Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00022)

I know this response is long overdue, but the original did need answering. 
Especially in light of what has come in since. Acrtually, I eventually 
answer every letter written directly to me (even if it take a year to get a 
round tuit :-), and the archives should not be left hanging (although even 
more confusing, I might imagine ;-) But, who reads mail list archives, 
anyway? 

In a message dated 02/10/03 2:27:18 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:

Hi.
----- Original Message -----
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Yes, Wry, some good examples might help

> Let me add my two cents to this discussion.
>
> Wry, You are perfectly correct in your comparison between the SD and a
> religious scripture such as the Gospel of St. John. They are certainly not
> the same teachings, nor were they written for the same purpose. But, it's
> like comparing apples to oranges.

WRY: You are missing the point entirely. Obviously these were designed for
two different purposes. What you do not seem to understand is that #1: all
of us start out as the common man and #2: obviously you do not, cannot, and
will not believe this, but, though knowledge of a certain kind can be
transmitted in the way she attempts to, other knowledge cannot be given in
this way. It can only be SHOWN. It needs to enter the functioning of the
receiver in a certain balanced configuration that has something to do with
subtleties in timing. When this is not done, and it is NOT, people can get
stuck (MESMERIZED) on one aspect and this is what has happened. We can get
past it, but you do not want to look at this. You cannot. You are stuck in a
mode of contemplation that is not GENERATIVE. That is the way this teaching
is set up. I am really sorry about this, but I have had nothing to do with
it. This is not to say that there is no value in her teaching and that no
good can come out of it.

LHM: 
What point did I miss? Why can't I look at that? How do you know what I do
n't want to look at? Can you read our minds? How do you know what anyone is 
"stuck" in? Stuck in what? 

Nice to make broad, mystical sounding statements, but what are the "balanced 
configurations" that has something to do with "subtleties of timing"? What 
does that mean? Are you the only one who knows? If, so, why don't you SHOW 
us (meaning, this motley "group")? (Although, I see exactly what you are 
talking about, where you are coming from, and where you are going -- since 
I've been through this all before. ;-) 

For all I know, you may be the "one." If so, then tell us, what is the "mode 
of contemplation that is not generative? Generative, of what? After that, 
tell us what is a mode of contemplation that IS generative of something (of 
value)? What is that? Who's to judge? 

So, either you follow up your "positives" with corroborative facts or ideas 
that give food for thought -- or they are nothing more than empty blowing in 
the wind. And, thus, your "negatives" (attacks on people and their ideas or 
teachings) make you sound and look like a "drone" and a "troll" (humble and 
compassionate statements, and claims to look like Glinda, to the contrary 
notwithstanding. :-) (This is a friendly mirror, in which you may or may not 
see your own reflection.) 

WRY: The stuff you have said about Mahayana Buddhism, which I just now read,
having somehow missed it, is way off the mark. The aim of Mahayana
Buddhism is NOT the kind of static contemplation you are talking about as a
realization of the zero point or whatever. You do not understand. I have
experienced the deep contemplation of this zero point as have countless
others. Go past. Go past. Theosophy is NOT the middle way, nor is the middle
way the contemplation of a zero point. There is something else.

LHM: How far off the mark was I? What is the mark? Where do you go that is 
past the zero-point? What don't I understand? It would be nice if you would 
explain things rather than fling out all these grandiose, negative 
generalities that tear down people, ideas or teachings, and that doesn't 
build up to anything real. Maybe all there is, is only a simple yoga practice 
of "unbiased recording" -- which some of us already know and practice. (WQJ 
taught just that over 100 years ago.) How mundane? So, what is that 
"something else"? Without those answers, what can you show and tell us that 
really interested "theosophists" can chew on? 

Right. My view of Theosophy is not that "middle way." Being esoteric, it 
goes far beyond that -- by also n. The wheel of Dharma has at least four 
spokes, and as much as fourteen. Exoteric Mahayana Buddhism doesn't teach 
that completely -- since their simplistic Sangha path is too narrow and 
locked in by its vows. That's why it's easy for some of us (who stand outside 
that path) to see through your smoke and mirrors. :-) To live in harmony 
with nature is to know all the ways of nature. And, that comes about by 
knowing one's own nature. What better way than contemplating the zero-point 
at the center of all our thoughts and actions -- while we are performing 
them? Seeing how things work out from that point is the best way to be the 
"unbiassed recorder." (Am I actually agreeing with you? Who knows? :-) 

So, the contemplation of the zero-point is only one part of the seven fold 
path to self realization and enlightenment. That depends on no one but 
oneself. To be at the zero-point of consciousness is to be in at-one-ment, 
or unity with the "all present." Do you have a better method or goal than 
that -- to understand the reality of "universal brotherhood" as a fundamental 
force in nature? Yet the sheep still keep on feeding the wolves in the 
physical world. What can we do about that? 

