Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00799)

At 11:51 AM 6/23/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>I suppose I'd have to say it depends on what truth your actually talking
>about.  If it's regarding the All, then I suppose I'd have to say that the
>only way to know it is to absolutely not know it.  But there are smaller
>truths to know and talk about.  The astral body for instance, I believe this
>to be an absolute truth- it is there.

Oh well, I call it the 'Virtual Reality Intelligence" but I agree, it exists.
>
>Personally, as far as religion goes, I think it's there to just keep people
>on track (or at least try).

If you'll change that to "control" people for the amusement and profit of
the religion, I'd agree.
>

>As stated earlier, "prostrating" oneself at the feet of a master is not
>worship, it's a show of respect.  The Japanese have quite a few customs
>which westerners don't even consider.  Though when in a business (or
>personal for that matter) situation with these people, their customs are
>respected.  It's simply a show of respect.

Chris: You have allowed yourself to get out of temporal and societal
context. Business men today, comply to some degree with Japanese Customs
that are strange to Westerners, not so much out of "respect" but in response
to the profit motive. But in the Edwardian Era, an Englishman NEVER
prostrated themselves out of respect to anyone. Leadbeater was one of the
most egregious snobs I ever encountered (in print) and his "prostrations"
are either imaginary or hallucinatory.
>
>>>
>
>
>Personally, my core set consists of the works of AE Powell and The Secret
>Doctrine.  If someone were to ask me about Theosophy, I'd tell them to look
>at The Key to Theosophy.  If someone wanted to know the mechanics of
>Theosophy's views of reality, I'd tell them to look at either AE Powell's
>works, or The Secret Doctrine (or abridgement if just curious).  Those are
>the ones I started on, and I greatly respect them.  They've helped me fill
>in the gaps on various other studies I've done over the years.

A.E> Powell would have been "voiceless" were it not for CWL. His books are
re-phrasing of Leadbeater's and nothing more. As to Blavatsky, why don't you
try "Isis" it's the only major book with her name on it that is undeniably
her own work, and that only if you read the 1878 facsimile edition.
>
>>

>Your correct, and I admit, I slack off on it at times.  <makes a note to be
>more precise>
>
It really does make communication easier.
>>>>

>>>
>>>I agree.  I never said that everyone should sit around meditating for 24
>>>hours a day.  But keep in mind, in order to get to a "good work" there first
>>>has to be that "good thought."
>>
>>Ah, but what is meant by the term "good thought"? How many definitions of
>>that term are there?
>
>Whatever it was you meant by the term "good action" ;-)

Oh that's really simple, a "good action" is anything that actually helps
somebody in a measurable and physical sense.
>

>If that were so we might not place much weight on Einstien's theory- he had
>trouble simply opening a door by himself.  But we didn't say, "Gee, look how
>dumb he is.  He can't even open a door, the rest of his stuff must be dumb
too."

Chris: I have to say the comment you just made presents me with the idea
that you have a peculiar sense of both values and priorities. How can a
reasonably intelligent person equate child molestation with absent
mindedness. Now as I knew Albert Einstein from the time I was a small boy
until his death, and as I played chess with him, and played violin duets
with him, and occasionally stayed in his house in Princeton, I will tell you
that he was perfectly capable of "opening a door by himself". Those legends
are an ugly part of American's preoccupation with devaluing the
super-intelligent.
>
>>spiritual guide? Is a woman who is (as you put it) "crazy" enough to
>
>I never said that.  I said that the people who prostrated themselves
>demonstrated "crazy" behavior.  If your going to be so picky on what words I
>use and how I use them, then take them for how I use them.  Don't start
>assuming I meant more than I said :-)

Chris: If by "demonstrating crazy behaviour" you meant something other than
crazy, you should have said something other than "crazy". I simply assume
you mean what you say.
>
>>encourage people to prostrate themselves to her, to be considered a reliable
>>guide. Is a person whose sense of values is so skewed as to allow them to
>>closely associate themselves with people like the Nazis, to be trusted as a
>>teacher or guide? What all this does is throw into question not only the
>>validity of their work but the veracity of their work. I am somewhat
>
>Actually I usually don't tend to research the history of the writers of the
>books I read before (or even after, usually) I read them.  I read them and
>take them for what they are, or at least how I interpret them.  I don't try
>to put them in their historical context to understand what the writer was
>talking about at that time.  I try to make sense of it for my time.  I do
>this at least for occult books anyway.

