed to do, but, if i am asking for help, it is because this is more than i can handle for the moment.
    And all of you, dear good folks, maybe true magicians in disguise, i have followed you, even if i do not write, and trying to learn, as i do always all the time, and i like when you make me laugh, and i feel sad when you feel sad.
    But i know that you always had changed me, for the better: for you make me learn.
    And that is good.
    But now i am appealing to your mercy, and your help, as friends that you are, as i consider you. speccialy to the most closest and kind that always have been there when i had asked help.
    And i really need a big effort of help now. What kind of help?? the best. Just pray. your good will and good taughts. because for me it is a time of emptyness, and i really cannot do more effort. i have tried, but i do not know how to help myself.
    As you had noticed, i am quite lonely. in fact, i am, as never, or maybe few times in my life.
    Thank you all, in advance, for your concern, if any. any help is welcome.

    "Trying to reach the stars, but still in earth, how far am I...."
 
    Estrella
 
  --------------3EFFBC89E90A88454F2C6F39-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 01:21:08 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Randy to Alan: obfuscation ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Monday, November 22, 1999 12:00 PM > Subject: Re: Randy to Alan: obfuscation > It's forgotten. Randy Good. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:51:09 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Evidence for mental events breaking physical speed limit Nov 22 Dear Friend: Thanks for this valuable information. I have gleaned from the study of Theosophy the following and would ask to have it examined and critiqued: It has been shown that the production of any act is preceded by: 1. A need or desire. 2. Imagination and planning as to how to obtain that object. 3. Visualization by the mind. 4. Planning the necessary steps to implement usages -- several methods ? 5. Consideration of alternatives and also, 6. Considering the ethics and morality of the proposed actions (legality ?). 7. Sending an impulse from MIND to brain. 8. Reception of such impulse by BRAIN. (Brain neural activity) 9. Brain organizing and selecting neuro pathways to secure the necessary multiple cooperative acts of various muscles. 10. Final action or speech on the PHYSICAL PLANE. And continued actions and reactions. All steps from 1 to 7 are subjective, and non determinable physically. The is not any reception of sensory input, nor any sensory output (either reactive or spontaneously voluntary) which does not originate as a SUBJECTIVE event. OBJECTIVITY is the manifestation on the physical plane of measurable change or action that can be analyzed. There are at least 5 areas where input is received (sound, smell, taste, feeling and seeing). Similarly there are five methods of originating actions the hands and feet make 4 and the MIND is the 5th the supreme coordinator for each being. The nature and location of this "supreme coordinator" remains to be determined. [ Example: we use electricity and its partner magnetism in many ways. But we do not know the nature of either. We give names to actions and have erected theories to explain to ourselves with our present knowledge how these originate and "flow." But are those the final realities? What is aether? What is Light, Heat, Time, Space ? Why is Nature all around us? Who and what are we? What is CONSCIOUSNESS? Where does INTELLIGENCE come from? What is INSTINCT ? and so on. One might say that "naming" something does not necessarily "explain" it. ] Best wishes, Dallas -----Original Message----- > From: Hazarapet@aol.com [mailto:Hazarapet@aol.com] > Date: Monday, November 22, 1999 10:39 AM > Subject: Evidence for mental events breaking physical speed limit Hello, There is some interesting new research about to be published within the next two years. The question that has been experimentally tested is whether all mental events are physical or not, or rather, is there physical evidence for there being non-physical processes. Now obviously we know little, in science, about the phenomenology of mental events. But we don't have to know. All we need to know is the processing speed of the human brain. If we find that a human can complete a mental task, such as a pattern recognition or problem-solving task, that has been designed, per hypothesis, as one that could not be completed in a given amount of time if all the "mental processing" of it was a physical process, then there is some indirect physical evidence of "mental events," so to speak, not bound by the physical "speed limit," so to speak. Again, without getting too technical, a few clarifications might be in order. The expression "processing speed" is vague. Since events in the brain are not that well mapped (hardly at all), how can we coherently speak of processing speed. An analogy with computers may help. When speaking if the "speed" of a computer, one is speaking either equivocally or one is speaking about one of two separate things. In computer engineering, "speed" is either "processing speed" or "through-put." Processing speed is a measure of how quickly any task is completed, from start to finish, by the CPU. Through-put is how many tasks a computer can perform in a given time. Now, you can increase throughput (but not processing speed) by adding CPUs for parallel-processing. Given more processors, a computer can complete more tasks (doing more than one at once) even though the processing speed of each CPU remains the same. But if one designs a faster processor (i.e., one with a faster processing speed), one can increase both processing time and throughput. Now there are other factors involved on a computer's "speed." For example, I/O devices hamper "speed." Why? Because a signal takes a certain amount of time to transverse a certain distance. The distance to and from the primary I/O devices, namely keyboard and monitor, cannot be practically closed (if humans are going to use the computer). So, the time it takes, on average, for signals to transverse that distance to and from cannot be shortened significantly. Similar constraints apply to accessing CDs, Disks, and tape. Miniaturization has allowed an increase in speed simply for the simple fact that we are talking about a smaller space and thus time for a signal to transverse between components. The old vacuum tube or even transistorized computers had not even a ghost of a chance of being as fast as today's machines because of the distance/size of components through which a signal travelled because longer the distance the longer the time. There are some new emerging speed constraints with the issue of how miniaturized can we get with silicon. Silicon was chosen because it retains its semi-conductive properties at a microscopic level (i.e., in effect, two conducting paths can be extremely close together without "short-circuiting" each other - to speak roughly). But the calculated limits of how small a silicon chip can get before its semi-conductivity breaksdown is already know and the hunt for a new semi-conductive material is underway (although it will be some time before this becomes a real worry). But, it will always remain an invariant limit, no matter how much miniaturization there is, that the time it takes a physical signal to transverse any amount of space, no matter how small, has an upper limit (i.e., speed of light). So, what does all this reflection on computers, speed, and distance have to do with the brain? Plenty, the brain is a given size. Its neurons are of a given size. The length of the neural nets from brain to body is of a known given size. Compared to the modern cpu, the brain, neuron, and nervous system are rather large. So, the time it takes a signal to physically transverse a distance is longer if the distance is longer. But we need to look at material also. A nerve fiber consists of a mixed solution of ordinary salt (sodium chloride). So, there is sodium, potassium, and chloride ions in the nerve fiber. Sodium and potassium ions are positively charged. Chloride ions are negatively charged. Given that there are more chloride ions, the rest state of a nerve fiber is negatively charged. A nerve signal is a region of charge reversal flowing through the fiber. When a signal reaches a synaptic knob, it emits a neurotransmitter that travels to the next neuron to its dendrite or soma. Anyway, in human, this network is insulated by the fatty substance myelin so that signals can travel without much interference even between neurons. Given these materials, the speed of a travelling neural signal, in any and all neurons, is 120 meters per second. So, we can say that the "processing time" of a neuron is this speed. The brain might have a faster through-put if it had something like a parallel processing arrangement. But still, assuming that that might be the case, a minimum amount of time can be calculated based on spaces signals have to travel at 120 meters per second. So, given that number, tests can be preformed even at our limited level of knowledge. So, for example, there is a minimum amount of time that it takes for a signal to transverse the optic nerve from retina to brain, and so on. Given a vague knowledge (but enough) of how the brain is organized (in terms of charge patterns during kinds of activity) and even taking into account the possibility of something like parallel processing in the brain, and despite our huge ignorance about much of how the brain works, we still know the time a given signal takes to transverse a certain physical distance. With this knowledge alone, despite all the things we don't know, a group of physicists and neurophysiologists were able to come up with tasks that it would be physically impossible for the brain to complete within a given amount of time as well as events that should be too fast to be a registered event for the brain. Again, the question was are there non-physical mental events. On the assumption that everything was physical, that mental events were physical (even if we don't know how they are neurally realized), certain assigned tasks could not be accomplished in a given amount of time. Without getting into someone else's research, they studied advanced meditators (who had been found in late 70s and early 80s to have ability to increase "information-processing speeds and problem-solving speeds and for the mathematically trained, computational speeds because while the early stages of meditational practice attempt to become more focussed and aware without thought, distraction, etc., at the advanced level the awareness part of mind and the problem-solving, conceptualizing, analyzing, and reasoning part are re-integrated in a way that mutually enhances these opertations. Awareness becomes sharper and clearer as if the logical part were a lens while the logical part is clearer, faster because less distracted, and tighter in its exactitude in tracing a line of implication). They also studied advanced meditators who were advanced martial arts masters. What they found was that in some instances, given the speed of 120 meters per second for a neural signal, given the length a signal would have to transverse from eye to brain, across physical distances between parts in brain (even on the assumption of parallel processing), and length of neural connection between eyes, brain, and hands and feet (for martial artists' tests), the response time and or information-processing time to a task or problem or stimulus, took less time than it should have if all processes involved were physical. Something happened or some phase of whatever was going on inside their heads violated, so to speak, the physical "speed limit." Most conclude that that since everything physical obeys the "speed limit" and/or the "speed limit" defines the physical that there were some non-physical events that took place in these tests. There is a British physicist that thinks otherwise. He claims that some physical events DO violate the physical speed laws (i.e., quantum events in EPR experiments). Penrose has commented that this might not necessarily be evidence of non-physical mental events, but rather, that some mental events or some aspects of them might be quantum events displaying some of the properties of the EPR experiments. But in my opinion, this is even a stranger view, in its ramifications, than admitting the existence of the non- physical. Grigor Ananikian --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.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, 23 Nov 1999 01:05:29 From: "Edward William Hirsch" Subject: chess Hi, I wonder if anyone knows anything about (or has any reflections about) chess in its deeper philosophical, metaphysical, esoteric nature. Any references to books, articles--of a Theosophical nature or otherwise? My sense is that the Masters have an influence on any strong theme in civilization, and I feel that chess surely has to be one of the vehicles for such teaching. However, the chess world today seems far removed from the Wisdom Teachings. This topic seems to be so esoteric in the sense that it seems difficult to come upon much about it. I'm sure there must be some material out there. Perhaps I could at least spark some reflection on the subject. Thanks so much, Ed Hirsch From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:04:35 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: sinner Randy wrote: >Everything you discuss though is reducible to questions of: >1. Am I entitled to the fruits of my labors Indeed you are, but (the big BUT), so are others. If you invent a cure for cancer, you are are not entitled - spiritually - to keep it only for yourself or those you love. In the physical realm, humans can attempt to keep for themselves whatever they desire, but "morally" (I hate that term) one is expected to share. If you earn a paycheck, part of that paycheck will always go to someone else. Example: if you buy groceries, employees of the grocery store will reap (albeit a small amount) of your earnings. In order for society to exist in a peaceful manner, people must share. The hogging of one's fruits aids neither the hogger's growth or the growth of other beings. There are people in the world who have too much, and there are people who have too little - this imbalance is the cause of much global suffering. The "me first" mentality creates a twisted view of one's self in relations with others. Its foundation is always "us vs. them." >2...Are women different than men Different in a few ways, yes. The differences seem to center around reproduction, though. Most everything else can be balanced out. There are some women who are stronger physically than some men, and some men who are physically stronger than women. Some men are smarter than some women, and some women are smarter than some men. And so it goes. . .. >3. Do I have a right to redress if your ancestors did something to mine 200 >years ago. Maybe - it depends on how current society is reacting to the past injustices. Since America continues to practice racist behavior, affirmative action is a just and deserved redress. Affirmative action gives those who were discriminated against in the past a chance to "catch up." However, in the spiritual sense, and if one believes in reincarnation and karma, one must always work to right the wrongs - for it really could have been me or you that personally carried out some horrendous acts and we are now being provided the chance to correct past "crimes." Those who have been persecuted also have the responsibility to forgive and to utilize opportunites to foster peace and personal growth. But, for me, the weight of the work presently lies with those who have benefited the most from past and current societal structures. Once balance has been achieved, responsibility for others becomes equalized. For someone as lazy as me, I can't wait for such equality. >4. Is the U.S. a constitutional republic or a socialistic/communistic state. That's interesting, because many Americans think America is a democratic state. There is a difference between democracy and a republic. In a republic, one elects leaders to make the decisions and the public pretty much remains back burner - in a democracy, people are supposed to have the power and leaders are to take instruction from the public. Obviously, we have a bit of both in America - but we are more a republic than a democracy. As far as the American constitution, well, it was written during a time much different than today. As people change, laws need to change. It is still a valid document, but does not offer many of the answers needed to deal with present day. For some the constitution is a holy writ, for others, such as myself, it is a document that needs to be clarified and/or updated - example: bearing arms. I don't know why people assume that they cannot improve on something that was written 200 years ago - were the "Founding Fathers" the end of the politically savvy mind? America is surely not communist or socialist. However, I personally prefer democratic socialism over republic/capitalism. >My answers in order are: yes, yes, no, the former. Well, my answers are a bit more bombastic. >It might be fun >since you at least seem willing to argue substance rather than words and seem >real warm and cuddly as an added bonus. Warm and cuddly? Are you attempting cyber-homicide? You probably made a couple people on this list collapse into a dead faint or split their sides. Besides, warm and cuddly people tend to get booted out of lines and secret meetings. And they get all their fur rubbed off. Not me, man - I'm dying hairy. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:22:17 +1300 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Murray to Randy: foundations of a bridge >The references you gave make all the nosebleeds I'm getting on this site >worth it. Well, that helps make the effort of getting the references together worth it. :) >I am a little familiar with Stevenson's work. Quite an unusual committment >to objective science he has. If I encountered the things he has I would be >shouting from the rooftops probably. To actually meet this stuff would certainly have a profound effect. I think one has to be more grounded than most, not less, to be really effective at research into the subtle. >Many thanks, Randy You're welcome Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:32:34 +1300 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Murray to Kim From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 00:12:09 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 21, 1999 Randy wrote: >Would you please explain your comment about "conservatives"? Theosophical? >Political? Thanks, Randy Kym, you're forgiven because you were writing about politics. It is election time here in New Zealand, and I've noticed that all the smart politicians know when to prefix what they're saying with "I believe". It is at once safe (from people who say you haven't or can't read the book) and dangerous (showing just how far out on alimb you can climb) and even a little beguiling (hand over heart, eyes to the sky). Kym, you're onto a winner. ... are you saying "Oh shutup, Murray" yet? :) Murray ----- Original Message ----- But, not to be accused of "wimping out" here, as I did indeed make a comment: I am a liberal, or more accurately, radical democrat in a state and nation full of political conservatives. I believe (sorry about that word, Murray!) that many conservative laws and philosophies unfairly punish and target the economically and socially underprivileged. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 06:39:41 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Estrella: Always hope Could you relate more in detail why you feel you are feeling so down? Such times of depression and feelings of helplessness are usually linked to a sense of loss of control. What do you feel you are not in control of? It is good that you are reaching out for help. If you are open to it, it will come. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:03:26 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: With a little help of my friends.... Hi Estrella, I do not know if there is anything I can do, but I feel very sad in reading your letter. I don't know if it will help and if you want to, but *you might want to talk about it*: or in this case, write about it (some more). We will provide a listening ear, at least, I will. > Hi all, it is been a while since i writed here. > The reason for my delay in writing, besides of changing my email adress, > it is because of serious difficulties in my schoolwork. the pressure it > is been extreme, and i have the feeling that i cannot do it. > Well, i am quite young still, but as some of you have experienced > once in a while in their lifetime, there are a certain time in your life > when you experience what the rolling stones have called "19 nervous > breakdown" > I am passing now one of those moments. i will not waste time > explaining the serious difficulties what i am having in my schoolwork > project, but i will resume them in one: Want to get the heck out of > here. I claim mercy. I realize that i am doing something that i should > have never started, and the major difficulty: I cannot finish it. You cannot finish it, but can you stop it? I have been in two previous colleges before this one, not finished them, before finally I found the one that did fit me, who I am, what I can do, and how I can do it. Perhaps it is like that for you? If you do things bad enough, someone will kick you out, no problem. Then the problem becomes: what now? Big question, but better that question than staying somewhere where you do not belong. But perhaps i am jumping to conclusions here...? > I am feeling right now like in a bad version of a Kafka book, and > the depression it is something more ahead that i can manage. i need > help. I do not like to cause compassion or that other pepole do the work > i am supposed to do, but, if i am asking for help, it is because this is > more than i can handle for the moment. I know the feeling (is that help?) Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:09:39 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Randy to Katinka:proofs WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > The proofs that would create comfort for me are more broad than precise > mathematical formulas or perfect syllogisms. Experience qualifies. So does > intuition. But I may reject anything if it does not jibe with reality, > knowledge and reasonings that get me through day to day life. Why be so > quick to reject, repudiate or belittle classical proof or reasoning? I'll > wager sound reasoning, good science, experimentation and the like have done > more for the human condition in a tangible way than speculative spiritual > fluff. Thanks, Randy > PS Enjoyed your comment on how the purpose of the list is to disagree so > discussion continues. I'm still looking for some warm and fuzzy friends to > agree with me. That's fun too. I know. But it is so much easier to disagree, sometimes... (says something about me, i know.) I am taking the rest of this mail as: oke, fine by me. Katinka From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 08:20:04 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Kym: rubbing fur --part1_0.2080a251.256bee84_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In reply to the numbered points: 1. I agree it is moral and ethical to share and be more selfless. The issue is how is this accomplished. Liberals think it's the state's job to redistribute the fruit of labor, to force everyone to be "moral" as the state defines it. The Constitutionalist, the libertarian view is that the fruit of your labor is yours and it is up to you to reach within to do the right thing. I see the later position as much more "spiritual" than the former. So why would you be a liberal in this regard? Also, why do those who have too much, have it in your opinion? Also, why do those who have too little, have that in your opinion? Since you mentioned Bill Gates in your last post, why does he have too much in your opinion? 2. I think there are much more profound differences between men and women than you would suggest. Pointing to exceptions-such as some women are stronger than some men- does not cancel the broad categorical disparities between the two. Let's say every country on earth had a female army except one. War could only be fought by hand to hand combat and the number of participants on each side must be the same. Who do you think would end up in the number one position? The two sexes complement each other, they are not the same. You can begin with the genitalia and take the differences all the way through the way each thinks even on a spiritual level (I'm talking in the general, not the exceptional). Some differences may be subtle but they are there. Some more obvious such as the testicular narcissim that chest beats hear occassionally. Theosophy is the wisdom religion. It is supposed to reflect univeral truths and time honored tradition. The differences in the sexes has been recognized from the beginning of recorded history. Why would you want to deny it now? 3. "Affirmitive action" is a pathetic putative attempt by the state to force a subjective moral issue. In actual fact, it is merely demagoguery by the Democrat party for the purpose of securing votes from the ignorant. In actual fact, the policy creates racism, it doesn't dissolve it. Racism, the belief that there are differences between the races, will never be obliterated because it is a truth. Racism that unfairly gives one an advantage over the other-such as in affirmitive action-should be illegal and punishable. I'm again surprised that as a theosophist, believing in karma and personal responsibility, you would buy into this political nonsense and not position yourself with those who advocate the most amount of personal freedom and liberty. 