From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 1 12:46:08 1999 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 10:02:14 -0800 From: "Martin Leiderman" Subject: Re: Krishnamurti on CWL's Clairvoyance Message-ID: <368D0D9D.7AEB3642@lainet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3.0.3.32.19981229203649.012b3238@mail.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you MKR for sharing K's comments on CWL. But, who is Mr. Gonzalez, and where is that conversation recorded, in a book? Also did K. explain what he meant by "temporarily clairvoyant" or it was just his way to account for CWL "finding" him? What is your opinion about CWL being a clairvoyant. Thank you, And happy new year to all. It is my hope that we may be able to chat and share for the betterment of our being. Plato said that we only have an OPINION about things. Then we should respect that opinion without attacking 'a la nazi' - to convince, to demonstrate how much we know, how right we are, and so on... Martin Leiderman in Los Angeles CA M K Ramadoss wrote: > Here is an interesting excerpt from a conversation between Gonzalez and > Krishnaji. > K's comment on CWL is to be noted. > > > I said, "I worry the schools are going to become elitist and that > > only the wealthy will be able to send their children to them." > > > > Krishnamurti said: "We have to work with what we have and we have > > to talk with the words we have. I was born in a very poor home and > > some of my brothers died from tuberculosis or malnutrition. But > > look at me! I'm doing very well, huh?" > > > > I said, "you were lucky you had teachers like Leadbeater who was > > even clairvoyant." > > > > Krishnamurti said, "Yes, I was very lucky. Leadbeater was > > temporarily clairvoyant, and I was lucky that everything he said > > entered through my right ear and left through the left." > > > > From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 1 12:49:41 1999 Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 05:35:47 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: December 31, 1998 == "Rebels" who delayed incarnation into physical mankind Message-ID: <000501be358b$a3e3e3a0$a20e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Dec 1st 1999 Happy new Year to you Murray. If one desires to trace the triple pathway of evolution for the human-soul, I think one might begin on p. 181 of SD I where that triple line is described. Briefly, as I understand it: MAN (and WOMAN) is a SOUL - MANAS. When this MANAS is "lit up" by the proximity of the Dhyanis who are its tutors (just as adults light up the mind of children in our own families) it becomes independent. Since MANAS is an immortal MONAD it has access to all the wisdom and knowledge of Nature all around it. It has already been through numerous incarnations. The physical body is the result of the natural evolution in the lower kingdoms of all those monads which will eventually become independent MANASES and pass into the HUMAN KINGDOM. In the meantime not only does "Natural impulse" propel them but they are influenced for better or worse by the impact of the will of Human Minds. These non-individualized MONADS become the "Skandhas" and are the bearers of Man's individual Karma. The Dhyanis (the wise) incarnate along with (or "in") the human form so as to assist the independent MANAS (a MONAD which has entered the MANASIC stage of its evolution) This is a voluntary sacrifice made to assist in the general program of evolution, but, as stated in THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE at the end of the 3rd Fragment (pp. 76-78) the graduate has a final choice: to become selfishly isolated and enter "Nirvana," or to continue to participate in Evolution by this process of co-habitation. In the SD are some very interesting references that relate to this matter. Please see: SD I 87 105 130 150fn 159 210 248 267 574 II 69 87-9fn 93-98 SD II 167 186 241 246 254-5fn 275 293 If you have TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE (ULT Edn.) pp 66 to 76 deals with the same idea and HPB there answers questions about the relationship of the HIGHER SELF (the Dhyani) and the "personal or Lower Manas" which is active in each of us in the waking condition of our daily lives. I mention these because the accumulated information offered there is suggestive of a solution, to me, along the lines I write above. See if you get the same kind of ideas out of those pages. Dallas. From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 1 12:53:54 1999 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 08:38:30 PST From: "David Green" Subject: