RE: Theos-World Digest Number 1757
Jan 12, 2005 05:19 PM
by Joe Fulton
Leon,
Perhaps we need a closer examination comparing the Abhidharma teachings
with Quantum Physics, heh?
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:04 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Digest Number 1757
There are 13 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Christianity or not...
From: Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com>
2. Re: A Question for the New Year
From: Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com>
3. Re: Symphony of Emptiness
From: leonmaurer@aol.com
4. Re: Christianity or not...
From: Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com>
5. Bart on Leadbeater and Masturbation
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
6. To Bart: Some of the Testimony
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
7. Re: Bart on Leadbeater and Masturbation
From: Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com>
8. Re: A Question for the New Year
From: "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@yahoo.com>
9. RE: [bn-study] Re: Re-phrasing/Is man a free agent?
From: "W.Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net>
10. How do Masters look
From: "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@AnandGholap.org>
11. Re: How do Masters look
From: Cass Silva <silva_cass@yahoo.com>
12. Re: [bn-study] Quantum - ULT
From: leonmaurer@aol.com
13. RE: A Question for the New Year -- What are Theosophical
Ethics?
From: "W.Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:15:09 -0500
From: Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com>
Subject: Re: Christianity or not...
Cass Silva wrote:
> Dear Sufilight I define child abuse as an adult male masturbating
> prepubescent boys on the grounds that it was better for their
> spiritual development. I believe that CWL distorted the truth to suit
> his own sexual gratification.
Do you think that Leadbeater actually touched the sexual organs
of the
boys he was teaching to masturbate, or did he simply describe to them
how to do it? If you believe the former, what evidence do you have to
support it?
Bart
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:17:11 -0500
From: Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com>
Subject: Re: A Question for the New Year
Cass Silva wrote:
> Guess what, there are other absolutes, Truth is Absolute.
The next sentence is a lie.
The previous sentence is true.
Bart
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:17:29 EST
From: leonmaurer@aol.com
Subject: Re: Symphony of Emptiness
In a message dated 01/09/05 9:11:19 PM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes:
>Dear Leon
>To make light of it, why didn't Chela ask "What is Emptiness? There is
>more to emptiness than we think, emptiness is fullness. 123 SPIRIT, 456
>SOUL, 78910 MAN Cass
Does that mean to take it more lightly, or to give more light to it? :-)
As it is, the Chela asked the only question that would enable the Master
to
answer it in words whose first letters would spell out the Acronym
"E-M-P-T-I-N-E-S-S" and still give meaning to Buddha's other statement,
"ALL is in the all
and all is in the ALL" -- which means, as HPB said (and now you say) "It
is
neither one nor many, but both" and "Emptiness (of things) is fullness
(of
no-things)" And also to relate the word to the numbers of the Tree of
Life, and
the grand 10 fold cycle of life...
So, the symphony was just a picture play on words, that could be taken
either
lightly or heavily... And, in either case -- give us something (or
nothing)
to think about. :-) BTW -- there's even more to it, if we can look a
bit
deeper in, around and between the words and the numbers. (But, I won't
tell --
although, I think you got some of it.) </:-)>
----original message-----
To All:
"What is the NATURE of ALL?" (Ananda asked)
"ALL IS... EMPTINESS" (replied Buddha)
"What more is there?" (asked Chela)
"ALL IS... 1
ENERGY 2
MATTER 3
PERFECT 4
TIMELESS 5
INFINITE 6
NOTHING 7
EVERYTHING 8
SOUL 9
SPIRIT 10
... So said the MASTER of the Symphony of the Spheres.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:24:34 -0500
From: Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com>
Subject: Re: Christianity or not...
Cass Silva wrote:
> I think you are very accurate on all points, except one, CWL teaching
> young boys to masturbate. I think it is a natural sexual response to
> a natural sexual urge, and I do not think that anyone needs to be >
taught how to do it. The evidence shown (in the Sydney Court Cases) >
showed that CWL handled the boys himself and did not just "show them >
how to handle themselves". I think there is a big difference here.
Yes, there is. Somebody else on the list has kindly offered to
send me
the documentation, so I'll be looking over it in detail myself.
Bart
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:14:58 -0000
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
Subject: Bart on Leadbeater and Masturbation
Bart,
If Dr. Tillett is still on this list and/or
reading these postings, I'm sure he could
supply you with the information you are
asking about.
OBTW, in one post you write of young men
and in the post below you mention boys.
When you write "young men" what ages are
you thinking of?
Daniel
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
> Cass Silva wrote:
> > Dear Sufilight I define child abuse as an adult male masturbating
> > prepubescent boys on the grounds that it was better for their
> > spiritual development. I believe that CWL distorted the truth to
> > suit his own sexual gratification.
