From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 1 Jan 1995 11:13:04 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Responses and Rebuttals First of all, I wish everyone a happy new year. John, re CWL FAQ. Please put me down as caring less about CWL's love life. I find some of his work helpful to me, while other stuff I find unhelpful and I simply disregard it. I think CWL was a very good occultist. Like Eldon, I would rather read G de Purucker and for pretty much the same reasons. The following are some general and specific comments and ideas that I feel I simply have to make. I cannot, in good conscience, let Eldon voice his beliefs (which I enjoy reading very much) without a rebuttal of some kind: Eldon, re Devas. Eldon't essay touches on a significant problem with theosophical literature in general. Early theosophists, especially HPB, took a little from Buddhism and from Hinduism and a few other places, and put together a rather sketchy miss-mash description of the deities of the invisible worlds. It is very clear to me that few, if any, theosophists have ever actually seen or conversed with any of these enitites (CWL is a notable exception). I see this as an area that really needs some definition today. The Qabala and other schools (yes, I would certainly include the Enochian here) are far superior in outlining both higher and lower beings. New students read of invisible worlds and how they are populated with "beings," but except for a bunch of long Sanskrit names, little is to be found, and they go away looking elsewhere. We need to define these beings a lot better. Eldon's equation of Devas with Elementals is only true if we allow the name Deva to take on a very broad definition; so broad that the name is left with little meaning. Most occult students would consider Devas as angelic while Elementals are demonic and thus would feel better if they had very different names. Eldon, re Psychic Powers. While Eldon is free to associate the psychic with the astral if he wants to, I prefer to associate it with manas - psychic, to me, means mental and has to do with cognitive processes. Psychic experiences are mental experiences and take place on the mental plane. I strongly agree with CWL and Besant that the astral is a realm of emotions while the mental is a realm of thoughts albeit that the two blend together in a way that is often difficult to detect. I am not aware of anything by HPB to dispute this. You can, for example, have a psychic experience (e.g., a vision of a future event) without any emotion attached to it. Anyway, I am going with my own experiences here rather than what someone else says, which I suppose is the best ticket for this kind of thing. Manas, to my way of thinking, is more than just "understanding" which in occultism equates to Binah, the first Sephiroth above the Abyss. I fail to understand Eldon's reference to "the passivity necessary for psychic development." Where did Eldon ever get the idea that psychic development is passive? I would agree that channeling and mediumship are both passive, but they constitute only a small portion of possible psychic operations and have almost no part in magic as define by HPB. She gave clear and proper warnings against passivity while herself practicing magic in a wide number of forms, all of which were active. Development of psychic powers is hardly passive as even a short study of the Golden Dawn material would show. "Psychic impressions are not cultivated, they are ignored." While this is true in some Zen meditations, it is altogether the opposite with Tibetan Buddhist meditations, which make ample use of visualization. A beginner, for example, is made to visualize flowers until he/she can actually smell them, and to visualize trees until they can actually walk into one and fall down. Modern medicine has recently determined, much to their surprise, that cancer patients who visualize themselves healthy and free of the disease, have a significantly higher cure rate. Visualizations have played a large part in all branches of religion and magic througout history, including ancient Egypt and the Gnostics. Christian Scientists are taught to see themselves whole and do so before they are healed (they give God the credit, but as HPB said, they are actually practicing magic). Visualization is a powerful technique for both psychic and spiritual development, and is active rather than passive. Ignoring your psychic impressions is a good technique to use once in awhile for the specific purpose of seeing its effects. "The goal is to unify our spiritual natures with the outer selves." Yes, and this is the goal of yoga, tantra, magic, and occultism as well. I believe that psychic powers will often be developed automatically during this spiritual process, and should not be ignored when they do. One of the tasks of the magician is to confront his/her inner god/goddess directly in the higher planes. In my opinion, this is superior to simply having an intuitive feeling about one's inner divinity. "This is the opposite of seeking the ability to disconnect from outer life, practicing tuning out the world, deadening reaction to others, going into trances, and trying to astral project or get out of the Globe-D self." Here we seem to have a fundamental difference between our viewpoints. For some reason or another, Eldon associates the development of psychic powers with turning away from the world. I disagree. Even mystics don't turn away from the world, but rather see it for what it really is. Getting out of Globe D, and into the other Globes (figuratively) gives us a deeper appreciation of Globe D than we can ever have otherwise. It is only by experiencing the higher dimensions that mental or acquired knowledge, learned by reading and study, can become the Knowledge or Gnosis of direct experience. How can we hope to help others along the Path if we only regurgitate back what we have read? All of the great spiritual leaders and mystics have had a direct experience of some kind in the higher planes. If we all follow Eldon's advice, we will soon become the blind leading the blind, taking the Teachings on faith, or even worse, we will become completely dependent on "Masters" who have not followed Eldon's advice. It is direct experience in the higher planes that provides us with living Light; that light which stimulates the mind that otherwise would become stuck in its "grooves" as HPB points out. Direct experience keeps the mind and the teachings fresh and new. I was all alone driving my car once. I turned a bend and swung over to the wrong side of the road, when a voice in my head shouted at me to get back onto my own side of the road. Without thinking, I jerked the wheel. Another car came flying around the bend just missing me. A good friend of mine once got onto an airplane. He had a "bad feeling" about it, and deplaned. He booked on the next flight instead. He feld silly about this, until later learning that the first plane went down killing all onboard. I offer these as two examples in which psychic powers can help, and can be benificial in our lives. I certainly admit that psychic powers are a double-edged sword and can be helpful as well as harmful. But Eldon is throwing out the baby with the bathwater when he says that we should downplay or ignore all psychic activity in our lives. "The barriers we naturally find in our personality to psychic senses are part of the Guardian Wall, a protective barrier put up for us to foster our spiritual evolution." Our Guardian Wall is put there by ourselves, not by anyone else. It is there to protect us, yes, but only until we can handle psychic experiences. It is much like repression, where we "forget" stuff that we can't presently cope with. The teaching that Adepts, Masters, or Gods emplaced a Wall for our protection is a beautiful metaphor, but the plain fact is that we each put up our own Wall and we can each take it down at any time. Such "handling" should come naturally and not be forced. We shouldn't break through the Wall until we are prepared to cope with what we see behind it. I certainly agree that moral development must proceed psychic development, which should follow spiritual development. But I believe that if you persist along the spiritual path far enough, your will develop psychic "powers" automatically and they will be integrated into your life naturally and without danger. Of course, if you follow Eldon's advise and deliberately ignore it as it comes to you, then this probably won't come about. Magic and psychism are rather like matches; they can be useful if you know how to handle them and you give them respect, and are dangerous otherwise. But ignoring your own psychic experiences is dangerously close to repression and the ostrich who sticks his head in the sand is sometimes bitten in other places. "Extension of our senses beyond the physical world do not bring us higher consciousness." I absolutely disagree with this statement and would refer to every saint, occultist, and mystic throughout history as my source. What about, for example, our spiritual senses? We could, I suppose, debate about the word "higher." I would call a plane higher if it is closer to divinity. If sensing things that are closer to divinity than our five physical senses won't bring about higher consciousness, than I cannot guess what would. "There is an element of escapism in the desire to go to other planes." This is nonsense. Escapism has to do with motive. We go to other planes every night in our dreams. Is this an escape from the waking state? I go to other planes to discover the truth about myself and about the world in which I live. When we leave the living room to go to the kitchen, we may see this as escaping the living room, but we can also view it as trying to learn more about the house in which we live. Some Personal Comments on Magic. The Globes of our planetary chain are not out there' in space somewhere. We do not leave Earth and go to another planet in this or any other solar system. We enter another dimension rather than go anywhere in our spacetime continuum. The term astral traveling' is a metaphor; a poetic way of looking at it, rather like the way calling our aura a Body of Light is a metaphor. The Golden Dawn call it spirit vision' and perhaps this is closer to what really happens. It is a different perception, a shift in our consciousness rather than going somewhere, although that is how we talk about it. Many people, including a lot of theosophsts, have very strange ideas about the Globes. The Globes are not so weird or scary as some of us believe. In fact, each and every one of us goes to all 7 of the lower Globes peridocially. The waking state is equivalent to being on Globe D. Sleep with emotional dreams is equivalent to going to Globes C and E. Sleep with dreams without emotions is equivalent to going to Globes B and F. Dreamless sleep is equivalent to going to Globes A and G. An intense experience of bliss and oneness with all things is equivalent to the higher Globes. Why must we make such simple teachings so needlessly complicated? The practice of astral traveling, which so many theosophists seem afraid of and warn against, is really nothing more than falling asleep while maintaining conscious awareness. HPB calls it a brown-study.' That is all there is to it - all the rest is flourish and window dressing. CWL knew this, but I fear theosophists have taken the warnings of HPB too much to heart. However, she also points out the age-old occult teaching of Dare, Try, and remain Silent. Eldon would have us refuse to Dare or Try. I respect his desire to do so if he wishes. For myself, I prefer to Dare and Try, and I try to keep the results of my experiences to myself as much as possible. But sometimes, I really must speak out at least a little. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 1 Jan 1995 12:12:16 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: re: proposal > > the possibility of having a Theosophical History Forum on > > Internet. Can it be done John Mead? > > Daniel that is precisely the intent of Theos-Roots, to carry on meaningful discussions of the historical Roots of the movement. Hopefully, in a more academic and in depth manner than what one gets on Theos-L. The Roots list is a big chunk of clay provided for all the Historical Sculptors. It is already automatically archived, by the way. (so is Buds). just send e-mail to: theos-roots@vnet.net rather than theos-L@vnet.net most people are subscribed to it, but some choose not to. There are some of us who find history a bit too repetitive, or even old. :-) IMPORTANT: ALL should feel free to use ANY OF THEM! :-) peace - john mead p.s. attached -- an excerpt from the "info theos-roots" file available from the listserver. perhaps I worded it poorly -- sorry. (Buds and Roots symbolize the different aspects of the evolving Theosophical Tree of Knowledge). (Excerpt follows) The four discussion lists have their own specific aspects within the ongoing evolutions of Theosophy. Their brief charters follow: Theos-L: This lists serves the Universal Village of Theosophists. No topic is too profound, too insignificant, too old, too new, or too used. Here we find our community of ideas and friends. Theos-News: This list is for the dissemination of News-items only. If you are a reclusive Hermit, you will love this list. No discussions Please. Just send announcements. News on Conferences, Lectures, (news) of Theosophists, (news) about Theosophists, and possibly a prayer, or meditation, or poem. Please send comments and responses elsewhere, or in private mail. Theos-Roots: This list is meant to (un)cover the Roots of Theosophy. History, Existant writings, or discussions on distinctions and nuances of ideas and interpretations. As the old growth of the tree of life sends the sap to the new buds, here we savor these sources of wisdom. An inferrent branch of the Movement in evolution. Look within to see where you come from and where people have been. Theos-Buds: The Commencement of the Theosophical Movement. Evolution, Future trends, Movement, Growth, and even pruning. Here we discuss ideas within the emmergent growth of the Theosophical Movement. The efferent movement of the evolution of Theosophy. Here we discuss our misfourtune of living in interesting times. Important: All "Theosophists" are welcome regardless of any formal membership within any "Society". you subscribe to all in the same way as to Theos-l, send a msg to listserv@vnet.net containing subscribe Theos-roots your-name of course, some may want to send signoff Theos-roots your-name From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 1 Jan 1995 13:20:09 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Thanks John Mead Thanks John for the clairification concerning the 4 forums. This was unclear in my own mind. But I suspect others might have been confused too. I hope everyone on the Net will look over these 4 forums and decide what's appropriate for them. My postings was prompted by various remarks by Jerry H-E, Paul, Brenda T. and Liesel. Brenda T and Liesel had stated that they did not like these discussions and really didn't want to take part in these historical controversy discussions. My questions are: In what forum was the "CWL" debate occurring? Theos-Roots? A suggestion: Maybe those who aren't that interested in history and are too sensitive to "controversial" subjects should cancel membership in Theos- Roots and those members who want to discuss history and controversial aspects should send their postings to Theos-Roots only. This is only a suggestion and I'm not pointing the finger at anybody. But some of the postings I've read seemed full of negativitiy, anger, etc. Nothing is being postively accomplished and little is being learned abot the con- troversail subjects being discussed. I may be way off base but I think my suggestion has some merits and I hope everyone on the Theos Net will thoughfullly consider it. Also, thanks Jerry S. for your posting today in reply to Eldon T. Many of your comments are well taken. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 1 Jan 1995 13:49:52 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: developing occult powers Jerry S. - I was pleased to see you speak up on this subject. It has often been one of much contention on the list. Since Dr. Stephen Hoeller is coming to Charlotte this month I have been reviewing a few of his books lately. In the process, I also reviewed a tape (audio lecture) of his titled "The Tao of Freedom", presented at Wheaton/Olcott (summer 1992). Among various other ideas, he discussed the (im)balance within the history of Freedom from the aspect of religious freedom. A Liberal religion, allowing each individual to evolve their own belief, versus a Puritanical religion which dictates Doctrine, morals, etc. The two are forever at odds through history. The tendency through history is that the original teacher/prophet of a religion is usually an independent thinker who (re)creates ideas and opposes the current Dogmas, only to have the new religion/ideas pass on through disciples who then systematize it into a new Puritanistic or Doctrinal belief. One "core" issue is how to avoid this in the Theosophical movement. I forget who coined the term Theoso-fossils, but humor is often a freedom of last resort. With this concept in mind, the argument that psychic powers should not be developed (by intention) seems to be a position which attempts to doctrinize a particular belief. Actually several legitimate, ancient schools exist whose very path and teaching are of active psychic development. Jerry S. mentioned several. Indeed, meditation itself is an action which develops these powers very naturally. Hence, it can only be a discussion involving the *degree* of intention and action which may be at issue. These are very personal decisions best left to the informed student and their ishvara. No specific rule can be relied upon, and specific suggestions are really just that, i.e. suggestions. peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 1 Jan 1995 15:16:28 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: theos-roots/ cwl debate > > (from Daniel) > > Thanks John for the clairification concerning the 4 forums. This > was unclear in my own mind. But I suspect others might have been > confused too. I suspect that this "option" has always been confusing to most people. You have to experience one of the debates (like CWL) to apperciate why they were created. :-) > I hope everyone on the Net will look over these 4 forums and > decide what's appropriate for them. > > Brenda T and Liesel had stated that they did not like these > discussions and really didn't want to take part in these > historical controversy discussions. actually, when stuff gets on people's nerves it is a good time to politely suggest that the discussion be moved to another list more appropriate (like Theos-Roots or Theos-Buds). People have to use the other lists for them to be used :-) > My questions are: In what forum was the "CWL" debate occurring? > Theos-Roots? it was in theos-L. My feeling is that after the initial couple exchanges, it would have been better placed in Theos-Roots. I personally tend to let the list(s) evolve naturally, *else* I get accused of trying to *manage* people's thoughts for them. I find it challenging enough just to manage *my own* thoughts! I might add that one can set any list to send e-mail in "digest" form. Hence, you then get 1 or 2 mailings a day, each piece of mail is more like a magazine. The first page lists the subject headers of all of the messages contained within that piece of mail (the mail is attached - concatenated). hence -- you can glance at the first page and then decide to read it or just delete the whole d*mn package. That way you can *stay* on and monitor a list, but stuff of little interest gets bundled together so you can toss out the junk mail. peace -- john mead p.s. if a topic is getting overly boring to people, feel free to suggest that they move it to one of the other lists. I'm sure the people involved would respond reasonably. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 1 Jan 1995 19:22:58 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Historical Research Puzzle No. 1 In the Chronological Survey (p. xxv) of Vol. VII of H.P.B.'s COLLECTED WRITINGS, the following item is listed under the date of Jan. or Feb. [1886]: "Sinnetts visit H.P.B. at Wurzburg. Stay three weeks; they are there at the same time as Nadyezhda A. de Fadeyev and `the Soloviovs.' Sinnett goes over dates, etc. for his INCIDENTS; they agree on the title (ED., 83-84) Apparently Sinnett leaves first; Mrs. S. stays longer. H.P.B. completes a considerable portion of Vol. I of S.D., and plans to send it to Adyar (ODL., III, 366)." Can you consult the sources mentioned and verify (or falsify) the Jan.-Feb., 1886 date? HINT: Pay special attention to the ODL source. Read several pages of the text from ODL for an important hint! First person with correct answer (please include sources consulted, etc) wins a copy of WHEN WE DIE by Geoffrey Farthing (new 2nd edition). If you already have a copy, please donate to your local library. I hope everyone likes "puzzles"! Daniel Daniel H. Caldwell P.O. Box 1844 Tucson, Arizona 85702 Please post your answer on Theos-roots. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 02:35:49 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Partial Replies Regarding Psychic Development This is by Eldon Tucker Liesel: When psychic faculties naturally arise, I don't suggest that a heavy-handed approach be taken to repress them, where we use the term "repress" in the Jungian sense. If they have a disruptive influence upon one's inner life, measures need to be taken to deal with them. For the general person, I would recommend that they be de-emphasized, and not given a prominent role in life. The requirement to "shut them down" is not really necessary for the typical T.S. member, but more for someone at a more advanced stage, beginning actual training under a spiritual teacher. The physical senses are mayavic, but the psychic extensions to the senses are subjective and open to far greater abuse. Because of this I would put books based upon learning, study, and inspired insight into a higher category than those based upon visions and psychic experiences. In either case, though, misconceptions and wrong thinking will lead the author to see things incorrectly. ---- Jerry Schueler: I was expecting to hear from you after a while. My piece on psychic powers and "the mind's eye" was to amplify a stray remark I made and needed to explain. I appreciate our interchanges, although I'm not sure how effective either of us has been in bending the thinking of the other! Whenever we attempt to communicate our ideas, I think that we end up with creater clarity of understanding. And it's good that we approach this in a friendly rather than hostile manner. As I was saying, I made a stray remark, and then did a posting to explain what I meant. Even a simple remark, based upon certain assumptions, can be controversial. I would find, for instance, a statement that it was actually possible to investigate chemistry through clairvoyant means as quite controversial, while someone else may let it pass as obvious and true without question. Was there a controversy when the statement was made, when the person making it did not perhaps even think anyone would disagree? Or was the controversy caused by the person that dared question the statement? I would say that the controversy is inherent in the statement, and it is the fault of the person initially making it to have been caught by surprise when it is questioned. There are many assumptions made by me that lead me to write as I do. Likewise, there are many assumptions underlying your response. I would not consider your response as a "rebuttal," but as a statement of an alternate point of view, a view that models your personal experience of life. Your view is more akin to what I used to read in Leadbeater than what I now read in Purucker. What we get from a single author, though, is only a small portion of the influences that shape our thinking. I suspect that a greater number of our readers are more familiar with the view that you present, and may hold it as their own. We've had a number of times where I say something, you say "no it's not that way, it's this way instead," and others follow with a "glad you said that" to you. Among the many participants on this list, we may find not just two, but perhaps five to ten different theosophical worldviews. Some are based upon Adyar traditions, other on ULT, Point Loma, Christian, or Buddhist. Some of our differences are matter of terminology. I'd use "psychic" to refer to extensions of the senses beyond the ordinary ones we are typical born with. The senses themselves are a principle or element of consciousness in their own right, and I'd put them as principle number six, the astral or Linga-Sharira. The term "astral" here is in the same sense as the early theosophical writers used, and not "astral" as in "astral plane" as redefined by later writers. It is possible to use "psychic" with a meaning as associated with the psyche, or psychological nature. Associating the term "psychic" with the mind does not, though, make the extended senses an activity of thought. When we concentrate our attention, and attempt to visualize something, we are using our various principles of consciousness--Manas, Kama, and Prana--to assist us in creating an image of sense perception apart from the physical world. That image is not a form of understanding, nor of desire, nor of life energy, although all are needed to help create it. The image is sensory, and may or may not be associated with an actual physical form. I would not call the creation of a visual image as thought per se, or as an activity of mind, but more an act of magic. When we get to the term "magic," I would not equate it with the psychic or super-sensory. For the senses, there is a passive side where we perceive what is present, where we take in impressions in a mediumistic manner, like in watching television. This is what we can do without more of. There is also an active side of our senses where we create and direct them, where we change what we observe by that act of observation, like looking at someone we are talking to, and affect both them and us by the dynamic interaction that is created, by the active living bond. I would associate "magic" with the power to make things happen in the world, with Prana. Prana is not a lifeless commodity like gas in a gas tank, but rather is a type of consciousness in its own right, and holds its own important place as one of our seven principles. Prana is the power to make things happen, and when it reaches beyond ordinary means, at the disposal of most people, and gets into producing paranormal phenomena, then I'd describe its activity as "magical". Another place where terminology can differ is regarding the inhabitants of the other Globes. There are Elemental, Mineral, Vegetable, Animal, Human, and Dhyani-Chohanic Monads alive and active on each of the places of existence (Globes) of our earth. Some are invisible to us on our earth (Globe D). If we were to go to other Globes, some may still be invisible to us on those Globes as well. On our earth, on Globe D, both the Elementals and Dhyani- Chohans are invisible, so we only see the effects of their activities upon our earth, and upon our inner natures. The effects of the Elementals are mostly upon what we perceive as the forces of nature, both outside and as passionately felt within. This act of overseeing physical things, and helping provide the basis for their manifestation, makes the use of the term "Deva" seem good for them. Purucker speaks of Elementals as being grandly wise and spiritual, and from there ranging to hostile and of evil effect upon us, depending upon which element, of which plane, that they arise from. I wouldn't therefore, myself, use "Elemental" to only speak of the lower, grosser, more material of them. You mention that early theosophical writers like HPB made a "sketchy miss-mash" description of the deities of the invisible worlds, whereas Leadbeater was a notable exception that saw and conversed with some of them. I would say that they were understood and well-known to HPB's Teachers, and there was no purpose to disclose such knowledge. The confused and limited description of the denizens of invisible worlds may have been on purpose, to not provide any key to such knowledge that could be turned to magical ends by the uninitiated. We may find in various traditions, like Tibetan Buddhism, a richly-developed classification of various beings. Some of these may be collective names for the spiritual effects of the Dhyani-Chohans; other may be descriptive of Elementals of tremendous powers, some perhaps having persisted from ancient, long-dead civilizations. Buddhism itself is a modern, exoteric religion, and not the *source* of the Mystery Teachings. Theosophy is not an imperfect Buddhism--not any more than it is an imperfect Christianity. Just as there could be a Christian Neo- Theosophy, there could be a Buddhist Neo-Theosophy. In either case, an exoteric religion is taken as first-hand truth, and Theosophy is given a secondary role. Core theosophical ideas that do not fit in well with the exoteric religion are rejected as untrue, and the remainder of the Teachings are given enough of a twist to seem to affirm and agree with someone's favorite religion. For a Westerner, there's a lot that can be learned from a study of Buddhism. But for certain people, when a special attraction is felt, when a special call is made, a more direct study of the Teachings is the way to go. ---- Having gone over some differences in terms, I've come to a good breaking point. I'll write next time regarding our differences over the inner nature of man and the structure of the inner worlds. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 08:22:03 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: John's ground rules I'd like to respond to those of you who're voicing your displeasure with altercations on the internet. I'm with you. I think it doesn't belong on Theos-l, & I don't think it made anyone feel any better. I would like to quote part of what John Mead sent me when I first joined, & suggest that if this had been obeyed, there wouldn't have been an altercation. "Please be tolerant, and respect the opinions and religious views of all the list members." I would add to that, "and especially when you're talking about subject matter you know to be controversial." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 09:19:41 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: discussions Liesel, Excuse my belated reply to your posts to me, I have been out of town over the new years weekend. So to answer your last two messages to me: LD> _NB_ I have some very unflatterring opinions of ULT and also of Point Loma. I wouldn't dream of airing them, because I consider it deleterious. I think it's much more conducive to rapprochement, to find points of agreement. Are your "unflattering opinions" based upon what you have heard, or upon personal experience with these organizations? My personal experiences with ULT and Point Loma have been quite uplifting, and have close friends from both organizations. LD> I don't think we're going to solve anything by getting into another confrontation, you & me. They haven't worked for 90 years, nor was anything accomplished by the late (may it rest in peace) confrontation between Paul & myself.... Trust me, I have no intention of getting into a confrontation with you over CWL, nor did I ever have any. Did we have one in the past? If so, I missed it. If you look at my past messages to you, my focus has always been on promoting the need for people to dialogue and to work things through. Also, you might note that I have avoided debating the Leadbeater issue with you simply because I'm less interested in the CWL controversy and more interested in talking about how people can communicate concerning sensitive subjects. Another reason why I avoided discussing CWL with you is because I got a clear message from reading your earlier messages from Paul that: 1. You already know everything you need to know concerning the Leadbeater controversy; 2. that you already know that Leadbeater is completely innocent of all negative accusations made against him; 3. that anyone with a different view on this matter simply don't know what they are talking about; 4. that the one thing you have difficulty understanding is why there are so many uninformed people who continue to believe these "myths" about CWL. Therefore, I never felt that I had anything to contribute on the subject that would make any difference to you. I believe that the above is an accurate summary of your position on CWL. Please correct me if I'm in error. Now, concerning my last post to you--rather than calling for a "confrontation," I had asked for clarifications on two points neither one of which would have necessitated you to debate Leadbeater. I'm still waiting for those clarifications. LD> I'm looking - have been looking - for a different way to come to an agreement. It's necessary to take a different tack, not slug it out. To restate again what I have been trying to say--I think the dialogue is more important than the agreement. I think a healthy skill is for people to learn to keep on dialoging even when they disagree. IMHO the goal of a discussion should be the search for truth, not to convince the other person of it. As for finding a "different track," perhaps a discussion concerning the problems of ascertaining of what is "true" is in order. The basic problem as I see it is this: Somewhere between fact and truth is a very large gap that doesn't appear to have a name, but is the source of that psychic machinery which produces belief. For myself, I operate under the assumption that truth must always be in accord with the facts. Therefore, there may be several possibilities of what the truth may be, but it still has to account for all of the facts. This assumption may be in error, but so far I have found no reason to disregard it. What is your view? I hope this clears the air a little. John Mead, Yes, I think putting historical discussions on theos-roots is a good idea. I know of several people on this net who don't care for history, and this would save them the trouble of having to delete these discussions. So, you have my vote. As for the FAQ file--you lost me. Do you want a couple of people from different points of view--say Liesel and Paul, to write an account of the CWL case? Also, how does one access FAQ files? Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 11:45:22 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: CWL Faq -- volunteers?? > to delete these discussions. So, you have my vote. As for the > FAQ file--you lost me. Do you want a couple of people from > different points of view--say Liesel and Paul, to write an > account of the CWL case? Also, how does one access FAQ files? > > Jerry Hejka-Ekins > It would be nice to get some thought-out summaries from the various parties. Otherwise, I guess I'll collect the major points from prior posts (yuck!). Anyone want to take the lead to put it together? I'm not really qualified for it. :-) we really need a couple of history buffs who disagree with each other (usually not hard to find!). I was just going to add it as an archive file, maybe create cwl-issues.txt or other. the name of the file is kind of irrelevent. The file could be retrieved using the Get command for the listserver. peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 12:14:23 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: discussions Jerry, "Ascertaining what is true" Truth is in the eyes of the beholder It is also common courtersy to make allowances for other people's truths. I'm perfectly agreeable, & always have been, to let other people have their own truth as they see it, but by the same token, I need to be left alone with mine. My ancestors died for their beliefs, for their truth, and I guess I'm a chip off the old block in that respect. Give me a tolerant atmosphere, & I'm a pussy cat, like Chouchou, & like Loki. But like Chouchou I'll pull out my claws & bite, if you threaten my truth. Now there's a good theme for a dialogue ... how to respect other people's truth on the Theos-l. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 17:21:24 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Beware of Censorship This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Regarding theos-roots and historic discussions If people want to put their discussion about historic personages to the 'theos-roots' list, that's fine with me. I don't myself see a historic discussion of Leadbeater, Judge, Crosby, Long, Bailey, et al as an attack on anyone nor an attempt at being controversial. But because a discussion of the circumstances of their lives may prove upsetting at times to their followers, it may be best to concentrate it on a secondary list. A considerable flexibility of mind is required to study Theosophy. I'd expect Theosophists to be better at dealing with challenges to their cherished beliefs than most people. Sometimes I may be expecting too much. Historic discussion of specific individuals includes both the good and bad traits. Claims of accurate clairvoyance, spiritual authority from the Masters, etc. should be made there also; these claims are just as controversial! I don't see this move to 'theos-roots' as a form of censorship, where certain topics are off limits. If a subject comes up, it can be replied to on 'theos-l'. What I see happening is a voluntary move of lengthy historic discussions. We have to be careful about what we tell others they can or cannot write about. This is a free marketplace of ideas, and no one should impose their views either by proclaimation nor by active suppression of opposing views. We don't want to eventually end up with 'theos-cwl', 'theos-hpb', 'theos-gdp', and 'theos-other'! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 19:32:33 -0500 From: euser Subject: Martin to Jerry H-E and Liesel To JERRY H-E: Jerry, I feel it is time to step in (hesitantly) in this discussion between you and Liesel. You seem to have quite a rosy picture of The Point Loma & Pasadena societies. However, I know far too much about these two societies than to be proud of their history. Especially the James Long vs. William Hartley controversy (maybe unknown to you) is of far deeper significance to the poor results of theosophical work than most of us realize. I won't go into the horrible details of the period just preceding and following the death of Arthur Conger. It just is a terrible history, neatly swept under the carpet by a certain T.S. You can deduce from the following which I mean.. Documents of investigations into the death of A. Conger and several involved issues do exist; as well as an interesting correspondence between the Dutch Theosophical leader D.J.P. Kok and William Hartley. Our Dutch leader Kok got really sick at a time trying to explain what had happened in the above mentioned case. So much so that he canceled the meeting while people were already assembled (this I heard from theosophical friends who were there at that time I think). I keep all of this deliberately vague for two reasons: 1) I didn't see the documents involved myself. I have to rely for information on trustable friend-theosophists. However, I probably can get access to the correspondence between Kok and Hartley, but I'm not so sure I want to do that. Also I don't want to alienate others on this list. Do I have to force issues under peoples's noses when they prefer not to face them? I don't think so. 2) As these issues concern a dark past, I really have no intention to dig up old images in the astral light, risking kama-rupa spooks to creep in, leading us to a genuine seance.. I can use my time better than doing that. But..maybe someone will dig up this info sometime in future, undoubtedly leading to very emotional debate.. Apart from this dark chapter in the history of Point Loma/Pasadena societies, there are some unfortunate episodes in the Point Loma section, from which I will mention only one: The meeting in the period of Katherine Tingley's leadership of the Point Loma section (I can look up the date somewhere in an old magazine of Theosophy/The Path from ULT), where she decided to change the type of leadership from democratic to hierarchical/lifetime. Although a majority of people voted in favor of this, many, many theosophists left this society, decimating it. Robert Crosbie was one of them. He didn't get back his big investment in the society. I don't know exactly what has happened in that time, I doubt anybody on this list knows exactly, unless old enough to have been a member at that time. One is left with a strange feeling after reading Alice Leighton-Cleather on the issue of Katherine Tingley as a well-known trance medium.. I for sure don't know what to think of that. And the list of accidents/misuse of power etc. goes on.. But enough of this. I only type this down in order to point out to you, Jerry, that many things have happened in the history of the societies that you probably don't know about. Many things not to be proud of. Indeed the practice of Brotherhood was hardly to been found in the entire history of about all the T.S's. I wonder whether this list-forum may be a modest start of this practice; a practice that was the foremost goal of the inspiring forces of the T.S.: the Masters of Wisdom and _Compassion_. Friendly yours, Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 21:56:46 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Psychism: Reality and Relativity My response to Eldon re psychic powers (and I think that the word "powers" is a bit overblown in most instances. Perhaps psychic abilities' or psychic faculties' is more to the point - we are not talking about leaping buildings in a single bound here) was not intended as controversy and I apologize for using the word rebuttal, which may be a little too strong. I agree and concur with Eldon's response to my response. I intended my remarks simply to represent an opposing viewpoint - one which Eldon is already too familiar, but then I wasn't writing for Eldon but rather for others on theos-l who might get the idea that the ideas expressed by Eldon were accepted by all members. I have no intention of trying to persuade anyone (least of all, Eldon) to my point of view. I am, I freely admit, an eclectic and I incorporate ideas into my world view wherever I find them. Except for the Mahatma Letters and HPB, I don't believe there is a single theosophical author in whom I can say that I accept EVERYTHING that they wrote or taught, and this includes G de P and Judge (I have only a very few disagreements with G de P and Judge, and have great respect and admiration for both, but I cannot agree with everything they wrote). Psychism, it seems to me, probably represents the foremost difference between Adyar and the other TSs. I am in the uncomfortable position of seeing a lot of good in both the Adyar viewpoint (i.e., I like the Besant-Leadbeater approach to the Gupta-Vidya Model) and the Pasadena and Point Loma viewpoints (I like the emphasis on spiritual development rather than psychic development and I love G de P's description of the GV Model - I do, however, disagree with G de P on how the model should be used). I am a member of both Adyar and Pasadena, and am fearful that if a merger ever comes about, something that I now like in one of the two groups will be lost. As an eclectic, I can take G de P's GV Model descriptions together with the B/CWL's descriptions of the planes, and get a pretty wide view of things that fits in very nicely with my own experiences. What I am getting at here, is that I do not represent any one TS point of view, but am rather one single voice that speaks out now and then in various directions (I know that Eldon is already aware of this; I am saying all of this again for the benefit of new theos-l participants). As to Eldon's references to sensory extension, I would like to offer another view. I offer this view as my own; I did not get it from HPB, CWL, or anyone else though it can be found in veiled form in HPB and in some Buddhist works. Hopefully it will provide some food for thought: When we consider the GV Model as given by HPB we note that the divine cosmic plane lies at the upper end of the spectrum, while the physical plane lies at the bottom, the lowest and grossest or most dense. This cosmic spectrum' or what I have called our space-time-consciousness' continuum includes 7 cosmic planes and 12 Globes. If we think of the divine plane as the most spiritual, then the physical plane must be considered as the most material. If we think of the divine plane as the most true' then the physical plane must be considered the most false.' By false' I mean illusory in the Buddhist sense of Maya. In other words, the model suggests that our physical plane is the fartherest of all from divinity (lower planes do exist, but only in other universes, not in ours). This is because each plane is an expression in spacetime of the preceding planes. Divinity is self-creative. This self-creativity is itself expressed downward into spacetime with each plane. Each plane is thus another step away from its divine source, and another step into Maya. It we can accept the foregoing hypothesis, then we must conclude that of all our senses, our 5 physical senses are the most illusory of all. Our physical world, which HPB labeled Globe D, is 6 steps away from its divine source, and is the most mayavic of all. When we sleep at night, consciousness leaves the physical body and enters a Body of Light, or aura, or whatever we want to call our subtle body. Our subtle body has subtle senses. These are not extensions of the physical senses, but separate senses that are incorporated into each of the subtle vehicles in the higher planes. Like the cosmic planes, our bodies and sensory organs are each expressions of their preceding counterparts. On each plane, we have a corresponding body and sensory equipment else we could not have any consciousness on that plane (G de P points out that consciousness cannot function on any plane without a suitable vehicle, and I agree because subjectivity and objectivity are a duality, and you can't have one pole of a duality without the other). For these reasons, I believe that our dreams are more real than our waking experiences, not less. I believe that our psychic experiences in the higher planes are more real than our physical experiences on Earth. Why? Because they take place closer to divinity. The closer we get to divinity, the more real' or true' they are. Of course, many of our experiences in the higher planes seem very illusory when we return. Our dreams, for example, seldom seem to make sense' to us after we awake. But this is only from the relative viewpoint of our waking state consciousness or ego. Our dreams, for example, make perfect sense to us while we are dreaming them. The psyche has its own meanings and viewpoints, which often seem gibberish to the ego, but Carl Jung says that the psyche preexists and transcends the ego, and I agree. I believe that we are more authentic in our dreams than we are in the waking state, especially in our relationships to others. Our dreams can act as spiritual barometers, to show us how far we are really progressing along the Path, rather than the egoic picture of ourselves that we see during our waking hours. For the reasons that I have given above, I have to disagree with Eldon's position on psychism and on the idea that our psychic senses are so deceptive that we should ignore them. They only seem deceptive because our ego (by the Jungian term ego I mean our waking self' or what HPB calls the personality as opposed to what Jung calls the psyche and what HPB calls the individuality) is usually not able to translate them into anything meaningful. I believe that our psychic senses are actually more real than our physical senses - but I must couch this by saying that reality' is totally relative. Let me conclude then, by saying that our psychic experiences are more real than our physical experiences relative to our individuality, and less real relative to our personality. Psychic experiences get us into trouble primarily when we take them literally. For example, the symbols that we see in a dream will often have a meaning that is far different to the dreaming psyche (to the individuality) than we think when we awake and remember the dream (to the personality). Symbols are the language of the individuality, while the personality works only in words, and it must translate the recalled symbols into appropriate words, which is always tricky and sometimes impossible to do. Psychic experiences are real. But they are very hard to interpret properly into words so that they retain their meaning. Thus I would say that the deceptive nature of the astral and mental planes lies not in our experiences there, but rather in our interpretations of those experiences. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 23:05:40 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Charlotte NC & area -- news (repeat) this is a repeat news item. ---------------------------- NEWS -- Charlotte NC and area =============================== Dr. Stephen A. Hoeller will be in Charlotte NC this January 14-15, as a guest of the Charlotte Theosophical Society (TS) Study Group. Dr Stephen A. Hoeller was born in Budapest, Hungary and left his native country as the result of the Communist rule. He resided in various European countries and since 1953 in the United States in the state of California. Dr. Hoeller occupied the chair of Comparative Religions at the College of Oriental Studies in Los Angeles for twenty years and has recently retired from teaching. A member of the Theosophical Society for over forty years. he has lectured for the Society in Europe, Australia, and new Zealand and is currently a Field Lecturer for the Society in the United States. He has authored four books which are all in print and are published by Quest Books: 1. The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead 2. Freedom: Alchemy for a Voluntary Society 3. Jung and the Lost Gospels (insights into The Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hamaddi library) 4. The Royal Road; Kabbalistic Meditations on the Tarot We have several copies of the above books available too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Hoeller's schedule is: Saturday Jan. 14 (CLOSED meeting - TS members only) 11:30am Charlotte TS pot-luck Lunch. 7:30pm Gnostic Eucharist (Open to Public) Unitarian Universalist Church of Charlotte (234 N. Sharon Amity Road) The Eucharist service will be preceeded with some introductory remarks and explanations. There will be a Q&A session after the service. Sunday Jan. 15 10:30am UU Church (Guest Lecture - Open to Public) Sermon: C.G.Jung and Gnostic Christianity Unitarian Universalist Church of Charlotte coffee afterwards (sermon, feedback Q&A ??) TS Table with Dr. Hoeller's books and TS Literature display Send Inquiries to john mead: jem@vnet.net 704-543-6519 (voice) or Charlotte TS: 704-543-6559 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 2 Jan 1995 23:51:50 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: General Relativity (GR) and theosophy Hi -- few messages come this (Theos-Buds) way these days.... recently I have read in Science some brief comments about two NEW theories of General Relativity (GR) which are *actually* being considered as viable updates to Einstein's GR formulations. Other new theories have been proposed, but these seem to be getting serious attention. 1) the original (Einstein's) GR equations have been shown to yield a solution which violates the weak gravity approximations of Newtonian theory (This is rather new). Namely -- two (infinite) parallel plates separated by a constant distance will NOT attract each other (ouch!!). This problem solution, is a real problem; no refutations in sight. The Einstein "supporters" claim that such a configuration would require material properties which are non-existant --- i.e. don't worry, be happy. A new formulation is proposed which adds (linearly) another term which includes the energy of the space-time warp itself (with no other matter/energy present), changing the stress-energy tensor from a simple T to a T+t term (the new t term must be related to the Reimann Tensor T(sub)uvmn (*my* guess), although it was not stated). This corrects the problem (so they say), and also eliminates singularities, such as BlackHoles (always a theoretical thorn). 2) There was a brief reference to yet another theory formulated which includes a 'torsional' term that eliminates the above parallel plate problem. this theory also eliminates the BlackHole singularities too. More was not said. (an aside -- torsional!! query: do we now have a "handedness" constant as well as a Cosmic constant??) well --- food for thought. oh -- the reason this is in the Theosophy ballpark is that recent Galileo Telescope measurements have really screwed up (i.e. confirmed the problem) of the Universe's Mass&Age. There is just *way* too much mass (&energy) present. The Theosophists usually have figured that the "unknown" mass was a form of Energy as Consciousness. the problem has gotten worse for Physicists, but better for the Theosophical approach that there are "other" planes of matter (perhaps very DARK matter :-) peace -- john mead jem@vnet.net p.s. the question is -- if some people know of some related sources regarding these theories *and/or* their creators, please post. It has been a recent matter in my journals. I need more info. help. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 00:49:58 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Different Models of Globes, Planes, Principles This is by Eldon Tucker In this note I will discuss some of the differences, as I understand it, between the Besant/Leadbeater [BL] model of the globes, planes, and principles, the model as presented by Jerry Schueler [GS] (as I understand it), and the model as I have presented it [ET]. I still need to discuss the theosophical views on psychic development, to complete my reply to Jerry Schueler's posting. ---- Our physical earth has six invisible companions, each a world in its own right. Including the earth, these seven worlds are called Globes. They are in physical proximity to each other, but being on differing planes, we cannot see the seven at once. The seven together are called the Earth Chain. Do the Globes have their own higher planes? When we speak of going to the higher planes, are we going to the higher planes of our Globe D earth? [BL] Each Globe has its own higher planes. [ET/GS] When we go to a higher plane, we are really on another of the Globes; the Globes are the places on the different planes where life can manifest itself. "... each one of these globes comprises or has seven lokas, or 'places', or worlds, or conditions, or states, or kinds, of matter--sub-worlds, if you like; and also seven talas ... these seven lokas on each globe are the fields of action of the ascending sub-waves in the racial cycles ... the various kinds of bodies ... that the race uses ... correspond in texture and senses with the various lokas passed through, and the loka which the evolving entity senses is that particular loka or world correspondent to its bodies... [Purucker, Fundamentals, 394-5] In addition to the planes of existence, and the Globes of our Earth Chain, there are various principles of consciousness, including thought, desire, and sense perception. How do these principles of consciousness fit in? [BL/GS] They are bodies on higher planes. Thought, for instance, comes from having a mental body, a body on the mental plane. That body is our mind. [ET] They are the basic ingredients of consciousness, of fully manifesting our lives in a world. We take on all seven principles when coming into existence on any one of the Globes, like the earth. "The seven principles are not vehicles. They are not sheaths. ... They are principles when looked at from one point of view and elements when looked at from some other point of view. The vehicles, on the other hand, are aggregated centers or focuses or vortices in which the respective egos live, but these vortices, focuses, are in each case themselves all composed of the seven principles or elements." [Purucker, Dialogues, II, 337] When do we visit the different Globes? How to we come into existence on them and experience life on these different earth worlds? [BL/ET] We come into birth on any of the Globes through the natural process of taking on a body and existence; except for the Masters and exceptional individuals, we are not embodied on the other Globes. [GS] We have already-existing bodies on the Globes, and experience different kinds of consciousness through their activities, including dream consciousness through our Globe C & E bodies, etc. [BL] In dreams, deep sleep, and in our typical visits to higher planes, we are still on Globe D, on its higher planes. [GS] Dreams are through visiting certain higher Globes, deep sleep through still higher Globes, and so on. [ET] In sleep, death, and Initiation, we pass through the higher Globes, but don't come into full existence on them; we only take on the higher principles on these globes, but not all the principles through sense perception and a physical body. "... after the death on Earth the Monad passes to Globe E and there is a reimbodiment short or long as the case may be there. Then it passes to Globe F where the same thing takes place, governed by generally identic laws. Then it passes to Globe G ..." [Purucker, Dialogues, III, 248] We also read of different Egos or centers of consciousness within us that we have developed. What are they? [BL] They are the bodies that we have developed on the different planes. [GS] They are associated with the bodies that we have developed on the different planes, with each Ego associated with a different Globe of the Earth Chain. [ET] They are different persistent centers of consciousness that we have developed, with our having a different human Ego evolved from within for each of the Globes that we visit, all different expressions of the spiritual Ego, which expresses itself through them. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 06:11:12 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: re: "Martin to Jerry H.E. and Liesel"; proposal Martin Euser, ME> I feel it is time to step in (hesitantly) in this discussion between you and Liesel. You seem to have quite a rosy picture of The Point Loma & Pasadena societies. ME> However, I know far too much about these two societies than to be proud of their history. Especially the James Long vs. William Hartley controversy (maybe unknown to you) is of far deeper significance to the poor results of theosophical work than most of us realize. I believe that you have misread me concerning Point Loma and ULT. I had mentioned that I found the people uplifting, not the history. As for the Conger/Long/Hartley history, I am very familiar with it, in fact, I have several file folders full of documents concerning it. I also personally knew and know many of the parties involved on both sides of this issue, including the late Iverson Harris, the Smalls, the Plummers, the Barborkas, Helen Benjamin, Judith Tyberg and Boris deZirkoff, as well as the Pasadena People who represent the "other side." The issue is still a very emotional one. I had hoped for some kind of an attempt to do some healing before now, but such an event doesn't seem likely. I'm also aware of the Kok-Hartley correspondence, and have discussed it with someone who had read it. But never having been to the Hague, I haven't personally had the opportunity to see it. The difference between the Point Loma Issue and the Leadbeater issue is that in the former many of the people involved are still alive, and there is still a chance of some reconciliation. As for the Leadbeater issue, no one is alive, so it is too late for the people involved. So for the Leadbeater issue, it is up to the historians to straighten the mess out, and set the record straight. For the Point Loma Mess, I think we have to wait and see if anything will be done by those who are still alive. If not, then when they are all dead, the historians will have another mess to deal with. It is too bad that Organizations have a need to hide their mistakes. It creates bad feelings all around, and the issues never go away because the Organizations are then forced to live their lies. ME> Apart from this dark chapter in the history of Point Loma/Pasadena societies, there are some unfortunate episodes in the Point Loma section, from which I will mention only one: ME> The meeting in the period of Katherine Tingley's leadership of the Point Loma section (I can look up the date somewhere in an old magazine of Theosophy/The Path from ULT), where she decided to change the type of leadership from democratic to hierarchical/lifetime. Yes, I have a copy of those original bylaws. It was 1897, if I recall correctly. The acceptance of those bylaws at convention caused E.T. Hargrove to leave the T.S. with a group of followers, and they continued on as a separate society until the 1940's when they "infolded." Most notable of the members of that Society was Charles Johnson. Their journal was called ME> Although a majority of people voted in favor of this, many, many theosophists left this society, decimating it. Robert Crosbie was one of them. He didn't get back his big investment in the society. I don't know exactly what has happened in that time, I doubt anybody on this list knows exactly, unless old enough to have been a member at that time. That isn't quite right. Crosbie followed Tingley in the beginning, and lived at the Point Loma community. Eventually he was expelled for reasons that don't make Crosbie look good. After leaving the community, he came to Los Angeles and founded ULT. ME> One is left with a strange feeling after reading Alice Leighton-Cleather on the issue of Katherine Tingley as a well-known trance medium. I for sure don't know what to think of that. I don't think that the evidence for Tingley being a trance medium is very conclusive. I believe that the likelihood is that Cleather was in error on that one. ME> And the list of accidents/misuse of power etc. goes on.. But enough of this. I only type this down in order to point out to you, Jerry, that many things have happened in the history of the societies that you probably don't know about. Many things not to be proud of. I have a library of theosophical books and journals approaching 10,000 volumes that represents all of the Theosophical Societies. I also have five filing cabinets filled with historical documents--some of which are unique, others very rare. I have spent thirty years collecting and studying this material. There may indeed be many things in the history of the societies that I "probably don't know about", but on the other hand, I might know a little more than you think. ME>Indeed the practice of Brotherhood was hardly to been found in the entire history of about all the T.S's. I wonder whether this list-forum may be a modest start of this practice; a practice that was the foremost goal of the inspiring forces of the T.S.: the Masters of Wisdom and _Compassion_. I think we agree in principle that this "list-forum" may be a modest start. Method is another matter. I don't believe in pretending that all of the mistakes made by the different Organizations never happened--nor do I believe in refusing to discuss these mistakes because someone with a different point of view might get bent out of shape. This is not practicing brotherhood in my opinion. Rather, it is practicing denial on the one hand, and encouraging the practice of denial on the other. I also think that the discussion of those mistakes can be productive for those who don't live in denial of history, and can find lessons in it. Yet I think some issues are more appropriate for discussion than others. For instance Leadbeater and Tingley are fair game because everybody concerned is dead, yet we are still affected by those events because of the changes they made in the Organizations. On the other hand, since people are still alive who were involved with the Conger/Long/Hartley issues, I think we should wait and give then a chance to resolve what little can still be resolved, even if the likelihood of them doing so is not great. What are your thoughts? John Mead, Perhaps a jointly written FAQ file on CWL could be done. We could evolve it in theos-roots. We did this some years ago on the peacenet theosophical network, and came up with some interesting things. I'll volunteer myself. The only thing is that such a work should follow the guidelines of good scholarship. That means stay with information that is supported by documentation and stay away from speculation as much as possible. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 14:39:38 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: CWL Faq -- volunteers?? I'll go over what I wrote & retrieve the cogent points I made. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 14:40:47 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Martin to Jerry H-E and L... Dear Martin, Please, pretty please, don't go any further with this. Please read what I just now wrote in answer to Eldon's post entitled "Censorship". What's happened in the past happened. Let's just let it stay there, in the past. When I started out refuting Paul about his CWL insinuations, I thought I could clear things up. I don't see that it's helped 1 iota. Please leave that stuff alone. It's not needed. Let's rather see what we can do now, we the people who are Theosophists now ... & if the dead one's are watching over us, let's ask for their blessing, & not for a curse. They'll give it. Most sincerely, Liesel Jerry H-E, please don't answer him. It doesn't help us. It hinders. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 14:41:44 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Beware of Censorship Dear Eldon, I agree with you that these historical discussions might as well go on on a different part of the theos-net. I myself would much rather put my time into looking for solutions to problems that face us today, since in this way we may be able to do some good towards creating more peace & harmony in today's world. We're all living now & what we can or cannot do today seems to me much more useful than to look into what happened when the TS was young. What we can carry forward from olden times, I think, is our literature, some of which is, quite beautiful & idealistic, & is as helpful today in finding solutions & pathways, as it was when it was written. I'm not at all in favor of scholasticism, but for finding & using dynamic principles which can be applied to our lives now. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 15:24:35 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Misunderstandings On the subject of how to avoid repeating past mistakes in the Theosophical movement, some contemplation over the weekend led me to this conclusion. In many conflict situations, misunderstandings play a crucial role in generating hostility. My own experience suggests that the times I feel most angry are after I receive hostile treatment on the basis of misunderstandings about my intentions or meaning. By the same token, I have witnessed the unfortunate consequences of my own misunderstandings of others. Implication: whenever I am personally touched by the "let's fight about Theosophy" syndrome, objective #1 will be to identify and uproot any misunderstandings that are impairing communication. Only after the air is cleared in that way can a productive dialogue ensue. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 20:18:16 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Theosophical New Year Dear One and All, About 3am, Wed. January 4th is this planet's annual nearest approach to the sun. It is also the date HPB suggested for a "festival to be held by those who study ancient Wisdom." As HPB put it: "Let no one imagine that it is a mere fancy, the attaching of importance to the birth of the year. The earth passes through its definite phases and man with it; and as a day can be colored, so can a year... Those who form their wishes now will have added strength to fulfill them consistently. "Every man or woman is endowed, more or less, with a magnetic personality, which when helped by a sincere, and especially by an intense and indomitable *will* -- is the most effective of magic levers placed by Nature in human hands -- for woe or weal. Let us then, Theosophists, use that will to send a sincere greeting and wish of good luck for the New Year to every living creature under the sun -- enemies and relentless traducers included. Let us try and feel especially kindly and forgiving to our foes and persecutors, honest or dishonest." Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 22:16:17 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: GV Model & Psychism The GV Model: the BL, GS, ET, and HPB/G de P versions. Eldon was kind enough to submit a short essay comparing various views of the Gupta Vidya Model - the one with the Globes and cosmic planes. I think his essay clearly demonstrates the difficulty we all have in trying to understand this model. I appreciate Eldon's essay, and consider it as an honest effort to clear up some of the misconceptions that surface from time to time. I am not all that familiar with the writings of Besant or Leadbeater. I have read some, but by no means all of their works. I currently know of absolutely nothing that AB or CWL have written about the GV Model per se. I can't find "Globes" in any index of those CWL books that I have in my library. Eldon, on the other hand, has stated that he has studied both AB and CWL for many years before coming to Point Loma where he discovered G de P. So I will concede that Eldon know a lot more about AB's and CWL's views on the model. If my own version of the model in any way dovetails or contradicts a BL version, then it is quite by accident on my part, I assure you. My sole guides in my study of the model have been HPB and G de P. So I read Eldon's essay on the comparisons with genuine interest. My version of the model is based exclusively on the figure supplied to us by HPB on page 200 of Vol I of the SD. In this figure, she directly compares each Globe of her model to the Sephiroth of the Qabalistic Tree of Life; which she calls the Chaldean Kabala. I was already well acquainted with the Tree of Life before I came into theosophy (the SD was one of the first theosophical books I read). Looking at her figure, we can see some very direct correspondences. Globe D is equivalent to the lowest Sephirah, Malkuth. Globe C is Yesod, E is Netzah, B is Hod, and so on. She also labels the planes. I personally rather like the Tree as described by the Golden Dawn, but more scholarly works are also available (which don't disagree very much). Anyway, I think that if you look at HBP's model as corresponding closely to the Tree of Life, but with a few very important differences, then you will understand my version. I would also like to add here that I am not aware of any differences or conflicts between my own version and that described by G de P, who simply elaborated on what HPB had already given out. I certainly have no problem with the quotes offered by Eldon, for example. My own understanding of the higher planes for each globe' is that each cosmic plane can be divided into 7 subplanes, and that each Globe has higher *subplanes* because none are located on the 7th or highest. Thus each Globe has 7 subplanes, not planes. HPB tells us that there can be no skipping of the planes. Everything found on Earth has an astral counterpart, mental counterpart, and so on. So the idea of higher bodies, one for each plane, is a natural fallout from the fact that we all have a physical body. This idea seems to conflict with Taoist magic, which if I understand it rightly, teaches that we must create and then develop our Body of Light. However, if we accept the idea that our higher bodies pre-exist but are immature and we must get used to them prior to magical use (i.e., being conscious in them and having full memory of the fact when we return) then any conflict is resolved. AB and CWL sometimes seem oblivious to the Globes, and talk rather about the planes and our experiences on the planes, the inhabitants of the planes and subplanes, and so on. This is in keeping with traditional occultism, and even Qabalists do so (the occult technique of rising on the planes' has little to do with Globes or Sephiroth, for example). This also brings up one of the differences that exist between the GV Model and the Tree of Life: the Tree has paths between the Globes, while HPB ignored paths in her figure and never mentions them in her writings (she never says that they don't exist). She does say that there is no real 'path' as such between adjacent planes. She calls such connections 'laya centers' and describes them in some detail (they have a lot in common with the theoretical White Holes of modern physics). So the GV Model has no vertical paths that can be explored. But there is no reason to suppose that horizontal paths do not exist along each plane. What does all of this have to do with psychism or psychic powers? One of the psychic "powers" inherent in each of us is the ability to shift our consciousness from the everyday waking state to the higher cosmic planes of manifestation (I refer those interested to the last chapter of Isis Unveiled which contains an excellent discussion of this operation). The GV Model, like the Tree of Life, is a road map of these invisible worlds that surround us. Unless we actually use the GV Model as a map, it remains only an interesting but useless theory that we can argue and debate over. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 23:05:39 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Sciency Stuff John, It is very fascinating just how many theories have come out of Einstein's equations. Black Holes is one possible solution. Personally, I like the theory of Black and White Holes. I would be upset and disappointed if they ever prove them to be unreal. Speaking of "thorn," I enjoyed the book from Kip Thorn on time traveling. The torsional theory, I believe, comes from Roger Penrose (who together with Hawking also came up with Black Holes). Actually, this is very theosophical - all elementary particles have a spin which is either positive or negative - because it would confirm the theory of dualism. I heard that Hubble found a much younger universe than science had thought, but I was not aware of it finding too much matter. In fact, one of the problems of science has been that there was not enough matter to cause the expanding universe to stop expanding. Everyone was predicting that the universe would end in an entropy soup, or that there was more matter out there somewhere that was undetected (called Dark Matter because invisible). Are you saying that this extra matter has been found? How do you like the string and superstring theories? I think the idea of a 10 dimensional universe is rather theosophical. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 02:24:46 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: missing matter just gets worse > John, > > It is very fascinating just how many theories > have come out of Einstein's equations. Black > Holes is one possible solution. Personally, I > like the theory of Black and White Holes. > I would be upset and disappointed if they ever > prove them to be unreal. Speaking of "thorn," > I enjoyed the book from Kip Thorn on time > traveling. Misner/Thorne/Wheeler "Gravitation" is a good reference work. We used it as a text my senior year at Grinnell. I agree with you about the symmetry and beauty of allowing Black and White holes. I never felt it was such a great thorn either. But some of us find the pecular very normal! > > The torsional theory, I believe, comes from > Roger Penrose (who together with Hawking also > came up with Black Holes). Actually, this is > very theosophical - all elementary particles > have a spin which is either positive or > negative - because it would confirm the theory > of dualism. yup. however as I understand it, they introduce the torsional element into the GR equation outright. hence, my concern was one where we needed a *Cosmological* Torsion (versus individual spin as per particles). It seems strange there would be a preferred spin/torsion within the latent space-time (ST) fabric. I may have misread their point. It was about third hand by the time I got it in Science magazine. The news reporters are good.... just not perfect. :-) > > I heard that Hubble found a much younger > universe than science had thought, ... by a factor of two (2). so age(old) = 2*age(new) the Hubble Constant is actually the inverse of the age of the Universe (given the Big Bang theory as a working hypothesis). hence, the age decrease implies that H(old) is actually 2*H(old) = H(new) basically : RedShift ~ HubbelsConstant * Distance with the age of the universe = H**-1 (note c=1 in geometrodynamics -- dymensionless constant) (i.e. 3 * 10**8 meters ~= 1 second) this actually makes the missing mass WORSE! the mass density parameter goes as Rho ~ H**2 so the old value was Rho(old) ~ H(old)**2 which implies Rho(new) ~ (H(new)**2) ~ 4*(H(old)**2) ~ 4*Rho(old) not good for the big bang theory. > that this extra matter has been found? see above --- I must have stated it backward to imply that. > > How do you like the string and superstring > theories? I think the idea of a 10 dimensional > universe is rather theosophical. yes. However the string theory leaves me somewhat cold since the fundamental object has preferential dimension (1). Zero would make more sense if one was to choose a preferred dimension (i.e. a point) from which to build from. oh well -- peace -- john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 09:30:40 -0500 From: Donald DeGracia <72662.1335@compuserve.com> Subject: GR reply from Don DeG. John: Thanks for the post about the new GR ideas. I'll have to keep my eyes open for these. Just a quick comment about: If you look at the properties of dark matter as postulated by physisicts, these properties tally very well with the theosophical idea of etheric matter. Dark matter is invisible to regular physical matter except in terms of gravitational interaction. Etheric matter could be construed in this fashion. Remember, the 3 visible physical subplanes are only 3 of the 7. There are 4 layers/subplanes of physical matter that are invisible as well and this is the etheric matter. It seems to me that physicists have discovered the need to postulate these etheric subplanes. Take care, Don From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 14:01:27 -0500 From: euser Subject: Martin to Jerry H-E Jerry, I guess the CWL debate has triggered my response. I was not sure whether you knew about the mess in Point Loma/Pasadena societies. But I see you know about it. Liesel might feel a little bit comforted by the idea that the other societies have their own record of incidents. I agree in principle that a knowledge of the history of the TS's could be useful - if one learns the necessary lessons from it. On second thought, if one refuses to face the past, then the old images of that past will haunt you. Having faced the past and learned your lesson, then it's time to proceed in a more mature way. I think that's what was on my mind when I wrote my last letter. Not getting stuck in the past. Regarding KT I think she probably had clairvoyant powers, but that doesn't imply that she was a trance medium. I still wonder however why she changed the bylaws of her TS. I know Crosbie left the Point Loma society at a later stage. You say he was expelled. For what reason? As to the Long/Hartley controversy, I would strongly suggest to the people involved that they come together and reconciliate. But I guess there's little chance that that will happen. One of the reasons I wrote my last mail, was to point out that there are very strong characteristics dominating the Theosophical Societies, preventing or blocking cooperation. If more people from several societies were to participate on this list, it could have a benificial effect in clearing some of the messes of the past. Couldn't you try to get some more of these people involved with this list? Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 14:03:11 -0500 From: euser Subject: Martin to Eldon; a question Eldon, You wrote that we are not able to see the elementals, because they pertain to another globe than globe D. However, I don't think I agree with that. Globe D has its own astral light and elementals can be perceived therein. What is your opinion? Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 15:42:38 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com Subject: The Pasadena T.S. I've been wondering about the current structure of the Pasadena T.S. A number of members of the Los Angeles Adyar Lodge have joined it, and actively participate in it. From what they describe to me, it sounds different that what I read about it during the time that Conger controlled it, and when Long assumed control. At the time of G. de Purucker's death, there was a committee runing the Theosophical Society, and an active Esoteric Section. After three years, the committee appointed Conger to head the T.S.; he moved to the headquarters at Covina, and shortly announced that he was also the E.S. head and agent of the Masters. He started a program of shutting down the lodges, and required members to affirm their loyalty to him. His position was strengthened by having the constitution of the society rewriten. Certain key individuals in the society that did not profess loyalty to him were expelled like Boris de Zirkoff; others resigned. By the time that Conger died, the society was much smaller, with a large body of independent Point Loma Theosophists. These independents discussed at various times the formation of another society, but the general dislike of politics and organizations kept that from happening. There was not general agreement over J.A.Long as the next head of the T.S. One rival claim was by Hartley, and some members went with him. In order to consolidate his power over the society, Long cancelled memberships and required a signed statement professing loyalty to him of anyone that wanted to rejoin. Under Long, the Esoteric Section was closed. He wrote about the esoteric becoming exoteric and the exoteric becoming esoteric. There were not lodges nor public work. Everyone was considered as in direct partnership with him; he stood as personal guru and agent of the Masters for each individual member. The thoughtful journal "Theosophical Forum" was replaced with "Sunrise," where even the word "theosophy" did not appear. In effect, the T.S. was shutdown, and there was only an E.S. remaining, called "Theosophical Society International." When Long died, Grace Knoche assumed his position. "Sunrise" had an added caption: "Theosophic Perspectives", and started taking on a stronger theosophical flavor. A small number of lodges opened, called "library centers". Public work appears to have begun again. The society appears to have moved back towards being a T.S. rather than an E.S. I was talking to Jerry Hejka-Ekins about his membership in the Pasadena T.S. He mentioned that he heard no mention of Grace as the direct agent of the Masters, and was not required to accept or subscribe to anything other than universal brotherhood. Even the membership materials and newsletters are no longer secret, like those of earlier years like Long's "The Leader's Tour in Europe," for instance. What I'm wondering about, and perhaps a member of the Pasadena T.S. HQ staff could answer, is how the society is now organized. It could be (a) a regular T.S. with no associated E.S., (b) a T.S. with the E.S. kept hidden and a policy of denial regarding it (like in the ULT), or (c) a T.S. with an associated E.S. that is acknowledged? As a key player in the theosophical field, the Pasadena T.S. should, I think, be understood by Theosophists in other organizations. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 16:43:01 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: The Pasadena T.S. Your option a is the correct choice. As a member of both the Pasadena and Adyar societies, I would guess that the belief that "our society is being directly guided by the Masters through our Leader (President)" is more frequently found among Pasadena members. But such things aren't talked about; you just have to intuit them from people's attitudes. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 19:55:01 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: discussing history Martin, ME> I guess the CWL debate has triggered my response. I was not sure whether you knew about the mess in Point Loma/Pasadena societies. But I see you know about it. Liesel might feel a little bit comforted by the idea that the other societies have their own record of incidents. Yes, It is because of my familiarity with the Point Loma/Pasadena Issues that I had asked you on private mail about the background of your group. Since Liesel had already informed us that she has some "unflattering opinions" of the other Societies, I gather that she is already aware that they also have issues. She also made it clear that she doesn't believe in the historical documentation of information, so her source of information is most likely "through the grapevine." I asked for a clarification on this, but she never responded to it. ME> I agree in principle that a knowledge of the history of the TS's could be useful - if one learns the necessary lessons from it. On second thought, if one refuses to face the past, then the old images of that past will haunt you. Having faced the past and learned your lesson, then it's time to proceed in a more mature way. I think that's what was on my mind when I wrote my last letter. Not getting stuck in the past. Yes, the old images indeed hunt those who refuse to face them. The problem is that the Organizations have done everything possible to avoid facing that past, and have tried to keep it from the membership. I even received a letter from a former National President (Adyar) informing me that there is an "unwritten policy" against the discussion of theosophical history. I wrote an article about this pathological behavior about ten years ago entitled "Are We Chained to the Past?" It was reprinted in the ~Eclectic Theosophist~ around that time. The bottom line is that one is indeed "chained to the past" whenever one experiences discomfort in the face of any discussion of passed issues that is not in tune with ones personal mythology. What is ironic is that the historians are chastised for being disrespectful of other's opinions whenever they make available information concerning our past. The truth is that the Organizations are threatened by information that may expose the fact that they withheld or misrepresented the past to the membership in the first place. In other words, these "unwritten" anti historical "policies" are not for the purpose of protecting the feelings of members, but to protect the Organizations from being exposed. What I have observed in Organizations and individuals inside and out of theosophy is that we cannot live in denial and still proceed in a more "mature way." The old controversies keep coming to the surface to pollute more worthwhile efforts. Every time the controversy comes to the surface, that much energy is sapped from worthwhile activities in order to push it back under the surface. New controversies take even greater tolls. The recent Bing Escudero struggle for instance--his being fired and the change of bylaws that disqualified him from running for the national presidency, etc. directly correlates with the membership of the Wheaton Society dropping from over 5100 to less than 4000 (a 20% drop). This is just one more issue for historians to investigate fifty years from now--and to be chastised for bringing it up. ME> Regarding KT I think she probably had clairvoyant powers, but that doesn't imply that she was a trance medium. I still wonder however why she changed the bylaws of her TS. She said that she was acting under the guidance of the Masters. Others say that she was power hungry. Neither view is provable. ME> I know Crosbie left the Point Loma society at a later stage. You say he was expelled. For what reason? Yes, Crosbie lived at Point Loma for five or six years. A lot was going on then. His wife at the time was antagonistic to theosophy, and eventually divorced him over it. Crosbie also, according to his own account, fell out of agreement with how the Point Loma Society was run, and "left quietly." He forgot to mention his expulsion. Details are missing. ME> As to the Long/Hartley controversy, I would strongly suggest to the people involved that they come together and reconciliate. But I guess there's little chance that that will happen. It seems so. ME> One of the reasons I wrote my last mail, was to point out that there are very strong characteristics dominating the Theosophical Societies, preventing or blocking cooperation. If more people from several societies were to participate on this list, it could have a benificial effect in clearing some of the messes of the past. Couldn't you try to get some more of these people involved with this list? There are already people from all of the TSs on the list. Perhaps if you make a specific proposal, you might get some takers. However, I wouldn't touch those issues that involve people who are still alive. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 23:37:45 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Thanks Thanks to everyone who has: (1) completed the survey on recommended Theosophical titles; and (2) answered the questions concerning Theosophy, HPB and Buddhism. If anyone else wants to send their survey picks and answers, please do. I greatly appreciate all input. Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 02:01:13 -0500 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: The Future Friends: This is a *long* post (2-3 pages) but I hpoe its content justifies its length. Jerry wrote (greatly abbreviated): > What I have observed in Organizations and individuals inside and > out of theosophy is that we cannot live in denial and still > proceed in a more "mature way." The old controversies keep coming > to the surface to pollute more worthwhile efforts. Every time > the controversy comes to the surface, that much energy is sapped > from worthwhile activities in order to push it back under the > surface. New controversies take even greater tolls. The recent > Bing Escudero struggle for instance--his being fired and the > change of bylaws that disqualified him from running for the > national presidency, etc. directly correlates with the > membership of the Wheaton Society dropping from over 5100 to less > than 4000 (a 20% drop). This is just one more issue for > historians to investigate fifty years from now--and to be > chastised for bringing it up. > > One of the reasons I wrote my last mail, was to point out > that there are very strong characteristics dominating the > Theosophical Societies, preventing or blocking cooperation. If > more people from several societies were to participate on this > list, it could have a benificial effect in clearing some of the > messes of the past. Couldn't you try to get some more of these > people involved with this list? I have hesitated saying much of anything about the current controversies in which virtually all of the strange gloomies existing in the basement of every TS seem to have been brought to the surface. Perhaps what I've been wanting to express will be appreciated, perhaps not, but it seems now worth a shot: I am now 37, and joined the TS (out of Wheaton) when I was around 25. I did not join because of any relatives, or friends, but simply because I was experiencing access to worlds of perception that I could find no explanation for, and had no cognitive configuration within which to give these perceptions order. I was looking, in short, for people to talk to and a worldview that at least vaugely could explain my perceptual reality. As I joined and participated in many of the discussions, and came to appreciate the scintillating brilliance of the Objects (especially the First Object, which to this day I consider to be one of the most concise, magnificent statements of not only the personal spiritual path, but of a balm for today's bloody & selfish society)...my thoughts naturally turned towards the possibilities of arriving at a formulation of theosophy tuned to the generation of which I am a part...and if the founders, different as they were, and the Master's (different as *they* were), had anything in common, it was that they were deeply attuned to the most current thinking of their age. These were not abstract mystics...or rather, they had adjusted abstract mysticism in such a way as to make it continually and exceedingly practical. Even further, they were not simply following in the mainstream thinking of their era, but were aware at the most cutting edge of the sciences, arts, social movements, spiritual movements and etc.; and if there was controversy...well that simply goes with the territory...in the crest of the wave is always more turmoil than in the peace of the trough. I did go through a phase of reading large quantities of the writers of the first generation, and understood many of the controversies...but at the same time kept attempting to understand a larger point: How would the awe-inspiring intentions embedded in the Objects look if adjusted to the cutting edge of *these times*? I meet, in day to day living, many of my age and even much younger...who stun me with the spiritual development their lives have made present. There are children being born today who are almost magical (is this perhaps the first real wave of "sixth sub-race" incarnations?), I talk to teenagers who speak in terms that show an understanding of emotional complexity that is not achieved by many 60 year olds I know...I meet truly powerful, loving men and women who simply have cleared the vast majority of petty bickering out of their energy fields, they don't deliberate about it, it just would not even *occur* to them to engage in it. I see these people and wish they could appreciate theosophy...wish that the TS could become a place where they could combine their magnificent traits in mutual service...BUT, I can rarely talk them into joining or becoming involved. As I attempted to analyze this, most objections would probably fall into one of three catagories: 1. Process. In this, I would include *current* controversies as being highly relevent topics for discussion/*clearing*. There has been, for as long as I've been involved, a tight circle of people controlling (at least the Wheaton) TS...most of them first/second generation...who control discourse, control the national publications, control who is cultivated for leadership roles, and engage in really ridiculous power struggles between themselves. From the point of view of many of the dynamic ones of my generation...those who would lead theosophy into a 21st century formulation...it is not that Bing won or lost a power struggle, nor the even tighter control that was clamped on leadership after the affair (what are there now, 30 or 40 people even eligible to run for president? out of 4000 or so?)...it was the fact that that kind of situation is (or seems to be) SOP at headquarters. Tell me why a thirty year old who had spent ten years very delibrately, with intense spiritual effort, cleaning large amounts of that kind of garbage out of their personal energy-systems, ..and reaching the understanding (that such a clearing leads to) that service to the larger world is where their life lies...tell me why would they want to join an organization in which power is held tightly to the chest, in which the *process* of struggling itself seems to belong to a past era. As a friend said to me, after dropping out of the TS after the first year..."I feel like any energy I give the TS just disappears down a black hole...that serving the TS is *not* a way of serving the *world*." With increasing numbers of people the commitment to service is no longer a question, it is core to who they have become...and to these people the dominant question is which of the many avenues of service claiming their attention will do the most good. The current leadership certainly has the tools and ability to control the structure of the TS, but if it continues to control process in the way it has it will become increasingly irrelevent to the dynamic spiritual entities we wish (I wish, anyway) to attract. The Democratic congress was just thrown unceremoniously out of power for behaving in much the same way...but in the case of the TS people won't try to transform it...they will just take the urge-to-serve to organizations that are dynamic and alive. 2. Topics. The spiritual issues of HPB's time are *not* those of our time. The language of our time is not that of HPB's time. A friend of mine is fond of saying that every generation incarnates with a bag of rocks and a bag of seeds, and has done its part if it dumps the rocks and plants the seeds. In my opinion (again, shared by many in my peer group) one of the most profound *spiritual* projects of this age is the fundamental re-balancing of the masculine and feminine principles, considered both metaphysically and in the most down to earth, day to day socio-economic terms. The TS has not even bothered to update the wording of its objects. Again, it is not that we still call the intention of our creation a "Brotherhood"...which in these times *sounds* like it has both sexist and elitist overtones...or that arguments go on about it...which the current leadership has won (saying that if people don't like it they should have its original intention explained to them)...it is that it is even still a topic of argument. Perhaps the older Theosophists cannot understand why it would be such a big deal...I simply want to convey (to anyone who wants to listen) that I know a good number of truly spiritual women of my generation...and these women are *powerful* in a way that has not been seen on this planet for a long, long time...and language *matters* to them...many will not only not join a "Brotherhood", they will simply laugh at it as an anachronism, and ignore it in favor of organizations that welcome them and the fullness of their power...not only with words, but with topics, with language. This gender topic, by the way, is not the point, only an illustration. A transformation of the nature of spiritual education is going on...and if I could sum up something so large, it would be to say that for growing numbers of people, education is not about the impersonal conveying of information, as we now have a positive Glut of information, but rather has to do with MODELLING the truths one purports to hold. The TS leadership may not like it, but society has changed, and to *not* change the wording of our Objects is perceived as a *positive statement of orientation*. That is, the _statement_ expressed in the First Object...a statement that seems to imply gender equality, is now being contradicted by the wording of the Object itself...we are speaking in terms of equality, but we are *modelling* something that looks like a Christian fundamentalist organization. This point applies to many other arguments in the current TS. As this enters the current debates, I would perhaps say this: I stand between the two extremes being posted: I think that for people whom the CWL controversies & etc. still contain large emotional charges it is right and proper...even a spiritual duty...to process and release those densities...but for every intense conversation about the *past* on an open forum (such as this list) my personal desire would be to then see an equally intense conversation about the application of theosophy to the cutting edge of this world's issues. The group equivilent of the injunction to "retreat within, advance without" might be phrased "clean up the past, animate the future". 3. "Just do it". This phrase, almost the motto of younger American generations, contains much that is disturbing...it often connotes a fundamental lack of any reflection...but, in it is also a remarkable contribution to planetary spirituality: This generation lives on Earth, and much of its spirituality is action-orientated in whole new ways. Much of today's youth are powerfully attached to the life-side...and have no use for the endless disputes of the form-side (a certificate-granting "Institute of Theosophy" for goodness sake! Geez, can we squeeze the living spirit of Theosophy into a shell any tighter than *that?). Give youth a structure and they'll knock it down...give them a hierarchy and they'll toss it out the window...tell them to sit quietly and listen to their elders deliver long, ponderous discourses on the nuances of a model whose very language sounds quaint and archaic, and they're likely, if they stay around at all, to say upsetting and sometimes obscene things...and these are the *spiritual* people. There are growing numbers who don't want to be "educated" about spiritual entities by those quoting books...they already work with these beings on a day to day basis (and I'm not talking about those who selfishly think "angels" care about their personal lives...I'm talking about people developing types of interior communication and co-working abilities that simply do not fit within the rigid structures of 19th century formulations of inner abilities or inner beings). Growing numbers to whom thought is irrelevent unless matched with experience. Growing numbers who are rightly cynical about organizations that have global visions of peace and harmony but that in action are tiny, self-involved, functionally closed (despite words about being "open"), and not turning the vision into actual achievement in the world. There are, in fact, large numbers of such organizations all over the place these days. *Is the Theosophical Society one of them?