From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 06:37:05 -0800 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: The December THEOSOPHY WORLD Is Out The December issue of THEOSOPHY WORLD is out. It's contents are: "Spirit in Crisis: The Boundless and the Self," by H. Oosterink "Remembering HPB," by the Countess Constance Wachtmeister "Blavatsky Net Update," by Reed Carson "In Support of Genuine Theosophy," Part II by Grigor Vahan Ananikian "Theosophical Society Outreach," by Suzanna Kenline "What I Owe to a Book," by Captain P.G.B. Bowen "Theosophy -- A Universal Inspiration," by Kenneth Morris THEOSOPHY WORLD is a free Internet monthly available via email (about 100,000 bytes in size). To subscribe, write to editor@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 06:40:04 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 29, 1999 > 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"). Thus speaks the superficial conscience, still smarting because Grigor, striking a bit too close to home, had the gall to lecture *her* about cultural blindness, and even suggest that her notions of what is correct in male-female relations might not only not be universal, but might only be one of many equally ethically acceptable models. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:10:39 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: finite/infinite/mind/meaning/definiteness/literalism/was mental events br... In a message dated 11/30/99 7:10:16 PM Central Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: > 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 > Okay. I'll be here, well virtually here. G From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 16:43:42 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Randy to Kym:just a mite more boredom A farmer used to sow his seed in the spring. He decided that this was not enough of a growing season so he started sowing his seeds in the winter. And they all died. Extremes of socialism causes the individual to give up his individual karma for a group karma. The individual is thereby kept from paying off his or her own karma, and is placed in an evolutionary doldrums. Extremes of conservatism make selfishness rule, and leads to individuals taking power over groups, once again preventing the individuals from being about to generate or pay off their own karma. In order to evolve, at this stage, people require the element of choice. The ideal government at this point in our evolution, theosophically speaking, is the one that maximizes the amount of choice available to the individual, to allow the individuals the opportunity to evolve. I doubt that any of us are sufficiently enlightened to KNOW how to do it, but every person has their own opinion. The key is the intent behind the opinion. Liberalism can be an attempt to impose one's own values on others. Conservatism, for all the talk of personal responsibility, can be an avoidance of responsibility for the consequences of one's actions on others. Liberalism, on the other hand, can be trying to ensure that people are not trapped by simple attempts at survival. Conservatism, on the other hand, can be an attempt to allow people to receive, and thereby learn by, the consequences of their own actions. Do prisoners in a jail deserve medical care? Blavatsky said that they do; that bein sick is not part of their punishment. But in our world, we cannot tell what is part of the punishment, and what is not. So all we can do is examine our own motives, and try and do what we, individually, think is best for humanity. hesse600 wrote: > > > 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? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:56:59 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 29, 1999/Kym In a message dated 12/1/99 6:41:22 AM Central Standard Time, jrc@texas.net writes: > Thus speaks the superficial conscience, still smarting because Grigor, > striking a bit too close to home, had the gall to lecture *her* about > cultural blindness, and even suggest that her notions of what is correct > in male-female relations might not only not be universal, but might only > be one of many equally ethically acceptable models. -JRC > JR, I try not to get in mud fights. They discredit both parties. And is worse to be in middle of one. But I sense this is degenerating into a mean-spirited mess contrary to the values of Theosophy by any stripe, flavour, or color. I have gotten steely barbs from Kym but I have thick skin and she short barbs. Sometimes what she says I find highly intelligent. Randy is another story. I said to Randy but not to Kym that I will ignore his posts. Kym has her problems with maturity. Now that she has admitted to being a 35 year old undergraduate, it might safely be said she has displayed more maturity problems than the 18-22 year old undergraduates who get their Bachelors in the normal time. But I enjoy some of her posts. The ones with venom I just delete. Her opinion is worth enough to give initial attention to. It is not enough to get worked up over. JR, please don't sink to her worse level. You are from Texas. Beef! Think of her as cow with coulick (SP?). On one hand she is worth paying attention to (at her best): on other hand, not worth getting into big bother about (at her worst). Visiting friends in San Francisco for your Thanksgiving I learned nice word that I advise you with now with warmest regards: chill. She is either problematic person struggling to be better (who isn't?) or she is problematic person who will amount to nothing or less. Either way, she shows potential and in either case, whether she showed potential or not, its not worth your while. Its bad karma all around, negativity, is. Let's keep list civil. I have seen too much uncivilty - barbarity - in my life. Your Friend, Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 06:36:43 -0800 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: The December THEOSOPHY WORLD Is Out The December issue of THEOSOPHY WORLD is out. It's contents are: "Spirit in Crisis: The Boundless and the Self," by H. Oosterink "Remembering HPB," by the Countess Constance Wachtmeister "Blavatsky Net Update," by Reed Carson "In Support of Genuine Theosophy," Part II by Grigor Vahan Ananikian "Theosophical Society Outreach," by Suzanna Kenline "What I Owe to a Book," by Captain P.G.B. Bowen "Theosophy -- A Universal Inspiration," by Kenneth Morris THEOSOPHY WORLD is a free Internet monthly available via email (about 100,000 bytes in size). To subscribe, write to editor@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 22:51:01 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999 Grigor wrote: >But I sense this is degenerating into a mean-spirited >mess contrary to the values of Theosophy by any stripe, flavour, or color. Sometimes, the greatest learning experiences comes from such things as a "mean-spirited mess." We may think we are kind, compassionate, forgiving, objective, clear-thinking, logical, etc. . .until someone makes us angry. Then, we often see what lay beneath our own surface - we have a mirror held up to our faces. Many times we are shocked at ourselves; shocked at what we see or say to others. And, sometimes, we marvel at our own patience and understanding. Anger may be a negative emotion, but it is a great teacher if it is allowed to be so. And such a thing is always theosophical. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 22:31:06 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999 Grigor wrote: >Now that she has admitted to being a 35 year old >undergraduate, >it might safely be said she has displayed more maturity problems than the >18-22 >year old undergraduates who get their Bachelors in the normal time. The reason I have not gotten a degree in what you consider "normal time" is because this is the first time in my life where I am not confined by having to care for a dying loved one. Death, after much malicious game playing, liberated me five years ago. I do not say this to justify to YOU why I am finally able to secure what I have always desired in life - but to let you know, Grigor, that just because someone is 35 (or younger, older) and still pursuing a degree (or anything else) does NOT mean it was necessarily due to a personal shortcoming. You have obviously been very fortunate in life to have had the time to obtain five degress - some of us have been required to spend time elsewhere. Do not judge another's progression merely by appearances or comparisons to your own circumstances. "Normal time" has no meaning in many places in this world and in many lives. The Cow From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 23:15:33 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Guess Bart wrote: > A farmer used to sow his seed in the spring. He decided that this was >not enough of a growing season so he started sowing his seeds in the >winter. And they all died. Bart, your post would have been a work of art if you had just left out the above daffy ditty. It doesn't make a bit of sense. First of all, why would the farmer and the seeds ALL die in the winter? Did he get pneumonia while plowing in the winter cold or something? Secondly, not all seeds are supposed to be planted in the spring, such as winter wheat. Are you sure you got enough of the story here to make it a moral parable? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 07:23:49 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999 In a message dated 12/1/99 11:50:03 PM Central Standard Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > Anger may be a negative emotion, but it is a great teacher if it is allowed > to be so. And such a thing is always theosophical. I wrote the same point and you labelled it abuse of the other. Remember? Or is ethical consistency the hobgoblin you are not hobbled with?:-> Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 08:22:07 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: More on Anger/slight correction In a message dated 12/2/99 6:24:04 AM Central Standard Time, Hazarapet@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 12/1/99 11:50:03 PM Central Standard Time, > kymsmith@micron.net writes: > > > Anger may be a negative emotion, but it is a great teacher if it is > allowed > > to be so. And such a thing is always theosophical. > > I wrote the same point and you labelled it abuse of the other. Remember? > Or is ethical consistency the hobgoblin you are not hobbled with?:-> > Grigor > Earlier I respond to Kym as above. But I should have said more. The thing you were talking about, being nice and pleasant then discovering anger, is called discovering one's hypocrisy. And earlier, in a post you took such exception to, I said that the first step in self-knowledge and awakening of buddhi is the study of one's own forms of hypocrisy that you usually inwardly evades (call it a moral unconsciousness motivated by a bad conscience). This unconsciousness must be confronted and transformed and eliminated. It is process of replacing inner moral fragmentedness/hypocrisy with the integral light of self-awareness of awakened buddhi. So, it is the discovery of hypocrisy in oneself that is great teacher (so, yes, I love family, yet also hate family) and first step in awakening. Anger is never ever teacher of anything. Discovery that one is hypocritical, yes. But no theosophical document I have ever seen, nor Hindu, Taoist, or Buddhist, for example, says anger is teacher. Only people who have not quite expressed themselves correctly as to what they really meant to say (there is your out, Kym) or deluded people who rationalize and justify and try to give the aura of sanctity to their inner bullcrap ever say anger is a great teacher. Anger, in one respect (there are many aspects to anger to see to tame the beast, one being it is state of being controlled by situation despite the energy-giving quality of it - it is being inwardly disrupted by external world that pushes buttons), is never state one can learn anything for it is very stupid state of the inner emotional insistence of being and feeling right. One cannot learn one is wrong if one has filled with strong emotion of being right, in the right, and so on. So, Kym, your statement that anger is teacher is flat out and categorically wrong. I leave it to you whether you mis-stated your point or deceive yourself with justifications and rationalizations. I use phrase "ethical consistency" above. In Armenian, it is opposite of hypocrisy which is literally "ethical inconsistency." To be ethically consistent is to have all parts of soul in immediate contact with each other. None can hide or be out of touch of others. This inner "consistency" is the inner integrity, both as integrity of sound ship hull and as inner honesty, of integrally being fully conscious morally as person of inner consistency and person of non-hypocrisy. Anger is always symptom of some inner lack of self-presence, inner vice, where the devilish world sneaks in and gets you. Maybe you should read Dalai Lama's recent book on anger. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 08:51:18 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999 In a message dated 12/2/99 12:45:50 AM Central Standard Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > The reason I have not gotten a degree in what you consider "normal time" is > because this is the first time in my life where I am not confined by having > to care for a dying loved one. Death, after much malicious game playing, > liberated me five years ago. I am sorry, although, I have never known of anyone who took 12 years to die (35 - being liberated 5 years ago - 18 college age = 12) who needed much care. Those who did take that long were comatose, didn't need family care, and perhaps, should never have gotten on life support in first place because in end decision was made to unplug patient. So, again, while I sorry, 12 to 17 years seems long gap to be covered by tending to dying relative. Unless it Parkisin's disease. I remember friend whose wife slowly went over period of 7 years. > > I do not say this to justify to YOU why I am finally able to secure what I > have always desired in life - but to let you know, Grigor, that just > because someone is 35 (or younger, older) and still pursuing a degree (or > anything else) does NOT mean it was necessarily due to a personal > shortcoming. > > You have obviously been very fortunate in life to have had the time to > obtain five degress - some of us have been required to spend time > elsewhere. Obviously very fortunate, huh? Because state told comrade Grigor he go to school far from family, comrade Grigor miss birth and death of eldest daughter. Because state told comrade physicist Grigor he would not leave project to tend dying wife until project complete, comrade Grigor got to visit grave 2 years after she gone. So then comrade Grigor then use state to go places to study forbidden subjects under cover of consulting on state project. You work on narrow ethnocentric assumption that everyone with advanced degrees wanted them. And you want to be crusader to preach justice to world?! Travel would be great eye-opener for you. You may not have money to go far but there is no need. Go visit some of the Indian reservations around you. If you go there with some humility they might teach you a thing or two. G.V.A From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:15:27 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all Good morning, Could anyone help me to determine if I joined this list in error? A short while ago I came across the list and initially thought it would be a much needed roadmap to developing personal knowledge of some universal truths, common factors inherent in a multitude of a varying body of beliefs. Brought up in a Catholic, and homogenous, environment, I could never seem to make myself take the "acceptable" path of "buying into" the catholic faith without question. It always seemed to me that most religions were based on the same basic beliefs, with variations on a theme, and differing rituals. Despite the fact that this was not popular within family confines I could not force myself to feel any differently. I had hoped "the list" focused on the following definitions/descriptions I found on the net: What is Theosophy? The word theosophy is derived from the Greek theo-sophia, which literally means "divine wisdom." Non-political and non-sectarian, the Theosophical Society is dedicated to universal brotherhood, independent spiritual search, and study of the religious, scientific and philosophical thought of humanity, ancient and modern. It is part of a universal spiritual, intellectual, and ethical movement which has been active in all ages. This movement is based on the fact that spiritual oneness is a reality, and is of the very essence of being. "Think of theosophy not so much as a body of philosophic or other teaching, but as the highest law of conduct, which is the enacted expression of divine love or compassion." -- Katherine Tingley THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY The Theosophical Society was founded in New York in 1875 by H. P. Blavatsky, H. S. Olcott, W. Q. Judge, and others. It is part of a spiritual movement as old as thinking humanity, and its philosophy is a contemporary presentation of the ancient wisdom underlying the world's religions, sciences, and philosophies. The principles of theosophy were restated by Helena Blavatsky to draw the attention of the industrialized West to the sublime spiritual ideas of the perennial philosophy, and to re-awaken the Orient to its ancient spiritual heritage. The teachings of theosophy represent in outline the workings of the universe. By individual effort and study, these concepts can become living forces in our lives, where we may realize in ever increasing measure the universal realities they depict. THE SOCIETY'S OBJECTIVES ARE: to diffuse among mankind a knowledge of the laws inherent in the universe; to promulgate the knowledge of the essential unity of all that is, and to demonstrate that this unity is fundamental in nature; to form an active brotherhood among humanity; to study ancient and modern religion, science, and philosophy; and to investigate the powers innate in human beings. **** END OF NET MATERIAL ******* OK, now my dilemna.... Subsequent postings are leading me to believe the list may perhaps be more a forum for ego bashing than for exploring higher ideals. I am not saying this to be unkind; perhaps recent contributions are an aberration and the current focus on personal attack is not the usual thing. I don't have the benefit of a long history with the list. My wish is to nurture my own theosophical leanings, and my hope was that I had found a group sharing the same intent. We all have our own learning curve, and our own routes to our ultimate destination. It bothers me that it might be expected that everyone maintain some strict timetable on what should be our own individual path. How could it possibly matter at all if someone gets their academic degree at 35?? Should I feel inferior because it took me 5 years instead of 4? I am totally overwhelmed at the concentration on the superficial, and again would welcome the news that the focus is purely a temporary thing. If someone would be kind enough to suggest another forum to explore, I would welcome it. If I am clearly out of my element here, you are also welcome to invite me to unsubscibe. Thank you for taking the time to listen. Maureen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:21:01 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all Dec 2nd Dear Maureen: Theosophy is essentially the "religion" of common sense. If tries to show that this sense that is common is everywhere. It also serves to make a record of all the events of the past, and in the latest exposition made by Mme. Blavatsky (ISIS UNVEILED, THE SECRET DOCTRINE) it is shown how all the religions and the philosophies and the sciences of the past have been recorded and form a unity. The Theologians and partial philosophers have made for all the divisions in religion and belief. The claims to infallibility and the demands of "belief without proof" made by various theologians on behalf of their creeds are not conducive to individual search, or reconciliation. And yet, the indomitable spirit of man demands at some time that we find and prove for ourselves the facts that lie all around us in Nature, and those that we may not have examined with attention. It is held that Truth, or "fact," is ONE, and can be no one's (or no sects) property. It is also claimed that the mind of man (the Soul) is a free entity capable of considering anything in the world because it is in its root and essence: "one with everything else in the world." There is however in each of us a section of our minds that is still allied to the "animal" consciousness which is personal, selfish, opinionated, defensive, and seeks (usually) some "advantage," or control or domination over others. It is this aspect of the Mind (allied with "desires and passions") which causes all the troubles and the conflicts, and the apparent "ego bashing" you read and see, which is so deplorable. You have to understand that students of Theosophy are quite ordinary people who have seized an aspect of truth that is now working in and through their minds. They have abandoned and left behind them some of the restrictive aspects of formalism, creedlaism, and in their search for truth they do not always use tact with each other. They are also quite unformalized, and are in search of something they can share to make sure that their new way of thinking is not an aberration but has some value and continuity. This friction is not to be condoned, but accepted for the way in which some "personalities" find it easier to act. Really it helps no one. You are quite right in that -- it is distressing. But it also illustrates how it takes all kinds of personalities to makeup a world. If we don't like some writer or their approach, we need only pass to another which is more reasoned, or do that which you have just done: protest and ask questions. You also find and observe that many of those who lack tact, and the real power to investigate, have substituted what they call this discussing and exchange of ideas, for a sound basis from which to talk to each other. One of the distressing aspects of this is that they are unfamiliar with the basic texts of Theosophy that demonstrate its depth and breadth. I mean books like THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY by Mme. Blavatsky, or THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY by Wm. Q. Judge., which we all ought to have familiarized ourselves with. Then we could talk about the principles laid out there, and not waste so much time on "far-out" ideas and wild opinions. Much time cold be saved and many a serious question could be enhanced if we all, (and they) used the same basis for inquiry. If one goes to college and adopts a discipline to learn, one starts with text books that offer a basis. One does not start in to argue with the instructors. Argument is not to be avoided, but first a learning of certain facts is necessary -- otherwise, as I say, much time is wasted. The path of progress is really one for all -- we are in this together -- and the human family is called a BROTHERHOOD in fact not merely an ideal. All religions, creeds, philosophies and sciences are of necessity included in this. If you should study the history of the development of religions you will find the oldest to be the Hindu and Chinese (religious-philosophies), then there were reforms to those as they became in time orthodox and credalized: Zoroastrianism, Jainism and Buddhism. In parallel with these we find the very ancient Egyptian "Mystery" schools, from which were derived the Greek Mysteries. Also as a very ancient parallel is the little we know of the mysterious systems of the Druids and the Scandinavians and the Tautens. The Semitic religions, Jewish, Arab, Druze, Sufi, are found to be reforms or derivatives from the Zoroastrian. Christianity, Gnosticism, Protestantism are all reforms of Judaism, and so on down the line one can trace a succession of Prophets, and "Sons of God, or "Wise Sages" who have come cycle after cycle to bring back corrupted religions to the set of the One Central Body of Truths from which they all spring. Every prophet proclaimed that every human is a Son of God, and claimed inspiration from that fact. Jesus did the same, as one can read in the Bible. At one point he turned to the disciples and said: "Know ye not ye are the sons of God?" Theosophy claims to be a re-presentation of that wisdom and knowledge that was always taught in antiquity. It stated always that each human was HIS OWN AUTHORITY. And that each had a direct link to God. Also that the Soul was immortal (for reincarnation is taught in the Bible by Jesus -- this is easily proved. The main tenets of Theosophy consider the immortality of man's Spirit/soul and his progress through successive reincarnations. It states that the Universe and all things are under LAW. Law is one for all, just, fair, impartial and always active. It is not possible to have a fault reversed through prayer as that would be unfair to the victims. Each one reaps the harvest of the seeds (choices) they sow, in this life or a subsequent one. Every being is an immortal on the "path" to perfection. The whole of nature and all being in it are there fore "brothers." It is the details of this system that are under discussion. One must consider that NATURE (our environment and its past) includes everything we are able to think of as experience or data (past) and all that we aspire to or desire to master (future). The decisions and choices we make in the PRESENT form the basis for our individual advance -- this is true for all of us. Each of us makes our own future. But from that basic fact spring many divisions of thoughts, feeling and attitude. We have to develop (Theosophy says) the ability to resolve these differences back into simplicity. So while participating in this discussion list, carry these ideas in your mind, read the books I suggest, they are "on line" through "blavatsky.net." And ask all the pertinent question you want to. Best wishes Dallas -----Original Message----- > Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 7:15 AM > From: Maureen T Fitzgerald [mailto:Maureen.Fitzgerald@hartfordlife.com] > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all Good morning, Could anyone help me to determine if I joined this list in error? A short while ago I came across the list and initially thought it would be a much needed roadmap to developing personal knowledge of some universal truths, common factors inherent in a multitude of a varying body of beliefs. Brought up in a Catholic, and homogenous, environment, I could never seem to make myself take the "acceptable" path of "buying into" the catholic faith without question. It always seemed to me that most religions were based on the same basic beliefs, with variations on a theme, and differing rituals. Despite the fact that this was not popular within family confines I could not force myself to feel any differently. I had hoped "the list" focused on the following definitions/descriptions I found on the net: What is Theosophy? The word theosophy is derived from the Greek theo-sophia, which literally means "divine wisdom." Non-political and non-sectarian, the Theosophical Society is dedicated to universal brotherhood, independent spiritual search, and study of the religious, scientific and philosophical thought of humanity, ancient and modern. It is part of a universal spiritual, intellectual, and ethical movement which has been active in all ages. This movement is based on the fact that spiritual oneness is a reality, and is of the very essence of being. "Think of theosophy not so much as a body of philosophic or other teaching, but as the highest law of conduct, which is the enacted expression of divine love or compassion." -- Katherine Tingley THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY The Theosophical Society was founded in New York in 1875 by H. P. Blavatsky, H. S. Olcott, W. Q. Judge, and others. It is part of a spiritual movement as old as thinking humanity, and its philosophy is a contemporary presentation of the ancient wisdom underlying the world's religions, sciences, and philosophies. The principles of theosophy were restated by Helena Blavatsky to draw the attention of the industrialized West to the sublime spiritual ideas of the perennial philosophy, and to re-awaken the Orient to its ancient spiritual heritage. The teachings of theosophy represent in outline the workings of the universe. By individual effort and study, these concepts can become living forces in our lives, where we may realize in ever increasing measure the universal realities they depict. THE SOCIETY'S OBJECTIVES ARE: to diffuse among mankind a knowledge of the laws inherent in the universe; to promulgate the knowledge of the essential unity of all that is, and to demonstrate that this unity is fundamental in nature; to form an active brotherhood among humanity; to study ancient and modern religion, science, and philosophy; and to investigate the powers innate in human beings. **** END OF NET MATERIAL ******* OK, now my dilemna.... Subsequent postings are leading me to believe the list may perhaps be more a forum for ego bashing than for exploring higher ideals. I am not saying this to be unkind; perhaps recent contributions are an aberration and the current focus on personal attack is not the usual thing. I don't have the benefit of a long history with the list. My wish is to nurture my own theosophical leanings, and my hope was that I had found a group sharing the same intent. We all have our own learning curve, and our own routes to our ultimate destination. It bothers me that it might be expected that everyone maintain some strict timetable on what should be our own individual path. How could it possibly matter at all if someone gets their academic degree at 35?? Should I feel inferior because it took me 5 years instead of 4? I am totally overwhelmed at the concentration on the superficial, and again would welcome the news that the focus is purely a temporary thing. If someone would be kind enough to suggest another forum to explore, I would welcome it. If I am clearly out of my element here, you are also welcome to invite me to unsubscibe. Thank you for taking the time to listen. Maureen --- 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, 2 Dec 1999 14:50:31 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all Hello Dallas, Thank you for putting me back on track, and your well-considered response. You are quite right that it is natural for all of us to act out of "animal consciousness," as we are still within our human skins and it is hard to deny that essential connection. It is also true that I can choose to pass on those postings I find not useful. The irony is that I do in fact lack the necessary background to fully understand and appreciate your postings (and that of several others) and will take your suggestions to heart. I have bookmarked Blavatsky.net, and will begin my education, when I feel I can make a positive contribution, I will do so. In the meantime, I will remind myself to be more accepting, and hope that everyone will be more accepting of how each of us chooses our "path of progress." I do agree that the goal is the same, and yes, we are all in this together. Some of us are just a bit further along, as you have pointed out. Perhaps our paths will intersect at some point on our respective winding journeys. I will save your posting, and learn from it what I can, and I thank you again. Regards Maureen "W. Dallas TenBroeck" on 12/02/99 01:21:01 PM Please respond to "Theosophy Study List" To: "Theosophy Study List" cc: (bcc: Maureen T Fitzgerald/HLIFE) Subject: RE: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all Dec 2nd Dear Maureen: Theosophy is essentially the "religion" of common sense. If tries to show that this sense that is common is everywhere. It also serves to make a record of all the events of the past, and in the latest exposition made by Mme. Blavatsky (ISIS UNVEILED, THE SECRET DOCTRINE) it is shown how all the religions and the philosophies and the sciences of the past have been recorded and form a unity. The Theologians and partial philosophers have made for all the divisions in religion and belief. The claims to infallibility and the demands of "belief without proof" made by various theologians on behalf of their creeds are not conducive to individual search, or reconciliation. And yet, the indomitable spirit of man demands at some time that we find and prove for ourselves the facts that lie all around us in Nature, and those that we may not have examined with attention. It is held that Truth, or "fact," is ONE, and can be no one's (or no sects) property. It is also claimed that the mind of man (the Soul) is a free entity capable of considering anything in the world because it is in its root and essence: "one with everything else in the world." There is however in each of us a section of our minds that is still allied to the "animal" consciousness which is personal, selfish, opinionated, defensive, and seeks (usually) some "advantage," or control or domination over others. It is this aspect of the Mind (allied with "desires and passions") which causes all the troubles and the conflicts, and the apparent "ego bashing" you read and see, which is so deplorable. You have to understand that students of Theosophy are quite ordinary people who have seized an aspect of truth that is now working in and through their minds. They have abandoned and left behind them some of the restrictive aspects of formalism, creedlaism, and in their search for truth they do not always use tact with each other. They are also quite unformalized, and are in search of something they can share to make sure that their new way of thinking is not an aberration but has some value and continuity. This friction is not to be condoned, but accepted for the way in which some "personalities" find it easier to act. Really it helps no one. You are quite right in that -- it is distressing. But it also illustrates how it takes all kinds of personalities to makeup a world. If we don't like some writer or their approach, we need only pass to another which is more reasoned, or do that which you have just done: protest and ask questions. You also find and observe that many of those who lack tact, and the real power to investigate, have substituted what they call this discussing and exchange of ideas, for a sound basis from which to talk to each other. One of the distressing aspects of this is that they are unfamiliar with the basic texts of Theosophy that demonstrate its depth and breadth. I mean books like THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY by Mme. Blavatsky, or THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY by Wm. Q. Judge., which we all ought to have familiarized ourselves with. Then we could talk about the principles laid out there, and not waste so much time on "far-out" ideas and wild opinions. Much time cold be saved and many a serious question could be enhanced if we all, (and they) used the same basis for inquiry. If one goes to college and adopts a discipline to learn, one starts with text books that offer a basis. One does not start in to argue with the instructors. Argument is not to be avoided, but first a learning of certain facts is necessary -- otherwise, as I say, much time is wasted. The path of progress is really one for all -- we are in this together -- and the human family is called a BROTHERHOOD in fact not merely an ideal. All religions, creeds, philosophies and sciences are of necessity included in this. If you should study the history of the development of religions you will find the oldest to be the Hindu and Chinese (religious-philosophies), then there were reforms to those as they became in time orthodox and credalized: Zoroastrianism, Jainism and Buddhism. In parallel with these we find the very ancient Egyptian "Mystery" schools, from which were derived the Greek Mysteries. Also as a very ancient parallel is the little we know of the mysterious systems of the Druids and the Scandinavians and the Tautens. The Semitic religions, Jewish, Arab, Druze, Sufi, are found to be reforms or derivatives from the Zoroastrian. Christianity, Gnosticism, Protestantism are all reforms of Judaism, and so on down the line one can trace a succession of Prophets, and "Sons of God, or "Wise Sages" who have come cycle after cycle to bring back corrupted religions to the set of the One Central Body of Truths from which they all spring. Every prophet proclaimed that every human is a Son of God, and claimed inspiration from that fact. Jesus did the same, as one can read in the Bible. At one point he turned to the disciples and said: "Know ye not ye are the sons of God?" Theosophy claims to be a re-presentation of that wisdom and knowledge that was always taught in antiquity. It stated always that each human was HIS OWN AUTHORITY. And that each had a direct link to God. Also that the Soul was immortal (for reincarnation is taught in the Bible by Jesus -- this is easily proved. The main tenets of Theosophy consider the immortality of man's Spirit/soul and his progress through successive reincarnations. It states that the Universe and all things are under LAW. Law is one for all, just, fair, impartial and always active. It is not possible to have a fault reversed through prayer as that would be unfair to the victims. Each one reaps the harvest of the seeds (choices) they sow, in this life or a subsequent one. Every being is an immortal on the "path" to perfection. The whole of nature and all being in it are there fore "brothers." It is the details of this system that are under discussion. One must consider that NATURE (our environment and its past) includes everything we are able to think of as experience or data (past) and all that we aspire to or desire to master (future). The decisions and choices we make in the PRESENT form the basis for our individual advance -- this is true for all of us. Each of us makes our own future. But from that basic fact spring many divisions of thoughts, feeling and attitude. We have to develop (Theosophy says) the ability to resolve these differences back into simplicity. So while participating in this discussion list, carry these ideas in your mind, read the books I suggest, they are "on line" through "blavatsky.net." And ask all the pertinent question you want to. Best wishes Dallas -----Original Message----- > Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 7:15 AM > From: Maureen T Fitzgerald [mailto:Maureen.Fitzgerald@hartfordlife.com] > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all Good morning, Could anyone help me to determine if I joined this list in error? A short while ago I came across the list and initially thought it would be a much needed roadmap to developing personal knowledge of some universal truths, common factors inherent in a multitude of a varying body of beliefs. Brought up in a Catholic, and homogenous, environment, I could never seem to make myself take the "acceptable" path of "buying into" the catholic faith without question. It always seemed to me that most religions were based on the same basic beliefs, with variations on a theme, and differing rituals. Despite the fact that this was not popular within family confines I could not force myself to feel any differently. I had hoped "the list" focused on the following definitions/descriptions I found on the net: What is Theosophy? The word theosophy is derived from the Greek theo-sophia, which literally means "divine wisdom." Non-political and non-sectarian, the Theosophical Society is dedicated to universal brotherhood, independent spiritual search, and study of the religious, scientific and philosophical thought of humanity, ancient and modern. It is part of a universal spiritual, intellectual, and ethical movement which has been active in all ages. This movement is based on the fact that spiritual oneness is a reality, and is of the very essence of being. "Think of theosophy not so much as a body of philosophic or other teaching, but as the highest law of conduct, which is the enacted expression of divine love or compassion." -- Katherine Tingley THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY The Theosophical Society was founded in New York in 1875 by H. P. Blavatsky, H. S. Olcott, W. Q. Judge, and others. It is part of a spiritual movement as old as thinking humanity, and its philosophy is a contemporary presentation of the ancient wisdom underlying the world's religions, sciences, and philosophies. The principles of theosophy were restated by Helena Blavatsky to draw the attention of the industrialized West to the sublime spiritual ideas of the perennial philosophy, and to re-awaken the Orient to its ancient spiritual heritage. The teachings of theosophy represent in outline the workings of the universe. By individual effort and study, these concepts can become living forces in our lives, where we may realize in ever increasing measure the universal realities they depict. THE SOCIETY'S OBJECTIVES ARE: to diffuse among mankind a knowledge of the laws inherent in the universe; to promulgate the knowledge of the essential unity of all that is, and to demonstrate that this unity is fundamental in nature; to form an active brotherhood among humanity; to study ancient and modern religion, science, and philosophy; and to investigate the powers innate in human beings. **** END OF NET MATERIAL ******* OK, now my dilemna.... Subsequent postings are leading me to believe the list may perhaps be more a forum for ego bashing than for exploring higher ideals. I am not saying this to be unkind; perhaps recent contributions are an aberration and the current focus on personal attack is not the usual thing. I don't have the benefit of a long history with the list. My wish is to nurture my own theosophical leanings, and my hope was that I had found a group sharing the same intent. We all have our own learning curve, and our own routes to our ultimate destination. It bothers me that it might be expected that everyone maintain some strict timetable on what should be our own individual path. How could it possibly matter at all if someone gets their academic degree at 35?? Should I feel inferior because it took me 5 years instead of 4? I am totally overwhelmed at the concentration on the superficial, and again would welcome the news that the focus is purely a temporary thing. If someone would be kind enough to suggest another forum to explore, I would welcome it. If I am clearly out of my element here, you are also welcome to invite me to unsubscibe. Thank you for taking the time to listen. Maureen --- 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 --- 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: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 14:53:21 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Guess kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > Bart wrote: > > > A farmer used to sow his seed in the spring. He decided that this was > >not enough of a growing season so he started sowing his seeds in the > >winter. And they all died. > > Bart, your post would have been a work of art if you had just left out the > above daffy ditty. It doesn't make a bit of sense. First of all, why > would the farmer and the seeds ALL die in the winter? All the seeds died. And I did specify that it was the seed normally planted in the spring. It was an illustration that socialism, which may be an excellent system once humanity is sufficiently evolved, runs counter to evolution at our current state. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 15:39:03 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all "W. Dallas TenBroeck" wrote: > > Dec 2nd > > Dear Maureen: > > Theosophy is essentially the "religion" of common sense. 1) THEOSOPHY IS NOT A RELIGION. 2) THEOSOPHY IS NOT A RELIGION. 3) THEOSOPHY IS NOT A RELIGION. At most, you could say that it is a religious philosophy, or, better, a methodology for determining one's own religious belief. Certainly there are some who turn certain Theosohpical writings into a religion (the Esoteric Section comes to mind immediately, and many of the offshoot groups, such as CUT, the offshoots of "I AM", etc.), but Theosophy itself is not one. If one REALLY has to make a capsule definition, then one can say that Theosophy is an attempt to discover the basic principles behind science, religion, and philosophy, and the Theosophical Societies are organizations where theosophists join, using certain writings from the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a base from which to start. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 15:14:58 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all At 10:15 AM 12/2/1999 -0500, you wrote: > Good morning, Could anyone help me to determine if I joined this list in error? A short while ago I came across the list and initially thought it would be a much needed road map to developing personal knowledge of some universal truths, common factors inherent in a multitude of a varying body of beliefs. Brought up in a Catholic, and homogenous, environment, I could never seem to make myself take the "acceptable" path of "buying into" the catholic faith without question. It always seemed to me that most religions were based on the same basic beliefs, with variations on a theme, and differing rituals. Despite the fact that this was not popular within family confines I could not force myself to feel any differently. I had hoped "the list" focused on the following definitions/descriptions I found on the net: What is Theosophy? The word theosophy is derived from the Greek theo-sophia, which literally means "divine wisdom." Non-political and non-sectarian, the Theosophical Society is dedicated to universal brotherhood, independent spiritual search, and study of the religious, scientific and philosophical thought of humanity, ancient and modern. It is part of a universal spiritual, intellectual, and ethical movement which has been active in all ages. This movement is based on the fact that spiritual oneness is a reality, and is of the very essence of being. "Think of theosophy not so much as a body of philosophic or other teaching, but as the highest law of conduct, which is the enacted expression of divine love or compassion." -- Katherine Tingley THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY The Theosophical Society was founded in New York in 1875 by H. P. Blavatsky, H. S. Olcott, W. Q. Judge, and others. It is part of a spiritual movement as old as thinking humanity, and its philosophy is a contemporary presentation of the ancient wisdom underlying the world's religions, sciences, and philosophies. The principles of theosophy were restated by Helena Blavatsky to draw the attention of the industrialized West to the sublime spiritual ideas of the perennial philosophy, and to re-awaken the Orient to its ancient spiritual heritage. The teachings of theosophy represent in outline the workings of the universe. By individual effort and study, these concepts can become living forces in our lives, where we may realize in ever increasing measure the universal realities they depict. THE SOCIETY'S OBJECTIVES ARE: to diffuse among mankind a knowledge of the laws inherent in the universe; to promulgate the knowledge of the essential unity of all that is, and to demonstrate that this unity is fundamental in nature; to form an active brotherhood among humanity; to study ancient and modern religion, science, and philosophy; and to investigate the powers innate in human beings. **** END OF NET MATERIAL ******* OK, now my dilemna.... Subsequent postings are leading me to believe the list may perhaps be more a forum for ego bashing than for exploring higher ideals. I am not saying this to be unkind; perhaps recent contributions are an aberration and the current focus on personal attack is not the usual thing. I don't have the benefit of a long history with the list. My wish is to nurture my own theosophical leanings, and my hope was that I had found a group sharing the same intent. We all have our own learning curve, and our own routes to our ultimate destination. It bothers me that it might be expected that everyone maintain some strict timetable on what should be our own individual path. How could it possibly matter at all if someone gets their academic degree at 35?? Should I feel inferior because it took me 5 years instead of 4? I am totally overwhelmed at the concentration on the superficial, and again would welcome the news that the focus is purely a temporary thing. If someone would be kind enough to suggest another forum to explore, I would welcome it. If I am clearly out of my element here, you are also welcome to invite me to unsubscibe. Thank you for taking the time to listen. Maureen Dear Maureen: You are in the right list. In any group, there is going to be a wide range of views and opinions and from time to time there would be topics or msgs which may be considered off the wall by some. The glue that keeps people interested in theosophy is the fact that no one is expected to believe in anything and is allowed to believe in anything so long as you give the same liberty to others. While written material can provide information, the bottom line is our own quest and understanding that is our own and not some second hand parroting. On the other hand how is one to judge whether one is farther along the "path" compared to someone else? There is no objective way to come to any conclusion - at least in the physical plane. Also there is the viewpoint clearly explained by Krishnamurti in his "Truth is a Pathless Land" which raises the question whether there is any "path" which is an extension of what we understand on the three dimensional physical plane. While we see many msgs which are not of any interest to many, from time to time, we will be able to find some invaluable idea or pointer which helps us in our own quest for knowledge. Also, one of the unique charater of this list is that it is not controlled by any theosophical organization and is independent of all of them. Organizations and its leaders have a pre-disposition to control and give a spin to materials posted. And the owner of the list - John E Mead is rarely even seen and has ensured that unfettered and unfiltered and uncensored discussion goes on, even if there are msgs that one or more subscribers do not like. Such is the price one has to pay when one lets each exercise their freedom of expression and opinion. Many of us, lurkers, have been on this for years and many of us have learnt about things in 3 years which we have not in 30+ years of membership in organizations. So be patient and keep your subscription. You are encouraged to post any message, however trivial or outlanding they may seem to be to others. There are always those who will respond while keeping our focus on the freedom of thought and freedom of expression. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:10:54 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 5:51 AM > From: > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999 Kym wrote: > Anger may be a negative emotion, but it is a great teacher if it is allowed > to be so. And such a thing is always theosophical. Anger is not always negative. I get angry about child abuse, angry about deliberate cruelty to animals and people, angry about injustice. I get angry with those people who engage in and encourage such human evils. This, in my view, is positive anger, and the world would be an even more terrible place without it, and those who act on it. Alan ambain@ambain.screaming.net http://members.tripod.co.uk/ambain/SaintJust.HTM/ Occult: http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 18:35:04 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all M K Ramadoss wrote: > > At 10:15 AM 12/2/1999 -0500, you wrote: > > > > Good morning, > > Could anyone help me to determine if I joined this list in error? Yes you did. What you were REALLY looking for was the antique pinball table list. I can see, however, how you made the mistake. Well, you DID leave yourself open on that one.... Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 01:27:34 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999 > In a message dated 12/2/99 12:45:50 AM Central Standard Time, > wrote to kymsmith@micron.net > > You work on narrow ethnocentric assumption that everyone with advanced > degrees wanted them. And you want to be crusader to preach justice to > world?! Travel would be great eye-opener for you. You may not have money > to go far but there is no need. Go visit some of the Indian reservations > around you. If you go there with some humility they might teach you a thing > or two. > > G.V.A Dear Grigor, I appreciate that you have come from a very different background to Kym, and see things in a different light in consequence. However, are we not on this list to discuss rather than to do battle? You make some very good points from time to time, and as comrade Grigor you clearly did not have the easiest time. In a different context, Kym has also had a difficult time, in a different, but often extremely cruel culture. In yet another context, I too have had a difficult time. Let us make peace here, not war - a cliche, perhaps, but in seeking to work towards theosophical "first object" goals, please let us be polite to each other? Pretty please? Alan (I have only a D.D., which I got in 1985 at the age of 52 - but what does that count for in the real world? Very little.) 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: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 01:40:26 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 3:15 PM > From: Maureen T Fitzgerald > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all > Good morning, > > Could anyone help me to determine if I joined this list in error? Sometimes I think we all did! I see you have bookmarked Blavatsky Net, which is a GOOD THING. You will find other links on my "Simply Occult" website http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ as well as some of the controversial, non party line material. Could be worth a bookmark or a blackmark ... please drop by and see what you think! On this list we often go off at a tangent, and sometimes get bogged down in seeming trivialities. In general, though, most of the longer term subscribers are well informed on theosophical matters, which can mean that we may not discuss what you are hoping to read, as we all know that most of the others are familiar with it all anyway. Soooo ... please hang around, and do the decent thing - ask the questions you are not expected to, and *never* seek to "conform" or be "politically correct." Sincerely, Alan Bain http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ ambain@ambain.screaming.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 23:24:23 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 02, 1999 Alan wrote: >Anger is not always negative. I get angry about child abuse, angry >about deliberate cruelty to animals and people, angry about injustice. >I get angry with those people who engage in and encourage such human >evils. This, in my view, is positive anger, and the world would be an >even more terrible place without it, and those who act on it. Absolutely agree, Alan. Thank you. I stand corrected and further enlightened - I know, sappy. . .but 'tis true. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 23:32:12 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 02, 1999 Bart wrote: > All the seeds died. And I did specify that it was the seed normally >planted in the spring. Did you now? Who knew? Glad to hear the farmer's alive and kicking. My post wasn't serious; perhaps I should have used a smiley face? Hmmmm. Nah - I'm not yet there. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 23:52:00 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 02, 1999 Maureen wrote: >It bothers me that it might be expected that everyone maintain >some strict timetable on what should be our own individual path. Don't let weirdos like me or Grigor send shivers up your spine or chase you off. Think of us as "outs" - for example, if, by chance, you ever post anything you later think is stupid, you can comfort yourself with the accurate thought that "Well, whew, it wasn't as dumb as one of Kym or Grigor's posts." See? It's all in how one looks at it. Theos-l can be scary at times because there are some scary people here - but there are other people, such as Alan, mkr, and (hiccup) Dallas who will offer you what you are looking for, honest. Post away. And timetables be damned. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:28:04 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all On Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:15:27 -0500 Maureen T Fitzgerald wrote: you wrote: > "Think of theosophy not so much as a body of philosophic or other teaching, > but as the highest law of conduct, which is the enacted expression of > divine love or compassion." -- Katherine Tingley A problem here is that we study theosophy, we have not yet become to the full expression of that compassion yet. THis disillusionment is a common problem for people new in the field. This is no excuse for some of the e-mails here. I was also unhappy with JRC's e-mail about Kym. I think he must have had some emotional breakdown or something. Also I was thinking it might also be a joke (like Kym's e-mail recently ) But I have developed a thick skin, also because it is so easy to misunderstand and I know how easy it is to react emotionally to people putting things in an unfortunate way. But if you cannot stand it and do not enjoy at least part of the mails on this list, yes, then you should probably leave. > to diffuse among mankind a knowledge of the laws inherent in the universe; > to promulgate the knowledge of the essential unity of all that is, and to > demonstrate that this unity is fundamental in nature; > to form an active brotherhood among humanity; > to study ancient and modern religion, science, and philosophy; and We did that, when we all read (and I think enjoyed) Grigor's e-mails on Dzog chen. Also there were valuable posts here on buddhism and every once in a while Dalas sends us his understanding of Blavatsky. (or quotes). But theosophy is a kind of self-help thing (as I read somewhere recently): If you want a different topic discussed: discuss it. If you have questions, ask. That is the only way of changing the list. And no, I do not think there is a list that does not have these problems. On the other hand: there are lodges that do not have these problems, but on the other hand also do not have the interesting benefits of this list. Hope this was of help. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 06:39:18 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all > This is no excuse for some of the e-mails here. I was also > unhappy with JRC's e-mail about Kym. I think he must have > had some emotional breakdown or something. Also I was > thinking it might also be a joke ... Ha! Everything I say is half a joke - but I truly love this - after saying nothing other than the fact that I was actually impressed with the learning of another Theosophist (horrible! horrible!), and characterizing Randy (who more than one person has found to be too much of a pain in the ass to even bother to answer anymore) as a child stamping his feet, and listening to Kym then make an extremely snide comment pointedly directed at Grigor and myself, I then shoot off an off-the-cuff response, and this is apparently evidence of a "breakdown". Scintillating psychological analysis! -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:03:26 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: Randy to Katinka: tiring of me The point of my posts on conservatism vs liberalism is that it is an issue of personal freedom. Liberalism chips away at it, conservatism preserves it. I understand there are exceptions, etc. I agree with the reality of the divinity you define. Sorry my writing has tired you. I just can't seem to learn the theobabble dribble common on this list. Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 06:19:44 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all Dear Maureen: Ask any time. I'll always be glad to answer, if I can. If you want to have a fairly succinct yet quite clear view of what Theosophy covers, you might use blavatsky.net links to read Mr. Judge's EPITOME OF THEOSOPHY. It is only 32 pages and can easily be downloaded. It covers the most important ideas that Theosophy speaks about, and is also quite easy to understand. Best wishes to you, Dallas -----Original Message----- > Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 11:51 AM > From: Maureen T Fitzgerald [mailto:Maureen.Fitzgerald@hartfordlife.com] > Subject: RE: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all Hello Dallas, Thank you for putting me back on track, and your well-considered response. You are quite right that it is natural for all of us to act out of "animal consciousness," as we are still within our human skins and it is hard to deny that essential connection. It is also true that I can choose to pass on those postings I find not useful. The irony is that I do in fact lack the necessary background to fully understand and appreciate your postings (and that of several others) and will take your suggestions to heart. I have bookmarked Blavatsky.net, and will begin my education, when I feel I can make a positive contribution, I will do so. In the meantime, I will remind myself to be more accepting, and hope that everyone will be more accepting of how each of us chooses our "path of progress." I do agree that the goal is the same, and yes, we are all in this together. Some of us are just a bit further along, as you have pointed out. Perhaps our paths will intersect at some point on our respective winding journeys. I will save your posting, and learn from it what I can, and I thank you again. Regards Maureen "W. Dallas TenBroeck" on 12/02/99 01:21:01 PM Please respond to "Theosophy Study List" To: "Theosophy Study List" cc: (bcc: Maureen T Fitzgerald/HLIFE) Subject: RE: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all Dec 2nd Dear Maureen: Theosophy is essentially the "religion" of common sense. If tries to show that this sense that is common is everywhere. It also serves to make a record of all the events of the past, and in the latest exposition made by Mme. Blavatsky (ISIS UNVEILED, THE SECRET DOCTRINE) it is shown how all the religions and the philosophies and the sciences of the past have been recorded and form a unity. The Theologians and partial philosophers have made for all the divisions in religion and belief. The claims to infallibility and the demands of "belief without proof" made by various theologians on behalf of their creeds are not conducive to individual search, or reconciliation. And yet, the indomitable spirit of man demands at some time that we find and prove for ourselves the facts that lie all around us in Nature, and those that we may not have examined with attention. It is held that Truth, or "fact," is ONE, and can be no one's (or no sects) property. It is also claimed that the mind of man (the Soul) is a free entity capable of considering anything in the world because it is in its root and essence: "one with everything else in the world." There is however in each of us a section of our minds that is still allied to the "animal" consciousness which is personal, selfish, opinionated, defensive, and seeks (usually) some "advantage," or control or domination over others. It is this aspect of the Mind (allied with "desires and passions") which causes all the troubles and the conflicts, and the apparent "ego bashing" you read and see, which is so deplorable. You have to understand that students of Theosophy are quite ordinary people who have seized an aspect of truth that is now working in and through their minds. They have abandoned and left behind them some of the restrictive aspects of formalism, creedlaism, and in their search for truth they do not always use tact with each other. They are also quite unformalized, and are in search of something they can share to make sure that their new way of thinking is not an aberration but has some value and continuity. This friction is not to be condoned, but accepted for the way in which some "personalities" find it easier to act. Really it helps no one. You are quite right in that -- it is distressing. But it also illustrates how it takes all kinds of personalities to makeup a world. If we don't like some writer or their approach, we need only pass to another which is more reasoned, or do that which you have just done: protest and ask questions. You also find and observe that many of those who lack tact, and the real power to investigate, have substituted what they call this discussing and exchange of ideas, for a sound basis from which to talk to each other. One of the distressing aspects of this is that they are unfamiliar with the basic texts of Theosophy that demonstrate its depth and breadth. I mean books like THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY by Mme. Blavatsky, or THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY by Wm. Q. Judge., which we all ought to have familiarized ourselves with. Then we could talk about the principles laid out there, and not waste so much time on "far-out" ideas and wild opinions. Much time cold be saved and many a serious question could be enhanced if we all, (and they) used the same basis for inquiry. If one goes to college and adopts a discipline to learn, one starts with text books that offer a basis. One does not start in to argue with the instructors. Argument is not to be avoided, but first a learning of certain facts is necessary -- otherwise, as I say, much time is wasted. The path of progress is really one for all -- we are in this together -- and the human family is called a BROTHERHOOD in fact not merely an ideal. All religions, creeds, philosophies and sciences are of necessity included in this. If you should study the history of the development of religions you will find the oldest to be the Hindu and Chinese (religious-philosophies), then there were reforms to those as they became in time orthodox and credalized: Zoroastrianism, Jainism and Buddhism. In parallel with these we find the very ancient Egyptian "Mystery" schools, from which were derived the Greek Mysteries. Also as a very ancient parallel is the little we know of the mysterious systems of the Druids and the Scandinavians and the Tautens. The Semitic religions, Jewish, Arab, Druze, Sufi, are found to be reforms or derivatives from the Zoroastrian. Christianity, Gnosticism, Protestantism are all reforms of Judaism, and so on down the line one can trace a succession of Prophets, and "Sons of God, or "Wise Sages" who have come cycle after cycle to bring back corrupted religions to the set of the One Central Body of Truths from which they all spring. Every prophet proclaimed that every human is a Son of God, and claimed inspiration from that fact. Jesus did the same, as one can read in the Bible. At one point he turned to the disciples and said: "Know ye not ye are the sons of God?" Theosophy claims to be a re-presentation of that wisdom and knowledge that was always taught in antiquity. It stated always that each human was HIS OWN AUTHORITY. And that each had a direct link to God. Also that the Soul was immortal (for reincarnation is taught in the Bible by Jesus -- this is easily proved. The main tenets of Theosophy consider the immortality of man's Spirit/soul and his progress through successive reincarnations. It states that the Universe and all things are under LAW. Law is one for all, just, fair, impartial and always active. It is not possible to have a fault reversed through prayer as that would be unfair to the victims. Each one reaps the harvest of the seeds (choices) they sow, in this life or a subsequent one. Every being is an immortal on the "path" to perfection. The whole of nature and all being in it are there fore "brothers." It is the details of this system that are under discussion. One must consider that NATURE (our environment and its past) includes everything we are able to think of as experience or data (past) and all that we aspire to or desire to master (future). The decisions and choices we make in the PRESENT form the basis for our individual advance -- this is true for all of us. Each of us makes our own future. But from that basic fact spring many divisions of thoughts, feeling and attitude. We have to develop (Theosophy says) the ability to resolve these differences back into simplicity. So while participating in this discussion list, carry these ideas in your mind, read the books I suggest, they are "on line" through "blavatsky.net." And ask all the pertinent question you want to. Best wishes Dallas -----Original Message----- > Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 7:15 AM > From: Maureen T Fitzgerald [mailto:Maureen.Fitzgerald@hartfordlife.com] > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all Good morning, Could anyone help me to determine if I joined this list in error? A short while ago I came across the list and initially thought it would be a much needed roadmap to developing personal knowledge of some universal truths, common factors inherent in a multitude of a varying body of beliefs. Brought up in a Catholic, and homogenous, environment, I could never seem to make myself take the "acceptable" path of "buying into" the catholic faith without question. It always seemed to me that most religions were based on the same basic beliefs, with variations on a theme, and differing rituals. Despite the fact that this was not popular within family confines I could not force myself to feel any differently. I had hoped "the list" focused on the following definitions/descriptions I found on the net: What is Theosophy? The word theosophy is derived from the Greek theo-sophia, which literally means "divine wisdom." Non-political and non-sectarian, the Theosophical Society is dedicated to universal brotherhood, independent spiritual search, and study of the religious, scientific and philosophical thought of humanity, ancient and modern. It is part of a universal spiritual, intellectual, and ethical movement which has been active in all ages. This movement is based on the fact that spiritual oneness is a reality, and is of the very essence of being. "Think of theosophy not so much as a body of philosophic or other teaching, but as the highest law of conduct, which is the enacted expression of divine love or compassion." -- Katherine Tingley THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY The Theosophical Society was founded in New York in 1875 by H. P. Blavatsky, H. S. Olcott, W. Q. Judge, and others. It is part of a spiritual movement as old as thinking humanity, and its philosophy is a contemporary presentation of the ancient wisdom underlying the world's religions, sciences, and philosophies. The principles of theosophy were restated by Helena Blavatsky to draw the attention of the industrialized West to the sublime spiritual ideas of the perennial philosophy, and to re-awaken the Orient to its ancient spiritual heritage. The teachings of theosophy represent in outline the workings of the universe. By individual effort and study, these concepts can become living forces in our lives, where we may realize in ever increasing measure the universal realities they depict. THE SOCIETY'S OBJECTIVES ARE: to diffuse among mankind a knowledge of the laws inherent in the universe; to promulgate the knowledge of the essential unity of all that is, and to demonstrate that this unity is fundamental in nature; to form an active brotherhood among humanity; to study ancient and modern religion, science, and philosophy; and to investigate the powers innate in human beings. **** END OF NET MATERIAL ******* OK, now my dilemna.... Subsequent postings are leading me to believe the list may perhaps be more a forum for ego bashing than for exploring higher ideals. I am not saying this to be unkind; perhaps recent contributions are an aberration and the current focus on personal attack is not the usual thing. I don't have the benefit of a long history with the list. My wish is to nurture my own theosophical leanings, and my hope was that I had found a group sharing the same intent. We all have our own learning curve, and our own routes to our ultimate destination. It bothers me that it might be expected that everyone maintain some strict timetable on what should be our own individual path. How could it possibly matter at all if someone gets their academic degree at 35?? Should I feel inferior because it took me 5 years instead of 4? I am totally overwhelmed at the concentration on the superficial, and again would welcome the news that the focus is purely a temporary thing. If someone would be kind enough to suggest another forum to explore, I would welcome it. If I am clearly out of my element here, you are also welcome to invite me to unsubscibe. Thank you for taking the time to listen. Maureen --- 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 --- 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 --- 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: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:40:26 -0800 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Now Published on the WWW: Obituary: The "Hodgson Report" on Madame Blavatsky by Walter A. Carrithers, Jr. OBITUARY: The "Hodgson Report" on Madame Blavatsky by Walter A. Carrithers, Jr. has been published on the world wide web by The Blavatsky Foundation at http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/ The first (1963) edition of this work was published under Mr. Carrither's pseudonym Adlai E. Waterman by The Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, Madras, India. This online edition has a new preface by Leslie Price, founder of THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY and a current associate editor of that journal. "Obituary" deals not only with Richard Hodgson's contentions about the Mahatma and Coulomb letters but also analyzes Hodgson's statements about the "Shrine" and the various occult phenomena performed by Madame Blavatsky and the Mahatmas. To truly appreciate Mr. Carrither's insights, one needs to have in hand both the Hodgson's Report and Madame Coulomb's pamphlet as one reads through "Obituary." In his Introduction to "Obituary", Walter Carrithers gave a summary of his approach to the subject matter in the following words: "Faced with these difficulties, and the additional fact that the "destroyer" of Mme. Blavatsky was Dr. Richard Hodgson who is recognized as, perhaps, "the greatest" psychical researcher of "the Golden Age of Psychical Research in England", any would be apologist for H.P.B. cannot fall back on philosophical exposition in lieu of specific well-supported replies to what skeptics may bring in guise of concrete disproof and verified accusation against her. That kind of reaction may appeal to a certain type of mind which can voluntarily blind itself to unpleasant short-comings while taking refuge in philosophic abstractions. But such retreat is no substitute for knowledge and courage - or for whatever gratitude the followers of Mme. Blavatsky think they owe to their great Teacher. Neither is it the kind of answer the world respects or that Science demands. What is required in a situation such as this are facts - incontrovertible facts founded on testimony which incredulous critics cannot assail, the testimony not of H.P.B. and her witnesses but of the principal prosecutor [Richard Hodgson] and his chief witnesses [Emma and Alexis Coulomb]. Nothing less than this ever satisfied the present writer, nor does he expect the reader to be content with anything else. The commonplace facts of everyday experience seem too much against the possibility of real Magic and genuine occult or psychic phenomena to permit modern man to rely on less." "It is safe to calculate that for every ten thousand persons who have heard and believe that Richard Hodgson "exposed" H.P. Blavatsky as a fraud and imposter, not more than one has read his "expose;" and, that for every thousand of his readers, hardly one has ever seen Emma Coulomb's pamphlet. And yet, by logic and every rule of common sense, the latter document takes precedence over all others in standing at the very heart of the controversy raised by the Coulombs, comprising as it does the firsthand unadulterated testimony of the chief accusers, together with documentary "proofs" adduced for their claims. Yet, strange to say, practically no attention was paid to this priceless pamphlet - least of all by indignant Theosophists who put no stock in what Mme. Coulomb might have to say! -, not until, that is, the appearance in 1937 of Mrs. Hastings' booklet, Defence of Madame Blavatsky (Volume II) The "Coulomb Pamphlet". Unfortunately, Mrs. Hastings did not live to complete her promising study of the case." "Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Dr. Hodgson himself seems to have had very great reluctance to make, by quotation, any use whatsoever of Mme. Coulomb's printed (prior) explanations. The reason for this odd behavior on his part, with respect to the testimony of his chief witness, becomes readily apparent once we examine the major charges brought against Mme. Blavatsky by Dr. Hodgson, and now, for the first time, compare his allegations detail-by-detail against original, earlier-published claims of Mme. Coulomb herself." Quoted from Obituary: The "Hodgson Report" on Madame Blavatsky by Walter A. Carrithers, Jr. http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/ ---- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:47:38 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l Maureen to Bart Thank you, Bart. I like the idea of employing this as a methodology, I think that might take me where I want to go. And those certain writings you mention are a good place for me to begin. Where would I find more info (are there sites?) about offshoot groups. Or would that create more confusion than I could handle with my "foundation" not quite in place? When you wrote that Theosophy is an attempt to discover the basic principles behind science, religion, and philosophy, is that a tie-in to the principle of Karma? Is this cause and effect, action-reaction, and if one can determine what action (maybe the wrong word) creates what result, then one can make sense of things? This sounds like it takes a lifetime to learn. Maureen Bart Lidofsky on 12/02/99 03:39:03 PM Please respond to "Theosophy Study List" To: "Theosophy Study List" cc: (bcc: Maureen T Fitzgerald/HLIFE) Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all "W. Dallas TenBroeck" wrote: > > Dec 2nd > > Dear Maureen: > > Theosophy is essentially the "religion" of common sense. 1) THEOSOPHY IS NOT A RELIGION. 2) THEOSOPHY IS NOT A RELIGION. 3) THEOSOPHY IS NOT A RELIGION. At most, you could say that it is a religious philosophy, or, better, a methodology for determining one's own religious belief. Certainly there are some who turn certain Theosohpical writings into a religion (the Esoteric Section comes to mind immediately, and many of the offshoot groups, such as CUT, the offshoots of "I AM", etc.), but Theosophy itself is not one. If one REALLY has to make a capsule definition, then one can say that Theosophy is an attempt to discover the basic principles behind science, religion, and philosophy, and the Theosophical Societies are organizations where theosophists join, using certain writings from the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a base from which to start. Bart Lidofsky --- 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: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:26:12 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest:Maureen to MKR Dear MKR, You make some excellent points. I will keep my focus on freedom of thought and freedom of expression, and as you aptly express it, this is only possible in an unfettered and unfiltered and uncensored discussion. I have put the Krishnamurti on my reading list, and your pointer let me find this thought for the day, so it is quite true that you never know when a spark will create a fire. Here is their quote of the day: Daily Inspirations From Of The Goddess Ltd. "Recognizing there is a hidden spiritual treasure within the maze of every religion, the smart seeker will make use of the maps that have been drawn by great pathfinders. Treasure hunters would be foolish to burn down the library. " - Sam Keen - Hymns To An Unknown God Have a wonderful day. Maureen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 10:25:41 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: theos-l digest:Maureen to MKR Dear Maureen: Thanks for the feedback and the thoughtful quote. with cheers. mkr At 10:26 AM 12/03/1999 -0500, you wrote: Dear MKR, You make some excellent points. I will keep my focus on freedom of thought and freedom of expression, and as you aptly express it, this is only possible in an unfettered and unfiltered and uncensored discussion. >>>>clip<<<<<< From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 10:33:57 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all At 10:28 AM 12/03/1999 +0100, hesse600 wrote: >But theosophy is a kind of self-help thing (as I read >somewhere recently). It is perhaps one of the best ways of explaining theosophy. In the final analysis we want our own understanding first hand. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:22:44 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all Hello Alan, I took your recommendation and stopped by your site where I tapped into Theosophy Unvisited. It would seem that nothing has changed since 1930, which makes the points made by MKR become even more meaningful. His focus may also prove helpful to Randy, if I can be forgiven if this sounds like theobabble. My take on all that is that the intolerance is not so much for his content but in the way he delivers his message. The great thing about writing is that if gives you the opportunity to rethink your message, and unless he is trying to be deliberately provocative (and there are some who try to be) perhaps he would receive a kinder reception if he would put himself in the shoes of the intended recipient. (Randy, this is just an observation, not an invitation to debate) Anyhow, I enjoyed the visit to your site, and will look forward to more. J.J. van der Leeuw's lecture on "The Conflict in Theosophy" proved to be the teacher appearing when the student is ready, and especially pertinent with all the conflict lately on the list. I pulled out a couple of paragraphs that I thought were timely. "We show the truth of this each time we speak, as we so often do, of the "outside world". The words imply that we ourselves are inside something. Inside what? Inside something that keeps that "outside world" outside that same something! Inside a barrier which we have erected around us and by means of which we have shut out those who think differently. That barrier of elaborate beliefs and doctrines has so efficiently shut out the dreaded "outside world" that no fresh air from that world has succeeded in penetrating its inner fastnesses, and the Society has breathed for fifty years nothing but the atmosphere of its own thoughts and beliefs. At its meetings it was always theosophists who told other theosophists about the theosophical doctrines which they all knew already. The one thing that was prevented unanimously was the introduction of foreign ideas which might challenge or doubt the established doctrines. This exclusion of the outside world has been most manifest in the lodge life. It was in the snug and stuffy intimacy of lodge life that theosophical orthodoxy could breed; there, in a small circle of mediocre minds, all thinking and believing alike, a warm brotherliness could arise, uniting all in the delightful certainty of possessing the esoteric truth while the outside world lived on in darkness. On my last lecture tour I visited a lodge, the president of which told me that his lodge was "just one happy family." This roused my misgivings, for I know what such happy families are like. Then he continued saying that a few years back there had been a member who was always questioning and challenging everything, causing disturbance at their otherwise harmonious meetings. But now that member had left their lodge, and all was harmony again. He meant, of course, that the blissful drowsiness of their intellectual slumbers which had for a while been disturbed by the one member who happened to be alive had been re-established." Well, Alan, thanks again. Maureen "ambain" on 12/02/99 08:40:26 PM Please respond to "Theosophy Study List" To: "Theosophy Study List" cc: (bcc: Maureen T Fitzgerald/HLIFE) Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 3:15 PM > From: Maureen T Fitzgerald > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all > Good morning, > > Could anyone help me to determine if I joined this list in error? Sometimes I think we all did! I see you have bookmarked Blavatsky Net, which is a GOOD THING. You will find other links on my "Simply Occult" website http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ as well as some of the controversial, non party line material. Could be worth a bookmark or a blackmark ... please drop by and see what you think! On this list we often go off at a tangent, and sometimes get bogged down in seeming trivialities. In general, though, most of the longer term subscribers are well informed on theosophical matters, which can mean that we may not discuss what you are hoping to read, as we all know that most of the others are familiar with it all anyway. Soooo ... please hang around, and do the decent thing - ask the questions you are not expected to, and *never* seek to "conform" or be "politically correct." Sincerely, Alan Bain http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ ambain@ambain.screaming.net --- 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: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:51:32 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Some Responses This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF3DA6.45919EE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would like to make a few comments on the article WHAT I=20 OWE TO A BOOK by Captain P.G.B. Bowen in the latest issue Of Theosophy World. First of all, let me say that I too am a fan of G de Purucker. >>Nirvana is the apotheosis of consciousness...It is=20 absorption into absoluteness, or attainment of absolute=20 self-consciousness.>> Nirvana is spiritual consciousness, an "apotheosis" or=20 spiritualization. However, I don't see it as an absorption into the Absolute. Dzog Chen views nirvana as the polar opposite to samsara, and says that both are within maya. With this in mind, we can say that samsara is the region of planes below the Abyss, the lower four cosmic planes of Blavatsky's model, while nirvana is the region above, the three higher planes shown clearly in both CWL's and=20 Purucker's models. As far as I know, CWL is the only Theosophical writer after HPB to have made this same=20 distinction. G de Purucker points out that nirvana is a state of consciousness rather than a place, but it could be argued that samadhi is the state of consciousness when in nirvana. Anyway, the lowest plane, the physical, is a "place" and none of the others are a "place" anyway, so saying that nirvana is a general term for the highest three cosmic planes doesn't make it a "place" and doesn't conflict with Purucker. >>Now what does this "eternal, ceaseless motion" mean.=20 It cannot mean purposeless motion round and round a barren=20 circle, therefore it must mean (there is no alternative)=20 "eternal, ceaseless PROGRESS." ... "ceaseless, eternal=20 PROGRESS WHICH IS ABSOLUTENESS ITSELF." >> Here, once again, is that same old business about eternal progress and to call evolution a circle is to say that it must be "barren" or meaningless. This just ain't so. Yes, there is an alternative. However, it goes beyond human logic -- which is what insists on there being "progress" or continuous evolution. The human mind has a problem with millions of years of evolution, unless it can find a purpose to it that it can understand and appreciate. Such as the idea of "progress." The idea of evolutionary progress is pure maya. All of this evolution and progress that we are talking about takes place in samsara. Its all a=20 dream. Progress is an illusion. We are already perfect and spiritual and complete. Let me just quote from another essay in Theos World,=20 SPIRIT IN CRISIS: THE BOUNDLESS AND THE SELF=20 by H. Oosterink, "Our life is a pilgrimage, our past extends into=20 infinity and there never was a time when we were not."=20 This quote calls the whole notion of evolution And "progress" into serious question. If we just use a little logic and common sense, we would see that there can be no "evolution" in any real sense if we have already been existing=20 for an infinity into the past (no beginning implies a non-linear manifestation). The Theosophical notion that we are slowly evolving in this=20 manvantara to obtain self-consciousness is pure=20 mayavic illusion in the sense that the spiritual=20 spark within each of us is already self-conscious. Progress and evolution have a relative reality, But not an absolute reality. >>"Desire the PATH, not the end of the Path." The goal is PROGRESS, not the state=20 of having progressed!>> While I agree with the first sentence, I can't agree with the second. The end of the path, so to speak, is our Original Face, which is right in front of us -- we already have it. Progress and treading the path are not only desired, but are really all we in samsara can do. DT Suzuki, I think, once called this the Ultimate Joke -- that we tread an endless path only to discover that the end was with us all the time and that the path itself is an illusion. >>One must have some COMPREHENSIVE view of THE=20 SECRET DOCTRINE before one can venture to criticize=20 a work like FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY.>> This sound a lot like something Dallas would say, and I find it very objectionable. Basically, because only HPB and the Masters have such a comprehensive view,=20 this tells us that no one on Earth other than a Master is qualified to criticize a book. Oh please... =20 >>it has revealed to me that there is in existence a=20 genuine Esoteric School in which the Spirit of the=20 Masters' teachings survives. Therefore I need no longer=20 be a wanderer in the Wilderness.>> The " genuine Esoteric School" is the Brotherhood of Compassion as defined by Purucker and all human organizations are just that -- human organizations. If we take the Theosophical "teachings" as given to us as=20 truth itself, then we will indeed be a wanderer in the=20 wilderness, no different than anyone else. Those who think that written words are "truth" are the same as those who mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself -- an old Zen phrase that still holds today. Just some thoughts. Jerry S. Maureen writes, << OK, now my dilemna.... Subsequent postings are=20 leading me to believe the list may perhaps be more=20 a forum for ego bashing than for exploring higher=20 ideals.>> You are new, and we have discussed this same problem ad nauseum on this list for several years. So, I will try to respond as briefly as possible: 1. You can't have normal people discussing something as important as their world view or belief system without a lot of conflict and squabbles. Mostly this comes from semantics problems inherent in a network=20 where we do not see or even know each other except through our posts. But some is caused by legitimate=20 differences over interpretation, and we often simply=20 have to agree to disagree. 2. Theosophy teaches that the personal ego is an illusion in agreement with Buddhism. Working with others on a list such as this is an opportunity to see how you can handle ego-bashing. Do you respond with more ego-bashing in turn, or do you respond with patience and compassion? Its all up to each of us how to do it, but I have discovered that lists such as this one present a serious challenge to the ego, who usually likes to think itself "right" and others "wrong." Those who have frail egos will usually leave the list. Those who can laugh at what life brings on, and who have teflon egos (a desirable characteristic) will usually stick it out=20 and grow from it. =20 3. There is no "Theosophy" per se that we can all agree with. HPB and other writer's works are all subject to interpretation. Thus we on this Theosophical list have yet to agree on what Theosophy is, let alone how to promote it. This has its advantages. For one thing, your interpretation is just as good and valid as mine or anyone else's. 4. This list contains folks from newbies to very advanced. It is difficult to discuss things that will appeal to everyone. The newbies will not understand and feel left out while the advanced will become bored. The solution is to have lots of threads running, and to jump in where you want and to ignore those you don't care for. << How could it possibly matter at all if someone=20 gets their academic degree at 35??>> It doesn't. I got my Masters at 49 and my two PhDs only a few years ago (I am 57). Don't let=20 this kind of small-talk disarm you. Do what I like to do, and simply ignore what you don't like while chiming in with what you do like. The truly wonderful aspect of Theosophy is that there is no "guru" who knows it all, and that it has a large umbrella to keep many of us in out of the rain who otherwise would be at each other's throats (so to speak...). Hope this helps. Jerry S. Dallas writes: << You have to understand that students of=20 Theosophy are quite ordinary people who have=20 seized an aspect of truth that is now working in and through their minds.>> Speak for yourself, Dallas. :) << I mean books like THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY by Mme. Blavatsky, or THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY by=20 Wm. Q. Judge., which we all ought to have=20 familiarized ourselves with. Then we could talk about the principles laid out there, and=20 not waste so much time on "far-out" ideas and=20 wild opinions.>> Dallas, the fact is that we have all doubtless read and re-read these books. Judge himself declared that Theosophy was like an ocean being deep at the center and shallow at the shores. IMHO both books you quote above are discussions of the shoreline of Theosophy. They are meant for newbies, and are excellent for that purpose. They are, however, totally useless (and downright misleading) for anyone who wants to plumb the real depths, so to speak. Personally, I have been in Theosophy for almost 40 years, and am no longer interested or intrigued by the shallow waters that I studied so many years ago. If this list degenerates to discussions of Ocean and Key, then I will quit. Jerry S. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF3DA6.45919EE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would like to make a few comments on = the article=20 WHAT I
OWE TO A BOOK by Captain P.G.B. Bowen in the latest = issue
Of=20 Theosophy World.  First of all, let me say that I too
am a fan = of G de=20 Purucker.
 

