[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)

Jun 20, 1996 07:28 AM
by Martin_Euser

A> 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.


A> 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?

Excellent idea, Alexis!

A>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.

Ok, I'll give you my snail-mail address by then.

A> 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.

In TSA but not in other TS's. CWL/AB do not count there.

A> 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

What does a Ceremonial Magician do? I'm getting curious, no kidding.

A> 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.

Well, I think that  a really good healer should be able to heal people
with AIDS, so that's not a problem with me. If the word is spread your
house may be flooded with AIDS-patients (then you will be faced with
problems of how to deal with too many patients).
But being a good healer does not give you any 'authority', I think, other
than you having confidence in your own experiences. I don't recognize
any authority at all in spiritual affairs, save my own Higher Self.
Of course , sometimes things that others say may resonate and make sense
to me, because I recognize what they're saying.

>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.

A>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.

Never had one complaint about that. I wonder whether others have some
experience with that. The necessity of presenting a framework doesn't
disappear with that, however.

A> 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".

Hm, that's probably my surface appearance. But that can be deceptive.
To give one example: I don't believe in a 'law of karma' in a literal way.
I rather see this 'law' as the interactions of the multitudes of beings.
'Chaos' would be the conflict of wills, leading to a breaking of order
(gradual transformations of structures or, sometimes, revolutions)
 and 'order' a symphony of wills, leading to stability (but if continued
too long: leading to crystallization, stasis).
How does that sound to you?
I can go on for the other 'jewels', but leave it for now.

Alexis, sometimes I get the impression that you seem to have found
*your truth* despite the fact that you call yourself 'agnostic'
and I'm not ironic in any way by saying this.

>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.

A>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".

Well, Alexis, I have a degree in physics and have studied QM and
the recent findings in that field a bit and things are not precisely
like you and many other lay-people in physics presume. Quantum mechanics
gives a description of the *measurement process* and nothing more.
Moreover, physicists find themselves flabbergasted with the discovery of
'non-locality' in the quantum realm. This discovery will lead eventually
to a new kind of QM.
It's too technical to describe, but this discovery has also implications
for relativity-theory. It is evident that some basic assumptions in RT
are wrong. Only which one(s)? Nobody knows yet.

A> 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.

Well, I don't like to anthropomorphize this conception too, but I am
convinced that there is Order in this universe, however it may be
working. What is your view on order and structure in this universe?
And how is it related to the equilibrium you're talking about in the
previous paragraph?

A>People need to be just, people need to
be fair, people need to be 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.

But it has everything to do with the thoughtpatterns (egregores) people
are feeding. And these patterns have consequences for the whole world.
Voila, that's an example of karma as I apply or maybe better: translate
into psychological terms.

A>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.

Or a disastrous outcome of egregore energies (created and sustained by
people, not an abstract entity).

A>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.

Like I said, I don't believe in that kind of karma. It is *people* that
act and *people* that suffer. Nothing mysterious about that.
You acknowledge the existence of egregores; an understanding of these
things is an understanding of events, I think.


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application