From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 17:36:32 +0800 From: "Philip Harris" Subject: Re:United efforts > In response to Gail Stevenson's plea for united efforts, would > not one method be to pool our resources and avoid needless > duplication? There are probably many out-of-print articles from > various organizations worth sharing. For example, B.P. Wadia's > from U.L.T.'s archives, or H.T. Edge from the articles of the > ~Theosophical Forum~ and early journals of the T.S. in England. > > Dara Eklund Gail and Dara touch on a subject that is as old as the first 'split' in the ranks. There has been a century of discussuion about it. UNITY IN THE TS! I do not have a solution but the following analysis might clarify the nature of the problem. We begin by making positive statements:- 1. All persons in positions of authority or influence need to fervently desire unity. 2. All those persons need to embrace the principle of openess and absolute tolerance of everyone's views. 3. There needs to be a genuine ability to forget old antipathies such as the Leadbeater/Besant criticisms; the Krishnamurti dissensions; the Judge/Besant hiatus; the notion that Blavatsky was the only 'giver of wisdom'--and so on. 4. Unity can only be the unity of hearts and minds, not organisations. 5. A spontaneous urge to spring to the defence of anyone unjustly attacked. 6. A willingness to give everyone a fair hearing. 7. No officer clinging to office in a way that impedes the unity that so many rank and file members of all the differing groups may want. I think anyone deserving of the title 'Theosophist' ought to be able to meet those desiderata. I do know a lady like that and it has been a joy to knopw her and work with her. In any contact I have with her I feel encouraged to carry on. Best wishes to you all! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 10:56:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "Visanu Sirish" Subject: Re:Unity Yes, it's a good idea to united on common themes in theosophy such as: 1. The uncaused First Cause 1. The Evolution of Consciousness in time and space 2. The Immortality of the Soul 3. Reincarnation and Karma (Cycles) 4. The Hierarchy of the Master of Wisdom 5. Universal Brotherhood based on the unity of life The more difficult themes might be: 1. A definition of Deity other than the Absolute (personal or impersonal ?, Being or Be-ness or both?) 2. The inner classification of Man: Principles or Bodies ? 4-fold, 5-fold or 7-fold classification? 3. The nature of the after-death condition; purely subjective, objective, or a combination of both ? How long between incarnations? A 1,000 years, 20 years ? 4. The Devas. A separate line of evolution completely or an allegorical term for the Dhyan Chohanic Kingdoms (liberated humanity)? 5. Will we ever have definitive answers to these fascinating questions steeped as we are in Maya ? Perhaps the Intuition (Buddhi-Manas) in each of us will be the eventual arbitrator of these questions. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 12:50:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "Judith Christie" Subject: Re:Unity GREETINGS! Begging for a beginning... The TSA/Adyar could begin "PROJECT UNITY" on line by the development of a single Theosophical site with doors that open to all groups thereby establishing a real connection. For example, this is the Adyar Door, this is the ULT Door, This the da da da door... beyond each door should be a lobby describing the history of the group and these doors should all open to one single 'Hall of Learning' with all Theoosphical informaton/tenets/ teachings available. This would sift out the duplication of efforts and make space for important information. For example there is no need to have applications for Theosophical Membership on line. Those interested should click EMail and drop a note to TS or other groups regarding membership. There is a need for an attractive colorful dramatic dynamic presentation of Theosophy on line. The best computer whiz's amongst Theosophists should be enlisted to help build this one site, one united Theosophical presentation ie, information source. Watchword should be 'a united representation of Theosophy.' This certainly should begin the work of Theosophical Unity amongst all Theosophical nonaligned groups today. As for the rest...am certain the essence of Divine Light would heal the heart of the Theosophical movement in order to promote such unity of all Theosophical Organizations in the world today and in the future who are the movement. As Theosophists enter the 21st Century let us do our utmost to insure the prevention of sectarian fragmenting of the heart of Theosophy. PROJECT UNITY your project for life in the 'Eternal Now' in this century, the 21st Century and all future centuries. -Sage From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 20:31:18 PDT From: "Mike Perala" Subject: Re:Unity Megabeet: > 4. The Hierarchy of the Master of Wisdom I would have this one (4) in "difficult themes department" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 17:34:48 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Re:United efforts Philip Harris wrote: <<3. There needs to be a genuine ability to forget old antipathies such as the Leadbeater/Besant criticisms; the Krishnamurti dissensions; the Judge/Besant hiatus; the notion that Blavatsky was the only 'giver of wisdom'--and so on.>> I am one who fervently desires unity among Theosophists. I was appalled 10 years ago when I joined the movement as a teenager to see how various splits have torn apart the movement. But I have to agree with Eldon, and disagree with Gail Stevenson and Philip Harris, that the desiderata of unity are not so easy or self-evident; nor are the forces pulling AGAINST unity to be categorically labelled as ignorant and invalid. ULT people too easily forget that theirs is ONE view (a view I mostly agree with); but people outside ULT are somewhat uncritical to see all teachers as equally valid. Annie Besant is NOT HPB, nor are their teachings the same. Philip asking us to forget about old antipathies is deceptively simple. Sure, one can say that the feud between Besant and Judge is over -- there is no longer any use for personal aggression between the two camps, we can all be friends. But their TEACHINGS are, in fact, quite different, and any of us who have been studying Theosophy for some time can attest to this fact. Surely the compiler of a Theosophical encyclopedia is aware of the vast differences in philosophies within the Theosophical movement which are not even "complementary" differences; rather they are in flat contradiction. One of the most annoying things for me, truly something that ruins the movement, is a willingness to accept anything and everything as valid. This is New Age namby-pambyism. If Annie Besant and William Q. Judge teach two different things about Devachan, both CANNOT be literally right (though it is logically possible BOTH are wrong). For me tolerance means accepting that others think differently than I do. I tolerate the fact that some people find Annie Besant's works more authoritativ e than Mr. Judge's, or perhaps they are simply ignorant of Mr. Judge, the T.S. having nearly successfully banished him from their history. But for me tolerance does not mean dropping my faculty of discrimination and saying "yes, everything Annie Besant wrote is as useful and accurate as what Mr. Judge wrote." I cannot, I will not agree with such a position, though I tolerate the fact that some do indeed hold to such a position. So for unity, we cannot make an assumption that everyone accepts the same basic teachings, or teachers. Even what poor Mr. Crosbie, the founder of ULT, wrote, "a similarity of aim, purpose and teachings" as a basis for unity, is quite suspect. What is "similarity"? When Annie Besant teaches an "etheric body" and HPB's teachings flatly deny it (see Geoffrey Fatherings article "The History of a False Assumption" for an excellent proof of this fact), is this flat contradiction to be considered "similarity"? On what basis may we work toward unity? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 1 Jul 97 18:58:39 GMT From: "Keith Price" Subject: Re:Unity Megabeet: I think we are talking about the same things over and over. Are there core teachings we must accept to be theosophists or is the Ancient Wisdom like golden stairs where one climbs higher and higher to hear more clearly the Voice of the Silence from the receiver of the Master's Voice within. I think Ken Wilber (who many loathe) has done a lot of work on the idea of holons as opposed to heirarchies. It is as if we are say 2-dimensional beings we cannot accurately perceive a 3 dimensional object with our limited senses. This idea can be extended to any number of dimensions. If we are in the fifth race of the fourth round our perceptions are mainly filtered through verbal analysis rather than direct sensory experience. I think this is why such work with the Voice of the Silence may be more important than worrying if we are five, six or seven fold beings (a personal thought IMHO). You know that crazy harmonic convergence thing, maybe if we aggreed to meditiate together at a certain time throughout the world on the will of the Master's. Something might happen! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 1 Jul 97 23:34:06 GMT From: "Keith Price" Subject: Re:Unity Sagescrown: Regarding Project Unity: I am all for it. But I think few in power would be moved by e-mail. Try cash!. It could happen, but as they say: when hell freezes over. Too many have their pet projects and pet organizations and pet libraries! If I knew how I would just create a web page call THEOSOPHY MALL and just put a serious of links with no comments. Nobody could do anything about or complain, I don't think. I think it is called a RING. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 21:49:08 -0400 (EDT) From: "Judith Christie" Subject: Re:Unity KEITH! Am really laughing out loud. I was being serious, very. You were joking, I hope. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 21:11:41 -0700 From: "Eldon B Tucker" Subject: Re: Have We Fallen Low? Keith: >But since you brought it up, isn't it strange that the >Masters were talking to Blavatsky, Sinnett, Leadbeater, >Besant and Bailey and have fallen strangely silent. I have no reason to think that they would be any less active in the world today than in the past. The T.S. was a project that a few were involved with at its inception. How many Masters are there in the world? What do most of them do with their time? Although I think that they may still give a nudge here and a nudge there to people to keep the theosophical work going, I suspect that most of what they do is far removed from the day-to-day activities and politics of modern society. >Have we fallen so low? Are we in a real Kali Yuga, >that only Kalki Avatar could get our attention by >bitting ears? They are around somewhere! We're only about 5,000 years into the 432,000 years of this dark age. It's actually a great time to be alive; that's why everyone wants to be reborn so often. Things are tough, turbulent, painful, and unsettling, but we end up having a great time! We haven't fallen low. There are eddies and currents of dynamic spiritual activity all about us in life, whether we notice them or not. There may be some among us with their heads so buried in books that don't see if the sun is out or not. This is not because the books and studies do this to us; it comes from not paying attention to life. The work to better the world in and through theosophical groups has not failed simply because groups may attract people that have failings, that are messed up in some way, or are inattentive to the flowering life about them. The theosophical work continues and is something good. optimistically, -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 22:14:30 -0700 From: "Eldon B Tucker" Subject: Re:United efforts Rich: > For me tolerance means accepting that others think differently > than I do. I tolerate the fact that some people find Annie > Besant's works more authoritative than Mr. Judge's ... > > But for me tolerance does not mean dropping my faculty of > discrimination and saying "yes, everything Annie Besant wrote is > as useful and accurate as what Mr. Judge wrote." > > So for unity, we cannot make an assumption that everyone accepts > the same basic teachings, or teachers. A few stray comments ... We have a number of different variants of Theosophy. Many followers of each school will insist that theirs is the one true philosophy. As people continue to write, there will be further schools and followings, a further fragmentation of the original materials. Can we stop this? Will any good come of it? With a careful study of Blavatsky's writings, we can as individuals see what ideas are consistent with what she said. We can find when new ideas amplify the philosophy, and when they disagree. This is not to say that Blavatsky's writings are infallible; anyone can be wrong and make mistakes. A math tutor, for instance, may tell us what he's learned and we'd take in every word as a treasure. Even if he's had the best education and teachers, though, he's human and can make mistakes and may not know everything there's to know on the subject. An organization is run by people according to what they think is best. It may be run democratically, serving the interests of the changing demographics of its membership. Or it may have qualifications for office, in order to preserve a certain philosophy, approach, or agenda that it has been founded to fulfill. I expect our various theosophical organizations to continue to undergo change. Some may decline and die. Others may flourish. I think that out of the growing chaos of beliefs there will arise a few belief systems that will form future religious philosophies for the west. These belief systems will be beneficial to the people that follow them. We can play a role in taking from Theosophy, Buddhism, western psychology, etc., to find a blend that is a suitable prescription for the spiritual disarray and darkness about us. Apart form this work of helping Theosophy become the cornerstone of future religions, we can also work on new ways to present the original philosophy lucidly, reaching out and grabbing the minds of the *few* that are drawn to something more. This is with regard to the second aspect of Theosophy in the west: as genuine teachings from the Lesser Mysteries. In this role, it's less important to be concerned with science and precise literary scholarship, since we're dealing with spiritual training and not the transfer of factual knowledge. Why isn't it important to treasure the tidbits of occult knowledge found in the original literature? Because *we* are not the care keepers of that treasury of knowledge; the Mahatmas are, and they can recommunicate whatever is important when they choose. We can learn about them from the fragmentary information provided in the literature, like in THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO AP SINNETT, but that information is second-hand. The only way to really know is to engage the spiritual process, to awaken bodhichitta, to kindle the inner fire (buddhi) to illumine the mind and heart. To participate in the work of the Lessor Mysteries, we have to undertake inner work, changing ourselves. As we open our minds and hearts and grow in that direction, our efforts will not go unnoticed. We'll find suitable teachers in life for what we need to learn, and we'll find plentiful opportunity to *share* and bring light to the world in our own unique ways. This is the second kind of theosophical work that we can do. What else is there? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 07:21:03 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re:Unity Keith: Well said. I recently ran into one of HPB's writings where she was talking about the need the kind of life that is necessary which helps us to go beyond all written material and get a real understanding of the Truths behind any of the written words. Something to think about. M K Ramadoss -- aka doss.......... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 11:18:45 -0400 From: "Reed Carson" Subject: Roadmap and doors Compass has launched a Call for Unity. Sage has implored us "begging for a beginning" and suggested a set of "doors" to Adyar, ULT etc. Joseph Price has ruminated on a "Theosophy Mall" consisting of only pointers to various sites - though the word "Mall" might have undesirable connotations for many. As a result of the comments originating from the Call for Unity occuring at TheosWorld, Blavatsky Net (BN) at http://www.blavatsky.org has moved its "Roadmap to Theosophy Online" to the "top of the list" on its homepage. This Roadmap has always intented to supply the "doors" that Sage has requested. The page aims to give significant help in sorting out the array of web sites and their relation to the real world groups - which in their turn are often confusing enough to the newcommer. Roadmap differs from Sage's suggestion in that the "vestibule" behind the door is the home page of the site in question. This way each site decides how to present itself to the world. Noone else presumes to do it for them. It differs from Price's suggestion in that a combination of visual arrangement (that communicates economically) and the addition of a few verbal details aim to "say a lot" and offer direction out of chaos. With this Roadmap option now so prominently placed at BN we hope it can serve at least in a limited way as the beginning begged for by Sage. Comments would be welcome if the Roadmap is thought to have value, to have shortcommings or weaknesses, or if there were thoughts on how it should be improved. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 11:42:13 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re:United efforts Personally I find Besant/Leadbeater's teachings more "useful" as far as providing me with inspiration and guidance on the path, compared to the writings of HPB. Of two things I am certain, however; there is error in the writings of all these representatives of the Brotherhood and there is truth also. There is also of necessity the different "flavors", due to the fact that every "messenger" has a different instrument, capable of its certain responses and resonances with different chords of the cosmic symphony. There is no need to try to establish the ultimate "truth" as far as what has been produced by various theosophical writers. Ultimately Truth can only be found within. It is the same truth for everybody but the approach is subjective, unique for each one of us. The "teachings" of theosophy are a road map that can help some of us find our way home with less suffering and guide us towards more valuable service - nothing to quarrel about. Bjorn > people outside ULT are somewhat uncritical to see all teachers as > equally valid. Let each one confirm the validity of the various teachers for himself. > But their TEACHINGS are, in fact, quite different, This should caution us to blindly trust authority, rather serve as an inspiration to go within for confirmatioin of the truth. > rather they are in flat contradiction. Personally I would find a list of the major contracictions VERY interesting, not to create controversy but as a subject for contemplation. > One of the most annoying things for me, truly something that > ruins the movement, is a willingness to accept anything and > everything as valid. This is New Age namby-pambyism. Couldn't agree more. > If Annie Besant and William Q. Judge teach two different things > about Devachan, both CANNOT be literally right (though it is > logically possible BOTH are wrong). Both could also be partially right, which likely may be the case. > On what basis may we work toward unity? On the basis that we find inspiration and spiritual guidance in theosoophical writings and in our vision of universal brotherhood and desire to serve humanity. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 11:51:59 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re:Re: Have We Fallen Low? Keith: >But since you brought it up, isn't it strange that the >Masters were talking to Blavatsky, Sinnett, Leadbeater, >Besant and Bailey and have fallen strangely silent. They have certainly continued talking to us; both in a more official (public) way and individual/personal. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 11:56:38 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re:United efforts The future of theosophy lies not in establishing dogma but in application of its basic principles. > I expect our various theosophical organizations to continue to > undergo change. Some may decline and die. Others may flourish. > I think that out of the growing chaos of beliefs there will arise > a few belief systems that will form future religious philosophies > for the west. These belief systems will be beneficial to the > people that follow them. We can play a role in taking from > Theosophy, Buddhism, western psychology, etc., to find a blend > that is a suitable prescription for the spiritual disarray and > darkness about us. > > We can learn about them from the fragmentary information provided > in the literature, like in THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO AP SINNETT, but > that information is second-hand. The only way to really know is > to engage the spiritual process, to awaken bodhichitta, to kindle > the inner fire (buddhi) to illumine the mind and heart. To > participate in the work of the Lessor Mysteries, we have to > undertake inner work, changing ourselves. As we open our minds > and hearts and grow in that direction, our efforts will not go > unnoticed. We'll find suitable teachers in life for what we need > to learn, and we'll find plentiful opportunity to *share* and > bring light to the world in our own unique ways. This is the > second kind of theosophical work that we can do. What else is > there? Well written. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 14:33:57 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: authority, "inner" & "outer" >> Rich: > > people outside ULT are somewhat uncritical to see all teachers as > > equally valid. > Bjorn: > Let each one confirm the validity of the various teachers for > himself. Rich: > > But their TEACHINGS are, in fact, quite different, Bjorn: > > This should caution us to blindly trust authority, rather serve > > as an inspiration to go within for confirmatioin of the truth. Is trust in our "inner" awareness that ignores or devalues traditional sources really more trustworthy? What decides if an idea coming from "another" (is there separateness?) is attractive, truthful or useful? Is it not "our" heart, "our" mind that determines who or what to follow spiritually? If we decide where Theosophia lies, why say "inner" authority is to be our only or primary source? Truth or bliss is where "you" find it, not "where" you find it. To use an exclusively gnostic or exclusively scriptural path will not produce beneficent results. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 18:01:55 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re:Re: Have We Fallen Low? > > Keith > > But since you brought it up, isn't it strange that the Masters > > were talking to Blavatsky, Sinnett, Leadbeater, Besant and Bailey > > and have fallen strangely silent. Bjorn: > They have certainly continued talking to us; both in a more > official (public) way and individual/personal. Interesting that you mention that. I have been involved in BBS'ing and the Internet for about 12 years, now. Since I have been involved in Theosophy, I have had occasion to write articles, give talks, or argue a position in front of the Lodge's Board of Directors. In every case where I have run into trouble, usually only a day or two before I have to make/write the presentation, I see/receive a message online which solves (or points to the solution) to the whole problem. One time, in particular, I was about to do a talk on hypnotism, based on Blavatsky's article on the subject. It was clear to me that what Blavatsky called hypnotism and what psychologists call hypnotism were two completely different things, but no prima facie (sp?) proof. One day before the lecture, however, there was an article in alt.sci.skeptic about the doctor who was clearly the source of Blavatsky's knowledge on hypnotism (his name escapes me at the moment, but it is in the Theosophical Glossary). I had just enough time to verify that information and incorporate it into my talk; it was a rousing success, with a number of people who assumed that hypnotism was evil because of the unfortunate page heading in the S. D. changing their minds. Now, I'm not saying that this information comes from the Mahatmas. But, if I were a Mahatma today, email is a LOT simpler yet very similar to precipitating letters. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 16:11:26 -0700 From: "Judith Christie" Subject: Re:Unity or United Efforts from many PROJECT UNITY; DOUBTFUL There was only one representative of the Adept MasterTeachers. Her name was H.P. Blavatsky. All Theosophical Leaders after her and their personal ideologies should be excluded in relation to Unity for regardless of how sweet, wonderful and dedicated they were, they themselves either caused the schisms or lenghthened them. The original papers drawn up as a more or less facsimile of a constitution of The Theosophical Society clearly outlined and defined unity. To say the Unity must come from the Theosphical Teachings is another sidestep of the issue which is Unity. If you are not the embodiment of the Theosophical Teachings after all this time then just give it up and find a soft religion that forgives the shortcomings and irrationality of all of its members by saying, "oh they are just human...they are not god." If you have a comment on this statement...do not bother because it was HPB and Her Teachers who consistently mentioned we are on the path to godhood. I would hope the movement towards godhood is forward and not backward. There comes a time when one must make a committment to the Truth regardless of the discomfort it causes oneself or others. The painful Truth is that there will be no unity as long as the ideas of leaders who came after our illustrious founder, HPB continue to cause dissension in the ranks of Theosophists...even now when they are no longer present in life. There is only one point of agreement amongst Theoosphists. It is that H.P.B. brought the Divine Wisdom to the world as representative of the Adept Master Teachers. It was to her that this volumnious information was channeled and to no one else. Any other Theosophist who took it upon himself or herself to change it, to enlarge or to lace it with strange sidelines was asking for trouble. The kind of trouble that now exists in the Theosophical world. Where would, for example the Christian Religion be if every decade or so after their Avatar, Jesus Christ, a priest or parishoner came along and decided that the Christ did not quite say enough and made efforts to change or add to the religious philosophy of their church. Finally, no amount of talking or asking for ideas will bring UNITY ever. You can look far and wide but you will never find another leader of any Theosophical Society among the many who could at this point in time or in the past stand side by side with H.P. Blavatsky and the work she did for you and world at large. Nor, did any one single individual after her, possess the ability of seership which she possessed. No doubt, those who did follow her as leaders of the many Theosophical Societies were devoted in their way, however every single one of these lacked the courage of conviction that she possessed. It is self evident in her writings that she would have never put up with disunity in the ranks for one month, no less over 100 years. You all have dared to take the beautiful Divine Wisdom and the Divine Light, Theosophy and force i t into the mold that have you set for it. Then when another disagrees with the mold you philosophize over why? A question which does not even deserve an answer! The three objects, the fundemental propositions and HPB are all you have or to work with where Unity is the question. In those places are where you will find all of your answers. You have taken the heart of HPB and the Theosophical tenets and shredded them and then scattered them to winds. Even the books she left are virtueless in the hands and minds of most Theosophists. Oh, yes there are Adept Master Teachers in the world today. In fact it is going to be totally up to these and not you, as to whether or not Theosophy will be taken into the 21st Century and by who. My site address is http://members.aol.com./SAGESCROWN/index.html.forum and is the only way I can be contacted, henceforth. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 10:30:00 +0800 From: "Philip Harris" Subject: Impediments to unity Greetings! In 1970 I was temporary resident at Adyar. Speaking with John Coats at lunch one day I suggested that the Blavatsky Bungalow was under-utilised and offered a suggestion. Every week a large number of people come to see the banyan tree and look at the estate; they then depart knowing little more about the TS. I suggested that the Blavatsky Building be made an audio-visual expo on the TS and theosophy open to the public. John exclaimed, "What a good idea, when can you start?" It was impossible for me to do this as I was working full-time earning a living in Australia. His response taught me a lesson which I frequently forget- do not expect others to do all the work while one is content to just talk. I feel the impact of this lesson here as I participate in the discussion about unity in the theosophical work. We need to take care, do we not, to avoid endless discussion without action resulting. We might get to the stage that the olden theologians reached when they argued about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin!. Moves in the direction of unity on the internet may be helpful, but in the final resort, it is the people who need to physically move into unity in the way that began at the centenary conference where a number of delegates from various societies participated. Coming back to the core of the discussion one message just through mentions diferences of opinion about devachan. My father was fond of saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!" If one rejects the whole corpora of one major theosophical figure because of differences with the statements of another, surely that might be what we are doing! If scientists- particularly cosmologists- adopted a similar attitude scientific progress would not be a quick as it is. To digress (I think), on Sunday I depart east to attend a TS science symposium near Brisbane. Attending will be an astronomer, geologist, neurophysiologist, physician, and many other professionals. I will be airing a proposal to establish an international association to locate and investigate new scientific theories and discoveries that have relevancy to our theosophical work; to determine, if possible, whether any such data supports, amplifies, or questions theosophy. Like science, I would hope that this endeavor will transcend factional boundaries. If anyone is interested in associating themselves with this project please do not hesitate to let me know by e.mail. Best wishes, Philip Harris From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 13:46:01 -0700 From: "Gail Stevenson" Subject: Re: Unity It has been interesting to read the reactions to the possibility of unity among students of Theosophy. Obviously not everyone is agreed that it is possible, and for those who believe that it is not, then it is not. But before we can work towards an IDEAL, we have to have an idea, and it is ideas that we are sharing. If we can make some progress, great! Scribe has actually done something and I applaud his action. A gateway to theosophy. And fitingly it is on BlavatskyNet. It seems to this student that the one thing we can agree on (or most of us) is that HPB was the messenger and so her work (original and unabridged) is the message of Theosophy. Any other we can label "student work," which is not to say that student work is not valuable, especially where we find it in complete agreement with the original teachings. But that is a work for each student to accomplish. In this regard, the article, "LOOKING TO THE FUTURE OF THEOSOPHY" in Theosophy World #13, is valuable and might be used as a basis for continued discussion on this subject. Regarding HPB as messenger, the following is an interesting quotation, from the article "HPB -- The Direct Agent" (Theos. Mag.25,289): "One need not blindly believe in the credentials