Theos-Talk Archives (January 1994 Message tl00008)

     Upon returning from our ten day trip, I downloaded over 150
pages from this bulletin board. It is going to take a little
time to get through it but here is a start, as I go through the
messages in order.

Nancy

     The pamphlet THE PSEUDO OCCULTISM OF ALICE BAILEY came up
some time ago. I think Dan Caldwell mentioned it. I had read
the pamphlet years ago and its conclusions are as the title
suggests. As the authors mentioned, the study was not very
extensive, so I didn't feel it to be very productive to bring in
the pamphlet for discussion, but did offer to send Arvind a copy
if he wanted to read it. He never responded to the offer, so
that was the end of it.

     If you could find out the details of the physical condition
of the child, I would be very interested. I knew of a deaf child
who was missing the auditory nerve that connects the ear to the
brain. Is this child an example of the same problem?

     I wouldn't presume to explain what happens theosophically
with these healings. My only guess is that it is karmic--that is
has to do with the readiness of the person to be healed.
Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. I know that this
isn't much of an explanation, but it is as far as I can get right
now. Here is a story to add to this though:  A friend and member
of the Los Angeles Lodge came down with cancer. He also had one
leg shorter than the other as a result of Polio (I think), so he
used to wear a special shoe to even his legs up. As his cancer
became more serious, and the doctors less optimistic, he started
looking for faith healers. One night he came into the Lodge with
his legs evened up--he found a healer who made a legs the same
length--a miracle in itself. He died about a year later, as he
never found a healer for his cancer.

Arvind

     Per your message of 12/27/93: You need to keep in mind that
the word "psychology" has been around for about 400 years-- at
least according to the OED. "Psychology" has always been
understood as a study of the "mind" or of the "soul."  Descartes
sort of lumped the soul and brain together, and later
positivistic science (which HPB also calls "materialistic."
science) identified the mind as a emanation of the physical
brain. Therefore HPB in the footnote on page 620 was trying to
direct the reader back to the older, pre-modern-scientific
understanding of psychology as a study of the mind or soul, and
*not* as it came to mean by 1879, as a branch of the biological
sciences. Therefore, HPB's statement shows her awareness of the
older understanding of the term. Rather than hinting at some
esoteric meaning of psychology, as you suggest, she was simply
trying to be consistent with her overall statements made
elsewhere that consciousness is not a product of the physical
brain. Go back and re-read the material in context, and it
should be clearer as to where she is coming form.

     Per your message of 12/28/93: Re questions:  Yes, I have
read quite a lot of Robert Browning. I liked him enough to go
out and buy a collection of his works. Where do you find a
reference of him as a Master of Wisdom?

     Per your message of 12/29/93: I just got back tonight, and
haven't been to the post office, but should pick up your order
tomorrow, and will fill it then. I will send Vol. 1 only of
Purucker. If you want the rest after looking at vol. 1, let me
know.

     I don't carry Paul's book, because I haven't had any calls
for it, but I do feel that it is very worth while to read. You
can get it from him, or I will order it for you, which ever you
prefer.

     All of HPB's published writings (with the exception of some
of her Russian writings) is in print. THE PEOPLE OF THE BLUE
HILLS is the only book length work previously published that is
not available. I had three or four copies of this a couple of
years ago, but they went very fast, and I haven't found any more
since. I'll let you know if I do.

     The SD isn't yet available on CD, but will be. Eldon is one
of the key people working on that project, and is cleaning up a
scanned copy. Since I'm not involved in that project, I don't
have a copy of it on disk.

     Send me your new references, and I will look at them--
However, I'm beginning to get the impression that you are reading
the SD for the purpose of finding references to confirm what you
have read in AAB's writings. If this is so, I'm afraid that it
will work against your understanding the S.D. as a book in its
own right. Every book has to be approached upon its own merits--
not with the assumption that it does or does not say the same
thing as another book. Anytime one reads a book with
assumptions, those assumptions become a filter through which the
book is understood. I had this problem when I first tried to
read the S.D., because I expected it to echo Leadbeater's
writings. Once I abandoned that assumption, I began for the
first time to really understand what I was reading.

Jerry S.

     Re. your message to Paul on 12/29, you mentioned that I was
"apparently" against Paul's book. Apparently, I was
misunderstood, I would like to clarify my position:

     I originally read Paul's book when it was in final Mss form,
and was very excited about it. I told him that I loved the book
and still do. It is true that I disagreed with many of his
conclusions, and felt that he did a poor job supporting many of
them, but this does not mean that I am "against" his book. If I
was "against" every book that has something I disagree with in
it, then there would be little or nothing left for me to read.
My biggest disappointment was that Paul was unwilling to make any
(other than minor) changes at the time that I reviewed the mss.
The changes we wanted to make were aimed to make the book
scholastically tighter. Paul told me at the time that he was
tired of working on the book, and wanted it out. As a writer, I'm
sure you understand the feeling.

     Therefore, I want to make it clear that I like Paul's book--
I enjoyed reading it, and learned a lot from it. I feel that
Paul has a lot to contribute to the T.M., his research is of
great value, but he is just as fallible as the rest of us. I
recommend Paul's book to be read and debated. I hope this
clarifies things.