4. The beauty of a Republic is that it mimics the ideal government, a benevolent dictatorship. It's a theosophical thing too: law rules. Problem with your democracy is that 51% of the crazies can vote to kill the other 49%. Do you see where "democracy" would eventually lead to a mere contest of self-serving manipulations. It's exactly what we see presently in the Democrat party. The goal of government should be to create just laws relflecting the "ancient religion" if you will and hold the population to it. What's this business that because the Constitution is 200 years old it can't apply today? Give me an example of what modern circumstance requires something beyond the scope of the Constitution. How does this notion that things written a long time ago are effete, jibe with theosophy, ancient wisdom? The Constitution is the greatest libertarian document yet written too my knowledge. It gives priority to personal liberty and makes government a servant of the people. It also places responsibility squarely on the individual where it should be and entitles everyone to the fruit of their labors. If I bust my ass getting rich, I get to keep it, give it to the truly needy, squander it or whatever. If I sit on my duff and do nothing, then I get to starve to death. Can't get more morally perfect than that. (I've attached a letter written to some friends a time back on this subject. Jim was an employee of the State and was of course a Democrat. Funny how those who depend on or want the money of others handed to them are always Democrat liberals. Those who get out there and want to use their creative talents to make their own way are usually libertarian-no personal affront intended if this might seem to apply to you.) The fur rubber, Randy --part1_0.2080a251.256bee84_boundary Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="SCOTT2~1.WPS" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="SCOTT2~1.WPS" 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAA AAAAEAAAAgAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAAAAAAD///////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////9////NQAAAP7////+////BQAAAAYAAAAHAAAA CAAAAAkAAAAKAAAACwAAAAwAAAANAAAADgAAAA8AAAAQAAAAEQAAABIAAAATAAAAFAAAABUA AAAWAAAAFwAAABgAAAAZAAAAGgAAABsAAAAcAAAAHQAAAB4AAAAfAAAAIAAAACEAAAAiAAAA IwAAACQAAAAlAAAAJgAAACcAAAAoAAAAKQAAACoAAAArAAAALAAAAC0AAAAuAAAALwAAADAA AAAxAAAAMgAAADMAAAA0AAAA/v////7///////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////1IA bwBvAHQAIABFAG4AdAByAHkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAWAAUA//////////8DAAAAwtvNKOIKzhGimgCqAEoacgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGCZ ARl0Rb0BAwAAAMAAAAAAAAAATQBhAHQATwBTAFQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AAQH/////BAAAAP////8AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAGA3xBd0Rb0BIMnlF3RFvQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABNAE0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgACAf// /////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAAAA AAAAAE0ATgAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAIBAgAAAAEAAAD/////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAZgAAAAAAAA/v///wIAAAD+//////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////9ORAAA AQAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAQD+/wMKAAD/////wtvNKOIKzhGimgCqAEoachAAAABNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29ya3MA DQAAAE1TV29ya3NXUERvYwAAAAAA9DmycQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAb+dVOcWAAAnFgAAKAFsBNUmwEA0AIAAAAAAAEAAAkB AAAAAQAAsFkAAAZgAAAAXQAACgAKXQAAIgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsXQAAAAAsXQAA AAAsXQAAAAAsXQAAEgCgBaAFCAcIB+A90C8BAAAAAADQAjgEAABkAAAALF0AAAAA/////wAA AAADCNACAAAAAAAArlkAAAEAdAGSXgAALF0AAAAAPl0AAFQBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABTY290dCAyDQoNCkhpLWFnYWluLCBsZXQgbWUgY29tcGxpbWVudCB5b3Ugb24g eW91ciBsZXR0ZXIuICBXZWxsIHdyaXR0ZW4sIG1hdHVyZSwgZW50ZXJ0YWluaW5nIGFuZCBw cm92b2NhdGl2ZS4gIFJlYWRpbmcgeW91ciB0aG91Z2h0cyBnaXZlcyBtZSBhIHdpbmRvdyBp bnRvIHlvdXIgbWluZC4gIFNpbmNlIG15IG9ubHkgcmVjb2xsZWN0aW9uIG9mIHlvdSBpcyB3 YXkgYmFjayB3aGVuIHlvdSB3ZXJlIGluIHlvdXIgdHdlbnRpZXMoaW4gdGVybXMgb2YgeW91 ciB0aGlua2luZyksIGl0cyBpbnRlcmVzdGluZyB0byBzZWUgdGhlIGNvbnRyYXN0IGJldHdl ZW4gdGhlbiBhbmQgbm93LiAgKEFsdGhvdWdoIHdlIHdlcmUgbm90IHJlYWxseSBnaXZlbiBt dWNoIGNoYW5jZSB0byBwZWVyIGludG8gb25lIGFub3RoZXKScyAgbWluZHMgc2luY2Ugd2Ug d2VyZSBzdWNoICAgSlcgZGl0dG8taGVhZHMuKSAgDQoNCiBBIDUwIHllYXIgb2xkIG1hbi4g IEluY3JlZGlibGUuICBIb3cgY2FuIHRpbWUgbW92ZSBzbyByYXBpZGx5LiAgSXSScyBsaWtl IGEgam9rZSBzb21lb25lIGlzIHBsYXlpbmcgb24gdXMuICBXZSB0aGluayB0aW1lIGlzIHNs b3csIHRoYXQgaXQgd2lsbCB3YWl0LCB0aGF0ICB0aGVyZSBpcyBwbGVudHkgb2YgaXQsIHRo ZW4gaXRzIGdvbmUuDQoNClRoaXMgcGFzdCBGZWIgOCBpcyB0aGUgYW5uaXZlcnNhcnkgb2Yg bXkgZGFkknMgZGVhdGggd2hlbiBoZSB3YXMgbXkgYWdlLiBJbmNvbXByZWhlbnNpYmxlLiAg SSBzdGlsbCBmZWVsIHZlcnkgeW91bmcsICBmdWxsIG9mIGxpZmUgYW5kICB3aXRoIGEgc2Vu c2Ugb2YgZnV0dXJlLiBTbyBob3cgY291bGQgbXkgZGFkIGhhdmUgZGllZCBhdCB0aGlzIGFn ZT8NCg0KSGF2ZSB5b3UgZ3V5cyBjb21lIHRvIHRlcm1zIHdpdGggZGVhdGg/ICBJIHNlZSBp dCBub3cgYXMgdGhlIGJlc3QgbmlnaHRzIHNsZWVwIHlvdSBjb3VsZCBldmVyIGhhdmUuICBB Y3R1YWxseSBraW5kIG9mIGEgcGxlYXNhbnQgdGhvdWdodCBhZnRlciBhIGhhcmQgZGF5IGF0 IHRoZSBvZmZpY2UoeWVzLCB0aGUgk3JpY2iUIGFyZSBhbHNvIGEgd29ya2luZyBjbGFzcyku DQoNCk9rYXksIG9uIHRvIHlvdXIgdGhvdWdodHMuICBGaXJzdCBsZXQgbWUgcHV0IHlvdSBh dCBlYXNlIGJ5IHNheWluZyBJIGhhdmUgbmV2ZXIgdm90ZWQgZm9yIGEgUmVwdWJsaWNhbiBu b3IgZG8gSSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIHNvbWUgb2YgUnVzaJJzIHN0dWZmIGFzIHlvdSBjYW4gc2Vl IGluIHRoZSBuZXdzbGV0dGVyLiBJIGNvbnNpZGVyIG15c2VsZiBhIGZyZWUtdGhpbmtlci4g IEkgYmVsb25nIHRvIG5vIGdyb3VwLiBJIGhhdmUgbm8gbWVudG9ycy4gIEkgY2FyZSBvbmx5 IGFib3V0IHJlYXNvbiBzaW5jZSBpdCBpcyB0aGF0IGFsb25lIHRoYXQgb2ZmZXJzIHVzIGFu eSBzZW1ibGFuY2Ugb2Ygb3JkZXIgbm93IGFuZCBhbnkgaG9wZSBmb3IgdGhlIGZ1dHVyZS4g VGhhdJJzIGEgZ29vZCBsZXNzb24gZnJvbSBvdXIgSlcgYXBvc3Rhc3kgSSB3aWxsIGtlZXAu ICBJIHdpbGwgc3VwcG9ydCBvdGhlcnMgdG8gdGhlIGRlZ3JlZSB0aGV5IGFkdmFuY2UgcGVy c29uYWwgZnJlZWRvbS4NCg0KIFRoZXJlIGFyZSBlbGVtZW50cyBvZiBtYW55IHBvbGl0aWNh bCBncm91cHMgSSBsaWtlLiAgVGhlIExpYmVydGFyaWFucywgQ29uc3RpdHV0aW9uYWwgTGF3 IFBhcnR5LCB0aGUgQ2F0IEluc3RpdHV0ZSBhbmQgdGhlIFJlcHVibGljYW5zLCBmb3IgZXhh bXBsZSwgaGF2ZSBzb21lIG9mIHRoZSBpZGVhcyBJIGxpa2UuICBJIGhhdmVuknQgZm91bmQg bXVjaCBpbiB0aGUgZGVtb2NyYXRzIEkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCBob3dldmVyIGZvciB0aGUgcmVh c29uIHRoYXQgdGhleSBzZWVtIGJlbnQgb24gZ292ZXJubWVudCBncm93dGggYW5kIGludHJ1 c2lvbiBvbiBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIGxpYmVydHkuIA0KDQpJIHRoaW5rIHRoZSBwcmltYXJ5IGlz c3VlIHNob3VsZCBiZSBmcmVlZG9tIGFuZCBsaWJlcnR5IGluIHNvY2lldHkuICBJdJJzIHdo YXQgd2UgYWxsIHNlZW0gdG8gYmUgY2hhc2luZyBpbiBvbmUgd2F5IG9yIGFub3RoZXIuICBJ dJJzIHdoYXQgeW91IGFuZCBDaW5keSBzZWVtIHRvIGJlIGVuam95aW5nIG1vcmUgb2Ygbm93 LiAgSSBoYXZlIGEgcmVhbGx5IGluZGVwZW5kZW50IHNwaXJpdCBhbmQgcGVyc29uYWwgZnJl ZWRvbSBpcyBjcml0aWNhbCBmb3IgbXkgaGFwcGluZXNzLg0KDQogIExldCBtZSBwcmVmYWNl IHRoaXMgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvZiBwb2xpdGljcyhmcmllbmRzIGFyZSBuZXZlciBzdXBwb3Nl ZCB0byB0YWxrIHJlbGlnaW9uIG9yIHBvbGl0aWNzOyAgZ29vZCBmcmllbmRzIGNhbiB0YWxr IGFib3V0IGJvdGgpICB3aXRoIHlvdXIgdW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZyB0aGF0IEkgYW0gb25seSBp bnRlcmVzdGVkIGluIHVsdGltYXRlIHNvbHV0aW9ucywgYmFzaWMgY2F1c2VzIGFuZCB1bmRl cmx5aW5nIJN0cnV0aHOUKGV4Y3VzZSBtZSwgSZJtIHN0aWxsIG9uIHRoYXQga2ljaykuDQoN CkZvciBleGFtcGxlLCBtb2Rlcm4gbWVkaWNpbmUgZGVhbHMgd2l0aCBlZmZlY3RzLCBub3Qg Y2F1c2VzLiAgVGhlIHByb21pc2Ugb2YgY3VyZSBhc3N1cmVzIHRoZSBwZXJwZXR1YXRpb24g b2YgZGlzZWFzZS4gIFR1cm5pbmcgb2ZmIGZpcmUgYWxhcm1zIHdoaWxlIHRoZSBmaXJlIHNt b2xkZXJzIGluIHRoZSBjbG9zZXQgbmV0cyB0aGVtIGEgdHJpbGxpb24gZG9sbGFyIGEgeWVh ciBpbmR1c3RyeSAtLXRvIG91ciBkZXRyaW1lbnQgdW5sZXNzIHdlKHRoZSBtYWpvcml0eSkg d2lzZSB1cC4gIAtUaGUgZnVuZGFtZW50YWwgY2F1c2Ugb2YgZGlzZWFzZSBpcyBub3QgbGFj ayBvZiBzdXJnZXJ5IG9yIGFzcGlyaW5zLiAgSXQgaXMgbGl2aW5nIG91dCBvZiBvdXIgcHJv cGVyIGdlbmV0aWMgY29udGV4dC4NCg0KQW5vdGhlciBleGFtcGxlLiAgQSB0aGlyZCB3b3Js ZCBuYXRpb24gc3RhcnZlcy4gIE91ciBzb2x1dGlvbiBpcyB0byBzZW5kIGJvYXQgbG9hZHMg b2YgZm9vZC4gIFdlIHNhdmUgaHVuZHJlZHMgb2YgdGhvdXNhbmRzIHNvIHRoZXkgY2FuIGJy ZWVkIHNvbWUgbW9yZSBhbmQgZXZlbiBmdXJ0aGVyIG91dHN0cmlwIHRoZSByZXNvdXJjZXMg b2YgdGhlaXIgY291bnRyeS4gIE5vdyB3aGVuIHN0YXJ2YXRpb24gb2NjdXJzIGl0IGlzIGV2 ZW4gYSBncmVhdGVyIGRpc2FzdGVyIHRoYW5rcyB0byBvdXIgQmFuZC1BaWRzLiAgVGhlICBm dW5kYW1lbnRhbCBjYXVzZSBpcyBtaXNtYW5hZ2VtZW50IG9mIHJlc291cmNlcyBhbmQgb3Zl cnBvcHVsYXRpb24uICBVbnRpbCBwb3B1bGF0aW9uIG1hdGNoZXMgcmVzb3VyY2VzIHRoZSBw cm9ibGVtIHdpbGwgbm90IGJlIHNvbHZlZC4gDQoNCkFub3RoZXIgZXhhbXBsZS4gIEVudmly b25tZW50YWwgIGVmZm9ydHMgYXJlIGZvY3VzZWQgb24gZml4aW5nIHN5bXB0b21zOiBnYXJi YWdlLCBlZmZsdWVudCwgYWNpZCByYWluLCBldGMuICBUaGUgZW5naW5lIHRoYXQgZHJpdmVz IHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtLCB0aGUgZnVuZGFtZW50YWwgY2F1c2UgaXMgcG9wdWxhdGlvbi4gIElm IHdlIGRvbpJ0IGNvbnRyb2wgdGhhdCB0byBtYXRjaCBzdXN0YWluYWJsZSByZXNvdXJjZXMg dGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gaG9wZSBubyBtYXR0ZXIgaG93IG1hbnkgc2hvd2VyIHNhdmVycyBhcmUg Ym91Z2h0LiAoSSBrbm93IHlvdZJyZSB0aGlua2luZyB0aGlzIGphY2sgcmFiYml0IGlzIGEg Z3JlYXQgb25lIHRvIHRhbGsgb24gdGhpcyBzdWJqZWN0LiAgTGl2ZSBhbmQgbGVhcm4uKQ0K DQpJIGxpa2UgdG8gYmFjayB1cCBhbmQgbG9vayBpbiBvdmVydmlldyBhdCB0aGUgd2hvbGUg cHJvYmxlbSBhbmQgdHJ5IHRvIGRpc2Nlcm4gdGhlIHJlYWwgY2F1c2VzLiAgVGhlbiByZWFs IHNvbHV0aW9ucyBiZWNvbWUgcG9zc2libGUuDQoNCk5vdyB0byBnb3Zlcm5tZW50LiAgTGV0 knMgc2F5IHlvdSwgQ2luZHkgYW5kIEkoc29ycnkgQ2luZHksIEmSbSBzdGlsbCBmYW50YXNp emluZyBhYm91dCBvdXIgdGhyZWVzb21lLXBhcnRpY3VsYXJseSBzaW5jZSBKaW0gaXMgc28g aW50byBzaGFyaW5nKSBkZWNpZGUgdG8gYnV5IGFuIGlzbGFuZCBhbmQgbWFrZSBpdCBhIHNv dmVyZWlnbiBuYXRpb24uICBXZSBzcGVuZCBhbGwgd2UgaGF2ZSB0byBidXkgaXQsIGVxdWFs IHNoYXJlcywgc28gd2UgZ28gdGhlcmUgd2l0aCBub3RoaW5nLiANCg0KIE9uY2Ugd2WScmUg dGhlcmUgSSBkZWNpZGUgdG8gc3BlbmQgbW9zdCBvZiBteSB0aW1lIGVhdGluZyBjb2NvbnV0 cyBpbiBhIGhhbW1vY2sgYW5kIHdhdGNoaW5nIHRoYXQgYmFiZSB3aWZlIG9mIHlvdXJzIHNr aW5ueSBkaXAuICBZb3UgZ2V0IHJlYWwgaW5kdXN0cmlvdXMgIGNhcnZpbmcgY3V0ZSBsaXR0 bGUgY29jb251dCBoZWFkcyB0byBzZWxsIHRvIGNhbm9laXN0cyBwYXNzaW5nIGJ5LiAgSSBz cGVuZCBqdXN0IGVub3VnaCB0aW1lIGZpbmRpbmcgZm9vZCB0byBmZWVkIG15c2VsZiBhbmQg dG8gbWFrZSBhIGZldyB0cmlua2V0cyBhdHRlbXB0aW5nIHRvIHdvbyB5b3VyIHdpZmUgYXdh eSBmcm9tIHlvdS4gIEJ1dCB5b3Ugd29yayBuaWdodCBhbmQgZGF5IGNhcnZpbmcgb3V0IHRo b3NlIGNvY29udXQgaGVhZHMuIFlvdSBldmVuIGdldCBhIGNhbGx1cy4NCg0KTm93IHRoZW4s IGEgaHVycmljYW5lIGNvbWVzIGFuZCB3YXNoZXMgYXdheSBteSBoYW1tb2NrLCBDaW5keZJz IGdyYXNzIHNraXJ0KE9oIGdvb2R5KSBhbmQgYSBidW5jaCBvZiBiYWJ5IGNvY29udXQgdHJl ZXMgeW91IHBsYW50ZWQuICBPdXIgb25seSBob3BlIHRvIHNhdmUgdGhlIGlzbGFuZCBpcyB0 byBoaXJlIHRoZSBtZXJjaGFudCBtYXJpbmUgdG8gYnVpbGQgc29tZSBicmVha3dhbGxzLiAg SZJ2ZSBvbmx5IGJlZW4gYWJsZSB0byBzYXZlIGEgbGl0dGxlIG1vbmV5IGJ5IHNlbGxpbmcg cGVlcCBzaG93ICBwYXNzZXMgIG9mIENpbmR5IGluIHRoZSBsYWdvb24gdG8gcGFzc2luZyBu YXRpdmVzLiAgSSBnYXZlIGhlciBhIGN1dCBkZXBlbmRpbmcgdXBvbiBob3cgbWFueSBvZiB0 aGUgaG9uZXkgZGlwcGVkIGRpc2NyZXRlbHkgcGxhY2VkIGZsb3dlciBwZWRhbHMgc2hlIHdv dWxkIHJlbW92ZSBmb3IgdGhlIHZveWV1cnMuIA0KDQogQnV0IHlvdSwgeW91IGVudHJlcHJl bmV1cmlhbCBhbmltYWwsIHlvdZJ2ZSBzYXZlZCB0aG91c2FuZHMuICBTaW5jZSBpdHMgYSBk ZW1vY3JhY3koeW91IGNvbnZpbmNlZCB1cyBvbiB0aGUgYm9hdCB0byB0aGUgaXNsYW5kIHRo YXQgdGhhdJJzIHRoZSBvbmx5IGZhaXIgYW5kIG1vcmFsIHdheSksIENpbmR5IGFuZCBJIG91 dCB2b3RlIHlvdSB0d28gdG8gb25lIHRoYXQgcGF5bWVudCBmb3IgdGhlIGJyZWFrd2FsbCBz aG91bGQgYmUgYmFzZWQgb24gaW5jb21lIGFuZCBzaW5jZSB5b3WScmUgcmljaCBpdCBpcyBv bmx5IGZhaXIgdGhhdCB5b3UgcGF5IHRoZSBsaW9ucyBzaGFyZS4gIFlvdZJyZSB1cHNldCBm b3IgYSBiaXQgYnV0IHRoZW4gcmVhbGl6ZSB5b3UgaGF2ZSBubyByaWdodCB0byBiZSByaWNo IGFuZCB1cyBqdXN0IHBvb3Igd29ya2VycyB3aG8gd291bGQgZGVwbGV0ZSBhbGwgb2Ygb3Vy IHNhdmluZ3MgZnJvbSB0aGUgcGVlcCBzaG93cyBpZiB3ZSBoYWQgdG8gc2hhcmUgZXF1YWxs eSBpbiBwYXlpbmcgZm9yIHRoZSBicmVha3dhbGwuIEJlc2lkZXMsIHlvdSBkb26SdCB3YW50 IHRvIGJlIHNvbWUgaW5zZW5zaXRpdmUgd2VhbHRoeSBjYXBpdGFsaXN0aWMgcGlnLCBzbyB5 b3UgYW50ZSB1cCBhbmQgdGhlIGlzbGFuZCBpcyBzYXZlZC4gIENpbmR5IGFuZCBJIHJlam9p Y2UgYXQgdGhlIHdvbmRlcnMgb2YgZGVtb2NyYWN5IGFuZCBvdXIgb3duIHZlcnNpb24gb2Yg dGhlIGluY29tZSB0YXggYW5kIHJlc29sdmUgdG8gYmUgc3VyZSB0byBrZWVwIHZvdGluZyB0 byBrZWVwIGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmcgYXMgaXMuDQoNCkFmdGVyIGEgd2hpbGUsIENpbmR5IGNhbpJ0 IHJlc2lzdCBtZSBhbnltb3JlIGJlY2F1c2UgSZJ2ZSBiZWVuIGRvaW5nIGEgbG90IG9mIHNp dC11cHMgYW5kIG15IGFicyBhcmUgbGlrZSBhbiBldGNoZWQgd2FzaGVyIGJvYXJkLiAgU2hl IGRlY2lkZXMgdG8gZHVtcCB5b3UuICBXZSBhbGwgdm90ZSBhbmQgbWFqb3JpdHkgcnVsZXMg dGhhdCBzaGUgc2hvdWxkIGdldCBoYWxmIG9mIGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmcgeW91IGhhdmUgYW5kIHRo YXQgeW91IHNob3VsZCBwYXkgYWxpbW9ueSBzbyBzaGUgY2FuIGNvbnRpbnVlIGluIHRoZSBz dHlsZSB0byB3aGljaCBzaGUgaXMgYWNjdXN0b21lZC4gIEZ1cnRoZXIsIHNoZSBpcyBhd2Fy ZGVkIGNoaWxkIHN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIHRoZSB0d28ga2lkcyBzaGUgaGFkIHdoaWxlIG9uIHRo ZSBpc2xhbmQuICBZb3Ugb2JqZWN0IGJlY2F1c2UgeW91IGFyZSBzdXJlIHRoZXkgYXJlIG1p bmUgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiB0aGVpciBnb29kIGxvb2tzLCBhYnMgYW5kIGdyZWF0IGludGVsbGln ZW5jZS4gIFdlIHZvdGUgYW5kIGRlY2lkZSB5b3Ugc2hvdWxkIG5vdCBiZSBhIGRlYWQgYmVh dCBkYWQgYW5kIGFudGUgdXAuDQoNCldpdGggdGltZSBvdXIgbGl0dGxlIHBvcHVsYXRpb24g Z3Jvd3MgYW5kIHdlIGFsbCBjb21lIHRvIHdvcmsgZm9yIHlvdS4gIFdlIHZvdGUgdGhhdCB0 aGUga2lkcyBzaG91bGRuknQgd29yayB1bnRpbCB0aGV5knJlIDIxLi4uYSBzb3J0IG9mIGNo aWxkIGxhYm9yIGxhdy4gIEJlc2lkZXMgeW91IGFyZSB2ZXJ5IHJpY2ggYnkgd29ya2luZyBk YXkgYW5kIG5pZ2h0IGFuZCBjYW4gYWZmb3JkIHRoZSB0YXhlcyB0byBjb3ZlciB0aGVpciBu ZWVkcy4gIFRoZSByZXN0IG9mIHVzIGZvcm0gYSB1bmlvbiB0byBtYWtlIHN1cmUgd2UgZ2V0 IGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIGJlbmVmaXRzLi4ubG90cyBvZiB2YWNhdGlvbiwgc2hvcnQgd29yayBk YXlzLCBtZWRpY2FsLCByZXRpcmVtZW50LCAgYSBoaWdoIG1pbmltdW0gd2FnZSwgZXRjLiwg d2hpY2ggaXMgb25seSBkZXNlcnZlZCBiZWNhdXNlIHdoeSBzaG91bGQgeW91IGJlIHJpY2gg YW5kIHRoZSByZXN0IG9mIHVzIHNvIHBvb3IuICBZb3UgZ3JlZWR5IGJhc3RhcmQsIHlvdZJ2 ZSBldmVuIGdvdCBhIGJpZ2dlciBodXQgdGhhbiB0aGUgcmVzdCBvZiB1cyBhbmQgdHdvIGNh bm9lcy4gIEJ1dCB0aGlzIGlzIGFsbCBkb25lIHZlcnkgcHJvcGVyIHdpdGggdm90aW5nIHNv IHRoZXJlIGNhbiBiZSBubyBtb3JhbCBvciBldGhpY2FsIG9iamVjdGlvbi4NCg0KT3ZlciB0 aW1lIHdlIGRlY2lkZSB0byBtYWtlIG91ciBvd24gY3VycmVuY3kuICBXZSBtYWtlIGxpdHRs ZSBwYWludGVkIHNoZWxscy1sb3RzIG9mIHRoZW0uICBXZSB2b3RlIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBzaG91 bGQgYmUgb3VyIG1vbmV5LiAgV2UgdXNlIHRoZXNlIHRvIGJ1eSB5b3VyIGNvY29udXQgaGVh ZHMgYW5kIHRoZW4gc2VsbCB0aGVtIGZvciByZWFsIGNhc2ggYWJyb2FkLiBZb3VyIG1hcmdp bnMgc3RhcnQgdG8gZGVjbGluZShyaWdodGx5IHNvIHlvdSBzZWxmaXNoIGZhc2Npc3QgcGln KSBhbmQgdGhlIGxpdHRsZSBzaGVsbCBjb2lucyBhcmUgaW5jcmVhc2luZ2x5IHdvcnRobGVz cyBhcyB3ZSBjb250aW51ZSBidXNpbHkgcGFpbnRpbmcgbmV3IG9uZXMuDQoNCkluIHRoZSBt ZWFudGltZSB3ZSB2b3RlIHRvIGluY3JlYXNlIG91ciBzdGFuZGFyZCBvZiBsaXZpbmcgYW5k IGluY3JlYXNlIHRheGVzIG9uIHlvdSBhbmQgcGFpbnQgZXZlciBtb3JlIHNoZWxsIG1vbmV5 LiAgWW91IHdhbnQgdG8gbW92ZSB5b3VyIGZhY3Rvcnkgb2Zmc2hvcmUgYW5kIHdlIHZvdGUg dG8gZGVueSB0aGF0IGFuZCBpc3N1ZSBhIG1vbmV0YXJ5IHBlbmFsdHkgZm9yIHlvdXIgbGFj ayBvZiBwYXRyaW90aXNtLiAgV2UgYWxzbyBzZXQgdXAgYSBidW5jaCBvZiByZWd1bGF0b3J5 IGFnZW5jaWVzIGZvciB5b3UgdG8gcGF5IGZvciBzbyB3ZSBjYW4gbWFrZSBzdXJlIHlvdZJy ZSB0b3dpbmcgdGhlIGxpbmUuDQoNCkZpbmFsbHksIGV4aGF1c3RlZCBhbmQgYnJva2UsIHlv dSBjbG9zZSB0aGUgZmFjdG9yeS4gIFBvcHVsYXRpb24gaGFzIG5vdyBncm93biB3YXkgYmV5 b25kIHRoZSBpc2xhbmRzIHJlc291cmNlcy4gIFdlIHZvdGUgdG8gY29uZmlzY2F0ZSB5b3Vy IHJldGlyZW1lbnQgZXF1aXR5IGJlY2F1c2UgeW91IHdlcmUgYWx3YXlzIHRvbyByaWNoIGFu eXdheSBhbmQgd2Ugd2VyZSBqdXN0IHBvb3Igd29ya2luZyBjbGFzcy4gIFdlIHNlbmQgZm9y IGJvYXQgbG9hZHMgb2Ygc3VwcGxpZXMgYW5kIGFsbCBpcyB3ZWxsIGFnYWluIHNvIHdlIHNl dCBhYm91dCBmdXJ0aGVyIGJyZWVkaW5nLS13ZSB2b3RlZCB0aGF0IHVubGltaXRlZCBwcm9j cmVhdGlvbiBpcyBldmVyeW9uZZJzIHJpZ2h0Lg0KDQpOb3cgd2UgaGF2ZSB0d2ljZSBhcyBt YW55IHBlb3BsZSBhcyB3aGVuIHRoZSBzdXBwbGllcyByYW4gb3V0LiAgQXMgdGltZSBwYXNz ZXMgYWxsIHRoZSBpc2xhbmRzIHJlc291cmNlcyBhcmUgZ29uZSwgbm8gb25lIHdpbGwgdGFr ZSBvdXIgc2hlbGwgbW9uZXkgYW5kIHRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIG1vcmUgcmVhbCBjYXNoLiAgV2Ug aGF2ZSBhIG1lZXRpbmcgYW5kIGRlbW9jcmF0aWNhbGx5IHZvdGUgbm90IHRvIHN0YXJ2ZSBh bmQgZGllLiAgT3VyIGZpbmFsICBmdXRpbGUsIGJ1dCBldGhpY2FsIGFjdC4NCg0KT2theSwg ZW5vdWdoIGZ1bi4gIExldJJzIGdldCBzZXJpb3VzIGFib3V0IHNhdmluZyB0aGUgd29ybGQu ICBIZXJlIGFyZSAgc29tZSBwcmVsaW1pbmFyaWVzLiAgWW91ciBhZ3JlZW1lbnQgYXQgdGhp cyBsZXZlbCBpcyBjcml0aWNhbCBvdGhlcndpc2UgdGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gaG9wZSBvZiBhZ3Jl ZW1lbnQgbGF0ZXIgYXMgd2UgYnVpbGQgdXBvbiB0aGlzIGZvdW5kYXRpb24uIChJIGtub3cg dGhlcmWScyBubyBob3BlIGFueXdheSB5b3UgYnVsbGhlYWRlZCBiaWdvdC4gIEJ1dCBJkmxs IGF0IGxlYXN0IGh1bW9yIGFuZCBwdXJnZSBteXNlbGYgd2l0aCB0aGlzIHRpcmFkZS4pDQoN ClRoZXNlIGFyZSB0aGUgcHJlbWlzZXM6DQoxLiAgSHVtYW5zIGFuZCB0aGUgc29jaWV0aWVz IHRoZXkgY29uc3RydWN0IGFyZSBub3QgYWJvdmUgdGhlIHNhbWUgbmF0dXJhbCBsYXdzIGdv dmVybmluZyBhbGwgb2YgbmF0dXJlLiAgV2UgbWF5IHBvc3Rwb25lLCB0ZW1wb3JhcmlseSBj aXJjdW12ZW50IGFuZCBpZ25vcmUgdGhlc2UgbGF3cyBidXQgdGhleSBhbHdheXMgY2F0Y2gg dXAuIE5hdHVyYWwgbGF3cyBhcmUgYXJlIG9ibGl2aW91cyB0byBodW1hbiCTaHVtYW5lbmVz c5QuDQoyLiBGcmVlZG9tIGlzIGEgYmFzaWMgaHVtYW4gbmVlZCBhbmQgcmlnaHQNCjMuIEV2 ZXJ5b25lIGhhcyB0aGUgcmlnaHQgdG8gdGhlaXIgb3duIGZhaXJseSBhY3F1aXJlZCBwcm9w ZXJ0eQ0KNC4gIEV2ZXJ5b25lIGhhcyB0aGUgcmVzcG9uc2liaWxpdHkgdG8gcGF5IHRoZSBy ZXF1aXJlZCBmZWUgZm9yIHdoYXQgdGhleSBhZ3JlZSB0byBwdXJjaGFzZSBmcm9tIGFub3Ro ZXIuDQo1LiAgUmVzb3VyY2VzIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSBmb3IgbGlmZSwgYWlyLCB3YXRlciwgbmF0 dXJhbCBhcmVhcywgZXRjLi1hcmUgY29tbW9uIHByb3BlcnR5IGFuZCBubyBvbmUgaGFzIHRo ZSByaWdodCB0byBwcml2YXRpemUgb3IgZGVzdHJveSB0aGVtLg0KDQpGcm9tIHRoaXMgIGhl dXJpc3RpYyBmb3VuZGF0aW9uIGEgZmFpciwgbW9yYWwgYW5kIHJhdGlvbmFsIHNvY2lldHkg Y2FuIGJlIGNvbnN0cnVjdGVkLiBUaGVzZSBwcm92aWRlIGFuIGFsZ29yaXRobSBmb3IgdGhl IGRldmVsb3BtZW50IG9mICBhIGxpbWl0ZWQgZ29vZCBnb3Zlcm5tZW50Lg0KDQpJIGdyYW50 IHlvdSB0aGF0IGNvbW11bmlzbSwgc29jaWFsaXNtLCBmYXNjaXNtLCBiZW5pZ24gZGljdGF0 b3JzaGlwcyBhbmQgdGhlIGxpa2UgYXJlIGFsbCB2YWxpZCBhdHRlbXB0cyBhdCBnb3Zlcm5p bmcgY29tcGxleCBodW1hbiBzb2NpZXR5LiAgVGhlcmUgY2FuICBiZSBlbmRsZXNzIGRlYmF0 ZXMgYWJvdXQgd2hpY2ggaXMgYmV0dGVyLiAgQWxsIG9mIHRoZW0gY2FuIHRoZW9yZXRpY2Fs bHkgY3JlYXRlIGEgaGFybW9uaW91cyBzb2NpZXR5LiAgQXMgYSBjb2xsZWdlIHN0dWRlbnQs IGNvbW11bmlzbSBzZWVtZWQgdG8gYmUgdGhlIGlkZWFsIHRvIG1lLiAgR2FkcyB3aGF0IGNv dWxkIGJlICBtb3JlIGZhaXIgdGhhbiCTZnJvbSBlYWNoIGFjY29yZGluZyB0byBoaXMgYWJp bGl0eSBhbmQgdG8gZWFjaCBhY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gaGlzIG5lZWSUPy4gICANCg0KVGhlIGJl c3QgZ292ZXJubWVudCBpcyB5b3VyIG93biB3aWxsLCB5b3VyIGZyZWVkb20gdG8gbGl2ZSB5 b3VyIGxpZmUgYXMgeW91IGNob29zZSAgYW5kIGVuam95IHRoZSByZXdhcmRzIG9mIGdvb2Qg ZGVjaXNpb25zIGFuZCBiZSBzb2xlbHkgcmVzcG9uc2libGUgZm9yIHRoZSBwb29yIG9uZXMu ICBZb3UgZG9uknQgd2FudCBtZSB0byB0ZWxsIHlvdSB3aGF0IHRvIGRvLCBhbmQgSSBkb26S dCB3YW50ICB5b3UgdG8gdGVsbCBtZSB3aGF0IHRvIGRvIGVpdGhlci4gIEkgd2FudCB0byBi ZSBhYmxlIHRvIGVuam95IHRoZSBmcnVpdCBvZiBteSBsYWJvciB3aXRoIG5vIG9ibGlnYXRp b24gdG8gYW55b25lLiAgSSB0YWtlIHRoYXQgcmlnaHQga25vd2luZyBmdWxsIHdlbGwgaXRz IGNvcm9sbGFyeSBpcyB0aGF0IEkgYWxvbmUgYW0gcmVzcG9uc2libGUgYWxzbyBmb3IgdGhl IG5lZ2F0aXZlIGNvbnNlcXVlbmNlcyBvZiBteSBvd24gYWN0cy4uLm9yIGZhaWx1cmUgdG8g YWN0LiBJIG5vdywgdGhlcmVmb3JlLCB0aGluayB0aGUgeWFyZHN0aWNrIG9mIHRoZSBiZXN0 IGdvdmVybm1lbnQgaXMgdGhlIG9uZSB0aGF0IGFjY29tcGxpc2hlcyB0aGUgYWJvdmUgZ29h bHMgZm9yIHRoZSBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIHdoaWxlIHN0aWxsIG1haW50YWluaW5nIHNvY2lhbCBv cmRlci4gIA0KDQpTb2NpYWxpc20gYW5kIGNvbW11bmlzbSBtZXJlbHkgZ3JhcHBsZSB3aXRo IHRoZSBzeW1wdG9tcyBvZiBzb2NpYWwgZGlzaGFybW9ueS4gIFRoZXkgZG8gbm90IGVzdGFi bGlzaCB0aGUgcHJlZW1pbmVudCByaWdodHMgb2YgdGhlIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgYnV0IHJhdGhl ciBmb3JjZSBoaW0gaW50byBhIHNvY2lhbCBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgdGhhdCB2aW9sYXRlcyBtYW55 IG9mIGhpcyBiYXNpYyBuZWVkcyBhbmQgcmlnaHRzLg0KDQpJIHNlZSB0aGUgb25seSBob3Bl IGJlaW5nIGEgYmVuaWduICBkaWN0YXRvcnNoaXAuICBUaGF0knMgYmFzaWNhbGx5IHdoYXQg QW1lcmljYSBpcy4gIFdlIGFyZSBhIGNvdW50cnkgb2YgbGF3IHdpdGggdGhlIENvbnN0aXR1 dGlvbiBiZWluZyB0aGUgc3VwcmVtZSBkaWN0YXRvci4gIFRoYXQgk2RpY3RhdG9ylCB1bmlx dWVseSBzZXRzIGZvcnRoIHRoZSB2ZXJ5IHByZW1pc2VzIG91dGxpbmVkIGFib3ZlIHRoYXQg cHJvdGVjdCBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIHJpZ2h0cyBhbmQgZnJlZWRvbSB3aGlsZSBtYWludGFpbmlu ZyBzb2NpYWwgb3JkZXIuIA0KDQpIZXJlIGFyZSBzb21lIHJhbmRvbSB0aG91Z2h0cyBhZGRy ZXNzaW5nIHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlIHBvaW50cyB5b3UgbWFkZToNCg0KPmRlbW9jcmFjeSBtZWFu cyA1MSUgb2YgdGhlIHBlb3BsZSBjYW4gdm90ZSB0byBraWxsIHRoZSBvdGhlciA0OSU7IGl0 IGFsc28gcHJvbW90ZXMgdGhlIHByZXZhbGVudCBiZWxpZWYgaW4gb3VyIHNvY2lldHkgb2Yg dGhlIHN1cGVyaW9yIHdpc2RvbSBvZiB0aGUgaWdub3JhbnQuDQo+dm90aW5nIGlzIGEgcmln aHQsIHBlcmhhcHMsIGJ1dCBpdCBpcyBhbHNvIGEgcmVzcG9uc2liaWxpdHkuICBObyBvbmUg c2hvdWxkIHZvdGUgd2hvIGRvZXMgbm90IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlIENvbnN0aXR1dGlvbihh bG1vc3Qgbm9ib2R5IGhhcyBldmVuIHJlYWQgdGhpcyBiYXNpYyBjb250cmFjdCBiZXR3ZWVu IG91ciBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IGFuZCB1cykgYW5kIGFyZSBpbmZvcm1lZCBvbiB0aGUgaXNzdWVz IGluIGNvbnRlbnRpb24uICBBIHRlc3Qgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGdpdmVuIHRvIGFueW9uZSBkZXNp cmluZyB0byB2b3RlLiAgSWYgdGhleSBhcmUgbm90IGluZm9ybWVkIHRoZXkgcmVsaW5xdWlz aCB0aGUgcmlnaHQuICBOb2JvZHkgaGFzIHRoZSByaWdodCB0byB2b3RlIG9uIG15IGRlc3Rp bnkgaWYgdGhleSBhcmUgaWdub3JhbnQuICBCdXQgd2hhdCB3ZSBoYXZlIGluIHRoaXMgY291 bnRyeSBpcyBpZ25vcmFuY2Ugb2YgdGhlIHBlb3BsZSwgYnkgdGhlIHBlb3BsZSwgZm9yIHRo ZSBwZW9wbGUuICBUaGVyZSBpcyBpbmRlZWQgbm8gdW5kZXJlc3RpbWF0aW5nIHRoZSBpbnRl bGxpZ2VuY2Ugb2YgdGhlIHB1YmxpYy4NCj5UaGUgVVMgaXMgYSBDb25zdGl0dXRpb25hbCBS ZXB1YmxpYywgbm90IGEgZGVtb2NyYWN5IHJ1bGVkIGJ5IHBsZWJpc2NpdGUNCj5UaGUgZ292 ZXJubWVudCBoYXMgYSByaWdodCB0byByZW5kZXIgc2VydmljZXMgcmVxdWlyZWQgYnkgaXRz IGNpdGl6ZW5zLiAgQ2l0aXplbnMgaGF2ZSBhIHJlc3BvbnNpYmlsaXR5IHRvIHBheSBmb3Ig dGhvc2Ugc2VydmljZXMgdmlhIHRheGVzLiAgVGhpcyBoYXMgbm90aGluZyB0byBkbyB3aXRo IHRoZWlyIGluY29tZSBhbnltb3JlIHRoYW4gYSBnYXMgc3RhdGlvbiBjYW4gZXRoaWNhbGx5 IGNoYXJnZSBiYXNlZCBvbiB0aGUgaW5jb21lIG9mIHRoZSBjdXN0b21lci4gSSBzaG91bGQg aGF2ZSB0byBwYXkgaW4gYW4gYWJzb2x1dGUgYW1vdW50KG5vdCBhIHRyaWNreSBwZXJjZW50 YWdlIG9mICCTaW5jb21llCkgZXhhY3RseSB0aGUgc2FtZSBhcyBhbnlvbmUgZWxzZSB3aG8g aXMgdXNpbmcgdGhlIHNhbWUgZ292ZXJubWVudCBzZXJ2aWNlLiAgSXRzIHJlYWwgc2ltcGxl IHRvIG1lIGFueXdheS4gIElmIHRoZSBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IHJlbmRlcnMgbWUgYSBzZXJ2aWNl LWRlZmVuc2UsIGluZnJhc3RydWN0dXJlLCBldGMuLCBpdCBkb2VzbpJ0IG1hdHRlci10aGVu IHNlbmQgbWUgYSBiaWxsLiAgRG9uknQgdXNlIG15IGRlYnQgZm9yIHRoZSBzZXJ2aWNlIGFz IGFuIGV4Y3VzZSB0byBwcnkgaW50byBldmVyeSBub29rIGFuZCBjcmFubnkgb2YgbXkgbGlm ZSBhbmQgYnVyeSBtZSB3aXRoIHJpZGljdWxvdXMgZm9ybXMsIHBhcGVyd29yayBhbmQgYmls bHMgZnJvbSBhY2NvdW50YW50cyB0byBpbnRlcnByZXQgaXQgYWxsLCBvciB0byBleHRvcnQg cmVzb3VyY2VzIGZyb20gbWUgdG8gc3VwcG9ydCB0aG9zZSB3aG8gY2hvb3NlIG9mIHRoZWly IG93biB2b2xpdGlvbiB0byBkbyBsZXNzLg0KPlRoZSBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IGRvZXMgbm90IGhh dmUgYSByaWdodCB0byBkZWNpZGUgaG93IEkgd2lsbCBzcGVuZCBteSBtb25leSBvbiBodW1h bml0YXJpYW4gbmVlZHMgb3IgZXZlbiBpZiBJIHNob3VsZCBzcGVuZCBhbnkuICBUaGUgcHJl c2VudCBzb2NpYWwgcHJvZ3JhbXMgcmVtb3ZlIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgYW5kIGNvbW11bml0eSBj b25zY2llbmNlLiAgSWYgSZJtIHRheGVkIHRvIHBheSBmb3IgdGhlIG5lZWR5IHRoZW4gSSBu ZWVkIG5vdCBpbmRpdmlkdWFsbHkgY2FyZSBhYm91dCB0aGUgbmVlZHksICBUaGUgZGVodW1h bml6aW5nIGFuZCBkZXNlbnNpdGl6YXRpb24gb2YgY29tbXVuaXRpZXMgYnkgb3VyICCTZ29v ZCBTYW1hcml0YW6UIGdvdmVybm1lbnQgaW50ZXJsb3BlciB0YWtlcyBhIHRvbGwgIGZhciBn cmVhdGVyIHRoYW4gYW55b25lIGNhbiBlc3RpbWF0ZS4NCj5NZWRpY2FsIHNjaG9vbHMgbWF5 IGJlIHN1YnNpZGl6ZWQgYnV0IHNvIGFyZSBoaWdoIHNjaG9vbHMsIG1hbnkgdHJhZGUgc2No b29scyBhbmQgb3RoZXJzLiAgV2hhdCBzdWNjZXNzIEkgaGF2ZSBoYXMgbGl0dGxlIHRvIGRv IHdpdGggaXJyZWxldmFudCBmb3JtYWwgZWR1Y2F0aW9uLiAgV2hhdCBJIGRvIG5vdyBpcyBw cmFjdGljYWxseSBlbnRpcmVseSBzZWxmLXRhdWdodC4gIEkgc3VjY2VlZCBpbiBzcGl0ZSBv ZiBnb3Zlcm5tZW50LCBub3QgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiBpdC4NCj5SYWlzaW5nIHRoZSBtaW5pbXVt IHdhZ2UgYXMgd2VsbCBhcyBmdW5kaW5nIGFsbCBvdGhlciBzb2NpYWwgcHJvZ3JhbXMgZG9l cyBub3QgY3JlYXRlIGEgbmV0IGJlbmVmaXQuICBUaGVzZSBhY3RzIGFyZSBub3QgbWFya2V0 IGRyaXZlbiBhbmQgdGh1cyBubyBuZXQgZWNvbm9taWMgY2hhbmdlIGNhbiBvY2N1ci4gIFN1 Y2ggZ292ZXJubWVudCBtYW5pcHVsYXRpb25zIGlzIG1lcmVseSBjYXJkIHNodWZmbGluZy4g IE1vbmV5IGlzIG5vdCBjcmVhdGVkIGJ5IGdvdmVybm1lbnQoZXhjZXB0IGJ5IHByaW50aW5n IHByZXNzKSwgIG9ubHkgYnkgdGhlIHByaXZhdGUgaW5kdXN0cmlhbCBzZWN0b3Iod2l0aCB0 aGUgZXhjZXB0aW9uIG9mIHZlbnR1cmVzIHN1Y2ggYXMgeW91cnMpIGFuZCB0aHVzIHJhaXNp bmcgdGhlaXIgY29zdHMgb25seSByZXN1bHRzIGluIHRoZWlyIHJhaXNpbmcgcHJpY2VzLiAg VGhpcyBpcyB3aHkgYSBkb2xsYXIgdG9kYXkgaXMgd29ydGggYSBuaWNrZWwgYSAgc2hvcnQg d2hpbGUgYmFjayBiZWZvcmUgdGhlIHNvY2lhbGlzdHMgcGVydmVydGVkIHRoZSBzeXN0ZW0u KFRoYXQgYW5kIHRoZSBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IG1ha2luZyBmdW5ueSBtb25leSBvbiB0aGVpciBw cmVzc2VzKQ0KPklzIHRoZSBNaWNoaWdhbiBzYWxlcyhjb25zdW1wdGlvbikgdGF4IGltbW9y YWw/DQo+Q2l0aW5nIGxhYm9yIGFidXNlcyBieSBzb21lIGluIHRoZSBpbmZhbmN5IG9mICB0 aGlzIGNvdW50cnkgYXMgYW4gZXhjdXNlIGZvciB0aGUgbW9yYXNzIG9mIHJlZ3VsYXRpb25z IGFuZCBndWFyYW50ZWVzIGZvciB3b3JrZXJzIHRvZGF5IGlzIGxpa2UgdGhlIGJsYWNrcyB3 YW50aW5nIHNwZWNpYWwgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbiBiZWNhdXNlIG9uZSBvZiB0aGVpciBhbmNl c3RvcnMgd2FzIGJvYXRlZCBvdmVyIGhlcmUgYXMgYSBzbGF2ZSB0aHJlZSBodW5kcmVkIHll YXJzIGFnby4NCj5JIGhhdmUgZW1wbG95ZWQgYXQgbGVhc3QgMjAwIHBlb3BsZSBpbiB0aGUg cGFzdCAxNSB5ZWFycywgcGFpZCBub25lIG9mIHRoZW0gbWluaW11bSB3YWdlLCBnYXZlIHRo ZW0gYW4gb24tc2l0ZSBkYXkgY2FyZSwgYmVuZWZpdHMsIGFuZCBsaW1pdGxlc3Mgb3Bwb3J0 dW5pdHkgYW5kIHdhcyBmb3JjZWQgdG8gZG8gbm9uZSBvZiBpdC4gIFdoYXQgSSBoYXZlIGRv bmUgaXMgbW9kZXN0IGNvbXBhcmVkIHRvIHdoYXQgbWFueSBvdGhlcnMgaGF2ZSBkb25lLiAg SSBkbyBpdCB0byB0cnkgdG8gYmUgZmFpciBhbmQgdG8gZW50aWNlIHRoZW0gdG8gc3RheS4g IE1hcmtldCBmb3JjZXMsIG5vdCBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IGZvcmNlcyBjcmVhdGUgam9icywgYmVu ZWZpdHMgYW5kIHRydWUgaGlnaCB3YWdlcy4gIEluIHJldHVybiwgd29ya2VycyB3aXRoIGEg c29jaWFsaXN0aWMoSZJtIGEgdmljdGltIGFuZCBJkm0gb3dlZCkgbWVudGFsaXR5IGxpZSB0 byBtZSwgcXVpdCBhZnRlciBJIHRyYWluIHRoZW0sIGZha2UgaW5qdXJ5IHRvIGdldCB1bmVt cGxveW1lbnQgY29tcGVuc2F0aW9uLCBzdGVhbCBmcm9tIG1lIGFuZCB0aGVuIHN1ZSBtZSB3 aGVuIEkgZmlyZSB0aGVtLCBtYWtlIGNvdW50bGVzcyBtaW5kbGVzcyBjb3N0bHkgZXJyb3Jz LCBmYWxzaWZ5IHRpbWUgY2FyZHMsIG5ldmVyIGltcHJvdmUgdGhlbXNlbHZlcyBvciBjcmVh dGUgYnVzaW5lc3MgYnV0IHJhdGhlciByZWx5IG9uIG1lIHRvIGRvIGl0IGFsbCwgbmV2ZXIg dGFrZSB3b3JrIGhvbWUgd2hpbGUgSSBzcGVuZCAxNi0xOCBob3VyIGRheXMgbWFraW5nIHN1 cmUgdGhlaXIgam9iIGlzIHNlY3VyZS4NCj5JIGhlYXIgbGVzcyBvdXRyYWdlIGZyb20gdGhl IFJlcHVibGljYW5zIGFib3V0IENsaW50b24gdGhhbiBmcm9tIHRoZSBtZWRpYS4gIFJlcHVi bGljYW5zIGFuZCBhbGwgdGhpbmtpbmcgcGVvcGxlIHNob3VsZCBiZSBvdXRyYWdlZCBhbmQg dGhpcyBzaG91bGQgbm90IGJlIGRpbWluaXNoZWQgZXZlbiBpZiBpdCBjb3VsZCBiZSBwcm92 ZW4gdGhhdCBhIGZvcm1lciBSZXB1YmxpY2FuIHByZXNpZGVudCB3YXMgYSBwZWRvcGhpbGUg YW5kIGF4ZSBtdXJkZXJlci4gKE15IGRpc3Jlc3BlY3QgZm9yIGhpcyBkdXBsaWNpdHkgYW5k IGRlbWFnb2d1ZXJ5IGRvZXMgbm90IHN1Z2dlc3QgdGhhdCBJIG9yIG90aGVyIGNyaXRpY3Mg YXJlIHdpdGhvdXQgc2luLiAgSWYgeW91IHB1dCB5b3Vyc2VsZiBpbiBhIHBvc2l0aW9uIG9m IG1vcmFsIGxlYWRlcnNoaXAsIGFkdmFuY2UgeW91cnNlbGYgYXMgYSBtb2RlbCBmb3IgYSBu YXRpb26ScyBjaGlsZHJlbiwgdGhlbiB5b3UgYXJlIGFjY291bnRhYmxlIG5vdCBleGN1c2Fi bGUuIE15IHJlc2VudG1lbnQgZm9yIGhpbSBpcyBub3QgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiB3aGF0IGZ1biBo ZSBoYXMgaGFkIHdpdGggaW5nZW51ZXMgaW4gaGlzIG9mZmljZSBidXQgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiBo aXMgZmFpbHVyZSB0byBtb3ZlIGdvdmVybm1lbnQgaW4gYSBkaXJlY3Rpb24gdGhhdCBpbmNy ZWFzZXMgbXkgcGVyc29uYWwgZnJlZWRvbSBhcyBndWFyYW50ZWVkIGJ5IHRoZSBDb25zdGl0 dXRpb24gYW5kIGFsc28gYmVjYXVzZSBvZiB0aGUgbHlpbmcsIE1hY2hpYXZlbGxpYW4gZGVj ZWl0LCBzcGlucywgbWFudHJhcywgYWQgaG9taW5lbSByaGV0b3JpYyBhbmQgZGVtYWdvZ3Vl cnksIHByZWFjaGluZyBkb2N0cmluZXMgaGUga25vd3MgYXJlIHVudHJ1ZSB0byBwZW9wbGUg aGUga25vd3MgYXJlIGlkaW90cy4gIEkgaGF2ZSB0aGUgcGVyc29uYWwgZmVlbGluZyB0aGF0 IHdoZW4gYWxsIHJldmVsYXRpb25zIGV2ZW50dWFsbHkgY29tZSBmb3J0aCh3aGljaCBtYXkg dGFrZSBkZWNhZGVzKSB0aGUgY29ycnVwdGlvbiBvZiB0aGlzIGd1eSB3aWxsIHByb3ZlIHRv IGJlIHVucGFyYWxsZWxlZC4gIFRvbyBiYWQgaGWScyB0aGUgZmlyc3QgZXhhbXBsZSBvZiB3 aGF0IG91ciBnZW5lcmF0aW9uIGNhbiBkbyB3aGVuIGluIGNoYXJnZS4NCj5BIGRlbW9jcmF0 aWMgbWFqb3JpdHkgdmlydHVhbGx5IGFzc3VyZXMgZXJyb3IuICBUaGUgbWFqb3JpdHkgYXJl IGFsd2F5cyB3cm9uZyByZWdhcmRpbmcgYW55dGhpbmcgZXZlbiBzbGlnaHRseSBhYnN0cmFj dCBhbmQgdGhlcmVmb3JlIGRlbW9jcmF0aWMgcnVsZSBhc3N1cmVzIHVsdGltYXRlIGZhaWx1 cmUuICBUaGUgRGVtb2NyYXRpYyBwYXJ0eSwgYnkgcGFuZGVyaW5nIHRvIHRoZSCTbWFqb3Jp dHmULCBoYXZlIHRha2VuIG9uIHRoZSBwYXRoZXRpYyBtZW50YWxpdHkgb2YgdGhlIG1ham9y aXR5LiAgVGhleSBkb26SdCB3aXNlbHkgbGVhZCwgdGhleSBmb2xsb3cgZm9vbHMuDQo+U3Bl YWtpbmcgb2YgbWFqb3JpdGllcywgdGhlIGNvbnN0YW50IHB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIG9mIHBvbGxz IGlzIGVub3VnaCB0byBtYWtlIG1lIHB1a2UuICBKdXN0IHdoYXQgSSB3YW50IHRvIGtub3cs IHdoYXQgdGhlIGlnbm9yYW50IG1ham9yaXR5IHRoaW5rLiAgSSBsaWtlIHRoZSBwb2xscyB0 aGF0IHNob3dlZCB0aGUgaW5jcmVhc2UgaW4gcG9wdWxhcml0eSBvZiBDbGludG9uIGFzIHRo ZSByZXZlbGF0aW9ucyBiZWNhbWUgbW9yZSBkYW1hZ2luZy4gIFRoYXQgc2F5cyBpdCBhbGwg cmVnYXJkaW5nIG1ham9yaXRpZXMuDQo+VGhlIHNvY2lhbGlzdGljIGVmZm9ydCB0byBsZXZl bCB0aGUgcGxheWluZyBmaWVsZCBhc3N1cmVzIHRoZSBzdXJ2aXZhbCBvZiB0aGUgdW5maXQu ICBUaGlzIGdvZXMgYWdhaW5zdCBuYXR1cmFsIGxhdyBhbmQgd2lsbCB1bHRpbWF0ZWx5IHJl c3VsdCBpbiB0aGUgZGVtaXNlIG9mIGEgcG9wdWxhdGlvbi4gKEluY2lkZW50YWxseSBJIHVu ZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlIHJhdGlvIG9mIGdvdmVybm1lbnQgZW1wbG95ZWVzIHRvIG1hbnVmYWN0 dXJpbmcgam9icyBpcyBub3cgMToxLi4uY2VydGFpbmx5IG9uIG91ciB3YXkgdG8gYSB0b3Rh bGx5IHNvY2lhbGlzdGljIHN0YXRlLikNCj5XaGF0IEkgaGVhciBvbiB0aGUgbmV3cyBhYm91 dCB3aGF0IFJlcHVibGljYW5zIGRvIGFuZCB0aGluayBpcyBxdWl0ZSB1bmxpa2UgdGhlIHRo b3VnaHRmdWwgYW5kIGludGVsbGlnZW50IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIEkgZ2V0IHdoZW4gY29tbXVu aWNhdGluZyBkaXJlY3RseSB3aXRoIHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlbSBvciByZWFkaW5nIHRoZWlyIHdy aXR0ZW4gd29ya3MgZGlyZWN0bHkuICBJIGFncmVlIHRoYXQgdGhlIHJlbGlnaW91cyBlbGVt ZW50IGluIHRoZSBwYXJ0eSBzaG91bGQgbWFrZSB1cyBmZWVsIHVuZWFzeS4gIEJ1dCB0aGF0 knMgdGhlIGJlYXV0eSBvZiBDb25zdGl0dXRpb25hbCBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IG92ZXIgZGVtb2Ny YWN5LiAgVGhlaXIgaW5mbHVlbmNlIGlzIHNldmVyZWx5IGxpbWl0ZWQuDQo+VGhlIG1vcmUg bW9uZXkgSSBtYWtlLCB0aGUgbW9yZSBtb25leSBJIHNwZW5kIG9uIG5ldyBqb2JzLCBoaWdo ZXIgd2FnZXMsIG1vcmUgYmVuZWZpdHMgdG8gZW1wbG95ZWVzIGFuZCBzdXBwbGllcy4gIEkg bWlnaHQgYnV5IGEgYmlnZ2VyIGhvbWUgb3IgY2FyIGFuZCBzdHVmZiB0byBmaWxsIG15IGdh cmFnZSBidXQgdGhhdCBhbHNvIGNyZWF0ZXMgam9icyBhbmQgZWNvbm9taWMgaGVhbHRoIGZv ciB0aGUgY29tbXVuaXR5LiAgVGhlIJNyaWNolCBkb26SdCBob2FyZCB0aGVpciBtb25leSB0 aGV5IHNwZW5kIGl0LCBhbmQgbW9zdCBpbXBvcnRhbnRseSAgdGhleSBjcmVhdGUgaXQuICBJ ZiB0aGV5IGRvIGhvYXJkIGl0IGluIGJhbmtzIGl0IGNyZWF0ZXMgcmV2ZW51ZXMgZm9yIHRo ZSBiYW5rIGFuZCByZXNvdXJjZXMgZm9yIGxvYW5zLiBFdmVuIG1vcmUgaW1wb3J0YW50LCBp dCBpcyB0aGVpciBwcm9wZXJ0eSBub3QgdGhhdCBvZiB0aGUgY29tbXVuaXR5IHRvIGJlIGRp c3RyaWJ1dGVkIGJ5IGNoYXJnaW5nIHRoZW0gbW9yZSBmb3IgZ292ZXJubWVudCBzZXJ2aWNl cyB0aGFuIHRob3NlIHdobyBlYXJuIGxlc3MuIFdoYXQgdGhlIHJpY2ggZG8gd2l0aCB0aGVp ciBmYWlybHkgYWNxdWlyZWQgd2VhbHRoIGlzIHRoZWlyIGNvbmNlcm4gb25seS4gIEl0cyBu b2JvZHkgZWxzZZJzIGJ1c2luZXNzLi4uYXMgbG9uZyBhcyB0aGUgZnJlZWRvbSBleGlzdHMg Zm9yIG90aGVycyB0byBkbyB0aGUgc2FtZSB0aGluZy4NCj5XZWFsdGggaXMgdGhlIG9wcG9y dHVuaXR5IGZvciBmcmVlZG9tLiAgSXQgaXMgdGhlIJNwdXJzdWl0IG9mIGhhcHBpbmVzc5Qg aW4gk2xpZmUsIGxpYmVydHkgYW5kIHRoZSBwdXJzdWl0IG9mIGhhcHBpbmVzc5QuICBBcyBz dWNoIGl0IGlzIGEgYmFzaWMgaHVtYW4gcmlnaHQsIG5vdCBhICB0YXJnZXQgZm9yIGFidXNl IGJ5IGRlbW9jcmF0cyB3aG8gd2FudCB0byBhdHRlbnVhdGUgaXQgIGJ5IHJlZGlzdHJpYnV0 aW9uLiAgVG8gZXhjZWwsIHRvIGJlIG1vc3QgZml0LCBzaG91bGQgYmUgdGhlIGFzcGlyYXRp b24gb2YgYWxsLCBub3QgYW4gYWNjb21wbGlzaG1lbnQgdG8gYmUgIHJlc2VudGVkLCBkZXNw aXNlZCBhbmQgcHVuaXNoZWQuICBXaGVuIHdlIGdvIHRvIE5hcGxlcyB3ZSBhcmUgc3Vycm91 bmRlZCBieSB0aGUgd2VhbHRoeS4gICBFdmVyeSBvdGhlciBjYXIgaXMgYSBKYWcsIFBvcnNj aGUsIEJNVywgZXRjLiAgSGlnaCByaXNlcyBhYm91bmQgd2l0aCBzdGFydGluZyBwcmljZXMg YXQgb25lIG1pbGxpb24uICBTdG9yZXMgaGF2ZSBzaGlydHMgZm9yICQ4MDAuICBUaGUgb3B1 bGVuY2UgaXMgaW5jcmVkaWJsZS4gIEhvdyB0aGV5IGFsbCBnb3QgaXQgSSBkb26SdCBrbm93 IGJ1dCBJIGRvIGtub3cgSSBkb26SdCBoYXZlIGEgcmlnaHQgdG8gaXQuICAgTm9yIGRvIEkg ZmVlbCB0aGV5IHNob3VsZCBiZSBwYXlpbmcgbW9yZSBmb3IgdGhlIHNhbWUgZ292ZXJubWVu dCBzZXJ2aWNlcyBJIHJlY2VpdmUuICBJZiBJIGVudnkgaXQsIHRoZW4gSSBzaG91bGQgaGF2 ZSB0aGUgcmlnaHQgdG8gZ28gZm9yIGl0IHRvby4gIElmIEkgZG9uknQgc3VjY2VlZCwgIHRo ZW4gSSBoYXZlIG5vIG9uZSB0byBibGFtZSBidXQgbWUuICANCj5BbWVyaWNhIHdhcyBjcmVh dGVkIGJlY2F1c2Ugb2Ygb3BwcmVzc2l2ZSB0YXhhdGlvbiBhbmQgbG9zcyBvZiBmcmVlZG9t cy4gIEl0IHdhcyBub3QgY3JlYXRlZCB0byBmb3JtIGEgc29jaWFsaXN0aWMgc3RhdGUuICBJ dCBpcyBhIHBsYWNlIHdoZXJlIHBlb3BsZSBjYW4gZ28gdG8gc3VjY2VlZCBhbmQga2VlcCB0 aGUgZnJ1aXRzIG9mIHRoZWlyIGxhYm9ycy4gIERlbW9jcmF0cyhzb2NpYWxpc3RzKXdvdWxk IGhhdmUgaXQgb3RoZXJ3aXNlLCBpZ25vcmluZyB0aGUgaW50ZW50IG9mIHRoZSBmb3VuZGlu ZyBmYXRoZXJzIGFuZCBkZW55aW5nIHRoZSBldmlkZW50IGZhaWx1cmUgb2YgbGlrZSBzeXN0 ZW1zIGV4cGVyaW1lbnRlZCB3aXRoIGFyb3VuZCB0aGUgd29ybGQuDQo+IEFsbCBjcmVhdHVy ZXMgaGF2ZSBhIGJhc2ljIHZlcnkgc2VsZmlzaCBzdXJ2aXZhbCBpbnN0aW5jdC4gIElmIHRo aXMgd2VyZSBub3QgdGhlIGNhc2Ugbm8gc3BlY2llcyB3b3VsZCBzdXJ2aXZlLiAgV2UgaGF2 ZSB0aGlzIHNhbWUgaW5zdGluY3QgYnV0IGhhdmUgbW9yYWxpemVkIGluIHNvY2lldHkgc3Vj aCB0aGF0IHdlIGF0dGVtcHQgdG8gY3JlYXRlIGNpcmN1bXN0YW5jZXMgdGhhdCBwcm90ZWN0 IHRoZSB3ZWFrICBhbmQgdW5maXQgZm9yIHN1cnZpdmFsLiAgVG8gZXhjZWwsIHRvIGJlIJNy aWNolCBpcyBhbmF0aGVtYSwgYW5kIHRvIGJlIG9mIHRoZSBtZWRpb2NyZSCTd29ya2luZyBj bGFzc5QgbGF1ZGFibGUuICBFeGFjdGx5IHRoZSBvcHBvc2l0ZSBvZiB3aGF0IG9jY3VycyBp biBuYXR1cmUuICBJbiBuYXR1cmUgdGhlIGZpdCBzdXJ2aXZlLCB0aGV5IGRvbpJ0IHNwZW5k IHRoZWlyIHNraWxscyBwcm90ZWN0aW5nIHRoZSB1bmZpdCBzbyB0aGVyZSBjYW4gYmUgZXZl biBtb3JlIGNvbXBldGl0aW9uIGZvciByZXNvdXJjZXMuICBTb2NpYWxpc3RpYyCTaHVtYW5p dGFyaWFulCBwcm9ncmFtcyBtYXkgYXBwZWFyIHRvIGJlIGEgd29uZGVyZnVsIGV0aGljIGJ1 dCBpZ25vcmUgdGhlIGxvbmcgdGVybSBjb25zZXF1ZW5jZXMgdG8gc29jaWV0eSBzaW5jZSBw