Re: THEOSOPHY AS A PROCESS
Jun 24, 1996 01:23 PM
by alexis dolgorukii
At 10:59 AM 6/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>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
I think, Chris, where we actually disagree on this subject is in the fact
that you are willing to give religion credit for it's original motivations
as you see them. While I do not! To me it's what they are now that matters
not what they were intended to be. Now, as you know I don't believe in the
reality of the M\"Mahatma Letters" but instead believe that HPB herself
produced and apported them. But, on the basis of them being HPB's thoughts,
let me quote to you from from letter 10 in the Mahatma Letters (first three
editions) it's alleged to be from "Master K.H.):
" Work out every cause of evil you can think of, trace it to its origin, and
you will have solved one-third of the problems of evil. The other two-thirds
are caused by religion. Ignorance created Gods and cunning took advantage of
the opportunity. It is belief in God and Gods that makes two-thirds of
humanity the slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false
pretense of saving them."
So you see Chris, I am not alone in my views of religion HPB at least
supports me, or The Master K.H. does, as you choose.
>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?
Until they disappointed Sinnett yes I do believe he came close to
worshipping them. As to Leadbeater, as all of his connections with them were
in the Astral Plane I don't think any of them are anything but
hallucinatory. It's that he encouraged others in this attitude that I
disapprove of. Prostration is not respectful, it is self-abasing, and
self-abasement is entirely negative. Let's get this totally straight: as far
as I see it based on a really in depth study of the matter, Charles Webster
Leadbeater was a pathological Liar, he was mentally unstable, and he was a
totally immoral man. That makes everything he said extremely suspect.
>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.
Well, you just proved I am not wrong, everyone of the people you listed is a
"creature" of Lead beaters's. Oh I agree A.E. Powell is very readable, but
it's what he says that matters to me not how he says it. One other thing you
apparently haven't picked up from our communications. The so-called
"Mechanics of theosophy" are the part of theosophy I consider to be both
irrelevant and nonsense. To me, the "mechanics of theosophy" are entirely
fairy tales and useless in human life and development. That's the primary
difference between a "Process theosophist" and others, we, for the most
part, entirely reject the "mechanics of theosophy". For me, the S.D. is for
the most part a lot of ridiculous nonsense. As I've told Martin Euser, once
you get past the motto and the three objects, it's almost ALL ridiculous
nonsense. My own personal question is beginning to be can the two "types of
theosophists", i.e. "process theosophists" and "orthodox Theosophists" ever
meaningfully relate on any level? Or is it time for " total separation"?
Reaction like Bjorn Roxendol's make me think that no rational relationship
is possible. Reactions like yours gives me hope. You and I are at what I
guess would be about 85% disgreement and yet our communications remain
friendly, that's a good sign
>>>Your correct, and I admit, I slack off on it at times. <makes a note to be
>>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
>>>>>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
That's a good point! I agree but I think most "meditation" just leads to a
>>>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
>>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
>Once again you miss the point.
How did I "miss the point" Chris? It is unconscionable to equate the false
legends of Einstein's absent mindedness (even if they were true) with the
actions of CWL. I repeat, CWL was a pathological liar, he was mentally
unstable, and he was, as Krishnamurti said to Lady Mary Luytens "evil", and
Krishnamurti was in a position to know for sure. An evil man , especially
one who was arguably insane, can be capable of producing no material worth a
second thought. If someone like Leadbeater said to me: "It's a lovely day",
I'd look out the window to check.
>>>>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.
Chris: If the people who prostrated themselves were "demonstrating crazy
behavior" what was Besant doing or demonstrating by encouraging it?So by
saying that "the people who were prostrating themselves were demonstrating
crazy behaviour" you were distinctly implying that Besant participated in
that "behaviour". Get it? You must learn to say only what you mean. (No
offense meant but: you make on consistent mistake in spelling, "your" is a
possessive, it refers to things like "your hat" etc. when you want to say
'You are" it's "you're", and of course as it's a correct spelling in one
sense, a spell checker" can't flag it).
>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.
The trouble Chris is this: What most people call "personal spiritual
development" I call "spiritual masturbation"!
>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?
Chris: No offense intended, but that's the most sophomoric remark I've EVER
encountered. "Relativity" was a theory relating to physics and ONLY to
physics, it had nothing whatsoever to do with human behaviour. Now I think
you know this, and were only being "smart-ass". If you actually believe a
decent human being can rationally "stand outside" that particular "circle"
than I am at an absolute loss as to how to view you as a human being.
Comments like that make me think that you, at least, haven't understood much
of not simply theosophy but any moral teaching. Because what you just said
Chris, is a perfect example of what "amorality" means. An amoral person
cannot even think of spiritual development.
>>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
>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.
Oh I get your point Chris> I simply refuse to accept it. In this instance it
doesn't matter what the other side may think. There are other instances of
this too. But I am trying to tell you that in human terms, the idea that
"good and bad are interchangeable and relative" is just dead wrong, and in a
way terribly destructive. This is relativistic de constructionism and it's
probably the most destructive theory ever to be invented. In other words
Chris, I am listening to what you're saying. I just think it's total bullshit!
>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.
Oh that's true, but the way to do that WITHOUT being sophomoric is to ask
the other person "What do you mean by......?"
>>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?
How is it a non-sequitur? Well it is so because it is making a false
assumption, and then going on to make a statement based upon that false
assumption. The "false assumption" is that I (or anyone) who rejects "Occult
Chemistry" as nonsense, is doing so as part of a rejection of paranormal
activities. But that is an assumption that is wrong. I, and many others,
reject "Occult Chemistry" Because it's author was insane. We reject not the
idea of a paranormal investigation of particle theory but we reject this
particular version because of this particular author.
>>>>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
>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?
Oh everyone builds on the information they gain by various means, that's
entirely self-evident. BUT, if you start your building on a weak or false
foundation then the edifice you construct will not stand for long. May I
suggest that you drop the "levels" business it's strictly an ego trip.
Metaphysics and occultism have nothing at all to do with why we're not still
in the stone age and I think you know this. But spiritually if the
information that goes into your data bank is bullshit you can do nothing
valid with it. I don't expect you to like what I'm telling you, but at least
you will have heard it.
>>>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?
>>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
>Why do you feel that they are "pseudo-theosophical mythology"?
I think you already know the answer to your question Because I have
adequately demonstrated what I think of CWL and why.
>(Notice, no advertisement! :)
Oh good!<big grin>
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application