All your ramblings (not that mine aren't :-) give us no indication of all 
that, but always seem to deny the reality of the three fundamental principles 
as well as the utility of the three objects of the Theosophical Movement -- 
which covers and supports all possible paths. Since, each one of us is on a 
different path, depending on our individual karma, and on what particular 
stage we are of our knowing who we really are... Now I can ask again, what 
is that "something else" you are trying to sell -- that might supplement our 
individual searches for enlightenment on our own, self chosen path? 

WRY: You will not be able to help other human beings until you understand the
secrets of certain interactions that can occur between the physical body and
the outside world. As above, so below. It is not about contemplation. This
is not the secret of what being fully alive is about. The middle way is
about the establishment of Sangha or spiritual community. Classically, this
term refers to the community which establishes and maintains a religion, but
Sangha is also a symbol for something else. Unfortunately, the inner-meaning
can probably not be understood or transmitted without the participation in
some kind of Sangha or other. When I speak about establishing a certain kind
of community, I am not speaking about establishing a religion. A certain
atmosphere needs to be created and maintained by group participation, in
which every member of the group works for the good of himself, every other
member, and the group as a whole. Until this happens, the inner meaning of
Sangha cannot be communicated. More about this later.

LHM: Really? And, I take it, you understand the "secrets of certain 
interactions that occur between the physical body and the outside world." If 
so, and you're so eager to show us the way and have us practice it -- why 
don't you tell us, straight out, like HPB or Patanjali did, and let us chose 
for ourselves whether we want to be "mesmerized" by you and join your Sangha 
(on whatever "inner meaning" level you know of that we don't)? Why shouldn't 
we ask what that inner meaning is? (My advice to lurkers. :-) But, we may be 
seeing and talking about the same thing -- from different points of view -- 
one broad and the other narrow. I'll leave it to any of us to decide for 
ourselves which zero-point on or in the sphere of wisdom we each are looking 
at it from. ;-) 

But, again, theosophy is not that "middle way." That's an exoteric Buddhist 
teaching which is only one part of the teachings of theosophy -- which, in 
its overall aspects, has its own single, yet triune way that is for the 
training of Adepts and independent thinkers -- not slaves to a Sangha. If 
some of us needed that kind of teaching, they would ask a Buddhist guru and 
join his Sangha. (As, I'm sure some of us have already done.) Although, 
there is nothing wrong with such a Sangha on the inner levels, or what you 
explain about it's inner meanings. But, what makes you think that this is a 
place for such a "community" to start? All we can do is teach one person at 
a time. So, all we have to do is keep on teaching... While, not trying to 
qualify ourselves with relation to others, in the process. BTW; Have you 
ever read the book "Letters That Have Helped Me" by William Q. Judge?) 
That's many times better than all the BBS and email list archives put 
together.

However, if you are proselytizing here to grab students of (or people 
interested in) theosophy who are willing to join your Sangha, why don't you 
say so? Or, at least, show us that your methods will get us to where we want 
to be, that is better than the way we have each chosen to approach and 
practice theosophy. 
That's what we are talking about here, isn't it? Besides, this is not a 
"group" or a "community." It's simply an open discussion field for people 
with a general interest in theosophy where they can listen, learn, teach, or 
just speak their minds -- freely and without any coercion. The only thing 
that's not necessary is personal criticisms, personality bashing, or setting 
up and injecting credible vague mystical concepts (or mantras, if you will) 
using ad homonym techniques. In my book, that could be "black magic" (Or, is 
it "charisma" magic? Or, "glamour" magic?) Nothing wrong with it, if the 
motive is clear and unselfish... But, why shouldn't everyone be aware of the 
techniques used to gain their attention and cooperation, if otherwise? 

So, tell us about your new group yoga practice that can be most effective on 
a mailing list such as this one. If we like it, you may get a few members in 
your new Lodge from the vast sea of neophyte theosophists lurking out 
there.:-) In fact, your answers to these questions might even help. 