dW5pc2hpbmcgdGhlIG1vcmUgZml0LCB0aGUgc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bCwgYW5kIHJld2FyZGluZyB0 aGUgbGVzcyBzdWNjZXNzZnVsIGNhbiBvbmx5IHVsdGltYXRlbHkgd2Vha2VuIGEgY3VsdHVy ZS4gKFlvdSBtYXkgbm90IHNlZSB0aGUgk3dlYWx0aHmUIGFzIGJlaW5nIHB1bmlzaGVkLiAg U29tZSA4MCslIG9mIG5ldyBidXNpbmVzc2VzIGZhaWwuICBUaG9zZSB3aG8gZG8gc3VjY2Vl ZCBoYXZlIHRvIGZpZ2h0IGFuZCBzdHJ1Z2dsZSAok3dvcmuUIG9mIHRoZSBtb3N0IGRpZmZp Y3VsdCBraW5kKSBmYXIgYmV5b25kIHRoYXQgcmVxdWlyZWQgb2YgdGhlIJN3b3JraW5nIGNs YXNzlCBwcmltYXJpbHkgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiBuZWVkbGVzcyBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IGludGVydmVu dGlvbltJIHJlY2VudGx5IHNwZW50IHRlbnMgb2YgdGhvdXNhbmRzIHRvIGNoYW5nZSB0aGUg c3BhY2luZyAgYW5kIGluc2lnbmlmaWNhbnQgbGFuZ3VhZ2Ugb24gYSBmb29kIGxhYmVsIGJl Y2F1c2Ugd2Ugd2VyZSBzdWVkIHRvIHN0b3Agc2FsZSBiZWNhdXNlIG9mIGl0IGluIGEgc3Rh dGVdIGFuZCBjb3N0cyBjcmVhdGVkIGJ5IHNvY2lhbGlzbS4pDQo+RXZlcnlvbmUgaXMgcmVz cG9uc2libGUgZm9yIHRoZWlyIGFjdGlvbnMgb3IgaW5hY3Rpb25zLiAgSWYgc29tZW9uZSBk b2VzIG5vdCB3aXNoIHRvIHdvcmsgZXh0cmEgaGFyZCwgdGFrZSByaXNrcywgZXRjLiwgYnV0 IHJhdGhlciBwcmVmZXJzIHJpc2stZnJlZSBzZWN1cmUgZ3VhcmFudGVlcyhsaWtlIG1lIG9u IHRoZSBpc2xhbmQpLCB0aGVuIHRoZXkgaGF2ZSBubyBiaXRjaCB3aXRoIG90aGVycyB3aG8g YXJlIG1vcmUgc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bC4gIElmIHRoZXkgY2FuknQgbWFrZSBlbmRzIG1lZXQgYW5k IHRoZXkgZ28gaHVuZ3J5IHRoZW4gd2VsY29tZSB0byB0aGUgcmVhbCB3b3JsZCBvZiBzdXJ2 aXZhbCBvZiB0aGUgZml0dGVzdC4gIFRoZXkgZG9uknQgaGF2ZSB0aGUgcmlnaHQgdG8gdm90 ZSBteSBoYXJkIGVhcm5lZCBkb2xsYXJzIGF3YXkgZnJvbSBtZSB0byBwYXkgZm9yIHRoZWly IGZhaWx1cmUgdG8gcGVyZm9ybS4gIA0KPlRoZSCTd2VhbHRoeZQob3RoZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUg ZmFtaWx5IG1vbmV5IHR5cGUpIGhhdmUgc3VjY2VlZGVkIGJlY2F1c2UgdGhleSBoYXZlIGRv bmUgdGhlIGhhcmRlc3Qgd29yayBvZiBhbGwsIHRoaW5rLiAgRm9yZCBvbmNlIHNhaWQgc29t ZXRoaW5nIGxpa2U6IJNUaGlua2luZyBpcyB0aGUgaGFyZGVzdCB3b3JrIHRoZXJlIGlzLCB3 aGljaCBpcyBwcm9iYWJseSB3aHkgc28gZmV3IGVuZ2FnZSBpbiBpdC6UICBNeSBleHBlcmll bmNlIHdpdGggk3dvcmtlcnOUIGlzIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBpcyB2ZXJ5IG11Y2ggc28uICBUaGV5 IHdpbGwgYWxtb3N0IGRvIGFueXRoaW5nLCBldmVuIHRoZSBtb3N0IHN0dXBpZCByZXBldGl0 aW91cyB1bm5lY2Vzc2FyeSBjaG9yZSwgIHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIHRoaW5rIG9mIGEgYmV0dGVy IHdheS4gIEl0IGlzIGEgY29uc3RhbnQgc3RydWdnbGUgYXQgdGhlIG9mZmljZS4gIA0KPiAg SSAgZmluZCBpdCBkaWZmaWN1bHQgdG8gdGFrZSBhIGxlYWRlciBzZXJpb3VzbHkgd2hvIGFz cGlyZWQgZm9yIGtpbmdzaGlwIHNpbmNlIGhlIHdhcyBhbiBpbmZhbnQuICBXaGF0IHByaW5j aXBsZXMgYW5kIHBvdGVudGlhbGx5IGZydWl0ZnVsIGlkZWFzIGRpZCBoZSBoYXZlIGZvciBh IG5hdGlvbiBhdCB0aGlzIGFnZT8gIEV2aWRlbnRseSBhYm91dCB0aGUgc2FtZSBhcyBoZSBk b2VzIG5vdywgbm9uZSwgb3RoZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgZGVzaXJlIGZvciBwb3NpdGlvbiBhbmQg cG93ZXIuICBXZSBzaG91bGQgc2VlayBsZWFkZXJzIHdobyBhc3BpcmUgdG8gdGhlIHBvc2l0 aW9uIGJlY2F1c2Ugb2YgdHJ1ZSB2aXNpb24gYW5kIHByaW5jaXBsZSBjb25zaXN0ZW50IHdp dGggdGhlIHByZW1pc2VzIEmSdmUgb3V0bGluZWQgYWJvdmUuDQoNCkxldJJzLCBzZWUsIHRo YXQgd291bGQgaW4gZWZmZWN0IG1ha2UgbWUga2luZyBvZiB0aGUgd29ybGQgd291bGRuknQg aXQ/ICBDb29sIQ0KDQpMYXRlciwgQ29tcmFkZQ0KDQoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAABAAB0RgAAeEYAALBZAAB7dnsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEACgQIAMACBADAAEAAAkBAAALAQAAyAIAAMoCAACOAwAAkAMAAFwE AABeBAAAMgUAADQFAAAmBwAAKAcAAHgIAAB6CAAAjAkAAI4JAACrCgAArQoAADwMAAA+DAAA 8w0AAHFxAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANAAAADwgAAuAQwCEBAhXzDQAA9Q0AAIYP AACIDwAADxAAABEQAAAoEQAAKhEAANsSAADdEgAAtBQAALYUAADaFwAA3BcAACYaAAAoGgAA yBwAAMocAABAHgAAQh4AAKIfAACkHwAAJiEAACghAABEIgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAGEQiAABGIgAAjyMAAJEjAACqIwAAoyQAAM8kAAAQJQAAeyUAAAkmAAALJgAA sSYAALMmAABiKAAAZCgAAPsqAAD9KgAA6ysAAO0rAAAgLQAAIi0AAGktAABrLQAADC4AAFEw AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYUTAAAJwwAADpMwAAoDUAAK42AAAdOQAA TzkAAGI6AACbPQAAG0IAAGZDAACPRAAA1UUAAGJHAABMSgAAr00AAC1PAAAEVAAA3FUAAKdX AABKWQAATFkAAJxZAACeWQAArlkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABiuWQAA sFkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQABAACwWQAAtAAAAQAA8w0AAEQiAABRMAAArlkAALBZAAC1ALYA twC4ALkAEBAPVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA0AIAABgDAAAAAAAAAA0AAAAACQAAAAsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKAFAACgBQAACAcAAAgH AADgPQAA0C8AANACAAA4BAAAoAUAAKAFAAAIBwAACAcAAOA9AADQLwAA0AIAADgEAAABAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AQBDAG8AbQBwAE8AYgBqAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAABIAAgD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAVQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP///////////////wAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA= --part1_0.2080a251.256bee84_boundary-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:22:15 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Randy to Katinka:macroevolution On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:41:05 EST WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > I would like to see your evidence that mutations have created a new kind of > creature. Good luck. no proof, but indication enough... : Well, turn to any good college biology book about the development off fish. (Biology, Campbell) First they had one fin, at the back. Then through a dubbling of genes (it happens sometimes, hope it falls under the catogory of mutation) there were two regions where fins developed. Another dubbling made the two front fins, that in us humans and other landanimals became front feet. Just an example. > > The notion that organelles are the remnants of "eaten" bacteria or the like > is speculative. If you have proofs I would be interested. Well, the genes in the mitochondrien have been compared with the genes of the animal in which they live and the genes of cyanobacteria. The genes have far more in common with the genes of the latter, than with us. source (and better explanation): Slanted Truths: essays on gaia, symbiosis, and evolution, by Lynn Margulis, Dorian Sagan; 1997, Springer-Verlag, New York. In your local library, if the library is as good as the one in my home town. > Evolutionary theory is riddled with fanciful explanations because clear proof > of macroevolution has not been forthcoming. Problem is we are all so > schooled that evolution is "science" we tend not to examine the > foundations(which rest on sand). Well, the above is indication, if not proof.It sounds likely to me, what more can I do? Even if there is intelligence in the universe that guides the mutations and other ways in which changes happen, those intelligences still have an easier time if there are physical mechanisms that help. I mean, the fact of the diversity of life is there... Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:34:15 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: misunderstanding I am a bit late in responding, but there seems to be another misunderstanding here. kym writes (flaming?): > Dallas wrote > > >In fact I am assuming that our ways of thought are so > >different, that allthough we base ourselves on the same > >literature (something I don't think we should assume about > >Kym for instance), > > What!? Wait, what does this mean? "Something I don't think we should > assume about Kym for instance" - Dallas, are you suggesting I am > theosophically-challenged or something? Are you suggesting that I > interpret texts in ways no one else could, should, or would ever admit? Well, kym, That was me (katinka) trying to tell Dalas that we should not assume that we all speak the same language here. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 08:44:16 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 21, 1999 Short version: Theosophy can fit with both liberal and conservative politics (whether they can fit in with Liberal or Conservative politics, noting the capitalizations, is another thing entirely). The key is whether politics are motivated by selfishness, or a genuine belief that it is the best way for human evolution. I can give the long version, showing in more detail, if you'd like. Note, however, that there is a wide gulf between Pat Robertson and Bill Buckley. Bart Lidofsky kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > Regarding "conservative" theosophists - well, to be honest, I do not see > how theosophy and conservatism can even merge; but there are some > conservative theosophists, that's for sure. I just don't understand where > or how they manage to do it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:47:49 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: RE: reincarnation > Time-span Mahatma Letters p. 112. 187 (Barker Edn.) > Suffering in K. Loka ML 109 132 198-9 (Barker Edn.) > Being "flayed alive" TIBETAN TEACHINGS (ULT Edition of HPB > Articles III p. 347) > Lucifer Sept & Oct 1894 Vol 18, p. 9; BCW Vol. 6, p. 94 thanks, I will look it up, because devachan etc. interests me mightily. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 14:52:10 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Randy to JRC: tightening the thumbscrews > If all this rubs anyone the wrong way, just ignore my questions and I'll > eventually go away. I'm sticking around though til I'm sure that I've > exhausted all I can reasonably do to find out what gems of truth may reside > here. Randy Well, Randy, some of those gems are difficult to understand and therefore check, without the neccessary vocabulary. But any time you have a concrete answer I will try to answer in vocabulary that is understandable for you. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:09:03 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: to randy: some west-eastern lunacy Randy writes: > Continuing. Now it gets hard. > 3. Since reason has led me to this point, why not use it to determine what > the universal truth is? By reason I mean logic, direct experience, trust and > faith in the experience of credible others, experimental results, practical > utility(there's that abhorent western thing again, I just can't hold it > back), intuition, etc. These are all good tools. But the results gleaned by > one should fit the others according to the rule of universal truth. > 4. Now just get to it. Assemble the truths and see what they say. Maybe > this will not get too far but it is a safe way to go and will prevent wasting > a lot of time on detours(which most of the thousands of religious beliefs > are). > In the alternative to #3, one could go to school under any number of masters, > Tammy Faye Baker, Jesus(Although who really knows what he even said Never > mind that though, learn the language of christology and show some respect for > the clergy masters, right?), Jerry Falwell, Confucious, HPB(oops--covers > head defensively to ward off blows) etc. We could trust in the great > intellect of these masters, learn the vocabulary they invent, not question > their foundations, not apply reason(too western), just follow, that's the > essential key here. Well, no, not exactly. just be patient enough to hear us out, and then ask questions. > If theosophy, like any other useful system of thought, has anything of value > to say, the essential elements must be able to be clearly articulated with > common language and the proofs made obvious. My feeling is that if you are > saying that theosophy cannot do this then I am saying it has nothing of value > to offer other than mental calisthenics. I am interpreting this as a question. translation: what are the basic elements? As there are different theosophy's on this list, I will give you my list of fundamentals, that are based mainly on those same mahatma's and hpb: 1) there is physical world. 2) there is thought (and emotion, and spirituality) 3) thought and emotion influance each other, and not merely physically. 4) what I do, influances others and ultimately influances me again (also called karma) 5) there is something divine in all of us. I could go on, of course, but not being able to give a proof for any of these (except perhaps the first three), I will stop here and see how you respond and what proof you need... Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:24:19 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: chess Hello, This may be of interest. Grigor The Game of Asha As retold by Paul Jordan-Smith Day after day in that garden, Zarathushtra demonstrated with his pebbles the laws of the universe. Adapted from several tales by the 10th-century Persian poet Firdausi. If you read it aloud to friends, you may want to begin the story with two questions: What contemporary game does the legend describe? And why was the promise at the end never fulfilled? -- It is told in the old legends how, one day, when King Vishtaspa was returning from a victorious campaign, he came upon a circle of men sitting beneath a tree and listening with rapt attention to a venerable old man who sat in their midst. The king, who was then a young man, was curious to know who the old man was, and so dispatched a servant to find out. Upon his approach the circle of men gave way to the servant, who discovered that the old man was the great teacher Zarathushtra, and that the circle of men who listened to him were his disciples. All this was duly reported to King Vishtaspa, who it is said, demanded that the sage be brought before him. "I am told that your name is Zarathushtra," said the king when the Teacher was before him, "and I am also told that you are the wisest man in the world. If that is so, I demand as your king that you immediately instruct me and explain to me the laws of nature and the universe. But please do not be long-winded, for I am in a hurry to return to my palace, where there are many important matters of state awaiting me." Zarathushtra looked thoughtfully at the king for a moment and then, bending down, he picked up from the ground a grain of wheat. Holding it respectfully between thumb and forefinger, he bowed low before King Vishtaspa and offered him the grain. The king took it in his hand and the Great Sage explained: "Your Majesty, all the laws that govern heaven and earth may be read in that which you now hold in your hand. The forces of good and of evil are there, and all that you have asked may be answered by conferring with this grain of wheat. I offer you this book, which you may take with you and read at your leisure." But King Vishtaspa, seeing the smiles on the faces of the sage's disciples, decided that Zarathushtra was mocking him. He threw the grain of wheat to the ground and rose proudly in his saddle. "I came respectfully and I asked for your guidance because I was told that you were the wisest man in the world. I can see now that you are nothing more than a country bumpkin who has not learned good manners. You cloak your ignorance behind exaggerated ways; I was foolish to have wasted my time here." So said the king. Then, wheeling around on his stallion, he rode away. As the king and his retinue departed, Zarathushtra knelt and retrieved the grain of wheat. "I shall keep this grain," he said to himself, "for one day the king will need it, and it will be his teacher." Many years passed, and the fame of Zarathushtra grew with every year. Nor did the fame of King Vishtaspa lessen: always victorious in battle, becoming ever richer with every new alliance, he spent his days in luxury and abundance. But his nights became ever more sleepless with every increase of his fame and wealth. "I live in luxury," he thought to himself, "yet who has decreed that it shall be always so? One year the farmer's harvest is rich, and the next year hailstorms are his ruin. Shall I be always so blest with victory? Will my downfall be the greater as my fame and fortune in crease? Surely the laws which govern the poor govern also the rich -- and who is He who made these laws? How shall I learn the will of God, so that I may measure my fame proportionately, and know the number of my days?" Night after night these and other questions perplexed the brain of King Vishtaspa and troubled his sleep. At last, pondering his encounter with the Great Sage years earlier, he decided once more to beg instruction, this time in terms quite unlike those he had set as a young man on horseback. "Great Teacher, I humble myself before you," he wrote to Zarathushtra. "I regret thoroughly the pride and thoughtlessness of my youth, and see now how foolish it was to have asked for answers to imponderable questions in so short a space of time. Please accept my regrets and humble me with a visit, that I may learn from you, or at least send one of your disciples to teach me." Then he wrapped the letter, together with a gem of great value, in a fine linen cloth and dispatched it to the Teacher. In a few days, the messenger returned from Zarathushtra, bringing his answer to the king: "Your Majesty is very kind, but a gardener has no use for jewels, so I am returning the gem. The cloth I shall keep, for it will be useful in protecting certain of my plants against the cold of winter." Together with this letter, wrapped in a leaf, was the grain of wheat. "I am too old to journey far from my garden," the sage continued in his letter, "but the king is too noble to receive one of my disciples in my place. Therefore, I am sending, not a disciple but my own teacher, one who has taught me all that I know about the universe." It was not long afterward that among those sitting in a circle in the garden of Zarathushtra was one who had lately been accustomed to what men usually regard as more royal circumstances: but he was content now to watch an old man draw figures in the sand, and to move about on these figures various common pebbles, such as those with which children through the ages have played. On one such figure was depicted the Unity of All: the seasons and the energies of the stars, the sun, the earth and man, the points of the compass and the elements. In all, seven vertical lines were drawn, intersected by another seven at right angles to the first. Around the whole was drawn that most stable of figures, the square, so that the figure was composed of a large square containing sixty-four smaller squares, eight to a side. Now the Great Sage demonstrated how the universe is permeated by the forces of good and evil, just as time may be divided into night and day. So every other square was as dark as night, and the dark and light squares alternated over the whole figure. And now the Great Sage chose with care various pebbles of strange shape, some of them dark, others light. In all, thirty-two pebbles were chosen, some tall and others small, as if representing greater and lesser powers in the universe. Sixteen of the pebbles were dark, sixteen were light in color. Eight of each group of sixteen were almost identical in size and shape, and the other eight seemed almost to form four pairs of identical figures; and yet in truth, each of the six teen pebbles was unique. Now, he began to give them names, and with each name he showed how each represented a force or an agent in the universe, each force or agent of light balanced by one of darkness. The forces and agents of light he called Ahuras and Fravashis, the latter being represented by the eight smaller, almost identical pebbles. Counterbalancing these, among the forces of darkness, were the Daevas and Khrafstras. Of each group of sixteen, one Ahura and one Daeva was lord of the other fifteen. Among the lighter forces, this was Ahura Mazda and among the darker, Ahriman. Each of the figures moved in the universe in its own peculiar and unique fashion. The Fravashis and the Khrafstras, for example, always moved forward, one square at a time, except for their initial movement, when they were allowed to move two squares forward, or when, upon encountering an alien force diagonally ahead of them, they were allowed to capture that force by displacing themselves one square forward and one square to the side. Although these eight agents looked alike, each had its own name. Among the Fravashis were, for instance, the Sun, Water, Air, Food, Man, Earth, Health, and Joy. Counterbalancing these among the Khrafstras were Darkness, Impure Water, Impure Air, Impure Food, Inferior Man, Barrenness, Disease, and Sadness. Of the Ahuras and Daevas, Power and Peace, and their dark opponents, Weakness and Violence, moved only in straight lines vertically or horizontally. Love and Work, and also Hatred and Idleness, moved in a manner quite distinct from all the others, namely one square in any direction and one square obliquely. Wisdom and Eternal Life, Ignorance and Death moved only in straight lines, but always obliquely, one of each pair always on dark squares, one always on the light. Among the Ahuras, the Preserver, and among the Daevas, the Spoiler, moved with great power and flexibility -- in straight lines always, but in any direction, to the eight points of the compass. Of Ahura Mazda, the Creator, and of Ahriman, the Destroyer, we have already spoken; each could move in any direction, but always one square at a time, in accordance with the will of that power himself. For the wise king will always send to battle his agents, so that he may better plan his defenses and attacks. Day after day in that garden, the Great Sage demonstrated with his pebbles the laws of the universe and the great struggle between the forces of light and darkness. And King Vishtaspa was delighted to learn a method of wherein he might discern not only the forces which govern the universe, but perhaps, one day, even the will of God. It is said that to reward Zarathushtra for teaching him the Royal Game, the Game of Asha, King Vishtaspa promised Zarathushtra anything he desired. Zarathushtra replied that he wished only to be paid in kind: let a single grain of wheat be placed on the first square of the board of sixty-four squares and two on the second. On the third let there be placed four, and on the fourth, eight, and so on, simply doubling on each square the number of grains on the preceding square. Charmed by this modest request, King Vishtaspa ordered his servants to fulfill the promise. Why was the promise never fulfilled? ------------ Grigor Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 06:32:25 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: With a little help of my friends.... This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BF357C.81DCA0C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nov 23rd 1999 Hi Estrella: It is long since we have heard from you -- and it is sorry news that you bring of loneliness. But you see you are not really alone, not ever. You have your memories of the past contacts and our exchange of thoughts together. And they are good to recall. So you have never been "alone." You only think you are. You need only write to feel that response waiting to hear from you. Where are you now, and what have you been doing? As to you own present feeling of isolation and loneliness, why not look on it as you now have, a little, as it is mood and all moods are passing things. We can make them short or long depending on how we think. If we are saddened because we know that we can "do better," then the thing to do is to get out and continue "doing." We are, each one of us, a "thinker" -- A Soul. And the Soul cannot be killed, even if our moods seem to overwhelm us and surround us with a "fog." All fogs lift after a while, and after the night or the clouds, the Sun always shines, as the great Earth always revolves. We have to keep a mental grasp (when we think we are only surrounded by darkness) of the memory of the Sun -- of the Father that gives us all our physical lives through its warmth and universal friendliness to all creatures. There is a "ray" of that universal Sun, which lives in each of us. It lives also in every other thing, in our friends, and family, and also in those we think of as "strangers." It is to be seen giving life to the trees, and the flowers and to all the animals and humans in the world. It is essence of the minerals -- as crystals of brilliancy and worth -- and occasionally even those emerge from the Earth and are brought into the Sun again. And therefore we speak of brotherhood as the first object to think about, to live for, and to practice. It is the common source of all Life -- god, the Father of all -- who always keep HOPE alive in our hearts. If we are isolated it is because temporarily we loose the memory of this fact. Cal it back to life and make it work for you. We are all immortal pilgrims working for our better understanding of our world, our friends, our family and finally of our inner selves. If you wish to call on us again, then, like that which you have just done, reach out and write us all again. And so we are eternal student, always learning something new. and this ought to gives us the joy of "ever becoming." We always have something we can do. Let's look at and recall the "bright side" of things. As you finish your letter, you recall that your name means you are named the "star-born," and will always relate to the "stars." Each one of us is a "star" on this earth. You are a being of HOPE. And while you may never totally realise any one "hope," you can always use it as a guide a something to aspire to, and remember you already bathe in, and live in its radiance. That radiance can never be lost. Never make the night darker by "shutting it out." The star is within. It is the Christ-star, and it is wise. Jesus said: "I and my Father are one." He also called himself the "Son of Man." and "the son of God." At one point he spoke to his disciples and said: "Do you not know you are Gods?" So he was referring there to the imperishable STAR that is within -- a "ray" a "star" of the ONE SPIRIT. And therefore we can never be, CAN NEVER BE totally isolated or lonely. We can never "loose our Soul." It is the Soul inside that makes us think, and as we are always able to think, we can see that its friendliness to us, takes us through the darkest moods of despair and loneliness at time. But we never ought to loose HOPE. The night will always pass and the Sun will rise again, for everyone. In a way, we are all brother and sister stars. We are all soul stars and we are immortals and we help each other through thoughts and good feelings. But the fogs of fear, and of a false sense of isolation always lift, if we wait and have patience. And if we reach out to touch our friends and companions there will always be a response -- sometimes it is only a thought, or a word. And those we can put away in our treasure-house of memories and bring them out whenever we feel lonely and in despair. Best wishes to you and be comforted. You will never be alone. Now get busy and write us all again and tell us what you have been doing for the last year or so since we heard from you -- perhaps you can help us also, like you used to. We are all part of the great human family, and feel able live and love you and each-other along with you. The great cure for despair and loneliness is to get out and see if you can help someone else through their problems and needs. That "takes us out" of our mood and isolation. Every mood, every thought, every moment of our lives is a "learning experience." We live THROUGH THOSE THINGS. They need not overwhelm us. Best wishes to you, as always, Your friend, Dallas Dallas -----Original Message----- > From: E [mailto:Lloltlit@schoolemail.com] > Date: Monday, November 22, 1999 6:10 PM > Subject: With a little help of my friends.... Hi all, it is been a while since i writed here. The reason for my delay in writing, besides of changing my email adress, it is because of serious difficulties in my schoolwork. the pressure it is been extreme, and i have the feeling that i cannot do it. Well, i am quite young still, but as some of you have experienced once in a while in their lifetime, there are a certain time in your life when you experience what the rolling stones have called "19 nervous breakdown" I am passing now one of those moments. i will not waste time explaining the serious difficulties what i am having in my schoolwork project, but i will resume them in one: Want to get the heck out of here. I claim mercy. I realize that i am doing something that i should have never started, and the major difficulty: I cannot finish it. I am feeling right now like in a bad version of a Kafka book, and the depression it is something more ahead that i can manage. i need help. I do not like to cause compassion or that other pepole do the work i am supposed to do, but, if i am asking for help, it is because this is more than i can handle for the moment. And all of you, dear good folks, maybe true magicians in disguise, i have followed you, even if i do not write, and trying to learn, as i do always all the time, and i like when you make me laugh, and i feel sad when you feel sad. But i know that you always had changed me, for the better: for you make me learn. And that is good. But now i am appealing to your mercy, and your help, as friends that you are, as i consider you. speccialy to the most closest and kind that always have been there when i had asked help. And i really need a big effort of help now. What kind of help?? the best. Just pray. your good will and good taughts. because for me it is a time of emptyness, and i really cannot do more effort. i have tried, but i do not know how to help myself. As you had noticed, i am quite lonely. in fact, i am, as never, or maybe few times in my life. Thank you all, in advance, for your concern, if any. any help is welcome. "Trying to reach the stars, but still in earth, how far am I...." Estrella ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BF357C.81DCA0C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Nov 23rd=20 1999
 