>>Nirvana is the apotheosis = of=20 consciousness...It is
absorption into absoluteness, or attainment of = absolute
self-consciousness.>>
 
Nirvana is spiritual consciousness, an = "apotheosis"=20 or
spiritualization.  However, I don't see it as an = absorption
into=20 the Absolute. Dzog Chen views nirvana as the polar
opposite to = samsara, and=20 says that both are within maya.
With this in mind, we can say that = samsara is=20 the region
of planes below the Abyss, the lower four cosmic = planes
of=20 Blavatsky's model, while nirvana is the region above,
the three = higher planes=20 shown clearly in both CWL's and
Purucker's models. As far as I know, = CWL is=20 the only
Theosophical writer after HPB to have made this same=20
distinction.  G de Purucker points out that nirvana
is a = state of=20 consciousness rather than a place, but
it could be argued that = samadhi is the=20 state of
consciousness when in nirvana. Anyway, the lowest
plane, = the=20 physical, is a "place" and none of the
others are a "place" anyway, = so saying=20 that nirvana
is a general term for the highest three cosmic = planes
doesn't=20 make it a "place" and doesn't conflict with
Purucker.
 
 
 
>>Now what does this "eternal, = ceaseless=20 motion" mean.
It cannot mean purposeless motion round and round a = barren=20
circle, therefore it must mean (there is no alternative) =
"eternal,=20 ceaseless PROGRESS." ... "ceaseless, eternal
PROGRESS WHICH IS = ABSOLUTENESS=20 ITSELF." >>
 
Here, once again, is that same old = business=20 about
eternal progress and to call evolution a circle is
to say = that it=20 must be "barren" or meaningless.  This
just ain't so.  Yes, = there=20 is an alternative.  However,
it goes beyond human logic -- which = is what=20 insists
on there being "progress" or continuous evolution.
The = human mind=20 has a problem with millions of years
of evolution, unless it can find = a=20 purpose to it that
it can understand and appreciate. Such as the idea = of
"progress."  The idea of evolutionary progress is
pure = maya. All=20 of this evolution and progress that we
are talking about takes place = in=20 samsara. Its all a
dream. Progress is an illusion. We are already=20 perfect
and spiritual and complete.
 
Let me just quote from another essay in = Theos=20 World,
SPIRIT IN CRISIS: THE BOUNDLESS AND THE SELF
by H.=20 Oosterink,
 
"Our life is a pilgrimage, our past = extends into=20
infinity and there never was a time when we were not."
 
This quote calls the whole notion of=20 evolution
And "progress" into serious question.
If we just use a = little=20 logic and common sense,
we would see that there can be no "evolution" = in
any real sense if we have already been existing
for an = infinity into=20 the past (no beginning implies
a non-linear manifestation). The=20 Theosophical
notion that we are slowly evolving in this =
manvantara to=20 obtain self-consciousness is pure
mayavic illusion in the sense that = the=20 spiritual
spark within each of us is already = self-conscious.
Progress and=20 evolution have a relative reality,
But not an absolute = reality.
 

>>"Desire the PATH, not the = end of=20 the
Path." The goal is PROGRESS, not the state
of having=20 progressed!>>
 
While I agree with the first sentence, = I=20 can't
agree with the second.  The end of the path, so
to = speak, is=20 our Original Face, which is right
in front of us -- we already have = it. =20 Progress
and treading the path are not only desired, but
are = really all we=20 in samsara can do.  DT Suzuki,
I think, once called this the = Ultimate=20 Joke --
that we tread an endless path only to discover
that the = end was=20 with us all the time and that the
path itself is an = illusion.
 
 
 
>>One must have some = COMPREHENSIVE view of=20 THE
SECRET DOCTRINE before one can venture to criticize
a work = like=20 FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY.>>
 
This sound a lot like something Dallas = would=20 say,
and I find it very objectionable.  Basically, = because
only HPB=20 and the Masters have such a comprehensive view,
this tells us that = no one on=20 Earth other than a Master
is qualified to criticize a book. Oh=20 please... 
 
 
 
>>it has revealed to me that = there is in=20 existence a
genuine Esoteric School in which the Spirit of the =
Masters'=20 teachings survives. Therefore I need no longer
be a wanderer in the=20 Wilderness.>>
 
The " genuine Esoteric School" is the=20 Brotherhood
of Compassion as defined by Purucker and all=20 human
organizations are just that -- human organizations. If
we = take the=20 Theosophical "teachings" as given to us as
truth itself, then we = will indeed=20 be a wanderer in the
wilderness, no different than anyone else. = Those=20 who
think that written words are "truth" are the same
as those who = mistake=20 the finger pointing at the moon
for the moon itself -- an old Zen = phrase that=20 still
holds today.
 
Just some thoughts.
 
Jerry S.
 
 
 

Maureen writes,
<< OK, now = my=20 dilemna....  Subsequent postings are
leading me to believe the = list may=20 perhaps be more
a forum for ego bashing than for exploring higher=20
ideals.>>
 
You are new, and we have discussed this = same=20 problem
ad nauseum on this list for several years. So, I will
try = to=20 respond as briefly as possible:
 
1.  You can't have normal people = discussing=20 something
as important as their world view or belief = system
without a lot=20 of conflict and squabbles.  Mostly this
comes from semantics = problems=20 inherent in a network
where we do not see or even know each other=20 except
through our posts. But some is caused by legitimate =
differences=20 over interpretation, and we often simply
have to agree to=20 disagree.
 
2.  Theosophy teaches that the = personal ego is=20 an
illusion in agreement with Buddhism.  Working with
others = on a=20 list such as this is an opportunity
to see how you can handle=20 ego-bashing.  Do you respond
with more ego-bashing in turn, or = do you=20 respond
with patience and compassion?  Its all up to each
of = us how=20 to do it, but I have discovered that lists
such as this one present a = serious=20 challenge to the
ego, who usually likes to think itself "right" = and
others=20 "wrong."  Those who have frail egos will
usually leave the = list. =20 Those who can laugh at
what life brings on, and who have teflon egos=20 (a
desirable characteristic) will usually stick it out
and grow = from=20 it. 
 
3.  There is no "Theosophy" per se = that we=20 can
all agree with. HPB and other writer's works
are all subject = to=20 interpretation. Thus we on this
Theosophical list have yet to agree = on=20 what
Theosophy is, let alone how to promote it.  This
has its = advantages.  For one thing, your interpretation
is just as good = and=20 valid as mine or anyone else's.
 
4. This list contains folks from = newbies to=20 very
advanced. It is difficult to discuss things that
will appeal = to=20 everyone.  The newbies will not
understand and feel left out = while the=20 advanced
will become bored.  The solution is to have lots
of = threads=20 running, and to jump in where you want
and to ignore those you don't = care=20 for.
 

<< How could it possibly = matter at all if=20 someone
gets their academic degree at 35??>>
 
It doesn't.  I got my Masters at = 49 and my=20 two
PhDs only a few years ago (I am 57). Don't let
this kind of=20 small-talk disarm you. Do
what I like to do, and simply ignore what = you=20 don't
like while chiming in with what you do like.
 
The truly wonderful aspect of Theosophy = is=20 that
there is no "guru" who knows it all, and that
it has a large = umbrella=20 to keep many of us in
out of the rain who otherwise would be at=20 each
other's throats (so to speak...).
 
Hope this helps.
 
Jerry S.
 
 
 
Dallas writes:
<< You have to = understand=20 that students of
Theosophy are quite ordinary people who have =
seized an=20 aspect of truth that is now
working in and through their=20 minds.>>
 
Speak for yourself, Dallas. = :)
 

<< I mean books like THE KEY = TO THEOSOPHY=20 by
Mme. Blavatsky, or THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY by
Wm. Q. Judge., = which we=20 all ought to have
familiarized ourselves with.  Then we = could
talk=20 about the principles laid out there, and
not waste so much time on = "far-out"=20 ideas and
wild opinions.>>
 
Dallas, the fact is that we have all=20 doubtless
read and re-read these books.  Judge = himself
declared that=20 Theosophy was like an ocean
being deep at the center and shallow at=20 the
shores.  IMHO both books you quote above are
discussions = of the=20 shoreline of Theosophy. They
are meant for newbies, and are excellent = for
that purpose.  They are, however, totally useless
(and = downright=20 misleading) for anyone who wants
to plumb the real depths, so to=20 speak.
Personally, I have been in Theosophy for almost
40 years, = and am no=20 longer interested or
intrigued by the shallow waters that I = studied
so=20 many years ago. If this list degenerates to
discussions of Ocean and = Key,=20 then I will quit.
 
Jerry S.
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF3DA6.45919EE0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:26:29 EST From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 30, 1999 In a message dated 12/1/1999 12:02:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, Katinka writes: << H.P. Blavatsky and the Secret Doctrine, edited by Virginia Hanson. This is a quest book, second edition, 1988, ISBN: 0-8356-0630-9 >> Hey, she was my grandmother! Glad to see the stuff is still being noticed. Christine (Hanson) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 16:01:49 PST From: b.a.williams@excite.com Subject: Dec 1 - 2 upsets Dear all, Thanks to MKR and Maureen I hope we are back on track again. Yes Maureen we have our bad days but I hope this will soon be over (hopefully as of today Dec 3rd). We all have so much to learn. As MKR says we have all learned things in the past 3 years that has taken most of us all our lives. Onward and upward folks, let the enlightening continue! Best regards to all, 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, 4 Dec 1999 00:24:05 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Friday, December 03, 1999 6:22 PM > From: Maureen T Fitzgerald > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all > Hello Alan, > I enjoyed the visit to your site, and will look forward to more. J.J. > van der Leeuw's lecture on "The Conflict in Theosophy" proved to be the teacher > appearing when the student is ready, and especially pertinent with all the > conflict lately on the list. I pulled out a couple of paragraphs that I thought > were timely. I'm pleased that your visit was useful - may you have many more of them! Alan :0) P.S. to Kym - so what's wrong with smiley faces? Huh? Huh? http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 18:24:31 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: December 02, 1999 - Grigor Grigor wrote: >Obviously very fortunate, huh? Because state told comrade Grigor he go >to school far from family, comrade Grigor miss birth and death of eldest >daughter. Because state told comrade physicist Grigor he would not leave >project to tend dying wife until project complete, comrade Grigor got to >visit grave 2 years after she >gone. So then comrade Grigor then use state to go places to study forbidden >subjects under cover of consulting on state project. I am sincerely saddened to hear that you have lost both your wife and daughter - two of the hardest losses a person can face. You have definitely been tried in this life and have endured and survived great pain. No, I've never thought that someone would NOT want a degree; so you've opened my eyes there. Thank you for sharing and for the lesson. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 02:07:20 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Chakras This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BF3DFC.4C6B0C00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear List, I believe Lyris accepts attachments. If so, this one will be very useful to readers who can retrieve them. If this makes a mess of things, let me know and I won't do it again! Alan ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BF3DFC.4C6B0C00 Content-Type: text/html; name="Article The Yogic Chakra System.htm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Article The Yogic Chakra System.htm" Article: The Yogic Chakra System

Article | Document=20 Library | SMN Home=20 Page | Email the=20 Editor |

The Yogic Chakra System

Serena M. Roney - Dougal, Ph.D.,

Psi Research Centre,

Glastonbury, Somerset, Britain.

Introduction

Recent literature research by myself into the pineal gland as the = physical=20 locus of ajna chakra, conceived in yogic tradition as being the psychic = centre=20 of our being, is extended here to explore the yogic idea of ajna chakra = as the=20 command chakra, in command over all the other chakra centres. I have = come across=20 multiple references to the importance of the major pineal neurohormone,=20 melatonin, as the off-switch for the endocrine glands' output of = hormones. I am=20 therefore proposing that the endocrine system is the physical aspect of = the=20 yogic spiritual tradition of the chakras. (I must stress that what = follows is=20 still in a speculative and exploratory stage).

The Yogic Chakra System

The yogic chakra system, as explained by Swami Satyananda Saraswati = (1972a=20 & b), consists of seven chakras which are normally depicted as a = sort of=20 "spinal column" with three channels called nadis (ida, pingala and = sushumna)=20 which interweave, the crossing-points being the sites of the chakras. In = western=20 terms this can be readily understood as the central nervous system = (sushumna) in=20 the spinal cord around which, on either side, runs the autonomic nervous = system=20 which has two aspects, the parasympathetic which can be correlated with = ida, and=20 the sympathetic with pingala. Where these two cross they form plexuses, = or=20 nodes, from which nerves go out to, for example, the heart, lungs, = diaphragm,=20 digestive system and the endocrine organs.

These chakras are considered to be important points for the = channelling of=20 consciousness, energy nodes linking the physical with the spiritual. = They have=20 been adopted quite widely into popular usage in the West, partly through = the=20 Theosophists at the turn of the century, and partly because of the = intense=20 interest in Eastern spirituality birthed during the sixties. There are = at=20 present many differing correspondences and attributes linked to them and = therefore this review is presented with the aim of achieving greater = clarity.=20

The Pineal Gland: Ajna Chakra

As a parapsychologist I am interested in the Indian lore surrounding = ajna=20 chakra which is held to be the psychic centre. This corresponds very = closely=20 with our Western lore which considers the pineal gland to be the "third = eye" or=20 the "seat of the soul." For example, Swami Satyananda (1972a) states = that: "The=20 name Ajna comes from the root "to know" and "to obey and to follow". = Literally=20 the word Ajna means "command" . . . . Yogis, who are scientists of the = subtle=20 mind, have spoken of telepathy as a "siddhi", a psychic power for = thought=20 communication and clair-audience etc. The medium of such siddhis is Ajna = chakra,=20 and its physical terminus is the pineal gland." I have found that his = concept of=20 the pineal gland as the psychic chakra and as the command chakra has a = sound=20 psychoneuroendocrinological basis.

The Psychic Chakra: Pinoline

There is a large body of neurochemical and anthropological evidence = which=20 suggests that, as well as melatonin, the pineal gland produces a = neuro-modulator=20 (pinoline) that may enhance a psi-conducive state of consciousness. For = full=20 details of this research please see Roney-Dougal (1989, 1991, 1993). In = brief,=20 the pineal gland has been found to synthesise various beta-carbolines = and=20 peptides, and to contain enzymes that produce psychoactive compounds = such as=20 5-methoxy dimethyltryptamine (5MeODMT). These have wide-ranging effects=20 throughout our brain and body, affecting the gonads, adrenals, pancreas, = thyroid, and other emotional and endocrine activities.

Of most interest here are the neuromodulators called beta-carbolines = which=20 are MAO inhibitors that prevent, amongst other effects, the breakdown of = serotonin. This results in an accumulation of physiologically active = amines=20 within the neuronal synapses which may lead to hallucinations, = depression or=20 mania depending on the amines being affected (Strassman, 1990). The = pineal=20 contains the greatest concentration of serotonin in the brain. There is = a=20 suggestion that it is the action of the pineal beta-carbolines, in = particular=20 6-Methoxytetrahydro-betacarboline (6MeOTHBC, now being called pinoline), = on=20 serotonin that triggers dreaming (Callaway, 1988). Spontaneous case = collection=20 studies (e.g. Rhine, 1969) have found that most (more than 60%) = spontaneous psi=20 experiences occur during the sleeping and dreaming state of = consciousness, which=20 suggests that the dream state is a state of consciousness whereby we are = most=20 likely to have psi expereinces, and pinoline is suggested to be the=20 neurochemical that triggers this particular state of consiousness.

Anthropological data suggest that pinoline is psi-conducive because = its=20 chemical structure is very similar to a naturally occurring group of = chemicals=20 called harmala alkaloids which occur in an Amazonian vine, = Banisteriopsis caapi,=20 used by Amazonian tribes for psychic purposes (Roney - Dougal, 1986 = & 1989).=20 The Amazon has a huge variety of psychotropic plants, yet all the tribes = throughout that vast area use this same vine mixed with Psychotria = viridis (Nai=20 kawa) which contains dimethyltryptamine (DMT) (Ott, 1993 & 1994), = for=20 healing, out-of-body experiences, clairvoyance and precognition. It is=20 traditionally used only when psi experiences are desired, though = nowadays it is=20 also used for general initiatory purposes. Thus the tribal people make a = mixture=20 of harmala alkaloids and DMT which mimics the tryptamine-pinoline = mixture=20 ascribed to the night time pineal gland. My speculation is that when the = pineal=20 gland produces pinoline we are more likely to enter an altered state of=20 consciousness which is both dreamlike and psi-conducive.

Thus, the anthropological evidence suggests that harmala alkaloids = mixed with=20 DMT stimulate a psi-conducive state of consciousness; the neurochemical = evidence=20 suggests that the harmala alkaloids are an analogue of pinoline which is = produced in the pineal gland, and which is involved in the dream state = of=20 consciousness.

The Command Chakra: Melatonin

However, the yogic lore not only equates ajna chakra with the psychic = centre=20 of our being, but also as the command chakra. For an understanding of = the pineal=20 gland as command chakra we have to look to its main action which is the=20 production of the neurohormone melatonin which affects both the brain = and the=20 body. The pineal works, together with the pituitary, through the = hypothalamus=20 controlling the endocrine system. The most important function of = melatonin is=20 maintaining the biological clock, both on a daily basis according to the = sun, on=20 an annual basis according to length of day, and on a lunar basis as = well. The=20 circadian regulation is achieved through the actions of serotonin and = melatonin.=20 Serotonin is made during the day and melatonin at night. Melatonin = production is=20 determined primarily by neural activity from the hypothalamic = suprachiasmic=20 nucleus (SCN) and there is a feedback relationship with the endocrine = glands.=20 Gonadal steroids, pituitary gonadotrophins, thyroxine, prolactin and the = adrenal=20 hormones intervene in the mechanisms governing melatonin synthesis.

The most important neuronal function of melatonin is as a sleep ind = sucer. It=20 has been found to ease insomnia because it causes drowsiness, and also = to combat=20 jet lag (Cowley, 1995). Melatonin also modulates release of stress = hormones,=20 thereby controlling heart attacks and stomach ulcers. Recent research = suggests=20 that melatonin is involved in the aging process (Maestroni et al, 1989). = Touitou=20 et al (1989) found that we make half as much melatonin by age 45 as we = do when=20 children. It also helps to prevent pregnancy because of its interaction = with the=20 reproductive system as a hormone inhibitor. This inhibitory action means = that=20 melatonin controls puberty; without it we would be sexually active at 4 = - 5=20 years old.

Thus melatonin functions to affect the body in ways which are = traditionally=20 connected with yogis: yogis are said to live for many years longer than = normal;=20 are considered to be relaxed and stress-free people; to be able to = control many=20 of their physical functions, such as heart rate, circadian rhythm and = metabolic=20 rate; celibacy is linked to the religious life, and within yoga there is = also=20 the tantric path; and they are considered to enjoy excellent health.

Through the light sensitivity of the pineal gland and its primary = role within=20 the biological clock system, regulating the rise and fall of the = metabolic=20 system and switching off the endocrine glands, the concept of the pineal = as the=20 command chakra is certainly worthy of consideration.

The Thyroid Gland: Vishuddhi Chakra

According to Satyananda (1972b), vishuddhi chakra is located in the = throat=20 and is the centre of "the nectar of immortality." It is connected with = the sense=20 of hearing and thus with the ears, and of course with the vocal cords = and with=20 self-expression.

The thyroid makes thyroxine which regulates the metabolic rate of the = body,=20 i.e., it controls how fast the body runs: an overactive thyroid means = that the=20 heart beats fast, one becomes thin, sexual desire increases, and the = mind works=20 overtime; whilst an underactive thyroid has the opposite effect.=20 Neurochemically, the thyroid is under the inhibitory control of the = pineal=20 gland, removal of the pineal resulting in thyroid enlargement and = increased=20 hormonal secretion rate. The pineal is also under feedback control by = the glands=20 which it influences. Pineal cells respond to thyroxine, the response = being=20 particularly strong at night.

Thyrotropin (TSH) is, together with melatonin and the adrenals, = involved in=20 coping with long term stress. Circadian changes in cortisol levels = follow an=20 opposite pattern to those of TSH (Johnson, 1982). Stress is intimately = connected=20 with metabolic rate, heart rate, an overactive mind, and also with age = as an=20 older person cannot cope with stress as well as a younger person. Long = term=20 stress is very different from short term stress (which is dealt with by = the=20 adrenals) and it is interesting that ajna, vishuddhi and manipura are = all=20 concerned with stress - which also affects the heart .

The Heart Centre: Anahata chakra

According to Satyananda, anahata chakra is concerned with will and = with=20 feeling, touch, the skin especially the hands, manifesting in such arts = as=20 painting, poetry and music, which are aspects of heart.

As a result of the writings by Theosophists, many people consider = that=20 anahata chakra is connected with the thymus gland, which physiologically = is most=20 active in children and is concerned with the immune system. Recent = research=20 suggests that there is a connection between the pineal gland and the = thymus=20 because of its interaction with the immune system. Functional = connections=20 between the immune and the neuroendocrine systems are being increasingly = recognized. Thus stressful effects, distress, from psychological or=20 neuro-endocrinological causes may adversely affect the immune system and = vice=20 versa.

Circadian synthesis and release of melatonin exerts an important=20 immunomodulatory role, in that it appears to be a physiological = up-regulator of=20 the immune system and to operate via the endogenous opioid system (EOS) = on=20 antigen activated cells. Thus, it is possible to see melatonin as an = anti-stress=20 hormone since melatonin reverses the depression of antibody production = induced=20 by corticosterone in drinking water. Failure to cope with distress may = be=20 dependent on an exhausted EOS and melatonin may restore the EOS.

So there is some connection between the pineal and the thymus, and = yet whilst=20 there is a link between keeping healthy and the normal concept of the = emotional=20 aspect of heart in our culture, there is another hormone connected with = this=20 region in humans which expresses heart emotion much more strongly: the = hormone=20 prolactin which is connected with lactation in the breasts, and with = mood swings=20 in both men and women.

Melatonin is the off-switch for prolactin production. Prolactin is = made by=20 the pituitary, is involved with pregnancy and stimulates lactation, and = is=20 implicated in manic-depression. Most of the research with prolactin has = been=20 with animals, but there has been some research with humans showing once = again=20 the link with the pineal gland.

Prolactin secretion in women is controlled by the ovarian steroids, = its level=20 being modified by the fluctuating oestradiol levels of the menstrual = cycle.=20 Oestrogens stimulate prolactin secretion, so women have higher basal = levels,=20 particularly during reproductive years and pregnancy. There is a close = parallel=20 between plasma oestradiol and prolactin. Webley (1988) =C4 found that, = like=20 melatonin, prolactin shows a night time peak around 3 - 4.00 am and its=20 concentration increases with sleep. There is a diurnal rhythm in = sensitivity to=20 melatonin: melatonin given in the morning stimulates a constant increase = in=20 prolactin concentration across the sampling period, whereas in the = evening a=20 peak in prolactin was evident after 90 -120 mins. Women have higher=20 sleep-related prolactin elevations.

This leads to the conclusion that it is possible that melatonin may = control=20 directly the nocturnal increase in prolactin . Further hypersecretion of = prolactin and the related pituitary hormones, luteinising hormone (LH) = and human=20 growth hormone (HGH) may be associated with affective (mood) disorders = such as=20 manic depression and recurrent depression - here we see clearly the link = between=20 our emotional, physical and psychological states of being.

I am suggesting that the hormones are the physical aspect of the = chakras.=20 Every hormone has a physical component which affects the workings of the = body.=20 They also have an emotional component, and I am suggesting that = prolactin is the=20 hormone of the emotion we associate with the heart chakra. Prolactin is = made in=20 men as well as women and children, for all of our lives, and has = functions other=20 than the primary one of lactation. It is intimately connected with = melatonin and=20 hence ajna chakra, with TRH and hence with vishuddhi chakra, with=20 glucocorticoids and our stress levels and with oestrogen and hence = female=20 sexuality.

The Solar Plexus: Manipura Chakra

Satyananda says that manipura chakra is located behind the navel and = causes=20 old age, decay and emaciation by burning up the nectar of immortality. = It is=20 also connected with the sense of sight and the eyes and it is the organ = of=20 action and hence is also connected with walking, the legs and the feet. = The=20 solar plexus is the locus for our "gut feelings" about people and = situations,=20 and is connected with digestion and assimilation. It has also been = linked with=20 ambition, will, self-assertion, vital energy, power struggles, anger and = jealousy. Manipura is the uppermost of the "earthly" or base chakras. =

There are two possible endocrine organs in the gut which could be = linked with=20 manipura: the pancreas and the adrenals:

The adrenals are the endocrine glands I consider are most strongly = related to=20 manipura. Most people know these as the "fight or flight" glands in that = adrenaline is produced when we are in a str Wessful situation and we = burn up our=20 body energy in order to cope with a crisis; adrenaline is the hormone of = action.=20 We feel the fire in our belly.

The pineal is connected with the adrenals, and in particular with = adrenaline=20 and the corticosteroids in many ways. The adrenals comprise two parts: = the=20 cortex and the medulla. The cortex secretes glucocorticoids such as=20 corticosterone, on a rhythmic light-dark cycle linked with hormones from = the=20 pituitary and the hypothalamus. The glucocorticoids are involved with = sugar=20 metabolism and as stress protectors; it also secretes mineralocorticoids = which=20 are involved in mineral balance, and also anxiety; and also the = androgenic=20 steroids which include testosterone, are involved in body building and = anger,=20 and there is a steroid surge in the morning that helps us wake up. The = adrenal=20 medulla secretes adren =E1aline. The pineal inhibits release of all of = these=20 hormones, thus controlling our physical level of immediate short-term=20 stress.

Some people consider that the pancreas, which is involved in = digestion and=20 the input of energy and energy maintenance (the Islets of Langerhans = within the=20 pancreas make insulin, a glucose using hormone, and glucagon, a glucose = saving=20 hormone), is the endocrine organ of manipura chakra. This would make = very good=20 sense in terms of our Western concept of the solar plexus, and is = certainly to=20 be considered. Davidson (1989) mentions insulin and glucagon in this = connection=20 as the food factory of the body, that which gives us our physical = energy.

However, there is still a connection with the adrenals because the = pancreas=20 is turned off by adrenaline and noradrenaline, and adrenaline regulates = the=20 uptake of glucose. Therefore the pancreas is connected with the pineal = via the=20 adrenals.

The Root of the Spinal Cord: Swadhistana Chakra

Swami Satyananda states that swadhistana is connected with all "the = phases of=20 the unconscious", the subliminal mind (Satyananda, 1972b). Traditionally = it has=20 also been linked with sexuality, sensory pleasure, liquid, taste, = procreation=20 and self-indulgence.

I think that swadhistana is connected with the secondary sexual=20 characteristics aspect of sexuality, with follicle stimulating hormone = and=20 luteinising hormone (LH), oestrogen and androsterones as the hormones of = this=20 chakra. These hormones are central to the development of the secondary = sexual=20 characteristics - they define our gender, our selves as sexual people, = the pitch=20 of our voice, the shape and strength of our body, whether or not we have = a=20 beard, and the differing emotional characteristics of men and women.

There is a strong link between the pineal gland and the generative = aspect of=20 sexuality. Melatonin levels in the mother are exceptionally high during=20 pregnancy reaching a peak at birth. The diurnal rise in plasma melatonin = appears=20 enhanced as pregnancy progresses, supporting the idea of a role for the = maternal=20 pineal in entraining foetal body rhythms (Reppert, 1988).

Thus the connection between the pineal gland and the gonadal system = is=20 apparent in connection with pregnancy and birth. The glandular = connection of=20 swadhistana is with the gonads and related systems so that to some = extent it=20 overlaps with muladhara chakra, and so I look to other aspects of our = sexuality=20 - puberty and the menstrual cycle - in the discussion of muladhara.

The Coccygeal Plexus: Muladhara Chakra

According to Satyananda, muladhara chakra is the root chakra, = intimately=20 connected in the male with the testes, and in the female with the = cervix, and=20 with the perineum and anus for both sexes. This chakra is connected with = the=20 sense of smell, the nose and the earth element, with passion, the animal = instincts, anger, greed, excretory functions, secretory and sexual = aspects,=20 attachment, material security, survival and materialism. It is the seat = of=20 kundalini, and has obvious and direct connections with sexual energy in = its most=20 earthy aspect. Satyananda considers that there is a special connection = between=20 ajna chakra and muladhara, and there are certainly extensive connections = between=20 the pineal gland and the gonads. Therefore I link this chakra with = testosterone=20 in men which is primarily made by the testes (Wilson & Foster, = 1992), and=20 with the menstrual cycle in women.

The pineal synthesises antigonadotropic peptides. Melatonin inhibits = gonadal=20 development in children and regulates the onset of sexuality at puberty = for=20 humans. There is a fall in plasma melatonin associated with puberty and = the=20 pineal normally becomes calcified then (Ng & Wong, 1986; Vaughan = &=20 Reiter, 1986). In their turn the gonadal hormones, inhibit the = biosynthesis of=20 the pineal hormone melatonin, and prolactin secretion is inhibited by = ovarian=20 steroids, suggesting that there is a physical as well as spiritual, = mental and=20 emotional links between mind, heart and sex.

The pineal nighttime melatonin concentration decreases progressively = during=20 the menstural cycle. Melatonin secretion is significantly higher during = the late=20 luteal phase than during the preovulatory phase and melatonin levels = fall before=20 ovulation. The onset of the LH surge is in the early morning when = melatonin=20 levels are falling (Brzezinski & Wurtman, 1988). Those using the=20 contraceptive pill have less melatonin since there is a positive = relationship=20 between melatonin and progesterone. Continuous light, which causes a = decrease in=20 melatonin production, also causes a decrease in ovarian melatonin = concentration,=20 whilst injections of melatonin result in smaller testes.

I consider that these studies linking the pineal gland with the = gonadal=20 endocrines aids understanding of the lore surrounding sexuality and = psychic=20 functioning. Children and celibates were almost universally those chosen = as=20 temple seers and prophets, the oracle at Delphi being an excellent = example of=20 this. Some research suggests that children are more psychic when they = are=20 younger, and much of the research into poltergeists suggests that = adolescents=20 are often the focus for this wild uncontrolled psychokinetic storm.

Conclusions

Our knowledge of the endocrine system, the chemistry of our body-mind = and=20 emotional system, is still meagre. However, partial as our knowledge may = be, it=20 does fit together with what the yogis, "scientists of the subtle mind," = tell us=20 about the yogic chakra system. Our disciplines, apparently so different = in=20 language and method, appear to corroborate each other. I am suggesting = that the=20 pineal gland is the physical aspect of ajna chakra; the thyroid of = vishuddhi;=20 the breasts of anahata; the adrenals of manipura; and the gonads of = swadhistana=20 and muladhara. These endocrine glands are all positioned at the = traditional=20 points of the chakras and their functions are remarkably equivalent to = the=20 traditional descriptions of the chakra functions.

There are a bewildering number of versions of the yogic chakra = system.=20 Perhaps by linking this spiritual system with Western = psychoneuroendocrinology=20 we can create a deeper understanding of the links between mind, body and = spirit=20 for the benefit of all of us.

References

Brzezinski, A. & Wurtman, R.J. (1988). The Pineal Gland: Its = possible=20 roles in human reproduction. Obstetrical & Gynaecological Survey, 43 = (4),=20 197 - 207.

Callaway, J.C. (1988). "A proposed mechanism for the visions of dream = sleep,"=20 Medical Hypotheses, 26, 119 - 124.

Cowley, G. (1995). Melatonin, Newsweek, Aug.7, 46 - 49

Davidson, J. (1989). Subtle Biology: The Web of Life, J. Davidson,=20 Cambridge.

Johnson, L.Y (1982). The Pineal as a modulator of the Adrenal and = Thyroid=20 Axes. In Reiter, R.J., The Pineal Gland, Vol. III: Extra-reproductive = Effects.=20 C.R.C. Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

Maestroni, G.J.M. et al (1989). Pineal Melatonin, its fundamental=20 immunoregulatory role in aging and cancer. Annals New York Academy of = Sciences,=20 140 - 148.

Ng, T.B. & Wong, C.M. (1986). Pineal lipid metabolism, J. Pineal = Res., 3,=20 55-66.

Ott, J. (1993). Pharmacotheon: Entheogenic drugs, their plant sources = and=20 history, Natural Products Co., WA, USA.

Ott, J. (1994). Ayahuasca Analogues: Pang=E6an Antheogens, Natural = Products=20 Co., WA, USA.

Reppert, S.M. et al. (1988). Maternal Communication of Circadian = Phase to the=20 Developing Mammal, Psychoneuroendocrinol., 13, 613-78.

Rhine, L.E. (1969). Case Study Review. J. Parapsychology, 33, 228 - = 266.

Roney - Dougal, S.M. (1986). Some speculations on a possible psychic = effect=20 of harmaline. In Weiner, D.H. & Radin, D.I. (eds.), Research in=20 Parapsychology 1985, Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ, p.120 - 123.

Roney - Dougal, S.M. (1989). Recent Findings relating to the possible = role of=20 the Pineal Gland in affecting Psychic Abilities. J. Soc. Psych. Res., = 56,=20 313-328.

Roney - Dougal, S.M. (1991). Where Science and Magic Meet, Element = Books,=20 Britain.

Roney - Dougal, S.M. (1993). Some Speculations on the Effect of = Geomagnetism=20 on the Pineal Gland, J. Soc. Psych. Res., 59, 1 - 15.

Satyananda, Swami Saraswati. (1972a). The Pineal Gland (Ajna Chakra). = Bihar=20 School of Yoga, Bihar, India.

Satyananda, Swami Saraswati. (1972b). Kundalini Yoga. Bihar School of = Yoga,=20 Bihar, India.

Strassman, R.J. (1990). The Pineal Gland: Current Evidence for its = Role in=20 Consciousness. In Lyttle, T. (ed.), Psychedelic Monographs and Essays. = Vol. 5.=20 PM&E Pub., Boynton Beach, Florida.

Touitou, Y. et al. (1984). Patterns of plasma melatonin with aging = and mental=20 condition: stability of nyctohemeral rhythms and differences in seasonal = variation. Acta Endocrinol, 106, 145-151.

Vaughan, G.M. & Reiter, R.J. (1986). Pineal dependence of the = Syrian=20 hamster's nocturnal serum melatonin surge, J. Pineal Res., 3, 9-14.

Webley, G.E. et al. (1988). Positive Relationship between the = nocturnal=20 concentration of melatonin and Prolactin, and a stimulation of Prolactin = after=20 Melatonin administration in Wilson, J.D. & Foster, D.W. (eds.) = (1992)=20 Williams Text book of Endocrinology, 8th ed., W.B. Saunders, USA.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to all those people who have helped me collect this = body of=20 knowledge, most particularly to Anne Silk for searching Medline; to Ian = Pearson=20 for correcting my errors in the first draft of this paper, for = assistance in the=20 details of the second draft, and for the gift of a valuable book; to = Elizabeth=20 Whitehouse for her eternal supply of interesting information and ideas; = to Ellis=20 Snitcher for sharing his expertise in neuroendocrinology with me.

 