of HPB, nor in those she gave us with respect to the position of her colleague and co-worker, Whilliam Q. Judge. The great error lies in the assumption that HPB could have been *both* right and wrong, that the Masters could have permitted mis-statements of hers to pass uncorrected - allowed their teachings to be misrepresented to humanity. Were this possible they could not be Masters. If her Masters are *not* Perfected Men, Theosophy is a hoax, the study of which is a waste of time. And, we may add, if it is a waste of time to study the philosophy which formed the basis of the teachings of such men as Buddha, Plato and Christ, life is not worth living." -- Gail From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 97 17:37:00 EDT From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Re:Re: Unity Gail: > Regarding HPB as messenger, the following is an interesting > quotation, from the article "HPB -- The Direct Agent" (Theos. > Mag.25,289): > > "One need not blindly believe in the credentials of HPB, nor in > those she gave us with respect to the position of her colleague > and co-worker, Whilliam Q. Judge. The great error lies in the > assumption that HPB could have been *both* right and wrong, that > the Masters could have permitted mis-statements of hers to pass > uncorrected - allowed their teachings to be misrepresented to > humanity. This in itself is a great error. HPB herself made it quite clear that she *was* both right and wrong, that there were probably things in her teachings that were incorrect due to her own lack of understanding. I could dig up quotes, but haven't time at the moment. Suffice it to say that HPB ABSOLUTELY NEVER claimed the kind of infallibility that the above passage claims for her teachings. Moreover, she EXPLICITLY REJECTED such an idea not once but many times. > Were this possible they could not be Masters. If her Masters are > *not* Perfected Men, Theosophy is a hoax, the study of which is a > waste of time. Oh, how much misunderstanding is contained in these lines! The Masters could not be Masters if they allowed HPB to make mistakes? Lordy, read what HPB herself says about all the mistakes in Isis Unveiled! The Masters were never claimed by HPB (or by themselves in their letters) to be omniscient or omnipresent or omnipotent. And she makes it clear that she and Olcott *were* allowed to make mistakes. And, we may add, if > it is a waste of time to study the philosophy which formed the > basis of the teachings of such men as Buddha, Plato and Christ, > life is not worth living." One need not regard Buddha, Plato or Christ as omniscient and omnipotent in order to find the study of their teachings worthwhile. And life is indeed worth living without believing anyone to be Masters in the way depicted in this article. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 16:06:27 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra" Subject: Re:Re: Unity Quite Right Paul! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 16:16:18 -0800 From: "Mark Kusek" Subject: Re:Re: Unity > One need not regard Buddha, Plato or Christ as omniscient and > omnipotent in order to find the study of their teachings > worthwhile. And life is indeed worth living without believing > anyone to be Masters in the way depicted in this article. The plain fact of the matter is that our puny little egos grow dreadfully unconfortable with our own ignorance. We can't stand it to simply say "I don't know and acknowledge the mystery that gives rise to, sustains and surrounds us" God forbid. Anything but that. Quick, somebody toss me an explanation! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 17:07:06 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: puny little egos Mark: > The plain fact of the matter is that our puny little egos grow > dreadfully unconfortable with our own ignorance. We can't stand > it to simply say "I don't know and acknowledge the mystery that > gives rise to, sustains and surrounds us" > > God forbid. Anything but that. Quick, somebody toss me an > explanation! Maybe. Or maybe an occasional ray from our true Divine Wisdom nature influences our ego. The ray says: "A treasure of wisdom is already yours, but you must dig in the right place with the right tools." If our ego mangles this message, so much the worse for us. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 3 Jul 97 20:48:40 EDT From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Re:Re: Unity Mark Kusek: > The plain fact of the matter is that our puny little egos grow > dreadfully unconfortable with our own ignorance. We can't stand > it to simply say "I don't know and acknowledge the mystery that > gives rise to, sustains and surrounds us" > > God forbid. Anything but that. Quick, somebody toss me an > explanation! Two relevant sayings: The more you know, the more you know you don't know. He who says does not know, he who knows does not say. I must say that I have found the "unknowingness" threshold of the A.R.E. leadership to be much higher than in the mainstream Theosophical movement. Nobody seems uncomfortable with acknowledging that there are mistakes in the Cayce readings, or with admitting that we don't really understand how he did what he did. Whereas it is still very dangerous for a Theosophist to publicly state that HPB ever made a mistake, factual or ethical. (Voice of experience!) There's a whole stream of Korean Buddhist literature (so I've read) focused on the need to acquire "don't know" mind. In Jungian terms, I'd say that judgment is excessively dominant over perception when people get obsessed with figuring everything out in neat hierarchies based on absolute authorities. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 18:53:51 -0700 From: "Brenda S Tucker" Subject: Re:Unity or United Efforts from many Judith, I've really enjoyed reading your thoughts on the internet and will really miss you on theos-talk. Can I tell you in quick words about a thought of mine that developed after crossing the I AM Temple teachings with what I have read in theosophy? The study of the races in Vol II SD in a small group was going on simultaneously with my spiritual practice at the sanctuary classes. All of a sudden I started to think of a really simple explanation of the races. I love HPB for telling us about the early races. When a double-type race of man flourishes during the sixth root race (and in a somewhat lesser degree in the sixth subrace), we will have the benefit of their wisdom perhaps through frequent conversation and interaction. My own picture of this anomoly (meaning you've never seen anything like it before) is that ascended masters will be present. They will be seen. They will be heard. They will be active (through us) in the physical development of the planet. I probably haven't mentioned this idea to you before, but my picture of the races simply put is 1st race Animal Bodies, Men hovering through and within the animal bodies (of dinosaurs) 2nd race Animal Bodies which animals have no interest in - man descending to and animal ascending to the mental or soul level where they co-exist and co-exert an influence on the animal body. 3rd race - man descends again, manifesting himself and the animal shistas he is able to live alongside. Animal ascends to a hovering position, perhaps watching, perhaps yearning for a sojourn with the solar logos. 4th race - man alone as a son of the solar logos on this planet. 5th race - master above - hovering, influencing, directing and playing through the human forms when possible 6th race - man and master communicating within the soul or mind of our joint being. An actual residing together after an ascension by man and a descent by master. 7th race - man ascends to a hovering, watching, and mulling - master has transformed our old physical vehicals as well as the physical world into a place which they can inhabit (or live alongside in reference to our shista vehicles). If this is the case, then with the advent of the sixth subrace, many, many people have actual experiences with a being on an inner level and can participate actively in the dissemination of their wisdom. HPB is different from Christ because the age is different. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 23:07:55 -0700 From: "Gail Stevenson" Subject: Re: Unity "The great error lies in the assumption that HPB could have been *both* right and wrong, that the Masters could have permitted mis-statements of hers to pass uncorrected - allowed their teachings to be misrepresented to humanity." HPB did NOT claim infallibility, I do agree. It is in the rest of the sentence that the importance lies. Would Masters permit their teachings to be misrepresented? It does not imply that Masters controlled HPB. To correct a misstatement of philosophy is not to control another being. Nor does it suggest that the Masters are "omniscient or omnipresent or omnipotent." Nor does that carry forward to Buddha, Plato and Christ. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 10:13:05 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re:Re: Unity K. Paul Johnson: > he did. Whereas it is still very dangerous for a Theosophist to > publicly state that HPB ever made a mistake, factual or ethical. > (Voice of experience!) You are in very good company. When Annie Besant suspended ES and Masonic Activities in response ot Krishnaji's Truth is a Pathless Land, the talk in the TS circles was that she was becoming senile. Due to her reputation, no one was dare enough to publicly make such a statement. At the time of Krishnaji dissolved OSE and gave his Truth is a Pathless Land speech, there was much criticism in TS circles up and down the line. Annie Besant commented that Strong Beliefs create strong reactions, and she hoped people were more kinder, showing her normal approach. .........doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 08:33:23 -0700 From: "Dara Eklund" Subject: Unknowingness Dear folks: Would you really wish instead of the grand evolutionary scheme from Unknowing to Aware to Knowing, a hierarchy of "Unknowingness" ? Granted H.P.B. and Edgar Cayce never pretended to be perfect, still they acknowledged beings more perfect and wise than those at our present stage of development. Something for us to live (or grow) up to: heroes of a nobler Path. Cordially, From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 15:02:43 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re:Re: Unity Gail: A) H. P. B. created a bunch of notes. Others arranged, edited, and even altered Blavatsky's writings in the creation of the S.D. But note that any glaring errors, she probably would have corrected. B) She only claims that the S.D. is the barest outline of part of the true S.D. Also note that study of the S.D. is supposed to lead one to the truth, not that it IS the truth. It may be that the Truth may be discerned in discovering that it's all a pile of B.S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 14:38:33 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re:Re: Unity Bart: Well said. Until we discover truth for ourselves any of the literature, sacred or important is just second hand. When one "knows" truth first hand, then only it is meaningful the individual. Let us use SD and anything else one feels going to help realize truth first hand. "Man/Woman Know Thyself" .. the famous maxim. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 15:55:47 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re:Re: Unity Bart: > H. P. B. created a bunch of notes. Others arranged, edited, > and even altered Blavatsky's writings in the creation of the S.D. > But note that any glaring errors, she probably would have > corrected. HPB had help in creating that "bunch of notes". > I, the humble undersigned Fakir, certify that the "Secret > Doctrine" is dictated to Upasika [HPB] partly by myself & partly > by my brother K.H. > > -- M > The undersigned is happy to assure him [Dr. Hubbe-Schleiden] > *The Secret Doctrine* when ready, will be the triple production > of M, Upasika and Doctor's most humble servant. > > -- K.H. As for the "glaring errors" -- she also had guidance from KH. "Every mistake or erroneous notion, corrected and explained by her from the works of other theosophists *was corrected by me, or under my instruction.*" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 04:00:57 -0400 (EDT) From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Re:Re: Unity Gail Stevenson: <<"The great error lies in the assumption that HPB could have been *both* right and wrong, that the Masters could have permitted mis-statements of hers to pass uncorrected - allowed their teachings to be misrepresented to humanity." HPB did NOT claim infallibility, I do agree. It is in the rest of the sentence that the importance lies. Would Masters permit their teachings to be misrepresented? It does not imply that Masters controlled HPB. To correct a misstatement of philosophy is not to control another being. Nor does it suggest that the Masters are "omniscient or omnipresent or omnipotent." Nor does that carry forward to Buddha, Plato and Christ.>> Now this strikes me as a mighty important insight. Do we really realize what "infallible" implies? Or "omniscient"? With a universe on the physical plane only, of trillions of galaxies, not to mention to ever-expanding higher planes of energy, consciousness and Be-ness, to be infallible would be omniscience on a scale never comprehended by any human being. The Masters never claimed this kind of omniscience, and HPB certainly did not either. But there is a ***HUGE*** gap between omniscience on an absolutely universal level, and near-perfect knowledge of the earth and its history and its future. I think it is fair to assume that the Masters have something like this kind of knowledge (I can hear Paul Johnson squeaking up now). Evolution alone points to beings far beyond humans in knowledge and ability. This isn't "omniscience" or "infallibility" but it *is* godlike compared to my puny abilities. So I think Gail has a real point. Would beings like Masters, with at least their senior members possessing comprehensive knowledge of the Earth and its human inhabitants, allow half-statements and mis-truths to go unchecked through one of their vehicles? People speak in the name of the Masters all the time, and I don't know how many people think they are Jesus. But HPB was a bona-fide representative of at least two Masters last century, with independent corroboration from about a dozen people who saw Them, talked with Them, or received letters from Them. In essence, the Masters were *RESPONSIBLE* for what she taught in print and in public as THEIR doctrines, and beings of that magnitude can hardly be suspected of carelessness in getting Their message out. For pretenders and charlatans, the Masters have never been responsible, nor are They responsible for the fools and moles who follow them. But if we are correct in assuming the true nature and abilities of the Mahatmas, and the nature of their Agent, i.e. HP Blavatsky, Gail's point is necessarily correct -- H.P.B.'s teachings are neither just interesting, nor suggestive, nor one of a group. They are the direct teachings of the Masters, all that They chose to give out last century. To diminish those teachings is to diminish ourselves and our ability to participate in the Theosophical movement. Insofar as HPB was Their agent, our way to Them is through her. For if we cannot even digest the preliminary teachings and required lifestyle changes, why would a great Teacher give us more? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 08:08:30 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re:Re: Unity Rich: > chose to give out last century. To diminish those teachings is > to diminish ourselves and our ability to participate in the > Theosophical movement. > > For if we cannot even digest the preliminary teachings and > required lifestyle changes, why would a great Teacher give us > more? A very logical and reasonable response. This reminds me of a statement made by a philosopher - to understand greatness, one has to be great himself/herself. Have They not clearly stated that lifestyle changes are *critical* - leave your world and come into ours (a quote from memory) -- even though to the man/woman of the world the required lifestyle may look *foolish* and *unwise*. I think that without right lifestyle (which includes psychological, which is as important as physical) we may not be able to fully comprehend and understand the teachings no matter how intellectual one is and academically learned and scholarly one is. Just my thoughts. ...MK Ramadoss aka doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 09:01:37 -0600 From: "Dick Slusser" Subject: Re:Re: Unity Doss: > The Occult Science is NOT one in which secrets can be > communicated of a sudden, by written or even verbal > communication. If so, all the 'Brothers' would have to do, would > be to publish a HAND-BOOK of the art which might be taught in > schools as grammar is. ... The truth is that till the neophyte > attains to the condition necessary to that degree of > illumination, to which and for which, he is entitled and fitted, > most IF NOT ALL of the secrets are INCOMMUNICABLE. The > illumination MUST COME FROM WITHIN. ... all we can do is to > direct such means as have been empirically found by the > experience of ages to conducee to the required object. ... > Fasting, meditation, chastity of thought, word and deed; silence > for certain periods of time to allow nature herself to speak to > him who comes to her for information; government of the animal > passions and impulses; utter unselfishness of intention; the use > of certain incense and fumigations for physiological purposes, > have been published since the days of Plato and Iamblicus in the > West and since the far earlier times of our Indian RISHIS. > > -- ML-49 / MLC-20 -- dslusser ed-HCT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 13:47:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re:Re: Unity Dslusser: I like this quote but I can't figure where it's from. What's "[ML-49/MLC-20] dslusser ed-HCT" ? Does that refer to one of the volumes of the Collected Writings of HPB? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 13:25:27 -0600 From: "Bjorn Roxendal" Subject: Re:Unity or United Efforts from many > There is only one point of agreement amongst Theoosphists. It is > that H.P.B. brought the Divine Wisdom to the world as > representative of the Adept Master Teachers. It was to her that > this volumnious information was channeled and to no one else. The idea of only one messenger seems so very contradictory to basic theosophical ideas. > You can look far and wide but you will never find another leader > of any Theosophical Society among the many who could at this > point in time or in the past stand side by side with H.P. > Blavatsky and the work she did for you and world at large. Nor, > did any one single individual after her, possess the ability of > seership which she possessed. I would say that it takes the faculties of an HPB, or better, to be able to know these things. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 18:20:11 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re:Re: Unity Lmhem111: > I like this quote but I can't figure where it's from. What's > "[ML-49/MLC-20] dslusser ed-HCT" ? Does that refer to one of the > volumes of the Collected Writings of HPB? It is in Mahatma Letters to A P Sinnett. Letter #49. I am mailing you a copy of the complete letter. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 23:19:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re: Mahatma Letter #49 Thanks for the reference and full text. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 13:07:16 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: (none) Sage has some valid points in his/her memo. I think it essential that definitions from HPB be used as a basis for information. Every student since then, and begiining with those around HPB, has learned of Theosophy through and from her. Theosophy is not speculative. It is as stated in SD I 272-3, a synopsis of the findings and observations of generations of seers and student who have examined nature in all her departments. That is indeed encyclopedic. One of the features of THEOSOPHY is that everything in it dove-tails witha ll the rest. On examination it will be found that student expressions and ideas are not always competely a "fit" for those originals, as, unless such a "student" is himself an Adept, he has no complete access to the akasic records -- hence statments (such as this which I offer) are bound to be limited and imcomplete. THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY is reprinted from the Original Edition by Theosophy Company, Los Angeles. I have spent over 50 years gong through the many entries there (over 2,300) and have found very few "errors" in the entries. In fact there are more aspects of information which assist in understanding scattered widely throughout the body of Theosophical literature which we owe to HPB. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 13:07:02 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: (none) June 25th 1997 Lmhem111: Good suggestion. The identification of meanings as you suggest ought to be transmitted to Harris so that he might consider it. In the original proposal such an identification was not proposed. I therefore withdrew. The principle, as I see it is that we can have a multiplicity of "opinions," but what is the beasis ? What is that which is fundamental? I know this may sound doctrinaire or even "fundamentalist," but ... But, is there not at the root of any idea, any formulation a "seed idea," which while not totally independent of all the rest of the concepts and formulations around it, is seemingly the most accurate and to which most people on consideration would give assent ? While not seeking to impose any singe answer on anyone, should not we all recognize that if was HPB who served as the transmitter or messenger of the wisdom which the Masters had tooffer at this time to us all ? Would it not be useful and wise to first consider that, and then bring others' opinions or definitions into conparison ? I am thinking in terms of history that way back in the 192os Margaret Thomas wrote a short book called THEOSOPHY or NEO-THEOSOPHY; there she compared in parallel columns what HPB said on various subjects, and what Mrs. beant of Mr. leadbeater had written later. O believe this was reprinted rather recently by the Edmonton Lodge of the T S, If Mr. Harris proposes to identify the encyclopedic references and give equal space to all then I would agree that the project is valuable, but if there should be any bias at all, then it would be to that extent a person's view point which served as editing agent. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 23:20:08 -0400 (EDT) From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re: Errors in the Theos. Glossary - de Zirkoff Excerpts from WHO PLAYED THAT TRICK ON H.P.B.? THE PUZZLE OF "THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY" by Boris de Zirkoff > Sometime in the Spring of 1892, the Theosophical Publishing > Society in London issued a work entitled THE THEOSOPHICAL > GLOSSARY under the name of H. P. Blavatsky, bearing also the > imprint of THE PATH Office in New York, and THE THEOSOPHIST at > Adyar, Madras. > > This work contains 389 pages and embodies 2,767 distinct terms > with their appropriate definitions, alphabetically arranged. > > The Preface informs us that this work is "almost entirely > posthumous" and the H.P.B. "only saw the first thirty pages in > proof". > > (G.R.S. Meade) lets us know in his Preface to this work, that > H.P.B. desired to express her indebtedness "as far as the > tabulation of facts is concerned," to four works, name, the > SANSKRIT-CHINESE DICTIONARY by Etiel, the HINDU CLASSICAL > DICTIONARY of Dawson, Wilson's VISHNU-PURANA, and the ROYAL > MASONIC CYCLOPEDIA of Kenneth R.H. MacKensie. He also points > out the definitions signed by W.W.W. are by W.W. Wescott. > > From such a statement it would appear that THE THEOSOPHICAL > GLOSSARY is a work mainly by H. P. Blavatsky, with a certain > number of quotations from a fairly small number of works. This > impression has become pretty well established in the Theosophical > Movement, and several editions of this work have been published > by various Theosophical organizations. The facts, however, differ considerably. A careful analysis...has disclosed that out of 2,767 definitions, a minimum of 2,212 have been taken from the works of a large number of scholars, either verbatim or with very minor alterations, and with no acknowledgments whatsoever; in a few cases a line or two has been added, giving an occult interpretation probably by H.P.B. herself. (De Zirkoff then spends several pages pointing out some of the innumerable glaring errors in the Glossary made by early scholars who had little grasp of "the subtle meaning of Oriental and other ancient terms.") (He continues by saying)...to publish THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY as it now stands simply means to perpetuate willingly and deliberately hundreds of errors; it also means to ascribe them, at least partially so, to H.P.B., imagining that the definitions are hers, as no source of reference is given... To correct the hundreds of wrong definitions would be a task of uncertain value, because no matter how well done, it would still contain errors, some perhaps unsuspected by the Editor....To correct as much as can be corrected...would mean practically rewriting it. When the nature of the material in THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY is considered without bias or preconceived ideas, and the facts outlined above are kept clearly in mind, it is difficult to believe that the publication of this work in 1892 was done in good faith. Its continued publication is a disservice to the Cause, and most certainly an utterly unwarranted reflection upon the memory of H.P.B., whose name is made to appear in bold letters upon the title page of a work full of misinformation, and with the production of which she had very little to do. It is high time that these facts be stated without ambiguity for the information of serious students. THE DREAM THAT NEVER DIES by Boris de Zirkoff (pp.81-85) Point Loma Publications, San Diego, CA (1983) ISBN 0-913004-45-6 Does anyone have a scanner? Perhaps someone could scan the article in this book and print out the full text for us on this site. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 23:44:22 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re:Re: Errors in the Theos. Glossary - de Zirkoff Lmhem111: > Does anyone have a scanner? Perhaps someone could scan the > article in this book and print out the full text for us on this > site. If I can get hold of a photocopy, I can arrange to get it posted here. ...doss/mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 07:42:34 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re:Re: Errors in the Theos. Glossary - de Zirkoff Lmhem111: > THE DREAM THAT NEVER DIES by Boris de Zirkoff (pp.81-85) Point > Loma Publications, San Diego, CA (1983) ISBN 0-913004-45-6 > > Does anyone have a scanner? Perhaps someone could scan the > article in this book and print out the full text for us on this > site. Considering the publisher of the article, I would not accept it's correctness without corroboration from a less biased party. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 10:07:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "Marshall Hemingway III" Subject: Re:Re: Errors in the Theos. Glossary - de Zirkoff Bart: << Considering the publisher of the article, I would not accept it's correctness without corroboration from a less biased party. >> What bias? He was HPB's last living relative, the compiler-editor of the Blavatsky Collected Writings and the recipient of the Subba Row Medal in 1981. Regardless of whether one like him personally or not, the issues raised in his article need to be addressed. In a few days, Ramadoss will post the full text of WHO PLAYED THAT TRICK ON HPB ? I only excerpted a few passages. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 08:08:32 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Re: Errors in the Theos. Glossary - de Zirkoff Bart: << Considering the publisher of the article, I would not accept it's correctness without corroboration from a less biased party. >> Lmhem111: > What bias? He was HPB's last living relative, the compiler-editor > of the Blavatsky Collected Writings and the recipient of the > Subba Row Medal in 1981. > > Regardless of whether one like him personally or not, the issues > raised in his article need to be addressed. In a few days, > Ramadoss will post the full text of WHO PLAYED THAT TRICK ON HPB > ? I only excerpted a few passages. Bart was writing about the "publisher", not the author. But does he know the folks at Point Loma Pubs well enough to say they are "biased"? What does he mean by "biased party"? Based on what evidence? I have old issues of BdZ's magazine THEOSOPHIA and his article was correctly reprinted in _The Dream That Never Dies_. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 18:13:35 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re:Re: Errors in the Theos. Glossary - de Zirkoff Nicholas Weeks wrote: > Bart was writing about the "publisher", not the author. But does > he know the folks at Point Loma Pubs well enough to say they are > "biased"? What does he mean by "biased party"? Based on what > evidence? The personal experience I have had with the Point Loma people has had to do with technical Internet issues, and, at least the people I had contact with were gleefully hostile when they found out I was representing a TSA group. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 00:50:58 GMT From: "Rodolfo Don" Subject: The Blavatsky Foundation I received this message from Singapore, from a theosophist member of the Singapore Lodge. Could somebody from The Blavatsky Foundation contact Sanne? Thanks a lot, Rudy > From: "Chong Sanne" > Sent: 28 June 1997 12:32 > To: 'Rodolfo Don' > Subject: Blavatsky Foundation > > Hi Rudy, > > You have a link in your page to the Blavatsky Foundation. Could > you tell us who are the people/organization behind this site? We > are curious to know the source and the authority for the pictures > of Masters posted therein. Thanks for your help. > > Best wishes from Singapore, > Sanne (that's my first name, pronounced 'San-nee') From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 18:20:55 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Gleefully hostile > > Nicholas Weeks: > > Bart was writing about the "publisher", not the author. But does > > he know the folks at Point Loma Pubs well enough to say they are > > "biased"? What does he mean by "biased party"? Based on what > > evidence? Bart: > The personal experience I have had with the Point Loma people has > had to do with technical Internet issues, and, at least the > people I had contact with were gleefully hostile when they found > out I was representing a TSA group. Since neither Point Loma Pubs nor TSA publish (or even distribute?) the _Theosophical Glossary_ and the BdZ _Dream_ book was published 14 years ago (after BdZ died) and the allegedly hostile present-day Internet PLP folk had nothing (take my word for it) to do with that book's printing -- maybe hostility is something you know TOO well? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 00:38:53 -0400 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re:Gleefully hostile Eldon has explained to me that Point Loma Publications is NOT the same as the Point Loma Theosophical group, and, as a matter of fact, they have been on the receiving end of problems similar to those I have received from the Point Loma Group. As such, I state that I was mistaken about the motives of Point Loma Publications. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 07:48:45 -0700 From: "Eldon B Tucker" Subject: Re:Gleefully hostile Bart: > Eldon has explained to me that Point Loma Publications is NOT the > same as the Point Loma Theosophical group This needs to be clarified a bit. In 1942 the Point Loma property was sold and the head of the T.S., de Purucker, died. The society first moved its headquarters to Covina, California, then to Pasadena, where it currently resides. Between 1942 and 1951 there was a major split, with a majority of the members quitting. These members formed independent groups and study classes, but never organized another society of their own. They are referred to by "Point Loma" since they were in accord with the society through its Point Loma days. The current society is referred to as the T.S. Pasadena because that is where its headquarters is, much like the other T.S. is referred to as the T.S. Adyar, having headquarters at Adyar, India. Some of ex-members founded Point Loma Publications. This is a publisher of theosophical books and an networking activity, but not a membership organization. They would, I think, like to be thought of as the people that carry on the Point Loma Tradition (e.g. being the Point Loma Theosophical Group), as distinguished from the Pasadena T.S. The main distinction between the two groups is organizational. The T.S. Pasadena is akin to a theocratic organization, with a President said to be the current successor of Blavatsky in a lineage of representatives of the Masters. The President appoints a Cabinet and may rule the T.S. by decree, if she so chooses. The followers of the Point Loma Tradition are the opposite, in not belonging to any organization and being completely autonomous. As the years go by, there are fewer students around wounded by the traumatic split in the T.S. Going into the next century, I expect to see greater cooperation among theosophical groups across all party lines. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 11:23:43 EDT From: "K Paul Johnson" Subject: Re:Gleefully hostile One correction: Grace Knoche's title is "Leader" rather than "President." So who was gleefully hostile to Bart? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 08:18:34 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Well Said! Bart: > Eldon has explained to me that Point Loma Publications is NOT the > same as the Point Loma Theosophical group, ... As such, I state > that I was mistaken about the motives of Point Loma Publications. I wondered if you were mixing up the TS which came from Point Loma to Covina to Pasadena, with PLP. Glad to see it resolved; and your public mea culpa is even more suprising, considering the generally spineless state of America. HPB once wrote that this age lacks "moral courage". So when anyone like you has the courage to accuse and the honor to apologize when wrong -- I must thank you for it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 13:02:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "Thoa Thi-Kim Tran" Subject: Re:Well Said! Nicholas Weeks: > I wondered if you were mixing up the TS which came from Point > Loma to Covina to Pasadena, with PLP. Glad to see it resolved; > and your public mea culpa is even more suprising, considering the > generally spineless state of America. HPB once wrote that this > age lacks "moral courage". So when anyone like you has the > courage to accuse and the honor to apologize when wrong -- I must > thank you for it. What's the degree of difference between the "honor(able)" one who "accuse(s)" and one who imposes on innocent people? Of course, what is innocent is up to the definition of the one who is accusing. I think that is one of the reason America seems to be in a "spineless state." People are tired of sanctimony. Perhaps the secret is in the action of the "moral(ly) courage(ous)" one. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 16:46:44 -0600 From: "Dick Slusser" Subject: Re:Re: Errors in the Theos. Glossary - de Zirkoff > > Lmhem111: > > Does anyone have a scanner? Perhaps someone could scan the > > article in this book and print out the full text for us on this > > site. > Doss: > If I can get hold of a photocopy, I can arrange to get it posted > here. I have "The Dream ..." and a scanner. If no one else is taking on this one I'm willing, to provide the full text pp. 81-85. Let me know. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 21:54:09 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re:Re: Errors in the Theos. Glossary - de Zirkoff Dslusser: The photocopy is on its way and should reach me in a day or two and I can get it scanned and posted soon. If I don't receive it or have some technical problem will take up on your offer. ...MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 19:24:20 -0700 From: "Rodolfo Don" Subject: I just put in the web a new page of the "Theosophical Society" in Spanish. I intend to add other theosophical material taken from the Spanish theosophical magazine "Sophia". The URL is: http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/ST.html Thanks, Rudy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 14:57:58 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re:Re: Errors in the Theos. Glossary - de Zirkoff Lmhem111: > Regardless of whether one like him personally or not, the issues > raised in his article need to be addressed. In a few days, > Ramadoss will post the full text of WHO PLAYED THAT TRICK ON HPB > ? I only excerpted a few passages. Here is the full text. Thanks to Lmhem111@aol.com for providing a photocopy. ---- WHO PLAYED THAT TRICK ON H.P.B.? THE PUZZLE OF "THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY." Sometime in the Spring of 1892, the Theosophical Publishing Society in London issued a work entitled The Theosophical Glossary under the name of H. P. Blavatsky, bearing also the imprint of The Path Office in New York, and The Theosophist at Adyar, Madras, India. In the February, 1892, issue of The Path (Vol. Vl, p.358) it is stated that this work will be on sale in six weeks; and in the April issue of the same year (Vol. Vll, p. 28), it is briefly reviewed and described as being edited by G.R.S. Mead. This was, of course, about a year after H.P.B.'s death in May,1891. However, the text of this work must have been almost ready long before that time, as The Path of December, 1890 (Vol. V, p.25) under date of November 5,1890 about a year and a half prior to the actual publication of this work, and months before H.P.B.'s passing speaks of it as being completed and ready to go to the printer in a few days. It also says that it is to be issued "with the Archaic Symbolism," whatever this may have meant. The work was also briefly reviewed by Col. Olcott in 7 he Theosophist, Vol. X111, April, 1892, pp.444-45. The Preface, signed by Mead, is dated January, 1892, ten months alter H.P.B.'s passing. This work contains 389 pages and embodies 2,767 distinct terms with their appropriate definitions, alphabetically arranged. The Preface informs us that this work is "almost entirely posthumous" and that H.P.B. "only saw the first thirty pages in proof." This statement seems to make it easy to deduce that the work did not go to the printer "in a few days" alter November 5, 1890, as surely H.P.B. would have seen a good deal more than 32 pages in proof, had the printer been setting up the MS. for the next six months, prior to her passing. From this it would follow that the MS. did not go to the printer until considerably later, possibly in early 1891. What took place during this period of time, and during the balance of 1891, as far as the MS. is concerned we cannot determine, except in regard to one point, namely, that a certain number of terms with their definitions were excerpted from the MS. and inserted as a Special Glossary into the second edition of The Key to Theosophy published still during H.P.B.'s lifetime, at the end of 1890. As far as Mead is concerned, he lets us know in his Preface to this work, that H.P.B. desired to express her indebtedness "as far as the tabulation of facts in concerned," to four works, namely, the Sanskrit-Chinese Dictionary of Eitel, the Hindu Classical Dictionary of Dowson, Wilson's Vishnu-Purana, and the Royal Masonic Cyclopaedia of Kenneth R. H. MacKenzie. He also points out the definitions signed W.W.W. are by W. W. Westcott. >From such a statement it would appear that The Theosophical Glossary is a work mainly by H. P. Blavatsky, with a certain number of quotations from a fairly small number of works. This impression has become pretty well established in the Theosophical Movement, and several editions of this work have been published by various Theosophical Organizations. The facts, however, differ considerably. A careful analysis of the definitions and of the probable sources from which they were borrowed, has disclosed that out of the 2,767 definitions, a minimum of 2,212 have been taken from the works of a large number of scholars, either verbatim or with very minor alterations, and with no acknowledgment whatsoever; in a few cases a line or two has been added, giving an occult interpretation probably by H.P.B. herself; such instances are very few. Among the works which were most freely used are the following: a) Those already mentioned above. b) Bonwick's Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought. c) George Smith's Chaldean Account of Genesis. d) Five Years of Theosophy: Glossary of Terms. e) Anson's Asgard and the Gods. f) Myer's Qabbalah. g) R. Spence Hardy's Eastern Monachism. h) Emil Schlagintweit's Buddhism in Tibet. There are 124 terms signed by W. Wynn Westcott; 217 terms identical, or practically so, with the corresponding terms in the Glossary of the 2nd edition of The Key to Theosophy; about 25-30 terms from The Secret Doctrine; and about 70 terms from Isis Unveiled. When it is considered that for the interpretation and elucidation of facts and terms pertaining to the Kabbalah and other ancient Hebrew matters, the help of W. Wynn Westcott was secured, it is hard to understand why Sanskrit terms were not submitted to competent scholars in India, several such being staunch Fellows of the T.S. at the time. This certainly would have avoided erroneous spellings and most curious errors in definitions. It is to be regretted that such errors have been allowed to stand all through the years, giving rise to unfriendly criticism and scorn on the part of people versed in these subjects. It seems difficult to understand why, for instance, Adhyatma-vidya, meaning the "science or knowledge of Atman," would have been defined as "the esoteric luminary." Curiously enough, it is defined precisely that way by Eitel in his work, and so we are blessed with the errors of honest but inadequate scholars of a previous century. Amitabha is a Sanskrit term meaning "boundless splendour" or "infinite glory" if any real translation can ever be arrived at; therefore it is not a "Chinese perversion of the Sanskrit Amrita Buddha. "Aindriya literally means "pertaining to the senses," and not ''Indirani, the wile of Indra." Apana is one of the pranas, and hardly "a practice of Yoga." Arasa Maram is not Sanskrit but Tamil, as its final m indicates (in addition to its meaning); it is the common name for the Pipal tree. Imagine "Bagavadam" (Bhagavata) described as "a Tamil Scripture on Astronomy and other matters," while it is one of the most celebrated of the eighteen Mahapuranas treating of Vishnu, Krishna, the Creation, and the histories of various sovereigns. Dhyan Chohans, if literally translated, means "Lords of Meditation," and not "Lords of Light. "The term Me-lha refers to a Tibetan fire-god; it is neither Sanskrit, nor has it anything to do with Salamanders which are elementals. And when it comes to Midgard from the Scandinavian mythology, this term refers to the Earth, the home of men between heaven and hell; the Midgard snake was killed by Thor. It is Nidhogg, and not Midgard that gnaws at the roots of Yggdrasil, the Ash Tree of Life. The definitions of the Days and Nights of Brahma are entirely wrong. A Day of Brahma is equivalent in length to 1,000 Mahayugas. This is a period of 4,320,000,000 years (Cf. Bhagavad-Gita, VII, sloka 17). An Age of Brahma represents the period of life of Brahma, which is stated in the Mahabharata to be a period of 100 of Brahma's Years. This is equivalent to 311,040,000,000,000 years, which consists of fifteen figures. A partial survey of the first four letters of the Glossary has revealed no less than 40 mistranslations out of about 300 terms, a very high percentage indeed. The above instances should suffice for our purpose. A closer examination of the text than that already completed will, no doubt, merely increase the list of errors, and it is doubtful whether it would be of any real value. We are faced here with a perfectly honest but woefully inadequate attempt on the part of various early scholars to grasp the subtle meaning of Oriental and other ancient terms, and to render their phonetic or actual form in English letters. Since those days, scholarship in the field of Egyptology, Orientalism, Classical research, and the like has advanced very considerably, and the early definitions have become quite inadequate; they have been superseded by a vaster knowledge and far greater accuracy, though, from the standpoint of occult study, even the scholarship of today is yet far behind and often guise materialistic. To publish tint' Theosophical Glossary as it now stands simply means to perpetuate willingly and deliberately hundreds of errors; it also means to ascribe them, at least partially so, to H.P.B. imagining that the definitions are hers, as no source of reference is given; while in reality, when adequate explanation and analysis of the text is made, nothing could be more erroneous than to imagine that H.P.B. was herself responsible for the majority of the definitions in the book. It is therefore entirely unjust and unfair to her to do so. To correct the hundreds of wrong definitions would be a task of uncertain value, because, no matter how well done, it would still contain errors, some, perhaps, unsuspected by the Editor. To substitute for the definitions of early scholars those of present and better ones, would be a drastic alteration of the entire work. To eliminate all definitions which are by other people besides H.P.B. and, maybe, W. Wynn Westcott, would be possible but probably unwise, as hundreds of terms used by students today would receive no definition at all. To correct as much as can be corrected, to insert all the missing references and quotation marks, and then to fill in editorially missing definitions, to make the work more adequate and complete would mean practically re-writing it. Its size would than be increased very considerably. There remains the possibility of excerpting from it everything that is obviously H.P.B.'s, which is quite easy to do, because of her style and because of the reference to occult matters which none of the other scholars knew anything about. It might be feasible to add such material from H.P.B.'s pen to the Glossary in The Key to Theosophy, with complete explanation of the reasons for so doing, and of the background of this entire subject. When the nature of the material in The Theosophical Glossary is considered without bias or preconceived ideas, and the facts outlined above are kept clearly in mind, it is difficult to believe that the publication of this work in 1892 was done in good faith. Its continued publication today is a disservice to the Cause, and most certainly an utterly unwarranted reflection upon the memory of H.P.B., whose name is made to appear in bold letters upon the title page of a work full of misinformation, and with the production of which she had very little to do. It is high time that these facts be stated without ambiguity for the information of serious students. (Winter 1967-68) PUBLISHERS NOTE The fifty selections in this compilation are from the independent Theosophical journal Theosophia, edited by Boris de Zirkoff from its inception in May, 1944, until his death on March 4,1981. A final "Tribute" issue appeared in the Summer of 1981, published and edited by Dara Eklund, one of de Zirkoff's devoted assistants in his later years. It contains farewell words from friends around the world, three photographs of Boris in different periods of his life, and a picture of the Subba Row Medal presented to him on February 23, 1981, by Radha Burnier, President of the Theosophical Society (Adyar) in grateful recognition of his "untiring efforts, during several decades, to make available to the world the wealth of knowledge contained in H,P.B.'s writings." As the last living relative of H. P. Blavatsky, Boris de Zirkoff held a unique place in the hearts of all Theosophists, and to them it has always seemed peculiarly appropriate that he should, in the karmic course of events, become the compiler-editor of Blavatsky Collected Writings. In this present collection, however, we have Boris' own words. They will, we feel, be of special appeal because here are revealed his own mature reflections, illumined by the light of Theosophy, on the great problems of