WQ Judge's 1895 letter on messages from dead Mrs Blavatsky Message-ID: <19990101163831.5737.qmail@hotmail.com> Letter in handwriting of W Judge & preserved in Archives, Theosophical Society, Pasadena, CA. Letter published in "O E Library Critic", Novem 1932 by editor Dr H N Stokes. Letter dated Jan 4, 1895. Date verified & confirmed in Dr Stokes article. Date confirmation also found in E S T circular April 3, 1896. Confirmation received W Judge residing in New York in Jan '95. Also Judge not in England in Jan '95 or Jan '96. Note also '95 letter is E S T handwritten letter & not printed E S T circular. Misleading statements have been circulated on theos-talk by Jerry Hejka-Edkins about W Judge 1895 letter. David Green "All Communications herein must be marked 'Private' and contain no other Business. E.S.T. WILLIAM Q. JUDGE 144 Madison Avenue, New York, Jan. 4, 1895 Dr. A. Keightley (for Councillors etc.) Comrades Enclosed is an exact transcript of what HPB said to me Jany 3, prematurely ended by a visitor - as usual & as results from European continual nagging at me. It is word for word. More will be said later. You can let all worthy & devoted loyalists read this - It may be read in a proper group. Copies not to be made. This is to be kept with Council papers. Fraternally William Q. Judge Go to no extremes in thought or act hereupon." Transcript of dead Mrs Blavatsky's message to W Judge enclosed in Judge's letter: "HPB. Jany 3 1895 Yours is not a (bootless) or fruitless) errand. You have nobly sustained our cause in the crisis. Be encouraged. Well did Master know the staunch fearless attributes of your soul when he directed me to make you leader of our craft in America. As the centre of our force is attacked the more does our light work for the right. Victory is ours. All will end for the good of all. Mistakes have been made but you have not gone far from the lines laid down by Master. My desire is for you to be careful about sending out Instructions to the E.S. for treacherous and unworthy persons are within the gates, & all new ideas will be appropriated by the other side after x x x x. The forces are out and annihilation is the only thing that can interfere. Let me tell you some of the things I have learned since I absented myself from the outer world. Many of the problems of life that should have been solved if we had been more together have come up before me & I have learned much. I am, next to the American work, interested in Spain. Ireland can take care of itself. In the pine woods I have found a lodge which I knew something about before I went away. There, seven chelas & the light they show that some day will be better known, I will describe to you at our next meeting. There is much connected with it that can be used for irradiating forces in this country for there is a subtle connection. Be sure that at our next meeting it is not forgotten x x x x Slowly the light from this Lodge is being thrown over Spain & I see that from the old corpse of bigotry superstition & credulity will be reared a temple of light which will unite its forces with that of America & Ireland & from these three points I know that humanity will be saved. x x x This battle of light & darkness in our midst seems but small (little) when I view the work before us x x x and the ends and prospects of our work shall stem the tide of this cruel & unworthy persecution. Under all work shall stem the tide of this cruel & unworthy persecution. Under all of it & over it all the Masters hand; be sure that all is well for thee. x x x x. The light mentioned in Spain is of seven sides & a purple & yellow light. On each of the seven sides is a star. This represents the Lodge of Spain. Connect yourself with it as you will be directed. x x x I will not permit you to resign nor will I permit you to submit to further investigation. Form your plans for the American work. Keep all your lines perfect with sustaining points & leave the rest to us. This is to your questions of last night. x x x x x I will not touch on minor points. They will take care of themselves. Master is not after minor points. Let us turn our eyes to the American future of Theosophy. x x x x (Interruption & conclusion by a visitor)" ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 1 13:21:54 1999 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 13:03:00 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Krishnamurti on CWL's Clairvoyance Message-ID: <368D1BE4.534EC7D1@eden.