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BF3DFC.4C6B0C00-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 22:53:15 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: What is Theosophy (was: Maureen to Bart) Maureen T Fitzgerald wrote: > > Thank you, Bart. I like the idea of employing this as a methodology, I think > that might take me where I want to go. And those certain writings you mention > are a good place for me to begin. Where would I find more info (are there > sites?) about offshoot groups. Believe it or not, one of the best summaries I ever found of the history of the Theosophical offshoots was from a Christian (!) website, giving the history of the (evil) New Age. It's http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/ChristNAM.html and if you kind of read around the prejudice, it's pretty accurate. > Or would that create more confusion than I could > handle with my "foundation" not quite in place? Well, it can get pretty confusing. And it doesn't cover the Judge/Tingley separation, nor does it cover the ULT. > When you wrote that Theosophy > is an attempt to discover the basic principles behind science, religion, and > philosophy, is that a tie-in to the principle of Karma? Other way around. > Is this cause and > effect, action-reaction, and if one can determine what action (maybe the wrong > word) creates what result, then one can make sense of things? This sounds like > it takes a lifetime to learn. You are being overly optimistic. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 23:20:43 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 03, 1999 Alan the Evil wrote: >P.S. to Kym - so what's wrong with smiley faces? Huh? Huh? Smiley faces give people too much information; thus taking away an opportunity for someone like me to see someone else get all wiggly. Ok, I admit it's cruel to purposely set a snare and I know I will suffer both immediate (list postings) and karmic consequences. But I am constantly torn between whether to have some selfish merriment or place a disarming smiley face on my post. Fun or smiley face? Fun or smiley face? Fun or smiley face? My mind races with indecision. . .. Which bring me to a sidenote: Folks, since I take the digest, can we (take note, Dallas) find it in our hearts NOT to include entire previous posts with our new post? It makes the digest a toilsome task to scan and read. But, who am I to ask non-snippers to snip while I remain a non-smiley-facer? Well. . .I just hope YOU people are more benevolent than me - get it? Love ya lots, Alan. Remember, you're still mine in the next life. Aren't you? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 14:20:09 -0800 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: 3 items added to BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm Three NEW items have been added to the archives: ** "Blavatsky and Her Followers" by William T. Brown [Reprinted from The Religio-Philosophical Journal (Chicago), July 23, 1887, pp. 7-8.] ** "My Experiences" by Franz Hartmann [Reprinted from The Theosophist (Adyar, Madras, India), Supplement, March 1884, pp. 52-53.] ** "More About the Theosophists: An Interview with Mdme. Blavatsky" [Reprinted from The Pall Mall Gazette (London), April 26, 1884, pp. 3-4.] Daniel H. Caldwell BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 19:10:02 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all At 01:22 PM 12/03/1999 -0500, Maureen T Fitzgerald Quoted: > That barrier of elaborate beliefs and doctrines has so efficiently shut out the dreaded "outside world" that no fresh air from that world has succeeded in penetrating its inner fastnesses, and the Society has breathed for fifty years nothing but the atmosphere of its own thoughts and beliefs. At its meetings it was always theosophists who told other theosophists about the theosophical doctrines which they all knew already. This exclusion of the outside world has been most manifest in the lodge life. It was in the snug and stuffy intimacy of lodge life that theosophical orthodoxy could breed; there, in a small circle of mediocre minds, all thinking and believing alike, a warm brotherliness could arise, uniting all in the delightful certainty of possessing the esoteric truth while the outside world lived on in darkness. MKR adds: Based on my personal experience, I can confirm that when one is in the snug unchallenging surrounding, it is *very* difficult to recognized this and break out of the shell and think independently and question any and every belief, however *sacred* it is considered by the majority. The further reinforcing mechanism is the interlocking membership of other organizations such as LCC, Co-Masonic, etc. where the hierarchical progress could depend on one not making *waves* or question beliefs considered *sacred*. With the Internet as the medium of exchange and communication, the independent investigation and thinking and questioning can proceed without interference from anyone. This is where an unmoderated list like theos-l plays a very important role. Some newbees may be interested in this. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 03:04:18 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 03, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Saturday, December 04, 1999 6:20 AM > From: > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 03, 1999 > Alan the Evil wrote: > > >P.S. to Kym - so what's wrong with smiley faces? Huh? Huh? ...and Kym answered: > Love ya lots, Alan. Remember, you're still mine in the next life. Aren't > you? It is indelibly marked in my next-life diary. I hope we like it ...... Alan the Evil ambain@ambain.screaming.net http://members.tripod.co.uk/ambain/SaintJust.HTM/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 00:29:20 EST From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 04, 1999 In a message dated 12/5/1999 12:01:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, Kym writes: << Folks, since I take the digest, can we (take note, Dallas) find it in our hearts NOT to include entire previous posts with our new post? It makes the digest a toilsome task to scan and read. >> I would second that, and add that lengthy posts also sometimes force the digest into "download" mode (in AOL, at least), instead of being able to read it more conveniently in the e-mail window. So one has to download it and then read it later, and sometimes one never gets around to reading it. If you've got an entire book to post, perhaps you could post it on a website and give us the URL? To soften this request, I shall resort to the use of a smiley-face (I have no shame...) :) Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 07:46:15 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest- Hi Katinka Katinka wrote- "And no, I do not think there is a list that does not have these problems. On the other hand: there are lodges that do not have these problems, but on the other hand also do not have the interesting benefits of this list. Hope this was of help." Yes, it was of help. I agree with you, the list is certainly not dull! Thanks again........... Maureen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 08:31:34 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: What is Theosophy (was: Maureen to Bart) > When you wrote that Theosophy > is an attempt to discover the basic principles behind science, religion, and > philosophy, is that a tie-in to the principle of Karma? Other way around. Hi Bart, I have bookmarked the earthlink site you recommended. Are you saying that Karma is ONE OF the basic principles behind science, religion and philosphy? Also, over the weekend I was listening to an interview of a science writer (Rick Weiss) for The Washington Post. One of the things he discussed was gene therapy, and the work scientists are doing now on altering chromosomes. Although he stressed that the purpose for this was to eliminate disease, as well as discovering and eliminating genes that cause aging, he did go so far as to say there also existed the potential to use this research to alter behavior. In other words, altering chromosomes to make one's behavior more socially acceptable. He also said that researchers were very much interested in focusing their studies on fetuses less than 14 days old. How does one balance scientific "progress" with individual personal belief (and destiny?) Maureen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 08:07:34 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: theos-l digest- Hi Katinka At 07:46 AM 12/06/1999 -0500, Maureen T Fitzgerald wrote: Katinka wrote- "And no, I do not think there is a list that does not have these problems. On the other hand: there are lodges that do not have these problems, but on the other hand also do not have the interesting benefits of this list. Hope this was of help." Yes, it was of help. I agree with you, the list is certainly not dull! Thanks again........... Maureen ==== The list free; costs nothing except our time. During the days of HPB, she did not charge a dime for those who came to any of the *meetings*. Now most programs, there is a charge or the so called love offering or "donation" for this or that good cause. Of course like the devil can quote scriptures, there can be 1000 reasons why there is a charge. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 20:41:24 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: What is Theosophy (was: Maureen to Bart) Maureen T Fitzgerald wrote: > > > When you wrote that Theosophy > > is an attempt to discover the basic principles behind science, religion, and > > philosophy, is that a tie-in to the principle of Karma? > > Other way around. > > Hi Bart, > > I have bookmarked the earthlink site you recommended. > > Are you saying that Karma is ONE OF the basic principles behind science, > religion and philosphy? No; I am saying that karma is an offshoot of the principles, just as science, religion and philosophy is. > Also, over the weekend I was listening to an interview of a science writer (Rick > Weiss) for The Washington Post. One of the things he discussed was gene > therapy, and the work scientists are doing now on altering chromosomes. > Although he stressed that the purpose for this was to eliminate disease, as well > as discovering and eliminating genes that cause aging, he did go so far as to > say there also existed the potential to use this research to alter behavior. In > other words, altering > chromosomes to make one's behavior more socially acceptable. He also said that > researchers were very much interested in focusing their studies on fetuses less > than 14 days old. How does one balance scientific "progress" with individual > personal belief (and destiny?) While scientists have connected certain chromosones with statistical tendencies, they have yet to link any specific chromosone with any specific behavior. Also, we don't know what makes a person incarnate in a body, although Theosophical writings at least imply that the etheric body helps shape the physical body (including the chromosones). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 23:35:04 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest- Hi Katinka ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Monday, December 06, 1999 2:07 PM > From: > Subject: Re: theos-l digest- Hi Katinka > Of course like the > devil can quote scriptures, there can be 1000 reasons why there is a charge. Listen, pal - I *wrote* the scriptures. All of them. The Devil [signed] [Satanic laughter off] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 22:41:08 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Pogroms Report BRUSSELS - REUTERS, 12-06 The nearest successful example [of "collective=20 denial"] in the modern era is the 80 years of official denial by successive=20 Turkish governments of the 1915-17 genocide against the Armenians in which=20 some 1.5 million people lost their lives and subsequent genocide pogroms as=20 recent as November 1999. This denial has been sustained by deliberate=20 propaganda, lying and coverups, forging documents, suppression of archives, and bribing scholars. The West, especially the United States, has colluded by not referring to the massacres in the United Nations, ignoring memorial ceremonies, and surrendering to Turkish pressure in NATO and other strategic arenas of cooperation. Yet what should have also been mentioned is that, along with our century=E2= =80=99s first genocide, the depopulation of Greek Orthodox and Assyrian Christians from Asia Minor was part and parcel of Turkey=E2=80=99s policy of eliminatin= g its Christian minorities. The extermination of more than 300,000 Pontian Greeks in the Black Sea region was carried out roughly within the same time frame as the Armenian Genocide and through the use of similar methods. According to U.S. Consul George Horton, up to 200,000 Armenian and Greek Christians in Smyrna (now renamed Izmir) were killed in 1922 when Mustafa Kemal Ataturk=E2=80=99s troo= ps occupied and burned down this once cosmopolitan city. Metropolitan Chrysostomos, the spiritual leader of Smyrna=E2=80=99s Orthodox Christians,=20= refused to abandon his flock, was seized by Turkish troops while conducting religious services in the city=E2=80=99s cathedral, and was dismembered in t= he streets by a Turkish mob. Over one million more Greeks were ethnically cleansed from Turkey under Ataturk=E2=80=99s regime. During the 1950=E2=80=99s through the 90=E2=80=99s, modern-day Kristallnach= ts in the form of anti-Greek pogroms led to the exodus of the remaining 200,000 Greek Orthodox from Istanbul and marked the final death-blow to Constantinopolean Hellenism, one of the world=E2=80=99s oldest and most distinguished historic Christian communities. The Aegean islands of Imbros and Tenedos were likewise depopulated of their predominantly Greek inhabitants. The Assyrians, also an ancient Christian community of Asia Minor, encountered a similar fate having been extinguished from their ancestral homeland in eastern Turkey by massacres, forced conversions, and ethnic cleansing campaigns up through 1998. On November 26, 1999, the New York Times wrote: "[a]ccording to the most recent UN statistics, the Christian population in Turkey has diminished from 4,500,000 at the beginning of this century to just about 150,000. Of those, the Greeks are no more than 7,000. Yet, in 1923 they were as many as 1.2 million". While our nation=E2=80=99s media has remained hesitant in address= ing Turkey=E2=80=99s elimination of its indigenous Christian communities earlier= this century, it has remained shamefully silent in reporting the Turkish government=E2=80=99s abuses of its few remaining Christians today. Under the code-name "Operation Attila", Turkish troops launched two invasions of Cyprus in 1974 killing thousands of Greek Cypriots and ethnically cleansing 200,000 more from the territory that Turkey continues to occupy. Human rights organizations have extensively documented the widespread destruction of Greek and Armenian churches under Turkish control and the erasing of the island=E2=80=99s two-thousand-year-old Byzantine Chri= stian civilization. The few enclaved Greek communities in the occupied territories are subjected to severe human rights abuses and continue to live in a constant state of fear. The roughly 2,000 Greeks left in Istanbul today are subjected to threats, hate crimes and violent attacks. Christian cemeteries have been desecrated; their bones dug up, scattered, and fed to dogs. The latest such attack occurred at the Agios Eleftherios cemetery in Istanbul this April, while another cemetery in the Istanbul suburb of Kanitili was desecrated last year. During the past few years the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the seat of Orthodox Christianity located in Istanbul, has been the target of three bomb attacks; the latest explosion occurring on December 3rd and critically wounding a deacon. Weeks later, on January 13th, a Greek Orthodox shrine was torched and its sexton found bound, gagged and murdered, his corpse shoved down a well. The dying Greek community in Turkey is prohibited from congregating freely, speaking openly, or practicing its religion. In an attempt to asphyxiate the continuity of the Orthodox church even further, the Turkish state has closed the Patriarchate=E2=80=99s Halki seminary despi= te condemnation by Congress and the international community. This same deeply ingrained ethic of reflexive denial that has led Turkish apologists to deny past and present horrors=E2=80=94from the Armenian Genoci= de earlier this century to the ethnic cleansing of up to three million Kurds from southeastern Turkey today=E2=80=94pervades every aspect of Turkey=E2=80= =99s self-evaluation and continues to stunt its moral and spiritual growth. One of the saddest tragedies of present-day Christianity may not lie in the fact that Christians are still being persecuted, as they are in China, the Sudan and elsewhere, but that our nation=E2=80=99s leadership and its information-= brokers are facilitating the martyrdom of Europe=E2=80=99s oldest remaining Christia= n communities for the sake of a questionable and as yet unproven strategic alliance with a government that has perpetrated the largest Christian holocaust of our century. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 05:01:59 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Pogroms Report Dear Grigor, Although technically "off topic" for theos-l may I thank you for this post. I have long felt an affinity (albeit tenuous) with the small remnant Church of the East with its Aramaic (Syriac) traditions going way back to Antioch, Nisibis, and the Mosul Valley. It serves as a timely reminder to us all that religious fanaticism is a potentially and often actual dangerous risk. While it has not yet happened on such a scale to theosophists (though many in Nazi Germany went to the camps) there is no doubt that "official" theosophical dogmatism has led to the persecution of many members of theosophical societies who dared to try to put into practice the much-vaunted "freedom of expression" that the official Adyar TS (for one) claims to support. As most of the older inhabitants of this list know, it happened to me, as also to some of them. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 3:41 AM > From: > Subject: Pogroms Report > BRUSSELS - REUTERS, 12-06 The nearest successful example [of "collective > denial"] in the modern era is the 80 years of official denial by successive > Turkish governments of the 1915-17 genocide against the Armenians in which > some 1.5 million people lost their lives and subsequent genocide pogroms as > recent as November 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Thursday, December 02, 1999 3:15 PM > From: Maureen T Fitzgerald > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all > Good morning, > > Could anyone help me to determine if I joined this list in error? Sometimes I think we all did (...) Soooo ... please hang around, and do the decent thing - ask the questions you are not expected to, and *never* seek to "conform" or be "politically correct." Sincerely, Alan Bain Dear Maureen, Just want to say that I agree with the spirit of brother Alan=B4s message. If you are not pleased with the answers you got, kindly insist on the point you want to make, or want to discuss. And let each one the same freedom you certainly desire for yourself. But before quiting give a fair trial to the group. What is the conceptual meaning Theosophy? I am asking this question. Madame Blavatsky=B4s pen once wrote that it is not A religion, but that i= t is Religion per se. I do not know the writings of Mrs. Tingley, nor do I belong to the TS she led in the past (not that I am against it), but I do think that there is a good parcel of truth in the statement you quoted: "Think of theosophy not so much as a body of philosophic or other teaching, but as the highest law of conduct, which is the enacted expression of divine love or compassion." -- Katherine Tingley As brother Alan wrote - please hang around - at least for a while. With Best wishes for your search, Arnaldo. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 12:59:26 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all (MKR) --0__=Nb3AWtAwzEPElekBbIhyfxDGiN7cgDEWtgaIpdbECvHPoosFsbRW28HQ Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline MKR adds: Based on my personal experience, I can confirm that when one is in the snug unchallenging surrounding, it is *very* difficult to recognize this and break out of the shell and think independently and question any and every belief, however *sacred* it is considered by the majority. Maureen responds: And from my personal experience, I can confirm the uncomfortable feeling one gets by questioning sacred beliefs. It --0__=Nb3AWtAwzEPElekBbIhyfxDGiN7cgDEWtgaIpdbECvHPoosFsbRW28HQ Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable ?s not easy thinking independently in a homogenous environment. Can you just imagine the response I received w= hen I asked people if they had heard about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac? Thanks again for everything, MKR (And I would love to know your name!) Maureen = --0__=Nb3AWtAwzEPElekBbIhyfxDGiN7cgDEWtgaIpdbECvHPoosFsbRW28HQ-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:29:28 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Pogroms Report In a message dated 12/6/99 11:10:05 PM Central Standard Time, ambain@ambain.screaming.net writes: > Although technically "off topic" for theos-l may I thank you for this > post. I am sorry if it is off topic. After seeing the occasional posts on what the Chinese are doing in Tibet (along with eliminating the last surviving Taoists in remote areas of western China), I thought this was a topical subject. The UN Report also documents the Turkish elimination of Buddhist, Zoroastrian, and Theosophical elements. I have long felt an affinity (albeit tenuous) with the small > remnant Church of the East with its Aramaic (Syriac) traditions going > way back to Antioch, Nisibis, and the Mosul Valley. Remember, I'm Armenian Orthodox (while quietly also theosophist/Dzog chen). > > It serves as a timely reminder to us all that religious fanaticism is a > potentially and often actual dangerous risk. While it has not yet > happened on such a scale to theosophists (though many in Nazi Germany > went to the camps) And in Soviet Union. > there is no doubt that "official" theosophical > dogmatism has led to the persecution of many members of theosophical > societies who dared to try to put into practice the much-vaunted > "freedom of expression" that the official Adyar TS (for one) claims to > support. As most of the older inhabitants of this list know, it > happened to me, as also to some of them. Well, then those of us isolated from Adyar during Soviet years might be lucky in that regard. Again, coming out of a time capsule, the whole Krishnamurti thing appears to show what had already gone wrong in Adyar TS under AB and CWL as a progressive disorder. > > Alan > Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 14:31:18 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: December 02, 1999 - Grigor In a message dated 12/3/99 7:23:23 PM Central Standard Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > No, I've never thought that someone would NOT want a degree; so you've > opened my eyes there. > > Thank you for sharing and for the lesson. > > > Kym > > There was one degree I wanted. I wanted to be Armenian Orthodox priest. But state forbid. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 02:23:16 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 06, 1999 Christine wrote: >(I have no shame...) >:) Indeed! By the way, bet it was cool to hear your grandmother's book recommended as a useful read. A great tribute for a loved one. . .. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 03:16:27 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 06, 1999 Bart wrote: > While scientists have connected certain chromosones with statistical >tendencies, they have yet to link any specific chromosone with any >specific behavior. Also, we don't know what makes a person incarnate in >a body, although Theosophical writings at least imply that the etheric >body helps shape the physical body (including the chromosones). In what way does the etheric body "shape" the physical body? I was under the impression that the etheric body 'maintained' the physical body, but not that it was involved in its construction or shaping. And if the etheric body is responsible for shaping the chromosones, then is the etheric body responsible for defects in chromosones as well? If a person is born mentally retarded (possessed of an extra chromosone), did the etheric body boo-boo? It would seem to me that the etheric body works with what is already there - such as in healing and as a sensor/monitor/reflector of what is going on the body; but the etheric seems to enter AFTER the creation of a form. I mean, even a television set, when turned on, has an etheric form - but did the etheric create the television set? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 03:24:09 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 06, 1999 Alan wrote to mkr: >> Of course like the >> devil can quote scriptures, there can be 1000 reasons why there is a >charge. > >Listen, pal - I *wrote* the scriptures. All of them. > >The Devil [signed] > >[Satanic laughter off] Hey, we Gnostics knew about your authorship a long time ago, Mr. Devil-Head. But we don't get no respect. You're clever. . .really clever. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 02:26:34 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 06, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 10:16 AM > From: > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 06, 1999 > It would seem to me that the etheric body works with what is already there > - such as in healing and as a sensor/monitor/reflector of what is going on > the body; but the etheric seems to enter AFTER the creation of a form Me too. Viz., the "quickening" of a child in the womb. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 02:28:17 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 06, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 10:24 AM > From: > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 06, 1999 > >Listen, pal - I *wrote* the scriptures. All of them. > > > >The Devil [signed] > > > >[Satanic laughter off] > > Hey, we Gnostics knew about your authorship a long time ago, Mr. > Devil-Head. But we don't get no respect. You're clever. . .really clever. > > Kym Curses! Foiled again! Devil [unabashed] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 23:33:22 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all (MKR) At 12:59 PM 12/08/1999 -0500, Maureen T Fitzgerald wrote: MKR adds: >Based on my personal experience, I can confirm that when one is in the snug unchallenging surrounding, it is *very* difficult to recognize this and break out of the shell and think independently and question any and every belief, however *sacred* it is considered by the majority. Maureen responds: And from my personal experience, I can confirm the uncomfortable feeling one gets by questioning sacred beliefs. It ?s not easy thinking independently in a homogenous environment. Can you just imagine the response I received when I asked people if they had heard about the dyslexic, agnostic insomniac?< I am glad we are in the same wavelength! It is very difficult and challenging to be *alone* in many matters, will be unpopular in a crowd. And independent thinkers' actions are very difficult to predict and no one will generally like it. Thanks again for everything, MKR (And I would love to know your name!)< No problem. My full name is M K Ramadoss and go by the nick name of "Doss". There is a well known member of TSA and a member of the National Board of Directors whose name is also "Doss" (both of us live in San Antonio, TX) and in order not to confuse between the two, I sign as MKR. You may also notice in some replies, I will be addressed as Doss. mkr aka Doss PS: Regular subscribers here do not have any problem in distinguising between the two of us, since none of the elected National or International Officers are ever seen anywhere in the cyberspace!!! May be we may have problem of confusion in the next Manvantara!!! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 23:36:16 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Pogroms Report At 02:29 PM 12/08/1999 EST, Hazarapet@aol.com wrote: >Well, then those of us isolated from Adyar during Soviet years might be lucky in that regard. Again, coming out of a time capsule, the whole Krishnamurti thing appears to show what had already gone wrong in Adyar TS under AB and CWL as a progressive disorder.< Do you see the annointment of K as the new World Teacher a failure? mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 09:17:25 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: theos-l digest: November 30, 1999 On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:26:29 EST Christine wrote: > In a message dated 12/1/1999 12:02:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, Katinka > writes: > > << H.P. Blavatsky and the Secret Doctrine, edited by Virginia > Hanson. This is a quest book, second edition, 1988, ISBN: > 0-8356-0630-9 >> > > Hey, she was my grandmother! Glad to see the stuff is still being noticed. > Christine (Hanson) You mean that that was the grandmother you talked about? Well, lucky girl. From what I've so far seen, she did great work. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 09:21:55 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Chakras On Sat, 4 Dec 1999 02:07:20 -0000 ambain wrote: > Dear List, > > I believe Lyris accepts attachments. If so, this one will be very > useful to readers who can retrieve them. Well, I could retrieve it, and if I can, anybody probably can ;-) (very old software on this computer). Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 09:29:35 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: What is Theosophy (was: Maureen to Bart) Bart wrote: > While scientists have connected certain chromosones with statistical > tendencies, they have yet to link any specific chromosone with any > specific behavior. Also, we don't know what makes a person incarnate in > a body, although Theosophical writings at least imply that the etheric > body helps shape the physical body (including the chromosones). My take on this is that perhaps the etheric body helps shape the physical body not by shaping the chromosomes, but perhaps by turning these on or off... Just a thought. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 02:42:13 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 08, 1999 Grigor wrote: >Well, then those of us isolated from Adyar during Soviet years might >be lucky in that regard. Again, coming out of a time capsule, the whole >Krishnamurti thing appears to show what had already gone wrong in Adyar >TS under AB and CWL as a progressive disorder. I did not always think this way, but I have now come to believe that Annie Besant's belief about Krishnamurti being something akin to a "chosen one" is not any different than those who want desperately to believe that Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, et. al, are people 'not of this world.' So many people wish to have a "messiah" - I see the 'Theosophical Masters' as part of that phenomena as well. For many people Krishnamurti, Jesus, Buddha, the Masters, all provide hope and a glimpse into further Truth for some people - which, in itself and taken in with a discerning mind is not such a bad thing. Humans need and want someone who is "different" - someone who provides them something they cannot seem to find elsewhere. Annie Besant's betrayal of her own beliefs and moral system regarding Leadbeater, though, is distressing. I honestly believe she thought he was guilty and that something should have been done. But, perhaps, she was too afraid of what it might do to the movement itself. She bucked the system once, and her husband ended up taking her children from her - I am sure part of that profound fear of loss remained. The human part of us and the spiritual part of us are continually in conflict - and the human often seems to "win." Besant must now, in some way, carry forward and correct the harm done by someone she respected - just as some humans must correct the harm done by their own loved ones to others. All who remain silent in cases of child abuse (or any abuse) are, in some way, responsible for the abuse. But, Annie Besant, like no other Theosophist of her time, was able to translate Theosophy into a language that many people could understand. She wasn't into keeping the 'pearl' for herself or a select few. She stood out from the others in that regard - and she was disliked for that as well. Being human is a tough and rough road; a messy business. I don't recommend it to anyone. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 14:42:21 +0000 From: "mika perala" Subject: Non-snippers beware! Kym wrote: > > Which bring me to a sidenote: Folks, since I take the digest, can we (take > note, Dallas) find it in our hearts NOT to include entire previous posts > with our new post? It makes the digest a toilsome task to scan and read. > But, who am I to ask non-snippers to snip while I remain a > non-smiley-facer? Well. . .I just hope YOU people are more benevolent than > me - get it? This has bothered me too and I hope there`ll be some change in your attitudes, you non-snippers!!! Have a nice day, though. 8) mika perala Finland From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 07:55:05 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 06, 1999 kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > Bart wrote: > > > While scientists have connected certain chromosones with statistical > >tendencies, they have yet to link any specific chromosone with any > >specific behavior. Also, we don't know what makes a person incarnate in > >a body, although Theosophical writings at least imply that the etheric > >body helps shape the physical body (including the chromosones). > > In what way does the etheric body "shape" the physical body? I was under > the impression that the etheric body 'maintained' the physical body, but > not that it was involved in its construction or shaping. And if the > etheric body is responsible for shaping the chromosones, then is the > etheric body responsible for defects in chromosones as well? If a person > is born mentally retarded (possessed of an extra chromosone), did the > etheric body boo-boo? It's as good an explanation as any of Blavatsky's contention that apes are descended from men; that the etheric bodies, attempting to create new forms that could hold the evolving "monads" that the 4th root race bodies were no longer capable of handling, did not do a sufficiently good job in evolving some of the early primates into 5th root race bodies, and created the apes, instead. > It would seem to me that the etheric body works with what is already there > - such as in healing and as a sensor/monitor/reflector of what is going on > the body; but the etheric seems to enter AFTER the creation of a form. I > mean, even a television set, when turned on, has an etheric form - but did > the etheric create the television set? Certainly, the etheric body has to work with what it has, and has only a limited ability to make changes. There is some contention that the "monad" (or reincarnating part of humanity, which is more accurate but harder to type) chooses the body in which it's going to reside; the etheric body does the "fine tuning", so to speak. In terms of inanimate objects, do not mistake the consciousness of an object with the image forced on it by humanity. A steel hammer has the consciousness of steel, not the consciousness of a hammer. Philosopher David Chalmers has been, apparently without knowledge of Theosophy, writing well-respected papers about consciousness which come within a hair of Theosophical thought. Look him up on a web search engine; he publishes quite a few of his papers on the Web (which, after all, was the original purpose of the Web; a medium for the presentation of scholarly papers). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 08:29:28 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all (MKR) RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM wrote: > PS: Regular subscribers here do not have any problem in distinguising > between the two of us, since none of the elected National or International > Officers are ever seen anywhere in the cyberspace!!! May be we may have > problem of confusion in the next Manvantara!!! And Alan has done an excellent job convincing me to never run for TSA office (although I seem to keep getting elected VP of the Northeast Federation, probably largely because I don't show up for the actual elections....) Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 08:30:14 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Pogroms Report RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM wrote: > > At 02:29 PM 12/08/1999 EST, Hazarapet@aol.com wrote: > >Well, then those of us isolated from Adyar during Soviet years might > be lucky in that regard. Again, coming out of a time capsule, the whole > Krishnamurti thing appears to show what had already gone wrong in Adyar > TS under AB and CWL as a progressive disorder.< > > Do you see the annointment of K as the new World Teacher a failure? Well, K certainly did. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 08:53:33 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 06, 1999 Are you confusing the association of a human to the body with the actual attachment of the human to the body? I recall reading something about Blavatsky saying that the entire process takes until the child is about 6. Bart Lidofsky ambain wrote: >> > It would seem to me that the etheric body works with what is already > there > > - such as in healing and as a sensor/monitor/reflector of what is > going on > > the body; but the etheric seems to enter AFTER the creation of a form > > Me too. Viz., the "quickening" of a child in the womb. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 13:21:36 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Answer to Arnaldo Hello Arnaldo, On 12/7 you quoted Alan: Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 08, 1999 Responding to Kym, My understanding is that the etheric body, in modern theosophical use of the word, is involved in the construction as well as maintenance of the physical body. Yes, the television set has an etheric counterpart or aspect, but it didn't play much of a part in its construction. However, in the growth of living things, the etheric level of energy/substance has an important bridging role between subtler levels and the physical, in the development of the form. Several streams of influence and "memory" converge on the making of a new human being; genetic and environmental, as commonly appreciated, plus the bundle of spiritual and personal qualities of the being to be incarnated, with its relevant karma. Let me quote you a piece from "The Miracle of Birth" by the theosophical writer Geoffrey Hodson. This little book is a report of his inner perceptions at different stages of a pregnancy and makes a fascinating read. -----quote----- The shape of the physical body is decided by that of the etheric mould into which it is built by the nature-spirits. This mould is produced partly by the formative power of the "sound" vibration emitted by the zygote and permanent atom, and partly by the Lords of karma, who model it according to the karma of the individual. It is endowed with a certain elemental life of its own, and is a precipitation in human form of the physical karma of the individual. ... One possible function of the etheric mould is to ensure a safe passage by the fetus through the repetitive evolutionary stages of the past to the human form of today. The mould itself does not appear to go through those stages, although it assumes only gradually the fully developed child-appearance. ... In cases of shock to the mother, for example, it would act as a cushion or buffer. Such influences as are within the karma of the ego do pass through it, however, and it is modified by their passage, as is also the growth of the fetus. The mould in the case examined was situated within the womb and looked like the outline of a baby picked out in white light. It was built of etheric matter which, at the outer surface, was compressed into a covering or "skin". The general effect was that of a shimmering white baby bathed in moonlight with a slightly uneven degree of luminosity. The features were faintly to be seen, but were not yet clearly defined. The building of the physical body was seen proceeding within the womb. Many streams of force converged upon it, and there was an intense activity of the building nature-spirits at the physical, etheric and astral levels. The fetus appeared to act as a magnet, towards which the particles of matter were seen to be continually attracted. These particles could be followed clairvoyantly in their passage to the point where they aggregated and "settled" themselves into position in the body. ... The ego [spiritual self or incarnating entity] was also affecting this matter through the shaft of light previously described. Egoic force was seen to be playing continually down the shaft, implanting its own specific vibration upon the incoming particles. This matter, drawn from all sides, rushed towards the mother's body, was caught in the currents of force immediately surrounding the fetus, and was drawn by them into position in the growing body. One such current attached itself to the etheric double of the observer, with the result that such etheric matter in his body as corresponded to the rate of vibration of that particular current was drawn into the body of the embryo. The end of the shaft from the ego to the mother formed an astro-etheric "heart" within the fetus at a point roughly corresponding to the solar plexus. Much of the vital energy of the body was also concentrated in this centre, from which it was distributed to serve as a stimulus to physical cell growth, to vitalise the body and to increase the original attractive force which was drawing etheric matter into the womb. -----end of quote----- This, by the way, was at the 5th month of the pregnancy. To your other questions, I don't think the etheric mould is necessarily involved in shaping the chromosomes themselves. They are more like a library of an enormous accumulated physical experience from which only a fraction of the information is used in forming the new body. The question is, what selects which genes are activated? Cross-plane vibratory affinities? Perhaps this is where etheric energies come in, maybe by influencing the quantum-mechanical level. Mental retardation associated with an extra chromosome would be a combination of influences at several levels such as the karma that leads to a particular ego being attracted to particular parents and their circumstances, and the bundle of qualities coming in with the ego. It's two-way: karma could affect how genes combine and group themselves, and the resulting brain structure affects the consciousness. All instances of the big, big theosophical question of how karma precipitates out into the world of events and forms. There's a relevant saying that comes to mind just now - "Questions answered, answers questioned" - a recipe for health, or madness. You get to choose, and you can bet on gathering more questions than answers, as is the way of this world. I know of one other writer, Phoebe Payne-Bendit, who wrote about a birth as viewed by subtle sight, in a striking and beautiful piece. Does anyone know of others who are investigating in this field? Murray -----Original Message----- > Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 03:16:27 -0700 > From: kymsmith@micron.net > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 06, 1999 Bart wrote: > While scientists have connected certain chromosones with statistical >tendencies, they have yet to link any specific chromosone with any >specific behavior. Also, we don't know what makes a person incarnate in >a body, although Theosophical writings at least imply that the etheric >body helps shape the physical body (including the chromosones). In what way does the etheric body "shape" the physical body? I was under the impression that the etheric body 'maintained' the physical body, but not that it was involved in its construction or shaping. And if the etheric body is responsible for shaping the chromosones, then is the etheric body responsible for defects in chromosones as well? If a person is born mentally retarded (possessed of an extra chromosone), did the etheric body boo-boo? It would seem to me that the etheric body works with what is already there - such as in healing and as a sensor/monitor/reflector of what is going on the body; but the etheric seems to enter AFTER the creation of a form. I mean, even a television set, when turned on, has an etheric form - but did the etheric create the television set? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 14:53:30 -0600 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Answer to Arnaldo At 01:21 PM 12/09/1999 -0500, Maureen T Fitzgerald wrote: > So I will get untold benefits through remaining on the list, but would enjoy it so much more should there be no censorship on content yet also no personal attacks. And I give many thanks to those of you that have been so kind to a new learner, and may that generosity extend to all newcomers to your lists. Please respond if you feel you have something to offer the newcomer. I know from my emails that there are many out there who do not feel comfortable posting. Please open your hearts to them. Have a wonderful day. Maureen< I am glad that you received positive encouragement from many - both on the list and privately. I think it is the duty of everyone to encourage everyone to express their ideas, opinions and questions because none of us have all the answers or have first hand information on most things. Internet maillists is an entirely new medium of communication and it takes quite a while before many dare to post, that is from where hesitancy comes from. Since postings are read by everyone, one is likely to see responses which question one's *beliefs* or *opinions* and such questioning makes many uncomfortable. In addition, many may not want to post for fear of other repercussions outside of the list, especially due to the interlocking membership on other entities. Also the uncensored nature of the lists makes fair game anything anyone posts on any subject. >PS Before I forget, I will ask Alan a question I'm not expected to - in your >recent posting to Grigor you said "Although this is technically 'off topic' for >theos-1 may I thank you for this post." Are there rules about "off topics?" I >sincerely hope not, I would dearly miss Kym's quirky sense of humour as the two >of you make your charming exchanges! (So sorry, the devil made me do it!)< I don't know of any rules about topics. So we do get variety of postings on various subjects that subscribers are interested in. Feel free to post anything you like. mkr aka doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:32:43 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Pogroms Report In a message dated 12/8/99 11:40:21 PM Central Standard Time, RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM writes: > Do you see the annointment of K as the new World Teacher a failure? > > mkr Failure, yes. But the question is failure of which party, K or TS. I say the political chennanigans by AB and CWL around K show the lack of any transformative spiritual power in TS. I doubt Mahatma contacts with them after HPB was gone. So, K was a force they were not prepared to deal with. He cut through their self- deception/suggestion and the resulting denial of the "advanced degreed initiation" fascade they could not take. I don't know if there such a thing as "world teacher." But K was impressive spiritual force of great purity. If there was to be such a thing from TS, he was it. But TS was by that time too much BS. So, I left with puzzle. How could so much BS produce such a force? I sometimes remind myself of lotus that grows in rotten bottoms of water body. But human is not lotus. K not lotus. And AB and CWL were not good gardeners. So, thinking nobody can become such as K (whether or not he was "World Teacher" - a thing he denied) without a teacher, I wonder who his real teacher was (certainly not AB or CWL). Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:41:33 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Pogroms Report In a message dated 12/9/99 7:28:58 AM Central Standard Time, bartl@sprynet.com writes: > > Do you see the annointment of K as the new World Teacher a failure? > > Well, K certainly did. > Ah, but failure of whom is the issue. When looking at the immensely inferior quality of AB and CWL, how does one get a K from them? The puzzle is K and the TS of AB and CWL as "womb." As friend once say, its like a "saint produced by the strip in Vegas." I think "world teacher" is state, not a person. I don't see AB or CWL able to be more than a hinderance to K finding that state. Whether or not he was in that state, he was certainly a far more authentic "phenomenon" than they. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:05:51 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Answer to Arnaldo > In understanding and accepting this aspect of ourselves, can we also pledge to > practise "the golden rule?" Although there are many versions of this rule, I > like (but am not attached to) the version of Confucious- " Do unto another what > you would have him do unto you, and do not do unto another what you would not > have him do unto you. Thou needed this law alone. It is the foundation of all > the rest." Ah! I beg to differ. Heartily. In fact, what I'd love is for people to once and for all get beyond the utter childishness of the "Golden Rule". It's a fantasy - drilled into our heads as a "good" since the moment we are born. It is a "law" that has *NEVER* been followed, by anyone, in any life. *Including* those many people that so eloquently try to state the law. Including Confucious. And Jesus "I'll whip your butts if you don't stop selling stuff in the temple" Christ, and Koot "the western world is composed of unevolved cretins" Hoomi, and hosts of others. Life doesn't happen in utopias - and in fact, everytime someone *has* tried to enforce an ideal - either personally or at the collective level - that has never been seen on earth, the inevitable consequence is that it turns into its polar opposite. Thus does "niceness" turn into passive-aggressiveness, and sophisticated rhetorical tricks that very "politely" demean and take shots at others. Thus did the ideal of communism turn into the brutality of the Soviet regime. And this reaches a most delightful peak in the TS - whose history is full of decades of leaderships condescending to its memberships, Byzantine corridors of power, egotistical leaders who travel the world on member's dues and scheme to hold power ... and who primarily use, as their most effective defense against anyone that dares criticize them, the notion that the critics are being "unbrotherly", "untheosophical". Instead of continually preaching the "golden rule" (as we have completely unsuccessfully for several thousand years - the one thing we can count on, happy campers, is that we are *not* a race given to following *other* people's rules), maybe its about time we all just grew up. Instead of telling*others* to follow what you consider to be some standard of niceness, or politeness, or gentile behavior of some sort, why not instead look to *yourself* - why does conflict bother you? Someone attacks personally? SO WHAT? This is, in the most fundamental theosophical sense, *personality level* fun. You will *not* have reached the final point of evolution when the slightest word, the barest of insults, the idle banter, the verbal thrust and parry of something as superficial as an bloody internet discussion list (for goodness sake) is capable of upsetting you ... but rather, when such utterly illusive and meaningless mists pass through you without finding anything they are capable of touching. When you get attacked, and - with a huge grin on your face - blast back ... engaging others fully on the ground upon which they walk ... but never forgetting that its all but lines spoken on the Big Stage, and that when we engage like that its just the horseplay of spirits - making hand-shadows pretend to bump into each other on the wall ... at the spiritual level we are bear cubs rolling around in the spring grass - and those we *appear* to be fighting with are really only those we are playing with - as bear cubs play - and (as with the cubs) in that play strengthening our hearts and minds and spirits. This is a *Theosophical* discussion list. Of *course* there is often conflict - most of those here are attempting to *grow*. Which is *not* a matter of sterile intellectual understanding, but rather a transformation of the entire energy system. Often the people that positively *nail* one another at a seemingly very personal level are single-handedly doing *more* for one another's *growth* than 20 friends with whom they always agree. Its precisely *at* the personal level where this happens. People can study the books for lifetimes, and see barely a wit of change in the size, or depth, or development of their souls. And one life of laying oneself bare to everything, risking everything, diving into what is feared most, avoiding nothing ... can provide immense fuel to the maturation of the spirit. *My* suggestion to you? Don't stay on the list because there will be times of no conflict, when nice, polite, calm discussion of esoteric minutiae takes place in controlled tones ... but rather, stay on it precisely *because* it will often upset you, even make you mad, uncomfortable, because you'll find all sorts of people acting in ways you'd prefer they didn't. You won't get peace here. But you might find a strange sort of growth. There's not all that many places that you can tumble around on the grass, in quite this way, with other bear cubs. Stomp the Terra (-:), -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:16:50 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Answer to Arnaldo In a message dated 99-12-09 19:06:36 EST, you write: << *My* suggestion to you? Don't stay on the list because there will be times of no conflict, when nice, polite, calm discussion of esoteric minutiae takes place in controlled tones ... but rather, stay on it precisely *because* it will often upset you, even make you mad, uncomfortable, because you'll find all sorts of people acting in ways you'd prefer they didn't. You won't get peace here. But you might find a strange sort of growth. There's not all that many places that you can tumble around on the grass, in quite this way, with other bear cubs. Stomp the Terra (-:), -JRC >> And not only is brawling good for the soul, but blood makes the grass grow! Remember: 2 Theosophists are an argument 3 Theosophists are a study center 4 Theosophists are a convention 5 Theosophists are a riot. 6 Theosophists are WWIII Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:53:18 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 08, 1999 In a message dated 12/9/99 3:41:11 AM Central Standard Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: Kym writes > Grigor wrote: > > >Well, then those of us isolated from Adyar during Soviet years might > >be lucky in that regard. Again, coming out of a time capsule, the whole > >Krishnamurti thing appears to show what had already gone wrong in Adyar > >TS under AB and CWL as a progressive disorder. > > I did not always think this way, but I have now come to believe that Annie > Besant's belief about Krishnamurti being something akin to a "chosen one" > is not any different than those who want desperately to believe that Jesus, > Mohammad, Buddha, et. al, are people 'not of this world.' I would say there are people "not of this world." It divides the ethically under-motivated from the ethically hyper-motivated. People want to believe in such, because they do not believe in themselves. To be a Buddha is everyone's potential. > So many people > wish to have a "messiah" Chicken-sh-ts > - I see the 'Theosophical Masters' as part of that > phenomena as well. For many people Krishnamurti, Jesus, Buddha, the > Masters, all provide hope and a glimpse into further Truth for some people > - which, in itself and taken in with a discerning mind is not such a bad > thing. Humans need and want someone who is "different" - someone who > provides them something they cannot seem to find elsewhere. Some humans wish clues as to how to awaken. Some wish not to be bothered. > > Annie Besant's betrayal of her own beliefs and moral system regarding > Leadbeater, though, is distressing. I honestly believe she thought he was > guilty and that something should have been done. But, perhaps, she was too > afraid of what it might do to the movement itself. She bucked the system > once, and her husband ended up taking her children from her - I am sure > part of that profound fear of loss remained. The human part of us and the > spiritual part of us are continually in conflict - and the human often > seems to "win." Besant must now, in some way, carry forward and correct > the harm done by someone she respected - just as some humans must correct > the harm done by their own loved ones to others. All who remain silent in > cases of child abuse (or any abuse) are, in some way, responsible for the > abuse. Welcome to the matrix or hypnomata philodoxia. > Being human is a tough and rough road; a messy business. I don't recommend > it to anyone. Now you say something I can wholly agree with. But I add it is immense privilege to be such. There may be secret in the human being the universe has not seen before. I could cite references but I just had 12 hour flight in wrong direction to arrive "perky"?! Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:49:14 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all (MKR) ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 5:33 AM > From: > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all (MKR) > none of the elected National or International > Officers are ever seen anywhere in the cyberspace!!! May be we may have > problem of confusion in the next Manvantara!!! Stop Press! The next Manvantara has been cancelled. We'd better sort it all out now .... Alan :-) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:52:00 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Pogroms Report ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 5:36 AM > From: > Subject: Re: Pogroms Report > At 02:29 PM 12/08/1999 EST, Hazarapet@aol.com wrote: > >Well, then those of us isolated from Adyar during Soviet years might > be lucky in that regard. Again, coming out of a time capsule, the whole > Krishnamurti thing appears to show what had already gone wrong in Adyar > TS under AB and CWL as a progressive disorder.< > > Do you see the annointment of K as the new World Teacher a failure? Alan comments: As THE new World Teacher, yes, it was a failure. As *A* new world teacher it has some small vindication from history, but the world is hardly swarming with followers of K. http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 01:28:36 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 08, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Being human is a tough and rough road; a messy business. I don't recommend > it to anyone. Does that mean that our togetherness in our next life is off? Alan :-( From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:08:07 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 01, 1999-to all (MKR) ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bart Lidofsky > Alan has done an excellent job convincing me to never run for TSA > office (although I seem to keep getting elected VP of the Northeast > Federation, probably largely because I don't show up for the actual > elections....) Bart - I think you cracked it! Alan :0) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:13:31 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 06, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 1:53 PM > From: Bart Lidofsky > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 06, 1999 > Are you confusing the association of a human to the body with the > actual attachment of the human to the body? I recall reading something > about Blavatsky saying that the entire process takes until the child is > about 6. > > Bart Lidofsky I would go along with "until about 6" but suggest that the association *begins* in utero at about 3 months. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ > ambain wrote amd quoted Kym: > >> > It would seem to me that the etheric body works with what is already > > there - such as in healing and as a sensor/monitor/reflector of what is > > going on the body; but the etheric seems to enter AFTER the creation of a form Alan replied: > > Me too. Viz., the "quickening" of a child in the womb. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:43:09 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Answer to Arnaldo ----- Original Message ----- > From: Maureen T Fitzgerald > PS Before I forget, I will ask Alan a question I'm not expected to - in your > recent posting to Grigor you said "Although this is technically 'off topic' for > theos-1 may I thank you for this post." Are there rules about "off topics?" I > sincerely hope not, I would dearly miss Kym's quirky sense of humour as the two > of you make your charming exchanges! (So sorry, the devil made me do it!) No rules, but perhaps general guidelines. Grigor did not appear to me to connect his post (which I found valuable) to theosophy, and this is a theosophy list. No big deal here, as it *is* an unmoderated list, and Grigor can post whatever he likes! Alan, aka Alan the Evil (At least you know I read your post all the way to the end!) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:44:55 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Answer to Arnaldo Haven't seen you around for a while. Did you read "Lightbulb on the Path"? Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 99-12-09 19:06:36 EST, you write: > Remember: > > 2 Theosophists are an argument > 3 Theosophists are a study center > 4 Theosophists are a convention > 5 Theosophists are a riot. > 6 Theosophists are WWIII From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 01:45:08 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Answer to Arnaldo In a message dated 99-12-10 00:43:42 EST, you write: << Haven't seen you around for a while. Did you read "Lightbulb on the Path"? >> Been too busy with medical stuff lately, nothing dreadful thank badness. No, didn't get a chance to. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:46:02 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 09, 1999 Grigor wrote: >I would say there are people "not of this world." It divides the ethically >under-motivated from the ethically hyper-motivated. People want to >believe in such, because they do not believe in themselves. To be a >Buddha is everyone's potential. I do not agree that a person who "follows" another person - be it Buddha, Christ, Krishnamurti, etc - is "ethically under-motivated." If anything, simply because they are seeking something "more" or "elevated" reflects a desire to be more ethical. If the person they follow ends up being a bedlamite (nut ball), that does not necessarily mean that the follower was not sincere in his/her pursuit of spirituality and ethics. As far as "hyper-motivated" in ethics - well, Buddha would be forking over child support if he's done the same thing today, and Jesus would have went to jail for destruction of property, and Mohammad would be a prime example (Buddha, too, actually) of misogyny. Yes, everyone has the potential to be a Buddha, but I kinda hope someone, somewhere, makes themselves a better Buddha than the original. >> So many people >> wish to have a "messiah" > >Chicken-sh-ts No, not "chicken shits," but people that are not yet ready to venture out on their own - which is, whether we like it or not, a NATURAL state every human being must pass through. We were all there once, and, gasp!, some of us still are. >Some humans wish clues as to how to awaken. Nothing wrong with seeking clues - after all, that what the "enlightened" ones meant to do for us. Provide us guidance and "clues" so we wouldn't have to make the same mistakes. They actually meant to give us a road map. >Some wish not to be bothered. For now, but it is not a permanent state. >> [Kym wrote] Annie Besant's betrayal of her own beliefs and moral system regarding >> Leadbeater, though, is distressing. I honestly believe she thought he was >> guilty and that something should have been done. But, perhaps, she was too >> afraid of what it might do to the movement itself. She bucked the system >> once, and her husband ended up taking her children from her - I am sure >> part of that profound fear of loss remained. The human part of us and the >> spiritual part of us are continually in conflict - and the human often >> seems to "win." Besant must now, in some way, carry forward and correct >> the harm done by someone she respected - just as some humans must correct >> the harm done by their own loved ones to others. All who remain silent in >> cases of child abuse (or any abuse) are, in some way, responsible for the >> abuse. >Welcome to the matrix or hypnomata philodoxia. I haven't a clue how this ("matrix" = womb) pertains to my above paragraph. >> Being human is a tough and rough road; a messy business. I don't recommend >> it to anyone. >Now you say something I can wholly agree with. But I add it is immense >privilege to be such. There may be secret in the human being the universe >has not seen before. Maybe, but I think being 'human' is vastly overrated. I think it is very possible that being possessed of a human form may be akin to being a cow patty in another world which may contain far finer forms. If being human is a "privilege" according to the Cosmos - well, I am not pleased. Is there not another form - even physical - that need not pass wind out of every orifice and, yet, still be able to contemplate the Divine? If humans are among the finest of all forms, then the Creator has a rather bawdy Mind-set. Surely, the Creator is capable of so much more. . .isn't she? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:56:30 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 09, 1999 Alan the Evil wrote to Kym: >Does that mean that our togetherness in our next life is off? I said I wouldn't recommend the human form, however, since you and I are already there, we might as well experience as much as we can. There is the possiblity that you may be so advanced that you will not need to reincarnate into human form. . .but, try to find it in your heart to suffer through one more incarnation. I'll be a really cool person then. After that, you needn't worry. . .Antonio Banderas has already promised me the life after the next life. He offered the next one, but I put him off for you. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 01:05:46 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 09, 1999 Murray wrote: >Responding to Kym, > >My understanding is that the etheric body, in modern theosophical use of >the word, is involved in the construction as well as maintenance of the >physical body. Murry, I hate it when you answer my posts. Because then I go "Ok, if Murray says so, it must be true, because Murray is "different." It's like, you know, if God boomed into my ear "Yes, Kym, there is a Santa Claus" I would have to believe because God said so and God knows. There is nothing for me to say. . .I can only hang my head and be humbly grateful for the enlightenment. Do you get my drift? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 04:38:45 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Answer to Arnaldo --QUESTIONS CONTINUED BY DALLAS Dec 10th Dear JRC: Exactly what are the reasons why the GOLDEN RULE is abhorrent to you? You have written a lot of what you "feel" about them, but I do not read there any "reasons." If you reject Individual immortality and the continuity of the growth of experience for each individual, and if you also reject Karma as a universal law in which everything operates, then what is the basis for human progress, then what have you left? Why continue to live at all? Where is "Hope?" Why do some people hold the view that there is a GOAL? And what is wrong with the concept that the idea of spirituality and perfect accord (brotherhood) are unrealistic and unrealizable dreams? Dallas -----Original Message----- > Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 6:06 PM > From: JRC [mailto:jrc@texas.net] > Subject: Re: Answer to Arnaldo > In understanding and accepting this aspect of ourselves, can we also pledge to > practise "the golden rule?" Although there are many versions of this rule, I > like (but am not attached to) the version of Confucious- " Do unto another what > you would have him do unto you, and do not do unto another what you would not > have him do unto you. Thou needed this law alone. It is the foundation of all > the rest." Ah! I beg to differ. Heartily. In fact, what I'd love is for people to once and for all get beyond the utter childishness of the "Golden Rule". It's a fantasy - drilled into our heads as a "good" since the moment we are born. It is a "law" that has *NEVER* been followed, by anyone, in any life. *Including* those many people that so eloquently try to state the law. Including Confucious. =========== SNIP ============== From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:55:51 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: JRC -In from the Cold Well! Scintillating psychological analysis! But now I know what it takes to bring you in from the cold! MTF (hiding behind the anonymity of my initials) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:22:41 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: JRC -In from the Cold > Well! Scintillating psychological analysis! But now I know what it takes to > bring you in from the cold! I have no idea what you mean - this isn't, couldn't be, a subtle criticism, could it? Not a, um, veiled personal *attack*? No of course it couldn't be. We follow the golden rule here. > MTF > (hiding behind the anonymity of my initials) If this refers to my "JRC" ... then (as most on the list know) my name is John R. Crocker. I don't "hide" behind my initials, but rather, work in the internet industry, write dozens of - sometimes over a hundred - emails everyday, and long ago stopped bothering to write out my whole name. And simply don't think my personality is that important anyway. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:04:45 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: JRC -In from the Cold JRC wrote: > If this refers to my "JRC" ... then (as most on the list know) my name > is John R. Crocker. I don't "hide" behind my initials, but rather, work > in the internet industry, write dozens of - sometimes over a hundred - > emails everyday, and long ago stopped bothering to write out my whole > name. And simply don't think my personality is that important > anyway. -JRC And I thought your parents just didn't like long names.... Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:07:08 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Answer to Arnaldo --QUESTIONS CONTINUED BY DALLAS > Exactly what are the reasons why the GOLDEN RULE is abhorrent to > you? Abhorrent is your word, not mine. > You have written a lot of what you "feel" about them, but I do > not read there any "reasons." Actually wrote several reasons. And could name a dozen more. But a few: 1. All available evidence shows that we are, and a fairly fundamental level, a race that *grows through conflict at the personality level*. 2. People that perpetually try to *avoid* conflict, do not in fact avoid it - they sublimate it ... and it often winds up coming out in far worse, far more subtle ways, than it would if they were open and honest about it - both with themselves and others. Even on this list, for instance, I've seen a number of people that attempted to depersonalize what were really clearly personal attacks - simply stripping out personal pronouns and trying to say things in general terms, when it was clearly evident they were responding, often sharply, to one individual. If that individual then blasts back, they would then play the poor, suffering, attacked victim. And preach some form of the "golden rule". I far prefer things to be completely overt, above board, and in the light of day. The road to any eventual harmony is not traveled by *avoiding* conflict, denying "unelightened" feelings and thoughts that genuinely exist, but by walking *through* them. In fact, the willingness of people on this list to *engage* one another is its highest virtue. A bit of growth actually *happens* here. Not when Kym is snuggling with Alan (nice as that is), but when she is fighting with Grigor. (Just and example (-:)). 3. Individuals, and groups (government or otherwise), that attempt to *impose* ideals on themselves and/or others, *never* achieve their "visions", and in fact quite often the ultimate effect is to produce situations *diametrically opposed* to those visions. The greatest evils on earth have been perpetrated by people who claim that the world is "supposed" to look like xyz - and usually this is a vision of harmony, or some utopia, where everyone gets along and is happy. 4. One of the hugest fallacies is that "deep down, we're all the same". We aren't. In fact, it is only at the most surface level that we resemble each other at all. The deeper one digs into people the more unique they appear. At both surface and depth, we all have very different perspectives. This renders the practice of any universal "golden rule" absurd. What is harsh to some people is completely missed by others. Everyone, depending upon many factors (including race and family upbringing) has utterly different standards for what "conflict" or "the golden rule" is ... I was at a dinner a couple of weeks ago, for instance, at an Italian family's house (first generation in the US). I was there with several other folks - including this English guy (sorry Alan (-:) - who by the look on his face was appalled and very uncomfortable at the loud voices, the vehement arguments with waving hands that ensued (about the political situation at the WTO in Seattle), the appearance of what (to his eyes) was horrible family discord. But I know this family well ... its a very strong family, whose members have gone to extraordinary lengths to help one another in times of need. It wasn't a massive battle - it was, for them, a *normal dinner* .. and they'd probably be quite surprised to hear that anyone thought they were "fighting". 4. We are in an unprecedented world - yet it seems so normal that we keep attempting to apply old standards to it. For most of history, people lived in very small enclaves, within groups of people with whom there was largely agreement about very basic issues. It was common for people to be born, live, and die, within narrowly defined social and economic classes, religions, even to stay within a few miles of the places of their birth. Whole lives were spent without any awareness that there *were* totally different ways of thinking, or believing, or acting, all over the planet. We now have the existance of global telecommunications - the ability to instantly see pictures of people and customs from all over the globe - and with the internet, the further ability to *interact* with them. Has this lead to peace? Hell no! This has been the most violent century in history. A huge rise in fundamentalisms in not only religion, but politics, culture, and world of arts and letters ... all responses to people that have been made aware, almost against their wills ... that every assumption and belief they thought was unquestionable (and was often so unconscious that they didn't believe it *possible* to be in question) *is* not only open to question, but were faced with people that believed almost incomprehensibly different things about the same issue. People *long* for the days when there were comfortable truths "everyone" accepted. Fact is, there has never been such a thing - that "everyone" was always a narrow, insulated group. The true "everyone" is now 6 *billion* people. Attemping to establish *any* "universal" standard of "manners", or discourse, only makes sense if you think the world is still what it was several centuries ago. It's not. There are *ENORMOUS* conflicts looming, because there are *ENORMOUS* differences of fundamental belief within the human kingdom, and we are just now reaching the point of *beginning* to be able to see their full scope. From my perspective, this list, and others like it, containing people from all over the world, with large differences of backgrounds and fundamental beliefs (and even very different interpretations of the same beliefs) - is in many ways one of the means by which the inevitable conflicts can be elevated from the physical level to the emotional and intellectual. There are huge clashes looming ... far better that there be places where they are aired, where they argue and fight and blast each other ... but stay engaged, and ultimately (as surprisingly often happens on this list) either come to an understanding that at a deep level they actually believe the same thing, or come to a final realization that they are terribly different, will never agree, but have learned internally how to accomodate that very different worldview (without necessarily accepting it) within their own. Its *EITHER* going to be this, or its going to be physical plane *WARS*. There are many, many more reasons - if you really want to *think* about this. If you are willing to challenge one of those ideas (that the "Golden Rule" is an unquestionable "good") that has been thoughtlessly accepted and preached for centuries. > If you reject Individual immortality and the continuity of the > growth of experience for each individual, and if you also reject > Karma as a universal law in which everything operates, then what > is the basis for human progress, then what have you left? And you said all I gave was feelings? No reasons? Most of your post is nothing but "feelings", emotional reactions cast in intellectual terms. Where did I ever say I rejected individual immortality, or karma - these are your interpretations - not my words. The talk about "bear cubs" was not as simplistic as perhaps it seemed - it was a theoretical model, a perspective. And a well thought out one at that. I don't reject "individual immortality" - but the question is *what* is "immortal"? The personality - and all its concerns? Hell no! *ITS* standards are not "spiritual* standards. What *IT* considers to be "good", or "nice", or "spiritual" is often nothing other that highly temporary values that have little to do with eternal verities, and more to do with emotional comfort zones. For our *spiritual* levels to grow and flourish usually, if not always, *requires* discomfort, sometimes *serious* discomfort, at the personality levels. Raising awareness is a psychologically uncomfortable, sometimes even *brutal* act ... in the same way as the germination of a seed, *from the perspective of the seed's hull*, is an utterly destructive event. If you wish to return to the days when you were held in your mother's arms, safe and sheltered and protected from the enormity of the world - then the golden rule is for you ... it is a longing to return to that state. But, as Emerson said - "Choose Truth or Repose - take which you want ... you cannot have both". If you want spiritual growth - don't lecture, rather, inwardly *thank* those that take enormous amounts of time to blast away at you at the personality level, they are the jackhammers doing more to drill through the seed's "hull", heat lamps doing more to quicken the seed, than any hundred people you agree with and engage with in nice, polite, impersonal "Theosophical" discussions. Ride the Bronco, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:43:46 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: JRC -In from the Cold > And I thought your parents just didn't like long names.... > > Bart Lidofsky Well, there was some dispute. My mother ("D") and my Father ("R") had decided to give me a second letter, and argued a bit over whether adding a third, middle letter, might seem too pretentious. But my Father wanted to pass his letter down to his descendents. Tee hee, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:29:58 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Answer to Arnaldo --QUESTIONS CONTINUED BY DALLAS In a message dated 99-12-10 10:08:50 EST, you write: << 3. Individuals, and groups (government or otherwise), that attempt to *impose* ideals on themselves and/or others, *never* achieve their "visions", and in fact quite often the ultimate effect is to produce situations *diametrically opposed* to those visions. The greatest evils on earth have been perpetrated by people who claim that the world is "supposed" to look like xyz - and usually this is a vision of harmony, or some utopia, where everyone gets along and is happy. >> The only thing idealists ever succeed in doing is getting people killed. Oh, they may seem to accomplish something, but in a few generations it gets wiped out one way or the other. And utopians are the most noxious of the breed. The only things they have ever produced is inquisitions, gulags and gas chambers. The only good one is a dead one. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:21:29 -0800 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: New Publication by Theosophical University Press Online !!!!!!!! New Publication by Theosophical University Press Online !!!!!!!! Sally Dougherty has just informed me that Theosophical University Press Online has now published on the World Wide Web THE LETTERS OF H.P. BLAVATSKY TO A.P. SINNETT. Go to this URL: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-aps/bl-hp.htm Thanks to TUP Online for this publication event!! Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:58:47 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter --0__=WhwmbDobcCc9hF7BPMrm4VQlDD9UWwbC50wxDkPGpr3xxq2loA6hwU1o Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hello there, I wish I had more time today. Anyway, just a couple of things: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:22:41 -0800 Author: "JRC" Subject: Re: JRC -In from the Cold Body: MTF: Well! Scintillating psychological analysis! But now I know what it takes to bring you in from the cold! JRC: I have no idea what you mean - this isn't, couldn't be, a subtle criticism, could it? Not a, um, veiled personal *attack*? No of course it couldn't be. We follow the golden rule here. NO, NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK. JUST A DEMONSTRATION THAT I CAN WALK YOUR WALK IF I CHOOSE TO DO SO. THAT NEVER REALLY HAD POSITIVE RESULTS FOR ME, BUT LIKE YOU SAY, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT. AND WE ALL MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES. SINCE I HAVE HAD A BIT OF TIME FOR OBSERVATION, I WAS SPEAKING TO YOU IN WHAT APPEARS TO ME AS YOUR LANGUAGE. NOW AS YOU SAY, IN THE COURSE OF A DAY YOU WRITE DOZENS - "SOMETIMES OVER A HUNDRED EMAILS EVERY DAY"- , AND IT STRUCK ME AS A BIT ODD THAT THE FIRST POSTING YOU HAVE RESPONDED TO IN A WEEK'S TIME IS A POSTING ABOUT *NICENESS.* PARTICULARLY REMEMBERING THE LAST TIME YOU WERE SEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT WAS MY BASIS FOR "IN FROM THE COLD," THE RESULT OF AN EARLIER OVER-INDULGENCE IN SOVIET SPY NOVELS, OBVIOUSLY NOT SHARED BY EVERYONE. MTF (hiding behind the anonymity of my initials) JRC: If this refers to my "JRC" ... then (as most on the list know) my name is John R. Crocker. I don't "hide" behind my initials... WELL, AS I WAS NOT PRIVY TO THAT INFORMATION, THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. PEOPLE SHOULD BE WILLING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR WORDS, AND THERE ARE TOO MANY OUT THERE HIDING BEHIND CODE NAMES. JRC: And simply don't think my personality is that important anyway. --0__=WhwmbDobcCc9hF7BPMrm4VQlDD9UWwbC50wxDkPGpr3xxq2loA6hwU1o Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable ?JRC YOU DON'T THINK YOUR PERSONALITY IS *IMPORTANT* ANYWAY? WELL, THEN, HO= W DO YOU RECONCILE THESE CONTRADICTIONS: DTB to JRC: Exactly what are the reasons why the GOLDEN RULE is abhor= rent to you? JRC: Abhorrent is your word, not mine. DTB: You have written a lot of what you "feel" about them, but I do no= t read there any "reasons." JRC: Actually wrote several reasons. And could name a dozen more. But = a few: 1. All available evidence shows that we are, and a fairly fundamental l= evel, a race that *grows through conflict at the personality level*. YOU PROFESS TO SEEK CONFLICT AS A MEANS OF *GROWTH* - AT THE PERSONALI= TY LEVEL, NO LESS. HOW DOES THAT SQUARE WITH YOUR ASSERTION THAT YOUR PERSONALI= TY IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT? ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT YOU DON'T FIGHT JUST T= O FIGHT, AND ARE NOT USING THAT *GROWING* CONCEPT AS A FRONT? JRC: For our *spiritual* levels to grow and flourish usually, if not a= lways, *requires* discomfort, sometimes *serious* discomfort, at the personali= ty levels. I REPEAT MY PREVIOUS COMMENT. WELL, I WISH I HAD MORE TIME TODAY, THERE IS A LOT MORE THAT I COULD PO= INT OUT. I AM EQUALLY COMFORTABLE (AND EXPERIENCED) ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PLAYING= FIELD, WITH A MODERATE PREFERENCE FOR CIVILITY. OUT AND OUT NASTINESS? I HAV= E BETTER WAYS TO SPEND MY TIME. Hope you have a great weekend.. And thanks for the opportunity to grow.= Maureen 12/10/99 = --0__=WhwmbDobcCc9hF7BPMrm4VQlDD9UWwbC50wxDkPGpr3xxq2loA6hwU1o-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:47:50 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter > NO, NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK. JUST A DEMONSTRATION THAT I CAN WALK YOUR WALK > IF I CHOOSE TO DO SO. THAT NEVER REALLY HAD POSITIVE RESULTS FOR ME, BUT > LIKE YOU SAY, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT. "My walk" is apparently your walk. As with most that purport to follow the "Golden Rule", it took but one post before you couldn't help but give me your little "demonstration" - and, as with most, of course it isn't a "personal attack", of course your motives and intentions and feelings were only of the highest and purest, you were just descending to show me you "could" walk my walk (this was in question?). >AND IT STRUCK ME AS A BIT ODD THAT THE > FIRST POSTING YOU HAVE RESPONDED TO IN A WEEK'S TIME IS A POSTING ABOUT > *NICENESS.* PARTICULARLY REMEMBERING THE LAST TIME YOU WERE SEEN IN THE > NEIGHBORHOOD. Was in Seattle, then Silicon Valley, then launching a website. Don't always have time to write to discussions lists. Not sure what other lists you are on, but its rather common for people to disappear for days, weeks, months at a time for no reason other than that they are busy. In fact that is by far the most common reason for apparent silence. These lists are minor periodic hobbies, not life. > JRC: If this refers to my "JRC" ... then (as most on the list know) my name is > John R. Crocker. I don't "hide" behind my initials... > > WELL, AS I WAS NOT PRIVY TO THAT INFORMATION, THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. > PEOPLE SHOULD BE WILLING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR WORDS, AND THERE ARE > TOO MANY OUT THERE HIDING BEHIND CODE NAMES. Interesting that your first assumption - with no evidence - would be that one. Is that how you'd like people to "treat you"? Assume the worst intentions? Is that a demonstration of the Golden Rule you suggest we all follow? Then what the devil is the difference between initials and names? Its every bit as likely that "Maureen" is ficticious - a name to hide behind - as JRC is. Weird, however, that I, nasty bastard that I am, never even had it occur to me to question your identity, believe you weren't who you say you are, or imply you'd want to hide behind a false identity simply because *I* happen to disagree with your ideas. The "held accountable" is also interesting. Sort of implies that these are ideas I'd want to distance myself from (no one hides their identity from ideas they're *proud* of). I can't wait for you to "hold me accountable". > JRC: And simply don't think my personality is that important anyway. ?JRC YOU DON'T THINK YOUR PERSONALITY IS *IMPORTANT* ANYWAY? WELL, THEN, HOW DO YOU RECONCILE THESE CONTRADICTIONS: 1. All available evidence shows that we are, and a fairly fundamental level, a race that *grows through conflict at the personality level*. YOU PROFESS TO SEEK CONFLICT AS A MEANS OF *GROWTH* - AT THE PERSONALITY LEVEL, NO LESS. HOW DOES THAT SQUARE WITH YOUR ASSERTION THAT YOUR PERSONALITY IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT? ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT YOU DON'T FIGHT JUST TO FIGHT, AND ARE NOT USING THAT *GROWING* CONCEPT AS A FRONT? Wonderful interpretation of those words - but not my words - nor my meaning. (If you're going to hold me accountable - try holding me accountable for what I actually said - not for your own interpretation of it ... *you* are responsible for that). Didn't say I *seek* conflict ... said that conflict is an observable *fact*, a part of the human condition since our earliest days, and that growth happens as a result of it. And further, that what at the *spiritual level* is growth, often at the *personality level* appears as conflict. Fight just to fight? Why? Sometimes I fight, often I don't fight ... but I don't priviledge one as being superior to the other. What I *did* say - clearly and several times, is that I refuse to *avoid* conflict, and that when others *avoid* conflict that they genuinely feel, it doesn't go away - it just comes out in all sorts of subtle ways (as, for instance, cute little shots that are called "demonstrations" - geez, talk about a transparent "front"). JRC: For our *spiritual* levels to grow and flourish usually, if not always, *requires* discomfort, sometimes *serious* discomfort, at the personality levels. I REPEAT MY PREVIOUS COMMENT. And I repeat mine. WELL, I WISH I HAD MORE TIME TODAY, THERE IS A LOT MORE THAT I COULD POINT OUT. I AM EQUALLY COMFORTABLE (AND EXPERIENCED) ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PLAYING FIELD, WITH A MODERATE PREFERENCE FOR CIVILITY. OUT AND OUT NASTINESS? I HAVE BETTER WAYS TO SPEND MY TIME. As I attempted - clearly unsuccessfully - to point out, your definition of "civility" may actually (can you believe it?) not be shared by every person, race, culture, and philosophy on earth. Better ways to spend your time? Perhaps - but if you are still capable being nasty, still *feel* those sensations, hold those inner states, and you not only try to avoid them, but even insist everyone else follow your practice of avoidance, in order to conform to your definition of civility - then no ... there may *not* be better ways to spend your time than to experience it. <> AND THANKS FOR THE ALL CAPS POST! -John Richard Joseph Crocker From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:21:26 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter In a message dated 12/10/99 2:50:36 PM Central Standard Time, jrc@texas.net writes: > AND THANKS FOR THE ALL CAPS POST! -John Richard Joseph Crocker My greatniece just told me, peering over my shoulder while trying to cox me into the car to go with her to spend conspicuously at an overpriced Cobley Place mall in Backbay (oops, she mentioned a Legals Seafood is there, I surrender or greatly uncle ;-/ ), that all caps means a tantrum in internet conventions. Is it? Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:33:41 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter >that all caps means a tantrum in internet conventions. > Is it? Generally accepted as meaning one is raising one's voice or shouting. Usually restricted to a single word or two for emphasis. An entire post of caps either means the person isn't fully familiar with internet conventions, or (as your grandchild says) is throwing rather a tantrum. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 18:08:54 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter In a message dated 99-12-10 16:36:26 EST, you write: << Generally accepted as meaning one is raising one's voice or shouting. Usually restricted to a single word or two for emphasis. An entire post of caps either means the person isn't fully familiar with internet conventions, or (as your grandchild says) is throwing rather a tantrum. -JRC >> Or may be having serious keyboard problems. In any event, this is getting very strange. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 18:07:45 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter In a message dated 99-12-10 15:50:16 EST, you write: << The "held accountable" is also interesting. Sort of implies that these are ideas I'd want to distance myself from (no one hides their identity from ideas they're *proud* of). I can't wait for you to "hold me accountable". >> Ok, John, First you get accused of not believing in karma, now something about trying to hold you accountable for your ideas, thought what anyone could do about them is beyond me. Could it be that somehow people are mistaking you for me??? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:30:09 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter > Ok, John, HOW DID YOU KNOW MY NAME IS JOHN!!!! I thought I had carefully hidden that. > First you get accused of not believing in karma, now something about trying > to hold you accountable for your ideas, though what anyone could do about > them is beyond me. Rather beyond me too. > Could it be that somehow people are mistaking you for me??? > > Chuck the Heretic Well hell Chuck, you haven't said anything even moderately heretical in months! And there's just been so many delightful things to comment on. So many, er, opportunities just begging for but a single original thought to rend the dense veil of pithy little aphorisms and profoundly meaningless quotes. C'mon - every list (heck, every church group, religion, city, state, nation or philosophy) desperately *needs* a couple of people that others can dismiss as heretical and mean and low and unevolved. Without a good supply of heretics and scapegoats to make the righteous feel good about themselves, there'd be far more wars than there are now. People would actually have to face *themselves* if they couldn't find others to condemn, and lord knows how ugly *that* could get. Yer droppin' the ball man! Its been ages since you even bothered to mention the horrible inconsistancies in the concept of "karma". Fairly soon you'll need to demote yourself from "Chuck the Heretic" to "Chuck the Very Occaisionally Impolite". But the list would be much worse off. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:27:17 EST From: WLR7D@aol.com Subject: address needed Would someone please tell me how to contact by e-mail the overseer of this list? Thank you, Randy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:53:27 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: address needed In a message dated 12/10/99 7:27:37 PM Central Standard Time, WLR7D@aol.com writes: > Would someone please tell me how to contact by e-mail the overseer of this > list? > Thank you, Randy > God666devil.judgeyou.yourself.yourownprojection.bardotheodol.com Grigor (filled up on Legal's exiquisite Swordfish and Lochs for appertizier and desert, yum, polished off with a couple nice Meridien Chardonnay). Tommorrow, San Francisco, heart of the Golden Gate, ....welcome me home,...maybe Pacific Seafood Cafe way out on Geary St. or Khan Toke out on Geary St., or Tommy's Restaurant out there near Khan Toke, or Cafe Riggio, a little bit out on Geary st., or Carlos and Panchos on Geary, or Scoma's, at the Wharf, or friends up on Twin Picks (I just hope they do not invite Gorbachev and Robin Williams - it make me puke last time hearing both speak, competitively, about Gurdjieff and Krishnamurti as radical communist gurus - sheesh!). G.V.A From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:20:12 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Answer to Arnaldo --QUESTIONS CONTINUED BY DALLAS JRC wrote: > There are many, many more reasons - if you really want to *think* about > this. If you are willing to challenge one of those ideas (that the > "Golden Rule" is an unquestionable "good") that has been thoughtlessly > accepted and preached for centuries. The key word, of course, is "thoughtlessly". Any rule, practiced without mindfulness, eventually becomes worthless. I have a phrasing of the "golden rule" which turns it into more of a statement of universal principal, rather than a goal to be met: What you do to others, you are doing to yourself, and what you do to yourself, you are doing to others. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:20:54 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter In a message dated 12/10/99 3:36:36 PM Central Standard Time, jrc@texas.net writes: > (as your grandchild says) grand-niece! Never confuse family relations with an Armenian! :) G.V.A From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:31:04 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter In a message dated 12/10/99 5:30:53 PM Central Standard Time, jrc@texas.net writes: > Fairly > soon you'll need to demote yourself from "Chuck the Heretic" to "Chuck > the Very Occaisionally Impolite". May I ask a question? Why was he ever called "heretic"? I never saw hereticatical posts from him since I joined. Why isn't Kym heretic (no offense intended), for example? Maybe he is just fuzzy friendly limb-puller (that is not exact - is it??) in calling himself heretic? G.V.A From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 01:34:38 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 09, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > I think being 'human' is vastly overrated. I think it is very > possible that being possessed of a human form may be akin to being a cow > patty in another world which may contain far finer forms. If being human > is a "privilege" according to the Cosmos - well, I am not pleased. > > Is there not another form - even physical - that need not pass wind out of > every orifice and, yet, still be able to contemplate the Divine? If humans > are among the finest of all forms, then the Creator has a rather bawdy > Mind-set. Surely, the Creator is capable of so much more. . .isn't she? > > Kym 'Dis am your Creator speaking: Next week (manvantara, whatever) I am turning you all into cow patties. The planet will be a better place, and you will make excellent fuel for the fires of the next root race. That's 'root' as in 'root vegetables' - the blood and guts experiment has not been a great success. That this message from on low may be confusing to you is clear evidence of this failure. God (Ms) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 01:37:07 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 09, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Alan the Evil wrote to Kym: > > >Does that mean that our togetherness in our next life is off? > > > > > > > > this way > > > > > I said I wouldn't recommend the human form, however, since you and I are > already there, we might as well experience as much as we can. There is the > possiblity that you may be so advanced that you will not need to > reincarnate into human form. . .but, try to find it in your heart to suffer > through one more incarnation. I'll be a really cool person then. > > > > > > > > > > a bit further > > > > > After that, you needn't worry. . .Antonio Banderas has already promised me > the life after the next life. He offered the next one, but I put him off > for you. [BLUSH] Alan the Evil http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:15:42 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter ----- Original Message ----- > From: JRC > John Richard Joseph Crocker Gasp! Gulp! I am not worthy ..... Alan :0) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 05:15:11 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: address needed ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Saturday, December 11, 1999 1:27 AM > From: > Subject: address needed > Would someone please tell me how to contact by e-mail the overseer of this > list? Thank you, Randy The Listowner is John Mead. You can contact him by sending a message to the list. In fact he may well answer your enquiry directly. You can also e-mail him via jmead@InfoAve.net Theos-L is an unmoderated list where anyone can say whatever they like at their own risk. Other subscribers may or may not reply. To Grigor: Chuck is a self-defined heretic. You would need to ask him what he means by it! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 01:33:22 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Call me Ms. Gates Dear All, The December 10th digest - you know, the one where Maureen used caps and JRC decoded his name so we know he's not CIA, and where Chuck thinks this list is getting weird - was just too good! I lit up a cigarette, downed two or three (could have been four) Hostess Ding Dongs, and read the entire list more than once. Why, my thigh is sore from slapping it so frequently and my cheeks (facial ones) are throbbing. Down with "snuggling," up with CAPS, and go for the weird! Anyone for betting on who will triumph? Post me privately - minimum wager is two hundred dollars (American). Choose the weirdest theos poster and the money pot is yours (my posts do NOT qualify as they are never weird - but everyone else is fair game). Humans. Who knew? Kym the Bookie From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:15:16 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 10, 1999 JRC wrote to Grigor: >Generally accepted as meaning one is raising one's voice or shouting. >Usually restricted to a single word or two for emphasis. An entire post >of caps either means the person isn't fully familiar with internet >conventions, or (as your grandchild says) is throwing rather a >tantrum. -JRC Actually, since you write and read so many e-mails, Maureen may have done you a favor by using all CAPS. Surely, your eyes get very tired, yes? A post in CAPS, in fact, lessens the eye strain for you. Random acts of kindness. . .. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:26:43 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 10, 1999 Chuck wrote: >The only good one [idealist] is a dead one. Well, I'll be sure to let you know of my demise. It would mean alot to me to finally have you think of 'Kym the Idealist' (which I am) as "good." To think - I have the opportunity to bring 'goodness' to folks both in my life and my death. . .an idealist's dream. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 12:32:39 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter In a message dated 99-12-10 18:30:54 EST, you write: << Yer droppin' the ball man! Its been ages since you even bothered to mention the horrible inconsistancies in the concept of "karma". Fairly soon you'll need to demote yourself from "Chuck the Heretic" to "Chuck the Very Occaisionally Impolite". But the list would be much worse off. -JRC >> Mea Culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa! Yer right. I've been so busy working on the Tepaphone and the Peritron that I've been too busy lurking and not holding up my end of the troublemaker crew. So here's my first contribution. Karma SUCKS!! It's a fraud that was created by the Brahmanical caste to keep the Warrior caste from using the Brahmans for archery practice. It has no more truth to it than the xtian hell and serves strictly as a club to beat people over the head with. Progress is a nice 19th century myth. But we are entering he 21st century and it's time we realized that our victorian forebears were just a little nuts. Welcome to the Age of Chaos folks. The only rule of life is there are no rules. Think that'll stir things up? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 12:35:41 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: address needed In a message dated 99-12-10 20:53:50 EST, you write: << Robin Williams - it make me puke last time hearing both speak, competitively, about Gurdjieff and Krishnamurti as radical communist gurus - sheesh!). G.V.A >> Robin Williams makes all civilized people puke. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 12:38:18 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Answer to Arnaldo --QUESTIONS CONTINUED BY DALLAS In a message dated 99-12-10 21:27:13 EST, you write: << I have a phrasing of the "golden rule" which turns it into more of a statement of universal principal, rather than a goal to be met: What you do to others, you are doing to yourself, and what you do to yourself, you are doing to others. >> How wonderful. That means the next time I have to get a prostate exam the doctor can do it to someone else and I will attain the same benefit. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 12:46:50 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter In a message dated 99-12-10 21:32:47 EST, you write: << May I ask a question? Why was he ever called "heretic"? I never saw hereticatical posts from him since I joined. Why isn't Kym heretic (no offense intended), for example? Maybe he is just fuzzy friendly limb-puller (that is not exact - is it??) in calling himself heretic? G.V.A >> Stick around. I've been lurking for some time because I figured it was time to take a break from Theosophy and concentrate on my chosen field of expertise, long range mind-control and psionic weaponry. Now that a huge round of research and building is almost complete (take a good long last look at the world folks, it may not be here long!) I can start jumping in again. The heretic part is the result of the fact that I don't buy into a lot of the belief or ethical structures of my brethren. I prefer to think of it as not sharing certain limitations but we can get into a big argument about that. And having to deal with hundreds of business and research e-mails a day sort of takes time away from having fun with vain and useless speculation about whether or not HPB had an obvious Oedipus complex leading her to view her pen as a penis substitute which would account for the vast vast volume of her writing. (And please, don't someone tell me that has already been discussed!) Actually, I'm a great fan HPB. Anyone who could do drugs, raise hell and roll down a flight of stairs, out the front door and get stuck up-ended in a manhole had to be my kind of people! Hmm, it's been a couple of years since I told that story, isn't it. How time flies when the world is about to come to an end. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 12:47:48 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 09, 1999 In a message dated 99-12-10 23:57:36 EST, you write: << Next week (manvantara, whatever) I am turning you all into cow patties. The planet will be a better place, and you will make excellent fuel for the fires of the next root race. >> You see, evolution is going on! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 12:48:36 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter In a message dated 99-12-10 23:57:51 EST, you write: << Gasp! Gulp! I am not worthy ..... Alan :0) >> No, you probably aren't, but we don't hold that against you. :) Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 11:38:21 -0800 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: New Material added to BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE NEW MATERIAL added to BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm I've just added to our archives the following: **Some Letters of H.P. Blavatsky to William Q. Judge http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/hpbwqjtab.html This gives the interested reader access to almost 20 of HPB's letters to her American colleague. The originals of these letters are preserved in the archives of the Andover-Harvard Theological Library of Harvard University, Cambridge Massachusetts. Daniel H. Caldwell BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 23:57:30 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Call me Ms. Gates ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Saturday, December 11, 1999 8:33 AM > Subject: Call me Ms. Gates > Dear All, > > The December 10th digest - you know, the one where Maureen used caps and > JRC decoded his name so we know he's not CIA, and where Chuck thinks this > list is getting weird - was just too good! I lit up a cigarette, downed > two or three (could have been four) Hostess Ding Dongs, and read the entire > list more than once. Why, my thigh is sore from slapping it so frequently > and my cheeks (facial ones) are throbbing. Okay - what's in those Hostess Ding Dongs? Huh? Seems like some of us could use them ... Alan the Evil http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 00:45:33 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter > Welcome to the Age of Chaos folks. The only rule of life is there are no > rules. > > Think that'll stir things up? Nope. This is theos-l. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 11:53:49 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter In a message dated 99-12-11 21:55:42 EST, you write: << Welcome to the Age of Chaos folks. The only rule of life is there are no > rules. > > Think that'll stir things up? Nope. This is theos-l. >> Yer right. I should know better! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 08:52:51 From: "Maureen Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 09, 1999 Hi Kym, Would you know if Antonio has made any other arrangements yet? You wouldn't mind putting in a good word for a friend, would you? If a little tumbling is going to be good for my soul, I might as well make it worth my while. Whew! Things that make you go hmmmm. Now don't you go changing your mind! Maureen (Now willing to hasten the cross over) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:12:21 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: "Religion" INC in America? There are apparently some forms of corruption in America that the former Soviet Union did not have. I listened (not by choice) to a radio news broadcast in a cab from the airport. The story line was "Shark! the Stockholders sing!" It was about a pastor being fired from a Church Inc., because his last two quarterly reports showed insufficient profits to please the shareholders. Capitalist religion? What is next? Holiday specials on indulgences? Coin-slot pay confessionals? Ways to make your heavenly mansions go condo? Long distance charges for prayer? Fees for VISAs and passports for the dying? Court fees for Judgment? Communion a la carte, drink extra? Roundtrip charges (or discounts?) for reincarnation? Pay per view beatific vision? A spiritual utility bill for illumination? Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:37:50 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Some Responses >>Murray wrote: Responding to Kym, My understanding is that the etheric body, in modern theosophical use of the word, is involved in the construction as well as maintenance of the physical body.>> Sorry Kym, but I agree with Murray. Each "body" is a manifestation of preceding ones from divinity down to the physical, the ultimate Cause being the divine Monad. Jerry S. [Dallas to JRC:] >>If you reject Individual immortality and the continuity of the growth of experience for each individual, and if you also reject Karma as a universal law in which everything operates, then what is the basis for human progress, then what have you left? Why continue to live at all? Where is "Hope?" Why do some people hold the view that there is a GOAL? And what is wrong with the concept that the idea of spirituality and perfect accord (brotherhood) are unrealistic and unrealizable dreams?>> [My answer to Dallas (even though I wasn't asked):] At the spiritual level, the concept of individuality simply ceases to exist. Karma is "universal" in this manvantara only, and is the over-riding principle of samsara - maya or illusion. Human progress is an illusion and is only as real as this physical Earth is real. There is no goal to life other than a divine directive to self-manifest. However, once we become aware of spirituality, it only makes good sense to develop and employ compassion toward others. They are, after all, aspects of ourselves. There is a human need for goals, for accomplishing things, and this need is based on the concept of time which leads to further concepts like change, growth, and evolution. Once we perceive the timeless spirit, none of these illusions have any further hold on us. Because we are self-manifesting, it is a "goal" of sorts to develop and express all of our vast potential. Brotherhood is a part of this. Jerry S. [Chuck on karma:] >>It's a fraud that was created by the Brahmanical caste to keep the Warrior caste from using the Brahmans for archery practice. It has no more truth to it than the xtian hell and serves strictly as a club to beat people over the head with.>> I view "its your karma" as equivalent to a good Xtian's "its god's will" which is no answer at all. On the other hand, Chuck, some people probably need a club over their head... >>Progress is a nice 19th century myth. But we are entering he 21st century and it's time we realized that our victorian forebears were just a little nuts.>> Chuck, you are taking the words out of my mouth. One man's involution is another woman's evolution. The Theosophical notion of going through an entire manvantara of lifetimes just to be self-conscious strikes me as rather absurd when the spiritual outcome of this manvantara is to learn that there is no self anyway (a real contradiction in logic). (Of course this whole physical world is absurd, so who knows...) >>Welcome to the Age of Chaos folks. The only rule of life is there are no rules. Think that'll stir things up? Chuck the Heretic>> If I agree with you, does that make me a heretic too? Actually your statement above sounds a lot like Uncle Al's "Do What Thou Wilt" and should give many a good Theosophist a belly ache. Not nice on a Theosophical list. Good job! Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:00:23 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Responses In a message dated 12/13/99 4:11:21 PM Central Standard Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > [Chuck on karma:] > >>It's a fraud that was created by the Brahmanical caste to keep the Warrior > caste from using the Brahmans for archery practice. It has no more truth to > it than the xtian hell and serves strictly as a club to beat people over the > head with.>> > > I view "its your karma" as equivalent to a good Xtian's "its god's will" > which is no answer at all. On the other hand, Chuck, some people probably > need a club over their head... > It boils down to whether there is a moral equivalent of what goes around comes around or in other words whether a core law of the cosmos involves some form of moral feedback. That is core belief behind belief in reincarnation and is core belief for all ancient traditions. It is essence of what is called "classical natural law theory." Grigor. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:07:26 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Responses In a message dated 12/13/99 4:11:21 PM Central Standard Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > Think that'll stir things up? > Chuck the Heretic>> > There are no heretics if all there is is chaos. Heretics are black sheep of some orthodoxy. Apostates are those totally beyond the pale of some orthodoxy. But, in age of chaos, there would be no apostates either. So, in age of chaos, there would only be Chuck the Common. }:-> Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:39:30 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Responses In a message dated 99-12-13 17:11:18 EST, you write: << If I agree with you, does that make me a heretic too? Actually your statement above sounds a lot like Uncle Al's "Do What Thou Wilt" and should give many a good Theosophist a belly ache. Not nice on a Theosophical list. Good job! Jerry S. >> Shure does! Heresy is good for the soul and the orthodox shall burn in hell. I was studying Uncle Al (the true World Teacher) years before I tripped over Theosophy embarrassed scream and crashing noise in the background) and most of the time he makes a lot more sense. Now don't get me wrong. I still like theosophy, it has lots of good stuff in it. But it has no corner on reality (notice I don't use Truth because I'm becoming more and more convinced that there is no such animal). It's one system out of many and a system that has a certain appeal. Of course the weakness of clubs like hell and Karma is that the people who they are designed to work on are usually the ones smart enough to see through them. The problem with Theosophy now is that it has become ossified into organizational stuff that no longer works real well, so there is a thrashing around to try to find the stuff that will and that leads to intellectual obscenities like the Sacred and Holy Labyrinth. And, of course, the smug attitude that we have the brightest and the best and eventually the whole world will come around to our way of thinking doesn't help much. It blinds us to serious acts of foolishness and causes us to overrate events that no one else in the world takes seriously. Yes, occasionally a theosophist will get mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, but it is always in the middle column on Wednesday, and that's the comedy column, dedicated to some absurdity and meant to be ridiculed. Our biographies become hagiographies and our histories self-congratulating nonsense. We become unable to see the serious weaknesses in the ideas themselves, particularly the historical context of their origin. In short, the TS has become a closed, inbred organization that seems unable to come to grips with the fact that the world is so much different from the world of the founders that they would not recognize themselves as even being on the same planet. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:47:12 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Responses In a message dated 99-12-13 18:01:04 EST, you write: << It boils down to whether there is a moral equivalent of what goes around comes around or in other words whether a core law of the cosmos involves some form of moral feedback. That is core belief behind belief in reincarnation and is core belief for all ancient traditions. It is essence of what is called "classical natural law theory." Grigor. >> That presupposes that the ancient traditions have some evidential validity to back them up and that the people who promulgated the ideas were honorable folk not interested in feathering their own nests. And the moon is made of green cheese. If there is any lesson from history, what goes around does not come around and the founders of religions are the not the sort of people you want for neighbors, a more disreputable and dishonest lot never walked the earth. The idea of some sort of punishment for nasty folk in another life is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of people who were too weak to carry it out in this one. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:49:08 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Responses In a message dated 99-12-13 18:07:43 EST, you write: << So, in age of chaos, there would only be Chuck the Common. }:-> Grigor >> I know, and it is very annoying. Unfortunately that seems to something even beyond my control. Still, an entire world populated by clones of me would be the closest humanity has even gotten to heaven. (giggle giggle) Chuck the Temporary Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 20:49:04 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Some Responses I think that there is a basic assumption that a lot of people make about karma which the Theosophical writings belie: that there is some connection between karma and morality, that when we receive karma, it is because we "deserve" it in a moral sense. Just because we cause something to happen doesn't mean we deserve it to happen. Here's a case in point: A person is walking through the woods alone. He trips, falls in a ditch, and breaks his leg. He slowly dies of thirst. Did he cause his death? Certainly. Did he deserve to die? Certainly not. The major reason why karma is mentioned in the Theosophical writings is that it teaches right and wrong in a much broader sense. When one acts in a selfish manner, one creates karma. One has no control over how it comes back, and nobody can guess what form it will take (for example, they cannot say, "That man is a slave, so it is his karma to be a slave"; after all, his karma could very well be that he will be freed from slavery). That makes it damned difficult to detect, and why it takes so many lifetimes to learn, and even then a little prodding here and there is required (possibly the major purpose of the Theosophical Society is to provide that prodding). Bart Lidofsky Hazarapet@aol.com wrote: > > [Chuck on karma:] > > >>It's a fraud that was created by the Brahmanical caste to keep the > Warrior > > caste from using the Brahmans for archery practice. It has no more truth > to > > it than the xtian hell and serves strictly as a club to beat people over > the > > head with.>> xxx > > I view "its your karma" as equivalent to a good Xtian's "its god's will" > > which is no answer at all. On the other hand, Chuck, some people probably > > need a club over their head... > > xxx > It boils down to whether there is a moral equivalent of what goes around > comes > around or in other words whether a core law of the cosmos involves some form > of moral feedback. That is core belief behind belief in reincarnation and is > core belief > for all ancient traditions. It is essence of what is called "classical > natural law theory." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:39:21 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Some Responses ----- Original Message ----- > From: > In short, the TS has become a closed, inbred organization that seems unable > to come to grips with the fact that the world is so much different from the > world of the founders that they would not recognize themselves as even being > on the same planet. > > Chuck the Heretic Chuck - you have cracked it! The Truth what there is no religion higher than. Your status as a heretic is in serious doubt - I hope you realise this. Alan the Evil http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:41:18 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Some Responses ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Still, an entire world populated by clones of me would be the closest > humanity has even gotten to heaven. (giggle giggle) > > Chuck the Temporary Heretic .... think I'll give heaven a miss, maybe. Still, you could be wrong. Alan's clone. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 04:34:32 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: LONG POST ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bart Lidofsky > The major reason why karma is mentioned in the Theosophical writings is > that it teaches right and wrong in a much broader sense. When one acts > in a selfish manner, one creates karma. Unfortunately this is very simplistic. People will always do what they want to do most. Like Grigor acquired a number of important degrees because the State told he he must do that. As, presumably, the consequences of refusal would have been more unpleasant that acceptance, I should think that Grigor *wanted* to get those degrees in order to protect himself. We can call this "selfish" if we want to. Other possibilities are that "survival" = "selfish." In a battle, a soldier will be told to shoot and kill someone else. If he refuses, *he* will be shot. He will *want* to pull the trigger very much (probably). He *could* choose his own execution, of course. His "karma" depends upon his "choice" - except that everything that has happened in his life up to and including the moment of decision will most likely make his decision inevitable, whichever way it goes. > One has no control over how it > comes back, and nobody can guess what form it will take (for example, > they cannot say, "That man is a slave, so it is his karma to be a > slave"; after all, his karma could very well be that he will be freed > from slavery). That makes it damned difficult to detect, and why it > takes so many lifetimes to learn, and even then a little prodding here > and there is required (possibly the major purpose of the Theosophical > Society is to provide that prodding). The absence of control of this alleged "karma" or consequence is fair comment in my scenario above, but it does *not* require reincarnation for its result to manifest. The result is that one out of the two people involved gets killed. What happens next is open to question, and I, like many others, question it. The logic of the classical theosophical argument as summarized in your post is that after a great many sequential lives on earth (acceptng linear time as a fact) everyone "evolves" and becomes a "better person." The human race has been around long enough now for us to take a reasonably objective look at this idea, and it doesn't figure. In the main, human beings are much the same as they have ever been; only the technology has changed. From the Israelite invasion of Canaan through the various genocides in history such as the holocaust, and more recently the Kosovars, the Kurds, and now the Chechens, human brutality is, if anything, worse. And note - all this brutality, wherever it occurs, derives for the most part - if not all - from "religion" or "religious principles." The TS motto, "There is no religion higher than Truth" doesn't really mean anything if we examine it seriously, for no one can define "Truth" as any kind of absolute. One up for Pontius Pilate. Theosophy regularly tells people, "Theosophy is not a religion." Then it goes on to say, "Theosophy IS religion." TS societies should maybe issue a health warning. Let us hope, and in extremis, pray, that the conversion of the world to theosophy *as taught by the TS organisations* never comes about. The "karma" would be too horrible to behold. "Esoteric Sections" in touch with "Masters" would be de facto dictatorships, and to question the words of the "Master" would be regarded not just as a heresy, but as insanity. People who did not agree would probably, as happened in the former Soviet Union, be sent to psychiatric institutions "for the sake of their health." Or sent to labour camps in inhospitable parts of the world, there to work out their "bad karma." Theosophy as "God-wisdom" or - to avoid the impossible attempt to agree on a definition of "God" - spiritual insight into spiritual realities can only make sense if applied as an empirical and pragmatic road to take. And even then we still have to agree on definitions of "spiritual" and "wisdom." Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:22:30 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: December 13, 1999 - Jerry (and Murray) Jerry wrote: >Sorry Kym, but I agree with Murray. Each >"body" is a manifestation of preceding ones >from divinity down to the physical, the >ultimate Cause being the divine Monad. I'm sorry back, Jerry, because I fear I may have come across wrongly in my post to Murray. What I meant to imply was that Murray explained the "etheric body" in a logical and persuasive way - thereby altering my thinking regarding the etheric body and its function. My quip about God and Santa was intended to show that if someone like God, who is supposed to know everything, says there is a Santa, then it has to be so; therefore, Murray's knowledge and grasp of the subject seemed encompassing enough to where one (or me) is obliged to re-think their own position. There really is a link in that analogy. . .somewhere, but it's there. So, I do agree with you and Murray. . .for now. . .! Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:29:44 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: December 13, 1999 - Maureen Maureen wrote: >Would you know if Antonio has made any other arrangements yet? You >wouldn't mind putting in a good word for a friend, would you? Hey! What if I do and he ends up liking you better and then decides that he wants to go a few more lifetimes with you and puts me on hold? Forget my liberalist/socialist views; every woman for herself! ;-) >Maureen (Now willing to hasten the cross over) Whoo! You and me both, sister! Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:43:39 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 13, 1999 Grigor wrote: >There are apparently some forms of >corruption in America that the former >Soviet Union did not have. What!? Shocking! You mean, America DOESN'T rank last on the corruption list? I can't believe it. So, when President Reagan kept telling Americans that the Soviet Union was the "Evil Empire," he was lying? We somehow believed that we should "do it for the Gipper" and when the Gipper said "it is so" or "I don't remember," why, there was no doubt. But now, the myth has been shattered. . .. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 01:03:06 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Responses In a message dated 99-12-13 23:44:20 EST, you write: << think I'll give heaven a miss, maybe. Still, you could be wrong. Alan's clone. >> Oh come on! You'll enjoy it! Chuck's Cloning Agent From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 01:03:55 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Responses In a message dated 99-12-13 23:44:26 EST, you write: << Your status as a heretic is in serious doubt - I hope you realise this. >> Not with a few people we can think of! Ha Ha Ha!!!! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:12:50 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 13, 1999 Alan wrote: >In the >main, human beings are much the same as they have ever been; only the >technology has changed. From the Israelite invasion of Canaan through >the various genocides in history such as the holocaust, and more >recently the Kosovars, the Kurds, and now the Chechens, human brutality >is, if anything, worse. Hmmm, I think I have to disagree here. I do believe that humans have changed. There was a time when humans actually believed it was ok for women not to have the right to vote, that beating a woman with a stick no bigger than a man's thumb was acceptable, that children were nothing more than property, or that animals were nothing more than machines (remember Descartes?). Yes, it is true that this thinking still lives on in all cultures and in many minds, but the philosophy of Life for many people is altering. Women in Muslim countries are starting to form "human rights" groups - something unheard of in the past. Laws are now being passed making animal abuse punishable by law. Laws have been passed protecting children. Of course, there are violations of this by individuals everywhere, but, in general, most people, if questioned do not reflect the thinking regarding human rights and animal rights that their forebearers had. For me, the NATO involvement in Kosovo was an example of humans changing their minds - maybe we learned a little something from the Holocaust. So, perhaps the governments did it for some selfish reasons, but what matters is that most people believed that the slaughtering of people was simply unjustifiable. No, there wasn't as strong an outpouring from the general public as I would have liked, but, for once, the world did not stand by and simply watch. And it didn't matter that these people were Muslims, who have a history of disliking the West, Westerners still wanted to stop the killing - differences of religion and lifestyle are no longer excuses for allowing genocide. These are small steps, but I do believe that people are "evolving" in how they look at others. There have been horrific events in the past that did not bother many of the great thinkers and people of the time - they managed to find some kind of excuse to justify it. Today, that is much harder to find. Fewer and fewer people are buying into the "us vs. them" mentality because we are learning that it just ain't so. We now understand that a mother in Africa grieves as much over the loss of a child as a mother does in America. Used to be that Africans were not seen as being possessed of such emotions, much less the ability to even think. I really do believe that the human philosophy is pointing more and more towards Compassion. It's a clumsy process, but I think humans ultimately strive for the "good." Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:09:05 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Some Responses I have noticed that, in particular, in areas of science and philosophy, much of the TS membership tends to act as if we are still in the 19th century, with a strong postmodernist anti-science bias, except giving lip service to a few scientists who seem to toe the 19th century TS line, and ignoring most philosophers except for those who also toe the 19th century line, like Ken "A Genius in His Own Mind" Wilber, thought of as rather mediocre in the philosophical community, and ignoring ones like Prof. David Chalmers, considered to be one of the top philosophers in the world, and pointing towards new (and not at all bold) interpretations of the primary literature. I think the key is that many TS members take their interpretation of the Primary Literature as the ONLY interpretation, and if modern science of philosophy (including Mendelian Genetics) points to another interpretation, then it must be the science and philosophy that's wrong. Bart Lidofsky ambain wrote: > > In short, the TS has become a closed, inbred organization that seems > unable > > to come to grips with the fact that the world is so much different > from the > > world of the founders that they would not recognize themselves as even > being > > on the same planet. > > > > Chuck the Heretic ... > Chuck - you have cracked it! The Truth what there is no religion higher > than. Your status as a heretic is in serious doubt - I hope you realise > this. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:30:02 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: LONG POST ambain wrote: > The logic of the classical theosophical argument as summarized in your > post is that after a great many sequential lives on earth (acceptng > linear time as a fact) everyone "evolves" and becomes a "better person." > The human race has been around long enough now for us to take a > reasonably objective look at this idea, and it doesn't figure. In the > main, human beings are much the same as they have ever been; only the > technology has changed. From the Israelite invasion of Canaan through > the various genocides in history such as the holocaust, and more > recently the Kosovars, the Kurds, and now the Chechens, human brutality > is, if anything, worse. Except that the situation among the Kosovars, the Kurds, etc. are currently exceptions rather than the rule, and what used to be the rule makes the rest look tame by comparison. What has changed is our attitude of what is acceptable, and, with the technology you mention, a greater awareness of when something unacceptable is happening. > And note - all this brutality, wherever it occurs, derives for the most > part - if not all - from "religion" or "religious principles." The TS > motto, "There is no religion higher than Truth" doesn't really mean > anything if we examine it seriously, for no one can define "Truth" as > any kind of absolute. One up for Pontius Pilate. But we can get closer and closer to the Truth. Tony Lysy showed a wonderful quote from Isaac Asimov. I don't have it handy, but it says essentially that a student went up to Asimov, and said that the people who said the world was flat were wrong, and the people who said the earth was a sphere were wrong, and, in the future, people will find out that we were wrong, too. Asimov replied something on the close order of, "Those who thought the world was flat were indeed wrong, as were those who thought the world to be a sphere. But if you think those who thought the world to be a sphere were as wrong as those who thought the world to be flat, you are wronger than either of them." > Theosophy regularly tells people, "Theosophy is not a religion." Then > it goes on to say, "Theosophy IS religion." The key question there is, "What is religion?" I have, in the past, and over-simplistically, defined science as the study of how things work, philosophy as the study of how things should work, and religion as the study of why things work. Within that point of view, it could be stated that individual religions are applied theosophy, and the various TS's are attempting to discover theosophy. > TS societies should maybe issue a health warning. Let us hope, and in > extremis, pray, that the conversion of the world to theosophy *as taught > by the TS organisations* never comes about. The Maha Chohan's (sp?) letter says something similar. > The "karma" would be too > horrible to behold. "Esoteric Sections" in touch with "Masters" would > be de facto dictatorships, and to question the words of the "Master" > would be regarded not just as a heresy, but as insanity. Many people in my Lodge avoid the term "Master". Numerous mistakes on their part can be shown, and even if they can be explained, they are still mistakes (such as their ridiculous analysis of potential energy, which clearly shows that they were given an incorrect definition of potential energy). > sent to psychiatric institutions "for the sake of their health." Or > sent to labour camps in inhospitable parts of the world, there to work > out their "bad karma." That is essentially the major fear; that the TS becomes a religion. According to the primary literature, of course, there is no good karma or bad karma. And it is not yet time for "One World". And, of course, we must always be mindful of the line between "doctrine" and "dogma". Bart Lidofsky Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:40:24 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Responses In a message dated 12/13/99 5:47:32 PM Central Standard Time, Drpsionic@aol.com writes: > That presupposes that the ancient traditions have some evidential validity to > > back them up and that the people who promulgated the ideas were honorable > folk not interested in feathering their own nests. > Classic natural law tradition (i.e. the ultimate causality is moral feedback) has often been used to criticize regimes. It is the basis to contrast justice and law, and thus, be able to say a law is unjust (otherwise, you are left with an "idiotic illegal law"???). Zarathustra protested against the Brahmanic/warrior cult of power (might makes right) by appeal to a cosmic standard of good and evil that any regime is measured by. Buddha appealed to a cosmic Dharma to criticize the adharmic caste system and scandalized the Hindus by allowing women as followers. Socrates criticized the legitimacy of Athenian laws, exposing the moral confusion behind them, in terms of an appeal to a cosmic form of the Good. Taoists criticized imperial Chinese legitimacy by appeal to the Tao. Gandhi protested the legitimacy of the British regime by appeal to the universal natural justice as did Martin Luther King (where the US violated the _natural rights_ of blacks by denying them their _civil rights_.) The second century gnostics can be read as a covert protest against the cosmos made in the image of an authoritarian and imperial order by a conception of real good and real justice utterly beyond and alien to the powers that be. Chuck, your own protest against traditions' moral legitimacy appeals to what higher standard that they fail to measure up to if there is no such thing to appeal to? For if there is no thing as objective justice, there is no such thing as injustice. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:42:42 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Responses In a message dated 12/13/99 5:51:41 PM Central Standard Time, Drpsionic@aol.com writes: > Still, an entire world populated by clones of me would be the closest > humanity has even gotten to heaven. (giggle giggle) > > Chuck the Temporary Heretic > Better watch movie Multiplicity first. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:59:59 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 13, 1999 -Kym In a message dated 12/14/99 12:11:49 AM Central Standard Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > or that animals were nothing more than machines (remember > Descartes?). First a few complicating details before moving on to main point. Did everyone think animals were machines before Descartes? No, some tribes do not distinguish between animals and people. Aristotle did not regard an animal as machine. Neither did Hinduism Buddhism, or Taoism. And J Bentham thought animals had moral standing because the criteria was not the ability to morally reason about means, ends, and consequences, but the ability to feel pain. Now main point: I think general statements of humans being better or worse are nonsense. Basically, I find of interest how Christian native peoples interpret the Biblical stories of the Fall from Eden and the Tower of Babel as about one and the same event. The fall from Eden WAS the building of Tower of Babel, cities, Ziggurats. This was time, as noted former friend Mircea Eliade noted, that religion became a ambivalent thing between serving its original function and its social use and/or abuse to legitimize the state apparatus.The historical problem we are still dealing with is the development of the capacity for a hierarchical society due to the agricultural revolution. The Lakota Sioux say they watched the rise of Toltec and Aztec culture from agricultural surpluses, saw the evil, and opted out of it. There was a transition from relatively small egalitarian family groups/tribes to a hierarchical social pyramid with a slave bottom and exploitive top. Aside: I always amused that everyone who claims to have a past life regression claims to have been Egyptian priest or member of some other social elite when statistically the odds are that they were slaves. Why nobody remember being slave? We still have unsolved the social structure of agricultural revolution compounded by a technological overlay. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 10:28:28 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: karma/morality to Bart/was Some Responses In a message dated 12/13/99 7:47:51 PM Central Standard Time, bartl@sprynet.com writes: > I think that there is a basic assumption that a lot of people make > about karma which the Theosophical writings belie: that there is some > connection between karma and morality, that when we receive karma, it is > because we "deserve" it in a moral sense. Just because we cause > something to happen doesn't mean we deserve it to happen. This is a much too narrow way of looking at ethics. Karma is the verbal noun form of kriy- (work, realization) that is the manifestation of four causal (karana, cognate to kriya, karma) factors: efficient cause, material cause, formal cause, and final cause (or purpose) in Indian philosophy. Thus, anything that happens is only partly my doing and only partly my responsibility because my efficient causation is dependent upon factors beyond my control. Its like sailing. I want to go from point A to point B. That is my goal. That is final cause. I move the sails and rudder dependently in response to how waters, tides, currents, and winds are in action. That is my efficient cause responding to forces while seeking goal. The tides, winds, and currents, while in themselves efficient causes, are the raw material or material cause of my action. The world, in Hinduism and Buddhism and Theosophy, is the product of a collection of forces, motives, actions, consequences, and sentient beings. These world-creating forces are ambivalent for a variety of reasons. But, whether in themselves they are efficient causes (mechanical or purposive from another agency besides me) or someone's final causes, morally for me they are material cause or the raw material or the lot dealt to me. My responsibility is what I make of it. What I make of it is itself complex. First, any action has an infinite number of consequences. So, any action has amoral and moral aspects (the distinction is which ones can I be held accountable for - a complicated topic in concrete situations). Because of infinity of unforeseen consequences from others or world, things happen to me that I do not deserve. The moral aspect of karma involves how I respond to my lot in life and to my death. Lets look at the complexity of a moral act. Any moral action is complex. There is motive or intent which can be good or bad. There is the action chosen as means to a goal (the match between the means and the goal may be better or worse). There is the goal (there are good goals and bad goals). And there are consequences (did I foresee, as much as I should have, the possible good/bad consequences as part of the information to make a decision about what means should be chosen to carry out my goal and/or whether I should do anything at this time). Any act can be evaluated in any these respects (as indicated in parentheses). Some one could have an evil intent, yet incompetently, bring about an inadvertent good. Someone might have good intent and incompetently bring about evil. Someone may mismatch means to end. Since there are usually many means to an end, someone may still find an efficient means to and end but still incompetently not consider consequences of the means (goal is intended consequence, but never only one) that might dictate that an alternative means might be better, in terms of consequences, to realize same goal. So, assume a person has good intent. There is still the issues of whether they have the moral competence to properly fulfill that intent by (1) choosing the right means and (2) the right goal with (3) some foresight as to consequences. Any single aspect of an action can be evaluated as good or bad: intent, competence to choose good means to an end (both as means that will attain end AND not produce too many negative consequences), good ends, and foresight of consequences. It is generally recognized that I cause more than I am morally responsible for (courts debate issue of whether or not, and degree of, responsibility for unforeseen consequences). If I had good intent but did not know how to carry it out well, did I or did I not consult with others, if there was opportunity, for advice? This is example of one type of consideration out of many others given context. But, basically, karma as moral inheritance/consequence (the basis of belief in reincarnation) is about that over which I had control or over how I defined myself/made myself to be in a situation as a habit-forming process of building up a type of character. The Bhagavad Gita emphasizes that it is one's inner attitude to outside events that determines your karma as moral consequence. In this, it is like teaching of Stoics who said universe measures your worth not by what happens to you but how you inwardly are in response to come what may. Tantric Buddhism says nirvana is samsara and samsara is nirvana. The import of this, to paraphrase Milton, is the "mind is its own place and can make a heaven of hell" but also, a hell out of heaven. Soviet prison cells and Russian Orthodox monk cells are very much alike. It is the character of person, whether brought into cell or created/discovered in that cell, that makes difference between mad man and wise saint. So, I meet accidental death. The moral issue is not whether I deserve to die but who am I, what sort of being am I, in that moment of facing death. How one spends one's life up to that point determines the likely outcome of what that moment might be because one has become a certain habit of a kind of response, a kind of taking things one way or another, but its who you are inwardly. Karmayoga is to go on without attachment to outer circumstances. One is measured by how well or how bad one practices karmayoga. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 10:51:38 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Responses/Chalmers-Bart In a message dated 12/14/99 7:07:51 AM Central Standard Time, bartl@sprynet.com writes: > Prof. David Chalmers, considered to be one of the top philosophers > in the world Except he is a physicalist. Consciousness, ultimately, is a by-product of matter. He is a unique kind of what is called "token-identity functionalist physicalist" but he is still physicalist. The type-identity physicalist, also called the reductive physicalist, thought that minds states and brain states are two aspects of the same _physical_ process. So, for every _type_ of mental event, there was a _type_ of physical event. And all mental events were really physical events. Then computers came along. Hilary Putnam realized that a computer's software could put it in a computational state and that any two computers could be in the same computational state or program state while being in different hardware/physical states. So, there was not a correspondence between _types_ of computational states and _types_ of hardware states even though every computational state is a electrical/physical hardware realization. This was token identity functionalism. Every token of a computational state is a physical state but there is no _type_ correspondence between _types_ of computational states and _types_ of physical states. They are, it is said, multi-realizable. Similarly, people's brains (hardware) are wired slightly differently. The idea behind token identity functionalism applied to mind was mental events were like software. The same software could run on different kinds of hardware and each run would be slightly physically different so there while mental events were physical events (identity) there was no correspondence between _types_ of software states and _types_ of physical states. Chalmers is token-identity theorist. Two points: first,the fact that I know about him and I'm a theosophist (plus I'm physicist not enamored of 19th century physics) seems to be a counter-example to your generalization, and second, the dominant trend in contemporary Anglo-American philosophy is materialism, which is what Chalmers is, and that would run counter to theosophical interests. So far as I know, there is only one contemporary philosopher of mind, fully up on latest theories and cognitive science, who (as the materialists admit) defends a dualist and idealist philosophy of mind where mind is independent of matter and can survive death of brain. He is Professor John Foster of Brasenose College (SP?) Oxford. And I agree with your assessment of Ken Wilbur. I saw him at a book signing party at Shambhalla Bookstore in Berkeley. He was disappointed at the small turn out. Actually, the problem was there was no room. Shambhallah is small shop and his ego was very big. There were hardly any room for others in place. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:11:58 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Responses In a message dated 99-12-14 08:40:43 EST, you write: << Chuck, your own protest against traditions' moral legitimacy appeals to what higher standard that they fail to measure up to if there is no such thing to appeal to? For if there is no thing as objective justice, there is no such thing as injustice. Grigor >> From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:26:36 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: karma/morality to Bart/was Some Responses In a message dated 99-12-14 10:28:49 EST, you write: << It is the character of person, whether brought into cell or created/discovered in that cell, that makes difference between mad man and wise saint. >> There's a difference????? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:57:38 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: karma/morality to Bart/was Some Responses In a message dated 12/14/99 10:26:59 AM Central Standard Time, Drpsionic@aol.com writes: > There's a difference????? > > Chuck the Heretic > There once was a Christian ascetic and follower of Origen who held the apparently paradoxical Socratic view that all evil is done involuntarily. This is because the madman (everyone) has not the internal integrity of being to be fully in self-control of their manifestations. Lacking such soyphrosyne, we have impulses (theleses) but no single willpower (thelein, thelesis). Do to our inner fragmentation, we cannot really willfully do. This was later taught by Duns Scotus. We have the potential to will just as our normal I has the potential to realize the Self. Only Self has will. Ordinary I has impulsive little willings that conflict with each other and keep "me" inwardly divided. That is why new years resolutions and diets don't work. This was later picked up again by Boehme. >From there, Aleister Crowley got it. The difference between the real saint (not some "official" one) and the madman is the former can wholly will and the later cannot because one has the integrated willpower of self-control and self-mastery and the other does not. Even Nietzsche taught same. Ordinary man is a tension, a half yes, and a half no, and thus, not really anything at all. The ubermensch is the one who has become wholly a yes and a no, and who has developed self-control/self-mastery to such a degree (evolving through the stages of camel - a servant/beast of burden, a lion - that has gained strength thereby, to become the child, who plays in eternity - Zarathustra's motif), he is truly will. He is voluntary human. Ordinary mass men are the involuntary passive shadows of their potential selves. Madman are just a little bit lower than normal person in the degree of what Augustine called the bondage of the will and the Greeks called the incapacity of one who has not created his or her will. Potential for will is part of original equipment but to be actualized, will must be created just as someone may be born with athletic talent but must train to become athlete. In mastering impulses and reactions in cell, saint _creates will_ (I think people take this metaphorically when it is meant literally) while madman looses it. But no need outer cell. It is the inner cells that defeat or make us. LSD trips, remember most LSD research was done in Prague and not by State, manifest your own mind. What you do with your own mind determines the kind of trip you have. Americans experimented with Esalen Lilly-tanks. Under sensory deprivation, the mind is left to its own devices. How it manifests reveals its habits. How mind deals with itself/habits determines what sensory deprivation experience will be. In essence, mind and will, in how mind-will deal with self, determines what mind-will will be. It is process of on-going creation that is either up and ascending or down and descending. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:07:39 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: karma/morality to Bart/was Some Responses/PS In a message dated 12/14/99 10:58:05 AM Central Standard Time, Hazarapet@aol.com writes: > We have the potential to will just > as our normal I has the potential to realize > the Self. Only Self has will. Ordinary I has > impulsive little willings that conflict with each > other and keep "me" inwardly divided. I should add that the buddhi faculty is both awareness and will. To awaken buddhi is to re-create the will. Like cell, nirvana and samsara are same. The difference is that Buddhas (fully buddhi) can will while those who experience this reality as samsara cannot. In Dzog chen, it is said that at a stream a god will see a lovely flowing energy while a hungry ghost or hell demon will be terrified of a flowing river of fire. The difference is demons can't help scaring themselves into a panic. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:57:15 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Some Responses >>It boils down to whether there is a moral equivalent of what goes around comes around or in other words whether a core law of the cosmos involves some form of moral feedback. That is core belief behind belief in reincarnation and is core belief for all ancient traditions. It is essence of what is called "classical natural law theory." Grigor.>> Moral feedback is in the eyes of the recipient. I see it everywhere, but some folks don't see it at all. That's because I want to, and they don't. This is all part of our having free will. The problem with reincarnation and karma is that we have, so it is said, been reincarnating for a very long time. According to Buddhism, we have been around so many times that just about everyone on Earth has been our mother at least once, and this thought is supposed to help us love one another. If anywhere near true, then it is clear that we have committed just about every sin imaginable somewhere along the line, and so we are each in line today to suffer for just about anything at all. The whole logical cause-effect principle fails here because there is enough time in our past to have developed a cause for just about anything. The whole karma business, as packaged by exoteric writers, Theosophical and otherwise, is illogical at best and stupid at worst (stupid in the sense that it is an insult to my intelligence). I prefer the idea of collective karma - which says that we agreed to accept certain restraints and chaotic conditions when we signed up as members of this human lifewave. Collective karma can be explained in terms of modern chaos theory, and so I find it acceptable and logical. The notion that I suffer a cold today because I stole $25 from a little old lady six lifetimes ago is too much for me to buy. Jerry S. >>The problem with Theosophy now is that it has become ossified into organizational stuff that no longer works real well, so there is a thrashing around to try to find the stuff that will and that leads to intellectual obscenities like the Sacred and Holy Labyrinth.>> Chuck, all human organizations tend to ossify sooner or later and the TSs are no exception. One reason that it no longer works real well is that it over-emphasises the exoteric, which is not always logical nor spiritually uplifting. The TSs missed the boat when they omitted Enlightenment and the possibility of consuming karma ala the jivamukti. No one, including myself, likes the notion of reincarnating ad nauseum forever. And this business of doing good in this life so that our next will be better is not only the same spiritual selfishness that Theosophy claims to abhor, but doesn't work in today's better-educated society. Theosophists seem content to let the Adepts have spirituality all to themselves, while waiting for future lives. This attitude is self-defeating and the result is a serious lack of membership. Jerry S. [Bart:] << I think that there is a basic assumption that a lot of people make about karma which the Theosophical writings belie: that there is some connection between karma and morality, that when we receive karma, it is because we "deserve" it in a moral sense. Just because we cause something to happen doesn't mean we deserve it to happen. Here's a case in point: A person is walking through the woods alone. He trips, falls in a ditch, and breaks his leg. He slowly dies of thirst. Did he cause his death? Certainly. Did he deserve to die? Certainly not. >> Yes, he deserved it. Doubtless he did something very bad in a past life. Or maybe it was just God's will? The whole theory of karma, as espoused in Theosophy and Buddhism, is that every event in our life has causes that we are ultimately responsible for. The fact that he died is part of accepting collective karma - we humans are born to die. >>The major reason why karma is mentioned in the Theosophical writings is that it teaches right and wrong in a much broader sense.>> Broader than what? Right and wrong are entirely social and cultural definitions. The notion that karma is somehow a universal law that addresses local right and wrong issues seems terribly illogical to me. >When one acts in a selfish manner, one creates karma. One creates karma by any action soever. In fact, HPB states clearly that even the failure to act produces karma. We can't get away from causation any more than we can logically explain it. >>One has no control over how it comes back, and nobody can guess what form it will take >> Then why worry about it? All we human beings can possibly be expected to worry about is whatever we have control over. We should not worry over those things that we can't control. BTW, this kind of control is called magic, and it is what real magic is all about. >>That makes it damned difficult to detect, and why it takes so many lifetimes to learn, and even then a little prodding here and there is required (possibly the major purpose of the Theosophical Society is to provide that prodding).>> Here I think you are avoiding the issue by handing it over to the future. What is wrong with assuming that we did this during our last life? The prodding that the TSs are doing are for newbies and for those uninitiated masses who need it. The problem, as I see it, is that the TSs keep this stuff up ad nauseum with everybody, even those who shouldn't need it any longer. Ethics can be learned, but once learned needs to be transcended into spontaneous action. The TSs are good with the ethical learning business, but very poor on its transcendence - most not even accepting that such a thing is necessary. They leave spontaneous action to Adepts and make no attempt at it at all even though it is the hallmark of Zen, and HPB and Olcott were said to have been Buddhists. I find the spirit of Zen, of the pure joy in being, of the transcendence of the personal self, all sadly lacking in our TSs. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:12:51 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Some responses << your own protest against traditions' moral legitimacy appeals to what higher standard that they fail to measure up to if there is no such thing to appeal to? For if there is no thing as objective justice, there is no such thing as injustice. Grigor >> Very simple. I don't believe there is a higher standard. Justice is a myth and all these things simply are matters of emotion and power relationships, nor do I believe that any morality is legitimate or illegitmate. Morality is just a big word for fashion. Now, fashions get accepted by people for different reasons at different times, but for them to work both parties to the dispute have to essentially agree on them, otherwise it merely becomes a contest of brute force with the winner deciding the morality. For example, consider the papal writings against democracy in the 19th century. Their protests fell on deaf ears, not because they were not well thought out, but because the authority they appealed to had lost its power to command. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:48:47 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Responses-Rick In a message dated 12/14/99 11:51:37 AM Central Standard Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > Moral feedback is in the eyes of the recipient. I see it everywhere, but > some folks don't see it at all. That's because I want to, and they don't. > This is all part of our having free will. But free will is not being free of Dharma. The dharma (moral feedback) is there whether people see it or not. The freewill of it is the seeing or not seeing it. > > The problem with reincarnation and karma is that we have, so it is said, > been reincarnating for a very long time. I don't see what the problem is. Karma is the consequences of our own actions acting back upon us. There is no connection between it and making progress (if that is what you infer -which I am guessing at based on your comment that we have been reincarnating a long time). There is no automatic progress in Buddhism like there is in Theosophy. In Buddhism, one does not evolve into a Buddha over a span of lives. One WORKS at becoming a Buddha, perhaps over a span of lives. Samsara (cycle of rebirth driven by karma) is cross between a mental hospital and a holding pattern over an airport. Unless one deliberately gets out of the holding pattern in order to land, one will not land. It is useless milling around until one has had enough and wakes up. There are no lessons in it unless one takes an active interest in learning. There is no progress in it unless one is actively interested in progressing. There is no evolution in it until I wish resolutely to wake up. I sometimes think a serious moral and metaphysical flaw in theosophy is it provides solace to the spiritual couch-potato. In essence, saying that there is the cycles of evolution (without exactly specifying the conditions of evolution, does it happen automatically or does it happen only to those who pursue it?) through which people progress is like saying you don't have to DO anything because it will happen to you automatically. So, people making no progress at all claim progress nevertheless ("no progress is a kind of progress in this life" goes the refrain). Thus, the combination of social darwinian ideas of a natural trend of progress with reincarnation leads to the utmost worse form of passivity and not taking responsibility. By contrast, Buddhism does not combine a social darwinian idea of a natural trend of progress with the idea of reincarnation. There is no progress in one life or many unless I will to become better. Reincarnation is useless milling around without resolute effort. Without effort, reincarnation is a compulsive disorder. So, I don't think the problem is with the concept of karma unless it has be tacitly tied to an idea of automatic moral progress. That perhaps deadly combination puts EVERYONE ON THE PATH (by contrast, in Buddhism, only those who put themselves on the path are on the path and that leaves out most everybody) so Hitler or Stalin sending millions to death camps was their "path" in that life from which they would learn progressive lessons. Its like a fat beer guzzler claiming as an old football injury a trick knee he got from falling over the coffee table while going to get another beer because he was watching the game and pseudo-theosophically, EVERYONE IS ON THE FIELD (in spirit). Buddhism says many lives, in and of itself, is of no help. Theosophy does. On this score, I claim theosophy is wrong. That is point I tried raising with Dallas back in October in the posts on Is Reincarnation Progress? or something like that. The combination of the idea of reincarnation with the social darwinian idea of progress (thus, despite what we do in this life, we are still progressing) may be the worse cop out of three millenium. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 06:17:10 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Some Responses ----- Original Message ----- > From: > In a message dated 99-12-13 23:44:20 EST, you write: > > << think I'll give heaven a miss, maybe. Still, you could be wrong. > > Alan's clone. >> > > Oh come on! You'll enjoy it! > > Chuck's Cloning Agent What fee does Alan get? Alan's Cloning Agent From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 22:58:12 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 13, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 6:12 AM > From: > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 13, 1999 > Alan wrote: > > >In the > >main, human beings are much the same as they have ever been> > I really do believe that the human philosophy is pointing more and more > towards Compassion. It's a clumsy process, but I think humans ultimately > strive for the "good." > > Kym I do agree in part, Kym, but I did say "in the main." For us in the West, "the main" is *beginning" to approach the norm. And yes, Muslim women are beginning to work for emancipation, etc., etc. You chose the example of Kosovo, where the victims were Muslim, to suggest that humanitarian considerations overcame religious ones. The Serbs were mudering Muslim Albanians of all ages regardless of sex, and NATO was bombing the sh-t out of Serbian Orthodox "Christians" of all ages regardless of sex. In Chechnya the Russians (strongly Eastern Orthodox) are doing the same to Muslims of all ages regardless of sex, but the best that Western compassion can come up with is the threat of withholding financial assistance. The truth is that politicians trot out the "compassion" ticket when it is politically expedient, and look the other way when it isn't, just as they have always done. Social mores may change, but the bloodshed, cruelty, rape, etc., etc. goes on. The "religious right" in the USA parade around in white hoods, 4 x 4 vehicles bristling with rifles (a fact you told me yourself) and sexual "deviants" regularly suffer verbal and physical abuse on the streets of their home towns. For some of these the statistics (US-wide) are frightening - a 1 in 12 chance of being murdered. Better odds that the lottery. So yes, human philosophy is pointing more and more towards Compassion, and it is a clumsy process. It is also a very small pointer. All of the *founders* of the major religions from way back to the earliest Vedantic records have urged compassion upon the human race. And most - not all - of their followers have shown a marked lack of it on the larger scale of human endeavor. The occasional genuine article - Martin Luther King comes to mind - are most likely martyred for their efforts. For a while, some social conscience sets in, until we read of yet another Southern black man being dragged to his death behind a truckload of white supremacists, or some similar atrocity. Without my wishing to start WWIII with my comments, Hitler's Reich was bombing the Sh-t out of us during 1941, and The Land of the Free preferred not to "get involved." In Africa - a *very* large place - "rebels" mutilate living women and children by hacking off their limbs. So, yes, the finger of the wise points towards compassion, but the majority of humans still go in other directions. I guess that's our next life dumped. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 23:25:49 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Shooting Mexicans I snipped this from another list: "Outrage of the week: The goal of the "Toy Story 2" video game from Disney is to shoot Mexicans(more specifically, sombrero wearing banditos). Please do not support this film or related products." Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:37:01 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: theos-l digest: December 14, 1999 - Alan Alan wrote: >Without my wishing to start WWIII with my comments, Hitler's Reich was >bombing the Sh-t out of us during 1941, and The Land of the Free >preferred not to "get involved." I know the faults of America and I do not mean to tout America as a great or moral nation. I see the destruction, pain, and suffering and I know that America stands by while certain countries endure horrendous persecution. And, I too, fear greatly the Religious Right in America. It is often embarrassing to be an American, and I can understand why those from other countries on this list feel the way they do about America. Grigor and Katinka, too, have both expressed anger towards America in previous posts. There is every justification for it. >So, yes, the finger of the wise points towards compassion, but the >majority of humans still go in other directions. Perhaps my position of attempting to look at humans in a postive light is naive and even stupid - I am hoping against hope, it seems. If after all this time, it truly is getting worse, then I do not know what to think about God, the meaning of life, the point of existence itself. I guess what it boils down to for me is that I HAVE to believe in that "spark" of divinity that is said to be within everything - and I am willing to admit that if I am seeing something that is not there, which may be true, that I have freely chosen to believe in a false god. If I lose my hope, I fear I shall die and not just physically. >I guess that's our next life dumped. I don't understand what you mean here. Although I am aware our banter about the next life scenario is just having fun, my viseral reaction to your above statement is that I am being "dumped" because I disagreed with you. Please tell me I am wrong. . .even if you have to lie. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 02:02:13 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 14, 1999 Grigor wrote: >Did everyone think animals were machines before Descartes? >No, some tribes do not distinguish between animals and people. Yes, I know, but tribal knowledge is not used very often by scientists; and more people know about Descartes than "some tribes" - which is my point. Descartes was more influential in Western social and scientific thought - which is where most animal vivisection is carried out. >Aristotle did not regard an animal as machine. No, but he considered them separate from humanity; moreover, he theorized that women were only three-quarters in equality to a male. >Neither did Hinduism >Buddhism, or Taoism. About the only Eastern religion that practices true equality with animals, in my opinion, is Jainism - although I have a problem with their insistence on not killing any animal, even if it is experiencing intolerable pain. >And J Bentham thought animals had moral >standing because the criteria was not the ability to morally reason >about means, ends, and consequences, but the ability to feel pain. I know, but even though people know that animals suffer pain, the excuse to abuse animals is because they are "separate" from humans, meaning without morals or an ability to reason. People who experiment on animals, or believe in it because it "helps humans," justify it by saying vivisectors use pain-killers, so that makes it all right - but most of these same people will scream and shout about doing the same experiment on a human. So clearly, the ability to feel pain is not what many people use in their judgement criteria. The message of "no harm" has to use another avenue - the new avenue, which seems to be working, albeit slowly, is the philosophy of interconnection. >Now main point: I think general statements of humans being better or worse are >nonsense. Well, then you may have just chucked the discipline of philosophy right out the door. Most of philosophy centers around this question. Philosophy constantly compares "good" and "bad," or "better" or "worse" in almost every area. Ethics, aesthetics, the nature of God, the nature of humanity, the nature of nature, evil, metaphysics, epistemology, technology, religion, etc., are all looked at from that perspective - and then quantified in "general statements." To speak and study only the particulars of humans and existence would clog up the brain big time. I cannot think of any philosopher who has not engaged in such comparisons. In fact, I think it is humanly impossible. Your own statement, Grigor, uses the term "nonsense" - which is a designation of something "bad" or "lesser." And you meant it to be so, otherwise you would have no way of making your point. Even ambivalence requires some kind of knowledge about what is supposed to be better or worse. How did the Lakota Sioux recognize "evil" in the Aztecs' behavior and then choose to "opt out" if comparisons of better or worse are nonsense? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:21:39 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: Call me Ms. Gates- Expand the Contest! Hi Kym, On Dec 11 you wrote: "Choose the weirdest Theos poster." Hey, I say go beyond the weird. I mean weird is great, but so are a lot of other things. I think we can come up with a lot of categories. I already have some personal favorites. For example- Saying the most with the least. I will always love this exchange between Bart and Doss: Doss: Do you see the annointment of K as the New World Teacher a failure? Bart: Well, K certainly did. (It only took Bart four words to sum it up. Now that's good!) And we definitely should have a funniest knee-jerk reaction category (I will never forget the now-famous Ha! posting) Let me know what you think. We could have some real fun with this. Or is that anti-Theosophical? Maureen (Definitely into mischief this time around) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:03:52 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Call me Ms. Gates- Expand the Contest! In a message dated 99-12-15 09:22:37 EST, you write: << Let me know what you think. We could have some real fun with this. Or is that anti-Theosophical? >> Fun is never anti-Theosophical! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:17:02 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Misc Responses >>[Grigor:]The historical problem we are still dealing with is the development of the capacity for a hierarchical society due to the agricultural revolution. The Lakota Sioux say they watched the rise of Toltec and Aztec culture from agricultural surpluses, saw the evil, and opted out of it. There was a transition from relatively small egalitarian family groups/tribes to a hierarchical social pyramid with a slave bottom and exploitive top.>> Every true thing in this world is double-edged. According to G. de Purucker, the doctrine of hierarchies is one of the seven great Teachings within the Theosophical camp. Everything in the manifested worlds (samsara) is expressed in some hierarchical form. But, as you point out, there is a danger to having society form hierarchies, and prejudices can run rampant. Jerry S. Grigior's recent post: karma/morality to Bart/was Some Responses is one of the best I have read on this net about karma (thats because he echoes many of my own thoughts). Thanks, Grigor. Jerry S. >> Prof. David Chalmers, considered to be one of the top philosophers >> in the world > >Except he is a physicalist. Consciousness, ultimately, is a >by-product of matter. He is a unique kind of what is called >"token-identity functionalist physicalist" but he is still >physicalist. Agreed. So was Carl Sagan, and many other good scientists. There is, in fact, no way at all to "prove" whether the mind expresses itself in the brain, or whether the brain expresses itself in the mind. It is a question of faith based on experience and intuition. However, the fallout (world view)from each viewpoint is decidedly different. There is a host of modern scientific evidence to suggest that the cause-effect relationship between mind and body is a two-way street and not a one-way street at all. In light of Theosophy, this has to be true, in order for our reincarnation experiences to effect our spiritual being while at the same time being its outward expression. Jerry S. [Grigor:]>>Even Nietzsche taught same. Ordinary man is a tension, a half yes, and a half no, and thus, not really anything at all.>> This was also taught by Jung. It is a Gnostic idea and I suspect that it has a great deal of truth. Jung called most people members of a "herd" or the collective consciousness (not same as collective unconscious). He talked a lot about the herd instinct and how we need to transcend it. He taught that evolution was all about the development and focus of consciousness rising up like a wave from the sea-like collective unconscious. What is life but the tension between polar opposites? Jerry S. >>[Grigor:]But free will is not being free of Dharma. The dharma (moral feedback) is there whether people see it or not. The freewill of it is the seeing or not seeing it.>> I am not so sure that dharma (duty) should have moral connotations. Our only real "duty" is to express ourself. As we grow spiritually, we tend to express more spirituality as a natural fallout rather like a flower blooming. But I can't find any morality in the flower, only in human minds. >>. Karma is the consequences of our own actions acting back upon us.>> But if we have been living throughout eons of history then causal relationships between our actions blur and become meaningless. I can, in fact, reasonably expect anything at all to happen owing to the fact that at some point in my past eons I will have some outstanding action that can generate an effect today. The idea of balancing all my past evil actions by doing good in this life is ludicrous. It will never happen. This is why I dislike the exoteric definitions of karma and reincarnation - because they suggest an endless wheel of suffering which totally disregards the Buddha's Nobel Truths. While these truths do not suggest an end to reincarnation as such, they do suggest an end to suffering. The idea of an end to suffering is logically opposed to the idea of karmic consequences (which is, as I have maintained many times, the old Moses' Eye-for-an-Eye doctrine in modern Theosophical clothing). People today have grown past Moses and have largely embraced the "saving grace" of Jesus, which also suggests that karma and karmic consequences can cease now in this life. Christianity offers Heaven. Buddhism offers joyous Buddhalands. Modern Theosophy offers no such hope to anyone, and thus is rejected. Karmayoga, while being a very nice thing to do, is an illusion and won't get us where we want to go (i.e., to an end of suffering). In other words, karmayoga should be practiced as a spontaneous expression of our inner spirituality, and not as a technique to get us a better future life. Jerry S. <<[Grigor:]Buddhism says many lives, in and of itself, is of no help. Theosophy does. On this score, I claim theosophy is wrong.>> I totally agree with you. Jerry S. >>[Alan:] So, yes, the finger of the wise points towards compassion, but the majority of humans still go in other directions.>> Agreed. Blavatsky, somewhere, says that humanity is evolutionally equivalent to a teenager. I think that this speaks volumes for today's society. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:28:17 EST From: SDTHEOSOPHY@aol.com Subject: Re:COMMENT ON LIGHTBULB Hello to everyone, I am usually a "lurker" but I had to tell you that the LIGHTBULB article was one of the funniest and perfectly true pieces of satire it has ever been my pleasure to find. I am sharing it with all my friends at U.L.T. San Diego and so far the reaction has varied from roars to chuckles accompanied by many nods and whispers of "to true, to true"! Personally I hope the author is busy writing a book, or at least more articles that help us see ourselves from others perspectives!! Great work, thank you. PEACE Patty From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:29:18 EST From: SDTHEOSOPHY@aol.com Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter Now my dear sir, Tis true you can say anything, over the net. However, what you say may effect the minds of others, even if you are "playfully" trying to get a reaction from others, simply for "da trill of it all"---Meny believe that H.P.B. was the devoted Chela of the Lodge of Ascended Masters, and was in constant communication with Them while striving to bring the Ancient Wisdom Religion into the modern world, unchanged yet in a form suitable for its comprehension. This task as well as the position of Chela DEMANDS sobriety, that is abstinence from any kind of intoxicant---- She lived only to fulfill her mission, and the behavior you have described would have inevitably rendered her useless to the Masters. This is only logic and with some thought you will see that what ever you have read along those lines was patently false. I do recommend the book H.P.B. by Sylvia Cranston so you may get a clearer picture of the life and work of this great woman! PEACE Patty From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 23:02:26 -0200 From: "Arnaldo Sisson Filho" Subject: HPB on Intutition and true Thesophy. This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0078_01BF4750.744E2F60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Few days ago I sent this quotation to another list. I thought it could be useful to share it with this list as well. =20 Best wishes to all,=20 =20 Arnaldo. =20 HPB: Intuition and =B4true Theosophy=B4.=20 =20 "Every one of us possesses the faculty, the interior sense, known as = intuition, but how rare are those who know how to develop it! It is, = however, the only faculty by means of which men and things are seen in = their true colors. It is an instinct of the soul, which grows in us in = proportion to the use we make of it, and which helps us to perceive and = understand real and absolute facts with far more certainty than can the = simple use of our sense and logic enable us to reason. =20 "What are called good sense and logic enable us to see the appearance of = things, that which is evident to everyone. The instinct of which I = speak, being a projection of our perspective consciousness, a projection = which acts from the subjective to the objective, and not vice versa, = awakens the spiritual senses in us and the power to act; these senses = assimilate to themselves the essence of the object or of the action = under examination, and represent them to us as they really are, not as = they appear to our physical senses and to our cold reason. "We begin = with instinct, we end with omniscience," says Professor A. Wilder, our = oldest colleague.=20 =20 "Iamblicus has described this faculty, and some of us have been able to = appreciate the truth of his description: =20 ""There exists (he says) a faculty in the human mind which is immensely = superior to all those which are grafted or engendered in us. By means of = it we cam attain to union with superior intelligences, finding ourselves = raised above the scenes of this earthly life, and partaking of the = higher existence and superhuman powers of the inhabitants of the = celestial spheres. By this faculty we find ourselves finally liberated = from the dominion of Destiny (Karman), and we become, so to say, = arbiters of our own fate. For when the most excellent part of us finds = itself filled with energy, and when our soul is lifted up towards = essences higher than science, it can separate itself from the conditions = which hold it in bondage to everyday life; it exchanges its ordinary = existence for another one, and renounces the conventional habits which = belong to the external order of things, to give itself up to, and mix = itself with, another order of things which reigns in that most elevated = state of existence ..." (Iamblicus, De Mysteriis, VIII, 6 and 7) =20 "Plato expressed the same idea in a couple of lines: =20 ""The light and spirit of the Divinity are the wings of the soul. They = raise it to communion with the gods, above this earth, with which the = spirit of man is too ready to soil itself ... To become like the gods, = is to become holy, just and wise. That is the end of which man was = created, and that ought to be his aim in the acquisition of knowledge." = (Phaedrus, 246, D.E.; Theaetetus, 176 B) =20 "This is true Theosophy, inner Theosophy, that of the soul." (Extract = from "The Beacon of the Unkown", HPB, Collected Writings, XI, 253-4) =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0078_01BF4750.744E2F60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Few days ago I sent this quotation to another=20 list.
I thought it could be useful to share it with this=20 list
as well.
 