> Please understand that the SD was not designed to be a "spiritual teaching,"
> nor a yoga or religious practice, for the "common man." The Voice of the
> Silence is sufficient for that -- as is the spiritual teachings of one's
> chosen religion. Theosophy is perfectly compatible with the idea of
> theosophists being members of any religion -- since all religions have the
> same spiritual, moral and ethical basis. But, the SD is a special case 
(even
> as compared to HPB's other writings on both occult metaphysics as well as
> spiritual ideas). So, it is not the "Bible" of theosophy. It was written
> solely as a textbook or reference for those seeking to understand the 
deepest
> meanings of the metaphysical basis upon which all those religions rest

WRY: I will read The Voice of Silence, but no matter, as you will not
understand it this way. The teaching is always oral. You cannot get it from
a book. Certain books can give the tools to decipher, but they are always
written for the common man, as the man who does not understand certain
material, no matter how intellectually sophisticated or even kind hearted,
is always common if he is ignorant, which he is, if he does not understand
the material.

LHM: Again you assume that you are the only one who can understand the deeper 
meanings of theosophy. What do you know of the oral teaching? Regardless of 
your assertions, there are many books that are not "always" written for the 
Common man. The writings in the Secret Doctrine, and in the Voice of the 
Silence, are such, and are, in essence, "oral" teachings -- which HPB made 
perfectly clear to those Chela's who know how to "read in and around the 
words as well as between the lines." If you hadn't seen that yet in all her 
writings (as well as WQJ's) then I suggest you begin studying theosophy 
before criticizing it. You might look up HPB's instructions as well as my 
suggestions (in many letters over the years) on how to read the SD orally. 
Your generalities about the "common man" who does not understand the material 
has no relevance to those theosophists here that do understand the material 
-- which apparently, you have not studied, and insist on assuming that what 
people write here is the extent of their theosophical knowledge or wisdom. 


> It is, therefore, a textbook of metaphysical science and the philosophy of
> religions -- but not a "religion" or a teaching designed to give someone a
> transcendent "feeling of spirituality." It was designed solely to expand
> on the comparative religion studies in Isis Unveiled

WRY: I have this book and will refer to it next, if I get the time.

> and to further educate
> prospective acolytes on the way toward becoming Adepts -- through its
> teaching of the fundamental truths of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis,
> along with the metaphysical basis of the psychical powers latent in man. Its
> for ostensible goal was to guide those students toward the use of such 
powers
> the benefit of Humanity, so as to help them, as a whole, form the Universal
> Brotherhood of Humanity, as well as help the Masters in putting human
> evolution back on the right track.

WRY: This is, sadly, a pipe-dream. Whatever good her work may have
accomplished, it is now time-inappropriate. Also, there is no such thing as
eternal knowledge, as NOTHING is not knowledge and has nothing to do with
developing the discrimination that real knowledge of interdependent scales
(of material) and their relationship to the doing of something new consists
of.

Again, I ask you to cite where the teachings of theosophy are "time 
inappropriate"? What has time got to do with fundamental truths? What is 
there "new" for them to do? BTW, If "NOTHING is not knowledge" then 
EVERYTHING is knowledge. Therefore, if fundamental principles ("eternal 
verities") cannot be changed, and everything depends upon them -- then, on 
the contrary -- there is such a thing as "eternal knowledge." The 
"independent scales of material," begins with the zero-point spinergy, and 
ends with the same zero-point spinergy -- which is forever. Thus, it always 
contains all the eternal knowledge in its energy patterns and potential 
fields of consciousness (which are all material) that we can access, through 
proper contemplation, observation and integration. So, what's so new about 
your answer to HPB's and the Masters' "pipe dreams"? How can the teachings 
of theosophy be time-inappropriate, when it's still doing the same good it 
did when she first wrote it? 

> So, it could never serve as a "Bible" for
> any religion. Nor is it "the aim of theosophy to establish a universal
> brotherhood."

