Theos-Talk Archives (December 1993 Message tl00073)

This must be a record day for new email on the discussion groups.
There was about 17 pages of material waiting to be read this morning!

----

John Mead:

When you mention that you are still looking for three members-at-large
of the Adyar T.S. to form a Study Center, I'm not clean on what you
intend to do at that point. Will there be a new list dedicated to that
group's own discussions, perhaps 'theos-sc', or do you plan to place
some restrictions or controls over the discussions on the existing
lists?

I'm not clear on the copyright issues. The current copyright law
protects materials, even when they do not bear notice of copyright.
You can even publish a book and leave off the copyright notice, and
it is still protected. Private email is protected. I'm not sure about
mail sent to internet groups, that get posted onto perhaps millions of
computers worldwide. Without going back and rereading all the materials
at home that I have from the copyright office, I'd say, off hand, that
postings to our mailing lists, and putting articles at a 'ftp' site
do not constitute placing the materials in the public domain. I don't
think that either meets the definition of 'publication', and that
even if something were considered published, since it does not need to
bear the copyright notice, the material would still be protected.
Sometime if I have the time I'll post the general rules.

Jerry S.:

I have a number of ideas that I'd like to bring up and review with
you regarding the the globes and planes, but too little time this
morning.

One comment for now regarding pathways between various globes, different
that an serial progression (e.g. A to B to C ...). I'll just draw an
analogy for now. If you go from Buddhi to Kama, did you pass through
Manas on the way, or is there a direct link? As major principles, you
pass through them, one to the next. But there is a quality of each in
the other, so there is Buddhi-Kama and Kama-Buddhi as subprinciples,
in which the qualities are unified. Is this unified nature of the
qualities a bridge, or if not, what would we consider it?

Jerry H-E:

I agree that there in addition to the differences that we may find
between Leadbeater and Blavatsky, there may be others between de
Purucker and Blavatsky. How we explain and interpret the differences
is based upon our individual understandings (and definitions) of
Theosophy.

I'll try to find passages where there is mention of laws or keys of
analogy, symbolism, anthroposophy, metrology, and Atma-Vidya in the
S.D. My "research" consisted of about five minutes of searching, in
WordPerfect, through the S.D., and quickly writing down what appeared
to be the names of keys. When I go back to the quotes, we can see
if they offer us any useful information.

Even if there is not universal agreement with what you write, it is
appreciated, and useful for the group. Your work to pull out relevant
materials of Blavatsky's helps keep the group grounded, pulling it
back from the three dangers of (1) uncontrolled philosophical
speculation, of (2) accepting any and every possible writer and
authority on an equal basis, and of (3) substituting psychical
experience for reasoned thought as a basis for understanding the
truths of life.

Paul Jonhson:

Welcome to the group. It's good to see another person with a long
background in study of Theosophy join us.

As an astrological note, I'd say that it was the Uranus-Neptune
conjunction in September and October, exactly square my natal Neptune,
that got me really started in writing on this group. I feel that I'm
close to other things as well, but will have to wait and see how they
unfold.

----

                           Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com)