Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00581)

Chuck:
>Jerry,
>The fact that Grey had this problem with being sort of Christian did not
>preclude him from being one hell of a good magician, after all, most of the
>magicians whose work we study considered themselves to be Christian and
>Eliphas Levi even considered himself to be a good Roman Catholic!
	As was John Dee.  I do have a few of Grey's books (Magickal Ritual
Methods) and I am sure that he is ok as a magician.  After all, we all are with
Llewellyn so how could we be all wrong?

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

the Archons* and its vengeance on the creator
>deity in the Sethian side)
	Right, Rich.  To say "Gnoticism teaches" is like saying "Christianity
teaches."

>I don't know who the "we" is you are speaking for, possibly "all scientists
>alove today"?  But "we" don't know that it isn't true that salvation can be
>by gnosis o JNANA, and "we" aren't all convinced the Western notions on
>quantum mechanics are entirely true.
	Jnana equates to Gnosis only if it is able to go beyond the
human mind.  I am not so sure than Jnana can do this.  My own opionion
(which should be obvious from my discussions with Eldon) is that the
intellectual-spiritual approach put forth by G de P is a very good start,
but it won't take us as far as we really want to go.  On the plus side, it
is safe and probably the best approach for newbies or the masses
(the Joe Sixpacks, as Alexis has it).  On the negative side, it has its
own dangers, that are every bit as valid as those found in psychism.
Ego can be inflated just as much by intellect as by psychism.  It is
very much a Theosophical path, and I respect those who tread it,
but I prefer direct experience (which is not without its own dangers).
	No, I am not referring to science, although chaos theory
does seem to validate my position.  Quantum theory was not easily
accepted by most scientists, Rich.  Many, many scientists tried their
best to defeat it in some way, and prove it wrong.  It stands today as
the most demonstrable of all the scientific disciplines, and not one
single scientist has been able to disprove it.  However, I am referring
only to the mechanics of it.  When you get into theory and try to see
what it all means, we have another story.  There are at least 8 main
possible worldviews based on quantum theory to date, and no one
knows which is the right one.  Einstein's view is only one of the 8.
Anyway, I base my conviction on chaos and indeterminism soley
on the doctrine of duality.  According to this doctrine, order and
chaos come into existence together, act together, and will die
together.  You can't have one without the other, and so on, with
any duality.  Chao has always been with us.  Science is only now
coming to grips with it (largely because of the computer).
Well, it turns out that determinism and indeterminism are
also two sides of a duality.  The trouble with dualities is that
everyone favors one side and tries to hide the other side
under their rug.  This only works for the short-term.  Sooner
or later, the other side rears its head.  So, I see our world as
both determinisitc (in the short-term) and indeterministic (in
the long-term).  What this means, is, that you may be able to
predict the kind of life that you will have next time around
by looking at this one, but this life will have little or no effect on
our 10th or 100th birth from now (i.e., its effect will be
insignificant). While it is true that a butterfly's wings will
effect the weather, the fact is that this effect is too small
to measure and thus for practical purposes is insignificant.

>Yup, that's misinterpretation.  Karma wold only be deterministic if no new
>causes could be set in motion.  But that is not the Theosophical doctrine,
>and that isn't the Buddhist, Jain, or Hindu doctrine either
	I seem to recall Buddhist morality stories in which something
would happen to someone, and Buddha would explain it all away by
pointing out that 100 lifetimes ago, this individual did such and so.
This is pure exoteric determinism.  However, HPB's Inner Group
Teachings clearly show that she was not a determinist.

>The mysterious power of VOWS is wrapped up in this doctrine, namely the great
>power one can tap into by calling on the higher Self to aid one in radically
>changing one's orientation and one's direction karmically.
	The power of VOWS is magical, not mysterious.  And yes, it
is very real, and does work.

> All, ALL, is under law, but not all is pre-determined.
	This is pretty much what I have come to realize, and
is what I have been trying to say.

Good discussion.  Thanks.

	Jerry S.
	Member, Ti