>
> Do you think that Leadbeater actually touched the sexual
organs of the
> boys he was teaching to masturbate, or did he simply describe to
them
> how to do it? If you believe the former, what evidence do you have
to
> support it?
>
> Bart
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:29:48 -0000
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
Subject: To Bart: Some of the Testimony
Bart
You will find some of the
documentation in the following:
IMMORALITY IN THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
http://blavatskyarchives.com/ton2.pdf
Also have you read Tillett's book
on Leadbeater? See the documentation
and summaries in that book. The
Tillett book can be purchased from
several sources. For example, see:
http://www.theosophycanada.com/ets_books.htm
Daniel
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:18:40 -0500
From: Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com>
Subject: Re: Bart on Leadbeater and Masturbation
Daniel H. Caldwell wrote:
> When you write "young men" what ages are
> you thinking of?
What I was thinking was that I was involved in a discussion, not
an
inquest. It's been a while since I read Greg's book, but if I recall
correctly, the evidence was reports from people who had other reasons to
dislike Mr. Leadbeater. Meaning that it was interesting, but by no means
conclusive. Certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt; possibly a prima
facie civil case, by American standards, but it's kind of easy to create
a prima facie case; what's hard is when the defense has the ability to
cross-examine and present its own evidence.
Bart
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 03:45:07 -0000
From: "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: A Question for the New Year
Hello Jerry,
you wrote :
"While it might be untidy, and perhaps "unbrotherly" for students to
debate over the meaning HPB or a Mahatma intended in a text, I believe
that it is death to the spirit of the Theosophical Movement if one is
to
merely point to the text as a statement of TRUTH and demean any
attempts
to discuss and bring relevant meanings to that text by calling
it "mere
opinion."
Couldn't agree more, HPB was a great debater and I think would enjoy
the challenge of being challenged.
This is why guru worship is so anathema to the theosophical process.
Gurus need more than anybody else to be challenged and they should
expect it from there students if they are genuine.
Blindly followed pronouncements and dogmas that are just believed are
what churches are about.
Theosophy is something else entirely.
Organizations that block debate are churches.
Perry
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...>
wrote:
> Hello Perry,
>
> Your statement I quote below is particularly interesting to me:
>
> >Just wondering if perhaps its our understanding is what evolves ?
> >None of us can say that the theosophical teachings presented by
HPB
> >and the Mahatmas are absolutely correct.
> >
> I completely agree with you that (for most people?) our
understanding of
> theosophical teachings evolves. On the other hand, whether or not
the
> "theosophical teachings presented by HPB and the Mahatmas are
absolutely
> correct", may not even be a relevant consideration. Allow me to
> explain: Keep in mind that aside from what might have come down to
us
> orally, what we know about the theosophical teachings presented by
HPB
> and the Mahatmas are in printed texts. This is problematical.
Because
> of: typos, possible inadvertent editorial changes etc., anything
that is
> written is subject to different interpretations by the reader. My
> favorite example of this was an put forth by a late student named
Rex
> Dutta. Mr. Dutta pointed out that the original editions of the
Secret
> Doctrine are all missing the page number on page sixty. He
subsequently
> criticized the Theosophy Company, who claimed to have "A
Photographic
> facsimile reproduction of the Original Edition" for restoring
the "60"
> on the relevant page. He argued that the missing page 60 was not a
> printing error, but intentionally done by HPB as her way of telling
her
> followers that she would die at the age of sixty. In reality, the
> missing page number has no meaning at all, outside of the meaning
Mr.
> Dutta and others might attribute to it.
>
> We can carry this same argument to the rest of the text. As a
former
> writing teacher, I can show you student paper after student paper
with
> statements in them which were completely unintended by the student.
> When I ask the students to read the sentence or paragraph aloud to
me,
> they catch and (sometimes to their horror) realize that they had
written
> something completely unintended by them. This is very common for
writer
> to do, though I know of students who will suggest that HPB and the
> Masters were somehow divinely protected against making such errors.
That
> argument, like any other profession of faith, can only be answered
in
> silence.
>
> Even when the writer is satisfied that the sentence or paragraph
carries
> its intended meaning, that is no guarantee that the sentence will
not
> have a very different meaning to the reader. Those differences of
> interpretation may arise because of differences of culture,
education,
> personal experiences, changes of meaning of words over time, being
> influenced by someone else's interpretation, unconscious
associations
> etc. etc. These observations of what is sometimes called "the gap
> between the text and the meaning" have led an increasing number of
> people interested in these things to conclude that, in reality, a
text
> carries no meaning at all, and is not even necessarily relevant to
the
> intention of the writer. Rather, the meaning is entirely within
the
> mind of the reader. I realize this idea is directly opposed to
what
> most of us were led to believe all of our lives, but a careful
> consideration of this very different view-point leads to a lot of
> insights not previously evident.