* Many currently in the TS organizations would say "no!", but, is this an empirical truth? And, if it is not, then why do so many of the most dynamic young spiritual humans, people whose fire and passion match HPB's and whose wisdom, in time, might, why do they not agree? Well, this has gone on probably too long. I need, however, to end with some words to wrap this into context: I do not mean this to be an indictment of older Theosophists. While I've been critical of the current Wheaton leadership, I know that some on this list are connected to it and honor it and agree with what it does, and I mean no disrespect or invalidation of that perspective. It is a definate comfort zone...but it is far from mine, and many of my generation...I am simply concerned about the end-of-the-century "wave" now sweeping the planet...a wave of dissolution, of the freeing up of over-structured forms...and this is sweeping everything from politics to economics to academics to cultures, religions, social institutions etc., etc. I believe there are spiritual reasons for this, but be that as it may, the past few years seem to indicate that those organizations that volunarily loosen their structures and control enough to allow transformation are surviving, and those that tighten control, in response to this disturbing current, are being fractured, cracked, and often...destroyed. Not only do I wish this post to be construed as an "attack" on anyone, I don't even think it is "correct" in any absolute sense of the word. It is probably partially motivateed by intense frustration...because I have tried over the years to expand theosophy into my generation, to my closest friends, to my co-workers in service, and wind up all too often defending the TS against charges that, I must ultimately admit, are indefensible. I wrestle daily with the decision to even remain connected to the TS. I've gone for one or two years at a time ignoring it altogather (as there *are* a lot of dynamic organizations where service seems to manifest as good in the larger world). I have tried to articulate not only my own frustration, but that of many of my generation and the generation younger than myself. I may be wrong about a lot of things, and many on this list may take exception to some of what I've said...but there are two seperate issues...first, the relative truth of these sentiments, and second, if they are not true, why would a good number of younger Americans possibly agree with them? Why would so many of the few who have even heard of us simply group us into the catagory of just another self-involved cult obsessed with our own internal quibbling...a catagory now containing literally hundreds, if not thousands of groups in our current world? I fully expect to be nailed for much of what I've said. Most of those I've tried to engage in theosophy don't bother to articulate why they leave, they just leave. The only real reason I've bothered is because...I still hold in my heart a sense of a remarkable possiblity hidden in this small, quiet society...its buried deep within the First Object, and if unleashed, I still believe the TS could have as profound effect on society as it did when HPB stomped the terra. Some sociologist (I don't remeber who just now) noticed that spiritual organizations seem to have almost predictable life-cycles...most are begun by one or two people of huge magnetism generating the organization, and the followers that outlive them then tend to formalize the organization, and another generation that still personally knew the first then fights a lot over interpretation and formalizes a "history"...but the organization then reaches a crisis point where *most* die: The last of those who knew those of the founding impulse die...and the fundamental test is then to see whether the ideas of the organization are more powerful than the magnetism of the founders. Either the organizations re-opens its arms to the world, and begins to adjust the presentation of its ideas to harmonize with the times, or ... it remains in "formalization" mode, thinking and talking of the glory days of the past, the philosophy of the past...and quietly dies, though often the outer structure will remain for some years after the life has gone out of it. The TS now stands at that crucial juncture...and perhaps I feel passionate about this because I am one of the transitional generation...when I joined many who actually knew (e.g.,) CWL were still alive, if I belong for my whole life and die as a Theosophist no such personal link will be left...and the TS will still be alive because it transformed into something truly effective and relevent to the times. I fear at this point I do not see the alterations in attitude or orientation required to make that transformation... ...but I would absolutely love it if anyone wished to compel me to believe otherwise.... With great love to you, my brothers and sisters on the road... -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 02:44:12 -0500 From: Arthur Patterson Subject: Content Blind but not Tone Deaf Dear Theo-l Net Partners, Within the first few weeks of being on the list, I remember sensing that like all vibrant organizations, Theosophy has its divisions, scandals and disputations. Less than perfect leaders, less that perfect followers, and less than perfect structures are t he bane of all organizations. I think, however, that those organizations which seek to do the most amount of consciousness raising have a particularly hard time coming to grips with these limiting facts. For seventeen years as a denominational leader, in an evangelical setting, I have weathered many controversies. Some I haven't weathered at all because I was, unfortunately, at the center of them. Accusations of power mongering, scandal, and misunderstan dings have lead to the same sort of responses which I have read on the Theos-l list lately. It makes me think that the "content", or what I like to see as the "presenting problem", is not as important as it first appears. In this case it is the discrediti ng of an honored leader CWL or conversely the discrediting of CWL's character. I see beneath the flinging of "facts" something more subtle going on. It is the clash of values and loyalties. Since I can make the rightful claim to know nothiing about the facts, I am in the advantageous position of reading the tone alone. It is I suppose like being spiritually deaf only hearing the body language. Perhaps I am not picking it up exactly as it is but I feel that maybe what I sense "tone wise" might help ameliorate the tension somewhat. I can only hope. The first thing I hear is a group of very knowledgeable people who have disciplined themselves well enough to become living transmitters of the traditions that they are loyal to. Behind each individual, I sense many others who would share that person's vi ewpoint. The Theos-l list is made up of leaders and teachers. I sense that the quest for the Universal Siblinghood is a difficult one, given the history of the movement. Yet, I sense that peace and reconciliation are at the center of this group's desires. In fact, I imagine that it is hard advocating Theosophy were it not so. To devour one another in disputes is not a living witness to the Wisdom of the Ages. I think it was Jerry who mentioned that the movement gets discredited by the incendiary nature of the fellowship. It is very helpful that in a group of predominantly intellectual types, we have members who are concerned with Feeling values. These values are not driven by purely subjective emotions but by deeply felt convictions. What I have noted is that with every s hriek of pain that some have felt there is an invitation to healing at a depth level. To leave aside the differences and learn to "treat each other better", in a spirit of forgiveness is a grand goal, indeed. Equally important are those dedicated to pushing this historical business through and not avoiding, or changing Reality, to suit our loyalties. These people are valueable contributers to the process. I see them as historical physicians perhaps even Bards who wield the mighty power of the historical Word. All this seems so positive, when we don't factor in the possibility of what Paul said about motivation. We suspect each other's motives when we are trying to balance what appears to be the opposite sides of truth. Reading motives is difficult and takes th e discernment of Solomon. I find that witholding judgment is difficult. When I am sure that I have at least part of the truth and that the truth doesn't appear to be valued by others I get defensive. I think Paul said it correctly when he stated: *Misunderstandings play a crucial role in generating hostility. My own experience suggests that the times I feel most angry are after I receive hostile treatment on the basis of misunderstandings about my intentions or meaning. By the same t oken, I have witnessed the unfortunate consequences of my own misunderstandings of others.* I would like to see the values underneath the positions that have been stated be affirmed by the whole group. I was intrigued by the value that Liesel brought up concerning the honor toward the departed. *if the dead ones are watching over us, let's ask for their blessing, & not for a curse. They'll give it. Most sincerely.* What I get out of that is Liesel genuinely believes in the reality of the afterlife and we must approach this whole controversy with respect for the dead and the living as part of the process. It is not a matter of dispassionate historical analysis but o f relationship. I can imagine that a sort of disregard for time is congruent with a Theosophical historiography. The past is now and intersects with the future as well. Therefore the talk that this controversy is "in the past" is irrelevant since it not o nly effects the present but intersects with it. Once our values are mutually affirmed we can get on with the process of discerning the gift that CWL has given us regardless of his weakness. I am not in any position to judge his morality but I would suggest to those who think that he couldn't have fal len because he was spiritually insightful are not being reality based. People of great giftedness can be paradoxically people with great weakness such as Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. etc. One does have to look to great leaders to see that we are treas ures in clay vessels. We are a paradox of great spiritual perception and a great ability to deceive ourselves. Holding the paradox in ourselves and others only deepens our spirituality; it doesn't spoil it. Those who believe that if a person is morally weak, his or her insights are blighted and beyond any value are similarly naive. CWL could speak the truth even if he had the failure that they fear. I should think that the value of his spiritual teaching sh ould be judged apart from this moral question entirely. Moralism is not the filter through which to view spiritual teachings. The moral effect of the teaching confirms the spiritual truth but weakness doesn't cancel truth out since spiritual teaching is beyond individuality. Surely, unless we wish to form a personality cult around leaders, we have to move to such a position. In conclusion, I think that the values we hold should be mutally affirmed and understood in dialogue with one another. Second, recognize that any idea of human perfectability is liable to lead to illusion. Third, CWL's spiritual teaching should be evalua ted apart from any attempt at moralism. Fourth, that the character of CWL should be open to critical investigation by historical methods and not be seen as in any way invalidating the gifts that his teaching has bequeathed on those who honor him. This was written as I said in the full awareness that I am deaf to the content of the questions involved but perhaps I have read the tones. Even if not it was an attempt to understand what I am hearing. Any comments and suggestions are welcome. Under Your Mercy, Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 10:45:36 -0500 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Re: The Future Hi all, At least the salutation said "Friends:" :-) JRC's post about "The Future" was interesting to read. I'm not, however, sure I know what to say about it. I joined the T.S. about seven years ago when I was 34 years old. Although I maybe half of a generation ahead of JRC, much of what was written seemed to strike a resonant chord somewhere deep within me. I'll even admit that at last renewal time, I considered (ever so slightly) letting my membership lapse. I don't know if I have any direct response or rebuttal. My knowledge of the T.S., its organization and politics, is very limited. However, I would sincerely hope that some of the more experienced members -- regular posters and lurkers -- will grab this thread and discuss it (without flames please) at great length. And, possibly bring similar topics up for discussion at their local lodge and study group meetings. In my own experi- ence, the Cincinnati study group was composed of mostly "younger" people and some of the ideas mentioned in JRC's post could have contributed to its demise. If I can resurrect the group, maybe we can discuss some of the post too. I wish I had more to say. It just "feels" like it should be discussed in more detail. I hope that a thread can be started and a useful discussion centered around it. Any takers? ... John M.? ... Jerry S? ... Eldon and Brenda? ... Lewis? ... Jerry H- E.? ... Leisel? ... any others? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 11:20:00 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: Maeterlinck, Coburn Does anybody happen to know whether the French writer Maurice Maeterlinck or the American/British photographer A.L. Coburn were associated with theosophy in any formal way? Thanks, William From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 12:06:38 -0500 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: On the road again Hi all, I will be in Dallas/Irving, TX the week of 1/9-13/95 teaching a C class at Sprint; and in Mt. View, CA the week of 1/16-20/95 teaching a Motif class at H.P. If anyone would like to get to- gether in the evenings and discuss list topics please let me know through private e-mail before Sunday 1/8/95 -- I don't believe I will have net access to read mail during these two weeks. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 14:14:44 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Maeterlinck, Coburn Maeterlinck (Belgian, not French, I believe) was an admirer of Blavatsky and is quoted in the Cranston bio. Alas, our copy is out, but I'll look at home this evening if noone answers your question. However, I doubt that she specifies whether or not he was a member. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 14:15:52 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: Maeterlinck, Coburn Pardon me. Make Maeterlinck Belgian, not French. Sorry. wa From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 15:55:29 -0500 From: euser Subject: Martin to All; PBS-special question To all: Two days ago I read some mail about a PBS broadcast in october about the OCCULT REICH, which associated the Nazi movement with the rise of Madame Blavatsky and occultism. This mail (originally written by Paul Trejo) was posted on the Interrel list by one of the list-owners for our information. I have replied extensively to this mail and I will probably have some more discussions on this topic on the Interrel list. K. Paul Johnson, I liberally used some of your information on this topic (that I read in the talk.religion.newage group in october) in my reply. [You replied quite well in that post in october - it wasn't clear to me then that that thread could be well due to this PBS broadcast] I vaguely remember that someone (K. Paul Johnson, was it you?) on this list mentioned having watched this PBS special. I didn't pay any attention to that short note then, as I had not the faintest idea what it was all about. Now, let me ask you some questions: -Did PBS suggest in any way, implicitly or explicitly, that Blavatsky was partly responsible for the rise of the nazi-movement? -How exactly was the series of suggestions structured, i.e what was the line of reasoning? -What did you do against it? Did you protest/wrote a letter/ consulted your T.S.? Do you know what is done to defend the name of Blavatsky and the cause of Theosophy? Need I point out that a true Theosophist has a _duty_ to defend other Theosophists, let alone HPB, in case of slander or libel? We cannot let these germs of moral degradation freely do their work in the minds of people, it will surely hamper the spiritual progress of mankind. So, please let me hear about your thoughts/plans/actions and what has been done already to rehabilitate the name of Blavatsky in the eyes of ignorant people. I'm quite willing to share my replies to accusations of Blavatsky's involvement with Nazistic ideas with others. Maybe we should make a special FAQ regarding this issue. What do you think? Martin Euser euser@xs4all.nl BTW, could anyone give me the address of this PBS network? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 16:26:33 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: PBS Martin, I called PBS at 703-739-5000. The programming office said they had never heard of OCCULT REICH, wondered if it may have been broadcast by a local affiliate. Best, William From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 16:28:46 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Martin to All; PBS-special question Martin and all-- It wasn't I who saw the program in October, and the guy was who attacking HPB didn't mention it. Please keep us posted on this. For the information of others of you, the attack against HPB on the newage newsgroup was to the effect that her ideas inspired Hitler. My reply was that the authoritative source on this topic was The Occult Roots of Nazism by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, whom I met in London some years back. His talk, and presumably his book, made it clear that preexisting racist doctrines (Houston Chamberlain, notably) had some Theosophical teachings mixed in with them by an early 20th century German proponent of "Ariosophy," an amalgamation which later influenced Hitler. But Goodrick-Clarke, a non-Theosophist, was quite explicit in stating that there was so much distortion and transformation of Theosophical ideas that by the time you reach Hitler's occult doctrines there is very little left of the original influence. Thus it would be completely unfair to hold HPB responsible for Hitlerian occultism. Godwin's Arktos has some interesting material on all this as it relates to Polar themes. Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 16:58:21 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Changes Having just read John Crocker's and Art Patterson's posts, let me begin by commending both for their articulate and thoughtful remarks. I won't engage all or even most of the themes here, but there is one thing that I want to throw out for consideration. Although it may not be as fast or as overt as some of us would like, there has indeed been positive change in the last half-century among Theosophists. The most obvious one, that we may not sufficiently appreciate, is the great strides made by Wheaton in its publications. I can think of no other spiritual group that publishes as wide a range of interesting material on contemporary spiritual concerns. Pasadena, too deserves considerable credit for expanding its publication activity in the last 50 years. Although my own experience certainly led to the conclusion that their (TUP's, TPH's) values about what to publish were in conflict with mine, I was still left with respect for what they are doing. The Quest is a very fine magazine IMHO and is capable of attracting people to Theosophy. Unfortunately, we don't have a very good record at retaining new members, as discussed here before. One more noteworthy change is the amount of mutually supportive networking going on among Adyar, Pasadena, and ULT. In 1993 this reached a climax with the cooperative work at the Parliament of the World's Religions. It is also noteworthy that Sylvia Cranston's HPB biography had extensive support from all three groups, which promote it unanimously. So, although I know what you mean, John, when you talk about wondering whether or not to renew membership, I hope that these signs of progress give you some hope. It doesn't seem probable that there will be any dramatic paradigm shifts, but rather gradual changes of emphasis. I.e. if I were to look for results of my own work in terms of a shift from mythological to historical ways of thinking about the Masters, two or three years down the road it might seem like a total failure. But who knows about ten or fifteen years hence? Art, maybe your status as an outsider can yield a bit more wisdom for us. What do YOU perceive as the common values, apart from peace and reconciliation, that animate our discussions? Maybe we should explore that theme some more. Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 17:28:24 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Re: Maeterlinck, Coburn >Does anybody happen to know whether the French writer Maurice >Maeterlinck or the American/British photographer A.L. Coburn were >associated with theosophy in any formal way? Cranston's biog. of HPB (p. 359) quotes George Russell: "It is paying a poor compliment to men like Yeats, Maeterlinck, and others, to men like Sir William Crookes, the greatest chemist of modern times, who was a member of her society..." Sounds like Y. and M. (says Russell) were not members of the TS -- but I'm pretty sure Yeats *was*. Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 18:53:43 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: RE: Don DeG and GR > It seems to me that physicists have discovered the need to > postulate these etheric subplanes. they have had amble oppurtunity to do so before. The nice thing was that they (i.e. majority of theoriticians) actually are considering other ideas now. The GR ballpark has had many other players before, but they seem to be listening now. a paradigm shift is getting closer, MHO. peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 23:24:32 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Occult Reich I see the postings about the "Occult Reich" and HPB. There is a series called "The Occult History of the Third Reich," This has been shown on tv several years ago. On PBS? I don't know. I have one of the videos of this series titled: THE SS BLOOD AND SOIL. In this video pictures of HPB are shown and her teachings are mentioned and a link is make with Nazism. I would have to look at it again to be more specific. This video may still be available from: Video Treasures, Inc. 2001 Glenn Parkway Batavia, Ohio 45103 CAll directory assistance for a number if listed. I don't know if this is what was seen on a PBS station. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 23:56:24 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Maeterlinck, Coburn To: William Allen Ask the Olcott Library Olcott@ dupagels.lib.il.us From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 08:05:30 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: let's get on with it To Jerry H-E I hear you protesting loud & long, because I said I had some unfvorable opinions about ULT and Pasadena, which I wasn't about to air anywhere. The purpose of my saying this was because you were hinting at not so nice Adyar affairs. I wanted to see whether you'd protest as loudly as I did. You did. I rest my case. The general concensus of people on the theos net seems to be to move on from all this bickering to something more constructive. I have a suggestion for our next concerted effort. Let's design, print up & sell bumper stickers. I have 2 nice slogans to get the ball rolling: GET HIGH, MEDITATE SIBLINGHOOD IS BEAUTIFUL! When we've sold 100 of those, we can bicker about who the money is gong to go to. I suggest the TOS. How's about it? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 12:19:57 -0500 From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: Maeterlinck, Coburn I do not know whether Maeterlinck was a member of any theosophical society or not, but it is generally assumed that he had "theosophical leanings." Give me a little time and I may find out some facts. In Maeterlinck's book _Our Eternity_ (New York : Dodd, Maed, 1914) there is a chapter entitled "The theosophical hypothesis" (p. 71-78), in which he cites Annie Besant. [BTW, the book is NOT available for loan from the Olcott Library.] Elisabeth Trumpler Head Librarian Olcott Library & Research Center Theosophical Society in America PO Box 170 Wheaton, IL 60189-0270 On Thu, 5 Jan 1995, William Allen wrote: > Does anybody happen to know whether the French writer Maurice > Maeterlinck or the American/British photographer A.L. Coburn > were associated with theosophy in any formal way? > > Thanks, > William From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 14:11:03 -0500 From: "Judy A Cilcain" Subject: Re: TSA (Wheaton) back online at old address In message writes: > On Mon, 19 Dec 1994, John Mead wrote: > > > Hi -- > > > > The TSA national (Wheaton) e-mail address is back online now > > at theos@netcom.com I need to let you know that I am going on a year's leave of absence and will be off-line for that time period. I'll notify John when I'm back and I trust he'll somehow pass it on to you. I'm so glad, by the way, that we can access you this way! Take care. Judy C. Judy A. Cilcain Office of the Vice President for Arts, Sciences, and Engineering University of Minnesota 12 Morrill Hall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 612, 626-0362 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 14:44:11 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: OCCULT REICH I got the following reply from PBS regarding OCCULT REICH. I don't suppose it clears up much, but the people at PBS at least seem willing to help locate the producer if they know more about the showing. Appears not to have been shown by PBS nationally. Best, William > Date sent: Fri, 06 Jan 1995 14:12:00 -0500 (EST) > From: DTILGHMAN@a1.pbs.org > Subject: OCCULT REICH I never mind helping viewers, so it's not a problem. Unfortunately, I am unable to find any reference regarding OCCULT REICH -- I'm presuming that this was the name of the program. PBS is a membership organization, owned and operated by the 346 public television stations across the country. The public television stations are operated independently. We provide programming and other services to the stations. The stations are free to obtain programs from other distributors and independent producers without coming through us. They also produce and air programs on a local level. My best guess is that a station either bought the program from another distributor or it was produced and shown on a local level versus national. Do you have any clue as to what city the program was viewed? I don't have access to the theos-1 group, or I would post there. If you can find out where the program was shown, I'd be more than willing to pick up the trail from there and try and locate the producer for you. Sorry I'm not much help. Any additional information you could provide would be most appreciated. Have a wonderful weekend! Dana Tilghman dtilghman@pbs.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 15:08:29 -0500 From: euser Subject: Martin to JRCECON To jrcecon: -First: I got your E-mail. If you can add more to my defense of HPB, then don't hesitate to write it down; we can use it for a FAQ or kind of standard document about this issue of anti-semitism. -Second: Your post regarding transforming the TS's/ carrying Theosophy into the next century is worthy a BIG discussion. For now, I have some stray thoughts which might be of some value to this discussion. 1. The rigid mental structure of many of the people involved in current Theosophical organizations prevent essential change. There's a key point here. If Theosophy has to become a living, dynamic factor in society, what is needed for that? In my opinion: the *essential* requirement is that people start 'living the life', that theosophists become living embodiments of the principle of Brotherhood/Sisterhood/Essential Connection or whatever you want to call it. Practice instead of preaching. This is the original idea behind the founding of the T.S. Note, that large numbers of people are not a prerequisite for this core of Brotherhood; rather it is the *quality* of practice that is involved. Even _one_ inspired human being can do a great deal of good for society. Remember Walt Lipman, who developed the 'philosophy for children'-program? What conclusion can we draw from this? Maybe this: our attachments to our frustrations prevent us from opening up to the Inner Light. Let the Light flow through you, just do what you have to do, what you feel is good for you to do or to engage in. Don't you see that there are many Theosophists, not in name, maybe they don't even know the term, but in reality, working in other organizations, practising Brotherhood daily, trying to do their best for the welfare of others? We have to uncover our own core - our heart - to let go of expectations of others. We have to do it ourselves. By 'it' I mean the factual practice of charity - love thy neighbour. Experiencing this Force and then radiate out to others - isn't that what Theosophy is all about? But again, changing the molds of thinking can be a painful process. A slow process too. But we have to try it - just by doing what we feel is right. 2. Let's proceed our analysis. What is Theosophy? Is it to be found only in the Theosophical organizations? Or maybe, just maybe, is it to be found right there where the Spirit is alive, where Enthousiasm is present, a dynamic, powerful force working to reshape the lives of many ? I guess you know the answer. Then, put your energy to use in that kind of organizations where you feel you have a role to play. Do anything that suits *your* character at this time. Inside or outside the T.S. Or both. You can meet the most amazing people - maybe they look very common - and instantly recognize the Spirit at work in them. 3. Theosophical truths are also core truths in religions and (partly) in science. So..why not work along that line? Some suggestions - interreligious dialogue: you are already participating in that, so you know about the work of Bruce Schuman, one part of which is comparitive religious study and setting up databases, etc. He can use some good help - and there are many ways to do so. - interface-building between science and Theosophy. Particular challenging for scientifically involved Theosophists. Developing and applying wholistic concepts could well be a key to the future. - community work. A great field is wide open, only limited by the limits of our imagination. Well, what do you think? Truth, Love, Peace Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 18:32:57 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: TS Leadership Arthur: "Moralism is not the filter through which to view spiritual teachings." Amen! General Comments on Pasadena vs Adyar TS Leadership. The following are my own thoughts, as I do not speak for any organization: I believe that when Tingley changed the rules of leadership and decided that the Pasadena TS would have a leader-for-life, she was simply echoing the way occult groups were run in ancient times. There are advantages and disadvantages in the way the two TSs are currently being managed. The main advantage of elections is that everyone gets a chance to "throw the rascals out" every few years if they do something nobody likes. The main disadvantage is that practically anyone can come in and win an election (elections are won by favoritism, rather than merit) and cause the whole organization to tail spin. I think that Adyar's tightening of the rules is plain common sense - the older members are fearful of an upstart coming in and screwing things up (I have seen this occur in other organizations that I have belonged to; watched the hard work of the older members go right down the tubes). Because I know no one at the Wheaton HQ, I have never participated in an election, and try not to get involved in Headquarters business. The main advantage to having a leader-for-life is that long-range planning is easier and far more certain; it gives the organization stability. The Leader gives a tone to the organization, and a spiritual core. The disadvantage is that every new leader must be very carefully picked - one bad apple can overturn the whole apple cart. If someone can screw up an organization in a few years, just think what a lifetime can do. The idea here is that the Leader must be a shining Light, a living beacon of truth - he/she must be able to speak with spiritual authority. Such a Leader must be very close to an Adept, at least in spiritual matters. In my own opinion, such a Leader should have crossed the Abyss in order to speak out with Gnosis rather than book- learning. My own experience extends only back to Long, for one year before his passing, and to Grace. I have gladly served both, and feel that both are highly qualified to carry the Torch, so to speak. I never met Long, but his letters remain a spiritual inspiration to me. I have only love and respect for Grace, and hope that she can continue for many more years. One of my concerns is for her successor (whom she will pick when she feels it is time). In summary, I see both good and bad in both organizational leadership models. Both organizations are only as good as their leadership, and will doubtless fail when/if the leadership fails. In both TSs, the leaders come up from the ranks, and so have learned how the organization should be run. While this is to some extent, exclusionism, I don't think either organization will last into the future without such saveguards. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 21:41:32 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: The Future TO: jrcecon I've noted now in several of your posts that you always have something well thought through & useful to say. The one you sent through yesterday about the future of the TS is no different. I'm of the older generation, but I agree with you ... I agree with your estimation of where we now fail, & with your vision of where, hopefully, we will go ... if younger Theosophists, like yourself, stick with us long enough to work to put your forward looking ideas & ideals into practice. As a matter of fact, I see in you a leader of the younger generation we must attract & nurture in the TS, if we are to survive & prosper. You sound as if you've been knocking your head against a wall. How can we help? I want to tell you that I firmly believe that our theosophical "ideas .... are more powerful than the magnetism of the founders." I'm also a karma yoga person, who spent most of her life being of service, trying to actively live my ideals. I'm not the only Theosophist who does or did that. But you're right, the time is ripe to do it in such a way as to attract the younger generation ... dedicated young people such as yourself. You say our language & our way of presenting ourselves needs to change. Well, how do we do it? What ideas do you have ... can you develop? I also want to tell you that, as a woman, an older one, I also object to belonging to a "Brotherhood." The difference is, I grew up with men being thought of as superior beings, so now I object, because I've become a feminist, & then I laugh it off, or I think "Oh, well, they don't mean anything by it.". But it isn't "oh well" to the young women of today. I know that. If "they" don't mean anything by it, that in itself is demeaning. So I think that' s something that needs to be addressed. Not too long ago John Algeo wrote jokingly what do we call it? "Siblinghood?" Well, what _do_ we call it? Do you have a good idea? I haven't come up with a solution to that one, though I've been thinking about it. Lastly I need to go into how I feel about the "CWL controversies" which you say "still contain a large emotional charge." For me, the large emotional charge during the late altercations doesn't have too much to do with CWL's sex life. It has rather to do with that I hold dear certain beliefs about CWL, and that these beliefs, without provocation on my part, at first, were poohpooed and vilified. I think I'm entitled to the dignity of my beliefs just as much as the next guy. As I said in the beginning, I wouldn't dream of saying anything derogatory about a Catholic Saint to a Catholic. I have too much respect for the indivdual. In my book, that just isn't being done. But it was done to me. Actually, I'd much rather have "an equally intense conversation about the application of theosophy to the cutting edge of this world's issues." And amen to that. Such a conversation would at least be productive. Shall we start one? With much Love & empathy Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 16:08:53 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: The Race to the Top This is by Eldon Tucker Following are a few more comments on the nature of planes and existence, in further discussion with Jerry Schueler of the position that I am presenting. ---- The Race to the Top It is true that each plane that we descend into, going lower and lower into materiality, takes us one step further from our divine source. There is something lost, something forgotten, something sacrificed with each further descent. On any planet, like our earth, we reach the lowest point on Globe D, beyond which we can go no lower. This is were we are now: the earth we see about us is Globe D, on the physical plane. What we have in life is an outpost of consciousness. We are pioneers in exploring new territory. Being able to exist on a low plane is both a limitation and a special opportunity. We have a special opportunity to "fetch water and chop firewood" or to "clean our dishes after eating." Unlike in a dream where we can wipe the slate clean and go from one situation to the next at the blink of an eye, in physical life, we are both limited and accountable for our actions. What we do is narrowly defined, and the results that come from our actions are likewise enforced by surrounding nature. We are "stuck" in situations and limited, but at the same time we have an ideal situation for the development of a clarity of consciousness. In some approaches like Yoga, the approach seems to be union with the divine along with a rapid escape from the physical world. The outer world is seen as evil, illusory, a place of sorrows that should be exited as quickly as possible. The union with the divine is seen as happening by the exiting of lower planes of existence. The Zen approach is closer to the theosophical scheme of spiritual evolution. In Zen, we learn to stay firmly rooted in the outer world, and achieve union with the divine *here*, rather than leave the outer world to achieve union *there*. With Zen, we have the higher conscious as an integral part of our outer lives; the other approach gives us a vacation to other planes and a visit to the higher consciousness, but upon our return to physical life it is lost to us again. What are we doing here on the physical plane? What is the purpose of evolution on this plane of existence? It is the same as on any plane, on any Globe of our planetary chain. We harvest the precious crop of self-consciousness, something only possible *here*. This opportunity is lost when the exit the physical world, between lifetimes. Is the physical plane the only one where we can achieve this harvesting of self-consciousness? No. But the conditions for learning and growing in the human kingdom are here. The Human Lifewave is on Globe D, our world as we know it here on the physical plane. This is where the circumstances and superstructure for growth and learning and evolution is possible for the vast majority of humanity. Are we safe here, on the physical plane? Is it simply a matter of leading good lives and fitting in with society? Not entirely. In a sense, we are in "enemy territory," since our world borders on yet lower planes. On the Descending Arc, as humanity moves from Globes A, to B, C, then D, it reaches a turning point. It then enters the Ascending Arc, and climbs the planes again along Globes E, F, then G. At the lowest point, on Globe D, when then Descend Arc is ending and the Ascending Arc is beginning to start, there is a point of failure in the system, and some Monads fail to make the Ascending Arc; they descend further to yet lower planes. (See "Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy" by G. de Purucker for more information on this.) At the point of time, our evolution is on Globe D earth. Our challenge is to give expression to the highest in our lives. Inwardly, we express it in an awareness in our minds and hearts. Outwardly, we express it in our actions, giving direct expression to the brilliant, creative intelligence within ourselves. There is a supreme gratification to giving outer, tangible expression to the divine, for it is otherwise impotent and unrelated to our lowly plane! Living here on the lowest plane of our earth, don't we miss out on anything? There's so much more going on elsewhere; the higher planes await us with such wonders, that we certainly should return to them as soon as reasonably possible? Not really. No matter how high we go, there are yet higher planes. We never reach a top. The experiences of the loftiest plane of which we can conceive of pales by comparison to yet higher planes. No matter how high we go, there are countless higher planes to rise to; there is no top, nor a finite number of steps upwards after which we directly reach the Unknowable. How do we ever reach it, then, if it is not by going higher and higher? We reach it by connecting *in a different direction than up or down.* We reach it by both a realization that it is as much an integral part of our consciousness now as it ever will be. The realization comes that the connection is never lost, never missed, and not subject to approach over time. We become *rooted* in the Unknowable, and then express the highest, with dignity, on whatever plane that we reside. The urgent need to hurry off to higher planes is replaced with a peaceful, holy, gentle appreciation of life wherein the craving for union with the divine is finally satisfied. We have reached the top, in a special way, and now we are content to live it out. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 16:10:34 -0500 From: euser Subject: Martin to Jerry H-E To Jerry H-E, To round off this discussion about facing the past in the TS's, I think it would be very useful if those participants on this list, which are involved with Pasadena and Point Loma respectively, would try to persuade some of their TS fellows to face each other or maybe take part on this list in order to learn to communicate with each other. That would be great. As for the Dutch situation, you know that I left the Point Loma- The Hague society a couple of years ago, for exactly the same reasons as universally seem to apply: lack of the Spirit of Brotherhood. I will not describe the events that triggered my and other's leaving the t.s. except for mentioning the lawsuits from that t.s. against the innocent widow of DJP Kok and the sectarian view of Theosophy rampant there. How can we be surprised that TS's have so little effect on this world? Now I'm involved with a small group of others who also voluntarily cancelled their memberships and for the first time there is some *real* atmosphere of brotherhood (i.e. for the first time after the death of DJP Kok). We may very well start associating ourselves with certain other Theosophical organizations, typically small organizations of people with much goodwill. So, I have some hope for a better future regarding Theosophy - albeit we have to work _very_ hard for it in order to make it effective. Best wishes, Martin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 16:11:26 -0500 From: euser Subject: Martin to William Allen To William Allen: William, Thanks for your efforts regarding PBS. Hopefully you can get the address to which you can send questions concerning PBS programming. Unfortunately, I don't know any name of people associated with the film. Maybe a request to the theosophical societies (if anybody knows about this broadcast) would yield some info. If you manage to get the necessary information then we can proceed with some action. Some letter of protest seems necessary. How can we let people get away with spreading dirt without being pointed out the moral consequences of such acts? They need some good info about Blavatsky and Theosophy. Regards, Martin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 16:12:36 -0500 From: euser Subject: Martin to Liesel Liesel, Did you get enough response for your request for financial support regarding books for third-world study groups? If so, great! If not, then I guess I could ask some Dutch Theosophists if they would like to support your request. I myself can hardly pay the telephone-bills, so.. Martin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 17:24:20 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Yeats; discussions; autonomy; tone JRC, JRC> Not only do I wish this post to be construed as an "attack" on anyone, I don't even think it is "correct" in any absolute sense of the word. It is probably partially motivateed by intense frustration...because I have tried over the years to expand theosophy into my generation, to my closest friends, to my co-workers in service, and wind up all too often defending the TS against charges that, I must ultimately admit, are indefensible. I wrestle daily with the decision to even remain connected to the TS. I've gone for one or two years at a time ignoring it altogather (as there *are* a lot of dynamic organizations where service seems to manifest as good in the larger world). It sounds here like you are wrestling against the opposing values (n this case) of loyalty to an organization and taking a principled stand against what you know in your heart to be wrong. My own solution is to separate the Organizations from the Theosophical Movement. My loyalty has always been with the Movement, and my cooperation with the Organizations only goes as far as I feel that their efforts are advancing the movement. When an Organization suppresses information, deceives the membership or works for its own ends, or takes actions that are opposed to the greater good, I will not support it. Instead, I work independently, or with groups of independents for the good of the movement. When an Organization works to fulfill its objects, and has the good of the movement and membership in mind, then I become an enthusiastic worker for that effort. JRC> I fully expect to be nailed for much of what I've said. Most of those I've tried to engage in theosophy don't bother to articulate why they leave, they just leave. The only real reason I've bothered is because...I still hold in my heart a sense of a remarkable possiblity hidden in this small, quiet society...its buried deep within the First Object, and if unleashed, I still believe the TS could have as profound effect on society as it did when HPB stomped the terra. You have demonstrated that you are not a "team player," but I don't think you said anything to get you into any real trouble. Perhaps your solution is to work for the first object and forget about the Organization. When the Organizations do something worth supporting, then that is the time to support them. As for not being a "team player," frankly I find that to be a positive trait. It means that you can think for yourself and act with autonomy. We need team players for military organizations and Corporations--because they need to "beat the competition." For the Theosophical Movement, and the fulfillment of its objectives, we need people who are skilled in making ethical judgements, and can think and act on their own. Brotherhood is working for humanity--not to try to beat it. Nicholas, NW> Sounds like Y. and M. (says Russell) were not members of the TS -- but I'm pretty sure Yeats *was*. You're right. Yeats was a member of the Blavatsky Lodge T.S., and joined the E.S. around Christmas of 1888. He was very involved with it and proposed a scheme for occult (clairvoyant) research, which was approved by HPB. But after a few months of experimentation, "a fanatical woman" pushed an official of the E.S. to ask him to resign. He did so in 1890. It goes to show that the closed minded attitudes of some members go back even to HPB's day. What a tragic loss for the Theosophical Society to have pushed out the greatest poet in the twentieth century because he wanted (under HPB's approval and guidance) to "test" the teachings. Though members were too closed to allow Yeats to remain in the Theosophical Society, he at least maintained a high admiration for HPB. In his memoirs he writes: "Madame Blavatsky herself had as much of my admiration as William Morris, and I admired them for the same reason. They had more human nature than anybody else; they at least were unforseen, illogical, incomprehensible. Perhaps I escaped when I was near them from the restlessness of my own mind. She sat there all evening, talking to whoever came-- vast and shapeless body, and perpetually rolling cigarettes- -humorous and unfanatic, and displaying always, it seemed, a mind that seemed to pass all others in her honesty." Martin Euser, The Occult Reich has been broadcasted twice that I know of in the San Francisco Bay area. So you might contact PBS in San Francisco. Our cable company doesn't tap into those stations, so I'm yet to see it. If anyone has it, I would love to borrow, or better yet, to purchase a copy. Liesel, LD> I hear you protesting loud & long, because I said I had some unfvorable opinions about ULT and Pasadena, which I wasn't about to air anywhere. The purpose of my saying this was because you were hinting at not so nice Adyar affairs. I wanted to see whether you'd protest as loudly as I did. You did. I rest my case. What in the devil are you talking about? My only reference to your "unfavorable opinions about ULT and Pasadena" pertained to a question I asked you in an earlier post--which you never answered. I asked you whether your "unfavorable opinions" were based upon what you heard, or upon direct experience with these organizations. Personally, I feel that my experience in working with ULT, Pasadena and Adyar has been very expanding, and I have a much deeper and broader understanding of theosophy then if I had stayed with a single Organization. As for you wanting to see whether I would "protest as loudly" as you, if you spoke critically of ULT and Pasadena--how did you construe that I was "protesting" your post, when I myself spoke critically of ULT and Pasadena in my post to Martin Euser? In the future, I suggest that you post the exact statement that you are responding to--that way these mis-readings are minimized. I don't mind dialoguing with you, but you need to make a reasonable effort to track with me. If you don't understand something--please ask for a clarification. LD> I have a suggestion for our next concerted effort. Let's design, print up & sell bumper stickers. I have 2 nice slogans to get the ball rolling: GET HIGH, MEDITATE SIBLINGHOOD IS BEAUTIFUL! When we've sold 100 of those, we can bicker about who the money is gong to go to. I suggest the TOS. Sounds like a fine project for you. If you want to do it, I'll do the typesetting--you can have them printed and sell them. TOS is fine. We also like to contribute to TBAB. Art Patterson, Sorry, I've been buried in doing papers. The last one was a Lacanian analysis--very tedious. I don't like Lacan that much, but he is on the cutting edge in this field, so I feel that I have to master it. What critical approaches did you use? As for the "content blind but not tone deaf" issue, I think you have the tone right, but yes, you are missing a lot of the picture: AP> I see beneath the flinging of "facts" something more subtle going on. It is the clash of values and loyalties. Yes--and more too. That is what I was trying to say--that if we can keep up a dialogue, then we can get to these deeper issues. AP> It is very helpful that in a group of predominantly intellectual types, we have members who are concerned with Feeling values. These values are not driven by purely subjective emotions but by deeply felt convictions. Yes! AP> Equally important are those dedicated to pushing this historical business through and not avoiding, or changing Reality, to suit our loyalties. These people are valueable contributers to the process. I see them as historical physicians perhaps even Bards who wield the mighty power of the historical Word. Yes. There is no integration without the facing of the Shadow. AP> People of great giftedness can be paradoxically people with great weakness such as Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. etc. One does have to look to great leaders to see that we are treasures in clay vessels. Yes. Society does seem to reluctantly accept leaders whose sexual weaknesses leads to multiple relationships outside of marriage. King and Kennedy will survive their "indiscretions." CWL's indiscretions, however, are not so tolerated in society, because they involved under aged boys. His actions would put him in prison--even today. That is why his true activities were never made public, and the membership was told instead that he advised children concerning masturbation. AP> Those who believe that if a person is morally weak, his or her insights are blighted and beyond any value are similarly naive. CWL could speak the truth even if he had the failure that they fear. I personally cannot believe that a person with real spiritual powers on the level claimed by CWL would interfere with the bonds of family trust by creating feelings of guilt and fear in these children. These children, already confused by the changes going on in their bodies, were compelled to do things, and have things done to them, that created within them feelings of guilt and shame. Further, they were not allowed to tell their parents about what was going on--thus creating even more inner conflict. That is a very cruel bind to put a child into. The two boys who independently broke their bond of secrecy were both very frightened and angry according to the parents. If CWL had superior spiritual knowledge, it failed in its moral application. AP> I should think that the value of his spiritual teaching should be judged apart from this moral question entirely. Moralism is not the filter through which to view spiritual teachings. I think there is something to this, but it can be taken too far. Would you argue that Hitler even with his "weaknesses" could have been a spiritual teacher? If so, should we encourage Jews and Gypsies to be his students? Of course CWL didn't kill anybody, and If he was involving himself with adults, then I would say that it was his business. But 12 to 14 years old boys are too young to "consent" in my opinion. AP> The moral effect of the teaching confirms the spiritual truth but weakness doesn't cancel truth out since spiritual teaching is beyond individuality. Yes, and CWL claimed that his activities with the boys was an application of his spiritual teachings. Therefore, in this case, I think we are justified in evaluating his spiritual teachings with his morality. AP> In conclusion, I think that the values we hold should be mutally affirmed and understood in dialogue with one another. Second, recognize that any idea of human perfectability is liable to lead to illusion. Third, CWL's spiritual teaching should be evaluated apart from any attempt at moralism. Fourth, that the character of CWL should be open to critical investigation by historical methods and not be seen as in any way invalidating the gifts that his teaching has bequeathed on those who honor him. I'm almost in total agreement. (1) Yes, I think we should look at and affirm the values we all hold in our dialogue. (2) Yes, any idea of human perfectibility does lead to illusion. People have warts, and we need to accept them. (3) I have reservations concerning moralism. I feel that one's moral character is not completely separate from one's teachings. CWL claimed to be an "Arhat"--that is a spiritual state where one is practically omniscient--he was supposed to be fully conscious 24 hours a day. I think when one claims that kind of spiritual superiority, we need to consider their moral development too. I don't agree with the argument sometimes given that such a spiritually superior person is "above morality." Such a person, in my book, is still bound to the same moral responsibilities as anyone else; and *because* of their spiritual superiority, I would expect them to be even more capable of maintaining a high moral character. (4) Yes, I agree that CWL should be open to critical investigation by historical methods. I also think that his teachings should also be open to critical investigation. I have remained vague concerning the charges against CWL out of courtesy to those who are not interested in being exposed to this kind of discussion. I suggest that any deeper discussion on CWL's morality should go on to theos-roots. I volunteered to do a cooperative FAQ file anyway, but no one has volunteered to co- write it, so I might have to do it alone. Theos-roots would be a good place to work out which aspects of this issue require the most focus and clarification. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 17:53:11 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Hand of Lhagpa In HPB's VOICE OF THE SILENCE (36) it says: "Behold the fiery aura of the `Hand' of Lhagpa [Mercury] extending in protecting love over the heads of his ascetics." In BCW 6, (198) HPB writes that "most of the adepts" belong to the Gelukpa order founded by Je Tsongkhapa. That means most of the adepts in the Tibetan branch of the Occult Brotherhood, I presume. The Egyptian and Indian branches have different approaches, as MAHATMA LETTER #85 says. In a new book on early Gelukpa adepts, ENLIGHTENED BEINGS, by Janice Willis, the word Lhagpa appears as part of a poem in praise of the Guru Ensapa (1505-66). "Ensapa was blessed from the time of his childhood by *supernal* deities and the highest lamas." According to David Reigle, Lhagpa can mean `supernal' or `supreme,' as well as `Mercury.' So here is a tiny bit of evidence supporting the VOICE as truly connected to a real Mahayana Brotherhood. The connection of Buddha (and budha) to Mercury can be further explored by those so inclined. Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 01:23:35 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Martin to Liesel Martin, I don't kow yet. I'm just getting over a bad cold, & haven't made it down to my PO box as yet. It'll be another few days, because it has to wait till I feel well enough to rent a car & whiz around town. Dick Slusser sent me a check donated by someone, which'll cover books for January. My new ULT friend's group is interested in donating some money. I'll see her end of next week. So for the immediate future, I have funds to buy books. The postage'll come from me. Thanks for the inquiry. I'll let you know. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 11:56:36 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Some Recommended Books Subject---Symbols and Myths Recommended Titles for your Theosophical Core Library From---Daniel H. Caldwell In her biography of HPB, Sylvia Cranston writes: "Symbols and myths are considered of sufficient importance in *The Secret Doctrine* to devote one-third of each of its two volumes to their discussion. Volume One contains fifteen chapters on the subject. . . ." (p. 515) Even in HPB's first work ISIS UNVEILED, one will find considerable material on symbols and myths. And in all of HPB's other collected writings, there is even more material. Yet very few Theosophical writers have ever written on HPB's contributions to the understanding of myths and symbols. I would like to recommend a number of titles on these subjects which are written by "non-Theoophists" yet are very helpful to students who want to study what HPB says about symbols and myths. Almost all titles listed are in print. If anyone wants to buy a book from this list, maybe Jerry H-E can provide a copy, or contact your favorite local bookstore. Also check with your local library. If your local library doesn't have these titles, please recommend that they purchase them! Some books on SYMBOLS: (1) One of my favorite new books on symbols is David Fontana's THE SECRET LANGUAGE OF SYMBOLS: A Visual Key to Symbols and Their Meanings (Chronicle Books, 1993, 192 pp.) This book sells for only $17.95 and would be a bargain at $30.00! This books is beautifully illustrated with hundreds of colored illustrations, etc. This book "traces the origins and evolution of a wide range of symbols and symbols systems....Vivid, colorful illustrations, created especially for this volume, as well as reproductions of symbolic art, architecture, and artifacts from around the world provide a stunning and accurate visual reference for each symbold and system [discussed]...." For example, a full page colored reproductin of a Nepalese mandala of "Avalokiteshvara" is to be found on p. 61. Stunnng artwork! Read what Master K.H. says about Avalokiteshvara in THE MAHATMA LETTERS as you gaze on this work of art. My favorite picture from this book is the one of Prometheus. See p. 111 for this extremely beautiful reproduction. This is worth the price of the book. One might want to consult what HPB says about the Promethian myth in THE SECRET DOCTRINE. Fontana's text is informative and the colored illustrations are a real treat. Buy a copy for your Theosophical library and buy a few extra copies to give to relatives and friends. (2) THE WOMAN'S DICTIONARY OF SYMBOLS & SACRED OBJECTS by Barbara G. Walker (HarperSanFrancisco, 1988, 563 pp., $22.00). Men can appreciate this book too! There are 636 line drawings of symbols and 753 entries explaining these symbols from around the world. One may not always agree with some of the interpretations but there are many wonderful insights in this book. Read what HPB says about the circle, the circle with the point in it, etc. ( as found on pp. 4-5 of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, original edition and facsimile editions of the original) and then turn to pp. 6-7 of Walker's book. Also pp. 14-15, 4, and 5 for Walker's additional commentary on these symbols. (3) Another one of my favorite books on symbols is J.C. Cooper's AN ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF SYMBOLS (first published 1978 and reprinted 1992, 208 pp., $15.95) Contains 210 illustratins (black and white). This is a very helpful guide as one reads and studies HPB's ISIS and SECRET DOCTRINE. What's the various meanings of the symbol of the TREE. Cooper spends 3 pages explaining the meanings as found in different world religions, mythologies, and occult systems. (4) DICTINARY OF SYMBOLISM: Cultural Icons and the Meanings Behind Them by Hans Biedermann. (Meridian Books, 1992, 1994, 477 pp, $17.95 in paperback) Another good source. More than a hundred black & white illustrations are reproduced with alphabetical entries on symbols as "darkness", "spinning", "cube", etc. I will limit myself to 4 titles on symbolism. These 4 titles are helpful to students who want to read and study what HPB says on symbolism. These titles supplement and complement each other as well as HPB's text. The black and white and colored illustrations bring the subjects alive! In part 2 of bibliography, we will briefly review more than 12 titles on mythology. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 14:32:40 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: Re: Maeterlinck, Coburn Nicholas, I think you're right. Thanks very much for the reference. Someone from Wheaton gave me a reference to a Maeterlinck essay that talks about theosophy....trying to track it down. Our of town for a few days. See you later. Best, William > Cranston's biog. of HPB (p. 359) quotes George Russell: > > "It is paying a poor compliment to men like Yeats, Maeterlinck, > and others, to men like Sir William Crookes, the greatest chemist > of modern times, who was a member of her society..." > > Sounds like Y. and M. (says Russell) were not members of the TS > -- but I'm pretty sure Yeats *was*. > > Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 15:38:47 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: The "HCT" and building bridges Dick Slusser said to tell everyone that he will send a trial complimentary copy of his "High Country Theosophist" to anyone who requests it. Address: High Country Theosophist 140 S 33 St. Boulder Colo. 80303 I'd like to tell you- all that Dick's publication is super & well worth the price of $7.50/an. But judge for yourselves. Also, when Dick has replaced his C-drive, which just conked out on him, he's planning to join the theos- list. He'll be a welcome, & valuable additiion, and so will Marty. Now about building bridges. Dick & I go back to somewhere between 2 & 3 years. During that time, I've also established very postive connections with his spouse, Marty, & her mother Jinny. It all came about when somehow (don't remember how) I found out about Dick & Jinny's "Project Outreach", contacting & helping TS groups in the 3rd world. I was a little skeptical about it, because Dick's ties are to Point Loma (I think, but it may be Pasadena, because I really don't know too much of what's the difference between the 2). I'm 3rd world minded, having had a taste of what it's like during 2 vacations in Johannesburg, & I was looking for something Theosophical to do from my hous e, so I asked Dick for an addess. Dick was a little skeptical, because he didn't know how I'd work out, since I believed strongly in CWL & AB, but he told me that any Theosophist was welcome to join the project. And somehow I landed up with 2 addresses. Well, it's now 2-3 years later. I have some cordial relationships, not only with my Theosophical friends of a different persuasion in Colorado, but I also have TS friends in Zambia & in Russia. Even if pride goeth before a fall, I must tell you proudly, that there's now a little 1 1/2 year old girl, Liesel, in Zambia. Her Daddy sent me a snapshot. She's beautiful. And to end this tale, I'm about to build another bridge through Dick. Next week, when my incipient study center meets, we'll entertain a ULT visitor from Buffalo NY (about 2 hours away from Syracuse, where I live), a young woman, a new friend interested in joining Project Outreach. I'll be so glad to see another Theosophist. It's been several years. There are lots of new agers, & people inerested in esoteric things in Syacuse, but no Theosophists. I don't think Dick & I ever talked about our different theosophical beliefs .. we're just working together. He thinks I'm doing a good job, & I think his Newsletter & his Project Outreach are super. It's a mutual admiration society, from one Theosophical believer to the other. Let's build some more bridges, shall we? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 22:04:01 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Various Comments The following are some comments and ideas, all in the nature of presenting my own view of theosophy as I understand it: JRC: "...I'm talking about people developing types of interior communication and co-working abilities that simply do not fit within the rigid structures of 19th century formulations of inner abilities or inner beings). Growing numbers to whom thought is irrelevent unless matched with experience." This is a very good point. I think that this point crosses into the CWL controversy somewhat also, because he tried to do just this. I hear opposition to CWL (almost exclusively from J. H-E) not only in terms of his sexual preferences, but also in terms of his "differences" from HPB (whose jargon is way out of step with today, no offense to her intended). To a large extent, I prefer CWL's termonology simply because it is more relevant to today). JRC: "...my thoughts naturally turned towards the possibilities of arriving at a formulation of theosophy tuned to the generation of which I am a part." I agree. I have faught for a long time against the old termonology, for example. It is not only confusing and sometimes inaccurate, but also differs between authors. Everyone knows it, and many feel that something should be done, but no one wants to do it. Part of the problem here is that many theosophists are wary about all new writers, especially if they differ in any way from HPB. I give a lot of credit to the "neo-theosophists" or "second generation" theosophists who have tried to modernize the teachings. Adyar, for example, is currently modernizing HPB's Key, which so far looks quite good. I don't see any problem with doing this as long as the student knows that it is a revision and that the original is available if needed. JRC: "The spiritual issues of HPB's time are *not* those of our time. The language of our time is not that of HPB's time." To some extent this is true. HPB spent considerable effort on challenging the Newtonian idea of the world as machine. In this she has succeeded. Few physicicts today still hold to the Newtonian view. But her ideas of a spiritual & material evolution, and of our inner spiritual natures, the Gupta Vidya Model of the cosmic planes, and of the basic equality of all living beings, remains important today. I am especially sensitive to the language issue. I argued a lot about language on PeaceNet and here as well. I am all for dropping the archaic Oriental termonology and adopting English (which CWL did to some extent). James Long is a good example of one who was able to successfully put theosophy into plain English. Eldon: "The Zen approach is closer to the theosophical scheme of spiritual evolution." While this is true, I wonder why Zen is singled out? I like Zen, and have studied it for many years. But all the Mahayana Buddhist denominations agree that matter and spirit are two sides of the same coin - a duality. I think that what you say for Zen is also true for the whole Mahayana. The Bodisavattva (not especially emphazied in Zen) remains in the lower worlds out of compassion, true, but also because he/she Knows that samsara and nirvana are not two separate states, but rather two ways of seeing one reality. Eldon: "the other approach gives us a vacation to other planes and a visit to the higher consciousness, but upon our return to physical life it is lost to us again." Here I think Eldon is missing the point that I made above. You won't lose spiritual consciousness by returning to your physical body, per se. In fact, such mystical experiences should give us a far better appreciation of our material world. Matter and spirit are two viewpoints of reality, not two separate things-in-themselves. I fully agree that anyone who seeks the spiritual realms as a balm to their daily problems or as an escape from mortality is totally missing the point. I have never advocated this kind of thing. Eldon: "What is the purpose of evolution on this plane of existence?" I am already on record with my answer to our purpose in life, and so it should come as no surprise that I disagree here. The notion that we evolve through a planetary chain of globes in order to develop self-consciousness is naive, in MHO. It is purely exoteric. It satisfies the desires of the ego, who finds itself in time and thus is fraught with anxiety over something to do within it all. The notion that time can be wasted, for example, is only true in a very relative sense. We all are inherently divine monads or life-sparks, and absolutely need no other motivation for our pilgrimage through spacetime other than our own inherent urge toward creativity and self-expression. My true spiritual nature is already self-conscious, and it certainly does not need to go through all of this nonsense in order to gain what it already has. But it IS adventurous, and life, above all else, is a great adventure. The problem with evolution is that it must have a starting point in the past. This is the basis delimna of those who advocate the Big Bang theory, for example, - what happened before the primeval explosion? No one knows, nor can even guess. What were we before entering this planetary chain - an unconscious god-spark? What the devil is that? Divinity, in my view, implies consciousness as a given. Also, the notion advocated by G de P is also inadequate - that we spiral rather than cycle. It is inadequate to me, because the spirals are themselves just a larger evolutionary process and still demand a beginning at some point. Beginnings are simply meaningless notions that can't be proved one way or another. They just don't inspire my intuition. I would rather believe that we are divine, have always been divine, and will always remain divine. Spirit and matter are polar opposites. So are beginnings and endings. So are evolution and involution. I don't believe that we can have one without the other. (divine and demonic can also be a dualism, and this is a big problem with language - there are no words for nonduality or for a nondual existence). Eldon: "We harvest the precious crop of self-consciousness, something only possible *here*. This opportunity is lost when the exit the physical world, between lifetimes." These are the "ground rules" of the game that we play on this Globe D, and so it seems that way to us. I believe that we dream on Globes E and C. Sometimes we are self-conscious in our dreams. We can also be self-conscious in yogic trance, on higher globes. In other words, I think we can be self-consious on all of the planes, but our self-identity, or sense of self, differs according to who we think we are at the time. When we return to physicality, we usually forget our experiences, and thus think that we were not self-conscious, when in fact we were. Eldon: "At the lowest point, on Globe D, when then Descend Arc is ending and the Ascending Arc is beginning to start, there is a point of failure in the system, and some Monads fail to make the Ascending Arc; they descend further to yet lower planes." I have a real problem with this notion of "failures." These monads are only "failures" in the relative sense of "success" being specifically defined as swinging up the upward Arc. Perhaps they wanted to go lower? Anyway, this whole theory sounds like a boogyman approach to making us do good. We have to remember that HPB taught stuff on several levels; both exoteric and esoteric materials, with different viewpoints, theories, and phrasologies. I am not saying that she is wrong in what she says, only that she is speaking from a specific and very relative viewpoint in the regard of "failures." There are some chauvinistic men who would say that to be born a woman indicates a failure in the past life, for example. They seem to forget that every monad needs to experience the feminine role, and are predjudiced in their opinions as well. Lets not get too wrapped around the axle with the idea of pass or fail. Eldon: "There is a supreme gratification to giving outer, tangible expression to the divine." This is exactly my whole point in the question of the purpose of life. Why would we need anything else? Eldon: "No matter how high we go, there are yet higher planes. We never reach a top." This is the logical result that we must arrive at when we hypothesize infinity. However, as we ascend the planes, we will soon leave rationalism and logic far behind. Once we leave our spacetime continuum, it no longer makes any sense to talk about higher or lower. Eldon: "We reach it by both a realization that it is as much an integral part of our consciousness now as it ever will be. The realization comes that the connection is never lost, never missed, and not subject to approach over time." With this piece of mystical wisdom, Eldon has layed to rest the whole notion of evolution for the purpose of self-conscousness or anything else. Evolution is, after all, an "approach over time." What I can't understand, and perhaps someone will be good enough to explain it to me, is how we can see this beautiful idea that Eldon expresses so well in these lines, and still talk about the need for evolution. I see a need for waking up, or for seeing more clearly what is right before us, rather than a need to develop something we are supposed to be lacking. We already are perfect. The real problem, it seems to me, is that few of us are aware of it. con$ebt: "In order to consolidate his power over the society, Long cancelled memberships and required a signed statement professing loyalty to him of anyone that wanted to rejoin. Under Long, the Esoteric Section was closed. He wrote about the esoteric becoming exoteric and the exoteric becoming esoteric. There were not lodges nor public work. Everyone was considered as in direct partnership with him; he stood as personal guru and agent of the Masters for each individual member. The thoughtful journal "Theosophical Forum" was replaced with "Sunrise," where even the word "theosophy" did not appear." I do not believe that Long's purpose was to "consolidate his power over the society" although this may have been one of the fallouts. The idea of obtaining assurances of loyalty from members goes back to HPB. Whenever friction and bickering are evident in an organization, something must be done to prevent it. It stiffles energy and wastes time, and is self-defeating for the organization itself. An organization, especially one like the TS, can't afford a lot of internal bickering. To make everyone profess loyalty to a leader is one way to eliminate the "riff raff" and get rid of the hangers on and ne'r do wells, etc. If Eldon, Jerry H-E, and I belonged to a headquarters at some location, it would only be a matter of time before we brought the organization to its knees or one of us was expelled - because we simply have too many conflicting viewpoints to be able to live harmoniously together. We can get together on this net and discuss and talk amiably together, but we are miles apart and we can let our feelings out in private. In short, Long found himself in an impossible position, and did the best thing that he could for the good of the organization (obviously this is my own personal opinion here, but I am convinced that it is the truth). As a matter of fact, James Long did *not* stand as a personal guru or agent of the Masters. I can personally attest to this, because I flat asked him to be my guru in 1969, and he flat refused. He did, though, help me in my spiritual progress trememdously, mostly by patiently answering my dumb questions, and I love, admire, and respect the man greatly. I always considered him to be my personal spiritual guru, even though he did not like the idea. By the way, he never once spoke to me of having any conscious connection with Masters (unconsciously, I believe that we are all interconnected). His letters to me are all written with a one-on-one tone between equals, never condescending or as if he was in possession of any secret knowledge that only he knew. Someday I hope to get his letters published. The Pasadena TS has no ES. The idea of an ES implies that there exists a secret knowledge or teaching that is only given out to a few. Long felt that this ancient way of teaching was no longer applicable today, and that it only lent itself to a feeling of division (those in the ES were a step above the others and thus were given to egotism, while those outside were being deprived of something and thus were given to envy). While HPB may have had actual knowledge to give out, few of us today have such knowledge. If they do, it should be given freely to all. We no longer have inquisitions or witch trials, and therefore have no need to remain close mouthed. In short, I believe that Long did the right thing by closing the ES. Removal of the word 'theosophy' from Sunrise was a deliberate attempt to put theosophical perspectives into the plain English of today. Sunrise was never intended for theosophists to study. It was, and still is, used mainly as a forum to attract new people to theosophy. I can't recall how many articles of mine that Grace has rejected over the years saying they were too complicated for the intended readership. Those that she did publish were geared to the average reader, not theosophists. One of my early objections to the Pasadena TS is that they had no real vehicle for seasoned theosophists to communicate. This is still a problem today (the new Theosophical Link doesn't really allow alternate views and is limited in scope, in MHO). Fortunately, I can vent my spleen on this network. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 00:26:44 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: theosophy 1995 Happy new year to all. Mega- hard working dittos for a thankless job to John Mead Mega-presidential dittos to John Algeo Mega- astrological dittos to William Greer Mega- library of congrress number system ditttos to Elizabeth Crumpler I was going to bring up the CWL controversy, but thank God that's died down. These musty historical antiquanted debates are of some interest, but I know of no other time in history when we should bring theosophical principles to today's problems. I an thinking of the three objects, the "Golden Stairs", "At the feet of the Master", "The Secret Doctrine" (of course), the "One Life". How can we use these to enter the dialogue of our very troubled nation and world?. Specifically, I would like to know what people on this forum think about the issue of abortion. If the Monad is eternal, and seeks to reincarnate to learn lesson and rise through the races and globes, how can we justify abortion. It seems that most abortions are perfrmed not to reduce population, improve the quality of those already in incarnation or provide a right for a women to do with her body as she chooses. Most abortions are obviously selfish, selfish, selfish. The career woman can't take time to have a baby now. For poor women its an easy way to escape the KARMA of sexual activity. It is my belief that if the laws of KARMA are real. Those that choose abortion in this incarnation will they themselves be aborted in their next attempt at incarnation. I am not a neanderthal. Of course there are circumstances such as rape, incest, and danger to the mother's life that justify abortion. The whole debate will not go away. Look at the recent shootings by Salvi an the two abortion clinics. The Monad has spent many years rising throught the subplanes to devachan and each child is a world teacher. How can we crucify these holy beings even if they look like a blob of cells? We know that the physical body is only a vehicle for the incarnating Monad. What does the theosophical literature say about this very important subject and how can we bring the theosophical perspective to the public conciousness. Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 11:28:17 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: HPB on Abortion Keith, HPB wrote in response to the question "Is Foeticide a Crime?": Theosophy in general answers: "At no age as under no circumstance whatever is a murder justifiable!" and occult Theosophy adds... the warning voice is sent forth against the immoral and dangerous practice... because in occult philosophy both physiology and psychology show its disastrous consequence."... Our philosophy goes so far as to say that, if the Penal Code of most countries punishes attempts at suicide, it ought... to doubly punish foeticide as an attempt to *double suicide*. For, indeed, when even successful and the mother does not die just then, * it still shortens her life on earth*... The crime committed lies precisely in the willful and sinful destruction of life, and interference with the operations of nature, hence -- with Karma -- that of the mother and the would-be future human being. The sin is not regarded by the occultists as one of a *religious* character, -- for, indeed, there is no more of spirit and soul... in a foetus... than there is in any other small animal... But foeticide is a crime against nature... [BCW W 5, 106-08] Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 16:53:49 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: theosophy 1995 I know from previous discussions that there are Theosophists on both sides of the abortion issue. I, personally am very reluctantly on the other side from you. I think some women are going to get abortions, just as some women are going to be prostitutes. That's just the way things are. I've seen how illegal abortions can cripple a woman, both physically and mentally. To protect women who aren't going to be stopped from having abortions, no way, I'm for having them legal. I know that isn't protecting the foetus, and I don't feel good about that at all, but I've just decided that this is where I stand. I would protect the grown woman rather than the undeveloped foetus. It's a very difficult choice. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 18:06:42 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: abortion and theosophy Dear Nicholas: Thanks for responding with quotations from HPB. She is pretty hard to argue with if you claim to be a theosophist. However, I am a little disturbed by her statement that "there is no more spirit or soul in a foetus than there is in any small animal." Is there a monad behind the foetus guiding it's development or not? This is the excuse that pro-abortionists use to excuse themselves, that is we are just flushing away troublesome cells, kind of like removing a wart or a mole (who could be against that). But that doesn't seem to ring true. If we are monads, souls, embuded with buddhi throuhout this mavantara then a body no matter how small doesn't seem to matter. Again a body is only a vehicle among vehicles for our true eternal spiritual selves. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (I'm sorry I don't have a spell checker on WINCIM my gateway to internet). The point is that the foetus recapitualates evolution. The embryo could be mistaken for cancer cells or bacteria. But shortly we begin the foetus begin to look like an egg, then an anemone, a fish, a seahorse with a long tail, a rodent and then soon we can see the human like eyes, the opposible thumb and face it we got a real human, like it or not. But wasn't a human all along. HPB talks about the early root races being more ethereal than physical. Early humanity was described as giant floating pudding bags. Then the lemurians becam more mammalian, and the Atlantians were giant physical specimans (one thinks of Arnold S. or Sylvester S. only 40 foot tall). Any way if you believe we are spiritual being even when we don't have a physical body, that is after death when one travels throught the astral, buddhic and devachanic planes and then decides to retrun to incarnation, then it is hard to believe that say and infant is any more devoid of a spirit or soul than someone in devachan. I used to follow the liberal party line when I was younger. They say that if you aren't liberal when you are young, something's wrong and if you aren't conservative in maturity, then again their some psychological passage that has not been passed or perhaps there are Karmic debts from the past. Anyway I was all for abortion. We all know the planet is overpopulated and polluted, it seemed a noble gesture to reduce population and protect the planet. Then I found out a startling secret. My would have been older sibling was aborted at the insistence of my abusive biological father. My mother was never the same after the abortion. When pregnant again she vowed to have the baby and put it up for adoption, that's me. When you get that close to being aborted you begin to think about the whole thing a little differently. Yes, we come back for many incarnations, but would I really have like to miss this one even though it's been a difficult one form emotionally. What do you women theosophist think? Do you really think we male dogs are trying to control your bodies or do you just want to abandon a great gift I as a male will never experience because we are told that we must be tough, selfish, rich and overbearing (masculinity at it's worst). It seems that women want to be a caricature of the very worst in man rather than the very best of humanity (whether male or female). The best I can do is be creative, but women bear the gift of being the gateway to entering souls! Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 22:09:40 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Various Comments Various comments back Jerry writes "mystical experience should give us a far better appreciation of our material world". I'd go a step further & say it should be applied to our living in the material world. To me learning or any kind of an experience is pretty useless, unless you can apply it somewhere in the material world to make things better, whatever things ... including yourself. Jerry writes "As we ascend the planes, we will soon leave rationalism & logic far behind." I would say rationalism & logic as we know it. If we believe in a universe of Law, as we do, it stands to reason that there will still be logic, but not the same kind of logic, I imagine it to be that just as dreams have their own logic, which doesn't necessarily correspond to the waking logic. I think that's the way it must be in the higher realms ... logical to themselves, but different from our everyday logic.. Jerry writes re the ES "Long felt that this ancient way of teaching was no longer applicable today, & that it only lent itself to feelings of division. (Those in the ES were a step above the others ...) I agree. I often get the impression that ESers think they know more than people who're not in the ES. I also feel that being in the ES from not being in the ES is divisive. There's a certain lack of communion & communicationg between the inners & the outers. I see that you found yourself other teachers. I did too & I think I learned just as much. Besides, I believe with Serge King that in today's world we need as many spiritually aware & schooled people as we can get.. I once had an employe who could only work as a porter or a dishwasher. He was a spirtual man, & I tried to teach him whatever came up that I thought he could absorb. Well, he did, and hopefully he used it.. Jerry writes "Put theosophical perspectives into the plain English of today." I'm with you, Jerry, for a long time already. I can't see why it's necessary to express something in an unknown tongue, when it would be easier, especially for learners, to get to know the same concepts with English names. It often takes strict attention & etc. to comprehend the concepts without also having to learn an non-English name. Then too the concepts often have a few different names. I seem to remember that there were 40 some names for the Agnishwattas, the Lords who brought us Mind. Aloha Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 12:31:16 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Abortion and other related issues I have been reading the postings on abortion and would like to offer the following thoughts and questions: As everyone probably knows, abortion is a very controversial subject at least in the USA. People seem to be polarized into 2 camps of pro-choice and pro-life. But I believe the issue of abortion is just the tip of an iceberg. That underlying the emotional issue of abortion are many other, even more emotional and very personal issues. Issues of morality, persoanl responsibility, sex, etc. In asking the following questions, I would like to ask how HPB and her Masters viewed these issues and questions and then how all of this is viewed by other writers on Theosophy and the Esoteric: (1) Underlying the issue of abortion are many other issues such as the value of a human life, when does a fetus become a human being?, is an abortion "murder" or just a "choice"? Other underlying issues and questions involved are: (2) How does abortion relate to questions of personality morality, to the question of the place of sex in the life of an individual, to the issue of sexual promiscuity? (3) What about birth control? More birth control, less abortions? What is the Theosophical view on the use of birth control? (4) Some might say: if people (especially teenagers) were less promiscuous and "controlled" their sexual behavior or abstained from sex altogether we would not have as many unwanted pregnancies and therefore less abortions. (5) What does Theosophy say about "sexuality", the role of sex in the live of an individual? What is the role of morality and personal ethics in these questins of sex? (6) What role could "self-discipline" play in averting some of the results of a person's desire for immediate sexual gratification? Some of teh results of such gratification are: unwanted pregnancies, abortions, sexual transmitted diseases including AIDS, broken hearts, broken marriages, unwanted children, one parent families, etc. (7) What does HPB and the Masters say on many of these questions and issues? What does Theosophy say? Do the Theosophists have some sound advice to give to the world on these issues? (8) Other related issues involve masturbation, homosexuality, "selfishness", "ego-driven" behavior, the "immediate personal gratification" emaphasis rampant in our modern day society, etc. My comments and questions are poorly worded but I believe everyone will see what I'm driving at. I hope these questions will generate some good Theosophical discussions and lead each of us to ponder more deeply these issues of life and what light the Theosophical philosophy can throw on these issues. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 14:11:52 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: A book every Theosophical student should read I have just finished reading for the seond time the book THE MASTERS REVEALED: Madame Blavatsky and the Myth of the Great White Lodge by K. Paul Johnson. This book, in my opinion, should be read by every Theosophical student who is interested in the life of H.P. Blavatsky and the question of the existence of her Masters. In the foreword to the book, Joscelyn Godwin also writes: "All Theosophists, it goes without saying, should pluck up the courage to read this book. . . .But it is the world of learning that has the most to gain from Mr. Johnson's work, for it opens a whole field of future research. . . ." I hope everyone on the Theos Network will purchase a copy and read this thought-provoking book. Here are a few of the quotes from the back cover of the book: "The author has transferred the discussion of Blavatsky's sources from the realm of the mythical to the historical. He has given us a well-researched series of capsuled biographies of persons from whom Blavatsky learned, and the nature of her relationship with each of them....Readers will be fascinated, as I was, to see basic profiles of historical personalities behind Morya and Koot Hoomi. . . ." Hal W. French, University of South Carolina "...He [Johnson] has marshalled an impressive body of evidence to show that the Theosophical masters are neither disembodied spirits nor are they fictions but are specific historical personages whose identities were disguised for various reasons." James Burnell Robinson, University of Northern Iowa The book was published in 1994 by the State University of New York Press (310 pp, $16.95 paperback; $49.50 hardbound). The easiest way to order the book is to call the toll free number 1-800-666-2211. Postge and handling is $3.00. SUNY takes VISA, MasterCard, American Express and Discover orders. Or by mail, order from SUNY %CUP Services, PO Box 6525, Ithaca, NY 14851. I hope that "Theosophical History" will do a long review of the book or possibly allow 2 or 3 reviews to appear (as in the case of Sylvia Cranston's biography of HPB). At a later date, I plan to do a review of Johnson's book and provide an updated critique of Johnson's "identifications of Morya and Koot Hoomi." I plan to post it on Theos-Roots. At this time I only wan to comment that Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED is a gold mine of biographical information on various people surrounding HPB: names such as Albert Rawson, Agardi Metrovitch, Lydia Pahkov, Marie, Countess of Caithness, James Peebles, Charles Sotheran, Mikhail Katkov, Sarat Chandra Das, etc. My favorite 2 chapters are probably the ones on "Raphael Borg" and "Who Inspired Hume?" All students of the Mahatma Letters will enjoy this latter chapter on A.O. Hume. This book, no doubt, will be controversial but that's good if it prods people (especially Theosophists) to reexamine their own beliefs and assumptions. I would like to end this brief review of Paul Johnson's book with a new HISTORICAL RESEARCH PUZZLE #2: On p. 144 of THE MASTERS REVEALED, Johnson writes: "Several additional fragments of evidence lend support to the identification of [Maharaja] Ranbir Singh [of Kashmir] as the protype for Morya. . . .Just before his death, Olcott had visions of the astral form of a Master. When he asked `Who is there?' it answered `Cashmere.' But, oddly, his secretary then recorded Olcott's response as `Oh! That is the name I always gave K.H.' [Endnote 71 added at this point]" Johnson then continues writing: "Reference to a maharaja by the name of his kingdom is a standard usage in Olcott's writings, so it would seem this reverses the identities of M. and K.H. However, it is possible that the secretary misunderstood Olcott, or that he was in a confused state at the time. Another striking reference to Kashmir is in a humorous drawing of Olcott by HPB, which shows him being interrogated by a Mahatma, who is identified in the drawing as `Saib Morya' but in the caption underneath as `Saib Kashmere.'" [Endnote 72 added at his point] Endnote 71 reads: Howard Murphet, YANKEE BEACON OF BUDDHIST LIGHT, p. 306. Endnote 72 reads: Mary K. Neff, comp., PERSONAL MEMOIRS OF H.P. BLAVATSKY, p. 221. Can anyone verify (or falsify) these statements by Paul Johnson? Please consult the two sources mentioned. Are there other sources that throw additional light on these statement? Why does Johnson write "oddly"? Did Olcott call Master K.H. by the name of "Cashmere" ("Kashmir")? Is the Master in the drawing identifed as both "Saib Morya" and "Saib Kashmere"? It might also be useful to read pages 143-145 of Johnson's book for the context in which the quotes are given. First person with the correct answers wins a copy of Geoffrey Farthing's DEITY, COSMOS AND MAN: An Outline of Esoteric Science. 1993. If you already have a copy, please donate gift copy to your local library. Be sure to cite all sources consulted and give your answers and your reasoning in full detail. - - - In summary, Paul Johnson has devoted a great deal of time and effort in researching various portions of HPB's life and the historical identities of her Masters. The book is a treasure trove of biographical and historical information. Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 17:30:46 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: abortion Dear Keith, A more complete extract from the HPB quote reads: "...there is no more of spirit and soul, for the matter of that, in a foetus or even in a child before it arrives at self-consciousness, than there is in any other small animal, -- for *we deny the absence of soul* in either mineral, plant or beast, and believe but in the difference of degree. But foeticide is a crime against nature." [my * for emphasis] This makes it clear that Theosophy does not deny the soul or spirit of man. However, the "But" in the last sentence suggests that HPB is trying to say that Theosophy, unlike Christianity, values the foetus for its intrinsic value, as well as for its role in an individual's evolution. Religion, on the other hand, values nature, man or foetus mainly because "God" created them. Human life is sacred because God is sacred, and we are created, say the Xtians, by God. Theosophy looks at it a bit differently. Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 20:35:26 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Thoughts on Abortion These are some comments that I have jotted down on the subject of abortion: Keith: "Specifically, I would like to know what people on this forum think about the issue of abortion." I think that it is wrong. I also think that it is wrong to bring unwanted and unloved children into the world (there are currently over 2000 black children awaiting adoption in Baltimore alone). Keith: "how can we justify abortion." "We" can't. Only the mother has this right. And, she must live with her decision. Keith: "Most abortions are obviously selfish, selfish, selfish." I have to disagree with you here. There have been numerous studies on this issue, and none (not a single one) has found a preponderance of women with selfish motives. Virtually every woman that has an abortion does so with great reluctance, sorrow, regret, and feelings of inadequacy. They feel, rightly or wrongly, that it is necessary, and they do not have abortions casually (I am not a woman and so can't speak for one, but am simply telling you what I have read in technical journals). I don't think I have ever heard a single woman say that "most abortions are obviously selfish," even those who oppose abortion know that this is simply not the case. Keith: " It is my belief that if the laws of KARMA are real. Those that choose abortion in this incarnation will they themselves be aborted in their next attempt at incarnation." So when you see an abortion, how do you know that it is not the karmic consequence of a past life? Could events that seem to cause future karma, actually be the results of the past? If we eliminate abortions, then how can those women who have already aborted ever be brought to justice? (please note that I say this with my tongue tightly against my cheek). Keith: "Of course there are circumstances such as rape, incest, and danger to the mother's life that justify abortion." Here we get into a real can of worms, and we enter into the illogical world of ethics. Either abortion is wrong or it isn't. If you can justify it in any way, then we are simply splitting hairs between the pro-lifers and the abortionists. If it is OK for rape and incest, then what about poverty? Where do we draw the line? Keith: "The Monad has spent many years rising throught the subplanes to devachan and each child is a world teacher. How can we crucify these holy beings even if they look like a blob of cells?" There is a big difference between a monad and a "blob of cells." Anyway, the counter arguement here is that if we believe in reincarnation, then abortion simply makes the monad go off to find another womb - hardly a crucifixion. It is only a crucifixion if we don't believe in reincarnation because then abortion deprives the soul of its one and only chance at life. HPB: "for, indeed, there is no more of spirit and soul... in a foetus... than there is in any other small animal." I believe that what HPB says here is true. Only the lower parts of the incoming monad's constitution come into play in the foetus. Certainly the foetus has no developed manas, in the sense of a human mind, for example, albeit the potential is there. "The sin" By labeling abortion as a "sin" (whatever that means) we already know where the author stands on this issue. I am against abortion, but would label it a sin only if we can also label the act of bringing an unwanted child into this world as a sin as well. As a foster parent for many years, with over 50 foster children under my belt, I can attest to the "sin" of having unwanted children. It is a crime that is every bit as vile and unwholesome, and karmically "bad," as abortion. Keith: "Is there a monad behind the foetus guiding it's development or not? " Yes. Every physical aggragate on Earth has its guiding monad. According to Tibetan Buddhism, the reincarnating ego/monad incarnates at conception - it is karmically drawn to its parents by the sexual emotions of their coupling. This is very clear in the Bardo Thodol, for example. Keith: " If we are monads, souls, embuded with buddhi throuhout this mavantara then a body no matter how small doesn't seem to matter. Again a body is only a vehicle among vehicles for our true eternal spiritual selves." While this sounds simple enough, it is not really such a black and white issue here. The size of the foetus has little to do with anything. Abortion has more to do with forcing an incoming monad to seek elsewhere than it does with total deprivation of an incarnation. Perhaps by aborting a monad which will be unloved and unwanted and forcing it to choose another womb where it will be loved, the mother is actually doing it a favor? Keith: " it is hard to believe that say and infant is any more devoid of a spirit or soul than someone in devachan." I think you are misinterpreting HPB's words here. The incoming monad is not "devoid of a spirit or soul." HPB was simply saying that the higher parts of the monad's constitution are not yet developed. A foetus does not think. It does not reason. It has no sense of identity, no personality. That is all she is saying in the quote above. Obviously the potential for these things is present, but they won't come into play for years. And without love, trust, and care, they won't properly develop when they do come into play. Keith: "We all know the planet is overpopulated and polluted, it seemed a noble gesture to reduce population and protect the planet." This is a cause for birth control, not abortion. Abortion should not be used for birth control. I suspect most theosophists would agree with this. Keith: "What do you women theosophist think? Do you really think we male dogs are trying to control your bodies..." Although I am not a woman, yes, this is actually what I think. Keith: "or do you just want to abandon a great gift" I doubt that there are very many women who would willingly not have children. Women are not the problem; our male-dominated society is - women are almost forced to go to work while most would much rather stay home and have and take care of children. Today most women must decide one way or the other, while men can have a family and a career both. Keith: "It seems that women want to be a caricature of the very worst in man rather than the very best of humanity (whether male or female)." Surely you don't really believe this sexist baloney. Perhaps your negative feelings about women needs to cool down a bit? You seem to be projecting your feelings about your biological mother onto all women (?). Keith: "The best I can do is be creative, but women bear the gift of being the gateway to entering souls!" Women are only the gateway for the physical body of such souls. Children are not owned, but only borrowed till they grow up. Having children is much more than a biological function. It also demands love, patience, and unselfish devotion and sacrifice on both the mother and the father's part. I am not the least bit envious of my wife's ability to have children (it hurts a lot). But once the child is born, he/she is the karmic repsonsibility of both parents. Daniel: "when does a fetus become a human being?" At conception. We can argue over when manas expresses itself, and so on, but I believe that conception is when the imbodying monad enters into physicality and begins to form its physical body. Daniel: " is an abortion "murder" or just a "choice"? It is both. The real question here is whether the "murder" is justified by forcing the incoming monad into (hopefully) a better opportunity. Daniel: "Some might say: if people (especially teenagers) were less promiscuous and "controlled" their sexual behavior or abstained from sex altogether we would not have as many ujwanted pregnancies and therefore less abortions." Does anyone know one single teenager with whom this technique has worked? I don't. This attitude is exactly what many fundamentalists have toward gays who get AIDS (they consider AIDS as divine retribution). Daniel: "What does Theosophy say about "sexuality", the role of sex in the live of an individual? What is the role of morality and personal ethics in these questins of sex? A few years ago, the Cokers and I (and maybe some others, Kim I think?) got together on PeaceNet and wrote a long and pithy essay on just where modern theosophists should stand on the whole question of sex. We quoted all of the latest scientific findings, and so on. It was printed in full in Ralph Nurrie's Theosophical Network. Needless to say, it inspired more feedback than any other article his newspaper ever published in its short but glorious lifetime - each and every one soundly against our position. We were way way too liberal for the theosophical community - which, I found out, is highly conservative. Sex is for having babies. Period. And only now in this short age of a paltry few millions of years - later when the two sexes merge into one hermaphroditic body, we will no longer have or need sexual contact and thus we should take cold showers for the next hundred lifetimes. Birth control equals total abstenance. etc. Most of the criticisms were better than the Catholic Church could have said it. We all pulled up our tails, so to speak, and went on to other, more prosperous, subjects. I personally wouldn't advise you to open this Pandora's Box here on theos-l. (while I am, I admit, trying to be humorous here, the facts are exactly as I have outlined them). Daniel: "What role could "self-discipline" play in averting some of the results of a person's desire for immediate sexual gratification?" Little. I suspect that if John Doe had enough self-discipline to control his sex drive, I would find myself on another planet, or be dreaming. In short - not in my lifetime. However, self-discipline has little effect when the jelly or pill doesn't work or the condom has a hole in it. I don't see a large relationship between abortion and the desire for immediate sexual gratification. You seem to be assuming that only those women get pregnant who give in to immediate sexual gratification. Lots of married women get pregnant too. My Personal Summary. Abortion is a difficult decision for any woman to have to make. On the one hand she kills an unborn child and gets "bad" karma, while on the other hand she brings another child into the world that she can't, for one reason or another, give proper care to, and thus gets "bad" karma. It is, in fact, a lose-lose proposition. Only the individual woman, with her unique background and karma, can make that decision - but the choices are bad either way she goes. The decision to have the child and give it up for adoption is probably the best approach, but still not without its karma. I sometimes feel glad to be male, and not have to make such an aweful decision myself. I feel very sorry for those women who have to decide. They have to live with whatever choice they make. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 22:30:01 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Abortion Have you hugged your guru today? guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 23:41:48 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Jerry S.'s Comments on Abortion Thanks for your comments on abortion and related issues. I really liked your remarks at the end of your message. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 02:23:46 -0500 From: Marek Kotas Subject: Re: Thoughts on abortion Text item: Text_1 Hello everybody, I feel that we still do not underline the real problem regarding abortion, the basics. When it comes into considering abortion one has already gone behind the thin line that separates heaven and hell. (not in religious manner saying ;-) I mean being responsible for your actions, thinking what in future they will bring i.e. won't it hurt somebody. If you really love your wife/partner you cannot simultaniously make love and risk forcing her to make an abortion in future. Or you are extremely selfish, and project this selfishness into her, you teach her to be selfish as well. I totally disagree with the opinion that performing an abortion could help the monad find a better place for incarnation. Unless the person making such decision has the ability to forsee the alternative incarnation (I believe this is not so common) and make a consious decision, this is only an intellectual speculation. Let's look at the problem from a more positive side: what is the ideal model of sexual behaviour and bringing babies. (I think one should not separate this, mayby being aware that you can have a child coming every moment works better than jelly :-). I believe that the abortion is more a problem of man than women becouse only they can stop it. If a women feels so uncomfortable she decides to perform an abortion the Karma hits more the father becouse he is the reason of her decision. He should provide her all means to bear the child and they should bring it up togather. If it happened to be raped I think the society should help to bring up the child, and there are families ready to make adoptions as well. I cannot justify abortion performed for economical reasons. If you cannot afford having a baby, isn't it time to say you cannot afford to feel the deepest, gratest extasy of sex - being aware you are just providing the body for someone to incarn? And try other sexual "techniques" that won't bring troubles in future - just in case you are selfish and want only to have some fun for yourself. And few words about what do really feel women who performed abortion. I happened to read results of statistical, anonymously performed resarch on this subject. Most women (almost all) are not able to cope with the pain for their _whole_ life. They may reject it, may say different in front of TV camera, but deep inside they never, _never_ stop crying for their lost child. I think one should remember it when talking about discussed subject. Have a nice day, Marek From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 13:25:50 -0500 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: RE: theosophy 1995 Re: Abortion, Karma, Crimes against "nature"... To chime in from another angle.... I personally would have to say that I simply have not been able to come to a clear conclusion on the relative morality/immorality of abortion, but have some thoughts about how Theosophy might contribute in a positive fashion to the national debate. First, I suspect its helpful to clarify the motive behind the issue...the question of whether it is morally correct is seperate from the question of whom ought to decide the question of morality. While the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" perspectives both have fairly powerful lobbying groups and positions, and in the public forum are seen as being opposite and opposed, most public opinion polls show the large majority of Americans (something like 70%-80%) are both pro-life _and_ pro-choice....that is, they say they would have qualms about abortion itself, but that they have even more qualms about the government, or any other outside agency imposing a decision upon then. In fact, in (I think) the Webster decision, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner rendered an opinion that seemed, at a superficial level, to lean far more towards pro-choice than a conservative justice was expected to, but her argument was an interesting piece of legal clarity: She rightly (IMO) argued that the principle underlying much of the debate was the grounds upon which a government might intrude in reproduction decisions of the individual members of its populace...and that if that right is conceded as belonging to the government, i.e., that it may impose its will on reproductive decisions based on a prevailing political or social norm, then if those norms change, the same principle could well form the foundation for strikingly different applications, in fact the same underlying principle is the foundation upon which China virtually *enforces* abortion as a public policy. The gradual whittling away of private rights in reproductive choices, in fact, is what is currently allowing what would have been unthinkable only a few years ago: The public, credible(?!) discussion of forcibly taking children from teenage mothers who do not conform to a strict set of behavioural norms set by the state. Note that this is more than simply saying the state will refuse financial support to teenage mothers, it is bodily removing the children to orphanages. The principle, though, is the identical one: *That the government has the moral and legal grounds to micro-manage the reproductive behaviour of its citizens*. Perhaps someday, if I marry and my wife and I are faced with an unexpected pregnancy, I may have to enter with her in a decision making process that would be one of the most difficult humans could possibly experience, and I really don't know how I would face it....but I'll tell you what, the personal opinions of Newt Gingrich, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or Paul Hill would *not* be relevant issues in the decision making process. Beyond that, however, there is the personal question of whether it is or is not a moral/immoral act, and I suppose that depends upon many factors, factors that become more complex instead of simpler when one includes the spiritual dimension into the discussion. in fact, the spiritual dimension is what convinces me that the choice ought to be absolutely personal, because of the vast differences in spiritual perspectives. If one presumes a trans-incarnational consciousness of some sort that re-incarnates periodically, then you could say abortion refuses a soul admittance into incarnation, but (as was mentioned in a previous post) it is certainly free to seek another....and even further, the assumption behind the argument is that the moment conception happens the incarnating soul has absolute rights while the incarnates have none...i.e., if a soul chooses incarnation through two incarnate people who both do not wish it, why is it wrong for them to refuse admittance, but not equally wrong for it to attempt to impose *its desire for incarnation on them*. Yes, some would say "but the fact that they had sex is an implicit invitation to an incarnating soul", but this really gets us nowhere...as it raises the question of the "magical moment": When does the choice of humans to have sex turn into fate? At the moment of conception? Or is it (to be facitious) at the moment when the gleam is in their eyes? Or three months after conception? If the sexual act generates an energy that is the attractive force, then is not any contraception as wrong as abortion (as the incarnating soul would still be attracted to the energies, but again, would be refused admittance)? If one presumes every human life is a unique and singular event (i.e., as some Christian perspectives hold, that a new soul is created at every birth, that then spends one life incarnate, and virtually the rest of eternity living with the effects of that one life ... which, while it seems horribly unjust to me, is still a very widely held view on earth), then what does reason suggest? That if a Mother, understanding that life in a ghetto will make it extremely likely (or highly probable) that a child will have little chance to grow up in a way that won't condemn her/him to eternal hell...but that in aborting the soul it will remain pure.......well you see the trouble such a perspective leads to. The thing is, there is no definative solution...in fact only a cacaphony of different opinions as wide and varied as religious, ethical and social perspectives are in our race...(which is what disturbs me so much about trying to "solve" the problem politically/collectively...to arrive at a solution would imply that a particular underlying spiritual paradigm was being implicitly chosen as "correct"). It is my opinion, then, that if Theosophy is to be of assistance in the public debate, that assistance must come as something other than as the decision to take one side or the other...which, in fact, it couldn't do anyway...because while freedom of thought is not very popular among a number of current political factions, it still *is* the cornerstone of Theosophy...and I would expect to find Theosophists all over the whole spectrum of positions on the issue. I think, however, that we might have two powerfully positive things to add to the debate: 1. Process. Seperate from the details of the argument is (IMO) a much deeper, more dangerous problem...the increasingly degraded state of virtually all of our public debate. Our political and social leaders on all sides are tripping over each other in competition for the least common denominator. Both parties now practice virtually nothing but the politics of division. Both attempt to stir the entire population into battles...to turn neighbor against neighbor, race against race, gender against gender and religion against religion. Our deepest, most profound philosophical questions (and abortion is certainly one, but certainly not the only one), questions that literally seem to beg for thoughtful, careful discourse, are being argued at a purely emotional level. Socratic dialogue has degraded into talk radio. Well reasoned arguments are meaningless if they cannot be reduced to sound-bites (which few of them can). Perhaps, if we wish to know what Theosophy can offer to the abortion debate...perhaps we can offer it something no other organization in the debate can offer: *A model for an elevated debate*...and its something we already have seen a hint of: We haven't avoided the issue, and even the few comments up to now have demonstrated that both ends of the spectrum exist, but the discourse on this list has had a stunning *tone*...an underlying keynote of respect for one another's perspectives, an understanding that we are all more than just what we think about this particular subject...an ability to call one another's _ideas_ into question without calling one another's _character_ into question. The national debate probably does not need yet another group deciding to come out either for or against abortion rights, but what (IMO) it desperately needs is a transformation of the debate...needs, in fact, the intention *embedded in our First Object* demonstrated as a living thing, as a whole new mode of approach to public discourse and the resolution of issues. 2. The second thing we might offer is an entirely new conception of conception (sorry, couldn't resist). Imagine perhaps...a future picture... in which the growing spiritual abilities of the human kingdom make conception and child-rearing a *fully conscious agreement between the two parents and the incarnating soul*. I believe we are already seeing the beginnings of this. Fully healthy, relatively integrated human souls will tend to choose mates based on sound and solid criteria. These couples, and they are a minority, but a growing number...these couples can jointly tune to intuition at an extremely clear level. In fact, I have (as an example) a couple of friends right now that just had a baby girl...and it was really awe-inspiring to watch how they did the process of pregnancy. The woman felt several months before conception the presence of a soul, and began actively attempting a sort of silent discourse. She and her husband rather matter-of-factly went about preparing for the pregnancy, and once pregnant, devised some meditations in which they would join their energy-systems and invite the soul to interact with them. After several months, it became strikingly *specific*...both came away one day, for instance, with the strong intuitive impulse that a particular _color_ of room would be preferred by the soul...so they painted the child's room that color and got blankets & etc. Well, you get the point. While we don't have to insist on Theosophical dogma (i.e., the esoteric Hinduism, karma, reincarnation, etc., etc.,) in the public sphere, we might raise the issue of "conscious conception" and explore it in detail. Whether Christian, Theosophist, Buddhist, or etc., I think growing numbers of men and (especially) women are starting to have much clearer, more specific sensations preceeding and during child-bearing times...but most simply would not talk about it publically 'cause it would sound "crazy". Could not Theosophy offer, to our culture, the work of making it OK to discuss such things? This is far larger than the abortion debate, but relates...abortion only exists to the extent that conception is an *unconscious* process...and down the distant road I think it not at all unlikely that incarnating souls, in active communication with potential parents...may reach mutually agreed upon decisions that would make abortion irrelevent...imagine parents _requesting that the soul wait until they can provide for it better, more optimal conditions for its incarnation_. A century ago Theosophy helped lead the way...attempted to articulate and practice the first forms of what are now common, mainstream ideas and concepts.....and perhaps, at the end of This century, its time to do that again. Well, enough, in fact, probably way too much, for now, With love, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 14:13:05 -0500 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: RE: theosophy 1995 Jerry, I don't have a lot to say in addition to your posting but I want to thank you for modeling a possible theosophical position on the ethics of abortion. My wife and woke up early this morning and read the entire first installment at breakfast. It stimulated much discussion and we realized that you were struggling morally with the issue in authentic manner. Reproductive choices while personal have a spiritual backdrop that regardless of where you come down on the issue must be acknowledged and addressed. You did that superbly. Thanks Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 14:44:28 -0500 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: RE: theosophy 1995 > Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day > > O'Conner rendered an opinion that seemed, at a superficial level, > to lean far more towards pro-choice than a conservative justice > was expected to, but her argument was an interesting piece of > legal clarity: She rightly (IMO) argued that the principle > underlying much of the debate was the grounds upon which a > government might intrude in reproduction decisions of the > individual members of its populace... JRC, I'm sorry but in my opinion, the Webster decision was not very good. I agree with the Chief Justice and J. Scalia in that the constitution does not say anything about abortions. Anyone who wants to make abortions a constitution right should add it to the consitution. If its not in the US Constitution, then ammendent 10 should apply and the decisions should fall back to the states and the people. I have a real problem with judges making laws from the bench without any accountability to the people. Sorry...not to much Theosophy in this message. -Mike Grenier ---- Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 15:18:55 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Abortion One thing I think important to keep in mind is the prevalence of spontaneous abortion. Quoting from Jonathan Scher's Preventing Miscarriage (1990): In general, we can now accept that from 50 to 60 percent of first pregnancies miscarry, and the figure may be in reality much higher. This means that at least one in two first pregnancies are lost naturally. Just last year, however, the New England Journal of Medicine came out with the controversial figure of 31 percent for all "implanting" embryos (the ones that have actually embedded in the uterus) that miscarry. As many as 75 percent of all fertilized eggs, including those that never implant, do not yield a full-term baby...if every woman had a very early pregnancy test done, every month, throughout her reproductive life, then the rate of spontaneous miscarriage would probably turn out to be even higher. End quote With 4 million live births per year in the US, using the 75% failure rate yields a total of 16 million pregnancies. The number of medical abortions performed annually is about 1 million. Thus the ratio of spontaneous to medical abortion would be about 11 to 1. I won't go into the ethical implications of this, except to suggest that the great majority of monads will make more than one effort to incarnate before succeeding. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 17:05:53 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Abortion and other relate... Dear Daniel, I'd like to give you what may be partial answers to some of the questions you raise, but it's what I know. 2.) Questions of personal morality - I don't know whether our founders took a stand on this issue, but I've found Theosophists, as a group to be very monogamous. 3.) I wonder whether there was birth control in HPB's time. We are of different religions, and I would think that various Theosophists use the kind of birthcontrol, or non, that their religion (or conscience) prefers, and/or doesn't ban. 4.) I think this again depends upon what their religion prescribes, as far as kids follow their religion. If you'll pardon my bringing up the subject, the practice I think would be a good solution for not having that many teenage pregnancies, abortions, & less premarital sex, is telling them about masturbation. It's considered a sin in some religions, & I wouldn't talk about it to a kid, if it's against his/her religion, but maybe it would help with some of the others. 5.) I think we differ as to what role sex plays in the lives of inidviduals. I've heard different opinions. 6.) I would think that, since we're trying to teach self discipline in all ways, self-discipline would also cover the area of sex. Hope that's helpful, Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 18:09:24 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Thoughts on abortion Dear Marek I believe you that the women who've had abortions never stop crying, ...but long time ago, I had a colleague whose father was a very orthodox Rabbi. She got pregnant without being married. If she hadn't gotten an abortion, (and it was a horrible illegal one at the time) her whole life would have been ruined. Her family would have literally disowned her & etc. That would have been lots worse for her than grieving for the baby she didn't carry to term. It's not that cut & dried. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 20:34:13 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Thanks Liesel Thanks Liesel for your comments. I will keep on reading replies and at some point will add some of my own comments. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 20:37:03 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Thoughts on Abortion Dear Jerry, Thank you for a very well-thought through, and thorough treatment of this topic. I really like what you said, & agree with most of it & I'm saying that very sincerely. However, as a woman, & a feminist, I have to raise my voice about 1 of your sentences: "most" -women- " would much rather stay home & have & take care of children". I think that many young women today are not satisfied with just staying home & raising children. They also want a career. The art of juggling the 2 is one of the major problems women face today, at least the well educated ones. I don't know that much about the others. I myself think that raising my kids was the most wonderful, satisfying thing I did with my life. I'm very proud of the men they are today. I stayed home with them, while they were little, because I wasn't going to have some baby sitter bring them up, not even partially. That was something I & my husband wanted to do ourselves. But when they got older, I wanted to go to work ... at a satisfying job, & I did. I think that made me into a better, certainly a more versatile & interesting person. I could talk about something besides how smart my 2 boys were in school. (That's what every mother, & now every grand mother, & even great grand mother talks about. All kids are geniuses, I've found out now.) Besides, in my case, working was also financially good, because I was able to help put them through school after my husband died. I guess, had he lived, my salary would still have been needed to get them through school. Even in my day, mothers went to work for that reason. Now that I'm retired, I'm finally doing some of the enjoyable activities I never got to while I was raising my kids & working. I think if I'd just stayed at home, & cleaned house, & cooked, I would have died of boredom. That's just not my bag. Sorry to have to raise an objection to your very thoughtful essay, but I had to. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 20:53:50 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: theosophy 1995: an oxymoron?? There has been a lot of good (IMO) feedback on this very important issue of abortion. I thinks JRC's idea that the theosophical goal would be to transform the debate from the lowest level to a intuitional-buddhic level buttressed by the best of past thinkers, thus getting away from the name calling and the only two possible positions on the subject in which the nation seems to be stuck. Jerry S, Daniel and Marek also kept the discussion on a high level and I believe we have all agreed to disagree and still remain in the universal nucleus of siblinghood. It is true we can not force good karma on people either through organizations or the government. I would not close down one single clinic if it would mean back alley abotions with coat hangers as was the case before Roe VS Wade. Touche! on the comment about future karma getting all mixed up with past Karma which it probably is anyway. Perhaps that is why most of us have neither completely happy or unhappy lives; seen from a dimension above all our incarnations are really happening at once. Newtonian linear time has been replaced by space-time and our decisions seem to reverberate throughout parrallel universes glimpsed so clearly by me in my dreams and by others in clairvoyance. Anyway, I guess I am somewhat ingenuous in seeming to promote an activist stance for a theosophist. We just aren't that kind of organization. I am told that much of the work is done on the inner planes, but in this Kali Yuga the inner planes just aren't seeming to have much visible effect (I wish I were joking). While reading the posts a few things welled up from my unconcious. Theosophy means the ancient, hidden wisdom known to some throughout all time, but revealed only in part. Thus theosophy 1995 is a contridiction in terms like military intelligence. It is either theosophy for all eternity or it is just another gnostic system among gnostic systems. However, I was sincere that the eternal principles should be applied to problems such as abortion and brought into a wider consciousness just because they are eternal and so needed in 1995. Which brought up the symbolic ridden image of gnosticism. For many of the gnostics, both pagan Greek and Christian, the universe was an ABORTION! Big a-ha! We were divine beings of light that got lured through lower and lower levels by planetary Aeons till we were cut up like shards of glass. We became ignorant of our original divine state. Only Sophia (the wisdom Goddess) or Christos-Sophia in the Christian system could save us and raise us throught the planetary planes to a reunion to the DIVINE ONE. HPB gave the gnostics their due, but seemed to side with the neo-platonists which had a less symbolic, ritualistic, mystical outlook and were intellectual and optimistic and world affirming in the sense that the universe is not a trap or an abortion but only spirit in a long evolutionary and transformational cycle back to the One Life. So what does this have to do with the price of tea in China or abortion for that matter? Well, I think the over used term "world view" comes into play. Either you think we live in a legitimate, beautiful, worthwhile universe that is the learning and teaching ground for spiritual souls or you think the world is an ABORTION, something to be escaped, endured, altered by the use of drugs, selfish sex, crime with the criminal as victims because it's all such a hell anyway and one abortion deserves another. It's all a trap so I better race out manipulate and use everybody and everything because I am a beautiful VICTIM, VICTIM, VICTIM. It's not me that is causing the abortion but the whole "system". And anybody who stands in the way of freedom just isn't gnostic (cool, elite, in the know). Only fools would play by the rules. Of course all theosophical teachings go against this kind of thinking, but it helps to realize how widespread this deep, deep resentment exists between the classes, races, sexes, etc. with each and everyone claiming victimhood and a golden age if they were on top! One last thought, it seems that theosophy is widespread in children as so wonderfully expressed in Wordsworth "Intimations on Immortality". How the world looks like a devachan to the child, but is soon fades, sadly. But as far as adults, my guess is we are at best one percent of one percent of the population . In America, we have 6,000 current members. Maybe another 10,000 who attend meetings or read the literature seriously and maybe 50,000 fellow new age travellers who like a smorgasborg. (All the figures are very generous, I would assume). We are not going to be invited on "Geraldo" to get into the rousing debate. Our only hope is to make transform the abortion issue from one of despair and bitterness, to spiritual parenting as Jerry S. suggested. If we can offer a more universal understanding of the beauty of parenthood and the esoteric meaning, our voice might be heard, but the there is always the VOICE OF THE SILENCE for all of us, even those who have been aborted. Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 21:27:26 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: retry Just read Jerry Schueler's response to the abortion question(s). A few thoughts. In general terms, I can't see much wrong with what is, to me, Jerry's balanced and healthy approach. Even allowing for the fact that HPB may have got it wrong here and there - she didn't claim infallibility - then surely the ethical consideration(s) which apply here belong properly to the mother of the potentially aborted foetus. Not Jerry, not me, not anyone else. It is up to Theosophists and _anyone_ who truly cares about people, to try and make available as much information as possible, based upon as much evidence as can be gathered, to as many people as are willing to open their hearts as well as their minds. I see us all as part of an ultimate unity in which however we behave to/with each other we also behave to/with ourselves. Does anyone want to pass judgement on _someone else's_ choice? Someone who may be a complete stranger to them? If so, by what right? Let us first consider our own condition. Theosophy is not "holier than thou" and I hope, as a newcomer to this list, not to see such attitudes being expressed. Alan Bain, The Theosophical Society in England (Bristol Lodge). -- E-mail reponses please to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 00:18:45 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: abortion; the Divine Comedy having read and briefed most responses, I humbly suggest the following: 1) A prime gift, from God, is freedom of individual choice. 2) The Karmic laws are in place to balance this gift per each individual. 3) God designed the Woman to be the soul/sole person responsible for the health and care of the new soul-to-be during the entire nine months of pregnancy. (else they would lay eggs like birds - or some other encapsulated and separate womb device - to care for the fetus by "potentially" others). hence: 1) to create a manmade law which dictates the women's behaviour either before, during, or after pregnancy, is not a "Natural" concept, but a Political one (i.e. a concept created by the society and it's current understanding, or opinion, towards the relationship of Woman and potetntial Being) 2) the fundamental principle which governs human evolution and progress towards a higher "Being" is the act of "learning by experience", or doing (i.e. reincarnqtion). The conscious restriction of this principle towards another is truly contrary to Natural Law. It can interfere with natural evolution and the purpose/progression of the entire monad you are manipulating. 3) The Theosophical view point must be one which places the decision upon the woman, and her child, and *their* Karma. Otherwise *we* are interfering with an individual's natural course of evolution and personal soul devolopement. This is not good Karma for the "outsider" to accept upon themself. Unless we are in a true state of Universal Consciousness there is no way we can judge what is truly happening and is "Good". I certainly am not in a position to judge these people. are you?? we believe that all life is sacred. All life is intertwined in ways we cannot fully grasp unless we are in perfected states. Hence: 1) all destruction of life is to be avoided, by each person's individual choice! 2) all control over the woman's decision regarding abortion, is an attempt by society to intervene in the natural course of cosmic law. It will interfere with their (the woman and fetus) individual devolopment -- with Karmic consequences upon the interfering person as well. practical problems: 1) why ban killings at all? --- killings cannot be banned. the question is *if* we choose to punish those who do killings, and punish by what methods? The supreme court issued a very wise & conservative opinion (actually one which leans toward the pro-life group) by designating the first trimester as the toss-up for our societal laws. One can easily argue that it is much too conservative. -- e.g. eskimo societies -- where infanticide was a couples' choice after each child birth -- usually resulting in feeding the female new-borns to their dogs (dog-sled teams). Without this option their civilazation would not have existed). The human LAW is strictly a *cultural* choice. It has little to do with Theosophy, per se. Theosophy says to *prefer* to error on the side of the living -- nothing more. It definitely says to NOT impose or control others' choices and acts of free will. We are too ignorant to make laws or opinions regarding such. Christ said it best -- those who are FREE of guilt should cast the first stone(s). can you?? My Humble Opinion (MHO) peace - john e. mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 14:36:23 -0500 From: John Tullis Subject: (none) > ...CWL's indiscretions, however, are not so tolerated in society, > because they involved under aged boys. His actions would put him > in prison--even today. That is why his true activities were > never made public, and the membership was told instead that he > advised children concerning masturbation. ... > > I have remained vague concerning the charges against CWL out of > courtesy to those who are not interested in being exposed to this > kind of discussion. I suggest that any deeper discussion on > CWL's morality should go on to theos-roots. I volunteered to do > a cooperative FAQ file anyway, but no one has volunteered to co- > write it, so I might have to do it alone. Theos-roots would be a > good place to work out which aspects of this issue require the > most focus and clarification. > > >Jerry Hejka-Ekins Okay. 1) What documented evidence do you have regarding CWL's sexual actions with underage boys (author, title, publishing date). 2) What is the basis for the documented claims (sources cited in the documentation that you have). I think this should be addressed, because this topic area about CWL seems to me to be a big part of the contriversy (sp?) surrounding him. I will send this to Theos-roots, and we will see if people can discuss this issue there. -John Tullis- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 14:40:53 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Dual Membership Recently, Jerry S. posted a comment about membership in the two TS's, Adyar and Pasadena, and before that Jerry H-E referred to the same issue. I'd like to ask if there are any other of you out there with dual membership, and if you are willing to share the reasons? In reflecting on my own case, I came up with three main reasons for maintaining membership in both societies, which I'll briefly describe. 1.) Karmic debt. There are so many people in both groups who have helped me along the path that it would seem ungrateful not to be a member of both. In the 1980s, most of my Theosophical support network was made up of Pasadena members; in the 90s it has been mainly Adyar members. Not just friendships, but also help in my research and writing have come from both groups. Probably there is a comparable amount of opposition to the results from both sides as well. 2.) Confidence. From my observation, both Grace Knoche and John Algeo are reliable, knowledgable, hardworking, insightful, devoted leaders whose guidance of the movement I trust. The Board and cabinet of the two TS's are made up of people with similar qualities. Thus membership is a vote of confidence in the future of each group. 3.) Rejection of exclusivity. I know that there are many in each group who have a secretive and exclusive attitude toward the other. This is tied in to believing that "we are the TRUE TS and have the real successorship to the Founders." Not agreeing with this view in either case, I find dual membership a way of supporting the inclusive aspects of each group while rejecting the exclusive attitudes in both. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 15:52:15 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Theosophists offer hope on abortion issue Thanks to JRC, Marek, Daniel, Liesel, and Jerrry S. and John Mead for keeping the discussion of this emotional and controversial topic on such a high level. I still feel we are all a part of the nucleus of universal siblinghood. It is still so easy to be misunderstood on this topic people just asssume you are one side or the other and the sterotype your views and if you are other side get out the same old arguments or sometimes guns (not funny, I know). However I think we are onto something here. As suggested, we as theosophists can do two things to advance the principles behind the eternal wisdom: 1) raise the debate above the physical blood and guns level, the astral hot-headed name calling and even the kamas-manas tortuously devised arguments that are shop worn and have the stinking air of political correctness (i.e. stupidity where there should be truth) or fundamentalism (more hanging on to a scriptural "party line" instead of truth). There is no religion higher than truth (where have I heard that before) and there should be no political cant higher than truth (agreed???) Thus we can raise the debate to the intutional or buddhic level by showing the principles of theosophy (karma, dharma, periodicity, cycles, purity and unselfishness among others). 2) I beleieve it was Jerry S. who suggessted we offer a higher view of the whole parenting process. Didn't there used to be a section of the T.S. concerned with children. Well, it time we expanded it's function to include a esoteric view of what parenthood really is for the theosophically minded. As he outlined, two physical humans (with all 7 vehicles) are calling into incarrnation a third spiritual being through the sex act. Thus meditation, occult preparations would be in order to call the right soul and invite it gently back from devachan through the frightening lower planes. The pregnancy period could be one on intense spiritual communion for the the three souls. (I wish Brenda and Eldon would comment on their experience with their new child). Thus we could offer hope where there is despair. I find it hard to believe a child of a theosophist would starve in America. There seems to be much support already for "new age" Lamaze type birthing. Maybe we could move along these lines of supporting life. 3) Karma is a free choice. I would not shut down one abortion clinic if it meant going back to the back to alley buthcher shop abortions with coat hangers that we had before Roe VS. Wade. I hate to even bring up the labels, but I am really pro-choice, but with the realization that abortion is a choice against life, not just the removal of an inconvenient blob of cells. As far as with government control and where do you draw the line?? It gets really scarry what about euthinasia is Dr. Kavorkian just another person using his karmaic option for free choice. What about spousal abusers? Should we allow them their freedom of karmic choice and just right it off to they will get theirs in the the next life time??? - - - Two things welled up in my unconcious when we were discussing this topic. One was the gnostic idea that the created universe is the work of a deformed God who has created and ABORTION. In the gnostic system, the gnostickoi (the knowing ones) realize this and seek to get back to the one. Humanity was seduced down from the light by the planetary Archons or Aeons. They are degraded until their light is broke into shards and they forget their original diviinity. The only hope is Sophia or Christos-Sophia (god/goddess of wisdom) who will save the gnostic and raise him back up through the planetary spheres. HPB gave the gnostics their due, but sided more with the neo-platonists who believed the world to echo the perfection of the divine world and the goal for those like Plotinus was to realize the ONE even during this life. Thus it comes back to the over used term world view. The gnostics where complete celibates or complete hedonists. The second type abounds today. If we are all victims of the system why not have our fun and abort the results later. WHy not use drugs if they lift you to a higher plane away from this aborted world. However, the other side would say we have responsibiity for maintaining and nuruting a beautiful world where we can help each other realize the ONE LIFE, or the Voice of the Silence, even for those who have been aborted. Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 17:29:00 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Re: abortion; the Divine Comedy > The Theosophical view point must be one which places the decision > upon the woman, and her child, and *their* Karma. Otherwise *we* > are interfering with an individual's natural course of evolution > and personal soul devolopement. This is not good Karma for the > "outsider" to accept upon themself. Unless we are in a true > state of Universal Consciousness there is no way we can judge > what is truly happening and is "Good". I certainly am not in a > position to judge these people. are you?? There are no "outsiders". Nor are there any totally independent beings on this globe. Mutual dependence is, in fact, the rule. If we logically extend this popular notion held by many today, (not just Mr. Mead) not only would no one ever control another, but no one would influence or even help somebody else. Perhaps society should just let repeat offenders continue to kill, rape, molest, steal, etc. Eventually, in some future incarnation, they will "learn by experience" and stop. But let us never interfer, we would not want their learning curve to be too steep, would we. Contrariwise, if we know a person struggling with some altruistic project -- hands off -- help not -- for who knows what is noble and what is base. Flapdoodle say I! Theosophy and its ethical standards (which virtually all cultures share) were tested and found true and beneficial aeons ago. Who are we to look askance at milleniums of spiritual progress, for individuals and societies, based on those traditional virtues? Whence comes this craving for each person to reinvent the ethical wheel? As a wise man once wrote: "Thrice fortunate they who can break through the vicious circle of modern influence and come up above the vapors!" [Mahatma Letter 35] Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 19:09:17 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: hugs DQpPU01BUjogQXcsIHNodWNrcyENCgAA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 19:26:58 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: CWL Some notes re C.W.Leadbeater: Some information is to be found in the biography of CWL by Gregory Tillett (not popular among some) called "The Elder Brother" and published by Routledge & Kegan Paul [London, Boston, Melbourne, and Henley] in 1982. My own "Bishops Irregular" [E-mail me for info] of 1985 lists his Liberal Catholic Church activities, and touches upon his reputed sexual interests. Historically, there seems to be no doubt that apart from his sexual proclivities, he _did_ lie about his age, as the photograph if his birth certificate published by Tillet shows him as having been born seven years later than he claimed, hence the oft-repeated comments by his contemporaries that "he had such vitality for a man of his age" (paraphrase of comments in general). Tillet did his research in Australia, mostly Sydney and Melbourne, I believe, and seems to have actually interviewed some of the men upon whose evidence some of his claims for CWL's sexual practices were based. The last contact I had with Tillet was circa 1984-5, but I seem to recall that he was connected with the University of NSW, Australia, which is or was his home country. Prior to Tillet's book, LCC and theosophical sources gave CWL's birth as 17 Feb 1847. His birth certificate gives an unequivocal 16 Feb 1854. There may be more in the archives of the defunct Theosophical History Section originally based in London, whose work I understand is now continued by interested theosophists in the USA. Bookseller R.A.Gilbert of Bristol, UK, most probably has considerable data on CWL, and I shall ask him if he has anything useful I could post to the group. (He is not online anywhere, but is a regular visitor to Boston, MA). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 19:41:41 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Hugs OSMAR: Aw, shucks! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 19:42:40 -0500 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: abortion; the Divine Comedy > > The Theosophical view point must be one which places the decision > > upon the woman, and her child, and *their* Karma. Otherwise *we* > > are interfering with an individual's natural course of evolution > > and personal soul devolopement. This is not good Karma for the > > "outsider" to accept upon themself. Unless we are in a true > > state of Universal Consciousness there is no way we can judge > > what is truly happening and is "Good". > There are no "outsiders". Nor are there any totally independent > beings on this globe. Mutual dependence is, in fact, the rule. JRC> Or is it mutual *interdependence*, a _very_ different thing than dependence. And the whole argument depends on which scale you wish to use. At the most macro scale, of course there are no "outsiders" on the globe, but that is simply a logical trick...as the moment something came to the globe it obsiously could no longer be not on the globe. It is a far cry from this, however, to the position of saying that everyone has a full right to impose their opinion on everyone else. > If we logically extend this popular notion held by many today, > (not just Mr. Mead) not only would no one ever control another, > but no one would influence or even help somebody else. JRC>Well, I don't know, how about this as a "logical" extension: Since I am simply not able to claim universal awareness, nor am I able to claim perfect knowledge of anyone else's motives, intentions, past, or karmic web...nor do I, or can I, have perfect knowledge of the totality of anyone's current life, or what they perceive as their current life, I therefore would never presume to judge the actions of that other person that do not affect me, and I claim the right to work out my own understanding of the nature of the good without *the imposition* of anyone else's opinions. My own opinions change, and over my life have certainly evolved greatly in all sorts of areas...and I presume they will continue to do so...so how could a take my opinion *at any given moment*, and make the claim that it is so compellingly correct that I would feel justified in imposing it on everyone else? What unmitigated arrogance! I have no problem discoursing with people...attempting to make a strong case for my ideas, and listening to strong cases made by others...and I am occaisionally compelled by a powerfull argument to make fundamental changes in my perspectives of issues...BUT! that is different than *involuntary* changes in behaviour imposed by an outside source. And, I find no contradiction between this attitude and a desire to serve others....in fact, it causes a refinement of what the word "service" means. The vast majority of what is called "service" in this world is composed of *a person or group who has achieved success in some way and according to some standard, and who then offers the service of helping others to achieve the same sort of success*, that is, it is rendered to those who accept the standards of the server as being correct. How rare it is to find a person or a group that will actually help someone achieve what the person themselves wishes to achieve...even if it is at great odds with the standards of the server. Finally, I think what John Mead was saying makes a valid point...let's take your argument and extend *it* logically. you say we are all dependent on one another, and that this gives "us" (whoever that is) a claim to impose behaviours on (others? ourselves? those who disagree with "us"?)...does that not then mean that while you have a right to impose your notion of the right on a pregnant woman, you also then have a responsibility to feed, clothe, and protect both that woman and that child (if she was considering abortion because of financial hardship and an abusive husband for instance)? That is, according to your logic, you claim the right to involuntarily impose, but does this not also compell you to serve in ways that you may not want to? Or is there no link between rights and responsibilities? But is not the "law of karma" itself founded upon the link between action and reaction, between rights and responsibilities? Do you think you can delibrately impose a behaviour on another and then karmically have no responsibility for the effects of that imposition of that person's life? > Theosophy and its ethical standards (which virtually all cultures > share) were tested and found true and beneficial aeons ago. Who > are we to look askance at milleniums of spiritual progress, for > individuals and societies, based on those traditional virtues? > Whence comes this craving for each person to reinvent the ethical > wheel? JRC>And you are alledging that one side of the abortion debate is fully in line with the apparently universal virtues, whilst the other is an affront to milleniums of spiritual progress? That from now on no one should even claim the right to question, for themselves, what is right and what is wrong, but should simply behave according to these "traditional" virtues? Well, did not that spiritual progress *come from* people who each, in their own time, reinvented the ethical wheel? And pray tell, where are these supposed universal virtues you imply are beyond question? China, the largest nation in the world, holding close to one-fifth of the world's population, virtually imposes abortion, and does so on what it considers the grounds of the "good". Even further, tell when in the history of those universal virtues was there ever a set on conditions where *the exponential population growth of our species poses a clear and powerful threat to the vast majority of other life forms on the planet*. The growth rate of _species extinction_ is higher than the growth rate of abortions. This is a situation that *forces* a complete reavaluation of the ethical standards of the past, because the underlying assumptions have altered in a literally unprecedented way. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 05:36:23 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: CWL John Tullis, JT> 1) What documented evidence do you have regarding CWL's > sexual actions with underage boys (author, title, publishing > date). > 2) What is the basis for the documented claims (sources cited > in the documentation that you have). > > > I think this should be addressed, because this topic area about > CWL seems to me to be a big part of the contriversy (sp?) > surrounding him. > > I will send this to Theos-roots, and we will see if people can > discuss this issue there. > -John Tullis- I find it interesting that you are the only person who has requested evidence regarding the statements I made concerning CWL. Others have either offered silence; unsupported protests in affirmation of his innocence; or demands that I be silent on the subject. When I first heard about the scandal, I also protested and demanded evidence. None was given, therefore I refused to accept the statements. It was many years later that I finally did see the evidence, and was floored by it. The reason why evidence is hard to come by, is because it is locked away in archives and members (or researchers) are not normally allowed to see it. As for outside historians, the sole exception was Dr. Gregory Tillett who is the author of ~The Elder Brother.~ He gives comprehensive coverage of the scandals based upon source documents. But this was not your question. You ask what evidence *I* have, and the sources cited in the documentation. For whatever it is worth *some* of the most relevant documents *I* have personally seen are listed below: 1. Author: [transcript] Title: "Meeting called by Colonel Olcott [President-Founder T.S.] to discuss certain charges against Mr. C.W. Leadbeater, held at the Grosvenor Hotel, Buckingham Palace Road, S.W., on Wednesday, May 16, 1906, at 5 p.m." Publisher: [unpublished. Original in Adyar Archives, but copies exist] Sources cited in documentation: Is a source document in itself, because it is a transcript of the meeting. CWL's testimony was given in the presence of thirteen witnesses and a stenographer. Significance: Has the actual charges made against C.W.L., his admission to them, and his admission to further, more serious charges. 2. Author: C.W. Leadbeater Title: [Cipher Letter] Publisher: [unpublished. Original (last I heard) was in possession of the Mahatma Letters Trust, but heard a rumor that it was destroyed a few years ago. Source of documentation: Source document. Significance: Letter written in code to one of the Children. The child revealed the code to his mother. 3. Author: Helen Dennis Title: [Letter from Helen Dennis to Annie Besant, May 1906] Publisher: unpublished document. Sources cited in documentation: Is a source document itself. Significance: Establishes that the mother did not give permission, and gives further confirmation that CWL had bound Mrs. Dennis' child to secrecy. 4. Author: C.W. Leadbeater Title: [Letter from C.W. Leadbeater to Annie Besant, Simla, June 9, 1906. Publisher: unpublished document Sources cited in documentation: Source document. Significance: Shows that CWL, gave Annie Besant, who was not present at the hearing, a very different story. 5. Author: Helen Dennis Title: [Letter to Annie Besant from Helen Dennis, Jan 25, 1906] Publisher: unpublished document Sources cited in documentation: Source Document Significance: Helen Dennis' learning of the independent admission of the Knothe child to his parents. 6. Author: H.S. Olcott Title: "A Brief Statement of the Case of Mr. Leadbeater." Publisher: unpublished document, dated 18 Sept. 1906. Sources cited in documentation: Source document. Significance: Olcott expresses his shock, and gives the circumstances that brought about the hearing. 7. Author: C.W. Leadbeater Title: [Letter to Alexander Fullerton from C.W. Leadbeater, Feb. 7, 1906.] Publisher: unpublished document Sources cited in documentation: Source document Significance: C.W.L.'s response to learning that he is to answer to the charges. 8. Author: Annie Besant Title: [Letter to Helen Dennis from Annie Besant, Feb. 6, 1906.] Publisher: unpublished document Sources cited in documentation: Source document Significance: Annie Besant states that she knows C.W.L. "better than you can do", therefore C.W.L. is innocent. 9. Author: [document] Title: "Precis of the Leadbeater Police Inquiry as furnished to the Sydney Lodge Executive Committee, by its representative after inspection of the Report presented to the Minister for Justice, N.S.W., as sworn to on oath March 2nd, 1923." Publisher: unpublished document Sources cited in documentation: Source Document Significance: Gives Mrs. Martin's testimony concerning her observations of C.W.L. with Oscar Kollestrom. Details of the Police investigation of the Manor. I also have seen many other supporting documents, but these are the most revealing of the major facts. I had seen these documents well before the publication of Tillett's ~The Elder Brother~, therefore I can affirm that the documentation presented in this book is accurate. Since these documents have all been suppressed by the Adyar Society, ~The Elder Brother~ is the only published book where these documents are discussed, and in some cases, quoted. I suggest that you first read ~The Elder Brother~, then we can discuss the specifics. If you can't find a copy, I have them for $12.00 each, including postage. Dr. Bain, Thanks for your post. I look forward to learning what Mr. Gilbert may have to say. The Theosophical History Journal indeed continues, and is being published through the California State University Fullerton. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 10:48:00 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Above the Vapors John Mead -- >>The Theosophical view point must be one which places the decision upon the woman, and her child, and *their* Karma. Otherwise *we* are interfering with an individual's natural course of evolution and personal soul devolopement. This is not good Karma for the "outsider" to accept upon themself. Unless we are in a true state of Universal Consciousness there is no way we can judge what is truly happening and is "Good". Nicholas Weeks -- >There are no "outsiders". Nor are there any totally independent beings on this globe. Mutual dependence is, in fact, the rule. JRC> Or is it mutual *interdependence*, a _very_ different thing than dependence. Yes, quite different JRC. May I call you J? As a matter of fact "mutual interdependence" is an idea way beyond me. But I wrote "mutual dependence", not dependence. According to the dictionary interdependence is defined as "mutual dependence." JRC> And the whole argument depends on which scale you wish to use. No J, that remark had nothing to do with "scale". It had to do with separateness and karma being only individual, not group. Mr. Mead's words sounded as if he thought karma was mass of parallel lines, with each individual doing their own thing untouched by others. JRC> Since I am simply not able to claim universal awareness, nor am I able to claim perfect knowledge of anyone else's motives, intentions, past, or karmic web...nor do I, or can I, have perfect knowledge of the totality of anyone's current life, or what they perceive as their current life, I therefore would never presume to judge the actions of that other person that do not affect me, and I claim the right to work out my own understanding of the nature of the good without *the imposition* of anyone else's opinions. Your and my lack of omniscience is taken for granted J. Are the laws of karma and rebirth impositions on the personality? Of course they are. Our lower principles had no, and will never have any choice in the matter. Is our Higher Self a dictator then? Or is it the civil laws and conventions that impose upon you? Is the simple *presence* of a person, law, or tradition that J does not believe in, an imposition on J and those of like mind? Where do you draw the line between imposition and irritation? JRC> I have no problem discoursing with people...attempting to make a strong case for my ideas, and listening to strong cases made by others...and I am occaisionally compelled by a powerfull argument to make fundamental changes in my perspectives of issues...BUT! that is different than *involuntary* changes in behaviour imposed by an outside source. All of our ancestors were as we are, somewhat befuddled by life. However, when they discovered their vast ignorance, they chose not to cherish it, but to seek Truth wherever they could find it; even if it lay outside their precious self. If their personal candle cast too pale a glow to walk by, then why not accept the "authority of the torches" held by others? If you believe in universal brotherhood, if you think we are all rooted in the One, then why prefer *your* ideas over traditional values expressed by *others*. Note I wrote expressed not imposed. Do you really think traditional virtues survived for these many ages only because some authoritarian religion or state keeps imposing them? I don't follow your next paragraph. The one following, on your beloved *imposition*, has nothing to do with what I said or believe -- so I will pass on that. NW>Theosophy and its ethical standards (which virtually all cultures share) were tested and found true and beneficial aeons ago. Who are we to look askance at millenniums of spiritual progress, for individuals and societies, based on those traditional virtues? Whence comes this craving for each person to reinvent the ethical wheel? JRC> And you are alledging that one side of the abortion debate is fully in line with the apparently universal virtues, whilst the other is an affront to millenniums of spiritual progress? Nope. Motive is all -- as the saying goes. Those followers of *any* noble cause whose motives are colored by great anger, desire, pride etc. will vitiate most of the karmic merit they would have gained. The contrary will also be true of course. Those who back the pro-choice view, (for example) moved by genuine compassion, grace and gentleness, will mitigate some of the negative karma accrued. JRC> That from now on no one should even claim the right to question, for themselves, what is right and what is wrong, but should simply behave according to these "traditional" virtues? Don't be silly J. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you sound like there are only two choices for you -- slavish obedience to *them*, separate from *you*, or utter spiritual and intellectual self-reliance. Please consider more closely the nature of self and Self, maybe that would help. JRC>Well, did not that spiritual progress *come from* people who each, in their own time, reinvented the ethical wheel? Hardly. Those Avatars and Buddhas came at times (like now) with such degenerated values that Their teachings only seemed to the minds of that era as *new*. JRC>And pray tell, where are these supposed universal virtues you imply are beyond question? In many books and too few hearts. JRC> China, the largest nation in the world, holding close to one-fifth of the world's population, virtually imposes abortion, and does so on what it considers the grounds of the "good". A very modern nation, which, not incidentally, rejected their Taoist, Confucian and Buddhist roots. JRC> Even further, tell when in the history of those universal virtues was there ever a set on conditions where *the exponential population growth of our species poses a clear and powerful threat to the vast majority of other life forms on the planet*. The growth rate of _species extinction_ is higher than the growth rate of abortions. This is a situation that *forces* a complete reavaluation of the ethical standards of the past, because the underlying assumptions have altered in a literally unprecedented way. I would suggest the *causes* for this "problem" lie in the wholesale spurning of traditional restraints. "Problem" is in quotes because if we were all more true to our real selves numbers would mean little. The creative potential of the altruistic mind inspired by the Higher Self would solve any apparent scarcity easily -- not to mention our concern for our fellow being would be a tad greater than now, I believe. Best, Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 20:39:52 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Some BIG BIG lies I spoke to soon perhaps when I said we were working toward some positive helpful perspective based on theosophy that might offer some hope we might share with the world in a humble way on the problem of abortion. People seem to delight in jumping on some simple thing and scoring points like in a junior high debating class rather than coming together in a universal brotherhood. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE LEAVE THE SOCIETY. They get tired of pompous petty discussions that impress nobody but the speakers. This isn't a logic class, but a life and death issue. As suggested we should rise to the highest intuitional level to bring some peace if possible. Let me simplify the issue and give the theosophical wolves a chance to jump: I) The doctrine of ahimsa. THOU SHALL NOT KILL!. What part of that do you not understand? Harmlessness and helpfullness is the core of any worthwhile spirituality. Abortion is genocide (killing) and just because we are used to it the way the Nazi's were used to seeing the Jews going to "work camps" to be gassed is pretty sickening. In some sense we are collaborators. There is also something disgusting about someone who wouldn't dare eat meat or wear a mink coat, but is willing to toss their own flesh and blood in the garbage to be eaten by bacteria. 2) Abortion is a choice. Yes, but if I were to come over and kill you and your family would you just right it up to choice? I really don't think so. BIG LIE! 3) Women have abortions because they don't want men to control their bodies. I didn't state my position carefully before when I said it was selfishness the on part of the women. There is something more going on. Most women have abortions to please men in some way. Their boyfriend wants them to have it. There families want them to have it. The econmic system which does not support the women through pregnancy much (i.e. time off, job promotions are on the line and so on). I know of a case of a fundamentalist preacher who ranted day and night against abortion who made his daughter have an abortion becaue it would be too embarrassing to HIM. Off the subjet, but on the same idea, think about the women who killed her two children because she was afraid her boyfriend would leave her. I think most women given a choice would opt to not killing a baby, but men perhaps are the selfish ones that push them into it! Thus by having an abortion they are allowing men to control their bodies. What a laugh on the feminist cant (a disgusting one though). 3) Abortion is the best means of population control. It's probably the worst. I can support euthanasia to put people out of pain far quicker than depriving a spiritual being its chance to live and grow. I don't mean to be combative, theosophists are generally intelligent, creative, compassionate. We were doing better, we can do better if we meditate on an answer. If the masters exist, perhaps they will speak out in some way on this issue in our collective meditation. Please, please in your meditation try to come up with something positive. It has already been stated that HPB was against abortion so in some way the masters have spoken, now we must listen.. Again their is no religion or current politically correct idea higher than truth - and that is no lie. Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 22:05:18 -0500 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Re: Abortion, the T.S. motto, and other stuff ... Dear friends, With respect to the T.S. motto (or what ever you want to call it) that was quoted and paraphrased here recently: There is no religion higher than truth. I have always thought that it was a beautiful phrase that hinted at the underlying philosophy of our organization without giving ideas of some type of dogma. I never took the word "truth" literally in the phrase ... It seems that now there are people who are hinting that their "truth" is better than someone elses "truth." My simple question is who decides who has the bigger and better "truth" and who gets to wield it over the others? Upon leaving Krotona after a week of study a while back, I was told that I was responsible for making sure that my quarters were clean. So I happily went about the chores until I came to sweep- ing the porch. Here I noticed a number of spiders who had spun webs in the corners of the ceiling area. Suddenly I found myself in a quandary. Here I was at a T.S. facility where I had to de- cide if it was correct to kill another life-form. Being pretty much "an egg" in these subjects I went to a higher, more knowledgeable source for a solution -- I asked Joy Mills what I should do. Now I can't quote her -- I don't remember the words exactly -- but she told me something to the effect of: apologize to the spider, explain to it that its karma put it in the wrong place, and sweep it out of the way. Now I know that there is a big difference between a self- conscious (conscious of itself) human being and a non-self- conscious (not conscious of itself) spider ... but, at this point in my current incarnation, with what few seeming facts that I have at my disposal from science and the T.S., I can't see much difference in protoplasm, a blade of grass, a flower, a tree, a spider, a cat, a dog, a cow, an elephant, or a non-self-conscious human becoming. Until someone can prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt the exact time that the monad, or soul, or spirit, or whatever you want to call it, attaches itself to the physical being, I refuse to commit to one side of the abortion debate or the other. No one has the "truth" that can convince me yet. However, with the lack of differences that I perceive (above) and based on a strong intuition that I have been paying a lot of attention to recently, I'll have to admit that the pro-choice people make a lot more sense than the pro-life people -- even here in our little elec- tronic circle of theosophy. But even so, my thoughts are not the "truth" -- just my $0.02 worth. Now I sincerely hope that I am not fanning the flames -- it gets hot enough on other lists I belong to -- and I certainly don't want to be accused of continuing a flame war. But unless someone has an absolute, all-powerful "truth" that they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to all concerned (as Jerry H-E appears to have in the CWL furnace), then it seems to me that, in the interest of universal siblinghood, we all try to be a little more tolerant of other peoples belief systems. Peace and love to all. May you grok in fullness ... |William A. (Bill) Parrette|4000 Executive Pk. Dr., #310 |bill@[Zeus.]itdc.edu |Cincinnati, OH 45241-4007 |** I do not speak for ITDC--all opinions are my own ** 513-733-4747 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 12:50:36 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Abortion, only the tip of an iceberg? Well, it looks like this abortion issue has got lots of comments. I was hoping someone would collate some of the comments of HPB and the Masters on abortion, sex, birth control, promiscuity, celibacy, etc and present them in this forum. And even more important, talk about the rationale for such views, etc. Does anyone want to discuss Master K.H.'s comments on birth control as found in the Mahatma Letters? I certainly don't want to force or impose on others (especially women who find themselves pregnant and considering an abortion) my views on such subjects but I would hope Theosophists could try to raise the perspective and ,yes,, the "consciousness" of people on these subjects. It seems to me that children and teenagers (not to mention adults!) need to be educated on sexual issues including promiscuity, celibacy, abortion, birth control, etc. Do parents and schools really provide older children and teens with needed information on these topics? Far too many children are taught nothing concerning sexual matters and even less about values, morals and ethics. Look at the young males in American society who go around having sex, impregnating girls and then leave for greener pastures. The mind set of many of these young men are fun, fun, fun! Maybe they are not totally to blame. Probably there parents never taught them responsibility, self-discipline, and other such values. Both boys and girls need to be taught a system of values, responsibility, etc. And the whole of American society needs to be sensitized to the sacredness of life, the sacredness of Mother Earth. Maybe those spiders at Krotona could have been left alone so they could pursue their lives. I have a number of ant beds out in my backyard and I value their communities. One of my "spiritual" friends suprised me last summer by suggesting that I get rid of those irritating ants! He didn't like them! So get rid of them! I was very upset and told him so. These ants were beings not that different from humans and had as much right to exist and live as he did! I told him to take the time and get to know them. Observe them and learn to appreciate them! At first my friend was upset with me but upon thinking it over, admitted that he had never thought about the subject like I did. We need to have compassion and yes love for all creatures great and small and even for plants and mother earth herself. It is from this "perspective" that I view such subjects as abortion, etc. I wish humans could view sex as something very profound and sacred, something not to be entered into causally. This may seem all too sentimental to some readers. Anyway, if girls and boys and teens were taught to view sex in this way, if they were taught self-control (that is, that each of us should be aware of the consequences of our own actions and that we have the capacity to choose and sometimes such choice is not easy and sometimes mistakes and failures will occur, etc., etc.), if they were taught responsibility, then all the problems of sex and the consequences resulting from sex might in time be mitigated. If such instruction and teaching could be given by parents, by the schools, etc, then new generations might view these problems in a different light. Males need to be taught that they have certain responsibilities in these sexual issues and females need to be taught they too have responsibilities. How many unwanted pregnancies could have been prevented if only a little commonsense and restraint had prevailed? I have a 15 year old cousin who recently had an abortion. Her parents forced her to have the abortion. The family couldn't afford "it". The boy who was the father wanted no part of this baby. And my cousin was heart broken and emotionally devastated. A tragedy both for my cousin, her family and yes for the unborn baby. My cousin's mother had never seriously talked and discussed with her daughter about sex, romance, pregnancy, the libido of young teenage males, etc. My cousin said she loved the boy; the boy later admitted he only wanted to have sex with my cousin. Furthermore, my cousin felt she could not talk about sexual things with her mother and when she finally discovered she was pregnant and told her parents, it was too late. From my own reading on this subject, my cousin's tragedy is a common happening among American teenagers! So I suggest that sexual instruction, sensitivity "training", awakening of compassion, etc are just some of the things that could help to change the "thought climate" here in America and elsewhere. What are Theosophists doing about it? And I not saying that these "solutions" will solve all the problems, that there will no longer be problems or failures. And I believe all teenagers should be encourged to read the book "The Miracle of Birth" [or is the title "A child is born"???] and the accompanying video. Teenagers (and yes some adults too) need to be aware of what the "sex act" results in. The book with its beautiful pictures of the fetus and the video can awaken in the perceptive individual a whole new view of what life is all about! Several friends and I have used the book and video for a group meditation on several occasions. All in the group felt that our consciousness was greatly expanded, compassion was awakened. Many of us found that our consciousness merged with the fetus and great love and bliss resulted. I hesitate to talk about these meditational experiences but the experiences were so uplifting that I believe many expectant mothers and parents in general might find such meditations very rewarding. Enough. I hope the above is halfway coherent and there are not too many typos. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 00:37:13 -0500 From: Nira2U@aol.com Subject: BIG BIG LIE --INDEED... NIKA! Gentlfolk: I dislike making my entrance to this skein with anger as motivation but with regard to the "BIG BIG LIE' post --to make one major clarification to Keith's comments: any man, woman or four footted being that truly *believes* women have abortions because they don't "...want men controlling their bodies..." is so far out of reality's alignment... Here's a suggestion to those of you who have your heads caught in your panties --instead of venting your misaligned hostilities on women who are trying to resolve/head off crises in their lives --open up your wallets instead of your zippers and dole out the monies: (1) it takes to have hospital care to bring these souls into manifestation (2) raise these little cherubs into full fruition'd adulthood --which means all the necessities of life to insure quality for both mother and child since you seem to think we all have this brood mare obligation to people the earth... (3) make certain those menfolk who fathered these kiddos STICK AROUND and help with the responsibilities of raising them... Newt Ginrich's attititude of kinder, gentler orphanages typifies this cotton candy mentality pro-lifers seem to think is the solution to realigning society George W. Bush Jr. thinking boot camps will keep kids from gang-banging --murdering their 'friends' over who has the best tennis shoes is LUDICROUS Dan Quayle's attitude that single mothers are creating Cardinal sins by attempting to maintain a family without benefit of a male element is yet another indication of PeterPan mentality... And that godforsaken bucket of urinous protein with a collar in New York who hides behind his Catholic bretheren's beliefs who made the comments to the media last week justifying the sniper who killed those innocent people at the clinic --contending they *deserved* to die is just one more coffin nail in society's plight... Yeah --Helena was anti abortion... But she was also out of step with a few other things in her time as well. So I guess you could say I'm more of a Besant-advocate... Or you could look a bit closer into my soul --and see my pastlife a bit more clearly... Gentlemen --I thought I resolved this issue 14 centuries ago... This being the waning minutes of the Feast of Circumcision for the Orthodox Church --here's an unOrthodox suggestion... Let's take up a collection & send Lorena a set of Ginsu knives... Namaste indeed... Happy New Year!!! Theodora ;-} From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 11:25:18 -0500 From: vhc@philtap.tool.nl (Vic Hao Chin) Subject: New Publication To all theosophists: Hereunder is a notice issued by Ianthe Hoskins which I am relaying to all theos-l subscribers. Any correspondence may be sent directly to Ianthe by mail. Any correspondence sent through my e-mail address (vhc@philtap.tool.nl) will also be relayed to her. Regards, Vic Hao Chin, Jr. ] ---------------------------------------------- ------------- N O T I C E ------------- It is proposed to issue a publication to appear three or four times a year under the title "Theosophical Studies," dedicated to a deeper exploration and study of the teachings in the Secret Doctrine and the writings of H.P. Blavatsky, the Mahatma Letters, and the writings of their immediate disciples. The publication will include the following: 1. Original articles that will elucidate or throw further light on the writings above-mentioned. 2. Reprints of important studies previously published that are now buried in archival volumes beyond the reach of today's students. 3. Book reviews of relevant works for serious students. The reviews will not be limited to new publications. 4. Notices and news about groups, courses, and conferences that will give further opportunities for study. 5. Correspondence, questions, comments and feedback from readers. Our initial agenda will be guided by HPB's aims in writing The Secret Doctrine, as expressed in the Preface: ". . . To show that Nature is not `a fortuitous concurrence of atoms,' and to assign to man his rightful place in the scheme of the Universe; to rescue from degradation the archaic truths which are the basis of all religions; and to uncover, to some extent, the fundamental unity from which they all spring; finally, to show that the occult side of Nature has never been approached by the Science of modern civilization. . . ." If you are interested in this project, we would be pleased to hear from you, with an indication of the extent of your possible collaboration. All correspondence should be addressed to: Miss Ianthe Hoskins 37 Victoria Hill Road Hextable, Swanley Kent BR8 7LL United Kingdom From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 14:29:17 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: The Holy War on Abortion. Bless bomb, then fire. Hi - I finally got some time to answer. sorry to take so long. I think that I may have little more to contribute to this subject. My participation would only support the violent storm. :-) jem@vnet.net > (from Nicholas) > Yes, quite different JRC. May I call you J? As a matter of fact > "mutual interdependence" is an idea way beyond me. But I wrote > "mutual dependence", not dependence. According to the dictionary > interdependence is defined as "mutual dependence." I suggest you reread the dictionary definition of dependance again. It has several very different meanings depending on context. I will depend on you to do so . > with separateness and karma being only individual, not group. > Mr. Mead's words sounded as if he thought karma was mass of > parallel lines, with each individual doing their own thing > untouched by others. then I ststed my point poorly. I mentioned the inherent problem with this idea being taken to excess, which is why balance and compromise was the main point of the letter. (intended, anyway) > Your and my lack of omniscience is taken for granted J. as we do for *everyone* on this list. > However, when they discovered their vast ignorance, they chose > not to cherish it, but to seek Truth wherever they could find it; > even if it lay outside their precious self. they mostly found ignorance and confusion on the outside. The Truth is usually easier to find from within. > [...] If their personal candle cast too pale a glow to walk by, > then why not accept the "authority of the torches" held by > others? because their personal candle is much dimmer than the individual's candle, held so much closer to her eyes&mind. Personal experienc is the only trustworthy guide. > [how/why can you] prefer *your* ideas over traditional values > expressed by *others*. The Pope definitely agrees with you here. at long last, I can rest my mind. all has already been done for me. ahhhh,... to rest and become a theoso-fossil, and just eat the stale bread. > Note I wrote expressed not imposed. Do you really think > traditional virtues survived for these many ages only because > some authoritarian religion or state keeps imposing them? Not all people have the same traditions. Native American Indians used tobacco and ate meat. There is nothing inherently wrong with either. The Christian tradition uses alcohol and also eats meat. But other traditions would ban tobacco, meat, coffee, alcohol etc. You apparantly would support such laws too?? main point: Natural-Law is *always* enforced by the natural universe. I am surprised you feel that you can do a better job :-). Legal laws are *always* imperfect. They are always out of date. They never take into account the specifics of each individual case. They are also *not* enforcible. They can actually cause greater harm than that which they try to avoid. This is *especially* true with abortion. Each case is very different, and must be handled individually. That is why society should depend (i.e. trust) the individuals involved in each instance. No one else has the time, energy, resources, information, Wisdom, etc. to make an ethical and moral decision per each situation. one question I do have for you which I would like answered (directed to Nicholas) why did Christ not intervene in his own death. Perhaps he knew more than we do, and allowed it to happen in that case?? perhaps we should execute him for his flagrant disregard of the effects it caused on global Karma?? :-) one other small point: > Whence comes this craving for each person to reinvent the > ethical wheel? If the wheel is well balanced it will roll on its own. But, no person can make one perfectly balanced wheel for each individual cart. It is a good analogy, staticly-balanced objects never run as true as the ones which are balanced dynamically. peace -- john mead p.s. the discussion of this topic is a perfect example of how people who try to do good can actually cause more harm by creating yet more violence. We are on the verge of another civil war in this country, thank you for helping :-) The choice to do nothing, is very often the best choice. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 14:58:27 -0500 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Holy War and Authority It might sound as if authority issues are the bee in my bonnet but really I do think that a sustained and vulnerable discussion on the ground of authority would be a first step in being able to talk about ethical issues. When your basic hermenuetics (priniciples of interpretation) are different it is inevitable that we speak past one another. What I appreciated about John's post was his unequivical statement that he roots his authority in individual experience. Nicholas on the other hand makes an appeal to traditional authority when he says that we don't need to re-invent the wheel. There as strengths and weaknesses in both positions I am sure. I would like to hear what the members of the list think they are. I am not coming from anywhere in particular since I have been cleaned out of belief and am only now trying to rebuild. At one time I honored authority of tradition because it seemed superior to my subjectivity. But with some inner work I found that there is an inner authority that seems quite different than just my egocentrism and I am trying to learn to trust that. Tradition has let me down intellectually and emotionally many times. Appeals to authority rooted in tradition tend toward a collectivity that barely seems conscious enough for the individual to rely on. So, I would like to hear what your experiences of depending on various forms of authority are like and if you have come to any "relative" ground on the issue. John I think that you are too cynical about the healing of effect of your honesty I for one appreciate it. Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 16:26:32 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Holy War and Authority Dear Art-- You asked for personal experience of accepting traditional authority vs. that of individual judgment. When I was a teenager, the idea of an all-embracing religious authority structure was very appealing to me. Unsatisfied with the vague and tepid Christianity of the Methodist Church in which I grew up, I was attracted to Mormonism, Christian Science, and several other alternative faiths before becoming a Baha'i. Baha'i provided a complete set of answers to every question one could possibly ask about religion and ethics. The stability and self-assurance this gave were satisfying for several years of high school and college, but by age 20 I had come to conclude that Baha'i left far too little room for individual interpretation and investigation. A few years after leaving Baha'i, I found Theosophy. For the first few years I studied it, my approach to it was quite similar to the Baha'i outlook. HPB was the messenger for this messianic cycle, her books the most complete and reliable statement of eternal truths, and everything else in religious history was evaluated against her authoritative statements. But what happened with "following" HPB in my case is that after a certain point, to borrow Stephan Hoeller's phrase, I got less interested in going "back to Blavatsky" and more into going "back through Blavatsky to her sources." From being a source of answers, she became to me more a source of questions. And those questions led to more questions, in pursuing which I ended up with my own answers which didn't cohere very well with any traditional authority's. Hope this is responsive to your request. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 17:13:14 -0500 From: John Mead Subject: Re: Holy War and Authority. > [excerpt from Paul Johnson] > But what happened with "following" HPB in my case is that after > a certain point, to borrow Stephan Hoeller's phrase, I got less > interested in going "back to Blavatsky" and more into going > "back through Blavatsky to her sources." From being a source > of answers, she became to me more a source of questions. And > those questions led to more questions, in pursuing which I > ended up with my own answers which didn't cohere very well with > any traditional authority's. > > Hope this is responsive to your request. > my personal experience agrees with Paul Johnson's (above). Dr Hoeller's book on "Freedom - Alchemy for a Voluntary Society" is certainly a good for one to read regarding personal freedoms. It also contains enough variety of ideas to upset nearly anyone on at least some topic. The sign of a good work :-) I also wanted to thank Paul J. for pointing out the reality concerning the statistical facts regarding natural-occurring abortions. I had not looked at these before, and I thank you for researching that. peace - john mead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 17:30:12 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Pro-Spirit - and a reality check Children, children, children! This issue seems to bring out the best and worst in everyone. I know it has in me and I will admit it. How about you, Nika? Are your really as cheap and small as you talk, I think not. If you are a really a theosophist you can rise above the street to the buddhic level. What I am trying to work toward is not a bunch of cheap not really funny banter and stereotyping. I have been stereotyped like a black man by a racist (I have said time and time again that I am basically pro-choice, but nobody chooses to hear that). I suggest there may be a higher way to look at this matter that other in-your-face talk show debates and tired activist rhethoric have missed. Everybody thinks the line has been drawn and there are only two possible choices. EIther you are pro-choice and that bring along a set of very positve or very negative images and sterotypes with it, depending on which side of the debate you are on -- Or you are pro-life, or anti-abortion and this brings another set of very positive or negative images, stereotypes and overused arguments along with it again depending on which side of the debate you are on. What about PRO-SPIRIT? Yes, think about it why can't we be PRO-SPIRIT? Before you start thinking of a bunch of halfway cut comebacks or over-refined theosophical research, think about what it means to be pro-spirit. Yes, John Mead we should honor the individual. The individual is responsible for it's choices and no one has the right to make that choice for the individual. This is the pro-spirit position. We are 100% together. The monad is manifesting in the foetus and has a right to full spiritual development. To stop it's develpment is to stop it's spiritual unfoldment. Who has the right to stop the spiritual unfoldment of another human being? I certainly don't? Do you Nick, JRC, JS et al? If you think not then we are both pro-spirit and are 100% together. Nika, I am not really angry at you, my skin is not that thin. I pity you and many. We are all under a kind of TRANCE on this subject. We are mesmerized by the same tired arguments. The same scenes on TV. The years and years of hypnosis. I apologize for the word lies, that was leading with my chin, as they say. If you are just mouthing what you have heard over and over without really believing it. You aren't lying, at least not conciously. You are just spouting the party line because it keeps you in a comfort zone. Obviously many are not very uncomfortable with the idea of abotion but need some kind of double talk, smoke and mirrors, to make the unacceptable acceptable. Who is doing the hypnotising? Who is putting us in a trance? I suggest it is none other than the BROTHERS OF THE SHADOW. In some way I find this guys in the white hats (Masters) and guys in the black hats (Brothers of the shadow) rather silly. Like a 1930's B Western where you could allways tell the good guys from the bad guys by the color of their hats. Yellow caps and red caps in the "Secret Doctrine", same thing. But the brothers of the shadows do exist, even if only as Jungian archetypes in our unconcious. They abound on Madison avenue, the porno trade, drug markets, churches, theosophical societies and many places high and low. The difference between black magic and white magic is doing concious evil or concious good, but the problem is that so few of us, me for sure, are advanced enough to have the discrimination. When you are in meditation how do you know where you intuitions, images, answers are coming from? It takes a highly developed sense of discrimination to determine if the answers are from the astral or buddhic plane. So many of us follow group think. A cultural role models think a certain way, so obviously I should too. How do we get out of the trance? By just waking up! Be enlightened! If only it were so easy. Reality check - the members of the theosophical society and even its fellow traveller are a very small percentage of the population. We have no real political power at all. The only power we have is the power of ideas. Not old ideas, but new creative ideas. I suggest a Hegelian synthesis to rise above the thesis of pro-life, the antithesis of pro-choice to the next stage in spiritual evolution PRO-SPIRIT. Help me develop it. We could work together on this, instead of taking cheap shots that tomorrow will be forgotten. But a principle like pro-spirit is eternal as the ancient wisdom. Who could argue with that? Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 18:13:46 -0500 From: John Tullis Subject: > Children, children, children! This issue seems to bring out the > best and worst in everyone. I know it has in me and I will admit > it. How about you, Nika? Are your really as cheap and small as > you talk, I think not. If you are a really a theosophist you can > rise above the street to the buddhic level. Patronizing? > Yes, John Mead we should honor the individual. The individual is > responsible for it's choices and no one has the right to make > that choice for the individual. This is the pro-spirit position. > We are 100% together. > > The monad is manifesting in the foetus and has a right to full > spiritual development. To stop it's develpment is to stop it's > spiritual unfoldment. Who has the right to stop the spiritual > unfoldment of another human being? I certainly don't? Do you > Nick, JRC, JS et al? If you think not then we are both pro-spirit > and are 100% together. How are you defining "right"? Your logic is dependent on how it is defined. That is the essence of the question. I may assert - yes, I do have the right to make choices for others. I may assert - yes, I do have the right to chose actions that impact the development of others. Perhaps then you and I have a semantic difference in how we use the word "right". > Nika, I am not really angry at you, my skin is not that thin. I > pity you and many. Patronizing? > We are all under a kind of TRANCE on this subject. We are > mesmerized by the same tired arguments. > > The same scenes on TV. The years and years of hypnosis. I > apologize for the word lies, that was leading with my chin, as > they say. If you are just mouthing what you have heard over and > over without really believing it. You aren't lying, at least not > conciously. You are just spouting the party line because it > keeps you in a comfort zone. Obviously many are not very > uncomfortable with the idea of abotion but need some kind of > double talk, smoke and mirrors, to make the unacceptable > acceptable. Patronizing. It appears that (Namaste?) e.g. Keith Price, is "strawmanning". In this sense I mean - telling others how they think, and why they think that way, without first asking them whether or not they do think that way, and why they do if they do. He then points out how they are -wrong-. > Who is doing the hypnotising? Who is putting us in a trance? I > suggest it is none other than the BROTHERS OF THE SHADOW. Oh. Them again. > In some way I find this guys in the white hats (Masters) and guys > in the black hats (Brothers of the shadow) rather silly. Like a > 1930's B Western where you could allways tell the good guys from > the bad guys by the color of their hats. Yellow caps and red > caps in the "Secret Doctrine", same thing. Really. > But the brothers of the shadows do exist, even if only as Jungian > archetypes in our unconcious. They abound on Madison avenue, the > porno trade, drug markets, churches, theosophical societies and > many places high and low. You have a wider circle of acquaintences than I - I never met a Jungian archetype working on Madison avenue, or "abounding" anywhere else. However...I would agree that BOTS do exist, although (I assert) few are actually conscious of the effects of their choices (MHO). > The difference between black magic and white magic is doing > concious evil or concious good, but the problem is that so few of > us, me for sure, are advanced enough to have the discrimination. > When you are in meditation how do you know where you intuitions, > images, answers are coming from? It takes a highly developed > sense of discrimination to determine if the answers are from the > astral or buddhic plane. Is that the difference? Do you meditate? Are you knowledgable about magic? Do you have personal experience? Are you speaking from what you have read, or heard from others? Do you get it yet? > So many of us follow group think. A cultural role models think a > certain way, so obviously I should too. > > How do we get out of the trance? By just waking up! Be > enlightened! If only it were so easy. > > Reality check - the members of the theosophical society and even > its fellow traveller are a very small percentage of the > population. We have no real political power at all. The only > power we have is the power of ideas. Not old ideas, but new > creative ideas. > > I suggest a Hegelian synthesis to rise above the thesis of > pro-life, the antithesis of pro-choice to the next stage in > spiritual evolution PRO-SPIRIT. Help me develop it. We could > work together on this, instead of taking cheap shots that > tomorrow will be forgotten. But a principle like pro-spirit is > eternal as the ancient wisdom. > > Who could argue with that? > > Namaste Obviously, many. I should be ashamed, baiting you like this. But I'm not. So naughty I am. ;-) -John Tullis- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 19:25:44 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: No Dichotomy To One and All, The division of Authority vs Individualism is false, both metaphysically and practically. I was not holding forth for Tradition *instead* of Self-reliance -- just saying do not rely *exclusively* on either. For most folks, staying close to a tradition and its noble ethics, provides a valuable balance to our personality's self-cherishing. Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 20:53:04 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Pro-Spirit Having become utterly tired of the "either-or" debate in the seemingly endless abortion discussion ["debate" would be too elevated a term for much of it] it is refreshing to read Keith's posting arguing for Pro-Spirit. When, during many years of theosophical and related studies I have found myself leading groups (from about 1958 on) it has become ever-increasingly important to begin by defining our terms and what we mean when say something. For example: "There is no Religion higher than Truth" OK, so as Pilate said, "What is Truth?" Can there be my truth and your truth? I think not. If, as someone pursuing the second and third objects of the Theosophical Society (remember those?) I am the first person in the world to discover what a circle is, then what do I draw? I draw *exactly* the same as anyone else who has discovered what a circle is. Not an ellipse, not a square, but a circle. There is only one way of doing it. That is the only truth available. Truth, therefore, IMHO, is something to be discovered *for oneself, by oneself.* No one else can do my work for me. What "truth" can I know about abortion? I have never even been pregnant, and am in no position to make a judgement. And "Religion" has to be defined as well. Most etymologists favour the origin of the word as having to to with bonding, with people being joined together in a common bond - a common bond, not a mutually convenient interest. And if I say I am "pro-Life," then what do I mean by Life? Do I have Life, or am I Life? Both seem to be true, but at the highest level I seem to *be* life. That level I personally express as Spirit, and from Keith's remarks, I suspect he does too. In "The Key to Theosophy" HPB said that the TS was founded to let the world know that such a thing as theosophy existed. In her various writings she also makes it clear, as any theological student may discover, that theosophy as such existed long before the society which bears its name was even thought of, and Madame herself was still a distant gleam in the eye of a Russian yet to be born in a nation yet to be defined. "Theos" - God, and "Sophia" - Wisdom: God-wisdom. O dear, two more terms to be defined. I think I will leave it there for now. If anyone wants me to say more, I am sure I will hear about it. If not, I am sure I will hear about that as well :-). To sum, up, yes Keith, let us be pro-Spirit, but let us be clear what we mean *before* we rush to the keyboard if we can. Nothing to do with the above, but are there any Kabbalist students on the list? And I *don't* mean "magicians." Alan Bain, D.D. -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 20:59:16 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: John T's Posting Yes John, you *are* naughty baiting like that. -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 22:52:25 -0500 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: No Dichotomy > To One and All, > > The division of Authority vs Individualism is false, both > metaphysically and practically. I was not holding forth for > Tradition *instead* of Self-reliance -- just saying do not rely > *exclusively* on either. For most folks, staying close to a > tradition and its noble ethics, provides a valuable balance to > our personality's self-cherishing. No doubt that this is true. I only wanted to see how you blended these sources. What particular aspect is most appealing for what kind of issues. What sort of checks are there to Tradition and Self Reliance have you learned to put into practise. Interesting that you read the post in a dichotomous manner of either/ or. I do assume a both /and approach but in order to learn, sometimes discussing the sources separately is helpful. I think that you were coming down on the side of Tradition a little harder than that of Self Reliance in your abortion posts. I am not arguing with you about the right or wrong of that I merely want to know why. I think that the setting of the abortion issue can be viewed from the Societal view as well as from the Individual's view. The closer to the situation you get I would imagine the closer to the individual view you become - what do you think? Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 00:33:01 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Somebody finally got it- We are all pro-spirit Thanks to Alain Bain? You got it, by George, you got it!! Are you a doctor of divinity or dentistry? D.D. could be very different from D.D. in America - finally a hearfelt grin!! Yes, it's easy to think in terms of an issue in black and white, when really they are usually very gray indeed. Only a spiritual answer can raise us above such seemingly unsolvable problems as the war in Northern Ireland ( a religious war or an economic war?), the war in Bosnia (ditto), the war in Cheznia (ditto), the animosity between the races, sexes and social classes ad infininitum ad nauseum. I wrote to John Mean that the bitter truth is that these problems may trully be unsolvable. They are the Karma of this globe, in this round, in this root race at this moment in time. They are our black magic and we may be destroyed by them the way the Atlanteans were destroyed by their black magic. Try to think of something vicious, Nika. Try to cast some more tripe, I mean bait, John. You two just don't get it and probably never will. This is not a game. This is the life and soul of our globe and each and everyone on it. The black magicians will be ground and groung in the mill of Karma in avichi nirvana. The nirmankayas hold off the ultimate bliss of nirvana to overlook and guide a rather stupid humanity, me included. We can choose the path of evolution into spirit or involution into matter. On this issue the Masters are pro-choice. The brothers of the shadow are pro-abortion, they want to drag us down with them into the avichi of aborted souls. They have their choice and so do we all. - Oh John, by the way. I guess I'll take a litttle bait. What I meant is the Jungian idea of the shadow side of the ego that exists in each and everyone's unconcious and projects its own evil motives on others and works for its own ends while telling the ego and everyone else that it's working for the higer good of the individucal and society. The Jungian Self (God image within the unconcious of the individual, what we would call the Monad) is not fooled for one minute by this. Read your post again. You will see your shadow perfectly displayed. Trully, trully, Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 01:30:03 -0500 From: Aki Korhonen Subject: Re: The Holy War on Abortion. Bless bomb, then fire. Hello all. On Mon, 16 Jan 1995, John Mead wrote: > The choice to do nothing, is very often the best choice. At Tao Te Ching, Taoist Classic, there is a statement: Tao does nothing, yet there is nothing that remains undone. Many times if you "try" to do something you may act against nature, karma and your higher reason. The other way is to wait until there is just only possible choice, something that has to be done. I have also noticed that some things just can't be planned ahead, since at the planning moment all the necessary data is not available or even existing. There is also saying, " A wise man deals with things, when they are small, so he never has big things to handle", at Tao Te Ching. Peace. aki. Rovaniemi. Finland. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 01:42:49 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: CWL Dear Jerry, I need to repeat a request to you. I need for you to tell me exactly what was in those documents concerning CWL which you cited & then interpreted. I need to know exactly what those documents say, not what someone else thinks they say. I'd appreciate it though if you would put your answer on anything but theos-roots, because I asked to be signed off from roots several days ago, & it must be taking effect any day now. I'm not interested in the history of the TS or CWL enough to waste any more time on it. I'm interested in putting in my time trying to solve today's problems. I really feel sorry for you that you don't have anything more productive to do. Enjoy! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 01:45:43 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: No Dichotomy Dear Nicholas, I'm for traditions which check out against my common sense, or some such standard. I've had to apply this ever since I found out that the religion I come from has layer upon layer of traditions going back to nomadic times, & some of those just don't make much sense anymore today. If they check out against common sense, then I enjoy them because they're valuable old traditions. Shalom Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 01:46:19 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Pro-Spirit Dear Dr. Bain, While I was reading your post, I was wondering what a circle would look like from Mars, or what Truth would look like from that vantage point. In doubt Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 09:02:49 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Pro-Spirit - and a reality check According to Keith Price: > > The monad is manifesting in the foetus and has a right to full > spiritual development. To stop it's develpment is to stop it's > spiritual unfoldment. Who You are making a logical error here by substituting different referents for the same "it." That is, to stop the development of "it"- the fetus-- is to stop the spiritual unfoldment of "it"-- the monad. This is not so IMHO, or at least you are using "stop" in conflicting manners: "end permanently" vs. "temporarily arrest." The monad cannot be stopped from unfolding (not a term I'd choose but for sake of argument, OK) even if the entire planet blows up. Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 09:17:57 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: NEW: jain-l - for Jainism and related topics > Date sent: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 14:13:33 CST > From: Raphael Carter > Subject: NEW: jain-l - for Jainism and related topics JAIN-L via jain-request@indirect.com The JAIN-L list is for discussion of Jainism, a non-Vedic religion of India. Jainism is one of the world's oldest religious traditions, with more than three million devotees in India and throughout the world. Jainism is best known for its emphasis on _ahimsa_, or nonviolence toward all beings. Jains, students of Jainism, and interested newcomers are all welcome. To subscribe, mail to: jain-request@indirect.com with this message in the *subject* (not the body of the message): subscribe jain-l Owner: Raphael Carter jain-admin@indirect.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: NEW-LIST announcements are edited from information provided by the original submitter. We do NOT verify the technical accuracy nor any claims made in the announcements nor do we necessarily agree with them. We do not warranty or guarantee any services which might be announced - use at your own risk. For more information send e-mail to LISTSERV@VM1.NoDak.EDU with the command GET NEW-LIST README in the body. mgh From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 11:55:40 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Last Quarter A subject that I have hoped to see discussed here hasn't yet been raised as far as I know. What do you all think about HPB's promise of another messenger between 1975 and 2000? The period is more than 80% past now, and I don't see/hear Theosophists thinking about it at all. A few theories to consider: 1) Krishnamurti lived for the first 11 years of this quarter- century. His being welcomed back to Adyar by Radha in 1979, and her general devotion to him, suggests that he was in some sense a messenger to the TS all along and accepted as such by its President in the last quarter-century. 2) The 14th Dalai Lama is IMHO the foremost living exponent of the spiritual values that Theosophists honor. Although he hasn't in any sense come "to" the Theosophists, he has visited Adyar and Wheaton, been published by TPH, etc. 3) Sometime in the next 5 years, we will be surprised by a new claimant to this status-- Creme's "Maitreya"? 4) There will be no fourth quarter messenger; HPB was mistaken. Any thoughts? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 14:00:38 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: Flower remedies Some time back a couple of us chatted briefly about Edward Bach and his flower remedies and noted that Bach either was a theosophist or a theosophist without knowing it. The following appeared on the alt.folklore.herbs net and I thought others in theos-l might find it stimulating. Best, William >Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 2:16:9 GMT >From: rico7@inet.uni-c.dk (Richard Andersen) INTRODUCTION This is a small INFO on the Bach remedies, which is a very fine system for treating mental disorders in a natural way. It is a personal posting, and not an advertisement from any company. I have however, apart from my own short introduction here, used a small pamphlet from the Bach Centre in England as a text source, as it explains things quite well. A few addition are taken from books and other sources, including my own experience with the system. The Bach System consists of essences made from 38 different flowers. Each remedy has a specific action upon a certain mental attitude. This way there is a remedy or combination of remedies for any kind of mental disorder. The Bach remedies are not tranquilizers, which just allay symptoms without dealing with the causes of the mental disorders, like most orthodox chemical medicine does (some of the remedies, though, have strong tranquilizing effects, but they work in a quite different, and positive way). Conversely, they attack problems at the root. Just as our body has its own self-healing properties regarding diseases, wounds etc., our mind and spirit have their own self-healing capacities (actually these things are deeply connected, but that is another story). The Bach remedies stimulate these processes in a natural way, thus creating a true healing of the disorder, without side effects of any kind. They are excellent in combination with other kinds of mental or spiritual therapy, which seeks to reveal and treat the real causes of mental disorders, rather than covering them up. The text deals with the issue that mental disorders are the primary cause of physical illnesses. My personal experiences and studies in recent years seems to confirm this viewpoint, though I still have some unsolved questions regarding this subject (sometimes it can be quite tricky to reveal, what it really was that cured a disease; there are many factors involved to take into consideration...). End of introduction. - * - THE BACH SYSTEM The remedies used are all prepared from the flowers of wild plants, bushes and trees, and none of them is harmful or habit forming. They are used, *not directly*, for physical complaints, but for the sufferer's worry, apprehension, hopelessness, irritability, etc., because these states of mind or moods not only hinder recoverery of health and retard convalescense, but are generally accepted as primary causes of sickness and disease. A long-continued worry or fear, as is well-known, will deplete the individual's vitality; he will feel out of sorts, below par, not himself, and the body then loses its natural resistance. As peace and harmony is achieved, unity returns to mind and body, closing the circuit as it were and allowing the Life Force to flow freely again, thus providing the body its chance to produce its own *natural* healing. This system and the remedies were discovered by a doctor who had practised for over 20 years in London as a Harley Street consultant, bacteriologist and homeopath. The late Edward Bach, M.B., B.S., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., D.H.P., gave up his lucrative practice in 1930 to devote his full time to seek energies in the plant world which would restore vitality to the sick, so that the sufferer himself would be able to overcome his worry, his apprehension, etc., and so assist in his own healing. Dr. Bach developed great sensitivity both in mind and body. If he held his hand over a flowering plant, or the flower in the palm in his hand, he could sense in himself the properties of that flower. Before finding a particular flower, he would suffer in himself, and very acutely, the negative state of mind for which that flower was needed and, at the same time, he was privileged, as he said, to suffer from some physical complaint. Then he would wander about the fields and lanes until he was 'led' to find the flowers which would immediately restore his serenity and peace of mind, and within a few hours the physical complaint would also be healed. In this way he found 38 flowers to cover all known negative states of mind from which mankind can suffer, categorizing them in seven headings: -Those for anxiety and apprehension. -For uncertainty and indecision. -For loneliness. -For insufficient interest in present circumstances. -For over-sensitiveness to ideas and influence. -For despondency and despair. -For over-care for the wellfare of others. As the Bach Remedies are benign in their action and can result in no unpleasant reactions, they can be taken by anyone. Stock concentrate Remedies will keep indefinitely - a 10 ml concentrate bottle will make approximately 60 treatment bottles. More than one remedy can be taken at the same time - 2 drops of each chosen Remedy in a glass of water and sipped at intervals, or in a 30 ml (1 fl.oz) drop-bottle filled with spring water (this represents a treatment bottle) from which 4 drops are directly placed on the tongue at least 4 times a day. If the mixture tends to spoil or get sour, which can happen especially in warm weather, whisky, gin, cognac or whatever can be added for conservation (the total alcohol percentage in the mixture should be at least 20 %). If you want to avoid alcohol, you can use 50% cider vinegar or rice vinegar instead. Litterature and issued instructions are self-explanatory, making it quite simple for sufferers to help themselves and others. If further advice is required a brief description is needed of the person's personality, temperament, general outlook, worries etc., and reasons for same if any. Also needed is any great disappointment or upset which might have left its mark, and what effect it has had on thoughts, actions, outlook and so on. Please remember - consider the person's attitude, feelings, worries, indecision, timidity, vexations, resentment, possessiveness, hopelessness lethargy, hatred, overpowering or demanding nature, intolerance, tenseness, etc., and most essentially the reason "why" there is apprehension, worry and fear etc. Only then can the correct remedy(ies) be determined. Physical conditions are only considered as a guide to the person's state of suffering and its subsequent effect on the sufferer's outlook. *It is up to the person to take medical advice if necessary* - * - The "RESQUE REMEDY" (Liquid or Cream) Dr.Bach combined five specific Remedies from the 38 to formulate an emergency composite that he chose to call "Resque Remedy". He saved a fisherman's life in 1930 with this preparation. Its purpose is to comfort/reassure and calm those who have received serious news, severe upset, startling experiences, consequently falling into a numbed, bemused state of mind. To nullify the sufferers anguish is of the utmost importance. This helps the natural healing process of one's being to proceed without hindrance. Therefore the "Resque Remedy" is invaluable to keep at hand for immediate use until the arrival of the doctor if necessary. It does not take the place of medical attention. "Rescue Remedy" is taken orally (4 drops in a glass of water), but can also be applied externally either in liquid or cream form - see the included instruction leflet. *Animals and plants can also benefit from this treatment*. - * - AT A GLANCE REFERENCE TO THE BACH REMEDIES 1. AGRIMONY Those who suffer considerable inner torture which they try to dissemble behind a facade of cheerfullness. Often used as a remedy for alcoholism. 2. ASPEN Apprehension - the feeling that something dreadful is going to happen without knowing why. Unexplainable anxiety, presentiments. Anxiety for no known reason. 3. BEECH Critical and intolerant of others. Arrogant. 4. CENTAURY Weakness of will; those who let themselves be exploited or imposed upon - become subservient; difficulty in saying "no". Human doormat. 5. CERATO Those who doubt their own judgment and intuition, seek advice of others. Often influenced and misguided. 6. CHERRY PLUM Uncontrolled - irrational thoughts. Fear of losing control and doing something terrible, fear of "going crazy". Uncontrolled bursts of temper. Impulsive suicide. 7. CHESTNUT BUD Refusal to learn by experience; continually repeating the same mistakes. 8. CHICORY The overly-possesive, demands respect or attention (selfishness), likes others to conform to their standards. Makes martyr of oneself. Interferes and manipulates. 9. CLEMATIS Indifferent, inattentive, daydreaming, absent-minded. Mental escapist from reality. 10. CRAB APPLE "The Cleanser Flower". Feels unclean or ashamed of ailments. Self disgust/hatred. House proud. 11. ELM Temporarily overcome by inadequacy or responsibility, though normally very capable. 12. GENTIAN Despondent. Easily discouraged and rejected. Skeptical, pessimistic. Depression, where the cause is known. 13. GORSE Desperate, without hope: "Oh, what's the use". Defeatism. 14. HEATHER People who are obsessed with their own troubles and experiences. Talkative 'bores' - poor listeners. 15. HOLLY For those who are jealous, envious, revengeful and suspicious. Those who hate 16. HONEYSUCKLE For those with nostalgia and who constantly dwell in the past. Home-sickness. 17. HORNBEAM "Monday morning" feeling but once started, task usually fulfilled. Mentally tired. Procrastination. 18. IMPATIENS Impatience, irritability. Reacts in an exaggerated manner. 19. LARCH Despondency due to lack of self-confidence; expectation of failure, so fails to make the attempt. Feels inferior, yet has the ability. 20. MIMULUS Fear of *known* things, fear of the world. Shyness, timidity, bashfulness. 21. MUSTARD "Dark cloud" of depression that descends for no known reason which can lift just as suddenly, making one downcast, saddened and low. 22. OAK Brave determined types. Struggles on in illness and against adversity despite setbacks. Plodders, never resting. 23. OLIVE Drained of energy - everything an effort. Physically fatigued. 24. PINE Feelings of guilt. Blames oneself for the mistakes of others. Feels unworthy. 25. RED CHESTNUT Excessive care of, and concern for, others, especially those held dear. 26. ROCK ROSE Alarmed, panicky, full of trepidation. 27. ROCK WATER For those who are hard on themselves - often overwork. Rigid minded, self denying. Ascetic. 28. SCLERANTHUS Uncertainty/indecision/vacillation. Fluctuating moods. 29. STAR OF BETHLEHEM For all the effects of serious news, or fright following an accident, etc.. For release from trauma, not matter how old it is. 30. SWEET CHESTNUT Absolute dejection. Feels one has reached the limits for what one can stand. 31. VERVAIN Over-enthusiasm, over effort; straining. Fanatical and highly strung. Incensed and frustrated by injustices. 32. VINE Dominating/inflexible/ambitious/tyrannical/autocratic. Arrogant pride. Considered to be good leaders. 33. WALNUT Protection remedy against powerful influences, and helps adjustment to any transition or change, e.g. puberty, menopause, divorce, new surroundings. Contrary to CENTAURY the person knows what he wants, but is easily influenced by other people to do something else. 34. WATER VIOLET Proud, reserved, sedate types, sometimes "superior". Little emotional involvement, but reliable/dependable. 35. WHITE CHESTNUT Persistent unwanted thoughts. Pre-occupation with some worry or episode. Mental arguments. Constant inner dialog. 36. WILD OAT Helps determine one's intended path of life. 37. WILD ROSE Resignation, apathy. Drifters who accept their lot, making little or no effort for improvement - lacks ambition. 38. WILLOW Resentment and bitterness with "not fair" and "poor me" attitude. 39. RESQUE REMEDY A combination of Cherry Plum, Clematis, Impatiens, Rock Rose, Star of Betlehem. All purpose emergency composite for effects of anguish, examinations, going to the dentist etc.. Comforting, calming and reassuring to those distressed by startling experiences. - * - Dr. Bach lived and worked in Mount Vernon, England, where he discovered his healing flowers in the fields and hedgerows surrounding the area. The very same wild flower locations are used to this day in the preparation of the Flower Remedies by the present custodians, who are dedicated by legacy, to maintaining the simple method and use of the Remedies as intended by Dr. Bach, and so faithfully carried out by the late Nora Weeks after the doctor's death. The 38 Remedies cover every negative state of mind known to man, and will (in keeping with Dr. Bach's express wish) remain a complete entity. Therefore no claimed "extensions", "furtherance" or prepared facsimile of the Bach Remedies hold any association with the Bach centre whatsoever. POSTSCRIPT The remedies are made by a special process - a infusion or decoction of the dried herbs will have no effect at all. A few of them are actually slightly poisonous used this way; however this is *not* the case for the remedies, as they are used in low homeopathic potency (they have been tested for toxicity by official authorities and none has been found). For those who want to try to make the remedies themselves, further information can be obtained from me. However, the original remedies are very inexpensive in use (a few dollars a month for a longtime treatment), so I hardly find it worth making them oneselves. Besides you are insured to get a high quality product made by experts when using the original remedies. - * - If you cannot locate the remedies locally, you can get information from the following addresses: USA/CANADA: Ellon (Bach USA) Inc. P.O. Box 320, Woodmere, N.Y. 11598 USA (Phone 516 825 2229) GERMANY/AUSTRIA/SWITZERLAND M. Scheffer Hp., (Bach Centre German Office), Eppendorfer Landstr. 32, 2000 Hamburg 20, W. Germany. (Tel 040 464624) AUSTRALIA Nonesuch Botanials Pty. Ldt., P.O. Box 68, Mt. Evelyn, Vic. 3796, Australia (Phone (03) 762 8577) Martin & Pleasance Wholesale Pty. Ldt., P.O. Box 4, Collingwood, Vic. 3066, Australia (Phone 419 9733) HOLLAND/BELGIUM Holland Pharma, Postbus 37, 7240 AA Lochem, Holland (Tel 05730-2884) DENMARK Camette, Murervej 16, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark (Tlf 7514 5455 / 7514 5225) You can also get information about books on the subj From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 15:16:06 -0500 From: Nira2U@aol.com Subject: The Gospel according to St. Keith >>>>Children, children, children! This issue seems to bring out the best and worst in everyone. I know it has in me and I will admit it. How about you, Nika? Are your really as cheap and small as you talk, I think not. If you are a really a theosophist you can rise above the street to the buddhic level. >>>>Nika, I am not really angry at you, my skin is not that thin. I pity you and many. >>>>We are all under a kind of TRANCE on this subject. We are mesmerized by the same tired arguments. The same scenes on TV. The years and years of hypnosis. I apologize for the word lies, that was leading with my chin, as they say. If you are just mouthing what you have heard over and over without really believing it. You aren't lying, at least not consciously. You are just spouting the party line because it keeps you in a comfort zone. Obviously many are not very uncomfortable with the idea of abortion but need some kind of double talk, smoke and mirrors, to make the unacceptable acceptable. Keith... It would seem you suffer from the age old Rapid Eye Movement syndrome so many people cop to... If you could READ instead of suffering knee jerk pomposity --you would see that my *name* is THEODORA --not NIKA... And to give you a little DICKtionary definition --owing to your hypocrisy... The word NAMASTE means "I salute the Divinity in you..." Thus, you are the one smoke-blowing, by using this in so glib a manner... And like we say on the prairies --allow me to get off my high horse & help you onto yours... I DON'T NEED YOUR PITY. I'm 5' 3" --so that's the extent of my "smallness" Since you seem to subconsciously categorize women as whores --then my being "cheap" again is to be refuted... If I were to CHARGE for my services --it would come with a HUGE price tag... Insofar as your version of "reality checks" --stop spouting your aerie-faerie gospel --and go visit a battered women shelter; see the fruits of your compote mentality. You're probably the sort of person who walks down the street and pretends not to see homeless people in your path because you're afraid you might have to give them some spare change... Since you're NOT a woman --you have no right to make blanket assumptions that every female is *prepared* to be soul remanifestation vehicles --or able to adapt to Karmic reconciliation... If it were only that easy Helena would've had the job done and we wouldn't be duking it out on CyberWaves... To give you a bit of my background --since you ASSume my knowledge is derived by pap disSEMENated on TV talk shows: (and you probably have been delighting in jerry springers transsexual reviews yer own self to make such hollow accusations...) I MIDWIFED in the 1960s --and know first hand (pardon the pun) what women go thru pre-, during *and* post-pregnancy. I --my Self --had a child then and put her up for adoption but rather than wallowing in SELF PITY realigned my Hippy activism sense and became integral in changing California's abortion laws... Back then --little-minded boy --our only option was a coathanger or going to some seedy back alley clinic --risking our lives in the process. So before you get your head caught in your zipper again --LEARN some facts... I was reunited with my daughter a few years ago --we have a WONDERFUL relationship. BUT THRU HER EYES I LEARNED ABOUT THE STIGMATA SUFFERED BY ADOPTEES IN SEARCH OF PHYSICAL SELF AND THE STIGMATA ATTACHED TO "NATURAL MOTHERS" WHO THOUGHT WE WERE ENNOBLED BY GOING THE ADOPTION ROUTE... By the way --the adoption system SUCKS bigtime --it's little more than a cashcrop, cow-milking syndrome EXPLOITING WOMEN... Insofar as your attacking my Awareness of Spirituality --I've been Channeling/Counseling people for the past five years in Karmic/Dharmic Soul Reconciliation and am HIGHLY AWARE of Pastlife Regression values... Whereas you think because you've *read* Secret Doctrine that it's made you aligned with your Soul's purpose... By the way --someone such as your Self --so wrapt in eruditious pride should really get a spell checker for your posts: the word is ABORTION --not ABOTION " " " TRULY --not TRULLY OxyMORONICally speaking --it's intersesting that you expect me to be both THEOSOPHIST & BHUDDIST... And equating my sense of Humanity Preservation with Hitler proves what a sick little man you are... Walk a mile in our high heels SISTER before you decide that you're going to determine who's Righteous and who's beneath your squinty little eyes... THEODORA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 15:21:21 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: RE: Brothers of the Shadow (fwd) Dear Theos-l participants-- Having long been perplexed as to the origin of HPB's ideas about Brothers of the Shadow, adepts of the left hand path, etc., I posted a question about it on a mailing list with several Islamicists. I described various of the terms used, commenting that Gelugpa Buddhists did not see their Nyingmapa or Kargyutpa (redhat sects) brethren as anything other than fellow Tibetan Buddhists to be honored and respected. The whole "evil brotherhood of dugpas" concept therefore seems to have come from somewhere else and been presented as Tibetan by HPB. Here's his answer. According to jwalbrid@ucs.indiana.edu: > > In the Koran the "companions of the left hand" are the damned at > the day of judgment. It appears in several places in the Koran > and then pops up as needed in later Islamic thought. > > There are also "red-hats" in Islam--the Qizilbash, a Turkish Sufi > group that were the early supporters of the Safavids--but I don't > think that they fit. > > John Walbridge From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 19:22:44 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: The Temple of Thought Although this quote from Emerson's "Over-Soul" essay may apply more to face-to-face discussions, it may touch on Theos-l as well.-- Nicholas Persons are supplementary to the primary teaching of the soul. In youth we are mad for persons. Childhood and youth see all the world in them. But the larger experience of man discovers the identical nature appearing through them all. Persons themselves acquaint us with the impersonal. In all conversations between two persons tacit reference is made, as to a third party, to a common nature. That third party or common nature is not social; it is impersonal; is God. And so in groups where debate is earnest, and especially on high questions, the company become aware that the thought rises to an equal level in all bosoms, that all have a spiritual property in what was said, as well as the sayer. They all become wiser than they were. It arches over them like a temple, this unity of thought in which every heart beats with a nobler sense of power and duty, and thinks and acts with unusual solemnity. All are conscious of attaining to a higher self-possession. It shines for all... The mind is one, and the best minds, who love truth for its own sake, think much less of property in truth. They accept it thankfully everywhere, and do not label or stamp it with any man's name, for it is theirs long beforehand, and from eternity. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 19:39:30 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Re: No Dichotomy Nicholas>> The division of Authority vs Individualism is false, both metaphysically and practically. I was not holding forth for Tradition *instead* of Self-reliance -- just saying do not rely *exclusively* on either. For most folks, staying close to a tradition and its noble ethics, provides a valuable balance to our personality's self-cherishing. Arthur> No doubt that this is true. I only wanted to see how you blended these sources. What particular aspect is most appealing for what kind of issues. What sort of checks are there to Tradition and Self Reliance have you learned to put into practise. N> Rather than a blend, I try to think of them as identical, as a unity. So it is not a matter of switching focus from *external* ideas found in an ancient religion to *inner* ideas confined within my skull. Without confusing myself (or you) overmuch -- let us just say it is possible to know and live as if there is only One Self; thus tradition would become part of me. Conversely, one can also extinguish the self and there would only remain the continuum or tradition. In other words, expand our notion of self to become the All or evaporate self and only the All is left. This is not some mystic state I'm referring to, it is just an attitude based on the conviction that there is no real separation, only unity. A> Interesting that you read the post in a dichotomous manner of either/ or. I do assume a both /and approach but in order to learn, sometimes discussing the sources separately is helpful. I think that you were coming down on the side of Tradition a little harder than that of Self Reliance in your abortion posts. I am not arguing with you about the right or wrong of that I merely want to know why. N> Actually Arthur, "To One and All" was directed to those other chaps who seemed so exercised over *Traditional Values* being connected to Theosophy. I was fostering Tradition because those gents *seemed* to have cut off all input from that area of thought and become too self-focussed. A> I think that the setting of the abortion issue can be viewed from the Societal view as well as from the Individual's view. The closer to the situation you get I would imagine the closer to the individual view you become - what do you think? N> I'm not sure what you mean here. What are the Societal and Individual views? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 19:59:38 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: The Gospel according to St. Keith I guess you told him, Theodora. Intellectual theosophy is, IMO, a mind-game. You talk about *experience* - keep coming from there! Alan. -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 00:03:49 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: On Purifying the World About Us This is by Eldon Tucker ---- On Purifying the World About Us (Comments on a Buddhist Practice) There is a Buddhist meditative practice where we are asked to take in the evil in the world about us, to purify it, then to release it as something good. As a statement openly made, it is an exoteric truth. What could its inner meaning be? At face value, we are being asked to literally take evil in and absorb it in ourselves. But are we expected to take on evil qualities, and live out degraded actions? Certainly not! But it is possible to twist words into condoning evil ways. There is always the temptation or force in that direction, something that originates from those whom would have our spiritual work fail. For those looking for an excuse to do what they know, in their innermost natures, is wrong, here is an opportunity. But no one is fooled; we know when we do wrong; excuses are for other people, they do not truly hide anything from our eyes. A better interpretation of the practice is to say that we are to become transparent to the evil in the world, so that it simply passes through us. We are clear panes of glass; the evil passes through us, rather than being mirrors that reflect the harm back to its originators. But can the evil really pass through us without leaving a trace? No. All life is interconnected. The harm cannot be done without the rest of the universe--ourselves included--feeling its effects. So how, then, do we respond? First we have to ask who it is that responds. Taking the standpoint of a separate self, we get the evil from the environment. We could hold it inside ourselves and deal with it internally, rather than perpetrate the continuation of the evil in the world. We would, for example, not respond to anger with anger, even if we are mad ourselves! We can, though, rise about the sense of a separate self. We are not different that the other people, the source of the evil. We embrace the evil or take it in by becoming at one with its source, by taking on the Sukshmopadhi vesture, the conscious sense of non-separation from those about us. We further rise about duality by passing, in our consciousness, above any sense of inside or outside. To the harmful influences in the world, we "pull them in" by making inside and outside the same. (It should be noted that when we take on this state of consciousness, although our experience of life has changed, the world remains the same to everyone else. Our perspective has changed because we have *ourselves* shifted into a different mode of experiencing life; others remain in whatever consciousness they already function in.) We are unified now with the others, the source of the darkness in life. We purify their consciousness by being so positive in our goodness and in higher, superior qualities, that through our consciousness connectedness with the others, through an active, alert Buddhi we change the other people as well as transform the content of their consciousness. Our transforming effect on the others is through our karmic link with them, part of the karmic web that defines both our unique personal nature in life as well as helps define them and the rest of the universe as well. All that comes to one in life is karmic. From the standpoint of a personal self, we have a karmic cycle, a give and take, an action and resulting reaction from the other people. From this standpoint, we break a cycle of evil by not allowing ourselves a resulting reaction in kind, of a like nature, to what we have received. A better response is to not resist evil as we see it coming. We do not separate off from the experience by feeling repelled or offended. There is no sense of horror, rejection, of pushing back from ourselves that which is offensive. We do not respond to what comes to us in anger, nor in avoidance, it simply passes by us as "water off a duck's back." When we've risen above any conscious sense of the other as separate from ourselves, we "take within" the evil contents because we are both recipient and originator. But we still remain non-responsive to its contents and substitute in ourselves the stronger contents of our own consciousness. And having taken in and purified the foul, dark contents of the world, how do we return to life the cleaned-up life energies? We simply return to the dualistic consciousness again, separating back to the Nirmanakaya vesture, where we are again separate from others, and no longer unified with the other, troubled people. Note that the practice we are considering is described in terms of a metaphor, and not as literal instruction. We are really learning to become a source of light and truth and beauty in the world. Such a practice could be described as "destroying darkness," as taking in evil and replacing it with good. It could be described as filling a void, where light is missing. Or it could be described as simply being a source in the world of the brilliant, diamond-like nature of our Inner God. How this practice, or any Teaching, is described, depends on which of many ways of looking at it is being taught us. We need to see things from many standpoints to keep fluidic in our understanding and not crystallize our thinking, not having our thoughtlife imprisoned in rigid molds of mind. Having shocking, outrageous, startling ways of expressing the inner truths is a method of teaching, one that tries to awaken the student to freshly rethink the key ideas of the Philosophy. Can problems ever arise from this method of teaching? No, not as long as we maintain the necessary clarity of mind and purity of heart. Whenever life shakes us, or knocks us off course, we simply return to what is right, like a good compass, once bumped, returning quickly to true north. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 00:05:22 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: The Place of Evolution in Our Lives Jerry Schueler This note is in partial reply to our discussion last week regarding the purpose of existence. The Place of Evolution in Our Lives -- Eldon Tucker There are various levels to our inner nature, various ways of experiencing and appreciating life. Going inward and upward to the top, we reach the Unknowable. As we move away from that Mystery, step-by-step closer to coming into existence, we take on different types of limitations, each bringing with it a different manner of the experience of life. Each step that we take in coming into existence is another veil put on over our ultimate nature. These veils make up the twelve principles of consciousness; we need them all to be fully-embodied and manifest on a plane, down and through the physical body or a mind-created substitute (Mayavi-Rupa). It is true that if we go deep enough within, we reach a stage or level where we are perfect, above evolution, and not lacking for anything. But this does not mean we are free of the necessity of evolution. There is a deep part of us that transcends time and existence; it is not subject to evolution. But there are other, "lower" parts of us that are both eternal and subject to the demands of evolution over time. There is a part of us that transcends existence, yet participates in time, and is subject to growth, change, iteration, self-feedback, evolution, self-genesis. Following is a list of the twelve principles. For purpose of discussion, names are given to those usually unnamed; these names are not taken from a theosophical authority, and could be considered arbitrary. Label ## Name F 11 Tat (Mystery) can never know by either negation or attribution E 10 Parabrahman unconditioned perfection, beyond need to exist or not exist, not looking down upon the world D 9 Swabhava ideal nature, beyond time, ever-present, unchanging as we know change C 8 Auric Egg karmic treasure, beyond space, form, or existence, non-being but looking upon manifest world B 1-7 Atma to Physical our seven principles of conscious existence A 0 Tat (Mystery) unknown root materiality Let's go over this table. The seven principles (B) are as we have learned in Theosophy. They are the basic ingredients of manifest consciousness. We take on Atman in coming into existence, and clothe ourselves in all the other principles as we become fully-embodied. Without these seven principles, we still *are*, but continue in a state of non-being, of non-manifestation, of being formless and out of relationship with conditioned existence. Why do we come into existence? There is a periodic desire for manifestation, a thirst for life, sometimes called "tanha." A positive experience may be desired, where we seek adventure and have an urge towards creativity and self-expression. Outside of existence, what are we? We are the remaining, higher principles. In (C) we have our essential nature as of this moment in time. It is the transcendent part of us that is subject to time. It contains the fullness of ourselves, as compared to that small portion that is emanated in any single existence. It is the Auric Egg, and contains as its contents the karmic seeds or treasury of our previous spiritual evolution. This part of us transcends existence, but looks down upon the waters of space and is the silent observer of our manifest existence. It is this part of us that is subject to spiritual evolution, that grows and changes over time. How can we go higher than this? Into timelessness, into a manner of perfection that has no room for improvement, into a part of ourselves that is our unique, personal, essential nature or Swabhava (D). This part of us never changes, but is still unique and individual. It is the Monad. It is perfect, but of a type of perfection that is concerned with the imperfection of the world. It is a downward-looking perfection, like Avalokitesvara; it is a nurturing Inner God. This principle of consciousness is the driving force behind our personal evolution; it compels us to ever strive to be more truly ourselves, to strive to better and better express what we are in our heart. It is the heart that seeks expression, whereas in the Auric Egg (C) we have the eternal pilgrim on the never-ending trek. With Swabhava, we have risen above both space, and manifest existence, and above time, or being subject to change. How could we possibly go higher? With Parabrahm, or Paramatman (E), we reach *beyond* ourselves. There is not a sense of our ideal nature, but rather of embracing everything. And it is the part of us that is too perfect to be concerned about manifest existence. Paramatman is absorbed in stillness or absolute motion. It is the realm of absolutes, where they take on a literal reality because there is no limitations due to conditioned existence. In this part of ourselves we are too perfect, too near the ultimate root of all, too far-removed from the outer world to care about it in any way. We are in absolute peace, without concern for outer existence, inward at our core, beyond any relationship whatever with the drama of life. Now if Paramatman (E) is the highest we can experience, what of Tat, the Mystery, (F)? What do we experience of this part of ourselves? Nothing. Not a word can be said about it, either as an attribute or by negation. It is both a part of us that is inseparable and yet never-knowable. It is simply the Grand Unknown. It is both the highest and lowest principle of consciousness, both (F) and (A). Coming back to the idea of evolution, it is an eternal urge. When we drop out of our Ideal Nature (Swabhava) into participation in time (Auric Egg), a dynamic tension is created. That tension arises from the loss of our timeless perfection, which we are ever seeking after, in an endless evolutionary journey. We are thrown into the process of self-becoming, self-expression, self-unfolding over time. This evolution is not "jumping through hoops." It is not something arbitrary, something to be escaped from as a trap. And it is not something that is every ultimately completed. To rise above evolution, we shift our consciousness into our highest principles, above those that participate in time; to redescend into evolution we shift our consciousness back into the lower principles. There never comes a time where the part of us subject to evolution over time can say "I'm done!" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 00:09:00 -0500 From: eldon@netcom.com (Eldon B. Tucker) Subject: Our Terms & Words Jerry Schueler: Following are some comments on our theosophical terminology, in partial response to your last message to me, and other comments I've recently read by others on "theos-l". Our Terms & Words -- Eldon Tucker Looking carefully at some of our older texts, examining them word-by-word, we see in such books as "The Key to Theosophy" material that is getting out of date. There are some words that have dropped from the English language. The books contain references to the science and religious outlook of a previous century. The analogies and metaphors that the philosophy is described in depend upon a way of looking at things that is appropriate to the 1800's rather than the 1900's and beyond. As those books are republished, I'd like to see them updated. I'd agree that the out-of-date English words should go. I've found a few dozen in a number of books that I've computerized. Apart from those obsolete words, what is it that needs upgrading in the materials, to make them focused for our age? It is precisely those terms and language adopted to popular thought and worded in the language of the day that needs upgrading! The Sanskrit terms are relatively timeless. Consider "Karma". As a word, is just as relevant now as it was 100 years ago. We were right in the past to use "karma" rather than "justice," and it is still right to do so. With that usage, the word has made its way into the English language, and the idea has been preserved. It is a word in its own right, representing a unique concept, and not a passing reinterpretation of some English term. Someone might protest against using Sanskrit terms. But it's not the archaic oriental language that needs to be dropped, but rather last century's attempt "to put into modern language" our philosophy that must go. And we should probably avoid making the same mistake. When we mix the timeless philosophy with the idiom of the day, we produce materials that quickly get out of date and lose their value. On what is our terminology based? We have a heavy reliance upon Sanskrit. But we also draw upon terms from the various religions and philosophies of the world, including, for example, Greek terms like "Logos." It is important, though, to not draw too strict a correspondence between the borrowed terms and the meanings that are assigned in the Esoteric Philosophy; the meanings may vary. Why, it might be asked, don't we drop all these terms, and just use simple English terms? Because the meaning would not be properly conveyed, and it would increase, not reduce, the confusion! Consider the writings of the Tibetan teacher C. Trungpa. He adopted English terms, but in reading his books, the reader must learn a different meaning for each English term. It is far more difficult for the reader to have to remember the differing meanings, and keep from being confused by the existing connotations of the English words, that to learn entirely new words. For the student of Theosophy, there are many new terms to learn. But this is not different from any other area of study. Every field of thought has its own terms, its own jargon, its own language. The terminology we learn with psychology, chemistry, mathematics, or even auto mechanics (e.g. "distributor cap" or "crankshaft") is different. Having to learn a new language with each different field of study is always required of us. What is really objected to in the popular presentation of Theosophy is not the use of its own terms, but the fact that Theosophy itself is harder to pin down. Consider six reasons why this may be so. 1. The terms are often adopted from various religions and philosophies, but they do not always mean the same thing in Theosophy. A source of confusion arises from assuming they retain the original meaning. 2. Terms are used sometimes as an exoteric blind, where a misleading simpler interpretation hides a deeper, esoteric truth. There may be more to what we read than the obvious, most-apparent, simple meaning! 3. A theosophical author may use terms inaccurately, through carelessness, a partial misunderstanding of the idea, or in wanting to give the idea his own twist or unique interpretation. 4. The terms used by one writer may be based upon a different model of Theosophy that another writer follows. The terms are accurate only when we understand the context in which they are being used, i.e. the writer's particular school of Theosophy. The term "astral", for instance, means something different to Blavatsky than in the Besant/Leadbeater variant of Theosophy. 5. There are different levels of meaning to the terms, and the core concepts. Each increasingly deeper level of meaning embraces the simpler understandings, but gives a new dimension to understanding. Consider the many levels of meaning, for instance, to "nirvana", from the simplest meaning of personal annihilation to the more profound meanings found in the Teachings. 6. And last, but not least, the confusion in terms arises because we are studying a subject quite different than other subjects. We study a field of thought that goes beyond the power of words to express, we stand at the doorstep to the Mysteries, and consider what lays before us. We have words that are the starting point to "diving" into the Teachings, leaving the words, books, and everything we knew in the past behind. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 03:41:05 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: CWL Liesel, LD> Dear Jerry, > > I need to repeat a request to you. I need for you to tell me > exactly what was in those documents concerning CWL which you > cited & then interpreted. I need to know exactly what those > documents say, not what someone else thinks they say. I'd > appreciate it though if you would put your answer on anything > but theos-roots, because I asked to be signed off from roots > several days ago, & it must be taking effect any day now. I'm > not interested in the history of the TS or CWL enough to waste > any more time on it. I'm interested in putting in my time > trying to solve today's problems. I really feel sorry for you > that you don't have anything more productive to do. Enjoy! > > Liesel You need not feel sorry for me, I have more than enough to do that I consider "productive." I'm in graduate school, taking six units each semester. I research and write an average of one paper each month (usually about 20 pages each), twelve months a year, as well as doing research for my thesis. These activities easily take up 40 to 60 hours a week. I also moderate two theosophical study groups each week (a beginning and an intermediate class). That is another six or eight hours, plus prep. time. I also teach writing to freshmen students at the University. That requires 3 to 6 hours preparation for every hour of classroom time. During my "spare time," I have several personal research projects, and I also assist others in theirs. I also have a mail order book business when I can work it in, and work in the garden when I can. Frankly the Leadbeater scandal is very old hat to me. Other than answering questions about it on this net, I don't spend any time on it at all. Regarding your request that you say you are repeating: "to tell me exactly what was in those documents concerning CWL which you cited & then interpreted...." This is the first time I have seen your request. Exactly what do you want me to tell you that I haven't said already? The nine documents I cited make up almost 100 pages of reading. Surely you are not asking me to post the almost 100 pages of documents on theos-l after you had requested the discussion on Leadbeater to move to theos-roots? Why are you asking me to do this, when in your same message you assure me that you have no interest in "the history of the TS or CWL enough to waste any more time on it" ? Considering your stated attitude, I don't see how anything would be resolved by it. If I post those 100 pages on the net, all you have to say is that I made the documents up. If I flew to New York (or New Jersey?), knocked on your door, and personally showed you the documents you can always say that they are forgeries. There is always an answer for any evidence, regardless of what it is. I already told you that CWL admitted to the charges against him. You won't accept that. Why would my quoting CWL admitting to the charges make any difference to you? Those who are open to discovering the truth on the matter, will find plenty to think about in Tillett's ~The Elder Brother~ which *quotes* (not cites) many of the cogent sections of those documents, including CWL's confession. If you are really interested in exploring this matter in an open way, I'll be happy to send you a copy of Tillett's book ($12.00, postage included. I remember you saying that you had returned your copy to the bookstore after reading a few pages). After you read the book, you may want more extended quotes from certain documents for clarification. In that case, I will be happy to accommodate you. On the other hand, if you want to read the documents for yourself in their entirety, Wheaton has a copy of all of the documents that I have cited plus others in their archives (not the Boris deZirkoff Archives, but the American Section Archives). All you need to do is apply through John Algeo for permission to see them. If John turns you down, then you might apply to Radha Burnier, who has the originals in the Adyar Archives, to make copies available to you. Now, if Radha also turns you down, then you might ask yourself why. Perhaps they are hiding something? Think about it. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 12:11:15 -0500 From: Eldon Tucker Subject: various comments I'm still catching up with reading last week's postings! There's been quite a lot of activity, some of it heated. I agree that Jerry Schueler's essay on abortion last week was the best essay, with a balanced treatment of the subject. I'd like to comment on three points. (1) Ethics is not necessarily illogical. When we go from no discrimination (all is "white" or ok) to black-and-white we haven't gained much. Going to a fine spectrum of shades of gray allows for us to perceive things much more consciously. The more the shades of gray, the more likely we'll have boarderline situations where we don't see a clear solution. The boardline never goes away, it just gets more intricate and complex, like a fractal surface. (2) It's Rick Nurrie's "Theosophical Network", but since he got married, he changed his name to Rick NurrieStearns, sharing his wife's last name, just like Jerry Ekins and April Hejka did. The Theosophical Network originated as a project in San Diego after a Secret Doctrine conference hosted by Richard Robb. The initial five people involved with it where Jerry Ekins, Ken Small, Rick Nurrie, Virginia Ross, and myself. It would take many pages to tell its history, but I suppose that since it involves people still living, it is a topic off limits to our historians? (3) I recall from reading CWL years ago that the Adyar anti-sex rationale was based upon wanting to develope "clairvoyance", which required "sublimination of the sexual energies" to "arouse kundalini and open the various chakras." I'd say that Paul Johnson's point regarding miscarrages and spontaneous abortions is the best original idea on the subject. He provides a good argument that there is already a spontaneous abortion process. Perhaps the initial conception is due to the attraction of a incoming Monad seeking birth, and the spontaneous abortion due to a "change of mind" between the parents and would-be child. If this is true, then we don't need to help nature along with a medically-induced abortion, we just need to get clear about our intentions in life and inner, natural forces will take care of things. This sounds like Christian Science, where they say doctors aren't needed to heal people if they can tap their own life energies and heal themselves. I don't want to make a case that doctors aren't needed to help with unwanted pregnacies, which is entirely another issue... The issue is similiar to euthansia. We can refuse heroic measures to revive someone whom is dying, and shut off life support. For the terminally ill that are going to die soon anyway, should we help them on? They can, if conscious, choose to stop eating, like a member of the Los Angeles T.S., in the final stages of cancer, did. This is self-chosen by the person affected. In a sense, we can say that when a person is really ready to die, the life forces will withdraw and nothing can be done to keep him alive. The question for euthanisa, and the analogous question for abortion, is: Should we help a dying person along with a pillow over their faces while they sleep (e.g. take an active participation in bringing about their death)? These comments on abortion are an attempt to carry forward the implications of Paul Johnson's posting. Perhaps as I catch up in my 'theos-l' reading I'll see more interesting postings. I need to organize my thoughts on the subject before I can take a position myself. -- Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 14:19:24 -0500 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Re: No Dichotomy > N> Rather than a blend, I try to think of them as identical, as a > unity. So it is not a matter of switching focus from *external* > ideas found in an ancient religion to *inner* ideas confined > within my skull. Without confusing myself (or you) overmuch -- > let us just say it is possible to know and live as if there is > only One Self; thus tradition would become part of me. > Conversely, one can also extinguish the self and there would only > remain the continuum or tradition. In other words, expand our > notion of self to become the All or evaporate self and only the > All is left. This is not some mystic state I'm referring to, it > is just an attitude based on the conviction that there is no real > separation, only unity. I found your response here to be instructive concerning a typically theosophical mental pattern that I am beginning to understand and at least enjoy. You are saying that there is a co-inherence of tradtion and individual experience and when you separate them even for discussion there is a problem. Thank you. I guess I will have to think a bit more about what that does to communication since we usual abstract when we discuss. Nicholas > I was fostering Tradition because those gents *seemed* to have cut off all input from that area of thought and become too self-focussed. I guess I missed that anyone was not listening. Many didn't agree but I think that they were sincere in their communication. At least from a very far distance it appeared so. Perhaps it is a convention for Theosophist to talk so openly but I am a little concerned about attributing motive or intention from such short communications. I think you could suggest your point in a more tentative way so that it could be heard and responded to. Fine tuning communication is important in areas of spirituality. I am serious and don't want you to feel offended it is merely my impression. > A> I think that the setting of the abortion issue can be viewed > from the Societal view as well as from the Individual's view. > The closer to the situation you get I would imagine the closer to > the individual view you become - what do you think? > > N> I'm not sure what you mean here. What are the Societal and > Individual views? Arthur: Here I was suggesting that it was possible to look at abortion from a deeply personal almost cellular level or from a macrocosmic level. I think, I am not completely sure of this but I think , only a woman could report on the deepest mystery of what happens during the birthing process. I have participated in births and admired and coached and encouraged but the direct experience is always a mystery to me in this life anyway. I admire the process and I feel that we ought not be too quick to say much about it without the direct experience. On the other hand we are all interdependent members of a nation or a society and we can speak as men and woman about the pain that that the debate on abortion can bring to us as a nation. We are talking so glibbly and doctrinairely on both sides we must I think get past principles and emotions to the spirit of deep unity with the universe and speak from that vantage point. Then there would be no killings of health care people, no glib destruction of any sort only deep compassion and caring for all involved . Perhaps I am an idealist but I do really feel this attitude to be virtually untried. Under the Mercy, Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 14:34:04 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Sexism, Racism, & Reincarnation Can theosophists be racist or sexist? I think the answer depends upon how we look at reincarnation. There are at least two ways: View 1. Races and sexes reincarnate together. In one life we can be male, and then female in the next. We can be white in this life, and black in the next. In this way, we each experience both sexes and all races and nationalities sooner or later. With this view it is hard to be racist or sexist. View 2. We reincarnate serially. This view sees sexes and races as a natural progression and thus tends to see them as more or less advanced. People with this view usually see black people as inferior, but in time they will advance to the white race. People with this view usually see women as inferior to men, but given that a women does well in a series of lives, she will advance to a male in a future life (you may be surprised to discover how many otherwise spiritual folks hold this view - all men of course). I trust everyone can see where I am going here? Speaking strickly for myself, I opt for the first view. Of course, some people may have a third view in which sex is equal but race is serial. For example, I believe G de P says somewhere that the black race (it is unfortunate that words and names used by earlier theosophists seem so totally out of place today) is behind the white race in the sense of being younger and thus more immature at this time. HPB seemed to accept a second-class status of women in some of her writings. Her teaching of Root Races also suggests the second or at least the third view. What does everyone think? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 16:13:39 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Words and Names Jan. 18, 1995 In a message just posted, Jerry S. writes: ". . . it is unfortunate that words and names used by earlier theosophists seem so totally out of place today. . . ." This is only to be expected since languages change, grow and "evolve." If present day theosophists could devise a totally up-to-date, politically correct vocabulary, fifty years from now, or 100 years from now, Jerry S.'s comment would probably be appropriate for our 1995 vocabulary! Let's be concerned about using proper, appropriate words but even more concerned with ascertaining the meaning behind the words. I believe I read a posting earlier today in which Eldon T. suggested we update and edit HPB's writings and substitute more modern words for certain outmoded terms used by HPB. Is this what Eldon was suggesting? If so, I totally DISAGREE. HPB wrote in the language of her times. (What else could she do??!!) Individuals who want to read her writings can, therefore, make the reading experience an educational one by expanding their vocabulary and learning that words can have more than one meaning and can have shades of meaning, etc. Consulting one or two good dictionaries can also aid the process. If you start editing and changing HPB's writings, where do you stop? Who decides what words are changed, updated, etc? Personally I want to read what HPB wrote just as she wrote it, warts and all. Next thing some one will want to update the language of THE MAHATMA LETTERS! Another example: In 1963, Geoffrey Hodson's Volume I of THE HIDDEN WISDOM IN THE HOLY BIBLE was first published. Just thirty years later, an edited edition was published by TPH, Wheaton. The Publisher's Note contained the following: "Care has been taken to modernize Hodson's style while remaining faithful to his method. . . .Hodson's spelling, punctuation, and usage have been modernized. In keeping with modern conventions, gender- specific terms such as *man* and *mankind* have been replaced by gender- neutral terms such as *human being*, *humanity*, and *humankind*. Masculine pronouns referring to the Deity have also been eliminated. . . ." At this rate, all theosophical works will need to be "modernized" for style every thirty years or less! I enjoyed reading the new "edition" of Hodson's work but was it REALLY necessary to modernize his style? Enough. I have probably stepped on a few toes. Daniel Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 16:29:30 -0500 From: Eldon Tucker Subject: Dual Memberships This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Paul Johnson: I'm responding to your comment regarding the value of dual memberships, in joining the different theosophical groups. When I was younger, I also joined different groups. My impression at that time was that the Pasadena T.S. would *not* let me join them, because they had a restriction against "mixing karmic streams" and required quitting other spiritual groups. Obviously, this is not the case now... I "joined" the ULT by leaving an Associate Card at the Santa Barbara Branch, and by sending in one to the LA Branch. Would I therefore consider myself a ULT Member? No, because I don't actively go to ULT meetings or participate in their activities. My membership is only symbolic, figerative, and not a living, vital participation. This is not to say that I won't involve myself with ULT activities in the future, if circumstances permit... My main involvement has been in working for the Point Loma, Adyar, and Independent groups, but I've involved myself with projects that arise without regard for which group is sponsoring them. I'd agree that it's valuable to participate in the different groups, to help break down any barriers between groups. This includes not being doubtful about people of other groups until they prove themselves. It includes not hesitating to work for Theosophy regardless of a project's sponsor. And it includes referring people to whatever group may be good for them, rather than solely working to build support for one's favorite T.S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 16:30:24 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Words and Names Well, Dan, I agree with you about HPB and the Mahatmas, but wonder about more recent writers. G. de P., for example, can be dated in rather irritating ways. Although I know TUP got some flak for their editing of him, Fountain-Source is by far the most readable of his major works IMHO, precisely because of their concern for this issue. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 17:14:07 -0500 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: Review Response to Ellwood. I just finished reading this month's quest magazine and had the following response to Robert Ellwood's article. The members of the group know that I am new to Theosophy so if I make poor assumptions please point these out. I have ask a group of friends of mine to read the article and respond to it as well, so this review of a review is written for them and for the Theos-l group. My hope is that this post will perk your interest to read the original I think it is a very hopeful and reflective article and recommend it heartily. Here's my response: Ellwood, Robert. "The Denial of Death". Quest Magazine: Winter 1994 Vol.7.No.4., pp.58-63 &79 Because I am unfamiliar with Theosophy as a philosophy, I had to read this article over at least twice in a serious furrowed browed manner. In the end, I think the effort was well worth it. Every once and a while an author comes along and says what you have been trying to articulate for years but hadn't the language nor the patience to put together. Ellwoods concerns, while in many respects much more sophisticated than my own, are my concerns as they relate the momentous topic of death and after-death. I have performed and attended several funerals in my life and I have been aware that what is uttered there as of great importance not only to the close kin but to all of us as we see the waxed doll candour of the deceased. I can not keep the image of the Egyptian god who weights the heart of dead out of my mind as I hear the words spoken. Each word is either full and authentic or a mere shallow canting of superficial ideology. Words spoken at death, like the life of the deceased him or herself, have a deep legacy. They either contribute to life or fall fallow on the ground or on the ears of dull listeners. Ellwood's words on death add weight to the souls of those who hear them. Ellwood warns us of "spiritual materialism" when speaking of death. I have heard words spoken that reflect this shallow view. I have heard how a young person will enjoy track after-death, or how an elderly person will have their body renewed in death so that they could return to the glory days of youth. Such talk is meant to be comforting but in the end, as Ellwood points out, these word of death are dangerously egocentric and do not sustain anyone spiritually. Projection of our small ego on the ultimate source and destiny of our life is as devastating and destructive as thinking that we are at the center of the living world we inhabit. Ellwood's description on the other hand offers us authenticity and hope. The authenticity is the actual chance to mourn and grieve a "once in a universe" opportunity of relating to an embodied individual. Because the small ego has actually died, and its desires and attachments are beginning even as we grieve to be diluted in the forgetful waters of Kamolka - we can remember and treasure that short uniqueness, that friend or family member who we loved. What a wonderful human opportunity! That opportunity is stolen when death is denied. For those of us alive, we are offered hope as we consider that even though death is the absolute end of our small egocentric selves; our choices, beliefs and loves can move beyond time and space limitations, and emerge as significant predicates of the future. Regardless of the word spinning mythologies we wrap the great event Death in, there is a future. Ellwood reminds us that what we do with all our limitation now in the dying flesh affects for better or worst the nature of that future. We contribute to the greatness that created us as well as those who share the future together with us. This view of death as real dignifies our humble human efforts and our home searching longing that leads to a new future. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 17:59:56 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: What goes around comes around - what goes up .. I have learned a lot about myself and others on the network these last few weeks. I'm not sure abortion was really this issue. I want to give credit where credit is due - I have been restating in a ranting impulsive style what JRC stated much better in his post on 1-12: Re: Theosophy 1995. It bears rereading if you have it. I don't mean that everything I said he would agree with, but I got a lot of my ideas from that post particullary in regard to the idea that theosophy should not take a side on the abortion issue, but be open to both sides and rise to something better. Also he alludes to spiritualizing the whole sex-conception-birth and even abortion if necessary as a concious spiritual process. This is what I meant by being pro-spirit. I think I was working out a lot of unresolved anger that had nothing to do with abortion and that is perhaps why my style was so "neurotic". It is also why Theodora and I found each other. We are so alike (I know this is killing her!) Tripping over our own anger and doing a shadow seduction dance like demon lovers. (She's livid by now) I think I have a lot of unresolved anger around reading the books, but not living the life or trying to live the life, sort of, and expecting other than spiritual rewards. In some incarnation I must learn patience. AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT - sort of JRC's suggestion inspired in me, which may be the last thing he was thinking about, the notion of "islands of competence" better known as ideal communities (what is the word?). I am thinking about some of the early attempts like the first Krotona, the early Point Loma, and perhaps Adyar. Spiritual communities where one could be with like minded souls and support each other. These communities failed or were greatly transformed although they all seemingly had a heyday. One can see why cults like the Solar Temple and the Branch Davidians had such an appeal. I know the answer lies within. That the kingdom of God is within. That one cannot escape this world or its Karma. But after all these flames and storms over abortion and other issues in my life, Shangri-La, Shambhalla, Mount Meru, Eldorado, or even the supposed coming Austro-American subcontinent seem like all that the travel posters of Hawaii promise. Maybe that's why those places can't really exist. The dream and beginning is so beautiful and then what goes up, must come down. Instead of escaping the world. They become like the world or worse, because all our humanity is still there. Maybe that's what happened to me on this network. I wanted to be some kind of inspiration, but I was taught to chop wood and carry water. Namaste - my sign off I'm Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 19:05:03 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Re: No Dichotomy N> Rather than a blend, I try to think of them as identical, as a unity. So it is not a matter of switching focus from *external* ideas found in an ancient religion to *inner* ideas confined within my skull. Without confusing myself (or you) overmuch -- let us just say it is possible to know and live as if there is only One Self; thus tradition would become part of me. Conversely, one can also extinguish the self and there would only remain the continuum or tradition. In other words, expand our notion of self to become the All or evaporate self and only the All is left. This is not some mystic state I'm referring to, it is just an attitude based on the conviction that there is no real separation, only unity. A> I found your response here to be instructive concerning a typically theosophical mental pattern that I am beginning to understand and at least enjoy. You are saying that there is a co-inherence of tradtion and individual experience and when you separate them even for discussion there is a problem. Thank you. I guess I will have to think a bit more about what that does to communication since we usual abstract when we discuss. Nicholas -- Perhaps I should have asked for clarification of your last query. I thought you were asking about how one can *live* with less inner conflict between Tradition & Self. Now I see (hopefully) you were talking about *discussing* them. I have no problem with that. N> I was fostering Tradition because those gents *seemed* to have cut off all input from that area of thought and become too self-focussed. A> I guess I missed that anyone was not listening. Many didn't agree but I think that they were sincere in their communication. At least from a very far distance it appeared so. Perhaps it is a convention for Theosophist to talk so openly but I am a little concerned about attributing motive or intention from such short communications. I think you could suggest your point in a more tentative way so that it could be heard and responded to. Fine tuning communication is important in areas of spirituality. I am serious and don't want you to feel offended it is merely my impression. N> My critical remarks were based only on what was written. I don't have the printouts in front of me, but Mssrs Mead & JRC were quite clear in their indifference, perhaps hostility, to whatever Tradition means to them. Nothing they have written since says anything positive about Tradition. When I wrote "self-focussed" I meant only that their apparent rejection of ancient lineages left no option but self for guidance. If I should be foolish enough to call a stranger, based only on written words, *selfish*, then perhaps Sir Arthur could ride to the rescue. I am almost never offended, hopefully you are not, by these words. A> I think that the setting of the abortion issue can be viewed from the Societal view as well as from the Individual's view. The closer to the situation you get I would imagine the closer to the individual view you become - what do you think? N> I'm not sure what you mean here. What are the Societal and Individual views? Arthur> Here I was suggesting that it was possible to look at abortion from a deeply personal almost cellular level or from a macrocosmic level. I think, I am not completely sure of this but I think , only a woman could report on the deepest mystery of what happens during the birthing process. I have participated in births and admired and coached and encouraged but the direct experience is always a mystery to me in this life anyway. I admire the process and I feel that we ought not be too quick to say much about it without the direct experience. On the other hand we are all interdependent members of a nation or a society and we can speak as men and woman about the pain that that the debate on abortion can bring to us as a nation. We are talking so glibbly and doctrinairely on both sides we must I think get past principles and emotions to the spirit of deep unity with the universe and speak from that vantage point. Then there would be no killings of health care people, no glib destruction of any sort only deep compassion and caring for all involved . Perhaps I am an idealist but I do really feel this attitude to be virtually untried. Sounds OK to me. Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 20:04:12 -0500 From: ddd@hss.caltech.edu (Doreen Domb) Subject: RESPONSE TO ALAN BAIN RE: ANY KABALIST STUDENTS Alan, I am a student of Kabalah, an inconsistent one due to time constraints, procrastination, etc. But I have found that the kabalistic sources I've looked into have cleared up a number of things for me. I'm grateful for the very rich kabbalistic (Chaldean) foundation regarding Theosophy a la HPB. The SECRET DOCTRINE in particular is brimming with much information and references to kabalah (spelled in various ways, incidentally). The Secret Doctrine Reference Series (Wizards Books) is one excellent source of kabalistic - as well as other - materials, and I have a handful of those in my possession. To me, the whole idea of En Soph (or Ain Soph) and the Sephiroth (Kabalistic Tree or Tree of Life) is embodied within the First Fundamental Proposition of Theosophy...an Omnipresent, Infinite, Eternal, Boundless & Immutable Principle on which all speculation is impossible, and which antecedes all manifested, conditioned being. The Causeless Cause, Rootless Root of all that was, is, or ever shall be. It is devoid of all attributes. Yet the second we try to define it, we bring it down to a finite level because we are human. It is very difficult to express it accurately because our language is so inappropriate and limiting. If I sound frustrated, I am. Trying to be as attributeless-sounding (?) as possible, perhaps we can think of the emanation of life (not creation as to me, as I believe there is no such thing. Everything has always existed in potential.) in the following way: when it was time for activity to begin again (manvantara), a natural expansion of this Divine essence proceeded from within outwardly. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 20:33:29 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Words and Names Two thoughts on this: 1. If we are quoting someone else's words/writings, then we should quote what they said *as they said it.* The early founders of the TS used the language of their day, and should properly be quoted in it - anything else is either a paraphrase or a distortion. 2. If we are writing in today's language for readers of today, then the gender-inclusive language is, IMHO, essential. As a recent guidline points out, "we are writing to convince, not to offend." See (if John Mead gets/finds it, my article published in the English Theosophical Journal, "I'm Alright, Jill . . .?" AB. -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 21:58:54 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Answer to Historical Research Puzzle #1 Answer to Historical Research Puzzle #1 Having received no correct answer to Historical Research Puzzle #1, I will at this point give the correct solution. First I will post the original posting: In the Chronological Survey (p. xxv) of Vol. VII of H.P.B.'s COLLECTED WRITINGS, the following item is listed under the date of Jan. or Feb. [1886]: "Sinnetts visit H.P.B. at Wurzburg. Stay three weeks; they are there at the same time as Nadyezhda A. de Fadeyev and `the Soloviovs.' Sinnett goes over dates, etc. for his INCIDENTS; they agree on the title (ED., 83-84) Apparently Sinnett leaves first; Mrs. S. stays longer. H.P.B. completes a considerable portion of Vol. I of S.D., and plans to send it to Adyar (ODL, III, 366)." Can you consult the sources mentioned and verify (or falsify) the Jan. or Feb., 1886 date? etc. etc. The answer is as follows: Don't take what I say on faith. You can confirm what follows by carefully going over the original source documents. No such event happened either in Jan. or Feb. 1886. Two events are confused into this non-existent event. One event happened in late Sept., 1885 and the other event in early August, 1886. (1) Upon consulting THE EARLY DAYS OF THEOSOHY IN EUROPE, pp. 83-84, you will find that Sinnett writes: "My wife and I went to see her [HPB] at Wurzburg in the course of our autumn tour in 1885. . . .Madame Fadeef... was staying with her at the time and also `the Soloviofs.'" Notice the phrase "our autumn tour in 1885." This is confirmed in AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF ALFRED PERCY SINNETT, p. 32 where Sinnett writes: "We stayed at Wurtemburg from the 21st of September till the 1st of October [1885]. . . ." Sinnett says that on this trip: ". . . Some of her Russian relatives and acquaintances were also at Wurtemburg, among them M. Solovioff...." (2) There is no mention in EARLY DAYS or in AUTOBIOGRAPHY or in THE LETTERS OF H.P. BLAVATSKY TO A.P. SINNETT of Sinnett and his wife going to Wurzburg and staying 3 weeks either in Jan. or Feb. 1886. Consult Neff and Conger chronologies of HPB letters to A.P. Sinnett and read letters of this time period. (3) ODL, Vol. III, p. 366 is cited as giving evidence that Sinnett had left Wurzburg and Mrs.Sinnett had remained for ten days more. In the latest reprint of ODL, Vol. III, the page number for this is p. 379. In this letter from HPB, Col. Olcott quotes: "Sinnett has left, after stopping with me for three weeks, and Mrs. . . .remains for ten days more. She is very kind and copies for me *The Secret Doctrine." As you will notice, Col. Olcott does not mention Mrs. Sinnett but says "Mrs. S...." In other words, Olcott deletes the real name of Mrs. S. Why if this is Mrs. S.? (4) When was this HPB letter written? The clue is to be found on p. 370 (original ed) and p. 383 in the most recent reprint of volume III of OLD DIARY LEAVES where Olcott tells the reader that the HPB letter quoted above is referred to as : "with what she writes me as having occurred at Ostende." HPB came to Ostende in July, 1886 and Mr. Sinnett came to visit her soon thereafter. Mrs. Sinnett did not come on this trip but Mrs. Bates (the future wife of Elliott Coues) was there. No doubt, Mrs. S. in ODL is Mrs. Bates. There are several other pieces of evidence that support this interpretation. All of this has been given to John Cooper who is editing HPB's Letters for publication. The above example illustrates the need for authors writing on Theosophical history to carefully consult original source documents and to be very careful in reconstructing supposed events. In future puzzles this same principle will be illustrated time after time. For those interested in answering Historical Research Puzzle #2 which was embodied in my brief review of Paul Johnson's new book, please note that the deadline for the answer will be Feb. 1, 1995. Methods of research can clarify not only historical events but even be helpful in understanding Theosophical teachings. We hope to illustrate this in forthcoming PUZZLES. Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 22:29:19 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Typos need corrections In my just sent "Answer to Historical Reseach Puzzle #1", there are typos in a sentence toward the end of the message. The sentence should read: "No doubt, Mrs.... in ODL is Miss Bates." Thanks. Daniel C. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 22:58:49 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Some Comments Eldon. I enjoyed your comments on words and terminology and agree with you for the most part. There has been a new trend toward modernizing the tantric terminology lately, which I am not at all happy with, for example. Bindu is now "drop" while prana is "wind" so we now talk about the winds moving the drops up the spinal column. While technically correct, one now has a very hard time understanding what they are talking about. One quick example: the Tibetan teacher, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso writes "To attain the isolated mind of ultimate example clear light we must have completed the power of our meditation on the channels, winds, and drops. Furthermore, to attain the isolated mind of ultimate example clear light before the clear light of death, it is necessary to accept a qualified action mudra." (CLEAR LIGHT OF BLISS, p 105). Lucky for me, I already had studied this stuff earlier, back when these gurus retained the Sanscrit terms. For most students, this kind of stuff, while proper English, is impossible to understand. What he is saying is really quite profound, though few theosophists would subscribe to it, including HPB even though she was taught by Tibetans (let me say only that "action mudra" is karmamudra and refers to a member of the opposite sex who has been trained in sex magic, while the rest refers to the nadis and chakras of Kundalini Yoga). Eldon. <(3) I recall from reading CWL years ago that the Adyar anti-sex rationale was based upon wanting to develop "clairvoyance", which required "sublimination of the sexual energies" to "arouse kundalini and open the various chakras."> You are probably correct here. However, I find it fascinating that theosophists (or anyone else) think they need to sublimate the sexual energies to induce Kundalini, because that is exactly the opposite of what Kundalini Yoga teaches. Kundalini (a feminine creative current found inside the aura of all living beings) is aroused best by inducing sexual energy and then consciously directing it, not by its sublimation (sexual activity acts as a powerful source of energy, and without it the chances of success are low). Thus the need for an action mudra as indicated in the note above. John Mead. As usual, I agree. Paul. Thanks for the help. Your stats help prove my point. Flames: I have counted at least four hot topic on theos-l, which invoke powerful emotions and inflammatory rhetoric: 1. CWL. I have heard Jerry H-E's insinuations and innuendos about CWL every since I came to theos-l, and still don't know what the heck CWL is supposed to have done. Apparently it is too nasty to describe. 2. Abortion. I think that we will all have to agree to disagree here. It is obvious that theosophists have mixed opinions on this one. 3. Psychism. This too is a mixed bag, and probably will never be resolved. This is probably the biggest stumbling block between Adyar and the other TSs. 4. Ethics. We all agree that this is important, but we seem to disagree with how to go about it. Heck, we even disagree on its definition. Eldon put it right when he said that life is various shades of grey. I still maintain that ethical development constitutes but the first step along the Path, and if we are to get further down the road, so to speak, we must advance to the next step, which is compassion (which, if sincere, will allow our ethics to take care of itself). Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 05:33:44 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: CWL;ethics Jerry Schueler, JS> 1. CWL. I have heard Jerry H-E's insinuations and innuendos about CWL every since I came to theos-l, and still don't know what the heck CWL is supposed to have done. Apparently it is too nasty to describe. If you go back to my messages of last summer and earlier, you will find that I indeed described CWL's actions in graphic detail, resulting in the loud and clear objections from several people on this net who felt personally affronted by my discussing it. When you find those messages, you will also find your own arguments separating CWL's morality from his spirituality. I believe you also had at least one posting arguing that CWL's sexual activities was a legitimate form of magic, and appeared to be in favor of it. I asked you at the time whether you would trust your own children to CWL, assuming that what I said about him was accurate. You never replied to that question. Perhaps you did not read carefully what I had originally written, and would have replied differently if you did. I don't see any reason for me to repeat this material on CWL in such detail so soon. There is no sense in repeatedly exposing information to people who don't want to know about it. I'm sure that John Mead would be glad to help you find the archive files in question. You might also read Tillett's book, which documents much more material then I ever posted on theos-l. Otherwise, you can wait for the FAQ file that I promised to write. JS> 4. Ethics. We all agree that this is important, but we seem to disagree with how to go about it. Heck, we even disagree on its definition. Eldon put it right when he said that life is various shades of grey. I still maintain that ethical development constitutes but the first step along the Path, and if we are to get further down the road, so to speak, we must advance to the next step, which is compassion (which, if sincere, will allow our ethics to take care of itself). In the light of those long arguments you posted to me last year as to why the "discussion of ethics is a waste of time," I am gratified to read that you now find it "important." It shows that perhaps we can come to agreement on some items. Since you now state that "ethical development constitutes but the first step along the path" (which I agree), and since CWL claimed to be an "Adept," what do you think of the ethics of his making the boys keep his activities with them secret from their parents? Mrs. Dennis (one of the boy's mother) thought that it was "immoral" for CWL to do so. What might you think if you were in her place? By the way, earlier you posted that you thought that James Long had made the right decision to eliminate the ES. I just want to say that I not only agree with you, but feel that it was probably the wisest decision made by any theosophical leader in this century. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 10:46:20 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: An updated correction! I should more carefully proofread my messages before I send them! To err is to be human! In my answer to Historical Research Puzzle #1 and in my correction of typos addendum, I can't get the facts straight concerning Mrs...., Mrs. S. and Mrs. Bates! In ODL, Vol. III, Olcott quotes HPB as writing: "Sinnett has left, after stopping with me for three weeks, and Mrs....remains for ten day more...." Who is Mrs....? In the Chronological Survey in HPB's Collected Writings, it is assumed that Mrs.... is Mrs. Patience Sinnett. But a careful look at the dating of this HPB letter shows that HPB wrote this letter from Ostende probably in early Aug. 1886. According to EARLY DAYS AND Sinnett's AUTO- BIOGRAPHY, A.P. Sinnett came to visit HPB at Ostende in the early part of July, 1886. Mrs. Patience Sinnett did not come on this trip. Mrs.... is Mrs. Bates who is mentioned in an unpublished HPB letter as being at Ostende at the end of July, 1886. "Nuff Said! Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 11:02:43 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: Re: Jerry Schueler's Comments on "sex magic", etc Jerry S: Concerning your comments that HPB would not subscribe to what Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote concerning "sex magic" and activating of chakras, etc., my question to you is: Why would HPB NOT subscribe to such things? What is her reasoning and rationale? Would her Masters M. and K.H. subsribe to such teachings and practices? If not, why not? Again do HPB and her Teachers advise the spiritual student to sublimate the sexual energies or advise otherwise in what you call "Kundalini Yoga" teachings? Again if HPB and her Teachers do NOT subscribe to such Kundalina Yoga teachings, why not? What is the rationale for their stand on these subjects? Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 11:47:55 -0500 From: Eldon Tucker Subject: Exponential Population Growth JRC: I'd like to common on exponential population growth. It reminds me of something that I read in a book on chaos. If you have a population (p) that is continually growing at a growth rate of (g), with each generation (or iternation) you have the population increasing by: P = P * (1 + G) But nothing exists in a vacuum. There are always outside forces, external factors that compete for the available resources. There is also a limiting factor, giving us: P = P * (1 + G) * (1 - P) The limiting factor is small when the population is tiny; it grows in its ability to limit the population as it gets bigger and bigger. This equation shows the competition of a growth factor with an external resistance. When we normalize the equation, with "1" standing for the maximum possible population, and other values between 1 and 0 indicating what percentage of the largest size the population is at any point of time, we get some interesting mathematics. When we pick certain growth rates, G, we find that over a period of time, as we iterate the equation, as we see the changing population levels for that rate, a pattern may emerge. The pattern depends upon the rate. Values from 0 to 2 can be picked for the growth rate. For each possible value, when we iterate the equation over and over, we see a particular pattern emerge. For low values, the population drops to zero; a low growth rate leads to eventual extinction. For slightly higher values, the population stabilized to a single level, in stable adjustment with its external environment. For still higher growth rates, we get a cyclic change in the population levels. A population may cycle between, say, seven different levels, and continue to go through those levels over and over again. The plot of stable values that a population attains at different growth rates is called the Bifurcation Curve, and it is a graphic illustration of the theosophical law of cycles. A living system, at a certain rate of growth or self-feedback, ends up in death, a stable state, or an cycle of states. Depending upon the particular growth rate, the cycle may be unstable, with a slight change in the growth rate causing an entirely different type of cycle to arise. An interesting speculation could be regarding the sevenfold cycles that we have in Theosophy. It is said that the knowledge of the Masters, which we have fragments of in our literature, extends only as far as the Solar System. Perhaps *it*, the Solar System, is subject to seven-fold cycles, but elsewhere other cycles apply, like five-fold, fifteen-fold, etc., depending upon the growth rate or the self-iternation in other places. ---- It's been a while since I've looked at the Bifurcation Curve, and I'm writing from memory. I'm not sure that I've explained it well enough for anyone without a previous background in chaos. It's an interesting subject, though, and I thought I'd give a try at writing about it... -- Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 12:06:27 -0500 From: ddd@hss.caltech.edu (Doreen Domb) Subject: RESENDING:RESPONSE TO ALAN BAIN RE: ANY KABALIST STUDENTS [Apparently, only part of my message was sent yesterday. I don't know why, but at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am resending it. Forgive any perceived redundancy....] Alan, I am a student of Kabalah, an inconsistent one due to time constraints, procrastination, etc. But I have found that the kabalistic sources I've looked into have cleared up a number of things for me. I'm grateful for the very rich kabbalistic (Chaldean) foundation regarding Theosophy a la HPB. The SECRET DOCTRINE in particular is brimming with much information and references to kabalah (spelled in various ways, incidentally). The Secret Doctrine Reference Series (Wizards Books) is one excellent source of kabalistic - as well as other - materials, and I have a handful of those in my possession. To me, the whole idea of En Soph (or Ain Soph) and the Sephiroth (Kabalistic Tree or Tree of Life) is embodied within the First Fundamental Proposition of Theosophy...an Omnipresent, Infinite, Eternal, Boundless & Immutable Principle on which all speculation is impossible, and which antecedes all manifested, conditioned being. The Causeless Cause, Rootless Root of all that was, is, or ever shall be. It is devoid of all attributes. Yet the second we try to define it, we bring it down to a finite level because we are human. It is very difficult to express it accurately because our language is so inappropriate and limiting. If I sound frustrated, I am. Trying to be as attributeless-sounding (?) as possible, perhaps we can think of the emanation of life (not creation as to me, as I believe there is no such thing. Everything has always existed in potential.) in the following way: when it was time for activity to begin again (manvantara), a natural expansion of this Divine essence proceeded from within outwardly. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 12:58:11 -0500 From: Nira2U@aol.com Subject: CLIMBING OFF SOAPBOXES & LIGHTING LOVE'S LANTERN... >>> think I was working out a lot of unresolved anger that had nothing to do with abortion and that is perhaps why my style was so "neurotic". It is also why Theodora and I found each other. We are so alike (I know this is killing her!) Tripping over our own anger and doing a shadow seduction dance like demon lovers. (She's livid by now) So whut're ya saying Keith --that you can see me wafting --thru the Waves rushing into your CyberArms... With this poignant imagerie, I lay down the torch and hope we can now move back into the *real* reason I joined this enclave --to discuss SOUL responsibilities. Notsomuch in telling people how to live their lives, since I ascribe to free-will --but in contributing to the enahncement of it and teaching others to smile with genuine love & regard at their neighbors in life. For the fact that there are only EIGHT women on this list --it seemed *odd* that I was the only one emboldened to take up the mantle of speaking for Progression. To give you a few more insights to the life-vehicle experience: I very quickly learned that being "pregnant" out of wedlock carries intense Karma --to say little of the emotional burden being categorized as a 'whore'. Nine months of hell paying for a few hours' passion (yeah --chew on that one for a while kiddo...) The legal system made us jump thru hoops; many were subjected to medieval brainwashing (via a Catholic adoption agency in LA who in effect told the women after they went thru birthing's *pains*: "You had no baby --go on with your life..." They were given saddle block anesthetics --some were PARALIZED for the ineptitude of the 'physicians' administering this... There was no consistency in pre-natal care --which is why I snapped into action. I made the conscientious effort to take control of our destinies --since we were all young girls who rallied around each other --because a 44 year old woman who shared residency with us COMMITTED SUICIDE BY JUMPING OUT OF A FOUR FLOOR WINDOW because she couldn't take the strain of society's intolerance. The abortion issue is not boob-job darlin'... It's a life issue that has reverberations in the physical sense that scars people for years; as well as leaving its stamp on one's soul. I am BLESSED that God allowed me to rally my strengths. I've had several Near Death Experiences which perpetually bring me back to square one belief: that my Creator has a purpose planned for me. I began Channeling in 1987 --and my Guide put me to arduous tasking, reconciling four lifetimes simultaneously where upon I was part of what is laughing called "New Age" awareness... My "anger" is not couched in this lifetime --perhaps --because Helena & I were at diametrically opposing parts of the buffet back then. I was a man in that lifetime --adjudged as "effeminate" for my devotion to things artistic & spiritual. I guess my Creator decided it was best to give me Metaphoric Gonads this lifetime --and a sense of HUMOUR... Altho' her philosophical reasoning was well-placed, her methodology was akin to dog & pony theatrics. Read the history of the time and you'll understand that the level of tolerance for this Spirituality was greatly, greatly, greatly unheralded. She loathed Annie Besant's freer spirited sense; perhaps HPB's anti-abortion attitude was couched in the fact that she couldn't have children and desperately wanted to have her soul-thread woven into life's tapestry... Have any of you gotten into your pastlives as yet? It goes with the territory, Friends in Spirit, to acknowledge where you've been before you can find the right road to continue your travels... Interesting that you called me NIKA, Keith --it's a reverb to a point of power pastlife that I hold dear... It meant that the enemy had been overthrown... I accept your vow of reconciliation (and am cancelling my subscription to Ginsu Knives Journal...) BTW --*stop* using so many darkworld references. This is allowing polluting energies to permeate your Aura... We are what we attract after all --and you're doing your SELF a major disservice by aknowledging negative forces... In the spirit of Antaskarana (the bridge between SupraConsciousness & Physical Self) I offer NAMASTE backatcha... THEODORA "Empress of the CyberPire" ;-* From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 14:38:27 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: When Games Collide (for Brent) Brent Poirier's post on Shoghi Effendi's statement about the House of Justice being inseparable from the Guardianship inspired ambivalent reactions in me. (Theosophists-- you'll see why I'm crossposting this in just a minute, OK?) On one hand, I'm impressed by it as a virtuoso performance, and feel envious of his legal mind and persuasiveness. On the other hand, I have a sneaking suspicion that one could grab the same ball and run a hundred yards in the opposite direction. This morning I woke up thinking about the issue he raised (waking up engaged in thought is a fairly weird phenomenon for me, which the Internet seems to have evoked). Here's the gist of what my unconscious had worked out on the subject. I see Brent as playing (participating in) a language game that is quite different from the one I play when I think/talk/ write about Baha'i. Both are called "explaining the history of a religion" but the similarity is in name only. However, I think Brent's rules are identical to those of "orthodox" Theosophists in the way they think/talk/write about TS history. Sylvia Cranston's recent biography of HPB seems to follow them for example. Here are the rules as I see them: 1. The outcome must be supportive of (or at least not challenging to) the institutional status quo. 2. The outcome must be comforting to all believers. 3. The process must assume that no major authority figure was ever mistaken about anything. (Variant lists of authorities). 4. The process must reconcile all apparent discrepancies so as to conform to 1,2, and 3. 5. The process must respect rules of evidence and logic. (Optional). Now, what rules am I following when I play the "same" game of explaining religious history, among either Baha'is or Theosophists (etc.)? 1. The outcome must distinguish between those aspects of the institutional status quo that are solidly grounded historically and those which aren't. 2. The outcome must be expressed diplomatically so as to minimize offense taken by believers and consequent rejection experienced by me. 3. The process must assume that regardless of mistakes made by the authority figures, they meant well and should not be vilified. (Bending over backwards to give HPB the benefit of the doubt will cost me something with academic reviewers, I fear, and not even be noticed by Theosophists who take it for granted.) 4. Apparent discrepancies must be first regarded as stimuli to empirical investigation, and assumed to be genuine until evidence to the contrary is sufficient. 5. The process must follow rules of evidence and logic enough to satisfy a university press. Brent's argument, as I understand it, is that Shoghi Effendi's dire statements about a House of Justice with no Guardian should be taken as subjunctive rather than conditional. E.g., not "if I don't pay my bill the lights will be but off" but "if little toads had wings they could fly." He finds many other examples of rhetorical flourishes with parallel wording, and is persuasive thus far. But how far can one go in taking as subjunctive those phrases that don't work out in other tenses? In fact, my view of the Aqdas is more or less along these lines. I see it as a "what-if" futurist fiction, written by someone whose soul was illumined with an intuitive sense of the future but whose brain was 19th century Persian and lost a lot of the soul-wisdom in translation. The whole thing is subjunctive because based on a contrafactual condition-- what if the world were run by Baha'is. Of course that condition is not accepted as contrafactual by y'all, making the Aqdas conditional. Although Baha'is have resisted making it present indicative for a long time! To play with the Shoghi Effendi quote with my own rules would be prohibitively time- and energy- consuming for writer and reader alike. But here is an outline of the paper I'd write to counter Brent's in a conference. 1. Shoghi Effendi had a mistaken view of the future of the Guardianship. 2. Therefore, his rhetorical flourish was intended by him as contrafactual; he never dreamed that the first clause would come true. 3. By the time Shoghi Effendi was in his 60s and his wife in her late 40s(?) and they were still childless, it would have been obvious to any sane person that no legitimate descendant would be forthcoming. 4. It is entirely reasonable to expect someone is such a position to acknowledge it and take steps to resolve it. (A will appointing a new Guardian, or plans for the end of the Guardianship). 5. That this was not done suggests that Shoghi Effendi and the entire Baha'i world were so caught up in the rules of the game that they were willfully blind to the obvious impending crisis. 6. To the extent that Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l Baha really foretold the future of the Baha'i Faith as Shoghi Effendi did (or may have?), they too are failed prophets in this regard. 7. To the extent that Shoghi Effendi's failed-prophetic view of the Faith's future conflicts with those of his predecessors, their prophetic prestige can be rescued. (Paradoxically, after the collapse of the future as planned by Shoghi Effendi, Baha'is embraced his vision ever more tightly. Festinger's When Prophecy Fails offers some psychological perspective.) 8. Therefore it should be a priority to ascertain the extent to which history has invalidated various Baha'i leaders' predictions of the future of the Faith; consequently, a reevaluation and some changes of course should take place. I tend to see in this the ghosts of Twelver Shi`ism coming back to haunt you all. Who's to say that a century hence, someone will claim that there really was a son hidden away, starting a cycle of claims to be in touch with him? The tragedy of the missing descendant seems to be replaying itself. With apologies for this long post, I close with a comment on the collision of games. While Brent's rules are no more or inherently valid than mine, I think that one game is relatively sterile, the other fertile. Staying within the closed circle of Baha'i thought patterns is not what the Faith needs right now IMHO. Indeed, I suggest that a terrible confusion about the Covenant has occurred. The unconscious consensus about "the way we think/write/talk about what we hold sacred" is in a sense a covenant among Baha'is. When someone breaks the rules of this game, he/she is perceived as breaking a covenant. The original complex of thoughts and feelings about covenant breaking is mobilized in a wholly inappropriate manner as a result. E.g. the Dialogue affair, or Payam's recent comments about wild accusations by members of institutions. But the real Covenant is something much different from the "growed like Topsy" unconscious consensus that seems to have so many people hypnotized. What I think is great about the Internet is the way it forces us up against people playing by very different rules, and challenges us to figure out why we're not communicating well. Opponents are rather like tennis players who can see the fans in the stands behind each other, but not those behind themselves. Translate those onlookers as unconscious assumptions, and the metaphor proceeds to reveal that I can see yours and you can see mine, but we can't see our own. Thus the adversarial discussions on the net are like mirrors in which we reveal those unconscious assumptions to one another. I'll show you yours if you'll show me mine! Of course my reading of history above is biased and distorted, but so's yours. Maybe we can help each other. A final note returning to my theme of "back to `Abdu'l Baha." Shoghi Effendi had to play HIS game HIS way; `Abdu'l Baha could play anyone's game according to THEIR rules and impress them with his skill. Which makes him a better role model in this information age. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 15:05:54 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Explanation The post to the Baha'i mailing list was rather obscure, for which I apologize. Herewith a note of explanation and Theosophical comment. Shoghi Effendi, who died in 1957, was the one and only Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, appointed as such in his grandfather's will. A belief had emerged through four generations of Baha'i leaders that there would be a Guardian for 1000 years, each one a lineal descendant of Baha'u'llah. Shoghi Effendi died childless after having excommunicated all his siblings and his parents. The "Holy Family" thus came to an end. In 1963, the Universal House of Justice was elected, an institution that had originally been designed to share power with the Guardian. Now of course Baha'is have only half of the setup that had been planned. The paper to which I was responding was a legalistic explanation of a passage in which Shoghi Effendi wrote that the institution of the House of Justice, separated from that of the Guardianship, would be incapable of properly leading the Baha'is and that the faith would be ruined without a Guardian. The author explains this away by means made apparent in my post. But he skillfully evades every Big Question raised by the failure of prophecy. I think Theosophists have some splainin to do to ourselves about our own prophecy failures re: Krishnamurti and (maybe) the last-quarter messenger. But I don't see anyone showing interest in doing so except maybe with the same old tired rules of discourse. Hence my cross-post. Sorry if it was uninteresting or irritating. Namaste PS-- I'm glad to have Keith and Theodora among us. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 17:01:21 -0500 From: jrcecon@lewis.umt.edu Subject: Re: No Dichotomy N> I was fostering Tradition because those gents *seemed* to have cut off all input from that area of thought and become too self-focussed. N> My critical remarks were based only on what was written. I don't have the printouts in front of me, but Mssrs Mead & JRC were quite clear in their indifference, perhaps hostility, to whatever Tradition means to them. Nothing they have written since says anything positive about Tradition. When I wrote "self-focussed" I meant only that their apparent rejection of ancient lineages left no option but self for guidance. If I should be foolish enough to call a stranger, based only on written words, *selfish*, then perhaps Sir Arthur could ride to the rescue. I am almost never offended, hopefully you are not, by these words. JRC> I rarely respond to a response in NET discussions, because usually if people write well-considered words, the main points are made with the first exchange and future exchanges too often start the spiral descent into the Theosophical circle of Dante's hell (which does not mean I think forward moving discussions should be avoided, only that I won't respond if I am only going to state the same points in different words). In this case, however, I must make a wee bit of an exception, because I have apparently been badly misinterpreted...and I accept responsibility for not expressing myself with more precision. I *never* meant to imply that I am indifferent to tradition, and I most certainly am not hostile to it...and if my words delivered that impression (I don't think they did, but perhaps I was just too vague...) then I erred. In fact the case I was making had nothing to do with the value of tradition, but rather with the *imposition* of some *particular* tradition on everyone....including those who found no resonance with it, or found resonance with another one. My criticism was of a letter that seemed to be asserting that there is some universally agreed upon tradition that had already been accepted beyond question, and that what was necessary to solve the abortion issue...as well as other issues...was for everyone to sort of grow up and simply obey these universal truths. I believe that I was further attempting (perhaps in an earlier letter) to say that the thing that disturbed me about a political/legislative (i.e., collective) solution to the abortion debate is that one's fundamental point of view about what the spiritual nature of the world is has a lot to do with where one will reside on the spectrum of reponses to abortion....and for a nation to definitively legislate based on a particular point of view also implies that the nation has tacitly decided...that there is an agreed upon truth of the spiritual realm. I was simply asserting that I do *not* think the US Congress is exactly (IMO) qualified to determine for me *which* spiritual perspective is the *correct* one. I do not recognize the Pope in Rome, or in fact any temporal leader of any sect, creed or religion as having *any* authority over me save that which I grant them voluntarily. Yet, many of these people *do* claim power over me by virtue of the "righteousness" (or something) of their cause...or by virtue of the power they believe their *tradition* gives them. Further, as several others have pointed out, there are multiple spiritual traditions spanning the globe, and many of this are, in practice, mutually exclusive (e.g., I have Native American friends here in Montana that have remarkable rituals surrounding the butchering and eating of Bison...and Hindu friends that literally involuntarily shudder at the very thought of such things....and BOTH of these perspectives are "traditional", and rooted in profound spiritual paradigms). Even further, I would hold that there is a false division between following "tradition" and following "self". If there are such things as universal truths, then those great leaders of the past did not *create* them, but rather *discovered* them. When I talk about deciding for myself what to believe...it does not mean (and I never said it meant) that I do not look to many of the world's great thinkers and traditions for insight (and most of those thinkers, by the way, began their quests by either powerfully reforming, or completely tossing out "established traditions"). In fact, even those who follow a "tradition" completely are following *their personal interpretation* of that tradition. When I look to "self" for answers, that does not mean that I simply query my personality structure and take its temporary predilections to be some sort of universal truths...rather, I attempt to question that within myself that has access to the layers of wisdom from whence those leaders of the past drew. Do you, then, call me "selfish" for desiring to attempt to go directly to the Well instead of drinking out of buckets...whose water may be nowhere near as pure as it was before it was carried around for centuries? I guess I believe, in fact, that it is the purification, clarification, and reformation of the *personal energy-system* that is required to even be able to understand and make use of a tradition. If TRUTH has become a core vibration throughout a person's energy field, they will not need tradition...or rather, every tradition will reveal truth to them,in fact everyone person they talk to will.....if that core vibration is *not* there, however, the Buddha himself go talk for hours on end in the person's living room and the person would be little changed for the experience. Does any of this sound like "indifference", or "hostility" towards tradition? It is not. There may, however, be a bit of defensiveness towards *people* who feel tradition gives them the right to *impose upon me their own interpretation of a particular tradition*. There is NO religion higher than TRUTH, and IMO, no tradition large enough to encompass the totality of TRUTH. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 17:46:30 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Oh Garsh, Theodora! And golly shucks too! Well now the shadow stuff is clearing, we are really getting to the meeting of the higher selves. I feel almost mushy! As I admitted the abortion issue catches my attention because I was almost aborted. An abusive biological father made my victimized (she was very sweet I am told) mother have an abortion. I heard she was devastated (this was the 50'S). She vowed secretly to have me, give me up for adoption and divorce the SOB. All of which happened. This lady was sweet, but nobody's fool. Learning of being adopted is a real trip, but the other part really blew my mind. I understand you and your adopted daughter have a relationship now. What a blessing! A blessing I will never know. So I have a skewed perception on the issue. It's all right to talk about easy incarnate - easy disincarnate as some have so glibly implied. Or that I won't accept that the monad is in the foetus until science proves it. Well, we are all waiting on that answer and also the answer to how many monads can sit on the head of a pin. But I'm not holding my breath. Has this person ever heard the names Decartes, Kant, Bacon, Hume or any of the other developers of the scientific method? Obviously not. Science has seperated the soul, mind, and spirit form the measureable such as the body, star radiation, and subatomic realms. (and that was what HPB was trying to bring back together as the synthesis of science, religion and philosophy) Maybe the supercollider will reveal the monad in one on the sub-quarks, but that's on hold for now. Again, I not holding my breath. As far as the persoanl trauma goes, I must defer to women who as you point out are in the trenches and the ones being scarred, while the men seem to be all up in their heads (don't think about that one too long) :). Yes my introduction of the subject was largely to stir up controversy and bring theosophists out of the moldy rehashing of things like the CWL debate and onto the fact that either we are a viable relevant institution or just a quaint remnant of a bygone day. I personally will give the abortion issue a rest. I hope women will speak out. I still would like to hear from Brenda and Eldon if there was anything spiritual going on during Brenda's pregnanacy. Have any of the married (or whatever) people on the board considered or had an abortion (I hope there is a way to send messages anonymously)? How did it effect you spiritually? As for me, I am celibate and will never be faced directly with the issue. So yes, Theodora, women are the one's who largely get stuck with the whole thing and only they can know their situation and what really needs to be done. I am pro-spirit always, but legally I support the pro-choice position. I kind of miss it when we were fighting :) Namaste I am Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 19:54:20 -0500 From: Arthur_PattersonA@mbnet.mb.ca (Arthur Paul Patterson) Subject: I did I am a Card Carrier For what it is worth I got my membership card in the mail and intend to follow up my interest in Theosophy with affiliation and the desire to learn. Perhaps my understand will not seem so scattered and uneven once I do some consolidation. I want to thank many of the people on this list for their model and inspiration that have led me to this decision. In all likliness I will not be a conformist theosophist since I carry to my theosophy a critical mind in addition to the willingness to learn. Thanks for your help. Arthur Paul Patterson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:09:06 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: I did I am a Card Carrier Welcome, brother! As you have seen here, a conformist Theosophist is almost an oxymoron-- you'll find as diverse a set of views in the membership at large as you have on theos-l. I'm glad we didn't run you off with our wrangling! Namaste. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:42:34 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Sexism, Racism, & Reincarnation Jerry-- No one seems ready to take this one up! I go into some detail about female initiates in my new book, but won't get into it here. Suffice it to say that Theosophy is chock full of impressive role models for independent women, yet it seems to lack any illuminating theoretical discussions of gender. The idea that male incarnations are better spiritually than female ones deserves to fade into oblivion. But in HPB's defense, I'm doubtful that she really believed this. I think she tended to mythologize herself as a submissive obedient instrument of male Masters partly because in the Victorian era no one would have listened to her otherwise. But I see her more as a partner than a servant of her adept sponsors. One must admire HPB for her audacity in trying to explain everything according to a paradigm of spiritual evolution. But when it comes to applying this template to race, I just wish she hadn't. Deductive thinking has its place, and may work in cosmology, but in talking about ethnicity we should stick to empirical approaches. Just an opinion, no flames please. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:57:51 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: A New Book Point Loma Publications has recently issued a new book: H.P. BLAVATSKY, ON THE GNOSTICS Compiled and annotated by H.J. Spierenburg, 1994, xiv + 308 pp. $12.50 [I believe!], paperback. Dr. Spierenburg has compiled in one volume almost everything H.P.B. wrote about the Gnostics. The book is divided into the following sections: *HPB's Genealogy of the Gnostics*The Corpus Hermeticum*The Essenes and Therapeutes*The Nazarenes*The Ebionites*The Story of Simon Magus*The System of Simon Magus*Saturninus*The Docetae*The Carpocratians*The Cerinthians* The Marcionites*The Basilideans*The Valentinians*The Marcosians*Bardesanes* The Ophites*The Pistis Sophia. Although no a book for the beginning student of Theosophy, still a valuable work. A helpful introduction on the subject of Gnosticism is Kurt Rudolph's GNOSIS: THE NATURE AND HISTORY OF GNOSTICISM, first published GNOSIS: THE NATURE AND HISTORY OF GNOSTICISM, 1984, 1987. xii + 411 pp. Kurt Rudolph is an internationally recognized authority on Gnosticism. This book gives an up-to-date overview of the history of Gnosticism, of the various teachings of the Gnostics, etc. And, of course, the best anthology of Gnostic texts is THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY, general editor, James M. Robinson: "The definitive new translation of the Gnostic scriptures, complete in one volume." xvi + 549 pp. One might also consult 2 translations of THE PISTIS SOPHIA: (1) G.R.S. Mead's revised translation published 1921 and (2) C. Schmidt and Violet MacDermot's version, published 1978. Wizards Bookshelf, San Diego has reprinted several works on Gnosticism and Hermeticism used by H.P. Blavatsky in THE SECRET DOCTRINE. Where to obtain copies of these works listed above? Order from your local bookstore or borrow a copy from your local library. Also Jerry H.-E. on Theos-l Network is a bookseller and can obtain what you need. Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:43:38 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: INCOMPLETE MESSAGE AGAIN! In message <199501191724.JAA07979@hss.caltech.edu> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > Again my message was only partly sent. I'm totally puzzled. > Let's just call this addendum to the original message, PART II > (re: RESPONSE TO ALAN BAIN - ANY KABALIST STUDENTS) > > The continued posting reads: > > Trying to be as attributeless-sounding (?) as possible, perhaps > we can think of the emanation of life (not creation as to me, as > I believe there is no such thing. Everything has always existed > in potential.) in the following way: when it was time for > activity to begin again (manvantara), a natural expansion of this > Divine essence proceeded from within outwardly. All parts received! What can I say except, well, er, yes! I would probably think along the lines of the teragrammaton, ie, God, or YHWH (God is a four-letter word in Hebrew :-)) as having the sense and meaning of "Eternal Being" - not in potential, but in fact. In the diagram of the Kabbalist Ladder [See my "Keys to Kabbalah"] the representation reminds one of Ezekiel's vision, in which the holy angels go up *and down* continuously. In other words, the emanation is cyclic, like the days and nights of Brahma or of the Urorobos (Snake with tail in mouth) which is part of our TS emblem. Our problem is in seeing and awakening to the fact that we are included in that eternity, not separate from it. In seeing ourselves as separate we could be said perhaps to be committing the original sin (sin used in its correct sense of error, blunder, or missing the mark). Separation from the divine is the only real cause of evil. We (the human race) are very good at it. Are we carrying a BIG load of Karma or are we carrying a BIG load of Karma . . . . Alan. -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk [Mailbox shared with various worthy causes - IMHO] "Divinity is better than Dentistry?" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:45:00 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: CLIMBING OFF SOAPBOXES & LIGHTING LOVE'S LANTERN... Theodora: Please keep speaking up for the women - don't let them be shat upon. Be angry in *this* life - there's plenty of reason . . . -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk [Mailbox shared with various worthy causes - IMHO] "Divinity is better than Dentistry?" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:46:18 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Dr. Douglas Baker It has been reported, I am told, that Dr. Douglas Baker, who has written extensively on theosophical topics for many years, is not a member of the Theosophical Society. Any such reports are incorrect. He lives in England, and is a members of the Bristol Lodge of the English Section, which he joined in Augst 1993. Just for the record. -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk [Mailbox shared with various worthy causes - IMHO] "Divinity is better than Dentistry?" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 22:16:07 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: splainin Theosophists have some splainin to concerning Krishnamurti, new World Teacher? OK - some theosophists got it wrong, were imperfect human beings, just like you or me or those who believed them. Oh - and as far as I can see, this is why things like the CWL research are important. This is the man who made *the* big blunder re Krishnamurti. He also wrote a great deal of literature for which his research seems to be seriously flawed. We *know* he was a liar in some areas. Maybe he got it right in others. Just like you or me, probably, but more visible :). -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk [Mailbox shared with various worthy causes - IMHO] "Divinity is better than Dentistry?" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:21:23 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: splainin According to Dr. A.M.Bain: > > Theosophists have some splainin to concerning Krishnamurti, new > World Teacher? > > OK - some theosophists got it wrong, were imperfect human beings, > just like you or me or those who believed them. But maybe in this case there was a genuine element behind it all. > Oh - and as far as I can see, this is why things like the CWL > research are important. This is the man who made *the* big > blunder re Krishnamurti. OTOH, maybe identifying K. was one of the few right things he did, although what he interpreted him as being was wrong? He also wrote a great deal of > literature for which his research seems to be seriously flawed. > > We *know* he was a liar in some areas. Maybe he got it right in > others. Just like you or me, probably, but more visible :). What I'm getting at is the need for sustained reflection on the meaning of Krishnamurti for Theosophists, which no one seems to want to do. Some because they reject everything associated with Besant and Leadbeater, others because they reject thinking about anything suggesting that they made mistakes. I'm particularly perplexed that although Radha was a disciple of K., and the 1980 election had a pro- vs. anti- K. subtext, she doesn't seem to have promoted any serious examination of the topic. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:19:54 -0500 From: Nira2U@aol.com Subject: Gonna Keep Ridin' them Philosophical Ponies... Dr. Bain Thanx for the spurs... I *still* intend to ride herd on y'all --but I've been accused of "...preaching to the choir..." a time or two in my lifetimes so I get pretty strong... I'm not sitting the dance out --I'm merely recharging... Theodora ;-} From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:22:20 -0500 From: Nira2U@aol.com Subject: KEITH.... a TheaCulpa of sorts... Sweet Child... I'm not attacking you --merely your misunderstanding and the glib means by which you perpetrate this stuff... I can help you overcome this pain if you want... Are you seeking your natural mother? It might help you realign since your abandonment complex seems to be tangling your Soul up. A good start might be contacting the Mormon Temple in your area (if you have any information as leads) --they have an extensive data base system that can be scanned free of charge. (I helped a pastlife client find her Civil War soul... so it can find all sorts of goodies if you've got the patience to Search). M'thinks your over-emotionalism is confusing my desire to TEACH you to stop being so judgemental --causing you a major Karmic block. We are not enemies... And for your own information dear --if you would stop reading with such hostile eyes you might see Truth instead of pain. SOULS ARE NOT ABORTED --physical mass is... Insofar as dealing with Mass Karma converted to Dharma --this *is* my task right now which is why I'm writing the book I'm writing; which is why I'm soliciting opinions from others about things Spiritual and Sacred. The soul is not in place until the full termed child takes its first breath --or until the bodily functions connect with the spiritual ones (ask any Born Again card-carrier...) I didn't see your explanatory post regarding your plight. And I don't mean to cause you anymore pain than you're obviously bound in. No --I'm not advocating that you should've been flushed. Merely your anger and hatred. And I'm glad you're taking steps towards Soul Strengths... Don't go off half-hearted --open your eyes to everyone else's reality if you are going to place yourself in the posit of being Advocate. We all have laundry to do... If you want to continue this discussion --I'm here... Earth Mother Theodora From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 13:40:42 -0500 From: ddd@hss.caltech.edu (Doreen Domb) Subject: ONE MORE TIME, ALAN BAIN, RE: ANY KABALIST STUDENTS No, Alan - you did not receive my entire message. I checked with another friend on theos-l, who confirmed receiving only partial posting and you then confirmed same when your response came through. I'm sure this is aggravating to everyone who keeps receiving what seems like a repetitious message from me - I'm very sorry and I understand. There is nothing wrong with the system from my end. I email to a couple other services that run (automated email to a list) like theos-l and have no problems. I have told John Mead of the problem and have not yet heard from him, as I wonder if it's a net problem on the other end. By the way, Alan - I have not seen your "Keys to Kabbalah" that you mention. Would you elaborate on that? At the risk of pissing everyone off (so forgive me in the morning), what follows is the remainder of my original message that no one has received (JOHN MEAD, IF YOU'RE OUT THERE, ANY CLUES?!?). If this still doesn't work, I'll refrain from clogging up the airwaves any further. Your indulgence is profusely appreciated. This begins from & including the last few lines you've received: "Trying to be as attributeless-sounding (?) as possible, perhaps we can think of the emanation of life (not creation as to me, as I believe there is no such thing. Everything has always existed in potential.) in the following way: when it was time for activity to begin again (manvantara), a natural expansion of this Divine essence proceeded from within outwardly. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 14:12:40 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Brothers of the Shadow (fwd) According to Moojan Momen: (Author of an authoritative history of Shi`ism published by Yale in 1985) > In message <9501171444.AA19058@leo.vsla.edu> "K. Paul Johnson" > writes: > > I'm hoping one of you experts in Islam may be able to shed > > some light on a perplexing concept found in Blavatsky's > > Theosophy. Her emphasis on Masters, adepts or Mahatmas is > > fairly congruent with her sources in Hinduism, Buddhism, > > Rosicrucianism, Masonry, etc. But she has a complementary > > concept of Brothers of the Shadow, followers of the left-hand > > path, anti-Masters whom she sometimes calls dugpas (redhats.) > > Her attribution of the concept to Tibetan sources is > > clearly incorrect. Red hat sects, the unreformed Tibetan > > Buddhism pre-Gelugpa (Nyingmapa and Kargyutpa mainly) are > > regarded by the orthodox Gelugpa as just another variant of a > > true religion; in no way are they seen as evil or destructive. > > Yet she attaches the name to a concept that came from somewhere > > else, and it doesn't seem to be from Hindu, Buddhist, or > > Western sources. What does that leave? Islam, Judaism, and > > Christianity in its Eastern variations. > > The reason I'm asking you all is that I recently came > > across a phrase like Brothers of the Shadow or of the left-hand > > path in a Baha'i source, `Abdu'l Baha I think, and now I can't > > remember where. Maybe someone can help. But beyond that, does > > this idea of a brotherhood of evil adepts ring any bells with > > anyone in terms of Islamic history and theology? > > > > > > I do not know whether anyone has answered your question regarding > redhats or not but the following is a hypothesis that occurs to > me: > > The Shi'is were known from Turkey to India as the Qizilbash > (red-heads) on account of the fact that the followers of Ismail > Shah (the first of the Safavid Shahs who established Shi'ism in > Iran) wore red hats. > > In India where Sunni Islam was the majority, the despised Shi'i > minority who were supported by Iran, were frequently referred to > as Qizilbash (this was certainly true in Afghanistan, and I am > fairly certain that it was true also for India -- you might check > this with Juan Cole who is more knowledgable about Indian Shi'ism > than I am). From this reference to the despised Shi'i minority > as Qizilbash, the usage may have spread into popular usage as a > general term of abuse. > > Regards > > Moojan Momen > momen@northill.demon.co.uTL8 0 file(s) copied From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 14:13:58 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: ONE MORE TIME, ALAN BAIN, RE: ANY KABALIST STUDENTS Dear Doreen- That para really has been getting through to the rest of us; just not back to its author. Strange-- maybe John can explain. Cheers Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 14:44:04 -0500 From: ddd@hss.caltech.edu (Doreen Domb) Subject: THE LAST TIME -PART 2, ALAN BAIN Trying to be as attributeless-sounding (?) as possible, perhaps we can think of the emanation of life (not creation as to me, as I believe there is no such thing. Everything has always existed in potential.) in the following way: when it was time for activity to begin again (manvantara), a natural expansion of this Divine essence proceeded from within outwardly. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 15:28:20 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Krishnamurti Concerning K. Paul Johnson's remarks concerning my comments on CWL and Krishnamurti, well fine! The study of Krishnamurti's teaching and philosophy is a topic in itself. Why things are seen by so many people as either/or or 'black and white' in theosophical circles I do not know, but I consider it to be very sad that it happens. I cannot see why "alternative" is necessarily "divisive." Our predecessors may have got some things wrong, but without them we would be heirs to nothing . . . -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk [Mailbox shared with various worthy causes - IMHO] "Divinity is better than Dentistry?" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 15:43:21 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: ONE MORE TIME, ALAN BAIN, RE: ANY KABALIST STUDENTS I keep getting this - have responded, wqaiting to see upload. Alan Bain. -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk [Mailbox shared with various worthy causes - IMHO] "Divinity is better than Dentistry?" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 17:22:34 -0500 From: ddd@hss.caltech.edu (Doreen Domb) Subject: MYSTERY IS SOLVED?! FINALLY HEARD FROM JOHN MEAD & THE MYSTERY APPEARS TO BE SOLVED! What John said was: "if you start a line with the four characters "from, " you will have it trucated from that point on. was that the problem?" [YES APPARENTLY} "just replace from whatever is said...to something starting with a different character... like ">f" >from whatever is said ....that should clear it up." I was unaware of this "nerve" in the system - why it's in there I can't begin to understand. Someday, one of you will explain it to me, right....And Paul Johnson, I thought you were kidding with your CAVEAT - although you said starting a paragraph with "from" would be problematic. The "from" comes within a particular paragraph, it doesn't begin it. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JOHN MEAD! O.K., guys...here's the rest of it (You may burn your previous re-sends with my blessings): Trying to be as attributeless-sounding (?) as possible, perhaps we can think of the emanation of life (not creation to me, as I believe there is no such thing. Everything has always existed in potential.) in the following way: when it was time for activity to begin again (manvantara), a natural expansion of this Divine essence proceeded from within outwardly. What emanates from this light (which is darkness to us) is a spiritual substance. En Soph's [see, I'm automatically giving En Soph possession; thus, an attribute, which is incorrect. My only excuse is that I am human - most of the time.] own eternal essence (Sephira) is sent forth to begin manifestation. I am certain this may well read like a bunch of esoteric babble. I am under some major time constraints at the moment, but I was compelled to respond to you. Let me say one more thing and that is that I have embarked upon a personal project of my own, which is interpreting the first several chapters of Genesis within a Kabalistic/Theosophical framework. It has made so much sense and cleared up a lot of mystery for me. When something in Genesis (particularly in the creation of the world & Adam) clicks for me, it's just an incredible revelation! Having a background in Hebrew doesn't hurt either. Anyway, I gotta go, but hopefully, this will start a dialogue of some sort going on Theos-l. Frankly - and with no offense intended towards anyone - I have OD'd on the vast amount of arguing, bickering, and personal punches taken at others on this mailing list. That is the main reason why you have't heard much from me (aside from being overworked during the weekdays - my problem). I don't get why this stuff is happening so much (a theosophical side-effect perhaps; I hope not!), but I have little control over others (and wouldn't want to anyway). I suppose it needs to be endured, ignored or whatever might work for me. I am far from as patient as I need to be. It would be nice to just get on with it, personal hang-ups aside. I'll await any responses regarding Kabalah. Thanks for listening... - Doreen Domb From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 18:06:10 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Sex Magic - Re Daniel To Daniel Re Sex Magic. HPB wrote: "The Tantras read esoterically are as full of wisdom as the noblest occult works. Studied without a guide and applied to practice, they may lead to the production of various phenomenal results, on the moral and physiological planes. But let anyone accept their dead-letter rules and practices, let him try with some selfish motive in view to carry out the rites prescribed therein, and - he is lost." (CW Vol XII, p 606). In this, she is exactly right. She does not say it, but the "rites prescribed therein" are sexual rites in which a partner of the opposite sex, trained for this purpose, is used. As most people know today (It used to be a big secret) tantric sex does not seek ejaculation or orgasm, but rather the "essence" of the sexual fluids generated (bodicitta) is directed up the spinal column (actually up the sushumna nadi or central channel which lies in the Body of Light at a point that corresponds to the spinal column of the physical body). At a higher level, a jnanamudra or "thought-seal" can be used rather than a physical partner. This corresponds to union with one's anima or animus in the Jungian sense and is the only type of sex magic that I personally condone. The third, and highest, level is called mahamudra, about which many books have been written. Anyway, to answer your question, HPB and most of the TS leadership since have felt that sex magic is too dangerous to practice and they advocate its avoidance. I agree that karmamudra is too dangerous. I think jnanamudra, if done properly, is fairly safe - but again it is the motive that is critical in this sort of thing. Many of the excellent Tibetan books available today talk about karmamudra (using a physical partner) while few talk about jnanamudra. My own opinion is that using a physical partner necessarily links you with their karma and this can lead to a lot of problems. In the old days in India and Tibet, they trained people for this sort of thing, and thus minimized karmic entanglements. This is no longer the case, and you certainly won't find a "trained" partner anywhere in the West today. This question has no simple answer. Clearly, they do not advise anyone to practice Kundalini Yoga. James Long, for example, advised me to stop practicing straightaway. But the sublimation of sexual energy is not as clear cut. Rather, it depends on the type of yoga you practice, and on your lifestyle. If you are married, for example, then sexual sublimation is likely to lead to a divorce. Even if you are single, it is a difficult decision to make. The reason is that the difference between sublimation and repression is a fine line. We may think we are sublimating our sex drive, when in fact we are merely repressing it. It will be easier for another person who sees you every day to tell how you are doing, than to see it in yourself. This is one reason why a teacher is helpful. Origen (the early Christian writer who believed in reincarnation) had himself castrated in order to sublimate his sexual impulses. This is, I believe, a drastic measure that will simply put the problem off until another lifetime. At least one tantric school teaches that sublimation can be attained through excess. They jump into sex with gusto and keep at it until they are fed up with it, and then their sex drive no longer bothers them. This only works with some people (some have used this technique successfully to quit smoking, for example) and HPB would never have recommended it. When we ask why HPB said things or did things, we always have to keep in mind exactly what she was striving for and what she was dealing with. Like Paul mentioned in an earlier posting, HPB knew things that she would not say, and said some things that she likely didn't believe herself. She wanted theosophy to become a worldwide teaching, to enable universal siblinghood to become a reality. So, she deliberately refrained from alienating people. Any positive mention of sex magic, for example, would have been taken wrong by the public and would have cost her more than it would have gained her, so she kept it to herself. If we can accept her statements about being taught in Tibet, then we must allow that she really knew the Tibetan techniques of karmamudra, jnanamudra, and mahamudra. I doubt that she practiced them. Some Comments. In the regard of sex magic, or any kind of magic or yoga for that matter, we need to recall the metaphor of the mountain. The pilgrim-like quest of our inner divine monads can be likened to a bunch of mountain climbers climbing a huge mountain. The spiritual realms are at the peak. The foothills and surrounding valleys contain the karmic dregs and nightmarish horrors that stem from ignorance. We are each climbing the same mountain, trying to return to the peak, which is our eternal home. The method by which we climb is some type of yoga. This mountain has many paths. Some are slow and windy, while others are more vertical. The slow paths are safe and steady, and these correspond to karma yoga, the slowest and safest type of yoga that we can practice. Good deeds and ethical behavior wind us slowly around the mountainside and gradually spiral us upward with each circumambulation. Some climbers, however, are not content to take the slow safe path. These dart up the slopes at various angles, thus cutting short the time to the top. However, they are not so safe. The rocks are sharp and the moss is sometimes slippery. Some intrepid climbers plunge to the depths and must heal and start their ascent all over again. The steepest and most dangerous of these paths is Kundalini Yoga, where the rewards are great and the perils high. With this in mind, lets all take the path that we feel bests suits us, and let others follow after their own paths. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 23:30:57 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: I did I am a Card Carrier Welcome to you, Theosophist with the critical mind. Glad you got your card. Use it in good health & spirits. Liesel PS When you get ready to try the Olcott Library it's Olcott@dupagels.lib.il.us From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 23:32:17 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: CWL Dear Jerry, I don't really want you to put 100 pp. on the theos-net. That's too much trouble, & won't lead to anything anyway. I'm not in the least interested in reading Tillet's book, not even if you sent it to me for free, because I think it contains a lot of filthy, untrue garbage. You're right, I read some of it, & that's exactly what I told the 7 Rays Book Store when I made them take it back, that it was filthy, untrue garbage.. Just for instance, I am convinced that whatever CWL said at the hearing you keep on referring to, it wasn't a confession to what you & others think he did. That's why I wanted you to quote chapter & verse. I am very sure that he did no such thing. I don't need to look at the Wheaton or Adyar archives, because I'm in touch with someone who knew CWL personally, & that person has no reason to lie to me, has never lied to me, in all the years I've known them. But that's not something you, or the other hate mongers, and that's what you are (& you seem to revel in it), are going to believe. Just for instance, you make such a big to do about that CWL told the boys to keep something secret. All CWL's pupils. male & female, were & are bound to secrecy for much of what he taught them. So that's not the horrible thing you make it out to be. It was just a general rule. If you have a lot of other activities going on, so do I. How about if you stop putting derogatory remarks about CWL on the internet, & letting a bunch of us feel happier that this junk is done & over with. Again, I don't think you'd be crude enough to say derogatory things about the Virgin Mary to a devout Christian, or maybe I'm just thinking you wouldn't, because I wouldn't do such a thing. Anyway, CWL is our Virgin Mary, and the remarks you & your friends make are crude. In Sisterhood Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 01:40:27 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Tell me about your first time! To Leisel and Jerry - If Theodora and I can be civil, anything is possible. What goes around comes around. If you project your shadow, you will get it back. If you project your higher self, you might get that back. Nobody has control or take responsibility for another persons feelings or thoughts about another including CWL. (Boy, I sound like I'm preaching again. SORRY! No flames please) This may help or make matters worse, but here goes. I am told by an "insider" that Dora Kunz's husband was one of the boys (ages 12-14) learning from CWL. He has stated that CWL did say that masturbation was a tool to help one toward celibacy. But he was never, never touched by CWL now does he know of any of the other boys who were. I don't think this will change one person's mind on the issue. But it might be worth following up on if he is still alive or if any of the other boys are. Joyclyn Elders (I don't know how to spell her name) was kicked out of Washington for advocating teaching masturbation in lieu of sex that might spread AIDS. She said a lot of strange things, but somehow this was deemed the final straw. I guess a little harmless but unbiblical fun is worse than getting AIDS and spreading it, dying and killing others. I'm not supporting her. But the priorities that masturbation is an absolute taboo, but spreading AIDs isn't is pretty strange. The priorities don't make sense. Come on guys (I'm being gallant to the ladies, you need not reply). Can anybody tell me they haven't been to Pee Wee's playhouse? It's pretty well know that babies do it (per Freud), even monkeys in the trees do it. I was told by a boy down the block when I was ten, although I couldn't do anything. Since boys used to go to all boys schools back then I don't think this was any big news at all. --------- Tell me about your first time does not refer to the above, but to the first time you read "The Secret Doctrine" and your first mystical experience. I"ll tell you mine if you'll tell me yours. I was a strange child. Quelle suprise! I remember seeing a picture of a golden Buddha and was haunted -- for many weeks. I couldn't put a term to it then, but I subconciously knew I had been there in a previous incarnation. The next biggie was when I was in high school math class. We were studying the Cartesian Coordinate system and I got the insight that positive and negative infinity meet somewhere and are somehow the same thing and the origin and destination of it all. I understood the uroboros in a flash. The snake eating its tail as symbol of infininty or the source of all withour ever having read one book. (People allways yawn at this they expect something like I saw St. Germain in my bedroom, but this insight about infinity has comforted me and led me back to the spiritual path when other gurus, books etc. haven't.) I "The Secret Doctrine" seemed like utter nonsense the first time I tried to read it. I got the abridged version at a Lodge yard sale by accident . The theosophist kept telling me "you really don't want to by this book, most people can't read it). Well, of course I was challenged. I was determined to find out why anybody would waste time studying this mess. Finally the stanzas of Dzan began to open my intuition. They effected me subconciously, occultly. I've been hooked ever sense. ---- When where you first really disappointed by the T.S. or fellow theosophists? (maybe you haven't been) Oh lucky incarnation! Well, I almost gave up trying to fathom the unfathomably, which is still unfathomable, but at least I know it is,. when Bing Escudero came to lectrue. He presented the whole system in chart form and this dunce (me) finally began to glimpse the grand scheme. We all rallyed around him. Well as you know he ran for President a while back and there has never been a sadder spectacle for me as regards theosophy. Bing himself was no saint. He refused to print a platform in the AT. What he did print were really snide, petty attacks at the current regime, nothing spirtiual at all. Everyone was so excited! They knew he had the votes. But my powers of clairvoyance (or mabe just world weary savvy) where never stronger. Rules were suddenly created to make throwing away "incorrectly filled out ballots" (those with Bing's name and a little more) possible. A outside consultant could have been called in to count the votes, but this might have resulted in Bing's election (which is unthinkable, "he might bankrupt us" etc.). Maybe its what the Masters wanted who knows. So tell me about your first time. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 10:21:38 -0500 From: DanielArt@aol.com Subject: Imagine a pyramid Imagine a pyramid... How high would you make it? How wide at the base? What directions should its faces face? What color and shading will capture the lights of rainbow sundays and astral nights? Where on Earth would it cast no shadow at noon or secretly pass under the moon? When will its prisoner escape through the stars to smile at his brother's face on Mars? I did my graduate work in Visual Semiotics, which is the study of signs and symbols in society. Aside from the sheer joy of playing with images, they can be placed together and given multiple meanings. To learn something new, or to assure that your message is received and understood, it must be connected to a symbol or icon already in the receiver's mind. Once we all have the same basic symbol sets in our heads, we can begin communicating more effectively across international language barriers. Unfortunately, our primary use of images is in writing. Each image is miniaturized, assigned to a sound, then strung together into words that represent yet another image, or some nebulous non-image, which often can't be IMAGEined. Misunderstanding occurs whenever the receiver connects a sign with one or more signs that the sender did not intend to connect. To truly visualize, one must measure and draw. The underlying geometry must be recognized and connected to other symbol sets. This is done most effectively by paradigm shifts. One paradigm may be Math, while another may be Science, another Philosophy, and so on. It need not be written. Inherent in paradigm shifts is the natural humor that occurs when juxtaposing meanings from one paradigm to another. It has also been a convenient way to openly discuss secret information, made taboo by the dominant culture, whether occult, sexual, or what-have-you. It's also a method to trigger memories. I believe it was Aristotle that said he was unable to teach but only able to help students remember what they already knew. The translation of words into other words only works within the paradigm of one meaning. When you say that the word "ba", for example, means such and such, then you've lost the sound of the word and its connected vibration and relative musical scale. Having lost that, there is no connection with the sound of the new word to the other connected paradigms of the original. With these things in mind, I've just shared with you a few visual adventures which I urge you to experience yourself, in your own way, in various paradigms. And by the way, Architecture is frozen Music. Daniel Hampson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 14:21:57 -0500 From: Roxanne Thompson Subject: Elizabeth Clare Prophet I am new to theosophy and have not read a lot of the books that have been suggested on this list. I have read many Gnostic publications and some books by Elizabeth and Mark Prophet. Is this woman legitimate? Where does her Aquarian-Age community, called Camelot, and Summit University fit into the theosophical picture? I am reading a book, "The Chela and the Path," written by Elizabeth Prophet, as dictated to her by Ascended Master, EL Morya. This book claims that El Morya Khan was instrumental in founding the Theosophical Society along with his friend Master Koot Hoomi Lal Singh. Is this True? Any comments would be appreciated. Searching for the Light, Roxanne From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 15:05:12 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Elemental Ethics In 1882, one of Master M.'s disciples wrote: "In ancient times the ordinary multitude had implicit confidence in their initiates and Rishis. The never asked for reasons for any of the truths revealed to them; and the Rishis never cared to demonstrate the truth of their teachings according to the formal rules of logic. A student of Occult Science generally realises the truth of his Guru's teaching by actual *perception*, and not by assuring himself that his Guru's *reasoning* is correct. But now... the attitude of the student and the enquirer is altogether different. Every proposition, however plain it may be, must be supported be reasons thrown into the proper syllogistic form before it can be accepted by those who are supposed to have received the so-called liberal education. If a Guru for instance, were to tell his disciple that he should not commit murder or theft, the disciple is sure to turn round and ask him `Well sir, what are your reasons for saying so.' Such is the attitude of modern mind..." Verily, verily, it is so. Since acceptance of even the old moral standards is often seen by us moderns as sheep-like stupidity, rather than an intuitive recognition of their truth, I'll quote an occult rationale more in fitting with our ?advanced? status. In 1880 Master K.H. wrote: "Every thought of man upon being evolved passes into the inner world and becomes an active entity by associating itself -- coalescing, we might term it -- with an elemental; that is to say with one of the semi-intelligent forces of the kingdoms. It survives for a longer or shorter period proportionate with the original intensity of the cerebral action which generated it. Thus, a good thought is perpetuated as an active beneficent power; an evil one as a maleficent demon. And so man is continually peopling his current in space with a world of his own, crowded with the offspring of his fancies, desires, impulses, and passions..." Now a quotation, from HPB, on the question of masturbation: "The Biblical sin of *Onan*. Involuntary & natural, or physiological is not held as sin, if one is *irresponsible*, though it is a *wall* against progress; but *mental* Onanism is 1000 times worse than the physical. You can hardly have control over your nerves -- You can have over your thoughts & imagination. *It is worse than the very (natural) act.*" Next -- even "flaming" or harsh criticism has an esoteric danger to it. HPB wrote: "Every time you harshly and unmercifully criticise the faults of another, you produce an attraction to yourself of certain quantities of elementals from that person. They fasten themselves upon you and endeavour to find in you a similar state or spot or fault that they have left in the other person. It is as if they left him to serve you at higher wages, so to say." Finally -- as to the current notion that "it is *only* imagination, *only* thought" -- a disciple of KH wrote in 1883: "A given amount of energy expended on the spiritual or astral plane is productive of far greater results than the same amount expended on the physical objective plane of existence." Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 15:48:31 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: TS ELECTION & BING: To JRC and all I am responding to your request on net, because I don't have any secret or extra information. As you can tell, I speak rather impulsively and this is one of those subjects that may have been better left forgotten. I have loyalty to Olcott. That has not really been shaken. I think John Algeo is a good president from all I can tell and will do a lot of good for the society. Also I think "The Quest" is a wonderful publication and has really brought theosophy to the masses, brought together a lot of fine people into contact with the society like Jean Houston (I love her work) and Ken Wilber (who I really admire, but why is he so introverted ?) and is really modern in the best sense of the word. This sounds like brown nosing, but I believe that we must all come together in brotherhood (sorry but siblinghood is getting to be a tired joke, can't we think of something like "come together as a family"). Bing didn't win. I love Bing like a spiritual father. He is one of the kindest, most knowledgeable, most commited theosophist I know. He is by far (IMHO) the best, most systematic teacher of theosophy. That is why his unkind words to Abbenhouse and others at Olcott shocked me. It was like someone else (yeah, the old shadow thing again) was speaking them. He shot himself in the foot if you want to know the "secret". Still your suspicion that Headquaters is not really democratic, but elitist may have some justification. I think the very idea that the Masters inspired it, created it, blessed it, guarded it and watch over it for all time kind of gives some the idea that the ends justify the means. The rule that if you wrote anything, just anything, like "Dorthy I'm sorry I really like you, but let's give Bing a chance" gave people grounds to throw that ballot out, well it give one pause, doesn't it? Also another rule like you had to sign the outside of the envelope or some such nonsense. I'm very bad on details as Theodora and others have often pointed out. (luv ya Earth Mother) And why, oh why didn't they just get a cheap CPA or someone like that to count the votes???? Someone who could present the votes as unbiased, credible and auditable (Abbenhouse may have won fair and square, but we will never know. They created the grounds for suspision, they could have stopped it cold, but they didn't) It would have cost very little and would have saved many broken hearts, bad thougtforms, uneasy Karma about the situation etc. I'm sure there are skeletons. My closet is full to overflowing. Does anybody else know anything? Bing are you out there anywhere??? SPEAK TO US! Thanks for the visual semiotic poem Daniel. I keep getting the idea of the "round table" in King Arthur's court. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we stopped trying to score points by one-upsmanship (sic) or one ups personship. There is no head chair to rule others at theos-l. We are blessed with John Mead (IMHO) who is very patient and fair as far as I can tell. We could have got someone who was HPB only or your pro-choice or your off. There are a few Merlins here too. I think when we come into the nucleus us universal family we expect Camelot. Fellow souls that will laugh and support and share our spiritual knighthood fairly and without egotism It doesn't take long for the Morganas and Modreds to raise their jealous heads and even a few Lancelots and Guiniverres to stumble through and drown out the golden days. We could have our golden days. Keith Price - a very new and unskilled knight From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 16:03:31 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Re: Elizabeth Clare Prophet > I am new to theosophy and have not read a lot of the books that > have been suggested on this list. I have read many Gnostic > publications and some books by Elizabeth and Mark Prophet. Is > this woman legitimate? Where does her Aquarian-Age community, > called Camelot, and Summit University fit into the theosophical > picture? > > I am reading a book, "The Chela and the Path," written by > Elizabeth Prophet, as dictated to her by Ascended Master, EL > Morya. This book claims that El Morya Khan was instrumental in > founding the Theosophical Society along with his friend Master > Koot Hoomi Lal Singh. Is this True? > >Any comments would be appreciated. Dear Roxanne, No, she and her channeled entities are not part of the Theosophical movement founded by H.P. Blavatsky and her Gurus. Although the names of the two entities she channels are similar to the ones used by HPB's gurus in the 19th century, the purple prose and gush they utter, through her, are nothing like the tone or content of the real Adepts. Read THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO A.P. SINNETT for an idea of what Theosophy is really like. Best, Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 18:24:37 -0500 From: euser Subject: Re: Tell me about your first time! Hi Keith, Your request to others to tell about their first mystical experiences raises some questions with me. 1. Is it wise to speak openly about these things? 2. Is it possible to express one's deepest experiences in words? Others may have similar or other questions (let them speak). Some stray thoughts: it is indeed possible to speak about experiences like the workings of the astral senses, looking into the astral light, etc. Usually, this is a very limited experience, however unique it may be to the person involved. Speaking about this to others may: a. Amuse them b. Annoy or depress them (it may suggest to them that they haven't reached the same level of evolution as the person involved, which is often untrue. In some cases, it might be helpful to others (if they have some experience they don't understand or when they feel threatened by certain experiences) if another person can explain it to them (by virtue of having experienced similar things). Regarding deep mystical experiences, I doubt whether many people are willing to talk about these. Holy things cannot properly be expressed in words. It feels like degrading these experiences to a level of outer sense experience. Can someone who doesn't experience the Inner Light understand someone who is talking about these experiences? I doubt it. Pythagoras is said to talk only in parables even to his closest pupils. Those who had the ears to hear knew what he meant to convey. You might object that we live in different times, where many more people have deeper experiences of the Spirit. This may be true, but even then I would advise some reticence. Articles are stored in archives and people may confuse experiences of the astral realms with deeper, more spiritual insights. There are a few exceptions to this, like Jacob Boehme's mystical writings, but this seems to be rather exceptional. Any comments? Friendly Yours, Martin Euser euser@xs4all.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 18:25:23 -0500 From: euser Subject: Re: kabalah Doreen, Your interest in the Kabalah, Genesis, etc. is shared by me too. As you probably know, HPB quotes Ralston Skinner ('Source of Measure') quite frequently in the SD. Did you study the Source of Measures? I did so (a time consuming thing, but rewarding). Skinner reveals the use of geometry, certain proportions of whole numbers, etc. in certain relationships between earth, moon and sun. He also explains Genesis (Garden of Eden, meaning of Adam, Eve & other names in a symbolical way as referring to geometrical relations and numbers). His case is quite strong: concordance between the hidden meaning of Genesis and the proportions found in the pyramid of Gizeh. All this reminds me of the necessity for theosophists to study the Sacred Symbols of religions in order to establish their manifold meanings and relation to the structure of the universe. Theosophy is not a finished, closed system of truths- it requires deep study, development of intuition, etc. in order to get a fuller picture of a synthesis of religion, philosophy and science. There will be others on this list I think, who may be interested to participate in a discussion of Kabalah, especially in an enlarged context of Sacred Geometry. Please let me know what you think of this (and Mr. Bain too) Martin Euser euser@xs4all.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 22:39:42 -0500 From: Nira2U@aol.com Subject: Re: Sexism, Racism, Reincarnation Geez K.Paul --that's what I *thought* I was ranting about ;-} I've documented my pastlives --and have an equal balance of male & female incarnations. Our Creator gives us the opportunity to purge each lifetime's misgivings (if we're aware of it --otherwise we're doomed to keep repeating feces until we get the toilet flushed... sorry for the odeous ANALogy by many people suffer Karmic Constipation where digesting Reincarnation is concerned...) I'm writing a book at present that shows *how* my pastlives interweave --and how it will help others to untangle their Karmic tapestries... Which is also why I availed my "psychic" abilities to others. Firstly --to see if the Vibe did exist; if it could connect --and how to make it work to proper (as opposed to abusive) advantages... The reason for different races & sexes is simple: to learn from each other... If we wuz all the same cookie --we'd get pretty bored with the same flavor... And some of us are pretty TART... WADR to Keith's attempt at getting peoples' attention by giving us a lesson in Jocelyn Elder's philosophy (and yes --this time Keith you get an A+ in spelling...) It made me wonder *how* she would introduce this as curriculum?! Would she be concentrating on the History of... Technique... And think of the Labs... Makes me jealous that I'm too old to go to school in Arkansas... Like they say --politics *does* make for strange bedfellows... My Self --I think Tantra's got some really great points to it: no laundry to do; it's highly portable; no pills or skins to purchase making it cost effective; no one gets offended if you roll over & go to sleep (altho' I am a huge cuddle-advocate). My main question is --where do I purchase Tantric Cigs for the afterglow?! Ah --therein lies the major question... (Stop laughing so hard Dr. Al --you'll attract a crowd...) Sorry Doreen --if constructive bickering upsets you... Perhaps Kabbalism *is* a higher ordered 'science' --but my Guide told me I had to bring the volume down to commoners' (present company excluded) levels in this Exercise in order deposit Dharma in my soul's bank account... To answer Keith's query: my first time was at the ripe age of two years; Channeling since I learned to talk; shut down by paranoid parents by age 10; hid in the basement reading Search for Bridey Murphy while kids my age were busy exploring their privates; practiced The Disciplines between ages 14-21 --doing astrological/psychic readings for the Birth Mothers I midwifed --to help them determine their cherubs' goal paths (Imagine how testicular the doctors got when I told their 'patients' to head to the hospital LOOOOOOOOOONG before their due dates. And I was always right...) Been Empathic all my life --hence watching TV news has a tendency to drain me bigtime... NEXT?! Theodora From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 23:09:17 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Sexism, Racism, & Reincar... I prefer the first view. It's the most democratic. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 23:09:52 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Words and Names This is sort of off the top of my head ... to bat around a little. Now that I think of it, I agree with you that HPB & other Theosophical classics should be left in the language as they were written. I really wouldn't want to read an unoriginal original, if I were trying to find out what HPB actually meant when she herself wrote. If we can understand Chaucer & Shakespeare, we can understand HPB. On the other hand, I think John Crocker had a point the other day with that some of our ideas & ideals are expressed in such an antiquated fashion that yo ung people are turned off. If we want the TS to continue to blossom, we need to be able to attract young people. One way I can think of doing this is by first introducing these to the writings of present day Theosophists, such as Adam Warcup & Shirley Nicholson, to mention 2 who come to mind. I think that maybe the new Institute in Wheaton might lend itself to developing programs for younger people, & their concerns. It's still rather nebulous as to what the Institute is going to be like. Another avenue would be our growing collection of video tapes, some of which could be designed for younger viewers. Also, I've been a Member at Large for a number of years & haven't heard any National Speakers for quite a while. They too, I think, should present Theosophy in view of modern day concerns. I'd like to see us discuss this a little more, because I think it's very pertinent, & necessary. What I just typed here is just what I thought of on the spur of the moment. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 23:10:38 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: kabalah Latter-day students of Kabbalah tend, like too many theosophists, to suppose that the writings of the 19th and early 20th century authors express the last word on the subject, when as has been said, truth in all its forms is a continuing and developing revelation which often needs to be re-cast in new language for a new era. The supposition that everthing that can be known about recondite or esoteric matters has been revealed once for all in the writings of a) the Bible, b) Madame Blavatsky, c) Annie Besant, d) C.W.Leadbeater e) Aleister Crowley f) etc., etc. is all too common. HPB did a great service in calling attention to "The Source of Measures" and sacred geometry. Very few people seem to have followed it up [too much like hard work I guess] so it is good to find someone who has. I have not pursued this particular "thread" begun by HPB, having followed a different route, but I can vouch for the fact that geometry [sacred if you will] is undoubtedly inherent in any workable description of the Kabbalist world-view, or paradigm for those who like the posh words. (One group I was involved with canonized St. Paradigm due to his/her prominence in theological colleges). My own original research has come up with the discovery, in kabbalistic form, of a clear link between the Temple of Luxor circa 1600 bce and the cathedral and abbey churches begun circa 1100 ce (or bc and ad - but I prefer the neutral terminology of modern academic study). There is also a link with the 33 degrees of the "Ancient and a Accepted" Scottish rite of modern Freemasonry. Like Theosophy proper, this is not a five-minute discussion - indeed, not a discussion at all, but a continuing thread spanning millennia. My own writings on the subject elucidate much of this, but readers will have to e-mail me for details, as I am not in a position to bestow all the fruits of my labours of 38 years upon theos-l for free (yet). What I will say with conviction is that the presentation of Kabbalah commonly received via the writings of members of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn is flawed. Not deliberately so, in the main, but simply because of insufficient information, and the usual reluctance to engage in original research. "Line 50" says my editor, so I will leave it there for now - I have said enough of very little already! -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk [Mailbox shared with various worthy causes - IMHO] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 12:05:11 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: Calling San Francisco--Occult Reich Question Martin and I have been communicating a bit more on the Occult Reich question (remember the public broadcasting question? discussion of implication of fascist connection to theosophy?). At any rate, it appears that the only place we can pin down the broadcast of Occult Reich for certain is in the San Francisco area. Is there anybody in or around San Francisco who can 1. confirm broadcast of Occult Reich? 2. provide a video copy of the program or direct us to a source for obtaining a copy? TIA, William From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 14:13:13 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: Occult Reich Well, sometimes when we college professors get pushed to the limit we actually do what we always tell our students to do. I did a little looking in OCLC and came up with some leads on our Occult Reich questions. Following are (1) an entry for a four-part video series, (2) individual entries for each of the four parts, and (3) entries for two books of similar title. I will check to see if local video stores stock these titles. Since mine is a small town with a taste for blockbusters, I'm doubtful that I'm going to find the videos locally. Perhaps someone in a larger place might be able to investigate and report to us. The video dealing with the swastika sounds as though it might touch on theosophy (Indian and Tibetian sources). Martin: one of the books is a translation from a French original. I was unable to locate the original French title in OCLC. I don't know the relationship between the books and the videos. Later, William ***************************************** ACCESSION: 25717652 TITLE: The Occult history of the third reich PLACE: Batavia, OH : PUBLISHER: Video Treasures, Inc., YEAR: 1991 PUB TYPE: Audiovisual FORMAT: 4 videocassettes : sd., col. ; 1/2 in. NOTES: [Pt. 1.] The Enigma of the swastika -- [Pt. 2.] The SS blood and soil -- [Pt. 3.] Himmler the mystic -- [Pt. 4.] Adolf Hitler. SUBJECT: National socialism. Nationalism -- Germany. Germany -- History -- 1933-1945. OTHER: The Enigma of the swastika videorecording. The SS blood and soil videorecording. Himmler the mystic videorecording. Adolf Hitler videorecording. ACCESSION: 28822108 TITLE: The SS, blood and soil PLACE: Batavia, Ohio : PUBLISHER: Video Treasures, YEAR: 1991 PUB TYPE: Audiovisual FORMAT: 1 videocassette (ca. 55 min.) : sd., col. with b&w sequences ; 1/2 in. SERIES: Occult history of the Third Reich NOTES: Title on cassette label: S.S. blood/land, pt. 2. "SV9367."--Container. "A Lamancha/Castle co-production." Written and directed by Dave Flitton ; narrated by Patrick Allen ; produced by David McWhinnie. Using newly discovered archive footage, explores the world of the SS as its role changed from Hitler's loyal bodyguard into an elite racial aristocracy of unchallenged power in Nazi Germany, based on the doctrines of Aryan superiority. VHS format. ISBN: 1555296580 SUBJECT: Himmler, Heinrich, -- 1900-1945. Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei. -- Schutzstaffel. Germans -- Race identity. National socialism and occultism. Germany -- History -- 1933-1945. Germany -- Politics and government -- 1933-1945. OTHER: Flitton, Dave. Video Treasures. S.S. blood/land. ACCESSION: 28821775 TITLE: Adolf Hitler PLACE: Batavia, Ohio : PUBLISHER: Video Treasures, YEAR: 1991 PUB TYPE: Audiovisual FORMAT: 1 videocassette (ca. 50 min.) : sd., col. with b&w sequences ; 1/2 in. SERIES: The Occult history of the Third Reich NOTES: "SV9369."--Container. "A Lamanche/Castle co-production." Written and directed by Dave Flitton ; narrated by Patrick Allen ; produced by David McWhinnie. Looks at the strange and terrifying beliefs of Adolf Hitler, his fascination with the origins and rise to power of Aryan man, his obsession with possessing the spear of destiny, and his own messianic plans for the world. VHS. ISBN: 1555296602 SUBJECT: Hitler, Adolf, -- 1889-1945. National socialism and occultism. Germany -- Politics and government -- 20th century. OTHER: Flitton, Dave. Video Treasures. ACCESSION: 28821575 TITLE: Himmler, the mystic PLACE: Batavia, Ohio : PUBLISHER: Video Treasures, YEAR: 1991 PUB TYPE: Audiovisual FORMAT: 1 videocassette (ca. 55 min.) : sd., col. with b&w sequences ; 1/2 in. SERIES: The Occult history of the Third Reich NOTES: "SV9368."--Container. "A Lamanche/Castle co-production." Written and directed by Dave Flitton ; narrated by Patrick Allen ; produced by David McWhinnie. Obsessed with astrology and spiritualism, Himmler transformed the SS from Hitler's bodyguard into a mystical order steeped in the Aryan cult and planned to create a city ruled by SS nobility and inhabited by racially pure Germanic peasant warriors. VHS. ISBN: 1555296599 SUBJECT: Himmler, Heinrich, -- 1900-1945. Hitler, Adolf, -- 1889-1945. Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei. -- Schutzstaffel. Medicine -- Political aspects -- Germany. National socialism and occultism. Germany -- History -- 1933-1945. Germany -- Politics and government -- 1933-1945. Germany -- Politics and government -- 1918-1933. OTHER: Flitton, Dave. Video Treasures. ACCESSION: 28821573 TITLE: The Enigma of the swastika PLACE: Batavia, Ohio : PUBLISHER: Video Treasures, YEAR: 1991 PUB TYPE: Audiovisual FORMAT: 1 videocassette (ca. 50 min.) : sd., col. with b&w sequences ; 1/2 in. SERIES: The Occult history of the Third Reich NOTES: "SV9366."--Container. "A Lamanche/Castle co-production." Written and directed by Dave Flitton ; narrated by Patrick Allen ; produced by David McWhinnie. Looks at the swastika's ancient roots in the mysterious religious cults of India and Tibet and explores its adoption by European occultists, notably the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler. VHS. ISBN: 1555296572 SUBJECT: Hitler, Adolf, -- 1889-1945. National socialism and occultism. Swastika. Germany -- History -- 1933-1945. Germany -- Politics and government -- 1933-1945. Germany -- Politics and government -- 1918-1933. OTHER: Flitton, Dave. Video Treasures. ACCESSION: 2078100 AUTHOR: Brennan, J. H. TITLE: Occult Reich / PLACE: New York : PUBLISHER: New American Library, YEAR: 1974 PUB TYPE: Book FORMAT: 184 p. ; 18 cm. SERIES: Signet book. SUBJECT: Hitler, Adolf, -- 1889-1945. Occultism -- Germany. National socialism -- History. ACCESSION: 1582645 AUTHOR: Angebert, Jean-Michel. TITLE: The occult and the Third Reich : the mystical origins of Nazism and the search for the Holy Grail PLACE: New York : PUBLISHER: McGraw-Hill, YEAR: 1975 1974 PUB TYPE: Book FORMAT: xix, 306 p. ; 21 cm. SERIES: McGraw-Hill paperbacks NOTES: Translation of Hitler et la tradition cathare. Includes index. Bibliography: p. 283-289. ISBN: 0070018502 SUBJECT: Hitler, Adolf, -- 1889-1945. National socialism and occultism. ALT TITLE: Hitler et la tradition cathare. English From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 15:53:21 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: CWL again!; SD; Prophet Liesel, LD> I don't really want you to put 100 pp. on the theos-net. That's too much trouble, & won't lead to anything anyway. I'm not in the least interested in reading Tillet's book, not even if you sent it to me for free, because I think it contains a lot of filthy, untrue garbage. You're right, I read some of it, & that's exactly what I told the 7 Rays Book Store when I made them take it back, that it was filthy, untrue garbage.. Tillett reproduces the more damaging parts of the documents in his book. All I can do is testify to their genuineness, and quote further material if needed. Since you have already rejected the documentation as containing "a lot of filthy, untrue garbage", what is the sense of repeating it to you? LD> Just for instance, I am convinced that whatever CWL said at the hearing you keep on referring to, it wasn't a confession to what you & others think he did. That's why I wanted you to quote chapter & verse. That's why I wanted you to quote chapter & verse. I am very sure that he did no such thing. One of the more cogent parts of his 1906 "confession" was reproduced on pp. 84-86 of Tillett's book. I'm sure that it won't change your mind--it didn't the first time you read it--if you read it. What do you think I and others think he did? I haven't detailed what I "think" he did in over a year on this net, so it is unlikely that you know what I "think" he did. I have told you at least twice before that I have no desire to debate the Leadbeater issue with you, and have been trying to drop it. Yet you keep trying to engage me. What is the problem? However, you are implying an important point. By refraining from mentioning what he did might give those who did not read my earlier messages (or forgot them) the impression that he did other things. So, in a nutshell, this is what I "think" he did: Some of CWL's actions with sexual connotations that went beyond "advising" were for instance: he was observed sleeping in the same bed and bathing with the children, even though accommodations were provided to have made this unnecessary. In Australia he was observed masturbating Oscar Kollestrom. In Chicago, he often put the children in charge of a known homosexual without a chaperon, and without the parent's knowledge. What I never mentioned on the net, was Tillett's presentation at the Theosophical History Seminar in San Diego, where he discussed Kollestrom's diary that he kept as a young man. There Kollestrom writes of Leadbeater's esoteric inner group where the boys engaged in ritualistic group masturbation. With our liberal attitudes concerning sex, some will laugh this off, but keep in mind that this all took place early in the century and was quite shocking then, and CWL's actions remain morally questionable to illegal today. The two points that I tried again and again to bring up, however, has less to do with CWL's sexual trips, but with his moral and ethical obligations towards the children in his charge. Because he bound these children into secrecy, he created tremendous feelings of guilt and shame in them. Nobody on this net has as yet acknowledged this as a concern, yet it was the deepest concern of the parents. Helen Dennis wrote Besant, that CWL's binds of secrecy was in itself immoral. A further example of this was when the police investigated the Manor in Australia, concerning complaints of immorality. CWL refused to come out and talk to the police. So the police instead interviewed the Children, whom they observed to be very frightened, and refused to answer any questions. One child was reported to say, "I will die first before I tell you anything." Personally, I feel that Leadbeater's putting these children into a bind that created guilt and shame is a far more important issue than whether CWL "touched" or "advised." The second point that nobody seems to pick up on is that CWL's admissions and testimony have never been made available to the membership, and Annie Besant's cover story of CWL giving "advice" concerning masturbation is only half true by omission. Because, nobody seems to want to acknowledge the above two points, I early on gave up trying to point out that CWL's books (the American editions at least) have been systematically edited to remove all of his references to the "world teacher"; remarks that reveal his racist attitudes (E.g. "Darker, therefore inferior races"); and his clairvoyant observations that have since proved to be absolutely wrong (for instance the civilizations on Mars). Yet the publishers don't give notice of what is being edited and why. Such notice is common practice for non theosophical books published by any other publishers. I think the problem is that acknowledgement of these facts would force some CWL devotes to face the possibility that they might have been fooled by him and misled by the TS. No one wants to look foolish. On the other hand, I believe that until the CWL case, and other coverups in the TS's past can be acknowledged and worked through, the accumulated poison of these issues does and will by slow degrees destroy the Organization. Thus, I had hoped that a dialogue would be started so that we could examine these deeper issues, but we never seem to get passed the "did CWL advise or touch" debate, which I see as only the tip of the iceberg. LD> I don't need to look at the Wheaton or Adyar archives, because I'm in touch with someone who knew CWL personally, & that person has no reason to lie to me, has never lied to me, in all the years I've known them. Was this person present at the 1906 inquiry in London? Was this person one of children under CWL's charge in Chicago in 1906? The only person living that knew CWL, that you are likely to have known is Dora Kunz. I realize that she defends CWL, and states on her own authority, in no uncertain terms that CWL was completely innocent. But I must point out to you that in 1906, Dora was four years old and living in Java. You might also know Dora's younger brother Harry Van Gelder, but he would be of even less help in throwing light upon this issue. Knowing someone who knew CWL, and knowing someone who was involved in the scandals are very different things. Back in the 60's I attended a party thrown by one of the Beach Boys. Several members of the notorious Manson gang were there, and I had a very nice talk with a young man who introduced himself to me as Tex Watson. He was a very intelligent and perceptive man--the type of person you would expect to be nominated as most likely to succeed in a High School year book. I never would have dreamed from that very mundane party, and my conversation with Watson, that a few months later he would commit one of the most notorious murders in California history. Do you follow me? The point I was trying to make by suggesting that you look in the archives, is that those archives are not available for inspection. I was hoping that you would ask yourself why. LD> But that's not something you, or the other hate mongers, and that's what you are (& you seem to revel in it), are going to believe. I have always been very civil to you, yet almost everyone of your communications have contained a personal attack. I have never done this to you, and I don't appreciate your doing it to me. Now, regarding your friend--you tell me that someone who never lied to you, who knew CWL personally, had a conversation with you that you cannot repeat. Yet this person convinced you of CWL's innocence. Now you are putting me down because I don't accept the "evidence" that you cannot tell me because it was givien in confidence. Yet you feel that I should accept this "evidence" that you cannot tell me over the documentation that I have seen. Come on Liesel, give me a break! LD> Just for instance, you make such a big to do about that CWL told the boys to keep something secret. All CWL's pupils. male & female, were & are bound to secrecy for much of what he taught them. So that's not the horrible thing you make it out to be. It was just a general rule. Mrs. Dennis and Mrs. Knothe, the mothers of the two boys disagree with you. CWL had a moral obligation to inform the parents of his intentions to say or do anything to these children that might be taken as morally questionable, and to get the parent's permission before doing so. Even today, school teachers may not discuss sexual issues with their under-age students without the parents knowledge and written consent. This issue goes beyond the righness or wrongness of the information that a teacher may offer. It has to do with the right and duty of the parents to protect their own children. "Touching" the children is even more serious. Those under-age children who were under CWL's charge, ended up very angry and guilt-ridden, according to the parents. By swearing them to secrecy, CWL put those children into a moral bind. That bind resulted in deep feelings of shame and guilt. Under today's laws, this is called "exploitation," and people have been put into prison for it. I will ask you a third time--would you allow your own children to be put into this kind of a bind? LD> If you have a lot of other activities going on, so do I. How about if you stop putting derogatory remarks about CWL on the internet, & letting a bunch of us feel happier that this junk is done & over with. Again, I don't think you'd be crude enough to say derogatory things about the Virgin Mary to a devout Christian, or maybe I'm just thinking you wouldn't, because I wouldn't do such a thing. Anyway, CWL is our Virgin Mary, and the remarks you & your friends make are crude. As I have already said, I have been trying to drop the subject because, so far few have been willing to sustain an intelligent dialogue. Some who have tried, Like Paul, have been attacked for raising the issue. On the other hand, I have an obligation to answer postings made by others on this issue-- including yours. Maybe an intelligent discussion on this subject will yet arise. If the Virgin Mary had exploited Children, I might have had something to say about that too. Keith Price, KP> To Leisel and Jerry - If Theodora and I can be civil, anything is possible. What goes around comes around. If you project your shadow, you will get it back. If you project your higher self, you might get that back. Are you suggesting that I have been less than civil to Liesel? If so, please tell me where you have observed this. KP> This may help or make matters worse, but here goes. I am told by an "insider" that Dora Kunz's husband was one of the boys (ages 12-14) learning from CWL. He has stated that CWL did say that masturbation was a tool to help one toward celibacy. But he was never, never touched by CWL now does he know of any of the other boys who were. I don't think this will change one person's mind on the issue. I personally knew Fritz Kunz. Yes, Fritz was among the Chicago children, but he was not involved in the scandal. He probably never was "touched" by CWL. These issues only involved a small minority of all of the children under his charge. No body ever said that Fritz was touched anyway (certainly not me). Further, Fritz was always very reticent to discuss the CWL scandal with anybody. You might notice, however that his interests was in theosophy and science, and his focus was on Blavatsky, not Leadbeater. This was very evident in his classes, and if you go through the issues of his magazine ~Main Currents~. Fritz in his adult life always remained on the periphery of this Leadbeater circle as much as he could--that is, under the circumstances--considering his wife. KP> But it might be worth following up on if he is still alive or if any of the other boys are. I don't know what happened to the Dennis boy. Of course the parents published a few issues of ~The Theosophical Voice~ where they tried to expose the cover up and present their side of the story, but this journal is now extremely rare. I have a friend who met the Knothe boy in late adulthood. My friend tells me that the Knothe boy was still deeply bitter over the incident. Of course, it is now very unlikely that anyone is still alive. KP> Joyclyn Elders (I don't know how to spell her name) was kicked out of Washington... The parents were not so upset that CWL might have "advised" their children concerning masturbation--though this was also an issue. The masturbation story was a half truth given to the membership in 1908. CWL also slept and bathed with the boys. He also "touched" them, as he acknowledged at the inquiry. The same activities seem to have repeated themselves seven years later when he resettled in Australia. Since Liesel wants quotes, the following is a summary of Oscar Kollestrom's testimony taken from the police report on the Manor incident: "One boy explains that Leadbeater encouraged him first to bath and then to lie down on his [Leadbeater's] bed in his bathing wrapper on an afternoon preceding a TS meeting at night. He was to rest in order to be fresh for the meeting. Leadbeater lay on the bed with a book in his left hand, and the boy lay on the other side. Without any words Leadbeater with his right hand caught hold of the boy's person and proceeded to masturbate him. This boy had not arrived at the age of puberty. He explains that he had a feeling that it was not right and slipped off the bed. He avoided giving any further opportunity of the same kind, though there were other rest afternoons. No date could be fixed by the boy, but it seems probably the incident happened during the first few months of Leadbeater's residence in Sydney 1914-1915." KP> Tell me about your first time does not refer to the above, but to the first time you read "The Secret Doctrine" and your first mystical experience. I"ll tell you mine if you'll tell me yours. I was sixteen years old the first time I tried to read `The Secret Doctrine.