Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00995)

>
>Chris: in addition I'm curious as to what *arguments* 'process' theosophists
>have to dismiss core-theosophy (HPB & Mahatma Letters) as irrelevant.

Martin: I dismiss the "Mahatma Letters" as irrelevant because , having
studied them over a course of some 30 years I have found them to be so
mutually contradictory


Alexis: can you give some examples of that? I would like to check that.

A> and lacking in real content that it is not simply
that I consider them to be irrelevant but that I don't consider them to be
valid. In other words I believe them to be not frauds, but not real either.
I believe the HPB produced them and apported them whenever she needed
particularly unarguable support in a particular goal of hers. If she could
apport tea cups (and I believe she could) then this would be a really simple
feat. Basically I also have to say that I don't find the "Mahatma Letters"
particularly intellectually or ethically impressive. While I am very
impressed by "Isis" and some of HPB's other writings, the Secret doctrine is
just far too flawed a document to become part of any "core belief" of mine.
But as you know I am planning a book on that particular subject.

I guess you particularly mean Secret Doctrine vol.2 ?
Where are the flaws in SD 1?


M>The point is, the 'process' theosophists are sorely lacking in arguments
>*or* just not presenting them (I'll except Jerry Schueler with whom
>I've had interesting discussions on chaos, karma, etc. - but even
>chaos can fit into the framework of theosophical teachings about conflict
>of wills and Shiva/Vishnu/Brahma aspects of the cosmos)

A>I would have supposed by now that you would know that I, at least, consider
discussions on "Karma", "Skandhas", "Devachan", Nirmanakaya Buddhas" and
"Shiva?Vishnu?Brahma" to be aspects of the Buddhist and Hindu religions and
as such perhaps interesting in a 'Second Object" comparative religion sense,
but I don't believe them to be intrinsic to small "t" theosophy of what I
call "Process  theosophy".

        There are other small "t" theosophists who may think differently,
I've heard relatively little from them (except Jerry Schueler).
Remember, this posting is directed to the entire list.

A>If you define our discussion in terms of an a
priori acceptance of those religious aspects, then how can we have a
discussion when I, at least (I can't speak for others) reject the religious
approach to theosophy absolutely?


Alexis: Buddhism is not a religion, in the strict sense of the word.
        Nor is Hindu philosophy. There are interesting philosophical
        notions involved which you dismiss here.

M>To make my point a little bit clearer I will point out that no-one
>has made a real case against the doctrine of cycles, of which reincarnation
>is one example only. Well, I submit that it is next to impossible
>to do so, because cycles abund in nature. Your own heart-beat and
>respiratory process are clear examples of that.

A>What I see you as doing here is reversing the old metaphysical axiom of
Hermes Trismegistus and making it "As below, so above". As I see it your
heartbeat and respiratory cycle and male-female and day-night and life-death
are all physical plane phenomena and have absolutely no correlation within
the greater and totally non-physical realities. Sure cycles and duality
abound in nature, but nature is physical and the greater reality is NOT!


  The doctrine of cycles applies equally well to physical phenomena, so I
haven't reversed anything. Just applied the law of cycles to the physical realm,
that's all and there's *nothing* wrong with that!
BTW, I don't separate the realms of nature in an *absolute* sense, they
all are part and parcel of a greater whole.

A>That kind of thinking, and imaging of non-physicality by projecting physical
phenomena onto it, is entirely solipsistic and anthropocentric. As far as I
am concerned, in post-physical reality dualism doesn't exist.

   Your above remark doesn't apply in this example as I explained above.


M>Accepting the working hypothesis that there is One Life that is the basis
>for all, and that all is part and parcel of the Universal Soul implies,
>when we accept the validity of applying analogy, that this Soul manifests
>periodically, just as everything in (visible) nature manifests periodically.
>Accepting this working hypothesis implies more, but I'll leave it with
>this example. Plato's ~Phaedo~ is excellent stuff in this regard.

A>But when one views that all that exists is part and parcel of the Unified
Field of Energy-Intelligence it comes our differently.

        What do you mean? Please elaborate.


>
>Another intricate topic is that of structure-function-order in the universe.
>There are people on this list, myself included, who have some experiences
>of seeing angels (not merely devas),elementals etc.

A>Well as a Shaman, I've certainly had my share of experiences of that kind.
BUT I prefer to call them energy or light beings, and to differentiate them
by their energy levels rather than some imaginary religious hierarchy.

        This so-called 'imaginary' religious hierarchy has many names
 and forms and these beings can equally well be called light beings.
 That's just another label. As to the word 'hierarchy': it has many bad
 connotations, so if you prefer energy levels, I would go along with that
 as well.


A>As a
Shaman, I find the "(not merely devas)" aside to be a little egotistical.
What do you mean by it? I find a physical person trying to socially grade
non-physical centers-of-consciousness just a hair pretentious.

        That has nothing to do with it. I was thinking about the so-called
        lower devas (Point Loma line has other concept than TSA about devas)
        in contrast to Guardian Angel. But you can forget about that remark,
        it leads us nowhere.