WRY: I gave the Gospel of John simply as an example of well-constructed
allegorical material. If we fully understood this story, perhaps we would
have real knowledge of the physics of the universe in relationship to . . . 
(something lost here by a computer glitch)

LHM: Do you profess to fully understand it? If so, then why not explain it 
to us? I've already read most of HPB's commentaries where she told me how to 
interpret the "revelation of John" (on at least four of its levels, and along 
with all their theosophical correspondences). Now, please tell us what you 
know that she didn't? Or, do you want us to tell you? Could that be what 
you are fishing for in these waters? Is that why you continue to imply that 
you know everything -- without ever telling us what you know? Don't be 
alarmed at these questions. (There's always at least two ways to look at 
everything, isn't there? :-)

WRY: (snip? If part of this is missing, I think only a letter, my computer did
this. Sorry) 
>ll its students were expected to do was individually form the
> "nucleus" (which means "A central or essential part around which other
> parts are gathered or grouped") -- not THE Brotherhood itself.

WRY: This is gobbledy-gook, plus no such nuculeus has been formed, as far as
I know, and there is NOT unlimited time to do so. If there were a nucleus,
it would be fanning out from the center and affecting what is happening in
the real world, such as on this list, which is a sort of hub where many
people connect and view the archives.

LHM: 
Really? Gobbledygook? Sounded logical to me when I heard HPB say it. Maybe 
you don't know what a "nucleus of brotherhood" means... Or know the 
difference between a simple brotherhood, that could be anywhere, and a 
Universal Brotherhood that must be everywhere. I think I described these 
differences in a recent letter (which you can find in the archives). But, 
here it is again. The nucleus, is the higher Self. Therefore, anyone who 
thinks about Universal Brotherhood, starting from zero, and sees it as the 
fundamental reality of nature -- while also becoming Self realized in the 
process -- is such a nucleus. Then, it becomes impossible not to "live the 
life" (of total conscious immersion) from one moment to the next. I hope you 
understand. A nucleus can only be the center of what is, that surrounds it. 
(When we snipe at each other, don't we become nuclei of unbrotherhood? :-) 
So, nobody ever professed that this forum, no matter how many nuclei of 
brotherhood there might be in it, is, itself, a nucleus of anything. 

Therefore, this so called "hub" or "list" is no such thing. Nor can it be -- 
since no group or Sangha, composed of individual nuclei, no matter how large, 
can be a Universal Brotherhood -- but only (sigh) a simple "group 
brotherhood." But, nevertheless, that's not the purpose of a mailing list. 
And, none of that has anything to do with each individual nucleus -- wherever 
he/she may be. So, all that theosophy requires us to do is to individually 
"become a nucleus," and let the Universal Brotherhood take care of itself -- 
as we go about our business of helping and teaching others who wish to end 
their ignorance. That's what HPB orally taught. Sorry, but it would be a 
shame if you can't understand that, and continue to call her words, 
"gobbledygook." 

It would be wise for you, before trying to approach theosophists, to 
understand exactly what it was she (and the Masters through her) were 
teaching. And, also, what the exact cyclic nature of the ancient Theosophical 
Movement was... And why it could never be "time inappropriate" -- since each 
century's teachings are designed to take care of the next century. 

According to this, your exoteric Buddhist orientation could place you several 
centuries behind.:-) Although, since each cycle of the movement has opposite 
foci (i.e. a teaching cycle followed by a practical application cycle) -- you 
are right in line, since you do advocate a practical group application of 
theosophy (which I have been talking about for the past ten years on this 
forum). Not as a way to become self realized, but to actually get out and 
work for the cause in the real world. But, this didn't mean giving up the 
teachings which are, in spite of your disclaimers, still time appropriate -- 
since human nature is still as it always was, and will be -- so long as 
people believe they have only one life to live. So, the only problem I have 
is waiting to find out how you plan to turn this particular eclectic group 
into an effective instrument to effectuate the mind change of the rest of the 
world... Especially in the face of the current war and the takeover of the 
world's governments by the dark forces of greed for power and money. 

> Also, the reason why the SD appears as not to be an "organic whole" is
> only apparent on its surface, if you think of it as being written for 
"everybody"
> and every purpose. Much of it, in fact, was intentionally written in a
> disorganized manner so as to discourage "common people," still caught up
> in their materialistic world, from being able to penetrate into the deeper
> mysteries and magic it teaches -- that only those ready in this 5th round,
> 5th race and 5th subrace for their 5th plane rational and 6th plane 
intuitive
> mental development (which is necessary before true Spiritual development).
> So it is entirely "time appropriate." That is, if one can see further than
> the end of their present lifetime, or get off the lower four planes and 
start
> thinking with both their rational and intuitive mind about the eternal NOW
> as being the synthesis of past, present and future.

