jim anderson reply to many
Jan 06, 1994 01:29 AM
by a stoper
by Jim Anderson
Various things have caused me to get way behind in keeping up with this
estimable group. Aiming at catching up sometime in January.
I sent my SEX AND SPIRITUALITY paper to John for inclusion in and
availability from the library - along with a synopsis for posting for
anyone interested. Transmission to John turned out to have to go in
three parts, so labeled, but the paper itself is not divided into
those three sections. There is just the long Preface, and the
uninterrupted main body. Please note this, in case John has to send
the paper in the three divisions in which I had to send it to him.
Excellent response regarding our differing insects-on-the-wall
experiences. Six excellent questions which I'll try to have in mind
the next time my version happens. For now, quick answers based on past
experience: 1. Yes. 2. No. 3. No. 4. No. 5.No. 6. Only the fact that
I'm invariably coming out of a sleep or doze.
I'm following with interest your linkage of Blavatsky and Bailey. No
time to comment at length but I will say this: Bailey always struck
me as a mischievous departure from the HPB source. I once asked a
fine old Hollywood theosophist what he thought of her, and I
wholeheartedly agree with his answer -"A good way to get mixed up."
Bailey is not totally devoid of the worthwhile, but that part of her
is fairly drowned in the other stuff. I recommend doubting that her
Djual Khul is HPB's DK. Neither she nor anyone after HPB and currently
known is the "successor" Blavatsky said would not come before 1975.
In the genuine theosophical stream, only Krishnamurti "follows" what
was originally given out - and this in stark opposition to the
orientation of the original. This opposition has a stamp of
authenticity on it when it comes to the matter of "what followed",
but Krishnaji was not the "successor", being more in the nature of a
"pause that refreshes." Besant and Leadbeater, Steiner, Bailey, etc.
do not rise to the level of "next", but, to one degree or another of
departure, to one kind or another of deviation, are variations on the
original tune. Keep probing; good luck.
Jerry Hejka-Ekins and Daniel Caldwell
Jerry: Superb survey regarding the "third volume" of THE SECRET
DOCTRINE and the Besant/Leadbeater stream. It nicely expands on the
short look The Theosophy Company gave to the matter in its publication
in one volume of the original two of TSD. I met Boris de Zirkoff at
Adyar many years ago, and my impression of him strongly supports your
view that his perspective on the subject is persuasive. What
transpired in the heady journey from Blavatsky to Krishnamurti is
extremely complex and a tale not yet told. (Not that I can tell it,
or that it's even tellable at this point.) My position is that HPB
and her teachers are ONE, and that everybody after them so far is, in
divers good and bad ways, material hanging in the air somewhere
between ONE and TWO.
Daniel: We know each other. I regularly attended TS meetings in
Tucson at the van Thiel home between June '77 and April '78, and you
were often there. You might remember me as a composer, someone much
involved with the space colonization L5 Society in Tucson, someone
who spoke of his months at Adyar, someone who thought much of Martha
Madsen's contribution to the group. I've recently seen a compilation
book of yours. Hearty congratulations and many thanks for your work
on the "third volume" matter. Prior to seeing it, I'm inclined to
disagree with your conclusion, but upon seeing it, I might be moved
to change my mind. Unable to send for your and Ray Morgan's papers
just now. Good to be back in touch.
Brenda Tucker is the name of a lovely cousin of mine whose soul
settled in India.
I strongly concur with your Nov 8, '93 criticisms of your husband.
You echo what I wrote him about THE MAHATMA LETTERS' tchang-chub
adept when you say, "The mind labeled 'slayer of the real' in THE
VOICE OF THE SILENCE, can make such intricate amazing systems of
thought and study that we may experience difficulty 'going beyond'
what we know. Our philosophy may engulf us and shut others out."
I'm very moved by your focus on "purifications." If I may, let me
recommend to you my SEX AND SPIRITUALITY paper which I sent to John
for the library. I think we all have to take a hard, new look at this
whole matter of sex, celibacy, philosophy, and occultism. What does
purification really mean? What does it mean in our time, and for the
I offer this: The <effort> to be pure is overrated. The <effort> to
be good, and so on. Genuine purity, genuine good, are without effort.
The highest purity, the highest good, come without trying. Indeed,
they defy approach. If my memory serves, Arthur Edward Waite said in
his treasure of a book, <The Hidden Church Of The Holy Grail>, that
desired morality is "an exercise without the gate." As I recall, he
described in that book, as an error of masonry, the belief that
spirituality is "behavior in exaltation." At its core, spirituality
has nothing to do with behavior, he said - if my memory serves.
I agree. At its core, spirituality graces behavior from without
/within. It is something <other> which, mysteriously, can brood over
and inside behavior, being not of the <order> of action and its acts.
We experience a person trying to be good, we experience a person
being good apparently without effort - to which of these two do we
accord the palm?
Effort has its place. As the theosophical mahatmas liked to say,
<trying> has its place. Wherever we may be, whatever we may feel
ourselves obliged to do, shouldn't we know what the summit is? And be
ever ready to stand upon it?
As I said above, I agree with your wife. It seems to me that your
large desire to speak often <slays> what you know - bending it out of
shape, dissolving it, etc. I would counsel more silence, more
conversation, fewer lectures.
You on group souls is a case in point: You grasp it, then you break
it, and so on. Animal "instinct", you say. What is "instinct"? Set
aside what you think it is. Think about what the <mere label> may
(does) actually indicate. Supra-human intelligences are as unaware of
the doings of humans as humans are of the doings of the cells in
their physical bodies? Even if that is so (I'll not comment one way
of the other here), your implication that <all> supra-human
intelligence is so constituted is unwarranted and unestablished by
your remarks. What kind of selectivity is that in your biological
model? How about the model of the supreme athlete intimately aware of
every muscle in his or her body?
Glad to see someone agreeing with me versus Eldon as to the
tchang-chub adept. I like your idea of "manipulating your sense of
time" as a key to the possibility of living in several "Globe D"
bodies at once. One key, I'd say.
Yet I think you misunderstood KH. The Milarepa-like ability to make
<one and the same> physical body "appear" in several places at once
is one thing; what KH was talking about is, I think, something else.
He says "instead of reincarnating", reincarnation being a succession
of <different> bodies, not a multiplication of one and the same one.
It seems to me that his description of the tchang-chub adept is a
description of a being that can appear in several <differemt> "Globe
D" bodies at once, whether that Globe D be this earth or another
Globe D. The Milarepa thing, a different thing, is also possible. Do
we move to the same page on this?
Your Nov 5'93 words on group karma are very good. Re your crashed
plane example - did you know that there is a well-known statistic
that the number of people on crashed trains is almost invariably
lower than the number of people who would be normally riding that
One caution: I think that the concept of "agreement" is pushed too
far in this matter; "agreeing" to be in a disaster group and so on.
Yes and no, I'd say - depending on consciousness development in the
individual and other things. It's like the "choosing your parents"
revelation that comes to early enthusiasts for reincarnation. You
choose if you've risen to the ability to do that, otherwise the
choice is made for you - in accordance with your karma, of course,
but made for you rather than made by you. In time, by you. Thus with
group karma "agreements." Do we move to the next paragraph on this one?
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application