>
> To take a more familiar example: I understand that there are some
3,000
> distinct denominations of Christianity in the US, all of which use
the
> Bible as their primary reference. Logically, at least 2,999 of
these
> denominations must have fallen short of understanding the intended
> (assuming for the moment that the intended meaning in within the
mind of
> God) meaning of the Bible as a text. It is the same with
Theosophy. If
> a student of Theosophy becomes bound to a Theosophical text as the
> authority, the written word necessarily takes precedence over the
> reader's understanding. This opens the field of human relations to
> power issues, especially when there are Priests to interpret the
text's
> meaning to the masses. Of course, Theosophical Organizations don't
have
> "priests" per se. However, those who have had any amount of
experience
> with the dynamics of Theosophical Organizations, might recognize
the
> more subtle control issues which, invariably have their origins in
the
> notion that those who are on the "inside" somehow have a superior
> understanding of the intentions of the founders.
>
> While it might be untidy, and perhaps "unbrotherly" for students to
> debate over the meaning HPB or a Mahatma intended in a text, I
believe
> that it is death to the spirit of the Theosophical Movement if one
is to
> merely point to the text as a statement of TRUTH and demean any
attempts
> to discuss and bring relevant meanings to that text by calling
it "mere
> opinion."
>
> Thanks
> --j
>
>
>
> Perry Coles wrote:
>
> >Hello Jerry and Pedro,
> >Just wondering if perhaps its our understanding is what evolves ?
> >None of us can say that the theosophical teachings presented by
HPB
> >and the Mahatmas are absolutely correct.
> >
> >We may have had some insights into them to greater or lesser
degrees
> >but those may and probably will change over time.
> >We may discover some of it is not correct and some seems to be but
it
> >always needs to be open to re-examination.
> >
> >This is why I think it's the kind of mindset that is developing in
us
> >that is important rather than what we claim to believe or not
believe
> >to be true.
> >
> >A mind that is ever open to new information and understandings. The
> >information the society is presenting is one set of ideas that may or
> >may not be correct.
> >
> >If someone is to present new propositions as being `theosophical'
> >which contradict those given out by the original writings they can
> >only stand on there own merit as determined by each individual
> >studying them.
> >
> >But should they be presented as being theosophy?
> >
> >Who decides what is theosophy and what isn't?
> >
> >If for example if I had an insight that survival of the fittest is
> >the prime law governing the Kosmos could/should that be called
> >theosophy and if not why not?
> >
> >How do we judge what is a theosophical proposition and what isn't?
> >
> >As Daniel is always pointing out comparison is the key factor, how
do
> >the `new' ideas stand up from those originally given out. Constant
> >reviewal perhaps is the key
> >
> >Just some thoughts
> >
> >Perry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "prmoliveira"
<prmoliveira@y...>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Because I'm only willing to speak from my personal
> >>>
> >>>
> >understandings,
> >
> >
> >>>experiences and intuitions, I'm not one to proclaim that
> >>>
> >>>
> >Theosophy
> >
> >
> >>>pre-existed in the mind of Parabrahm. You will have to ask
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Parabrahm
> >>
> >>
> >>>about these things :-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Hello Jerry:
> >>
> >>Thank you for your comments. I think the fragment of the
beautiful
> >>hymn from the Rig-Veda, quoted by HPB before the Stanzas of the
> >>Cosmogenesis in the SD, seems to indicate that the essential
> >>unknowability of the mystery that surrounds us goes right up to
the
> >>very top, perhaps to THAT itself:
> >>
> >>"Who knows the secret? who proclaimed it here?
> >>Whence, whence this manifold creation sprang?
> >>The Gods themselves came later into being--
> >>Who knows from whence this great creation sprang?