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3.0.3.32.19981229203649.012b3238@mail.eden.com> <368D0D9D.7AEB3642@lainet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Martin: I do not know if it has been formally published. However, it is on record. It is in a four part e-mail msg. I will shortly post them. The excerpt is only a very small part of them. As for my personal opinion of CWL's clairvoyance, one thing is for sure. He was right in picking up K, IMHO. Since K had known him for years, he must be speaking from personal knowledge. The only other indirect reference to CWL's clairvoyance is in Ernest Wood's book - Is This Theosophy?. Ernest Wood was his private secretary for years and hence he was also speaking from personal knowledge. Recently I learnt that Tillett's thesis contains a lot of information than published in his book -- Elder Brother. I do not know if there is any additional info in the thesis to throw light on CWL's clairvoyance. Happy new year to one and all. mkr Martin Leiderman wrote: > Thank you MKR for sharing K's comments on CWL. > > But, who is Mr. Gonzalez, and where is that conversation recorded, in a > book? > > Also did K. explain what he meant by "temporarily clairvoyant" or it was > just his way to account for CWL "finding" him? What is your opinion about > CWL being a clairvoyant. > > Thank you, And happy new year to all. > It is my hope that we may be able to chat and share for the betterment of > our being. > Plato said that we only have an OPINION about things. Then we should > respect that opinion without attacking 'a la nazi' - to convince, to > demonstrate how much we know, how right we are, and so on... > > Martin Leiderman > in Los Angeles CA > > M K Ramadoss wrote: > > > Here is an interesting excerpt from a conversation between Gonzalez and > > Krishnaji. > > K's comment on CWL is to be noted. > > > > > I said, "I worry the schools are going to become elitist and that > > > only the wealthy will be able to send their children to them." > > > > > > Krishnamurti said: "We have to work with what we have and we have > > > to talk with the words we have. I was born in a very poor home and > > > some of my brothers died from tuberculosis or malnutrition. But > > > look at me! I'm doing very well, huh?" > > > > > > I said, "you were lucky you had teachers like Leadbeater who was > > > even clairvoyant." > > > > > > Krishnamurti said, "Yes, I was very lucky. Leadbeater was > > > temporarily clairvoyant, and I was lucky that everything he said > > > entered through my right ear and left through the left." > > > > > > > From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 1 13:33:50 1999 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 13:25:20 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Conversations with Krishnamurti 3/5 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990101132520.012e3a6c@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Part three: David Walker wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > This is the third piece by Dr. Ruben Feldman-Gonzalez recalling > his dialogues with Krishnamurti. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Brockwood Park > June 1978 > > In April 1976 I met Krishnamurti and Mrs. Zimbalist at an > international meeting he attended with psychiatrists at the > Carnegie Institute of Endowment in New York. It had been organized > by Dr. David Shainberg from New York. > > The meetings were tape recorded, so I will not discuss them. > > When the last meeting ended I approached Krishnamurti as usual to > shake his hand and make a few comments. > > This time Krishnamurti looked tired and only said a few words: > "Did anybody listen?" Krishnamurti used to make intentional pauses > between words. "Please see Dr. Bohm in England and then see me in > Brockwood, as soon as you can". > > I just said goodbye. Krishnamurti was sweating and there was no joy > on his face. > > It wasn't until June 18th 1978 that I landed at Heathrow Airport in > London (from Miami). > > I took a bus to Woking and from there a train to Petersfield. > > Mrs. Zimbalist was waiting for me at the station in Petersfield. I > was dressed as informally as I could, and I asked her why we were > driving a Mercedes. She said it was a good car. I had the belief > then that the teacher of the world should dress informally and even > poorly and perhaps live uncomfortably. > > Looking backwards I try to understand my lack of sensitivity and I > can only partially justify it, telling myself I was so eager to see > the truth in Krishnamurti that I was doing at the same time > everything possible to find out what was he hiding: either some > esoteric teaching for the chosen few or some ugly business for some > corporation. > > But there was nothing