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


Jun 24, 1996 04:54 PM
by Christopher Allen

At 04:22 PM 6/24/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>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 do believe that for the masses, it is ignorance that created gods.  I also
believe that people personify natural forces as gods in order to bring them
closer to their level of understanding.  Pagans do this quite often.  They
realize and acknowledge certain forces in the universe, but tend to
personify them into the deity of their choice.  I don't particularly agree
with this concept, but if it works for someone, I won't belittle it either.

There are people who take advantage of other peoples ignorance.  It doesn't
just happen in religion though.  It happens all the time.  I'm sure it's
happened to you many times.  When we don't know how to do something (because
of our ignorance) we must pay someone else to do it.  And almost all the
time, there's someone else there capable of fulfilling that need, be it a
plumber, an electrician, or a tele-evangelist.

I don't believe it's good that people let others take advantage of them
through religion.  Religion is an easy area for that to occur in though.
And it is that people are *letting* others take advantage of them.  If this
wasn't the case, the orthodox church would have died out ages ago.  It's
there to serve the masses, and to perpetuate itself.  It does this through
any means possible.  Take it away from the people who rely on it and they
will find something else to pacify themselves.

I do believe, though, that religion does benefit people.  It presents a set
of moral dogma to live by.  This dogma usually consists of items that are
for the betterment of mankind.  Perhaps not all of the tenets are beneficial
to everyone, but they're generally beneficial to the masses and their level
of spiritual development.

Unfortunately I haven't yet had the opportunity to read the Mahatma Letters.
Perhaps sometime in the near future.

>Until they disappointed Sinnett yes I do believe he came close to

Out of curiousity, how did the Masters dissappoint Sinnett?  I'm afraid I'm
not very well up on the history or lives any of the early theosophists.  All
I know of them is based on the books they've written.

>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.

What is your belief as far as the various planes of existance go?  Did
Leadbeater actually encourage others to worship the Masters?  Bear with me
on my ignorance, as I said earlier, I know very little of these peoples lives.

I agree with your view on prostration.  I think the encouragement and act of
it is negative and self-serving.  Something that should be above those who
are on the path of enlightenment.  Can you give me either examples or point
me in the right direction for some basis for your belief in CWL being a
mentally unstable immoral liar?  I'm geniunly curious as to why you hold
such disdain for someone I've learned so much from (via his books).

Even if he was as you say, I agree that it would make someone cautious to
follow what says/writes, but I don't believe it should be disregarded solely
on that purpose.  Crowley's moral behaviour was highly questionable, but
many of the things he wrote were extremely intelligent and worthwhile
(although many of them sarcastic and vain too).

>>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

I just picked up on this :)  This is the area in which we have our biggest
divergence in beliefs.

>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

Now I understand where your coming from and your two definitions of
theosophy.  I must say, I like them.  I have no doubt as to whether or not
the two types can relate.  They most certainly can- the question, in my
mind, is whether it will be a good relation or a bad one.  I can see either
side getting extremely upset with the other for not holding their own belief
system yet calling it the same thing.  Personally, I view both types as
essentially the same.  The end result I believe is the same between the two,
it's just the rule system that's different

>>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.
>That's a good point! I agree but I think most "meditation" just leads to a
>sore bottom.

I would think if there was no activity to the meditation, it could just lead
to a sore bottom.  The whole idea of meditation is not relaxation (usually),
it's mind expansion.  I can site personal examples if your interested.

>>>>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.

The point being that even if he was insane, I've learned something
worthwhile from his material.  And if people are learning things they
consider worthwhile, his writings are worthwhile.

>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).

If she was encouraging it, then I'd call her behavior "crazy" too :)  That
wasn't implicitely stated and I didn't catch the inference.  As far as my
spelling goes, your right- it's pathetic.  My fingers just seem to fly by
themselves sometimes <grin>  I've tried to take more time in writing this
email and made it a point to make myself more aware of it in the future.  I
suppose if I want what I write to be given some consideration I should take
the same consideration in writing 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"!

I believe that's true on many occassions.  But at least they're trying, that
in of itself is worthwhile.  Personally, I view any attempt to better
oneself as a beneficial act.

>>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

Actually I firmly believe in what I was saying.  I also believe that
everything happens for a reason, even if we cannot begin to fathom why.  I
do believe that everything is relative from the universe's perspective- it's
all part of the same thing.

>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.

I know right from wrong, but I do believe that each depends on the other.  I
may not always be able to see why something happens, but I have faith that
there's a valid reason (good or bad) for it to happen.  Perhaps "eternal
optimist" would be a better term for me than amoral ;-)

>>>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!

Perhaps this is why the idea of the interchangeability of such things is not
taught exoterically.  When someone sees the Yin and Yang symbols, they don't
think, "Wow, cool.  Good and bad are interchangeable", they typically just
realize the dual nature of life- if that.

>>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......?"

I'm not sure what you mean, What *do* you mean by the above?

>>>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.

Ok, I didn't understand that you were rejecting it due to who wrote it.

>>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.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Are you saying that since you believe CWL
to be an invalid person to learn from that anything I might have learned
from him is not worthwhile?  Please expand.

>>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.
Yes, you have.

I had to cut some of the paragraphs from this email to make it fit in my
program's memory.  Apparently my system thinks Alexis and I are getting long
winded.  You guys don't believe that do you?? <hehe>  Anyway, hope those who
are following can still follow.


[Back to Top]

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