> >>That, whence all this great creation came,
> >>Whether Its will created or was mute,
> >>The Most High Seer that is in highest heaven,
> >>He knows it--or perchance even He knows not."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Since I don't have daily conversations with Parabraham, the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Masters, or
> >>
> >>
> >>>even the late Madame Blavatsky, my understanding of Theosophy
> >>>
> >>>
> >must
> >
> >
> >>be
> >>
> >>
> >>>much more humble. I see Theosophy as an expression of a kind of
> >>>perennialism which demonstrates the universality of ideas among
> >>>humankind's myths, religions, philosophies and sciences. I
think
> >>>
> >>>
> >>this
> >>
> >>
> >>>definition is more useful, because Theosophy then becomes
> >>>
> >>>
> >>something we
> >>
> >>
> >>>can personally engage with and grow from--otherwise we are left
> >>>
> >>>
> >to
> >
> >
> >>>merely be wowed by and parrot writings from old books we believe
> >>>
> >>>
> >>to have
> >>
> >>
> >>>been inspired. In the SD, HPB writes that even the Dhyani
> >>>
> >>>
> >Chohans
> >
> >
> >>have
> >>
> >>
> >>>limitations in what they are able to perceive and understand.
If
> >>>
> >>>
> >>we are
> >>
> >>
> >>>to accept her statement here, then, I would ask: why should we
> >>>
> >>>
> >>proclaim
> >>
> >>
> >>>to be True things that even the gods she writes about do not
even
> >>>
> >>>
> >>know?
> >>
> >>
> >>> To do so is just another form of self delusion, or self
> >>>
> >>>
> >>aggrandizement,
> >>
> >>
> >>>IMO.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I also see it along similar lines. The word Brahman, for example,
> >>derives from the verbal root 'brih', "to grow, to expand". So
> >>perhaps growth, expansion, evolution - all three - belong to the
> >>very nature of the universe as a whole.
> >>
> >>If a teaching is something which is shown to someone - a person,
a
> >>group, a culture - all of which are also experiencing growth and
> >>evolution, such a teaching needs to be dynamic. Theosophy has
also
> >>been called the Perennial Wisdom, and that which is perennial
lasts
> >>for a long time, perhaps because its 'language' is one that
> >>acknowledges the changing environment and the growing perceptions
> >>
> >>
> >of
> >
> >
> >>humans in every age.
> >>
> >>Like you, Jerry, I also don't have any daily conversations with
> >>higher spiritual realities and in that respect I am very
> >>much "offline". But I like to think on these things and was very
> >>much heartened by what I read on a bookmark produced by TPH
Wheaton
> >>many years ago:
> >>
> >>"THINK! It could be a new experience for you."
> >>
> >>
> >>Pedro
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:11:48 -0800
From: "W.Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: [bn-study] Re: Re-phrasing/Is man a free agent?
Jan 11 2005
Dear M:
Your response is appreciated, but I am missing something in it.
How do we demonstrate:
No, we don't have free will to a certain extent. we can
choose between the limits, but outside of the limits,
there are the messengers of the 'Force' that controls
everything....
1 what are the "limits"
2 who sets those limits?
3 What is the "Force" ?
4 Who and where are its "messengers'?
5 How is "free-will" to be defined?
I am trying to understand you point of reference
Dallas
========================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Manuel
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 4:56 AM
To:
Subject: : Re-phrasing/ Is man a free agent?
No, we dont have free will to a certain extent. we can
choose between the limits, but outside of the limits,
there are the messengers of the 'Force' that controls everytbing....
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:48:33 -0000
From: "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@AnandGholap.org>
Subject: How do Masters look
" THERE has been among Theosophical students a great deal of
vagueness and uncertainty about the Masters, so perhaps it may help
us to realize how natural Their lives are, and how there is an
ordinary physical side to them, if I say a few words about the daily
life and appearance of some of Them. There is no one physical
characteristic by which an Adept can be infallibly distinguished from
other men, but He always appears impressive, noble, dignified, holy
and serene, and anyone meeting Him could hardly fail to recognize
that he was in the presence of a remarkable man. He is the strong but
silent man, speaking only when He has a definite object in view, to
encourage, to help or to warn, yet He is wonderfully benevolent and
full of a keen sense of humour-- humour always of a kindly order,
used never to wound, but always to lighten the troubles of life. The
Master Morya once said that it is impossible to make progress on the
occult Path without a sense of humour, and certainly all the Adepts
whom I have seen have possessed that qualification.
48. Most
of Them are distinctly fine-looking men; Their physical bodies are
practically perfect, for They live in complete obedience to the laws
of health, and above all They never worry about anything. All Their
evil karma has long been exhausted, and thus the physical body is as
perfect an expression of the Augoeides or glorified body of the ego
as the limitations of the physical plane will allow, so that not only
is the present body of an Adept usually splendidly handsome, but also
new body that He may take in a subsequent incarnation is likely to be
an almost exact reproduction of the old one, allowing for racial and
family differences, because there is nothing to modify it. This
freedom from karma gives Them, when for any reason They choose to
take new bodies, entire liberty to select a birth in any country or
race that may be convenient for the work that They have to do, and
thus the nationality of the particular bodies which They happen to be
wearing at any given time is not of primary importance."