of one nor of the other. > > Krishnamurti was talking about the only thing that matters, and he > was order, beauty, love and truth. > > Only it was too hard to believe! > > I shared meals with Krishnamurti for ten days in a row. I sat with > him, Dr. Bohm and his wife, Mrs. Zimbalist, Mrs. Simmons and Mr. > Narayan who was at that time Principal of the Rishi Valley School > in India. On June 22nd and 23rd three cameras were set up to film > the dialogues between Krishnamurti, Bohm, Narayan and Dr. Rahula, > a Buddhist from Sri Lanka. Krishnamurti invited me to participate, > and I, as usual, refused. > > During lunch, the following day I asked Krishnamurti what did he > think of the Buddhist specialist. > > Krishnamurti said, "You know there are many library mouses who can > only repeat what they read, they are unable to live what they read. > During the whole conversation there was not one moment of insight. > He did nothing but compare the new (what Krishnamurti says) with > the old (Buddhism). He compares everything with Buddha, he doesn't > want to be a Buddha." > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > During one of those meals Narayan asked Krishnamurti to talk about > reincarnation. > > Krishnamurti only said this: "What is it that continues?" > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > After lunch I approached Krishnamurti who was walking alone with > his dog Whisper under the trees. > > I told Krishnamurti I had been watching my sexual desire very > closely the night before. > > I had been given a room where I slept by myself. > > I asked, "Is there anything one can do not to repress the desire > and not to free it in conduct?" > > Krishnamurti said, "Be a light to yourself." > > Talking to whisper (the dog) he said: "Let's go Che-che". > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > By that time one of the male students (all between 14 and 22 years > old) had gone to the room of one of the girls. > > There was an ongoing administrative process to expel them both from > the school. > > Krishnamurti decided he would discuss sex with the students but he > didn't want the visiting parents who were staying in Brockwood that > summer to participate. > > I started to leave but Krishnamurti called me: "You have to be > present", he said. The students were angry during that meeting. One > of them said to Krishnamurti, "You speak of freedom so much, why do > you restrict sexual freedom in the school?" > > Krishnamurti answered: "This school is like a home for you. Why > wouldn't you take care of the school as you would take care of your > home? You know we are under the laws of England and that we have to > respect the laws; otherwise, they are going to close the school." > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I met Krishnamurti soon after a series of long conversations with > David Bohm regarding his concept of Holokinesis or holomovement. > > Krishnamurti: Did you talk to Bohm? > > Ruben: Yes. The place was small but the conversation was > big. Dr. Bohm was patient enough to listen to all > I had to say. He said my approach to perception > could be very helpful for those who have the mind to > listen. I'm trying to polish the language as much > as I can. > > Krishnamurti: That's good, but words have to be simple. Sometimes > I have felt like creating a new language. But one > has to speak to those who listen, and one has to use > the words we have. > > Ruben: Dr. Bohm agreed with me that whoever listens in > unitary perception (holokinetic listening if you > want) will have a changed molecular structure of the > brain, of each neuron. > > Krishnamurti: Quite, quite. > > Ruben: That brain will make contact in a conscious way with > what you call "the ground". > > Krishnamurti: Perhaps, yes. > > There was an art show later. I discussed "Discipline" in Brockwood > Park with Mathew Lazarus. When I met Krishnamurti, I told him: > > Ruben: I was talking about "discipline" with one of the > students. He said that western students define > discipline in Brockwood as "strict". Eastern > students consider it "loose". > > Krishnamurti: Discipline is the skill to learn. > You either have it or you don't. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Ruben: Krishnaji, as I told you three years ago I don't > see much meaning in working as a physician in a > society that is getting more and more corrupt by the > minute. You told me in 1975 that I shouldn't quit > psychiatry (as I quit pediatric surgery) and that I > should change psychiatry. What I see is that it is > difficult for people to understand the basics of the > new psychology and the new physics and even if they > do understand nothing seems to happen... society > continues to be based upon war... > > Krishnamurti: Why do you separate God and work? Why can't you be > joyful, peaceful, honest and creative in your work? From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 1 13:40:05 1999 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 13:27:36 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Conversations with Krishnamurti 5/5 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990101132736.014e6278@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Part five, the last: David Walker wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > This is the fifth and last piece by Dr. Ruben Feldman-Gonzalez recalling > his dialogues with Krishnamurti. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Five Years in Ojai > > I saw Krishnamurti many times in the last five years of his life. > > I can't remember the dates well except that my meetings with him > happened during the two or three weeks the public talks in Ojai > were being held. > > It was clear for me that I was not going to depend on Krishnamurti > for anything, but I still was intent in discovering "the complete > silence of the mind". > > Whenever we met in Ojai it was with David Bohm and a small group of > friends, or occasionally by chance close to Arya Vihar (his > residence) or at the Oak Grove School. > > One day I told him the eternal That, the immense joyful energy... > had "touched" me. I also told him that very soon it left me. The > meaning of That touching me was immense, it made me very strong > during the few big adversities of my life. > > I asked him, "Why that doesn't come more often?" > > Krishnamurti said, "What do you do with your energy?" > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I think it was in 1981 that a birthday party was organized for him > (in May) by the people working at the four Foundations. > > Krishnamurti arrived and stood in silence for three or four > minutes. > > Suddenly a gentleman with a Bostonian or perhaps English accent > approached Krishnamurti and said: "I understand you are a Brahmin > from India". > > Krishnamurti said, "I only have a passport from India". > > He soon left the party. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > When the last talk of 1985 ended in Ojai in May I decided I > wouldn't attend any more Krishnamurti talks. > > Krishnamurti died in February 1986 anyway. > > It struck me, after his death, while I was listening to the last of > his talks in England, held in 1985, that he said: "I will not use > the word meditation anymore". > > I had asked him to do that several times. > > One day we were at an orange grove in Arya Vihar, simply enjoying > the scent of spring in silence. > > I said, "I worry the schools are going to become elitist and that > only the wealthy will be able to send their children to them." > > Krishnamurti said: "We have to work with what we have and we have > to talk with the words we have. I was born in a very poor home and > some of my brothers died from tuberculosis or malnutrition. But > look at me! I'm doing very well, huh?" > > I said, "you were lucky you had teachers like Leadbeater who was > even clairvoyant." > > Krishnamurti said, "Yes, I was very lucky. Leadbeater was > temporarily clairvoyant, and I was lucky that everything he said > entered through my right ear and left through the left." > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > We were sitting with David Bohm and Krishnamurti. I told > Krishnamurti: > > "From the conversations the three of us have had, including the one > with Dr. Sheldrake, one may infer that when one human mind is > consummate in intelligence and love, that mind will inexorably > influence (non-verbally) in an energetic (holokinetic) way, all > human minds at the same time. > > Now if Krishnamurti is totally transformed or consummate, how come > one doesn't see it more in people around us or even in the whole > world? > > How come the sorrow, the brutality, the vulgarity, the > insensitivity of people is not reduced? Why don't we see the > transformation more? > > At that point Krishnamurti told Dr. Bohm, "Professor Bohm, you have > been a co-worker of Albert Einstein but even so one can still talk > to you without a mask. (Krishnamurti smiled)... how would you > answer to that question? Why don't we see the change?" > > Dr. Bohm meditated for a few seconds and said: "As a physicist I > only know that 99% of all phenomena occurring in matter and energy > are invisible." > > May 1983 > > Krishnamurti had