M>Now, what does this mean? When we see beings from certain planes/spheres
>of life what can we imply? That there is more to nature than what is visible
>to our ordinary senses. But what is it all about? Many acknowledge the
>existence of other planes/spheres of life. So, there is some *structure*
>or *order* there, how else could it function? Nobody on this list has
>drawn publicly (on this list) any conclusions about that, as far as I know.

Martin: <snip> It seems
to me though that it is important not to impose physical level only notions
of things like "order and structure" on a reality to which physicality is
entirely irrelevant.


        Let me ask you a question: do you include psyche in your physical
level notion?

M>This is to my *amazement*. How on earth (heaven, hell) can there be no
>structure in this universe. And if my point is acknowledged, why not
>discuss some of the implications of this??

Martin: Does the "structure" and reality of the non-physical universe have
to conform to the physical perceptions of a human being? No it doesn't.


        It doesn't have to conform to the *physical* perceptions of man.

A>Human Beings are of a really low order of reality, their views of the
greater reality are entirely limited by their lesser reality.

        Never heard of the faculty of buddhi?
My point is that unlike you seem to think, there *are* human beings
who have developed such an understanding of life that their perception
of the greater reality is enormous in comparison to what we perceive.
I submit to disregard the wisdom of the ages is sheer foolishness.

A>My primary complaint about "Core Theosophy" is that it tries to impose human
conceptions of order and structure on a reality to which those things may
very well be entirely irrelevant.

        Could be, we have to be careful indeed. Yet it is not too difficult
to perceive structure and order in one's own mind (psyche, thinking faculty,
character). The psyche has *definitely* a sphere of its own, beyond mere
physicality.

>
M>To summarize, I see a lot of groaning on this list, but I am downright
>*amazed* that none of the  conclusions such as I did are drawn by
>'process' theosophists. This is no flame of course, but a serious
>attempt to evoke some sensible response from those who consider themselves
>as 'too smart to believe in any of this core theosophy nonsense'
>Arguments and alternatives, please !

A>Martin the trouble is that I somehow feel, especially after reading that
last paragraph that you don't take either us (seriously)

        I take each person seriously in principle


A> or our arguments seriously.

        But there are hardly any arguments or strong evidence for your
position(s) presented, that's my point!!

A> In
view of our new determination to try to keep things amicable on the list,
I'd like to ask you to retract that "Too smart to believe in any of this
core theosophy nonsense" remark. It's irrelevant to our discussion and
hardly either an "argument and alternative".

        First of all: my remark is between quotes and is not intended
as an insult, but rather as a graphic description of how many on this list
perceive the attitude of especially you (some are too scared to come out
of their lurking position or decided to unsubscribe) and maybe a couple
of others. Now, if my remark hurt your feelings, I've no problem in
retracting it. The problem is, however, that the fear of getting flamed
or the fear of unproductive quarrels will not disappear when I retract
my remark (which I see not without any substance to it however).
Your anger has caused so much damage that it will be a long time before
many people will feel safe on this list. I mean feel safe to engage
in dialogue. Therefore I ask you to be tactful to others if you disagree
with them.


A>It makes you sound defensive and as a psychologist you should know that is
totally counter-productive.

        Actually I'm a bit in the offense, Alexis. I would really
like to see some discussions about what's exactly wrong with the seven
jewels. So far I've not seen one single valid argument.


M>Lastly I want to say that I regard the division of theosophists
>into two kind of categories as a very simplistic one. It may have
>some value, but I know a lot of people who just study Theosophical
>teachings very seriously and try to gain some understanding of these,
>try to correlate these with their experiences. They would not like
>to be called 'religious adherents' regarding Theosophy. Nor do I.
>In fact, I consider this labeling as a kind of *insult* to these people
>who try to think for themselves.

Martin: You may thank the administrations at Adyar, and of the TSA, and the
uLT and the Pasadena Society for that "division" it's an official
theosophical thing. It was meant to cast people who REALLY think for
themselves out into "outer darkness" and I suppose out of "Theosophy" as
well.


       I read your account of what happened regarding Joy Mills.
It's a shame.


A> No offense meant but I do not see parroting someone like G de P's
opinions (or Leadbeaters, or even Blavatsky's) as thinking for one's self. I
think it very important to keep in mind that all those books represent
merely the opinions of their writers, it's when people treat those opinions
as "received truth" or "Gospel" that I begin to think of those people as
religious.


        This is a delicate point. I have a total other view than you
on this. One can present teachings which one has found to be valuable
and reliable and which one has verified partly for oneself to others,
not in the sense of a religion, but in the sense of material that can
be useful for other seekers to investigate and validate. The fact
that humans can develop the faculty of discrimination (a must for spiritual
seekers)is crucial here. Some 'finger pointing to the path' is useful
in my opinion. Needless for all to reinvent the wheel, we can profit
from experiences of others although we have to do the 'Great Work' ourselves.
BTW, do you believe in the idea of initiations or is it all nonsense to you?


A> I think this is one of those very frequent occasions when we have
to say "If the shoe fits...wear it".


        Yes, *if* the shoe fits. And this proverb applies to all
in some sense.


Martin