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:16:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Cass Silva <silva_cass@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: How do Masters look
Dear Anand
Would you like to share with us your experience of meeting a Master?
Cass
Anand Gholap <AnandGholap@AnandGholap.org> wrote:
" THERE has been among Theosophical students a great deal of
vagueness and uncertainty about the Masters, so perhaps it may help
us to realize how natural Their lives are, and how there is an
ordinary physical side to them, if I say a few words about the daily
life and appearance of some of Them. There is no one physical
characteristic by which an Adept can be infallibly distinguished from
other men, but He always appears impressive, noble, dignified, holy
and serene, and anyone meeting Him could hardly fail to recognize
that he was in the presence of a remarkable man. He is the strong but
silent man, speaking only when He has a definite object in view, to
encourage, to help or to warn, yet He is wonderfully benevolent and
full of a keen sense of humour-- humour always of a kindly order,
used never to wound, but always to lighten the troubles of life. The
Master Morya once said that it is impossible to make progress on the
occult Path without a sense of humour, and certainly all the Adepts
whom I have seen have possessed that qualification.
48. Most
of Them are distinctly fine-looking men; Their physical bodies are
practically perfect, for They live in complete obedience to the laws
of health, and above all They never worry about anything. All Their
evil karma has long been exhausted, and thus the physical body is as
perfect an expression of the Augoeides or glorified body of the ego
as the limitations of the physical plane will allow, so that not only
is the present body of an Adept usually splendidly handsome, but also
new body that He may take in a subsequent incarnation is likely to be
an almost exact reproduction of the old one, allowing for racial and
family differences, because there is nothing to modify it. This
freedom from karma gives Them, when for any reason They choose to
take new bodies, entire liberty to select a birth in any country or
race that may be convenient for the work that They have to do, and
thus the nationality of the particular bodies which They happen to be
wearing at any given time is not of primary importance."
Yahoo! Groups Links
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:06:45 EST
From: leonmaurer@aol.com
Subject: Re: [bn-study] Quantum - ULT
Dear Dallas, Gopi, others,
With reference to the question of "how Theosophy would address Quantum
idea
with regard to Karma and chance?" ... I would say that theosophy does
not think
the Quantum theory of Indeterminacy has any validity, since it is a
contrived
concept to cover up that this theory cannot predict anything that
happens or
the existence of substantial mass-energy below the quantum level of
their
supposed fundamental "particles."
Both theosophy as well as ABC (and also Einstein's theory of relativity)
denies that such "particles" have any real existence... Since, all
matter is based
on coadunate but not consubstantial fields of energy extending from the
zero-point to infinity -- (fundamentally vibrational waves of primal
force, or the
motion of Space itself that, when tied together in stable patterns, only
appear to be separate "particles") -- that follow rigid laws of
electricity,
cycles, cause and effect, etc.
As Einstein said, in his denial of the validity of the current
Copenhagen
view of quantum theory (Bohr, Heisenberg, etc.) -- "God does not play
dice."
However, the more recent view of quantum physics (Bohm, Pribram, etc.)
regarding "Implicate-Explicate Orders" and the "Holographic Paradigm,"
along with
the view of Greene, Kaku, etc., with respect to Superstring/M-brane
theories --
are much closer to the theosophical and ABC view. None of these newer
theories disagree with Karma as the result of inexorable cause=effects
through all
levels of reality, and neither do they relate such cause and effect to
"chance"
-- which is based on highly complex random factors that have to do with
"Complexity-Simplicity" and "Chaos-Order" theories that also do not
recognize any
indeterminacy in Natural processes, nor do they contradict theosophical
metaphysics or the ABC theory.
Hope this helps clarify some of the confusion between true theosophical
science that sees no gaps in involution and evolution, and conventional
reductive
material science whose unknown and indeterminate gaps between the
quantum
particle and their zero-point of origination add up to be as wide as the
entire
Universe. :-) i.e., Nothing in quantum theory can explain the
"perturbations" of
the vast amount of electromagnetic energy that exist in this (to them)
empty
vacuum -- whose reality was proven in 1948 by the Casimir effect.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html> But, then,
they don't need
such energy to make our solid state electronic cell phones, computers,
DVD's,
and other digital do dads. :-)
Lenny
In a message dated 01/11/05 9:06:34 AM, dalval14@earthlink.net writes:
Jan 11 2004
Dear Lenny:
If you have time could you look at this question? Possibly answer?