public talks in Ojai rather late in the Spring of > 83. > > I was with my two sons: Sebastian age nine and Demian age eight. > > We couldn't get a motel in Ojai. They were all full. > > We spent the nights at the Holiday Inn in Ventura right beside the > Pacific Ocean. My sons were happy. We had the sea, and Ojai was > only thirty minutes away by car. > > It is claimed that "Ojai" means "The Nest of God" in the local > American-Indian tongue. > > On the morning of Saturday, May 14th, 1983 we arrived at the Oak > Grove School in Ojai (Founded by Krishnamurti in 1974) at about > 9:30 A.M. > > We parked the car and went for a slow walk under a sunny light-blue > sky among the oak trees. > > There was a delightful breeze between the blue mountains and the > ocean. > > There were already more than 1000 people for the lecture that would > start two hours later. > > I met many friends from different parts of the world. We were > elated by our mutual company and by the expectation of listening to > Krishnamurti in person again. The blend of nature, friendship and > the sacred is beauty itself. And that day we were deep into the > glorious light of beauty and the rare presence of love. > > Krishnamurti talked for an hour or so about the deplorable > spiritual state of mankind. Three thousand people listened in > silence. > > It was only Krishnamurti's voice and the breeze among the Oak > trees. > > Hundreds of birds were chirping. > > He said we have to be a light to ourselves because "there is no one > to go to". Social and individual corruption grows. > > He said it's perfectly possible to relate without a shadow of > conflict. > > At the end he shook hands with me and my two sons. "It's good to > see you for a moment", he said. > > Demian said, "Krishnamurti has cold hands, Dad". > I said, "Krishnamurti is eighty-eight years old, and he was talking > for more than an hour under the trees in the breeze". > > It was during that weekend that we met at Arya Vihara in Ojai. > > There was a circle of chairs with at least ten people sitting with > Krishnamurti. It was three or four P.M., and it was easy to lose > track of time in that kind of atmosphere after a cup of tea. > > After Krishnamurti joined us we remained in silence. > > One had to absorb his presence before any action was possible. > > At one point he asked, "Am I a freak?" > > I said, "You may not be a freak but possibly the genetic pool you > come from makes you definitely more able to be free from the > influence of human memory (both individual and philogenetic). That > has made you more able to be in total contact with reality, while > we are at best only partially in contact with it." > > Krishnamurti said something close to the following, "We may have > genetic differences but we are all able to 'touch' the ground or > the totality of the mind, and that ground is the most important > thing for human life". > > I said, "The ground being the cosmic mind or the holokinetic source > of life...." > > Krishnamurti said, "The ground being complete silence of the mind > (he emphasized the word 'complete'), then we can talk". He > finished. > > I said, "Is there something external that comes to us (or to > Krishnamurti) in certain specific circumstances? > > Krishnamurti said, "It may come now when two or more meet to > discuss seriously, which means with no wish for money or success > and letting all the masks that protect us drop off. Water will not > know what water is. We can only discuss what water is not. You may > explain water well but you have to swim in the sea as well". > > I said, "We are in California. If you had to only use the words > from the Bible how would you tell me what you just said to me?" > > Krishnamurti said: "It's revelation. Something that happens every > time I speak. But now, since that happens, I prefer to use my own > words which are less loaded with distortions". > > I said, "Tell us more about that." > > Krishnamurti said, "It's too big for words". > > A long silence followed. I finally asked, "what will we do, the > ones that have tasted a few drops of that water?" > > Krishnamurti said, "Those few will have to shout from the housetops > before it's too late for mankind". > I told him that some people were angry at him for the way he had > said some things. > > Many seemed unable to forgive Krishnamurti for what he had said in > Saanen in 1980: "God is disorder and if man is God's creation, God > has to be horrible, a monstrous entity. God must be disorder since > we live in disorder. If he made us like He is and we are killing > each other, then He must be monstrous". > > Krishnamurti