WRY: The section above is one of the stupidist things I have read since I
have been on the internet. You do not think about a synthesis. There is only
learning. Admittedly I have not been subjected to most of the stupidity on
the web, as I have tried to choose intelligent people. You are like a
born-again Christian. There is no way to communicate with you.

Well, I'm glad you understood what I was saying and acknowledged it's 
stupidity. Actually, it was written for serious students of theosophy to 
contemplate, and correlate with their studies in the SD. So, since you seem 
to have no need to know any of that, I assume you aren't such a student. 
(Also, thanks for the reverse compliments. They really make me feel good 
about what I'm doing here. :-) 

However, There is a "synthesis" to think about before we make harsh and 
hurtful judgments and use ad hominem remarks to discredit statements that we 
cannot logically or knowledgeably deny. And, that is, the "Synthesis of 
Science Religion and Philosophy" -- that is taught in, and is the subtitle of 
the Secret Doctrine -- which my ABC theory, and all I say about the 
"principles of reality," are perfectly consistent with. And, upon which the 
whole purpose of this and all other theosophical forums rest. Wher we can 
talk about theosophy from the physical world point of view, as well as the 
spiritual world point of view -- or their synthesis in our mental world point 
of view... But, always, in the light of untainted and consistent theosophy. 

But, as I see it, little of what you say has this consistency. And, since 
the Secret Doctrine is based on immutable fundamental principles, what hubris 
or chutzpah makes you think you can contradict them and its conclusions? My 
hope is that someday, you might tackle the SD and find the order in its 
disorder for yourself, realize the rightness of what we say about it, and 
come down off your high horse. Maybe, then, the baby talk will end, and we 
can get down to brass tacks. 

In any event, we are still waiting for you to tell us where the SD and the 
teachings of HPB and the Masters are not "time appropriate"? And also tell 
us how the synthesis of diverse ideas is not learning? Do you know what the 
word "synthesis" means? How can anyone learn anything about ultimate reality 
without having synthesized the inner and outer reality, i.e., the merging of 
the zero-point of awareness with the surrounding spheres (fields, planes, 
etc.) of spiritual, mental, and physical consciousness? Can't you not see 
that? 

> As for your take on all
> this, I too, think you just don't know what you are talking about.
> So, I suggest you find out what theosophy is all about, what it teaches in
> the SD, why it was exposed when it was, and what were the purposes of 
> such disclosure -- before criticizing its presentation. along with trying 
to 
> twist it from its real purpose, into a religion that's suits your own 
personal
> development in this lifetime, and distract its students with other hidden 
and
> apparently short term agendas (which are too obscure to make any 
> comment about).

WRY: Don't worry your pretty little head about other lifetimes or larger
time-frames. You are asleep. It will not matter what you say or do, as there
is no third force. Of course this is not your own opinion of the matter,
which is sad.

LHM: Thanks again for the compliment, my dear. That sounds like your daddy 
talking. What's so sad? If that's so, there isn't even a "second force." 
However, in the one force there are the two opposing forces, the positive and 
the negative. The "third force," then, is the force of our self 
determination to make the right choice between the two. Scientifically, the 
third force is the inertial force that keeps the negative and positive forces 
apart. Theosophically, it's the neutral force of Self restraint, or 
maintenance of harmony. Mystically, it's the philosophers stone that 
transmutes lead into gold. Spiritually, its the force of awarenes that is 
will. All told, there are five forces, We're lucky if we learn to handle 
two of them.

The sadness is your assumptions that only you are awake and can see the true 
reality behind whatever you think everyone else can't see. Of course, if 
your word, apparently, comes from God, then everyone who cannot agree with 
you must be asleep. So, from my point of view, the non sequitur of "third 
force" has no meaning in the context of what you are commenting on, and just 
seems to be one of the usual negative mantras you have a tendency to insert 
whenever you have nothing logical to say other than your ad hominem remarks. 

> In any event, that's a pretty narrow time frame or focus for a serious 
> theosophist whose primary interest is (and who can also be a follower 
> of the fundamental spiritual teachings of any religion or yoga) in fully
> developing his intuitive mind -- so as to arrive at "self realization" in 
> order to become "better able to help and teach others."

WRY: Never show an unfinished project to a woman or a half-crazy man.