I don' have a brief on QUANTUM THEORY -- at least enough to
use to answer. Might not INDETERMINACY also apply? In any
case how does the ABC THEORY handle this?
Problem is grasping (I think) that KARMA antecedes all manifestation
and, as
in indissoluble part of the ABSOLUTE (as is everything else of course),
it
operates unerringly and faithfully to the MOTIVE of the chooser.
No question of "luck" or "chance," or "indeterminacy" ever. Always LAW.
The IMMORTALITY of every MONAD (regardless of its "level" of advancement
on
the "ladder of Being,") guarantees that eventually all disturbance in
universal equilibrium gets returned to its disturber -- its source.
I would say that our "Lower-Mind" is always on the prowl to discover if
there are any chinks in the KARMIC plenum.
If any can be fund then the whole Theosophical philosophy falls to the
ground and is as useless as any other -ism or hypothesis.
----------------
ENQUIRER. How, then, should Theosophical principles be applied so that
social co-operation may be promoted and true efforts for social
amelioration
be carried on?
THEOSOPHIST. Let me briefly remind you what these principles are --
universal Unity and Causation; Human Solidarity; the Law of Karma;
Re-incarnation. These are the four links of the golden chain which
should
bind humanity into one family, one universal Brotherhood. Key p. 233
-----------------------
Thanks,
And always best wishes,
Dal
---------------
QUESTIONS ASKED
G I raised question about how Theosophy would address Quantum idea
with regards to Karma and chance. -- Gopi asks.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:36:31 -0800
From: "W.Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: A Question for the New Year -- What are Theosophical
Ethics?
Jan 12 2005
Re THEOSOPHY and Ethics
Dear P, J and friends:
Please permit me to but in ?
Worship and respect for the words and ideas of a "guru" is natural as
the bond between teacher and pupil is a natural one. In this
"gratitude" of the heart resides. To violate this leaves an indelible
scar.
In my view: To "discuss" is one thing, to "understand" is another. The
first phase ought to lead to the second, and tolerance, good-will and
brotherliness are the watch-words of THEOSOPHY.
I find that HPB in The KEY TO THEOSOPHY offers for consideration:
OUR DUTY
"THEOSOPHIST. .... Our duty is to keep alive in man his
spiritual intuitions. To oppose and counteract ¯after due investigation
and proof of its irrational nature¯ bigotry in every form, religious,
scientific, or social, and cant above all, whether as religious
sectarianism or as belief in miracles or anything supernatural.
What we have to do is to seek to obtain knowledge of all the laws of
nature, and to diffuse it.
To encourage the study of those laws least understood by modern people,
the so-called Occult Sciences, based on the true knowledge of nature,
instead of, as at present, on superstitious beliefs based on blind faith
and authority. Popular folk-lore and traditions, however fanciful at
times, when sifted may lead to the discovery of long-lost, but
important, secrets of nature.
The Society, therefore, aims at pursuing this line of inquiry, in the
hope of widening the field of scientific and philosophical observation."
[Key, 48]
-------------------
These days, I find that there is lack of knowledge of what THEOSOPHY
teaches. I assume when saying this, that HPB is our prime source as
agent for the Masters of Wisdom. If we deny or doubt Them, it is
useless to say anything further. But as always, any teaching has to be
tested in our own Heart for its true spiritual meaning, and before it is
adopted.
I consider it a duty to try to place HPB's words before us all today --
as a basis for our present consideration, not as a lid on discussion or
a "final authority." We are all expected to think about what is offered
and see if it is reasonable and "common sense."
To my mind, the statements made by her give a nobler and more
time-lasting stature to our exchanges, which otherwise are usually
fleeting opinions.
I ask myself, if I were to look back 50 years hence at what is written
today, how much would still be of real value?
We are able to look back over 130 years at what HPB placed before us as
the teachings of THEOSOPHY -- by "Masters' Order." [ see Blavatsky:
COLLECTED WORKS, Vol. 1] This may mean nothing to some, but to others
it acts as a stimulus for self-study, and certainly as a basis for
spiritual Self-improvement morally.
For example: What has the personal performance of any one individual
have to do with THEOSOPHY ? I find it ludicrous to use space and occupy
the Lower Manas with opinions and discussions about CWL, etc...
Just how long do you think such an individual would last before the
living breathing HPB? As I see it, looking back at what was written
those days, students in the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY had not carefully
studied its doctrines and tenets and were unable to make the kind of
tolerant and cooperative, brotherly decisions that would have maintained
its solidarity. The parable of the "bundle of sticks" comes to mind.