said: "What God are we talking about? Is it the God > that man made? Those that get angry want to substitute the > experience of God, the man-made God. It's not so easy. That word is > disorder, not the experience. Where the word is, experience is not. > Where experience is, there may or may not be the word". > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 1 13:48:55 1999 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 13:24:04 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Conversations with Krishnamurti 2/5 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990101132404.012e3a6c@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Part two: David Walker wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > This is the second piece by Dr. Ruben Feldman-Gonzalez recalling > his dialogues with Krishnamurti. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Untie the Ocean > (Intimate dialogues with Krishnamurti) > Memorized after the encounter--not recorded on audiotape > > I met Krishnamurti on March the 23rd 1975 in San Francisco, > California. I have already written about that. My last name is > Feldman Gonzalez but Krishnamurti addressed me only as Dr. > Gonzalez. > > March 24, 1975 (Huntington Hotel - San Francisco, California) > > Krishnamurti: Sorry, I made you wait. I was doing some Hatha Yoga. > > Ruben: No problem. Thank you for receiving me again. I would > like to discuss the fact that you are the instructor > of the world (or the Second Coming). > > Krishnamurti: You worry about the irrelevant. > > Ruben: It is relevant for me, because if you are the > Instructor of the World, then I want to be an > apostle. > > Krishnamurti: There are no more apostles, Dr. Gonzalez. It is of > critical urgency that human beings change radically. > They have to detach themselves from the content of > mankind's consciousness, they have to live without > touching the stream of growing vulgarity and > violence. Egocentric activity has to end, the desire > for profit, power and prestige. One needs to learn to > live psychologically alone, that is to be content > without depending on anybody or anything. > > Ruben: That they detach themselves from the content of > mankind's consciousness?... then, how does one live? > > Krishnamurti: You don't become comatose, you don't enter into a > drug or alcohol induced trance, you don't live in a > state of hypnosis, nor asleep even while awake. You > live in complete attention. Are you aware that > observation is attention? > > Ruben: Fundamental action. > > Krishnamurti: Observation is action. To observe totally doesn't > mean to be negligent nor socially indifferent. If > you observe totally, each one of your actions changes > in nature. You free yourself from the choking grip > of traditional memory and you also start to think > sanely and freely. So there is total observation and > new thought and action. > > (We spent a long time in silence) > > Ruben: Are you greater than Jesus? > > Krishnamurti: Do you want me to say "yes"? > > Ruben: Tell me what do you think? > > Krishnamurti: Mankind is not the same. In the last 2000 years there > have been three wars every year in the world and > there has been a consequent degradation of human > beings, the son of humanity can not be the same. > > Ruben: You are talking of the Son of Man (with capital > letters) aren't you? You are talking of the Greek > "uios tou antropon" (the son of man). Aren't you? > > Krishnamurti: The son of humanity is today the son of a degraded > mankind. Then... what do you do? > > Ruben: I listen to Krishnamurti. > > Krishnamurti: For how long? > > Ruben: Until I understand and radical change occurs. > > Krishnamurti: Be a light to yourself. Stop procrastination. Throw > away the content of consciousness. There has to be > pure consciousness, pure awareness, pure listening. > > Ruben: When I asked you whether I could speak publicly you > said, "you speak". > > Krishnamurti: You speak. "That" is not only for you. > > Ruben: Can you tell me more about talking to people about > all this? > > Krishnamurti: You talk and expect no-thing. > > (LONG PAUSE) (In vital silence) Krishnamurti had said "no-thing", > he had not said "nothing". > > Krishnamurti: It's time for lunch Dr. Gonzalez. > > March 25, 1975 > (Hotel Huntington, San Francisco, California) > > Krishnamurti: Good morning Dr. Gonzalez. > > Ruben: Good morning. > > Krishnamurti: I guess you have some questions, right? > > Ruben: You told me two days ago that you'll never die in an > aircraft, what is it that makes you feel protected? > > Krishnamurti: That. > > Ruben: O.K. Please, tell