Best wishes to all,
 
Arnaldo.
----------------------------------------------------------------= ----
 
 
HPB: Intuition and = ´true=20 Theosophy´.
 
"Every one of us = possesses the=20 faculty, the interior sense, known as intuition, but how rare are those = who know=20 how to develop it! It is, however, the only faculty by means of which = men and=20 things are seen in their true colors. It is an instinct of the = soul,=20 which grows in us in proportion to the use we make of it, and which = helps us to=20 perceive and understand real and absolute facts with far more certainty = than can=20 the simple use of our sense and logic enable us to reason.
 
"What are called good = sense and=20 logic enable us to see the appearance of things, that which is evident = to=20 everyone. The instinct of which I speak, being a projection of our = perspective=20 consciousness, a projection which acts from the subjective to the = objective, and=20 not vice versa, awakens the spiritual senses in us and the = power to=20 act; these senses assimilate to themselves the essence of the = object or=20 of the action under examination, and represent them to us as they really = are,=20 not as they appear to our physical senses and to our cold reason. = "We begin=20 with instinct, we end with omniscience," says Professor A. Wilder, = our=20 oldest colleague.
 
"Iamblicus has = described this=20 faculty, and some of us have been able to appreciate the truth of his=20 description:
 
 ""There = exists (he says)=20 a faculty in the human mind which is immensely superior to all those = which are=20 grafted or engendered in us. By means of it we cam attain to union with = superior=20 intelligences, finding ourselves raised above the scenes of this earthly = life,=20 and partaking of the higher existence and superhuman powers of the = inhabitants=20 of the celestial spheres. By this faculty we find ourselves finally = liberated=20 from the dominion of Destiny (Karman), and we become, so to say, = arbiters of our=20 own fate. For when the most excellent part of us finds itself filled = with=20 energy, and when our soul is lifted up towards essences higher than = science, it=20 can separate itself from the conditions which hold it in bondage to = everyday=20 life; it exchanges its ordinary existence for another one, and renounces = the=20 conventional habits which belong to the external order of things, to = give itself=20 up to, and mix itself with, another order of things which reigns in that = most=20 elevated state of existence ..." (Iamblicus, De Mysteriis, = VIII, 6=20 and 7)
 
"Plato expressed the = same idea in a=20 couple of lines:
 
""The light and = spirit of the=20 Divinity are the wings of the soul. They raise it to communion with the = gods,=20 above this earth, with which the spirit of man is too ready to soil = itself ...=20 To become like the gods, is to become holy, just and wise. That is the = end of=20 which man was created, and that ought to be his aim in the acquisition = of=20 knowledge." (Phaedrus, 246, D.E.; Theaetetus, 176 B)
 
"This is true = Theosophy, inner=20 Theosophy, that of the soul." (Extract from "The Beacon of the = Unkown", HPB, Collected Writings, XI, 253-4)
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0078_01BF4750.744E2F60-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:11:09 -0800 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: 2 items added to BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE NEW MATERIAL added to BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm I've just added to our archives the following 2 items: --- George Wyld on Madame Blavatsky [Reprinted from The Spiritualist (London), January 24, 1879, p. 42.] --- Charles Sotheran on Madame Blavatsky [Reprinted from The Banner of Light (Boston), January 15, 1876, p. 5] Daniel H. Caldwell BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 23:55:53 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 14, 1999 - Alan ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 7:37 AM > From: > Subject: theos-l digest: December 14, 1999 - Alan > Alan wrote: > > >So, yes, the finger of the wise points towards compassion, but the > >majority of humans still go in other directions. > > I guess what it boils down to for me is that I HAVE to believe in that > "spark" of divinity that is said to be within everything - and I am willing > to admit that if I am seeing something that is not there, which may be > true, that I have freely chosen to believe in a false god. I think I know what you mean here. I am not only convinced that the "spark" of divinity is within everything, but would assert (I cannot prove it) that I have experienced it. It is, if you will, a "true" god - but largely ingored. > > If I lose my hope, I fear I shall die and not just physically. > > >I guess that's our next life dumped. > > I don't understand what you mean here. Although I am aware our banter > about the next life scenario is just having fun, my viseral reaction to > your above statement is that I am being "dumped" because I disagreed with > you. Please tell me I am wrong. . .even if you have to lie. You are wrong, and I don't have to lie. Having spoken mt mind rather strongly, I feared I might have offended you beyond hope of redemption. Please tell me *I* am wrong ... Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:19:09 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 14, 1999 - Alan ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 7:37 AM > From: > Subject: theos-l digest: December 14, 1999 - Alan Kym wrote: > Perhaps my position of attempting to look at humans in a postive light is > naive and even stupid - I am hoping against hope, it seems. If after all > this time, it truly is getting worse, then I do not know what to think > about God, the meaning of life, the point of existence itself. For what it may be worth, my own "take" on "God" is that God is the eternity of being, and is ubiquitous. There is nowhere that God is not. This, however, requires, of itself, neither a "meaning of life" nor a "point of (to?) existence." A meaning of life or a point to existence is something that we, as humans, *want* to see, as seeing it would make life more bearable. I had a point to my existence from 1981 to 1985, which was to write a book. I wrote it and self-published it. In 1989 I issued a Supplement, having acquired a D.D. for my efforts. Having finshed it, I was faced with "what now?" There is always, for humans, a "what now" which looks for a purpose. My cats seem to have a different view, which is, "Hey, what's this?" If I live to be as old as my father, then I have another 24 years to go. My guess is that when the time is up, whenever it really is, I won't be asking ""What now?" but, like the cat, "What's this?" I think that the single most consistent attribute of humans is the continuous process of asking questions, right through from neighbourly gossip to the most complicated scientific research. For us, as individuals, though, I think there are only clues in this world, in this life. Any answers will come in the next, and I don't mean reincarnation. There is, I am sure, a hint in the Christian tradition in 2 Corinthians, Cap. 12, verses 2 to 4. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:44:22 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter > Now my dear sir, Tis true you can say anything, over the net. However, > what you say may effect the minds of others, even if you are "playfully" > trying to get a reaction from others, simply for "da trill of it all" What we all say affects the minds of others. The beliefs of many people on this list - that you describe below - literally enrages some types of Christian fundamentalists. They would, in fact, consider them not only repulsive, but quite close to being evil. I have not told any person they should act in any way - merely said, in response to someone else spouting the "golden rule", that it was not anything I, nor *anyone else* - including those that spouted it - have ever followed, and even further, that it has been used, in various forms, for centuries as an excuse to avoid conflict that was genuinely felt, and as a means of defending against polite nastiness ... mentioning that *intentions* can be quite ill, even while the means of their *expression* can appear to follow the golden rule. Of course, the predictible reaction to such statements followed, and, of course, no one answered the actual *points* of the argument. Point is, the reactions in the "minds of others" to what I said are mild in comparison to the reactions in some of the *other* "minds of others" to even speaking of Chelas, and "Ascended Masters". Does this mean we should all just close our mouths? No. It means that the minds of others are the responsibility of those others. We all act in the manner that our intentions and emotions and intelligence suggests. Some of us believe that enjoining others to "follow the golden rule" is a service of some sort. Or is the way to express good intentions. I happen to think that trying to think independently through age-old aphorisms, looking at their *ultimate effects* (often the precise opposite of what they *say* they intend to do), in fact, to say precisely those things that challenge old, comfortable ideas, is both more difficult, as well as in the long run being far more *beneficial*, than mouthing cliches. Anyone may disagree with me. Most usually do. But we all serve as we see fit. > Many > believe that H.P.B. was the devoted Chela of the Lodge of Ascended Masters, > and was in constant communication with Them while striving to bring the > Ancient Wisdom Religion into the modern world, unchanged yet in a form > suitable for its comprehension. I believe at least some form of this. But I don't put any of them on pedestals. > This task as well as the position of Chela > DEMANDS sobriety, that is abstinence from any kind of intoxicant---- She > lived only to fulfill her mission, and the behavior you have described would > have inevitably rendered her useless to the Masters. This is only logic > and with some thought you will see that what ever you have read along those > lines was patently false. > I do recommend the book H.P.B. by Sylvia Cranston so you may get a > clearer picture of the life and work of this great woman! Well, I don't claim to be anything - but I was first a Theosophist 20 years ago, have read that book, as well as many others, both about her as well as the others founders, by both supporters and critics (and the Cranston one is definately one of the more "officially approved" ones). As well as having read (I think) everything HPB wrote. And I fear you are simply utterly wrong - you *don't* have a clear picture of that great woman if you think she was a thoughtful, sober, kind woman. Rendered her useless to the Masters? The *sobriety* of the Chela? Do not idealize HPB, nor the masters. The historical evidence is that she pretty much broke every rule modern theosophists associate with "purity" and "sobriety". She was wild, vitrolic, passionate. *She dressed as a man and fought in a war*. She drank copious amounts of wine. Ate meat. Smoked. This was not Gandhi or King. She *blasted* not only her contemporary critics, but - hell, have you *read* the Secret Doctirne? Her masterwork's writing style is to make her own points, to unfold the "Ancient Mysteries", through the literary method of not only contrasting those ideas with present and past thinkers, but in some cases absolutely slicing them into little pieces quite unceremoniously. This was *not* a woman who thought that *being nice* - in the terms of some socially accepted norms of politeness - had a single thing to do with truth, or the even creation of brotherhood. In fact, she pretty much caused trouble, upset people, almost everywhere she went. She was a great woman, but she was not always a *nice* woman, and did not even hold that as a goal. And a good deal of the time, she *didn't* "follow the golden rule". -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:18:02 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 Maureen wrote: >For example- Saying the most with the least. I will >always love this exchange between Bart and Doss: > >Doss: Do you see the annointment of K as the New World Teacher a failure? > >Bart: Well, K certainly did. (It only took Bart four words to sum it up. Now >that's good!) I don't think that the Bart that's on this list now is the same Bart that has been on for the last few years. An imposter, I suspect, maybe an alien takeover or something. This Bart certainly has come up with some lively retorts! And some of them even managed to be factually-based, as well. I just can't figure it. >And we definitely should have a funniest knee-jerk reaction category (I will >never forget the now-famous Ha! posting) E-mail does take fun out of some things. I almost wish that this list had those camera dealy-bobbers, where, instead of writing we are speaking with our faces all up close to the screen and distorted-like. It would have been too cool to see JRC's knee come shooting up in front of the camera - oh, and then see him try to pretend it didn't happen. He'd say something like "Oh, whoa man, the leg of my chair just snapped, good thing I was fast and agile and 007 enough to catch myself from tumbling to the ground. . .Now you all just go on with what you were sayin'." >Let me know what you think. We could have some real fun with this. Or is that >anti-Theosophical? Well. . .some of us could really take this ball and run with it, you know? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:25:50 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 Alan wrote: >My guess is that when the time is up, whenever it really is, I won't be >asking ""What now?" but, like the cat, "What's this?" After this insightful statement, you're not only redeemed, but in this woman's mind, definitely committed. No backing out now, lest ye be brave enough to face a woman scorned. See ya, The next ole' ball and chain From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 01:54:21 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 Jerry wrote: >What is life but the >tension between polar opposites? What ARE these polar opposites? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 05:08:00 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 > >And we definitely should have a funniest knee-jerk reaction category (I will > >never forget the now-famous Ha! posting) > > E-mail does take fun out of some things. I almost wish that this list had > those camera dealy-bobbers, where, instead of writing we are speaking with > our faces all up close to the screen and distorted-like. It would have > been too cool to see JRC's knee come shooting up in front of the camera - > oh, and then see him try to pretend it didn't happen. He'd say something > like "Oh, whoa man, the leg of my chair just snapped, good thing I was fast > and agile and 007 enough to catch myself from tumbling to the ground. . > .Now you all just go on with what you were sayin'." Wow! (Let this be known as the "Wow" posting). Another one that completely misunderstood that post. Also noticed no one managed to argue the point of it - merely looked at me with the self-righteous scorn of common to the golden rulers. - C. JRC. (har har har). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 06:14:06 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: HPB on Intuition and true Theosophy. This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF478C.C2240FC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by nwc.net id GAA26407 Thanks Arnaldo Coincidence: I was reading this same passage about 1 hour before I read yours. LE PHARE DE L'INCONNU is a splendid article. I would also draw your attention to the Footnotes that HPB attached to the article by Dr. Hubbe-Schleiden under the title WORLD IMPROVEMENT (see BCW, Vol 11, p. 343 on ) Have a good year in 2,000 and the future. All best wishes. Dallas -----Original Message----- From: Arnaldo Sisson Filho [mailto:asisson@zaz.com.br] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 5:02 PM To: Theosophy Study List Subject: HPB on Intutition and true Thesophy. Few days ago I sent this quotation to another list. I thought it could be useful to share it with this list as well. Best wishes to all, Arnaldo. -------------------------------------------------------------------- HPB: Intuition and =B4true Theosophy=B4. "Every one of us possesses the faculty, the interior sense, known as intuition, but how rare are those who know how to develop it! It is, however, the only faculty by means of which men and things are seen in th= eir true colors. It is an instinct of the soul, which grows in us in proporti= on to the use we make of it, and which helps us to perceive and understand r= eal and absolute facts with far more certainty than can the simple use of our sense and logic enable us to reason. "What are called good sense and logic enable us to see the appearance o= f things, that which is evident to everyone. The instinct of which I speak, being a projection of our perspective consciousness, a projection which a= cts from the subjective to the objective, and not vice versa, awakens the spiritual senses in us and the power to act; these senses assimilate to themselves the essence of the object or of the action under examination, = and represent them to us as they really are, not as they appear to our physic= al senses and to our cold reason. "We begin with instinct, we end with omniscience," says Professor A. Wilder, our oldest colleague. "Iamblicus has described this faculty, and some of us have been able to appreciate the truth of his description: ""There exists (he says) a faculty in the human mind which is immensel= y superior to all those which are grafted or engendered in us. By means of = it we cam attain to union with superior intelligences, finding ourselves rai= sed above the scenes of this earthly life, and partaking of the higher existe= nce and superhuman powers of the inhabitants of the celestial spheres. By thi= s faculty we find ourselves finally liberated from the dominion of Destiny (Karman), and we become, so to say, arbiters of our own fate. For when th= e most excellent part of us finds itself filled with energy, and when our s= oul is lifted up towards essences higher than science, it can separate itself from the conditions which hold it in bondage to everyday life; it exchang= es its ordinary existence for another one, and renounces the conventional habits which belong to the external order of things, to give itself up to= , and mix itself with, another order of things which reigns in that most elevated state of existence ..." (Iamblicus, De Mysteriis, VIII, 6 and 7) "Plato expressed the same idea in a couple of lines: ""The light and spirit of the Divinity are the wings of the soul. They raise it to communion with the gods, above this earth, with which the spi= rit of man is too ready to soil itself ... To become like the gods, is to bec= ome holy, just and wise. That is the end of which man was created, and that ought to be his aim in the acquisition of knowledge." (Phaedrus, 246, D.E= .; Theaetetus, 176 B) "This is true Theosophy, inner Theosophy, that of the soul." (Extract f= rom "The Beacon of the Unkown", HPB, Collected Writings, XI, 253-4) ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF478C.C2240FC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks=20 Arnaldo
 
Coincidence:  I was reading this same = passage=20 about 1 hour before I read yours.
 
LE=20 PHARE DE L'INCONNU is a splendid article.  I would also draw your = attention=20 to the Footnotes that HPB attached to the article by Dr. = Hubbe-Schleiden =20 under the title WORLD IMPROVEMENT  
(see BCW, Vol 11, p. = 343 on )=20
 
Have a=20 good year in 2,000 and the future.
 
All=20 best wishes.
 

Dallas

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Arnaldo Sisson = Filho=20 [mailto:asisson@zaz.com.br]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, = 1999 5:02=20 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: HPB on = Intutition and=20 true Thesophy.

Few days ago I sent this quotation to another=20 list.
I thought it could be useful to share it with this = list
as well.
 
Best wishes to all,
 
Arnaldo.
----------------------------------------------------------------= ----
 
 
HPB: Intuition and = =B4true Theosophy=B4.=20
 
"Every one of us = possesses the=20 faculty, the interior sense, known as intuition, but how rare are = those who=20 know how to develop it! It is, however, the only faculty by means of = which men=20 and things are seen in their true colors. It is an instinct of the=20 soul, which grows in us in proportion to the use we make of it, = and which=20 helps us to perceive and understand real and absolute facts with far = more=20 certainty than can the simple use of our sense and logic enable us to=20 reason.
 
"What are called good = sense and logic=20 enable us to see the appearance of things, that which is evident to = everyone.=20 The instinct of which I speak, being a projection of our perspective=20 consciousness, a projection which acts from the subjective to the = objective,=20 and not vice versa, awakens the spiritual senses in us and = the=20 power to act; these senses assimilate to themselves the = essence of the=20 object or of the action under examination, and represent them to us as = they=20 really are, not as they appear to our physical senses and to our cold = reason.=20 "We begin with instinct, we end with omniscience," says Professor A. = Wilder,=20 our oldest colleague.
 
"Iamblicus has described = this faculty,=20 and some of us have been able to appreciate the truth of his=20 description:
 
 ""There exists (he = says) a=20 faculty in the human mind which is immensely superior to all those = which are=20 grafted or engendered in us. By means of it we cam attain to union = with=20 superior intelligences, finding ourselves raised above the scenes of = this=20 earthly life, and partaking of the higher existence and superhuman = powers of=20 the inhabitants of the celestial spheres. By this faculty we find = ourselves=20 finally liberated from the dominion of Destiny (Karman), and we = become, so to=20 say, arbiters of our own fate. For when the most excellent part of us = finds=20 itself filled with energy, and when our soul is lifted up towards = essences=20 higher than science, it can separate itself from the conditions which = hold it=20 in bondage to everyday life; it exchanges its ordinary existence for = another=20 one, and renounces the conventional habits which belong to the = external order=20 of things, to give itself up to, and mix itself with, another order of = things=20 which reigns in that most elevated state of existence ..." (Iamblicus, = De=20 Mysteriis, VIII, 6 and 7)
 
"Plato expressed the = same idea in a=20 couple of lines:
 
""The light and spirit = of the Divinity=20 are the wings of the soul. They raise it to communion with the gods, = above=20 this earth, with which the spirit of man is too ready to soil itself = ... To=20 become like the gods, is to become holy, just and wise. That is the = end of=20 which man was created, and that ought to be his aim in the acquisition = of=20 knowledge." (Phaedrus, 246, D.E.; Theaetetus, 176 B)
 
