Re: Ruminations (Martin Euser)
Jun 25, 1996 03:11 PM
A> 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.
M>In TSA but not in other TS's. CWL/AB do not count there.
A>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".
Well, that's your opinion of course. My opinion is quite different.
Regarding G de P: if you had really studied his writings you would see
that most of it deals with elaborating the ideas of HPB, and I wouldn't
exactly call it 'sidelining' her.
M>What does a Ceremonial Magician do? I'm getting curious, no kidding.
A>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.
Sensory input like what?
M>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).
A>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
That's the dilemma a healer is faced with: do I accept only patients
who are willing to understand the causes of their disease (with the help
of the healer) or just every patient that comes along?
M>>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.
A>Oh that's quite true, I just would be very careful as to what "frame of
reference" I used.
Indeed. I'm choosing a frame of reference that is an intrinsic
part of the age-old Wisdom tradition. You, on the other hand, dismiss
this frame of reference without giving strong arguments against it
(maybe you do in your book). So, you leave me in the dark as to why
exactly you don't find it an appropriate frame of reference.
>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.
M>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.
A>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.
I don't think the style of my articles is flowery at all.
Maybe you should read them, if you didn't do that already, and then point
out what's so flowery about it. The only flowery expression is 'seven
jewels of wisdom' and that happens to be a translation of Sapta-Ratnani
(Sanskrit compound), the old name for the seven jewels teachings.
A>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.
Of course. But I do not count Leadbeater's teachings as 'Core
M>I can go on for the other 'jewels', but leave it for now.
A>Oh please do! If you'd put it that way in the first place we'd have a
broader basis to stand on.
Well, I could present a reformulation, one by one, but slowly
as it takes some time to do so.
A> 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".
Don't you see order and structure in this universe?
And don't you acknowledge the existence of spiritual beings (angels,
etc.)? Last time I asked you, you evaded this question.
A>What sort of degree?
Roughly equivalent to bachelor (a bit more than that I think).
I know too may people who would not accept your presentation of
quantum Theory as a "measurement process" and nothing more.
A matter of opinion. Feynman, one of the greatest physicists
of this century and the one who developed the most successful theory
in physics (quantum-electrodynamics) also held this opinion.
Good company :)
A> Second I am told
that you should have said that "some Physicists are flabbergasted" and not
implied that they all are.
You're nitpicking here. My God, your own style of writing
is abundant with things I can nitpick on (and maybe rightfully so)
in infinitely larger degree.
A> 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.
Get real, Alexis, most people know nothing of RT at all!
The most funny thing about RT is, BTW, that the Lorentz-transformations
have never been deduced from first principles successfully. Einstein
made an error in his first derivation, which was acknowledged later
on, but despite a price being offered to people who would correctly
deduce these transformations nobody succeeded (I doubt whether
someone has succeeded thus far). All the deductions are wrong, because
these can be shown to involve a type of 0.something =0.some other thing
equations (physicists consistently made errors with vector signs)
Maybe you don't believe me, but I studied the matter. Some physicists
have found the errors in the deductions. There findings are ignored,
however, because RT formulae seem to work. In textbooks, the formulae
are typically just given without any attempt to deduce them (I don't
know all textbooks on RT of course, but I'm talking about those I've seen)
A>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".
But sciences will discover new facts (have already) and will
have to change their theories.
>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
Sounds good. Only, I am pretty sure that we all are part and parcel
of a greater whole (Oversoul), so I wouldn't separate cosmos from
humankind. My experience indicates indeed that the unit (human being)
is embedded in a larger whole but the exact relations and implications
are not fully clear to me. So, I cannot fully agree with your statement,
but would consider it as an undecided issue (for me, that is).
M>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
(I keep the above question in this reply. It is vital for my understanding
of your ideas about cosmos and man's place therein)
A>Thought patterns (egregores) are entirely speculative and hypothetical, I
should hate to base our world society on hypothesis.
Of course, nobody is saying that we should. But it may be not
a speculation for all of us. And, contrary to what you say, world
society *is* based on hypotheses or rather points of view. In the middle
ages people though that the world was flat and many were afraid to travel
far (they might fall off the earth..). Plato says that 'ideas rule the world'
and I think he is right. The economies of countries are partly based
on ideas how economy works (economists may be wrong in their ideas
and politicians may implement the wrong measures and many will suffer
as a consequence of those ideas as I do think currently is the case)
A>Once again I acknolwedge the POSSIBILITY of the existance of egregores and
speculative objects, to do more than that, would I submit, be mistaken.
That depends on the individual, I'd say. Someone who experiences
that kind of things would *know* and not speculate.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application