Hi=20 Estrella:
 
It is long since we = have heard=20 from you -- and it is sorry news that you bring of loneliness.  But = you see=20 you are not really alone, not ever.
 
You have your = memories of the=20 past contacts and our exchange of thoughts together.  And they are = good to=20 recall. So you have never been "alone."  You only think you = are.  You=20 need only write to feel that response waiting to hear from = you.  =20 Where are you now, and what have you been doing?
 
As to you own = present feeling=20 of isolation and loneliness, why not look on it as you now have, a = little, as it=20 is mood and all moods are passing things.  We can make them short = or long=20 depending on how we think.  If we are saddened because we know that = we can=20 "do better," then the thing to do is to get out and continue = "doing." =20
 
We are, each one of = us, a=20 "thinker" --  A Soul.  And the Soul cannot be killed, even if = our=20 moods seem to overwhelm us and surround us with a "fog."  All fogs = lift=20 after a while, and after the night or the clouds, the Sun always shines, = as the=20 great Earth always revolves. 
 
We have to keep a = mental grasp=20 (when we think we are only surrounded by darkness) of the memory of the = Sun --=20 of the Father that gives us all our physical lives through its warmth = and=20 universal friendliness to all creatures.  There is a "ray" of that=20 universal Sun, which lives in each of us.  It lives also in every = other=20 thing, in our friends, and family, and also in those we think of as=20 "strangers."  It is to be seen giving life to the trees, and the = flowers=20 and to all the animals and humans in the world.  It is essence of = the=20 minerals -- as crystals of brilliancy and worth -- and occasionally even = those=20 emerge from the Earth and are brought into the Sun again. =20 And therefore we speak of brotherhood as the first object to = think=20 about, to live for, and to practice.  It is the common source of = all Life=20 -- god, the Father of all -- who always keep HOPE alive in our = hearts.  If=20 we are isolated it is because temporarily we loose the memory of this=20 fact.  Cal it back to life and make it work for = you.
 
We are all immortal = pilgrims=20 working for our better understanding of our world, our friends, our = family and=20 finally of our inner selves.  If you wish to call on us again, = then, like=20 that which you have just done, reach out and write us all again.  = And so we=20 are eternal student, always learning something new.  and this ought = to=20 gives us the joy of "ever becoming."  We always have something we = can=20 do.
 
Let's look at and = recall the=20 "bright side" of things.  As you finish your letter, you recall = that your=20 name means you are named the "star-born," and will always relate to the=20 "stars."  Each one of us is a "star" on this earth.  You are a = being=20 of HOPE.  And while you may never totally realise any one "hope," = you can=20 always use it as a guide a something to aspire to, and remember you = already=20 bathe in, and live in its radiance.  That radiance can never be = lost. =20 Never make the night darker by "shutting it out."
 
The star is = within.  It is=20 the Christ-star, and it is wise.  Jesus said:  "I and my = Father are=20 one."  He also called himself the "Son of Man." and "the son of=20 God."  At one point he spoke to his disciples and said:  "Do = you not=20 know you are Gods?"  So he was referring there to the imperishable = STAR=20 that is within -- a "ray" a "star" of the ONE SPIRIT.  And = therefore we can=20 never be, CAN NEVER BE totally isolated or lonely.  We can never = "loose our=20 Soul."  It is the Soul inside that makes us think, and as we are = always=20 able to think, we can see that its friendliness to us, takes us through = the=20 darkest moods of despair and loneliness at time.  But we never = ought to=20 loose HOPE.  The night will always pass and the Sun will rise = again, for=20 everyone.
 
In a=20 way, we are all brother and sister stars.  We are all soul stars = and we are=20 immortals and we help each other through thoughts and good=20 feelings.
 
But=20 the fogs of fear, and of a false sense of isolation always lift, if we = wait and=20 have patience.  And if we reach out to touch our friends and = companions=20 there will always be a response -- sometimes it is only a thought, or a=20 word.  And those we can put away in our treasure-house of memories = and=20 bring them out whenever we feel lonely and in = despair.
 
Best=20 wishes to you and be comforted.  You will never be=20 alone.
 
Now=20 get busy and write us all again and tell us what you have been doing for = the=20 last year or so since we heard from you -- perhaps you can help us also, = like=20 you used to.  We are all part of the great human family, and feel = able live=20 and love you and each-other along with you.  The great cure for = despair and=20 loneliness is to get out and see if you can help someone else through = their=20 problems and needs.  That "takes us out" of our mood and = isolation. =20 Every mood, every thought, every moment of our lives is a "learning=20 experience."  We live THROUGH THOSE THINGS. They need not overwhelm = us.
 
Best=20 wishes to you, as always,
 
Your friend,
 
Dallas
 

Dallas

 
-----Original=20 Message-----
From: E=20 [mailto:Lloltlit@schoolemail.com]
Date: Monday, November 22, = 1999=20 6:10 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: With a = little=20 help of my friends....

 =20

Hi all, it is been a while since i writed = here.=20
The reason for my delay in writing, besides of = changing my=20 email adress, it is because of serious difficulties in my schoolwork. = the=20 pressure it is been extreme, and i have the feeling that i cannot do=20 it.
    Well, i am quite = young still,=20 but as some of you have experienced once in a while in their lifetime, = there=20 are a certain time in your life when you experience what the rolling = stones=20 have called "19 nervous breakdown"
   =20 I am passing now one of those moments. i will not waste time = explaining the=20 serious difficulties what i am having in my schoolwork project, but i = will=20 resume them in one: Want to get the heck out of here. I claim mercy. I = realize=20 that i am doing something that i should have never started, and the = major=20 difficulty: I cannot finish it. =
    I am=20 feeling right now like in a bad version of a Kafka book, and the = depression it=20 is something more ahead that i can manage. i need help. I do not like = to cause=20 compassion or that other pepole do the work i am supposed to do, but, = if i am=20 asking for help, it is because this is more than i can handle for the=20 moment.
   =20 And all of you, dear good folks, maybe true magicians in disguise, i = have=20 followed you, even if i do not write, and trying to learn, as i do = always all=20 the time, and i like when you make me laugh, and i feel sad when you = feel=20 sad.
   =20 But i know that you always had changed me, for the better: for you = make me=20 learn.
    And that is good.
    But now i am appealing to your mercy, and = your=20 help, as friends that you are, as i consider you. speccialy to the = most=20 closest and kind that always have been there when i had asked = help.=20
    And i really need a big effort = of help=20 now. What kind of help?? the best. Just pray. your good will and good = taughts.=20 because for me it is a time of emptyness, and i really cannot do more = effort.=20 i have tried, but i do not know how to help myself.
    As you had noticed, i am quite lonely. in = fact, i=20 am, as never, or maybe few times in my life.
    Thank you all, in advance, for your = concern, if=20 any. any help is welcome.=20

    "Trying to reach the stars, but = still in=20 earth, how far am I...."
  =
    Estrella=20
  =
 