life. Regarding the important chapter headed "Farewell to Matter," it is recognized that these selections refer to scientific attitudes of some thirty five years ago which in some degree have changed. The Esoteric Philosophy, however, in comment on them remains valid, and students should find this chapter especially worthy of careful study. Omitted in this compilation is the author's series of twelve historical sketches titled "One Hundred Years Ago," the first one included in the Fall issue of Theosophia of 1973, the last in the Summer of 1979. It seemed more appropriate that they should some day be published in a separate volume. The autobiographical sketch in Chapter 7 was largely dictated to Dara Eklund in the latter months of 1980, and we are indebted to her for its inclusion here. Its truth and its charm will, we feel, reach the hearts of many. Point Loma Publications welcomes this opportunity to present this work to the public and to thank those who have generously helped in the support of its publication. Excerpted from: The Dream That Never Dies Boris de Zirkoff Speaks Out On Theosophy Compiled and Edited by W. Emmett Small Point Loma Publications, Inc. PO Box 6507, San Diego, CA 92106 ISBN: 09-913004-45-6 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 22:05:17 -0700 (MST) From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re:Re: Errors in the Theos. Glossary - de Zirkoff I am just back to Theos-Talk and I see various comments on HPB's THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY. I append below further comments on THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY. I have been intending to do an article on the Glossary for several years and have compiled a huge file folder of relevant material. I hope Dallas T. will give us his observations. In a day or two or three I will try to append my own comments on what Mr. de Zirkoff wrote and also on the extract given below: In the book THE PERENNIAL WISDOM --- FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS OF H.P. BLAVATSKY: A STUDY GUIDE TO THE VIDEOTAPE, etc. by April Hejka-Ekins, Jerry Hejka-Ekins and Brett Forray, the following comments are made on THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY. Published in 1892, this is a posthumous work. Research by Boris de Zirkoff ('Who Played the Trick on H.P.B.?' THEOSOPHIA, Vol. 24, No. 3) indicates that H.P.B. had far less to do with writing this glossary, than previously assumed. According to Mr. de Zirkoff, after H.P.B.'s death, the unfinished manuscript was still too thin for publication, therefore the editors added a considerable number of definitions from outside sources, without acknowledgement to the readers. Sometimes W. Wynn Westcott, one of the editors, penned his own definitions. These however, are identified by his initials. Some of the above definitions have proven to be incorrect. The portion of manuscript material actually penned by H.P.B. for this glossary was apparently added to the second edition of THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY in 1890, during her lifetime. Nevertheless, THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY remains an important reference if this history is kept in mind. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 22:12:32 -0700 (MST) From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: Errors in the Theos. Glossary - de Zirkoff and other related matters In the book THE PERENNIAL WISDOM by April Hejka-Ekins, Jerry Hejka-Ekins and Brett Forray, the following comments are made on THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY. [Autumn 1890:] > The portion of manuscript material *actually penned* by H.P.B. > for this [Theosophical] glossary was apparently added to > the second edition of THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY in 1890, > during her lifetime. Asterisks added. [Sometime after May 8, 1891:] > According to Mr. de Zirkoff, after H.P.B.'s death, the > unfinished manuscript was still too thin for publication, > therefore the editors added a considerable number of definitions > from outside sources, without acknowledgement to the readers. I ask the interested reader to COMPARE the above two statements with what Madame Blavatsky herself wrote in the Preface to the Second edition of THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY: > In order to further facilitate the Study of Theosophy, which the > 'Key' has already made an easy task, I have added a copious > 'Glossary' of all the technical terms found in it [the 'Key']. > Most of the definitions and explanations are transcriptions or > abbreviations from the larger 'Theosophical Glossary', which will > shortly be published together with the Treatise on 'Archaic > Symbolism.' It is hoped that both 'Glossaries' will supply a > long-felt want, and that the larger one will cover the whole > range of occult terminology as completely as possible. > > H.P.B. > > Theosophical Headquarters, > 19, Avenue Road, > London, N.W. > > 1890. [A side note: Unfortunately, Mr. de Zirkoff does not refer to this quote from HPB in his article on the Theos. Glossary.] Does anyone see a contradiction between the statements made in THE PERENNIAL WISDOM and HPB's prefatory remarks to the 2nd ed. of THE KEY? In the autumn of 1890, HPB's own words indicate that she had a larger MSS of which the part added as a glossary to the 2nd ed. of the KEY was only a portion of that larger MS. Therefore, what does the following statement really tell us? > The portion of manuscript material actually penned by H.P.B. for > this glossary was apparently added to the second edition of THE > KEY TO THEOSOPHY in 1890, during her lifetime. Yes, the glossary added to the 2nd ed. of the KEY was "actually penned" by H.P.B. but. . . . WHO had compiled and written the larger MS existing also at the same time (autumn 1890)? Also in comparing the two statements from the PERENNIAL WISDOM, what (I would ask) were the differences (if any) between (1) "the portion of manuscript material actually penned by H.P.B. for this glossary [autumn 1890] " and (2) the "unfinished manuscript" found at HPB's death (May 1891) and deemed "still too thin for publication"? Does anyone see what I am getting at? Continued in part 2 of a series of at least 10 or more parts. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 09:31:39 -0700 From: "Dara Eklund" Subject: Key/Glossary Dear Fellow-Students: With respect to Dan's remarks about the Glossaries, let's first recall that the ~Theosophia~ article did not propose to be a full treatment of the problem of authorship. Many years later, before he passed away, Boris was working on an expanded Glossary, in the form of notes written into his own copy of the printed ~Theosophical Glossary,~ drawing upon other Blavatsky's definitions. In his notes to me as executrix, his plan was for a Key/Voice volume (as part of the UNNUMBERED series of the ~Blavatsky Collected Writings~) to be eventually published by Wheaton, with an expanded Glossary at the close [perhaps even as an appendix]. His annoted copy of the ~Theosophical Glossary~ should still be with his Mss. for that future ~Key-Voice~ volume in the B. de Z. archives at Wheaton. I do not know if this volume has been delayed by the Quest miniature production of ~Voice,~ which contained an edited version of Boris' Introduction, as well as a portion of his index, or is awaiting the highly anticipated ~Blavatsky Collected Letters~ which John Cooper is editing. Those letters would also be a part of the ~Unnumbered~ series of ~B.C.W.~, as are the ~Caves and Jungles....~, ~Isis Unveiled~ and the ~Secret Doctrine.~ With so many editions of the ~Key to Theosophy~ and ~Voice~ in print, I can understand the publisher's decision to give precedence to the unpublished letters of H.P.B. However, I do sometimes lament that I will be able to see all of the series Boris' had envisioned in my lifetime. Until those Mss. are fully examined, we will not have a clue as to what Boris had in mind for the expanded ~Glossary~, wherein he hoped to include only those entries of Blavatsky herself. We certainly can agree he knew her style after long decades of study. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 12:55:25 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re:Key/Glossary Dara: Thanks for keeping us informed. Of late publishing has been made possible on the Internet with very little costs involved. Has any consideration been given to put any of the newer publications on Internet prior to they being made available as hard copy. All the publications are available on electronic media and hence the effort involved in making them available on Internet is very marginal. The only issue will be the conflict of interest between selling hard copies vs making the material available for free on Internet. ...MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 21:47:35 +0200 From: "Cklpcc (Silver)" Subject: Talk Hi, I am interested in Theosophy, I find it useful to compare religions. I'm not sure how the system works, however it seems like a discussion place. If you are interested in passing on a few comments, please do so at above address. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 13:47:51 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Just Ask > I'm not sure how the system works, however it seems like a > discussion place. If you are interested in passing on a few > comments, please do so at above address. Silver, Send your questions to the Theos-talk address and some or all of the folks on this list will send their answers to you at the same Theos-talk address. That way everybody can read the answers and learn. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 13:42:25 -0700 (MST) From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re:Re: Errors in the Theos. Glossary - de Zirkoff and other related matters Re: Errors in the Theos. Glossary - de Zirkoff and other related matters Part 2 by Daniel Caldwell Mr. de Zirkoff's article on THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY was entitled "Who Played That Trick on H.P.B.?: The Puzzle of 'The Theosophical Glossary'." In his article, Mr. de Zirkoff does not actually tell us who played the "trick". The writers of THE PERENNIAL WISDOM are more specific: > Research by Boris de Zirkoff. . . indicates that H.P.B. had > far less to do with writing this glossary, than previously > assumed. According to Mr. de Zirkoff, after H.P.B.'s death, the > unfinished manuscript was still too thin for publication, > therefore the editors added a considerable number of definitions > from outside sources, without acknowledgement to the readers. > Sometimes W. Wynn Westcott, one of the editors, penned his own > definitions. These however, are identified by his initials. . > ... Who were the editors? They identify Westcott as one of the editors. Unless there are primary source documents I am not aware of, Westcott was *not* one of the editors. He was a *contributor* to the Glossary at HPB's specific request. In a document in HPB's own handwriting, she says: > Kindly helped for a number of Kabalistic terms by W. Wynn > Westcott M.B., F.T.S. Hon. Magus, Soc. Ros. etc. etc. [All > the terms explained in this work by Brother Wynn Westcott are > invariably signed with his Initials---'W.W.W.'] I will reproduce this document in full in a later "part". Reading G.R.S. Mead's January 1892 "PREFACE" to THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, it would appear that Mead was the sole editor. And I guess if a "trick" was played on HPB, it was by G.R.S. Mead himself. In this same preface, Mead tells the reader: > THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY labours under the disadvantage of > being an almost entirely posthumous work, of which the author > [HPB] only saw the first thirty-two pages in proof. This is all > the more regrettable, for H.P.B., as were her wont, was adding > considerably to her original copy, and would no doubt have > increased the volume far beyond its present limits. . . . Compare Mead's words just quoted with the PERENNIAL WISDOM quote: > According to Mr. de Zirkoff, after H.P.B.'s death, the > unfinished manuscript was still too thin for publication, > therefore the editors added a considerable number of definitions > from outside sources, without acknowledgement to the readers. If we believe a "trick" is involved here, then Mr. Mead is the trickster and is guilty of lying, etc. And in the third paragraph of the Preface, Mead explicitly says: > H.P.B. desired also to express her *special* indebtedness, as far > as the tabulation of facts is concerned, to the SANSKRIT-CHINESE > DICTIONARY by Eitel, THE HINDU CLASSICAL DICTIONARY of > Dowson, THE VISHNU PURANA of Wilson, and the ROYAL MASONIC > CYCLOPAEDIA of Kenneth Mackenzie. Asterisks added. Now did HPB herself extract material from these four sources and incorporate them into THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY or did Mr. Mead do it and then (as part of the "trick" scheme) simply attribute the above words to HPB? As Mr. de Zirkoff points out, there are 2, 767 distinct terms in THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY. William Emmette Coleman, one of HPB's hostile critics, writes (in 1895) as follows on THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY: > The whole of this book, except the garblings, distortions and > fabrications of Madame Blavatsky scattered through it, was copied > from other books. The explanations and definitions of 425 names > and terms were copied from Dowson's HINDU CLASSICAL DICTIONARY. > From Wilson's VISHNU PURANA were taken those of 242 terms; from > Eitel's HANDBOOK OF CHINESE BUDDHISM, 179; and from Mackenzie's > MASONIC CYCLOPAEDIA, 164. . . . 425 + 242 + 179 + 164 = 1010 According to Coleman, the explanations and definitions of 1,010 terms were copied from these 4 books. What did Mr. de Zirkoff say about what was copied from these 4 books? In Mr. de Zirkoff's unpublished notes [found in the archives of the late Walter A. Carrither's Jr.] the following totals are found: "From Dowson (D) 414" terms "From McKenzie (about) 100" terms "From Eitel. . . . 