Chris: That is a totally wrong thing to do, any book; occult or otherwise,
must be viewed not simply in the light of "what is said" but in light of
"who said it". Every book MUST be viewed in light of it's historical
context, simply because the writer was seeking in regard to that context.
This is especially true about so-called "Occult" books. This is ture because
99% of that type of book is unadulterated nonsense.
>
>>flabbergasted at your comment "linked to various people who could be
>>considered bad". Is that all you have to say about Adolf Hitler and company?
>
>I consider them to be bad people.  I'm sure the Nazi's didn't consider
>themselves to be bad.  How can I say that they were "absolutely" bad when
>it's impossible, as you say, to know the "absolute" truth one way or the
>other?  But, to be honest, isn't everything part of the All or the One?
>Isn't everything supposed to be both good and bad?  Two parts of a spiral,
>transforming good into bad and bad into good, yin and yang?  What we
>consider good now, could be considered bad later, and vice versa.  Maybe the
>act itself was bad, but what we learned from it good.

 The Nazis were "absolutely bad" in the context of human activities and
human society. That has nothing to do with"absolute reality" in any way.

Now as to your question: Yes there is only one unified field of energy and
it makes up the cosmos, and everything within that cosmos are nexii within
that unified field of energy. Good and bad have nothing to do with any
context outside of the physical, BUT the Nazis and their death camps were
part of the physical realities and there is the ONLY place where the
dualities of "good and bad" exist. Chris, if you had ever seen Auswitz and
Dachau and Treblinka as I did, then I am certain you wouldn't be playing
sophomoric little word games on the Nazis and their sympathizers and apologists.
>

>>
>>I think you will find that most people with legitimate scientific
>>credentials consider it nonsense too. I am not a scientist in any way, but
>>the scientists whom I do know, all agree with me.
>
>I'm sure I would find that to be the case.  That's how most scientists view
>the paranormal.  How do they feel about the soul or spirit?  The same way?
>Or do they give that the "exception"?

Chris: Your statement is a non-sequitur. "Occult Chemistry" is just one of
Leadbeater's little frauds.
>
>>
>
>
>I agree.  Quite a few different methods may be used to reach the
>"meditative" state.  I never implied I was talking about "militant"
>meditation or "formal" meditation.
>
>>>>Chris: When you (or anyone) uses a phrase like: "underlying truth given out"
>>>>as opposed to say, "concepts presented", they are "muddying the waters, as
>>>>it were. We are discussing speculative philosophy of speculative
>>>
>>>Again, a semantics issue.

Oh of course, but Chris: you have to understand that "how" you say something
is almost more important than what you are saying. Imprecision in language
implies imprecision in thoughts and in subjects like this that can be deadly.
>>
>>May I have your help in comprehending what you just said? Are you saying
>>that because it is a "semantics issue" it's irrelevant?
>>>
>>>I am curious though, because I didn't completely understand your original
>>>message, how is Theosophy a process?
>>>
>>>Chris
>>
>>I'll insert my response before the commercial. < big grin>
>>
>
><grins> I'm gonna disable that darn signature file.
>
>>Let me put this as simply and clearly as I can. Theosophy is a process
>>because it is an intellectual catalyst which motivates a person to seek an
>>understanding of abstractions concerning reality (truth), through study and
>>experimentation by way of the "Three Objects". It is a process because it is
>>an activity which a person must perform by and for themselves. It is a
>>process because another person's understanding is not your own. It is a
>>process because it's something which a person must DO, not learn about. Core
>>Theosophy  is, as I see it, a total avoidance of the process. As I see it,
>>"Core Theosophy" is a way people who don't want to go through the process
>>themselves, try to get someone else to do it for them. But, unfortunately
>>for them, that's not at all possible. It's a thing one must do totally on
>>one's own.
>>
>
>When someone asks you what Theosophy is...what do you tell them?  Why are
>there all these "Theosophical" books that talk about the "Astral" body or
>the "Solar Logos"?  Are they not part of Theosophy?
>
>Chris Allen
>
What do I tell people? I tell them that theosophy is a process through which
one seeks personal growth and understanding and an increase in knowledge and
experience through the pursuit of the "Three Objects" while keeping always
in mind the motto of the movement "There is NO religion higher than "truth"
(reality). I tell them to forget any "Theosophical Books written after about
1878. I tell them that all of the books written by Leadbeater and his
disciples are pseudo-theosophical mythology, and that while they're fun to
read, they are meaningless unless proven by personal experience of what they
say.

alexis dolgorukii
>
>