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BF357C.81DCA0C0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 10:02:05 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: RE: reincarnation Nov 23 Dear Katinka: May I make it quite clear that what I wrote relates to several "after death" stages which each EGO passes through (Theosophy teaches) in that sequence. Being "flayed alive" does not relate to DEVACHAN. This is important. It relates to the ASTRAL CORPSE of the departed Individuality, which normally disintegrates and returns its components to the elements around it, being reanimated by mediums at a seance. And this is descriptive of the pain it can be made to suffer there. The INDIVIDUAL SPIRIT -- ATMA-BUDDHI-HIGHER-MANAS -- has left that astral corpse (which consists of astral body, Kama (desire), and residual pranic vitality) and this Eternal MONAD enveloped in the highest aspirations and the noble memories (impacted in the HIGHER MANAS) of the last life it has, have retired into DEVACHAN to a assimilate those into its Permanent EGOITY and Character. It is a period of intense MEDITATION and it is not possible to disturb it during that time it needs it the DEVACHANIC condition and stage. It is this immortal and eternal EGO which returns, coming out of DEVACHAN in the next incarnation, and on the way, coming back through the astral sphere, it picks up the needed skandhas of the past from the elements where they have been resting and waiting, to form the vestures (prana, Kama, Astral body) so that it can inhabit the body provided by the parents of the Physical baby that will house it for the rest of its next life. Theosophy says this is what happens to all of us, life after life. After physical death, the psychic (kama-desire & passion) and the astral self coalesce and disintegrate very quickly on the astral plane if left alone and not importunated by those who seek them from "this side" in a seance, etc... You will find that HPB has explained the whole process fully in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY (1889) Dal Dallas -----Original Message----- > From: hesse600 [mailto:hesse600@tem.nhl.nl] > Date: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 5:48 AM > Subject: Re: RE: reincarnation > Time-span Mahatma Letters p. 112. 187 (Barker Edn.) > Suffering in K. Loka ML 109 132 198-9 (Barker Edn.) > Being "flayed alive" TIBETAN TEACHINGS (ULT Edition of HPB > Articles III p. 347) > Lucifer Sept & Oct 1894 Vol 18, p. 9; BCW Vol. 6, p. 94 thanks, I will look it up, because devachan etc. interests me mightily. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.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, 23 Nov 1999 18:10:36 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Katinka: the divine Thank you for your gracious offer. I have no issue with the first points. How do you come up with the divine in your last point? Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 18:18:26 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Kym:reply returned I prepared a reply and sent it with an attachment but it was returned. I assume you do not accept attachments or perhaps the list doesn't. Anyway, now I don't know how to resend it without the attachment. Trying to figure it out. Computer illiterate, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 18:30:46 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Katinka:macroevolution The evidences you cite for macroevolution are a matter of forcing the facts to fit the theory. Macroevolution may occur but not by the mechanisms popularized-mutations and selection. Think on this for a minute. According to evolution we have eyes because they make us more fit. Problem is, anything less than a perfectly functioning complete eye is a hindrance. Therefore all the zillions of steps necessary to evolve an eye would create less fit creatures which according to natural selection would be removed from the population. But if the intermediary steps necessary to evolve the eye were culled out by selection, then our ancestors would have been culled. If they were culled, then we do not exist. But we do. Thus the problem of mechanism. This is a really interesting problem from a philosophical standpoint. It seems to point to a mechanism for our existence outside of presently understood science. Right up our alley right? Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 18:42:35 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: sinner --part1_0.bcc4f3ae.256c806b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here's the attached I speak of. Randy --part1_0.bcc4f3ae.256c806b_boundary Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="SCOTT2~1.WPS" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="SCOTT2~1.WPS" 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAAA AAAAEAAAAgAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAAAAAAD///////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////9////NQAAAP7////+////BQAAAAYAAAAHAAAA CAAAAAkAAAAKAAAACwAAAAwAAAANAAAADgAAAA8AAAAQAAAAEQAAABIAAAATAAAAFAAAABUA AAAWAAAAFwAAABgAAAAZAAAAGgAAABsAAAAcAAAAHQAAAB4AAAAfAAAAIAAAACEAAAAiAAAA IwAAACQAAAAlAAAAJgAAACcAAAAoAAAAKQAAACoAAAArAAAALAAAAC0AAAAuAAAALwAAADAA AAAxAAAAMgAAADMAAAA0AAAA/v////7///////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////1IA bwBvAHQAIABFAG4AdAByAHkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAWAAUA//////////8DAAAAwtvNKOIKzhGimgCqAEoacgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGCZ ARl0Rb0BAwAAAMAAAAAAAAAATQBhAHQATwBTAFQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AAQH/////BAAAAP////8AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAGA3xBd0Rb0BIMnlF3RFvQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABNAE0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgACAf// /////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAAAA AAAAAE0ATgAwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAIBAgAAAAEAAAD/////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAZgAAAAAAAA/v///wIAAAD+//////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////9ORAAA AQAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAQD+/wMKAAD/////wtvNKOIKzhGimgCqAEoachAAAABNaWNyb3NvZnQgV29ya3MA DQAAAE1TV29ya3NXUERvYwAAAAAA9DmycQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAb+dVOcWAAAnFgAAKAFsBNUmwEA0AIAAAAAAAEAAAkB AAAAAQAAsFkAAAZgAAAAXQAACgAKXQAAIgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsXQAAAAAsXQAA AAAsXQAAAAAsXQAAEgCgBaAFCAcIB+A90C8BAAAAAADQAjgEAABkAAAALF0AAAAA/////wAA AAADCNACAAAAAAAArlkAAAEAdAGSXgAALF0AAAAAPl0AAFQBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABTY290dCAyDQoNCkhpLWFnYWluLCBsZXQgbWUgY29tcGxpbWVudCB5b3Ugb24g eW91ciBsZXR0ZXIuICBXZWxsIHdyaXR0ZW4sIG1hdHVyZSwgZW50ZXJ0YWluaW5nIGFuZCBw cm92b2NhdGl2ZS4gIFJlYWRpbmcgeW91ciB0aG91Z2h0cyBnaXZlcyBtZSBhIHdpbmRvdyBp bnRvIHlvdXIgbWluZC4gIFNpbmNlIG15IG9ubHkgcmVjb2xsZWN0aW9uIG9mIHlvdSBpcyB3 YXkgYmFjayB3aGVuIHlvdSB3ZXJlIGluIHlvdXIgdHdlbnRpZXMoaW4gdGVybXMgb2YgeW91 ciB0aGlua2luZyksIGl0cyBpbnRlcmVzdGluZyB0byBzZWUgdGhlIGNvbnRyYXN0IGJldHdl ZW4gdGhlbiBhbmQgbm93LiAgKEFsdGhvdWdoIHdlIHdlcmUgbm90IHJlYWxseSBnaXZlbiBt dWNoIGNoYW5jZSB0byBwZWVyIGludG8gb25lIGFub3RoZXKScyAgbWluZHMgc2luY2Ugd2Ug d2VyZSBzdWNoICAgSlcgZGl0dG8taGVhZHMuKSAgDQoNCiBBIDUwIHllYXIgb2xkIG1hbi4g IEluY3JlZGlibGUuICBIb3cgY2FuIHRpbWUgbW92ZSBzbyByYXBpZGx5LiAgSXSScyBsaWtl IGEgam9rZSBzb21lb25lIGlzIHBsYXlpbmcgb24gdXMuICBXZSB0aGluayB0aW1lIGlzIHNs b3csIHRoYXQgaXQgd2lsbCB3YWl0LCB0aGF0ICB0aGVyZSBpcyBwbGVudHkgb2YgaXQsIHRo ZW4gaXRzIGdvbmUuDQoNClRoaXMgcGFzdCBGZWIgOCBpcyB0aGUgYW5uaXZlcnNhcnkgb2Yg bXkgZGFkknMgZGVhdGggd2hlbiBoZSB3YXMgbXkgYWdlLiBJbmNvbXByZWhlbnNpYmxlLiAg SSBzdGlsbCBmZWVsIHZlcnkgeW91bmcsICBmdWxsIG9mIGxpZmUgYW5kICB3aXRoIGEgc2Vu c2Ugb2YgZnV0dXJlLiBTbyBob3cgY291bGQgbXkgZGFkIGhhdmUgZGllZCBhdCB0aGlzIGFn ZT8NCg0KSGF2ZSB5b3UgZ3V5cyBjb21lIHRvIHRlcm1zIHdpdGggZGVhdGg/ICBJIHNlZSBp dCBub3cgYXMgdGhlIGJlc3QgbmlnaHRzIHNsZWVwIHlvdSBjb3VsZCBldmVyIGhhdmUuICBB Y3R1YWxseSBraW5kIG9mIGEgcGxlYXNhbnQgdGhvdWdodCBhZnRlciBhIGhhcmQgZGF5IGF0 IHRoZSBvZmZpY2UoeWVzLCB0aGUgk3JpY2iUIGFyZSBhbHNvIGEgd29ya2luZyBjbGFzcyku DQoNCk9rYXksIG9uIHRvIHlvdXIgdGhvdWdodHMuICBGaXJzdCBsZXQgbWUgcHV0IHlvdSBh dCBlYXNlIGJ5IHNheWluZyBJIGhhdmUgbmV2ZXIgdm90ZWQgZm9yIGEgUmVwdWJsaWNhbiBu b3IgZG8gSSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIHNvbWUgb2YgUnVzaJJzIHN0dWZmIGFzIHlvdSBjYW4gc2Vl IGluIHRoZSBuZXdzbGV0dGVyLiBJIGNvbnNpZGVyIG15c2VsZiBhIGZyZWUtdGhpbmtlci4g IEkgYmVsb25nIHRvIG5vIGdyb3VwLiBJIGhhdmUgbm8gbWVudG9ycy4gIEkgY2FyZSBvbmx5 IGFib3V0IHJlYXNvbiBzaW5jZSBpdCBpcyB0aGF0IGFsb25lIHRoYXQgb2ZmZXJzIHVzIGFu eSBzZW1ibGFuY2Ugb2Ygb3JkZXIgbm93IGFuZCBhbnkgaG9wZSBmb3IgdGhlIGZ1dHVyZS4g VGhhdJJzIGEgZ29vZCBsZXNzb24gZnJvbSBvdXIgSlcgYXBvc3Rhc3kgSSB3aWxsIGtlZXAu ICBJIHdpbGwgc3VwcG9ydCBvdGhlcnMgdG8gdGhlIGRlZ3JlZSB0aGV5IGFkdmFuY2UgcGVy c29uYWwgZnJlZWRvbS4NCg0KIFRoZXJlIGFyZSBlbGVtZW50cyBvZiBtYW55IHBvbGl0aWNh bCBncm91cHMgSSBsaWtlLiAgVGhlIExpYmVydGFyaWFucywgQ29uc3RpdHV0aW9uYWwgTGF3 IFBhcnR5LCB0aGUgQ2F0IEluc3RpdHV0ZSBhbmQgdGhlIFJlcHVibGljYW5zLCBmb3IgZXhh bXBsZSwgaGF2ZSBzb21lIG9mIHRoZSBpZGVhcyBJIGxpa2UuICBJIGhhdmVuknQgZm91bmQg bXVjaCBpbiB0aGUgZGVtb2NyYXRzIEkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCBob3dldmVyIGZvciB0aGUgcmVh c29uIHRoYXQgdGhleSBzZWVtIGJlbnQgb24gZ292ZXJubWVudCBncm93dGggYW5kIGludHJ1 c2lvbiBvbiBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIGxpYmVydHkuIA0KDQpJIHRoaW5rIHRoZSBwcmltYXJ5IGlz c3VlIHNob3VsZCBiZSBmcmVlZG9tIGFuZCBsaWJlcnR5IGluIHNvY2lldHkuICBJdJJzIHdo YXQgd2UgYWxsIHNlZW0gdG8gYmUgY2hhc2luZyBpbiBvbmUgd2F5IG9yIGFub3RoZXIuICBJ dJJzIHdoYXQgeW91IGFuZCBDaW5keSBzZWVtIHRvIGJlIGVuam95aW5nIG1vcmUgb2Ygbm93 LiAgSSBoYXZlIGEgcmVhbGx5IGluZGVwZW5kZW50IHNwaXJpdCBhbmQgcGVyc29uYWwgZnJl ZWRvbSBpcyBjcml0aWNhbCBmb3IgbXkgaGFwcGluZXNzLg0KDQogIExldCBtZSBwcmVmYWNl IHRoaXMgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvZiBwb2xpdGljcyhmcmllbmRzIGFyZSBuZXZlciBzdXBwb3Nl ZCB0byB0YWxrIHJlbGlnaW9uIG9yIHBvbGl0aWNzOyAgZ29vZCBmcmllbmRzIGNhbiB0YWxr IGFib3V0IGJvdGgpICB3aXRoIHlvdXIgdW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZyB0aGF0IEkgYW0gb25seSBp bnRlcmVzdGVkIGluIHVsdGltYXRlIHNvbHV0aW9ucywgYmFzaWMgY2F1c2VzIGFuZCB1bmRl cmx5aW5nIJN0cnV0aHOUKGV4Y3VzZSBtZSwgSZJtIHN0aWxsIG9uIHRoYXQga2ljaykuDQoN CkZvciBleGFtcGxlLCBtb2Rlcm4gbWVkaWNpbmUgZGVhbHMgd2l0aCBlZmZlY3RzLCBub3Qg Y2F1c2VzLiAgVGhlIHByb21pc2Ugb2YgY3VyZSBhc3N1cmVzIHRoZSBwZXJwZXR1YXRpb24g b2YgZGlzZWFzZS4gIFR1cm5pbmcgb2ZmIGZpcmUgYWxhcm1zIHdoaWxlIHRoZSBmaXJlIHNt b2xkZXJzIGluIHRoZSBjbG9zZXQgbmV0cyB0aGVtIGEgdHJpbGxpb24gZG9sbGFyIGEgeWVh ciBpbmR1c3RyeSAtLXRvIG91ciBkZXRyaW1lbnQgdW5sZXNzIHdlKHRoZSBtYWpvcml0eSkg d2lzZSB1cC4gIAtUaGUgZnVuZGFtZW50YWwgY2F1c2Ugb2YgZGlzZWFzZSBpcyBub3QgbGFj ayBvZiBzdXJnZXJ5IG9yIGFzcGlyaW5zLiAgSXQgaXMgbGl2aW5nIG91dCBvZiBvdXIgcHJv cGVyIGdlbmV0aWMgY29udGV4dC4NCg0KQW5vdGhlciBleGFtcGxlLiAgQSB0aGlyZCB3b3Js ZCBuYXRpb24gc3RhcnZlcy4gIE91ciBzb2x1dGlvbiBpcyB0byBzZW5kIGJvYXQgbG9hZHMg b2YgZm9vZC4gIFdlIHNhdmUgaHVuZHJlZHMgb2YgdGhvdXNhbmRzIHNvIHRoZXkgY2FuIGJy ZWVkIHNvbWUgbW9yZSBhbmQgZXZlbiBmdXJ0aGVyIG91dHN0cmlwIHRoZSByZXNvdXJjZXMg b2YgdGhlaXIgY291bnRyeS4gIE5vdyB3aGVuIHN0YXJ2YXRpb24gb2NjdXJzIGl0IGlzIGV2 ZW4gYSBncmVhdGVyIGRpc2FzdGVyIHRoYW5rcyB0byBvdXIgQmFuZC1BaWRzLiAgVGhlICBm dW5kYW1lbnRhbCBjYXVzZSBpcyBtaXNtYW5hZ2VtZW50IG9mIHJlc291cmNlcyBhbmQgb3Zl cnBvcHVsYXRpb24uICBVbnRpbCBwb3B1bGF0aW9uIG1hdGNoZXMgcmVzb3VyY2VzIHRoZSBw cm9ibGVtIHdpbGwgbm90IGJlIHNvbHZlZC4gDQoNCkFub3RoZXIgZXhhbXBsZS4gIEVudmly b25tZW50YWwgIGVmZm9ydHMgYXJlIGZvY3VzZWQgb24gZml4aW5nIHN5bXB0b21zOiBnYXJi YWdlLCBlZmZsdWVudCwgYWNpZCByYWluLCBldGMuICBUaGUgZW5naW5lIHRoYXQgZHJpdmVz IHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtLCB0aGUgZnVuZGFtZW50YWwgY2F1c2UgaXMgcG9wdWxhdGlvbi4gIElm IHdlIGRvbpJ0IGNvbnRyb2wgdGhhdCB0byBtYXRjaCBzdXN0YWluYWJsZSByZXNvdXJjZXMg dGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gaG9wZSBubyBtYXR0ZXIgaG93IG1hbnkgc2hvd2VyIHNhdmVycyBhcmUg Ym91Z2h0LiAoSSBrbm93IHlvdZJyZSB0aGlua2luZyB0aGlzIGphY2sgcmFiYml0IGlzIGEg Z3JlYXQgb25lIHRvIHRhbGsgb24gdGhpcyBzdWJqZWN0LiAgTGl2ZSBhbmQgbGVhcm4uKQ0K DQpJIGxpa2UgdG8gYmFjayB1cCBhbmQgbG9vayBpbiBvdmVydmlldyBhdCB0aGUgd2hvbGUg cHJvYmxlbSBhbmQgdHJ5IHRvIGRpc2Nlcm4gdGhlIHJlYWwgY2F1c2VzLiAgVGhlbiByZWFs IHNvbHV0aW9ucyBiZWNvbWUgcG9zc2libGUuDQoNCk5vdyB0byBnb3Zlcm5tZW50LiAgTGV0 knMgc2F5IHlvdSwgQ2luZHkgYW5kIEkoc29ycnkgQ2luZHksIEmSbSBzdGlsbCBmYW50YXNp emluZyBhYm91dCBvdXIgdGhyZWVzb21lLXBhcnRpY3VsYXJseSBzaW5jZSBKaW0gaXMgc28g aW50byBzaGFyaW5nKSBkZWNpZGUgdG8gYnV5IGFuIGlzbGFuZCBhbmQgbWFrZSBpdCBhIHNv dmVyZWlnbiBuYXRpb24uICBXZSBzcGVuZCBhbGwgd2UgaGF2ZSB0byBidXkgaXQsIGVxdWFs IHNoYXJlcywgc28gd2UgZ28gdGhlcmUgd2l0aCBub3RoaW5nLiANCg0KIE9uY2Ugd2WScmUg dGhlcmUgSSBkZWNpZGUgdG8gc3BlbmQgbW9zdCBvZiBteSB0aW1lIGVhdGluZyBjb2NvbnV0 cyBpbiBhIGhhbW1vY2sgYW5kIHdhdGNoaW5nIHRoYXQgYmFiZSB3aWZlIG9mIHlvdXJzIHNr aW5ueSBkaXAuICBZb3UgZ2V0IHJlYWwgaW5kdXN0cmlvdXMgIGNhcnZpbmcgY3V0ZSBsaXR0 bGUgY29jb251dCBoZWFkcyB0byBzZWxsIHRvIGNhbm9laXN0cyBwYXNzaW5nIGJ5LiAgSSBz cGVuZCBqdXN0IGVub3VnaCB0aW1lIGZpbmRpbmcgZm9vZCB0byBmZWVkIG15c2VsZiBhbmQg dG8gbWFrZSBhIGZldyB0cmlua2V0cyBhdHRlbXB0aW5nIHRvIHdvbyB5b3VyIHdpZmUgYXdh eSBmcm9tIHlvdS4gIEJ1dCB5b3Ugd29yayBuaWdodCBhbmQgZGF5IGNhcnZpbmcgb3V0IHRo b3NlIGNvY29udXQgaGVhZHMuIFlvdSBldmVuIGdldCBhIGNhbGx1cy4NCg0KTm93IHRoZW4s IGEgaHVycmljYW5lIGNvbWVzIGFuZCB3YXNoZXMgYXdheSBteSBoYW1tb2NrLCBDaW5keZJz IGdyYXNzIHNraXJ0KE9oIGdvb2R5KSBhbmQgYSBidW5jaCBvZiBiYWJ5IGNvY29udXQgdHJl ZXMgeW91IHBsYW50ZWQuICBPdXIgb25seSBob3BlIHRvIHNhdmUgdGhlIGlzbGFuZCBpcyB0 byBoaXJlIHRoZSBtZXJjaGFudCBtYXJpbmUgdG8gYnVpbGQgc29tZSBicmVha3dhbGxzLiAg SZJ2ZSBvbmx5IGJlZW4gYWJsZSB0byBzYXZlIGEgbGl0dGxlIG1vbmV5IGJ5IHNlbGxpbmcg cGVlcCBzaG93ICBwYXNzZXMgIG9mIENpbmR5IGluIHRoZSBsYWdvb24gdG8gcGFzc2luZyBu YXRpdmVzLiAgSSBnYXZlIGhlciBhIGN1dCBkZXBlbmRpbmcgdXBvbiBob3cgbWFueSBvZiB0 aGUgaG9uZXkgZGlwcGVkIGRpc2NyZXRlbHkgcGxhY2VkIGZsb3dlciBwZWRhbHMgc2hlIHdv dWxkIHJlbW92ZSBmb3IgdGhlIHZveWV1cnMuIA0KDQogQnV0IHlvdSwgeW91IGVudHJlcHJl bmV1cmlhbCBhbmltYWwsIHlvdZJ2ZSBzYXZlZCB0aG91c2FuZHMuICBTaW5jZSBpdHMgYSBk ZW1vY3JhY3koeW91IGNvbnZpbmNlZCB1cyBvbiB0aGUgYm9hdCB0byB0aGUgaXNsYW5kIHRo YXQgdGhhdJJzIHRoZSBvbmx5IGZhaXIgYW5kIG1vcmFsIHdheSksIENpbmR5IGFuZCBJIG91 dCB2b3RlIHlvdSB0d28gdG8gb25lIHRoYXQgcGF5bWVudCBmb3IgdGhlIGJyZWFrd2FsbCBz aG91bGQgYmUgYmFzZWQgb24gaW5jb21lIGFuZCBzaW5jZSB5b3WScmUgcmljaCBpdCBpcyBv bmx5IGZhaXIgdGhhdCB5b3UgcGF5IHRoZSBsaW9ucyBzaGFyZS4gIFlvdZJyZSB1cHNldCBm b3IgYSBiaXQgYnV0IHRoZW4gcmVhbGl6ZSB5b3UgaGF2ZSBubyByaWdodCB0byBiZSByaWNo IGFuZCB1cyBqdXN0IHBvb3Igd29ya2VycyB3aG8gd291bGQgZGVwbGV0ZSBhbGwgb2Ygb3Vy IHNhdmluZ3MgZnJvbSB0aGUgcGVlcCBzaG93cyBpZiB3ZSBoYWQgdG8gc2hhcmUgZXF1YWxs eSBpbiBwYXlpbmcgZm9yIHRoZSBicmVha3dhbGwuIEJlc2lkZXMsIHlvdSBkb26SdCB3YW50 IHRvIGJlIHNvbWUgaW5zZW5zaXRpdmUgd2VhbHRoeSBjYXBpdGFsaXN0aWMgcGlnLCBzbyB5 b3UgYW50ZSB1cCBhbmQgdGhlIGlzbGFuZCBpcyBzYXZlZC4gIENpbmR5IGFuZCBJIHJlam9p Y2UgYXQgdGhlIHdvbmRlcnMgb2YgZGVtb2NyYWN5IGFuZCBvdXIgb3duIHZlcnNpb24gb2Yg dGhlIGluY29tZSB0YXggYW5kIHJlc29sdmUgdG8gYmUgc3VyZSB0byBrZWVwIHZvdGluZyB0 byBrZWVwIGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmcgYXMgaXMuDQoNCkFmdGVyIGEgd2hpbGUsIENpbmR5IGNhbpJ0 IHJlc2lzdCBtZSBhbnltb3JlIGJlY2F1c2UgSZJ2ZSBiZWVuIGRvaW5nIGEgbG90IG9mIHNp dC11cHMgYW5kIG15IGFicyBhcmUgbGlrZSBhbiBldGNoZWQgd2FzaGVyIGJvYXJkLiAgU2hl IGRlY2lkZXMgdG8gZHVtcCB5b3UuICBXZSBhbGwgdm90ZSBhbmQgbWFqb3JpdHkgcnVsZXMg dGhhdCBzaGUgc2hvdWxkIGdldCBoYWxmIG9mIGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmcgeW91IGhhdmUgYW5kIHRo YXQgeW91IHNob3VsZCBwYXkgYWxpbW9ueSBzbyBzaGUgY2FuIGNvbnRpbnVlIGluIHRoZSBz dHlsZSB0byB3aGljaCBzaGUgaXMgYWNjdXN0b21lZC4gIEZ1cnRoZXIsIHNoZSBpcyBhd2Fy ZGVkIGNoaWxkIHN1cHBvcnQgZm9yIHRoZSB0d28ga2lkcyBzaGUgaGFkIHdoaWxlIG9uIHRo ZSBpc2xhbmQuICBZb3Ugb2JqZWN0IGJlY2F1c2UgeW91IGFyZSBzdXJlIHRoZXkgYXJlIG1p bmUgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiB0aGVpciBnb29kIGxvb2tzLCBhYnMgYW5kIGdyZWF0IGludGVsbGln ZW5jZS4gIFdlIHZvdGUgYW5kIGRlY2lkZSB5b3Ugc2hvdWxkIG5vdCBiZSBhIGRlYWQgYmVh dCBkYWQgYW5kIGFudGUgdXAuDQoNCldpdGggdGltZSBvdXIgbGl0dGxlIHBvcHVsYXRpb24g Z3Jvd3MgYW5kIHdlIGFsbCBjb21lIHRvIHdvcmsgZm9yIHlvdS4gIFdlIHZvdGUgdGhhdCB0 aGUga2lkcyBzaG91bGRuknQgd29yayB1bnRpbCB0aGV5knJlIDIxLi4uYSBzb3J0IG9mIGNo aWxkIGxhYm9yIGxhdy4gIEJlc2lkZXMgeW91IGFyZSB2ZXJ5IHJpY2ggYnkgd29ya2luZyBk YXkgYW5kIG5pZ2h0IGFuZCBjYW4gYWZmb3JkIHRoZSB0YXhlcyB0byBjb3ZlciB0aGVpciBu ZWVkcy4gIFRoZSByZXN0IG9mIHVzIGZvcm0gYSB1bmlvbiB0byBtYWtlIHN1cmUgd2UgZ2V0 IGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIGJlbmVmaXRzLi4ubG90cyBvZiB2YWNhdGlvbiwgc2hvcnQgd29yayBk YXlzLCBtZWRpY2FsLCByZXRpcmVtZW50LCAgYSBoaWdoIG1pbmltdW0gd2FnZSwgZXRjLiwg d2hpY2ggaXMgb25seSBkZXNlcnZlZCBiZWNhdXNlIHdoeSBzaG91bGQgeW91IGJlIHJpY2gg YW5kIHRoZSByZXN0IG9mIHVzIHNvIHBvb3IuICBZb3UgZ3JlZWR5IGJhc3RhcmQsIHlvdZJ2 ZSBldmVuIGdvdCBhIGJpZ2dlciBodXQgdGhhbiB0aGUgcmVzdCBvZiB1cyBhbmQgdHdvIGNh bm9lcy4gIEJ1dCB0aGlzIGlzIGFsbCBkb25lIHZlcnkgcHJvcGVyIHdpdGggdm90aW5nIHNv IHRoZXJlIGNhbiBiZSBubyBtb3JhbCBvciBldGhpY2FsIG9iamVjdGlvbi4NCg0KT3ZlciB0 aW1lIHdlIGRlY2lkZSB0byBtYWtlIG91ciBvd24gY3VycmVuY3kuICBXZSBtYWtlIGxpdHRs ZSBwYWludGVkIHNoZWxscy1sb3RzIG9mIHRoZW0uICBXZSB2b3RlIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBzaG91 bGQgYmUgb3VyIG1vbmV5LiAgV2UgdXNlIHRoZXNlIHRvIGJ1eSB5b3VyIGNvY29udXQgaGVh ZHMgYW5kIHRoZW4gc2VsbCB0aGVtIGZvciByZWFsIGNhc2ggYWJyb2FkLiBZb3VyIG1hcmdp bnMgc3RhcnQgdG8gZGVjbGluZShyaWdodGx5IHNvIHlvdSBzZWxmaXNoIGZhc2Npc3QgcGln KSBhbmQgdGhlIGxpdHRsZSBzaGVsbCBjb2lucyBhcmUgaW5jcmVhc2luZ2x5IHdvcnRobGVz cyBhcyB3ZSBjb250aW51ZSBidXNpbHkgcGFpbnRpbmcgbmV3IG9uZXMuDQoNCkluIHRoZSBt ZWFudGltZSB3ZSB2b3RlIHRvIGluY3JlYXNlIG91ciBzdGFuZGFyZCBvZiBsaXZpbmcgYW5k IGluY3JlYXNlIHRheGVzIG9uIHlvdSBhbmQgcGFpbnQgZXZlciBtb3JlIHNoZWxsIG1vbmV5 LiAgWW91IHdhbnQgdG8gbW92ZSB5b3VyIGZhY3Rvcnkgb2Zmc2hvcmUgYW5kIHdlIHZvdGUg dG8gZGVueSB0aGF0IGFuZCBpc3N1ZSBhIG1vbmV0YXJ5IHBlbmFsdHkgZm9yIHlvdXIgbGFj ayBvZiBwYXRyaW90aXNtLiAgV2UgYWxzbyBzZXQgdXAgYSBidW5jaCBvZiByZWd1bGF0b3J5 IGFnZW5jaWVzIGZvciB5b3UgdG8gcGF5IGZvciBzbyB3ZSBjYW4gbWFrZSBzdXJlIHlvdZJy ZSB0b3dpbmcgdGhlIGxpbmUuDQoNCkZpbmFsbHksIGV4aGF1c3RlZCBhbmQgYnJva2UsIHlv dSBjbG9zZSB0aGUgZmFjdG9yeS4gIFBvcHVsYXRpb24gaGFzIG5vdyBncm93biB3YXkgYmV5 b25kIHRoZSBpc2xhbmRzIHJlc291cmNlcy4gIFdlIHZvdGUgdG8gY29uZmlzY2F0ZSB5b3Vy IHJldGlyZW1lbnQgZXF1aXR5IGJlY2F1c2UgeW91IHdlcmUgYWx3YXlzIHRvbyByaWNoIGFu eXdheSBhbmQgd2Ugd2VyZSBqdXN0IHBvb3Igd29ya2luZyBjbGFzcy4gIFdlIHNlbmQgZm9y IGJvYXQgbG9hZHMgb2Ygc3VwcGxpZXMgYW5kIGFsbCBpcyB3ZWxsIGFnYWluIHNvIHdlIHNl dCBhYm91dCBmdXJ0aGVyIGJyZWVkaW5nLS13ZSB2b3RlZCB0aGF0IHVubGltaXRlZCBwcm9j cmVhdGlvbiBpcyBldmVyeW9uZZJzIHJpZ2h0Lg0KDQpOb3cgd2UgaGF2ZSB0d2ljZSBhcyBt YW55IHBlb3BsZSBhcyB3aGVuIHRoZSBzdXBwbGllcyByYW4gb3V0LiAgQXMgdGltZSBwYXNz ZXMgYWxsIHRoZSBpc2xhbmRzIHJlc291cmNlcyBhcmUgZ29uZSwgbm8gb25lIHdpbGwgdGFr ZSBvdXIgc2hlbGwgbW9uZXkgYW5kIHRoZXJlIGlzIG5vIG1vcmUgcmVhbCBjYXNoLiAgV2Ug aGF2ZSBhIG1lZXRpbmcgYW5kIGRlbW9jcmF0aWNhbGx5IHZvdGUgbm90IHRvIHN0YXJ2ZSBh bmQgZGllLiAgT3VyIGZpbmFsICBmdXRpbGUsIGJ1dCBldGhpY2FsIGFjdC4NCg0KT2theSwg ZW5vdWdoIGZ1bi4gIExldJJzIGdldCBzZXJpb3VzIGFib3V0IHNhdmluZyB0aGUgd29ybGQu ICBIZXJlIGFyZSAgc29tZSBwcmVsaW1pbmFyaWVzLiAgWW91ciBhZ3JlZW1lbnQgYXQgdGhp cyBsZXZlbCBpcyBjcml0aWNhbCBvdGhlcndpc2UgdGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gaG9wZSBvZiBhZ3Jl ZW1lbnQgbGF0ZXIgYXMgd2UgYnVpbGQgdXBvbiB0aGlzIGZvdW5kYXRpb24uIChJIGtub3cg dGhlcmWScyBubyBob3BlIGFueXdheSB5b3UgYnVsbGhlYWRlZCBiaWdvdC4gIEJ1dCBJkmxs IGF0IGxlYXN0IGh1bW9yIGFuZCBwdXJnZSBteXNlbGYgd2l0aCB0aGlzIHRpcmFkZS4pDQoN ClRoZXNlIGFyZSB0aGUgcHJlbWlzZXM6DQoxLiAgSHVtYW5zIGFuZCB0aGUgc29jaWV0aWVz IHRoZXkgY29uc3RydWN0IGFyZSBub3QgYWJvdmUgdGhlIHNhbWUgbmF0dXJhbCBsYXdzIGdv dmVybmluZyBhbGwgb2YgbmF0dXJlLiAgV2UgbWF5IHBvc3Rwb25lLCB0ZW1wb3JhcmlseSBj aXJjdW12ZW50IGFuZCBpZ25vcmUgdGhlc2UgbGF3cyBidXQgdGhleSBhbHdheXMgY2F0Y2gg dXAuIE5hdHVyYWwgbGF3cyBhcmUgYXJlIG9ibGl2aW91cyB0byBodW1hbiCTaHVtYW5lbmVz c5QuDQoyLiBGcmVlZG9tIGlzIGEgYmFzaWMgaHVtYW4gbmVlZCBhbmQgcmlnaHQNCjMuIEV2 ZXJ5b25lIGhhcyB0aGUgcmlnaHQgdG8gdGhlaXIgb3duIGZhaXJseSBhY3F1aXJlZCBwcm9w ZXJ0eQ0KNC4gIEV2ZXJ5b25lIGhhcyB0aGUgcmVzcG9uc2liaWxpdHkgdG8gcGF5IHRoZSBy ZXF1aXJlZCBmZWUgZm9yIHdoYXQgdGhleSBhZ3JlZSB0byBwdXJjaGFzZSBmcm9tIGFub3Ro ZXIuDQo1LiAgUmVzb3VyY2VzIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSBmb3IgbGlmZSwgYWlyLCB3YXRlciwgbmF0 dXJhbCBhcmVhcywgZXRjLi1hcmUgY29tbW9uIHByb3BlcnR5IGFuZCBubyBvbmUgaGFzIHRo ZSByaWdodCB0byBwcml2YXRpemUgb3IgZGVzdHJveSB0aGVtLg0KDQpGcm9tIHRoaXMgIGhl dXJpc3RpYyBmb3VuZGF0aW9uIGEgZmFpciwgbW9yYWwgYW5kIHJhdGlvbmFsIHNvY2lldHkg Y2FuIGJlIGNvbnN0cnVjdGVkLiBUaGVzZSBwcm92aWRlIGFuIGFsZ29yaXRobSBmb3IgdGhl IGRldmVsb3BtZW50IG9mICBhIGxpbWl0ZWQgZ29vZCBnb3Zlcm5tZW50Lg0KDQpJIGdyYW50 IHlvdSB0aGF0IGNvbW11bmlzbSwgc29jaWFsaXNtLCBmYXNjaXNtLCBiZW5pZ24gZGljdGF0 b3JzaGlwcyBhbmQgdGhlIGxpa2UgYXJlIGFsbCB2YWxpZCBhdHRlbXB0cyBhdCBnb3Zlcm5p bmcgY29tcGxleCBodW1hbiBzb2NpZXR5LiAgVGhlcmUgY2FuICBiZSBlbmRsZXNzIGRlYmF0 ZXMgYWJvdXQgd2hpY2ggaXMgYmV0dGVyLiAgQWxsIG9mIHRoZW0gY2FuIHRoZW9yZXRpY2Fs bHkgY3JlYXRlIGEgaGFybW9uaW91cyBzb2NpZXR5LiAgQXMgYSBjb2xsZWdlIHN0dWRlbnQs IGNvbW11bmlzbSBzZWVtZWQgdG8gYmUgdGhlIGlkZWFsIHRvIG1lLiAgR2FkcyB3aGF0IGNv dWxkIGJlICBtb3JlIGZhaXIgdGhhbiCTZnJvbSBlYWNoIGFjY29yZGluZyB0byBoaXMgYWJp bGl0eSBhbmQgdG8gZWFjaCBhY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gaGlzIG5lZWSUPy4gICANCg0KVGhlIGJl c3QgZ292ZXJubWVudCBpcyB5b3VyIG93biB3aWxsLCB5b3VyIGZyZWVkb20gdG8gbGl2ZSB5 b3VyIGxpZmUgYXMgeW91IGNob29zZSAgYW5kIGVuam95IHRoZSByZXdhcmRzIG9mIGdvb2Qg ZGVjaXNpb25zIGFuZCBiZSBzb2xlbHkgcmVzcG9uc2libGUgZm9yIHRoZSBwb29yIG9uZXMu ICBZb3UgZG9uknQgd2FudCBtZSB0byB0ZWxsIHlvdSB3aGF0IHRvIGRvLCBhbmQgSSBkb26S dCB3YW50ICB5b3UgdG8gdGVsbCBtZSB3aGF0IHRvIGRvIGVpdGhlci4gIEkgd2FudCB0byBi ZSBhYmxlIHRvIGVuam95IHRoZSBmcnVpdCBvZiBteSBsYWJvciB3aXRoIG5vIG9ibGlnYXRp b24gdG8gYW55b25lLiAgSSB0YWtlIHRoYXQgcmlnaHQga25vd2luZyBmdWxsIHdlbGwgaXRz IGNvcm9sbGFyeSBpcyB0aGF0IEkgYWxvbmUgYW0gcmVzcG9uc2libGUgYWxzbyBmb3IgdGhl IG5lZ2F0aXZlIGNvbnNlcXVlbmNlcyBvZiBteSBvd24gYWN0cy4uLm9yIGZhaWx1cmUgdG8g YWN0LiBJIG5vdywgdGhlcmVmb3JlLCB0aGluayB0aGUgeWFyZHN0aWNrIG9mIHRoZSBiZXN0 IGdvdmVybm1lbnQgaXMgdGhlIG9uZSB0aGF0IGFjY29tcGxpc2hlcyB0aGUgYWJvdmUgZ29h bHMgZm9yIHRoZSBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIHdoaWxlIHN0aWxsIG1haW50YWluaW5nIHNvY2lhbCBv cmRlci4gIA0KDQpTb2NpYWxpc20gYW5kIGNvbW11bmlzbSBtZXJlbHkgZ3JhcHBsZSB3aXRo IHRoZSBzeW1wdG9tcyBvZiBzb2NpYWwgZGlzaGFybW9ueS4gIFRoZXkgZG8gbm90IGVzdGFi bGlzaCB0aGUgcHJlZW1pbmVudCByaWdodHMgb2YgdGhlIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgYnV0IHJhdGhl ciBmb3JjZSBoaW0gaW50byBhIHNvY2lhbCBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgdGhhdCB2aW9sYXRlcyBtYW55 IG9mIGhpcyBiYXNpYyBuZWVkcyBhbmQgcmlnaHRzLg0KDQpJIHNlZSB0aGUgb25seSBob3Bl IGJlaW5nIGEgYmVuaWduICBkaWN0YXRvcnNoaXAuICBUaGF0knMgYmFzaWNhbGx5IHdoYXQg QW1lcmljYSBpcy4gIFdlIGFyZSBhIGNvdW50cnkgb2YgbGF3IHdpdGggdGhlIENvbnN0aXR1 dGlvbiBiZWluZyB0aGUgc3VwcmVtZSBkaWN0YXRvci4gIFRoYXQgk2RpY3RhdG9ylCB1bmlx dWVseSBzZXRzIGZvcnRoIHRoZSB2ZXJ5IHByZW1pc2VzIG91dGxpbmVkIGFib3ZlIHRoYXQg cHJvdGVjdCBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIHJpZ2h0cyBhbmQgZnJlZWRvbSB3aGlsZSBtYWludGFpbmlu ZyBzb2NpYWwgb3JkZXIuIA0KDQpIZXJlIGFyZSBzb21lIHJhbmRvbSB0aG91Z2h0cyBhZGRy ZXNzaW5nIHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlIHBvaW50cyB5b3UgbWFkZToNCg0KPmRlbW9jcmFjeSBtZWFu cyA1MSUgb2YgdGhlIHBlb3BsZSBjYW4gdm90ZSB0byBraWxsIHRoZSBvdGhlciA0OSU7IGl0 IGFsc28gcHJvbW90ZXMgdGhlIHByZXZhbGVudCBiZWxpZWYgaW4gb3VyIHNvY2lldHkgb2Yg dGhlIHN1cGVyaW9yIHdpc2RvbSBvZiB0aGUgaWdub3JhbnQuDQo+dm90aW5nIGlzIGEgcmln aHQsIHBlcmhhcHMsIGJ1dCBpdCBpcyBhbHNvIGEgcmVzcG9uc2liaWxpdHkuICBObyBvbmUg c2hvdWxkIHZvdGUgd2hvIGRvZXMgbm90IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlIENvbnN0aXR1dGlvbihh bG1vc3Qgbm9ib2R5IGhhcyBldmVuIHJlYWQgdGhpcyBiYXNpYyBjb250cmFjdCBiZXR3ZWVu IG91ciBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IGFuZCB1cykgYW5kIGFyZSBpbmZvcm1lZCBvbiB0aGUgaXNzdWVz IGluIGNvbnRlbnRpb24uICBBIHRlc3Qgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGdpdmVuIHRvIGFueW9uZSBkZXNp cmluZyB0byB2b3RlLiAgSWYgdGhleSBhcmUgbm90IGluZm9ybWVkIHRoZXkgcmVsaW5xdWlz aCB0aGUgcmlnaHQuICBOb2JvZHkgaGFzIHRoZSByaWdodCB0byB2b3RlIG9uIG15IGRlc3Rp bnkgaWYgdGhleSBhcmUgaWdub3JhbnQuICBCdXQgd2hhdCB3ZSBoYXZlIGluIHRoaXMgY291 bnRyeSBpcyBpZ25vcmFuY2Ugb2YgdGhlIHBlb3BsZSwgYnkgdGhlIHBlb3BsZSwgZm9yIHRo ZSBwZW9wbGUuICBUaGVyZSBpcyBpbmRlZWQgbm8gdW5kZXJlc3RpbWF0aW5nIHRoZSBpbnRl bGxpZ2VuY2Ugb2YgdGhlIHB1YmxpYy4NCj5UaGUgVVMgaXMgYSBDb25zdGl0dXRpb25hbCBS ZXB1YmxpYywgbm90IGEgZGVtb2NyYWN5IHJ1bGVkIGJ5IHBsZWJpc2NpdGUNCj5UaGUgZ292 ZXJubWVudCBoYXMgYSByaWdodCB0byByZW5kZXIgc2VydmljZXMgcmVxdWlyZWQgYnkgaXRz IGNpdGl6ZW5zLiAgQ2l0aXplbnMgaGF2ZSBhIHJlc3BvbnNpYmlsaXR5IHRvIHBheSBmb3Ig dGhvc2Ugc2VydmljZXMgdmlhIHRheGVzLiAgVGhpcyBoYXMgbm90aGluZyB0byBkbyB3aXRo IHRoZWlyIGluY29tZSBhbnltb3JlIHRoYW4gYSBnYXMgc3RhdGlvbiBjYW4gZXRoaWNhbGx5 IGNoYXJnZSBiYXNlZCBvbiB0aGUgaW5jb21lIG9mIHRoZSBjdXN0b21lci4gSSBzaG91bGQg aGF2ZSB0byBwYXkgaW4gYW4gYWJzb2x1dGUgYW1vdW50KG5vdCBhIHRyaWNreSBwZXJjZW50 YWdlIG9mICCTaW5jb21llCkgZXhhY3RseSB0aGUgc2FtZSBhcyBhbnlvbmUgZWxzZSB3aG8g aXMgdXNpbmcgdGhlIHNhbWUgZ292ZXJubWVudCBzZXJ2aWNlLiAgSXRzIHJlYWwgc2ltcGxl IHRvIG1lIGFueXdheS4gIElmIHRoZSBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IHJlbmRlcnMgbWUgYSBzZXJ2aWNl LWRlZmVuc2UsIGluZnJhc3RydWN0dXJlLCBldGMuLCBpdCBkb2VzbpJ0IG1hdHRlci10aGVu IHNlbmQgbWUgYSBiaWxsLiAgRG9uknQgdXNlIG15IGRlYnQgZm9yIHRoZSBzZXJ2aWNlIGFz IGFuIGV4Y3VzZSB0byBwcnkgaW50byBldmVyeSBub29rIGFuZCBjcmFubnkgb2YgbXkgbGlm ZSBhbmQgYnVyeSBtZSB3aXRoIHJpZGljdWxvdXMgZm9ybXMsIHBhcGVyd29yayBhbmQgYmls bHMgZnJvbSBhY2NvdW50YW50cyB0byBpbnRlcnByZXQgaXQgYWxsLCBvciB0byBleHRvcnQg cmVzb3VyY2VzIGZyb20gbWUgdG8gc3VwcG9ydCB0aG9zZSB3aG8gY2hvb3NlIG9mIHRoZWly IG93biB2b2xpdGlvbiB0byBkbyBsZXNzLg0KPlRoZSBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IGRvZXMgbm90IGhh dmUgYSByaWdodCB0byBkZWNpZGUgaG93IEkgd2lsbCBzcGVuZCBteSBtb25leSBvbiBodW1h bml0YXJpYW4gbmVlZHMgb3IgZXZlbiBpZiBJIHNob3VsZCBzcGVuZCBhbnkuICBUaGUgcHJl c2VudCBzb2NpYWwgcHJvZ3JhbXMgcmVtb3ZlIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgYW5kIGNvbW11bml0eSBj b25zY2llbmNlLiAgSWYgSZJtIHRheGVkIHRvIHBheSBmb3IgdGhlIG5lZWR5IHRoZW4gSSBu ZWVkIG5vdCBpbmRpdmlkdWFsbHkgY2FyZSBhYm91dCB0aGUgbmVlZHksICBUaGUgZGVodW1h bml6aW5nIGFuZCBkZXNlbnNpdGl6YXRpb24gb2YgY29tbXVuaXRpZXMgYnkgb3VyICCTZ29v ZCBTYW1hcml0YW6UIGdvdmVybm1lbnQgaW50ZXJsb3BlciB0YWtlcyBhIHRvbGwgIGZhciBn cmVhdGVyIHRoYW4gYW55b25lIGNhbiBlc3RpbWF0ZS4NCj5NZWRpY2FsIHNjaG9vbHMgbWF5 IGJlIHN1YnNpZGl6ZWQgYnV0IHNvIGFyZSBoaWdoIHNjaG9vbHMsIG1hbnkgdHJhZGUgc2No b29scyBhbmQgb3RoZXJzLiAgV2hhdCBzdWNjZXNzIEkgaGF2ZSBoYXMgbGl0dGxlIHRvIGRv IHdpdGggaXJyZWxldmFudCBmb3JtYWwgZWR1Y2F0aW9uLiAgV2hhdCBJIGRvIG5vdyBpcyBw cmFjdGljYWxseSBlbnRpcmVseSBzZWxmLXRhdWdodC4gIEkgc3VjY2VlZCBpbiBzcGl0ZSBv ZiBnb3Zlcm5tZW50LCBub3QgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiBpdC4NCj5SYWlzaW5nIHRoZSBtaW5pbXVt IHdhZ2UgYXMgd2VsbCBhcyBmdW5kaW5nIGFsbCBvdGhlciBzb2NpYWwgcHJvZ3JhbXMgZG9l cyBub3QgY3JlYXRlIGEgbmV0IGJlbmVmaXQuICBUaGVzZSBhY3RzIGFyZSBub3QgbWFya2V0 IGRyaXZlbiBhbmQgdGh1cyBubyBuZXQgZWNvbm9taWMgY2hhbmdlIGNhbiBvY2N1ci4gIFN1 Y2ggZ292ZXJubWVudCBtYW5pcHVsYXRpb25zIGlzIG1lcmVseSBjYXJkIHNodWZmbGluZy4g IE1vbmV5IGlzIG5vdCBjcmVhdGVkIGJ5IGdvdmVybm1lbnQoZXhjZXB0IGJ5IHByaW50aW5n IHByZXNzKSwgIG9ubHkgYnkgdGhlIHByaXZhdGUgaW5kdXN0cmlhbCBzZWN0b3Iod2l0aCB0 aGUgZXhjZXB0aW9uIG9mIHZlbnR1cmVzIHN1Y2ggYXMgeW91cnMpIGFuZCB0aHVzIHJhaXNp bmcgdGhlaXIgY29zdHMgb25seSByZXN1bHRzIGluIHRoZWlyIHJhaXNpbmcgcHJpY2VzLiAg VGhpcyBpcyB3aHkgYSBkb2xsYXIgdG9kYXkgaXMgd29ydGggYSBuaWNrZWwgYSAgc2hvcnQg d2hpbGUgYmFjayBiZWZvcmUgdGhlIHNvY2lhbGlzdHMgcGVydmVydGVkIHRoZSBzeXN0ZW0u KFRoYXQgYW5kIHRoZSBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IG1ha2luZyBmdW5ueSBtb25leSBvbiB0aGVpciBw cmVzc2VzKQ0KPklzIHRoZSBNaWNoaWdhbiBzYWxlcyhjb25zdW1wdGlvbikgdGF4IGltbW9y YWw/DQo+Q2l0aW5nIGxhYm9yIGFidXNlcyBieSBzb21lIGluIHRoZSBpbmZhbmN5IG9mICB0 aGlzIGNvdW50cnkgYXMgYW4gZXhjdXNlIGZvciB0aGUgbW9yYXNzIG9mIHJlZ3VsYXRpb25z IGFuZCBndWFyYW50ZWVzIGZvciB3b3JrZXJzIHRvZGF5IGlzIGxpa2UgdGhlIGJsYWNrcyB3 YW50aW5nIHNwZWNpYWwgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbiBiZWNhdXNlIG9uZSBvZiB0aGVpciBhbmNl c3RvcnMgd2FzIGJvYXRlZCBvdmVyIGhlcmUgYXMgYSBzbGF2ZSB0aHJlZSBodW5kcmVkIHll YXJzIGFnby4NCj5JIGhhdmUgZW1wbG95ZWQgYXQgbGVhc3QgMjAwIHBlb3BsZSBpbiB0aGUg cGFzdCAxNSB5ZWFycywgcGFpZCBub25lIG9mIHRoZW0gbWluaW11bSB3YWdlLCBnYXZlIHRo ZW0gYW4gb24tc2l0ZSBkYXkgY2FyZSwgYmVuZWZpdHMsIGFuZCBsaW1pdGxlc3Mgb3Bwb3J0 dW5pdHkgYW5kIHdhcyBmb3JjZWQgdG8gZG8gbm9uZSBvZiBpdC4gIFdoYXQgSSBoYXZlIGRv bmUgaXMgbW9kZXN0IGNvbXBhcmVkIHRvIHdoYXQgbWFueSBvdGhlcnMgaGF2ZSBkb25lLiAg SSBkbyBpdCB0byB0cnkgdG8gYmUgZmFpciBhbmQgdG8gZW50aWNlIHRoZW0gdG8gc3RheS4g IE1hcmtldCBmb3JjZXMsIG5vdCBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IGZvcmNlcyBjcmVhdGUgam9icywgYmVu ZWZpdHMgYW5kIHRydWUgaGlnaCB3YWdlcy4gIEluIHJldHVybiwgd29ya2VycyB3aXRoIGEg c29jaWFsaXN0aWMoSZJtIGEgdmljdGltIGFuZCBJkm0gb3dlZCkgbWVudGFsaXR5IGxpZSB0 byBtZSwgcXVpdCBhZnRlciBJIHRyYWluIHRoZW0sIGZha2UgaW5qdXJ5IHRvIGdldCB1bmVt cGxveW1lbnQgY29tcGVuc2F0aW9uLCBzdGVhbCBmcm9tIG1lIGFuZCB0aGVuIHN1ZSBtZSB3 aGVuIEkgZmlyZSB0aGVtLCBtYWtlIGNvdW50bGVzcyBtaW5kbGVzcyBjb3N0bHkgZXJyb3Jz LCBmYWxzaWZ5IHRpbWUgY2FyZHMsIG5ldmVyIGltcHJvdmUgdGhlbXNlbHZlcyBvciBjcmVh dGUgYnVzaW5lc3MgYnV0IHJhdGhlciByZWx5IG9uIG1lIHRvIGRvIGl0IGFsbCwgbmV2ZXIg dGFrZSB3b3JrIGhvbWUgd2hpbGUgSSBzcGVuZCAxNi0xOCBob3VyIGRheXMgbWFraW5nIHN1 cmUgdGhlaXIgam9iIGlzIHNlY3VyZS4NCj5JIGhlYXIgbGVzcyBvdXRyYWdlIGZyb20gdGhl IFJlcHVibGljYW5zIGFib3V0IENsaW50b24gdGhhbiBmcm9tIHRoZSBtZWRpYS4gIFJlcHVi bGljYW5zIGFuZCBhbGwgdGhpbmtpbmcgcGVvcGxlIHNob3VsZCBiZSBvdXRyYWdlZCBhbmQg dGhpcyBzaG91bGQgbm90IGJlIGRpbWluaXNoZWQgZXZlbiBpZiBpdCBjb3VsZCBiZSBwcm92 ZW4gdGhhdCBhIGZvcm1lciBSZXB1YmxpY2FuIHByZXNpZGVudCB3YXMgYSBwZWRvcGhpbGUg YW5kIGF4ZSBtdXJkZXJlci4gKE15IGRpc3Jlc3BlY3QgZm9yIGhpcyBkdXBsaWNpdHkgYW5k IGRlbWFnb2d1ZXJ5IGRvZXMgbm90IHN1Z2dlc3QgdGhhdCBJIG9yIG90aGVyIGNyaXRpY3Mg YXJlIHdpdGhvdXQgc2luLiAgSWYgeW91IHB1dCB5b3Vyc2VsZiBpbiBhIHBvc2l0aW9uIG9m IG1vcmFsIGxlYWRlcnNoaXAsIGFkdmFuY2UgeW91cnNlbGYgYXMgYSBtb2RlbCBmb3IgYSBu YXRpb26ScyBjaGlsZHJlbiwgdGhlbiB5b3UgYXJlIGFjY291bnRhYmxlIG5vdCBleGN1c2Fi bGUuIE15IHJlc2VudG1lbnQgZm9yIGhpbSBpcyBub3QgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiB3aGF0IGZ1biBo ZSBoYXMgaGFkIHdpdGggaW5nZW51ZXMgaW4gaGlzIG9mZmljZSBidXQgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiBo aXMgZmFpbHVyZSB0byBtb3ZlIGdvdmVybm1lbnQgaW4gYSBkaXJlY3Rpb24gdGhhdCBpbmNy ZWFzZXMgbXkgcGVyc29uYWwgZnJlZWRvbSBhcyBndWFyYW50ZWVkIGJ5IHRoZSBDb25zdGl0 dXRpb24gYW5kIGFsc28gYmVjYXVzZSBvZiB0aGUgbHlpbmcsIE1hY2hpYXZlbGxpYW4gZGVj ZWl0LCBzcGlucywgbWFudHJhcywgYWQgaG9taW5lbSByaGV0b3JpYyBhbmQgZGVtYWdvZ3Vl cnksIHByZWFjaGluZyBkb2N0cmluZXMgaGUga25vd3MgYXJlIHVudHJ1ZSB0byBwZW9wbGUg aGUga25vd3MgYXJlIGlkaW90cy4gIEkgaGF2ZSB0aGUgcGVyc29uYWwgZmVlbGluZyB0aGF0 IHdoZW4gYWxsIHJldmVsYXRpb25zIGV2ZW50dWFsbHkgY29tZSBmb3J0aCh3aGljaCBtYXkg dGFrZSBkZWNhZGVzKSB0aGUgY29ycnVwdGlvbiBvZiB0aGlzIGd1eSB3aWxsIHByb3ZlIHRv IGJlIHVucGFyYWxsZWxlZC4gIFRvbyBiYWQgaGWScyB0aGUgZmlyc3QgZXhhbXBsZSBvZiB3 aGF0IG91ciBnZW5lcmF0aW9uIGNhbiBkbyB3aGVuIGluIGNoYXJnZS4NCj5BIGRlbW9jcmF0 aWMgbWFqb3JpdHkgdmlydHVhbGx5IGFzc3VyZXMgZXJyb3IuICBUaGUgbWFqb3JpdHkgYXJl IGFsd2F5cyB3cm9uZyByZWdhcmRpbmcgYW55dGhpbmcgZXZlbiBzbGlnaHRseSBhYnN0cmFj dCBhbmQgdGhlcmVmb3JlIGRlbW9jcmF0aWMgcnVsZSBhc3N1cmVzIHVsdGltYXRlIGZhaWx1 cmUuICBUaGUgRGVtb2NyYXRpYyBwYXJ0eSwgYnkgcGFuZGVyaW5nIHRvIHRoZSCTbWFqb3Jp dHmULCBoYXZlIHRha2VuIG9uIHRoZSBwYXRoZXRpYyBtZW50YWxpdHkgb2YgdGhlIG1ham9y aXR5LiAgVGhleSBkb26SdCB3aXNlbHkgbGVhZCwgdGhleSBmb2xsb3cgZm9vbHMuDQo+U3Bl YWtpbmcgb2YgbWFqb3JpdGllcywgdGhlIGNvbnN0YW50IHB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIG9mIHBvbGxz IGlzIGVub3VnaCB0byBtYWtlIG1lIHB1a2UuICBKdXN0IHdoYXQgSSB3YW50IHRvIGtub3cs IHdoYXQgdGhlIGlnbm9yYW50IG1ham9yaXR5IHRoaW5rLiAgSSBsaWtlIHRoZSBwb2xscyB0 aGF0IHNob3dlZCB0aGUgaW5jcmVhc2UgaW4gcG9wdWxhcml0eSBvZiBDbGludG9uIGFzIHRo ZSByZXZlbGF0aW9ucyBiZWNhbWUgbW9yZSBkYW1hZ2luZy4gIFRoYXQgc2F5cyBpdCBhbGwg cmVnYXJkaW5nIG1ham9yaXRpZXMuDQo+VGhlIHNvY2lhbGlzdGljIGVmZm9ydCB0byBsZXZl bCB0aGUgcGxheWluZyBmaWVsZCBhc3N1cmVzIHRoZSBzdXJ2aXZhbCBvZiB0aGUgdW5maXQu ICBUaGlzIGdvZXMgYWdhaW5zdCBuYXR1cmFsIGxhdyBhbmQgd2lsbCB1bHRpbWF0ZWx5IHJl c3VsdCBpbiB0aGUgZGVtaXNlIG9mIGEgcG9wdWxhdGlvbi4gKEluY2lkZW50YWxseSBJIHVu ZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlIHJhdGlvIG9mIGdvdmVybm1lbnQgZW1wbG95ZWVzIHRvIG1hbnVmYWN0 dXJpbmcgam9icyBpcyBub3cgMToxLi4uY2VydGFpbmx5IG9uIG91ciB3YXkgdG8gYSB0b3Rh bGx5IHNvY2lhbGlzdGljIHN0YXRlLikNCj5XaGF0IEkgaGVhciBvbiB0aGUgbmV3cyBhYm91 dCB3aGF0IFJlcHVibGljYW5zIGRvIGFuZCB0aGluayBpcyBxdWl0ZSB1bmxpa2UgdGhlIHRo b3VnaHRmdWwgYW5kIGludGVsbGlnZW50IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIEkgZ2V0IHdoZW4gY29tbXVu aWNhdGluZyBkaXJlY3RseSB3aXRoIHNvbWUgb2YgdGhlbSBvciByZWFkaW5nIHRoZWlyIHdy aXR0ZW4gd29ya3MgZGlyZWN0bHkuICBJIGFncmVlIHRoYXQgdGhlIHJlbGlnaW91cyBlbGVt ZW50IGluIHRoZSBwYXJ0eSBzaG91bGQgbWFrZSB1cyBmZWVsIHVuZWFzeS4gIEJ1dCB0aGF0 knMgdGhlIGJlYXV0eSBvZiBDb25zdGl0dXRpb25hbCBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IG92ZXIgZGVtb2Ny YWN5LiAgVGhlaXIgaW5mbHVlbmNlIGlzIHNldmVyZWx5IGxpbWl0ZWQuDQo+VGhlIG1vcmUg bW9uZXkgSSBtYWtlLCB0aGUgbW9yZSBtb25leSBJIHNwZW5kIG9uIG5ldyBqb2JzLCBoaWdo ZXIgd2FnZXMsIG1vcmUgYmVuZWZpdHMgdG8gZW1wbG95ZWVzIGFuZCBzdXBwbGllcy4gIEkg bWlnaHQgYnV5IGEgYmlnZ2VyIGhvbWUgb3IgY2FyIGFuZCBzdHVmZiB0byBmaWxsIG15IGdh cmFnZSBidXQgdGhhdCBhbHNvIGNyZWF0ZXMgam9icyBhbmQgZWNvbm9taWMgaGVhbHRoIGZv ciB0aGUgY29tbXVuaXR5LiAgVGhlIJNyaWNolCBkb26SdCBob2FyZCB0aGVpciBtb25leSB0 aGV5IHNwZW5kIGl0LCBhbmQgbW9zdCBpbXBvcnRhbnRseSAgdGhleSBjcmVhdGUgaXQuICBJ ZiB0aGV5IGRvIGhvYXJkIGl0IGluIGJhbmtzIGl0IGNyZWF0ZXMgcmV2ZW51ZXMgZm9yIHRo ZSBiYW5rIGFuZCByZXNvdXJjZXMgZm9yIGxvYW5zLiBFdmVuIG1vcmUgaW1wb3J0YW50LCBp dCBpcyB0aGVpciBwcm9wZXJ0eSBub3QgdGhhdCBvZiB0aGUgY29tbXVuaXR5IHRvIGJlIGRp c3RyaWJ1dGVkIGJ5IGNoYXJnaW5nIHRoZW0gbW9yZSBmb3IgZ292ZXJubWVudCBzZXJ2aWNl cyB0aGFuIHRob3NlIHdobyBlYXJuIGxlc3MuIFdoYXQgdGhlIHJpY2ggZG8gd2l0aCB0aGVp ciBmYWlybHkgYWNxdWlyZWQgd2VhbHRoIGlzIHRoZWlyIGNvbmNlcm4gb25seS4gIEl0cyBu b2JvZHkgZWxzZZJzIGJ1c2luZXNzLi4uYXMgbG9uZyBhcyB0aGUgZnJlZWRvbSBleGlzdHMg Zm9yIG90aGVycyB0byBkbyB0aGUgc2FtZSB0aGluZy4NCj5XZWFsdGggaXMgdGhlIG9wcG9y dHVuaXR5IGZvciBmcmVlZG9tLiAgSXQgaXMgdGhlIJNwdXJzdWl0IG9mIGhhcHBpbmVzc5Qg aW4gk2xpZmUsIGxpYmVydHkgYW5kIHRoZSBwdXJzdWl0IG9mIGhhcHBpbmVzc5QuICBBcyBz dWNoIGl0IGlzIGEgYmFzaWMgaHVtYW4gcmlnaHQsIG5vdCBhICB0YXJnZXQgZm9yIGFidXNl IGJ5IGRlbW9jcmF0cyB3aG8gd2FudCB0byBhdHRlbnVhdGUgaXQgIGJ5IHJlZGlzdHJpYnV0 aW9uLiAgVG8gZXhjZWwsIHRvIGJlIG1vc3QgZml0LCBzaG91bGQgYmUgdGhlIGFzcGlyYXRp b24gb2YgYWxsLCBub3QgYW4gYWNjb21wbGlzaG1lbnQgdG8gYmUgIHJlc2VudGVkLCBkZXNw aXNlZCBhbmQgcHVuaXNoZWQuICBXaGVuIHdlIGdvIHRvIE5hcGxlcyB3ZSBhcmUgc3Vycm91 bmRlZCBieSB0aGUgd2VhbHRoeS4gICBFdmVyeSBvdGhlciBjYXIgaXMgYSBKYWcsIFBvcnNj aGUsIEJNVywgZXRjLiAgSGlnaCByaXNlcyBhYm91bmQgd2l0aCBzdGFydGluZyBwcmljZXMg YXQgb25lIG1pbGxpb24uICBTdG9yZXMgaGF2ZSBzaGlydHMgZm9yICQ4MDAuICBUaGUgb3B1 bGVuY2UgaXMgaW5jcmVkaWJsZS4gIEhvdyB0aGV5IGFsbCBnb3QgaXQgSSBkb26SdCBrbm93 IGJ1dCBJIGRvIGtub3cgSSBkb26SdCBoYXZlIGEgcmlnaHQgdG8gaXQuICAgTm9yIGRvIEkg ZmVlbCB0aGV5IHNob3VsZCBiZSBwYXlpbmcgbW9yZSBmb3IgdGhlIHNhbWUgZ292ZXJubWVu dCBzZXJ2aWNlcyBJIHJlY2VpdmUuICBJZiBJIGVudnkgaXQsIHRoZW4gSSBzaG91bGQgaGF2 ZSB0aGUgcmlnaHQgdG8gZ28gZm9yIGl0IHRvby4gIElmIEkgZG9uknQgc3VjY2VlZCwgIHRo ZW4gSSBoYXZlIG5vIG9uZSB0byBibGFtZSBidXQgbWUuICANCj5BbWVyaWNhIHdhcyBjcmVh dGVkIGJlY2F1c2Ugb2Ygb3BwcmVzc2l2ZSB0YXhhdGlvbiBhbmQgbG9zcyBvZiBmcmVlZG9t cy4gIEl0IHdhcyBub3QgY3JlYXRlZCB0byBmb3JtIGEgc29jaWFsaXN0aWMgc3RhdGUuICBJ dCBpcyBhIHBsYWNlIHdoZXJlIHBlb3BsZSBjYW4gZ28gdG8gc3VjY2VlZCBhbmQga2VlcCB0 aGUgZnJ1aXRzIG9mIHRoZWlyIGxhYm9ycy4gIERlbW9jcmF0cyhzb2NpYWxpc3RzKXdvdWxk IGhhdmUgaXQgb3RoZXJ3aXNlLCBpZ25vcmluZyB0aGUgaW50ZW50IG9mIHRoZSBmb3VuZGlu ZyBmYXRoZXJzIGFuZCBkZW55aW5nIHRoZSBldmlkZW50IGZhaWx1cmUgb2YgbGlrZSBzeXN0 ZW1zIGV4cGVyaW1lbnRlZCB3aXRoIGFyb3VuZCB0aGUgd29ybGQuDQo+IEFsbCBjcmVhdHVy ZXMgaGF2ZSBhIGJhc2ljIHZlcnkgc2VsZmlzaCBzdXJ2aXZhbCBpbnN0aW5jdC4gIElmIHRo aXMgd2VyZSBub3QgdGhlIGNhc2Ugbm8gc3BlY2llcyB3b3VsZCBzdXJ2aXZlLiAgV2UgaGF2 ZSB0aGlzIHNhbWUgaW5zdGluY3QgYnV0IGhhdmUgbW9yYWxpemVkIGluIHNvY2lldHkgc3Vj aCB0aGF0IHdlIGF0dGVtcHQgdG8gY3JlYXRlIGNpcmN1bXN0YW5jZXMgdGhhdCBwcm90ZWN0 IHRoZSB3ZWFrICBhbmQgdW5maXQgZm9yIHN1cnZpdmFsLiAgVG8gZXhjZWwsIHRvIGJlIJNy aWNolCBpcyBhbmF0aGVtYSwgYW5kIHRvIGJlIG9mIHRoZSBtZWRpb2NyZSCTd29ya2luZyBj bGFzc5QgbGF1ZGFibGUuICBFeGFjdGx5IHRoZSBvcHBvc2l0ZSBvZiB3aGF0IG9jY3VycyBp biBuYXR1cmUuICBJbiBuYXR1cmUgdGhlIGZpdCBzdXJ2aXZlLCB0aGV5IGRvbpJ0IHNwZW5k IHRoZWlyIHNraWxscyBwcm90ZWN0aW5nIHRoZSB1bmZpdCBzbyB0aGVyZSBjYW4gYmUgZXZl biBtb3JlIGNvbXBldGl0aW9uIGZvciByZXNvdXJjZXMuICBTb2NpYWxpc3RpYyCTaHVtYW5p dGFyaWFulCBwcm9ncmFtcyBtYXkgYXBwZWFyIHRvIGJlIGEgd29uZGVyZnVsIGV0aGljIGJ1 dCBpZ25vcmUgdGhlIGxvbmcgdGVybSBjb25zZXF1ZW5jZXMgdG8gc29jaWV0eSBzaW5jZSBw dW5pc2hpbmcgdGhlIG1vcmUgZml0LCB0aGUgc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bCwgYW5kIHJld2FyZGluZyB0 aGUgbGVzcyBzdWNjZXNzZnVsIGNhbiBvbmx5IHVsdGltYXRlbHkgd2Vha2VuIGEgY3VsdHVy ZS4gKFlvdSBtYXkgbm90IHNlZSB0aGUgk3dlYWx0aHmUIGFzIGJlaW5nIHB1bmlzaGVkLiAg U29tZSA4MCslIG9mIG5ldyBidXNpbmVzc2VzIGZhaWwuICBUaG9zZSB3aG8gZG8gc3VjY2Vl ZCBoYXZlIHRvIGZpZ2h0IGFuZCBzdHJ1Z2dsZSAok3dvcmuUIG9mIHRoZSBtb3N0IGRpZmZp Y3VsdCBraW5kKSBmYXIgYmV5b25kIHRoYXQgcmVxdWlyZWQgb2YgdGhlIJN3b3JraW5nIGNs YXNzlCBwcmltYXJpbHkgYmVjYXVzZSBvZiBuZWVkbGVzcyBnb3Zlcm5tZW50IGludGVydmVu dGlvbltJIHJlY2VudGx5IHNwZW50IHRlbnMgb2YgdGhvdXNhbmRzIHRvIGNoYW5nZSB0aGUg c3BhY2luZyAgYW5kIGluc2lnbmlmaWNhbnQgbGFuZ3VhZ2Ugb24gYSBmb29kIGxhYmVsIGJl Y2F1c2Ugd2Ugd2VyZSBzdWVkIHRvIHN0b3Agc2FsZSBiZWNhdXNlIG9mIGl0IGluIGEgc3Rh dGVdIGFuZCBjb3N0cyBjcmVhdGVkIGJ5IHNvY2lhbGlzbS4pDQo+RXZlcnlvbmUgaXMgcmVz cG9uc2libGUgZm9yIHRoZWlyIGFjdGlvbnMgb3IgaW5hY3Rpb25zLiAgSWYgc29tZW9uZSBk b2VzIG5vdCB3aXNoIHRvIHdvcmsgZXh0cmEgaGFyZCwgdGFrZSByaXNrcywgZXRjLiwgYnV0 IHJhdGhlciBwcmVmZXJzIHJpc2stZnJlZSBzZWN1cmUgZ3VhcmFudGVlcyhsaWtlIG1lIG9u IHRoZSBpc2xhbmQpLCB0aGVuIHRoZXkgaGF2ZSBubyBiaXRjaCB3aXRoIG90aGVycyB3aG8g YXJlIG1vcmUgc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bC4gIElmIHRoZXkgY2FuknQgbWFrZSBlbmRzIG1lZXQgYW5k IHRoZXkgZ28gaHVuZ3J5IHRoZW4gd2VsY29tZSB0byB0aGUgcmVhbCB3b3JsZCBvZiBzdXJ2 aXZhbCBvZiB0aGUgZml0dGVzdC4gIFRoZXkgZG9uknQgaGF2ZSB0aGUgcmlnaHQgdG8gdm90 ZSBteSBoYXJkIGVhcm5lZCBkb2xsYXJzIGF3YXkgZnJvbSBtZSB0byBwYXkgZm9yIHRoZWly IGZhaWx1cmUgdG8gcGVyZm9ybS4gIA0KPlRoZSCTd2VhbHRoeZQob3RoZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUg ZmFtaWx5IG1vbmV5IHR5cGUpIGhhdmUgc3VjY2VlZGVkIGJlY2F1c2UgdGhleSBoYXZlIGRv bmUgdGhlIGhhcmRlc3Qgd29yayBvZiBhbGwsIHRoaW5rLiAgRm9yZCBvbmNlIHNhaWQgc29t ZXRoaW5nIGxpa2U6IJNUaGlua2luZyBpcyB0aGUgaGFyZGVzdCB3b3JrIHRoZXJlIGlzLCB3 aGljaCBpcyBwcm9iYWJseSB3aHkgc28gZmV3IGVuZ2FnZSBpbiBpdC6UICBNeSBleHBlcmll bmNlIHdpdGggk3dvcmtlcnOUIGlzIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBpcyB2ZXJ5IG11Y2ggc28uICBUaGV5 IHdpbGwgYWxtb3N0IGRvIGFueXRoaW5nLCBldmVuIHRoZSBtb3N0IHN0dXBpZCByZXBldGl0 aW91cyB1bm5lY2Vzc2FyeSBjaG9yZSwgIHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIHRoaW5rIG9mIGEgYmV0dGVy IHdheS4gIEl0IGlzIGEgY29uc3RhbnQgc3RydWdnbGUgYXQgdGhlIG9mZmljZS4gIA0KPiAg SSAgZmluZCBpdCBkaWZmaWN1bHQgdG8gdGFrZSBhIGxlYWRlciBzZXJpb3VzbHkgd2hvIGFz cGlyZWQgZm9yIGtpbmdzaGlwIHNpbmNlIGhlIHdhcyBhbiBpbmZhbnQuICBXaGF0IHByaW5j aXBsZXMgYW5kIHBvdGVudGlhbGx5IGZydWl0ZnVsIGlkZWFzIGRpZCBoZSBoYXZlIGZvciBh IG5hdGlvbiBhdCB0aGlzIGFnZT8gIEV2aWRlbnRseSBhYm91dCB0aGUgc2FtZSBhcyBoZSBk b2VzIG5vdywgbm9uZSwgb3RoZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgZGVzaXJlIGZvciBwb3NpdGlvbiBhbmQg cG93ZXIuICBXZSBzaG91bGQgc2VlayBsZWFkZXJzIHdobyBhc3BpcmUgdG8gdGhlIHBvc2l0 aW9uIGJlY2F1c2Ugb2YgdHJ1ZSB2aXNpb24gYW5kIHByaW5jaXBsZSBjb25zaXN0ZW50IHdp dGggdGhlIHByZW1pc2VzIEmSdmUgb3V0bGluZWQgYWJvdmUuDQoNCkxldJJzLCBzZWUsIHRo YXQgd291bGQgaW4gZWZmZWN0IG1ha2UgbWUga2luZyBvZiB0aGUgd29ybGQgd291bGRuknQg aXQ/ICBDb29sIQ0KDQpMYXRlciwgQ29tcmFkZQ0KDQoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAABAAB0RgAAeEYAALBZAAB7dnsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEACgQIAMACBADAAEAAAkBAAALAQAAyAIAAMoCAACOAwAAkAMAAFwE AABeBAAAMgUAADQFAAAmBwAAKAcAAHgIAAB6CAAAjAkAAI4JAACrCgAArQoAADwMAAA+DAAA 8w0AAHFxAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANAAAADwgAAuAQwCEBAhXzDQAA9Q0AAIYP AACIDwAADxAAABEQAAAoEQAAKhEAANsSAADdEgAAtBQAALYUAADaFwAA3BcAACYaAAAoGgAA yBwAAMocAABAHgAAQh4AAKIfAACkHwAAJiEAACghAABEIgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAGEQiAABGIgAAjyMAAJEjAACqIwAAoyQAAM8kAAAQJQAAeyUAAAkmAAALJgAA sSYAALMmAABiKAAAZCgAAPsqAAD9KgAA6ysAAO0rAAAgLQAAIi0AAGktAABrLQAADC4AAFEw AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYUTAAAJwwAADpMwAAoDUAAK42AAAdOQAA TzkAAGI6AACbPQAAG0IAAGZDAACPRAAA1UUAAGJHAABMSgAAr00AAC1PAAAEVAAA3FUAAKdX AABKWQAATFkAAJxZAACeWQAArlkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABiuWQAA sFkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQABAACwWQAAtAAAAQAA8w0AAEQiAABRMAAArlkAALBZAAC1ALYA twC4ALkAEBAPVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA0AIAABgDAAAAAAAAAA0AAAAACQAAAAsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKAFAACgBQAACAcAAAgH AADgPQAA0C8AANACAAA4BAAAoAUAAKAFAAAIBwAACAcAAOA9AADQLwAA0AIAADgEAAABAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AQBDAG8AbQBwAE8AYgBqAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAABIAAgD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAVQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP///////////////wAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA= --part1_0.bcc4f3ae.256c806b_boundary-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 19:06:24 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to kim:rubbing fur In reply to the numbered points: 1. I agree it is moral and ethical to share and be more selfless. The issue is how is this accomplished. Liberals think it's the state's job to redistribute the fruit of labor, to force everyone to be "moral" as the state defines it. The Constitutionalist, the libertarian view is that the fruit of your labor is yours and it is up to you to reach within to do the right thing. I see the later position as much more "spiritual" than the former. So why would you be a liberal in this regard? Also, why do those who have too much, have it in your opinion? Also, why do those who have too little, have that in your opinion? Since you mentioned Bill Gates in your last post, why does he have too much in your opinion? 2. I think there are much more profound differences between men and women than you would suggest. Pointing to exceptions-such as some women are stronger than some men- does not cancel the broad categorical disparities between the two. Let's say every country on earth had a female army except one. War could only be fought by hand to hand combat and the number of participants on each side must be the same. Who do you think would end up in the number one position? The two sexes complement each other, they are not the same. You can begin with the genitalia and take the differences all the way through the way each thinks even on a spiritual level (I'm talking in the general, not the exceptional). Some differences may be subtle but they are there. Some more obvious such as the testicular narcissim that chest beats hear occassionally. Theosophy is the wisdom religion. It is supposed to reflect univeral truths and time honored tradition. The differences in the sexes has been recognized from the beginning of recorded history. Why would you want to deny it now? 3. "Affirmitive action" is a pathetic putative attempt by the state to force a subjective moral issue. In actual fact, it is merely demagoguery by the Democrat party for the purpose of securing votes from the ignorant. In actual fact, the policy creates racism, it doesn't dissolve it. Racism, the belief that there are differences between the races, will never be obliterated because it is a truth. Racism that unfairly gives one an advantage over the other-such as in affirmitive action-should be illegal and punishable. I'm again surprised that as a theosophist, believing in karma and personal responsibility, you would buy into this political nonsense and not position yourself with those who advocate the most amount of personal freedom and liberty. 