Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00627)

At 05:41 PM 6/18/96 -0400, you wrote:

>
>Alexis: I posted this reply *before* I read your and Alan's comments
>in the theos-l digest I received just after sending this reply.
>There's a time-lag of approx. 24 hours (or more) between my response
>and your original posting. During that time you have posted another
>message which I haven't be able to read due to delay in reception
>of the theos-l digest. This is an important factor to keep in mind.

I think I was assuming more of a "miracle factor" in E-Mail than is truly
possible. I can see how a 24 hour delay can complicate things if one isn't
prepared for it. But, "fore warned is fore armed", and knowing of that delay
will clearly prevent either of us from making false assumptions.
>
>

>
>Alexis: as Alan suggested I have the old-fashioned connotation of the word
>criticism in mind, also due to the fact that the almost similar Dutch
>word for 'criticism' (kritiek, kritizeren) has not the same negative
>connotation as it has in modern American English. I will use the word
>'disagreement' to indicate differences of opinion from now on. That will
>be helpful to avoid misunderstandings. Believe me, I've better things to do
>than criticizing people (in the negative sense of that word).

Accepted gladly and happily. What I'd like to do from now on, is when I
question your use of a word, I will create a paragraph to be headed:
                                        TIME OUT.....LINGUISTIC QUESTION!!!!!!

And then I'll put that question to you, so that you can respond separately
from the rest of the question. How about that?
>
>
>
>A>Now, I am far more than totally "dissatisfied" with "Core Theosophy" in
>every way. In fact I totally reject it as valid. This I believe you already
>know.
>
>Yes, I know that. And I would like to see you and others present
>viable alternatives, a consistent set of ideas/experiences.
>(maybe on alt.theosophy ?)

I have actually posted one message on alt.theosophy which I reached thanks
to your suggestion that I E-Mail to alt.theosophy@news.demon.co.uk! It
worked twice, once with a message, and once with a test. Last night I tried
to send a public response to the person who asked about HPB and Hitler (I
sent the response via regular E-Mail) and got a message that my service
provider wouldn't accept that address. Today I called the Tech Support of
Slip.net but they have not as yet responded. I'll try them again tomorrow as
I am atrociously busy trying to finish one book and commence another
simultaneously. Now as to your suggestion that I present viable alternatives
etc. I have done so, and when the book comes out you can get a copy and see
the complete presentation of my ideas and perceptions. In the interim I will
try to make my responses more technical, probably not as technical as the
Blavatsky Foundation would like, but more technical. The biggest hurdle is
that it is my perception that "Core Theosophy" as presently taught, is 95%
CWL/AB....5% HPB....and 0% The Mahatmas. This perception of mine is based on
almost thirty years of vast reading of Theosophical Documents and other
documents about Theosophy. It is also based on intuition, and upon my
experiences of the greater reality (which is after all what theosophy deals
with) as both a very successful Ceremonial Magician and an extremely Senior
Shaman. Now I don't "back up" those claims with "Fairy Tales" or "Sunday
School Homilies" as CWL did. I back them up by absolutely curing very sick
people of very physical diseases by non-physical means. Martin whether you
wish to accept this as factual or not, I know I can make people with AIDS
(not simply HIV + but active AIDS) better, and I have made three such people
completely well. That proves it sufficiently for my own needs.
>
>

>
>Alexis: I would not exactly count myself as an orthodox literalist,
>that is too easy a label to put on somebody. I'm searching for truth,
>but I do believe that it is useful to present a frame of reference
>for newbees in the realm of Theosophy. I see the seven jewels as a set
>of working hypotheses which can be researched and discussed and validated
>or falsified, a thing that can take a lifetime (or more) to do.

Here I do think we also have a problem with "style" I regard term like
"Seven Jewels of Theosophy" as hopelessly flowery and baroque. I know for a
fact, from my own teaching experience, that flowery language "turns off"
today's young people. Now, in addition, you say you're "searching for truth"
and I believe you are sincere in that statement. But, you also give the
impression that you've found it. And that what you have found is 19th
Century Post Blavatskian  "Core Theosophy". In your statement on alt.
theosophy you appear to be not so much a "seeker" as a "finder".
>
>
>A>For instance in our past correspondence I have stated that I do not accept
>the Orthodox Theosophical view of Karma, to which you responded by saying
>that in that case, I obviously didn't believe in Justice. Now I don't see
>any connection between justice and Karma. How do you propose we have an
>amicable discussion ( for that is definitely my goal) on that basis?
>
>Alexis: I objected to your 'roll-of-the-dice' view of things. I asked
>you where the idea of justice fits in to which you responded that you
>don't believe in (universal) justice. It's still not clear to me, however,
>what you *do* believe in regarding justice. But this has nothing to do
>with amicable discussions. I always presume that people want amicable
>discussions. I was and still am asking, however, for supportive
>arguments from your side regarding your views on theosophy.

My friend Dr. Einstein also disliked the "roll-of-the-dice" which is
implicit in Quantum Mechanics, which is one of my own personal bases of
opinion. BUT, at the very end of his life, he said: "I was wrong...God does
play dice". I do not believe in some kind of universal "justice" that
effects individuals. I believe that in the cosmos as a whole things tend to
a positive equilibrium but that equilibrium has nothing to do with human
beings. Now as to Justice on a Human Scale, you will find no one more
ferocious in their defense of justice and fairness than I. But, I do not
make the mistake of thinking that Justice/fairness the human conception,
needs to have a cosmic counterpart. People need to be just, people need to
be fair, people need to be kind....to make the world a better place for us
all to live in....but that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the
greater reality. I was born rich, intelligent, talented, very good looking
(I was once the highest paid fashion model in Paris) and titled. By
Theosophical "Core Doctrine" I must have deserved it! But I didn't. I was
just lucky! On the other hand, in 1919 the Communists murdered 3200 members
of my family, that wasn't Karma, it was just bad luck. Little Czarewitch
Alexei, was a 14 year old hemophiliac when he was shot to death. If that was
the result of "Karma" then Karma is about as unjust as Adolf Hitler.
>
>
>A>This is something which we all have to think about, if we are going to end
>up with anything but wreckage where the Theosophical society was, we are
>going to have to communicate peaceably, while still maintaining our
>differences What we have to accept is this: You have every right to your
>religious approach to Theosophy, and I have an equally strong right to my
>agnostic approach to theosophy.
>
>With hand of friendship out:
>
>alexis dolgorukii
>
>
>Hand accepted and shaken ,
>
>Martin
>
>
GOOD!!!!!

alexis dolgorukii>
>P.S. I will switch my attention to alt.theosophy from now on.
>You can find me there, where I will occasionally drop by.
>There are some matters I have to pay attention to and I have to
>cut down on time spend on the electronic fora for this moment.
>Suggestion: maybe you can attract some more subscribers to alt.theosophy
>by posting a message to some newsgroups, together with the reading
>and posting instructions for those who can't access this group locally
>(or Chuck could do that?)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>