Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00809)

At 04:02 AM 6/24/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>>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.
>>

Unfortunately many times over the ages what was meant to be good (or started
out that way) is taken to militant extremes.  I'd have to agree with you to
some degree.

>>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.
>>

I have to disagree.  I think he did do it out of respect.  AP Sinnett was
just as respectful as Leadbeater in his writing.  Do you believe that he
also worshipped the Masters?

>>
>>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.
>>

I'm sorry, but your wrong.  Look at the first few pages of any of Powell's
works.  It lists the people he compiled from.  They include Leadbeater,
Besant, Wood, Van der Leeuw, Long, Wedgewood, and others.  They were a
compilation of these people's writings, but he's compiled the literature on
the subjects in an intelligible way.  As far as Isis, I've read both volumes
of it.  I like to recommend SD over Isis for the mechanics of Theosophy.

>
>>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.
>>>>>

Point taken.

>>>>
>>>>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.
>>

Ok, then take your definition of this "good action" and that's what I meant
by "good thought".  All I was implying was that there's thought before
action.  In order to get to your "good action" there has to be "good
thought".  It doesn't matter what my definition of it is because it's only
relevant in the context of what you meant.  Meditation often times leads to
good action.

>
>>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.
>>

Once again you miss the point.

>>>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.
>>

Your either not reading what I'm saying or just enjoy twisting words ;-)  I
never said Besant demonstrated "crazy" behaviour.  I said the people
"prostrating" themselves in front of her were.  Somehow you took it to mean
that I thought Besant was acting "crazy".  This is an incorrect assumption
on your part.

>>
>>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.
>>

I believe that's true if you are trying to figure out what that writer was
saying at that time.  I don't believe that's the case if your souly seeking
information for the benefit of yourself in your current time.  If something
works for you, use it.  This is the problem your having with understanding
how people use information as a tool to their own spiritual development.

>>>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.
>

If you stand outside the circle, you can see both sides as equally
important.  If you stand inside one side or the other all you see is how the
other side is not your own, and because of that, it's bad.  As far as the
Nazi's being "absolutely bad" in the context of human activities and
society, again, it depends from whose side you look.  If we look from our
side, yes, they were bad.  If we look from the "bad" guy's side, they were
good.  All that time you spent with Einstein- didn't you ever pick up on his
theory of relativity?

>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 it would help if you tried to understand my point without your
prejudiced attitude.  I understand you saw the horrors that the Nazi's
committed, but try to get past that and listen to what I'm saying.  In order
to call the Nazi's "absolutely" bad, there can be no other side to look
from.  And if there was no other side to look from, there'd be no good and
bad.  It's interchangeable and relative, not absolute.  They can be
absolutely bad in your and mine opinion, but in someone else's (another
baddie for instance), they're not.  That's all I'm trying to get across.

As far as my sophomoric little word games, your the one whose insisted on my
being exact with what I say.  In order for that to happen, we both have to
agree on the definitions of the words we use.

>>>
>>>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.
>>

Of all people to say I'm being non-sequitur.  I disagree, your dismissing
the validity of Occult Chemistry because it is based on clairvoyance, a
paranormal activity.  How is my statement non-sequitur?

>>
>>>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.
>>>

Why isn't it possible for people to build on other people's work?  Why can't
the "process" start on various levels.  If everyone started at the same
place, we would still be back in the stone age.  People go through the
process all the time, it just doesn't always start at the same place.  If I
choose to read the early works of Theosophists and start my process from
where they left off, does it make my process invalid, or non-Theosophical?

>>
>>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"

I agree completely.

>(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
>>

Why do you feel that they are "pseudo-theosophical mythology"?

Chris Allen

(Notice, no advertisement! :)