LHM: Great comment on a statement that takes some thought and understanding 
to reply to. Judging from your previous comments about this line... Since, a 
woman is equated with a "half crazy man" -- how can we trust the wisdom of 
any woman who begins laying down unfinished projects in a place where women 
and "half crazy men" hangout? (Wow, that's asking for it. :-) And, then, 
can't take it when someone questions her vagaries about a "new teaching" 
which, apparently, misinterprets theosophy, and denigrates people who post 
their theosophical ideas on this forum? 

So, let's get it straight. In one letter you are the speaking for HPB (which 
implies you are a Master), and in the other you are an ignorant student of 
theosophy, begging us to tell you what it's all about. Then, in another, you 
imply that you want to take over this list to teach us your "dealing with the 
material" method of attaining Universal Brotherhood. And, now, I see you are 
trying to penetrate other lists with the same gobbledygook (pardon me for 
pirating your the expression). 

So, cool it already. And, start to discuss with us what we all need to know. 
(But, I see you've gone over to bn-study with a whole new approach -- so, 
maybe you already have... (We'll see, here, when you answer this letter. :-)

> So, I think it would be good advice that before one tries to heal another, 
or 
> veer him from his self chosen path that one should take heed of the rule of
> Hermes, who said, "Physician, heal thyself," or that of Jesus who said,
> "before you try to remove the cast from another's eye, see to the mote in
> your own."

WRY: Do your Work (which as far as I can see, doesn't exist), and I will do
mine. WRY

You may go ahead with my blessing. And I shall proceed in my non existent 
work of trying to understand what your problem is that you have to make 
judgments and criticisms about things and people you cannot know. Actually, 
these letters are fun for me, since I can do many other things while writing 
them over many days. And, the writing down of theosophical ideas gives me 
great energy for everything else.

> In a message dated 02/03/03 2:17:35 PM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:
>
> >Hi. I have just spent 20 minutes looking through a bunch of emails, Mostly
> >from this list, reading three or four, deleting some and marking the rest
> >unread. Usually this takes longer. I have then gone downstairs and found
> >some reprints from the Secret Doctrine, thinking to quote a section, and
> >then come back up here and spent five minutes leafing through this stuff,
> >but it is all the same. Any part can be used as an example. I have chapter
> >two of The Secret Doctrine. It is admittedly somewhat interesting, You
> >can compare this to the Gospel of John. Neither one, in my opinion, is time
> >appropriate, but one is an organic whole. The other is not. Moreover, the
> >common man can read the story of the gospels and not intellectually
> >understand the inner meaning at all and yet come away with something that
> >is whole and approaches and even touches the esoteric, as it is
> >well-constructed allegory,. and even by reading it and not fully
> >understanding it, he will be changed, and maybe someday, much later, he
> >will understand, but The Secret Doctrine the common man will NOT read or
> >understand either now or later. Do you dispute this? A good spiritual
> >teaching is for everyone. It is simple. This is my understanding, though
> >you may not agree.

LHM: As an added comment: I am not disputing anyone. Based on your 
presumptions you may be right or you may be wrong. When you compare a 
complete allegorical teaching (such as Revelation) with a few words from one 
chapter of a profoundly complex many thousand page textbook on the nature of 
reality, from both a mystical and scientific point of view -- its like 
comparing Hatha Yoga to Rajah Yoga, or comparing Church Liturgy to the Sermon 
on the Mount. Those are like "apples and oranges." I'm surprised you didn't 
get it. 

As for the common man, he certainly can't be expected to read and understand 
the SD or the Gospel of John. But, what has that got to do with those who 
are pointing the way to the teachings for those that ask for it (who are not 
the "common man"). Is that why I never get any comments (other than a few 
"thanks") in return for the scientific interpretations I make of theosophical 
realities? So, is it wise to approach a group with some new ideas, by first 
trying to tear down all the old ones that support it? What good does that 
serve, other than to get slapped back a few times, and compromise your 
credibility?

As for a good spiritual teaching that's for everybody -- I have no argument 
with that. All I ask is that you tell us what that teaching is, so that 
maybe we can help you find those who need such a teaching. Trying to give it 
to anyone who already has it, is like gilding the lily.

In the meantime, we (or at least I) will continue to speak about theosophy 
from the all inclusive, inside out and outside in point of view -- in order 
to attract those who are ready to absorb the deeper teachings, and become 
Adepts in their own light. There are many ways to approach the achievement of 
Universal Brotherhood. But, being ignorant of the true nature of reality, is 
not one of them... No matter what yoga practice one chooses to focus on. 