"This is true Theosophy, = inner=20 Theosophy, that of the soul." (Extract from "The Beacon of the = Unkown", HPB,=20 Collected Writings, XI, 253-4)
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF478C.C2240FC0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:56:12 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 > E-mail does take fun out of some things. I almost wish that this list had > those camera dealy-bobbers, where, instead of writing we are speaking with > our faces all up close to the screen and distorted-like. It would have > been too cool to see JRC's knee come shooting up in front of the camera - > oh, and then see him try to pretend it didn't happen. He'd say something > like "Oh, whoa man, the leg of my chair just snapped, good thing I was > fast > and agile and 007 enough to catch myself from tumbling to the ground. . > .Now you all just go on with what you were sayin'." Also odd that you - who initiated the whole thing when, in response to a post of mine to someone else, and reacted with a snippy little shot at Grigor and I, were not making a "knee-jerk reaction", while I, in responding to it, was. Who's knee is in front of the camera? Anything to say, Ms. Bond? Or would you prefer to pretend your little part in the whole thing didn't happen, and let us all go on with what we were saying? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:07:15 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter At 04:29 PM 12/15/1999 EST, you wrote: > I do recommend the book H.P.B. by Sylvia Cranston so you may get a clearer picture of the life and work of this great woman! PEACE Patty Actions and results speak for themselves. It matters not whether one believes in Masters or not. What HPB has done for the future may be fully appreciated the the next millenium. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:35:43 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: HPB: Intuition HPB: Intuition < "these senses assimilate to themselves the essence of the object or of the action under examination, and represent them to us as they really are, not as they Subject: Antonio To Maureen and Kym - Just to show you I'm interested in your dreams (as well as probably occasionally causing nightmares tee hee). -JRC http://freethemes.concepts.nl/savers/screens/people/banderasdl.htm From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 17:25:11 EST From: SDTHEOSOPHY@aol.com Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter I must say that your response surprised me in some ways and had me printing out and rereading my words a number of times, to make sure, I said what I meant and meant what I said; I've decided I did. Never having mentioned the golden rule or the "niceness" issue or even cloths or diet. You see, I did not understand that you were referring to meat and nicotine when you spoke of drugs, sorry they never entered my mind when I read your communication; and as far as wine goes, forgive me if I strongly doubt the truth of that statement. By the way, we do seem to have read the same books, for the same amount of years; and share admiration of H.P.B.'s iconoclastic bluntness of expression when she would call them as she saw them; no holds barred. One last comment--If one may not idealize, at least the Masters, who then might one idealize ?! PEACE Patty From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:57:51 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter If one may not idealize, at least the Masters, who then might > one idealize ?! Idealizing has a nasty habit of elevating positives traits to a degree that they've never existed in anyone, and blurring, even completely blinding people, to negative traits that exist in bushels. Your post seemed to be implying that instead of stirring things up, one ought to be serious and sober ... not blast away at people. I was simply saying that if that was the case, then neither the Masters, nor especially HPB, would meet the criteria. And that if you thought they *did* then you were clearly idealizing them into something that the evidence does not support. Perhaps you were not saying this. If not, I apologize ... I had mistaken you (especially since the single book you suggested I read was the Cranston one) for one of those many Theosophists that have made the Masters into Gods, and HPB into a saint. They aren't, and never claimed to be. She wasn't, and vehemently resisted the efforts of people to make her into one. You *seemed* to be suggesting that I in some way alter my approach, attitudes, or behavior in some way, and *seemed* to be trying to use HPB as a demonstration of your point. I was simply trying to say that I thought the picture you were painting of her was certainly not what a full view of the historical evidence suggested ... and even further, that (believe it or not) I actually intend, in my own way, to do a bit of service during this life. And that what appears on the surface to be things you may suggest I think about, or change, may actually be a carefully chosen persona designed to serve in the way I've chosen to serve. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:36:47 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter In a message dated 12/16/99 4:25:48 PM Central Standard Time, SDTHEOSOPHY@aol.com writes: > f one may not idealize, at least the Masters, who then might > one idealize ?! Never idealize what IS (fact or fiction), but the goal, by which one critically reflects upon one's actions by contrast. Hero or guru worship is fetish indicating grave insecurity and a psychological disorder. One must idealize goal, critically admire those who strived for them in way that inspired us, but never idealize them. That how west swoons to Hitlers. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:54:12 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 14, 1999 In a message dated 12/15/99 3:01:20 AM Central Standard Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > >Now main point: I think general statements of humans being better or worse > are > >nonsense. > > Well, then you may have just chucked the discipline of philosophy right out > the door. Most of philosophy centers around this question. Philosophy > constantly compares "good" and "bad," or "better" or "worse" in almost > every area. What a leap in logic! I did not condemn general statements, per se. I did not condemn general eithical evaluations (that deal not with facts but norms, not what actually happened but what should be done). I only condemned general historical statements about human progress (despite historical appearances, evidence, and otherwise, contrary to fact). It is more statement of political ideologue "history = human progress" than truthful person that thinks. I've seen too many political officers in my life not to detect stuff of same ilk. I bet when and if you took formal logic, you had problems with the scope of a quantifier in predicate calculus since you seem unable to distinguish between a statement about a kind of general statement from general statements period. In any case, it is always some limited power interest that preaches "progress" (i.e. things are increasingly going their way to the exploitation of others suffering from that way). G.V.A From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 06:40:09 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: HPB on theos-l? ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Thursday, December 16, 1999 4:44 AM > From: JRC > This was > *not* a woman who thought that *being nice* - in the terms of some socially > accepted norms of politeness - had a single thing to do with truth, or the > even creation of brotherhood. In fact, she pretty much caused trouble, upset > people, almost everywhere she went. She was a great woman, but she was not > always a *nice* woman, and did not even hold that as a goal. And a good deal > of the time, she *didn't* "follow the golden rule". -JRC Wouldn't it be great - and *very* interesting - if we could get her to post messages on theos-l? [tee hee] [solemnly promises not to pretend to be her ....] Alan :0) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 19:27:33 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Idealizing the Masters At 05:25 PM 12/16/1999 EST, SDTHEOSOPHY@aol.com wrote: > One last comment--If one may not idealize, at least the Masters, who then might one idealize ?! PEACE Patty One time, in a small group meeting with Krishnamurti, there were some comments about the Masters. He commented that "you do not know what you are talking about". So idealizing may have its serious limitation and much of them are colored by what has been written by many many people who are looked upon by many as "leaders" more knowledgeable about the Masters. One wonders to what extent what has been written is really true. One may never know. Next question is where does idealization lead to? These comments are to be taken as constructive criticism and look at from as from one human to another. Peace MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 19:35:53 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: HPB on theos-l? At 06:40 AM 12/16/1999 -0000, ambain wrote: >Wouldn't it be great - and *very* interesting - if we could get her to >post messages on theos-l? If HPB were to be alive today, she would revel in posting lively, enlightening, biting and retorting msgs here (for free and at no cost -- she was always poor and did not have access to milliion dollar fund to access to -) - and not act like the current *leaders* who seem to be running scared of the maillists and newsgroups. mkr PS: Any leaders reading this? May be meditating for some time on this msg may do a lot of good for Theosophy. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 22:03:36 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: COMMENT ON LIGHTBULB I'm blushing, and you're welcome. SDTHEOSOPHY@aol.com wrote: > > Hello to everyone, I am usually a "lurker" but I had to tell you that the > LIGHTBULB article was one of the funniest and perfectly true pieces of > satire it has ever been my pleasure to find. I am sharing it with all my > friends at U.L.T. San Diego and so far the reaction has varied from roars to > chuckles accompanied by many nods and whispers of "to true, to true"! > Personally I hope the author is busy writing a book, or at least more > articles that help us see ourselves from others perspectives!! Great work, > thank you. > PEACE > Patty From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 19:20:39 PST From: "Joshua Gulick" Subject: Kind of off the topic I needed some money to do some more experiments involving occult science, so I decided to start a little business to make some extra cash. I have started a singing telegram business. I just thought I would let you know because it is rather neat. You compose lyrics, and I will sing them to the person of your choice. For 5 dollars, I will sing to anyone in the US over the phone. For 4 dollars, I will sing your lyrics into the microphone on my computer and send the .wav file to anyone in the world. And the money goes to occult research. Maybe some of you would help me out. I suppose it would be nice for birthdays, holidays, when your spouse is angry, anonymous messages to your employer, or just for fun. I accept all major credit cards, too. If you would like information or to have me sing for you, go to: http://www.stormloader.com/joshua/singingtelegram.html Truly yours, Joshua ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 00:50:06 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Thursday, December 16, 1999 8:25 AM > From: > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 > Alan wrote: > > >My guess is that when the time is up, whenever it really is, I won't be > >asking ""What now?" but, like the cat, "What's this?" > > After this insightful statement, you're not only redeemed, but in this > woman's mind, definitely committed. No backing out now, lest ye be brave > enough to face a woman scorned. > > See ya, > > The next ole' ball and chain Phew! Love ya! Alan :0) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 02:08:07 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Thursday, December 16, 1999 10:25 PM > From: > If one may not idealize, at least the Masters, who then might > one idealize ?! > PEACE > Patty No one - it's dangerous. There are a couple of volunteers on the list, though, Chuck and me. Like all of the theos-l subscribers, we precipitate letters through the ether on a regular basis. (Just a bit of fun) Except .... Idealizing people we don't know and have never met is plain daft. If their alleged writings are in fact their own, *and* they really existed as HPB presented them, the "Masters" said the same thing. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:53:28 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Thursday, December 16, 1999 7:07 PM > From: > Actions and results speak for themselves. It matters not whether one > believes in Masters or not. What HPB has done for the future may be fully > appreciated the the next millenium. 1. It may not be appreciated. 2. It may be seen as a bad, not a good thing. 3. The world at large may be even more indifferent than it is now. 4. There may be a huge "HPB" revival. Conclusion: "May be" is also "Who knows?" Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 23:03:25 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 16, 1999 JRC wrote: >Also odd that you Talking to me? >- who initiated the whole thing when, in response to a >post of mine to someone else, Me? Inititate something? Surely you jest! >and reacted with a snippy little shot at >Grigor and I, Snippy? Ok. . .but you gotta admit that the "proboscis" nomenclature was pretty witty. >Who's knee is in front of the camera? It's not "who's," but "whose." Good thing Grigor didn't see that. How do I know whose knee is in front of the camera - can I see into every household in the universe? Sheesh! Oh, no wait. . .are you trying to say that it is MY knee in front of the camera? Well! I never! >Anything to >say, Ms. Bond? Um, which "Goldfinger" am I holding up? AHHHH! I'm sorry, I couldn't resist - I'm so ashamed. So horribly ashamed. >Or would you prefer to pretend your little part in the >whole thing didn't happen, and let us all go on with what we were >saying? Yeah, ok, I'm all for shifting the blame somewhere else - so, you all just go on with what you were saying. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 23:16:37 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 16, 1999 JRC wrote: >Just to show you I'm interested in your dreams (as well as probably >occasionally causing nightmares tee hee). -JRC > >http://freethemes.concepts.nl/savers/screens/people/banderasdl.htm %-\ Help me, Jesus! Antonio is wet, dripping with water in this screensaver. It's too much. This is it. I'm down for the count. My mind is mere oatmeal and my hormones are running way too far ahead of me. You have slain me, JRC. Ok, so I, like some of the Knights of the Round Table, have succumbed to carnal temptations. Yet! Let it be known: The great Knight Maureen Galahad is still standing, and her sword glistens as the sun. Kym the Fallen One (but still waving a teeny flag) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 23:46:58 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 16, 1999 Grigor wrote: >I only condemned >general historical statements about human progress (despite historical >appearances, evidence, and otherwise, contrary to fact). Yeah, I know. And it's still bogus because ANYONE with half a brain would protest historical statements based on apparent inaccurate proofs. Big deal. But you added into that mix the words "better or worse." Again, this is what philosophy deals with - most literature eventually arrives at the point of discussing how a human can "better" themselves - which is, at its core, ALL ABOUT human progress. And philosophers, historians, theologians, scientists, and mail carriers, all include historical comparisons in their theories about general human progress. So my post still stands. And, yet again, in your above statement, you used the word "progress." Grigor, there is NO progress to even talk about if one does not make general statements about 'better or worse!' The word "progress" itself suggests some kind of movement, either backward or forward. You are caught in your own trap. Just face it. I know it will hurt, but try. >I bet when and if you took formal logic, you had >problems with the scope of a quantifier in predicate calculus since you seem >unable to distinguish between a statement about a kind of general statement >from general statements period. Oh, please. You are just doing a jig here. And a rather fancy one at that, but, nonetheless, still a jig. What you have said above is intended to be insulting, I admire that - and it would have been if you hadn't added on the fluffy stuff intending to make yourself sound big and bad. It's hard to BS a BSer. If I had a rubber fish, I'd whack you with it. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 02:00:25 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: HPB on theos-l? In a message dated 99-12-16 19:41:10 EST, you write: << Wouldn't it be great - and *very* interesting - if we could get her to post messages on theos-l? [tee hee] >> Now that's an interesting idea considering that some folks are claiming to get e-mail from the dead. Madame Blavatsky, are out there?? Yooo Hooo. Chuck the heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 02:04:20 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter In a message dated 99-12-16 23:35:31 EST, you write: << No one - it's dangerous. There are a couple of volunteers on the list, though, Chuck and me. >> SHHHH!!! Don't tell them! Chuck the Dugpa From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 07:55:44 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter ambain wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: Theosophy Study List > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 10:25 PM > > > If one may not idealize, at least the Masters, who then might > > one idealize ?! > > PEACE > > Patty > > No one - it's dangerous. There are a couple of volunteers on the list, > though, Chuck and me. Like all of the theos-l subscribers, we > precipitate letters through the ether on a regular basis. And of course, you need those to demonize along with the saints. I seem to be the resident demon around here... Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:04:06 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter In a message dated 12/17/99 6:54:26 AM Central Standard Time, bartl@sprynet.com writes: > I seem > to be the resident demon around here... > > Bart Lidofsky > Then people should send you money, gifts, and honors, for they often render the devil his due more than anyone else. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:03:35 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: theos-l digest: December 16, 1999-Kym/John Kym and John- I believe this is where I came in. You two certainly have a lively relationship. Now that this has gone full circle and we are back at the beginning- and at a moment of truth- please indulge me and allow me to spout one more time. I've learned that repeating a behavior typically produces the same result. Hmmm, is that why we keep coming back again and again and again? This seems to be a good time for me to step out of the equation and leave you to ponder. John- Gracias por el hombre de mi suenos. Todas mis amigas estan ronroneando. Maureen (Doing a little pondering of her own) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:13:48 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter Dec 16th Dear Patty: THE ONE SPIRIT pervades everything without exception and is therefore present at the core of our own being.-- symbolically -- in the Heart. This makes us brothers and sisters of equality and potential that is identical -- the SPIRIT unites us all the time, but because we are at present "clothed" in matter (called by us our "personality") we do not fully realize this. Our selfishness is the result of thinking that our present form is the most important thing. That is true up to a point. If you wish to secure a view of how theosophy looks at our world, do get a copy of HPB's KEY TO THEOSOPHY and take time to read it. It is only 300 pages long and there is a lot that is interesting and valuable in it. One ought to sense that and realize that the quality of wisdom that anyone expresses depends on the ability to understand that all the virtues and the guides to better living reside in the concept of Universal Brotherhood which treats all beings and all events in our lives as spiritual opportunities to do "good" to others. The "golden rule" is the closest and most succinct way of expressing this in our world of action and effects. There is of course much more. The main ideas of theosophy are concerned with UNIVERSAL UNITY and the causation of all things. Human solidarity, the Law of Karma, and Reincarnation as the human process of learning. As goal the concept of a final wisdom and perfection is offered. Evolution is the grand and continual process of studying ourselves, our constitution and powers and those of Nature. Remember that Nature already contains all. Science is the study of nature because the rules and laws and relationships are already there. We each find ourselves equipped with some personal mix of abilities and restraints. we ought to find out what those are and how to guide and develop those we consider to be the most useful for our own growth and progress, always remembering that we inevitably share our lives with many others, whether we like that or not. But there may also be other opinions and what I say may be obscure, in which case do ask again. Best wishes, Dallas -----Original Message----- > Date: Thursday, December 16, 1999 2:25 PM > From: SDTHEOSOPHY@aol.com [mailto:SDTHEOSOPHY@aol.com] > Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter I must say that your response surprised me in some ways and had me printing out and rereading my words a number of times, to make sure, I said what I meant and meant what I said; I've decided I did. Never having mentioned the golden rule or the "niceness" issue or even cloths or diet. You see, I did not understand that you were referring to meat and nicotine when you spoke of drugs, sorry they never entered my mind when I read your communication; and as far as wine goes, forgive me if I strongly doubt the truth of that statement. By the way, we do seem to have read the same books, for the same amount of years; and share admiration of H.P.B.'s iconoclastic bluntness of expression when she would call them as she saw them; no holds barred. One last comment--If one may not idealize, at least the Masters, who then might one idealize ?! PEACE Patty --- 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: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 06:52:02 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 16, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Friday, December 17, 1999 6:03 AM > From: > Yeah, ok, I'm all for shifting the blame somewhere else - so, you all just > go on with what you were saying. As I love you dearly, it's my fault. Hope that helps. Alan :0) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:34:02 -0500 (EST) From: hpb@universalmail.com Subject: Enough Don't make me reincarnate. hpb Get free personalized email from GTE at http://www.gtemail.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:26:55 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Enough In a message dated 99-12-17 16:34:18 EST, you write: << Don't make me reincarnate. hpb >> Too late. Your next incarnation has already been scheduled and you leave for St. Louis in two months. Karmic Relocation Bureau From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 18:02:21 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: That old Farte Sarte On of the funniest things anyone's sent me in awhile ... -JRC ****************************************** > The Jean-Paul Sartre Cookbook > > (Origin unknown...) > We were lucky enough to discover several previously lost diaries of > French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre for sale at the Farmers' Market. > These diaries reveal a young Sartre obsessed not with the void, but with > food. Apparently Sartre, before discovering philosophy, had hoped to > write "a cookbook that will put to rest all notions of flavor forever." > The diaries are excerpted here. Do not try this at home. > > October 3 > Spoke with Camus today about my cookbook. Though he has never actually > eaten, he gave me much encouragement. I rushed home immediately to begin > work. How excited I am! I have begun my formula for a Denver omelet. > > > October 4 > Still working on the omelet. There have been stumbling blocks. I keep > creating omelets one after another, like soldiers marching into the sea, > but each one seems empty, hollow, like stone. I want to create an omelet > that expresses the meaninglessness of existence, and instead they taste > like cheese. I look at them on the plate, but they do not look back. > Tried eating them with the lights off. It did not help. Malraux > suggested paprika. > > > October 6 > I have realized that the traditional omelet form (eggs and cheese) is > bourgeois. Today I tried making one out of cigarettes, some coffee, and > four tiny stones. I fed it to Malraux, who puked. I am encouraged, but > my journey is still very long. > > > October 10 > I find myself trying ever more radical interpretations of traditional > dishes, in an effort to somehow express the void I feel so acutely. > Today I tried this recipe: > > > Tuna Casserole > > Ingredients: > 1 large casserole dish > Place the casserole dish in a cold oven. Place a chair facing the oven > and sit in it forever. Think about how hungry you are. When night falls, > do not turn on the light. > > While a void is expressed in this recipe, I am struck by its > inapplicability to the bourgeois lifestyle. How can the eater recognize > that the food denied him is a tuna casserole and not some other dish? I > am becoming ever more frustated. > > > October 25 > I have been forced to abandon the project of producing an entire > cookbook. Rather, I now seek a single recipe which will, by itself, > embody the plight of man in a world ruled by an unfeeling God, as well > as providing the eater with at least one ingredient from each of the > four basic food groups. To this end, I purchased six hundred pounds of > foodstuffs from the corner grocery and locked myself in the kitchen, > refusing to admit anyone. After several weeks of work, I produced a > recipe calling for two eggs, half a cup of flour, four tons of beef, and > a leek. While this is a start, I am afraid I still have much work ahead. > > > November 15 > Today I made a Black Forest cake out of five pounds of cherries and a > live beaver, challenging the very definition of the word cake. I was > very pleased. Malraux said he admired it greatly, but could not stay for > dessert. Still, I feel that this may be my most profound achievement > yet, and have resolved to enter it in the Betty Crocker Bake-Off. > > > November 30 > Today was the day of the Bake-Off. Alas, things did not go as I had > hoped. During the judging, the beaver became agitated and bit Betty > Crocker on the wrist. The beaver's powerful jaws are capable of felling > blue spruce in less than ten minutes and proved, needless to say, more > than a match for the tender limbs of America's favorite homemaker. I > only got third place. Moreover, I am now the subject of a rather nasty > lawsuit. > > > December 1 > I have been gaining twenty-five pounds a week for two months, and I am > now experiencing light tides. It is stupid to be so fat. My pain and > ultimate solitude are still as authentic as they were when I was thin, > but seem to impress girls far less. From now on, I will live on > cigarettes and black coffee. > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 20:00:42 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Enough At 04:34 PM 12/17/1999 -0500, you wrote: >Don't make me reincarnate. hpb Sure. the body was cremated and that was the end. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 00:40:07 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: JRC- in from the cold, but quickly getting hotter ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Friday, December 17, 1999 12:55 PM > From: Bart Lidofsky > ambain wrote and quote: > > > > > If one may not idealize, at least the Masters, who then might > > > one idealize ?! > > > > No one - it's dangerous. There are a couple of volunteers on the list, > > though, Chuck and me. Like all of the theos-l subscribers, we > > precipitate letters through the ether on a regular basis. > > And of course, you need those to demonize along with the saints. I seem > to be the resident demon around here... [Hangs head in shame] .... as does the demon Bart. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 00:53:29 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 16, 1999-Kym/John ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Friday, December 17, 1999 4:03 PM > From: Maureen T Fitzgerald > Maureen > (Doing a little pondering of her own) You can't beat a good ponder. In my experience - seriously - I have probably discovered more by pondering than by any other method. Best wishes, Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 01:15:45 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: HPB on theos-l? ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Madame Blavatsky, are out there?? > > Yooo Hooo. > > Chuck the heretic You put the "Yooo" in the wrong place, and I still can't work out where to put the comma. .... according to Max Muller, constipated mathematicians work it all out with a pencil ... .... put that AWAY, Henry! .... */=A3$^&*!!! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 23:20:28 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 17, 1999 This was sent to me just recently; so in the spirit of pondering: What if there had been THREE WISE WOMEN? Do you know what would have happened if there had been three wise women instead of three wise men? They would have asked directions, arrived on time, helped deliver the baby, cleaned the stable made a casserole and brought practical gifts. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:26:39 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Tepaphone? Chuck! You're fooling with this stuff? - (haven't heard the word Tepaphone since I read Franz Bardon's shamelessly self-promoting "lessons" (-:) - a character in a book about him, by the way, a member of a "Black Lodge", uses the Tepaphone to cause a fatal heart attack in someone halfway across town). But, I'm curious ... are you using any empirical methods to test the effects of such devices? I've finally got a few people trained and disciplined enough to begin testing the effects of focussing angelic currents, and have made contacts within a local hospital that can provide me with almost any data I need ... however, faced with trying to figure out how to define the parameters of the study, I'm a bit overwhelmed. I'm hypothesizing that I can improve both the speed and extent of patient recovery in a surgical recovery ward, perhaps in some cases dramatically, but I want to measure this - and there are difficulties. Obviously I want to somehow statistically isolate the effects of what I'm doing from the effects of other causes ... but trying to figure out how to do this is problematic. Certainly some tactics can be used ... the common techniques used in testing the effects of any drug or treatment program, ... but this really is to some degree a special case. Point is, if you've attempted to do serious testing of your psionic devices, you've probably also faced (and hopefully worked through) a lot of the same difficulties I'm looking at - in essence, how does one accurately measure the physical effects of a specific, but decidedly non-physical cause? Am I gonna have to buy one of your books (-:)? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 12:44:42 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Tepaphone? In a message dated 99-12-18 10:32:33 EST, you write: << Point is, if you've attempted to do serious testing of your psionic devices, you've probably also faced (and hopefully worked through) a lot of the same difficulties I'm looking at - in essence, how does one accurately measure the physical effects of a specific, but decidedly non-physical cause? >> You've hit the nail on the head! Most of my early experiments were sort of hit and miss affairs, quite literally!!! But then I had the good fortune to become romantically involved with a nurse who worked with intensive care patients on telemetry. With that somewhat unethical advantage, I set up the experiments as follows. A witness of the patient (who had no idea this was going on because otherwise the data would get screwed up) was placed in the psionic device in a closed room with a simple audio amplifier plugged into the machine. The amplifier was on a random timer with a recording device to give us a record of the time the machine was on. The system was set to run for one day. My nurse-friend then made off with the telemetry data for that day (ain't xerox machines wunnerful!) and we compared the times and the changes in data. The results were fascinating. There was nearly a 90% correlation between significant data changes and the time the instrument was powered. The other 10% of changes in the patient could be attributed to other causes (medication, visit from family) and had to be discarded. Naturally, no academic could have gotten away with this. You just mention involuntary percipients and they run around in circles waving their hands in the air and speaking barbarous words of imprecation, but that's one of the benefits of working idependantly. No peer review! And now that I have a brother in law who is a venture capitalist, I finally have decent funding. Now, as far as the tepaphone goes. I have one up and running!! The story of the device is fascinating. It actually was an optically based psionic instrument rather than a 1920's radionic device that most people think and the original and the plans for it were destroyed in the bombings of WW2. Well, as soon as I read the Bardon book I wanted one of those toys and I set to work on it, making the same mistake as everyone else, thinking in terms of a standard, old-fashioned radionic device. At about the time I figured out my mistake, certain mysterious europeans (guess who!!!) contacted me through a magician friend. It seems that the plans had not been completely destroyed and they needed an expert in psionics to help them figure out the design and help them rebuild the device. We negotiated back and forth for about a year and that fell through because they got a bit paranoid at the thought of someone else having their sacred machine (a lot of mystical gobbeldygook in their minds about it!). But by that time I had the plans for mine already done and after much trial and tribulation I am now the proud possessor of a tepaphone. NOW!!! IMPORTANT!!! The tepaphone has a nasty reputation because of the Bardon book and the folks who originated it but it is nothing more than a psionic projector, which means it can project any type of psychic energy, not merely unpleasant stuff, fun though that may be. Chuck the Inventive Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 14:27:00 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: A nice quote A friend sent me this quote: "...the undersigned [HPB] accepts for her views and walk in life no authority dead or living, no system of philosophy or religion but one--namely, the esoteric teachings of ethics and philosophy of those she calls "MASTERS"...Nothing of that which is conducive to help man, collectively or individually to live--not "happily"--but less "unhappily" in this world, ought to be indifferent to the Theosophist-Occultist... ============= his first duty is to be ever ready to help if he can, without stopping to philosophize... =================== there may be those who are starving for truth in every department of the science of nature, and who consequently are yearning to learn the esoteric views about "cosmology, the evolution of man and of the Universe." HPB - WHAT SHALL WE DO FOR OUR FELLOW MEN? October 1889 HPB Articles I, pp. 459-60. === I think that HPB's statement about our being ever ready to help seems to be the key and foundation to our gradually understanding "theosophical" truths for ourselves. Something to think about. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:50:14 +1300 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Tepaphone? Ha! (I didn't plagiarize that) Interesting subject, Chuck and JRC. I have a friend who has been making electronic-type devices for generating "quantum" fields for some time now, that are showing more-than-interesting results in informal tests, with pain relief and accelerated healing. The base level of these fields is essentially electromagnetic with a relatively broad spectrum of harmonics (from low audio to several megaHertz), at quite low intensities. Not quite in the same class, but still interesting, is the emergence of static ie non-oscillatory magnetic field devices for easing pain. Some of these are coming out of respectable :) academic institutions and commercial organizations. One of the devices I'm aware of has four disk magnets close together, making a larger "disk", with alternating North and South pole faces facing out as you go around the group. It seems the gradient of the field is important, not just how strong it is, and this layout gives high gradients, ie variations over distance, of the magnetic field. I'm hearing of people who are delighted to report pain relief in times as short as 10 minutes, while they are wearing them. >I've finally got a few people trained and disciplined >enough to begin testing the effects of focussing angelic currents, and have >made contacts within a local hospital that can provide me with almost any >data I need ... I find this development very interesting. I've seen little bits of info. that indicate that some scientific or medical researchers around the world are becoming open (and creative) enough to begin conceiving experiments on several frontiers like this. Some of this stuff is called distant healing. These are gutsy people, real explorers, with a bit of vision. And the prospect of putting the existence of angels to the test could be, from experience, scary. Scary in case there turns out to be nothing to it, and scary if it turns out there is. But beyond that, exhilarating and wonderful. Whatever the case, we are in the middle of a huge opportunity to assist a major shift in human understanding of the universe. That means us; passionate, occasionally grumpy, theosophical type people that we are. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 17:30:31 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Tepaphone? In a message dated 99-12-19 14:52:10 EST, you write: << And the prospect of putting the existence of angels to the test could be, from experience, scary. Scary in case there turns out to be nothing to it, and scary if it turns out there is. But beyond that, exhilarating and wonderful. >> And just think of all the work we could get out of them! Seriously, I think the reason there is a lot of very sloppy research done is that people make an investment in their beliefs and the idea of it NOT working is too much for them. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 17:46:25 -0800 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: More New Material added to BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE MORE NEW MATERIAL added to BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm I've just added to our archives the following 3 items: ** Facts about "The Secret Doctrine" by G.R.S. Mead. [Reprinted from The Occult Review (London), May 1927.] ** The "Memory" of Mr. G.R.S. Mead by H.N. Stokes. [Reprinted from The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.) June 1927.] ** Mr. Mead's "Facts about 'The Secret Doctrine.' " by H.N. Stokes. [Reprinted from The O.E. Library Critic (Washington, D.C.) August 1927.] Daniel H. Caldwell BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:16:52 -0200 From: "Arnaldo Sisson Filho" Subject: Re: A nice quote Thanks brother Ramadoss. Really a nice quote. Yes, I do agree it is something to think about, particularly in this period of Christmas and passage to the New Year. So many artificial things going on, and the spirit of sacrifice, which seems to be the essence of that Christ-Jesus life, is so often not even given consideration. May we avoid artificial comemorations, and give real reflexion and serious grateful reverence to Him whose life is the mark for this era. Arnaldo. From: ramadoss@eden.com >"...the undersigned [HPB] accepts for her views and walk in life >no authority dead or living, no system of philosophy or religion >but one--namely, the esoteric teachings of ethics and philosophy >of those she calls "MASTERS"...Nothing of that which is conducive >to help man, collectively or individually to live--not >"happily"--but less "unhappily" in this world, ought to be >indifferent to the Theosophist-Occultist... >his first duty is to be ever ready to help if he can, >without stopping to philosophize..." (...) >HPB - WHAT SHALL WE DO >FOR OUR FELLOW MEN? October 1889 > HPB Articles I, pp. 459-60. (...) >Something to think about. >mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:04:03 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 17, 1999 to Alan Hi Alan, Speaking of pondering, did you see the film Life is Beautiful? I saw it this weekend- it was totally awesome. There's this little segment revolving around opera (while they're in the camp) that is very reminiscent of a scene from The Shawshank Redemption. Makes me ponder over the power of music. I'll have to ask Chuck if music is Theosophical. Maureen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 07:17:02 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: A nice quote Thanks Bro Arnaldo. Recently I heard of a man in India who, propelled with helping the needy in a remote village, has retired to that place and volunteers full time. His son who is now in the USA, wanted him to visit him in the US. The father told the son to send him the money that would have been spent in airfare so that the money could be better spent in the small village. Here was a man who saw a more effective way of using the money. mkr At 10:16 AM 12/20/1999 -0200, you wrote: >Thanks brother Ramadoss. Really a nice quote. Yes, I do agree it is something to think about, particularly in this period of Christmas and passage to the New Year. So many artificial things going on, and the spirit of sacrifice, which seems to be the essence of that Christ-Jesus life, is so often not even given consideration. May we avoid artificial comemorations, and give real reflexion and serious grateful reverence to Him whose life is the mark for this era. Arnaldo. > From: ramadoss@eden.com "...the undersigned [HPB] accepts for her views and walk in life no authority dead or living, no system of philosophy or religion but one--namely, the esoteric teachings of ethics and philosophy of those she calls "MASTERS"...Nothing of that which is conducive to help man, collectively or individually to live--not "happily"--but less "unhappily" in this world, ought to be indifferent to the Theosophist-Occultist... his first duty is to be ever ready to help if he can, without stopping to philosophize..." (...) HPB - WHAT SHALL WE DO FOR OUR FELLOW MEN? October 1889 HPB Articles I, pp. 459-60. (...) Something to think about. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:51:15 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: computer issue FYI ..... We get strange stuff all the time. You may have the same. This memo has been circulated throughout our organization. Subject: Computer Issues Good morning everybody, It seems like I've been the disapproving parent recently asking you not to do a lot of things, but this is pretty important. Recently there have been some rumors regarding some fun computer programs which have been getting passed around via e-mail, namely Elfbowling. Some people remarked that it contains a virus that will damage computers on Christmas day. At first I dismissed it as Y2K hysteria until several of my computer instructors received warnings from very reliable sources. We tried to view the code to determine if there is a virus present but the program was encrypted, which is strange for a little game program like this. We decided to make a class project out of it, loaded it onto a classroom computer, and set the Windows date/time to December 24 at 11:59PM. Sure enough, a minute later the computers' operating system was corrupted and nothing could be recovered. We reloaded Windows and were able to start the computer. We were not, however, able to recover anything in the My Documents folder. We're also unsure if there are any dates in the future when this might happen again or what other damage was done to the system. The only thing we could do was format the hard-drive and reload everything on the computer; everything. Elfbowling originated at a website called NVision.com. About the same time, a game called Frogapult was also being distributed on that website so we tested it on a different machine. The result was identical. I can't possibly know of every program that has come from NVision, but each one advertises the website when the program is run. If you see a program from NVision, I think it's safe to assume it was created by the same sick mind that created Elfbowling with the same malicious intent. I am not pointing fingers!!! At no time did I say the folks at NVision are the ones who created the program, they are just the ones distributing it and, apparently, don't get their programs from a reliable source. They may have been unwittingly distributing the virus just like the person who sent it to you. Please do not e-mail NVision and say, "Jeff said you made a virus". I will be conducting further testing of the more commonly distributed programs but, in the meantime, it might be a good idea to get rid of them. The following is only a partial list (as I said, I can't possibly know them all) of cute computer things that have been circulated recently, and, although I'm unsure of their safety, I think it's probably a good idea to get rid of them if they're on your computer: Christmastideer Felix2 (the original came from a fairly reliable source and is probably OK) Full_Fel1 Greeting Hohoho Snowball Snowcraf Snowman Who Want to be a Millionaire Workshop XMAS XMAS Light or Lights XMAS Tree or Tree There are no fancy tricks to get rid of them. Delete them as you would any file; either drag them to your Recycle Bin or right click on the file and choose delete from the drop down menu (if you put them in your Recycle Bin remember to empty it). I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news and I'm especially sorry to report that there are people in this world who would use Christmas as a tool to distribute such a hostile virus. The good news is, Christmas is in just a few days and, for a little while, we can forget such people exist and enjoy the company of those who mean the most to us. Have a great holiday, J From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:57:53 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 17, 1999 to Alan Maureen T Fitzgerald wrote: > Speaking of pondering, did you see the film Life is Beautiful? I saw it this > weekend- it was totally awesome. There's this little segment revolving around > opera (while they're in the camp) that is very reminiscent of a scene from The > Shawshank Redemption. Makes me ponder over the power of music. I'll have to > ask Chuck if music is Theosophical. Chuck will just make up an answer. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:01:12 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: RE: Computer Issues > I am not pointing fingers!!! At no time did I say the folks at NVision are > the ones who created the program, they are just the ones distributing it and, > apparently, don't get their programs from a reliable source. They may have been > unwittingly distributing the virus just like the person who sent it to you. > Please do not e-mail NVision and say, "Jeff said you made a virus". Would be a good idea not to - since it isn't a virus -its a virus hoax... almost a tradition around Christmas now. Don't know what kind of computer the "class project" in your email used ... but to simply load that program, turn the date over, and instantly conclude that its that program that caused to crash is not exactly the way one tests things. There are - according to a number of industry estimates - far more virus *hoaxes* than there are actual viruses in the world. They're much easier to create (one just sends an email, instead of having to do any programming) and to some degree the same thing gets accomplished ... the person sees themselves all over the internet. (The most famous of the hoaxes is the infamous "Good Times" hoax ... still circulates ever few months or so ... has generated hundreds of thousands of emails - people get the warning, freak out, send it to all their friends ...). My advice to the list (in case anyone cares ) is, when you get a virus warning from a friend, go to the IBM website (IBM runs the most sophisticated virus research center in the world - its almost the cyber equivalent of the Centers for Disease Control), or go to the Symantec site (Symantec makes Norton Utilities, and anti-virus software) ... the keep a continually updated list of both viruses and hoaxes ... in this particular case, go to to read the hoax description. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 11:17:21 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 17, 1999 to Alan In a message dated 99-12-20 08:04:25 EST, you write: << I'll have to ask Chuck if music is Theosophical. >> no Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 23:46:31 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 17, 1999 to Alan ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Monday, December 20, 1999 1:04 PM > From: Maureen T Fitzgerald > Hi Alan, > > Speaking of pondering, did you see the film Life is Beautiful? I saw it this > weekend- it was totally awesome. There's this little segment revolving around > opera (while they're in the camp) that is very reminiscent of a scene from The > Shawshank Redemption. Makes me ponder over the power of music. I'll have to > ask Chuck if music is Theosophical. Hi Maureen, Didn't see the film. As to the power of music, I find it to be very powerful. Asking Chuck is risky, as I expect he has his own extremely original ideas, and has probably made a machine that proves them. Alan :0) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 01:17:00 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: On music Maureen wrote: >Makes me ponder over the power of music. "Musical harmony also is not destitute of the gifts of the stars; for it is a most powerful imaginer of all things, which whilst it follows opportunely the celestial bodies, doth wonderfully allure the celestial influence, and doth change the affections, intentions, gestures, motions, actions, and disposition of all the hearers, and doth quietly allure them to its own properties, as to gladness, lamentation, to boldness, or rest, and the like; also it allures beasts, serpents, birds, dolphins to the hearing of its pleasant tunes." Agrippa: "Three Books of Occult Philosophy" K. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:29:41 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: officers Bart wrote: > And Alan has done an excellent job convincing me to never run for TSA > office (although I seem to keep getting elected VP of the Northeast > Federation, probably largely because I don't show up for the actual > elections....) I am not sure that that is the way to go, because, someone has to do it. I mean, officers have a dirty job, but it has to be done, no, or do we want a TS in which the people who do not know the pitfalls to be presidents and vicepresidents etc.? I mean, the organisation needs officers. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:22:20 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Some Responses Chuck wrote: > In short, the TS has become a closed, inbred organization that seems unab= le=20 > to come to grips with the fact that the world is so much different from t= he=20 > world of the founders that they would not recognize themselves as even be= ing=20 > on the same planet. Sorry Chuck what I write now has not much relation to what=20 you want to be saying.=20 It is just that this is a nice=20 moment to add that because the world changes so much (or=20 humanity does) we might as well call it a different=20 planet... this just might explain (as it does in my=20 oppinion) why Baha'u'llah (Baha=ED faith) says there is only=20 reincarnation on a different planet.=20 Katinka=20 ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:03:21 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Enough On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:26:55 EST Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 99-12-17 16:34:18 EST, you write: > > << Don't make me reincarnate. hpb > >> > > > Too late. Your next incarnation has already been scheduled and you leave for > St. Louis in two months. Well, to be serious here for a moment... according to a letter I found on Daniel Caldwells's site (frequently advertised here), she was reincarnated almost immediately after she left the body we knew as HP Blavatsky.. But that body is probably left rotting somewhere by now, so where he/she is now is left to us to fantasize. Katinka (found this in a letter by a man named pryse.) ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:52:26 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 20, 1999-computer issues A friend works for him; I don't know how he runs his shop, i.e. testing, etc. I will pass on the info, and I appreciate it. Thanks again......... Maureen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 08:05:30 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 20, 1999-Chuck & Bart Hmmm, is that like that riddle I can't quite seem to remember? That one where if you ask that particular person a question he will always tell you a lie, and so on and so forth... Wow, I really don't remember it, better start taking vitamins before my mind totally goes. Anyway, Chuck, maybe it's a matter of semantics. You most definitely told me that having fun is always Theosophical. So if I say music is fun for me, can I slide it in that way? Maureen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:10:03 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 20, 1999-Chuck & Bart In a message dated 99-12-21 08:05:48 EST, you write: << Hmmm, is that like that riddle I can't quite seem to remember? >> Yep. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 14:15:49 -0500 From: "Maureen T Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 20, 1999 See you all in a few weeks. Happy holidays! Maureen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 07:48:40 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: officers An organization also needs workers who try to help it grow. If you are a worker but not an officer, you are a dedicated member. If you are an officer without being a worker, you are a good officer. If you try to be both, people suddenly become suspicious, and think you are trying to take over. Once they think that, they will do everything, honorable or not, in their power to stop you. What I realized is that the only difference between what happened to Alan and what happened to John Algeo is that John had a strong, organized body of support and was willing to use it. hesse600 wrote: >Bart wrote: > > And Alan has done an excellent job convincing me to never run for TSA > > office (although I seem to keep getting elected VP of the Northeast > > Federation, probably largely because I don't show up for the actual > > elections....) ... > I am not sure that that is the way to go, because, someone > has to do it. I mean, officers have a dirty job, but it has > to be done, no, or do we want a TS in which the people who > do not know the pitfalls to be presidents and > vicepresidents etc.? I mean, the organisation needs > officers. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:08:39 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Maureen's Riddle Maureen T Fitzgerald wrote: > > Hmmm, is that like that riddle I can't quite seem to remember? That one where > if you ask that particular person a question he will always tell you a lie, and > so on and so forth... Here's a version of the riddle. You are convicted of a crime in a country where cleverness is considered to be a redeeming feature. Instead of being sent straight to jail, you are sent to a room with two doors. Go through the correct door, you gain your freedom. Go through the wrong door, you serve your full sentence. In front of the correct door stands a guard who always tells the truth. In front of the incorrect door stands a guard who always lies. You may ask a single question with a "yes/no" answer to either guard, which the guard is required to answer to the best of his or her ability (meaning that if you ask a guard, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", and neither guard is married, the truthful one will say "no", and the liar will say "yes", since you can't stop without starting). What question do you ask, and how do you interpret it? ANSWER: You ask, "If I ask the other guard if he guards the door to jail, what will he say?". If you ask the truthful guard, he will say, "No", since that is what the liar will say. If you ask the liar, he will say "Yes", since the truthful guard would say "No". Go through the door of the truth-teller. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 05:41:16 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: A nice quote Dear Doss: Did your friend give the place (source) of this reference? I would like to have that if available. Thanks Dal dalval@nwc.net -----Original Message----- > Date: Saturday, December 18, 1999 12:27 PM > From: ramadoss@eden.com [mailto:ramadoss@eden.com] > Subject: A nice quote A friend sent me this quote: "...the undersigned [HPB] accepts for her views and walk in life no authority dead or living, no system of philosophy or religion but one--namely, the esoteric teachings of ethics and philosophy of those she calls "MASTERS"...Nothing of that which is conducive to help man, collectively or individually to live--not "happily"--but less "unhappily" in this world, ought to be indifferent to the Theosophist-Occultist... ============= his first duty is to be ever ready to help if he can, without stopping to philosophize... =================== there may be those who are starving for truth in every department of the science of nature, and who consequently are yearning to learn the esoteric views about "cosmology, the evolution of man and of the Universe." HPB - WHAT SHALL WE DO FOR OUR FELLOW MEN? October 1889 HPB Articles I, pp. 459-60. === I think that HPB's statement about our being ever ready to help seems to be the key and foundation to our gradually understanding "theosophical" truths for ourselves. Something to think about. mkr --- 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, 22 Dec 1999 05:41:32 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: December 17, 1999 Great Kym: Now let me ask another: WHAT IF THERE ARE THREE WISE SOULS ? Best wishes for 2,000 to you. Dal dalval@nwc.net -----Original Message----- > Date: Friday, December 17, 1999 10:20 PM > From: kymsmith@micron.net [mailto:kymsmith@micron.net] > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 17, 1999 This was sent to me just recently; so in the spirit of pondering: What if there had been THREE WISE WOMEN? Do you know what would have happened if there had been three wise women instead of three wise men? They would have asked directions, arrived on time, helped deliver the baby, cleaned the stable made a casserole and brought practical gifts. 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: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:12:30 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: officers > What I realized is that the only difference between what happened to > Alan and what happened to John Algeo is that John had a strong, > organized body of support and was willing to use it. There are many, many differences between what happened to Alan and John Algeo. Since you are part of John Algeo's "strong body of support" you naturally are trying to portray him as just a guiltless officer and hard worker for Theosophy unjustly attacked ... by people using methods "honorable or not" to try to "stop" him. It is an outright insult to Alan to compare the two - Alan's mentality was one of trying to open Theosophy to as many people as possible, make full use of the internet, and *facilitate* a wide range of views, not control either ideas or their distribution - John Algeo has the same mentality as those that managed to blacklist Alan and boot him out. The "and willing to use it" is interesting. A group of theosophists - all of whom were dues-paying members, who were *WORKERS* (as Bart says), most of them also past and present *OFFICERS*, having become increasingly concerned with the extreme centralization of power *JOHN ALGEO* has been orchestrating through total control of publications, alterations in bylaws, concerned over the increasing imposition of an "approved" form of theosophy, over a dramatic decline in membership (the American TS has lost over a third of its membership), and an autocratic governance of Headquarters staff - this group began a campaign designed to inform the membership of a lot of these issues, and call for changes in the way the TS operated. They raised their own funds, paid out of their own pockets - since the ideas would never have been permitted within any TS publications. John Algeo has shown over and over that he is willing to completely suppress anything he doesn't like. It wasn't until this campaign, however, that the full lengths he is willing to go to do so became apparent. This group sent out two mailings to the membership, newsletters outlining both what was wrong, and suggestions for change - every bit of which had supporting evidence to back it up (the research uncovered far more situations and events, some *truly* ugly stuff going on behind the scenes, but specifically did not publish anything without several forms of corroborating evidence). I realized how "willing to use it" John Algeo really was when I received two letters, on TS stationary, mailed to the membership, from National Board Members (with the full knowledge of John Algeo), and *USING THE TS BULK MAIL PERMIT* (i.e., funds that came from the *dues* paid by the very people the letters they were meant to silence) - letters attacking this group, full of subtle and not so subtle charges and implications. Tell me about "honorable and not so honorable" - no one holds a *candle* to the current little leadership clique when it comes to using dishonorable methods. More succinctly, John Algeo was fully willing to use the resources, the *MONEY* of *Theosophy*, against Theosophists in goods standing, to fight his own *political* battles. And yet Bart continues to portray Algeo as a poor victim that was forced to use his "strong body of support", against unjust attacks (ask Paul about "unjust attacks" ... he experienced the delights of John Algeo - in his role as TPH decision maker - refusing to publish Paul's controversial book, and then, when it *was* published by another house, and started to make waves outside of Theosophical circles, seeing John Algeo again, this time in his role as editor of TS publications, writing a review trashing the book ... and you *dare* compare Algeo to *Alan*?) No - Algeo is not some poor helpless victim, fortunate to have a strong body of support he is "willing to use". He is an autocratic personality, appalled that anyone would dare question him, has slowly but surely gained complete control of all publications, use of funds, and now even can seize the assets of any Lodge (according to his new bylaws anyway - he'd probably have problems in *civil* courts - since America, at least, is a democracy). He has centralized power until it is now almost all in the hands of a small group of people (his "strong body of support"), and has shown himself willing to use any methods necessary - "honorable, and not so honorable" to control the American section. Of course, lost in all this is the fact that by all objective measures, the TS as a formal organization is doing very poorly, is out of touch with the current world, and may not last more than a couple of more decades. Of course, Bart himself will try to claim that this is just another example of his own "demonization" - in fact the best tactic used by John Algeo and his supporters is to play the victim ... which works unless one happens to notice that these poor victims have complete control over the "official" TS publications, and its entire treasury. If *they* are victims, it appears as though the word "victim" has been completely redefined. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:42:09 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: RE: theos-l digest: December 17, 1999 This brings another point of view. As Ernest Wood pointed out, one view is to think of each body having a soul. The other is a soul having a body. mkr At 05:41 AM 12/22/1999 -0800, you wrote: Great Kym: Now let me ask another: WHAT IF THERE ARE THREE WISE SOULS ? Best wishes for 2,000 to you. Dal dalval@nwc.net -----Original Message----- > Date: Friday, December 17, 1999 10:20 PM > From: kymsmith@micron.net [mailto:kymsmith@micron.net] > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 17, 1999 This was sent to me just recently; so in the spirit of pondering: What if there had been THREE WISE WOMEN? Do you know what would have happened if there had been three wise women instead of three wise men? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 08:58:56 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: officers At 08:12 AM 12/22/1999 -0800, you wrote: >>Of course, lost in all this is the fact that by all objective measures, the TS as a formal organization is doing very poorly, is out of touch with the current world, and may not last more than a couple of more decades.<< ==== Well said. So long as there is money, the organization will continue to exist -- like a terminally ill patient -- who may last for a long time. With the current changing environment where communication plays a very key role, the role of formal organizations in matters which are keyed to personal growth -- not following a so called leader -- has diminished and is likely to go away. Of course those interested in titles and levels of apparent importance and silk underwear and pompous regalia will continue to cling to organizations; but those brave self searching souls do not need organizations or any of these things. Organizations may continue purely as business operations - publishing, conducting paid meetings, paid retreats all dealing with money making or breaking even -- not with anything to do with spirituality. It would be fun watching the developments in next century. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:28:08 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: officers ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 12:48 PM > From: Bart Lidofsky > An organization also needs workers who try to help it grow. If you are > a worker but not an officer, you are a dedicated member. If you are an > officer without being a worker, you are a good officer. If you try to be > both, people suddenly become suspicious, and think you are trying to > take over. Once they think that, they will do everything, honorable or > not, in their power to stop you. > > What I realized is that the only difference between what happened to > Alan and what happened to John Algeo is that John had a strong, > organized body of support and was willing to use it. HOLD IT RIGHT THERE! What happened to me was that the local leadership did everything dishonorable in their power to stop me. In this case it was dishonorable, slanderous, and as I have some of it on tape, libellous. They had a strong, organized core committee to fight me. When I quit 20% of the members (about half of the *active* ones) either quit or let their membership lapse. You read all the postings on this Bart, and I hope you will apologize - there is a HELL of a difference if you are the victim. By whatever name, the Adyar TS sucks. I add "IMO" for the sake of balance. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:40:36 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: officers ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 2:58 PM > From: > Of course those interested in titles and levels of apparent importance and > silk underwear and pompous regalia will continue to cling to organizations; > but those brave self searching souls do not need organizations or any of > these things. In the New Age, we shall all go for the silk underwear, titles and pompous regalia, but not bother with the organisation. How's that for an idea? I blame it all on Uranus. > It would be fun watching the developments in next century. Over to Chuck ...... Alan :0) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 00:36:57 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Three of them What if the three Wise Women had arrived at the stable and delivered a GIRL? "Congratulations Miriam, it's a Jewish Mother!" (Hehehehehehehehehe) Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 01:25:56 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: officers In a message dated 99-12-22 20:16:01 EST, you write: << In the New Age, we shall all go for the silk underwear, titles and pompous regalia, but not bother with the organisation. How's that for an idea? >> Sounds good to me! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:27:31 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: officers On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 07:48:40 -0500 Bart Lidofsky wrote: > An organization also needs workers who try to help it grow. If you are > a worker but not an officer, you are a dedicated member. If you are an > officer without being a worker, you are a good officer. If you try to be > both, people suddenly become suspicious, and think you are trying to > take over. Once they think that, they will do everything, honorable or > not, in their power to stop you. Let me see if I understand what you are saying... Are you saying that one cannot be a dedicated worker and an officer at the same time? I mean, perhaps our definitions are different here, but isn't an officer a worker? I know in Holland our present *president* is also a worker and is trusted so much that she also gets payd. The rest of the officers (national ones) are workers also usually in their own lodges. Maybe this is because Holland is so small that only the president (or national secretary) has a full time job of it? Katinka > What I realized is that the only difference between what happened to > Alan and what happened to John Algeo is that John had a strong, > organized body of support and was willing to use it. Yes, that is possible. Allan, could you help us here? Was your expulsion from the English TS(Adyar) also caused by you not having a national network including *the right people* ? Katinka [I wrote before: ] > > I am not sure that that is the way to go, because, someone > > has to do it. I mean, officers have a dirty job, but it has > > to be done, no, or do we want a TS in which the people who > > do not know the pitfalls to be presidents and > > vicepresidents etc.? I mean, the organisation needs > > officers. ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:56:51 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: something to share Hi all, In our local lodge (TS-adyar - adding that just for balance) we share at holidays texts that have helped us in our private life. Or that we think important because they are perhaps helpfull for others. Here is one I got, that I really found helpfull. I translate from the Dutch and have no idea as to the book it comes from (but it is so easy to translate, I think it was translated from the American English into the Dutch): >> From Oriah, dreamer from the mountains, wize man from India: "The invitation It doesn't interest me what you do for a living. I want to know what you long for and whether you dare dream to meet your hearts desire. It doesn't interest me how old you are. I want to know whether you will risk looking like a fool over love, your dreams, the adventure of being alive. It doesn't interest me what planets are in your moon. I want to know if you have touched the core of your own sorrow and whether life's betrayals have made you more open or have made you shrivvel up and close up, from fear of still more pain. I want to know if with you can sit still with pain, mine or yours, without hiding, covering up or fixating it. I want to know if you can feel joy, mine or yours; whether you can dance wildly and be filled with extacy upto the tips of your fingers, without reminding us that we have to be carefull, or realistic, or reminding us about the limitations of being human. It doesn't interest me whether the story you tell is true. I want to know whether you can let another person down by being loyal to yourself, or whether you can carry the accusation of betrayal but still not betray your own soul. I want to know if you can be faithfull and therefore also reliable. I want to know whether you can see the beauty, even if not every day is pleasant, and whether you can lavish your life in the presence of that beauty. I want to know whether you can live with failure, mine or yours, and still stand at the edge of the lake and shout "yes" towards the silver of the full moon. It doesn't interest me where you live and howmuch money you have. I want to know whether you can get up in the morning, after a night of sorrow and despair, tired and hurt to your bones, and still do for your children what has to be done. It doesn't interest me who you are or how you got here. I want to know if you can stand in the middle of the fire with me and not be afraid. It doesn't interest me where or what or with whom you went to college. I want to know what keeps you standing from within when all ellse falls away. I want to know if you can be alone with yourself and whether you really love the company you have in empty moments." Hope you enjoy, merry christmas and a happy new year. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 08:10:13 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: officers Alan: I had originally planned to put this at the end of the post, but I was afraid that you wouldn't read that far down, so I'm putting it here: 1) While John Algeo WAS slandered (see below), the level of slander against him was nowhere NEAR the level of slander against you. 2) While the relative sizes and strengths of the detractors vs. the protectors in yours and his case were possibly the major difference, what I wrote could certainly be read as to minimize HOW much of a difference this was. 3) You suffered greatly and were entirely innocent; John Algeo WAS guilty of some of the things being said against him and suffered not at all (and probably grew a little out of the experience). The point I was trying to make, and failed miserably, was to use you and John Algeo to show the extremes of the spectrum. Instead, I left the impression that I thought that what happened to the two of you was more or less equivalent. For that, I certainly apologize. Now, on to the details.... ambain wrote: > HOLD IT RIGHT THERE! What happened to me was that the local > leadership did everything dishonorable > in their power to stop me. In this case it was dishonorable, > slanderous, and as I have some of it on tape, libellous. Certainly slanderous; unless they put it on tape on purpose, however, I do not believe it was libellous (not that it was true, but that it was not published). It has not yet been legally determined whether things like that said on the Internet are considered slander or libel; no case has made it through trial yet (every case has been settled out of court in one way or another). > They had a strong, organized core committee to fight me. When I quit > 20% of the members (about half of the *active* ones) either quit or > let their membership lapse. I think that was a point I made; the group slandering you was much stronger than the group falsely accusing John Algeo, and the group protecting you was much weaker than the group protecting John Algeo. Also, most of the slanders against John Algeo were easily disproved (for example, the statements that he was using TS funds to go around as a National Speaker for electioneering purposes; while the purpose could not be proven either way, he was able to demonstrate that he used his own funds, and did not use TS funds for expenses). I could list quite a few of the slanders against John Algeo, but then there'll be a bunch of people who have only second-hand knowledge flooding the list with, "But they were true!!!!", much like if the people who drove you out would do if they were on this list and you were defending the accusations against yourself. (This is not to say that ALL the accusations against John Algeo were false; that is evident by the fact that he changed his behavior in certain areas, such as the running of day-to-day affairs in Wheaton). > You read all the postings on this Bart, and I hope you will > apologize - there is a HELL of a difference if you are the victim. If a person is falsely accused of a crime and thrown into jail, he is a victim. If a person is falsely accused of a crime, and exonerated, he is far less of a victim, but still a victim. Of course, all I have in your case is my own opinion, with no first-hand knowledge, but your story so closely matches patterns of false accusations I have seen in the past that I have no doubt of the truth of your story. I, myself, have been the victim of slander campaigns (and those who have participated in some who are on this list know who you are). There was one particular area where I WAS guilty. For a period of a year or two, I was virtually running the day-to-day operations of the New York Lodge (those who were theoretically in charge either were absent, or asked me to take care of things). During that period, I was not doing great in my business life (and the two WERE related), and was very happy that I was able to use my skill sets for something good. My problem was that I ACTED too happy. The accusation was that I "walked around like I ran the Lodge". Unfortunately, there are two definitions of running a Lodge; one is keeping it going on a day-to-day basis, and the other is making the high-level decisions. And my attitude caused people who were not making the high-level decisions think that I was making those decisions, overriding those in charge. So I changed my attitude, and also found people willing to take over tasks. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 08:11:10 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: officers ambain wrote: > > In the New Age, we shall all go for the silk underwear, titles and > pompous regalia, but not bother with the organisation. How's that for > an idea? > > I blame it all on Uranus. Well, if it weren't for Uranus, silk underwear would be superfluous. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 08:42:39 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: officers > I think that was a point I made; the group slandering you was much > stronger than the group falsely accusing John Algeo, and the group > protecting you was much weaker than the group protecting John Algeo. Ok Bart - not certain why in the world you'd want to dredge all this up - but since you've apparently decided to do so - your patently false portrayals are *not* going to go unanswered. It may take a couple of days to fully respond ... but baby if ya want to fight, okey-dokey. Perhaps you should understand, however, that 1. To make an accusation is *not* necessarily to "slander". If 9/10's of the accusations are *ture* trying to point to one and prove it "false" is not a defense. 2. The leadership of *any* democratically elected organization can, and *should* be looked at very closely. Especially when the organization shows dramatic declines in membership, and MOST especially when power is extremely centralized. When one man controls all publications, that man damn well better *Expect* to be put under a microscope, and in any *healthy* organization, *WILL BE*. When one small group controls all uses of money, and has changed bylaws so that it is exceedingly difficult for any that aren't "approved" to gain seats, they damn well better *Expect* to be looked at very closely - and in any *healthy* organization they are. 3. Other groups within the organization *do* have a legitimate right to make accusations, and attempt to make significant changes to democratic organizations. John Algeo, yourself, and at least a couple of Board members acted like victims, acted, (as you are still acting) as though some terrible, slanderous deeds were done against poor suffering selfless workers. The fact that you've interpreted what in any other organization would be considered the *normal workings of a healthy, democratic organization* as such only demonstrates all the more fully what dire straits have been reached. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:51:30 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: officers At 10:27 AM 12/23/1999 +0100, hesse600 wrote: > Maybe this is because Holland is so small that only the president (or national secretary) has a full time job of it? Katinka May be Holland does not have a multi-million dollars in the bank account. If it be so, the you will have a lot of paid employees who are there just for a living. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 11:18:54 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: officers At 08:42 AM 12/23/1999 -0600, JRC wrote: >The leadership of *any* democratically elected organization can, and *should* be looked at very closely. Especially when the organization shows dramatic declines in membership< As every day goes by, any democratically elected leader (and his/her actions ) are is put under a microscope - all aspects of the life including personal ones - that is the current trend in this country. If one cannot stand such intense scrutiny, then they should not aspire for such positions. Decline in membership in *any* organization is a serious matter, especially when the trend takes place over a period of time. Any member worth his salt who takes the organization seriously will wonder what is going on and what is planned to be done and why and how. If decline in membership is planned one -- just like downsizing of organizations -- then the membership should be told so -- and then the membership can decide and leave and save some money. Any one is welcome to challenge my above response. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 14:08:40 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: officers > Decline in membership in *any* organization is a serious matter, especially > when the trend takes place over a period of time. And *this* is one of the two or three major points that is *NOT* in dispute. Bart, and the Board members who used TS funds to win a political battle for Algeo, and the rest of the little group that holds the power, have complained at length about how badly they've been treated, about how "selflessly" they serve, about how unjustly they've been attacked and demonized ... in fact, they'll talk about anything other than the main, indisputable facts: 1. During John Algeo's leadership, membership has declined - not just a little, but by between 1/4 and 1/3. In *ANY* non-profit organization, this would be considered serious to the point of being a crisis. And the leadership would be called to answer for it, to address it. In many organizations, the leadership would be replaced. But in the face of this, the leadership certainly has *NO* standing to complain about, or claim to be victimized by, a popular movement within the ranks of the organization's membership that *DOES* take such a dramatic decline quite seriously, and sees it as a reason to call for significant changes. In fact, a sure sign of a completely diseased organization would be if such a group *didn't* emerge given such a dramatic decline. When someone holds a leadership role, and especially when they've used bylaw changes to accumulate significant amounts of decision making power in the hands of themselves and a small group surrounding them, whether they are serving "selflessly" is *NOT* and issue, whether they are serving *EFFECTIVELY* is. And when membership has been decimated, that service has *NOT* been effective. 2. John Algeo's management style was *terrible*. There was significant discontent within the ranks of the Headquarters staff. More than one perceived him as autocratic, domineering, as though he was acting far more as an Abbot that had control over a bunch of monks than an *employer* who had to follow the laws of this country. Several employees told us they not only felt abused, but more telling was the fact that while they privately supported us, they didn't feel free to publically say so - were afraid there jobs would be at risk if they spoke against John Algeo, or publically told people about their experiences. More than one person even considered suing the TS. 3. John Algeo, supported by the current Board, *HAS*, since he became President, instituted changes to the bylaws that *DO* centralize power significantly in the hands of a few. It is now much more difficult to become a Board member. Much more difficult to become a VP or the President. In fact, it is nearly impossible for some not approved by the current leadership to gain any significant role at the national level. 4. John Algeo *does* completely control what is published by the TPH, and what is printed in national publications. Any bylaws that *are* proposed are published ... but he completely controls how they are presented, and completely controls the discourse about them that the membership is exposed to. In short, the current leadership *DOES* now have significantly more control over the operations, elections, and publications of the American section of the TS than was the case prior to John Algeo's leadership, yet the effects of these people's leadership has *NOT* been a healthy, growing, thriving TS, but in fact one whose membership numbers show a trend that would be considered a crisis in any other organization. And the fact that Bart will try to do anything to portray myself, or any group, that tries to respond to these facts for the sake of Theosophy as victimizers, and try to brand the fact of making these points as "slander" shows where he stands. He's the chief apologist on this list for that ruling clique. He will try to pick isolated little points that he "proves" to be wrong in an attempt to detract attention from the much huger - and *indisputable* points. He *cannot* say that: 1. Membership *hasn't* declined significantly; 2. That there wasn't *serious* discontent among amongst the Headquarters staff; 3. That bylaws changes *haven't* put more power in the hands of himself and the national board, and that as a result of these changes (regardless of the reason that the changes were *claimed* to be for), any person or group that *did* want to replace the current leadership wouldn't have a far more difficult time; and 4. That John Algeo now *doesn't* exert complete editorial control over both the TPH and the TS publications. So if Bart wants to make general implications, but say that he won't present any evidence because people on the list would just argue about them ... fine. Don't need many little points, just want him to prove one single one - the single most important one - wrong: Under John Algeo's leadership, the TS membership has declind ... not a minor temporary fluctuation mind you, but declined by a significant percentage, but it is now *far* more difficult for a person or group to *replace* the current leadership than it was prior to his leadership, and no complaints or suggestions for serious changes can be made in national publications without first being approved by John Algeo. All other points are insignificant next to this. If this statement *isn't* true - then prove where it isn't. If it *is* true - it should disturb every Theosophist that genuinely cares about the future of the organization. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 00:13:19 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Verse "Peace upon Earth! was said. We sing it And pay a million priests to bring it. After two thousand years of mass We've got as far as poison-gas." (Christmas 1924, Thomas Hardy) ======================== "Did I really build up such a burden of guilt? Must I really stop being so cynical? Now must be the time to earn peace of mind ... or is Karma just an excuse to be ethical?" (Julia Bremmer, 1999) Posted by Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 01:47:36 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Response to Bart (long) Bart wrote (to Alan) > The point I was trying to make, and failed miserably, was to use you > and John Algeo to show the extremes of the spectrum. Instead, I left the > impression that I thought that what happened to the two of you was more > or less equivalent. For that, I certainly apologize. Accepted. > > Now, on to the details.... > > ambain wrote: > > HOLD IT RIGHT THERE! What happened to me was that the local > > leadership did everything dishonorable > > in their power to stop me. In this case it was dishonorable, > > slanderous, and as I have some of it on tape, libellous. > > Certainly slanderous; unless they put it on tape on purpose, however, I > do not believe it was libellous (not that it was true, but that it was > not published). Is this the small print? > > They had a strong, organized core committee to fight me. When I quit > > 20% of the members (about half of the *active* ones) either quit or > > let their membership lapse. > > I think that was a point I made; the group slandering you was much > stronger than the group falsely accusing John Algeo That was not now it read. > > > You read all the postings on this Bart, and I hope you will > > apologize - there is a HELL of a difference if you are the victim. > > If a person is falsely accused of a crime and thrown into jail, he is a > victim. If a person is falsely accused of a crime, and exonerated, he is > far less of a victim, but still a victim. There are degrees of victim? I don't think so. The extent of the actual victimization may vary, but however we look at it, there is no justification for a theosophical organisation (at *any* level) to victimize it's own members or elected officers, of which *I* was one at the time. Your story below demonstrates all too clearly, to my way of thinking, how "brotherly" theosophical lodges can be anything but "brotherly" or "theosophical." I first studied theosophy (TS brand) in 1956, and learned a great many useful things that have sustained me throughout my life. If that were not true, I would not bother with this list, which contains some fine people as subscribers. My problems only began when I actually *joined* the wretched organization in 1989. So thanks, HPB and your successors for your input into my life (including those of you who got things wrong) but no thanks, successors, for what you did with the foundation HPB and her contemporaries laid down. All of the false accusations against me were instigated by an ES member. Very many letters of protest to the then Gen. Sec. of the English Section (another ES member) were ignored. They could not, however, ignore voices on tape, and the instigator was forced to admit to the crime at the ensuing lodge AGM, at which - owing to the pressure upon her - the Gen. Sec. had to chair. I, however, was *not allowed* to attend or speak at the same AGM as by then I had transferred out of lodge membership to "unattached" - the same as "member at large" in the US. I had done this in order to protect my TS membership itself, which was also under threat. I must have been crazy to want to keep it. And HPB must have been crazy to set up an Esoteric Section. I have nothing against theosophists gathering together for mutual benefit, study, and discussion. What is NOT needed is a pyramidal hierarchy. Maybe theosophical groups could become syndicated, bit individually autonomous, but that's another discussion - might revive ACT! > There was one particular area where I WAS guilty. For a period of a > year or two, I was virtually running the day-to-day operations of the > New York Lodge (those who were theoretically in charge either were > absent, or asked me to take care of things). During that period, I was > not doing great in my business life (and the two WERE related), and was > very happy that I was able to use my skill sets for something good. My > problem was that I ACTED too happy. The accusation was that I "walked > around like I ran the Lodge". Unfortunately, there are two definitio ns > of running a Lodge; one is keeping it going on a day-to-day basis, and > the other is making the high-level decisions. And my attitude caused > people who were not making the high-level decisions think that I was > making those decisions, overriding those in charge. So I changed my > attitude, and also found people willing to take over tasks. > > Bart Lidofsky I hope your lodge watches out for *their* attitudes. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 02:24:38 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Membership decline ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Thursday, December 23, 1999 8:08 PM > From: JRC > Subject: Re: officers > Under John Algeo's leadership, the TS membership has declind ... not a minor > temporary fluctuation mind you, but declined by a significant percentage, > but it is now *far* more difficult for a person or group to *replace* the > current leadership than it was prior to his leadership, and no complaints or > suggestions for serious changes can be made in national publications without > first being approved by John Algeo. > > All other points are insignificant next to this. If this statement *isn't* > true - then prove where it isn't. If it *is* true - it should disturb every > Theosophist that genuinely cares about the future of the organization. -JRC This is true of the USA, which *is* under JA's leadership, but it is alos true of the UK and other parts of the world. What evidence there is suggests that the cause lies higher up the ladder, with the Interntional President, who has been described as "she who must be obeyed" as the de facto and de jure head of the Adyar TS worldwide, *and* the same of the Adyar ES. It seems to be the ES which dictates international policy, and which dictates TS policy. As the ES is *not* democratic, but autocratic, then it follows that any apparent democracy in the TS is unreal. This explains why entire National Sections (e.g., Denmark, Canada) have been expelled by Adyar - they seem to have believed that the democratic process was genuine! Netherlands, keep watch - you still have something precious! Sigh. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 15:43:01 -0800 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: More items added to BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE More items added to BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm I've just added to our archives the following 2 items: --- "The Early Story of The Theosophical Society: A Chapter of History" by William Stainton Moses [Reprinted from Light (London), July 9, 1892, pp. 330-32; and July 23, 1892, pp. 354-57. This two part article contains 8 letters that Henry Olcott wrote to Stainton Moses in 1875 and 1876. Interesting glimpses of Madame Blavatsky.] --- "Count Witte on Madame Blavatsky" [Excerpted from The Memoirs of Count Witte. Translated from the original Russian manuscript and edited by Abraham Yarmolinsky. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1921, pp. 4-10.] Daniel H. Caldwell BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 21:34:06 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Objects of TS As we embark on a new century, it is useful to revisit some of the objects of theosophical society. HPB is best qualified to tell us something about them and she did. She was prolific writer and what she has written on the subject is very relevant and I am presenting here for everyone's consideration. As to what theosophists "believe" she wrote: =3D=3D=3D With how much, then, of this nature-searching, God-seeking science of the ancient Aryan and Greek mystics ... does the Society agree? Our answer is: =96 with it all. But if asked what it believes in, the reply will be: =96 "as a body =96 Nothing." The Society, as a body, has no creed, = as creeds are but the shells around spiritual knowledge; and Theosophy in its fruition is spiritual knowledge itself =96 the very essence of philosophical and theistic enquiry. Visible representative of Universal Theosophy, it can be no more sectarian than a Geographical Society, which represents universal geographical exploration without caring whether the explorers be of one creed or another. The religion of the Society is an algebraical equation, in which, so long as the sign =3D of equality is not omitted, each member is allowed to substitute quantities of his own, which better accord with climatic and other exigencies of his native land, with the idiosyncrasies of his people, or even with his own. Having no accepted creed, our Society is very ready to give and take, to learn and teach, by practical experimentation, as opposed to mere passive and credulous acceptance of enforced dogma ... The very root idea of the Society is free and fearless investigation. As a body, the Theosophical Society holds that all original thinkers and investigators of the hidden side of nature, whether materialists =97 those who find matter "the promise and potency of all terrestrial life," or spiritualists =96 that is, those who discover in spirit the source of all energy and of matter as well, were and are, properly, Theosophists ... It will be seen now, that whether classed as Theists, Pantheists or Atheists, such men are near kinsman to the rest. Be what he may, once that a student abandons the old and trodden highway of routine, and enters upon the solitary path of independent thought =96 Godward =96 he is a Theosophist; an original thinker, as seeker after the eternal truth with "an inspiration of his own" to solve the universal problems. =3D=3D=3D =09 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 23:37:51 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: TS As we enter the next millennium, and the gradual steady decline in the TS, I ran into an interesting statement from HPB: == Theosophy, Madame Blavatsky writes, is the friend and supporter of scientific inquiry, so long as scientists avoid dogmatizing in the domains of psychology and metaphysics. It is also allied with every effort to understand the manifestations of the Divine Principle. True to its motto, "There is no Religion higher than Truth," the Society was conceived as a vehicle for the exercise of absolute religious freedom: "Born in the United States of America, the Society was constituted on the model of its Mother Land. The latter, omitting the name of God from its constitution lest it should afford a pretext one day to make a state religion, gives absolute equality to all religions in its laws. All support and each is in turn protected by the State. The Society, modelled upon this constitution, may fairly be termed a "Republic of Conscience." === Today, United States with its sound constitution and democratic system of government, as the system evolved, has demanded all and everyone seeking any elected office to be put under a microscope and all past and present actions are open to widest criticism no matter how personal and private the matter may be. The system is demanding to know everything about its candidates' past and present, no matter how ugly, distasteful or beautiful they are. So when anyone critiques anyone in the leadership or anyone aspiring for leadership, it is fair game and one has to put up with. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 04:46:53 From: "James Langdon Rodak" Subject: Research Project: Third Object of the T.S.A. I have been a member of the T.S.A for about 4 years. For the past 2 years I have been conducting self-directed research into the genesis and language of the Third Object. Of particular interest to me in this regard are the words: "To investigate unexplained laws of Nature ...". I have seriously pondered over these words ever since I became a member of the Society and wondered: What exactly did HPB, Olcott, Judge and the other founding members of the Society have in mind/intend when they decided to adopt that phraseology -- which has evolved into the present day language we read in the Third Object. When the Society was formally established and chartered, that was, in essence, the language of the one and only Object of the Society. Being that both Olcott and Judge were formally trained lawyers, I'm confident that they were very deliberate as to the choice of their words - i.e., the spirit and intent that the language adoped was to convent to both the informed member of the Society and the uninformed non-member - i.e., having both and esoteric and an exoteric meaning? To me, the words "unexplained laws of Nature" appear to be contradictory - i.e.: How can a "law", by definition, be "unexplained"? And the words "laws of Nature": What, exactly, were the "laws of Nature" they were referring to: Karma? Reincarnation? Clairvoyance? And investigate: How and by what means and for what purpose(s) were they going to conduct their investigations? In my perusal of the Theosophical literature that I have had access to, I have yet to come across a comprehensive, unambigious discussion on and explanation of the subject. At least not one that fully satisfies my intellectual curiosity. The purpose of my research is to write a comprehensive paper on the subject. I am not seeking remuneration in any form for my efforts. I seek only more light on the subject heretofore articulated so that I might be better informed, enlightened, and enabled to share the knowledge gained with fellow Theosophists and with those who might have an interest in the subject. In closing I need to also state that it is my considered opinion that every serious member of the Theosophical Society should have a clear, unambigious understanding of what each of the three Objects of the Society mean and what they are intended to convey. The Objects are the mandated fundamental principles that we have stated that we are in sympathy with -- a prerequisite for membership in the Society. Through this project I hope to obtain a clearer understanding of the spirit and intent that the founders of the Society intended for the members to understand. Through your input you can assist me in this endeavor by providing your thoughts and opinions, and citations from your studies of the core Theosophical literature and pertinent journal articles. Please provide citations for your references so that I might do a follow-up review. Respectfully and Fraternally, James L. (Jim) Rodak < rodakjl@pcola.gulf.net > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 16:15:47 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Membership decline At 02:24 AM 12/24/1999 -0000, ambain wrote: >It seems to be the ES which dictates international policy, and which dictates TS policy. As the ES is *not* democratic, but autocratic, then it follows that any apparent democracy in the TS is unreal.< If this could be *proven* to the satisfaction of the US Governmental Tax authorities, then TS in America and Theosophical Investment Trust could be in serious trouble in losing its tax exempt status retroactively. Of course if an investigation gets started, all the people involved would be put under oath and deposed under penalty of perjury and jail and all facts ferreted out. Of course with the millions of dollars in the coffers, TS in America can hire top Chicago lawyers to defend. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 10:21:56 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: TS To Doss: You have been choosing some interesting HPB statements lately, very nice springboards for conversation, BTW. Thanks. ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > > As we enter the next millennium, and the gradual steady decline in the TS, > I ran into an interesting statement from HPB: Of course, the concept of the millenium is heavily based on concepts which are kind of screwy in the first place. For example, during the late Middle Ages, when the number 0 had been thoroughly adapted in Europe, there was a major convention as to which numerical base should be used. The engineering types liked base 12 (if you notice, many European languages still have a base-12 system linguistically, with 10, 11, and 12 being irregular compared to other numbers). The religionists and philosophers liked base 10 (the number of Aristotle, after all, and also the number of fingers on the human hand). Base 12 was far more useful (and, unbenknownst to anybody at the time, base 8 or base 16 would have been, long-term, WAY far more useful), but base 10 won out. If base 12 had won out, this would not be the millenium at all; the year would be 1118 if base 12 had been used, with the "century bug" having occurred 20 years ago. And, of course, the base of the millenium (the date of Jesus supposedly being born) has to deal with historical events with no outside historical record, and people living at the same time who didn't. > Theosophy, Madame Blavatsky writes, is the friend and supporter of > scientific inquiry, so long as scientists avoid dogmatizing in the domains > of psychology and metaphysics. It is also allied with every effort to > understand the manifestations of the Divine Principle. Unfortunately, we have too many people in the Society who adapt a Communist/post-modernist attitude towards science, where science is entirely psychological, and depends on one's politics. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 11:27:51 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Research Project: Third Object of the T.S.A. James Langdon Rodak wrote: > > I have been a member of the T.S.A for about 4 years. For the past 2 > years I have been conducting self-directed research into the genesis and > language of the Third Object. Of particular interest to me in this regard > are the words: "To investigate unexplained laws of Nature ...". I have > seriously pondered over these words ever since I became a member of the > Society and wondered: What exactly did HPB, Olcott, Judge and the other > founding members of the Society have in mind/intend when they decided to > adopt that phraseology -- which has evolved into the present day language > we read in the Third Object. I have one way of looking at the 3 (and the 2nd for that matter) object that might help shed light on the matter. Think of the 3 objects as being in order of importance, and that the 2nd must be considered in the light of the 1st, and the 3rd must be considered in the light of the 2nd and the 1st (and before the rest of the list jumps at me, remember that this is only ONE way of looking at them, not the ONLY way). However... > When the Society was formally established and chartered, that was, in > essence, the language of the one and only Object of the Society. There might be some disagreement with that. And note that the Objects were changed. That could very well have to do with the Objects being misinterpreted, at least from the point of view of the founders. > The purpose of my research is to write a comprehensive paper on the > subject. I am not seeking remuneration in any form for my efforts. I seek > only more light on the subject heretofore articulated so that I might be > better informed, enlightened, and enabled to share the knowledge gained > with fellow Theosophists and with those who might have an interest in the > subject. And you would like us to.... > In closing I need to also state that it is my considered opinion that > every serious member of the Theosophical Society should have a clear, > unambigious understanding of what each of the three Objects of the Society > mean and what they are intended to convey. The Objects are the mandated > fundamental principles that we have stated that we are in sympathy with -- > a prerequisite for membership in the Society. However, the Society is also declared to be non-dogmatic. I have had discussions with a number of our more prominent members (including a few people here) about that dichotomy; for example, the 1st Object carries an inbuilt, and possibly dogmatic, assumption that there IS a Brotherhood of Humanity. The best answer I got, and this was the most common answer I got, was that the 3 Objects ARE, in fact, open to individual interpretation, including, for example, what is MEANT by a "Brotherhood of Humanity". Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 11:57:31 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Membership decline Proving it would be a bit of a problem. I use a corallary of Occam's Razor: Never blame on a conspiracy what can be blamed by a large group of individuals, each acting independently in their own self-interest. And what I see is far more the latter than the former. In particular, what I see is that those who control the T.S. have also taken control over the E.S. Radha Burnier, for example, is highly autocratic in her leadership, and has put into many other leadership positions members of her own family. Bylaws that were designed based on the political leadership of the TS and the spiritual leadership being strictly separated are now being interpreted by a political leader who has declared herself the spiritual leader, as well. Therefore, decisions which are supposed to be made on an exoteric basis (such as dissolution of sections) is being made on a spiritual basis, in a Society which is supposed to be without dogma. I therefore see Radha's leadership in the E.S. is a symptom of the problem, not a cause. I think that if you examine other places where it appears that there is E.S. control over the T.S. leadership, it is in fact the other way around. I also think that the E.S. is a group that has strayed greatly from its original purpose, and should not be considered in T.S. matters. Bart Lidofsky ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > > At 02:24 AM 12/24/1999 -0000, ambain wrote: > >It seems to be the ES which dictates international policy, and which > dictates TS policy. As the ES is *not* democratic, but autocratic, > then it follows that any apparent democracy in the TS is unreal.< > > If this could be *proven* to the satisfaction of the US Governmental Tax > authorities, then TS in America and Theosophical Investment Trust could be > in serious trouble in losing its tax exempt status retroactively. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 13:01:58 From: "James Langdon Rodak" Subject: Re: Research Project: Third Object of the T.S.A. James Langdon Rodak writes: With respect to the original wording of the Objects of the Society at its founding, I commend THE GOLDEN BOOK OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY (1875-1925), p. 243,to interested inquirers and quote the following therefrom: II. "The objects of the Society are, to collect and diffuse a knowledge of the laws which govern the universe." The editor of the aforementioned book, C. Jinarajadasa, continued as follows: "There was only this one object, and commenting on it Colonel Olcott writes in his Old Diary Leaves, vol. I, p. 120: 'The Brotherhood plank in the Society's future platform was, therefore, not thought of; later on, however, when our sphere of influence extended so as to bring us into relation with Asiatics and their Religions and social systems, it became a necessity, and, in fact, the cornerstone of our edifice. The Theosophical Society was an evolution, not -- on the visible plane --a planned creation.'" Theosophical writers have well documented the early history of the Society to include the wording of its charter and by-laws. What seems to be lacking are comprehensive, in-depth discussion on what the spirit and intent of the terminology chosen by the founders when they approved the language of the Objects. Another excellent source document on the history of the Society is a pamphlet written by James A. Santucci, a professor of religious studies and linguistics at CalStateU Fullerton titled "Theosophy and the Theosophical Society" (pub by the Theosophical History Centre, London. I found this particular source of value because Prof Santucci has an extensive bibliography and notes to support his paper. I commend this reference to all my theosophical brethren who have an interest in the early history of the Society. Another informative - and provocative - reference that addresses the Objects in general and the Third Object in some particulars is to be found in the Nov 1996 issue of THE THEOSOPHIST with contributing writers such as N. Sri Ram; Geoffrey Farthing; Hugh Shearman; Joy Mills; John Algeo; etc. A wide range of opinions (from "They're just fine as written!" to "They need to be revised completely!" can be found in this series of essays. Again, I commend it to my theosophical brethren. And lastly, there is that superlative article by H.P.B. in the Sep 1889 issue of "Lucifer" titled "Our Three Objects" that is worthy of a visit on www.blavatsky.net for those interested in what our founding Mother had to say on the subject early on. Hopefully, the aforementioned will generate much constructive discussion and ponderings among the readership. I look forward to reading your comments. Fraternally yours, Jim Rodak < rodakjl@pcola.gulf.net > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 01:15:01 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Brotherhood ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Sunday, December 26, 1999 4:27 PM > From: Bart Lidofsky > Subject: Re: Research Project: Third Object of the T.S.A. > The best answer I got, and this was the most > common answer I got, was that the 3 Objects ARE, in fact, open to > individual interpretation, including, for example, what is MEANT by a > "Brotherhood of Humanity". > .... as interpreted by the Head of the Society (or Section) at any given moment. "Brotherhood of Humanity" in the TS (Adyar) is a moveable feast. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 01:27:33 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Membership decline ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Sunday, December 26, 1999 4:57 PM > From: Bart Lidofsky > Subject: Re: Membership decline > Radha Burnier, for example, is highly autocratic in her leadership, and > has put into many other leadership positions members of her own family. > Bylaws that were designed based on the political leadership of the TS > and the spiritual leadership being strictly separated are now being > interpreted by a political leader who has declared herself the spiritual > leader, as well. Therefore, decisions which are supposed to be made on > an exoteric basis (such as dissolution of sections) is being made on a > spiritual basis, in a Society which is supposed to be without dogma. I > therefore see Radha's leadership in the E.S. is a symptom of the > problem, not a cause. Ahem. If, as she appears to be, she is virtually the dictator of the Society, she has *become* the cause, even if she started out as a symptom. This is very common in disease. Declaring oneself the spiritual leader of the Society has all the appearance of megalomania, in which case the self-appointed "saint" should be removed ASAP. However, there is seems to be no official mechanism for doing this -.So the Head of Adyar TS has changed the rules to suit the convenience of herself and her family! And John Algeo, we are frequently reminded, has changed the rules of the US Section to *his* advantage, or that of his administration, which may be the same thing ..... And people want to JOIN this setup? good grief Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 21:35:25 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: TS > Unfortunately, we have too many people in the Society who adapt a > Communist/post-modernist attitude towards science, where science is > entirely psychological, and depends on one's politics. Er, can you name 5? I certainly hear a lot of people in the TS *complaining* about "post-modernism", but on the whole the TS seems mostly filled with old folks who love the late 19th century texts, and long for the days when they could believe in solid absolutes. And curiously enough, the *critics* of post-modernism, despite their insistence on absolutes, seem to rarely notice that very few people actually go to the extremes they quote ... but rather have introduced points that even a lot of scientists feel are credible. Any scientist that *doesn't* believe that there isn't a helleva lot of politics in modern science ... well, they *aren't* a working scientist. Any scientist that *doesn't* take into account their own prejudices and biases isn't a very good one. The extreme of post-modernism says that everything is psychological ... but the basic *point* is that psychology and politics *does* have a significant amount to do with what gets studied ... what research gets funded. The really curious thing to me is that almost everyone that makes strident arguments against "post-modernism" ... are themselves making the arguments for psychological and political reasons. They bring the argument up even if it has nothing to do with anything being talked about. Why is it "unfortunate" that anyone in the Society adopts any particular stance? What if a few people *do* believe in "post-modernism"? So what! Its not as though the TS is *relevant* t5o modern society. Not like its having an effect. Its *hardly* a society of people doing anything remotely resembling science. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:05:03 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Membership decline ambain wrote: > > spiritual basis, in a Society which is supposed to be without dogma. > I > > therefore see Radha's leadership in the E.S. is a symptom of the > > problem, not a cause. > > Ahem. If, as she appears to be, she is virtually the dictator of the > Society, she has *become* the cause, even if she started out as a > symptom. This is very common in disease. Note the possessive form; I was talking about the E.S. connection being a just a symptom, not Radha. > Declaring oneself the > spiritual leader of the Society has all the appearance of megalomania, > in which case the self-appointed "saint" should be removed ASAP. Unless the person cleverly denies that she is doing any such thing, which makes life far more difficult. > However, there is seems to be no official mechanism for doing > this -.So the Head of Adyar TS has changed the rules to suit the > convenience of herself and her family! No rules were changed; existing rules were written with an Olcott in mind. > And John Algeo, we are frequently reminded, has changed the rules of > the US Section to *his* advantage, or that of his administration, > which may be the same thing ..... Here is one place where I truly believe that accusations are misplaced. As the "keeper" of the New York bylaws, I have remained very close to the bylaws situation in National (not as much in the creation, but in discussing with both Wheaton and New York officials the implications of the new bylaws, to make sure that the people in New York were sufficiently informed so as to make a decision of support or non-support of the National laws). The major fear, of course, is the Boston situation. I have talked to people on both sides, and I can tell you that it was, in the long run, a monumental screw-up on both sides, where both sides were sincere and believed the other side to be insincere, and a lack of communication. Now the stories I have heard, all from people whom I trust, come out making Rashomon look tame by comparison. Based on what both have said, however, if there was better communication, or even someone acceptable to both sides as a mediator, I think that the problems would have been solved rapidly, and the Boston Lodge would never have been dissolved. However, the situation, and the major legal costs involved, brought up a major question. There were large amounts of property owned by several Lodges, with relatively low memberships. It would be extremely easy for an outside group to perform a hostile takeover of a Lodge, split from National, and grab the property. The new by-laws were put in place for the express purpose of keeping such a thing from happening (if a hostile takeover were tried in the National Section, there are other measures put into place to guard the property. While this was great for older, more established Lodges, this put a scare into new, growing Lodges, a fear that they would build themselves up, get donations based on their current leadership, and then have National Headquarters kick them out and put their own people in charge. Interestingly, the Lodge which showed the most fear that something like this could happen was the Miami Lodge; this while the Miami Lodge was being held up as an example to other Lodges of a major SUCCESS. However, those protesting didn't bother to examine all the solutions; they insisted on all or nothing, and they got nothing. The property transfer rules both protect Lodges, and put them in jeopardy. The ideal solution is to keep the protections while removing the jeopardy. The rules that need to be changed are NOT the property transfer rules, but the rules for dissolving Lodges. It must be made much harder for the National Section to dissolve a Lodge, and minimally require mediation by a mutually agreeable or court-appointed mediator before a Lodge dissolution become final. The level of independence of the individual Lodges must be explicitly stated, and the number of Directors required to dissolve a Lodge must be increased from a simple majority (I favor more than one nay vote and/or abstention defeats). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:04:17 From: "Maureen Fitzgerald" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: December 17, 1999 On 12/22/99, ""W. Dallas TenBroeck" " wrote: > Great Kym: Now let me ask another: > > WHAT IF THERE ARE THREE WISE SOULS ? > > Best wishes for 2,000 to you. > > Dal > > dalval@nwc.net > > Dallas, How like you to respond this way! It all comes down to that anyway, doesn't it? Thanks also for the instructions, but I don't have Outlook. I have given in to the gentle persistence, and printed the article-only 9 pages with the way my pc formatted it. I will give it some (probably a lot of) attention. I will carry it with me, make some notes, ask some questions. That should work. Maureen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:20:33 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: TS JRC wrote: > > > Unfortunately, we have too many people in the Society who adapt a > > Communist/post-modernist attitude towards science, where science is > > entirely psychological, and depends on one's politics. > > Er, can you name 5? I can name a dozen or more, but doing so would require that I quote people, which I do not do. Suffice it to say that it is especially prevelant among the Therapeutic Touch faction (although there are a number, especially some of the major authors, who are vocally against that attitude), as well as at least two major Theosophical authors. > I certainly hear a lot of people in the TS *complaining* > about "post-modernism", but on the whole the TS seems mostly filled with old > folks who love the late 19th century texts, and long for the days when they > could believe in solid absolutes. And curiously enough, the *critics* of > post-modernism, despite their insistence on absolutes, seem to rarely notice > that very few people actually go to the extremes they quote ... but rather > have introduced points that even a lot of scientists feel are credible. Please note that post-modernism is a tool, much like a hammer. A hammer is wonderful for joining two pieces of wood together, but if you try to use it to clean a window, it makes the window much clearer, but it ceases to function as a window. I was not criticizing postmodernism in general, but a very narrow subset of it; the subset where 1+1=3 if you're REALLY sincere. The idea that if your observations do not match my politics, then your observations are wrong. > Any > scientist that *doesn't* believe that there isn't a helleva lot of politics > in modern science ... well, they *aren't* a working scientist. Any scientist > that *doesn't* take into account their own prejudices and biases isn't a > very good one. True. Of course, in psychology/psychiatry, politics have taken over so heavily that one wonders where the science, if any, exists.... > The extreme of post-modernism says that everything is > psychological ... but the basic *point* is that psychology and politics > *does* have a significant amount to do with what gets studied ... what > research gets funded. You did not mention the conclusion of that extreme of post-modernism: Since no knowledge is 100% true, then all knowledge is equally false. Saying the world is a sphere is wrong, saying the world is flat is wrong, so they are both equally wrong, and therefore both equally right (for those who didn't pay attention in high school, the world is not a perfect sphere, but a sphere is a far closer model to the actual shape than a plane). > The really curious thing to me is that almost everyone that makes strident > arguments against "post-modernism" ... are themselves making the arguments > for psychological and political reasons. They bring the argument up even if > it has nothing to do with anything being talked about. What was being talked about was the attitudes of TS members towards science. > Why is it "unfortunate" that anyone in the Society adopts any particular > stance? What if a few people *do* believe in "post-modernism"? So what! Its > not as though the TS is *relevant* t5o modern society. Not like its having > an effect. Its *hardly* a society of people doing anything remotely > resembling science. -JRC Because they are rejecting the very advances to science that were caused, at least in part, by the Theosophical Society, and locking themselves into a dogmatic point of view, rejecting that there has been any change in 100 years. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 12:16:47 From: "Maureen Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 On 12/16/99, ""JRC" " wrote: > Wow! (Let this be known as the "Wow" posting). Another one that completely > misunderstood that post. Also noticed no one managed to argue the point of > it - merely looked at me with the self-righteous scorn of common to the > golden rulers. - C. JRC. (har har har). I rather supect I am the "no one" referred to above- am I? Now, what is the exact post that was misunderstood? And do you find me- or better yet, do I find me- self righteous? Well- to be honest, my moral viewpoints are as fallible as anyone's, even yours. Scorn? Not by a long shot! Maureen PS Let me set the record straight, though. Despite what either you or katinka thought, my 12/2 post was not about YOU specifically; maybe marginally, but not specifically. That you chose to take it so reflects your issue, not mine. The KJR posts were meant as a service. I would have appreciated that feedback myself, having spent mucho years walking around with bruises on my chin. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:39:39 From: "Maureen Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: On music On 12/21/99, "kymsmith@micron.net" wrote: > Maureen wrote: > > >Makes me ponder over the power of music. > Kym wrote: > "Musical harmony also is not destitute of the gifts of the stars; for it is > a most powerful imaginer of all things, which whilst it follows opportunely > the celestial bodies, doth wonderfully allure the celestial influence, and > doth change the affections, intentions, gestures, motions, actions, and > disposition of all the hearers, and doth quietly allure them to its own > properties, as to gladness, lamentation, to boldness, or rest, and the > like; also it allures beasts, serpents, birds, dolphins to the hearing of > its pleasant tunes." > >> Agrippa: "Three Books of Occult Philosophy" > K. And it also causes the government to take whatever measures necessary to suppress anything they feel might rile the masses! M From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 12:46:26 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 > > Wow! (Let this be known as the "Wow" posting). Another one that completely > > misunderstood that post. Also noticed no one managed to argue the point of > > it - merely looked at me with the self-righteous scorn of common to the > > golden rulers. - C. JRC. (har har har). > PS Let me set the record straight, though. Despite what either you or > katinka thought, my 12/2 post was not about YOU specifically; maybe > marginally, but not specifically. That you chose to take it so reflects > your issue, not mine. The KJR posts were meant as a service. I would have > appreciated that feedback myself, having spent mucho years walking around > with bruises on my chin. Er, you aren't the "no one"; maybe marginally, but not specifically. When I mean a specific person, I have no problem mentioning them by name. That you chose to take it as referring to you reflects your issue, not mine. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 14:21:19 From: "Maureen Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 > > Er, you aren't the "no one"; maybe marginally, but not specifically. > When I mean a specific person, I have no problem mentioning them by > name. That you chose to take it as referring to you reflects your issue, > not mine. -JRC Keep up those defenses, might save you from *growing* don't ya know. - MTF From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:41:36 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 > Keep up those defenses, might save you from *growing* don't ya now. - > MTF Ditto. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 14:46:18 From: "Maureen Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 On 12/27/99, ""JRC" " wrote: > > Keep up those defenses, might save you from *growing* don't ya > now. - > > MTF > > Ditto. -JRC Well, maybe it's my overwhelming good mood today, but I seem to be getting quite a kick out of everything! -MTF From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 13:52:07 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 > Well, maybe it's my overwhelming good mood today, but I seem to be getting > quite a kick out of everything! -MTF Ditto. Its the best way to stay sane on this list. And in this world. (-:), -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 15:12:45 From: "Maureen Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 On 12/27/99, ""JRC" " wrote: > > Well, maybe it's my overwhelming good mood today, but I seem to be > getting > > quite a kick out of everything! -MTF > > Ditto. Its the best way to stay sane on this list. And in this world. > (-:), -JRC Just so you know you're not let off the hook that easy, but for today we'll let it pass! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 14:23:31 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 > Just so you know you're not let off the hook that easy, but for today we'll > let it pass! Um, have no idea what this means - save that you apparently believe you have some sort of decision making power over whether I'm on or off a "hook". If you desire to hold such a picture in your head you're certainly welcome to ... but the knowledge that you are doing so is unlikely to have much of an effect on me. But I hope letting me off the hook you apparently had me on has given you some joy in this holiday season? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 15:33:08 From: "Maureen Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 On 12/27/99, ""JRC" " wrote: > > Just so you know you're not let off the hook that easy, but for today > we'll > > let it pass! > > Um, have no idea what this means - save that you apparently believe you > have some sort of decision making power over whether I'm on or off a > "hook". If you desire to hold such a picture in your head you're > certainly welcome to ... but the knowledge that you are doing so is > unlikely to have much of an effect on me. But I hope letting me off the > hook you apparently had me on has given you some joy in this holiday > season? -JRC Hmmm, and I had thought you *wanted* shoving, guess I was way off on that one. I'll let you be, then. End of thread... Maureen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 14:35:52 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Membership decline > > And John Algeo, we are frequently reminded, has changed the rules of > > the US Section to *his* advantage, or that of his administration, > > which may be the same thing ..... > > Here is one place where I truly believe that accusations are misplaced. > As the "keeper" of the New York bylaws, I have remained very close to > the bylaws situation in National (not as much in the creation, but in > discussing with both Wheaton and New York officials the implications of > the new bylaws, to make sure that the people in New York were > sufficiently informed so as to make a decision of support or non-support > of the National laws). Of course a matter of opinion. Many people analyzed the changes - many, including attorneys who fully understood all the legal ramifications of the change, were deeply troubled. > The major fear, of course, is the Boston > situation. The Boston example was only one possible fear. The *major* fear, I believe, is that the changes concentrate power in the hands of a small group of decision makers at Headquarters. I do think that Boston was a major fear in the eyes of *Headquarters*. They were stunned that they didn't easily get their way. > However, the situation, and the major legal costs involved, brought up > a major question. There were large amounts of property owned by several > Lodges, with relatively low memberships. It would be extremely easy for > an outside group to perform a hostile takeover of a Lodge, split from > National, and grab the property. The new by-laws were put in place for > the express purpose of keeping such a thing from happening (if a hostile > takeover were tried in the National Section, there are other measures > put into place to guard the property. How many of those Lodges were worried? How many asked for this support? The situation you speak of is correct ... but only in a very few Lodges, 10 or 15 at the most (while many Lodges have some small assets, very few have anything worth the trouble of mounting a "takeover") - and there are numerous ways of protecting them that are far short of the extreme measures that were taken. A "hostile takeover" could not happen overnight, there would be a significant amount of knowledge prior to such an eventuality - and upon notice of such a threat, it would not be difficult to move ownership of the assets into a whole number of financial instruments capable of insulating them either temporarily or permanently. This problem was recognized - and solved - long ago in non-profit circles. > While this was great for older, more established Lodges, this put a > scare into new, growing Lodges, a fear that they would build themselves > up, get donations based on their current leadership, and then have > National Headquarters kick them out and put their own people in charge. And this is what supporters of all these changes still refuse to acknowledge ... that even if you trust the *current* leadership (which I sure don't), the changes mean that in the future *any* leadership *could* do exactly this. > Interestingly, the Lodge which showed the most fear that something like > this could happen was the Miami Lodge; this while the Miami Lodge was > being held up as an example to other Lodges of a major SUCCESS. However, > those protesting didn't bother to examine all the solutions; they > insisted on all or nothing, and they got nothing. Didn't examine all the solutions? The President of the Miami is an attorney. He examined "all the solutions" rather more closely than Headquarters was comfortable with. The Miami Lodge *is* a success ... in that during the years when the American Section was in steep decline, they were vibrant and growing. Insisted on "all or nothing" and therefore got nothing? This shows where the control lies. Are you saying that Algeo might have permitted them to have something, but in their refusal to compromise he decided not to acknowledge their wishes at all? But ... but ... I thought the *REASON* for all these changes was alledgedly to *BENEFIT* the Lodges? For their "protection". So then ... John Algeo knows *better* than Miami - a branch that contains both attorneys and accountants - how to protect Miami's assets? Very curious. *Headquarters* didn't by *any* means look at "all the solutions" ... if the problem *really* was simply fear of "hostile takeovers". There are dozens of ways such a thing could be prevented, most of them not requiring total centralization of control - its the reason why oil companies haven't already siezed control of the Wilderness Society, why Christian fundamentalists don't have control of Planned Parenthood or the ACLU. You don't think this hasn't bloody *occured* to people and organizations all over the country? I worked with an office full of attorneys during the whole campaign ... securing a non-profit's assets is *not* rocket science, and does not require anything close to the steps Wheaton sold to the membership as required. (This is not difficult when you completely control publications. When I remember the debates on *this list*, and contrast them with the way the whole thing was presented in the AT, it is no wonder the thing passed. But it may have been a far different story if the entire membership had had the opportunity to hear *BOTH SIDES* of the debate). Tell me ... this is *portrayed* by Headquarters as something it is doing *for* the Lodges, to help them "protect" their assets. So why wasn't it simply made optional? Why wasn't it an *offer* to the Lodges ... an offer to use a particular set of mechanisms to allow Lodges to protect themselves by voluntarily giving Headquarters potential control over assets? In other words, presenting the *LODGES* with the case that there might be a threat, letting the *LODGES* decide whether that threat was credible, and if it was decided to be, letting the *LODGES* decide what steps (giving control to Wheaton being only one of many options) they wanted to take? There's an important point here: National does *NOT* extend the priviledges of its non-profit status to Lodges (many non-profit's do operate according to this model - the TS doesn't). Lodges with any assets at all need to go through the rigorous and time-consuming process of applying on their own, as seperate legal entities, and taking care of the IRS forms required to stay in good standing. Many of the Lodges that hold assets gained them through donations and bequests given to *them* ... if the people had *wanted* to give the assets to National, they would have. Fact is, the Lodges with assets got those assets, manage those assets, have to do all the bookwork, and take care of them with little or no help at all from Headquarters. Wheaton doesn't buy buildings for Lodges. If a group of Theosophists manages to get a building, or some other significant asset, through their own work, or from the generosity of a member who clearly intends to support *THAT LODGE*, what *conceivable* right does Wheaton have to say that *it* has decided that "for their own good", the Lodge is going to voluntarily give Wheaton full rights to, at will (and using *IT'S JUDGEMENT" to determine what constitutes a "hostile takeover") be able to dissolve the Lodge, sieze the assets, sell them, and not even (as before) distribute the assets to other Lodges in that particular region, but simply put them in the coffers of the National accounts. And even further, this isn't going to be an *option*, but a National policy, required of every Lodge. In essence, this is the sort of quiet but utter arrogance that permeates the current leadership. The people that gained the assets, manage the assets, do the taxes and required reporting, and had to get their own non-profit status are somehow not even judged capable of being able to decide for *themselves* whether there is a risk of a hostile takeover, and if they conclude there is, deciding upon their own strategies for protecting against that eventuality. No, they are *TOLD* that they are at risk, and *TOLD* by the grand poohbah how National has graciously deigned to protect them from that risk. Even the attitude that Miami should have looked at "all the solutions", should have *compromised* to get something instead of nothing, is grounded in the belief that National has some sort of *RIGHT* to the assets they played no part in acquiring, play no part in managing, and whose help is definately *not* needed in protecting. If a common burgler comes into my house and tells me that at any moment in the future he claims the right, based on his own criteria of how I am using my possessions, to take everything I own, I do *NOT* sit down with him and seek "solutions", nor do I compromise. Simply because *HE* has decided he has the right to do so does not compel me to acknowledge that a right exists, nor would *I* feel at fault for not "seeking solutions" with him. What this entire situation has introduced - at least what is to me one of the most disturbing parts - is the notion that the likes of John Algeo can *choose* what constitutes one of those "hostile takeovers" that we are allegedly being protected against. Now, if it was a group of Neo-Nazis - probably every Theosophist would agree. But what if, for instance, the group of people - long time Theosophists - who called themselves "the Association of Concerned Theosophists" - and who made what according to *HEADQUARTERS* (published and mailed at TS expense) was "slanderous" statements against the noble selfless Mr. Algeo, what if - due to the fact that despite having raised a decent amount of money from other Theosophists, they simply could not compete against someone clearly willing to use membership money and publications against them - what if they decided to begin gaining adherents in several major Lodges. Starting recruiting people to their point of view ... and actually using *LODGE* resources in the same way Algeo felt free to use *NATIONAL* resources. What if they grew into a serious threat, started controlling regional publications in the same way Algeo controls national ones, started having a number of people potentially ready to gain seats on the national board. Since the "official" point of view ... i.e., the point of view of the little group that now can dissolve a Lodge and seize its assets at will ... is that apparently Theosophists don't have a legitimate right to challenge them politically - well - *WOULD THIS BE A "HOSTILE TAKEOVER"*? Do you actually *wonder*, given the tactics Headquarters has no problems resorting to, why Miami might be pretty damn *NERVOUS* about John Algeo insisting that their assets come under his "protection"? Do actually think the concern you cite of many smaller, newer branches - that they could spend a good amount of time and energy raising membership and funds, only to be seized by Headquarters if they branched in a direction *Headquarters* judges a "hostile takeover" - you think this concern is groundless? Anyone with even half a brain, and the most general of understandings of law *should* be concerned - not to mention those with a significant understanding of law ... I showed those bylaw changes to a couple of attorneys I had used before in other non-profit work - who didn't have a clue who any of the players were or even what Theosophy was (not hard to find people that don't know what Theosophy is) - and one in particular had profound concerns, he understood *exactly* what they meant to the balance of power between the national and local levels, and understood exactly what the motive was for doing so. These were *NOT* just a few bylaw changes, they represent a significant change in the governing model of the organization ... to one in which Wheaton has absolutely no *RESPONSIBILITY* for raising, maintaining, or managing Lodge assets, but nonetheless potentially has complete *CONTROL* over them. He couldn't conceive of any reason why a Lodge would willingly *support* such a thing. Upon suggesting to him that they were to protect against another group running a stealth campaign to get control of assets ... he asked me if I was *really* that naive. I'm not. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 14:45:50 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 > > Um, have no idea what this means - save that you apparently believe you > > have some sort of decision making power over whether I'm on or off a > > "hook". If you desire to hold such a picture in your head you're > > certainly welcome to ... but the knowledge that you are doing so is > > unlikely to have much of an effect on me. But I hope letting me off the > > hook you apparently had me on has given you some joy in this holiday > > season? -JRC > > Hmmm, and I had thought you *wanted* shoving, guess I was way off on that > one. I'll let you be, then. > > End of thread... Maureen Oh cool! A passive aggressive statement with an attempt to put a stop to any response! By gum you *are* fun to play with. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 16:34:21 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Membership decline At 02:35 PM 12/27/1999 -0800, JRC wrote: >Wheaton doesn't buy buildings for Lodges. Leave along buying buildings. Years ago, when a lodge had a potential problem with local authorities for violating local ordinances related to regular meetings being held at the home of a member, they sought guidance from Wheaton. In response, the lodge was told to contact me (as I had some background in some of the business matters) because my services are free -- I have never taken a penny for any work related to theosophy. When I found that the situation needs immediate local expertise, I suggested that the lodge should consult a local attorney familiar with enforcement of local ordinances (in most localities enforcement varies widely between what is in the books and what is actually enforced) and since the lodge was very small and did not seem to have the funds of a couple of hundred dollars to pay the attorney, I suggested that the lodge approach Wheaton for financial help. To my surprise I got an official letter from TSA that it is the official policy of TSA not to give money for such things and hence I should not make such recommondation in the future. Of course I wrote them back telling that they are in no position to tell me what I should and should not recommend and I call the shots as I see them. (I am not obligated to listen to anyone except myself in all matters of personal and business.) Of course, I had no more referrals from Wheaton. This indicated what appears to be a long held policy Wheaton policy towards Lodges -- Give me, give me, give me, give me............ and do not expect any financial help from Wheaton even if a lodge in in serious trouble. Wheaton appears to be interested in their own financial welfare and not that of any lodge unless they can get some funds from the lodges. Give me, give me, give me, ......... Does anyone has any info on what their written/unwritten policies? Interesting to know. If anyone can prove otherwise than the above interpretation, it would do a lot of good and I would surely stand corrected. With the above policy, membership decline should be highly welcome, especially in lodges which have valuable properties since they will ultimately end up in the TSA coffers and then can be spent on their pet theosophy projects. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 16:51:17 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Membership decline At 02:35 PM 12/27/1999 -0800, JRC wrote: >Of course a matter of opinion. Many people analyzed the changes - many, >including attorneys who fully understood all the legal ramifications of >the change, were deeply troubled. The whole question of bylaws change was done in secrecy and with no input from any of the membership or lodge officers. When I got wind of something in the works, I wrote to Wheaton if any changes are planned to be put up at the annual meeting, I got a response questioning if I am not trusting TSA. This seems to be due to touching a nerve at the highest levels at TSA. All they had to tell me that a committee is working on it and as usual they did not want to address the issue directly and simply. Some months later the changes were published. Again no input from anyone in the membership or lodges. The attitude looked as if the membership is dumb enough to understand the complexity or the membership believing in the hierarchical structure should blindly accept anything the hierarchy proposes. The Boston issue is only just a red herring to deflect any questions. But for this maillist which is not controlled or controllable by anyone in the hierarchy, no one would have known anything other than the official sanitized version put out for the consumption of gullible membership who have no other means of knowing any additional information. The hierarchy has thrived on controlling the dispersion of information for a long time until the advent of internet. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 16:56:30 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Membership decline At 02:35 PM 12/27/1999 -0800, JRC wrote: >*Headquarters* didn't by *any* means look at "all the solutions" ... if the problem *really* was simply fear of "hostile takeovers". There are dozens of ways such a thing could be prevented, most of them not requiring total centralization of control - its the reason why oil companies haven't already siezed control of the Wilderness Society, why Christian fundamentalists don't have control of Planned Parenthood or the ACLU. You don't think this hasn't bloody *occured* to people and organizations all over the country?< You have brought out a very interesting fact. If such takeover of WS or PP or ACLU is possible, all it needs is some fat cat finance a movement to buy them out. So all this talk about hostile takeover is just for political consumption. Any one wanting to respond? mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 23:52:44 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Monday, December 27, 1999 9:41 PM > From: JRC > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 > > Keep up those defenses, might save you from *growing* don't ya > now. - > > MTF > > Ditto. -JRC Please stop it, you two! Alan :-( http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 13:38:57 +1300 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Research Project: Third Object of the T.S.A. Jim, I don't have a large collection of references but there is a set of three quite extensive articles collectively titled "The Three Objects of the Theosophical Society" in The American Theosophist of October 1970, pages 284 to 304. The third object is specifically covered on pages 297 to the end, by Joy Mills. You may be able to get a photocopy from the library at the Olcott theosophical headquarters at Wheaton, Illinois. If you are unable to get it by reasonable means in the USA, let me know and I will post you a photocopy. As you are evidently aware, the objects of the Adyar TS went through several different forms before settling into the wording used today. In my opinion, when we come to read the three Objects today, we have to apply a certain lens because of the developments in language and of attitudes in science that have occurred since they were formulated. "Law of nature" is used in a more cautious way today than a century ago because of the realisation that what humans call laws are generally a current understanding of a pattern of causality that has been observed. Because human understanding (scientific theories, in particular) are *models* of reality, it is frequently impossible to "prove" them, and often the best we can hope for to advance our understanding, is to devise a way to disprove them. Then we have to alter or even discard the current model and find one with a better fit to current observational knowledge. We had a discussion on this a few weeks ago and if you have joined this list only recently, I am willing to post you a longer piece I wrote on this topic, if you would like it. So "Law" has a more restricted usefulness today than it used to, in science. "Explanation" is more limited, too. Put them together, and we have a phrase "unexplained laws of Nature" that on the surface has a bit of a mismatch with current ways of seeing things. Hence my saying we need to apply a certain kind of lens to understand the core of the original intent. To be fair, the originators doubtless chafed and struggled to find a simple way to express their vision, and it could even be that some of us today can understand the Objects better than the originators did. So let's feel encouraged to turn the spotlight of insight onto these Objects, to see what greater depths of meaning we can find. > To me, the words "unexplained laws of Nature" appear to be >contradictory - i.e.: How can a "law", by definition, be "unexplained"? >And the words "laws of Nature": What, exactly, were the "laws of Nature" >they were referring to: Karma? Reincarnation? Clairvoyance? And >investigate: How and by what means and for what purpose(s) were they going >to conduct their investigations? In my perusal of the Theosophical As I see it, this phrase "To investigate unexplained laws of nature" sets out a willingness to explore outside the well-established fields of knowledge, where observations are relatively scarce (to the bulk of humanity anyway) and understanding is infantile or as yet unborn. "Unexplained" means where we do not understand or have information about a process, ie cannot establish a relationship between it and what is already "known" (ie modelled). Putting "laws of nature" next to it is an implied act of faith, that future discovery will continue to reveal orderliness and pattern in the universe. There is good precedent for this, of course. In the context of modern theosophy, there is an added implicit dimension that whilst most of humanity may not be aware of whole areas of understanding and pattern, a few pioneers are - the adepts and visioneers so to speek. Crucial to all this, hinted at by the phrase "powers latent in man", is the realisation that the key tool of this investigation is the human psyche itself. That the awakening of its potential is essential to this exploration, and that the potential itself is a rightful concern of the TS. So all the fragments of the cosmic net of Sophia - wisdom and understanding - such as reincarnation, karma, activated subtle senses and powers of consciousness etc are of course rightful subjects for the open and further-opening mind that could be attracted to this Object. > In closing I need to also state that it is my considered opinion that >every serious member of the Theosophical Society should have a clear, >unambigious understanding of what each of the three Objects of the Society >mean and what they are intended to convey. The Objects are the mandated >fundamental principles that we have stated that we are in sympathy with -- >a prerequisite for membership in the Society. I think it is important to regard such objects as a convenient, simple verbal centre for us to keep mindful of the general intent of the society. They are like a set of seeds from which understanding can grow, rather than as a set of boxes to keep it in. Good luck in your search, Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 21:09:06 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Membership decline ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > Does anyone has any info on what their written/unwritten policies? > Interesting to know. If anyone can prove otherwise than the above > interpretation, it would do a lot of good and I would surely stand corrected. I have been involved in several grants from National Headquarters, and I have found that they have always been much more cooperative than that. All too often, people ask the wrong questions, and get the wrong answer (I have noticed that very often you ask for something that is impossible to deliver, when perhaps what you are REALLY looking for is possible, but, because you are so insistant on the format, you end up with nothing but disappointment). Now, for example, if I had given a Lodge the advice you did, and got a similar message from National, what I would have done would have been to call up National and speak to Floyd (or email John Algeo), explain the situation, and ask what the Lodge SHOULD do. It is very possible that, for example, while National won't pay for an attorney, they MIGHT know of an attorney that would do it pro bono, or at a very low fee, or someone who might pay for it, or some way the Lodge can handle it without an attorney, etc. Instead, you went in swinging; you said that you would continue to tell Lodges to ask for a service that wasn't funded, in spite of the fact that you knew it wasn't funded. Let's say National told you that they sould refer you to Lodges who are looking for an architect, in spite of the fact that you are not one; how would YOU feel. I suspect that the problem you ran into had to do with two factors: 1) Grants to Lodges are almost all done through the Kern Foundation. 2) The Kern Foundation explicitly does NOT give funds for building or anything related to building. Note that this is not just to individual Lodges; remember the trouble that National Headquarters had getting the money to put in an elevator? The Kern Foundation didn't contribute a single penny towards it. The lawyer was probably considered to be a building expense. If you stop thinking of National Headquarters as The Enemy(tm), you will find that they can be VERY helpful. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 21:34:18 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Membership decline JRC wrote: > The situation you speak of is correct ... but only in a very few Lodges, > 10 or 15 at the most (while many Lodges have some small assets, very few > have anything worth the trouble of mounting a "takeover") And they had little to worry about from the new bylaws, either. > And this is what supporters of all these changes still refuse to > acknowledge ... that even if you trust the *current* leadership (which I > sure don't), the changes mean that in the future *any* leadership > *could* do exactly this. As you saw later in this message, I DID acknowledge as legitimate the fear that National could almost arbitrarily take over a Lodge. > > Interestingly, the Lodge which showed the most fear that something > like > > this could happen was the Miami Lodge; this while the Miami Lodge was > > being held up as an example to other Lodges of a major SUCCESS. > However, > > those protesting didn't bother to examine all the solutions; they > > insisted on all or nothing, and they got nothing. > > Didn't examine all the solutions? The President of the Miami is an > attorney. He examined "all the solutions" rather more closely than > Headquarters was comfortable with. The Miami Lodge *is* a success At least we are in full agreement about SOMETHING. When I was program director for the New York Lodge, I was given copies of the Miami program for the express purpose of using ideas from them (the New York Lodge had a semi-successful monthly movie for several years; unfortunately, due to legal reasons, it had to be a members' rather than a public program). > ... in > that during the years when the American Section was in steep decline, > they were vibrant and growing. Insisted on "all or nothing" and > therefore got nothing? This shows where the control lies. Are you saying > that Algeo might have permitted them to have something, but in their > refusal to compromise he decided not to acknowledge their wishes at all? No. I am saying that the group wouldn't even discuss a compromise. ACT had a platform that contained a few good ideas, but the good ideas were couched in language that almost guaranteed that they would not get adopted (and if you choose to go over them in detail, I will not respond. I have responded to them in detail in the past, and don't choose to waste my time over moot issues). A few of the better ideas got quietly adopted, anyway. Instead of working together with the leadership, however, the group came out swinging, and then was shocked (I say, shocked!) that the leadership didn't want to work with them. > But ... but ... I thought the *REASON* for all these changes was > alledgedly to *BENEFIT* the Lodges? For their "protection". So then ... > John Algeo knows *better* than Miami - a branch that contains both > attorneys and accountants - how to protect Miami's assets? Very curious. Well... > *Headquarters* didn't by *any* means look at "all the solutions" ... if > the problem *really* was simply fear of "hostile takeovers". There are > dozens of ways such a thing could be prevented, most of them not > requiring total centralization of control - its the reason why oil > companies haven't already siezed control of the Wilderness Society, why > Christian fundamentalists don't have control of Planned Parenthood or > the ACLU. And, with all these attorneys and accountants, how many of them gave alternatives to National Headquarters other than, "Do nothing"? And what alternatives were suggested? > determine what constitutes a "hostile takeover") be able to dissolve the > Lodge, sieze the assets, sell them, and not even (as before) distribute > the assets to other Lodges in that particular region, but simply put > them in the coffers of the National accounts. And even further, this > isn't going to be an *option*, but a National policy, required of every > Lodge. Keep track of things. The part preventing the assets from being removed from the area was put back into the by-laws. When the ommission was first pointed out on this list, the first thing I did was inform the Board of Directors of the New York Lodge with a recommendation to come out against the new bylaws; the second was to call John Algeo, who informed me that the omission WAS an error, that with all the complaints on this list nobody had bothered telling him about it before I did, and arranged to have the wording changed back before the ballots went out. As for the rest of your message, when I say getting something, I mean finding some means by which assets can be protected, and so can the independence of Lodges, discussing it with the leadership in detail, and coming out with a plan that makes everybody happy. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 20:33:33 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Membership decline > No. I am saying that the group wouldn't even discuss a compromise. ACT > had a platform that contained a few good ideas, but the good ideas were > couched in language that almost guaranteed that they would not get > adopted (and if you choose to go over them in detail, I will not > respond. I have responded to them in detail in the past, and don't > choose to waste my time over moot issues). You were the one that brought this entire thing back to the surface in the first place. I didn't think discussions about this would ever happen again. And the most significant points to this day haven't been answered. They are carefully avoided. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 21:42:59 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Membership decline ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > > At 02:35 PM 12/27/1999 -0800, JRC wrote: > >Of course a matter of opinion. Many people analyzed the changes - many, > >including attorneys who fully understood all the legal ramifications of > >the change, were deeply troubled. > > The whole question of bylaws change was done in secrecy and with no input > from any of the membership or lodge officers. When I got wind of something > in the works, I wrote to Wheaton if any changes are planned to be put up at > the annual meeting, I got a response questioning if I am not trusting TSA. I don't know about the other Lodges, but the New York Lodge knew about well in advance, and several Board members and large donors, myself included (I was a board member at the time), discussed it in detail with officials at Wheaton, including John Algeo. > The Boston issue is only just a red herring to deflect any questions. Actually, I think that it was a great example of how not to handle a disagreement, on both sides. > But for this maillist which is not controlled or controllable by anyone in > the hierarchy, no one would have known anything other than the official > sanitized version put out for the consumption of gullible membership who > have no other means of knowing any additional information. The hierarchy > has thrived on controlling the dispersion of information for a long time > until the advent of internet. I think that one thing EVERYBODY on this list can agree on is that we are grateful to John for supplying this list for us (and Eldon for supplying the other one). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 21:23:46 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Membership decline Well, thanks for your quick response. I just posted the facts. You and anyone is free to draw whatever inference that is deemed fit. mkr At 09:09 PM 12/27/1999 -0500, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >ramadoss@eden.com wrote: >> Does anyone has any info on what their written/unwritten policies? >> Interesting to know. If anyone can prove otherwise than the above >> interpretation, it would do a lot of good and I would surely stand corrected. > > I have been involved in several grants from National Headquarters, and I have found that they have always been much more cooperative than that. All too often, people ask the wrong questions, and get the wrong answer (I have noticed that very often you ask for something that is impossible to deliver, when perhaps what you are REALLY looking for is possible, but, because you are so insistant on the format, you end up with nothing but disappointment). Now, for example, if I had given a Lodge the advice you did, and got a similar message from National, what I would have done would have been to call up National and speak to Floyd (or email John Algeo), explain the situation, and ask what the Lodge SHOULD do. It is very possible that, for example, while National won't pay for an attorney, they MIGHT know of an attorney that would do it pro bono, or at a very low fee, or someone who might pay for it, or some way the Lodge can handle it without an attorney, etc. Instead, you went in swinging; you said that you would continue to tell Lodges to ask for a service that wasn't funded, in spite of the fact that you knew it wasn't funded. Let's say National told you that they sould refer you to Lodges who are looking for an architect, in spite of the fact that you are not one; how would YOU feel. > I suspect that the problem you ran into had to do with two factors: 1) Grants to Lodges are almost all done through the Kern Foundation. 2) The Kern Foundation explicitly does NOT give funds for building or anything related to building. Note that this is not just to individual Lodges; remember the trouble that National Headquarters had getting the money to put in an elevator? The Kern Foundation didn't contribute a single penny towards it. The lawyer was probably considered to be a building expense. If you stop thinking of National Headquarters as The Enemy(tm), you will find that they can be VERY helpful. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 23:45:21 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 27, 1999 Bart wrote: > I think that one thing EVERYBODY on this list can agree on is that we >are grateful to John for supplying this list for us (and Eldon for >supplying the other one). Well, that depends on what John's motives were in starting this list - maybe he just wanted to see a bunch of "theosophists" try to figure out the meaning of life - along with the "put it in writing" requirement - so he could guarantee himself a holler every day. However, isn't theos-talk ("the other one") a moderated list? I don't know of any instance where Eldon censured anyone, but the thought that he would makes me a tad bit edgy. And, by the way, I was wondering how the ACT venture worked out. . .hmmmm. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 08:04:59 From: "Maureen Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 On 12/27/99, ""ambain" " wrote: > > Please stop it, you two! > > Alan :-( > http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ Already stopped. I'll do a crossword puzzle instead... Maureen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 08:25:45 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Membership decline > > The situation you speak of is correct ... but only in a very few Lodges, > > 10 or 15 at the most (while many Lodges have some small assets, very few > > have anything worth the trouble of mounting a "takeover") > > And they had little to worry about from the new bylaws, either. They have the same thing to worry about - a situation that at most required a small measured response to help a few Lodges protect themselves from a marginal threat instead got a response that was imposed on all Lodges. The new bylaws were *not* necessary to protect most Lodges from "takeovers", as they have little to takeover ... but they can *ALL* now be easily dissolved and what few assets they have taken by Headquarters. They now, in fact, are subject to a threat that they *weren't* subject to before. There are attorneys that seem to think they most certainly *DO* have something to worry about. You find no threat because you *TRUST* John Algeo, and apparently get along just peachy with him. The New York Lodge does. So does the Seattle Lodge, and a few others that form the bedrock of his support. But it is *dangerous* to pass laws that *depend* upon the trust of a tiny group of people. > > And this is what supporters of all these changes still refuse to > > acknowledge ... that even if you trust the *current* leadership (which I > > sure don't), the changes mean that in the future *any* leadership > > *could* do exactly this. > > As you saw later in this message, I DID acknowledge as legitimate the > fear that National could almost arbitrarily take over a Lodge. John Algeo does *NOT*, however, acknowledge this as a fear. And shows absolutely no signs of making any changes in the situation. You seem to want to seperate a bunch of different changes that have been made over the last few years. But no attorney would seperate them ... the fact that a small group has such complete control, can do what it wants with assets, and has made sure that it is exceedingly difficult to become a part of their little group without approval from its members - all taken together this is *NOT* a free, democratic society. It is a tighly controlled society whose Lodges act at the pleasure of that little group. > > ... in > > that during the years when the American Section was in steep decline, > > they were vibrant and growing. Insisted on "all or nothing" and > > therefore got nothing? This shows where the control lies. Are you saying > > that Algeo might have permitted them to have something, but in their > > refusal to compromise he decided not to acknowledge their wishes at all? > > No. I am saying that the group wouldn't even discuss a compromise. ACT > had a platform that contained a few good ideas, but the good ideas were > couched in language that almost guaranteed that they would not get > adopted (and if you choose to go over them in detail, I will not > respond. I have responded to them in detail in the past, and don't > choose to waste my time over moot issues). Don't really care what your response to them is - or whether *you* thought a few of the ideas were good and a few weren't. I don't think *most* of what John Algeo has done to the Society has been good. ACT wasn't making quiet suggestions to the Great Leaders, eagerly hoping like some humble Chela that they would condescend to look at the ideas and perhaps make a few minor changes in their own unquestioned leadership. This leadership *controls* publications, it *controls* elections. It has decimated the ranks of the membership. It is killing Theosophy. Its attitude is utterly arrogant. ACT's intention was *NOT* to please you or them with quiet little helpful hints of how they might better lead. It was to cause major and fundamental changes to happen that in our opinion were (and still are) necessary to make the TS into something that will survive for another century. I'll only note that ACT - in living the principles it preached - opened a public discussion list not only to its members, but to everyone ... and you felt quite free to delineate the points you favored and which ones you disagreed with. Wheaton, of course, certainly didn't permit any such freedom of discussion in official publications. Not only did it first try to completely ignore ACT, but when faced with the knowledge among the ranks of members, used *MEMBERSHIP FUNDS* to try to smear it. > A few of the better ideas got > quietly adopted, anyway. Instead of working together with the > leadership, however, the group came out swinging, and then was shocked > (I say, shocked!) that the leadership didn't want to work with them. Not shocked they didn't want to "work" with us ... shocked that they would use *MEMBERSHIP MONEY* against members. Even we didn't think they'd have the guts to go that far. If you want to portray the group as having come out "swinging" ... fine. If it *hadn't* even those few "quietly adopted" changes never would have happened. The first response of the leadership was to completely deny, for instance, that there was anything at all wrong at Headquarters. Only after the ACT mailings ... which lead to *significant* discussions amongst the Headquarters staff ... and (according to staff members we talked to) provided the impetus to finally openly discuss things that had significantly concerned them ... only then were those changes "quietly adopted" ... i.e., Algeo *publically* didn't admit that anything was amiss - in fact in *PUBLIC* the TS used *MEMBERSHIP MONEY* and official TS stationary to run a smear campaign against ACT. Stop trying to portray that leadertship as some open-minded group of people completely open to suggestions from Lodges and members - only refusing to acknowledge ACT because of its tone of voice and method of presentation. The leadership did, and still does, act as though it *knows* what is best for all of us, has made bylaw changes to make sure it completely controls elections, that a certain governing mentality will rule. ACT could have made their suggestions humbly or stridently - and little difference would have been made. John Algeo and his inner circle do *NOT* intend to give up power. They do *NOT* view the members as equals, nor themselves as simply people assigned the task of facilitating the activities of members and lodges in the directions those members and lodges see fit - they believe they *RUN* things - and believe they know *better* than the lodges and members what the lodges and members need. > > *Headquarters* didn't by *any* means look at "all the solutions" ... if > > the problem *really* was simply fear of "hostile takeovers". There are > > dozens of ways such a thing could be prevented, most of them not > > requiring total centralization of control - its the reason why oil > > companies haven't already siezed control of the Wilderness Society, why > > Christian fundamentalists don't have control of Planned Parenthood or > > the ACLU. > > And, with all these attorneys and accountants, how many of them gave > alternatives to National Headquarters other than, "Do nothing"? And what > alternatives were suggested? Oh for Christ's sake just quit it Bart. Don't even try to portray them as being fully open and seeking membership input - they are *TO THOSE THAT ACKOWLEDGE THEIR POWER AND DON'T ROCK THE BOAT*, as *YOU* do. The thought that this was some reasonable discussion between well-meaning people ... Algeo just seeking some means of protecting the poor Lodges from a threat, and only deciding on the draconian methods he did because he had no knowledge of anything else, and if Sy had only made an alternative suggestion this never would have happened. After they had passed, a Miami member told Algeo that the Lodge was *not* going to adopt the bylaws National was now requiring to be in all Lodge bylaws (that gives Wheaton the control they wanted) ... and Algeo told him flat out that the group running the Miami Lodge wasn't going to be power forever ... i.e., he *WAS* going to get the power he wanted, and even if a few Lodges were stupid enough to try to resist, National could just wait them out - and sooner or later get them to "quietly adopt" the changes. And I notice you completely ignored the major point ... what *RIGHT* does Algeo think he has to the assets of any Lodge? A viable alternative *WAS* to "do nothing". It was not the Lodges that were begging to be protected from the invisible threats surrounding them ... it is Headquarters that decided there was suddenly this big threat that required it to be able, at will, to control the assets of all of the TS Lodges. Miami ... curiously enough - didn't see any threat they weren't fully capable of handling themselves, had no problems raising money, managing its assets, and by all accounts using them quite effectively to further Theosophy - and when faced with someone like John Algeo *telling* them they were going to cede potential control of what they'd built to the whims of a tiny group of people at Wheaton for their "protection" - had the gall to actually disagree with the Great Leaders and say "how about this as an alternative ... we got the assets, we manage the assets, we are fully capable of protecting the assets, how about you just stop trying to give yourselves the right to control them based on *your* judgements of what a "threat", or a "hostile takeover" is?". This sure as hell *was* a viable alternative. I've been associated with over a dozen different non-profit organizations, in everything from the role of volunteer, to staff member, officer, and board member - and I have never seen anything like the TS. There are two basic non-profit models - the centralized and the distributed. The centralized has a central office that runs things - the last wilderness organization I worked for used it - we extended our non-profit number to branches, helped them get set up, ran mailings from the central office using our bulk mailing permit, gave them $5,000 start up money, handled accounting and other office functions, and provided them with significant fund-raising and membership building materials (even a computer to groups that reached a certain size) - we wanted our members and branches to focus mostly on the issues at hand. We did claim the right to tighly control activities and money, but it was because we accepted full *responsibility* for their actions ... if they made an errant press release, *we* were at risk, and *we* were responsible for most of the money they raised, our national 501(c)(3) would have been at risk, for instance, if a chapter spent more than a certain percentage of money on lobbying. The other model is the distributed model ... where there is a central office, but each region or chapter is a seperate legal entity - required to do all their own fund raising, get their own non-profit status, capable of far more decision making power, and generally the decisions of the central organization, when it wants to speak at the national level, are made by members. The central group is weak, and really completely at the whim of the membership. (The Wilderness Society runs something like this ... as does the United Way - in fact a few years back there was a big United Way scandel - the President had been caught misusing finds - and a crisis was precipitated when local chapter after local chapter refused to send any money to the national Headquarters ... the fellow was quickly dismissed, due to the reminder that the central offices served *at the pleasure* of local chapters). What that little group at TS headquarters has done is tried (and succeeded) at taking the best of both worlds for itself. So far as its responsibility for local Lodge actions, it is not legally at risk, has no financial risk if a group fails, provides no start up money, no bulk mailing priviledges - in short, runs as though it is a completely distributed organization when it comes to support and responsibility - but when it comes to *power*, it acts as though it is centralized. Acts as though its got the full right to *tell* Lodges they must give it the right to decide what a "risk" is, what a "hostile takeover" is, and to decide, based on its own judgements when its is appropriate to sieze assets for their "protection". I repeat - why should *Miami* have to suggest any alternative other than "No - you have no responsibility, and provide no support - and we have proven ourselves very capable of raising, managing, protecting, and using assets for the furtherance of Theosophy in Florida, while you are responsible for an organization whose membership is declining, whose publishing house loses money, and whose buildings are deteriorating - in short, we have proven ourselves, by all objective measurements, more capable than you at activities that build support, membership, and assets for Theosophy - keep your damn hands *OFF* this Lodge, we judge your influence to be harmful". Oh yeah ... there *is* one organization I can think of that tries to be both centralized and distributed - the Catholic Church. But I fear I don't believe John Algeo is infallible. > > determine what constitutes a "hostile takeover") be able to dissolve the > > Lodge, sieze the assets, sell them, and not even (as before) distribute > > the assets to other Lodges in that particular region, but simply put > > them in the coffers of the National accounts. And even further, this > > isn't going to be an *option*, but a National policy, required of every > > Lodge. > > Keep track of things. The part preventing the assets from being removed > from the area was put back into the by-laws. When the ommission was > first pointed out on this list, the first thing I did was inform the > Board of Directors of the New York Lodge with a recommendation to come > out against the new bylaws; the second was to call John Algeo, who > informed me that the omission WAS an error, that with all the complaints > on this list nobody had bothered telling him about it before I did, and > arranged to have the wording changed back before the ballots went out. Again, just quit it. Most of the members of ACT had *LONG* experience with the Board - many had for years *tried* the route you keep complaining we didn't take. I wrote a number of letters to Headquarters over the years, some personally addressed to Algeo. I called my elected board members with concerns. So did most of us. Half the time I didn't even receive an acknowledgement that a letter had been recieved, let alone any reason for accepting or declining the suggestion ... and I am by no means the only Theosophist that has had this expreience. As I've said before, after beating one's head against a brick wall a dozen times and only getting lumps, I'm hardly going to accept some responsibility for not trying it *again* simply because you assert there happened to be a hole in that particular place. And you seem to continually assert that you get fully informed in advance about all manner of things, have absolutely no difficulty at all not only getting John Algeo's ear, but having him magically listen to almost everything you say, and adopt half of your suggestions. But this is most definately *NOT* the experience of a number of people I know ... some who have been Theosophists as long, or longer than Algeo, have worked as "tirelessly and selflessly" - and often more effectively - as he has, but happen to have severe disagreements with the direction he's steered the Society, and the objective effects of that direction. They are *NOT* people that didn't try far less dramatic methods of making their viewpoints known first - they are people that were taught, time after time, *BY JOHN ALGEO's BEHAVIOR*, that making significant public waves was the *only* method that even stood a chance of affecting any change. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:30:14 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? [Murray:]<> Please tell me who, other than a handful (CWL, Hodson, Kuntz, and a couple of others all from Adyar) have done anything at all on this object? I exclude, of course, Chuck and myself. The Adyar TS is the only one, as far as I know, that will even consider this objective as a viable TS activity. The other TSs shun it because it smacks too much of magic (which is the theory and practice of developing and using just those latent powers). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:36:26 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Theos-Talk is Unmoderated <> No, its not moderated. But it has been taken over by a bunch of fundamentalists who attack any new thought or new viewpoint and I have been ignoring it hoping that they would go away. This is one of the difficulties one runs into with unmoderated list. This list had much the same problem a year or so ago when it divided into two major camps (progressives vs fundamentalists or wolves vs sheep) and I sincerely hope that this won't happen again. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 16:38:17 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? In a message dated 99-12-28 14:25:36 EST, you write: << Please tell me who, other than a handful (CWL, Hodson, Kuntz, and a couple of others all from Adyar) have done anything at all on this object? I exclude, of course, Chuck and myself. The Adyar TS is the only one, as far as I know, that will even consider this objective as a viable TS activity. The other TSs shun it because it smacks too much of magic (which is the theory and practice of developing and using just those latent powers). Jerry S. >> Actually, the Adyar TS gets quite a few of us but we happen to be the most notorious at the moment. Mike Bertieaux (and I probably ruined the spelling of his name, I usually do) has been a member for decades and Stephen Hoeller has been known to chant a barbarous word of invocation or two. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 16:44:21 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-Talk is Unmoderated Dec 28th Writing as one of the "fundamentalists: I would say that if there is something to be discussed, then we might as well have the same basis from which to view it. It is somewhat dangerous to deal with electrical repairs at home if one is unacquainted with the theory and practice of an electrician -- at least one might save ones' self from a nasty shock. Theosophy has such a basis, and H.P.Blavatsky exposed this as she presented it. It is not being a "fundamentalist" if she is quoted or offered to those who desire to find out what THEOSOPHY has to say about various subjects. To wander around without much of an objective, is both a waste of time and a distraction of those who are newcomers or serious inquirers. So why not offer some of the THEORY? Why not refer to it as something that is VALUABLE ? If anyone desires to find out what THEOSOPHY has to say on a subject why not start with the KEY TO THEOSOPHY (310 pages) by HPB ? It is not very long and it covers the field. If one desires a shorter book that gives a synopsis of the contents of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, then try and read Mr. Judge's THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY (190 pages). If one desires a still shorter but very deep view, then the 30 page, EPITOME OF THEOSOPHY provides that. Theos-talk is an open forum where anyone can ask questions of Theosophy, and there are those who read the postings and try to provide straight and basic answers or give references to which the inquirer could go to find out for himself. One of the good things about it is a that there are no "authorities," and no "Leaders" there -- there is a group of students that are seeking to work together and to find out something that is very deep in its scope and range. theosophy is for the common man but also provides the scholar with food for his thought and development. Theosophy is essentially a way of looking at the world and all that is working in and on it, from the point of very ancient history. This lore is found to provide as a result of its antiquity a basis for the Laws and Rules of nature that operate in what is called its secret side. Science, philosophy and psychology are constantly trying to delve deeper into that which NATURE, our whole environment already gives us. It is mysterious because it takes a lot of effort to get at the operation of its laws and practices. But that can be done by those who persist and have patience. Jerry often offers very good advice and deserves to be listened to. And his questions are thought-provoking. Best wishes, Dallas dalval@nwc.net -----Original Message----- > Date: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 11:36 AM > From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net] > Subject: Theos-Talk is Unmoderated <> No, its not moderated. But it has been taken over by a bunch of fundamentalists who attack any new thought or new viewpoint and I have been ignoring it hoping that they would go away. This is one of the difficulties one runs into with unmoderated list. This list had much the same problem a year or so ago when it divided into two major camps (progressives vs fundamentalists or wolves vs sheep) and I sincerely hope that this won't happen again. 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: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 23:22:10 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Membership decline JRC wrote: > And you seem to continually assert that you get fully informed in > advance about all manner of things, As do many members. > have absolutely no difficulty at all > not only getting John Algeo's ear, As do many members. > but having him magically listen to > almost everything you say, As he listens to whatever anybody has to say, as long as they say it to him. > and adopt half of your suggestions. You claim I make an assertion that I have never made. Do not do that. You wouldn't like me if I got angry. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 23:25:51 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Actually, the Adyar TS gets quite a few of us but we happen to be the most > notorious at the moment. Mike Bertieaux (and I probably ruined the spelling > of his name, I usually do) has been a member for decades and Stephen Hoeller > has been known to chant a barbarous word of invocation or two. I used to, but I gave it up. Too much like work. Perhaps when I have more time. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 02:49:13 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 12:00 AM > From: Maureen Fitzgerald > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 > On 12/27/99, ""ambain" " wrote: > > > > Please stop it, you two! > > > > Alan :-( > > http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ > > Already stopped. I'll do a crossword puzzle instead... Maureen > Many thanks! Alan :0) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 04:13:46 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 9:38 PM > From: > Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? > Mike Bertieaux (and I probably ruined the spelling > of his name, I usually do) has been a member for decades and Stephen Hoeller > has been known to chant a barbarous word of invocation or two. > > Chuck the Heretic Sorry, but did you say "TWO? Like only TWO?" [Carried off screaming hysterically by men in white coats] Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 02:39:56 +0100 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: New German SD out This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0128_01BF526F.2881B5A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable For German readers: There's a new reprint of Hugo Vollrath's 1919 four = volume Leipzig edition of 'Die Geheimlehre'. For further information look at the publishers site (Point Loma-Covina = TS Germany): www.geheimlehre.de ------=_NextPart_000_0128_01BF526F.2881B5A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For German readers: There's a new = reprint of Hugo=20 Vollrath's 1919 four volume Leipzig edition of 'Die = Geheimlehre'.
 
