Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00066)

In message <199608012109.OAA22541@sure.net>, James S Yungkans
<theos@sure.net> writes
>Next time you might claim to be Edgar Allen
>>>Poe, and.....
>>
>>Given your example, you are right, but who is getting into any pit?
>>There are a great many assumptions in your own post here!
>
>This was supposed to be a witty attempt at a pun.  "The Pit and the
>Pendulum" was a story which I was referring to. This was also the reason for
>including "Edgar Allen [Alan] Poe.  We really must be a little more light
>hearted.

Attempt failed!  Light hearted I am all in favour of.

> The "Pit" could also be the past-life scenario we were talking
>about (and it appeared that you did believe yourself to be one Ex-WW1
>Soldier [would that have been a pilot by chance?])

I wondered if I *might* have been.  Belief is dangerous stuff.
>
>>  My WWI experience is documented, and contains
>>many elements I could not have possibly known beforehand, but which were
>>verified by research after the experience.  So although it *could* have
>>been a "quick return" reincarnation, it does not follow that it was.
>
This is an example of why I have said in another post that your reading
of my post seems to have been superficial - in the earlier paragraph you
think I believed myself to bean ex-WWI soldier, whereas in the quote
above I clearly state that this is only one possibility.

>Any detail can be pulled from the Kama-Rupa, including exact coordinates for
>buried treasure,

Please pull some of these coordinates - we could all use them.  Might
help with the phone bills.

> names of others from a platoon of soldiers, even pillow
>talk.  Such details would be left behind, and accessable.  I personally
>refer to these "SPOOKS" as floating "Recording Tapes (Read-Only)."

You may be right, but your doctrinal position is not familiar to me.  I
do not know any "SPOOKS".

>  They
>only need to be brought into contact with a player that has a sutable
>playback mechanism (as do most mediumistic individuals, like yourself)

As you do noy know me, you are in no position to make any statement
concerning individuals who are like me.  As far as I understand what you
are trying to say, it sounds like BS to me.

> to
>have the grand total of their past histories presented.  The accuracy,
>needless to say, would be extraordanary, provided the Spook is not breaking
>up, and getting disoriented.

Again this is something coming from a presumably doctrinal perspective
which I have met, considered, and rejected years ago.  What *evidence*
can be adduced for such a notion?
>
>>>2) that the animal kingdom is advancing faster than we are
>>
>>This is ridiculous - how on earth do you deduce such an assumption from
>>my post?
>
>In Response, You stated in an earlier post:
>  1. Life evolves "upward" from the lower kingdoms to the higher, so that
>  at some (undefined) point "lower" animals incarnate for the first time
>  as humans.
>  >3. Also against this view, if new humans are appearing all the time,
>  >*and* it takes those who are on the wheel of rebirth vast ages to get
>  >off, there has to come a time when due to the slow progress of human
>  >beings, there will be no room to move on the planet.

No, I presented my understanding of an assumption implicit in the Annie
Besant/CWL/Jinarajadasa model, and the above paragraphs are relevant to
the "IF" of that model.
>
>So, if (a) Lower animals are incarnating as humans, and (b) "Due to the slow
>progress of human evolution, there will be no room on this planet", then the
>animal kingdom (of a quantity X) are becomming human faster than the human
>kingdom (Quantity Y) is becomming Deva, therefore since X > Y (according to
>your statements) my deduction of your statement is very much affirmed.

See above - it is *not* my statement, but my reading of someone else's
model.  Unless you have access which I do not (and would not seek) you
will have to raise this matter with those whose names I have mentioned.

>Perhaps you can provide a restatement to clarify your views, which I feel
>limits the human kingdon to Genus "Homo" (by using Darwinian concepts)
>rather than noting the difference between Animals and Mankind, which is not
>subject to "Physical" definitions.  If it were, are you possibly related to
>that individual in HPB's office that we've made such a fuss about (you know,
>the furry one in the coat :}
>
See above. These are NOT my views, but a particular theosophical model's
views.
>
>>>If mankind was not moving forward, how would one explain the growth in
>>>psychic ability on as mass scale (which is an opening of the mind to the
>>>forces of the other realms, or "Awakening the Dreamer")
>>
>>Could you provide evidence to support this assertion?  I for one do not
>>see any.
>
>This was meant to be a question, however, the following logic may help.
>If mankind is developing Psychic abilities at a faster rate than in past
>time period, then something must be happening to the human race.

IF.

>  Therefore
>we must attempt to understand what is happening.

IF.

>  Psychic abilities are
>"Powers LATENT in mankind", correct?  If these LATENT powers are becomming
>MANIFEST, wouldn't it indicate that a change is occuring?  And if we are
>supposed to be Opening (like a lotus blossom), wouldn't this be viewed as
>advancement.

IF.

>  As far a "Evidence" is concerned, take a trip to your local
>magazine store and read the journals.  Practically everyone is being told
>"You Are Psychic" with evidence to back up the allegation.  This is
>tandamount to, in the 1860's, everyone being told that they are
>"Sensitives", which most obviously would not be the case.

.. and so may not be the case here, either.

>  You can claim
>that we aren't advancing,

Thank you.  Hoever, such a claim - any "claim" - would be rash.  I point
out (again - sigh) that I was speculating on the basis of the model
already referred to.

>>>snip<<<
>
>You (alan) said:  "As defined in our teachings" does not tell me who the
>"we" of "our" are. Most of the above does not resonate with me, or is
>expressed in a
>manner I cannot follow."  If I am writing on a theosophical bullitin board,
>I am referring to "we"/"Our" as Theosophist (in a general term) without
>trying to identify individual source.  I am a fellow of the T.S., and do try
>to explain things in theosphical terms.  If things are not written in a form
>you can follow, I will try to accomidate you, however, if it does not
>"Resonate" with you, then you must open your awareness to be able to
>perceive what is meant in a given section of text.

I MUST?  I also am a fellow of the T.S., whose objects require no such
requirements - not even the study of theosophical teachings. Get real.

>  Personally, a fine
>theosophist as yourself (a self-proclaimed expert in psychic phenomina,
>SPOOKS, and other such things) who expounds Theosophy International on every
>post should have these capabilities well developed by this time (Or is all
>this "Psychic Ability" and "Experience" of yours a Humbug, and nothing more
>exciting than the talk of astral spooks resonating through the ethers of the
>internet)[my apologies for sounding harsh or undignified, but I feel that,
>that until we gain better control of our Kamic selves, including listening
>to anything that "Floats" by as a Guru or Angel, that we should be cautious
>with any opinions we accept as true.]

You are being insulting. Please stop it.
>
>>>I expect Mr. Bain's next post to
>>>be something on the order of "I only chewed in self-defence, but I never
>>>swallowed."
>>I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
>
>I was simply drawing an allegory between you as "Draco" (the dragon in
>"Dragonheart"), which I thought might be humerous and/or flattering.  When
>Drago was accused of eating a knight, he made this comment.  By the way,
>Dragons like Draco, as presented in this film, are perfect allegories for
>Devas (Devs, or Devils.)  Also the only diference between Angels or Devils
>(both are Devas of sorts) with that one is on the right hand path while the
>other is on the left.

I still have no idea of what you are trying to say here.
>
>And on it continues...
>
No thank you.

Alan
---------
THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age
TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk
http://WWW1.Minn.Net/~vlg/TI.html
(Note figure "one" after WWW)