Theos-Talk Archives (August 1994 Message tl00169)

Brenda,

Thanks for your reply to my post.  In addition to some remarks I
would like to make on your comments to me, I also wanted to re-
ply to this:

> I know of no other place where I am able to write so easily to a real
> President of The Theosophical Society in answer to his request for
> ideas.  Even when there are printed briefs in our national magazine,
> it just doesn't have the ease of responding nor the selectiveness of
> responding ... I just wanted you to know how
> honored I am to be able to correspond with you on such a personal
> basis.

I believe John Algeo has an e-mail address too.  You may want to
contact him about it if you want to feel the same type of honor
in the American section.  And I am sure he would get any message
you sent to theos@netcom.com which is found on the letterhead
from Wheaton now.

Now, with respect to your responses to my post:

> Besant and Leadbeater's idea, ...

I'm glad that you used the term "idea." With the recent spate of
dialog on the pros and cons on Leadbeater, as well as my finding
that Besant's theory of the bodies of man does not match with
Blavatsky's "ideas" (one of the reasons my article was rejected
according to Joy Mills), I am starting to think that some of the
theosophical "ideas" are just that -- ideas.  And like any
"idea," the student uses it as a starting point for their own be-
lief system until they can turn the belief into a known through
personal experience.

> There is also some crossover between groups, but it doesn't seem
> like people would be much good without their pals and loved ones
> (and enemies) from previous lives, although he says at some point
> in the egos development it becomes easier for friends to separate
> to accomplish some goal ...

Is this Leadbeater's theory of karma? Did he believe that karmic
"dues" must be paid to some specific soul or monad? (My
theosophical education may be showing its (very) rough and rusty
edges here.  ;-) ) Or is this "idea" a general idea without a
specific person-of-origin?

One of the belief systems that I subscribe to (based on my
theosophical and other studies), one that I am trying to turn
into a known for myself, is that karma is a personal thing with
few (if any) additional attachments.  To me karma is related to
the idea that we incarnate into the earth life system to learn
one or more lessons.  These lessons are personal lessons that are
intended to promote our personal growth.  The personal growth is
intended to be our gifts that we bring when we return to the
source.

I wasn't aware (without my theosophical dictionary or glossary
;-) ) that my karma was *directly* tied to anyone else -- physi-
cal, monadic, or otherwise.  Do I really have to have my "pals
and loved ones (and enemies)" around me in my next life to learn
my spiritual lessons? Wouldn't it be just as beneficial if I in-
carnated into *any* situation which has a good chance of provid-
ing me the lessons I need to learn? ...  regardless of which
monads may or may not be incarnate at the same time? I don't
know.  I'm just asking.

BTW, the term " ...  loved ones ...  " that you used previously
kinda' pressed ...  well, maybe just touched on ...  well,
perhaps just brushed by ...  one of my emotional buttons.  The
context that it was used in reminded me of the term that a lot of
new age-oriented romantics use when describing the feeling that
they have finally found that one special person that they are
supposed to spend the rest of eternity with: soul-mate.  I don't
know what theosophy might have to say about the concept but the
whole idea of a special *one* really rubs me the wrong way.  With
5.5 billion souls or monads currently incarnate in this earth
life system, the "idea" that there is one and *only one* other
for me to spend eternity with is just plain silly.  And the
"idea," for some unknown reason, tends to start to make me angry.
Undoubtably this is some karmic issue that *I* have to deal
with.

> ... (If you
> are really unsettled about Leadbeater ...

Personally, I am not "unsettled" about Leadbeater at all.  I
haven't read a lot of his work -- just one or two things -- but I
have nothing in particular against him.  In fact, all of the dia-
log back and forth on the issue came as a bit of a surprise to
me.  I didn't know that there were people in the TS or elsewhere
that had such strong feelings on the issues.

The thing that I *am* trying to work over in my personal belief
systems is the difference between Blavatsky's theories and
teachings and those of Annie Besant.  Since Leadbeater was a con-
temporary of Besant, I guess that crosses over to his theories as
well.  I don't have all of the details that I would like to have
but the differences are something that I have spent a little time
mulling over on more than one occasion.  In particular (again),
my special interest is in the theories of the bodies of man --
their constitution, purpose, and usage.  And these two theosoph-
ical notables seemed to have very different "ideas."

> ...  John Algeo has written a book on reincarnation and although
> I haven't read it, I was fortunate enough to attend a lecture he
> gave on the book's contents at Olcott ...

Thanks for the tip.  I have met John and corresponded with him
recently.  I am impressed with the man in a variety of ways and
believe that he has the potential for doing some good things for
the Society.  If nothing else, I like some of the recent (albiet
minor) changes to the American Theosophist.  So I would probably
enjoy reading things he may have written.

> ..  One explanation other than reincarnation is that he acquired
> knowledge through a form of mental telepathy.  If the experience
> you told about your wife's friend were my experience, I wouldn't
> even assume that I was the dead soldier with the candy bar.  I
> would instead mark it up to an intuition regarding someone I was
> to meet in the future, my dreamworld or thoughts being impressed
> by the strength of the incident in the future someone's
> consciousness as perhaps karma drew us together ...

Hmmmmmm ...  interesting thoughts, I'll think about this.  I'm
sure that my telling of the story lost things in the translation.
If you had heard her tell the story and knew something more of my
belief systems, you might understand where I might not be in to-
tal agreement with you on this one.  However, it is an interest-
ing "idea" and does deserve some additional thoughts on my part
...  Hmmmmmm.

Again, Brenda, thank you very much for your thoughts.  I always
appreciate it when someone takes the time to think over and reply
(in a thoughtful manner) to something I've talked about or
posted.  May you always grok in fullness ...

Bill--
|William A. (Bill) Parrette|4000 Executive Pk. Dr., #310
|bill@[Zeus.]itdc.edu      |Cincinnati, OH 45241-4007
|** I do not speak for ITDC--all opinions are my own **
513-733-4747 ----------------------+------------------+