For further information look at the = publishers site=20 (Point Loma-Covina TS Germany):
 
www.geheimlehre.de
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0128_01BF526F.2881B5A0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 23:35:01 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Membership decline > > And you seem to continually assert that you get fully informed in > > advance about all manner of things, > > As do many members. And many members do not. He knows who he has to cultivate. > > have absolutely no difficulty at all > > not only getting John Algeo's ear, > > As do many members. And many members do not. > > but having him magically listen to > > almost everything you say, > > As he listens to whatever anybody has to say, as long as they say it to > him. Many people have attempted to communicate with him and been completely blown off - in fact the complete unresponsiveness of Headquarters was one of the things that lead to the formation of ACT. He listens to those like you ... who, if I remember correctly, at one time was making excuses for his lack of responsiveness by saying he was too busy. Curiously that he's too busy for some, while simultaneously being quite willing to listen and interact with others. > > and adopt half of your suggestions. > > You claim I make an assertion that I have never made. Do not do that. > You wouldn't like me if I got angry. I could care less whether you get angry or not. You can keep making your points, I'll keep making mine. You want to bring this whole issue up again, fine, I'll continue to vigorously assert my point of view. What mood that happens to put you in personally is your business. You have asserted, over and over, (two or three times just in the last few days in fact) that you contacted John Algeo directly, had interactions with him, pointed things out, and even had him then immediately change things ... all the while accusing ACT of not bothering to ever mention things to him, and using yourself as an example of how easy it is to bring points to his attention and have things done. An assertion you never made? How about ... "... the second was to call John Algeo, who informed me that the omission WAS an error, that with all the complaints on this list nobody had bothered telling him about it before I did, and arranged to have the wording changed back before the ballots went out." After members of ACT *had* attempted to convey deep concerns they had about bylaws changes to John Algeo and other Board members, and certainly didn't have the nice congenial response you did - they pretty much stopped "bothering" to even try. But trying to simultaneously use yourself as an example of how easy it is to interact with him and even get things changed, at the same time as trying to say you made no such assertion ... and even threatening to get mad (what a hoot) ... You're still attempting, after all this time, to say that this was solely a matter of *presentation*. That if only ACT had been nice and polite and cordial the points you judged as being valid would have been openly listened to, perhaps even acted upon. And I'll continue to say BS. He had things he simply *intended* to do. You got an apparently warm welcome and he immediately changed something - that he apparently did *not* intend. But ACT was aiming at stopping a lot of things he *DID* intend, that had to do with asserting power and control where he has *NO* right to it (I notice you *still* don't really want to touch *that* issue) - and I suspect that if it was something he *DID intend to do - and you called him, brought it up, had him decline to make any changes, then persisted and brought it up again and again ... that perhaps you'd find his responsiveness diminishing rather rapidly as you were moved from the "supporter" category to the one called "potential threat". -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 23:39:27 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Theos-Talk is Unmoderated At 02:36 PM 12/28/1999 -0500, Gerald Schueler wrote: ><know >of any instance where Eldon censured anyone, but the thought that he would >makes me a tad bit edgy.>> > >No, its not moderated. Theos-L and the associated lists are not only unmoderated, and the subscriber lists are public. On the other hand theos-talk subscriber list is NOT PUBLIC. It is very interesting to get a listing of subscribers to theos-l and a perceptive person can get a sense of which segment of "theosophists" are subscribers which are not. To get a list of subscribers to theos-l all one needs is to send a e-mail to: lyris@list.vnet.net with a single line in the body of the msg review theos-l mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 23:48:03 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Membership decline After all said and done, the membership continues to decline each day with no end in sight. (No light at the end of the tunnel) May be some of us will witness in the next millennium the end of TSA as we know it. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 23:56:50 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? At 02:30 PM 12/28/1999 -0500, Gerald Schueler wrote: >[Murray:]<> > >Please tell me who, other than a handful (CWL, Hodson, Kuntz, and a couple of others all from Adyar) have done anything at all on this object? I exclude, of course, Chuck and myself. The Adyar TS is the only one, as far as I know, that will even consider this objective as a viable TS activity. The other TSs shun it because it smacks too much of magic (which is the theory and practice of developing and using just those latent powers). Jerry S.< For TS(Adyar), CWL is the only officially accepted spokesperson on all matters relating to the unseen side. Of course many, even today many blindly believe everything CWL has said, because blind belief is easy and does not require any work! Even Hodson's experience is only partially accepted -- we all saw the difficulty in getting his diaries published because he talks of communications with some Adepts. Hopefully, in the next millenium, we may see in the cyberspace feedback from people who have first hand knowledge either to confirm or deny some of the things written about the unseen world. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 23:07:20 +1300 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? Replying to Jerry: [Murray:]<> Here's an interesting pointer from an information pamphlet for correspondents by Olcott and Blavatsky, 1878. Extracting a few bits relevant to the 3rd Object: -----quote----- The objects of the society are various: It influences its fellows to acquire an intimate knowledge of natural law, especially its occult manifestations. Man should aim to solve the mystery of his being. ...and having inherited the nature of the unknown but palpable Cause of his own creation, must possess in his inner, psychical self, this creative power in lesser degree. He should therefore study to develop his latent powers, and inform himself respecting the laws of magnetism, electricity and all other forms of force, whether of the seen or unseen universes. -----end of quote----- Blavatsky is said to have written this part of the pamphlet, so there it is, from the horse's mouth. There are people doing psychic archaeology and umpteen other things these days - all outside the TS, as far as I know. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 08:11:23 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? In a message dated 99-12-29 05:08:25 EST, you write: << There are people doing psychic archaeology and umpteen other things these days - all outside the TS, as far as I know. Murray >> That's not surprising since everything else is done outside the TS as well. The state of the TS right now reminds one of the story of the three men who got stranded on a desert island and began trading their hats back and forth. After a number of years they convinced themselves that they had become very wealthy in the hat business. Of course when a boat finally found them, the crew discovered three naked men owning nothing but tattered hats. Now, the incredible irony in all this is that Algeo actually realizes what is happening and can't figure out what to do about it, which leads to such obscenities as the Sacred and Holy Labyrinth. Chuck From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 08:42:02 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Membership decline JRC wrote: > things that lead to the formation of ACT. He listens to those like you ... > who, if I remember correctly, at one time was making excuses for his lack of > responsiveness by saying he was too busy. Curiously that he's too busy for > some, while simultaneously being quite willing to listen and interact with > others. Regardless of what you say below, I see that you did add the qualification of the possibility of your remembering incorrectly, and I thank you. You do, in fact, remember incorrectly. I said he was too busy to participate on these discussion lists, not to read personal messages. I do, however, notice a tendency of some on this list to ask questions which carry inbuilt assumptions which are not always correct. For example, "I have heard you are a despoiler of young goats. If this is true, then how do you reconcile this with your position of authority?" is much more likely to get an answer than something like, "Since you despoil young goats, how come you don't resign?". > > > and adopt half of your suggestions. > > > > You claim I make an assertion that I have never made. Do not do that. > > You wouldn't like me if I got angry. > > I could care less whether you get angry or not. You can keep making your > points, I'll keep making mine. You want to bring this whole issue up again, > fine, Actually, I really don't. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 08:47:36 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Membership decline The TS does not prosyletize. However, I have seen this attitude taken to the point where it is considered somewhat distasteful to many members to even let people know we exist ("if they are ready for us, they will find us"). I personally find this in opposition to the 3 Objects; that while the Theosophical Society does not actively recruit new members, I feel that the TS DOES have an obligation to let their CONCEPTS be known among the general population; if someone is attracted enough by those concepts, we certainly won't turn that person away. Any other ideas on the subject (and Doss, this is a case where I think your comments on the use of the Internet are QUITE relevant, not that it makes, or should make, a difference to you). ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > > After all said and done, the membership continues to decline each day with > no end in sight. (No light at the end of the tunnel) > > May be some of us will witness in the next millennium the end of TSA as we > know it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 08:48:02 From: "Maureen Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 On 12/28/99, ""ambain" " wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > On 12/27/99, ""ambain" " wrote: > > > > > > Please stop it, you two! > > > > > > Alan :-( > > > http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ > > > > Already stopped. I'll do a crossword puzzle instead... Maureen > > > Many thanks! > > Alan :0) Alan- So long as you know stopping was my decision. As much as I would like to make you happy, I can't pretend otherwise. The point is, if I'm going to play word games it may as well accomplish something, teach me something. Your pal there is so far into denial there is not much reason to make an effort. I've seen it time after time. Doesn't matter who addresses him, he just takes the words and throws them back. That's all it is- words, words, words. Words that say nothing. He uses words to build a wall. Takes your words, paraphrases a little, and tosses them right on back. Really tough feat. He won't address the issue, the content (with women anyway.) What will be next- he'll start to diagram the damn sentences? As far as I'm concerned, all this "arguing a point" stuff he gets caught up in deflects from what I thought was supposed to be happening here. Brotherhood, Sisterhood, Fellowship and so forth can result when people are able to find common ground and find ways to cooperate. Tension arises naturally on its own. There is no need to seek it out. When it arises, you work it out. But to intentionally create it to jump-start a jolly good argument? What does that accomplish? An opportunity for aggressive macho posturing? (And what do you bet he jumps all over that Brotherhood, Sisterhood thing? Thus evading the REAL issue where he is concerned.) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 08:49:49 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > For TS(Adyar), CWL is the only officially accepted spokesperson on all > matters relating to the unseen side. Of course many, even today many > blindly believe everything CWL has said, because blind belief is easy and > does not require any work! I remember when scientific proof of one of Leadbeater's contentions was found (differing in only very minor details). Yet there were a number of members who rejected the scientific findings, because they did not EXACTLY match what Leadbeater had to say. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 08:52:22 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Now, the incredible irony in all this is that Algeo actually realizes what is > happening and can't figure out what to do about it, which leads to such > obscenities as the Sacred and Holy Labyrinth. Hey, at least it's pretty. Based on it, I designed a "make your own labyrinth kit", but nobody wanted to market it... Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 07:15:31 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: 400 Years of Imaginary Friends: A Journey Into the World of Adepts, Masters, Ascended Masters, and Their Messengers This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BF51CC.7E35DA60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 400 Years of Imaginary Friends: A Journey Into the World of Adepts, = Masters, Ascended Masters, and Their Messengers by Kenneth Paolini and Talita Paolini Foreword by Joe Szimhart For more details about this book, see = http://www.factsource.com/400years.html >From the back cover of the book: Who are the Adepts, Masters, and Ascended Masters? Who are the = messengers? Why do people believe in the Masters and join groups built = on "Their" teachings? Why and how do members leave? Most importantly, = where did belief in the Masters originate and how do these beliefs = manifest themselves today? Kenneth and Talita Paolini's thirteen years of research, meticulous = compilation of source material, access to original documents and inside = information, and personal experience in an Ascended Masters group helps = you answer these questions and understand one of the most intriguing = phenomena of this era. 400 Years of Imaginary Friends: A Journey Into the World of Adepts, = Masters, Ascended Masters, and Their Messengers takes you inside one of = these groups, Church Universal and Triumphant. The Paolinis' trek into = the group and their personal interaction with its leader, Elizabeth = Clare Prophet, gives you insight into a modern-day Masters group. Their = struggle to leave and find independence outside of the organization is = riveting. After recounting their adventures, the Paolinis document the creation = and evolution of the Masters, and introduce the messengers--the = controversial people who claim to write and speak for the Masters. = You'll follow the trail of the Masters as it winds through = Rosicrucianism, Freemasonry, Spiritualism, New Thought, Theosophy, Agni = Yoga, I AM, Bridge to Freedom, Church Universal and Triumphant, and The = Temple of the Presence. And you'll see the evolution of the belief = system developed through the persons of Rosenkreuz, Swedenborg, Mesmer, = Fox, Quimby, Eddy, Blavatsky, Leadbeater, Bailey, Krishnamurti, = Roerichs, Ballards, Innocente, Prophets, and Shearers. Common threads link many of the groups. The Paolinis discuss some of the = groups' fundamental teachings and explore the messengers' motives, the = treatment of members, and the origin of the Masters Saint Germain, El = Morya, and Kuthumi. The Paolinis address the issue of phenomena by exploring a variety of = possibilities for people's mystical encounters and conclude by offering = ex-members ideas on life after involvement with a Masters group. Well-researched, well-written, engaging, and credible, 400 Years of = Imaginary Friends untangles the web of mystery that surrounds the = Masters and the messengers. See How These People Influenced the Formation of the Masters Myth As It = Exits Today Christian Rosenkreuz Emanuel Swedenborg Anton Mesmer The Fox Sisters Phineas P. Quimby Mary Baker Eddy Helena Blavatsky Charles Leadbeater Alice Bailey Krishnamurti Nicholas and Helena Roerich Guy and Edna Ballard Geraldine Innocente Mark and Elizabeth Prophet Monroe and Carolyn Shearer Below is the Table of Contents. Contents Dedication Foreword--Joe Szimhart Preface 1. The Dream Part I--Our Journey 2. Talita's Story Who is that Turbaned Man? I Find the Brotherhood Welcome to Camelot Living in a World Apart Through the Looking Glass Back in Santa Cruz Round Two Row, Row, Row Your Boat . . . Life is but a Dream 3. Kenneth's Story Summit University Beer, Beer Everywhere, but Not a Drop to Drink! The Yellow Brick Road Cosmic Honor Guard: Training, Guard Dog, and Bulletproof Glass Sleep, Food, and Life in the Mystery School Sons and Daughters of Dominion What is the Sound of One Hand Clapping, Grasshopper? or Is it Better to = Marry than to Burn? Oops! Leaves, Leaves, and More Damn Leaves Let Them Eat Cake, but Guru Food is Better The Second Set of Books True Love 4. Together at Last The Dating Game Guns in the Basement We Tie the Knot And Baby Makes Three Alaska Bound . . . Then Again, Maybe Not! Toil and Trouble All You Need is Love The Final Straw 5. Life Without the Masters 6. Guns? We Don't Have No Stinking Guns 7. The Boise Intervention 8. Free at Last! Part II--The Masters and Their Messengers=20 9. The Masters 10. Esoteric Tradition 11. Gnostic Roots of the Masters 12. Occult Tradition of the Masters 13. Rosicrucianism The Masters in Rosicrucianism A Modern Rosicrucian Group 14. Freemasonry 15. Swedenborg's Rings of Angels 16. Mesmer and Animal Magnetism 17. The Birth of Spiritualism: The Fox Sisters Spiritualism Sweeps America 18. New Thought 19. Theosophy Blavatsky the Storyteller The Founding of Theosophy The Masters Appear Blavatsky's Writings, Plagiarism, and the Mahatma Letters The Masters Another View of the Masters After Blavatsky The Judge Affair Leadbeater the Pedophile Krishnamurti Alice Bailey Benjamin Creme 20. Phylos the Thibetan 21. Agni Yoga Society 22. Mighty I AM The Ballards Before the I AM I AM That I AM Sources of Inspiration for the I AM Movement Baird T. Spalding The Movement Grows Do as I Say, Not as I Do Writings and Teachings The Ascended Masters Decrees Ballard Demise A.D.K. Luk 23. Bridge To Freedom 24. Church Universal and Triumphant Life at La Tourelle Of Prophets and Kings All that Glitters Church Universal and Triumphant is Born Staff, Summit University, and Decrees Confessions Betrayed Buddha's Birthday Caper Camelot Comes Again! The Call of Camelot Power Plays Daughter of a Devil? Children at Camelot Political Aspirations Gregory Mull Prophet's Very Private Life Montana Bound Prepare Thee an Ark Gotcha! Hear No Evil, See No Evil, . . . The Sky is Falling! The Shelter Crisis and Children The Final Crisis Fuel Leak A Trail of Guns and Deception And More Trouble It's a Miracle! Once Upon a Dream What Motivated Prophet? Gone With the Wind 25. The Temple of the Presence Part III--Common Threads=20 26. The Messengers and Their Stories Messengers to the Gods The Big Lie A Good Story Never Dies The Notovitch Affair Dueling Messengers--Malice in Wonderland 27. Saint Germain 28. El Morya and Kuthumi 29. The Teachings Astrology Karma Reincarnation I AM Presence What of the Ascension? 30. Science of the Masters The Truth and Nothing but the Truth Eye of Newt and Toe of Frog 31. Treatment of Members Praise and Condemnation Part IV--Know Thyself 32. Phenomena and the Believer We Can All Be Fooled Storytellers vs. Scientists Masters and Dragons Nobody's Home Mystical Experience Look Into My Eyes And Santa is Real Of Men and Masters 33. Life After Myth A New Path . . . Appendix: The Pantheon of Masters, Angels, Archangels, Elohim, and = Assorted Beings of Light Bibliography Suggested Reading Acknowledgments -------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- For more details about this book, see = http://www.factsource.com/400years.html ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BF51CC.7E35DA60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

400 Years of Imaginary Friends: A Journey Into the World of Adepts, = Masters,=20 Ascended Masters, and Their Messengers

by Kenneth Paolini = and Talita=20 Paolini
Foreword by Joe Szimhart

For = more details=20 about this book, see http://www.factsource.co= m/400years.html

From the back cover of the = book:

Who=20 are the Adepts, Masters, and Ascended Masters? Who are the messengers? = Why do=20 people believe in the Masters and join groups built on "Their" = teachings? Why=20 and how do members leave? Most importantly, where did belief in the = Masters=20 originate and how do these beliefs manifest themselves = today?

Kenneth and=20 Talita Paolini's thirteen years of research, meticulous compilation of = source=20 material, access to original documents and inside information, and = personal=20 experience in an Ascended Masters group helps you answer these questions = and=20 understand one of the most intriguing phenomena of this = era.

400 Years=20 of Imaginary Friends: A Journey Into the World of Adepts, Masters, = Ascended=20 Masters, and Their Messengers takes you inside one of these groups, = Church=20 Universal and Triumphant. The Paolinis' trek into the group and their = personal=20 interaction with its leader, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, gives you insight = into a=20 modern-day Masters group. Their struggle to leave and find independence = outside=20 of the organization is riveting.

After recounting their = adventures, the=20 Paolinis document the creation and evolution of the Masters, and = introduce the=20 messengers--the controversial people who claim to write and speak for = the=20 Masters. You'll follow the trail of the Masters as it winds through=20 Rosicrucianism, Freemasonry, Spiritualism, New Thought, Theosophy, Agni = Yoga, I=20 AM, Bridge to Freedom, Church Universal and Triumphant, and The Temple = of the=20 Presence. And you'll see the evolution of the belief system developed = through=20 the persons of Rosenkreuz, Swedenborg, Mesmer, Fox, Quimby, Eddy, = Blavatsky,=20 Leadbeater, Bailey, Krishnamurti, Roerichs, Ballards, Innocente, = Prophets, and=20 Shearers.

Common threads link many of the groups. The Paolinis = discuss=20 some of the groups' fundamental teachings and explore the messengers' = motives,=20 the treatment of members, and the origin of the Masters Saint Germain, = El Morya,=20 and Kuthumi.

The Paolinis address the issue of phenomena by = exploring a=20 variety of possibilities for people's mystical encounters and conclude = by=20 offering ex-members ideas on life after involvement with a Masters=20 group.

Well-researched, well-written, engaging, and credible, = 400=20 Years of Imaginary Friends untangles the web of mystery that = surrounds the=20 Masters and the messengers.

See How These = People=20 Influenced the Formation of the Masters Myth As It Exits = Today

Christian=20 Rosenkreuz
Emanuel Swedenborg
Anton Mesmer
The Fox = Sisters
Phineas=20 P. Quimby
Mary Baker Eddy
Helena Blavatsky
Charles = Leadbeater
Alice=20 Bailey
Krishnamurti
Nicholas and Helena Roerich
Guy and Edna=20 Ballard
Geraldine Innocente
Mark and Elizabeth Prophet
Monroe = and=20 Carolyn Shearer

Below is the Table of=20 Contents.
--------------------------------------------
Conte= nts

Dedication
Foreword--Joe=20 Szimhart
Preface

1. The Dream

Part I--Our = Journey
2.=20 Talita's Story
Who is that Turbaned Man?
I Find the = Brotherhood
Welcome=20 to Camelot
Living in a World Apart
Through the Looking = Glass
Back in=20 Santa Cruz
Round Two
Row, Row, Row Your Boat . . . Life is but a=20 Dream

3. Kenneth's Story
Summit University
Beer, Beer = Everywhere,=20 but Not a Drop to Drink!
The Yellow Brick Road
Cosmic Honor Guard: = Training, Guard Dog, and Bulletproof Glass
Sleep, Food, and Life in = the=20 Mystery School
Sons and Daughters of Dominion
What is the Sound of = One=20 Hand Clapping, Grasshopper? or Is it Better to Marry than to=20 Burn?
Oops!
Leaves, Leaves, and More Damn Leaves
Let Them Eat = Cake, but=20 Guru Food is Better
The Second Set of Books
True Love

4. = Together=20 at Last
The Dating Game
Guns in the Basement
We Tie the = Knot
And=20 Baby Makes Three
Alaska Bound . . . Then Again, Maybe Not!
Toil = and=20 Trouble
All You Need is Love
The Final Straw

5. Life = Without the=20 Masters

6. Guns? We Don't Have No Stinking Guns

7. The = Boise=20 Intervention

8. Free at Last!

Part II--The Masters and = Their=20 Messengers
9. The Masters

10. Esoteric = Tradition

11.=20 Gnostic Roots of the Masters

12. Occult Tradition of the=20 Masters

13. Rosicrucianism
The Masters in Rosicrucianism
A = Modern=20 Rosicrucian Group

14. Freemasonry

15. Swedenborg's Rings = of=20 Angels

16. Mesmer and Animal Magnetism

17. The Birth of=20 Spiritualism: The Fox Sisters
Spiritualism Sweeps America

18. = New=20 Thought

19. Theosophy
Blavatsky the Storyteller
The = Founding of=20 Theosophy
The Masters Appear
Blavatsky's Writings, Plagiarism, and = the=20 Mahatma Letters
The Masters
Another View of the Masters
After=20 Blavatsky
The Judge Affair
Leadbeater the=20 Pedophile
Krishnamurti
Alice Bailey
Benjamin Creme

20. = Phylos=20 the Thibetan

21. Agni Yoga Society

22. Mighty I AM
The = Ballards=20 Before the I AM
I AM That I AM
Sources of Inspiration for the I AM = Movement
Baird T. Spalding
The Movement Grows
Do as I Say, Not = as I=20 Do
Writings and Teachings
The Ascended = Masters
Decrees
Ballard=20 Demise
A.D.K. Luk

23. Bridge To Freedom

24. Church = Universal=20 and Triumphant
Life at La Tourelle
Of Prophets and Kings
All = that=20 Glitters
Church Universal and Triumphant is Born
Staff, Summit = University,=20 and Decrees
Confessions Betrayed
Buddha's Birthday = Caper
Camelot Comes=20 Again!
The Call of Camelot
Power Plays
Daughter of a = Devil?
Children=20 at Camelot
Political Aspirations
Gregory Mull
Prophet's Very = Private=20 Life
Montana Bound
Prepare Thee an Ark
Gotcha!
Hear No Evil, = See No=20 Evil, . . .
The Sky is Falling!
The Shelter Crisis and = Children
The=20 Final Crisis
Fuel Leak
A Trail of Guns and Deception
And More=20 Trouble
It's a Miracle!
Once Upon a Dream
What Motivated=20 Prophet?
Gone With the Wind

25. The Temple of the=20 Presence

Part III--Common Threads
26. The Messengers = and Their=20 Stories
Messengers to the Gods
The Big Lie
A Good Story Never=20 Dies
The Notovitch Affair
Dueling Messengers--Malice in=20 Wonderland

27. Saint Germain

28. El Morya and = Kuthumi

29.=20 The Teachings
Astrology
Karma
Reincarnation
I AM = Presence
What of=20 the Ascension?

