Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00701)

At 08:49 AM 6/22/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>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.
>
>yes.
>
>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.

Oh absolutely not, but they each of them have their own versions. Pasadena
has Katherine Tingley and G do P, and the ULT has an entirely devotional
approach to HPB and WQJ. I think in all cases HPB has been "sidelined".


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

And a serious question deserves a serious answer: A Ceremonial Magician
utilizes ritual, which is a complicated construct of sensory input, to focus
his/her will and the acquiescent wills of those who may be present, in an
attempt to change reality in conformity with that will. To be a "successful
Ceremonial Magician" means that when one does so, it works! The Roman
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox High Masses are acts of ceremonial magic, and
with the right officiant it sometimes works.
>
>
>
>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).

I wouldn't find it a problem, I can train others to do what I do very
quickly, and I think there's be no better healer than one who was healed.
The only thing that "bothers" me at all, is that in two of the cases,
they're back at their old haunts doing just what they did to get sick in the
first place.

>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.

Oh that's quite true, I just would be very careful as to what "frame of
reference" I used.
>
>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.

I have a feeling that perhaps your speech in your own language is not as
'flowery" as it is in a language that isn't your first one. And yes a
framework is important but it had best be a valid one, and there's
altogether too much about "Core Theosophy" that is anything BUT valid.
That's my opinion of course.
>
>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).

Well Martin, that's a statement with which I have absolutely no trouble at
all, in fact I agree completely.

>I can go on for the other 'jewels', but leave it for now.

Oh please do! If you'd put it that way in the first place we'd have a
broader basis to stand on.

>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.

Well< I suppose one could say that an "agnostic" has found a KIND  of
"truth" and that is that "there is not, thus far, any kind of provable
truth". But that is not my own view. My view is that there is no such thing
as "divinely ordered truth" and that what I am seeking is not so much
"truth" as an understanding of abstract realities. For that is what "truth"
means to me......."abstract realities".

>>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.

What sort of degree? don't make assumptions of what others do or don't know.
I am not a physicist, nor a quantum Theorist myself, but  I have friends who
are and whom I use for reference. Most of my quantum theorist friends have
low opinions of physicists (which I don't share because I know academics all
too well). I know too may people who would not accept your presentation of
quantum Theory as a "measurement process" and nothing more. Second I am told
that you should have said that "some Physicists are flabbergasted" and not
implied that they all are. Lastly everyone knows (I assume that if I do,
everyone does) that there are basic assumptions in Relativity Theory that
are wrong, Einstein himself acknowledged that. But no matter what, I think
our modern sciences at this point in time are far more in resonance with a
"roll of the dice" theory than they are with "divine ordinance".
>
>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 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.
>
>
>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.

Thought patterns (egregores) are entirely speculative and hypothetical, I
should hate to base our world society on hypothesis.
>
>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).

It's just as likely to be the disastrous outcome of social manipulation by
ruthlessly ambitious men.
>
>
>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.
>
>Once again I acknolwedge the POSSIBILITY of the existance of egregores and
speculative objects, to do more than that, would I submit, be mistaken.
>Martin
>
>
alex>
>
>
>