125" terms In BdZ's notes, there is no total for the number of definitions from Wilson's VISHNU PURANA. Compare the totals of Coleman and de Zirkoff. Using Coleman's total, we find that more than 1/3 of the definitions in THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY are from these 4 books by Dowson, McKenzie, Eitel, and Wilson. Coleman accuses Blavatsky of plagiarism of these terms. Coleman also accuses HPB of massive plagiarism in her OTHER works. See Coleman's article entitled "The Sources of Madame Blavatsky's Writings", pp. 23 et seq in Solovyov's A MODERN PRIESTESS OF ISIS (1895). I would guess (?) that Mr. de Zirkoff would attribute these "appropriations" to the "trick" of G.R.S. Mead. But Mr. Mead specifically tells the readers of THE THESOPHICAL GLOSSARY: "H.P.B. desired . . . to express her *special* indebtedness, as far as the tabulation of facts is concerned, to the SANSKIRT-CHINESE DICTIONARY by Eitel, THE HINDU CLASSICAL DICTIONARY of Dowson, THE VISHNU PURANA of Wilson, and the ROYAL MASONIC CYCLOPAEDIA of Kenneth Mackenzie." Asterisks added. Having studied THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY and compared it with HPB's other writings, I am of the opinion that when compiling the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, HPB used various books as reference works from which she extracted "the tabulation of facts" and then added in numerous instances (what Mr. de Zirkoff characterized as) "an occult interpretation" of these facts. In his *published* article Mr. de Zirkoff writes: > From such a statement it would appear that The Theosophical > Glossary is a work mainly by H. P. Blavatsky, with a certain > number of quotations from a fairly small number of works. This > impression has become pretty well established in the Theosophical > Movement, and several editions of this work have been published > by various Theosophical Organizations. > > The facts, however, differ considerably. > > A careful analysis of the definitions and of the probable > sources from which they were borrowed, has disclosed that out of > the 2,767 definitions, a minimum of 2,212 have been taken from > the works of a large number of scholars, either verbatim or with > very minor alterations, and with no acknowledgment whatsoever; in > a few cases a line or two has been added, giving an occult > interpretation probably by H.P.B. herself; such instances are > very few. Take note of the latter part of what is written above: > . . . in a few cases a line or two has been added, giving an > occult interpretation probably by H.P.B. herself; such instances > are very few. Consulting the photocopy of Mr. de Zirkoff's copy of THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY (found among Mr. Carrither's papers and books), I find that this statement by Mr. de Zirkoff is off the mark. In fact, the word "few" as used by Mr. de Zirkoff should be replaced with the word "numerous". There are numerous definitions found in the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY where you find a "tabulation of facts" from some authority and to this Madame Blavatsky has added anywhere from several lines to whole paragraphs of "occult interpretation." Take for example the entry on "Scarabaeus" on pp. 293-294 of THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY. Apparently H.P.B. gives extracts from three authorities (Rouge, Maspero, and Deveria) quoted in Bonwick's EGYPTIAN BELIEF AND MODERN THOUGHT, pp. 73-75. To each of these quotes, she adds her "occult interpretation". Take another one on p. 285 of the T.G. under the entry for "Sakwala". The first 4 or 5 lines are extracted from R. Spence Hardy's EASTERN MONACHISM, p. 4 et seq and the remaining text for this entry was apparently written by H.P.B. giving the "esoteric" interpretation. I could give numerous other examples. I find approximately 350 terms (in whole or part) identified by Boris de Zirkoff as being from H.P. Blavatsky's pen. This count *excludes* the terms extracted from ISIS UNVEILED (30?), THE SECRET DOCTRINE (25?), or the terms (217) in the glossary published also in the 2nd edition of the KEY. To be continued in Part 3. . . . From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 14:09:25 -0700 From: "Nicholas Weeks" Subject: Bodhisattva Guides In the past few years there have been three new english translations of Shantideva's Guide for Bodhisattvas. In 1995 _The Bodhicaryavatara_ trans. by Crosby & Skilton, Oxford U. Press came out. It has much scholarly comment & notes to each chapter and many of the verses. It is from the Sanskrit. In 1997 _The Way of the Bodhisattva_ trans. by the Padmakara Translation group, Shambhala. It is from the Tibetan, with comparison with the Sanskrit. It follows the Nyingma commentary tradition. Also in 1997 _A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life_ trans. by Alan Wallace, Snow Lion. He follows the Sanskrit, but give any significant differences from the Tibetan in footnotes. Also a traditional Indian commentary is quoted in footnotes on occasion. To give a slight taste of the differing styles and languages consider verses 5 & 6 from chapter one. Crosby & Skilton: At night in darkness thick with clouds a lightning flash gives a moment's brightness. So, sometime, by the power of the Buddha, the mind of the world might for a moment turn to acts of merit. This being so, the power of good is always weak, while the power of evil is vast and terrible. What other good could conquer that, were there not the perfect Awakening Mind? Padmakara: As when a flash of lightning rends the night, And in its glare shows all the dark black clouds had hid, Likewise rarely, through the buddhas' power, Virtuous thoughts rise, brief and transient, in the world. Thus behold the utter frailty of goodness! Except for perfect bodhichitta, There is nothing to withstand The great and ovewhelming strength of evil. Wallace: Just as lightning illuminates the darkness of a cloudy night for an instant, in the same way, by the power of the Buddha, occasionally people's minds are momentarily inclined toward merit. Thus, virtue is perpetually ever so feeble, while the power of vice is great and extemely dreadful. If there were no Spirit of Perfect Awakening, what other virtue would overcome it? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 14:41:35 -0700 From: "Dara Eklund" Subject: Correction needed Dara meant: > However, I do sometimes lament that I will NOT be able to see all > of the series Boris' had envisioned in my lifetime. Hurrying to finish my letter before being cut off by my server, I failed to proofread my letter to Theos.Talk properly. I meant, of course, the conditional tense which could have been conveyed by the term "if" rather than "that". By adding the world "NOT" hopefully the text is more clear. Mia Culpa, From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 14:53:43 -0700 From: "Dara Eklund" Subject: Re:Key/Glossary Dear MKR: Your words as follow have value for Mss. in public domain. In this case it would be up to the T.P.H. to decide in what form the material willed to the Society by Boris de Zirkoff will be printed. Thanks anyway for the suggestion. > Of late publishing has been made possible on the Internet with > very little costs involved. Has any consideration been given to > put any of the newer publications on Internet prior to they being > made available as hard copy. All the publications are available > on electronic media and hence the effort involved in making them > available on Internet is very marginal. The only issue will be > the conflict of interest between selling hard copies vs making > the material available for free on Internet. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 17:45:07 -0500 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re:Key/Glossary Dara: Thanks for the info. I hope T.P.H. does consider putting the material on Internet prior to making it available for sale in print. Let us wait and see what they do. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 02:26:55 +0200 From: "Cklpcc (Silver)" Subject: talk Anybody heard of some interesting cocktail tidbits of what is happening with Theosophy in Nederland? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 06:13:31 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re:Unity or United Efforts from many This is in comment on Bjorn's note. There can be ,ittle argument as to the source (for our generation) of Theosophy: HPB and the Masters. I do not care for the concept of "channelling" when applied to HPB, since it would appear to represent her at some times to be an unconcscious medium. From all she wrote on or about this it souls not be consistent with the nature of the Teachings for her to have only been a "medium," or, as an implication, that she was used and was unaware of her personality being used by the Masters for their prupoes. This is not personal to me or only my own idea. HPB represents an Entity, such as we all can become if we WILL it. at all times we are the PERCEIVER--the ATMA (And that is aklways at ONE with all Atmas). Consequently, we make our own limitations, framing them in terms of what we beilieve are our limitations, and those are largely shaped by our desires. If we desire universally, we perciveand can act universally. If we limit our goals to some specific achievement, than we authomatically prevent the wiser principles from impersonalizing our lives and thus we limit our actions. This is the process of "making ones' self." This is only an idea to be thought over carefully, please. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 06:17:22 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re:Unity I endorse Gail's view, since true Unity can only be a universality before which any personal desires or limits must fade and disappear. Are we individually strong of determination to universalize ourselves, or are to forever departementalize ourselves and hope a small selfish territory reserved against the greatest good for the greatest number ? Each answers for themselves. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 06:04:28 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re:Unity or United Efforts from many One this answer and view concenring the races/sub-races. Perhaps we could also consider that this arrangement showing cycles and sub-cycles of progress correcpond colosely to the 7 principles prenst in uss all the time, but, one might be emphsized over the others in any one incarnations, or een,during any one incarnation, at a specific period of life. For example: I read what Brenda writes. I choose Manas to think it over, and then employ the store-house of memory to review statements in Theosophy concerning race developoment and evolutions in general. By analogy I can then think of any division as correspondindg specifically to one of my "principles", either in dormancy, or in activity. What makes a "principle" active ? Is it not making use of it ? What in us does the selection ? What in us is aware of the whole range of these interior powers ? Is it not the PERCEIVER ? And does the Perceiver not emply the WILL to make a selected use, orto active one of its own aspects so that greater clarity uis achieved. I think we would err if we concsidered that we conn not access anyprinciple on demand. We are called the "7-Principled-Dhyan." We have to think of ourselves as a Unity of Units, as One of the Many s[iritual Unites that compose on the plane of the ATMA the great UNITY OF ALL UNITES. There we are ONE at all times, but when we concisder ourselves as living and manifesting in our present bodies and environment, we tend to isolate ourselves from that REALITY. This is an idea to be considered -- Dallas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 09:06:46 -0700 From: "Brenda S Tucker" Subject: Re:talk Silver: > Anybody heard of some interesting cocktail tidbits of what is > happening with Theosophy in Nederland? Suggestion: Do without the gin. I have heard that it is particularly harmful in awakening sex energies. Purity is a goal in itself. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:07:31 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re:Unity Eldon and Gail: All points valuable. As to "Masters" -- regardless of designations -- Wise men have always been known to live and assist those seeking wisdom. They have no personal axe to grind. their advice while porobably tasteless to the "personality," would, if used, adjust many issues because it is impersonal and universal. In a University context. One recognizes Professors as being eminent in a specific field. But there are Those who ae the professors of Professors -- are they not the be envisaged ? would their words be anything less than valuable ? 2. As far as we are concerned, HPB was one of Their representatives. Not solely in "learning," or "lore," but in those applications which demanded moral rectitude. Hnece the need for universal accounatibility: or Karma. Individual accountablility in this or subsequent incarnations: hence Reincarnation. Human interdependence: Hence the 7 principles which each Thinking man or Woman has and which give him, as a "Perceiver," arange of knowledge extending from the UNIVERSAL to the minutely personal. Hnece also the reason why we have the cycles of evolution, races of mankind, each developing in terms of time and experience the potentiasl innate in every one of us. Consider these as great ideas, and see if they do not apply to these questions. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 14:56:47 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re:Unity Keith: Regarding "doors". Many doors implies potential of many views as to what Theosophy is, or, alternatively, many rooks in which ceretain aspects of "Theosophy" might be found -- if one knows how. Either THEOSOPHY is a diffuse and unascertainable amorphous nebulous thing or else: 2. THEOSOPHY is a statement of facts in Nature. A statement of history regarding any and every aspect of Nature's vast treasure house. If we take THEOSOPHY to be ONE or "many" it is We who are making the distinctions. If so, what do we do this ? Each will answer to himelf . If THESOSOPHY is ONE UNITY then there can be no question about its statements any more than we would question a mathematical axiom, or a statement concerning an historical event (not argument as to its cause); or a formula for a chemical compound. Those are not debatable. Consequently if one desires to make of theosophy something pliable and wishy-washy, then one is not in search of TRUTH. Theosophy ought to be quated in every one's mind with ETERNAL TRUTH. I say this even though there will be inevitable discusion as to which or what facet of a TRUTH is seen or described. Diferences are made by our PERSONALITIES, and not by the INDIVIDUALITY (Atma-Buddhi-Manas). Hence THEOSOPHY IS ONE TEMPLE it is that of fact and truth and these being universal everyonw can trust them and not argue about whether they are likable or not. Water or air is/are essential to living. We do not argue about them when we need them. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:38:05 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re:United efforts Bjorn: Because one is familiar with certain approaches to answering questions does not make the search for Truth easier. Trth is not a freind to any untruth. If one finds that a writer offers ideas that are difficult to accept at this time, it does notmean that that sentitment will persist. if difference is felt, then why is there a difference ? Ubless one seraches for the reasons one can never be sure as to the accuracy of any set of views or system. Suggestion: TRY CAREFUL REVIEW OF BASIC PREMISES. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:34:30 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re:United efforts Richard: I would rather say that the "ULT View" is not one of the fascets of a looking at Theosophical Truth. If the ULT maintains successfully its objective of "To spread broadcast the teaching sof theosophy as recorded in the writing sof HP Blavatsky and WQ Judge it WILL HAVE SERVED ITS PURPOSE. ULT is not a "progressive" body although there are those who make progress individually. ULT sustains and maintains the accuracy and the purity of the THEOSOPHICAL PRESENTATION which we owe to HPB, WQJ and to Others. If this effort to become wise within those paramenters is not appreciated, I think one is missing the point. Everyone is creative. Everyone desire to reach out and seek the companionship of brother souls benton a common task. But if the tasks are not COMMON, what we find is a diversion. Here is where the self-tetherd attitude of the ULT has value. Like the ever-invisible "pole" around which the Earth spins, so THEOSOPHY is the ever-invisible but also ever life-giving CENTER. Yes, HPB's words are valuable as a starting point and every student has individually to start there. There can be no surot cuts, no authorities on which to rely. Each is forced back to being his own authority, and thinking out the principles offered. Then ULT, Adyar Point Loma, Paadena, etc., etc., allmerge back into the SOURCE. All differences then vanish. Is this harsh on personalities ? Yes, butit no more than asking if 2 and 3 make 5 or 55 ? There is no sentiment involved. If one desires to exchange ideas as Manasic mening, then the shadiow of personal opinion must go. This is not to recommend that anyone ought to be rejected because of some expressed opinion, but rather that additional time be taken to analyse and place a true value of such OPINIONS. Is not THEOSOPHY the honest tochstome which provedes a true response ? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:21:18 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re:United efforts Eldon: There have been those who desired to aggrandise themselves, showing HPB to have made "errors." Have the present day generation of students proved those calims accurate ? Or do any of the traditionalists pursue their traditions uncritically and unproven ? > Apart form this work of helping Theosophy become the cornerstone > of future religions, we can also work on new ways to present the > original philosophy lucidly, reaching out and grabbing the minds > of the *few* that are drawn to something more. This is with > regard to the second aspect of Theosophy in the west: as genuine > teachings from the Lesser Mysteries. In this role, it's less > important to be concerned with science and precise literary > scholarship, since we're dealing with spiritual training and not > the transfer of factual knowledge. > > Why isn't it important to treasure the tidbits of occult > knowledge found in the original literature? Because *we* are not > the care keepers of that treasury of knowledge; the Mahatmas are, > and they can recommunicate whatever is important when they > choose. > > We can learn about them from the fragmentary information provided > in the literature, like in THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO AP SINNETT, but > that information is second-hand. The only way to really know is > to engage the spiritual process, to awaken bodhichitta, to kindle > the inner fire (buddhi) to illumine the mind and heart. To > participate in the work of the Lessor Mysteries, we have to > undertake inner work, changing ourselves. As we open our minds > and hearts and grow in that direction, our efforts will not go > unnoticed. We'll find suitable teachers in life for what we need > to learn, and we'll find plentiful opportunity to *share* and > bring light to the world in our own unique ways. This is the > second kind of theosophical work that we can do. What else is > there? Eldon I appreciate the clarity of your thought and have added notes as I read yours. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 00:20:56 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re:Theosophical Encyclopaedia Louise: I am moved by the appeal for tolerance. If one desires to see how the Master KH places the question of independence, tolerance, and the fullest freedom of choice before the London Lodge in 1884, kindly read carefully the letter in MAHATMA LETTERS p. 398 to 402. THESOSOPHY IS A BODY OF KNOWLEDGE See SD I 272-3. This asures us of its source, progress and the constant additions that are made to its record of observations. Eeven what you and I write and think form an appropriate part of this vast and inculsive scheme. As such then we have little to do other than to enjoy each other's points of view, not to tear them down but to build on them. if the Universal Evolutionary scheme is summed up in one palce as the "raising of the whole mass of manifested matter up to the nature, stature and dignity of conscious God-hood," then we can only assist each other. and avoid hindering. I hope these ideas will help. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 00:38:58 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re:Roadmap and doors Scribe: What is theosophy ? There are many definitions as it covers in principle and in detail all aspects of learnign, and all event we could call history. It covers all religions and philosophies and investigate the nature of human and other consciousnes with a view to explore the range between TRUTH or WISDOM and ignorance or selfishness, (as these isolate, rather than unite thinkers). It invites us to learn about orselves, our powers and to investiage and test these in regard to all or any aspect of nature around us. Mme. Blavatsky first wrote ISIS UNVEILED -- this large book of over 1300 pages covers historically the most important records available in our academies as to the one great WISOM-RELIGION which embraces living. 11years later THE SECRET DOCTRINE was issued and this provides the tools and principles which work in and through Nature and which anyone can verify and use. These are not easy books because it isnecessary to assure the inqirer that all presently known aspects of wisdom/truth are available to him and theyprovide him with the tools whereby he acn do this work for himself and without relying on any outside authority. THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY provides in dialog form the survey of the most common qusstions asked about Theosophy and its use in daily life. If one wishes to begin with this book it will in a couple daysof careful and intense reading provide one with the volcbulary of ideas which underlie the unified philosophical/psychological basis of our own lives our future living and the relations we have with others or that we might desire to develop. THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE provides ethical statements which are derived directly form the great TRUTHS of living and of evolution. Many more have writen on various aspects of Theosophy seeking to sijplfy or expose their understanding of it. Perhpas the best an most concise of these is AN EPITOME OF THEOSOPHY by W.Q.Judge, HPB's close pupil and friend. In any case Thesoophy sets each inquirer on his own feet and invites hi or her to investigate independently, taking no one's say-so as correct, but only as a basis for one's own further study. If effect theosophy is what we are already dong istinctively with our lives and times -- we are framing the basis for our life. I hope these brief ideas will help. Further inquireies or questions will be gladly answered From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 00:11:16 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re:United efforts Philip and Gail: On the subject that Harris and Stevenson address, namely unity. 1. We all have it at the base of our Natures. The highest principle in us is ATMA which is universal, and not our property. It gives us the power to PERCEIVE. It assures us of immortality as a thinking entity. It provides a base for understanding Karma as the receiving of the exact results of our decisions, whether old or new. 2. In each of us the ONE CONSCIOUSNESS pierces up and down the seven planes of our being and serves toupohld the memory of any experience on any of those planes. Our PERSONALITY is a constantly changing compound made up of the karma of our choices. 3. Unity among STUDENTS OF THEOSOPHISTS occurs, regardless of orgnaization, when at any time we seek to know the TRUTH of some problem: its origin, its effect, and its recurrence in "time." There is no possibility of anything but nominal UNITY in any organization, since to avow a similarity of "aim purpose and teachings," places us all on a single footing. 4. The differences of organization to which we consider we owe our loyalty or affiliation is a personal record of indebtedness, and of gratitude to those who have so far assisted us to a great height of understanding and verification of any TRUTH. Yet, we are not dependent on that affiliation (even though our loyalty binds us to a consideration of those whith whom we have grown and lived). WE are in every way independently dependent -- a paradox perhpas, but if thought about will be found accurate. 5. Exoteric unity is therefore a matter of choice and independent adherence. Esoteric Unity is a constant, and is not assumed or discarded. The wuperior is that which is definied in terms of PRINCIPLES, AND NOT "PERSONS." 6. Unity is a constant readiness to be of assistance to all who seek or who ask. No more and no less. These are to me some of the basic ideas that cut through partial views and establish the lines of direct unity which embraces all. Please consider and use or ask for more explanations From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 00:51:26 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re:Re: Unity Richard: In regard to the exchange ... I think there is a funadmental point that solves any sense of difference. IT LIES IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE 7 PRINCIPLES WHICH ARE A STATEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF EACH THINKER. The highest and primary is ATMA it is an aswpect (ray) of the Universal Spirit. It is not yours nor mine but in effect it is ours. It makes for a pre-existing and inescapable UNITY. A further characteristic of ATMA is that it is a record and staement of TRUTH, of FACT, and of everything that has already happened or is now happeneing and also of that which will happen as a rsult of the operation of free choice. If that is taken as a base then all diferences or opinions are resolved. But it is our lot, having generated for our use a PERSONALITY with consequent limitations, that we desire to retain a small enclave wherein we consider our desire nature is to be free of the burdens of TRUTH which exist all around and demand of it loyalty, and use. Why is this ? Each has to find out the inner cause of this kind ofisolationary selfishness, and if seen for waht it is may therefter begin the arduous task of self-transformation into impersonalty, sacrifice (sacred action) and service for the assistance of others. The rest of the 7 "principles" are specialized aspects of the first: ATMA - SPIRIT. I hope these few ideas are of help. if more is desired or explanations please ask. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 01:01:50 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re:Re: Have We Fallen Low? Eldon: As to the question of the silence of the Masters: As Eldon writes we cannot assume they are inoperative. They have their work and we have ours : to rediscover and seek to learn and apply what we can of the SCIENCE OF LIFE AND THE ART OF LIVING: THEOSOPHY. It takes a life-time. We also have much to unlearn A first year student at College knows that the University is headed by a President - a Professor of Professors. It may take years to come into contact with that remote Individual. if however the student applies himself to learning and not to playing, thenthe time for such contact may shorten. It is the student who has to become useful and responsible. He makes himself. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 01:07:40 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re:Re: Have We Fallen Low? Bart Lidofsky: Why assume that the Masters were not awqre in 1880 in Simla of the developments due in the MATERIAL side of our civilization, which now, at this time enable us to have the proof then demanded of them" to produce in simla of the day of issue of a current copy of the London TIMES. Explanations as to why this was not done are given later. However, one may well wonder at the apparent reticense of the masters, who know when there will be a general manifestaion of the very thing which in one century or in a earlier decasde would be extraordinary, and in this one perfectly ordinary, although it would take a technological genius to explain and demonstraate how it is commonly done. Food for thought. Have not much to learn about our own selves and our motives ? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 06:45:10 -0700 From: "Scott Osterhage" Subject: Re:Unity Do not forget that we ARE unified Within, whatever appearance of separation there is Without; and a directing of our energies toward 'living ther life' will go much farther to unify us on the outside, than an effort to simply bring exoteric organizations together. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 06:17:00 -0700 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Re:Unity I endorse Gail's view, since true Unity can only be a universality before which any personal desires or limits must fade and disappear. Are we individually strong of determination to universalize ourselves, or are to forever departementalize ourselves and hope a small selfish territory reserved against the greatest good for the greatest number ? Each answers for themselves. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 12:33:32 -0700 From: "Jerry Hejka-Ekins" Subject: United efforts Richtay writes: > But I have to agree with Eldon, and disagree with Gail Stevenson > and Philip Harris, that the desiderata of unity are not so easy > or self-evident; nor are the forces pulling AGAINST unity to be > categorically labelled as ignorant and invalid. When we revived the Theosophical Networking Movement thirteen years ago, I don't think there was more than perhaps one or two among us who gave any serious thought to the ideal of unifying the Theosophical organizations back into one organization again. Organizations are like people in that they have identities, histories and egos. Merging ones identity into a greater one means the letting go of that ego--a task rarely done by humans and even more unlikely for an organization. Rather than unity of the organizations, we were hoping that the organizations would learn to seek with each other a unity of purpose. This was the public position I took at the 1984 networking conference, and still hold today--that the organizations ought to begin a dialogue seeking for ways to work together on projects that they all can agree will be for the benefit of the Theosophical Movement. It turned out that this suggestion was taken up more by individual Theosophists than the Organizations. Dozens of Networking conferences were organized by individuals over the next four or five years until the idea fell out of fashion. There were also about six different networking magazines at the time, but only one of these is still extant. So, an important lesson that came to me from the 1984 experience was that changes are made by members--not the organizations. The Organizations could make whatever ego saving explanations they liked and try to explain the changes in ways that made them look best. But in spite of the machinations, when the newer members learned that there were other Theosophical organizations to explore, and when the older members met the leaders of the other organizations, listened to them, and found that "the enemy" were real human beings just like them. A real change happened that all of the Organizational politics in the world could not stop. Older members will recall that since 1984 tremendous changes have come about among the members of the various organizations. Theosophists of one organization visiting other organizations is a common occurrence today, and newer members must think that it was always that way. Believe me, it wasn't. Most of the organizations have been changed by their members' enthusiasm over networking. Three of those Organizations are more open to the visitations of Theosophists from other organizations, while a fourth denies that barriers between the leaderships of these organizations existed in the first place. Therefore, I believe that progress has been made over the last thirteen years, and perhaps the discussions about networking here on Theosophy Talk is evidence of even more progress. However, I think there is still another step to take. Members ought to become aware of the past, of what brought about the dissentions and breaks in the first place. Members need to discuss these events--not to prove that one Theosophy is right and another wrong--but to seek to understand the views of others so as to better understand their own. When members search and find their own truths, it frees them from being dependent upon the institutionalized truths pushed by the Organizations. There are several positions individuals can take in the attempt to create a meaningful dialogue. One can say that we should forget about all of that old history and just concentrate on those "wonderful teachings of Theosophy" and the "ideal of Brotherhood." But whose Theosophy? Whose ideal of Brotherhood? The unspoken assumption of course is "Theosophy the way I think of Theosophy and Brotherhood the way I think of Brotherhood." On the other hand, there are some who are honestly unaware that there are different schools of Theosophy and different notions of Brotherhood (Substitute "Solidarity" if you find the word "Brotherhood" sexist). More common are those who are for the most part ignorant of the philosophical differences between those schools. For these people, it is understandable why they can honestly wonder why we don't get along. Another position is to say that "we should bury the past and think about the future." But whose future? Any future is the product of its past. Burying the past is another word for denial--for pretending it never happened. An organization can no more deny the events that made it than can individuals deny their own past. Buried events always have a way of resurfacing, because keeping the past under the surface is just another form of a lie. I realize that many Theosophists are not ready for this kind of discussion. Some will choose to be offended; some will choose to act out passive aggressively; and some will choose to filter out the whole discussion. That is their loss. There are others who are ready to face the unpleasant aspects of the healing process. Should they be silenced by those who prefer denial? I suggest that when the object is to seek truth, we will all find unpleasant facts and rude awakenings, but we will be better people when we can admit to unpleasant truths and prefer them to living pleasant lies.