30. Science of the Masters
The Truth and = Nothing but=20 the Truth
Eye of Newt and Toe of Frog

31. Treatment of=20 Members
Praise and Condemnation

Part IV--Know = Thyself
32.=20 Phenomena and the Believer
We Can All Be Fooled
Storytellers vs.=20 Scientists
Masters and Dragons
Nobody's Home
Mystical=20 Experience
Look Into My Eyes
And Santa is Real
Of Men and=20 Masters

33. Life After Myth
A New Path . . .

Appendix: = The=20 Pantheon of Masters, Angels, Archangels, Elohim, and Assorted Beings of=20 Light

Bibliography

Suggested=20 Reading

Acknowledgments

-----------------------------------= ----------------------------------------

For = more details=20 about this book, see http://www.factsource.co= m/400years.html

<= /FONT>
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01BF51CC.7E35DA60-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:14:35 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 > Alan- So long as you know stopping was my decision. Starting was also your decision. > As much as I would like > to make you happy, I can't pretend otherwise. The point is, if I'm going > to play word games it may as well accomplish something, teach me something. > Your pal there is so far into denial there is not much reason to make an > effort. I've seen it time after time. Quite common tactic of people who absolutely insist their point of view is right and who get angry when others don't accept it. "You're deeply into denial". I have no doubt you've seen it time after time. As AA members see thousands of people all over the world "in denial" about their "alchoholism". And Bradshaw followers see anyone that doesn't agree that every family is dysfunctional as being "in denial". The underlying assumption in claiming *anyone* is "in denial" is that *you* know what they should be focussing on, you know what concepts they should accept, *you've* done an analysis of them and decided they should be examining a particular part of their character and adopting a particular point of view about it, and if they don't they are (obviously) "deeply in denial". > Doesn't matter who addresses him, > he just takes the words and throws them back. And this, I presume, is your version of "stopping"? >That's all it is- words, > words, words. Words that say nothing. He uses words to build a wall. >Takes your words, paraphrases a little, and tosses them right on back. As your tactic is to come to conclusions about people's characters based on virtually no knowledge of them at all, save the way they deal with you at a particular moment, in a communications medium that hardly shows anything other than a mere fraction of who people are ... telling people "its your issue", and "you're in denial" ... and the entire world full of pop psychology buzzwords ... builds walls as high as any on earth. If you are just playing around, taking a few random little shots at me, then yes - I'll hold up a mirror. Quite intentionally. Tell me, what *should* have I done, in your view? Just agreed with you? Said nothing? You brought up no topics ... only came out of the blue and responded (for some reason) to a series of post from a couple of weeks ago (I could barely remember what it was even about) ... with the assumption that you were being refered to in one of my posts (when you weren't) ... and the nice little sentiment that I was wrong, and that this was something for me to deal with. > Really tough feat. He won't address the issue, the content (with women anyway.) And precisely what content am I not addressing? Simply because someone does not agree to speak within the context you want, or accept your assumptions, or agree that the way you are framing something is the way they want to frame it, certainly does not mean they aren't "addressing" an issue - it simply means, again, that you aren't getting your way. We all are perfectly free to frame things however we want choose, and to address whatever issues we each see to be relevent. You haven't addressed any of *my* issues either. But I won't accuse you of sexism. > What will be next- he'll start to diagram the damn sentences? As far as > I'm concerned, all this "arguing a point" stuff he gets caught up in > deflects from what I thought was supposed to be happening here. Er, care to read the post that *started* the last exchange? Care to look at *the one this is a response to*? Who is "starting" things here. Again, how *SHOULD* I respond to this post? Say nothing? Agree with your bizarre psychological analysis? How would *YOU* respond if someone wrote the same thing about *YOU*? > Brotherhood, Sisterhood, Fellowship and so forth can result when people are > able to find common ground and find ways to cooperate. Tension arises > naturally on its own. There is no need to seek it out. When it arises, you > work it out. But to intentionally create it to jump-start a jolly good > argument? What does that accomplish? An opportunity for aggressive macho > posturing? And this post of yours, then, is your way "finding common ground"? A weird little exchange (that began with a post by you) had ended - who precisely has "jump started" it again here? *Me*, because I actually have the gall to *respond* to your portrayal of me that is just dripping with "brotherhood and sisterhood"? >(And what do you bet he jumps all over that Brotherhood, > Sisterhood thing? Thus evading the REAL issue where he is concerned.) And do tell, what *IS* the "real issue"? If you want to have a discussion - a genuine discussion -then tell me what it is exactly that we are talking about. *My* point of view ... a couple of weeks ago ... was that the *road* to brotherhood and sisterhood was not through avoiding conflict, nor believing that its establishment was composed of imposing some American middle class concepts of what nice, polite discourse is. I even tried to back that up, talked about the history of people using the concept of the "golden rule", was *attempting* to start a discussion that called into question some universal, but in my view error-ridden assumptions about the *means* of pursuing universal brotherhood and sisterhood. You've completely blown this point off ... focussed instead on interpersonal issues, have privileged me with a couple of analyses of what is wrong with me, accused me of avoiding issues, being in denial, and aggressive macho posturing (which your current post is positively full of - you don't need to be in a male body to be aggressive and macho), all the while *starting* the very sorts of arguments you claim to want to avoid, and only stopping when I won't listen to you taking shots at me without continually responding. I have no idea, as of yet, who you are or what you are like, I've only seen a few posts of yours - none of them building any strong case for any particular point, nor introducing any topics that have to do with Theosophical literature, or mysticism, or comparative religion, or esoteric thought. In fact, I've tried (as I periodically do) to introduce a couple of different subjects for discussion ... having to do with experiments that are part of a day to day expression of the 3rd Theosophical Object, and only Chuck (who also pursues such things) responded. You didn't - but you *do* seem to seize upon little arguments - starting and re-starting them (at the same time as you complain about them, and accuse me ...). Guess what? If you had responded to my post about experiments involving angels, we'd now be talking about angels. But you didn't ... you chose again today to focus very particularly on a scathing analysis of my character based on an utterly superficial knowledge of who and what I am ... simultaneously castigating me for being macho and not seeking brotherhood and sisterhood, and writing a post pretty much guaranteed to invoke a response, to cause the sort of discourse you claim to want to avoid. -JRC PS. Since you've apparently taken it into your head to invoke gender issues ... and have decided to imply in a couple of places that I am sexist - perhaps you'd care to read an article I wrote a couple of years ago, and that Alan posted on his website. One of these days you may actually realize that you've jumped rather too quickly to some conclusions ... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 01:00:50 -0800 (PST) From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: regarding publishing subscriber lists MKR: > Theos-L and the associated lists are not only unmoderated, and the > subscriber lists are public. On the other hand theos-talk subscriber list > is NOT PUBLIC. > > It is very interesting to get a listing of subscribers to theos-l and a > perceptive person can get a sense of which segment of "theosophists" are > subscribers which are not. > > To get a list of subscribers to theos-l all one needs is to send a e-mail > to: lyris@list.vnet.net > with a single line in the body of the msg > > review theos-l For many years, theos-l was based on listserv software. It had a feature that allowed individual subscribers to choose if they'd like their email id to appear in a list of subscribers or not. Only a handful of subscribers enabled the feature; nearly everyone kept the default where their email id was given out. I would say that making the list of id's available to everyone is not a good idea. It does not really show who's reading emails from the list. We can never tell who may be behind various email id's like "xyz@hotmail.com" etc. On the other hand, spamming and unwelcome recruiting for various cults is becoming more of a problem all the time. People will join lists in order to harvest email id's to be resused for their own purposes. When I subscribe to a list, I'd prefer that my privacy be protected. Theos-talk uses the majordomo software, and doesn't provide an option for individual subscribers to publish or withhold their personal id and information. Anyone can go from lurking to full visibility whenever they choose to post to the list. Better mailing list software is better at mangling email id's or doing something to protect the privacy of both people posting to the list as well as non-posting subscribers. But time and money constraints keep me from looking into it for now. The idea that it was important for anyone to read a full list of subscribers/lurkers, regardless of their desire to publish their names/id's or not, was first raised when the ACT list was being started. JRC commented on theos-l that he had looked at a list of theos-l subscribers and found a few were concealed, and wondered if there was something sinister going on. He asserted that it was important than no one be able to subscribe to the list unless everyone could know who they were. John Mead became convinced and changed the list setup so that there was no privacy for subscribers anymore. From that point onward, if you wanted to subscribe to theos-l, anyone could get your full email id. At that time, John helped JRC create the ACT-l list, with he, John Mead, and JRC as co-listowners. I've always thought that it was inconsistent that the ACT-l list has *concealed* its list of subscribers, so only JRC and John Mead know who's on the list, while it was JRC's initial assertion that keeping list subscribers unconcealed was the right thing to do. Personally, I respect the privacy of individuals, and consider it wrong for a mailing list to make available it's complete list of subscribers. The only subscribers whose information should be given out should, I think, be those who explicitly indicate an interest in having their information made public. My inclination is in favor of individual right to privacy over individual curiosity rights. That's why the "who" command is disabled in theos-talk. Each list needs to be managed by its listowner in cooperation with its participants. If you feel, MKR, that all lists should make their subscription lists publically avaliable, you might suggest, for consistency sake, that ACT-l open up its list, and then post the list of its subscribers on theos-l. I don't agree with this, though, and would not give out the id's of any theos-talk subscribers without their knowledge and advance permission. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 10:15:32 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Membership decline > Regardless of what you say below, I see that you did add the > qualification of the possibility of your remembering incorrectly, and I > thank you. You do, in fact, remember incorrectly. I said he was too busy > to participate on these discussion lists, not to read personal messages. Its not my memory that is selective. There were general excuses. During the entire ACT campaign the non-repsonsiveness of Headquarters was a fairly continual theme. Remember, for instance, when doss was writing and faxing headquarters and asking for financial details? By no means without cause either ... several of us - that are definately qualified to analyze financial statements - were looking at the surface view of the yearly accounting summary the TS publishes, and noticed a couple of significant peculiarities (in fact, the accounting firm that did the reports ultimately did say it had made a rather large mistake). doss wrote John Algeo, faxed him, and a number of times posted to the list the exact content of his requests ... few were answered, some not even acknowledged. This, you alledged, was because John Algeo, in fact the entire Headquarters staff, was "too busy". These weren't just emails to this list (that you first claimed he didn't read, then when that was shown to be BS, claimed was because people were so mean). You have been a consistant defender of John Algeo's right to respond, or completely ignore members as he sees fit, and have come up with several different justifications at different times. And to this day I don't really get the "too busy". The President and staff is "too busy" for the membership? Too busy doing what? This isn't the national republican party. Its an organization with around 4,000 members. Over half are "at large". Many simply pay dues year after year and take little interest at all in the actual Society. In fact only 1/4 to 1/3 even bother to vote in elections. I'd venture to guess the actual number of requests to Headquarters from members during the course of a year is but a few hundred ... and the requests addressed personally to John algeo probably numbered in the dozens. And as several people have pointed out, the thought that he is too busy to participate in probably the most active and dynamic theosophical discussion list on the interent is just bizarre. In the rest of the non-profit world Presidents and ED's and staff members are mostly deeply into examing every conceivable way possible to *use* the internet to further the causes of their organizations, see it as a fantastic way to interact directly with members, and many are coming to believe their very long-term survival will depend upon exploring the full use of the technology. But then, I'm never sure which excuse I should be addressing ... the one that says he is "too busy", or the one that says the list is just full of meanies. > I do, however, notice a tendency of some on this list to ask questions > which carry inbuilt assumptions which are not always correct. For > example, "I have heard you are a despoiler of young goats. If this is > true, then how do you reconcile this with your position of authority?" > is much more likely to get an answer than something like, "Since you > despoil young goats, how come you don't resign?". A thoroughly moot point. Again you are attempting to assert that it is merely *PRESENTATION* that is the cause of his total lack of participation in any internet activities. This is just bull. As I've said before, I've been on this list almost from the beginning ... and people were *NOT* mean, in fact, there was considerable hope on the list that staff members and board members would join the list and actively participate in discussions ... and they would have been eagerly welcomed. This was not an unreasonable hope either - as staff and board members of non-profits all over the country were beginning to do exactly that. Fact is, it doesn't matter a damn how anything is presented, we've never seen anything other than total silence from TS Executives ... either Algeo or the Board. The statement that "... is much more likely to get an answer than something like ..." is just completely false. *NO QUESTION, FRAMED IN ANY WAY, HAS BEEN, OR WILL BE ANSWERED BY JOHN ALGEO ON THIS LIST*. This is clearly a policy decision. > Actually, I really don't. Good, I don't particularly care to either. It's all pretty much moot. The current leadership clique has won. They control everything now. They control all publications. They control elections. They can now control every Lodge. They will, however, be responsible for what happens to the TS. And by all objective measures of the effects to date, this is certainly not something I'd want responsibility for. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 11:39:11 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Membership decline In a message dated 99-12-29 11:16:19 EST, you write: << Good, I don't particularly care to either. It's all pretty much moot. The current leadership clique has won. They control everything now. They control all publications. They control elections. They can now control every Lodge. They will, however, be responsible for what happens to the TS. And by all objective measures of the effects to date, this is certainly not something I'd want responsibility for. -JRC >> About ten years ago after a program at Olcott the question of what an appropriate reincarnation for Hitler would be. I said, "President of the TS." After all, what could be worse than having absolute power in an organization that no one pays any attention to? Chuck From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 16:44:23 GMT From: "David Green" Subject: The ACT-l list has *concealed* its list of subscribers Eldon writes that "the ACT-l list has *concealed* its list of subscribers". Is "something sinister going on" here? Why is the list of subscribers concealed? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 10:53:33 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: regarding publishing subscriber lists > The idea that it was important for anyone to read a full list > of subscribers/lurkers, regardless of their desire to publish > their names/id's or not, was first raised when the ACT list > was being started. JRC commented on theos-l that he had looked > at a list of theos-l subscribers and found a few were concealed, > and wondered if there was something sinister going on. He > asserted that it was important than no one be able to subscribe > to the list unless everyone could know who they were. John > Mead became convinced and changed the list setup so that > there was no privacy for subscribers anymore. From that point > onward, if you wanted to subscribe to theos-l, anyone could > get your full email id. 1. It most certainly wasn't only me desiring openess. 2. It makes no difference anyway - anyone can get a hotmail account ... or a dozen hotmail accounts ... under any name ... in about 30 seconds. > At that time, John helped JRC create the ACT-l list, with > he, John Mead, and JRC as co-listowners. I've always > thought that it was inconsistent that the ACT-l list has > *concealed* its list of subscribers, so only JRC and John > Mead know who's on the list, while it was JRC's initial > assertion that keeping list subscribers unconcealed was > the right thing to do. Several whompin' big errors here Eldon m'boy. First, John Mead didn't help *me* create ACT-L, John Mead was an ACT member, and created the list himself. He went on *vacation*, and needed someone to administer the list while he was gone - and I volunteered to do so simply because I work on the internet and was going to be on it consistantly over that holiday season. As soon as he got back he again managed the list. While I believe I was still there as secondary administrator, I certainly didn't want the bother (as you know, managing a list can get to be a real pain in the butt sometimes), nor did I ever look at who was on it. Second, this is by no means inconsistant. ACT-L was delibrately attempting to pursue administrative and political changes in the TS ... a TS with a Board that most definately kept, and keeps, their own political strategy and manuvering secret from the membership. Part of the points we were making, and one group of people for whom we were advocates, had to do with the treatment of the Headquarters staff. A number of them most definately supported ACT, a number of them were on the list. And to the person, they all expressed *fear* of reprisals from John Algeo if it became known they were sympathetic, or associated in any way. This was not an idle fear ... we know that John Algeo and several Board members were posditively livid about ACT. Several other very prominant Theosophists also wrote us privately, let us know they had sympathy, that they'd like to hear what was going on, but again, for political reasons were nervous about having this be known publically. To make everyone feel safe, the show-members function was turned completely off. Don't accuse ACT of inconsistancy for not letting its opponents - clearly willing as they were to use any tactics to make sure it got nowhere - to easily look at the people that were following the dicussions. They *WERE* free to participate in them, and to subscribe to the list. > If you feel, MKR, that all lists > should make their subscription lists publicly available, > you might suggest, for consistency sake, that ACT-l open > up its list, and then post the list of its subscribers > on theos Tell you what Eldon, *I'll* suggest that strongly if, "for consistency's sake", you also suggest to Headquarters that the allegedly public forums they control ... the national publications funded in part by *everyone's* membership dues, be similarly opened. This is a curious tactic that more than one person has tried ... accusing *ACT* of not being completely "open", while leaving unstated the fact that Headquarters *tightly* controls virtually every aspect communications within the TS ... and apparently gives some people cause to be concerned about what might happen to them if Headquarters *did* gain access to a list of the people that were following the discourse. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 11:33:56 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: A new Web Site on Mesmerism, Spiritualism and Theosophy This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01BF51F0.979839C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A new Web Site on Mesmerism, Spiritualism and Theosophy Below is a press release announcing a new web site and electronic journal titled PSYCHIC PIONEEER. =20 Material relevant to Theosophy and Madame Blavatsky=20 will be published at this site. Some of the material, no doubt, will show the similarities as well as the differences between Spiritualism and Theosophy. William Stainton Moses and Emma Hardinge Britten are mentioned in the press release. All students of The Mahatma Letters and HPB's=20 writings will be familiar with these well-known Spiritualists. It is hoped that all Theosophical readers of this posting will spread = the word about this new site. Tell your friends and colleagues. Please bookmark = the site for future reference. =20 A series of booklets will be published. The first two in the series = have recently been issued: OCCULTISM AND SPIRITUALISM. ( A Review of A.P. Sinnett's "The Occult=20 World" by William Stainton Moses.) THE MYSTERY OF STAINTON MOSES by Leslie Price. Ordering information can be found at these URLs: http://www.psypioneer.com/Subscriptions/Subscription.htm http://www.psypioneer.com/News/News.htm The Press Release follows. Daniel H. Caldwell -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --------- PSYCHIC PIONEER GOES LIVE A web site concerned exclusively with the pioneers of the psychic world = has now transferred to a permanent home - http://www.psypioneer.com. The aim of the site is to promote new research into the early workers of such movements as Mesmerism, Spiritualism and Theosophy. The Spiritual Truth Foundation gave a grant for software used on the site, while the College of Psychic Studies made possible the domain name. The Society = for Psychical Research opened its archives for the material in the first booklet issued by the new project - a review by Stainton Moses in which = he discloses how occult (not psychic) training ruined his health! " We cannot provide answers to all historical questions" explained = editor Leslie Price " That is a big reason for starting the project. We want = the help of students all over the world in tracing lost material and solving historical mysteries that are sometimes as puzzling as the phenomena themselves. " It is also a little shocking to realise how little is known about = basic facts in the lives of such major figures as Andrew Jackson Davis or Emma Hardinge Britten. Reference books often repeat the confusions. Not many people know that Davis for example had three wives, and this is not just = a personal detail - his relations with them had a big impact on the fate = of his Harmonial Philosophy. " As previously reported in PW, the project has already confirmed the date = of birth of Emma Hardinge Britten and focused attention on a forgotten = early book by Davis. " We are concentrating first on the Victorians" explained Leslie" = because their records are most vulnerable to destruction. But we are also = interested in more recent history." The project will publish in March a detailed critique of the 1960s case = of Arthur Guirdham and his Cathar past lives (expanded and updated from an investigation first made in " Reincarnation International"). The web site is designed by Tony Hern who first met Price in the Psychic Youth Group at the College of Psychic Studies in 1968, where Price was librarian. Others encouraging the project are Don Galloway (who was then = CPS assistant secretary) and Roy Stemman (who chaired the PYG Spiritualist = Task Force). Financial support for the booklets has come from a PW reader who = in 1968 was a course lecturer at CPS. Printer, and Pioneer booklet distributor David Ellis was then an early researcher into the electronic voice phenomenon. He was the first = printer of " The Christian Parapsychologist" in 1975 and has recently played a = major part in the production of the SPR's Scole Report. " This is a collaborative venture which we hope everyone will support," concluded Leslie" Perhaps surprisingly, the past is always changing. = The new project uses the latest technology, but is the fruition of threads = woven thirty years ago." Again the web site's URL is: http://www.psypioneer.com. ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01BF51F0.979839C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A new Web Site on Mesmerism, Spiritualism and Theosophy

Below is a press release announcing a new web site and = electronic
journal titled PSYCHIC = PIONEEER. =20

Material relevant to Theosophy and Madame Blavatsky=20
will be published at this site.  Some of the = material, no=20 doubt,
will show the similarities as well as the = differences=20 between
Spiritualism and Theosophy.
 
William Stainton Moses and Emma Hardinge Britten are = mentioned
in the press release.  All students of The Mahatma = Letters and=20 HPB's
writings will be familiar with these well-known=20 Spiritualists.
 
It is hoped that all Theosophical readers of this = posting will=20 spread the word
about this new site.  Tell your friends and=20 colleagues.  Please bookmark the site
for future = reference. =20
 
A series of booklets will be published.  The = first two in=20 the series have recently
been issued:
 
OCCULTISM AND SPIRITUALISM. ( A Review of A.P. = Sinnett's=20 "The Occult
World" by William Stainton Moses.)
 
THE  MYSTERY OF STAINTON MOSES by Leslie=20 Price.
 
Ordering information can be found at these = URLs:
http://= www.psypioneer.com/Subscriptions/Subscription.htm
http://www.psypioneer.co= m/News/News.htm
 
The Press Release follows.
 
Daniel H. Caldwell
 
----------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------
 
 
PSYCHIC PIONEER GOES LIVE

A web site concerned exclusively = with the=20 pioneers of the psychic world has
now transferred to a permanent home = - http://www.psypioneer.com.

The= aim of=20 the site is to promote new research into the early workers of
such = movements=20 as Mesmerism, Spiritualism and Theosophy.  The Spiritual
Truth=20 Foundation gave a grant for software used on the site, while = the
College of=20 Psychic Studies made possible the domain name. The Society = for
Psychical=20 Research opened  its archives for the material in the = first
booklet=20 issued by the new project - a review by Stainton Moses in which = he
discloses=20 how occult (not psychic) training ruined his health!

" We cannot = provide=20 answers to all historical questions" explained editor
Leslie Price " = That is=20 a big reason for starting the project. We want the
help of students = all over=20 the world in tracing lost material and solving
historical mysteries = that are=20 sometimes as puzzling as the phenomena
themselves.

" It is = also a=20 little shocking to realise how little is known about basic
facts in = the lives=20 of such major figures as Andrew Jackson Davis or Emma
Hardinge = Britten.=20 Reference books often repeat the confusions.  Not many
people = know that=20 Davis for example had three wives, and this is not just a
personal = detail -=20 his relations with them had a big impact on the fate of
his Harmonial = Philosophy. "

As previously reported in PW, the project has = already=20 confirmed the date of
birth of Emma Hardinge Britten and focused = attention on=20 a forgotten early
book by Davis.

" We are concentrating first = on the=20 Victorians" explained Leslie" because
their records are most = vulnerable to=20 destruction. But we are also interested
in more recent = history."

The=20 project will publish in March a detailed critique of the 1960s case = of
Arthur=20 Guirdham and his Cathar past lives (expanded and updated from=20 an
investigation first made in " Reincarnation = International").

The=20 web site is designed by Tony Hern who first met Price in the = Psychic
Youth=20 Group at the College of Psychic Studies in 1968, where Price = was
librarian.=20 Others encouraging the project are Don Galloway (who was then = CPS
assistant=20 secretary) and Roy Stemman (who chaired the PYG Spiritualist = Task
Force).=20 Financial support for the booklets has come from a PW reader who = in
1968 was=20 a course lecturer at CPS.

Printer, and Pioneer booklet = distributor David=20 Ellis was then an early
researcher into the electronic voice = phenomenon. He=20 was the first printer of
" The Christian Parapsychologist" in 1975 = and has=20 recently played a major
part in the production of the SPR's Scole=20 Report.

" This is a collaborative venture which we hope everyone = will=20 support,"
concluded Leslie" Perhaps surprisingly, the past is always=20 changing.  The
new project uses the latest technology, but is = the=20 fruition of threads woven
thirty years ago."
 
Again the web site's URL is:  http://www.psypioneer.com.


------=_NextPart_000_0036_01BF51F0.979839C0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 13:16:24 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Maillists Thanks for the detailed explanation about operation of maillists. My msg was just to report the facts as I saw it. I fully support the rights of the list owner to manage the list in any manner he/she wants to. Personally, I have never had any problem about my e-mail address being known to anyone and of course I do get *spam* which I simply delete. mkr At 01:00 AM 12/29/1999 -0800, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: >MKR: Theos-L and the associated lists are not only unmoderated, and the subscriber lists are public. On the other hand theos-talk subscriber list is NOT PUBLIC. It is very interesting to get a listing of subscribers to theos-l and a perceptive person can get a sense of which segment of "theosophists" are subscribers which are not. To get a list of subscribers to theos-l all one needs is to send a e-mail to: lyris@list.vnet.net with a single line in the body of the msg review theos-l<< ELDON: >For many years, theos-l was based on listserv software. It had a feature that allowed individual subscribers to choose if they'd like their email id to appear in a list of subscribers or not. Only a handful of subscribers enabled the feature; nearly everyone kept the default where their email id was given out. I would say that making the list of id's available to everyone is not a good idea. It does not really show who's reading emails from the list. We can never tell who may be behind various email id's like "xyz@hotmail.com" etc. On the other hand, spamming and unwelcome recruiting for various cults is becoming more of a problem all the time. People will join lists in order to harvest email id's to be resused for their own purposes. When I subscribe to a list, I'd prefer that my privacy be protected. Theos-talk uses the majordomo software, and doesn't provide an option for individual subscribers to publish or withhold their personal id and information. Anyone can go from lurking to full visibility whenever they choose to post to the list. Better mailing list software is better at mangling email id's or doing something to protect the privacy of both people posting to the list as well as non-posting subscribers. But time and money constraints keep me from looking into it for now. The idea that it was important for anyone to read a full list of subscribers/lurkers, regardless of their desire to publish their names/id's or not, was first raised when the ACT list was being started. JRC commented on theos-l that he had looked at a list of theos-l subscribers and found a few were concealed, and wondered if there was something sinister going on. He asserted that it was important than no one be able to subscribe to the list unless everyone could know who they were. John Mead became convinced and changed the list setup so that there was no privacy for subscribers anymore. From that point onward, if you wanted to subscribe to theos-l, anyone could get your full email id. At that time, John helped JRC create the ACT-l list, with he, John Mead, and JRC as co-listowners. I've always thought that it was inconsistent that the ACT-l list has *concealed* its list of subscribers, so only JRC and John Mead know who's on the list, while it was JRC's initial assertion that keeping list subscribers unconcealed was the right thing to do. Personally, I respect the privacy of individuals, and consider it wrong for a mailing list to make available it's complete list of subscribers. The only subscribers whose information should be given out should, I think, be those who explicitly indicate an interest in having their information made public. My inclination is in favor of individual right to privacy over individual curiosity rights. That's why the "who" command is disabled in theos-talk. Each list needs to be managed by its listowner in cooperation with its participants. If you feel, MKR, that all lists should make their subscription lists publically avaliable, you might suggest, for consistency sake, that ACT-l open up its list, and then post the list of its subscribers on theos-l. I don't agree with this, though, and would not give out the id's of any theos-talk subscribers without their knowledge and advance permission. -- Eldon<< From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 14:11:41 From: "Maureen Fitzgerald" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 Alan- you better take a pass on this one...... On 12/29/99, ""JRC" " wrote: > Starting was also your decision. All things I do are my decision. (Wait, make that most.) But where was it said I was addressing *you* I didnt see *your* name at all. Gee whiz, all this from my little ole post to Alan? > Quite common tactic of people who absolutely insist their point of view > is right and who get angry when others don't accept it. Wow, thanks for letting me know how common I am. Sure wouldn't want to feel special or like some kind of individual. I don't insist on (much less absolutely) anything. Outside of work requirements, who am I to say? And angry? It would take a little more than this. I mean this isn't even *real* time. > The underlying assumption in claiming *anyone* is "in denial" is that *you* > know what they should be focussing on, you know what concepts they decided > they should be examining a particular part of their character and adopting a > > particular point of view about it, and if they don't they are > (obviously) > > "deeply in denial". Through all those little exchanges with Kym you were in continual denial... But I just know you don't want me recapping all those. Or do you? > > > Doesn't matter who addresses him, > > he just takes the words and throws them back. > > And this, I presume, is your version of "stopping"? No, I think it's my version of a slow news day. > >That's all it is- words, > > words, words. Words that say nothing. He uses words to build a wall. > >Takes your words, paraphrases a little, and tosses them right on back. > > As your tactic is to come to conclusions about people's characters based > on virtually no knowledge of them at all, save the way they deal with > you at a particular moment, in a communications medium that hardly shows > anything other than a mere fraction of who people are ... telling people > "its your issue", and "you're in denial" ... and the entire world full > of pop psychology buzzwords ... builds walls as high as any on earth. Even the one in China, oh Guru? > > If you are just playing around, taking a few random little shots at me, > then yes - I'll hold up a mirror. Quite intentionally. Tell me, what > *should* have I done, in your view? Just agreed with you? Said nothing? > You brought up no topics ... only came out of the blue and responded > (for some reason) to a series of post from a couple of weeks ago (I > could barely remember what it was even about) ... You're great with the selective memory. Barely remember! Hardly. > with the assumption that you were being refered to in one of my posts (when > you weren't) ... Ditto. Gee, thought I was writing to Alan. > and the nice little sentiment that I was wrong, and that this was > something for me to deal with. Where did I tell this invisible "you" that you were wrong? > Really tough feat. He won't address the issue, the content (with > women anyway.) > > And precisely what content am I not addressing? Simply because someone > does not agree to speak within the context you want, or accept your > assumptions, or agree that the way you are framing something is the way > they want to frame it, certainly does not mean they aren't "addressing" > an issue - it simply means, again, that you aren't getting your way. We > all are perfectly free to frame things however we want choose, and to > address whatever issues we each see to be relevent. You haven't > addressed any of *my* issues either. But I won't accuse you of sexism. Ditto > > Er, care to read the post that *started* the last exchange? Er, I love it when you *Er* it's getting to be a real trademark. > > > Brotherhood, Sisterhood, Fellowship and so forth can result when > people are > > able to find common ground and find ways to cooperate. Tension arises > > naturally on its own. There is no need to seek it out. When it > arises, you > > work it out. But to intentionally create it to jump-start a jolly > good > > argument? What does that accomplish? An opportunity for aggressive > macho > > posturing? > > And this post of yours, then, is your way "finding common ground"? I admit there is but a very faint possibility of the two of us finding common ground, but never say never. > weird little exchange (that began with a post by you) had ended - who > precisely has "jump started" it again here? *Me*, because I actually > have the gall to *respond* to your portrayal of me that is just dripping > with "brotherhood and sisterhood"? Because you have the gall? Puhleeze, if this was jump-started again, it is for your very inability not to have the last word. In fact, I double dare you not to respond to this post. Dare ya, dare ya. I do so rarely get to indulge my inner child, I thank you so much! > > >(And what do you bet he jumps all over that Brotherhood, > > Sisterhood thing? Thus evading the REAL issue where he is concerned.) > > And do tell, what *IS* the "real issue"? If you want to have a > discussion - a genuine discussion -then tell me what it is exactly that > we are talking about. Truthfully, I don't rightly know what the "real issue" is. One issue is that I don't understand why you couldn't have apologized to Kym wait back when for all your rudeness. It wouldn't have taken that much. > > *My* point of view ... a couple of weeks ago ... was that the *road* to > brotherhood and sisterhood was not through avoiding conflict, nor > believing that its establishment was composed of imposing some American > middle class concepts of what nice, polite discourse is. I even tried to > back that up, talked about the history of people using the concept of > the "golden rule", was *attempting* to start a discussion that called > into question some universal, but in my view error-ridden assumptions > about the *means* of pursuing universal brotherhood and sisterhood. Ahhhhhhh, his memory mysteriously comes back. And in such detail too. Hynotism, perhaps? But no- what you wanted to put forth was my "utter childishness" in even bringing up the"golden rule," which neither one of us seems to be following at the moment anyway. So a lot of good that did. > You've completely blown this point off ... focussed instead on > interpersonal issues, have privileged me with a couple of analyses of > what is wrong with me, accused me of avoiding issues, being in denial, > and aggressive macho posturing (which your current post is positively > full of - you don't need to be in a male body to be aggressive and > macho) Ha! Scintillating psychological analysis! Sorry- I get *such* a kick from that! , all the while *starting* the very sorts of arguments you claim > to want to avoid, and only stopping when I won't listen to you taking > shots at me without continually responding. KNJ, KNJ, KNJ, when will you ever learn? > I have no idea, as of yet, who you are or what you are like. Ditto. And that is likely not to change since it is apparent that we very much rub each other the wrong way. > introduce a couple of different subjects for discussion ... having to do > with experiments that are part of a day to day expression of the 3rd > Theosophical Object, and only Chuck (who also pursues such things) > responded. You didn't - No, I didn't. And you should be quite happy, as I recall you saying you considered *new learners* IDIOTS. I'm so happy I didn't ruin it for you. > Guess what? If you had responded to my post about experiments involving > angels, we'd now be talking about angels. But you didn't ... Mea culpa, idiot that I am. you chose > again today to focus very particularly on a scathing analysis of my > character based on an utterly superficial knowledge of who and what I am > ... simultaneously castigating me for being macho and not seeking > brotherhood and sisterhood, and writing a post pretty much guaranteed to > invoke a response, to cause the sort of discourse you claim to want to > avoid. *You* were the first to tell me I was avoiding. In fact, the very realization of my tendency to avoid is the source of all this. Congrats! > perhaps you'd care to read an article I wrote a couple of years > ago, and that Alan posted on his website. One of these days you may > actually realize that you've jumped rather too quickly to some > conclusions ... Made it a point to do so. Actually, it does not sound like the you *I* have seen. Something must have happened to you and you're working out your issues here. See how easy it is to turn things around? Reminds me of a book I saw once "A Thousand ways to lie with a piechart." Oh, my. Alan is right, though. We should stop, it is non-Theosphical, and probably very boring to everyone else. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 14:48:42 -0800 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 > On 12/29/99, ""JRC" " wrote: > > > Starting was also your decision. > > All things I do are my decision. (Wait, make that most.) But where was it > said I was addressing *you* I didnt see *your* name at all. Gee whiz, > all this from my little ole post to Alan? Ok, then I'll use your sweet little tactic: Alan ... she really is descending as far into pettiness as its possible to go. > Through all those little exchanges with Kym you were in continual > denial... But I just know you don't want me recapping all those. Or > do you? Again here, she throws around the big "denial" word ... apparently clueless that simply because people don't pay attention to what she thinks they should, or adopt there point of view, they are in denial. > > And this, I presume, is your version of "stopping"? > No, I think it's my version of a slow news day. So when I respond its because I need the last word, but when she starts things up again, its not. > > As your tactic is to come to conclusions about people's characters based > > on virtually no knowledge of them at all, save the way they deal with > > you at a particular moment, in a communications medium that hardly shows > > anything other than a mere fraction of who people are ... telling people > > "its your issue", and "you're in denial" ... and the entire world full > > of pop psychology buzzwords ... builds walls as high as any on earth. > > Even the one in China, oh Guru? Interesting that she, profound psychologist that she is, ignores the entire point of this and takes a cheap little shot. > > If you are just playing around, taking a few random little shots at me, > > then yes - I'll hold up a mirror. Quite intentionally. Tell me, what > > *should* have I done, in your view? Just agreed with you? Said nothing? > > You brought up no topics ... only came out of the blue and responded > > (for some reason) to a series of post from a couple of weeks ago (I > > could barely remember what it was even about) ... > > You're great with the selective memory. Barely remember! Hardly. Of course I did barely remember - and had to go back and read posts from a couple of weeks ago. But her self-importance apparently assumes that everything she says is seared into memory, and of course I'm just pretending to have forgotten (though I can't fathom for what reason I'd pretend to do). > > with the assumption that you were being refered to in one of my posts (when > you weren't) ... > > Ditto. Gee, thought I was writing to Alan. Alan, I wonder whether she'll respond to this directly, or "through you" ... since apparently that's the level of games going on here. > > and the nice little sentiment that I was wrong, and that this was > > something for me to deal with. > > Where did I tell this invisible "you" that you were wrong? Of course if she actually bothers to read her own posts, she'll easily discover the answer. > > We > > all are perfectly free to frame things however we want choose, and to > > address whatever issues we each see to be relevent. You haven't > > addressed any of *my* issues either. But I won't accuse you of sexism. > > Ditto Apparently I misinterpreted the sentiment that I won't address what she considers to be the "issue" with her because she is a woman as implying sexism. It would be very interesting to know exactly what *was* meant by such a thing. > > Er, care to read the post that *started* the last exchange? > > Er, I love it when you *Er* it's getting to be a real trademark. Another lovely sidestep of a major point. > > And this post of yours, then, is your way "finding common ground"? > > I admit there is but a very faint possibility of the two of us finding > common > ground, but never say never. Again rather ignoring the point ... that she can launch a nasty post in which she accuses me of being nasty. I love it. > Because you have the gall? Puhleeze, if this was jump-started again, it > is for your very inability not to have the last word. In fact, I > double dare you not to respond to this post. Dare ya, dare ya. I do > so rarely get to indulge my inner child, I thank you so much! Oh this is precious! And expected. She writes a nasty post about me ... a day or two after an exchange had ended ... and because *I* answered it, *I've* "jump-started it" again ... thus showing my inability to get in the last word. "Hello pot? This is kettle. You're black." Terribly sorry, but if she is going to blast away at me ... and on top of that it will be *me* that is at fault for not permitting her to have *both* the first word *and* the last word - then I fear she isn't going to have fun with me much longer. > Truthfully, I don't rightly know what the "real issue" is. One issue is > that I don't understand why you couldn't have apologized to Kym wait > back when for all your rudeness. It wouldn't have taken that > much. Oh I really love this one. I stand accused of evading some issue - and when I ask what exactly the issue is so I might cease to evade it ... the accuser can't seem to come up with it. All she can come up with as an an issue I'm "evading" is her judgement that I was rude, and that she couldn't understand why I wouldn't behave as she thought I should have - given my rudeness. Again this wonderful inability to grasp a world outside of her own beliefs and opinions about how people ought to act. And of course will think that if I actually don't care a fig whether I measure up to her standards, and don't think *her judgements* are *my issues*, then I must obviously be in "denial". > Ahhhhhhh, his memory mysteriously comes back. And in such detail too. > Hynotism, perhaps? But no- what you wanted to put forth was my > "utter childishness" in even bringing up the"golden rule," which > neither one of us seems to be following at the moment anyway. So a > lot of good that did. Wonderful, this accusation that I was for some reason pretending to forget something. Wonder if she's ever heard of the "Sent Messages" folder? > Ha! Scintillating psychological analysis! Sorry- I get *such* a kick > from > that! Wow. Cool. Wonder if she get's as much of a kick out of her own? > Ditto. And that is likely not to change since it is apparent that we > very much rub each other the wrong way. Goodness ... I've formed no actual judgements of her at all ... I will play these delightful little games, but certainly aren't "rubbed" in any way, good or bad. As you well know, Alan (as another long time list member) this discussion list is infinitely permeable. Its quite common for one to be involved in deep and intense arguments with another on a particular topic, and three or four months later to be the staunchest supporter of that same person on another issue. Be kinda sad if she actually formed completely solid opinions about everyone after but a month or two of the most superficial conversations, and thought these would probably remain permanent. Ah well, it'll be her loss if this is the case. > > introduce a couple of different subjects for discussion ... having to do > > with experiments that are part of a day to day expression of the 3rd > > Theosophical Object, and only Chuck (who also pursues such things) > > responded. You didn't - > > No, I didn't. And you should be quite happy, as I recall you saying you > considered *new learners* IDIOTS. I'm so happy I didn't ruin it for > you. And here I thought I she had recently accused *me* of "paraphrasing what people said, and then throwing it back in their faces". Of course my sentiments about "new learners" came from an entirely different context ... after several people on this list had taken somewhat significant time to try to answer some fellow's questions, only to find him both refusing to read anything they suggested, and demanding that they answer him on his terms, in his vocabulary ... and I pointed out that in virtually no field would people who had spent years studying a subject react well to such an attitude - that if someone completely new to any field started demanding answers the way he was doing, from people who had no particular reason other than their own goodwill to take time out from thier own studies, at the same time as refusing to even try to discourse in the vocabulary of the field, that they'd be considered an idiot. Thought I was simply stating a fairly evident reality of most of the academic world of arts and letters. Hadn't realized this was controversial ... or that it would be held up as yet another example of my apparently enormously flawed character. > > Guess what? If you had responded to my post about experiments involving > > angels, we'd now be talking about angels. But you didn't ... > > Mea culpa, idiot that I am. Weirdly enough, I've actually now put several people through a rather intense training so as to be able to run experiments concerning the interactions between the human, angelic, and plant kingdoms, and am involved in a couple of current projects initiated by the angelic kingdom itself. Fortunately there are at least a few beings on this ol' earth that don't exactly share her opinion of me. > > perhaps you'd care to read an article I wrote a couple of years > > ago, and that Alan posted on his website. One of these days you may > > actually realize that you've jumped rather too quickly to some > > conclusions ... > Made it a point to do so. Actually, it does not sound like the you *I* > have seen. Something must have happened to you and you're > working out your issues > here. Of course if she, attempting to resolve the fact that an article I wrote at least hints I may be way different than the conclusions she's so hastily come to, chooses to resolve this conflict within her own subjective world as "he's working out his issues" ... well, I'll wholeheartedly support her valiant efforts to harmonize her internal cognitive dissonance. 'Course neither her original assumptions, nor her means of adjusting them, have much to do with me as an actual human being seperate from her internal pictures ... but who cares? >See how easy it is to turn things around? Reminds me of a book I > saw > once "A Thousand ways to lie with a piechart." Oh, my. I take from this that she actually thinks she "got me" with that one. That she's cleverly "turned things around". Oh my indeed. > Alan is right, though. We should stop, it is non-Theosphical, and > probably very boring to everyone else. Problem of course is that I think its thoroughly Thesosophical ... and am quite used to a list in which most people ignore most posts ... they read the ones they're interested in and simply delete the rest. But I don't have to tell you that Alan, (-:). -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 20:54:28 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The ACT-l list has *concealed* its list of subscribers There were members of ACT-l who were afraid of retaliation. David Green wrote: > > Eldon writes that "the ACT-l list has *concealed* its list of subscribers". > > Is "something sinister going on" here? Why is the list of subscribers > concealed? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 01:16:41 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 5:56 AM > From: > Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? > Hopefully, in the next millenium, we may see in the cyberspace feedback > from people who have first hand knowledge either to confirm or deny some of > the things written about the unseen world. Dear Doss, Such feedback has been appearing on this list occasionally from time to time for a few years. It is usually ignored or treated as being probably delusional. The "unseen world" is only unseen if you haven't seen it. If someone sees it, and interprets what they see, they are likely not to be believed, because, as eveyone knows, we cannot see the unseen. Nonsense, all that, isn't it? There *are* other dimensions, which some of us *do* see from time to time. I am one of them. Tell me what confirmation you want, and I will see if I can find the answer .... Over .......................... Alan :0) http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 02:28:33 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 10:48 PM > From: JRC > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 > 'Course neither her original assumptions, nor her > means of adjusting them, have much to do with me as an actual human > being seperate from her internal pictures ... but who cares? JRC cares, by the look of it. And so does Maureen, by the look of it. End of public thread, please? By all means slag each other off via private e-mail. As you say John, we all know how to use the delete button, and as I see this discussion going nowhere and, IMO, as being of little value to the list, maybe that's what I'll have to do. I already skip most of these posts as it is. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:58:39 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Membership decline JRC wrote: > > Actually, I really don't. > > Good, I don't particularly care to either. It's all pretty much moot. Great. So, do you have any ideas to reverse this membership decline trend? Bart From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 21:24:19 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999 > > 'Course neither her original assumptions, nor her > > means of adjusting them, have much to do with me as an actual human > > being seperate from her internal pictures ... but who cares? > > JRC cares, by the look of it. And so does Maureen, by the look of it. Tell you the absolute truth ... I really don't really care - except that its been a hoot to play these little games ... and no one seems to be in a mood to talk about anything more substantial just now. Hard to believe it is actually taken seriously. > End of public thread, please? By all means slag each other off via > private e-mail. > As you say John, we all know how to use the delete button, and as I > see this discussion going nowhere and, IMO, as being of little value > to the list, maybe that's what I'll have to do. I already skip most > of these posts as it is. Hell Alan - I pretty much figured no one other than Maureen was reading them. I *am* sorry to have involved you ... was just playing along with the little "third person" dance, and figured you'd be grinning as broadly as I am when I write such stuff. Anyone that wants to take shots at me on a public list *will* be answered publically ... but I will not involve you again by name in any such tomfoolery. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 23:00:32 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? > Actually, the Adyar TS gets quite a few of us but we happen to be the most > notorious at the moment. Mike Bertieaux (and I probably ruined the spelling > of his name, I usually do) has been a member for decades and Stephen Hoeller has been known to chant a barbarous word of invocation or two. > > Chuck the Heretic > Thanks for the info. I was not aware that Michael was into Theosophy. I have his book (printed without pictures by the now defunct Magickal Childe). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 23:10:55 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? >> He should therefore study to develop his latent powers, and inform himself respecting the laws of magnetism, electricity and all other forms of force, whether of the seen or unseen universes. -----end of quote----- > > Blavatsky is said to have written this part of the pamphlet, so there it > is, from the horse's mouth. > > There are people doing psychic archaeology and umpteen other things these > days - all outside the TS, as far as I know. > > Murray > Yes. And I have done all of mine from outside the TS as well. There aught to be a way of investigating the third objective without making a TS into a "hall of Magic" but apparently no one yet has been able to think of one. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 00:47:40 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? In a message dated 99-12-29 23:09:07 EST, you write: << Thanks for the info. I was not aware that Michael was into Theosophy. >> Oh yes, for many many years. He was on the Olcott staff during the Harry Smith affair in the mid sixties. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 01:05:09 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Membership decline > JRC wrote: > > > Actually, I really don't. > > > > Good, I don't particularly care to either. It's all pretty much moot. > > Great. So, do you have any ideas to reverse this membership decline > trend? Truth is, I had a good number of them, and could back them up with evidence that they worked ... unfortunately none that would be, or could be, implemented in the current mileau. But because you did ask - and I'm now finally completely done with a Society that has made it overwhelmingly clear it doesn't have any interest in my contributions (this is the last I'll address the official American TS, which will make several people quite happy I suppose) - I'll try to sum up (it'll probably be a long post though) - the essence of what *would* not only reverse the trend, but make the changes necessary to once again flourish. This is my final salute to the official TS. Not to Theosophy ... but to Wheaton and Adyar. It *is* offered in good faith - as your question was asked - in fact, I even hope John Algeo reads it. But whether he does or not is no longer my concern. Someday soon Wheaton may be horrified to discover that they've chased away the very people they needed to keep the TS alive. I'll use the best explanation I can ... a discussion of what demonstrably *worked*, and the attitudes behind the people that made it work. I was a member of a Lodge in Montana. A group of 5 or 6 of us started it from scratch in the late 80's. Our entire attiude, however, was that we were dealing with astute people who had no use for philosophy that didn't hit them where they lived. We didn't begin by holding any meetings on any "traditional" Theosophical topics, but merely presented the Three Objects as the sole requirements, didn't bother with trying to sign up members, and in fact our common meeting format was to simply present a topic, do some small (10 minute or so) presentation to initiate discussion, and basically just facilitated explorations of the topic. Most of the core group had been Theosophists for a good long time (our first President, a life member, was first made a Theosophist by John Coats during travels to India) - but we were fairly rigorous about keeping this quiet, in fact decided we'd delibrately create an environment where we expected to be *taught* by people that were attending. We also focussed a lot on aesthetics ... chose places for meetings with warm colors, candles, and we always served kickin' treats. We watched something very interesting ensue. Ultimately I think close to 10 or 12 people become actual members, and a lot of our public meetings had 40 or 50 people in attendance (sounds small, but this was in Western Montana - in a city with a population of 4,000 - 5,000, in a valley that had maybe 15,000 total - in a state whose entire population is still less than 1 million). Many of them probably would have become members if we would have pushed the issue ... but we frankly couldn't really see any reason why we should recommend they join - the benefits from Wheaton really just aren't worth the money (this is not a shot, just a very honest opinion that our entire Lodge held). What we did was talked to people after every meeting - and listened to them, what they were wrestling with in their own lives, the difficulties they were having attempting to live what they considered spiritual lives in the late 20th century western world. And we used those discussions to guide our topics, to simply be responsive. After a lot of discussion, we had concluded that it was no longer appropriate to be obsessing on the books - in the late 19th century such knowledge was scarce ... and Theosophy introduced many ideas for the first time - but we are now living in an age when there is positively an information *glut* - people, we found (most people anyway), were not in need of Books or concepts (which in the last century have exploded in quantity beyond anyone's comprehension), but rather were deeply in need of a place to *process* it, to digest. We found the framework provided by the 3 Objects was strong enough to narrow the focus (we weren't interested in running something where people had long discussions about their cars, or plumbing ), while still being broad enough to adapt to the needs of this age. Disccussions? ... Topics like "What, if any, effects do food and diet have on spiritual growth and evolution?"; "How do you balance the time required for spiritual disciplines with that required to work and properly raise children?"; and even things like "What is the role of sex on the spiritual path?" (that was a doozy ... that took thoroughly unexpected twists and turns). In short, we *started* not with the assumption that we possessed a secret wisdom only a few others would even be ready to "learn", following the standard model of small discussion groups on esoteric topics like "karma" where people read from books and discussed them paragraph by paragraph (the first TS Lodge I experienced, and a good number of others, did and still do exactly that ... which may be one reason why Lodges are in decline - that model is appealing to fewer and fewer people as the days pass) ... rather, we assumed that our little region of the US contained a good deal of advanced souls, decided to figure out what exactly these souls needed - in *their* opinion, not ours - and determined to see if there was some way we could contribute. Approaching it with this attitude, we very naturally discovered it to be the case (just as if the attitude is that America is full of "new agers", the "masses" who just don't have the discipline to study Theosophy, and aren't yet spiritually evolved enough to appreciate it, but that a few, humble souls just might be ready to exposed to it ... *that* is what will be attracted). We did, after a time, have people ask of their own accord about the older Theosophical literature - and as several of us had libraries full of the stuff, we gladly lent out books, and a couple of times 3 or 4 people had short discussion groups, but for the most part we figured people were fully capable of reading on their own if they chose to, would go to a book club if they wanted a book club, but that was *really* missing in their lives was a place (according to what they told us) where genuine *exploration* was going to happen. Most of them had been through more than one belief system, or school of philosophy - but most of them had also found this ultimately limiting, had gone off on their own quite delibrately, were most vehemently still searching, still pursuing what they considered "spiritual" work, but not doing it within the confines of any one ideology. They didn't come to our meetings to be handed yet another ideology, nor be told what the "basic" Theosophical concepts they should "learn" were ... and we had no interest in handing that to them. What they *did*, above all, seem to desire is a place with active and open and wide ranging discussions - they appreciated the minimal constraints we used to frame discussions to particular themes, and to start the discussions, but it was the *spirit* of everyone ultimately pursuing a path they were choosing, trying to figure it out as they went along, engaged in attempting to evaluate the opinions of many schools of thought - in addition to modern science and philosophy - on specific topics, and (with far more difficulty) trying to figure out how to harmonize all those viewpoints into something they could plant on earth and live in their lives. We rarely advertised anything. In fact, word of what we were doing spread all over the valley we lived in, completely of its own accord, and almost entirely by word of mouth. People simply told their friends about it. The meetings often got quite intense - more than once voices were even raised - and trying to facilitate such things was *truly* challenging ... to sense when something was happening that was *growth*, and when wisdom suggested it more appropriate to "take a short break" (during which we'd delibrately tell the most outrageous jokes we could think of, give everyone great little treats to munch, and do everything we could to shift the energy). What we found was a world literally brimming with "esoteric" people - people we'd bumped into in day to day life in the valley and never even suspected were pursuing topics far off the beaten path, and wondering whether there was anyone else they could just *talk to* about it. I've never experienced anything like watching what to all outward appearances was a redneck Montana rancher, in a corner during a break with a guy that looked like he'd just gotten off a Rastafarian boat from Jamaica, explaining to him the nuances of Hindu Astrology (that he's apparently been exposed to during the Korean war). At times it got positively surreal. But we made sure - set our *intentions* to make sure, that everyone left every meeting feeling like their souls had breathed fresh air, and that their batteries had been recharged. We also had some people that wanted to pursue training, work, and experiements in things that I suppose would be called "occult" ... and we did do meditation groups sometimes - but again, they were not beginner's courses (though we did give people resources if they asked about this) ... rather, they were people that had already passed the basics ... had already experienced one - often a number - of forms of meditation and invocation - and had reached the point of asking "is there something *more* than this?" So I can clear my mind and focus without scattered thoughts, so what do I now *do* with this? A *surprising* number of Americans *have* pursued such things. And most of them still keep very quiet about it - until they find a *place* where they can let that part of their persona emerge. Our only experiences with the official TS at the time were, unfortunately terrible. Or rather, were fairly normal, but in such marked contrast with what we were trying to build that difference seemd terrible. In one instance, we made the mistake of saying we'd show our Lodge a videotape someone at Wheaton had made about the principles of Theosophy or something. Serious mistake - after what these people were used to, watching a tape of a guy speaking on a TV in a dull, monotone voice, and referencing a "workbook" *literally* put several people to sleep. Bad mistake - we stopped it before it was over, but it took a couple of meetings ... and a sincere promise never to subject them to such a thing again ... to recover the energy the group was used to . But the worst incident was a National Speaker. (Remember, most of these people knew of Theosophy from what *we* were doing ...). I won't mention the name - she is quite well known - but she arrived (we had rented a room in a larger city and invited everyone - probably 20 people or so made an hour's drive to get there) ... she started in on a talk about a "mirror". Telling people to think about when they looked at themselves in the mirror that morning. Then suggesting that the *physical* body might not be everything, that there was something perhaps *deeper* behind that image. I saw our President's mouth drop open - and I fear I must have looked like a gut-shot panther. The group at first was polite, giving her the benefit of the doubt, thinking that she *must* be leading to something, that it just wasn't *possible* that she was actually talking down to them *that* badly, that an experienced speaker simply could not be *that* totally oblivious to her audience. Imagine a junior high school teacher in a room of college students, seemingly utterly unaware that she was teaching fractions to a room of people that were already through a couple of years of calculus ... *that* is what the room felt like. By the end of it I think one of our more vocal members just outright said "just who the hell do you think you *are*?!". This ... this contrast ... *THIS*, Bart - (and I genuinely mean this with the best of intentions for Theosophy) - *this* is where current Theosphy is wrong, *THIS* is what must be changed, *THIS* is why membership is down to 4,000 ... in an era with an explosion of people seeking exactly the sorts of environments it is capable of providing. This model is *dead*. It does not speak to the needs of the age - the spiritual desires of the population we are supposed to be serving ... not the needs that *we* believe they *should* have ... for long discussions of hundred year old books, and simplistic introductions to spiritual concepts that even people's hairdressers have already talked to them about ... but the needs as the population *itself* frames them. I am not saying that the particular way we did it is the way it is supposed to be done ... only that it *worked*, and many other things could work if life and creativity were permitted back into the TS. If the *spirit* of the founders came around again. In but a year or two, as a joint expression of what we considered a pure expression of the three objects adapted to this age, we built a lively, thriving group from scratch, in what might have been considered one of the most difficult places to do such a thing ... sparsely populated, rural America, containing a strong presence of conservative Christianity. The same spirit, the same attitudes in a larger city, with a much more diverse and sophisticated population ... hell we would have been talking about hiring staff just to handle the business of a single Lodge. Our formal Lodge died when the new bylaws ... that we considered the precise opposite if the direction Theosophy needed to go ... began to be passed. As the grip at HQ tightened ... it simply squeezed out everyone but those content with what it currently is. At the root ... the question was ... *why* pay anything to Wheaton? Why should we? Why should anyone? For the publications? The fundraising letters? The opportunity to study at the "university"? Walk the labyrinth? A number of the people we cultivated, I believe, still even meet (most of the original founders have now left the state) ... but it would never occur to any of them to try to form an offical TS Lodge. They have absolutely no reason to ... in my opinion the TS needs the likes of them *far* more than they need the TS. It is serving none of their needs ... and *they* are all over the place - *they* are those with the life, the energy, they are the ones carrying the spiritual fire in the next century. The model of the current TS - well - it *was* correct, appropriate, even in its own way revolutionary and dynamic in its time. It *did* serve the needs of those it was born to serve. It does not anymore. To sum it all up as succinctly as I can - on the verge of a new millenium that will either see the final death, or the complete re-birth of the Theosophical Society ... A thousand different things can be tried ... we *never* ran out of ideas, because we continually had open ears and rooms full of people brimming with ideas. But behind all of them needs to be one intention if Wheaton genuinely wants to stem the membership hemorraging, only one massive energy shift required of Headquarters: The simple understanding that what was necessary at the turn of the last century *was* teachers introducing ideas to pupils ... ideas that to large numbers of the western world were dramatically new, but what is necessary *now*, in a world where people are daily deluged in more information than they can handle, by a world of people and businesses and causes and cults all trying to pierce their attention with ideas, what they need now is a place to *digest*, a place to talk, to actively relate to people interested in whole ranges of topics growing numbers are studying and thinking about and trying to *live*, but that they have no place to talk about. The population we are now on earth serving deeply desires places where *they can permit what to many of them is the most hidden, yet most important, interests in their lives to emerge, look at daylight, and find a room full of people they not only do not need to conceal themselves from , but who *desire* their full revelation. And we, the TS, if we want to *serve* them, need to make the painful, but necessary shift from the attitude of being *Professors* in a room of *students*, or *Gurus* in a room of people that need to be goaded into starting to grow spiritually ... to being *Gardeners*, faced with a field of strong, growing plants, not required to tell the plants how to grow or what to become, but providing the service of making sure there is a field, enriched with nutrients, moist with water, in which their own growth, in the directions that are embedded in the very core of their souls, is unleashed. These aren't just words ... the are the final result of having lived it, and watched it work. If the TS makes this shift, it will *not* need to worry about declining memberships ... but about limited size of many of the places Lodges currently hold meetings. There. End of the century ... and this is the last thing I'll write about the current official TS ... a final parting attempt from someone that probably should have given up, as so many others already have, long ago. With Genuine Love, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 07:45:19 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? Gerald Schueler wrote: > Thanks for the info. I was not aware that Michael was into Theosophy. > I have his book (printed without pictures by the now defunct Magickal > Childe). Is it defunct? It seems to come back to life more often than the principle of a slasher movie. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 07:51:57 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? Gerald Schueler wrote: > Yes. And I have done all of mine from outside the TS as well. > There aught to be a way of investigating the third objective > without making a TS into a "hall of Magic" but apparently no one > yet has been able to think of one. The experiments done by the early E.S. have been published; that would be a good start. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 08:27:13 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Membership decline I certainly like your concept of keeping it relevant to day-to-day life. If you want to combine that with the 19th century literature, look at Michael Gomes' collection of HPB articles: HPB Teaches. Most of these articles make a good STARTING POINT for a talk. JRC wrote: > Our only experiences with the official TS at the time were, unfortunately > terrible. Or rather, were fairly normal, but in such marked contrast with > what we were trying to build that difference seemd terrible. In one > instance, we made the mistake of saying we'd show our Lodge a videotape > someone at Wheaton had made about the principles of Theosophy or something. > Serious mistake - after what these people were used to, watching a tape of a > guy speaking on a TV in a dull, monotone voice, and referencing a "workbook" > *literally* put several people to sleep. Bad mistake - we stopped it before > it was over, but it took a couple of meetings ... and a sincere promise > never to subject them to such a thing again ... to recover the energy the > group was used to . I find that most of the Wheaton tapes are deadly dull. However, they are presentable if you have a host who has viewed (and likes) the tape, and speaks before the tape starts, giving points to look for, maybe during an intermission, and leads a discussion at the end. And that requires the host viewing a LOT of tapes to find the few viewable tapes in the bunch. > But the worst incident was a National Speaker. When I read the first part, and this, I saw exactly what happened coming. You had an unusual system, and you were not familiar with the National Speaker system, and that is a formula for the disaster that took place. I will quote you on what happened, and give an explanation which, one hopes, can prevent this from happening to a similar group trying to form: > (Remember, most of these people knew of Theosophy from what *we* were doing > ...). I won't mention the name - she is quite well known - but she arrived > (we had rented a room in a larger city and invited everyone - probably 20 > people or so made an hour's drive to get there) ... she started in on a talk > about a "mirror". Telling people to think about when they looked at > themselves in the mirror that morning. Then suggesting that the *physical* > body might not be everything, that there was something perhaps *deeper* > behind that image. I saw our President's mouth drop open - and I fear I must > have looked like a gut-shot panther. The group at first was polite, giving > her the benefit of the doubt, thinking that she *must* be leading to > something, that it just wasn't *possible* that she was actually talking down > to them *that* badly, Without even being there I can assure you that she was. > that an experienced speaker simply could not be *that* > totally oblivious to her audience. Most National Speakers are chosen because of the time on their hands and experience presenting their topics. Offhand, I can only think of about a few who can really think on their feet, and change a talk to suit an unexpected audience. More on this later... > Imagine a junior high school teacher in a > room of college students, seemingly utterly unaware that she was teaching > fractions to a room of people that were already through a couple of years of > calculus ... *that* is what the room felt like. By the end of it I think one > of our more vocal members just outright said "just who the hell do you think > you *are*?!". I think you have it exactly right. But the misunderstanding was on both ends. And, short of getting one of those National Speakers who CAN adjust to an audience smoothly (John Algeo, Ed Abdill, Ruben Cabigting, and Stephen Hoeller come to mind immediately), I can't think of any way you could have avoided the incident. National Speakers have two sets of talks; public and members. The public talks assume an audience with an interest in the esoteric, but little or no knowledge of Theosophy; in other words "Junior High School students". The members' talks both encourage more participation from the audience, and assume "college students". Because many people who were effectively members did not in fact join, the speaker gave what she deemed a public talk, getting exactly the results you saw. If she had given a members' talk, things would have worked out much better. But since this was your first experience, you had no way of knowing that you were supposed to tell her this. > I am not saying that the particular way we did it is the way it is supposed > to be done ... only that it *worked*, John Algeo once said something very much to the point. He said that if, whenever someone asks you, "What is Theosophy?", you give the same answer, then you had better rethink your definition of Theosophy. The methods to be used are whatever is best for the audience at hand. Methods that fly in New York might be disasterous in Colorado, and vice versa. Which is to say, that in my opinion at least, you did things the way they are "supposed to be done", in that you presented the material in a way that attracted the people in your area. What you wrote is actually EXTREMELY useful to me, and I am saving a copy. Although I am currently tied up with a number of tasks (not the least of which is that my wife and I, having tired of being resident volunteers at the New York Lodge, are moving out, and cutting out our janitorial tasks here), I am planning to put together for the Northeast Federation something akin to the National Speaker program, but more of a clearing house of collecting people willing to give talks and groups that want to hear people from other groups. The information in your letter will prevent me from making the same mistakes that National made with you, and, I hope, create a value to belonging to a national as well as local organization. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:15:41 EST From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Membership decline Membership decline can be defined in two ways: quantity and quality. While the quantity issue has been much discussed here, maybe a discussion of what would a high-quality TS look like and what are the conditions for its existence would be a discussion that, ipso facto, would address the quantity issue. This gets back to what is genuine theosophy and what supports its realization within a organization. Remember, the original title of Plato's famous dialogue was not "Republic" (or Res Publica given to it by Cicero) but politeia, which primarily means a healthy constitution in a medical sense. It is a regimen of health ordered by sophia by which a healthy regime manifests itself (society is soul writ large). Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 10:32:30 +1300 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Angel research, the 3rd Object? JRC wrote: >Weirdly enough, I've actually now put several people through a rather >intense training so as to be able to run experiments concerning the >interactions between the human, angelic, and plant kingdoms, and am >involved in a couple of current projects initiated by the angelic >kingdom itself. Don't tell me somebody in the TS has been actually *doing* something about the 3rd Object! :-) How many here would be interested in hearing a bit more about this? I'm in, for one. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 10:26:04 +1300 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? Jerry, > Yes. And I have done all of mine from outside the TS as well. I think it helps if people remember that the "latent powers" are *everything* that we, as conscious beings, can potentially do, including all kinds of perception and all kinds of action. Not just those things that people at this particular point in history call magic (I'm not taking a shot at your use of the word, here). So if we think of the powers of compassion, creativity, insight, identification with the One, building structures in matter (whatever plane), moving energy, healing, .... it really covers everything, simply because, as HPB says, we are offspring of, deeply rooted in, the One ultimate creative agency. >There aught to be a way of investigating the third objective >without making a TS into a "hall of Magic" but apparently no one >yet has been able to think of one. Yes - it depends on the quality of intention of the people concerned, what they really have their sights set on. I hope that the general ratio of desire to be of service versus the desire to feel powerful in a self-ish way has increased a bit since the TS was formed, for in that trend will lie the possibility of realising the 3rd Object. I like to think there are a few around now who have the balance, dedication and enthusiasm to do something definite about it. Even in the TS :) Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 10:53:43 +1300 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Families and fights Maureen, A belated but no less warm greeting to you. I have noticed your messages from time to time, and it is only pressure of time that has prevented me from responding to them and taking part in theos-l more. I've been around theos-l a while now - have seen cycles of conflict rise and fall. I know it can be quite distressing to feel embroiled in conflict but, in this group, we are not only sharing knowledge but we are learning some of the skills of actually *doing* the first Object of the TS, rather than just knowing about it. Strange as it may seem, the times of conflict are often the times of fastest, deepest learning. The best fights are often within families ... > > perhaps you'd care to read an article I wrote a couple of years > > ago, and that Alan posted on his website. One of these days you may > > actually realize that you've jumped rather too quickly to some > > conclusions ... > > Made it a point to do so. Actually, it does not sound like the you > *I* have seen. Something must have happened to you and you're > working out your issues here. Maybe there's a cosmic hint here :) I don't know if you want to, at this stage, but I'd be interested in hearing what you think about what it's like for people who make the climb out of an "orthodox" religious environment and strike out on their own. I have a lot of admiration for those who have done so. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 21:02:28 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Families and fights At 10:53 AM 12/31/1999 +1300, Murray Stentiford wrote: >I don't know if you want to, at this stage, but I'd be interested in hearing what you think about what it's like for people who make the climb out of an "orthodox" religious environment and strike out on their own. I have a lot of admiration for those who have done so. Murray< I have been there -- I have also seen many who have been there and have found it very difficult to *climb* out. To me the "orthodox" environment is to be taken in its widest meaning; the key being many *beliefs* which are not obviously based on personal knowledge. For example I have seen my friends who have grown up in traditional *Hindu* background with strong *theosophical* influence, still find it difficult to leave behind some of the *Hindu* thinking. These are all very good and helpful people and we have to use our tolerance and hope one day they would be able to "climb" out. I have seen myself immersed for decades in traditional "theosophical" beliefs fostered by writings of well known authors and it took years to realize how these beliefs are not based on personal first hand knowledge. Once you climb out of beliefs, and if you do not replace them with another set of beliefs, one can have an open mind and one is likely to question everything -- nothing is considered sacred -- and such an inquirer would be very independent and original in thinking and could be very unpredictable since their actions under a certain set of circumstances are governed by the then existing circumstances and not any predefined ones. Organizations and its leaders will find it easy to deal with people/followers who -- for one reason or the other -- are hanging on to a set of beliefs, however sacred they are considered -- since clever leadership can mould the beliefs to their best advantage. In *spiritual* organizations, such changes or compliance is achieved by either fear of /good/bad consequences now or fear in a future incarnation! Another serious problem one runs into in *spiritual* organizations is the demand that one hands over one's conscience to another -- such as a Guru or Guru's rep as a condition of some expected spiritual growth. Once such a commitment is obtained, it is very easy to make everyone fall in line and comply with no questions asked. It is not unlike how when one joins military, one is expected to take orders coming from above and obey with no questions asked, however immoral or irrational or cruel or unreasonable such orders are. My 0.02. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 03:27:24 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Membership decline ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Thursday, December 30, 1999 2:58 AM > From: Bart Lidofsky Bart wrtoe to JRC: > So, do you have any ideas to reverse this membership decline > trend? Alan interjects: May the decline continue until there is no more Society, with only theosophists left. Just an opinion derived from experience. Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 03:55:35 -0000 From: "ambain" Subject: Re: Membership decline ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Thursday, December 30, 1999 7:05 AM > From: JRC Bart wrote to JRC - > > Great. So, do you have any ideas to reverse this membership decline > > trend? JRC replied with a lot, beginning: > Truth is, I had a good number of them, and could back them up with evidence > that they worked ... unfortunately none that would be, or could be, > implemented in the current mileau. Alan asks: Does your Montana group still meet? I printed out your post for its excellent ideas, and have saved it for forwarding to others. Could I maybe edit it for more general consumption (which edited version I would submit for your OK before using it)? Alan http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 00:05:00 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Membership decline Good question. Quantity is easily measurable. Quality is more difficult -- especially with regard to TS. Anyone have any ideas? Let us apply them and see how quality wise the present situation stands up. Another comment: All spiritual organizations were started and nurtured by individuals who are in their early years and/or in their prime. They devoted all their energies for whatever cause they took up. Applying this standard, the present leadership speaks for itself. Are the organizations get the kind of leadership they deserve? mkr At 11:15 AM 12/30/1999 EST, Hazarapet@aol.com wrote: >Membership decline can be defined in two ways: quantity and quality. While the quantity issue has been much discussed here, maybe a discussion of what would a high-quality TS look like and what are the conditions for its existence would be a discussion that, ipso facto, would address the quantity issue. This gets back to what is genuine theosophy and what supports its realization within a organization. Remember, the original title of Plato's famous dialogue was not "Republic" (or Res Publica given to it by Cicero) but politeia, which primarily means a healthy constitution in a medical sense. It is a regimen of health ordered by sophia by which a healthy regime manifests itself (society is soul writ large). Grigor > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 18:09:49 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Magic and Consciousness >> Yes. And I have done all of mine from outside the TS as well. >> >>I think it helps if people remember that the "latent powers" are *everything* that we, as conscious beings, can potentially do, including all kinds of perception and all kinds of action. Not just those things that people at this particular point in history call magic (I'm not taking a shot at your use of the word, here).>> Murray, Crowley defined magic as any action whatsoever that was done consciously. So magic is pretty broad. Jung taught that the whole thrust of evolution was to increase consciousness. I think that by putting these two together we arrive at the idea that magic (gaining conscious control over our lives instead of being the victim of our past karma) is what evolution is all about. However, I do my yoga and meditations outside the TSs. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 18:14:29 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? > > Is it defunct? It seems to come back to life more often than the > principle of a slasher movie. > > Bart Lidofsky Yeah. Herman died and the place kind of went with him. Herman was very nice to me. He actually gave me Michael's book free. Its one wild read! Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 18:17:12 -0500 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Re: Is the Third Objective Collecting Dust? > << Thanks for the info. I was not aware that Michael was into Theosophy. >> > > Oh yes, for many many years. He was on the Olcott staff during the Harry > Smith affair in the mid sixties. > > Chuck the Heretic Chuck, whats your take on his book? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2000 04:27:18 +0100 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Subject: Re: Membership decline > Are the organizations get the kind of leadership they deserve? > > mkr Yes, of course, how could it be otherwise? We can only get back what we have sent out, nothing else. But not to withstand old, bad karma includes not to sow in the present additional karma for the future. Frank