Theos-Talk Archives (August 1994 Message tl00033)

Jerry S,

        Thank you for your thoughts on my post.

        You wrote:

> Have you read Don's epistle on OOBE's yet? It is in the Theos-L
library as we ll as in the New > Age Forum on Compuserve.  I highly
recommend it.  I would like to hear your op inion and/or >
comments.

        Was the "epistle" posted on this list? I seem to remember
        something in my mailbox on OOBE's when I first signed on to
        this list.  I remember thinking that it seemed *very*
        unusual based on my current "knowledge" of the T.S.  -- its
        concepts and theories.  I'll go back to the pseudo-FAQs
        that I got when I signed up to see how to get to the
        Theos-L library.

> I have surfaced the problem of Theosophical language and
termonolgy several times, without > much success.  I have yet to
submit my new book {which among other things look s at >
termonology too) and so I may share your fate.  Jerry H-E has said
a lot about this problem as > well, which is probably available
from the Theos-L archives.

        Well, being somewhat of a newbie to this list I didn't know
        if it had been discussed previously or not.  The postings
        that I had seen from this list seemed to use the terms and
        phrases like The AT and The Quest do, so I just assumed
        that *everybody* here was "in the know" and I would just
        have to learn to live with it like I do with all
        theosophical literature.  Somehow, I felt more com-
        fortable here among computer-literate theosophists
        broaching the "20th-century English" subject than I have to
        people in person -- I have met Joy Mills and several
        Krotonaians, I have talked briefly with John Algeo, and
        there have been several other theo- sophists from the
        "speaker's bureau" that came through the Cin- cinnati Study
        Center when it was active.  I may not have worded my
        problem very well to them but generally the response was
        "read _The_Secret_Doctrine_."

        And regarding "the First Cause,"

> In essence, it is God.  In our material world of cause and effect
and time, if you want to trace > through history long enough, as a
theosophist, to find out the origins of creation (ie., as
scientists > have done with the Big Bang) then you will eventually
reach the First Cause - the ultimate > Source or Creator whose
creation or effect is our physical world.

        Thank you for your help on this one too.  It gives me en-
        couragement to know that people on this list are truly
        theosophi- cally inclined.  That is to say that they are
        willing to help others when a need arises.  I now feel
        comfortable (i.e.  I be- lieve that I won't get flamed)
        asking questions about basic con- cepts and terminology.
        Heck, I may even start studying again -- carrying around
        _Isis_..., The _S_D_, and other Blavatsky works.  Now if I
        can only find room for it all in my travel bag with my
        notebook computer and 4 or 5 other reference books that I
        am us- ing for my technical writing project.  :-)

        BTW, do you use an X terminal or something that has more
        than 80 characters per line to post with? I generally don't
        complain about "stuff," but I use (at the current time) a
        plain `ol 80- column ASCII terminal to read my mail and
        your last post (the one I quote here) has *many* lines
        longer than 80 characters in it.  I have inserted newlines
        in the quotes form your post above to show you what it
        looks like on my terminal.  When lines "wrap" like this it
        makes it difficult for me to read.  I have been told by
        people who seem to know what they are talking about that a
        maximum 78-character line length is best.  Could you please
        try to limit your line lengths?

        This brings up another very minor point that I would like
        to share with everyone on the list.  As I said above, I
        generally don't like to complain about simple things as
        above (okay, okay, I'll admit it -- my "plain-English" post
        was a complaint ;-) ).  Typically, on something like this,
        I would have e-mailed the per- son directly.  However, the
        list-server's "From:" line shows the list's return address
        and my mailer looks at the "From:" line when I "r"eply to a
        message.  It would have been extremely useful in this case
        and it would have taken a little less of the list's
        "bandwidth" if I had known the sender's e-mail address.
        Now I am not saying that everyone should strive to have a
        humongous, multi-line, randomly-generated,
        attempting-to-be-humorous signa- ture like mine, but could
        we all use some type of signature -- computer generated or
        hand-typed -- that at least has our person- al e-mail
        address in it? I, for one, would appreciate it.

        Again, Jerry, thanks a bunch for your help.  I really
        appreci- ate your, and everyone else's, help in furthering
        my theosophical understanding.  Never thirst ...

Bill--
|William A. (Bill) Parrette|4000 Executive Pk. Dr., #310
|bill@[Zeus.]itdc.edu      |Cincinnati, OH 45241-4007
 513-733-4747