He certainly did not embellish the record of the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
and what he wrote can easily be shown to denigrate HPB's teachings. So
what is gained?
I find that HPB in The KEY TO THEOSOPHY deals in broad terms with the
ethics of THEOSOPHY -- here are some examples I have been considering:
----------------------------
WHAT ARE BASIC ETHICS ?
"ENQUIRER. But are not the ETHICS of Theosophy identical with those
taught by Buddha?
THEOSOPHIST. Certainly, because these ethics are the soul of the
Wisdom-Religion, and were once the common property of the initiates of
all nations. But Buddha was the first to embody these lofty ethics in
his public teachings, and to make them the foundation and the very
essence of his public system.
It is herein that lies the immense difference between exoteric Buddhism
and every other religion. For while in other religions ritualism and
dogma hold the first and most important place, in Buddhism it is the
ethics which have always been the most insisted upon.
This accounts for the resemblance, amounting almost to identity, between
the ethics of Theosophy and those of the religion of Buddha.
ENQUIRER. Are there any great points of difference?
THEOSOPHIST. One great distinction between Theosophy and
exoteric Buddhism is that the latter, represented by the Southern
Church, entirely denies (a) the existence of any Deity, and (b) any
conscious post-mortem life, or even any self-conscious surviving
individuality in man.
Such at least is the teaching of the Siamese sect, now considered as the
purest form of exoteric Buddhism. And it is so, if we refer only to
Buddha's public teachings; the reason for such reticence on his part I
will give further on.
[see in the Key, pp. 80-2]
But the schools of the Northern Buddhist Church, established in those
countries to which his initiated Arhats retired after the Master's
death, teach all that is now called Theosophical doctrines, because they
form part of the knowledge of the initiates¯ thus proving how the truth
has been sacrificed to the dead-letter by the too-zealous orthodoxy of
Southern Buddhism. But how much grander and more noble, more
philosophical and scientific, even in its dead-letter, is this teaching
than that of any other
Church or religion. Yet Theosophy is not Buddhism." [Key, pp. 14-5]
"ENQUIRER. Is the production of such... adepts the aim of Theosophy?
THEOSOPHIST. Its aims are several; but the most important of all
are those which are likely to lead to the relief of human suffering
under any or every form, moral as well as physical. And we believe the
former to be far more important than the latter.
THEOSOPHY HAS TO INCULCATE ETHICS; it has to purify the soul, if it
would relieve the physical body, whose ailments, save cases of
accidents, are all hereditary.
It is not by studying Occultism for selfish ends, for the gratification
of one's personal ambition, pride, or vanity, that one can ever reach
the true
goal: that of helping suffering mankind. Nor is it by studying one
single branch of the esoteric philosophy that a man becomes an
Occultist, but by studying, if not mastering, them all.
ENQUIRER. Is help, then, to reach this most important aim, given only to
those who study the esoteric sciences?
THEOSOPHIST. Not at all. Every lay member is entitled to general
instruction if he only wants it; but few are willing to become what is
called "working members," and most prefer to remain the drones of
Theosophy.
Let it be understood that private research is encouraged in the T. S.,
provided it does not infringe the limit which separates the exoteric
from the esoteric, the blind from the conscious magic." [Key, pp. 24-5]
"The "most cultured and learned" among you regard also Christianity and
every other religion as a relic of ignorance and superstition.
People begin to believe now, at any rate, in hypnotism, and some¯ even
of the most cultured¯ in Theosophy and phenomena. But who among them,
except preachers and blind fanatics, will confess to a belief in
Biblical miracles? And this is where the point of difference comes in.
There are very good and pure Theosophists who may believe in the
supernatural, divine miracles included, but no Occultist will do so.
HIGHEST ETHICS TO BE PRACTISED
For AN OCCULTIST PRACTISES SCIENTIFIC THEOSOPHY, based on accurate
knowledge of Nature's secret workings; but a Theosophist, practising the
powers called abnormal, minus the light of Occultism, will simply tend
toward a dangerous form of mediumship, because, although holding to
THEOSOPHY AND ITS HIGHEST CONCEIVABLE CODE OF ETHICS, he practises it in
the dark, on sincere but blind faith.
Anyone, Theosophist or Spiritualist, who attempts to cultivate one of
the branches of Occult science¯ e.g., Hypnotism, Mesmerism, or even the
secrets of producing physical phenomena, etc. -- without the knowledge
of the philosophic rationale of those powers, is like a rudderless boat
launched on
a stormy ocean. " [Key, pp. 26-7]
PURITY OF LIFE DEMANDED
"Our age is pre-eminently unspiritual and matter of fact. Moreover,
there is the unfamiliar character of Theosophic teachings; the highly
abstruse nature of the doctrines, some of which contradict flatly many
of the human vagaries cherished by sectarians, which have eaten into the
very core of popular beliefs.