Anyway, there is more of a need for teachers who can speak theosophy in the 
language of this age, than for people wallowing in love and compassion for 
everything and everyone with nothing more than a blind belief in a "guru" and 
his/her "cause" to support them. That's not even a nucleus of universal 
brotherhood, let alone the brotherhood itself. So, let's not belittle 
theosophy in its broadest scope and depth. Without it, there is no hope for 
the revolutionary spirit -- which is what this age requires. What good is a 
group brotherhood, anyway? Especially, when the real goal is Universal 
Brotherhood. Some of my Theosophical, Buddhist, Christian, Hebrew, Sufi, 
Hermetic, and Masonic "brothers" are real rats. So, it pays to be very 
cautious before accepting membership in any kind of ordered or organized 
brotherhood. however, I'm sure all of us can understand the idea of a true 
brotherhood on the higher levels, while in complete touch with the lower -- 
as individuals. And, I'm certainly not against using a bulletin board or 
mailing list forum as a place to learn, teach, and generate interesting new 
ideas that are practical (i.e., "time appropriate"). (If that's what you 
mean?) 

In any event, one cannot take "any part" or "chapter" of theosophy, and use 
it to categorize the entire teaching. HPB already did that categorization in 
a very concise picture of the three principles and the three objects. And 
WQJ did a marvelous job of condensing the Secret Doctrine down to a small 200 
or so page book.

Incidentally, one of the practices of theosophy study in ULT Lodges, is to 
try to bring these principles down to three pages, three paragraphs, three 
sentences, or three phrases -- using your own words in front of a live 
audience. Most people never get past the three pages, but I know one who 
could say it all in three words. But all that does is indicate the level of 
one's own understanding. (And, unfortunately, he was the one who turned out 
to be a "black magician" who screwed all his "brothers" for selfish reasons 
after switching to Vajrayana Buddhist Tantrism..) So knowing anything ay 
all, cannot lead to brotherhood -- unless it is combined with an internal 
thinking that leads to an external doing, while considering what a true 
brotherhood really is. 

However, for the "true theosophist" it's good practice when you need to 
convince someone that you know what you are talking about -- when you start 
spreading it all out and getting into the fine details necessary (for those 
who need them -- like me, maybe :-). Thus my ABC theory, like the Secret 
Doctrine, along with all the other writings of HPB, WQJ, and the Masters 
surrounding them, can be expressed in three words, three sentences, three 
paragraphs, three pages, and all the way to three thousand pages and three 
million words (for the entire dosctrine). So the "scientific " view -- which 
cannot take more than a 700 pages, is only one out of a possible four other 
views that make up the entire Secret Doctrine... That is, the fundamental 
basis of theosophy and the root of occultism. 

> >If it is the aim of theosophy to establish a universal brotherhood, people
> >will need to begin to grasp the concept of limited time. Until what is
> >called in the Bible "the last day," which has a meaning not only symbolic
> >but also literal, all time is LIMITED, not unlimited. This means that 
people
> >do not have forever to accomplish a given mission. The first 

LHM
It was never the mission of theosophy to "establish a Universal 
Brotherhood"... Its only aim along those lines, is helping and teaching each 
individual how to become a "Nucleus of Universal Brotherhood." Grasping that 
there is limited time is a no brainer. With the state of the world today, 
anyone even remotely interested in theosophical ideas, aims and motives, 
knows there isn't much time left before the inevitable collapse. This is also 
the "end time" for this cycle of the movement. This is the time for the 
Phoenix to arise from the ashes. Every theosophist already knew that 
necessity, the moment they heard what HPB had said about it. But, what is 
that Phoenix? 

So, why waste energy telling us how short our time is, when there are 
millions out there who already know of the urgency, but haven't the remotest 
idea how to ameliorate it. If you have a better way to "Spread Broadcast" 
theosophy and its "Secret Doctrine" in the "language of this age" (as HPB 
requested) -- we are all ears. The "mission" of this cycle has yet to be 
clarified. But. I'm sure there are many of us ready to take up the banner 
and help the one who clearly sees the nature of the theosophical "mission" in 
this cycle -- which might makes some sense in the face of current world 
problems. The last "action" mission, before the "teaching" mission of 
Blavatsky, was the American Revolution. So, tell us what you think this one 
might be?

Best wishes,

LHM

"Each of us tries to do the best we can, under the circumstances. Therefore 
we should be circumspect in our words and actions." (Who said that?)