~ I didn't get much out of it at first (except maybe a headache). It took a lot of study and hard work for me. I won't call my experiences "mystical", yet I can't put any words to the feelings of expansion and the insights I experienced as my understanding of the book grew. KP> When where you first really disappointed by the T.S. or fellow theosophists? (maybe you haven't been) Oh lucky incarnation! In the Summer of 1963 at the Wheaton Convention. It was held in a tent on the grounds. The National President, Henry Smith was being pushed out of office at that convention. I didn't know Henry personally but I was sickened by the vicious gossip, cat calls from the audience and power politics that went on to get him out. I wrote a letter to my fellow Lodge members that I felt ashamed to be associated with the Organization. KP> Well, I almost gave up trying to fathom the unfathomably, which is still unfathomable, but at least I know it is,. when Bing Escudero came to lectrue. He presented the whole system in chart form and this dunce (me) finally began to glimpse the grand scheme. I have a high regard for Bing, but have many points of disagreement with him concerning his interpretation of the ~SD~. KP> We all rallyed around him. Well as you know he ran for President a while back and there has never been a sadder spectacle for me as regards theosophy. Bing himself was no saint. He refused to print a platform in the AT. What he did print were really snide, petty attacks at the current regime, nothing spirtiual at all. Everyone was so excited! They knew he had the votes. But my powers of clairvoyance (or mabe just world weary savvy) where never stronger. Rules were suddenly created to make throwing away "incorrectly filled out ballots" (those with Bing's name and a little more) possible. A outside consultant could have been called in to count the votes, but this might have resulted in Bing's election (which is unthinkable, "he might bankrupt us" etc.). Unless you have evidence, I don't think it is fair for you to suggest that the Election was fixed. Of course, the close election and the changing of the by-laws that resulted in barring Bing from running again are a manner of record. Roxanne, Elizabeth Claire Prophet comes from the I Am tradition, that was big in the 1930's, and founded by Guy and Elizabeth Ballard. Prophet's Masters are supposed to be the same as HPB's, but even a superficial reading shows that they have nothing, save their names, in common. Summit University was in the Santa Monica Mountains, but they were pushed out of there. Today they are on an acreage near Yellowstone National Park. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 18:44:30 -0500 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: CWL again! Jerry: Please keep the issues you raise in front of theos-l folk. The important issue, as you say, is the deceit and selective editing of material that has taken place over the years. One wonders how many "cover-ups" we *do not* now about there are. As a student of Christian History as well as church liturgies, and a one-time supporter of CWL's Liberal Catholic Church (which, IMO is neither liberal, nor catholic) I share with all known scholars in these areas the view that his _Science of the Scaraments_ is no more than one man's peculiarly psychic point of view - using the word peculiar in all its senses. There is absolutely *no* evidence anywhere in the history of the entire Christian church that supports the fantasies contained in this book, but like you, i have come across people who would defend it to the death *simply because it was written by CWL.* This is not good enough, and if we *truly* believe that there is no religion higher than truth, then we should be prepared to examine serious claims based on original research which will help us towards the realization of this lofty goal. As you rightly suggest, the editing of texts for more up to date editions is usually accompanied by information stating why and how the text has been re-presented in its edited form. Even some of the most odd organizations do this. (But rarely the TS). I have a book by the British Israelite movement called _St. Paul in Britain_ by the Rev. R.W.Morgan [See also my "Bishops Irregular"] in which they state the omission of his opening chapter as not being of importance to the main body of the work, and therfore omitted. This is actually (IMO) true, but having later obtained a copy of the original containing the omitted material, I discovered that Morgan was without doubt seriously lacking in scholarly skills, and that his opening material and its conclusions were seriously flawed - which of course then places the value of the remainder of the text in a less favorable light, even though it is still of some value as valid speculation. The same may be said of much of Ledbeater's work. I regard him on the whole as something of a loveable old fraud. Much of what he wrote merely re-hashed standard theosophical "dogma" - a contradition there I think - and was not original work in any case. As you and I both know, all such suggestions (as I call them) or allegations (as some call them) or slanders against a saint (as some would have us believe) are capable of investigation, and susceptible of verification or otherwise. I find it very sad indeed that anyone who claims to support TS ideals should reject the search for the truth of any matter, especially if the reason is clearly that they *want* to believe things which can be determined at best to be no more than theory (Einstein's Relativity is still only a theory, not an absolute truth) and at worst to be plain falsehood. The following has always been, and will remain [as long as I remain] my advice to my own students: "This is the teaching as I have received it. Don't believe a damn word of it. *Check it out!*" Someone care to explain why this should not be done? You would do it with a used car, wouldn't you? -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk [Mailbox shared with various worthy causes - IMHO] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 21:05:44 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: CWL - two sides Quoting Alan Bain but addressing all: > (Jerry) Please keep the issues you raise in front of theos-l > folk. the important issue, as you say, is the deceit and > selective editing of material that has taken place over the > years. One wonders how many "cover-ups" we *do not* now about > there are. Yes, we must try to face issues like this, painful as it might be for some at times. The 1900 Letter comes to mind. Not a major issue, but it *was* edited in an "interesting" way for public consumption. It was discussed on this list about 3 months ago. > I share with all known scholars in these areas the view that his > _Science of the Scaraments_ is no more than one man's peculiarly > psychic point of view - using the word peculiar in all its > senses. Whenever I encounter phrases like "is no more than", "is nothing but", "it's just a" etc, my reductionism detectors start giving warning signals. > There is absolutely *no* evidence anywhere in the history of the > entire Christian church that supports the fantasies contained in > this book Is the history of the Christian church the best place to look? Re "fantasies" - granted this is your opinion, but how do you support it? Geoffrey Hodson investigated the origins of Christianity and the super- physical effects of some church rituals. Some of this work is reported in his little book "Clairvoyant Investigations into the Origins of Christianity" or a similar title. Without having the book to hand, I recall that some features of the inner "scene" were in common with CWL's, and some were different. By the way, Hodson has showed in other clairvoyant work that he was no CWL clone. > this book, but like you, i have come across people who would > defend it to the death *simply because it was written by CWL.* I'm not one of them. I'm not defending it's detailed contents, either. I do support superphysical investigation into ritual, amongst other areas of life, and wish there more of it. Let's accept CWL's work as one point on the graph, and add others as they come. > if we *truly* believe that there is no religion higher than > truth, then we should be prepared to examine serious claims based > on original research which will help us towards the realization > of this lofty goal. I totally agree. > As you rightly suggest, the editing of texts for more up to date > editions is usually accompanied by information stating why and > how the text has been re-presented in its edited form. Even some > of the most odd organizations do this. (But rarely the TS). The TS is shooting itself in the foot, by doing this, especially when it is trying to gain academic support, let alone "attract the highest minds". > The same may be said of much of Ledbeater's work. I regard him > on the whole as something of a loveable old fraud. I'm glad you've used the word "loveable". Let's accept the best of what he has to offer and accept that people can make mistakes. Whether - and why - CWL did these things we'll know better when we can read the akashic record. The inner light of every one of us short of adeptship is filtered through a turbulent, limited personality on its way to the world. > Much of what he wrote merely re-hashed standard theosophical > "dogma" - a contradition there I think - and was not original > work in any case. Re "merely", see remarks on reductionism above. I see an important place for writing and re-writing the ancient wisdom to keep up with language developments, and cater for people with different approaches. > "This is the teaching as I have received it. Don't believe a > damn word of it. *Check it out!*" Always! Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 23:13:30 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: CWL - two sides In response to Murray Stentiford: While I agree that phrases such as "no more than" and "is nothing but" can be construed as pejorative, they are used in my posting as comment which I would also apply to the posting itself, which is "no more than" my opinion, and "nothing but" my point of view - which, as I mentioned, is also shared by others. Leadbeater's psychism *was* peculiarly his own, as was that of Hodson, and as is also my own. It is a very individual thing. My objection to CWL in this particular book is that he presents his own subjectivity as being valid for the entire Christian church! > Is the history of the Christian church the best place to look? > Re "fantasies" - granted this is your opinion, but how do you > support it? Believe me [or not] that Xtian Church writings throughought history have come up with "psychic" material and "results" which make the efforts of even novice theosophists look like experts! As it is the Xtian church about which CWL wrote in the book mentioned, it is the obvious source for a comparison. I doubt you will find anything comparable to CWL's visions among its literature, canonical or otherwise. Among the Syriac/Aramaic literature of the early centuries there is some truly _fantastic_ material - in the popular sense of the term! Makes CWL and others look quite turgid . . . I use the word fantasies in the dictionary context of "imagining [or imaging] in a visionary manner" and not the usual colloquial and unfairly derogatory sense. I would place Jungian archetypes in the same category. I do not intend to devalue - I would maintian vigourously that when CWL states that he psychically "saw" something, then that is what he saw. The interpretation of the vision is another matter, whoever has it. So, I do accept CWL's work as a point on the graph, remembering that it is the nature of graphs to rise and fall . . . >> he wrote merely re-hashed standard theosophical "dogma" ... Delete "merely" if it seems reductionist! In a sense, we can overdo the CWL aspect of all this. He is being used in this context - as I see it - as an example of how things can get out of hand, with people becoming "followers" instead of "discoverers" (see second and third objects of the TS). Selective editing of any historical work with a view to making it conform to a current "party line" or "politically correct" presentation should have no place in theosophical studies. There may well be a need to restate the ancient wisdom in modern language, and I applaud those who try to do this. I can even see a case for paraphrasing the work of a previous author (such as CWL) if this will help today's students, so long as it is described as what it is. I am myself currently working (on and off) on an interpretive rendering of Ptolemy's _Tetrabiblos_ (Astrology) of which the English version (Ashmand, 1822) is itself a translation of a Greek paraphrase, and according to some, not the best available! But the contents are valuable, and need preserving, IMHO. AB. -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk [Mailbox shared with various worthy causes - IMHO] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 04:38:08 -0500 From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: Occult Reich and OCLC William Allen: Smart move to check OCLC for the source of the video programs! But why not go a step further and check how many libraries own these videos and books? In doing this I found that the book (2 editions thereof) is owned by a large number of libraries, both public and academic (as well as quite a few seminary libraries!), in many states. The video set is owned by the University of Hawaii Library, Virginia Intermont College Library, Aurora Public Library (Colorado), University of Delaware Library, Genesee District Library (Michigan), College of St Mary Library (Nebraska), Dickinson College Library (PA), and Lehigh University Library (PA). A few libraries own some of the individual parts. Some of these libraries MAY make videos available on Interlibrary Loan-- check with your local friendly librarian on this. And, for anyone else who uses OCLC-- the Olcott Library is now a member of OCLC and you will begin to see our holdings attached to OCLC records, as we are creating our computerized databasefor our future online catalog. Elisabeth Trumpler Head Librarian Olcott Library & Research Center Theosophical Society in America Wheaton, IL 60189 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 07:27:27 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: Re: Occult Reich and OCLC > Smart move to check OCLC for the source of the video programs! > But why not go a step further and check how many libraries own > these videos and Elisabeth, Thanks very much. The OCLC version that I have access to via my office computer does not list library holdings (are they afraid I will place orders myself?) so I could not determine locations of items. Thanks again for your help. William From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 16:11:12 -0500 From: bill@Zeus.itdc.edu Subject: Re: Oh Garsh, Theodora! And golly shucks too! Hi all, Keith Price writes and asks: > Have any of the married (or whatever) people on the board > considered or had an abortion (I hope there is a way to send > messages anonymously)? How did it effect you spiritually? My wife has had two abortions -- one forced upon her by her father before I knew her and one of her own decision with a boy- friend before me. My wife also miscarried once after we were married. My wife isn't spiritually inclined at all -- much less theo- sophically inclined (she calls it my "guru shit"). She has rare- ly made mention of these events in her life and I haven't noticed any difference in her emotionally or mentally in the before/after times that I new her during the last two events. Although the last two events occurred way before I ever had a spiritual or theosophical thought, I haven't given much thought to the "possibilities" of what would have happened if the last two events had gone the "other" way. On a related note, I have a friend who claims to have been in communication with two of her unborn children shortly after con- ception -- both of which, for unknown reasons, she wasn't able to carry to term. Describing the communication and the "deaths" is a very emotional experience for this friend and brings her to tears. She, obviously, doesn't believe in abortion. Since this friend has had other spiritual experiences, I have asked her to find some way to go "in" and ask for the information I seek about when the spirit becomes attached to the physical. She has yet to do this for me probably because her belief- or knowing-system al- ready has an answer for her. She has not completely changed my belief system yet. Anyway, someone asked. I thought I'd respond. Always grok in fullness ... |William A. (Bill) Parrette|4000 Executive Pk. Dr., #310 |bill@[Zeus.]itdc.edu |Cincinnati, OH 45241-4007 513-733-4747 ---------------------- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 19:14:12 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Re: "Re: CWL-two sides" A comment or two concerning the Alan Bain/Murray Stentiford discussion: Thank you both for taking up and discussing this topic. CWL and psychism in general needs to be looked at with a far more objective lens than is normally used. I'm glad to see that CWL's clairvoyance is being discussed as well as the editing policies of Theosophical literature. I'm a little disappointed, however, that there is no comment on CWL's moral obligations to the parents--perhaps my observation was too obvious to merit comment. Yet it is curious that it never seems to be raised. AB> Leadbeater's psychism *was* peculiarly his own, as was that of Hodson, and as is also my own. It is a very individual thing. My objection to CWL in this particular book is that he presents his own subjectivity as being valid for the entire Christian church! This brings to mind a conversation I had with Dr. Bendit many years ago. His wife was considered one of the three living clairvoyants in the TS (i.e. Dora Kunz, Geoffrey Hodson, Phoebe Bendit). I was questioning him about his evaluation of the accuracy of clairvoyance in general and of his late wife's observations. He replied, first reminding me that he had fifty years experience of living with a clairvoyant. Bendit said that one always has to keep in mind that the most difficult problem clairvoyants have is knowing when their observations leave off and their imagination begins. I asked him about his evaluation of CWL. Bendit felt that CWL's psychism was very flawed for the same reason--he could not distinguish between his observations and his imagination. Sometime in the mid sixties, E.L. Gardner published a pamphlet "There is no Higher Religion than Truth." Gardner, who was once a major proponent of CWL, offered the opinion that CWL's clairvoyance was a product of kriyasakti. In other words, he was seeing images created from his own imagination. Gardner took a 180 degree turn in this pamphlet, and moved away from CWL. Too bad they let this pamphlet go out of print, yet keep reprinting his early writings--which he had rejected. AB> ...as I see it - as an example of how things can get out of hand, with people becoming "followers" instead of "discoverers" (see second and third objects of the TS). Amen AB> Selective editing of any historical work with a view to making it conform to a current "party line" or "politically correct" presentation should have no place in theosophical studies. There may well be a need to restate the ancient wisdom in modern language, and I applaud those who try to do this. I can even see a case for paraphrasing the work of a previous author (such as CWL) Yes, I agree. We have no business editing an author's work after he is dead. We cannot know what editing decisions an author would have made, or what the author might have added. Once an author is gone, the editing and or re-arranging of the text without informing the reader of exactly what the editor is doing and why, is in MHO dishonest, deceitful, and unfair to both the memory of the author and to the reader. On the other hand, if someone wants to write a paraphrase of, for instance, CWL's as "a paraphrase of C.W. Leadbeater's ~The Christian Creed~". Authors should be allowed to stand or fall on their own merits, and it is a matter of fairness that readers be given the opportunity to judge the merits of the author based upon what was written--not upon what the editor wants the reader to see (and doesn't want the reader to see). Another argument concerns the modernization of the language of the old theosophical classics. I understand, for instance, that there is a project going on to "modernize" HPB's ~The Key to Theosophy~ whatever that means. It is true that HPB lived in the Victorian age, and her word choice reflected the times. For instance she used the word "chinamen"--a perfectly proper word in 1890, but a pejorative today. Have readers become so uneducated that they can no longer understand something written only a hundred years ago? IMHO, if a reader is unwilling to make the mental effort to adjust to the period of the writing, then perhaps that reader is too d**n mentally lazy to understand theosophical teachings in the first place. On the other hand, new books on Theosophy in our current languages are very desirable, and something that we should be writing in every decade. So, let's write those modern books and let them stand or fall on the merits of their own authors. But please, let's leave the old books unaltered so that they can also undergo the test of time. If these old theosophical classics are truly great, then they will be around in 500 years. If not--then let them rest in peace. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 19:30:33 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: No Dichotomy Right on Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 21:10:32 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: "Re: CWL-two sides" Thanks to Jerry for his thoughtful follow up on our CWL discussion. For myself, I do not have enough info at this time concerning the details of CWL and "The Children" so cannot add to your comment re his moral obligation to the parents, except that of course there should be one, and if there was not . . . Re Bendit: Yes he did have a psychic wife! Sadly, her own work seems to have been entirely subsumed to his once they were married [women readers may have comments on this tendency in general?]. One of my earliest joys in the theos field was the discovery of a book by the then Phoebe Payne called (I may misremember) "The Psychic Sense". Nothing of Bendit's or even Payne & Bendit's later work seems to come anywhere near the freshness and open quality of this work (IMHO - we have to keep using this D*** acronym just to avoid the flames!). Regarding the writing of modern material, I have been revising some of my own earlier work to this end. My main discipline, as others may have noticed (!) is Kabbalah, which is theosophy in a non-HPB box, but theosophy none the less. As time goes by, I will get some of it uploaded wherever seems best. BTW - apols to John Mead: I replied to a mail item re archives only to discover that a second mailing from him answered the matter raised. Sorry, John, but once I press the letter A in this PCElm mailer, nothing can stop it!! -- guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk [Mailbox shared with various worthy causes - IMHO] Everything I write is MHO - Okay? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 21:12:33 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: No Dichotomy WHeeeeeeeeeee! -- guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk [Mailbox shared with various worthy causes - IMHO] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 22:38:02 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: MYSTERY IS SOLVED?! I o.d.'ed a long time ago. I also tried to stop it, almost the minute the squabble started. I just don't believe in the relelvance of 90 year old hot issues. But I also don't like to get trampled all over my beliefs. Dear Doreen, I'm sorry if this whole thing offends you, & others. For quite a while, I tried to defend my side. It doesn't even do any good. I have one more post to make for the archives in a couple of days. After that I'm going to ignore whatever anyone has to say on the subject in question. Maybe they'll stop saying things. As far as I'm concerned that's the way it should be. We're facing important issues in 1995, and CWL's sex life (which was actually non-existent) has no bearing on them. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 22:53:04 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Tell me about your first ... A few comments back: I agree with everything Jocelyn Elders advocated. The insight-in-a-flash you got from the snake swallowing its tail, I got one day when I was thinking about how it could be that I had the potential of communicating with the whole manifest universe, which is what I'd just been told. I recalled how the SD pictures our being created starting with the at first nebulous stuff floating around the universe, and being formed more & more by the things that were there evolving with us, & which we helped form as well. (We were always part of the ecology.) From those sources around us, I thought, we now have mineral, vegetable & animal components in our bodies. So various components in us have the same vibes as other materials of the universe. So there's resonance between us & the rest of the stuff in the universe. So we're physically connected to everything in creation. (I didn't get to any higher planes). I am of the opinion that Bing Escudero got the shaft. And I didn't think Dorothy was a very effective President. As a matter of fact, I demitted to Canada in protest for the duration of her presidency. But by now that's water down the dam for me. I've been taught not to dwell in the past, but to act in the present, and that's what I try to stick to. John Algeo is our President now. I've always liked John. I think he's a fine human being in many ways. I also like the signs I read & hear about ... new ventures being started in Wheaton. I think John is creative, & I think he's heading us in the right direction. I'm hoping that he'll give Bing some sort of recognition. But as of the moment I really think John makes a better President than Bing would have made. I've changed my mind about Bing as President. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 23:21:59 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Lazy Daze in the West Appropos paraphrasing, modernizing & condensing theosophical texts, HPB writes: He [the Western student] demands and expects that his "Path" shall be engineered with all the selfish craft of modern comfort, macadamized, laid out with swift railways and telegraphs, and even telescopes, through which he may, while sitting at his ease, survey the works of other people; and while criticising them, lookout for the easiest, in order to play at the Occultist and Amateur Student of Theosophy. The real "Path" to esoteric knowledge is very different. Its entrance is overgrown with the brambles of neglect, the travesties of truth during long ages block the way, and it is obscured by the proud contempt of self-sufficiency and with every verity distorted out of all focus. To push over the threshold alone, demands an incessant, often unrequited labor of years, and once on the other side of the entrance, the weary pilgrim has to toil up on foot, for the narrow way leads to forbidding mountain heights, unmeasured and unknown, save to those who have reached the cloud-capped summit before. Thus must he mount, step by step, having to conquer every inch of ground before him by his own exertions; moving onward, guided by strange landmarks the nature of which he can ascertain only by deciphering the weather-beaten, half-defaced inscriptions as he treads along, for woe to him, if, instead of studying them, he sits by coolly pronouncing them "indecipherable." The "Doctrine of the Eye" is *maya*; that of the "Heart" alone, can make of him an elect. Is it to be wondered that so few reach the goal, that so many are called, but so few are chosen? Is not the reason for this explained in three lines on page 27 of ~The Voice of the Silence~? These say that while "The first repeat in pride: `Behold, *I know*', the last, they who in humbleness have garnered, low confess, `thus have I heard'"; and hence, become the only "chosen." Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 23:38:03 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Old Books, and Healing the TS Jerry H-E wrote: > So, let's write those modern books and let them stand or > fall on the merits of their own authors. But please, let's leave > the old books unaltered so that they can also undergo the test of > time. If these old theosophical classics are truly great, then > they will be around in 500 years. If not--then let them rest in > peace. I like that thought, yet there's an issue to do with the "old" books that I haven't heard mentioned in the TS yet. I suspect that what younger people find off-putting about the old books is not just the language. I actually find much of HPB's language more accessible and modern than that of some of her successors. No, it is the unexpressed values, bogies, taboos, hot buttons, joke points etc etc that are part of the collective subconscious realm, varying slowly with the passage of time, and differing more widely across different cultures. Not only do these hot topics vary with time, but I think that our generation is more self-aware in general than people of over 100 years ago, and we can sense in-built negativity better, and have outgrown some of it. This applies particularly to sex and religion - both of them areas where there has been a strong tendency to repression and self-flagellation in the Western world, and both of which have been on THEOS-L a lot recently! People today therefore react sometimes with caution or even aversion, to having recently or partially-outgrown negatives brought into their field of consciousness, even if only by implication or distant association. This is probably a factor in why some of the organisations younger than the TS appeal more widely than the TS; they are relatively free of some of the unstated negativity. People call this being "up-to-date" without necessarily being aware of why it is so. Which brings me to another point, an even more subjective personal opinion than the last. I think the TS, in a sense, has been scarred at birth, because of the intense opposition that forced it into defensive modes in its early days, as well as the collective negativity I described above. A defensiveness that to this day darkens its collective aura, and cramps its intellectual scope. Look at the amount of space HPB devoted to refuting the science of her day, in the SD etc. She had to, of course, to gain the foothold, but there is a price to being a pioneer. So, we could give a thought or two to the collective healing of the TS, and be prepared to shake off any bits and pieces of murky stuff whenever we detect them hanging on to the collective energy field. Just as long as we don't shake each other off!! With love. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 23:53:50 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Xtian Psychism and Aramaic treasures Responding to Alan Bain I'm glad you clarified the thoughts originally expressed in your post headed "RE: CWL again!". There are a couple of things in it I'd like to ask you about:- > Believe me [or not] that Xtian Church writings throughought > history have come up with "psychic" material and "results" which > make the efforts of even novice theosophists look like experts! Do you mean that the level of understanding and interpretation of the material was poor? Or do you refer to exaggerated claims of what would be very ordinary experiences? I imagine both would be the case. > Among the Syriac/Aramaic literature of the early centuries there > is some truly _fantastic_ material - in the popular sense of the > term! Makes CWL and others look quite turgid . . . I'd love to hear more about it. Can you give us a few references or brief examples? Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 23:54:32 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Psychic Research, Trust and Sex Responding to Jerry H-E regarding his "RE: "Re: CWL-two sides"" post:- > Thank you both for taking up and discussing this topic. CWL and > psychism in general needs to be looked at with a far more > objective lens than is normally used. I'd agree we have to strive to be objective here and elsewhere, yet to do it without sacrificing the heart side. There's a mighty challenge here. Concepts of brain and mind are becoming wider and more spiritualised, in some quarters, due to the explosion of brain research. I recently attended a workshop by Charles Werner of Honolulu where he expounded a holistic and holographic view of the neo-cortex, recognising subtle connections between the vast network of neurons and the rest of the universe, and how that manifested in our consciousness. And the scientific aspect is only one facet of the situation. The archetypes and norms of a historical period must have a profound effect on psychic perceptions as well as the way they are described. For instance, in CWL's younger days, the Western world had a very mechanistic view of the universe - rashly conceived and brashly expressed, we now see in retrospect. A Jungian approach would have a great deal to offer, here, plus an examination of social aspects of the development of language and thought. Then the theosophical aspect, if you could call it that, could cover how experiences or information from subtler levels, are condensed or crystallised into the more concrete and more limited forms of a lower plane, then perhaps to repeat the process. There could be a wonderful marriage of clairvoyant research and physical brain research here, correlating them to unravel some of the processes of information and energy flow in consciousness. Imagine a really good clairvoyant or two in the same room as a PET or other brain scanner, with heaps of time, and heaps of imagination! You'd need a multi-disciplinary team, working together in harmony. Yes, a sort of nucleus of the b****hood of humanity !!!! And heck, I've only covered a few aspects of all this! Growing a young science is tricky when the very means of perception in the field of interest are themselves so rare and difficult to control, and so intimately connected to the objects of observation. Real pioneering stuff! So I come around to a plea to be objective in criticising CWL as well as in supporting him. Let's also discuss the issues in themselves without necessarily referring them to one person. Somebody has already said that. > I'm a little disappointed, however, that there is no comment on > CWL's moral obligations to the parents--perhaps my observation > was too obvious to merit comment. Yet it is curious that it > never seems to be raised. My feeling about this is that trust is a highly important facet of relationship in manifesting our connectedness which, in turn, is an expression of the underlying unity. It does not take a clairvoyant to sense the state of trust of a relationship. It probably _is_ "visible" to some clairvoyant senses, but that is another issue. I believe that a non-parental person who undertakes to teach/mind/guard children has a degree of responsibility towards the parent(s), as well as to a lesser degree to the state, ie the greater network of humanity. There is inevitably an element of trust by the parents in the other person, and if all goes well, that trust is not violated. Secrets are a dicey issue, in this context. We expect adults to be able to keep a secret, as in the days of the mystery schools when secret-keeping was a critical test and preparation of the neophyte. There conceivably could be circumstances in which you would validly ask children to keep secrets from their parents, as a sort of training, but when the secret is something that the parents would consider to breach their trust, then I think damage begins to be done to all the relationships involved. Emotional blackmail is an extreme form of this, seen only too often in abusive adult/child relationships - "don't tell your mother or I will kill you" ... whatever. Even without blackmail, I think that unnecessary tension and fragmentation of the child's allegiances can result. Whether CWL got into the blackmail area, I cannot say. It would be difficult to reconcile with the other characteristics of the man, but then, would he have that on his own? People can be self-blinded where strong desire exists, whilst wonderfully perceptive in other areas. The whole psychic aspect of sexuality needs to be considered, too, but not here and now. I have in mind the pathways that universal creative energy may be considered to flow through the several planes or principles of a person, and how those pathways can be formed or deformed in childhood, to the anguish of the person who may feel trapped in a pattern of feeling and behaviour that they and the rest of society may detest. Dionne Fortune's book "Esoteric Aspects of Love, Sex and Marriage" presents this sort of idea in a very illuminating way. This IS a painful area to contemplate and I've seen close at hand how people can or can not believe that somebody they know and love has done something they would consider impossible for that person to do. As a consequence, I try to steer clear of judging or accusing CWL because, even with the documentation that we have, we can only get a very partial view of the relationships and motives all round. Murray Stentiford murray@sss.co.nz From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 01:34:18 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Synthesis of science, religion, phil. and ART "Without music, life would be a mistake." - FWN The Spectrum of Spirit in Art An esoteric view of art Toward a brief restatement of the synthesis of science, philosophy, religion and ART. What is art really? To answer this question we will define art art, not just as product including: painting, music, sculpture, and literature, but as PROCESS. All creative acts including science, religion and philosophy and art point to diversity, but if looked at more closely point to an underlying unity. This unity, HPB called the "Secret Doctrine" or the synthesis of science, philosophy, and religion. We will attempt to show that art should be included in this synthesis. This is my general thesis which I have developed and hope to discuss in further posts if people are interested. Some problems I have had is the lack of much discussion (not use certainly) of art in primary theosophical works of HPB and others. Using the index to the complete works, I found these references to art by HPB ( I don't have the volume and page before me, but these and only these are in the index). Art is referred to as: 1) Ritual - The black arts of the Atlanteans etc.. 2) The decadent art of the day which lacked the spiritualy heights of the Greeks and the divine geometry etc. of the ancients. 3) The reference that life like art should not be more beautiful, but more divine. I am not talking about the endless talk about symbols, glyphs, signs, diagrams, pictograms, ideograms, Senzar as circles and dots etc., I'm talking about our everyday primary idea of art and the fine arts, the popular arts and the perfoming arts. Nicholas: You alway seem to come up with a quote by HPB on practically everything. Given the constraints of not symbols, glyphs, signs, etc. but art in the ususally sense (plus the idea of creative process), prove me wrong, PLEASE. I would seriously like to know her thoughts. To Daniel of visual semiotics: What is visual semiotics? I have a guess that it has something to do with interpreting or analysing signs (semiotics means the study of signs?). It's largely a discipline developed by the French ??? I am familiar with the attempt to form a semiotics of film. I don't know if people still deal with this much. What can you add to the discussion of art and theosophy??? If you think this is a topic of no importance, add up the amount of time and money you spend in one year on recorded music, movies, TV manhours, opera, symphony, ballet tickets, endless exposure to advertising and the popular arts (think of all those televisions in the shoe stores in the malls). Even for the most introverted hermit-type ascetic, the figure would be staggering. And think of the spiritual impact art has. Even bad or "evil" (pornographic) type materials have major spiritual impact (in the negative direction in such a case as pornography IMHO). Has anyone's life not been changed (transformed, in the sense of the transformation so many of us desire and only talk about) by a special poem, novel, piece of music, painting etc) even more so than by reading a logical explanation. The universe may be a work of art (a very special type of illusion, an ordered not chaotic illusion) and we are co-creators throughout all seven planes through interpretation and transformation (through Lila, the divine dance). The spectrum of art can be mapped on the seven planes from physical form, astral/emotional, kamas-manas, higher manas, buddhic/intuitional and ultimate/unitive. Religion "creates" the illusion of a creator god: called Jehovah, Allah, Zoraster, Jupiter etc.. Philosophy creates the illusion of a structure of meaning (so many schools and ism's each and every one which disagrees with one another in some way, but point to each other in the quest for an "answer"). Science creates a method for testing and verifying hypotheses (very special illusions) and constantly discards and updates them becauce they are only illusions (the best we can do today to understand the natural world), it never proves anything. Art in the largest sense is the concious process of linking consciousnesses through form in time and mimics all creation from the micro, to meso to macrocosm and contains them all. Also is anyone really familiar with Nicholas and Helena Roerich (unsure of spelling). Helena seems to get the fame for her Agni Yoga, but I am more interested in if Nicholas and if he saw his paintings as "theosophical" and if so did he say so? Also someone was interested in Mondrian. I am starting to research those artists which may have conciously and publically been trying to introduce theosophy in their work. I hear names like Kandinsky, Scriabin, maybe others? What do you know? What about the artitists in the early theosophical utopian communities like Hollywood Krotona, Point Loma etc? I know very little of this history. Any ideas? Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 09:41:00 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Occult Reich Gee, folks, I could have looked this up without leaving my desk-- but just didn't think of it. In future, if an OCLC search would help resolve a theos-l question, and I don't offer to do one, please pull my chain and I'll gladly search. Thanks, William, for your investigation. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 12:19:13 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: The Occult History of the Third Reich Sometime ago I posted information on a video I have which is as follows: I have a video entitled "The SS: Blood and Soil" which is part of a series of videos on "The Occult History of the Third Reich." Two or three years ago I heard that this was shown on some San Francisco tv station and I tracked it down. The video on "The SS..." is copyrighted 1991 and is available from Video Treasures, Inc., 2001 Glenn Parkway, Batavia, Ohio 45103. The video mentions HP Blavatsky, shows her picture and mentions her occult teachings and (I believe) tries to say that she influenced and had an influence on the Third Reich or on some of the leaders of the SS. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 17:35:23 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Lazy Daze in the West In message <199501240406.AA07775@lafn.org> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > Appropos paraphrasing, modernizing & condensing theosophical > texts, HPB writes: > > He [the Western student] demands and expects that his "Path" > shall be engineered with all the selfish craft of modern comfort, > macadamized, laid out with swift railways and telegraphs, and > even telescopes, through which he may, while sitting at his ease, > survey the works of other people; and while criticising them, > lookout for the easiest, in order to play at the Occultist and > Amateur Student of Theosophy. The real "Path" to esoteric > knowledge is very different. Its entrance is overgrown with the > brambles of neglect, the travesties of truth during long ages > block the way, and it is obscured by the proud contempt of > self-sufficiency and with every verity distorted out of all > focus. To push over the threshold alone, demands an incessant, > often unrequited labor of years, and once on the other side of > the entrance, the weary pilgrim has to toil up on foot, for the > narrow way leads to forbidding mountain heights, unmeasured and > unknown, save to those who have reached the cloud-capped summit > before. Thus must he mount, step by step, having to conquer > every inch of ground before him by his own exertions; moving > onward, guided by strange landmarks the nature of which he can > ascertain only by deciphering the weather-beaten, half-defaced > inscriptions as he treads along, for woe to him, if, instead of > studying them, he sits by coolly pronouncing them > "indecipherable." The "Doctrine of the Eye" is *maya*; that of > the "Heart" alone, can make of him an elect. Is it to be > wondered that so few reach the goal, that so many are called, but > so few are chosen? Is not the reason for this explained in three > lines on page 27 of ~The Voice of the Silence~? These say that > while "The first repeat in pride: `Behold, *I know*', the last, > they who in humbleness have garnered, low confess, `thus have I > heard'"; and hence, become the only "chosen." > > Nicholas Sorry folks if I repeat the entire quote again, but I think it's worth it. My own quest began nearly 40 years ago, and I can vouch that it has been pretty much as described by HPB - and remains so. The above however is simply one quote out of many, for we know from elsewhere that HPB want to bring theosophy *out of the oblivion* in which it existed in her day. And so do some of us, well over 100 years later. I would also observe in this [here and now] context than many pilgrims are "She" see my posting, "I'm alright, Jill ..... ?" AB -- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 17:49:40 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Xtian Psychism and Aramaic treasures In message <01HM8ECPJ80I8WVZ5B@SSSAK1.SSS.CO.NZ> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > Responding to Alan Bain > > > Believe me [or not] that Xtian Church writings throughought > > history have come up with "psychic" material and "results" which > > make the efforts of even novice theosophists look like experts! > > Do you mean that the level of understanding and interpretation of > the material was poor? Or do you refer to exaggerated claims of > what would be very ordinary experiences? I imagine both would be > the case. That's right - both would be the case, and are. > > > Among the Syriac/Aramaic literature of the early centuries there > > is some truly _fantastic_ material - in the popular sense of the > > term! Makes CWL and others look quite turgid . . . > > I'd love to hear more about it. Can you give us a few references > or brief examples? > Murray Stentiford Wow! How about Saint Pontius Pilate? Based upon a story related in a Syriac Ms "The Martyrdom of Pilate" and "Lament of the Virgin" [Woodbrooke Studies, Cambridge, W.Heffer & Sons Limited, 1928. Ed. A. Mingana, introductions by Rendell Harris. Hard to find, though]. There is a lot of material in "The Apocryphal New Testament" tr. M.R.James (pub. Oxford, probably in print) and "The Apocryphal Old Testament" ed. Sparks (also pub. Oxford, and usually in print). The latter contains some "seven heaven" journeys which make theosophy's version(s) look like simple tales for tiny tots. Here followeth a quote from the "Acts of Thomas" in James [op. cit.]: .. And he took me unto another pit, and I stooped and looked and saw mire and worms welling up, and souls wallowing there, and a great gnashing of teeth was heard from them. And that man said to me: These are the souls of women which forsook their husbands and committed adultery with others . . . Another pit he showed me ... I ... saw souls hanging, some by the tongue, some by the hair ... Some karma, eh? It goes on for pages. Many early churches accepted this material, and Pilate is still a saint in the Coptic Church I believe, and is mentioned as such [I am told] in some Greek Orthodox calendars. Did you know there is an Aramaic New Testament which differs considerably from the Greek _received text_? Two important differences are the cry from the cross: "My God, My God, for this I was kept!" (This was my destiny) and "It is easier for a *rope* to go through the eye of a needle." See Lamsa, The Eastern Text of the NT, pub. Harper & Row. (USA). AB -- guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 17:52:47 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Psychic Research, Trust and Sex Murray has pointed out in this connection that judging CWL is - shal we say - unwise. I think the issue here is not a question of judging anyone particularly, and CWL will have gone to his own karma [we might say] in this respect. What is important is the reliability of historical fact, and the right to question the motivatin of *those living* who seek to supress or hide it. CWL was, I am sure, like the rst of us, someone who had his strengths and weaknesses, as Murray points out, and some of his strengths have surely benefited us all. I agree [is such a positive statement allowed?] that we need to keep all these matters in proportion - and in context. AB. guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 18:23:09 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: replies to AB and MS Alan Bain, AB> Regarding the writing of modern material, I have been revising some of my own earlier work to this end. My main discipline, as others may have noticed (!) is Kabbalah, which is theosophy in a non-HPB box, but theosophy none the less. As time goes by, I will get some of it uploaded wherever seems best. Sounds interesting, and I look forward to reading it. Of course you are aware that HPB had her finger in the Kabbalah too, and her collected comments on the subject would fill a volume. Also it turns out that Gershom Scholem was a friend of GRS Mead (HPB's secretary from 1887-91), and attended the Quest Society meetings. It is hard to get away from theosophical influence, even in Kabbalah. Murray Stentiford, MS> I like that thought, yet there's an issue to do with the "old" books that I haven't heard mentioned in the TS yet. I suspect that what younger people find off-putting about the old books is not just the language. You are on to something here, and the key is "younger people." Younger people (and some older ones too) seem to have little sense of historical perspective, and it negatively affects their ability to understand what they are reading. Historical allusions, expressions alluding to other value systems all go over their head. Last year I had a group of twenty year old freshman students reading a story about a young black woman living in the 60's who wanted to join the civil rights movement. When I found myself explaining what the NAACP is, it became obvious that these kids didn't have a clue about what they just read. It is precisely because of that lack of sophistication, that I feel that it is important to write those theosophical books at least every ten years in order to keep the language current. MS> I actually find much of HPB's language more accessible and modern than that of some of her successors. No, it is the unexpressed values, bogies, taboos, hot buttons, joke points etc etc that are part of the collective subconscious realm, varying slowly with the passage of time, and differing more widely across different cultures. I'm glad that you find HPB accessible, but most people find her too difficult to read. The language is only part of it. I've been teaching theosophy for over twenty years, and I've noticed that HPB's allusions to philosophers, religious figures and scientists is overwhelming to the new reader. HPB wrote for the person with a classical education. Except in a few private schools, that kind of education is no longer done. Today we don't read Cicero in the University literature department, but postmodern theory which is an interesting mix of Nietzsche and Marx. MS> I actually find much of HPB's language more accessible and modern than that of some of her successors. No, it is the unexpressed values, bogies, taboos, hot buttons, joke points etc etc that are part of the collective subconscious realm, varying slowly with the passage of time, and differing more widely across different cultures. Yes. So let's keep writing new books. MS> Not only do these hot topics vary with time, but I think that our generation is more self-aware in general than people of over 100 years ago, and we can sense in-built negativity better, and have outgrown some of it. This applies particularly to sex and religion - both of them areas where there has been a strong tendency to repression and self-flagellation in the Western world, and both of which have been on THEOS-L a lot recently! To use a Jungian paradigm, IMHO this is the TS's shadow side. That is why it is so sensitive. MS> People today therefore react sometimes with caution or even aversion, to having recently or partially-outgrown negatives brought into their field of consciousness, even if only by implication or distant association. This is probably a factor in why some of the organizations younger than the TS appeal more widely than the TS; they are relatively free of some of the unstated negativity. People call this being "up-to-date" without necessarily being aware of why it is so. The more modern organizations are carefully marketed to appeal to certain audiences. Certain ideas that bring positive emotional response are brought out, while negative ideas are eliminated. The TS was founded under a completely different mentality, and originally appealed to seekers, not followers. But that quickly changed after HPB died. MS> Which brings me to another point, an even more subjective personal opinion than the last. I think the TS, in a sense, has been scarred at birth, because of the intense opposition that forced it into defensive modes in its early days, as well as the collective negativity I described above. A defensiveness that to this day darkens its collective aura, and cramps its intellectual scope. Look at the amount of space HPB devoted to refuting the science of her day, in the SD etc. She had to, of course, to gain the foothold, but there is a price to being a pioneer. This is a very interesting point. I think we can identify three distinct varieties of "intense opposition": The first was HPB verses 19th century science; the Spiritualists; the Christian Churches. HPB took the heat of this onto herself, and I think the theosophical literature was enriched by these polarities. The second is HPB verses her detractors. I'm thinking of those people who turned against HPB and tried to create a Theosophy of their own. Most notable are A.P. Sinnett and T. Subba Row. Post HPB Theosophy syncretised these divergent ideas into a larger self contradictory system. The lack of awareness of most students of this syncretism creates confusion and animosity between the "Back to Blavatsky" and the "neo-Theosophy" advocates. The third variety of "intense opposition" concerns the Organizations and their manipulating information, so that members polarize according to their loyalties and/or their feelings. This infighting is bringing about the slow self destruction of the Theosophical Organizations through infighting and power struggles. Witness the expulsion of the Yugoslavian section, the Danish Section and the Canadian Section. The bases of these struggles most directly concern power, but more indirectly they are just further chapters of earlier struggles that concerns history that has been misrepresented to the membership, so that most of them will never understand what is going on--though many will take passionate stands on what they think they know. The Leadbeater scandal and the Escudero issue both fall under this third variety. MS> So, we could give a thought or two to the collective healing of the TS, and be prepared to shake off any bits and pieces of murky stuff whenever we detect them hanging on to the collective energy field. I agree. But to heal, we must expose the wound. To expose the wound, one must first convince the patient that the wound exists and where it is located. As you have observed from the Leadbeater discussion, it is an uphill battle. MS> I'd agree we have to strive to be objective here and elsewhere, yet to do it without sacrificing the heart side. There's a mighty challenge here. Amen MS> So I come around to a plea to be objective in criticising CWL as well as in supporting him. Let's also discuss the issues in themselves without necessarily referring them to one person. Somebody has already said that. MS> Emotional blackmail is an extreme form of this, seen only too often in abusive adult/child relationships - "don't tell your mother or I will kill you" ... whatever. Even without blackmail, I think that unnecessary tension and fragmentation of the child's allegiances can result. MS> Whether CWL got into the blackmail area, I cannot say. It would be difficult to reconcile with the other characteristics of the man, but then, would he have that on his own? People can be self-blinded where strong desire exists, whilst wonderfully perceptive in other areas. The Issue here is that CWL (at least) gave sex consultation to twelve and thirteen year old children, even in one case putting that consultation into a coded note. CWL did not inform the parents of his intentions to "instruct" (or even "advise") these children in this area, and the children were made to swear secrecy concerning it. Without even getting into the issue of whether or not he also "touched" the children, he had already violated two moral obligations. First, he interfered in an area that was the responsibility of the parents, and they did not abdicate that responsibility to CWL. Second, by swearing the children to secrecy, he created conflict of trust between the children, CWL and the parents. I wouldn't call it "blackmail" because that suggests that a threat was made such as the one that you suggested: E.g. "don't tell your mother or I will kill you". He was never accused of that. But the children were put into a state of emotional conflict, fear, guilt and shame just the same. The scenario seems to be more like this: The parent's message to the children was that CWL is a great spiritual teacher in whose wisdom we have faith. CWL's activities were clearly in violation of the children's sense of right and wrong, yet they took an oath not to consult their parents--thus they were put into a moral conflict. Before CWL became involved in the TS, he was a cleric in the Low Anglican Church. The care and "teaching" of the children was one of his duties there also. CWL's defense that his activities with the children and his philosophy concerning masturbation was accepted in the Anglican Church left his audience stunned. But it suggests that CWL was just carrying on something that he had been doing for years before coming into the TS. When one does something wrong long enough, perhaps after a while, one begins to believe it is right. MS> The whole psychic aspect of sexuality needs to be considered, too, but not here and now. I have in mind the pathways that universal creative energy may be considered to flow through the several planes or principles of a person, and how those pathways can be formed or deformed in childhood, to the anguish of the person who may feel trapped in a pattern of feeling and behavior that they and the rest of society may detest. Yes this would be an interesting topic, but let us not confuse CWL's moral violations with theoretical occultism. It is not a question of the validity or invalidity of CWL's "advice" or actions, but the appropriateness of his teaching or of doing these things to twelve and thirteen years old children without parental permission, and binding the children to secrecy. MS> This IS a painful area to contemplate and I've seen close at hand how people can or can not believe that somebody they know and love has done something they would consider impossible for that person to do. How painfully true. And that is why the motto of the TS no longer has meaning for it. MS> As a consequence, I try to steer clear of judging or accusing CWL because, even with the documentation that we have, we can only get a very partial view of the relationships and motives all round. The documentation is clear that his actions were morally questionable, and illegal. I can't imagine any motives that would justify his actions, but I'm open to suggestions. Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 19:22:48 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Old Books, and Healing the TS According to Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net: > Which brings me to another point, an even more subjective > personal opinion than the last. I think the TS, in a sense, has > been scarred at birth, because of the intense opposition that > forced it into defensive modes in its early days, as well as the > collective negativity I described above. A defensiveness that to > this day darkens its collective aura, and cramps its intellectual > scope. Look at the amount of space HPB devoted to A look at the 11/17 natal chart of the TS shows this to be indeed the case. As mentioned earlier, Mars/Saturn in the 8th opposing Uranus in the 2nd is all about authorities or institutions (collective values generally) stifling or attacking individual initiative and paradigm-shifting. First the outside world treated HPB this way. Later, the negativity having been imprinted onto the TS, this opposition manifested mostly internally. One example is the theories that were concocted to avoid listening to Krishnamurti (e.g. personality got in the way, BOTS took over.) But all down the line, "no good deed goes unpunished" with this configuration. > So, we could give a thought or two to the collective healing of > the TS, and be prepared to shake off any bits and pieces of murky > stuff whenever we detect them hanging on to the collective energy > field. Hmm. Collective healing is a laudable goal, and I'm eager to learn what others think are skillful means to attain it. But somehow I think that the murky stuff is a bit more integral to the energy field than just bits and pieces that we can shake off. I recommend (without a clue as to how to go about it) a Jungian approach, recognizing that there is an unacknowledged shadow side that needs to be integrated. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 19:24:08 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Laws of Accident and Fate There is a concept found in the teachings of Gurdjieff that I often find myself returning to in thought. It may shed some light on contemporary responses to CWL, Krishnamurti, and other past controversies. Gurdjieff distinguishes between the Law of Accident and the Law of Fate. If one falls under the former law, his/her experiences are "random" and devoid of personal significance. But if one falls under the Law of Fate, his/her experiences are necessary, educative, and filled with individual significance. One can determine which law one falls under by a conscious decision to be ruled by the Law of Fate. This entails accepting each experience as fated, trying to learn as much as possible from it, and taking a general orientation to life as a teacher rather than an indifferent and random series of events. One "chooses" to fall under the Law of Accident by assuming that life is governed by an indifferent and random Chance, and behaving on the basis of this assumption, which makes it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, one's attitude actually attracts experiences that confirm one's expectations. Locus of control is a crucial issue in this. Now, what does this suggest about the current Theosophical attitudes toward history? If we regard what happened with Krishnamurti as having been under the Law of Accident, we are not oriented to taking responsibility. If we choose to fall under the Law of Fate, this means that we have to assume that the K. snafu happened to the TS not randomly, but because he was exactly what we needed as a learning experience. But what has been learned? I can't see any consensus about that, which suggests that we aren't learning much from our own history. Some things, like censoring books without acknowledging it, or evading all discussion of TS history's controversies, seem almost designed to keep us under the Law of Accident. He who does not know (and understand) history is doomed to repeat it. On the other hand, there is a rising tide of scholarship in esoteric history which will provide us all with abundant food for thought in the coming years, and which may enable us as FTS to reinterpret our own history so as to yield the wisdom which is so plentifully concealed in its apparent accidents. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 11:01:09 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: replies to AB and MS Jerry: I read with interest your long and useful comments on my and [mostly] Murray's postings. Indeed, HPB was well aware of Kabbalah, and makes reference to it with some frequency in the SD. In another posting, I make reference to the cry of Jesus from the cross in the Aramaic version of the NT. HPB had this one addressed as well, without, it seems, knowledge of the Aramaic text. Via a hebrew scholar [she names him, but I don't have the ref. to hand] she figured out that "Why hast thou forsaken me could *not* be a correct rendering of the transliterated Hebrew to Greek saying in the NT. In consequence it is rendered in the SD as "... how thou dost glorify me." On the chart of the TS and its continuing "power problems" I have recently had to report to some members of a new study group that their own Lodge will not allow them to meet on its premises, and I quote: ". . . we find ourselves in the absurd situation of being an avowedly theosophical group which has been rejected by the committee of a Lodge of the TS in England to which nine of our founder members actually belong." Not much changes :-( guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 14:35:06 -0500 From: Eldon Tucker Subject: On Our Written Literature Daniel Caldwell: Your comments on the importance of not altering the basic texts brings up important issues which I'd like to discuss. On Our Written Literature -- Eldon Tucker There are conflicting goals between a theosophical historian and someone using the literature as a form of spiritual training. From the historical viewpoint, the dead-letter accuracy of the text is paramount, even at the expense of readability or intelligibility. From the other standpoint, clarity and ease of communication is the most important; this is so that the media does not get in the way of the spiritual process that can be engaged. The original appearance of writings, down to the most minute of detail, is not sacred. There are many stages for errors to creep in, as we go from the manuscript to typewritten, then to typeset text. The ultimate source document for a book is the original hand- written manuscript. We could choose not to trust the typewritten nor typeset versions, and say that a true study of, say, The Secret Doctrine, would have to be done against a reproduction of that handwriting, were it possible. A similar extreme standpoint would be to take the typography of the classic books, and say that the page layouts themselves are holders of esoteric truths. There are actually people that would do numerology on the page, line, and word of a passage in the layout of the original The Secret Doctrine. As students of Theosophy, we don't have to be macho, to do our studies the hard way, and suffer along with the historians. What can we do to help keep our literature readable, where the words and appearance don't detract from the studies? First, we can do spelling corrections and standardize the spelling of Sanskrit and foreign terms, adding necessary accents. We should replace obsolete words, judiciously, when those terms hold no particular esoteric meaning, but are simply no longer in use. Consider the following terms: adumbration vague foreshadowing appanage endowment comestibles food milliard billion palsied affected with uncontrollable trembling profligates wastrels propinquity kinship, nearness, proximity sempiternal everlasting, eternal Terms like these would be candidates for modernization. A final change would be in terms of typography, where the quoted passages would be more obviously set apart from the rest of the body text. Reading some books, it's difficult to tell when we're in a quote or not, at times. For the printed page, the quotes could be set apart with type of a different size, or by indentation; for a computerized book the quotes could be in a different color. What do we gain by these changes? It is easier to read the materials. It helps with searching on text and indexing. More of the reader's attention can be upon the actual contents, rather than upon details of spelling, obsolete terms, keeping track of quotations, etc. The approach mentioned is different that some people mean by "modernizing" the literature. It does not mean to replace Sanskrit and technical terms with ordinary words, but rather to refine and increase the dependence upon them. It proposes that we *reduce* the cultural-specific idiom, the timely stuff that goes stale. The attempt should be to avoid changes to placate and appease the 'politically correct' or other popular political agendas, including rewriting materials to remove gender-specific terms. A historian might make the "slippery slope" argument against changing theosophical works. The argument that not a single word should be altered is too simplistic. We do not, by taking a single step away from verbatim and facsimile reproduction of a work, move onto a slippery slope, upon which we'll slide, without control, into complete and unqualified destruction of the original books! It is not a black-and-white situation, with two choices facing us. Rather, we have another area where judgement comes into play. Like the subject of ethics, there are many shades of grey, areas that require intelligence and discrimination rather than blind obedience to externally-imposed rules. Where do we draw the line? Close to the original works, but not rigidly so. When we let go of the black-and-white viewpoint, and admit to shades of grey, we mustn't fear that we'll lose control! Consider what happens when a book is translated into a foreign language. Every word in the book is changed; the potential differences are massive. What I've proposed is next-to-nothing by comparison. Can we say that the changes that I'd suggest are "too much" while at the same time say that the process of translating a book into, say, Spanish, is a reasonable way to facilitate the ability of the reader to understand the materials? A more extreme example of reworking materials can be found in the writings of Purucker, as changed by Theosophical University Press. Consider "The Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy." All the references in the book to the fact that it was a series of esoteric classes, and mention of "the Beloved Teacher, Katherine Tingley," were purged. These changes take away some of the feeling that the book establishes, when read, and clearly are content changes, rather than changes to enhance readability of otherwise unaltered content. Jerry Schueler mentioned that he did not always agree with Purucker, and thought that Purucker's writings needed some revisions. I'd agree in part, and also disagree. My agreement concerns works like "The Dialogues of G. de Purucker", which were never intended by Purucker for publication in their question and answer format, and should have been redone. As they stand, they are subject to misunderstanding. My disagreement comes where changes are made because later editors may feel they know better than the original author what he should have said. In the final analysis, the highest purpose of books is not to preserve the literal, dead-letter expression of what the author said, in terms of its outer form. The highest purpose is to communicate the ideas the author was expressing, in the clearest manner possible. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 15:45:54 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Pornography is spiritual Continuing on the spectrum of spirit in art and its synthesis in the ancient wisdom along with religion, sicence and philosophy, we might make the following assertions: 1) All art is creative intelligence manifesting itself in time in form. 2) All art is spiritual 3) All art presupposes consciousness relating to consciousness (or itself). Art relates or uncovers that which is occult, hidden, unknowable - the consciousness of another or one'self. 4) All art is transformative on a least one level: physical, emotional, social, conceptual, intuitive or unitive. 5) The goal of art depends on the artist, the highest art transforms on the highest level and the lowest art transforms on the lowest level. This principle aplies to any level in between or any combination of levels. 6) The universe itself is a work of art as process with a plan and a purpose and is in a long process of "artfull" progress through conscious (skillful and yes, slyly clever) evolution. 7) Man is a work of art in microcosm form reflecting the macrocosm. I may be preaching to the choir, as it were. I feel these idea are probably not shocking to theosophists becauses we are used to thinking of the universe as primarily spiritual from top to bottom. Matter being only bound or frozen spirit. And spirit or may be converted to matter and vice versa as in E=MC2. But I think there implications are largely ignored by society in general as in the issue of pornography. It is my opinion that pornography is very spiritual in a negative direction. I think it lowers the consciousness of both those that make and those that view it. The position of the ACLU is that pornogrpahy is another job option for women and should be protected so that these women and men get proper legal protection in regards to health insurance, equal opportunity, fair labor practices etc. Some come down very hard on the idea of freedom of speech. In America we are free to say read and view anything as long as it doesn't harm someone physically or involve abusing a child, but it seems that more and more the choice is toward the lowest common denominator witness the proliferation of tawdry talk shows and the dearth of intelligent discussion of the budget, crime, role of government in our private and business lives etc. Well, I am all for free speech. But I am also for the awareness that the type of art we are exposed to directly or indirectly (as in copious advertising) transforms our consciousness if only for a short time. Some are strong and have adequate defense mechanisms for pornography and violence on TV and in the movies. A steady diet of pornography and violence would certainly transform one. It has many. Hopefully a higher art will prevail among more than the elite. Here's looking at you kid. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 19:11:37 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Pornography is spiritual Keith, I don't think it is wise to buy in to the equation of pornography with violence, which plays into the hands of the feminist-fundamentalist censors. Yes, our popular culture is saturated with both sex and violence. TV and movies do make the disastrous eroticization of violence that has been shown to have negative consequences. But while there is abundant evidence of the harmful effects of exposure to violence in media, there is no such evidence regarding pornography per se. And even before the porn industry began self-censorship regarding violence, as a medium it was dramatically less violent than regular TV and movies. Now there is absolutely no violence in the mainstream porn industry's product. As for degradation of the viewer from a spiritual p.o.v., I think Natural Born Killers or Pulp Fiction do exactly that while pretending to educate and amuse via satire. In current esthetic discourse, "good" art vs. "bad" is defined only in terms of formal considerations. It'll be a long time before a moral dimension is much acknowledged. I was, however, pleased to hear Pauline Kael say that NBK was a loathsome film because Stone wallows and exults in violence while pretending to distance himself from it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 20:24:00 -0500 From: HASLTISL@aol.com Subject: Re: Pornography is spiritual Keith writes: > 1) All art is creative intelligence manifesting itself in time in > form. > > 2) All art is spiritual > > 3) All art presupposes consciousness relating to consciousness > (or itself). Art relates or uncovers that which is occult, > hidden, unknowable - the consciousness of another or one'self. > > 4) All art is transformative on a least one level: physical, > emotional, social, conceptual, intuitive or unitive. > > 5) The goal of art depends on the artist, the highest art > transforms on the highest level and the lowest art transforms on > the lowest level. This principle aplies to any level in between > or any combination of levels. > > 6) The universe itself is a work of art as process with a plan > and a purpose and is in a long process of "artfull" progress > through conscious (skillful and yes, slyly clever) evolution. > > 7) Man is a work of art in microcosm form reflecting the > macrocosm. * A term that can mean anything means nothing. A better approach is to try defining great art. And what is the difference between merely good art and truly great art. I suspect great art is objectively, vibrationally evident regardless of a person's taste or point of view. Mozart is objectively great, as is Monet, Shakespeare, and Michelangelo. To think otherwise, I suspect, is to not be open to the high vibratory rate of those works. Mark Alexander From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 21:23:10 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Pornography is spiritual In message <950125203155_74024.3352_BHT51-1@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > > A steady diet of pornography and violence would certainly > transform one. It has many. > Hopefully a higher art will prevail among more than the elite. > Here's looking at you kid. > Namaste > Keith Price Here's looking at you kidding. IMO. Elite? Who they? guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 21:24:40 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: On Our Written Literature I wonder how out of date a work has to be in its own language to need "translation." Chaucer wrote English, but has to be translated for us to understand him today. In a similar way HPB and other 19th century authors, while not in need of translation, may be in need of interpretation in a number of areas. Indeed, this is what various commentaries are about. But problems! Translation involves interpretation, and interpretation is affected by the subjectivity of the interpreter. Example: 'Spirit' is feminine in Aramaic/Hebrew, neuter [I think] in Greek, and masculine in Latin. Anthing which originates in [say] the Aramaic/Hebrew scriptural texts and passes through Greek or Latin along the way to English (as most of it has) can thus [in the example] undergo a sex change along the way. Jesus would have called and thought of the Holy Spirit as "She." All serious work requires study, and all serious study requires work. HPB did her best, so far as I am aware, to define her terms, and so, alas must we. If not, we may end up talking at cross-purposes when we actually agree with each other. AB guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 21:54:07 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Re: Laws of Accident and Fate Paul Johnson writes: > Gurdjieff distinguishes between the Law of Accident and the Law > of Fate. If one falls under the former law, his/her experiences > are "random" and devoid of personal significance. But if one > falls under the Law of Fate, his/her experiences are necessary, > educative, and filled with individual significance. One can > determine which law one falls under by a conscious decision to be > ruled by the Law of Fate. Yes, but I would add that the two Laws are really on a continuum, with a range of degrees of purposeful causality in between. At the Accident end of the scale, the causes are certainly there, but they are relatively trivial and local, for example a car accident caused by a molecular weakness in a tire wall AND no other karma behind to express itself through the incident. At the Fate end of the scale, the cause has had considerable, purposeful energy poured into it, so that the educative value, if recognised, relates to the originating cause(s). A bursting tire can express a powerful karmic necessity, generated lifetimes ago. Your post adds the further idea that the way you decide to view your circumstances deeply changes their ability to be educative etc, but I see this being true of both Accidental and Fateful events. You can extract lessons even from accidents, if you will but look for them. I believe that everything has an effect in due and proper relationship to the amount and quality of energy put into it. Hence the existence of the continuum. > what we needed as a learning experience. But what has been > learned? I can't see any consensus about that, which suggests > that we aren't learning much from our own history. I don't think this follows. Different people could extract _different_ lessons intensely and well, from the same circumstances. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 22:20:00 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Re: Healing the TS Responding to Paul Johnson's > > [MS] I think the TS, in a sense, has been scarred at birth, > > because of the intense opposition that forced it into defensive > > modes in its early days, as well as the collective negativity I > > described above. A defensiveness that to this day darkens its > > collective aura, and cramps its intellectual scope. > > A look at the 11/17 natal chart of the TS shows this to be > indeed the case. I wonder what the charts for the earlier two minuted meetings of the TS- to-be would show? Maybe they would shed light on the TS' character too. Have you looked at this already, Paul? There's a question here of just when the TS was "born". > Collective healing [of the TS] is a laudable goal, and I'm eager to > learn what others think are skillful means to attain it. But > somehow I think that the murky stuff is a bit more integral to > the energy field than just bits and pieces that we can shake > off. I recommend (without a clue as to how to go about it) a > Jungian approach, recognizing that there is an unacknowledged > shadow side that needs to be integrated. Yes, I feel that a Jungian approach would be a useful guide. Some ideas for healing that come to mind are 1 Just be aware of the need, whenever one comes across it as an individual, and consciously put constructive, horizon-broadening love-related energy into it. 2 Make an effort to be more aware of how other related groups work, and what their underlying attitudes are. I meet a considerable number of TS members who know very little of other like-minded organisations. We can learn a lot from others, and we can gain a clearer idea of the real value of our own offering, through the comparison. The mechanics of exchange need some care, (to avoid take-overs or lesser abuses) but there are enough organisationally "safe" ways to pick up this knowledge. 3 Invocative healing methods, either by the individual or by a group. As most of us will be aware, there are a lot of variations on this sort of process, so we can choose something that suits our temperament, if that's a kind of work that appeals. For a group, you need some people fairly well in sympathy with the work and in tune with each other, but it can be done, as I have experienced. 4 Reasoned analysis and investigation, and spreading of results. Knowledge of the past, dare I repeat it, in the right-sized doses, can help a lot. This corresponds to the healing that can occur in a person when buried trauma is brought to the light of day. It has to be with discrimination, because injury and turmoil are sometimes best left unstirred. Of course, these things can be done for any social grouping, as well as for individuals. It just doesn't seem to occur to us to do it for the TS. Any other ideas? Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 23:45:07 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: TO Paul, Mark, Alan and all on porn vs. art I would like to know first of all how you do this quoting line by line thing. Do you print out the messages and retype them line by line or do you have two dialouge boxes or a photographic memory? I will reply in spirit if not in letter as I do not have a photographc memory. Mark and Allan should get together and talk! Mark says all art should be on a higher vibration, but how many people are on this "higher vibration". Very few. Do you think the masses would choose Mozart or Madonna (or George Strait, for that matter)? The proof is in the cash register. Mark seems to suggest we all become purer, higher more noble. Yes, Alan I think only a small minority or nucleus of mankind choose to take a higher path. Most of us mess around in the middle gound, including myself). And many, far too, man wallow in the mud, if this sounds elitist (oh heinous crime!, so be it). If this sounds politiclly incorrect, I say thank God. Politically correct is another term for Orwellian NEWSPEAK. Remember how the hero sit around at a TV screen all day revising history. Developing euphimisms for government atrocities. And giving new meaning to old words. 1984 is 1995. When I saw that the number one fiction book on the NY Times bestseller list is "Politically Correct Fairytales" my blood pressure shot through the roof. This is what is behind this rewriting of the theosophical literature as well. A desire to rewite history to make ourselve comfortable today with absolutely no regard to (whatever word I would use would be a hot button). Dare I say reality in the sense of what the authors really said, not what we want them to say today. Yes there are references to Orientals as remenants of Lemurians and Blacks as remenants of Atlanteans, but if they said it, they said it and what they are liable to say in the "Secret Doctrine", it tain't necessarily so! To K. Paul: Yes you are right on the point that at this time we can no longer dare say it is good or bad based on moral judgements. That is politically incorrect, the way it is impossible for a Black to be racist (I worked in a Black majoirty school and it was Black History week every week and the constant message was Black's are superior victims and white man "he devil", you had to be there folks!) Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 03:32:56 -0500 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: comments to AB Alan Bain, Thank you for your thoughts on literature. It seems that we are on the same wave length. AB>I wonder how out of date a work has to be in its own language to need "translation." Chaucer wrote English, but has to be translated for us to understand him today. Actually, by the time you get through the prologue, using a glossary, even Chaucerian English becomes pretty readable. The language isn't so different as it appears on the surface. The biggest difference is the wild spelling and the change in the vowel sounds. But I admit, it is a lot more work than most people are willing to go through. Of course, one needs to have a good feel for the times in order to catch the cultural allusions. Now, ~Beowulf~--that's a different story! You have to learn a language for that. AB>In a similar way HPB and other 19th century authors, while not in need of translation, may be in need of interpretation in a number of areas. Indeed, this is what various commentaries are about. AB> But problems! Translation involves interpretation, and interpretation is affected by the subjectivity of the interpreter. Amen. Perhaps, the best solution for works from another era, is to add annotations in footnotes to explain the allusions. That way there is a clear difference between the original text and the annotation. As for translations--you made your point quite well. AB>All serious work requires study, and all serious study requires work. HPB did her best, so far as I am aware, to define her terms, and so, alas must we. If not, we may end up talking at cross-purposes when we actually agree with each other. Right on! Jerry Hejka-Ekins From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 04:02:36 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Young people and children - to JHE Jerry Hejka-Ekins, Thanks for your extended response headed "replies to AB and MS", dated 24 Jan 1995. I'd like at this stage to be face-to-face or at least one-to-one with you to explore some of the issues we've raised here further, so my comments here will be fairly brief. > > MS: I suspect that what younger people find off-putting about the > > old books is not just the language. > > Younger people (and some older ones too) seem to have > little sense of historical perspective, and it negatively affects > their ability to understand what they are reading. .... > It is precisely because of that lack of sophistication, > that I feel that it is important to write those theosophical > books at least every ten years in order to keep the language > current. I'd agree. All we need are more writers who are available, willing and capable. I'd like to see the means of communicating theosophy and its values extended more often, for instance to drama. I've done a little in this area and found that simple short readers' theatre pieces, for example, can make for a night of fun as well as of instruction, for a wider range of ages than the average theosophical lecture. The pieces can be interspersed with discussion. It makes for a nice alternation of modality and group dynamics that keeps interest at a very high level. > To use a Jungian paradigm, IMHO this is the TS's shadow side. > That is why it is so sensitive. An important issue, nearly always overlooked. > The TS was founded under a completely different mentality, and > originally appealed to seekers, not followers. Good point. I still see a good number of seekers, though. Perhaps more today than in the past, if the growing number of highly gifted and seriously-enquiring young people is anything to go by. > The lack of awareness of most students of this syncretism creates > confusion and animosity between the "Back to Blavatsky" and the > "neo-Theosophy" advocates. Yes, I think so too. A case where better knowledge would help healing. > > MS: So, we could give a thought or two to the collective healing > > the TS > > I agree. But to heal, we must expose the wound. To expose > the wound, one must first convince the patient that the wound > exists and where it is located. As you have observed from the > Leadbeater discussion, it is an uphill battle. Indeed. Sometimes, obviously, the wound is extremely painful - ie threatening to a world view or a deeply-felt loyalty. We need to have more than one way to open wounds, perhaps, and use the one best suited to the case. Re CWL:- > -- thus they [the children] were put into a moral conflict. That is clearly so, at least in these cases. I keep wondering about CWL's motives, and feel that they were high-minded as in other areas of his life, but that he was somehow oblivious to the detrimental effects of what he did in these instances. I don't know. > > MS: The whole psychic aspect of sexuality needs to be considered, > > too, but not here and now. I have in mind the pathways that > > universal creative energy may be considered to flow through the > > several planes or principles of a person, and how those pathways > > can be formed or deformed in childhood > > Yes this would be an interesting topic, but let us not confuse > CWL's moral violations with theoretical occultism. I offered this thought as the beginnings of a way to understand, on the basis that understanding is an important element in healing - especially as the TS offers very little to help in understanding our sexuality. > > MS: ... I've seen close at hand how people can or can not > > believe that somebody they know and love has done something they > > would consider impossible for that person to do. > > How painfully true. And that is why the motto of the TS no > longer has meaning for it. I'm not that pessimistic, actually. The threat is there, but I see signs of hope! Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 04:02:36 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Young people and children - to JHE Jerry Hejka-Ekins, Thanks for your extended response headed "replies to AB and MS", dated 24 Jan 1995. I'd like at this stage to be face-to-face or at least one-to-one with you to explore some of the issues we've raised here further, so my comments here will be fairly brief. > > MS: I suspect that what younger people find off-putting about the > > old books is not just the language. > > Younger people (and some older ones too) seem to have little > sense of historical perspective, and it negatively affects their > ability to understand what they are reading. .... > > It is precisely because of that lack of sophistication, that I > feel that it is important to write those theosophical books at > least every ten years in order to keep the language current. I'd agree. All we need are more writers who are available, willing and capable. I'd like to see the means of communicating theosophy and its values extended more often, for instance to drama. I've done a little in this area and found that simple short readers' theatre pieces, for example, can make for a night of fun as well as of instruction, for a wider range of ages than the average theosophical lecture. The pieces can be interspersed with discussion. It makes for a nice alternation of modality and group dynamics that keeps interest at a very high level. > To use a Jungian paradigm, IMHO this is the TS's shadow > side. That is why it is so sensitive. An important issue, nearly always overlooked. > The TS was founded under a completely different > mentality, and originally appealed to seekers, not followers. Good point. I still see a good number of seekers, though. Perhaps more today than in the past, if the growing number of highly gifted and seriously-enquiring young people is anything to go by. > The lack of awareness of most > students of this syncretism creates confusion and animosity > between the "Back to Blavatsky" and the "neo-Theosophy" > advocates. Yes, I think so too. A case where better knowledge would help healing. >> MS: So, we could give a thought or two to the collective healing >> the TS > > I agree. But to heal, we must expose the wound. To expose > the wound, one must first convince the patient that the wound > exists and where it is located. As you have observed from the > Leadbeater discussion, it is an uphill battle. Indeed. Sometimes, obviously, the wound is extremely painful - ie threatening to a world view or a deeply-felt loyalty. We need to have more than one way to open wounds, perhaps, and use the one best suited to the case. Re CWL:- > -- thus they [the children] were put into a moral conflict. That is clearly so, at least in these cases. I keep wondering about CWL's motives, and feel that they were high-minded as in other areas of his life, but that he was somehow oblivious to the detrimental effects of what he did in these instances. I don't know. > > MS: The whole psychic aspect of sexuality needs to be considered, > > too, but not here and now. I have in mind the pathways that > > universal creative energy may be considered to flow through the > > several planes or principles of a person, and how those pathways > > can be formed or deformed in childhood > > Yes this would be an interesting topic, but let us not > confuse CWL's moral violations with theoretical occultism. I offered this thought as the beginnings of a way to understand, on the basis that understanding is an important element in healing - especially as the TS offers very little to help in understanding our sexuality. > > MS: ... I've seen close at hand how people can or can not > > believe that somebody they know and love has done something they > > would consider impossible for that person to do. > > How painfully true. And that is why the motto of the TS no > longer has meaning for it. I'm not that pessimistic, actually. The threat is there, but I see signs of hope! Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 04:02:36 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Young people and children - to JHE Jerry Hejka-Ekins, Thanks for your extended response headed "replies to AB and MS", dated 24 Jan 1995. I'd like at this stage to be face-to-face or at least one-to-one with you to explore some of the issues we've raised here further, so my comments here will be fairly brief. > > MS: I suspect that what younger people find off-putting about the > > old books is not just the language. > > Younger people (and some older ones too) seem to have > little sense of historical perspective, and it negatively affects > their ability to understand what they are reading. .... > It is precisely because of that lack of sophistication, > that I feel that it is important to write those theosophical > books at least every ten years in order to keep the language > current. I'd agree. All we need are more writers who are available, willing and capable. I'd like to see the means of communicating theosophy and its values extended more often, for instance to drama. I've done a little in this area and found that simple short readers' theatre pieces, for example, can make for a night of fun as well as of instruction, for a wider range of ages than the average theosophical lecture. The pieces can be interspersed with discussion. It makes for a nice alternation of modality and group dynamics that keeps interest at a very high level. > To use a Jungian paradigm, IMHO this is the TS's shadow > side. That is why it is so sensitive. An important issue, nearly always overlooked. > The TS was founded under a completely different > mentality, and originally appealed to seekers, not followers. Good point. I still see a good number of seekers, though. Perhaps more today than in the past, if the growing number of highly gifted and seriously-enquiring young people is anything to go by. > The lack of awareness of most > students of this syncretism creates confusion and animosity > between the "Back to Blavatsky" and the "neo-Theosophy" > advocates. Yes, I think so too. A case where better knowledge would help healing. > > MS: So, we could give a thought or two to the collective healing > > the TS > > I agree. But to heal, we must expose the wound. To expose > the wound, one must first convince the patient that the wound > exists and where it is located. As you have observed from the > Leadbeater discussion, it is an uphill battle. Indeed. Sometimes, obviously, the wound is extremely painful - ie threatening to a world view or a deeply-felt loyalty. We need to have more than one way to open wounds, perhaps, and use the one best suited to the case. Re CWL:- > -- thus they [the children] were put into a moral conflict. That is clearly so, at least in these cases. I keep wondering about CWL's motives, and feel that they were high-minded as in other areas of his life, but that he was somehow oblivious to the detrimental effects of what he did in these instances. I don't know. > > MS: The whole psychic aspect of sexuality needs to be considered, > > too, but not here and now. I have in mind the pathways that > > universal creative energy may be considered to flow through the > > several planes or principles of a person, and how those pathways > > can be formed or deformed in childhood > > Yes this would be an interesting topic, but let us not > confuse CWL's moral violations with theoretical occultism. I offered this thought as the beginnings of a way to understand, on the basis that understanding is an important element in healing - especially as the TS offers very little to help in understanding our sexuality. > > MS: ... I've seen close at hand how people can or can not > > believe that somebody they know and love has done something they > > would consider impossible for that person to do. > > How painfully true. And that is why the motto of the TS no > longer has meaning for it. I'm not that pessimistic, actually. The threat is there, but I see signs of hope! Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 04:02:36 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Young people and children - to JHE Jerry Hejka-Ekins, Thanks for your extended response headed "replies to AB and MS", dated 24 Jan 1995. I'd like at this stage to be face-to-face or at least one-to-one with you to explore some of the issues we've raised here further, so my comments here will be fairly brief. > > MS: I suspect that what younger people find off-putting about the > > old books is not just the language. > > Younger people (and some older ones too) seem to have > little sense of historical perspective, and it negatively affects > their ability to understand what they are reading. .... > It is precisely because of that lack of sophistication, > that I feel that it is important to write those theosophical > books at least every ten years in order to keep the language > current. I'd agree. All we need are more writers who are available, willing and capable. I'd like to see the means of communicating theosophy and its values extended more often, for instance to drama. I've done a little in this area and found that simple short readers' theatre pieces, for example, can make for a night of fun as well as of instruction, for a wider range of ages than the average theosophical lecture. The pieces can be interspersed with discussion. It makes for a nice alternation of modality and group dynamics that keeps interest at a very high level. > To use a Jungian paradigm, IMHO this is the TS's shadow > side. That is why it is so sensitive. An important issue, nearly always overlooked. > The TS was founded under a completely different > mentality, and originally appealed to seekers, not followers. Good point. I still see a good number of seekers, though. Perhaps more today than in the past, if the growing number of highly gifted and seriously-enquiring young people is anything to go by. > The lack of awareness of most > students of this syncretism creates confusion and animosity > between the "Back to Blavatsky" and the "neo-Theosophy" > advocates. Yes, I think so too. A case where better knowledge would help healing. >> MS: So, we could give a thought or two to the collective healing >> the TS > > I agree. But to heal, we must expose the wound. To expose > the wound, one must first convince the patient that the wound > exists and where it is located. As you have observed from the > Leadbeater discussion, it is an uphill battle. Indeed. Sometimes, obviously, the wound is extremely painful - ie threatening to a world view or a deeply-felt loyalty. We need to have more than one way to open wounds, perhaps, and use the one best suited to the case. Re CWL:- > -- thus they [the children] were put into a moral conflict. That is clearly so, at least in these cases. I keep wondering about CWL's motives, and feel that they were high-minded as in other areas of his life, but that he was somehow oblivious to the detrimental effects of what he did in these instances. I don't know. >> MS: The whole psychic aspect of sexuality needs to be considered, >> too, but not here and now. I have in mind the pathways that >> universal creative energy may be considered to flow through the >> several planes or principles of a person, and how those pathways >> can be formed or deformed in childhood > > Yes this would be an interesting topic, but let us not > confuse CWL's moral violations with theoretical occultism. I offered this thought as the beginnings of a way to understand, on the basis that understanding is an important element in healing - especially as the TS offers very little to help in understanding our sexuality. >> MS: ... I've seen close at >> hand how people can or can not believe that somebody they know >> and love has done something they would consider impossible for >> that person to do. > > How painfully true. And that is why the motto of the TS no > longer has meaning for it. I'm not that pessimistic, actually. The threat is there, but I see signs of hope! Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 10:54:32 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: To Daniel, re Occult Reich Daniel, Sorry to be so long getting back to you. I was out of town. I think you have the video we've been looking for. Would you mind taking another look at it and taking notes. I think the question is "does it or does it not implicate HPB and Theosophy in Hitler's doings?" Perhaps Martin would like to formulate the question. Thanks very much for helping us on this. Martin, have you been able to track down either of the books? Best, William From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 11:24:23 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Various Comments Paul: "Gurdjieff distinguishes between the Law of Accident and the Law of Fate." Thanks for the interesting idea, Paul. I suspect that these laws refer to chaos and order, and as such represent the underlying duality of manifestation. We can approach the Law of Fate (order or Kosmos) as much as possible, but never completely get free from the Law of Accident (chaos). The Chaos Factor cannot be eliminated (and this is OK since it is required for growth). Eldon: "There are many stages for errors to creep in, as we go from the manuscript to typewritten, then to typeset text." While this is true of old, we have largely overcome this problem with computers. The words of my latest books, for example, went directly from my floppy disks to the publisher's minicomputer and were typeset as I wrote them, so that all errors in the final books were mine and not the publishers. Of course, some errors still manage to creep in (via the Chaos Factor), but not as many as before. Eldon: " ...the highest purpose of books is not to preserve the literal, dead-letter expression of what the author said, in terms of its outer form. The highest purpose is to communicate the ideas the author was expressing, in the clearest manner possible." I certainly will agree with this. The feeling throughout the New Age community is that books have replaced the guru in that people today are more intelligent than the older generations, and can learn from books faster and just as well as from a living guru or teacher. There is, I think, some truth to this. The problem of how a reader can distinguish between truth and falsehood from a book can be countered by posing the same question when seeking a guru. By the way, we haven't heard anything from Brenda lately. I hope the flaming over CWL didn't drive her away. Re: the issue of communication with an incoming monad. My sister (an avid Christian Scientist) has no children after over 20 years of marriage without ever using birth control. She tells me that she "knows the truth" that neither she nor her husband want or need children (she sends out thoughts that ward off incoming monads). This seems to work for her. Re: Pornography is spiritual. I side with Paul. Re: Art. Like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 12:25:58 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: The Chaos Factor Murray: Murray, I think you are too new to theos-l to recall our discussions on chaos theory and what I call the Chaos Factor. While order (Kosmos) is pretty much causal, chaos (which affects us through the Chaos Factor) is acausal in the Jungian sense of synchronicity. According to C.G. Jung and Wolfgang Pauli, who worked together on the concept of synchronicity, our matter-energy continuum is affected by both causality (which is the realm of physics) and synchronicity (the realm of psychology) - BTW, synchronicity is an acausal principle of meaningful coincidence. Causality works in the outward physical plane while synchronicity (acausality) works within the psyche and both interrelate together in our lives. Let me try to put this theory of mine (which relates Jungian psychology, physics, chaos theory, and theosophy together) in a nutshell in my own words: Karma is a causal principle acting through Order. The Chaos Factor is an acausal principle acting through Chaos. What I call the Chaos Factor is then the polar complement of Karma. Karma makes sense (i.e., gives us a sense of justice that is otherwise lacking in this world) but the Chaos Factor makes no sense at all (i.e., gives us a sense of hopelessness and out-of-controlness). I was not previously aware of the Fate/Accident theory Paul brought up, but it certainly fits because Fate=Order while Accident=Chaos. All of these dualities express the central idea of a dual manifestation, and you just can't have order without a little complementary chaos. There is another way of looking at all of this: When your tire blows out and you can't find any karmic reason for it (i.e., why *my* tire and not someone else's?) look to the Chaos Factor - maybe a result of your collective karma and maybe a result of karma from previous lives, who knows? Murray: I have to disagree. I have looked for personal karmic reasons for events as well as lessons to be learned without success as have everyone else. We all have little things happen to us every day that have no explanation: Why did I have to hit all the lights red today when I am in a hurry? Why did my daughter spill ink on my good shirt? Why did the cat barf on my new rug? Why can't I find my car keys? Perhaps we can learn patience? On the other hand, perhaps we can learn simply that sh** happens. But we all undergo experiences for which there seems to be no karmic explanation, and these I would put under the heading of the Chaos Factor. When we come into this world, we accept the rules of the game, and one of them is that chaotic things will happen to us now and then that are neither planned nor expected. In a theosophical sense, these fall under the umbrella of collective karma, but because they make no personal sense to us I call it the Chaos Factor. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 13:54:46 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Laws of Accident and Fate In message <01HMB2UEJBEQ8WVZNJ@SSSAK1.SSS.CO.NZ> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > > But what has been learned? I can't see any consensus about that, > > which suggests that we aren't learning much from our own history. > > I don't think this follows. Different people could extract > _different_ lessons intensely and well, from the same > circumstances. > > Murray Stentiford > Different people _could_ : but _have_ they? Where is the evidence? In short supply. to say the least. Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 13:57:16 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: To Daniel, re Occult Reich It is fortunate that Daniel has this, because (BTW for future reference) getting ILLs in any other format than books is a tremendous challenge. Most libraries simply forbid it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 14:56:39 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Violence Shadows Reverence Recent discussions on both Talisman and theos-l have inspired the following reflections. It seems that violence, at least of a psychological sort, is the shadow of reverence. In Jungian terms the shadow is the unconscious, unacknowledged side of ourselves. Enantiodromia is the tendency of things to turn into their opposites; in this case conscious reverence becomes unconscious violence. How does this happen? Reverence is a universal human response to our experience of the sacred. Each person has the capacity to have the experience of awestruck contemplation and worshipful yearning towards the transcendent. The encounter with the sacred and the reverent response can only happen within our souls; yet it is stimulated by external circumstances like "sacred" places, books, teachers, institutions. IMHO these things are only sacred in that they stimulate our contact with the Unknowable Divine. But the intensity of the reverence response causes us to project what is really our own sacredness onto environmental circumstances. We make fetishes of books, places, etc. through projection of what is noblest and most holy in the inner world onto outer objects. Gurdjieff would call this "identification." This isn't blameworthy in itself, but it sets us up to behave in a blameworthy fashion. Any criticism or irreverence by someone else directed toward the objects we have identified as sacred is taken by us as a personal attack, because we have projected our personal energies into it. Perception of attack evokes a primitive reptilian-brain fight-or-flight response. The belief that "we cannot coexist" may become a stimulus to violent aggression justified as "self-defense" or to avoidance of the source of threat, or some combination of the two. I vividly remember walking down a street minding my own business and being violently attacked by a Blue Jay because unknowingly I was approaching too close to the nest where his/her babies were. The bird was totally identified with that nest and those chicks, caught up in the sacred cycle of life, and convinced (to anthropomorphize) that anyone treading on this sacred ground deserved violent punishment. People do the same thing on a regular basis, and in our case religion is a major stimulus to violence. Khomeini's fatwa on Salman Rushdie was based on a sense that he had violated the sacredness of a book revered by Muslims. Reverence for the book transformed itself into violence against Rushdie. Jim Jones and David Koresh believed that they had created sacred communities; their followers' reverence for them led to the murder of outsiders perceived as threats, and then to self-destruction. The centuries-old mosque in Avodhya was destroyed last year by a Hindu mob, convinced that the sacred site of Rama's birth had been defiled by Muslim construction and that reverence for the site demanded violence toward the mosque. Violence isn't just physical. Abusive language is a form of psychological violence, and it appears pretty regularly on religion-oriented newsgroups and mailing lists. On Talisman, the violent shadow of reverence has shown itself most vividly when people close to the House of Justice (who had worked at the World Centre) reacted to criticism of that institution. My first reaction was to blame that body for fostering an atmosphere conducive to such behavior, but this seems unfair. On reflection, it seems likely that those who have worked there will have the highest degree of identification with the institution, will therefore interpret criticism of it as a personal attack, and are therefore most susceptible to the shadow-side of religious violence. On theos-l, psychological violence has been evoked in response to criticism of historical persons revered by some participants and not others. A cross-post seems justified by the fact that Baha'i and Theosophy are both explicitly devoted to ending religious violence. It seems that when we are most consumed by a conviction that we are defending God by attacking our fellow (wo)man, we are in fact at our most diabolical. As Baha'u'llah wrote about Baha'is who murdered three Azalis, "My captivity cannot harm Me. That which can harm Me is the conduct of those who love Me, who claim to be related to Me, and yet perpetrate what causeth My heart and My pen to groan...That which can make Me ashamed is the conduct of such of My followers as profess to love Me, yet in fact follow the Evil One." Talisman subscribers who either use or encourage abusive language in this newsgroup might well read the above passage another time or two. For Theosophists, HPB stated much the same argument when she wrote to the American TS weeks before her death: "Now I have marked with pain a tendency among you...to quarrel over trifles, and to allow your very devotion to the cause of Theosophy to lead you into disunion...advantage is often taken by our ever-watchful enemies of your noblest qualities to betray and mislead you." Moral: Baha'is and Theosophists, if you ever think that your reverence for God or Masters etc. is inspiring you to treat your fellows with abuse, be aware that the true inspiration for such behavior comes from a very shadowy place indeed. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 15:26:08 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Healing the TS Dear Murray and friends-- I'll look into the charts for those other 2 dates ASAP. Maybe there are healing indications there. But all the outer planet drama is gonna stay there regardless. Cheers From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 16:52:16 -0500 From: HASLTISL@aol.com Subject: Re: TO Paul, Mark, Alan... Keith writes: * I would like to know first of all how you do this quoting line by line thing. Do you print out the messages and retype them line by line or do you have two dialouge boxes or a photographic memory? * I simply cut and paste from Windows. * Mark and Allan should get together and talk! Mark says all art should be ona higher vibration * Never said it. I wrote: * A better approach is to try defining great art. And what is the difference between merely good art and truly great art. I suspect great art is objectively, vibrationally evident regardless of a person's taste or point of view. Mozart is objectively great, as is Monet, Shakespeare, and Michelangelo. To think otherwise, I suspect, is to not be open to the high vibratory rate of those works. * My point simply involves *definition*. If everything is *art*, then perhaps, for the sake of an interesting discussion, we could attempt to define *great art*, and to go further by trying to distinguish between *good art* and *great art*. Then I threw in a possible definition and a possible distinction to get the ball rolling. * Mark says all art should be on a higher vibration, but how many people are on this "higher vibration". Very few. * One does not need to be *on* a higher vibration to be uplifted by higher vibratory art. * Do you think the masses would choose Mozart or Madonna (or George Strait, for that matter)? The proof is in the cash register. * You slip up here, Keith. Whose written literary works still outsell others in the English language? Shakespeare. Whose art is most reproduced and sold to the masses? Monet. Whose music is still the most recorded? Mozart. Great art endures AND is popular with the masses. * Mark seems to suggest we all become purer, higher more noble. Yes, Alan I think only a small minority or nucleus of mankind choose to take a higher path. Most of us mess around in the middle gound, including myself). And many, far too, man wallow in the mud, if this sounds elitist (oh heinous crime!, so be it). * A small minority may CHOOSE to take a higher path, but many more unconsciously LIVE a higher path in the pursuit of love, life, and great art. Beethoven uplifted much of mankind with his music. Many of those uplifted would not know the TS from the freemasons from the Jehovahs Witnesses. Love and life Mark Alexander HU From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 18:32:21 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: No Dichotomy Well said. Good points. Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 18:47:57 -0500 From: euser Subject: Re: occult reich Hi William, Due to limited resources I didn't check out about the two books. It may be easier for the Olcott Library to track these books down. As to formulating the question "does it or does it not implicate HPB and Theosophy in Hitler's doings", that sounds OK to me. In other words: is Theosophy (the teachings of HPB and others) inherently racist? On what grounds has there been suggested to exist a link between Theosophy, HPB and nazist/racist ideas? A careful analysis is required in order to deal with this question properly. Theosophy has been abused by chaps like Chamberlain, twisting the meaning of certain passages in the SD. It will not be that easy to show abuse of HPB's writings, as antisemitic feelings can be easily construed from certain passages (see for example: SD II,p.470, p. 471) These are typically 'political incorrect' statements, viewed from today's point of view, regardless of any inherent truth. Daniel, could you analyze the tape you mentioned, and give us some details about it? Thanks in advance, Martin Euser From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 18:55:30 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Sex Magic - Re Daniel Jerry, Your analogy of climbing a mountain sounds similar to one I read in one of Besant's books, I think. But it was raja yoga she claimed was the steepest path. Lewis llucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 19:13:32 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Elemental Ethics Nicholas, I am enjoying your posts and hope to see more like them. Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 19:58:28 -0500 From: "Lewis Lucas" Subject: Re: Occult Reich and OCLC Elizabeth, Thank you for all your time you have invested in this major project. Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 20:00:22 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Waterman Mystery Hi gang-- I've been scratching my head about something lately, wondering how to explain it. I feel pretty dumb never to have noticed it before. Here's the puzzle: seven years ago I got in a canoe for the first time in my life, and was immediately hooked. Within a week I had bought one, and have been paddling in that, or its successor, or the kayak I got afterwards, virtually every pleasant weekend ever since. This was an absolute, instantaneous addiction, hard to explain other than by saying the moment I sat down I knew this was where I belonged. Although brought up in a coastal area and having a modest taste for the beach, or walks by the river, there was really no foreshadowing of this obsession that would strike in my mid-30s. I have imagined that perhaps a past life as a Native American might be a cause. What I just realized (after my father's funeral) was that there may be some kind of genetic element involved. My mother's father was in the Navy for 30 years. My dad was a ship superintendent in a commercial shipyard when I was growing up. For many generations on both sides, my ancestors have lived adjacent to water. Could some atavistic compulsion have kicked in at a particular point in my life? Why would I have been indifferent for so long and then suddenly consumed? Or is it all just coincidence and probability due to having been born in a coastal area? Sorry to pester you all with my dumb questions but this has been bothering me lately. All theories welcomed! Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 20:29:47 -0500 From: DanielArt@aol.com Subject: Re: Synthesis of S,P,R & ART Keith and others, Semiotics is the name of an area of study regarding signs, their meanings and interconnections in communications. It's founding father was a Frenchman, named Peirce (pronounced Purse). When I began its study fifteen years ago, it was focused primarily on linguistics and research. My interest was and is more Jungian, with a focus on the visual symbols of ancient religions, astrology, mysticism, etc. My belief is simply that they are messages that transcend all language barriers. And those visual messages have been hidden or misinterpreted for thousands of years through one simple bureaucratic device: the removal of the Arts from Education. One example of the lost meaning is in the famous drawing by Leonardo of the "Cosmic Man" standing in two positions, arms outstretched, circumscribed by a square and a circle. Many things have been said about its symbology, but it simply relates human proportions to "Squaring the Circle" or conversely, "Circling the Square". The circumference of the circle in the drawing equals the perimeter of the square. This is accomplished by drawing a square with a side of 22 and a circle with a radius of 14. This is also the ratio of the base of the Great Pyramid to its height. Divide the base in half and you create a triangle with a ratio of 11:14:17.8, which makes the hypotenuse the same ratio to the height (17.8/14) as the height is to half the base (14/11=17.8/14). If you continue creating triangles in this ratio you have a spiral based on the square root of Phi, which only exists in the cellular structure of things that live, and manifests itself in the way a pentagram bisects its own sides (a/b=b/c). The Secrets of ARZ There was once a logic to language. Verbs were sounds that moved, flowed, connected other sounds... "AAAAAAAAAAA...... AAAAAARRRRRRR........ AAAAAAAARRRRRRRZZZZZZ..." "ARZ" - The act of bringing together. Some body began stopping the flow, freezing the stream, chopping, cutting, hanging bits and pieces on walls, putting blobs on pedestals, selling them. AAAARRT. "ART" - That which has been brought together. When the great monetary value of the dead chunks of Art was realized, it made good business sense to keep the production secrets for their trade. So the knowledge of the flow, and the killing of it, was removed from the schools and hidden from the teachers and the children. For the flow of Arz was the living Spirit in them, and the dead chunks of Art, that were bought and sold, were themselves. Daniel Hampson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 22:08:32 -0500 From: "Murray Stentiford, Scientific Software and Systems Ltd"@vnet.net Subject: Re: The Chaos Factor Responding to Jerry S: Two things first: 1 I seem to recall coming in to THEOS-L near the end of a discussion on Chaos theory. 2 I am not well versed in formal Chaos theory, so I may not understand the terms Synchronicity and Causality in exactly the ways established in Pauli & Jung's work. HOWEVER, UNDAUNTED ... > Causality works in the outward physical plane while synchronicity > (acausality) works within the psyche and both interrelate > together in our lives. I don't see synchronicity necessarily as acausality. It may _seem_ so, when we can't see any causes, but I believe that synchronicity is often a result of collective karma and maybe karma from previous lives, to adapt your words. And sometimes it is _without_ a big, far-back cause of our making. > Karma is a causal principle acting through Order. The Chaos > Factor is an acausal principle acting through Chaos. What I call > the Chaos Factor is then the polar complement of Karma. The way I conceive of Karma, is as CONNECTION, outward through space, back and forward through time, at all levels of materiality and consciousness, yet also transcending the dimensions of space and time. Nothing is outside the web of connectedness in the ongoing dance of interaction. I see Chaos, then, as resulting from disordering processes _within_ the web of connectedness, so that the Chaos Factor is not a polar complement of Karma, but is subsumed within it, just as is Order. > There is another way of looking at all of this: When your tire > blows out and you can't find any karmic reason for it (i.e., why > *my* tire and not someone else's?) look to the Chaos Factor - > maybe a result of your collective karma and maybe a result of > karma from previous lives, who knows? I get your drift, but the idea of karma expressing itself through the Chaos Factor (which is what I think you mean here) seems to conflict with what you said earlier on about the Chaos Factor being acausal, and a polar complement of karma. I feel that the Fate=Order and Accident=Chaos connections you portray have more to them than meets the eye. I don't think there's a perfect match across those = signs, but I'm certainly excited about the emergence of the initial relationships between these four concepts. For one thing, I still see a spectrum connecting Accident and Fate, due to differences of the strength or extensivenesss of causal factors within the web of karma, but feel that Order and Chaos are discrete and opposite concepts. Murray Stentiford From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 22:10:22 -0500 From: MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: RE: vidoe on Occult Reich and HPB I will review this tape as soon as I can. I am pretty busy Friday and Saturday but will try to do it on Sunday. I'll get back to everyone as soon as I can! Daniel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 22:11:41 -0500 From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: Occult Reich and OCLC On Thu, 26 Jan 1995, Lewis Lucas wrote: > Elizabeth, > Thank you for all your time you have invested in this major > project. > Lewisllucas@mercury.gc.peachnet.edu > Lewis: "Major project"?? Surely you are pulling my leg! It took me all of five minutes to get the information I presented to the BBS. Now, the following took a little longer--mostly because I haven't figured a way of downloading stuff easily and had to print it off and type this. Here's the information someone requested regarding the two books-- but please don't ask the Olcott Library to supply them. We don't own them and if anybody wants to borrow them, just go to your local friendly Public Library Interlibrary Loan Department and ask them to obtain them for you. Paul Johnson is right: you'll have a hard time borrowing videos via ILL, so unless your local library has it, you are probably out of luck. 1. Angebert, Jean-Michel. The Occult and the Third Reich : the mystical origins of Nazism and the search for the Holy Grail. NY : McGraw-Hill, 1975. 306 p. (McGraw-Hill paperbacks) Translation from the French: Hitler et la tradition cathare. Another edition: NY : Macmillan, 1974. 306 p. Held by libraries in: CA - U. of California, L.A.; L.A. Pub. Lib. DC - Georgetown U., Lib. of Congress GA - GA Southern U., U. of Georgia, West GA Col. IL - Northwestern U. Other ed. held by: U. of Chicago, Chicago Pub. Lib., Northeastern, Chicago State, Western Illinois, Southern Illinois, Illinois State, and a few other places in IL. This edition is probably widely held by libraries in many states (OCLC gave me only Illinois). IN - Frankfort Community Pub. Lib. KY - Union Col. in KY MA - Worcester Pub. Lib. MI - Macomb Community Col., Genesee Dist. Lib. NC - Winston-Salem State U., U. of NC Chapel Hill NJ - Kean Col. of NJ, Rutgers U., Princeton Theol. Sch. NY - SUNY at Albany, SUNY at Brockpport, SUNY at Geneseo, SUNY Col. of Tech at Canton, Keuka Col. OK - Oklahoma State U. PA - Pittsburgh Theol. Sem., Westminster Theol. Sem. SC - Furman U., U. of SC TX - Rice U., Houston Pub. Lib. UT - Utah State Lib. VA - James Carson Breckinridge Lib., U. of VA WI - Marquette U. 2. Brennan, J. H. Occult Reich. NY : New American Library, 1974. 184 p. (Signet book) Held by libraries in: CA - Pepperdine Univ., Peninsula Lib. System GA - Atlanta Univ. Ctr, West GA Col. IL - Catholc Theol. Union, U. of Illinois MD - Enoch Pratt Free Lib. MN - Minneapolis Pub. Lib. NC - New Hanover Cnty Pub. Lib., Rowan Tech Col. NH - Plymouth State Col. NJ - Princeton Univ. NY - Buffalo & Erie Cnty Pub. Lib., Mid-York Lib. System PA - Beaver Cnty Fed. Lib. System, Franklin & Marshall Col., Montgomery Cnty/Norristown Pub. Lib., State Lib. of PA TX - Univ. of North Texas The lists my be incomplete, since they came through somewhat garbled. Good luck with your searches. Elisabeth Trumpler From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 02:27:32 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Briefly, briefly Words said in haste are regretted at leisure. I was impatient so I tried to pick a fight, perhaps badly or get defensive or whatever. However I hear a lot of us saying the same thing. We all have a shadow, and we (I) better watch which way it is cast. The TS has a shadow as does every organization and entity and the only way to deal with it is to bring it to the light of consciousness not to hide it under revisionist history sometimes called political corretness. There are several Jungians or those familiar with Jung I should say that keep bringing this up, too. I think terms like racist, sexist, neo-Nazi, b*tch, elitist are so easy to throw around and really have lost their meaning from overuse. Hillary is a b*tch. What does that really mean? Doesn't it say more about Mrs. Gingrich than Hillary. The TS's and my comments might be construed as racist by someone ready to jump on just about anything. However I assure you that if I were really a racist, I would not last five minutes in my job. I teach a variety of minorities and they would sense any animonstity. I love my students (not paternalistically), but as equals. I teach adults and I treat them that way, and they love and respect me for trying to help them. If the TS where racist, sexist, "elitist" in the worst sense then it would hardly be worldwide. What is the difference between believing in a heirarchy and being "elitist"? Theosophy talks about universal brotherhood, but preaches that some beings are very advanced and some are lagging far behind. Yes in the end we will all get Nirvana, by and by like pie in the sky, but until then ... And Mark the most watched event this Sunday will not be your local Mozart concert, but the Super Bowl, I beg to disagree that popculture doesn't far exceed self-evident great works in the national and global consciousness. I could be wrong. TO Daniel: Thanks for the introduction to semiotics. I think semiotics, Jungian thought and a few other things are pointing to a conclusion about art and theosophy. A small clue, what is the difference between a symbol in art and a symbol in the divine wisdom? The answer is barely in the shadows and many can see the outlines. I'm saving it, but it may be old news too many. This wasn't really brief, was it? Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 02:57:13 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: re: "young people and children" Murray Stentiford, JHE> It is precisely because of that lack of sophistication, > that I feel that it is important to write those theosophical > books at least every ten years in order to keep the language > current. MS> I'd agree. All we need are more writers who are available, > willing and capable. There are "willing" writers. I've had several people tell me that they submitted mss for books on theosophy to TPH, and they were turned down. Then there is also the possibility of publishing theosophical books from other traditions, to extend their market. For instance, some years ago Point Loma Publications in the spirit of networking tried to enjoin TPH in the publication of Purucker's ~Wind of the Spirit.~ The National President at the time turned the book down explaining that it was "too theosophical." What I think what that President meant was that TPH is more interested in books that sell, even though there is very little theosophy in them, then in books with a lot of theosophy in them that don't sell as well. The two types of books are rarely the same. The rub is that a "capable" writer IMHO, would be one who is thoroughly familiar with the older literature, who has internalized it, and can express it in modern language and apply it to current issues. I'm coming from the idea that Theosophy is a genuine philosophy with a tradition--not something that one just "makes up." MS> I'd like to see the means of communicating theosophy and its > values extended more often, for instance to drama. I've done a > little in this area and found that simple short readers' > theatre pieces, for example, can make for a night of fun as > well as of instruction, for a wider range of ages than the > average theosophical lecture. The pieces can be interspersed > with discussion. It makes for a nice alternation of modality > and group dynamics that keeps interest at a very high level. Fascinating. If you ever write about this one (and I hope you do), we would like to see it for the possibility of publication. Back in the 60's there was a theosophical theatre in Los Angeles. I saw a several of their plays. They used to perform in Besant Lodge (the building was originally a theatre, therefore perfect for this), until the Lodge President kicked them out. Even before that, Krotona, when it was in Hollywood used to do plays. Then there was the Point Loma Community, who built an outdoor Greek style theatre and performed Greek and Shakespearian plays for the first thirty years of this century. They also had their own band. The idea of doing occult plays has held my fascination for years. It has been a dream of mine that an opportunity will come to revive this. Currently I have been working on Yeats, who wrote and produced several occult plays. But that is another story. JHE > The lack of awareness of most > students of this syncretism creates confusion and animosity > between the "Back to Blavatsky" and the "neo-Theosophy" > advocates. MS> Yes, I think so too. A case where better knowledge would help > healing. Of course we are back to the acknowledgement of the wound... etc. The labels people use against others sometimes say more about the assailant. For instance, I've had a ULT person call me a "Puruckerite", an Adyar person call me a "Blavatskyite", and an independent call me a "party line Adyar theosophist." I noticed that a lot of this labeling is a projection of their own bias. Almost five years ago, we produced a video introducing theosophy to inquirers. We showed it around to people in different Organizations. We were careful to try to make the video non biased and useful to all groups, and hoped that it would indeed be used by all of them. A ULT person who viewed it, but did not like it because he thought it was biased towards Point Loma theosophy. A Point Loma Person who saw it told us that it was biased to ULT theosophy. An Adyar theosophist told us that it was "too narrow" and biased to "Blavatsky." However, people who are not invested into a Theosophical tradition seem to like it. Since the video was made for inquirers, we figured that we met our goal. MS >> So, we could give a thought or two to the collective >> healing the TS > JHE > I agree. But to heal, we must expose the wound. To expose > the wound, one must first convince the patient that the wound > exists and where it is located. As you have observed from the > Leadbeater discussion, it is an uphill battle. MS> Indeed. Sometimes, obviously, the wound is extremely painful - ie threatening to a world view or a deeply-felt loyalty. We need to have more than one way to open wounds, perhaps, and use the one best suited to the case. For those who are willing to "take the cure," I propose therapy through "talking it out." For those who are in the pain of denial--I haven't got a clue. I think they just need a lot of time to put themselves into a place where they can deal with it. Any ideas? Re CWL:- > -- thus they [the children] were put into a moral conflict. MS> That is clearly so, at least in these cases. > I keep wondering about CWL's motives, and feel that they were > high-minded as in other areas of his life, but that he was > somehow oblivious to the detrimental effects of what he did in > these instances. I don't know. Yes. Interesting point. There is a lot in the Mahatma Letters concerning "motive." Apparently the Mahatmas can "read" ones motives--which always seem to be very mixed. The Mahatmas put a lot of weight on motivation, as it seems to be an important ingredient to determine the karmic outcome of the person doing the action. CWL claims to have been acting under those "high minded" motivations you speak of--but isn't that what one would expect him to say anyway? On the other hand, he may have actually believed that he was operating under those "high minded" motives. That belief could be an honest one, or it could have been a rationalization (i.e. he was fooling himself). Not being Mahatmas we aren't privy to this kind of insight. CWL's motivation seems to be important for his karma, but I wonder if it is so important for us to know what it was? For instance would it really matter if we were to learn that Hitler was operating under "high minded" motivations? Certainly it may mitigate his karma, but the damage he caused was the same. MS>> MS: The whole psychic aspect of sexuality needs to be >> considered, too, but not here and now. I have in mind the >> pathways that universal creative energy may be considered to >> flow through the several planes or principles of a person, and >> how those pathways can be formed or deformed in childhood > JHE> Yes this would be an interesting topic, but let us not > confuse CWL's moral violations with theoretical occultism. MS> I offered this thought as the beginnings of a way to > understand, on the basis that understanding is an important > element in healing - especially as the TS offers very little to > help in understanding our sexuality. I'm not sure that I completely get your drift here. I agree that the TS is pretty useless concerning any real insights into the type of information on sexuality that people are seeking today--though I've run into a surprise or two. Usually the accusation is that HPB's attitudes were Victorian, but I question that. My recent studies in the Modernist period of writing has thrown a lot of light unto the style and values of Victorian lit. HPB fits in some ways, but in others she, she was way ahead of the times. As for what you have in mind concerning the "pathways of universal creative energy..." I would need to hear more. I'm especially interested in learning how a discussion of sexuality would be an element to healing. Regarding healing through the discussion of occult theories- -this brings up another problem of communication that blocks healing. For instance, I've noticed that little serious discussion of theoretical occultism is done on this net, and it seem to be because everyone seems to be on their own planet around here. Jerry S. and Eldon T. talk about it the most. Yet they are are worlds apart when it comes to underlying assumptions. For instance, Jerry S., who mentioned recently that he never read the classical theosophical texts, is indeed well read in areas of magic, kundalini yoga, Crowley etc. He has created a very elaborate, yet personal system of occult theory--and has even published books on it. Eldon, on the other hand, is very well read in Blavatsky and especially Purucker, and tries to communicate as accurately as he can the occult teachings of these two authors. Yet Eldon is not well read in Magic, kundalini yoga, Crowley etc. Thus Eldon and Jerry have two very different theoretical systems, build upon vastly different assumptions--and communicate in very different styles, therefore leaving very little room for agreement between them. I rarely discuss theory on the net, because few seem to be interested in it--and even less in my own ideas. However, A few months ago, someone asked me a series of technical questions concerning the relationship of principles to modern psychology and to our waking states of consciousness. She directed the question to me because she was looking for an explanation based upon HPB--and she knew that I have a good grasp of this area. I answered her questions very extensively--carefully drawing from HPB's writings--taking care to put them into my own words, yet not to distort them--which is an art that has taken me thirty years of study and teaching to master. The day after the post, someone posted an extended criticism of my post. Not a criticism of the information--but a criticism pointing out that I didn't say anything that could not have been found in HPB. See how communications are misunderstood? After that, my questioner and I moved to private e-mail to finish the discussion. The problem with these mis-communications as I see it, concerns not only a difference in what people read, but in personal experiences, and a vast difference in values among people. Our different value systems prompt some of us to respond from our emotions; others from loyalty; others from a legalistic stand point; others from a situational stand (what will get me the most); others from principles; others are teleological etc. People respond from different mixes of these and from very different intellectual abilities. >> MS: ... I've seen close at >> hand how people can or can not believe that somebody they >> know and love has done something they would consider >> impossible for that person to do. > JHE > How painfully true. And that is why the motto of the > TS no longer has meaning for it. MS> I'm not that pessimistic, actually. The threat is there, but > I see signs of hope! I hope that your "hope" is based upon something tangible, like a sign of change. If so, please share it. I would like to have some hope too. Thirty-two years is too much time to invest. That is why I gave up vesting myself so deeply into the organizations and concentrate on the Movement. We have accomplished far more independently of the Organizations, then we were ever able to accomplish within them. We still do things for the Organizations however--but only when we feel that it is in the best interest of the Movement. Jerry Hejka-Ekins email to: JHE@KOKO.CSUSTAN.EDU From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 08:49:41 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: Occult Reich and HPB > I will review this tape as soon as I can. I am pretty busy > Friday and Saturday but will try to do it on Sunday. > > I'll get back to everyone as soon as I can! > > Daniel Thanks very much, Daniel. William From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 09:33:32 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: re: "young people and children" Jerry, I think you missed a joke in Jerry S.'s post which said something like "I've been a Theosophist for 25 years and never read any of those books" (i.e. the SD, etc.) He has quite obviously read all of them, and repeatedly. It was a subtle dig at the many members who in fact haven't assimilated HPB's teachings in years of membership. Just a clarification. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 10:31:10 -0500 From: Eldon Tucker Subject: Experience and the Inner Teacher Experience and the Inner Teacher -- Eldon Tucker One area of discussion that appears in many recent postings regards the nature of experience and how it relates to what is truly real. Consider some recent comments: Alan: intellectual theosophy is a mind game whereas experience is real Arthur Patterson: individual experience is a form of authority John Mead: personal experience is the only trustworthy guide Theodora: only a woman knows what a woman experiences These comments were taken from recent postings. They are not intended to portray the viewpoints of the posters. I'm including these comments as a starting point for discussion. Regarding these views, I'd say that I both agree and disagree. Consider first the comment regarding intellectual Theosophy being a mind game, as contrasted with experience. We must ask: What is experience? And what experience comes from the deep study of the Teachings? My experience of the Besant/Leadbeater writings was that they lacked in depth, except for the more philosophical tone of the books written on their behalf by Ernest Wood, CLW's personal secretary, like "Talks on the Path of Occultism," written from various lecture notes and papers. I'd read books like "Invisible Helpers" and come to think that acquiring psychical powers like Leadbeater depicted was the way to go. I did not know that there was another, deeper side to the philosophy, until years later. Reading Purucker, and then returning to reread Blavatsky in a new light, I've come to find new, previously unknown depths to the Philosophy. I now see in both a different manner of presentation, an approach that leads me to look upon them as Teachers, something entirely different that I find in other writers. Reading them, I'm lead to find in Theosophy a source of Wisdom, a series of studies with unfatomable depths. If I had not been introduced to Purucker, I can see how I would have reached the point where I would have become tired of the books, and been lead astray in a search for phenomena and wonders. What is there to Theosophy, to certain of its writings, that provide these depths? The answer ties in with a remark of Keith's, saying that the Neo-Platonists realize the One during this life. This is the closest to an open expression of the Theosophical model of human evolution: the Human Lifewave is on this earth, Globe D, and here is where we learn and grow. The answer is that a study of the Teachings can awaken inner faculties of consciousness, that enable us, while alive and embodied on this earth, to partake of the Ageless Wisdom. Coming back to the nature of experience, we can say that experience is based upon what actually happens to us, and not conferred as some right based upon our belonging to a class. We cannot say that we have special knowledge or have suffered or enjoyed certain experiences simply because of being a man or woman, white or black, resident or immigrant, etc. A black person cannot, for example, rightfully say that because he had a slave for an ancestor, say five generations back, that he therefore has a special understanding of slavery not had by a white man. We are, though, inseparably rooted in the Highest, and that connection cannot help but qualify our experience of life. There is much that happens *inside us*, that constitutes real experiences, without unique outward events in life to distinguish it. One such type of experience and growth comes from a deep study of the Philosophy. We do have experiences, in a certain sense, inwardly, in our studies. These experiences aren't "out of the body experiences" or visits to other planes, but rather the budding of new faculties of consciousness opening us up to a wider appreciation of life on whatever plane we may be on. The lack of apparent depth to theosophical books that some students experience is not that there is nothing there. There are real and quite deep experiences to be had by a study of the Esoteric Philosophy. But with the "wrong" books or authors, the depths won't be experienced, because those authors were lacking in either their own wisdom or in ability to communicate the deeper truths. The other reason for an apparent lack of depth to the literature is that a student may not have established the necessary conditions and inner readiness to engage the process. What is this process? In a sense, it is opening the inner ability to Know, to perceive things by a different kind of experience. We can know something by direct experience. When we know something this way, we are using the mind in a type of knowing that corresponds to the sense of touch. But there is also a sense of knowing that corresponds to a sense of sight, where we experience and know of something "from afar" or by direct perception. A poetic way of describing this type of knowing, this type of experience is to establish a relationship with one's inner teacher. The second type of knowing is useful for relating to things that cannot be readily put into words, and for experience of life events our world is not prepared to support in the Fourth Round. Consider the Masters. They are Fifth Rounders, but when embodied here, on Globe D, they are externally subject to the same environment, the same rules of existence that we are. How did they get the way they are? By learning and experiences on other planes, on the other Globes of our Planetary Chain, of course. But also by this second, this special kind of knowing, that allows for experiences otherwise impossible in our rigid, material world. Is this second, higher activity of the mind something very rare, very special? It is rare because it is not frequently engaged by people, but it is not special, not reserved for the few, for the elite of humanity. It is not a vastly superior thing for the very few; we only need to ready ourselves, to ripen a bit inwardly, and we can open up to it. We can find an inner fount of knowing that goes beyond the books that we read. What we learn remains consistent with the Teachings, but goes much further than we see on the printed page. We do not become omniscient, and infallible in what we know; any faculty of consciousness is subject to error, to mistakes. We all have our Inner Teachers, awaiting us. Such a Teacher is not really someone else, but rather a new way of knowing and experience and perception of life. Let us end our inactivity, and open up to a new form of inner adventure that awaits us. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 12:13:07 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Synchronicity Murray: "I don't see synchronicity necessarily as acausality." Synchronicity is necessarily acausal because that is Jung's own definition. Jung and Pauli worked out a very simplified model which has a vertical line crossing a horizontal line to form a cross. At the top is pure energy (what I would call spirit). At the bottom, as its counterpart, is our spacetime continuum (matter or physical manifestation). On the left is causality (which I would interpret as Karma when defined as the Law of Cause and Effect). And on the right is Synchronicity, which Jung defines as the acausal connecting principle or a meaningful coincidence. In other words, Jung defines synchronicity as the polar opposite or complement (Jung uses the Greek/Gnostic term syzygy) of causality. It refers to things that happen without a physical cause, as when you catch a glimpse of some future event and then later that event really does happen. The difference between a synchronicity and pure coincidence is that it must be *meaningful* to the psyche experiencing it. Until this century, physicists thought that the world was ruled only by causality and thus saw it a mechanistic; a vast machine that was totally deterministic if one simply knew the right equations. Einstein, Bohr, and many others have shown this to be untrue. There is an indeterministic element in our universe. Physicists call this element chance or randomness and describe it in terms of statistical probabilities. I call it the Chaos Factor, but it is all the same thing. On the other side, many religious and occult-oriented people who believe in Karma, also see the world as deterministic. They believe that every event is destined to occur as the result of past karma. When our cat barfs on the rug, they would have us believe that once upon a time we were a cat and barfed on someone's rug. Tit for tat. Such folks believe that all events can be foreknown if we but have the Knowledge of past karma. Adepts or Masters, for example, can look at a person, see their past karma in the akashic records, and tell them exactly what kind of coffee they will order for breakfast next weekend. I am sorry for these people, but science has burst their bubble during this century, and such a worldview is no longer acceptable. I realize here, that by saying this I am treading on a lot of toes. Buddhist Sutras, for example, abound in the wonders of knowing countless ages of past karma. However, it just isn't so. Not totally anyway. Rather, lets just say that all of this is exoteric, and the esoteric truth is that our world has an underlying probabilistic nature. Anyone today who thinks that our world is deterministic is in serious conflict with modern science. This probabilistic underpining makes us shift our worldview. Before, a Master could see future events. Now, a Master sees highly probable events. The future is shown to be a realm of possibilities, each with a probability attached to it. Because of this, we can never really KNOW what is going to happen in the future with certainty - this is but one result of translating the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle from the scale of the quantum to our everyday world. Thus every now and again during the course of our normal lives a surprise will jump out at us. This affords us the freedom to grow and change, but also cannot be accounted for in the deterministic world of Karma. Only by positing a counterpart to Karma, such as synchronicity, can we account for these surprises. Jung believed that the indeterinistic element of our universe was responsible for such things as ESP and Psychism. I believe that as we bring psychic phenomena into our conscious control, we translate synchronistic events into karmically determined ones. In other words, just as matter and energy are convertible, so are causality (Karma) and acausality (synchronicity) - thus the cross in Jung's model. Again, there are several definitions of karma, and the only one that I am looking at here is as the Law of cause and Effect, or the principle of causality. But I think that the idea of determinism by knowing past karma (which many theosophists subscribe to) is just as flawed as the idea of determinism by knowing mathematical equations (which physicists have recently and very reluctantly agreed is untrue). As above so below - if our physical world is probablistic, then the other cosmic planes probably are too. Post no Flames. Please, before you flame this idea, think about it. I will be happy to address questions or further refinements. But I am also afraid that some of you whose worldview depends on karmic determinism will be very upset by this posting and your emotions will immediately lead you to a flaming response. The ideas expressed in this posting are a result of my own attempts to integrate science, Jungian psychology, theosophy, and occultism. For those of you who don't like Jung or who don't understand or care about modern physics, please ignore this posting and continue on. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 14:21:57 -0500 From: Eldon Tucker Subject: Various Comments to Keith This is by Eldon Tucker ---- Keith Price: Regarding your question about if Brenda and I did any spiritual practices, meditations, etc., while having our recent baby (Geoffrey, born October 26), I'd have to say no. It was just life as usual for us, except that it was a "at- risk" pregnancy with Brenda having to go on bed rest for a few months. Then she had to carefully watch her diet and take her blood sugar readings a half-dozen times a day; the doctor wanted her on insulin but she did not want to take it. With our first child, Galina, now five, there was one thing that we--or rather I--did. At or around the time of Galina's conception, I was thinking of the type of child it would be nice to have. I thought of a girl similar to what she's growing up to be. Whether there was some "connection" made attracting a particular person into birth, or whether my expectations translated into how I helped bring her up, and thus were a self-fulfilling prophesy, is a matter of conjecture. I'd glad to see your outspoken statements in opposition to the "politically correct" movement, and other forms of thought control that our modern society would impose upon us. The fact that we've made it into Theosophy at all shows that we've learned, to a degree, to free ourselves of external attempts to control our thinking! It is wrong to rewrite our books according to some political agenda; we certainly don't need censorship. Although art is as important as science, religion, and philosophy, we have to be careful about boxing ourselves in with a small number of tightly-defined categories. I'd give due respect to any creative, challenging area of study and activity, and not try to find a magical number of three, four, or seven activities to categorize everything into. A few people on this list go to T.S. Pasadena, and they have a Theosophical Art COOP (called TACO). Perhaps someone involved with it could tell us what it's about. Are you in it, Doreen? Regarding philosophy, I'd describe it not as a search for meaning, but rather as a love of wisdom. This love leads us to become seekers, then sources of creativity and teachers in our own right. I think people get the wrong idea regarding what philosophy is about, and picture it as an empty intellectual exercise in logic, where people make various assertions, then see what logically follows, in different models of describing life. A final comment concerns pornography and censorship. While I don't agree with censorship, I'd want "truth in labeling." This gives individuals, and parents, the ability to pick and choose materials by content, and limit their exposure to materials they'd rather avoid, without the necessity of censorship. Plato, I'd guess, would disagree with me; he proposed that society censor unsuitable materials for the good of the people. I would not describe, myself, pornography as having a negative spiritual effect. I'd rather say that it stimulates various desires and attachments which we then have to work out. The psychological and psychical energies tapped into are intense, and may pull us in a different direction in life that is good for us. If we don't deal with the energies while alive, we have an extremely frustrated kamaloka before us; and we're seeding our future karma, predetermining lives to come. How much of our creativity and life energies and time do we want to tie up with sexuality in the future? There are a number of archetypal energies that we can tap into, each as strong and gripping as the sexual. We don't, I'd say, lose any of the intensity of life by tapping into them instead. The basic energy behind sexuality is the primal urge to have offspring, to create, to reproduce or express oneself in the physical plane. The most basic form of self-reproduction is to have children. There are higher forms, including creating great works of art, composing deeply-moving music, writing books that are a font of wisdom, and touching and brightening the dark, gloomy lives of others about us! The energy to express the higher on the physical plane comes out in sexual desire, if that is the only way, but it is not sexual per se. I would be against the approach of using sexual practices for occult purposes. Using sexual arousal to generate energy, then attempting to convert it to a different form, would, I'd suggest, not be useful, but would rather tend to backfire and create unexpected and undesired results. A better approach is to develop areas of life, activities, that bring alive the same energy levels, intensity, and excitement, and allow kundalini to express itself directly in those other ways. When kundalini comes out in a sexual form, I'd consider it "tainted," and that coloring would make it unsuitable for other uses. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 14:52:46 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Fate/Accident I must confess that the discussions re: chaos between Jerry S. and Murray are a bit (well, more than a bit) over my head. But as the discussion has touched on Gurdjieff's conception of the laws of fate and accident I thought I would try to clarify. He doesn't really present them as rigidly exclusive categories so I think the continuum idea probably conveys his meaning OK. That is, in any given situation, the more we experience it as individually meaningful the more individual meaning it will have; the more we take it as random chance... you get the picture. But more than this rather self-evident truism is the promise that how we take our experiences affects what our future experiences will be. Basically, living under the Law of Fate makes one keenly aware of omens. If you take experience as individually instructive, you are alert to "warnings" or promptings from the unconscious. If you take experience as random and accidental, there is no such thing as a warning or prompting. To put this in practical terms, I have on occasion found myself stumbling into unfortunate situations and realizing after the fact that there were plenty of signals to change course, but that I had ignored them. On the other hand, I have also obeyed inner warnings of danger without knowing precisely why, only to find that the path from which I turned would have led to disaster. Does this yield any fodder for the chaos/karma discussion? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 15:22:09 -0500 From: "William Allen" Subject: NEW LIST: ANDERE-L - Religious Studies Theories, Methods, >From: Shawn Landres <6500land@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> >Subject: NEW LIST: ANDERE-L - Religious Studies Theories, >Methods, Approaches > >ANDERE-L on LISTSERV@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU The official listserv of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, ANDERE-L serves as a forum for discussion of theories, methods, and approaches to the study of religion, including (but not limited to) history of religions, sociology of religion, and interdisciplinary methods. To subscribe, send the following command in the BODY of mail to LISTSERV@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU: SUB ANDERE-L yourfirstname yourlastname, your institution Subscription is not automatic. Membership is by application only, and generally limited to professors, graduate students, advanced undergraduates, and qualified independent scholars. Owner: J. Shawn Landres 6500land@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: NEW-LIST announcements are edited from information provided by the original submitter. We do NOT verify the technical accuracy nor any claims made in the announcements nor do we necessarily agree with them. We do not warranty or guarantee any services which might be announced - use at your own risk. For more information send e-mail to LISTSERV@VM1.NoDak.EDU with the command GET NEW-LIST README in the body. mgh From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 16:20:12 -0500 From: Eldon Tucker Subject: More Comments on Theosophical Books More Comments on Theosophical Books - Eldon Tucker We seem to be talking about two types of theosophical books: (1) the classics, and (2) the introductory and interpretative. There seems to be general agreement that the later kind of books be revised frequently to reflect the manner of expression of `modern' times, changing as often as `modern' changes, which is more often than we might think. Opinion seems divided on the first type of books. Liesel mentions that the classics should be left in the language that there were written in. I'd generally agree, with a few exceptions. For the classics, we'd leave the manner of expression alone, even if some of the material is now seen as foolish or offensive. The part of the books that has gone stale was the materials related to the idiom of the day, reflecting the biases, prejudices, and popular misconceptions of the 1800's. This material was not the Teachings themselves, but the attempt, `timely' when the book was written, to relate the Teachings to popular thought. Nicholas talks against paraphrasing, modernizing, and condensing theosophical books, and gives a quote telling us that the path is difficult. The quote tells us that the path cannot be made easy for us, we have to do the work ourselves. I'd agree that we have to do the work, but on the other hand, in the effort to help others and to propagate the Philosophy, I'd say that we should write lucidity, not cryptically, and make whatever efforts are possible to facilitate the process of spreading the light. The quote also mentions an esoteric truth to the effect that those whom know keep silent, and those who talk don't know. This doesn't mean that we don't work for the enlightenment of others, seeking to spread the Esoteric Philosophy. I'd say the meaning is that we share what is rightfully ours to give, that which we have made a part of our lives, under appropriate circumstances, and keep our lips sealed otherwise. That is different than never saying anything. Dr. Bain mentions that there should be no cover-ups of blunders in our books by purging the offensive materials in later editions. I'd agree that the contents of the books remain intact. When we republish the theosophical books, we want to make the media of the written book as transparent as possible, to allow the communication of the contents of the books, not the purging or sanitization of the contents. And how out of date must a book be to need translation, when in the same language? Certainly, with the exception of a few obsolete words, there's no need to do anything to books from the 1800's, other than, perhaps, correct spellings and standardize theosophical terms (e.g. always spell and put accents on kamaloka the same way throughout the various books). Jerry H-E is quite clear in his views, which are stated in a "must do" form. Jerry mentions that the reader must make the mental effort to adjust to the period of writing of a book, or he's just too d**n mentally lazy. He says that a reader must be willing to go through this effort. I'd ask: Why? The logical conclusion of this argument would be that we cannot know eastern philosophy without first making the mental effort to learn Sanskrit and Tibetan, and study literature in its native language. Why do we require people to make an extra effort to study something? Is it because we did it the hard way, and it would be unfair for others to have it easier? Jerry also mentions that the old books should be left unaltered, that we have no business editing an author's work after he is dead. When this is done, I'd agree that the new edition should mention what has been changed. But I wouldn't not stick to an absolute, black-and-white, all-or- nothing approach that admits to no shades of gray. I'd say there are valid arguments for slight alterations in spelling or typography that are justifiable. If absolutely nothing may be changed, then the Boris edition of The Secret Doctrine, for instance, has to be rejected in favor of a photographic facsimile. I'd prefer Boris' edition, although it could not be computerized, because of copyright considerations. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 18:30:52 -0500 From: ddd@hss.caltech.edu (Doreen Domb) Subject: ART & THEOSOPHY Hi you all, particularly Keith & Eldon to whom this is in response. I'll tell you it is so frustrating to try and get to "talk" on theos-l, because I've had so little free time. I'm backlogged in my brain with other things to which I want to respond, so I'm jumping in at random intervals (never knowing when that will happen obviously). Hang in there, Alan Bain - I still want to talk Kabbalah with you......... Anyway, regarding Art and its relation (or whatever to Theosophy), I really appreciated Keith's posting (of the 24th??)"... the lack of much discussion (not use certainly) of art in primary theosophical works of HPB and others. .. I am not talking about the endless talk about symbols, glyphs, signs, diagrams, pictograms, ideograms, Senzar as circles and dots etc., I'm talking about our everyday primary idea of art and the fine arts, the popular arts and the perfoming arts." And interestingly enough, Eldon brought up "TACO" today. I agree, the arts seem to receive very little mention or consideration when we read about, speak about, attend classes & conferences, etc., dealing with Theosophy or the like. That has been changing in the last few years, in my opinion (e.g. - SPIRIT IN ART exhibit that was in L.A. - was it 2 or 3 years ago?!) I'm pleased to say that some local Theosophists on this side of the world seem to be responsible for showing art the light (or is that vice versa). I, myself, have become uneasy with a total academic, intellectual approach to Theosophy. My spiritual/creative side was truly shutting down cause I wasn't using it. It is so important to know it's there and stroke it and gun the engine and get it moving. It saves lives Over the first weekend in May 1991 (I stink with dates & years, so I pray this is right), a bunch of independent theosophists (affiliated or not with one TS or another) came together and put on an HPB CENTENARY (100 year anniversary of her passing) Conference at Pasadena City College. This was not an organizationally-sponsored event (interesting that most of my favorite conferences are the ones with no sponsoring organization). I was one of the participants as well as an attendee, and to my knowledge, this was the first or certainly one of very few theosophical conferences to feature a segment on art. So along with the usual programs flavored with intellectual, scholarly, and historical approaches, the two-day conference also featured an artist's panel and musical performance. Again, I'm guessing, but maybe there were close to 10 of us up there, speaking about how our individual experiences with theosophy have influenced our various artistical endeavors. We then engaged the audience in a dialogue and it went over quite well. It also added a personal or more intimate aspect to this event, as individuals were speaking of what inspires them and what moves them to create. At the close of the panel, an original song on HPB was sung and played on guitar by yours truly (not blowing my own horn here - just stating the facts). My main point is that of all the events that happened at this conference, the most memorable and lingering, and perhaps even the most well-received appeared to be the artists portion. If nothing else, certainly something fresh, unusual, and stimulating was taking place within a theosophical conference. As far as I'm concerned, it set a precedent and almost immediately after that weekend, TACO (Theosophical Artists Co-Op) was born. Really the brainchild of Roger Gemme & John Coker. So we (that is, an invariable number of people, sometimes well over 20 - squeezing into a living room) meet once-a-month, begin an hour-and-a-half reading from the book ART AND PHYSICS (don't know the author; I usually show up after the reading). Then we have any several or few of the following: show-and-tell, sometimes work on something artsy together, relay local art events happening, read our poetry and/or whatever we've written, showcase music (listening to it, and sometimes playing it ourselves), screen a video someone has made, have varied discussions, etc. etc.. It's not heavy-duty structured. Oh, and I forgot, one of the most important things is we all bring munchies and good eats and set aside a time during the evening to feast. Though the T in TACO stands for Theosophical literally, it is not closed to non-theosophical individuals (some of whom are probably theosophical and don't know it - but we won't get into that one again, at least not right now), but probably better suited for like-minded individuals. And it's not an excuse for socializing; that is a pleasant by-product. All TACOs are sincere and are into what they do. So, see - you can be an artist and a theosophist at the same time. If you can walk and chew gum at the same time, that just may qualify you for Dhyani Chohanic status. Excuse any sloppy writing - no time to proof that carefully and I'm a detail-oriented freak as it is. Any mistakes I take full responsibility for - except when I'm in my right mind. Hope the above shed some useful light. See ya later -- Doreen From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 18:46:16 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Don't you have any GUTS? A Grand Unified Theory (GUT) of the physical universe so prized by the physicists may no t be far off. A different kind of unification has been achieved from a spiritual point of view. An attempt will be made to point toward the synthesis begun in distant history often call the "perennial philosophy", expounded by BLavatsky in "The Secret Doctrine" and echoed recently by such recent writers as Ken Wilber in his book "The Spectrum of Consciousness" and referred to as transpersonal psychology. The names and times of the writers are different, but the keynotes are the same. The common elements include the hierarchical nature of man and the cosmos and the assumption all things are unified if Spirit, the Absolute, or Universal Mind which flows from the beyond the stars, through man, descends into lowest matter and disappears (but only from out view) only to rise again back to its source. Much of the problem in the past has been the a priori qualification by inadequate definitions (semantics) and usages of terms such as matter, mind, consciousness, the absolute and spirit. The discursive intellect's job is to cut and sepererate like knife things and concepts through language into domains, categories, antimonies and irreconcilable opposites. Our language has a built-in structure that does this automatically, unconsciouslly by REQUIRING a subject and a predicate. Actually the opposites always appear as syzygies, that is always together, never one without the other. So it would be best to attempt to start with as much clarity as possible by restating: 1) Spirit is primordial unity. It creates a spectrum of manifestation much as white light creates or contains a visible colored spectrum. The spectrum ranges from highest divinity (beyond speculation). through mind, to seemingly dense matter. 2) Spirit should not be confused with morality, the ethical or our limited notions of the "good" confused by our cultural heritages and religions which change in time and from place to place. 3) Art is the purposive, creative, manifestation in time in form by spirit. When we speak of art we are actually referring to man's spirit appearing in frozen form in works such as painting, music literature etc. , but by using this definition we could easily speak of the universe as work of art filled with intelligenc, beauty, wisdom and love. Art bears the stamp of intention even if it an object rouve like Duchamp's urinal. It is art because it is a conscious pointing to something beyond its use as a urinal. Art is like a mirror pointing at something which is ultimately itself and something "more" or transcendent, transcending the form. 4) All art is spiritual. That does not mean that all art is moral or religious. Pornography is as spiritual as the paintings in the Sistine Chapel and in fact the paintings were accused of being pornographic (stimulating sexual desire) so the once nude genetalia where painted over with discrete draperies. 5) Spirituality is not a goal. It is a fact. We don't have to do anything to be spiritual because we are spirit on at least 7 levels. The levels we wish to accentuate and those we wish to deaccentuate is a matter of the most rigorous effort and may be a goal for some. The goal of the body builder and the saint are the same, to develop certain vehicles to the fullest, but are on opposite sides of the spectrum, but needless to say, the saint has a body (perhaps emaciated) and the body builder has a spirit (perhaps temporarily distorted toward sensless violence by steroids) but they are both fully human. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 21:25:26 -0500 From: SEGibson@aol.com Subject: Unsubscribing Please excuse the waste of bandwidth to everyon, but I've misplaced my notes on the place to unsubscribe to this list. Could someone help me out please? Thanks. Steve Gibson SEGibson@aol.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 21:40:13 -0500 From: jhe@koko.csustan.edu (Jerry Hejka-Ekins) Subject: Re: "More comments on Theosophical Books" Paul, PJ> Jerry, I think you missed a joke in Jerry S.'s post which said something like "I've been a Theosophist for 25 years and never read any of those books" (i.e. the SD, etc.) He has quite obviously read all of them, and repeatedly. It was a subtle dig at the many members who in fact haven't assimilated HPB's teachings in years of membership. Just a clarification. Thanks for the clarification. You are right. I completely missed the "joke" and it goes to show that I'm no exception to the general difficulties in communication either. The joke wasn't obvious to me. Do you know the date of the post? I would like to reread it. Eldon, ET> We seem to be talking about two types of theosophical books: (1) the classics, and (2) the introductory and interpretative. There seems to be general agreement that the later kind of books be revised frequently to reflect the manner of expression of `modern' times, changing as often as `modern' changes, which is more often than we might think. Opinion seems divided on the first type of books. I feel that even the introductory and interpretative books should only be *revised* by the authors. I feel that it is an injustice to the authors to presume to know how they would have revised them if they lived. Thus, I would opt for writing new introductory and interpretative books every few years. ET> Liesel mentions that the classics should be left in the language that there were written in. I'd generally agree, with a few exceptions. For the classics, we'd leave the manner of expression alone, even if some of the material is now seen as foolish or offensive. The part of the books that has gone stale was the materials related to the idiom of the day, reflecting the biases, prejudices, and popular misconceptions of the 1800's. This material was not the Teachings themselves, but the attempt, `timely' when the book was written, to relate the Teachings to popular thought. I'm not sure I follow you here. What are the exceptions that you would change? ET> Jerry H-E is quite clear in his views, which are stated in a "must do" form. Jerry mentions that the reader must make the mental effort to adjust to the period of writing of a book, or he's just too d**n mentally lazy. He says that a reader must be willing to go through this effort. I'd ask: Why? The logical conclusion of this argument would be that we cannot know eastern philosophy without first making the mental effort to learn Sanskrit and Tibetan, and study literature in its native language. Apparently my views are not clear. I think you are reading too much into my statement, and you have taken it entirely out of context. My context for the above statement concerned the revision of the Victorian idiom into modern idiom. My specific example was the Victorian term "Chinamen" which is now "Chinese." I was trying to say that if it is too much effort for a person to make the allowances for the changes in language over the last hundred years, then perhaps that reader is also too damn mentally lazy to understand the ideas in a subject like theosophy. As to your point (which is quite different), of course one is stuck with reading translations if we don't know the language. However, would not our understanding be even more enhanced if we did read these works in their original languages? To carry your argument to the extreme--then let's get rid of all of those old Sanskrit texts--now that we have English translations, we don't need the originals. I'm sure that we both agree that this doesn't go. However, my original point had to do with books in English, and specifically, Blavatsky's writings were in the back of my mind. I think we agree that Blavatsky's writing style is passe. My argument is that we are stuck with it. A rewriting into a more modern style becomes a translation. A translation is a text that represents what someone else *thinks* she said. My point is that if someone wants to read Blavatsky, let them read Blavatsky- -not someone else's version of what Blavatsky wrote. IMHO, there is a big difference between reading Victorian idiom and Sanskrit texts. I don't think reading nineteenth century English is too much to ask of a person with a standard education. Sanskrit and Tibetan--that's another matter. ET> Why do we require people to make an extra effort to study something? Is it because we did it the hard way, and it would be unfair for others to have it easier? Come on Eldon. You know me better then to put this Puritan ethic crap on me. ET> Jerry also mentions that the old books should be left unaltered, that we have no business editing an author's work after he is dead. When this is done, I'd agree that the new edition should mention what has been changed. But I wouldn't not stick to an absolute, black-and-white, all-or- nothing approach that admits to no shades of gray. I'd say there are valid arguments for slight alterations in spelling or typography that are justifiable. Of course. However, If you go back to my original statement, you will find that I was making a different point. I wrote: "Once an author is gone, the editing and or re-arranging of the text without informing the reader of exactly what the editor is doing and why, is in MHO dishonest, deceitful, and unfair to both the memory of the author and to the reader. But as I also mentioned, changes could be made as annotations, or documented in those annotations. I don't have any problem with (for instance) adding the page number "60" missing from the first edition of the S.D., nor do I mind correcting "het" in the original edition to "the." Modernizing the Sanskrit spelling is fine too, as long as a notice is made to that effect. My concern is editorial changes that alter the meaning of the text. When this is done without an annotative notice, then IMHO we have gone too far. My original point has to do with being honest to the reader concerning what the author really said. To quote myself again: Authors should be allowed to stand or fall on their own merits, and it is a matter of fairness that readers be given the opportunity to judge the merits of the author based upon what was written--not upon what the editor wants the reader to see (and doesn't want the reader to see). Jerry Hejka-Ekins E-mail address: jhe@koko.csustan.edu From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 00:15:28 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: On Our Written Literature Dear AB A suggestion re editing HPB When I read Chaucer in high school, I read the original, & what was hard to understand was translated and/or explained in footnotes. That way I got Chaucer in the original, & if needed, could consult the footnotes for better understanding. Why can't we do the same with HPB? It's done with "The Voice of The Silence". I wouldn't know what Migmar was, unless I had the fotnote. Liesel Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 00:31:18 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: C'mon! Be a sport! Thanks to Eldon for his comments and the decency of his style even if he disagrees, a lesson for me to learn. Perhaps if we all played Mozart in the background (or you pick your favorite) our posts would have a more muscical spiritual air, maybe not. Maybe just more typos for me. Thanks to Doreen! This believe it or not is very important to me, we need to revalue the arts and place them in the pantheon where they belong with science, religion and philosophy! I wish I were an artist, but I can only write about it (OK, and not very good at that either), but I have something to say. I want to cut to the chase, but it wouldn't be interesting without all the talk. So be a sport! Stick with me a little longer. Apropos of Super Bowl Sunday: Thus Spirit is divine play, but on a very serious level, because each action in the game has a reaction often called KARMA. The Vedic notion of Lila is ancient. Art used to combined with sport. In fact they may have been one in the dim past. They were used together at time of religious festivas such as the Olympics in Greece. There is evidence the Mayans, the Chinese, the Egyptians had similar festivals had similar festivals as well as many other lesser know cultures did. These grand games times often cooincided with the events in the heavens such as the solstices and equinoxes and seemed to form a dual way for make contact with the divine. This is where the real synthesis of philosophy, science, religion, art and even sports occurs - in the manifestation of divine unity to itself through man's consciousness. Man through art is telling himself who he is. Sports and art are more clearly related than they appear today. Sport has an element of uncertainty, openendedness, entropy (or CHAOS as has been said in recent posts) We don't know who the winner will be. If we did, there would be now reason to play. There is an element of dire consequences for the loser: injury, loss of esteem, shame, or even death. In contrast, wonderful consequences await the winner: fame, money, power (look at OJ, better yet, don't look at OJ!). Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe? Their seems to be chance, chaos , entropy even a tragic element BUILT IN to existence. Heisenberg's famous uncertainty principle used in subatomic physics points to the way chance, CHAOS, entropy, uncertainty seem to creep into our observations in the subatomic realm. In fact the more your try to determine the measurement (position vs. velocity) the more uncertainty creeps in. Our observations effect the outcome of the experiment. God may not play dice exactly but It seems to allow consciousness free will to observe change, to make choice and co-create the reality it is observing. (If this isn't magick, what is?) Change itself is built-in to Spirit. This is the moment the creative intelligence manifests itself in form in time. It is a divine moment sometime call evolution on the form side and conscious choice on the subjective side. It is this chance, mysterious sometime cruel, element that keeps things going. And art helps to make the struggle (without guarantee of success) bearable. Thus there is a stochastic quality to the whole process a "hit or miss until you hit it" quality to evolution and human choice and art. God may not play dice, but She's playing some game, and He's a real sport and in some way we are doomed to play it without cries of "not fair, not fair". This is where art can be used to heal the necessary, but unfair wound of CHAOS, entropy, chance, "Evil" or whatever you want to call it. No power driven argument in philosophy, or vicarous atonement in religion. or "proof" in science has made my spirit soar like . Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 10:37:22 -0500 From: Nira2U@aol.com Subject: SOME BEEF FOR THE BARBECUE... ;-} Jerry --your furball analogy was RIPE! True there are those Fundamentalists who think everything in the Universe is a sign to some past or future event --and perhaps they're half right. With regard to Synchronicitious events --sometimes the most minor spark can serve to light an entire candle. How many of you have tried to make a decision about something --and opened a book to the EXACT passage that lends clarification to your vexation? Or turned on the radio and found a tune wafting that bears out something you'd been pondering? As an example of same: I was driving in Los Angeles (a karmic challenge in its own right --even for a Texan) attempting to explain Synchronicity to a friend in the car with me --who was from Phoenix and apparently the theory hadn't gotten across the border to her state as yet ;-} I turned on the radio --tuning into to KLOS, catching broadcast of a DeeJay with whom I share Telepathic Rapport --who obliged the "lesson" by playing SYNCHRONICITY by my fave Jungian Disciple/pal STING... Since I had no carphone --and was some miles from this gent; and hadn't physically spoken to him in 18 months --how would he have known at the precise time to lend artistic wallpaper to our conversation? As a pastlife regressionist/channeler I find that The Arts have an integral role in redeveloping our Spiritual Destinies. After all --those now considered Great Masters of Arts, Music --and yes (dare I give them credit?!) Science were channeling GOD's INSPIRATION. The Sensoral Arts are an important adjunct for my clients to rediscover fragments of their Souls. I, myself, have found some EXTREMELY EXPLICIT documents that have my soul's indelible stamp on them dating as far back as 6th century (I chose not to recognise the BC stuff albeit knowing my Soul *had* travelled Lemurian 'roads'; and may have been part of other ancient cultures...) My Guide, upon reopening my Akashic Record collection, was quite specific in advising me of the particular pastlives I *had* to reconcile for my soul's progression (and cat-barf wasn't amongst the directives, Jer' but I do recall a number of instances when my channeling sessions were interrupted by the reminder of having to change the cat-sand in my kitties' litter boxes; I also was amid relationship problems at the time and one of my cats developed a metaphoric illness --suffering kidney stones which my Guide amusingly interpreted my plight as: "...being entrapped by an old cat who can't give a piss.." SYNCHRONICITY? Or merely metaphor? I've been documenting what's been termed as Veridical Hallucinations for almost a decade now towards the book I'm writing. Oddly enough, I thought the concept was unique to my current Ego --until I was 'lead' to the library --to a voluminous text written in 1888 (which BTW hadn't been opened since its delivery from the printers --as tho' it'd been waiting for me...) Upon reading it, I came to find out that I was REWRITING the book I'd written "...back then..." since the author was my previous incarnation!!! Keith --again, you astound me with the dimension of your intellect. 