4. The beauty of a Republic is that it mimics the ideal government, a benevolent dictatorship. It's a theosophical thing too: law rules. Problem with your democracy is that 51% of the crazies can vote to kill the other 49%. Do you see where "democracy" would eventually lead to a mere contest of self-serving manipulations. It's exactly what we see presently in the Democrat party. The goal of government should be to create just laws relflecting the "ancient religion" if you will and hold the population to it. What's this business that because the Constitution is 200 years old it can't apply today? Give me an example of what modern circumstance requires something beyond the scope of the Constitution. How does this notion that things written a long time ago are effete, jibe with theosophy, ancient wisdom? The Constitution is the greatest libertarian document yet written too my knowledge. It gives priority to personal liberty and makes government a servant of the people. It also places responsibility squarely on the individual where it should be and entitles everyone to the fruit of their labors. If I bust my ass getting rich, I get to keep it, give it to the truly needy, squander it or whatever. If I sit on my duff and do nothing, then I get to starve to death. Can't get more morally perfect than that. (I've attached a letter written to some friends a time back on this subject. Jim was an employee of the State and was of course a Democrat. Funny how those who depend on or want the money of others handed to them are always Democrat liberals. Those who get out there and want to use their creative talents to make their own way are usually libertarian-no personal afrront intended if this might seem to apply to you.) The fur rubber, Randy This is part of a letter written to friends, Jim and Cindy, some time ago. Kinda long. Sorry Okay, on to your thoughts. First let me put you at ease by saying I have never voted for a Republican nor do I agree with some of Rush’s stuff as you can see in the newsletter. I consider myself a free-thinker. I belong to no group. I have no mentors. I care only about reason since it is that alone that offers us any semblance of order now and any hope for the future. That’s a good lesson from our JW apostasy I will keep. I will support others to the degree they advance personal freedom. There are elements of many political groups I like. The Libertarians, Constitutional Law Party, the Cat Institute and the Republicans, for example, have some of the ideas I like. I haven’t found much in the democrats I agree with however for the reason that they seem bent on government growth and intrusion on individual liberty. I think the primary issue should be freedom and liberty in society. It’s what we all seem to be chasing in one way or another. It’s what you and Cindy seem to be enjoying more of now. I have a really independent spirit and personal freedom is critical for my happiness. Let me preface this discussion of politics(friends are never supposed to talk religion or politics; good friends can talk about both) with your understanding that I am only interested in ultimate solutions, basic causes and underlying “truths”(excuse me, I’m still on that kick). For example, modern medicine deals with effects, not causes. The promise of cure assures the perpetuation of disease. Turning off fire alarms while the fire smolders in the closet nets them a trillion dollar a year industry --to our detriment unless we(the majority) wise up. The fundamental cause of disease is not lack of surgery or aspirins. It is living out of our proper genetic context. Another example. A third world nation starves. Our solution is to send boat loads of food. We save hundreds of thousands so they can breed some more and even further outstrip the resources of their country. Now when starvation occurs it is even a greater disaster thanks to our Band-Aids. The fundamental cause is mismanagement of resources and overpopulation. Until population matches resources the problem will not be solved. Another example. Environmental efforts are focused on fixing symptoms: garbage, effluent, acid rain, etc. The engine that drives the problem, the fundamental cause is population. If we don’t control that to match sustainable resources there is no hope no matter how many shower savers are bought. (I know you’re thinking this jack rabbit is a great one to talk on this subject. Live and learn.) I like to back up and look in overview at the whole problem and try to discern the real causes. Then real solutions become possible. Now to government. Let’s say you, Cindy and I(sorry Cindy, I’m still fantasizing about our threesome-particularly since Jim is so into sharing) decide to buy an island and make it a sovereign nation. We spend all we have to buy it, equal shares, so we go there with nothing. Once we’re there I decide to spend most of my time eating coconuts in a hammock and watching that babe wife of yours skinny dip. You get real industrious carving cute little coconut heads to sell to canoeists passing by. I spend just enough time finding food to feed myself and to make a few trinkets attempting to woo your wife away from you. But you work night and day carving out those coconut heads. You even get a callus. Now then, a hurricane comes and washes away my hammock, Cindy’s grass skirt(Oh goody) and a bunch of baby coconut trees you planted. Our only hope to save the island is to hire the merchant marine to build some breakwalls. I’ve only been able to save a little money by selling peep show passes of Cindy in the lagoon to passing natives. I gave her a cut depending upon how many of the honey dipped discretely placed flower pedals she would remove for the voyeurs. But you, you entrepreneurial animal, you’ve saved thousands. Since its a democracy(you convinced us on the boat to the island that that’s the only fair and moral way), Cindy and I out vote you two to one that payment for the breakwall should be based on income and since you’re rich it is only fair that you pay the lions share. You’re upset for a bit but then realize you have no right to be rich and us just poor workers who would deplete all of our savings from the peep shows if we had to share equally in paying for the breakwall. Besides, you don’t want to be some insensitive wealthy capitalistic pig, so you ante up and the island is saved. Cindy and I rejoice at the wonders of democracy and our own version of the income tax and resolve to be sure to keep voting to keep everything as is. After a while, Cindy can’t resist me anymore because I’ve been doing a lot of sit-ups and my abs are like an etched washer board. She decides to dump you. We all vote and majority rules that she should get half of everything you have and that you should pay alimony so she can continue in the style to which she is accustomed. Further, she is awarded child support for the two kids she had while on the island. You object because you are sure they are mine because of their good looks, abs and great intelligence. We vote and decide you should not be a dead beat dad and ante up. With time our little population grows and we all come to work for you. We vote that the kids shouldn’t work until they’re 21...a sort of child labor law. Besides you are very rich by working day and night and can afford the taxes to cover their needs. The rest of us form a union to make sure we get appropriate benefits...lots of vacation, short work days, medical, retirement, a high minimum wage, etc., which is only deserved because why should you be rich and the rest of us so poor. You greedy bastard, you’ve even got a bigger hut than the rest of us and two canoes. But this is all done very proper with voting so there can be no moral or ethical objection. Over time we decide to make our own currency. We make little painted shells-lots of them. We vote that this should be our money. We use these to buy your coconut heads and then sell them for real cash abroad. Your margins start to decline(rightly so you selfish fascist pig) and the little shell coins are increasingly worthless as we continue busily painting new ones. In the meantime we vote to increase our standard of living and increase taxes on you and paint ever more shell money. You want to move your factory offshore and we vote to deny that and issue a monetary penalty for your lack of patriotism. We also set up a bunch of regulatory agencies for you to pay for so we can make sure you’re towing the line. Finally, exhausted and broke, you close the factory. Population has now grown way beyond the islands resources. We vote to confiscate your retirement equity because you were always too rich anyway and we were just poor working class. We send for boat loads of supplies and all is well again so we set about further breeding--we voted that unlimited procreation is everyone’s right. Now we have twice as many people as when the supplies ran out. As time passes all the islands resources are gone, no one will take our shell money and there is no more real cash. We have a meeting and democratically vote not to starve and die. Our final futile, but ethical act. Okay, enough fun. Let’s get serious about saving the world. Here are some preliminaries. Your agreement at this level is critical otherwise there is no hope of agreement later as we build upon this foundation. (I know there’s no hope anyway you bullheaded bigot. But I’ll at least humor and purge myself with this tirade.) These are the premises: 1. Humans and the societies they construct are not above the same natural laws governing all of nature. We may postpone, temporarily circumvent and ignore these laws but they always catch up. Natural laws are are oblivious to human “humaneness”. 2. Freedom is a basic human need and right 3. Everyone has the right to their own fairly acquired property 4. Everyone has the responsibility to pay the required fee for what they agree to purchase from another. 5. Resources necessary for life, air, water, natural areas, etc.-are common property and no one has the right to privatize or destroy them. >From this heuristic foundation a fair, moral and rational society can be constructed. These provide an algorithm for the development of a limited good government. I grant you that communism, socialism, fascism, benign dictatorships and the like are all valid attempts at governing complex human society. There can be endless debates about which is better. All of them can theoretically create a harmonious society. As a college student, communism seemed to be the ideal to me. Gads what could be more fair than “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need”?. The best government is your own will, your freedom to live your life as you choose and enjoy the rewards of good decisions and be solely responsible for the poor ones. You don’t want me to tell you what to do, and I don’t want you to tell me what to do either. I want to be able to enjoy the fruit of my labor with no obligation to anyone. I take that right knowing full well its corollary is that I alone am responsible also for the negative consequences of my own acts...or failure to act. I now, therefore, think the yardstick of the best government is the one that accomplishes the above goals for the individual while still maintaining social order. Socialism and communism merely grapple with the symptoms of social disharmony. They do not establish the preeminent rights of the individual but rather force him into a social structure that violates many of his basic needs and rights. I see the only hope being a benign dictatorship. That’s basically what America is. We are a country of law with the Constitution being the supreme dictator. That “dictator” uniquely sets forth the very premises outlined above that protect individual rights and freedom while maintaining social order. Here are some random thoughts addressing some of the points you made: >democracy means 51% of the people can vote to kill the other 49%; it also promotes the prevalent belief in our society of the superior wisdom of the ignorant. >voting is a right, perhaps, but it is also a responsibility. No one should vote who does not understand the Constitution(almost nobody has even read this basic contract between our government and us) and are informed on the issues in contention. A test should be given to anyone desiring to vote. If they are not informed they relinquish the right. Nobody has the right to vote on my destiny if they are ignorant. But what we have in this country is ignorance of the people, by the people, for the people. There is indeed no underestimating the intelligence of the public. >The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy ruled by plebiscite >The government has a right to render services required by its citizens. Citizens have a responsibility to pay for those services via taxes. This has nothing to do with their income anymore than a gas station can ethically charge based on the income of the customer. I should have to pay in an absolute amount(not a tricky percentage of “income”) exactly the same as anyone else who is using the same government service. Its real simple to me anyway. If the government renders me a service-defense, infrastructure, etc., it doesn’t matter-then send me a bill. Don’t use my debt for the service as an excuse to pry into every nook and cranny of my life and bury me with ridiculous forms, paperwork and bills from accountants to interpret it all, or to extort resources from me to support those who choose of their own volition to do less. >The government does not have a right to decide how I will spend my money on humanitarian needs or even if I should spend any. The present social programs remove individual and community conscience. If I’m taxed to pay for the needy then I need not individually care about the needy, The dehumanizing and desensitization of communities by our “good Samaritan” government interloper takes a toll far greater than anyone can estimate. >Medical schools may be subsidized but so are high schools, many trade schools and others. What success I have has little to do with irrelevant formal education. What I do now is practically entirely self-taught. I succeed in spite of government, not because of it. >Raising the minimum wage as well as funding all other social programs does not create a net benefit. These acts are not market driven and thus no net economic change can occur. Such government manipulations is merely card shuffling. Money is not created by government(except by printing press), only by the private industrial sector(with the exception of ventures such as yours) and thus raising their costs only results in their raising prices. This is why a dollar today is worth a nickel a short while back before the socialists perverted the system.(That and the government making funny money on their presses) >Is the Michigan sales(consumption) tax immoral? >Citing labor abuses by some in the infancy of this country as an excuse for the morass of regulations and guarantees for workers today is like the blacks wanting special consideration because one of their ancestors was boated over here as a slave three hundred years ago. >I have employed at least 200 people in the past 15 years, paid none of them minimum wage, gave them an on-site day care, benefits, and limitless opportunity and was forced to do none of it. What I have done is modest compared to what many others have done. I do it to try to be fair and to entice them to stay. Market forces, not government forces create jobs, benefits and true high wages. In return, workers with a socialistic(I’m a victim and I’m owed) mentality lie to me, quit after I train them, fake injury to get unemployment compensation, steal from me and then sue me when I fire them, make countless mindless costly errors, falsify time cards, never improve themselves or create business but rather rely on me to do it all, never take work home while I spend 16-18 hour days making sure their job is secure. >I hear less outrage from the Republicans about Clinton than from the media. Republicans and all thinking people should be outraged and this should not be diminished even if it could be proven that a former Republican president was a pedophile and axe murderer. (My disrespect for his duplicity and demagoguery does not suggest that I or other critics are without sin. If you put yourself in a position of moral leadership, advance yourself as a model for a nation’s children, then you are accountable not excusable. My resentment for him is not because of what fun he has had with ingenues in his office but because of his failure to move government in a direction that increases my personal freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution and also because of the lying, Machiavellian deceit, spins, mantras, ad hominem rhetoric and demagoguery, preaching doctrines he knows are untrue to people he knows are idiots. I have the personal feeling that when all revelations eventually come forth(which may take decades) the corruption of this guy will prove to be unparalleled. Too bad he’s the first example of what our generation can do when in charge. >A democratic majority virtually assures error. The majority are always wrong regarding anything even slightly abstract and therefore democratic rule assures ultimate failure. The Democratic party, by pandering to the “majority”, have taken on the pathetic mentality of the majority. They don’t wisely lead, they follow fools. >Speaking of majorities, the constant publication of polls is enough to make me puke. Just what I want to know, what the ignorant majority think. I like the polls that showed the increase in popularity of Clinton as the revelations became more damaging. That says it all regarding majorities. >The socialistic effort to level the playing field assures the survival of the unfit. This goes against natural law and will ultimately result in the demise of a population. (Incidentally I understand the ratio of government employees to manufacturing jobs is now 1:1...certainly on our way to a totally socialistic state.) >What I hear on the news about what Republicans do and think is quite unlike the thoughtful and intelligent information I get when communicating directly with some of them or reading their written works directly. I agree that the religious element in the party should make us feel uneasy. But that’s the beauty of Constitutional government over democracy. Their influence is severely limited. >The more money I make, the more money I spend on new jobs, higher wages, more benefits to employees and supplies. I might buy a bigger home or car and stuff to fill my garage but that also creates jobs and economic health for the community. The “rich” don’t hoard their money they spend it, and most importantly they create it. If they do hoard it in banks it creates revenues for the bank and resources for loans. Even more important, it is their property not that of the community to be distributed by charging them more for government services than those who earn less. What the rich do with their fairly acquired wealth is their concern only. Its nobody else’s business...as long as the freedom exists for others to do the same thing. >Wealth is the opportunity for freedom. It is the “pursuit of happiness” in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. As such it is a basic human right, not a target for abuse by democrats who want to attenuate it by redistribution. To excel, to be most fit, should be the aspiration of all, not an accomplishment to be resented, despised and punished. When we go to Naples we are surrounded by the wealthy. Every other car is a Jag, Porsche, BMW, etc. High rises abound with starting prices at one million. Stores have shirts for $800. The opulence is incredible. How they all got it I don’t know but I do know I don’t have a right to it. Nor do I feel they should be paying more for the same government services I receive. If I envy it, then I should have the right to go for it too. If I don’t succeed, then I have no one to blame but me. >America was created because of oppressive taxation and loss of freedoms. It was not created to form a socialistic state. It is a place where people can go to succeed and keep the fruits of their labors. Democrats(socialists)would have it otherwise, ignoring the intent of the founding fathers and denying the evident failure of like systems experimented with around the world. > All creatures have a basic very selfish survival instinct. If this were not the case no species would survive. We have this same instinct but have moralized in society such that we attempt to create circumstances that protect the weak and unfit for survival. To excel, to be “rich” is anathema, and to be of the mediocre “working class” laudable. Exactly the opposite of what occurs in nature. In nature the fit survive, they don’t spend their skills protecting the unfit so there can be even more competition for resources. Socialistic “humanitarian” programs may appear to be a wonderful ethic but ignore the long term consequences to society since punishing the more fit, the successful, and rewarding the less successful can only ultimately weaken a culture. (You may not see the “wealthy” as being punished. Some 80+% of new businesses fail. Those who do succeed have to fight and struggle (“work” of the most difficult kind) far beyond that required of the “working class” primarily because of needless government intervention[I recently spent tens of thousands to change the spacing and insignificant language on a food label because we were sued to stop sale because of it in a state] and costs created by socialism.) >Everyone is responsible for their actions or inactions. If someone does not wish to work extra hard, take risks, etc., but rather prefers risk-free secure guarantees(like me on the island), then they have no bitch with others who are more successful. If they can’t make ends meet and they go hungry then welcome to the real world of survival of the fittest. They don’t have the right to vote my hard earned dollars away from me to pay for their failure to perform. >The “wealthy”(other than the family money type) have succeeded because they have done the hardest work of all, think. Ford once said something like: “Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably why so few engage in it.” My experience with “workers” is that this is very much so. They will almost do anything, even the most stupid repetitious unnecessary chore, rather than think of a better way. It is a constant struggle at the office. > I find it difficult to take a leader seriously who aspired for kingship since he was an infant. What principles and potentially fruitful ideas did he have for a nation at this age? Evidently about the same as he does now, none, other than the desire for position and power. We should seek leaders who aspire to the position because of true vision and principle consistent with the premises I’ve outlined above. Let’s, see, that would in effect make me king of the world wouldn’t it? Cool! Later, Comrade From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:06:48 PST From: "Joshua Gulick" Subject: Help! Hi everybody, I figured out an interesting new way of focusing light into a beam. I sent in for my provisional patent, but I'm still not sure if anyone has invented it yet. Before I pay for a patent search, I figured I might ask you all if you have seen anything quite like it before. Also, I figured out a simple perpetual motion machine (powered by gravity) that I think would work. If you don't think it would work, I hope you would tell me why. I posted pictures of both on my website at: http://www.stormloader.com/joshua I would appreciate any assistance. Thanks, Joshua ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 01:13:06 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: sinner ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 7:04 AM > Subject: Re: sinner > warm and cuddly people tend to get booted out of lines and secret > meetings. And they get all their fur rubbed off. Not me, man - I'm dying > hairy. > > > Kym Be my shirt! 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: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 23:28:51 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: sinner In a message dated 11/23/99 10:09:06 PM Central Standard Time, ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > Be my shirt! > > Alan :-\ > > a Check for lice, fleas and nits, while minding for dice, dweebs, and twits.... Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:33:01 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor: more Randy wrote: > Similarly, people will sometimes choose > other people of a certain "type"(boy will you have fun with that label now). > If this were not true, why do blacks primarily associate with blacks, whites > with whites, yellows with yellows, browns with browns, purples with purples, > etc.? I thought the reason was social and psychological: we associate with those who are of a type we know. Also of course there are economic reasons (I meet very few brown-colored people, so associating with them and becoming friends, becomes difficult.) class-differences, the place where one lives, dealing with the same social problems (like racism)... > Do we really have a point of disagreement? Randy Don't know. I was wondering the same as I read Grigor's post. Katinka. ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:37:52 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor: definitions On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 17:16:23 EST WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > I have not defined words such as proof, reason, logic, evidence and the like > because I am not interested in a debate on semantics. > If I ask someone for proof or evidence, I am happy for them to provide it in > whatever form they choose. This gives them the option of not being hamstrung > by my definitions. They can create their own. I just would like to know on > what basis they make whatever assertion they make. Then ask for evidence or the basis, not for proof. For mathematicians and physicists on this list, the word proof means something very different from the word evidence. > I'd also just like to see people say something of substance regarding > theosophy. Make some assertions, some claims, something other than playing > cute with words. (Has Clinton infected theosophists with the what does is > mean bug?) How bout something that can be falsified, if you will, Grigor. It is much more difficult to prove something is Truth, than it is to show that it is likely. And talking about theosophy even showing something is likely is usually impossible, in my oppinion. All one can do is say: this is a possible explanation for those and those facts. reincarnation and the discussion on that topic on this list are a good case in point. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:01:02 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Randy to Kym:sinner On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 07:17:38 EST WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > You've pushed so many hot buttons in your post, I don't know where to begin. > > Everything you discuss though is reducible to questions of: > 1. Am I entitled to the fruits of my labors > 2...Are women different than men > 3. Do I have a right to redress if your ancestors did something to mine 200 > years ago. > 4. Is the U.S. a constitutional republic or a socialistic/communistic state. > > My answers in order are: yes, yes, no, the former. 5. do I have a responsibility towards your neighbour? my answer to that question: yes. 6. Is the sorrow of other people my sorrow? yes. (this is also basic theosophy for me, by the way. no proof neccessary, again for me) (recall Jerry's story about actually feeling the pain he had inflicted in a car-accident) I am not Kym and probably not warm and cuddly, but so be it... Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:06:14 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Evidence for mental events breaking physical speed limit On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 13:39:05 EST Hazarapet@aol.com wrote: > Hello, > > There is some interesting new research about to be published within the > next two years. I hope you will keep us informed. Katinka Hesselink ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:24:25 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Randy to Katinka: the divine On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 18:10:36 EST WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > Thank you for your gracious offer. I have no issue with the first points. > How do you come up with the divine in your last point? sorry, I throw away all my own posts, so I have no idea how I came up with the divine. I have no memory at all, I sometimes think. At other times I somehow remember. Brain is a mystery. By the way. Sorry of accusing you of not knowing what you talk about. later mails showed you did know. You come across like you don't know the first thing about science, sometimes. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:27:11 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Randy to Katinka:macroevolution On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 18:30:46 EST WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > The evidences you cite for macroevolution are a matter of forcing the facts > to fit the theory. Macroevolution may occur but not by the mechanisms > popularized-mutations and selection. > > Think on this for a minute. According to evolution we have eyes because they > make us more fit. Problem is, anything less than a perfectly functioning > complete eye is a hindrance. Therefore all the zillions of steps necessary > to evolve an eye would create less fit creatures which according to natural > selection would be removed from the population. But if the intermediary > steps necessary to evolve the eye were culled out by selection, then our > ancestors would have been culled. If they were culled, then we do not exist. > But we do. Thus the problem of mechanism. > > This is a really interesting problem from a philosophical standpoint. It > seems to point to a mechanism for our existence outside of presently > understood science. Right up our alley right? yes, it points to the idea of intelligence somehow using the physical mechanism of evolution (I am not letting that go) to go and develop something, like in this case: the eye. or an even more challenging notion for science: intelligence and creativity. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 08:05:34 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: Randy to Kym:reply returned Try to edit-copy your attachment, then paste onto your email. > WLR7D@aol.com on 11/23/99 06:18:26 PM > > Please respond to "Theosophy Study List" > > To: "Theosophy Study List" > > cc: (bcc: Maureen T Fitzgerald/HLIFE) > > Subject: Randy to Kym:reply returned I prepared a reply and sent it with an attachment but it was returned. I assume you do not accept attachments or perhaps the list doesn't. Anyway, now I don't know how to resend it without the attachment. Trying to figure it out. Computer illiterate, Randy --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: MAUREEN.FITZGERALD@HARTFORDLIFE.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: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 06:15:24 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Dallas and the arsonist Katinka wrote: >I am a bit late in responding, but there seems to be >another misunderstanding here. kym writes (flaming?): Me flame? Never! Ever! Ok, maybe three times, but not this time. >Well, kym, That was me (katinka) trying to tell Dalas that >we should not assume that we all speak the same language >here. Truly, the way the post was formatted on my screen, it looked as if it came from Dallas. But, I wasn't serious in the response I made to Dallas; just jesting. I wasn't upset or rattled in the least. Some people have suggested in the past that I should use qualifiers - like smiley faces and the such - in order for people to know that I'm just being bratty. But, alas, that takes all the fun out of it. . .at least for me. . .who is really the only one who counts in this universe. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 07:38:30 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 21, 1999 Well said, Bart. ....mkr At 08:44 AM 11/23/1999 -0500, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Short version: Theosophy can fit with both liberal and conservative politics (whether they can fit in with Liberal or Conservative politics, noting the capitalizations, is another thing entirely). The key is whether politics are motivated by selfishness, or a genuine belief that it is the best way for human evolution. I can give the long version, showing in more detail, if you'd like. Note, however, that there is a wide gulf between Pat Robertson and Bill Buckley. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 07:47:46 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 23, 1999 Randy wrote: >1. I agree it is moral and ethical to share and be more selfless. The issue >is how is this accomplished. Liberals think it's the state's job to >redistribute the fruit of labor, to force everyone to be "moral" as the state >defines it. Actually, most liberals think it is a national government task, not state. The national government is not here to only preserve business opportunities - which many conservatives and libertarians seem to believe - but to preserve opportunites for ALL people and ensure the welfare of ALL people. Business folk LOVE the government when it helps them, but jumps up and down when government tries to pass laws that also help people who, for any number of reasons, are enduring dangerous streets, run-down schools, lack of medical care, and find nowhere to go when they become sick. Corporate welfare - ok! Human welfare - hell, no! What hyposcrisy. The universe does NOT consists of only business people and millionaires, but of children, the uneducated, the infirmed, the elderly, the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill, the oppressed, people of different talents, people of different faiths besides capitalism, and on and on. Libertarians tend to have a rather myopic view of humanity. And if you think that scrubwomen work any LESS harder than someone like Bill Gates, you are sadly misinformed. If the amount of work and toil should judge a person's wealth, then janitors, nurses, social workers, childcare workers, agricultural workers, and the like should be the millionaires of the world. But they are not. . .why is that? Why do these people earn paltry wages? Bill Gates got where he is because of OTHER people's ideas and work - do you really think he thought of Windows 98, Access, etc. all by himself? You ask why I believe Bill Gates has too much? Because no millionaire or billionaire ever got to where they are without the backbreaking work and ideas of other people; yet, when the checks start rolling in, they act as if it was their brain, and ONLY their brain, that has offered them this windfall. Business folks would be nowhere if the people did not buy their products and did not work for them - the common folk can make or break anyone in business. However, both business advocates and even the common folk have forgotten this. For me, anyone who lives on this planet, and especially the successful, OWE alot of people. Those in business often whine about the uneducated people they now have coming in to apply for jobs - well, did the business executives give generously and of their time to their local schools in order to ensure that students are given a broad and top-notch education? Most did not; and of those that did, it tends to be in the form of one or two scholarships for a select few. Well, now, because of greed and self-centeredness, business people are beginning to reap what they have lacked to sow. And this lack of nurturing for children is going to have far broader effects on society than just the business world. Money means nothing. It doesn't say anything about who you are - if you are dull of soul or loving of soul. Money comes and goes. Businesses come and go. But acts of sharing last forever and affect the world. Unfortunately, capitalism claims the opposite - money is the measure. And capitalism, in order to exist, must have a disposable work force. Capitalism loves no one - not even the rich - for if you lose your "richness," capitalism merely waves goodbye to you and moves on. It cares not if you live or die, what your previous contributions were, or what kind of person you are. If you can no longer or failed to produce what capitalism demands, then your value is zip. And this, Randy, is what you consider theosophical? >Let's say >every country on earth had a female army except one. War could only be >fought by hand to hand combat and the number of participants on each side >must be the same. Who do you think would end up in the number one position? Whichever group was the most skilled in weaponry - speed, agility, intuition, and the proper measuring of one's opponents' weaknesses and strengths all come into play in combat. In fact, according the what I heard, the more muscled someone is, the slower they move. I would side with the army commander who chose less muscular individuals, intuitive individuals, and those who are fast with both their feet and hands. So, I would say, Randy - that the odds are probably against the brawny male army. >Some more >obvious such as the testicular narcissim that chest beats hear occassionally. Many men, testes included, are not into "narcissim" - those men who credit their balls - "My balls made me do it" - for warfare and other indiscretions are standing on shaky ground. Randy, are your testes really in such control of you? If so, then I guess men should only be in jobs that require testosterone - and the rest of the jobs should go to those who do not have testes since you seem to suggest that testes-holders cannot maintain nor carry out ideas that require rational and discretionary thought. >3. "Affirmitive action" is a pathetic putative attempt by the state to force >a subjective moral issue. Before going on - what is a "subjective moral issue?" >I'm again surprised that as a theosophist, believing in karma and personal >responsibility, you would buy into this political nonsense and not position >yourself with those who advocate the most amount of personal freedom and >liberty. Surprise is the spice of life, Randy. >It's a theosophical thing too: law rules. Spiritual law; not human law rules in theosophy. >Problem with your democracy is >that 51% of the crazies can vote to kill the other 49%. This is a false analogy, and has never been proven true in history. Leaders have enacted laws to kill certain groups, but never has such an action ever, that I can think of, been actually voted upon by the general public. The majority of people are not, as you seem to think, "crazy." But this is an excuse many dictators and despots have used in order to seize complete power - "Most people are stupid." The evidence does not support this, nor does history. I will address the rest of your post in a bit. But one final thought for this post: Your letter portraying Cindy as being willing to dump her husband because of your trinkets and washboard abs is a male fantasy gone gross. I'm sure Grigor loved it, though. Most heteosexual and homosexual relationships are based on other things besides looks and material goods - friendship, intimacy, love, sharing, arguing, debating, fighting, the sharing of experiences, both ups and downs, are the bonds that cement relationships. If Cindy would have left her husband for you, it is most likely because there were problems to begin with. Your idea of women's thought-processes is most ignorant and insulting; your fantasy odious. A piece of advice: if you have any plans to woo and keep a woman, I suggest you treat her kindly and as a individual in her own right. But, most importantly, by all means, keep your mouth shut. If you had related this story during dinner to me, you'd have been not only wearing your dinner, but paying the hefty bill as well. AND, I'd have told all my female friends, and they would have told others, and they would have told others - and eventually, you'd die a lonely, old, bitter man. Do not forget, grasshopper, your future is in women's hands. . .unless, of course, you will be satisfied snuggled up to a $100 dollar bill every night. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 14:10:07 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Question for Eldon Hello, I saw your article in Quest where you delineate theosophisms. I get the HPB brand and the AB/CWL brand. But what is de Puruckerism? Also, is the "de" the one for nobility? Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 18:42:04 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Kym:my best shot Well, I did my best. You really are a flaming liberal. I guess that's ok though as long as you do not take my money to support your causes. Use your own. I'll follow my own heart and take the fruit of my labor and do my own good. The "state" I refer to is the government in general, not one of the 50. I don't remember advocating corporate welfare. I advocate freedom and personal responsibility, the opposite of corporate welfare. Gates is an economic winner and the ditchdigger a loser because Gates is of higher economic value. It wasn't given to him, he earned it in some way. The prize is therefore his, not the governments to redistribute. Before you get too carried away with how good the capitalist has it, start a business from zero, go into debt, hire employees(most of whom don't want to work, want big wages and lots of benefits), get sued by everyone and their brother because you are now the "rich" capitalist enemy, get regulated into oblivion, work 24 hours a day(it's always on your mind), have employees steal your ideas and start competing companies, etc. Do this successfully-only about 10 % succeed- for a few years and then come back to me and let's see how liberal you are. Capitalism is not inherently bad. A business can do tremendous good all on their own without any prompting from liberals or Big Brother. Businesses are just a cut out of humanity. Some have heart and conscience, others don't. The point of the army was to point out a difference between men and women. You changed the rules. I said hand to hand combat. You won't even concede this? There is nothing wrong with belief in communism/socialism(I thought it was pretty cool when I was in college too), problem is it doesn't work in practice. Have you looked around at what has been happening in the world to communistic states? Also that is not what the US is. People who want ot be socialists should move to countries where that is the form of government.. You've got to lighten up. The letter to Jim and Cindy was just to have a little fun to make a point. I still thing you're warm and cuddly. We are probably a lot closer on the basic ideas than it would seem. You've just let Clinton's spell get to you too much. In all my androgenic washboard abs glory, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 16:26:16 -0800 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: Re: Question for Eldon Grigor: In the 1890's, the Theosophical Society split in two. One had international headquarters at Adyar, India, and was headed by Col. Olcott. The other had its headquarters in New York City, which soon moved to Point Loma, California. The Point Loma T.S. was headed by W.Q. Judge, then Katherine Tingley, and then, from 1929 to 1942, by de Purucker. (After his death, the Point Loma T.S. fractured into several organizations, and many members went independent, not belonging to any group.) G. de Purucker wrote a number of theosophical books that provide a certain insight into Theosophy that many find helpful. I've read and like many of his books. Some of his students, who have further contributed to theosophical literature include Geoffrey Barborka, L. Gordon Plummer, Elsie Benjamin, Helen Todd, and a host of others. One of his better books is online in acrobat pdf form, FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY: http://theosophy.net/ebooks/fund.pdf More of his writings can be found online at the Theosophical University Press site. It's at: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/tup-onl.htm His writings, and the writings of many of his students, help form a particular theosophical school of thought, a particular variant of the basic theosophical philosophy. -- Eldon At 02:10 PM 11/24/1999 -0500, you wrote: >Hello, > >I saw your article in Quest where you delineate >theosophisms. I get the HPB brand and the >AB/CWL brand. But what is de Puruckerism? >Also, is the "de" the one for nobility? > >Grigor > >--- >You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: ELDON@THEOSOPHY.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: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 23:07:03 EST From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: racism In a message dated 11/23/1999 12:11:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, Kym writes: << White society declared the same for African-Americans and now society wonders why African-Americans distrust white society. Go figure. Would you trust, Randy? How many years or generations would it take for you and your family to forget all about it, drop all anger and hurt, and buddy-up to those who declared you inferior just because you were named Randy? >> Wow, thanks Kym. This was a very articulate statement of realizations I have come to in recent years. I used to wonder why we couldn't all just get along, and why so many of "them" seem so angry ... and although I still wish for getting along and think we should all work toward it, I now have a deeper understanding of why at least some African Americans may harbor lingering mistrust and resentment. I don't blame them as much as I used to - and I think it's really easy for us white people to say, "just get over it," when we weren't the targets - and when our ancestors mostly came here willingly, as opposed to being dragged out of their homes against their will, separated from family members, and brutally subjected to a regime of slavery for centuries, and then "liberated" into a hostile society with no education or tools provided to deal with it. Well, hello! Gee, I wonder why we still have a race problem! The Bible tells us that the sins of the parents are visited upon the children unto the third and fourth generation, and I think we are now suffering the karmic results of what our forefathers wrought - I'm not knocking the good stuff, the progress toward the democracy we have now, etc. - I think we should acknowledge the fullness of our history, good and bad, and realize that the oppression of an entire people is not easy to "get over." Let's wake up and smell the coffee...We don't have to feel personally guilty for what others did before us - but I think we can take some collective responsibility as a society and our government can take some responsibility, and individually we can do our best not only to be "fair" but also to understand and to listen, and to examine our own thoughts for assumptions that may be based on unconscious racism that is our inheritance just as much as is freedom, democracy, and apple pie. We can do this without beating ourselves up, I think - we can do it with the kindness of a doctor who has to cut out a tumor. It's really sad - but it's an unfortunate legacy of our past history, and if we air it out and hold it up to the light, we have the best chance to make real progress. And may God bless those African Americans who have chosen to leave behind the path of bitterness, and may God help to heal those who cannot, and to heal all of us from the lingering effects of this scourge. Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 08:34:26 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Christine: get a grip In your post praising Kym's bleeding heart liberalism, you did not note that there are many now in our society who: 1. Are attempting to take advantage of a guilt over the acts of ancestors 200 years ago. 2.. Because of this guilt, a class of people are being created walking around with chips on their shoulders expecting hand outs and special treatment. 3. Fall prey to the demagoguery of the Democrat party. You have also not mentioned that all of us today are subject to prejudice in one form or another. The young are, the old are, economic classes are, the athletically inept are, the slow learners are, the conehead geeks are, the yellow are, the brown are, the white are, the blacks are, the obese are, the short are, the tall are, the handicapped are, the bald are, the small breasted are, the physically unattractive are, the diseased are, the less creative are, the more creative are, ad nauseum. All of us can point to some time in history when our race, group, nationality, family were oppressed in some way by the ancestors of people in our society today. Therefore we are all victims needing sympathy and reparations, right? Or is it just the blacks who get special privelege now? I can't think of anything much worse than to be subject to prejudice. I've felt it before and kinow the resentment it can create. We each individually should always try to give others the full benefit of the doubt. Unfair prejudice should not be a part of a thinking person's compassionate personality. No question on this. At the same time we must understand that there are differences and not averyone can be treated the same. Prejudice, unequal treatment(which has nothing to do with fairness unless you want to bring our creator into this matter) is a part of reality that will not ever be changed because reality is composed of differences. If this were not so, you'd see me as president of the world, a first stringer on an NBA basketball team, the quarterback of an NFL football team, winning the world cup in competitive badminton, ranked number one in beach volleyball, making the wage of Bill Gates, on the cover of GQ, and pregnant even though I'm a male Your kind motives are well taken Christine. Just don't let your heart and the dribble from Clinton and his Democrat lackeys get in the way of your brain. Truth and reality should be our goal, not unbridled sentimentality. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:05:29 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Kym: Furthermore Here are a few more thoughts you can reject. If government bails a failing company out and thousands of jobs are saved and people spared being thrown out into the street begging, what's the problem? (Not that I'm advocating your "corporate welfare", but this just came to mind since you are so concerned about the working class.) If capitalism is so bad, why is it that the U.S., as a direct result of such capitalism, is the benevolent benefactor of the world. (This is not to suggest I do not see the malevolence of the U.S. as well such as the wag the dog actions of Clinton and his liberal cronies. But such malevolence is not capitalism.) Name one socialistic or communistic country that has reached out and helped humanity even a fraction of the degree the U.S. has been capable of. I know ever conceding a point is anathema, but try to boil these issues down to their essence rather than deal emotionally with effects. The essential issue is freedom and personal responsibility. From there, useful answers can be found. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 16:44:33 +0000 From: "mika perala" Subject: Re: Badminton Randy wrote: > Just curious, Mika. I play competitively and I know the sport(as it's > supposed to be played in gyms, not the silly stuff in back yards) is much > more popular in your part of the world. I see. In Finland it has become more popular since the 80`s. > Keep working on those emotions and > let me know when you figure out a cure for road rage. Randy I`ll do that. :) mika From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 10:24:10 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: racism At 11:07 PM 11/24/1999 EST, Cybercmh@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 11/23/1999 12:11:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, Kym writes: White society declared the same for African-Americans and now society wonders why African-Americans distrust white society. Go figure. Would you trust, Randy? How many years or generations would it take for you and your family to forget all about it, drop all anger and hurt, and buddy-up to those who declared you inferior just because you were named Randy? >> > >Wow, thanks Kym. This was a very articulate statement of realizations I have come to in recent years. I used to wonder why we couldn't all just get along, and why so many of "them" seem so angry ... and although I still wish for getting along and think we should all work toward it, I now have a deeper understanding of why at least some African Americans may harbor lingering mistrust and resentment. I don't blame them as much as I used to - and I think it's really easy for us white people to say, "just get over it," when we weren't the targets - and when our ancestors mostly came here willingly, as opposed to being dragged out of their homes against their will, separated from family members, and brutally subjected to a regime of slavery for centuries, and then "liberated" into a hostile society with no education or tools provided to deal with it. Well, hello! Gee, I wonder why we still have a race problem! The Bible tells us that the sins of the parents are visited upon the children unto the third and fourth generation, and I think we are now suffering the karmic results of what our forefathers wrought - I'm not knocking the good stuff, the progress toward the democracy we have now, etc. - I think we should acknowledge the fullness of our history, good and bad, and realize that the oppression of an entire people is not easy to "get over." Let's wake up and smell the coffee...We don't have to feel personally guilty for what others did before us - but I think we can take some collective responsibility as a society and our government can take some responsibility, and individually we can do our best not only to be "fair" but also to understand and to listen, and to examine our own thoughts for assumptions that may be based on unconscious racism that is our inheritance just as much as is freedom, democracy, and apple pie. We can do this without beating ourselves up, I think - we can do it with the kindness of a doctor who has to cut out a tumor. It's really sad - but it's an unfortunate legacy of our past history, and if we air it out and hold it up to the light, we have the best chance to make real progress. And may God bless those African Americans who have chosen to leave behind the path of bitterness, and may God help to heal those who cannot, and to heal all of us from the lingering effects of this scourge. Christine> Well said, Christine. It is *very* *very* difficult to overcome all the personal preferences and prejudices built into us due to our circumstances and media etc and it is where some of us who have influenced by the First Object can try to get over when we clearly see our own preferences and prejudices. It is a human problem that is there in every society and the Humanity as a whole has to evolve out of it; and it is going to take time. A very good topic for the Thanksgiving Day. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 20:37:23 -0600 From: Virginia Grenier Subject: Thanks Eldon, Randy, and Kym > Thanks Eldon for the web links for the G. de Purucker material. I've always wanted to learn more along this line and his writing (and yours for that matter) have always been very good. on a different note... Kym writes: "Libertarians tend to have a rather myopic view of humanity." Kym, being a libertarian myself, I think many of the differences between us conservative/libertarians and liberals are in deciding what the proper role of government is. Is it really government's job to take money from those who earn it and to give it to those that don't? Worse, is it government's job to take money from people who earn it who would rather pay, as in my case, for my children's eduation or my wife's medical bills (she has MS) than to have it spent for a new sports stadium? (even if it would be for the Minnesota Vikings :-) The question is, who can best decide how to spend the money that one earns? I don't think people should starve in the streets but as a government subcontractor, I've seen literally billions wasted by our federal government. (and I mean WASTED). Its really a shame. Michael Grenier vlg@minn.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 19:50:42 -0800 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: New items added to BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm Four new items have been added to the archives: . Among the Adepts: Madame Blavatsky on The "Secret Doctrine" by Annie Besant [First published in The Pall Mall Gazette (London), April 25, 1889, p. 3] . Master M.'s Visit to Madras in 1874 by G. Soobiah Chetty [First published in Adyar Notes and News, October 25, 1928, p. 2.] . Theosophy by T.C. Rajamiengar [Reprinted from The Indian Mirror (Calcutta, India), September 30, 1884, p. 2.] . William T. Stead on Madame Blavatsky [Excerpted from William T. Stead's The M. P. for Russia: Reminiscences & Correspondence of Madame Olga Novikoff, London, A. Melrose, 1909, Volume I, pp. 130-133.] Daniel H. Caldwell BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 23:43:28 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: November 25, 1999 - Michael Michael wrote: >Is it really government's >job to take money from those who earn it and to give >it to those that don't? Although I loathe people that answer a question with a question, in this case I am forced. Why, Michael, do you, as a libertarian, automatically assume that the government is taking money from those who earn it and give it to those that "don't?" I mean, how do you know these people do not contribute or give back to society in other ways? Is earning a wage the only standard in which a person's contribution to the world is to be judged? The government uses everyone's taxes to house, feed, and clothe many people who are UNABLE to work - mothers with small children, the handicapped, the mentally retarded, the unemployed, the laid-off, the down-sized, the physically disabled, foster children, etc. MOST people on "welfare" have very legitimate reasons to be there. The media plays up certain cases of "welfare fraud," it makes dramatic news, incites emotion, and targets certain groups of people as the cause of society's ills - people believe it because they do not have the time, nor care enough, to research the facts and statistics themselves, and then scream about wanting to end the programs. >Worse, is it government's job to take >money from people who earn it who would rather pay, as in my case, >for my children's eduation or my wife's medical bills (she has MS) >than to have it spent for a new sports stadium? (even if it would be for >the Minnesota Vikings :-) First of all, sports stadiums are usually LOCAL government issues, not national (which is the source of most "welfare"). In addition, most sports arenas and such are put to local vote - it is rare for a city or local government to build a sports stadium without public input. Anyway, no liberal I know of, including myself, would ever approve of money being taken out of medical or eduational funds to build a sports stadium. Secondly, your wife deserves and should be eligible for disability income from the government - which could help with the enormous medical bills. I know that MS qualifies. Your case, and many others, are prime examples why health care should be a right, not a privilege - it should be subsidized so people do not go broke because someone in their family becomes ill. Thirdly, your reaction that your money is better served staying in your own family is the reason I doubt the favorite libertarian prediction that private donations will come pouring in should government stop "welfare." People will often find reasons, valid and otherwise, why they should NOT donate to "welfare" charities. >The question is, who can best decide how to spend the money >that one earns? Taxes are necessary - they pay for roads, schools, national parks, legal issues (environmental pollution), national disaster aid, etc. We are all part of each other and interlinked, and we ALL depend on other people's taxes to make our own lives livable. Of course, I believe people should be able to decide what they want to buy with their money, but I think people should be required to pay taxes as well - there is no way I can think of to do away with taxes and still have a functioning society. >I don't think people should starve in the streets >but as a government subcontractor, I've seen >literally billions wasted by our federal government. (and I mean WASTED). I know - but that is not necessarily always the government's fault. For example, a government subcontractor at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho built a building whose walls collapsed not once, not twice, but three times - injuring two people. Turns out he used different materials than what he promised in the contract. Was it the government or the subcontrator who wasted tax money having to build walls back up three times? Fraud works both ways - a few people on welfare commit fraud, a few subcontractors commit fraud. Should we automatically assume that, because fraud has been discovered in the subcontracting area, that MOST subcontracters are committing fraud and we should end subcontracting? Society certainly seems to approve of that thinking when it comes to those on "welfare." Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:17:06 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: November 24, 1999 - Randy Randy wrote: >The point of the army was to point out a difference between men and women. >You changed the rules. I said hand to hand combat. You won't even concede >this? I am unaware of any "army" (your word) that doesn't go into battle - hand to hand combat - with some kind of weaponry - be it a rock, sword, stick, club, something. Your scenario, which I took as at least plausible, was just another fantasy, I guess. Obviously, your question seems to really be about upper body strength. Why would I be hesitant to admit or "concede" that men usually tend to reign in upper body strength? I've often asked guys to open jars or unscrew something - big deal. Women tend to have stonger lower body strength - which is why men "pull" and women "push." Yes, these are differences, but the recognition of such differences does not offer anything regarding male and female equality - which is what this whole issue was about. What is the point? Why do you desire for me to "concede" of male and female differences in upper body strength? What does it have to do with anything? No "army" can maintain control of any society (or whatever they end up winning in the battle) simply because they can punch harder. It is clear that you are not taking me or the issues seriously - and I believe it is not because of ignorance, but because of choice. I have attempted to treat you with respect, but have not received the same. And to think I just spent a goodly amount of time re-reading the Constitution to further my points, believing you meant business. You are just plain boring me now, especially since I can never know when you are serious or fantasizing - the rush of the "challenge" has, alas, gone bye-bye. End of thread. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:27:33 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Kym:just a mite more boredom The point of the war analogy was just to get you to admit that there are differences between men and women. No big deal to me, I'm not going to use it to subjugate women. But it is to you, evidently enough to cause you to not see what is a clear reality. Why I haven't a clue. And no, women do not as a group have more lower body strength than men either. Sorry, it's just the way things are. (I will admit, incidentally, that women as a group have many strengths superior to men. No problem. Why not?) I'm glad to hear you were rereading the Constitution. It is an incredible document. It is the contract, the agreement, between the people of the U.S. and the government yet few people have ever read it. It is a binding document that we can hold our leaders to. You will also note that it precludes the type of government sponsored social agenda Democrat liberals constantly try to advance. I have yet to see a real problem with a strict constructionist view if liberty, personal responsibility and freedom from government oppression are important. I also see it fitting nicely with the themes of "ancient wisdom" and "karma". On the other hand, it appears you have taken the notion of "oneness" and imposed it politically, economically and socially such to create no differences among people so that everyone receives according to need and each produces according to ability(sound familiar?). This just does not work because when you suck personal initiative out of people(which communism/socialism always eventually does), society is doomed. When that happens you will have human suffering and tragedy on a scale far beyond anything you presently envision, or even imagine, that results from conservatism. Sorry if some of my language has been inflammatory or affronting. As I said, you pushed some hot buttons. I feel these are very important issues. You have always been kind in your communications with me and I thank you for that. Hopefully you will find something in what I wrote as food for thought in spite of the emotions I have fanned. I'll let it rest now. This is probably not the proper forum for this anyway and I'm likely boring others as well. best to you, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 11:00:43 PST From: b.a.williams@excite.com Subject: Something for Randy Dear Randy, I have been reading your posts in silence and find I can no longer remain on the sidelines. It is quite obvious to me and I'm sure many others that, you just don't get it! I believe that the study of Theosophy and the knowledge contained within is only open to those who have allowed themselves the pleasure of internal viewing and recognition, and can understand and willingly accept that they are surrounded by, and within, the entire universe. It is as big and beautiful as it is because of those who inhabit it. We must always know that to respect others and their opinions, we must first respect ourselves. Quite obviously you are lacking this ability and I can only wish the best for you in the future. Please listen to the little guy in the back of head. He is there and waiting to rescue you. In closing, I found the following on the net, in fact just today, in a Christian book entitled "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas E Kempis, written a couple of centuries ago. It was written as a "warning" against sexual/sensual behaviour, but Randy, I saw your many conditions and anguishes jump out. Please read it, between the lines if necessary, and place yourself in its powerful words. I hope it may help you in your quest and give you some much-needed peace. "Unbridled Affections WHEN a man desires a thing too much, he at once becomes ill at ease. A proud and avaricious man never rests, whereas he who is poor and humble of heart lives in a world of peace. An unmortified man is quickly tempted and overcome in small, trifling evils; his spirit is weak, in a measure carnal and inclined to sensual things; he can hardly abstain from earthly desires. Hence it makes him sad to forego them; he is quick to anger if reproved. Yet if he satisfies his desires, remorse of conscience overwhelms him because he followed his passions and they did not lead to the peace he sought. True peace of heart, then, is found in resisting passions, not in satisfying them. There is no peace in the carnal man, in the man given to vain attractions, but there is peace in the fervent and spiritual man." Regards, Barry Williams ________________________________________________________________ Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 15:49:55 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Barry: Passion for what? I must be more hopeless and lost than even you imagine because I don't get how you got what you did from my posts. My passion is for the truth. I respect truth and substance, not opinions and words. You must be unable to get past my allegory or tongue in cheek to the underlying message... it is not that I am a carnal preoccupied sex-craved maniac. Nevertheless, I appreciate your concern and loving intent, and did enjoy the message in the writing you attached. Sorry my writing does not easily reflect my view to you. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 16:05:04 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Barry:Trying to get it Dear Barry-As I thought further about your post and the quote the following questions arose: Who has decided that carnal pursuits are wrong? If the world and all the creatures in it are things of beauty, how do we decide which desires or passions(excluding the obvious no nos such as murder) should or should not be pursued and why? Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 04:59:55 PST From: b.a.williams@excite.com Subject: Response Dear Randy, It is obvious you still don't get it! If you keep reading the quote you will find yourself. If you look properly, it describes you as being self-centered, selfish, argumentative, conceited, boastful and most of all, very unhappy.It has very little to do with sex, an area you may also have problems with. Again, I can only offer you my prayers that you will allow yourself to find your own Path. It is within you waiting to surface, if you let it the freedom. A whole new vision awaits you. Best regards in your future, good luck, and end of thread. Barry ________________________________________________________________ Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 09:14:32 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Barry:Judgement Yes, Barry, I am guilty of all those nasty things you attribute to me. I have never met a human who is not. Is that the best your theosophy has to offer: Judge and call an inquirer names(all of which apply as well to the accuser) and send him off to "find himself"? Pretty deep stuff. Nevertheless, if your intent was indeed to help, I thank you for that. I'll continue to introspect and I hope you do too. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 09:56:14 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor:fightin words/race In a message dated 11/22/99 5:01:11 PM Central Standard Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > Are you suggesting that a reductionistic analysis of genetic material will > fully explain the form of organisms? Who says it is a reductionistic analysis? I have already said genes and environment. But pylla, genus, species, and race in older biology was defined by genetic criteria (oddly before they knew what genes were). The new genetic typing still defines pylla, genus, and species, more precisely, genetically but has shown race to not be a biological category anymore than breeds. You really shouldn't pretentiously hint at being a professional scientist on a board where there are such. Your fakery is quickly exposed. > > What precisely is the prejudice you feel I have? All sorts. But now we are addressing your unscientific prejudices about race. Your appeals to science seem to not be consistent. That is, you like science when it fits your prejudices and ignore it when it conflicts with your racism. A consistent appeal would to accept the findings of such whether you like them or not. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 09:58:28 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Evidence for mental events breaking physical speed limit In a message dated 11/22/99 9:12:04 PM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > All steps from 1 to 7 are subjective, and non determinable > physically. > The study does not map out what the mental landscape of 1 to 7 looks like or how extensive it is. Rather, it suggests that it exists and that is the limit of its claim. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 10:05:27 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Evidence for mental events breaking physical speed limit In a message dated 11/22/99 9:12:04 PM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > One might say that "naming" something does not necessarily > "explain" it. ] > > Agreed. Again, the study only indicates an x that seems more than the physical. Further, this is the point Randy won't get as revealed in two respects. First, naming something as "reason," "evidence," or "science" doesn't explain what is meant by them or what expectations upon others are tacitly made by an appeal to them. Second, he seems to think racial labels are self-evident and self-explanatory. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 10:08:30 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Question for Eldon In a message dated 11/24/99 6:26:54 PM Central Standard Time, eldon@theosophy.com writes: > G. de Purucker wrote a number of theosophical books that > provide a certain insight into Theosophy that many find > helpful. I've read and like many of his books. Is the difference between the others merely institutional, practical, or is there theoretical differences? And thanks. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 09:27:48 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 26, 1999 Randy wrote: >Who has decided that carnal pursuits are wrong? Carnal pursuits are not "wrong" but they can serve as a hindrance. Simple example: if a woman is speaking to a man, and the man finds himself distracted with fantasizes of sex with the woman or how big her bust is, he has ceased listening to her. If she says something of value, he will miss it. 'Tis the same if the genders were reversed. Sex itself, and thoughts of it, can be healthy and lead individuals in further understanding the bond between people. But when sexual overtones, references, or statements, are taken into areas where they do not belong, the original interaction risks being overshadowed, thoughts of being an object rather than a mind surface, and people may not be heard or understood. >If the world and all the creatures in it are things of beauty, how do we >decide which desires or passions(excluding the obvious no nos such as murder) >should or should not be pursued and why? First of all, creatures are not "things." The world and all the creatures in it are beings in their own right - it is acceptable to appreciate and admire the beauty contained within, but it is "wrong" when one tries to 'capture' beings for their own use or enjoyment. The mutual exchange of beauty is balance - but "pursuing" beauty is ignoring that "beauty" does not wish to be earnestly sought after, for that implies that both "beauty" is a "thing" and that "beauty" is lacking around the pursuer at the moment. "Beauty," in a mind that believes it must be pursued, will not be able to genuinely appreciate any "beauty" they believe they have sought and captured, for they cannot yet even see the beauty that is all around him/her. There is no need to "pursue" what is already around us - be it love or beauty. It is only a matter of being open enough to recognize it, and then, accepting it - after that, love and beauty will serve as a guidance in all matters. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 14:59:09 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Evidence for mental events breaking physical speed limit You are correct. To make definition would require quite a lot of explanation, depending on the level of perception and introspection that any one has reached -- and that is of course a variable and depends entirely on the individuals and their interrelated sympathies. Dal Dallas -----Original Message----- > From: Hazarapet@aol.com [mailto:Hazarapet@aol.com] > Date: Saturday, November 27, 1999 6:58 AM > Subject: Re: Evidence for mental events breaking physical speed limit In a message dated 11/22/99 9:12:04 PM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > All steps from 1 to 7 are subjective, and non determinable > physically. > The study does not map out what the mental landscape of 1 to 7 looks like or how extensive it is. Rather, it suggests that it exists and that is the limit of its claim. Grigor --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.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: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:15:11 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Randy to Grigor:fightin words/race Grigor: >I told you it was part of my occupation to be familiar with genetic research. I never said I was on a "Board". Who are you to say I am lying and faking? I am not going to prove it to you since my credentials are not the issue. What I say and what you say are. We should measure one another by this alone if you wish to have rational discourse. >Where did I ever say race was any different from breed? You set up these flimsy little strawmen rather than address the essence. I am arguing that races of humans are different from one another, just like breeds of dogs are different from one another. No more, no less. If you disagree then let's debate it. I have stated clearly my proposition, you do the same. >You still have not described what the prejudice about race is you think I have. Do it, or let's move on to something you can make a statement of certainty about. >The dissection of genetic material to attempt explanation of form or function is reductionism. Want to debate this? Before you respond, please just look up the meaning of reductionism so we don't waste time. Grigor, I am only interested in continuing this if you are willing to proceed rationally without resorting to name calling or impugning my honesty. If you can do that and address specifically my points, then let's continue. Otherwise, let's not waste one anothers time. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:34:00 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 26, 1999 Kym-What you have said regarding the carnal, love and beauty seem very reasonable as far as you go. I thought the writer of the post was trying to suggest that we(actually I) should repudiate the physical. So I was also interested in how he reconciles the beauty of the world with renunciation of parts of it. Who's deciding which physical pursuits are "evil"? For example, in the case of celibacy, who decides abjuring sex is the way to the higher self...or whatever? Just trying to get to the bottom of(basis for) thsosophical beliefs. Not getting it from the readings that have been recommended to me so far. Thanks, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 11:32:36 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Agreed: Randy. In a message dated 11/27/99 5:15:43 PM Central Standard Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > Otherwise, let's not waste one anothers time. > Okay, since your use of rational and etc. is both a loaded term (YOU mean something by it when you use the mere term as an objection) and one you insist on not defining so that there is any mutual accountability, especially on your part, as to whether the parties involved are meeting it. So, I leave you and your posts to those who choose to waste their time with you. With five advanced degrees, all in sciences and one in philosophy, I don't need to spend time uselessly in my old age with someone who likes to throw around words like "reason," "evidence," "science," "rational," and so on ad nauseaum behind which there is no principled substance but only the semantics of prejudice. Consider your posts ignored. Grigor Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:24:28 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: finite/infinite/mind/meaning/definiteness/literalism/was mental events breaking In a message dated 11/27/99 5:08:16 PM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > You are correct. To make definition would require quite a lot of > explanation, depending on the level of perception and > introspection that any one has reached. Your claim that to make a definition would require a lot of explanation and depends on the level of perception and introspection I could agree with if we are talking about degrees of finitude. But then this raises a question about how clear, distinct, and definite are the cosmological ideas of HPB for any finite mind. This question arose while watching you and Jerry S debate/discuss aspects of after death experience. Consider. Any finite definition or bit of meaning or bit of information or bit of experience or bit of intelligibility is provisional, tentatively grasped (but not in fullness), and subject to ambivalent and/or equivocal readings so long as its integration into the total picture is not grasped. Or as ancients put it, the full meaning and significance of a part is not definite (i.e., for a comprehending power defined) fully until the whole it is a part of is seen. This was Descartes' error. He clearly understood what it was to have a clear and distinct idea but not that a finite cogito could not arrive at that. As Plato and the Buddhists well know, logic and conceptual thought and definition serves, as a means to an end, a variety of tasks. But it is based on the level or quality of experience or consciousness. In modern psych-ward there is a lot of logic. But it is based on lousy and bad experience. As Plato's Cave teaches us, quality of logic (even if valid and no fallacies commited) is based on quality of input. So, the finite mind is itself Plato's Cave. As such, its grasp of anything is not definite. Consider: 1. The bill is too large. This sentence is a finite bit of meaning. It is grammatically a well-formed expression. But, unless one is presumptiously or naively confident in one's first impressions (literalism) of what something means, one discovers it is equivocal. Is the bill a bird's beak, a cap's visor, or a sales ticket that is charging too much money? Notice in de-ambiguating the sentence by bringing out its various senses/meanings (actually bringing out the three semantic sentences behind the one grammatical one), we had to provide context for it. By adding the thought that a bird was meant as context, we got one sentence. By adding the thought that a cap was meant as our interpretative context, we got another sentence. And so forth. This is the process of including a part within a bigger whole. The question that always arises until we are at infinity of meaning and intelligibility (call it LOGOS) is whether we have provided the right whole (did author mean bird, cap, or sales charge?). Now it is easily shown that any sentence, any formula, any concept, and theory is subject to just this same type of process where it gains in definiteness of meaning by providing context (i.e. putting the part into a whole) and the vicissitude that what whole is the correct one remains an open question until LOGOS. At the simplest level, as Chomsky has demonstrated, any sentence can have "and" added to it with a new clause that changes the overall import of the original sentence. But there are a variety of other ways this is done. Now, if the the universe is not an absurd mechanism and materialism is true, that is, if the universe is a intelligible and meaningful whole, then at infinity the universe IS the LOGOS. The Real is itself the ultimate and final meaning. This means that there is a convergence of meaning and reality. That is, meaning is not one thing and reality another ultimately. But it also means, logically, that literal definiteness of meaning exists only at infinity. But if ultimately the meaning and the Real are identical, any finite meaning or finite real will show the same kinds of indefiniteness that we have looked at above. Any finite meaning, understanding, experience, or state of being will be ambivalently indefinite. So, here comes the question posed to you, Dallas. Jerry tried offering the idea that post-mortem states might be interpreted differently and that there was not just one normative model (which you seemed to aver). But isn't a certain indefiniteness intrinsic to any finite state? And might any finite theory, such as HPB's, while not false may not be literally true because literal definiteness exists only at infinity. This is the Dzog chen view of its own cosmology of planes, higher bodies, and such which is very similar to theosophy. Short of infinity, the nature and meaning of anything is indefinite, open, empty of definitive self-nature, is not literally as it seems, and not captured definitively by any finite model that can be taken to be literal (since the literal is LOGOS at infinity). Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 10:41:48 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: finite/infinite/mind/meaning/definiteness/literalism/was mental events breaking Nov 27th Dear Grigor: Perhaps my line of thinking is slightly different from yours, so let me offer: I am thinking of the threefold power that every human has in one or other degree of usage and aptitude: 1. to THINK independently. 2. to make comparisons, and 3. to extrapolate conclusions or potential results according to whatever capacity he may have developed to apprehend the operative Laws of nature and his own position in regard to the totality of his environment. These are broad terms and I make no attempt to describe either their interaction or the many limitations that we impose on our usage of them ( and this includes our evaluation of how others frame their definitions). I am, rather looking at the fact that we all have and use these faculties and powers. Being possessed of these tools (faculties) I still ask and say WHO AM I ? I ask myself what is the purpose of this? How am I assisting my own method of living. Do I live more contentedly? Am I better able to adjust my own nature (Ego ?) to others? Also is there somewhere a "norm" that would describe -- in broad terms -- an "ideal" that could be placed as a "goad" -- even if that be unobtainable ? Again, how does this help me in daily living? Since we deal with both finitudes (as memories of limitations of experience) and actualities (present experience, which immediately enter the realm of memory), it seems to me that our whole focus is on the future. we are then confronted by the 3rd and balancing aspect of our condition: What shall we choose as the best path to investigate, to experience, to experiment with. In this to me, I seek to design a future for myself. I can narrow down to descriptive minutiae or I can widen out to broad generalities. But in either case I OBSERVE THAT I AM THE ONE WHO CHOOSES. One may say that one's choice is narrowed or channeled by their past. To some extent this is true, but the ground-breaking exploration of the whole area of experience proves two things, 1. I choose what to explore. (whether influenced or not) 2. I am aware that Nature (my environment) has already established various levels of limitations and areas of perceptive experience for me (as I presently am) as "horizons" that I may explore, first conceptually, and then actually by a transfer of consciousness (if that is permitted and possible). 3. If so, then Nature (environment) is more than a physical milieu. It has causal as well as perceptive and reactive aspects, which are not always bound to the purely physical give and take we are accustomed to perceive. One might introduce here the experience of mathematicians and physicists who seek to define "randomness" and the "string-theory." I ask myself how can these be applied to my mental Self ? 4. If I can conceive of and somewhat understand these, then there already exists in me that potential of understanding which adapts vocabularies to concepts and mental visualizations. I also agree with you that Plato's analogy of the "Cave" is a good one, as the "shadows" seen there are like experiences that fade into memory. And, it is a rare one who visualizes a "source of light" and beings that moving, cast shadows which may have purpose. I also think we deal with those shadows, and are seeking the Light and also the causes of those shadows, so that we may increase our knowledge. And then translate that into a better kind of living, practically. Dallas Dallas -----Original Message----- > From: Hazarapet@aol.com [mailto:Hazarapet@aol.com] > Date: Sunday, November 28, 1999 9:24 AM > Subject: finite/infinite/mind/meaning/definiteness/literalism/was mental events breaking In a message dated 11/27/99 5:08:16 PM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > You are correct. To make definition would require quite a lot of > explanation, depending on the level of perception and > introspection that any one has reached. Your claim that to make a definition would require a lot of explanation and depends on the level of perception and introspection I could agree with if we are talking about degrees of finitude. But then this raises a question about how clear, distinct, and definite are the cosmological ideas of HPB for any finite mind. This question arose while watching you and Jerry S debate/discuss aspects of after death experience. Consider. Any finite definition or bit of meaning or bit of information or bit of experience or bit of intelligibility is provisional, tentatively grasped (but not in fullness), and subject to ambivalent and/or equivocal readings so long as its integration into the total picture is not grasped. Or as ancients put it, the full meaning and significance of a part is not definite (i.e., for a comprehending power defined) fully until the whole it is a part of is seen. This was Descartes' error. He clearly understood what it was to have a clear and distinct idea but not that a finite cogito could not arrive at that. As Plato and the Buddhists well know, logic and conceptual thought and definition serves, as a means to an end, a variety of tasks. But it is based on the level or quality of experience or consciousness. In modern psych-ward there is a lot of logic. But it is based on lousy and bad experience. As Plato's Cave teaches us, quality of logic (even if valid and no fallacies commited) is based on quality of input. So, the finite mind is itself Plato's Cave. As such, its grasp of anything is not definite. Consider: 1. The bill is too large. This sentence is a finite bit of meaning. It is grammatically a well-formed expression. But, unless one is presumptiously or naively confident in one's first impressions (literalism) of what something means, one discovers it is equivocal. Is the bill a bird's beak, a cap's visor, or a sales ticket that is charging too much money? Notice in de-ambiguating the sentence by bringing out its various senses/meanings (actually bringing out the three semantic sentences behind the one grammatical one), we had to provide context for it. By adding the thought that a bird was meant as context, we got one sentence. By adding the thought that a cap was meant as our interpretative context, we got another sentence. And so forth. This is the process of including a part within a bigger whole. The question that always arises until we are at infinity of meaning and intelligibility (call it LOGOS) is whether we have provided the right whole (did author mean bird, cap, or sales charge?). Now it is easily shown that any sentence, any formula, any concept, and theory is subject to just this same type of process where it gains in definiteness of meaning by providing context (i.e. putting the part into a whole) and the vicissitude that what whole is the correct one remains an open question until LOGOS. At the simplest level, as Chomsky has demonstrated, any sentence can have "and" added to it with a new clause that changes the overall import of the original sentence. But there are a variety of other ways this is done. Now, if the the universe is not an absurd mechanism and materialism is true, that is, if the universe is a intelligible and meaningful whole, then at infinity the universe IS the LOGOS. The Real is itself the ultimate and final meaning. This means that there is a convergence of meaning and reality. That is, meaning is not one thing and reality another ultimately. But it also means, logically, that literal definiteness of meaning exists only at infinity. But if ultimately the meaning and the Real are identical, any finite meaning or finite real will show the same kinds of indefiniteness that we have looked at above. Any finite meaning, understanding, experience, or state of being will be ambivalently indefinite. So, here comes the question posed to you, Dallas. Jerry tried offering the idea that post-mortem states might be interpreted differently and that there was not just one normative model (which you seemed to aver). But isn't a certain indefiniteness intrinsic to any finite state? And might any finite theory, such as HPB's, while not false may not be literally true because literal definiteness exists only at infinity. This is the Dzog chen view of its own cosmology of planes, higher bodies, and such which is very similar to theosophy. Short of infinity, the nature and meaning of anything is indefinite, open, empty of definitive self-nature, is not literally as it seems, and not captured definitively by any finite model that can be taken to be literal (since the literal is LOGOS at infinity). Grigor --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.NET List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 07:00:44 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Re: Agreed: Grigor It is only useless if your objective is to attempt to impress others with verbage and degrees, rather than to pursue truth. You were invited to make one statement of substance, something that could be falsified, instead you name called. I'm not impressed with your "degrees". Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 06:38:58 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Agreed: Grigor Grigor ... I *am*, BTW, impressed with the degrees. Well, not really the degrees, but with the obvious breadth of knowledge you've amassed over your lifetime, and the very different perspective you add to the list. I think you're right to let this child stamp his feet ... people have taken a good amount of time to answer his questions, and all he ever does is come back demanding that people either meet his terms, deliver him "falsifiable" evidence he's capable of understanding within the context of a perspective so pinched and narrow as to be incapable of grasping the "truth" he claims to seek, and refuses to even play with the idea that *he* might have to change to make himself fit to *receive* portions of that truth (one of the core concepts of Theosophy). Clearly he had some bad experience early on, and is simply *using* people on this list to work out his own issues. -JRC ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Monday, November 29, 1999 4:00 AM > Subject: Re: Agreed: Grigor > It is only useless if your objective is to attempt to impress others with > verbage and degrees, rather than to pursue truth. You were invited to make > one statement of substance, something that could be falsified, instead you > name called. I'm not impressed with your "degrees". Randy > > --- > You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: jrc@texas.net > List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:06:26 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Dangerous education Grigor wrote to Randy, >With five advanced degrees, all in sciences and one >in philosophy, I don't need to spend time uselessly [snip] Oh, please! It's acceptable to be proud of one's accomplishments, but not to use them as a suggestion that one is "better" than another or that a discussion with one who MAY not (since you don't know Randy's background) have as many papers is just a useless endeavor. If you don't FEEL like talking to someone, just say it. Degrees are not supposed to be used as weapons of personal destruction or humiliation; nor are they indicative of one's understanding of theosophy or compassion. My own philosophy professor claimed that we (the philosophy majors) were "special" and "above all the rest." Bullshit. After 35 years (my old age), it becomes a bit easier to spot toxic thinking. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 13:58:43 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Agreed: Grigor In a message dated 11/29/99 6:39:48 AM Central Standard Time, jrc@texas.net writes: > I *am*, BTW, impressed with the degrees. Actually, I'm not. They are a measure of training and a ticket into a profession. To succeed beyond that takes much more than the successful completion of a program. As a former Vice President of Overseas Operations of BA used to tell me when I lived in San Francisco, "we hire people for their degrees, we retain and promote them for their intelligence and team-spirit." In my phase of life, they are only occasionally useful upon occasions when confronted by either those making pretensions to something they are not (and thus detectable by those who are) or those "know-it-alls" who end up being permanent students incapable of completing a program of study or do finally finish and become experts in having an opinion (usually negative) about everything. Ever see the Woody Allen film where he and Diane Keaton are in a theatre line while some loud mouth is going on as an expert about the thought of McCluhen (SP?). So Woody interjects that he doesn't know what he is talking about? To trump the encounter, Woody brings in McCluhen (SP?) himself who tells the guy he is idiot. That is sole purpose of degrees in later life. Trumps to end hopeless conversation. > Well, not really the degrees, > but with the obvious breadth of knowledge you've amassed over your > lifetime, and the very different perspective you add to the list. Thanks. > I > think you're right to let this child stamp his feet ... people have > taken a good amount of time to answer his questions, and all he ever > does is come back demanding that people either meet his terms, deliver > him "falsifiable" evidence he's capable of understanding within the > context of a perspective so pinched and narrow as to be incapable of > grasping the "truth" he claims to seek, and refuses to even play with > the idea that *he* might have to change to make himself fit to *receive* > portions of that truth (one of the core concepts of Theosophy). Clearly > he had some bad experience early on, and is simply *using* people on > this list to work out his own issues. -JRC When I first came to this country, such activity was called "soapboxing." Back then, it was funny street preachers proclaiming the end is near on a box or wearing placard down near Powell St. station outside San Francisco Woolworths downtown at Market. Now some seem to be on www. Anyway, thanks. I usually don't like to tell another they are hereby ignored. So, confirmation is comforting. Grigor > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:45:46 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: finite/infinite/mind/meaning/definiteness/literalism/was mental events br... In a message dated 11/28/99 12:51:11 PM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > Perhaps my line of thinking is slightly different from yours, so > let me offer: > > > I am thinking of the threefold power that every human has in one > or other degree of usage and aptitude: > > 1. to THINK independently. Part of my post was to ask what is thinking. I suggest that thought is itself something that takes on its true nature as it evolves. In essence, finite thought, finite meaning, and finite intelligibility are incomplete and indefinite fragments of one complete infinite thought. So, what we may mean by "thinking" may not at all be obvious but is also part of the puzzle to be explored. > > 2. to make comparisons, and Again, comparisons, I would argue, presuppose a network of thoughts, meanings, and intelligibilities. For example, if we decide that one experience was not veridical or we decide that a thought was not true, it has to be in comparison to either another experience or another thought. In Vedanta and Buddhism, this process is called "subration." But it in principle tacitly appeals to an infinity of thoughts/experiences. Science proceeds accumulatively as growth of knowledge by comparing earlier incomplete models within larger models (just like a sentence is equivocal until given context but all finite contexts are equivocal until infinity). > > 3. to extrapolate conclusions or potential results according to > whatever capacity he may have developed to apprehend the > operative Laws of nature and his own position in regard to the > totality of his environment. Two points: first laws of nature to a finite mind always appear in a perspective. But what that law may be in itself may appear very different in the end. Pretend you live in a two-dimensional universe. A three dimensional body would be something other than it first appears to be. For example, if you moved across a surface of a three dimensional body that seemed perpendicular to the spatial surface of your two-dimensional world, the succession would seem like time (as third dimension to your two spatial ones). But from a higher perspective (3D world), you are merely transversing the surface of a solid on a perpendicular from what in 2D world is space. And if a three-D object such as a three legged stool touched a surface in two-D world, it would appear to be a strange idea if someone suggested that the three spots were really "one." Now the point is not to get too caught up in the geometry analogy but to say that there are good reasons to believe that something similar applies to finite states. So, a complementarity may exist between your version of a post-mortem state and Jerry's (or Alan's). Second point, we never see the totality of our environment. What usually happens is we metaphorically take some part of reality or an experience as a model for the whole (as argued by Kant, James, Dorothy Emmett, and recently, Quine). We have not even see the whole of our own life let alone that of the universe. We are in our life but have not seen our life as a whole. So, what we usually do is take some finite experience that is only a part of our life and metaphorically make it a paradigm for what we take life as a whole to be like. So, abused children take their experience (a part) to be what life (the whole) is like. Happy children do the same. A finite amount of experience (part) becomes our metaphorical model for our whole life. What our whole life is like is unknown to us even in one life. And thus, what it is to be whole is unknown to us. But again, as new experiences come (just as context is provided for a sentence or finite bit of meaning), new light might be thrown on the old experiences that we took to be paradigms of the nature of life as a whole. So, if their meaning is altered, so is our sense of what life is like as a whole altered. But still, life as a whole (our life in just one life) has never been seen. We have experiences of chairs (where, even in perspective, we still can take the chair in "whole") and other objects but we have no experience of our life as one whole at once. So, there must be a degree on indefiniteness to us and to our theories, even HPB's. > Being possessed of these tools (faculties) I still ask and say > WHO AM I ? To follow the analogy above, one may have a very different sense of self if one gives oneself a 2D answer rather than a 3D answer. Usually, our sense of self, our feeling of being I, I suggest, is taken from those experiences we take as a paradigmatic model (part) for life (the whole). So, our ordinary sense of I is based on our inner identification with our metaphorical paradigms by which we get our feeling of self. But if the self is the authentic centre of our life as a integral whole, then we have no experience of I in its fullness. We experience fragments of I-hood. And the meanings we draw about life and self from these fragments of taking this or that bit of experience as "me" or as "I" may not good pointers to what an I is. If our existence, if our sense of being I, our identities are so indefinite in this life, where the body gives us some tangibility, then it seems that the after-life might be even more indefinite. Aspects of it might fit both you and Jerry's views. The Dzog chen idea, using the spatial analogy, is that there really isn't past and future lives along a timeline. Rather, from the enlightened view, they are not successive but simultaneous modes of a higher identity just as my left side and my right side, while under certain conditions where first one is seen and then another seen in succession, really exist simultaneously. So, in Dzog chen, the life review is also a trap into a next life. Why? Because any response to a whole based on a part will at some point display malfunctioning behaviour. In one life, if early experience is such that I apply it to everyone I meet, it will lead to bad karma eventually. Life review, as a process of learning what life is about (as a whole, a moral whole) continues the process of applying finite models to infinite experiences. Eventually, our part that we use as a guide to the whole will lead us wrong. So, Dzog chen says, the life review process that breaks this cycle is the one that realizes this one tiny life cannot be used as a model/dispositional readiness for the next life or life as a whole AND realizes that we ARE NOW all our past and futures lives together in a higher present. That who I am, is what all these lives are together now as aspects of a single self and not successive lives. But if this is the case, then Jerry's view rounds out and complements what you present as the normative or standard Theosophical view of reincarnation. It is like one party looking at first the left foot stepping forward and then the right foot stepping forward (and thinks these are successive manifestations of one self) whereas another party sees the whole body that both legs belong to at the same time (thinks they are two limbs simultaneously possessed by one self). > > I OBSERVE THAT I AM THE ONE WHO CHOOSES. Who is that I? Is it the whole I or somepart of it that feels like it is the I? People seem to be contradictory bundles or complexes of identifications that as fragments "choose this" then another "chooses that" and so, who chooses and what is choice? Paul speaks of the conflict of the outer worldly fragments of the true I with the inner whole and true I in Romans where he says that which he would do, he does not, but instead, he does that which he hates. He is speaking about the bondage of the will, that there is no ONE WILL, no authentic and integral CHOICE, if there is not a full and integral chooser who is the whole I or Self (with big S). Part of the process of spiritual evolution is where a master, in effect, morally sets you up for a fall. The purpose is to show the indefinite and shifting nature of our sense of being I, and thus, the indefinite and shifting nature of any "choice." Real choice can only be made by the real I, and such as we are, I suggest that we are incapable of the first because in our identifications, that is, drawing our sense of self or sense of I from fragments of a life made into a paradigm for the whole life, we are fragments of the real I. Since a fragment chooses for us, but a fragment is not the whole nor has control over the whole, the whole is not behind any choice we make or we are ambivalently not wholly behind any choice we make. We are the indefinite men out of contact with being our whole Self. Doesn't the indefiniteness of our existence need to be explored first so we know the raw material, so to speak, we have to work with no matter how impoverished? Part of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self is a message of moral failure to be the SELF. And since our understandings and interpretations of even a set of ideas that are designed to guide us, such as HPB's, will invariably be colored by our personalities (i.e. paradigmatic experiences of fragmentation that make up our 'character" because we draw our sense of identity from them - that is all a personality is), can we take them literally (i.e. take our interpretation of them literally). And, if HPB was cognizant of this fact about the ordinary human pysche, might she have not created blinds and baffles for a literal attitude to her finite model? Maybe the truth is not all in her ideas but in us as we give them flesh and reality (we become an avatar of theosophy). Her ideas being more like a yeast or catalyst than a complete picture of the way it is. A yeast or catalyst for different kinds and directions of self-exploration that is partly self-defining. Ever play the game where someone starts a story, it is passed on to another to add to, then another to add to. The story, while having an authorial source, takes on its full shape by the subsequent tellers of it. Maybe her ideas are something like plot lines to be developed into stories. Maybe there is no othodoxy. Just leading suggestions by a seductress luring us into a journey of self-becoming. That is the underlying theme in these two posts of mine. Its like physics. Physics is not the models, theories, or formulas. It is these within a thick operational context of exploration (research). And their meanings and implications are not definite. Rather, they are catalysts for competing and alternative interpretations of what these theories mean. And adding this context shows that (1) on their own they are equivocal in meaning and may mean a number of things (even if some options are ruled out) because they are incomplete alone, and (2) what any theory means has to be worked out in the process of research that often borders on creation rather than discovery. So, theories in physics may gain in definiteness not by discovering their meaning but by creating it just like a story that is fiction even while taking on a semi-independent life of its own that the author has to obey if the narratival coherence isn't violated. The theory is like the first author's beginning of a story that is to be continued by others. HPB's ideas may be something similar. Or like DNA. Life is not just DNA and such. It is DNA within a larger living whole that includes an environment. So forms of life evolve that are not viable but many different forms of life evolve that are "programmed" by practically the same DNA sequence. Like biological life, the ideas of HPB may be like DNA where the spiritual evolution of beings with basically the same ideas/DNA takes a richly diverse and radically different tranjectories. A few basic principles in nature can take on many different guises. Perhaps a few basic principles, ideas of HPB, when alive, takes on many different guises. So, except at infinity, there is not literally one theosophy. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:03:05 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Indulging in American Culture Tonight Under circumstances far different than their usual matchups, the Green Bay Packers and San Francisco 49ers meet Monday night. The two former NFC powers get together in a game that usually goes a long way toward determining home-field advantage for the playoffs. However, injuries and poor play have left the Niners thinking about next season and the Packers hanging on by the slimmest of threads. Last Sunday's 23-7 loss to the St. Louis Rams ensured the end of a 16-year run of 10-win seasons for San Francisco. "We've had a long run of good fortune, but it seems like a lot things this year are hitting us all at once,'' San Francisco coach Steve Mariucci said. "Nobody said it was easy and it's not easy. But we've got six games left. You're going to see this football team improve and we're going to find a way to win some games.'' Against the Rams, Steve Stenstrom threw an interception, and Jeff Garcia, who came on late in the third quarter, threw two more. They are a combined 1-6 in seven starts since Steve Young went down with a concussion Sept. 27. In Green Bay, Brett Favre, bothered all season by an injured throwing hand, quietly had one of his best games of the season, throwing for 309 yards and a touchdown as the Packers got back to .500 with a 26-17 win over NFC Central rival Detroit. Dorsey Levens had 146 total yards and a touchdown, and Ryan Longwell kicked four field goals for the Packers. But Favre and the improved offense were only half of the story for Green Bay, as its defense blanked Detroit in the second half. "We've just got to keep the pressure on the division leaders,'' Packers coach Ray Rhodes said. "This has got to be the way we approach every week from here on in. Both our offense and our defense have to maintain this level of play.'' With six games left, the NFC Central is wide open, as all five teams in the division are separated by less than two games in the standings. The defeat dropped Detroit (6-4) into a three-way tie with Minnesota and Tampa Bay, while Green Bay is one game back. The 49ers, however, have little to smile about, something that is both unheard of and not too easily accepted in San Francisco. "This is probably the lowest I've ever seen it,'' said Jerry Rice, who complained recently of feeling left out of the offense. "We're just not putting any points on the board. It's very frustrating, very tough to swallow.'' STANDINGS: Packers -- 4th place, NFC Central. 49ers -- 3rd place, NFC West. PACKERS PROBABLE OFFENSIVE STARTERS: QB Favre (206-of-377, 2,624 yards, 14 TDs, 15 INTs); RB Levens (206 attempts, 729 yards, 4 TDs; 51 receptions, 451 yards, 0 TDs); FB William Henderson (19 receptions, 118 yards, TD); WR Antonio Freeman (46 receptions, 686 yards, 5 TDs); WR Bill Schroeder (42-666-2); TE Tyrone Davis (14-157-1); LT Mike Wahle; LG Raleigh MacKenzie; C Frank Winters; RG Marco Rivera; RT Earl Dotson. PACKERS PROBABLE DEFENSIVE STARTERS: LDE Vaughn Booker (23-10-3 1/2-0); LDT Santana Dotson (8-10-1-0); RDT Gilbert Brown (13-17-0-0); RDE Vonnie Holliday (27-14-3-0); LLB George Koonce (18-15-0-0); MLB Bernardo Harris (34-31-0-0); RLB Jude Waddy (20-10-1-0), LCB Mike McKenzie (34-10-0-3); SS LeRoy Butler (27-12-1-1); FS Darren Sharper (38-20-1-3); RCB Tyrone Williams (30-11-0-3). 49ERS PROBABLE OFFENSIVE STARTERS: QB Stenstrom (34-for-63, 332 yards, 0 touchdowns, 3 interceptions); RB Charlie Garner (143 rushes, 744 yards, 1 TD); FB Fred Beasley (25 rushes, 92 yards, TD; 14 receptions, 139 yards); WR Terrell Owens (36 catches, 468 yards, 3 TDs); WR Rice (39-350-2); TE Greg Clark (14-129-0); LT Dave Fiore, LG Ray Brown, C Chris Dalman, RG Jeremy Newberry, RT Derrick Deese. 49ERS PROBABLE DEFENSIVE STARTERS: LDE Junior Bryant (19 tackles, 8 assists, 4 sacks, 0 interceptions); LDT Bryant Young (24-2-5-0); RDT Brentson Buckner (14-8-1-0); RDE Gabe Wilkins (10-2-0-0); LLB Lee Woodall (33-11- 1/2-0); MLB Winfred Tubbs (35-11- 1/2-1); RLB Ken Norton, Jr. (41-16-0-0); LCB Ramos McDonald (8-0-0-0); RCB Monty Montgomery (8-0-0-0); SS Tim McDonald (32-6-2-1); FS Lance Schulters (36-5-0-6). LAST MEETING: Jan. 2, at San Francisco, 49ers 30-27. Young threw a game-winning 25-yard touchdown pass to Owens with eight seconds left, giving the 49ers a wild-card victory over the Packers. STREAKS AND NOTES: Packers -- RB Levens had 10 catches for 99 yards against the Lions. He ranks second in the NFL among RBs with 51 catches and second in the NFC with 1,180 yards from scrimmage (451 receiving). ... WR Freeman leads the club in receiving yards (686) and TDs (5). He had 11 catches for 268 yards and four TDs in two games against the 49ers last season. ... The Packers lead the conference with 20 INTs, including nine by rookies. They had 13 in all of 1998. 49ers -- San Francisco rushed for 134 yards in the 1998 regular-season matchup with Green Bay and 178 in the Wild Card game for 312 total. ... RB Garner ranks fifth in the NFC in total yards from scrimmage with 1,028 (284 receiving). ... WR Rice has seven career TDs in six regular-season games against the Packers and is averaging 96.0 receiving yards per game in those six. ... S Schulters had one INT against the Rams and is tied for the NFL lead with Miami CB Sam Madison with six INTs. He needs one to tie Merton Hanks (1994) and Dave Waymer (1990) for most by a 49er in the 1990s with seven. HOME/ROAD RECORDS: Packers -- 1-3 on the road. 49ers -- 2-3 at home. INJURIES: Packers -- OUT: G Joe Andruzzi (knee-injured reserve); T Ross Verba (knee). QUESTIONABLE: P Louie Aguiar (groin). PROBABLE: DE Booker (chest); QB Favre (hand); WR Freeman (groin); LB Harris (knee); LB Koonce (shoulder). 49ers -- OUT: LB Joe Wesley (knee); QB Young (concussion). QUESTIONABLE: LB Charles Haley (knee); S Schulters (ankle). PROBABLE: TE Tony Cline (back); S McDonald (hip); DE Chike Okeafor (back); LB Tubbs (hip); DT Young (knee). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:07:17 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 29, 1999 JRC wrote to Grigor, >I >think you're right to let this child stamp his feet ... Thus speaks the Compassionate Theosophist to the Academic Theosophist - each thoughtfully rubbing their upturned proboscis (for those who don't have degrees - proboscis means "nose"). Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:00:39 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Randy to Kym: Furthermore hi all, On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 09:05:29 EST WLR7D@aol.com wrote: > Here are a few more thoughts you can reject. > > If government bails a failing company out and thousands of jobs are saved and > people spared being thrown out into the street begging, what's the problem? > (Not that I'm advocating your "corporate welfare", but this just came to mind > since you are so concerned about the working class.) > If capitalism is so bad, why is it that the U.S., as a direct result of such > capitalism, is the benevolent benefactor of the world. Excuse me? The benevolent benefactor of the world, perhaps, but also the western country with the most people dependent on benevolent groups giving out food, clothes etc. Also the US had the privelige (spelling?) of not paying its dues for the UN, thereby giving a bad example to less priviliged country's. >(This is not to > suggest I do not see the malevolence of the U.S. as well such as the wag the > dog actions of Clinton and his liberal cronies. But such malevolence is not > capitalism.) Name one socialistic or communistic country that has reached out > and helped humanity even a fraction of the degree the U.S. has been capable > of. WEll, the USSR helped CUba tremendously, when it was a lot poorer than the USA. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:08:46 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Randy to Kym:just a mite more boredom > On the other hand, it appears you have taken the notion of "oneness" and > imposed it politically, economically and socially such to create no > differences among people > so that everyone receives according to need and each produces according to > ability(sound familiar?). This just does not work because when you suck > personal initiative out of people(which communism/socialism always eventually > does), society is doomed. When that happens you will have human suffering > and tragedy on a scale far beyond anything you presently envision, or even > imagine, that results from conservatism. There are some ways to find a middle ground between socialism and conservatism. To see them only as different and black and white, seems to me a simplification. Is holland a socialist country (or communist) because it has more of a system of wellfare than the USA? Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:33:48 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: divinity - for Randy Well Randy, this is one last try. Grigor and JRC are not the only ones getting tired of your way of writing here. But I promised explanation... here goes. For me it is a fact (and no, I do not have proof) that there is divinity in nature and in each human being (me, you, Alan's cat, everything). There is divinity in life, in us, and that means to me all it implies. For example: divinity implies omnipotence, omniscience and a soulsomething immanent (important word that, IMMANENT) in everything. It implies that I (and the rest of us) have much more potential than gets out. It implies a strength, a knowledge beyond emotional passion and intellectual thought. It is a way of saying: we ARE the greecian gods, and their children (figuratively speaking). That immanent divinity includes an immanent intelligence which might as well have guided evolution up to where we are now and into It (the divinity) only knows what. So divinity is not something outside of us and/or nature, but a very involved aspect of nature. FOr a study of the way science and Blavasky come together, see: H.P. Blavatsky and the Secret Doctrine, edited by Virginia Hanson. This is a quest book, second edition, 1988, ISBN: 0-8356-0630-9 Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 06:54:23 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Perfume of Theosophy For those of us affected by theosophy, perhaps all we can say is that some of us may have smelt the perfume of theosophy. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:41:49 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Perfume of Theosophy In a message dated 11/30/99 6:56:04 AM Central Standard Time, RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM writes: > For those of us affected by theosophy, perhaps all we can say is that some > of us may have smelt the perfume of theosophy. > Incense! G.V.A From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 17:00:31 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: finite/infinite/mind/meaning/definiteness/literalism/was mental events br... Many thanks. Now I will do serious thinking on this. Your illustrations are very helpful and I will come back to you in a while. Best wishes Dallas ================================ -----Original Message----- > From: Hazarapet@aol.com [mailto:Hazarapet@aol.com] > Date: Monday, November 29, 1999 12:46 PM > Subject: Re: finite/infinite/mind/meaning/definiteness/literalism/was mental events br... In a message dated 11/28/99 12:51:11 PM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > Perhaps my line of thinking is slightly different from yours, so > let me offer: > > > I am thinking of the threefold power that every human has in one > or other degree of usage and aptitude: > > 1. to THINK independently. Part of my post was to ask what is thinking. I suggest that thought is itself something that takes on its true nature as it evolves. In essence, finite thought, finite meaning, and finite intelligibility are incomplete and indefinite fragments of one complete infinite thought. So, what we may mean by "thinking" may not at all be obvious but is also part of the puzzle to be explored. > > 2. to make comparisons, and Again, comparisons, I would argue, presuppose a network of thoughts, meanings, and intelligibilities. For example, if we decide that one experience was not veridical or we decide that a thought was not true, it has to be in comparison to either another experience or another thought. In Vedanta and Buddhism, this process is called "subration." But it in principle tacitly appeals to an infinity of thoughts/experiences. Science proceeds accumulatively as growth of knowledge by comparing earlier incomplete models within larger models (just like a sentence is equivocal until given context but all finite contexts are equivocal until infinity). > > 3. to extrapolate conclusions or potential results according to > whatever capacity he may have developed to apprehend the > operative Laws of nature and his own position in regard to the > totality of his environment. Two points: first laws of nature to a finite mind always appear in a perspective. But what that law may be in itself may appear very different in the end. Pretend you live in a two-dimensional universe. A three dimensional body would be something other than it first appears to be. For example, if you moved across a surface of a three dimensional body that seemed perpendicular to the spatial surface of your two-dimensional world, the succession would seem like time (as third dimension to your two spatial ones). But from a higher perspective (3D world), you are merely transversing the surface of a solid on a perpendicular from what in 2D world is space. And if a three-D object such as a three legged stool touched a surface in two-D world, it would appear to be a strange idea if someone suggested that the three spots were really "one." Now the point is not to get too caught up in the geometry analogy but to say that there are good reasons to believe that something similar applies to finite states. So, a complementarity may exist between your version of a post-mortem state and Jerry's (or Alan's). Second point, we never see the totality of our environment. What usually happens is we metaphorically take some part of reality or an experience as a model for the whole (as argued by Kant, James, Dorothy Emmett, and recently, Quine). We have not even see the whole of our own life let alone that of the universe. We are in our life but have not seen our life as a whole. So, what we usually do is take some finite experience that is only a part of our life and metaphorically make it a paradigm for what we take life as a whole to be like. So, abused children take their experience (a part) to be what life (the whole) is like. Happy children do the same. A finite amount of experience (part) becomes our metaphorical model for our whole life. What our whole life is like is unknown to us even in one life. And thus, what it is to be whole is unknown to us. But again, as new experiences come (just as context is provided for a sentence or finite bit of meaning), new light might be thrown on the old experiences that we took to be paradigms of the nature of life as a whole. So, if their meaning is altered, so is our sense of what life is like as a whole altered. But still, life as a whole (our life in just one life) has never been seen. We have experiences of chairs (where, even in perspective, we still can take the chair in "whole") and other objects but we have no experience of our life as one whole at once. So, there must be a degree on indefiniteness to us and to our theories, even HPB's. > Being possessed of these tools (faculties) I still ask and say > WHO AM I ? To follow the analogy above, one may have a very different sense of self if one gives oneself a 2D answer rather than a 3D answer. Usually, our sense of self, our feeling of being I, I suggest, is taken from those experiences we take as a paradigmatic model (part) for life (the whole). So, our ordinary sense of I is based on our inner identification with our metaphorical paradigms by which we get our feeling of self. But if the self is the authentic centre of our life as a integral whole, then we have no experience of I in its fullness. We experience fragments of I-hood. And the meanings we draw about life and self from these fragments of taking this or that bit of experience as "me" or as "I" may not good pointers to what an I is. If our existence, if our sense of being I, our identities are so indefinite in this life, where the body gives us some tangibility, then it seems that the after-life might be even more indefinite. Aspects of it might fit both you and Jerry's views. The Dzog chen idea, using the spatial analogy, is that there really isn't past and future lives along a timeline. Rather, from the enlightened view, they are not successive but simultaneous modes of a higher identity just as my left side and my right side, while under certain conditions where first one is seen and then another seen in succession, really exist simultaneously. So, in Dzog chen, the life review is also a trap into a next life. Why? Because any response to a whole based on a part will at some point display malfunctioning behaviour. In one life, if early experience is such that I apply it to everyone I meet, it will lead to bad karma eventually. Life review, as a process of learning what life is about (as a whole, a moral whole) continues the process of applying finite models to infinite experiences. Eventually, our part that we use as a guide to the whole will lead us wrong. So, Dzog chen says, the life review process that breaks this cycle is the one that realizes this one tiny life cannot be used as a model/dispositional readiness for the next life or life as a whole AND realizes that we ARE NOW all our past and futures lives together in a higher present. That who I am, is what all these lives are together now as aspects of a single self and not successive lives. But if this is the case, then Jerry's view rounds out and complements what you present as the normative or standard Theosophical view of reincarnation. It is like one party looking at first the left foot stepping forward and then the right foot stepping forward (and thinks these are successive manifestations of one self) whereas another party sees the whole body that both legs belong to at the same time (thinks they are two limbs simultaneously possessed by one self). > > I OBSERVE THAT I AM THE ONE WHO CHOOSES. Who is that I? Is it the whole I or somepart of it that feels like it is the I? People seem to be contradictory bundles or complexes of identifications that as fragments "choose this" then another "chooses that" and so, who chooses and what is choice? Paul speaks of the conflict of the outer worldly fragments of the true I with the inner whole and true I in Romans where he says that which he would do, he does not, but instead, he does that which he hates. He is speaking about the bondage of the will, that there is no ONE WILL, no authentic and integral CHOICE, if there is not a full and integral chooser who is the whole I or Self (with big S). Part of the process of spiritual evolution is where a master, in effect, morally sets you up for a fall. The purpose is to show the indefinite and shifting nature of our sense of being I, and thus, the indefinite and shifting nature of any "choice." Real choice can only be made by the real I, and such as we are, I suggest that we are incapable of the first because in our identifications, that is, drawing our sense of self or sense of I from fragments of a life made into a paradigm for the whole life, we are fragments of the real I. Since a fragment chooses for us, but a fragment is not the whole nor has control over the whole, the whole is not behind any choice we make or we are ambivalently not wholly behind any choice we make. We are the indefinite men out of contact with being our whole Self. Doesn't the indefiniteness of our existence need to be explored first so we know the raw material, so to speak, we have to work with no matter how impoverished? Part of the Buddhist doctrine of no-self is a message of moral failure to be the SELF. And since our understandings and interpretations of even a set of ideas that are designed to guide us, such as HPB's, will invariably be colored by our personalities (i.e. paradigmatic experiences of fragmentation that make up our 'character" because we draw our sense of identity from them - that is all a personality is), can we take them literally (i.e. take our interpretation of them literally). And, if HPB was cognizant of this fact about the ordinary human pysche, might she have not created blinds and baffles for a literal attitude to her finite model? Maybe the truth is not all in her ideas but in us as we give them flesh and reality (we become an avatar of theosophy). Her ideas being more like a yeast or catalyst than a complete picture of the way it is. A yeast or catalyst for different kinds and directions of self-exploration that is partly self-defining. Ever play the game where someone starts a story, it is passed on to another to add to, then another to add to. The story, while having an authorial source, takes on its full shape by the subsequent tellers of it. Maybe her ideas are something like plot lines to be developed into stories. Maybe there is no othodoxy. Just leading suggestions by a seductress luring us into a journey of self-becoming. That is the underlying theme in these two posts of mine. Its like physics. Physics is not the models, theories, or formulas. It is these within a thick operational context of exploration (research). And their meanings and implications are not definite. Rather, they are catalysts for competing and alternative interpretations of what these theories mean. And adding this context shows that (1) on their own they are equivocal in meaning and may mean a number of things (even if some options are ruled out) because they are incomplete alone, and (2) what any theory means has to be worked out in the process of research that often borders on creation rather than discovery. So, theories in physics may gain in definiteness not by discovering their meaning but by creating it just like a story that is fiction even while taking on a semi-independent life of its own that the author has to obey if the narratival coherence isn't violated. The theory is like the first author's beginning of a story that is to be continued by others. HPB's ideas may be something similar. Or like DNA. Life is not just DNA and such. It is DNA within a larger living whole that includes an environment. So forms of life evolve that are not viable but many different forms of life evolve that are "programmed" by practically the same DNA sequence. Like biological life, the ideas of HPB may be like DNA where the spiritual evolution of beings with basically the same ideas/DNA takes a richly diverse and radically different tranjectories. A few basic principles in nature can take on many different guises. Perhaps a few basic principles, ideas of HPB, when alive, takes on many different guises. So, except at infinity, there is not literally one theosophy. Grigor --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.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, 30 Nov 1999 23:51:12 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Perfume of Theosophy ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 12:54 PM > Subject: Perfume of Theosophy > For those of us affected by theosophy, perhaps all we can say is that some > of us may have smelt the perfume of theosophy. > ....... a somewhat variable and certainly unrepeatable odour ..... 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: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:48:48 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Indulging in American Culture Tonight ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 1:03 AM > Subject: Indulging in American Culture Tonight > Under circumstances far different than their usual matchups, the Green Bay > Packers and San Francisco 49ers meet Monday night. Thanks for this entirely useless information! Here in the UK we know next to nothing about this stuff :0) Hope you enjoyed yourself .... 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: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:27:25 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Indulging in American Culture Tonight In a message dated 11/30/99 7:49:56 PM Central Standard Time, ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > > Under circumstances far different than their usual matchups, the Green > Bay > > Packers and San Francisco 49ers meet Monday night. > > Thanks for this entirely useless information! Here in the UK we know > next to nothing about this stuff :0) > > Hope you enjoyed yourself .... > > Alan > Well, it is a less glamorous sport than European football. But then, it seemed the main threat was on the field and so less to talk about. I remember the heady days of Thatcher and Gorby when the Soviet border guards (KGB - Russian Customs/CIA) and Interior (now MVD - Russian FBI) feared British soccer fans. And at an Embassy ball in Paris, I recall Mitterand mumbling they were worse than Henry II's Normans released once again over the Continent (instead of taking Reagan out). :) Grigor