If we add to this the personal efforts and GREAT PURITY OF LIFE EXACTED
OF THOSE WHO WOULD BECOME THE DISCIPLES OF THE INNER CIRCLE, and the
very limited class to which an entirely unselfish code appeals, it will
be easy to perceive the reason why Theosophy is doomed to such slow,
up-hill work.
It is essentially the philosophy of those who suffer, and have lost all
hope of being helped out of the mire of life by any other means.
Moreover, the history of any system of belief or morals, newly
introduced into a foreign soil, shows that its beginnings were impeded
by every obstacle that
obscurantism and selfishness could suggest." [Key, pp. 37-8]
"ENQUIRER. Do the members of your Society carry out these precepts? I
have heard of great dissensions and quarrels among them.
THEOSOPHIST. Very naturally, since although the reform (in its
present shape) may be called new, the men and women to be reformed are
the same human, sinning natures as of old. As already said, the earnest
working members are few; but many are the sincere and well-disposed
persons, who try their best to live up to the Society's and their own
ideals.
Our duty is to encourage and assist individual fellows in
self-improvement, intellectual, moral, and spiritual; not to blame or
condemn those who fail. We have, strictly speaking, no right to refuse
admission to anyone¯ especially in the Esoteric Section of the Society,
wherein "he who enters is as one newly born."
But if any member, his sacred pledges on his word of honour and immortal
Self notwithstanding, chooses to continue, after that "new birth," with
the new man, the vices or defects of his old life, and to indulge in
them still in the Society, then, of course, he is more than likely to be
asked to resign and withdraw; or, in case of his refusal, to be
expelled. We have the strictest rules for such emergencies. " [Key, p.
49]
"ENQUIRER. But if actions on the material plane are unsatisfying, why
should duties, which are such actions, be imperative?
THEOSOPHIST. First of all, because our philosophy teaches us
that the object of doing our duties to all men and to ourselves the
last, is not the attainment of personal happiness, but of the happiness
of others; the fulfilment of right for the sake of right, not for what
it may bring us. Happiness, or rather contentment, may indeed follow the
performance of duty, but is not and must not be the motive for it.
ENQUIRER. What do you understand precisely by "duty" in Theosophy? It
cannot be the Christian duties preached by Jesus and his Apostles, since
you recognise neither?
THEOSOPHIST. You are once more mistaken. What you call
"Christian duties" were inculcated by every great moral and religious
Reformer ages before the Christian era. All that was great, generous,
heroic, was, in days of old, not only talked about and preached from
pulpits as in our own time, but acted upon sometimes by whole nations.
The history of the Buddhist reform is full of the most noble and most
heroically unselfish acts. "Be ye all of one mind, having compassion one
of another; love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous; not rendering
evil for evil, or railing for railing; but contrariwise, blessing" was
practically carried out by the followers of Buddha, several centuries
before Peter.
The Ethics of Christianity are grand, no doubt; but as undeniably they
are not new, and have originated as "Pagan" duties.
ENQUIRER. And how would you define these duties, or "duty," in general,
as you understand the term?
THEOSOPHIST. Duty is that which is due to Humanity, to our
fellow-men, neighbours, family, and especially that which we owe to all
those who are poorer and more helpless than we are ourselves. This is a
debt which, if left unpaid during life, leaves us spiritually insolvent
and moral bankrupts in our next incarnation. Theosophy is the
quintessence of duty."
[Key, pp 228-9]
----------------------------
I hope this helps to better define the importance that some place on
theosophical ethics,
Best wishes,
Dallas
===================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Perry
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 7:45 PM
To:
Subject: Re: A Question for the New Year
Hello Jerry,
you wrote :
"While it might be untidy, and perhaps "unbrotherly" for students to
debate over the meaning HPB or a Mahatma intended in a text, I believe
that it is death to the spirit of the Theosophical Movement if one is
to merely point to the text as a statement of TRUTH and demean any
attempts to discuss and bring relevant meanings to that text by calling
it "mere opinion."
Couldn't agree more, HPB was a great debater and I think would enjoy
the challenge of being challenged.
This is why guru worship is so anathema to the theosophical process.
Gurus need more than anybody else to be challenged and they should
expect it from there students if they are genuine.
Blindly followed pronouncements and dogmas that are just believed are
what churches are about.
Theosophy is something else entirely.
Organizations that block debate are churches.
Perry
CUT
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