'Nuther A-plus for great thoughts on the buffet; altho' some of the dishes put out have been predigested. Pornography is in the eye of the beholder --notably, that which is overtly explicit, demonstrating heinous acts inflicting pain are among them. Again, there are those (such as myself) who see depictations of the Crucifix and find it to be a particularly painful image --which could then be construed as pornographic. Whereas Flagellists might see 'hope' in the same image, anticipating Ascension's next chapter. Speaking from an unfortunate experience's posit, I'd been working at a publication as feature writer a while back. For a few weeks, female co-workers'd found porn magazines strategically placed in the bathrooms and natch --the usual stooooopid jokes/accusations flew as to who they belonged to. The joke ended on an evening in May when the Perpetrator who shared office space with us RAPED and attempted to MURDER a co-worker who'd been working overtime. God spared the young woman physically, but her emotional scars will remain with her forever. I wasn't working on the premises at the time; had a vision of the incident despite fellow workers' silence about it. I'd gone to the office to pick up assignments --and could smell the deed's stench permeating the hallways. I still get chills thinking I might've been able to spare her this grief; or that I could've been the victim of this crime since I'd been on the premises a number of times when the perpetrator was in the building. Was it the man's dependence on pornography that made him commit this act? OR Was it his karma that made him attack this genuinely sweet person? And Doreen, I *would* sincerely love to hear your views on Kabbalism... It's an area that I'm educationally deficiient... Pace... Theodora From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 11:34:30 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Art Keith has brought up some very good points that need to be discussed. Here are my initial responses: Keith: "God may not play dice exactly but It seems to allow consciousness free will to observe change, to make choice and co-create the reality it is observing. (If this isn't magick, what is?)" Excellent point! Keith: "God may not play dice, but She's playing some game, and He's a real sport and in some way we are doomed to play it without cries of "not fair, not fair." This is where art can be used to heal the necessary, but unfair wound of CHAOS, entropy, chance, "Evil" or whatever you want to call it." I agree that life is Lila, or a grand Game. Care to explain *how* Art heals the unfairness of life? I have always found humor to be a great balm, but I have never thought about art. Do you mean that just by going to a museum, we can be healed or uplifted in some spiritual way? Or by being artistic in some way? I had always thought that art could only do this to those few who were "ready" for it. Is it true for everyone? What kind of preparations are needed? Most people have a rather dim view of what constitutes art (some find art in porn, for example). I agree with a previous posting that Mozart outsells most rock bands, but only because those who like Mozart are rich enough to buy the music. Few poor or uneducated people like Mozart. Few Blacks like classical music, for that matter. But then again, maybe we all have our own view of what art is, and we find beauty in different things. Yes, there is chaos in the world, but there is beauty and love too. Because creativity is inherent in divinity, and every divine spark is also self-creative, we each have a natural inclination (need) to be self-expressive or artistic in some fashion. I used to play the piano and the guitar as a coping strategy, for example. Having a child is highly creative. It doesn't matter what you do, so long as you do something creative or self-expressive. Keith: "A Grand Unified Theory (GUT) of the physical universe so prized by the physicists may not be far off." According to S. Hawking, it should be soon. But the GUT that our physicists are looking for is mathematical, not spiritual or psychological. Keith: "Much of the problem in the past has been the a priori qualification by inadequate definitions (semantics) and usages of terms such as matter, mind, consciousness, the absolute and spirit." Unfortunately this is inherent in our universe. The human mind cannot fathom the divind mind. When conscousness crosses the Abyss and enters the spiritual realms, it sees directly what is there. Christians call this a mystical experience. Zen calls it satori. Yoga calls it samadhi. So, yes, everone has a different termonology, but all of these words mean the same thing. The real problem is that once consciousness returns to the physical body, the human mind can find no words that are adequate to describe the experience. The same is true for coma, or dreamless sleep, which is a real exprience in the formless realms of the causal plane, but again there are no words to explain it, and it seems to the human mind to be a blank nothingness (the human mind cannot experience anything above the mental plane without severe distortion). Sanskrit has more words of explanation than English, but even there the fact always comes down to this: unless you experience it for yourself, you can only communicate the idea so far and no farther. I used to use the peach as an example - how do you describe in words the taste of a peach to someone who has never tasted one? It is not easy. Handing a person a peach and letting them taste it for themselves is the only real way to communicate the experience. Love, for someone who has never really felt it, is another example. One interesting thing about a mystical experience is that you can't even explain it to yourself let alone to another person. Keith: "Actually the opposites always appear as syzygies, that is always together, never one without the other." This is a profound idea that I have been trying to make with theosophists, but with little success. I guess I am a Vedantist at heart :-). Anyway, any GUT using theosophical theory has to take into account the syzygies (dualities) of the I (subject) and Not-I (object) as I have detailed in my Enochian Physics. In that book, I drew heavily on HPB, using Fohat as the connecting link between the two ultimate dualities of the subjective self and the objective world. In other words, the divine monad is unified on the divine cosmic plane, but as soon as manifestation begins and the monad enters the spiritual plane (or whatever you want to call the first cosmic plane below divinity) it splits into what I called an I-Not-I Monad which contains a subjective I and an objective Not-I connected together by creative force of Fohat. Keith: "Spirit should not be confused with morality, the ethical or our limited notions of the "good" confused by our cultural heritages and religions which change in time and from place to place." Excellent point that a lot of us need to remember. Keith: "Art is the purposive, creative, manifestation in time in form by spirit." Is this your definition of Art? This is far different from what can be found in museums or listened to on a VCR. This sounds a lot like the Atu XIV of the Tarot - the traditional temperance card which Crowley renamed Art. Here is what Wanless says of this card: "Art, the traditional Temperance card, is the alchemical mixing of opposites - sun and moon, fire and water, leo and scorpio, male and female, red and blue, conscious and subsconscious - to weave together a new creative synthesis. To be artful or creative, is to dissolve old forms and interweave into a Sagittarius rainbow the mind, heart, body, and spirit. Art is to be re-created through recreation." (New Age Tarot - Guide to the Thoth Deck, by James Wanless). BTW, according to the Golden Dawn/O.T.O., Art is path 25 on the Tree of Life, the vertical path connecting Yesod with Tiphareth - thus it interconnects our emotions with our thoughts. Keith: "When we speak of art we are actually referring to man's spirit appearing in frozen form in works such as painting, music literature etc., but by using this definition we could easily speak of the universe as work of art filled with intelligenc, beauty, wisdom and love." Here you seem to be forgetting the syzygies. What about our dark side - are not ugliness, ignorance, and hatred created by the spirit as well? Or do you suggest a separate Devil in the Christian sense? Keith: "Art bears the stamp of intention even if it an object rouve like Duchamp's urinal. It is art because it is a conscious pointing to something beyond its use as a urinal. Art is like a mirror pointing at something which is ultimately itself and something "more" or transcendent, transcending the form." Here you seem to be including the syzygies again. Every single object on the physical plane is art by your definition (which I agree with). In the same way, every conscious deliberate act is a magical act according to Crowley (which I agree with). Your argument here reminds me of the Zen teaching that a piece of cow dung is Buddha. Keith: "Spirituality is not a goal. It is a fact. We don't have to do anything to be spiritual because we are spirit on at least 7 levels." Amen. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 12:32:04 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: To Theodora To Theodora. I enjoyed your last posting (actually I have enjoyed all your colorful postings) and you certainly do seem to have a lot of synchronistic events going on in your life. Thanks for sharing them with us. Have you ever read Barbara Hand Clow's EYE OF THE CENTAUR: A Visionary Guide into Past Lives? (Llewellyn pub). Her book describes her psychic adventures, which are reminiscent of yours. I met Barbara at a Booksellers Convention a few years ago and liked her on the spot. She has since left Llewellyn to work full time with her husband at Bear & Company Books. I think the only real question a theosophist would have on all of this is, How do you know when a vision is a real glimpse from the past rather than an astral hallucination? In your example of writing a book the answer seems pretty clear since you have physical evidence to back it up, but surely at least some of your visions must be halluncinary(?). How do you deal with this? What are the legal implications of advising people? I know, for example, that some Tarot readers have been sued. What can I say on the rape issue? This whole thing has gotten way out of hand in this country where 1 in 4 can expect to be raped (and that doesn't count date rape). My wife, my daughter, and my sister-in-law were raped years ago (and these are only the ones that I know of) and each will doubtless carry their scars to their graves. Needless to say, I am not a happy camper where this issue is concerned. The problem, I suspect, in part lies with the male attitude that women are meat rather than people. Because I can see auras (not colors or forms, but auras nonetheless) I can't help but see women as human beings. For example, many years ago a male co-worker was raving over a nude in an Xrated Swedish magazine and insisted that I take a look at it. When I looked, I saw her face which showed embarrassment and shame all over it (this is not true with Playboy and better magazines, but it seems to be true with most porn) and I was saddened rather than aroused. I wish men were more sensitive. On the other hand, women are treated better in this country than in most other countries - on the other hand this probably says more against those other countries than it does for this one. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 12:46:56 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: WWW's Theosophy Corner The following was found under the Society & Culture menu of WWW. -- Nicholas Getting http://zeta.cs.adfa.oz.au/Spirit/Theosophy/Overview.html Theosophy Corner (p1 of 5) Spirit-WWW: New/ Channelings/ Lightwork/ Healing/ Reincarnation/ UFO/ Light-Tech/ OBE/ Yoga/ Veda/ Theosophy/ Astrology/ Journals/ Networks [Search] [IMAGE] On Theosophy And Its Tradition Last update Jan 8, 1995 [IMAGE] Theosophical Map of Lemuria * Theosophy (Religion & Science) (Part 1)(Martin Euser) Introduction with a list of the main-points (jewels) of Theosophy * Theosophy (Psychological Key To Man) (Part 2)(Martin Euser) Continued from Theosophy (Religion & Science) * Gnosis and Yoga, The Relation (Mark Mays) * Etheric planets, Evolution and our Solar System (Walter D. Pullen) * The Early History Of Ascended Masters Activities (under construction) * Masters, Extraterrestrials and Archangels(Reni K. M|ller) Pictures and short descriptions * Study of Angels and the Dimensions(Robert Bryan Reinhardt) Highly recommended Overview of Angelical Realms * Theosophy-WWW: (Michael Grenier) An Introduction to Theosophy * Specific Persons: + Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (Michael Grenier) + Annie Besant and Charles Webster Leadbeater (Michael Grenier) * Theosophical Texts(ftp-site) Etheric planets, Evolution and our Solar System3 * Related Information: + A Comparative Anthology Of Sacred Texts (Andrew Wilson) Full Text ASCII Archive, International Religious Foundation + Gnosis Archive WWW(Thomas Leavitt) Growing site, with a lot of gnostic texts + Gnosis Magazin (gopher-site) + Antroposophy: Rudolf Steiner(Martin Cooke) + Kabbalah FAQ (Colin Low) + Gematria: Magic/Magick(Michael Freedman) + Golden Dawn FAQ (Steven R. Cranmer) + Plato: The Socratic Dialogues o Plato's Phaedrus(gopher-site) Philosophical Dicussion on Soul and its Nature o Plato's Phaedo (gopher-site) Basics of Soul Understanding + Plotinus: The Six Enneads (gopher-site) Mystic point of view of Soul Evolution A Comparative Anthology Of Sacred Texts Internet Relay Chat (IRC): * /join #Theosophy * /join #Spiritualist * /join #PSI * /join #Wicca Stay for a while, if you are alone on a channel - else each one just stays few moments and it seems, no one is interested ... Mailing-Lists: * THEOS-L Newsgroups: Internet Relay Chat (IRC) * alt.consciousness(via gopher: USA, UK, Germany) * alt.magick(via gopher: USA, UK, Germany) * alt.paranet.metaphysic(via gopher: USA, UK, Germany) * soc.religion.gnosis soc.religion.shamanism talk.religion.newage [IMAGE] kiwi@iis.ethz.ch From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 13:30:21 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: To Jerry S, Theo and All Jerry wrote: I agree that life is Lila, or a grand Game. Care to explain *how* Art heals the unfairness of life? I have always found humor to be a great balm, but I have never thought about art. Do you mean that just by going to a museum, we can be healed or uplifted in some spiritual way? Or by being artistic in some way? I had always thought that art could only do this to those few who were "ready" for it. Is it true for everyone? What kind of preparations are needed? Most people have a rather dim view of what constitutes art (some find art in porn, for example). I agree with a previous posting that Mozart outsells most rock bands, but only because those who like Mozart are rich enough to buy the music. Few poor or uneducated people like Mozart. Few Blacks like classical music, for that matter. But then again, maybe we all have our own view of what art is, and we find beauty in different things. Yes, there is chaos in the world, but there is beauty and love too. Because creativity is inherent in divinity, and every divine spark is also self-creative, we each have a natural inclination (need) to be self-expressive or artistic in some fashion. I used to play the piano and the guitar as a coping strategy, for example. Having a child is highly creative. It doesn't matter what you do, so long as you do something creative or self-expressive. (A confession: I am just learning these window copy tricks. That is why I haven't responded line by line before. I just did my first cut and paste for theos-l. What fun!) Most people have a dim view of art indeed, and maybe for good reasons (non-exposure to high spiritual, not spiritual remeber, art.. That's why I'm going on and on, and yes (Theodora, you read the akashic records right) I've been digesting this for at least two if not many lifetimes. Maybe I was an artist in another lifetime, obviously unsuccessful because I need to shout "look, art is important". Back to Jerry, I guess I have probably turned to art (good and bad) more than most. No, we can't just go to a museum. It's a magic synchronistic happening as Theodora relates in another context. If people are bored with my perspective why not bring in the "art" of the Kabbala, the tarot, magick and ritual (I'm open to Crowley's synthethic use of the Kaballa, tarot, astrology and the artistic elements, but I don't know how others feel?) As an example of synchronicity, this has almost become a personal invocation of me to ATMAN, higer self, buddhi or whatever: Give me time to realize my crime (Karma from this and past lives) Let me love and heal I have danced inside Your Eyes How can I be real? (theosophists might say know the real, but I mean on all 7 levels) - O'Dowd (paraphrased) Some may recognize this little dittie, but then you are a karmic salamder, n'est pas? I beg to differ, but when I go grocery shopping, I don't see the work of Plato and Shakespeare, I see OJ on the cover of "The National Enquirer". When I turn on the radio, I get a lot of country, talk on AM, rock (soft, hard, putrid) and way over on the outcast bands - public radio and classical (always very low power). When I look in MY TV guide. I see twenty-four really low life talk shows. silly sitcoms, and cut up sex and violence, once R-rated movies. Every other channel has a show with a man with a knife (more usual) going for a beautiful women, or for variation, a women with a knife going after a man. I guess if you are on a higher vibration, you see something differnt, who knows? Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 17:15:57 -0500 From: Nira2U@aol.com Subject: HEY --PASS THE POTATO SALAD WILL YA?! ;-} God Bless you Jerry for being a MAN WITH A SOUL (as I'm certain the majority of you are --but those who admit Sensitivity's dual edged knife (duck Keith --it's another Bobbit joke...) are rare MEN indeed... I will look for Ms. Clow's book --being a 'fan' of her previous essays, I'm certain there'll be more insights to glean from this works. We are in an Age where SYNCHRONICITY and phenomena is all around us and the awareness of these factors are becoming more apparent. I'd like to think we're all part of what's pushing the Dharmic Wheel into position. Insofar as determining *which* visions are hallucinatory (eg: mind-based only --rather than having physical origins) the solution is not all that simple; there is a vast different --yet similarity --between what's known as IMAGINATION and what I call IMAGING. The Veridical side of the fence is documentable in more tangible terms but requires a Target Group of people willing to work toward the similar goal. I can't take credit for *all* the work being done. No doubt a lot of skirts'll be blown up & panties knotted when the book's published. I can already see the constipated looks on Bryant Gumble/Katie Couric's faces when I am beset with explaining this to them --thus discussing these topics with y'all is WONDERUFL exercise for me because it allows me to be more cogent and there's nothing like a great dress rehearsal to get all the cues right...) As far as my readings --they are Soul-based; I avoid shysterism; those that've been sued for their "advise" attempt to make Psychic Junkies of their clients --where I've received little or no compensation for the work I've done in this field since my Guide has reassured me that the collective works will bring Dharmic & financial recompense. When I worked on the 'psyche' lines in L.A. --my abiliities were so heightened that I was able to suss out SEVERAL FBI investigators; policemen --and a LADY who insisted on answering questions with questions. First off, I asked her if she was an attorney --stopping her clock. She asked why? I told her that only lawyers or Jewish people answered questions with questions --which made her guffaw. She asked about a reading for her husband --and seemed suitably impressed with the information I'd ascertained just by doing an astrological profile and tarot reading. She kept prodding me about areas the FCC imposed guidelines against us "...witchypoo people..." and I reassured her that the reading was merely a guideline; that I wanted her to judge for her Self if the info coming thru was valid or not. She prodded on, asking who would be our next president (the phone call took place the third week of June '92) and again, I informed her I wasn't at liberty to discuss political, religious or medical topics. "Well --you must have an opinion," she persisted. So I defered to the blanket caption in the advert which proclaimed: "For entertainment purposes only" and blurted, "Well --if I'm gonna get F*@%k'd it might as well be by someone worth lookin' at and I've heard enough guano from Rosemary's Baby. But since I don't practice political masturbation, it doesn't really matter. The whole thing's gonna be decided by Electorial College vote anyway..." She seemed reasonably SHOCKED by the raft of commentary --but laughed at the rapid fire delivery. Something about her puzzled me during the course of our conversation. Despite the fact that her "husband" was born in Arkansas --she had a Northern accent... After I'd terminated the call, I was told by my supervisor who'd tapped in on the reading (they kept quality control checks perpetually on this particular line because we were one of few that had ETHICS as a credo). She'd run the stats thru her computer --and was shocked that I'd inadvertantly told Hilary Rodham Clinton to start packing for their vacation in the White House... I've given quite a few high powered people the opportunity to prove this power a sham (short of James Randi --whose cosmic plow I'd love to clean for his pomposity --but his $10,000 is abit too "blood money-ish" for me...). I could've been 'busted' to this point if anyone of them thought I was scamming. But there *is* a GODLY force motivating all of this... Which is why I take my name so seriously. After all the near death experiences and enlightenment I've been given, being defined as "God's Divine Gift" is a mega mega mega test to live up to... We all have hoops to jump thru --but it's lovely to be in such *thoughtful* company... Theodora From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 17:44:47 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: On Our Written Literature In message <950128001132_1751155@aol.com> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > A suggestion re editing HPB > > When I read Chaucer in high school, I read the original, & what > was hard to understand was translated and/or explained in > footnotes. That way I got Chaucer in the original, & if needed, > could consult the footnotes for better understanding. Why can't > we do the same with HPB? It's done with "The Voice of The > Silence". I wouldn't know what Migmar was, unless I had the > fotnote. > > Liesel It's a d*** sight easier without footnotes [or even fotnotes]. Some might like to consider the *abridged* edition of the SD which exists, and often the first look into HPB for some of lesser courage. Don't get me wrong - I have actually read most of the SD, and all of Isis Unveiled - from which I got the most, BTW. In an abridged edition, who do we flame (no doubt in this case via a spiritualist medium) about their choice of omissions? If anyone wants to remove the many tirades against sundry professors in the SD, I for one won't mind. :-) I first ran study groups in Kabbalah [then written Qabalah, as the 'magicians' write it now] in 1958. The first book students were told was mandatory reading - if they wanted to get anywhere, was ~First Principles of Theosophy~ by Jinarajadasa. Still, IMO, the best intro to modern theosophy that there is. Sadly this is not kept regularly in print - so if you're reading this in your silence at Wheaton, maybe you could get Quest to republish? Come on, Wheaton, we know you are lurking somehere on the list, as theos@netcom.com is in the list of subscribers - how about some input? "Gad, Sir, this means chakras at dawn!" What's Migmar? AB -- guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 17:46:38 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Art In message <950128162256_76400.1474_FHA70-1@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > BTW, according to the Golden Dawn/O.T.O., Art is path 25 on the > Tree of Life, the vertical path connecting Yesod with Tiphareth - > thus it interconnects our emotions with our thoughts. > > Jerry S. Later research has established that many of the GD/OTO attributions were and are incorrect. Sepher Yetzirah makes it clear that there are 32 Paths of Wisdom, and ten Sephiroth - ten and not nine, ten and not eleven. Path 25 does indeed have the attribute of this card, by whatever name, but sits in the center of the Greater Hod as Path 25 of the 32. It equates with the function of the exorcist in the early church, the svaddisthana chakra, and the hindu mantra, VAM [see Ernest Wood: Yoga, pub. in UK under the Pelican imprint]. Further info for those interested is available by e-mailing me as below. -- guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 17:47:37 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: To Theodora In message <950128171845_76400.1474_FHA22-1@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > What can I say on the rape issue? This whole thing has gotten way > out of hand in this country where 1 in 4 can expect to be raped > (and that doesn't count date rape). My wife, my daughter, and my > sister-in-law were raped years ago (and these are only the ones > that I know of) and each will doubtless carry their scars to > their graves. Needless to say, I am not a happy camper where > this issue is concerned. The problem, I suspect, in part lies > with the male attitude that women are meat rather than people. > Because I can see auras (not colors or forms, but auras > nonetheless) I can't help but see women as human beings. For > example, many years ago a male co-worker was raving over a nude > in an Xrated Swedish magazine and insisted that I take a look at > it. When I looked, I saw her face which showed embarrassment and > shame all over it (this is not true with Playboy and better > magazines, but it seems to be true with most porn) and I was > saddened rather than aroused. I wish men were more sensitive. > On the other hand, women are treated better in this country than > in most other countries - on the other hand this probably says > more against those other countries than it does for this one. > > Jerry S. Amen from England. Porn seems to be produced by men, for men, by exploiting women. All too many rapists and sexual offenders are reported as having piles of the stuff tucked away in their lairs. No one knows the true figures - how high would it be if you *did* count date rape? How many women do you see standing in line to buy porn? Yuk. guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 17:48:15 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: To Jerry S, Theo and All In message <950128182600_74024.3352_BHT21-1@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > Jerry wrote: When I look in MY TV guide. I see twenty-four really low life talk shows. silly sitcoms, and cut up sex and violence, once R-rated movies. Every other channel has a show with a man with a knife (more usual) going for a beautiful women, or for variation, a women with a knife going after a man. I guess if you are on a higher vibration, you see something differnt, who knows? > Namaste > Keith Price On a higher vibration, pigs fly. guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 00:37:34 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: Synchronicity Dear Jerry, You express exactly what Serge King told us predicting the future is like (& has been): "a realm of possiblities each with a probability attached to it." A clairvoyant can see what might be in the future, but then the person or group has so many choices to make between now & the future that it's impossible to foretell which possibilty will probably come true. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 01:37:30 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: 7 Carts for 7 Arts Thanks for all the comments and the mostly constructive criticism. I will return the favor. I keep waiting for someone to say "shouldn't this be on theos-buds?" Well maybe it should but I'm used to y'all, even AB (droll, so very very droll; you go right over my head like a flying pig, AB), To John Mead or anybody, are the same people on theos-buds? I would probably think that much the same people or on theos-buds, but only fewer, my crystal ball is cloudy today and I can't afford to subscribe anyway so your stuck for a few more posts (or just hit delete, I'm pro-choice remember). One more thing. I was sleepy this afternoon, but what Jerry S. said hit me later. Yes I guess art includes the alchemical tradition (and maybe the Kaballa, tarot, astrology et al). I read all that Jungian stuff on alchemy, all those kings and queens and eagles and lions and salt and mercury and sulphur and what not hermetically sealed in a retort. I respect Jung so much so I muddled through and didn't feel any better about the whole thing, but I guess it seeped into my unconscius along with the Crowley tarot. Alchemy is an "art" not a science (the father of modern chemistry though). It is the art of transformation (from lower man to higher man???, to imortal super-being???)and this is exactly what art does, transform, but on more clearly defined levels operating through the 7 carts (vehicles, a real stretch, huh?). The Spectrum The levels of artistic expression Spirit expresses itself in art on many levels. We will use the usual number 7, as in most theosophical literature . 1) Physical - Here we have the physical stimualtion through the five senses. We could divide this level into five or more subplanes: a) visual art - painting, sculpture etc. b) aural art - music, spoken word etc. c) olfactory and gustatory art - cooking and crafts and the "what's old is new": AROMATHERAPY d) tactile art - crafts, clothes, interior design, etc. This is the most basic level. It is art combined with everyday needs. Or it could be on the other extreme "art for art's sake", just pleasing colors, and sounds etc. 2) Astral - This is artistic expression which invokes a response associated with feelings, emotions, revereries. Music is the primary activator of feeling tone (most of the arts operate on more than one level, this is just an example). The negative side of this level could be glamourous and seductive escapism. 3) Lower mental (kamas-manas) - A direct appeal to the desire nature for food, security, shelter or sex. Advertising and pornogrphy are often built around this level. The positive aspect is basic survival information. The negative aspects include manipulation, explotation and control. 4) Higher mental - This is the level of social and cultural norms with consensual reality dominating. In other words, the truth is what we agree on, or what those in power tell us it is. Never criticize your boss is good advice from this level. Political correctness and propogands are at this level. Cultural tastes and values may change quickly however. Today its Baroque, tomorrow its minimalist in the galleries. Collusion and group bullying are here. 5) Abstract mental - Philisophical speculation, reflection, interpretaion and criticism belong to this level. The moral of the story and symbolism "explained" are here also. This post is an example. It isn't art, just talk, talk, talk. All the hot air about a symphony is no substitute for hearing it, but it can bring added depth and understanding. 6) Buddhic - The open universal inner eye of intuition. The virtues and some vices reside here. This is the level of the archetypes angels, demons and heavenly muses. This is the level where the opposites begin to form very beautiful blissful intoxicating raptures (or demonic bad trips a la Bardo Thodol), or we are led still higher where the opposites are reconciled. This is the level of revision and reunion. A lingering selfishness may want enlightenment for itself alone or to feel superior (this is the down side of this level). Any remaining attachment to seperatness would be the final hindrance to . . .. 7) unitive - the will and process as a whole. (I just realized there is a lot of Hegel's GEIST, polter or poultry, get it AB, spooking me here) This level activates the others the way the physical contains all the others. Well I could go on and on and probably will another time another place. Stay tuned for the conclusion coming soon to a monitor near you. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 12:09:55 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Tree of Life & Universe Models Dr. Bain: "Later research has established that many of the GD/OTO attributions were and are incorrect." Gee, I wonder what the GD and OTO have to say about this interesting fact? Whose research? Dr. Bain: "Sepher Yetzirah makes it clear that there are 32 Paths of Wisdom, and ten Sephiroth - ten and not nine, ten and not eleven." Yes, there are 32 Paths, but the first 10 refer to going through the Sephiroth themselves, while the remaining 22 refer to the pathways connecting them. Each of these 22 paths corresponds to a Hebrew letter ajd their explorations (called pathworking) are well documented. The Hadra Zvta Qdisha (The Lesser Holy Assembly) does describe the 11th Sephiroth Daath, to which Mathers writes in a footnote "Daath is the conjunction of Chokmah and Binah" (see The Kabbalah Unveiled by S.L. MacGegor Mathers, one of the three founders of the GD and magician extraordinare. Although Mathers was a showman, his translations are quite good, and his magic was excellent. He is one of the very few magicians whom Crowley had respect). Also, the Greater Holy Assembly says "From the third cavity there go forth a thousand times a thousand conclaves and assemblies, wherein DOTh, Daath, Knowledge, is contained and dwelleth" (Chapter XXVIII verse 566). The Sepher Yetzirah does not specifically say that Daath does not exist. It simply ignores it. Maybe the problem here depends on which translator we want to listen to? The beauty of the GD and OTO systems (which do differ slightly) is that they are verifiable by experience and do not stand on theory alone. BTW, the Qlippoth are real as well. Let me say here that the very fact that Western Occultism has a Qabalistic Tree of Sephiroth and Paths (with apparently several interpretations) an Enochian system of Watchtowers and Aethyrs, and a theosophical Gupta Vidya or Planetary Chain, to mention just three (I omit the Egyptian and Gnostic as being outdated) shows that these realms are very very subjective indeed. We have lots of maps for the same territory, folks, and they are not all the same. Is the problem the territory or the maps? Makes one pause and think? I had a lot of personal problems with the Tree of Life, but I took to the Enochian system like a duck to water. All this means is that the Enochian system was better suited to my own personal level of experience and "worldview." Others have faired well enough with other systems. I hope someone does something with HPB's Planetary Chain, but I rather doubt that theosophists will ever come to any agreement of just what the heck HPB's model is all about. The real purpose of these maps is to help us better understand our psychic experiences in what I call the magical universe - the 5 cosmic planes between divinity and our physical plane. They actually have helped folks keep their sanity by giving them a psychic structure and framework within which to assess their experiences. Otherwise their value is limited (except that one chap commented to me that he liked my "gameboards" when referring to the Watchtowers in one of my Enochian books. So if you don't need a map, how about a good game?). So, when I said above that these maps are verifyable via experience, I mean that a lot of different people have verified them, while others have not. Use what works for you, it the only real rule here. The notion that there is a right and wrong to these maps (I call these maps universe models because they are, in fact, different models of the magical universe) flies in the face of the evidence. Dr. Bain: "Path 25 does indeed have the attribute of this card, by whatever name, but sits in the center of the Greater Hod as Path 25 of the 32. " Your phrase "sits in the center of the Greater Hod" leads me to think that it is one of the paths going through the Sephirah rather than a true path. Anyway, I was using the GD/OTO map, and stick by what I have said. Your "proof" of where Path 25 "really" lies, is no better or worse than mine. Sorry about that. Perhaps we can agree to disagree with all of these maps? Is there a Lesser Hod? Dr. Bain: "It equates with the function of the exorcist in the early church, the svaddisthana chakra, and the hindu mantra, VAM [see Ernest Wood: Yoga, pub. in UK under the Pelican imprint]." To what does "it" refer? Hod? or Path 25? I have Wood's Yoga somewhere in my library, but have not read it in many years. Could you tell us what these correspondences have to do with Art or are you implying that your version of the Tree of Life has no real relevance? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 14:03:35 -0500 From: LieselFD@aol.com Subject: Re: ART & THEOSOPHY By the bye, Wheaton now has art exhibits, of TS artists, since the first of last year. I'm one of the founders. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 18:18:52 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Library forms and a request Dear Elizabeth Trumpler: I haven't received anything as regards ordering library materials. If they are in the mail, please disregard this second request. Could you please see if you have "Spirituality and Art" in your library? I think it is by Kandinsky. Do you know if Nicholas Roerich (k?) (unsure of spelling) wrote anything in regard to theosophy or about painting. I know he wrote a travel journal. Could you give me the internet address to Headquaters, I assume this in the library and other e-mail should be routed elsewhere. I am told that Wheaton has an exhibit of TS artists. Could you send me informaiton you have on this exhibit and the artists. I know you are very busy and thanks for all your help. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 19:24:44 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Tree of Life & Universe Models In message <950129165527_76400.1474_FHA55-1@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > Dr. Bain: "Later research has established that many of the GD/OTO > attributions were and are incorrect." > > Gee, I wonder what the GD and OTO have to say about this > interesting fact? Whose research? Halevi's, my own, other UK occultists. It is doubtful, I am told, that any true GD organisation(s) survive, but that is only one opinion. It may be different for the OTO. In this area the writings of my friend and colleague R.A.Gilbert are of interest. He has been published in the UK by Element books, and sells well in the US I believe. He not long since published a biography of AE Waite, and actually possesses some of Waite's regalia, as well as no small amount of Ms. material from Crowley and other GD sources. If you are interested in source material, he can often obtain rare and even extremely rare items. He is not online, but I can e-mail you his address privately if you are interested. > > Dr. Bain: "Sepher Yetzirah makes it clear that there are 32 > Paths of Wisdom, and ten Sephiroth - ten and not nine, ten and > not eleven." I am only quoting it! > Yes, there are 32 Paths, but the first 10 refer to going through > the Sephiroth themselves, while the remaining 22 refer to the > pathways connecting them. Each of these 22 paths corresponds to > a Hebrew letter The reference to the first 10 relating to the Sephiroth is a GD assumption which is not supported by Sepher Yetzirah. The numbers add up, that is all. BTW, I do not want to quarrel over any of this - anyone can do the same research, and can come up with the same result. When I began my studies, they still called it "Occult Science." > We have lots of maps for the same territory, folks, and they are > not all the same. Is the problem the territory or the maps? You pays your money and you takes your choice! > Dr. Bain: "Path 25 does indeed have the attribute of this card, > by whatever name, but sits in the center of the Greater Hod as > Path 25 of the 32. " > > Your phrase "sits in the center of the Greater Hod" leads me to think that it is one of the paths going through the Sephirah rather than a true path. Anyway, I was using the GD/OTO map, and stick by what I have said. Your "proof" of where Path 25 "really" lies, is no better or worse than mine. Sorry about that. Perhaps we can agree to disagree with all of these maps? I didn't offer "proof." I did offer the results of research. If you are interested, then e-mail me - I am not out to "convert" anyone, nor on any power trip, just following the adage "There is no religion higher than truth." > Is there a Lesser Hod? Yes. > Dr. Bain: "It equates with the function of the exorcist in the > early church, the svaddisthana chakra, and the hindu mantra, VAM > [see Ernest Wood: Yoga, pub. in UK under the Pelican imprint]." > > To what does "it" refer? Hod? or Path 25? I have Wood's Yoga > somewhere in my library, but have not read it in many years. > Could you tell us what these correspondences have to do with Art > or are you implying that your version of the Tree of Life has no > real relevance? > > Jerry S. It refers to Path 25 and card 14. The ref. to Wood's Yoga was mainly to show a source for the mantric attribution. Crowley made the association with Art. Okay, he was entitled to his view. It isn't mine, but the subject came up under that heading, and Path 25 and card 14 were in there. Just for the record, my research indicates a clear link between the Egyptian (as at Luxor) and the later Christian (as at Glastonbury, which you will have heard of if you have read Dion Fortune's writings - maybe even if you haven't; it was a hippy haven in the sixties and seventies. Stay cool. AB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 11:46:28 -0500 From: mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com (Michael W. Grenier) Subject: Re: Elizabeth Clare Prophet > > I am reading a book, "The Chela and the Path," written by > > Elizabeth Prophet, as dictated to her by Ascended Master, EL > > Morya. This book claims that El Morya Khan was instrumental in > > founding the Theosophical Society along with his friend Master > > Koot Hoomi Lal Singh. Is this True? > > No, she and her channeled entities are not part of the > Theosophical movement founded by H.P. Blavatsky and her Gurus. > Although the names of the two entities she channels are similar > to the ones used by HPB's gurus in the 19th century, the purple > prose and gush they utter, through her, are nothing like the tone > or content of the real Adepts. Read THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO A.P. > SINNETT for an idea of what Theosophy is really like. Though Elizabeth Prophet thinks they are the same masters. I heard her quote from the Mahatma Letters in her lectures. -Mike Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com ---- Michael W. Grenier mike@planet8.sp.paramax.com 612-456-7869 Unisys - Air Traffic Control From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 11:47:54 -0500 From: Eldon Tucker Subject: Regarding Chaos Jerry Schueler: Yes, we did lose Brenda to the CWL discussions. She dropped out back in September, because she wasn't prepared to read the detailed historic discussion about him and his failings. I think that our expectations about `theos-l' are based upon what we expect it to be. I view it in either the bookstore or coffeehouse metaphor. As a bookstore, there may be many volumes of different topics, some that might bitterly oppose others on the same shelves. As patrons of the bookstore, we find what we like and simply ignore the rest on the shelves. As a coffeehouse, we might go in, and hear the various conversations going on at the different tables; we'd sit down at the table with the conversation that most interests us, and not care about the rest. ---- Regarding Chaos -- Eldon Tucker The subject of chaos, as a new subject of study, has the potential of enriching our understanding of live, and the law of cycles, and how the world works. We can derive many new keys to unlock the mysteries that stand before us in our theosophical studies. There's a very good book, "Turbulent Mirror," by John Briggs & F. David Peat, Perennial Library, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1989. This 222 page paperback presents the many areas of thought related to the study of chaos in both a mathematical and scientific manner, and in a well-digested, clearly-presented philosophical presentation. I'd highly recommend it as an important supplement to theosophical studies, and would personally place it much higher than "The Source of Measures." When we come to a study of chaos, as a modern discipline, we first need to realize that the term "chaos" was coined. Nonlinear dynamics and other areas of mathematics and physics, grouped under the term "chaos," are not extensions of early religious thought, simply because the same term was used. There is not the duality of chaos versus cosmos in the sense of randomness versus order. We don't have "accidents" at times and the karmic results of actions, the results of previous causes, at other times. This is not to say that everything *appears* to be ordered and well-behaved. While the mathematics of a living system, of a system undergoing continual iteration or self-feedback, is deterministic, ordered, and not random in nature, the matter of *predictibility* is a different subject. There are certain basic stages to the manifestation of a living system. A good graphic analogy, a good metaphysical symbol, is the bifurcation curve. At a low energy level, life cannot sustain itself, and death results. At a slightly higher energy level, life adjusts to its environment and can exist. At this stage it is stable, balanced, and ordered in a predictable, near-linear way. At yet a higher energy level, it undergoes its first bifurcation, where it now has a dual state, and it goes back and forth. At yet higher levels, the number of states that it goes through become more and more varied and unstable, until its state is totally unpredictable or chaotic. Again, we don't have a duality of chaos versus cosmos in the sense of randomness versus order. What we rather have is predictability versus unpredictability, but order nevertheless. We can have a system where we can, say, plot on a x/y graph an ellipse that represents all states of a system. That system is well-defined, is ordered; its states only exist on that curve. But the system may be "chaotic" in the sense that we cannot predict from one moment of time to the next where on that graph its state will be. The system is chaotic in the sense we cannot predict a precise future state, but is ordered. That order, that holds it to the well-defined set of stages, is called a "strange attractor." Another example of apparent chaos is in the static on phone lines, which comes under "intermittency." No matter how clear we try to make the line, there will be small, apparently random bursts of noise. When we examine those bursts of noise, they have the same pattern of small bursts of noise, at increasing degrees of magnification. We have a fractal order to the signal on the phone line. The order is not random, accidental, but described by fractals. (Fractals represent another area of study, that related to theosophic thought. We have a type of mathematical object that has fractional dimension, that has an infinite amount of detail, that at different levels of magnification shows the same pattern or richness of detail [the macrocosm/microcosm idea], and models real-life processes.) With chaos, we have order in the universe, but sometimes that order eludes us, sometimes that order is unpredictable in either time or space. That unpredictability and apparent disorder arises from living systems being at too high an energy level, being at too high a level of self-feedback, and where they have moved from an ordered existence along the turbulent pathway towards "chaos". When the apparent order is gone, the higher type of order is maintained in an almost metaphysical way, in strange attactors, in unseen forces that maintain order in the apparent external chaos of external unpredictability. Consider karma. If life were operating at a slower pace, we might have a more-immediate sense of cause-and-effect feedback for our actions and interactions with others. Now, in the turbulent, tense, difficult Kali Yuga, our karmic web is in a chaotic stage, where karma acts as a strange attractor, still guaranteeing that our results come back to us, but not externally predictably in a linear fashion in time and space. We know that the fruits of our actions will return to us, but cannot say when or where. Is everything karmic? No. There are accidents. Life is imperfect and all beings, even the highest Dhyani-Chohans, are subject to error. And there is yet an even more important ingredient: the free will of others in the present. Everything that other people do is not simply the results of *our* past actions. The whole of life is not merely a puppet show for *us*. Others have their free will do, and everyone participates in making what will happen. The interaction between us and others is *negotiated* in the sense that the person on each side of a relationship has an influence on what will happen. We have, between ourselves and others, not so much a give and take of x units of "karmic currency" as we have a living bond through which we co-create what happens. Coming back to chaos, an important idea is the "butterfly effect," the sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Certain systems may be living at a point where the slightest external change, the slightest perturbation, would cause a radical state change. A pencil balanced on its lead point would be an example of this. As we increase our energy levels, and move from the regions of ordered to turbulent existence, we find such points becoming more frequent. Taking some of the symbols from chaos, and using them as theosophical symbols, we could consider three for now. A *fractal* shows the macrocosm/microcosm relationship, and a study of how and when fractals occur in nature is rewarding. The *bifurcation curve* is the best mathematical illustration of the law of cycles, and should replace the symbol of the serpent swallowing its tail. And the *mandelbrot set* (which I haven't discussed in this posting) is an excellent example of the karmic web, of the law of living relationships. A caveat must be given at this point. Mathematics is a tool to model life, but *is not life itself.* Life has many options as to how it will manifest itself, and external forms are patterned after mathematical principles, but the life itself was not "caused" or controlled by the mathematics of those forms. The forms and the associated mathematics were chosen by the life, not the causes of the life. A second warning is that when we deal with a new field of scientific and philosophical thought, we approach it with an open mind, but not accept everything on face value, and assume that because many ideas are attractive and ring true, that we accept everything without due critical thought. The Wisdom Teachings in Theosophy relate to a far grander type of learning that we find in popular disciplines, and it's important to never lose sight of its majestic heights. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 11:48:25 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: A Few Thoughts on Experience Eldon: "One area of discussion that appears in many recent postings regards the nature of experience and how it relates to what is truly real ... We must ask: What is experience? And what experience comes from the deep study of the Teachings? ... There is much that happens *inside us*, that constitutes real experiences, without unique outward events in life to distinguish it." Eldon's posting on experience contains much food for thought. What is experience, after all? Buddhism, for example, says that we should doubt all teachings and teachers, even Buddha, and rely only on our personal experiences as our guide incorporating only those teachings that fit in with those experiences. I have come to believe that experience is not all that it is cracked up to be, but on the other hand it is really about all we have. Using the idea that we each have our own unique worldview, or way of looking at ourselves and our world, I believe that our experiences, in general, always tend to support our worldview. This seems to be a kind of law. Predjudice people tend to experience things that perpetuate and explain their predjudices. Good people tend to see the world as good, nasty people tend to see the world as an evil place. Perhaps the psychological phenomenon of projection will explain a lot of this, but I think that it goes even deeper than that. I am not sure that a single objective "real" world exists anywhere in space or time. The psychologist (and a lot of other folks) would say that an external world exists which we all tend to see (experience) a bit differently. I am rather of the opinion that we each, as monads, have our own world that is separate and somewhat distinct from that of everyone else. Consider this scenario: When our divine monad left its home plane and began expressing itself, it split into a syzygy or duality in which was contained a subjective self and an objective world. These two polar counterparts were held together by a force of attraction that we can call Fohat, for lack of a better name. As this monad, with a sense of self and a corresponding sense of world, sunk into space and time - our spacetime contiuum - it began to become better self-defined. It began to see itself as opposed to or separate from its world. In time, because it shared its world definition with some other monads, those whose self-world-definitions were similar began to communicate, and to define collectively rather than separately. They became a life-wave, and they slowly self-manifested into spacetime together until they arrived at our physical "world" which is really a crystallized shared worldview, or system of overlapping worlds that each experiences as one and the same world. Thus our physical world has an overlapping nature in which we can all agree, while it also has areas that are unique to each monad. Although this scenario probably seems bazzar at first, the more I ponder it, the more it seems to explain a lot of things. Could we each bring our own world with us at birth? Do we each take our world with us when we die? Clearly, our experiences change as we grow, and thus our experiences are limited in how they can help us. Because, as long as we sit happily and think about how we know Truth because we can experience it, our growth will stagnate. We have two choices: we can deliberately consciously allow ourselves to grow, or we can let our growth come about on its own, unconsciously. The latter occurs whenever we experience something that cannot be supported or explained within our worldview. Such an event will either cause a mental or physical breakdown, or will force us to revise our worldview. One interesting phenomenon seems to be that each time we do revise our worldview, we fall into complacency once again. Jung would explain our unexplainable experiences in terms of the archetypes, those dynamic complexes of the unconcious, which rise up into our conscious in various forms and demand our attention. But there are other ways of viewing this, as Eldon has pointed out. We have theosophy, and as we grow, we see more and more in its teachings. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 11:49:02 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Re to Dr. Bain Dr. Bain: "Later research has established that many of the GD/OTO attributions were and are incorrect." Gee, I wonder what the GD and OTO have to say about this interesting fact? Whose research? Dr. Bain: "Sepher Yetzirah makes it clear that there are 32 Paths of Wisdom, and ten Sephiroth - ten and not nine, ten and not eleven." Yes, there are 32 Paths, but the first 10 refer to going through the Sephiroth themselves, while the remaining 22 refer to the pathways connecting them. Each of these 22 paths corresponds to a Hebrew letter and their explorations (called pathworking) are well documented. The Hadra Zvta Qdisha (The Lesser Holy Assembly) does describe the 11th Sephiroth Daath, to which Mathers writes in a footnote "Daath is the conjunction of Chokmah and Binah" (see The Kabbalah Unveiled by S.L. MacGegor Mathers, one of the three founders of the GD and magician extraordinare. Although Mathers was a showman, his translations are quite good, and his magic was excellent. He is one of the very few magicians whom Crowley had respect). Also, the Greater Holy Assembly says "From the third cavity there go forth a thousand times a thousand conclaves and assemblies, wherein DOTh, Daath, Knowledge, is contained and dwelleth" (Chapter XXVIII verse 566). The Sepher Yetzirah does not specifically say that Daath does not exist. It simply ignores it. Maybe the problem here depends on which translator we want to listen to? The beauty of the GD and OTO systems (which do differ slightly) is that they are verifiable by experience and do not stand on theory alone. BTW, the Qlippoth are real as well. Let me say here that the very fact that Western Occultism has a Qabalistic Tree of Sephiroth and Paths (with apparently several interpretations) an Enochian system of Watchtowers and Aethyrs, and a theosophical Gupta Vidya or Planetary Chain, to mention just three (I omit the Egyptian and Gnostic as being outdated) shows that these realms are very very subjective indeed. We have lots of maps for the same territory, folks, and they are not all the same. Is the problem the territory or the maps? Makes one pause and think? I had a lot of personal problems with the Tree of Life, but I took to the Enochian system like a duck to water. All this means is that the Enochian system was better suited to my own personal level of experience and "worldview." Others have faired well enough with other systems. I hope someone does something with HPB's Planetary Chain, but I rather doubt that theosophists will ever come to any agreement of just what the heck HPB's model is all about. The real purpose of these maps is to help us better understand our psychic experiences in what I call the magical universe - the 5 cosmic planes between divinity and our physical plane. They actually have helped folks keep their sanity by giving them a psychic structure and framework within which to assess their experiences. Otherwise their value is limited (except that one chap commented to me that he liked my "gameboards" when referring to the Watchtowers in one of my Enochian books. So if you don't need a map, how about a good game?). So, when I said above that these maps are verifyable via experience, I mean that a lot of different people have verified them, while others have not. Use what works for you, it the only real rule here. The notion that there is a right and wrong to these maps (I call these maps universe models because they are, in fact, different models of the magical universe) flies in the face of the evidence. Dr. Bain: "Path 25 does indeed have the attribute of this card, by whatever name, but sits in the center of the Greater Hod as Path 25 of the 32. " Your phrase "sits in the center of the Greater Hod" leads me to think that it is one of the paths going through the Sephirah rather than a true path. Anyway, I was using the GD/OTO map, and stick by what I have said. Your "proof" of where Path 25 "really" lies, is no better or worse than mine. Sorry about that. Perhaps we can agree to disagree with all of these maps? Is there a Lesser Hod? Dr. Bain: "It equates with the function of the exorcist in the early church, the svaddisthana chakra, and the hindu mantra, VAM [see Ernest Wood: Yoga, pub. in UK under the Pelican imprint]." To what does "it" refer? Hod? or Path 25? I have Wood's Yoga somewhere in my library, but have not read it in many years. Could you tell us what these correspondences have to do with Art or are you implying that your version of the Tree of Life has no real relevance? Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 16:17:08 -0500 From: ah430@lafn.org (Dara Eklund) Subject: Jerry S. on Experience Jerry S.> What is experience, after all? Buddhism, for example, says that we should doubt all teachings and teachers, even Buddha, and rely only on our personal experiences as our guide incorporating only those teachings that fit in with those experiences. I have come to believe that experience is not all that it is cracked up to be, but on the other hand it is really about all we have. Jerry's last sentence gives me hope that he may not mean what he wrote before it. Perhaps he will say some more. Neither Buddhism nor Theosophy teaches reliance on "only our personal experiences as our guide". Nor do they teach incorporation of "only those teachings that fit in with those experiences." In one of Buddha's last teachings before his body died, he said to Ananda: "It may be that some among you will think, `Our Guru's teachings have stopped, we no longer have a Guru.' But that is not so Ananda. That which I have proclaimed and made known as the Teaching and the Moral Rules, that shall be your Guru after I am gone." If Buddha's Middle Way means anything, it means avoiding *exclusive* reliance on either our own or others' views. HPB, in the KEY and the SD, writes of Adepts accepting a personal vision as true, only if it coincides with the previous visions of other Adepts. So if anything, the balance swings *away* from self reliance and towards a collective or shared view of truth. Throughout Asia, one would *never* take an inner experience, whether a logical conclusion, a dream or a meditative insight, and appraise it based only on one's own personal experience. You would approach your Guru first, (and other Sages too if he was not sure of the value or meaning), and seek from him verification, denial, or explanation of it. You would also study the scriptures of your own tradition to see what light they might shed on this event. The dangers of relying too heavily on self-instruction are many. Not the least of which is strutting about as an Initiate, Buddha or any Christlike sage; when all you have had, at best, is some astral vision, or perhaps a samadhi-like state of concentration. Nicholas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 16:18:12 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: RE CHAOS, A FEW THOUGHTS To Eldon and Jerry: I think we are all talking about much the same thing, but in different "vocabularies", semantic or logical systems. I can't compete with Eldon on the mathematical side. I would like to know more about fractals. They seem to infold very complex patterns in nature like the shape of a lacey leaf in very simple mathematical type equations. But where are the equations encoded, infolded and how do they unfold? Is it encoded in the DNA, morphogenic fields, the akashic records, God's hand? Also Eldon I hear echoes (bad pun) of communication theory. Yeah I borrowed that also to show how art links consciousness. The artistic product or just communication in general links consciousnesses through a physical channel. The artist encodes the art in form, the artistic product stores and transmits the elements (bits) of consciousness in the art and the viewer, reader etc. decodes back into his/her mind. Jerry talks about Fohat as linking (my word) syzygies. For me art links consciousness. I almost want to make Fohat into Art (with a capital A), maybe that's confusing the issue into making art everything or nothing at all. But if you could run the universe backwards, as the physicists do to reunify gravity, the weak force, the strong force and electro-motive force, then everything sort of return to some primal unified force. What we all seem to talking about is invoution on the subjective, hidden "occult" side, and evolution on the form, manifest. natural side. Involution and evolution are two sides to the coin called transformation. The Kabala seems (IMVERYHO) to be an attempt to map the hidden occult side and that if you know enough about the paths, and sephiroths (unsure of spelling), the attributions etc. you can navigate into this hidden side. It is yet another vocabulary. What have the Kabalist gained besides a very complex map? What has traversing the paths taught you? This is not a bait, but a sincere question that the books never get too. When you get to Hod, do you see the god or archetype or power attributed to that sephiroth and talk, commune, grok with him, her it? The complex (to me) mathematics Eldon is using to talk about evolution and transformation is the most accepted "hard" science attempt at a GUT, a grand unified theory that would explain it all. Einstein really wanted to do this. Maybe we will live to see it, but I couldn't read it. Eldon might have to explain the upcoming equations. :) But these hard (in more ways than one) mathematics are still trying to get to the occult side in a very modern manner. So, have I given up on art. Hardly! But I've been pushing it and myself a little too hard. I suggest the following below as a possible formula, not in stone, but a working hypothesis. Do we have a symbold for evolves to, or infolds in, or transforms to. I thinking more of a function in the calculus not an equal sign which seems static. I propose a ^ since that is what I have on my keyboard. Absolute^Manifest Spirit^Manifest Form^Universal Active Creative Intelligence^Fohat^7 Planes^Nature^Creative Conciousness in Man^Creative Activities (including but not limited to physical work, philosphy, science, religion and art) Maybe that's one too many ^'s or several too few. After Enlightenment maybe we become transparent to the grand unity of every element. I'm thinking here particuarlly of the Zen idea of becoming transparent to nature, but in the West this doesn't seem enough, we seem so restless, so argumentative so unserene as has been said before. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 19:27:10 -0500 From: Sy Ginsburg <72724.413@compuserve.com> Subject: Art & Theosophy Hi all and especially Doreen Domb: Thanks Doreen for the information on TACO(Theosophical Artists Co-op) in your message of Jan 27. I am a member of the Miami & South Florida Branch-TSA, a big (100+ members) and active Theosophical branch with lots of courses, workshops and study groups. So we are always on the lookout for new and interesting ways to make Theosophical study available to our members and the interested public. There are several artists in our branch. We have a weekly poetry group and a monthly metaphysical video screening, but want to know more about your artists group. Also we have the usual weekly theosophy study groups and related study groups on Astrology, Brunton, Cayce, Gurdjieff, etc. etc. 25 meeting groups in all, and we operate the local Quest Bookstore. Can you tell us more about TACO. Why are you using the book ART & PHYSICS? Can you send us additional information about what you do? We are glad to communicate with other groups. If you have literature, etc. you can fax it to 305-463-8989 or snail mail to The Theosophical Society in Miami & South Florida, 831 S.E. 9th Street, Deerfield Beach, FL 33441 Tel:305-420-0908. We will respond in kind. Is the book reference: ART AND PHYSICS by Leonard Shlain (New York: William Morrow, 1991)? We didn't have it in our Branch library, but found it in the local Broward County library system. This message seems more appropriate to Theos-Buds but the traffic is all on Theos-l. Sorry, if its not your cup of tea. Having a wonderful time. Wish I were here. Sy Ginsburg From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 20:12:01 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: Jerry S. on Experience Nicholas: I don't want to repeat your serious and considered posting on this, but I do want to *endorse* it. Seems to me we need all we can get - teaching, experience, advice, whatever. Following a teaching blindly is not enough; relying on the invariably subjective interpretation of [however objective] experience is not enough; following advice on its own is not enough. Maybe, out of your final paragraph, we should post a notice on the list: STRUTTING FORBIDDEN (this is a jest - strut if you want to, it's a free net - well almost). guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 20:13:05 -0500 From: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk (Dr. A.M.Bain) Subject: Re: RE CHAOS, A FEW THOUGHTS In message <950130205836_74024.3352_BHT22-2@CompuServe.COM> theos-l@vnet.net writes: > The Kabala seems (IMVERYHO) to be an attempt to map the hidden > occult side and that if you know enough about the paths, and > sephiroths (unsure of spelling), the attributions etc. you can > navigate into this hidden side. It is yet another vocabulary. > What have the Kabalist gained besides a very complex map? What > has traversing the paths taught you? This is not a bait, but a > sincere question that the books never get too. When you get to > Hod, do you see the god or archetype or power attributed to that > sephiroth and talk, commune, grok with him, her it? > > Namaste > > Keith Price Sephiroth is plural of Sephira. The Secret Doctrine map makes mine look like a rough sketch, but it ain't. Kabbalists gain nothing from their map unless they try to go to the places on it. Not too far away from where I live is a village called Knempnet Thrubwell or something very like it. I have no idea how it got its name, but I don't argue about it, and I can go see what it's like for myself. And it takes time and effort to get there. This is *not* meant to be a silly answer to your question:- When you get to Hod you understand more than you did before you got there. Living in England, we have stereotyped images of many places in the USA, mainly from movies. You can imagine what I thought Chicago was like! When I actually got to go there, the first thing I was taken with was Lake Michigan ... The first thing I was taken *to* was Chicago PD (my host was an ex-cop). Such _nice_ people! guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 12:17:56 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Elizabeth Clare Prophet Does anyone know how, in Prophet's pantheon, Morya got an "El" in front of his name-- falsely suggesting he's an Arab-- and "Khan" as a last name-- falsely suggesting he's Central Asian? One would be OK, but they are sorta mutually contradictory. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 12:25:05 -0500 From: Eldon Tucker Subject: On Our Old Books Jerry Hejka-Ekins: In reading your postings last week, I can see that we basically agree regarding the preparation of old theosophical books for republication. The only point of difference might be where we handle obsolete words. I'd replace them, judiciously; other people might include the definition in square brackets or a footnote. In my comments to Liesel where I mention that I'd leave alone books with a few exceptions, my "few exceptions" refers to the "left alone," e.g. to slight corrections as I've discussed elsewhere. My "few exceptions" was not intended to imply that we leave most books alone, and revise but a selected few titles. I'm sorry if I've upset you with my last comments about what you've said regarding editing books. I realize that you're not for intentionally making or keeping books hard to read simply because you've studied them the hard way, an attitude which you aptly characterize as "puritanical crap." You may have been too quick to defend yourself, though, when feeling unjustly criticized, rather than asking me: What do you mean by this? When you make a strong statement that, as a general rule, the works of dead authors should be left untouched, you're making an evaluation of right or wrong, an ethical judgment. The question is the ethical treatment of works of authors, now dead and unable to review and approve any proposed changes to their works. There are a number of changes that could be make to a book, when reprinting it. Each change needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and a separate value judgment made, with some supporting justification. With ethics, we don't just have an absolute black-and-white rule which says "always this way," but rather have a careful weighing of the pros and cons of an individual situation, with the balance tipping towards the greater common good. What are some example changes that might be made to books, when reprinted? First, a facsimile edition needs to be preserved, regardless of other editions, for historical and scholarly research. The books could be computerized and retypeset. The quotes could be typographical set apart from the body text, and perhaps even set apart with a different color on a computerized book. Spellings could be corrected to American English (changing "colour" to "color" may affect the feeling of a poem, but not a block of prose). Sanskrit and other foreign terms could be given standardized spellings, accents, and hyphens. Original page markers could be inserted (e.g. a bold "[20]" where the end of the original page 20). Obsolete terms could be corrected or definitions annotated. And corrective annotations could be brought in from later works to explain or correct the materials (e.g. in "Esoteric Buddhism" we could add as annotations HPB's corrections in subsequent years). What are some example changes that should not be made to books, when reprinted? Taking out materials that are considered offensive, illogical, or stupid by today's standards, to sanitize an author's works (like taking racist comments out of CWL's or Jinarajadasa's works). Altering the contents of books to change the meaning of what was said, to interject our opinions in place of the author's viewpoints. And unnecessary rewriting of the text itself, to correct the English and manner of expression to more suit our personal tastes. How do we distinguish what are good from what are bad changes to books? Good changes make the literature more readable, more lucid; they remove unnecessary roadblocks to a reader's comprehension of the literary work. Bad changes repress or alter the contents of a book, to make it say something different, because of some political agenda or desire to sanitize objectionable contents. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 12:27:29 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: "More comments on Theosophical Books" Jerry (H-E)-- As I recall the passage from Jerry S. about not having read any Theosophical classics was in response to Dan Caldwell's request for people to post their recommended reading lists, or rather in response to someone's response. As to dates??? maybe around Christmas. Dan might recall. Cheers From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 13:12:38 -0500 From: KONEIL@pimacc.pima.edu Subject: Re: Elizabeth Clare Prophet Elizabeth Clare Prophet's pantheon derives from her late first husband's work; he in turn seems to have borrowed freely for Guy Ballard (aka Godfrey Ray King) I AM Movement's pantheon popular in its heighday back in the late 1930's. Ultimately, the source is probably none other than Helena Blavatsky' s theosophical messengers. For an interesting article on the whole matter, see the late A. Bharati's piece in the Tibet Journal "The Origins and Persistence of Rampaism", early 1970's. As for Ballard, he taught physical ascension; his sudden, untimely death created a mess of sorts for the organization. Mrs Ballard's quick response, immediate creamation of the unascended corpse, was foiled by an alert Los Angeles County Coroner's department (unlike its actions with Nicole Simpson & Ron Goldman of late); autoposy showed old Guy was made of the same stuff we all are! Within months of his death the US Post Office brought suit against I AM, severely crippling it. Like Prophet, Ballard appealed to right wing fanatic groups of his day, inducting virtually all of the American Brown Shirts into I AM. To this day Ballard's fanciful accounts of meeting the Masters on Mt Shasta sell. While Ballard reported those meetings occured during his tenure as a US government worker, in fact he was hiding out in LA due to outstanding warrants for his arrest in the Mid West - for what? Fraud of course. Ken O'Neill From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 14:02:02 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Elizabeth Clare Prophet Thanks, Ken, for the information. From my recollection of the Ballard material, the `El' and `Khan' are not found there. Must have been added by Mark Prophet. Surely these figures are adapted from HPB's Masters, but without any concern for coherence with their letters or her writings. This exemplifies a phrase coined by my net-friend David C. Lane, author of books on Eckankar, Radhasoami, and cults in general. He calls "genealogical dissociation" the process whereby religions assert their emergent independence by concealing or transforming their relationship to prior source traditions. Although the Prophets kept the names of KH and M, it doesn't seem they kept much else. Someone posted a notice about a new book on the CUT about a year ago. Surely it's out by now; I'll check. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 14:19:49 -0500 From: ddd@hss.caltech.edu (Doreen Domb) Subject: TACO To everyone, especially Sy Ginsburg. Just a quickie on TACO (Hope to get time to post more very soon!) Thanks for your enthusiasm, Sy. However, I think there may be a misunderstanding in communications. TACO (Theosophical Artists Coop) is NOT affiliated with the Pasadena TS or any other Theosophical organization. TACO is an informal group of independent artists (many of whom happen to be theosophists and/or are members of various theosophical organizations). We don't meet in a TS building or anything like that. We meet at various TACO member's home. I felt I needed to make that clear. Regarding your question as to why we use the ARTS & PHYSICS book, I don't have a specific answer. I usually show up after the reading. To me, the people who do the painting, sculpting, etc., are more into it. I, myself, write and do music. But I always appreciate the other arts. I may not know the technical terms and particular techniques, but I know what I like. Talk with you later........Doreen Thanks Doreen for the information on TACO() in your message of Jan 27. I am a member of the Miami & South Florida Branch-TSA, a big (100+ members) and active Theosophical branch with lots of courses, workshops and study groups. So we are always on the lookout for new and interesting ways to make Theosophical study available to our members and the interested public. There are several artists in our branch. We have a weekly poetry group and a monthly metaphysical video screening, but want to know more about your artists group. Also we have the usual weekly theosophy study groups and related study groups on Astrology, Brunton, Cayce, Gurdjieff, etc. etc. 25 meeting groups in all, and we operate the local Quest Bookstore. Can you tell us more about TACO. Why are you using the book ART & PHYSICS? Can you send us additional information about what you do? We are glad to communicate with other groups. If you have literature, etc. you can fax it to 305-463-8989 or snail mail to The Theosophical Society in Miami & South Florida, 831 S.E. 9th Street, Deerfield Beach, FL 33441 Tel:305-420-0908. We will respond in kind. Is the book reference: ART AND PHYSICS by Leonard Shlain (New York: William Morrow, 1991)? We didn't have it in our Branch library, but found it in the local Broward County library system. This message seems more appropriate to Theos-Buds but the traffic is all on Theos-l. Sorry, if its not your cup of tea. Having a wonderful time. Wish I were here. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 15:23:03 -0500 From: KONEIL@pimacc.pima.edu Subject: Re: Elizabeth Clare Prophet Another example of borrowing of the Masters is that of H. Spencer Lewis and the AMORC. By the late 1910's it came to light AMORC was printing and selling pictures of Masters apparently lifted from the TS; I've heard a monetary settlement was reached in favor of the TS. Does anyone know specifics? Lewis tried outdoing the pack with his famous "Apostolic Successor" document issued by one Shri Mazzinananda Khan." Some info on Khan appears in Rick Fields How The Swans Came to the Lake, while his photo appears in teh Buddhist Churches of America's 1974 75th Anniversary history book (chapter on the Sacramento Betsuin). Former AMORC imperator Gary Stewart felt the document granting succession to Lewis was "another Lewis forgery." Khan was a strange fellow, a source of considerable difficulty for the Buddhist Churches of America's predecessor organization, the Honganji Mission of North America. He also became quite an embarrassment to Paul Carus who at first believed his preposterous story (8 or 9 PhDs claimed). Lewis reported one of the Masters was sailing to America to meet with him; an issue or two later, he published an obituary for teh Master, claiming he'd died at sea! I'd dearly love more info on Khan if anyone has heard of him or knows of him. Ken O'Neill, Kyoshi White Lotus Society From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 15:38:41 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Elizabeth Clare Prophet I find Khan's name rather striking in that one of my nominees for HPB's adept sponsors is Giuseppe Mazzini. I'll reread Fields and then go from there. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 16:08:26 -0500 From: Eldon Tucker Subject: Alexandra West Jerry HejkaEkins, his wife April, and a number of active theosophical students in Northern California are in the process of creating a non-profit corporation, Alexandria West. It will be a research and library center that will own and manage a library and collection of rare archival materials including Jerry's personal library, and the library he inherited from Victor Endersby. At a Board Meeting of Point Loma Publications, earlier this month, we granted Alexandria West permission to make a copy of our rare archives. Other archives at the Pasadena T.S. and Wheaton are under lock and key, like the Boris de Zirkoff collection at Wheaton, which even Dara Eklund is no longer allowed to see. I would like to challenge both Wheaton and Pasadena to throw open their actives to copying by Alexandria West [AW]. The materials in AW will be open to the public; scholars can come and review them. Only certain items may be withheld from viewing, if they refer to still-living people. Why do theosophical centers keep their archives secret? Perhaps one reason is that by having the materials, they are somehow legitimatized, somehow given a sense of special connection with the Work. (I would disagree on this, and say that the special connection is in the inner life of the organization, independent of any external resources it may own.) Perhaps another reason is that there are materials that are damaging to their organization's presentation of theosophical history or of the character and lives of their leaders? (Another unethical reason, opposed to the motto: There is no religion higher than truth!) Regardless of past reasons for keeping archives secret, I think it is time to open them up to the world, so that the materials become an asset in the public quest for Truth! Let's not entomb the reality of Theosophy and its history in the private archives of our current-day organizations! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 16:08:57 -0500 From: Eldon Tucker Subject: Is it Wise to Talk About Spiritual Experiences? Is it Wise to Talk About Spiritual Experiences? This is in response to a question by Martin Euser. -- Eldon Tucker Should we talk about our mystical experiences? The answer lies in a combination of common sense and looking at the example of the great Teachers of the world. There is really two senses of talking about the experiences. In one case, we are with an individual in private, or before a specific group of people. In this case, we see their reaction and can adjust what we say, or do not say, to how they respond to us. In the other case, we are writing for people in general, with no direct interaction with the reader, and no way to adjust what we say to their reactions. In this case, we would speak with greater reserve. How do the great Teachers express their understanding and experiences? Publicly, they speak in allegory, using symbols rather than plain speech, veiling what they would say. They do not write plainly, nor go as far as they could in speaking of higher things. Often, a simple, plain description is used to hide a deeper meaning from all but those who know what to look for. How do they communicate in private? In a very direct, personal way, needing to hide nothing, but still responsive to the people they are with. The occult truths, though, are not readily communicated by simply talking about them; an inner readiness, an inner ripeness is needed in the student in order to understand what he is taught. Speaking of us, now, as theosophical students, these rules also apply. We speak with care publicly, and may have to veil what we say; privately, we may be more open in talking one-on-one with others. What is it that we can communicate? Some experiences are too new, too foreign to us, insufficiently understood and integrated in our lives for us to be ready to share them. Others are solidly a part of our lives, and can be shared; these bear the ring of truth, a sense of genuineness that others readily detect. We cannot easily separate understandings from experiences. An experience is not truly part of our lives until it is clearly understood. And an idea is not real, not a genuine part of us until it is experienced. The two--understanding and experience--go hand in hand. We may have visions, dramatic events in our lives that are almost initiatory in nature. There is a sense of magic as we are born into some new area of life. These experiences, though, are not the important ones. They dazzle us, but they are insufficient for us to go out into the world and be and do something new. The real types of experiences that lead to Wisdom that we can share come slowly. They grow on one over time. There is no dramatic sense of their arrival; rather, they introduce themselves quietly, in the background, like an acorn slowly growing to become a giant tree. These experiences build up in us skills of the spirit, training in the Hierarchy of Compassion. Picture the acorn, first poking its green shoot abvoe the ground. This is a dramatic event! Something new exists where nothing was before. But the long, slow growth of that green shoot into a giant tree happens slowly, imperceptibly, without dramatic fanfare. The green shoot is not ready to share, but the giant tree certainly is! Considering our inner experiences, they enter into our lives, go through an embryonic stage, then finally reach the point where they are ready to be born into the world. It is in the embryonic stage that we take the new contents of consciousness and make them a real, solid part of our lives, something worthy of sharing. In a broader sense, we find the same process described in terms of a study of Theosophy itself. With the first Initiation, we have come to an intellectual exposure to the Teachings, to the dead-letter books and the ideas that we quickly learn to parrot. With the second Initiation, we dive beyond the printed words, going deeply within, partaking of Mahat, and have an inner font of learning, though still needing to keep our lips sealed. And finally with the third Initiation, we have solidified our relationship to the Teachings to the point where they are a living part of our lives, and we can start to share them in a genuine way. We have then become, in some small degree, spiritual teachers ourselves. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 17:15:51 -0500 From: Keith Price <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Random thoughts on a few thoughts & Kaballa To Jerry and Allan but not necessarily in that order: Frankly I have shyed away from Kaballa althought I keep traversing its path (poor, very poor). ;) It seems (IMHandUniformedO) to have a very mixed aura (for me). Have you read Stephan Hoeller's "The Royal Road" (I would think probably yes). Have you met Stephan? He is a fascinating speaker, and that's putting it mildly. The book was written around 1970, I believe, and is a sort of hippie invitation to explore the sephiroth with various herbs, aromas, minerals, gems and dare I say "medicianals". Another book on "Angels" pointed out that there was an angel associated with each sephira and the negative quilpoth (sp.?) had fallen angels. Metaron is a biggie. It almost semed like a never ending staircase. The malkuth of one is the crown on the next going up and down forever like the planetary chains. Without pointing fingers, there are white magicians, black magicians and those that are somewhat gray. I read somewhere that high evil looks somehow "good". I'm not saying that the Kaballa is evil high or low, I don't know that much about it. Anyway, since you are most knowledgeable, I would like to hear how Kaballa fits into theosophy, it cerainly seems to be a source for HPB and others. And AB seems to suggest that to understand, one must have personal experience, yeah probably, and Jerry talks about personal experience as the acid test also. To Jerry: I think you said a lot of important things and to me. Your post was very well thought out and I appreciated it and I hate it when someone finds something to pounce on and ignores all the good in a post. Well, you know from that I'm going to pounce, a little. Since you are familiar with Jung, I'll cut to the chase. There seems to be certain psychological type that is attracted to theosophy. These people I believe are mostly introverted thinking types with intuition as a secondary function or introverted intuition types with thinking as a secondary function. The first seems more likely. I took the Myers-Briggs and I was the first type although I thought I would be the second. This means (IMHO) that we don't seem to honor the other functions, maybe because the sensation and feeling functions are so heavily honored elsewhere. Art is a really big sensation thing. And feeling, well the less said the better. So what about your post? There seems to be a certain solipcism that goes along with this " I create my world and take it with me and you create your world and take it with you" idea, even though it seem "right" to me in some ways. In other words, one might be inclined to read a lot of books, do a lot of meditating, defend one's position with outrageous polemics, discount society and group consencess (the fundamentalist crowd, how gauche) and even seek Nirvana for oneself. Anybody identify besides yours truly? Has anybody read Bruce Cambell's "Ancient Wisdom Revived: A history of the theosophical movement"? It has some pretty important criticisms about why the T.S. doesn't have mass appeal. Namasate Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 17:31:24 -0500 From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: Random thoughts on a few thoughts & Kaballa Dear Keith-- I'm an INTJ (Introverted thinker with intuition as the secondary function) just like you. You're probably right that this is a very common configuration among Theosophists. Also that it has something to do with our lack of mass appeal. At Wheaton last summer there was an irate woman from that area who claimed that the HQ staff were cold and unfriendly to people who come in from the community. Having always found the Olcott folks to be congenial, this struck me as odd. But I did suggest that Theosophists are by and large introverted thinkers, and perhaps wait for others to approach us rather than reaching out. Everyone in the circle nodded in agreement. More theory tomorrow on what we can do about it. Cheers From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 18:15:05 -0500 From: KONEIL@pimacc.pima.edu Subject: Re: Elizabeth Clare Prophet For an autobiographical (automythological?) sketch of Shri Mazzininanda Khan, see the periodical The Open Court, 1912 issues. Paul Carus was duped by Khan, the latter submitting an article and bio in that periodical. Carus even introduced him, thinking he'd happened on something extraordinary. The article was entitled The High Mass as Celebrated in Lhasa. A hodgepodge of bits and pieces of everything imaginable, it is sheer nonesense. For example, Khan has Tibetan ritual including chanting of "Namo Myohorenge Kyo, the Japanese Buddhist mantra form of the title of the Saddharmapundarika Sutra now so well known and associated with Nichiren Sho Shu. Khan appears to have died around 1928. By then Spencer Lewis was back in San Jose, starting up what would grow into Rosicrucian Park. He saw fit to plagarize Khan's earlier article, only editing it down in size, publishing it in AMORC's magazine under one of his nom de plumes - Sobhito Bhikhu; the article is purely Khan's material. Spencer Lewis was "initiated into Buddhism" in 1920. Piecing scattered stories together, the event must have occured in what is today the San Francisco Buddhist Temple in Japantown. Khan officiated, and had a group of cronies with names as unlikely as his own - mixtures of Sanskrit and other languages, the kind of things you'd expect of persons inspired yet of meager capabilities. The type of Buddhism practiced at that temple requries roughly the equivalency of a BA degree for simple ordination - a BA in its version of Buddhist studies. Lewis' writings on the matter of Buddhism indicate he had no pipeline to Asian sources, instead simply echoing the interpretations of that first generation of pioneering scholars who effectively unleashed rather unacceptable views on the public. So Lewis claimed an ordination without substance in a tradition invented by Khan; Lewis claimed the title, but did little to understand the nature and function of far eastern gnosis. Khan's apostolic succession to the Great White Brotherhood Lodge conferred on Lewis allowed or justified AMORC's so-called "upper degree" work. The real purpose of AMORC study and initiation is to work through the nine degree of Rosicrucian work in preparation for joining teh GWBL. In those upper degrees Lewis establishes that in his many incarnations stretching back to Egypt, he's pretty much been the Western tradition! I believe he identifies himself as one of the Masters. When we look to Prophet and the I AM movement before, we must look to what else was going on in metaphysical culture. Despite its period of implosive fragmentation, the TS became mandatory to borrow from. Lewis spent a good portion of the late 1920s and much of the 30s in litigation and in a feud spilling into the courts with Clymer. For a new organization like Ballard's to appropriate the Masters was simply good business sense - and relocating them to Mount Shasta. I'd check with Gordon Melton at UC Santa Barbara. He's been a Khan watcher for some time. Oppps. Back to Khan and Lewis. When Lewis built his Francis Bacon Auditorium in San Jose, it became the regular Sunday evening meeting place of the Pristine Church - with Lewis in his Cardinal Richelieu get up. That, too, was teh name of the Church Khan had run in San Francisco then moved to Oakland. I have a copy of its "hymnal." I've often wondered why Lewis pulled up stakes seemingly overnight, moving from San Francisco to Miami. Could he have had a falling out with Khan? Could they have gotten into some real trouble? Can Khan's obituary or death certificate be located? Ken O'Neill From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 18:44:41 -0500 From: Eldon Tucker Subject: Alexandria West (additional note) One point of correction regarding my posting about Alexandria West: My statement that even Dara Eklund is no longer able to see the Boris de Zirkoff archives at Wheaton is incorrect; I've been informed that she still has access. Having retracted my single, bad example, given for purposes of illustration, my basic point still stands: The theosophical organizations need to open up their archives. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 19:01:54 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler <76400.1474@compuserve.com> Subject: Experience & Buddhism Eldon: "Neither Buddhism nor Theosophy teaches reliance on "only our personal experiences as our guide". Nor do they teach incorporation of "only those teachings that fit in with those experiences." While this is technically true, my statements are equally correct. let me quote H.H. the Dali Lama from his new book: "It is frequently said that the essence of the training in guru yoga is to cultivate the art of seeing everything the guru does as perfect. Personally I myself do not like this to be taken too far. Often we see written in the scriptures, "Every action seen as perfect." However, this phrase must be seen in the light of Buddha Shakyamuni's own words: "Accept my teachings only after examining them as an analyst buys gold. Accept nothing out of mere faith in me." " (H.H. the Dali Lama, THE PATH TO ENLIGHTENMENT, trans. by Glenn H. Mullin) To me, this quote from the Buddha himself, given by one who Knows, implies that we should only accept those teachings that match with our understanding and experience. The Buddha himself tells us not to blindly accept anything, not even his own words. As we grow, we can accept more and more of the Teachings but they should only be accepted by us as we can assimilate them into our worldview. Eldon: "If Buddha's Middle Way means anything, it means avoiding *exclusive* reliance on either our own or others' views." I agree. But the Surangama Sutra says, "in spite of my learning, if I am not able to put it into practice, I am no better than an unlearned man." (Lin Yutang's THE WISDOM OF CHINA AND INDIA, p 514). To me, this implies that knowledge without personal experience is pretty useless. Note: In my own research into the world of magic, I came across the idea of what I call signposts. The idea is that while Truth is somewhat subjective and can be seen in many different ways by different people, there will always be certain things that everyone will (or should) experience pretty much equally. I have called these collective or shared experiences signposts because like the signposts on a map, we all tend to see them pretty much the same way. If a certain area on a cosmic plane has a signpost, and you don't perceive it, then chances are good that you are not at that location. Going back to my scenario of a life-wave of dualistic monads (in a previous posting) these signposts would be defined as areas in which our Not-I's or our worlds overlap, and thus are shared, much like many regions on the physical plane. Crowley once made the remark that the Sephiroth are like file drawers because each is associated with so many correspondences that must be remembered. Only when you know these correspondences can you be sure of where you are when you pathwork through the Tree of Life. So, magic certainly uses both personal and collective experience, the former to gain direct knowledge, and the latter as a check on the accuracy of the former. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 20:41:29 -0500 From: "Ronald A. Banister" <70402.2301@compuserve.com> Subject: CUT Book Paul, I posted the message about the CUT book. Here's a copy: " CHURCH UNIVERSAL AND TRIUMPHANT IN SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVE Church Universal and Triumphant is a New Religious Movement in the Theosophical tradition. Since moving its headquarters to Montana in the early 1980's, the church has frequently been in the news, for everything from illegal weapons purchases to the construction of controversial fallout shelters. Most recently, it has been sensationalized by the media as the 'next Waco.' During the Summer of 1993, a team of academic specialists conducted a unique, interdisciplinary study of this fascinating movement." It goes on to list chapters, cost, and an address for the Center for Academic Publication. Center for Acadimic Publication 160 N. Fairview Ave., Ste. D282 Goleta, CA 93117 Hope this is useful. Ron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 23:19:59 -0500 From: KONEIL@pimacc.pima.edu Subject: Re: Experience & Buddhism Please allow me to intercede in your conversation. The Dalai Lama's amplification of the Kamala Sutta shows the gnostic foundation of core buddhism. The only caveat is this: one of limited, especially immature gnosis, is without qualification to make claims of knowledge and understanding beyond his or her current status. The Dalai Lama like all who base themselves on certain core teachings of bodhisattva buddhism make use of a kind of developmental model formualted in the dasabhumi sutra; that sutra was incorporated in the huayen/kegon sutra in China, readily available in Cleary's wonderful translation through Shambhala (The Flower Adornment Sutra). As Buddhism grew and evolved in sophistication and understanding of how perons wake up, the dasa model was formulated (dasa=ten, bhumi=stages or passages). Rereading the foregoing I confess to making no point, or obscuring the one I began to make. Gradual unfolding of wisdom/compassion means that what I don't understand today - which is what we all think we do understand, not being able to recognize that "what we don't understand is that we don't understand". When the buddha proposed to the Kamalas that they be the judge of the efficacy of a teaching through its outcomes, he was not talking about the philosophy of a teaching: rather, the methodological procedures or practices which brought about the kind of gnosis a teacher claimed as truth was his subject. Those who've read Arthur Versluis' wonderful new book TheoSophia will recognize the gnosis based common ground of the Buddha and Western gnostic currents. Neither reduce spirituality to philosophical statements; both recognize the problem of Hermes. Spiritual teachers worthy of the title face the great difficulty of "reporting back" from ultimate knowledge, stuck with conventions of ordinary language referring to ordinary experience. At least Sanskrit has a rather well evolved language pointing to extraordinary states. The Dalai Lama's commments are often made in reference to what he knows very well as the "papamitras" of Buddhism. In traditional buddhism, it is held that you need the coaching and mentoring of a guru or personal trainer. Suchpersons are known as kalayamitras, good teacher/friends. On the other hand, papamitras are those whose teachings are falsified by hidden agendas, insincerity, power trips, etc. In various publicaitons and public talks, the Dalai Lama has stood up for the integrity of individuals. In a Swiss study called The Testimonyh of the Tulkus, he is very calculated in remarks about tulkus these days, sayhing he prefers a geshe (like a spiritual director with a PhD) over tulkus. Why? In India and in the West tulkus of little distinction trade on their titles for wealth, fame and lots of sexual advantage. In the context of spiritual counterfeits, HH is especially concerned. There is, of course, much more to say on this matter. The two most important points are the context in which the Dalai Lama, like Oshakasama long ago, speaks: claims and counter claims of the "experts." Second is what the Church for long regarded as one of the great heresies: the gnostic heresy. With gnosis, middle men - be they churches or gurus - take on a consulting or advisory role, not the ultimate dispense & interlocutor between God and persons. Gnostics are dangerous- they see the Emperor has no clothing and that the guru is just as human as you and me! Ken O'Neill, Kyoshi White Lotus Society Tucson, Arizona