Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00868)

I also agree with most of what you said.  I do have a few questions
though... :-)

At 03:22 AM 6/25/96 -0400, alexis dolgorukii wrote:
>I have written a book almost as long as Isis in which I discuss my views on
>the greater reality. But in general, I don't use the elevator notion of
>numbered planes of reality. I see the greater reality as a unified field of
>energy, manifesting as intelligence (or visa versa) in which the levels of
>reality are determined by the oscillation rates of the sine curves of the
>particle carrier waves that form the force-fields that individuate various
>entities and things. The only reality of any physical thing is as a field of
>individuated energy-intelligence.
>

Actually I know most people tend to see the plane issue as a type of
"elevator" theory.  Actually this is not the case.  I'd even go so far as to
say it's closer to your definition of the "unified field of energy."  Take
the first three planes, physical (etheric being a subset of physical),
astral, and mental.  All three planes operate on the same ground floor, they
just oscillate at different vibrations.  Physical matter has the lowest
vibrations, mental the highest (as far as the example goes).  I'd like to
take the example that Wycked God used in his email regarding the planes,
because I think it can be further extended to demonstrate how this works.

Wycked God's table (extended to account for colors & question marks):
Color              Plane           Essence           Nature
Violet            Logoic	         All manifest     Unknowable
Indigo           Monadic       Cause               Causal
Blue              Atmic	         Spirit              Spiritual
Green           Buddhic        Intuition         Harmony
Yellow          Mental	         Thought           Intelligence
Orange         Astral          Emotion           Feeling
Red               Physical       Matter            Energy

In addition to adding the color correspondences, I've also added what I
believe to be valid items for his question marks.  Just as the colors
increase in vibratory rate (as they go up the scale), so does the planes of
existence.  They all are present in white light (ether), but they are also
present individually.  Thoughts?

>
>Chris: Try to get a copy of a book called "Elder Brother" by Gregory
>Tillett. It is scholarly and well written and full of citations and
>quotations from contemporaries of Leadbeater. If you send a message to Jerry
>Hejka-Ekins (jhe@toto.csustan.edu.) He might be able to send you one. He has

I'll do that, thanks!

>a mail-order book business and is a very important theosophist. As to my own
>feelings, well Chris I have a very low opinion of a man who uses his
>prestige and position to impose himself sexually on boys under the age of
>puberty. Understand this: I am NOT complaining because he was homosexual, I
>am complaining because he was a child molester.I have a very low opinion on
>anyone who is in anyway connected wit the "Order of Saturn" even if it is
>only by way of the O.T.O. I strongly disapprove of "black magic" even though
>I don;'t believe it has any reality. But people who do practice it, do lots
>of harm without the reality. I do not think his visions were fraudulent, I
>do not consider Leadbeater to be a phony like elisabeth Clair prophet or
>others, but I do believe that his visions were hallucinations in which he
>truly and deeply believed. But I think that one only learns to share those
>hallucinations with him from his books. His visions of the Adepts were all
>very real to him, but they were nonetheless entirely hallucinatory. Adepts
>are just people, special people yes, but just people.
>>

I agree with your views on those crimes.  I think that's one of the worse
possible crimes a person can commit.  As to his visions and
"hallucinations", I don't view them as such.  AE Powell's books on the
various planes have made logical sense to me in what I chose to believe to
be reality.  I've chosen a particular path to follow, and until I'm able to
disprove for myself what I chose to believe in, I'll continue to believe it.
It may be ignorance on my part, but we've all got to start somewhere :-)

I think your views on Crowely are very accurate.

>>
> For me, the S.D. is for the most part a lot of ridiculous nonsense. As I've
>told Martin Euser, once

As you said, that's our 85% disagreement :-)

>
>>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.
>
>But did you? If what he said wasn't true, and I am sure it isn't, then what
>could you "learn" that was of value?
>>

To be honest I've only read a few of his books.  Most of what I found
valuable was contained in Powell's books.  He expanded on subjects that I
knew only a little about at the time.  The Inner Life helped me to quit
smoking...I think that's pretty valuable in itself :-)

>>
>>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 ;-)
>
>Would that make me an "eternal pessimist"?:-)
>>
Hmm...<grin>

>>
>>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.
>
>But you see Chris, I am a monist, I totally deny that there is a dualistic
>nature of life or of anything except the natural physical plane dualism we
>all experience and love.
>>

You've proven my theory for me.  Even for you, as a monist, there is
duality.  In order for there to even be a monad, there has to be something
that's not ;-)  (kinda like Schueler's I & Not-I)

>>
>>>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 here...so, What *do* you mean by the above?
>
>I mean that in order to agree on word meanings we each of us have to ask the
>other what he means by a word that seems questionable in any way. O.K.?
>>

Yep.

>
>As one can clearly see from the wreckage, so did I! I got a little message
>saying "no room in memory for this text". But I am enjoying this discussion.
>
>alexis dolgorukii
>>

Sorry I had to snip some more away.  I didn't have much time to respond
today but wanted to respond to what I felt the most important.  I'm really
enjoying the converstation myself.

Chris