me about That (Or the Other). > > Krishnamurti: You can see That in action, but you can't talk about > it. > > (LONG PAUSE) (In complete silence) > > Ruben: You already know that some of my friends disappeared > in Argentina. Sometimes I feel deep sorrow for > Argentina and for the rest of the world. How come so > much horror? > > Krishnamurti: You can be free of all conditioning and then you'll > be free of sorrow. When you are not an Argentinian > anymore you'll be able to do more for mankind and > even for Argentina. I was born in India. I had an > English passport. When India declared its > independence from England I asked for an Indian > passport. Since then I have great problems to get > visas when I travel around, but I'm not English nor > Hindu. I'm a human being. > > Ruben: You are a very special human being. You are easy to > love. > > Krishnamurti: I admit I'm different, but the transformation that > has occurred in me can occur in any other human > being. And nobody needs Krishnmurti or Dr. Ruben for > that radical transformation, which is so necessary, > to occur. > > Ruben: Maybe not, but a serious dialogue helps. > > Krishnamurti: With no guru. Dialogue without gurus. > > Ruben: Could we say that you are being my guru without us > wanting it and that I'm being your guru without it > being my purpose? > > Krishnamurti: Then there is a serious dialogue. You and I are > seeing together the same thing at the same time. The > most repugnant thing is to prostrate yourself to > another human being and adore him or her. > > (LONG PAUSE) (In vibrant silence) > > Ruben: Someone told me you sometimes even faint out of sheer > physical pain... What is that? > > Krishnamurti: I call it "the process" but I don't understand it nor > want to. I leave all the explanations about "the > process", healing, and clairvoyance to doctors like > yourself (laughing). > > Ruben: I'd like you to tell me how to heal. I mean healing > in its pristine and complete sense. > > Krishnamurti: Again Dr. speaking (Long pause) I prepared tea for > you the other day. You found it bitter and left it. > I had to ask you to finish it. You still have > predilections, Dr. Gonzalez. > > Ruben: So, to heal (with capital letters) you need to have > no predilections. > > Krishnamurti: No, no. It's necessary not to have predilections. > Period. If you're content for something you're not > content. > > (LONG PAUSE) > > Ruben: Would you summarize the teaching in only one > sentence? > > Krishnamurti: Attempt without effort to live with death in > futureless silence. > > Ruben: It sounds absurd. > > Krishnamurti: Some time ago, in 1972, I spent a full morning with > That without leaving my bed. I was completely quiet, > before doing my Hatha yoga (only physical yoga, just > to keep a flexible body)... that was like a flame in > the center of immensity. And the center of immensity > was my brain. Do you understand? > > Ruben: Yes. > > (LONG PAUSE) > > Krishnamurti: Then, what are you waiting for? > > Ruben: What? Are you by any chance saying that That is ready > for me right now? > > Krishnamurti: That's right. But you are too sad. What a waste! > Then, what are you waiting for? > > Ruben: I want to understand that sentence: "Die in silence > without future". I think it would be better to say > "attempt without effort to live in peace in > futureless silence". > > Krishnamurti: No. Death is the end of all you are afraid to loose: > your attachments, your memory, your disappeared > friends, your prestige as a children's surgeon. All > that is the content of your consciousness. Can you > get rid of it right now, now that you're young and > healthy and not wait for 50 years for it to crumble > by itself? It's easy for me to die. > > Ruben: Saint Paul said: "I die every day". > > Krishnamurti: Paul said "I die every day" and Dr. Gonzalez repeats > what Paul says and nothing at all happens. > > Ruben: You're more of a surgeon than I am. > > Krishnamurti: Dr. Gonzalez, your brain has been as it is for the > last million years. For how long will it be like > that? Will you go to bed tonight with that brain of > yours as it always has been? Habit, sorrow, anger, > etc.? > > Ruben: I wouldn't be here if I wanted to go to bed with this > brain as it is. Nevertheless, I know I shouldn't > accept what you say just blindly. I have to > experience it. Would you be able to facilitate the > experience of that which may transform my brain and > my life? > > Krishnamurti: If I was so stupid as to facilitate it, then all I > say would become a theory or a technique, like so > many others. You have to do it yourself, Dr. > Gonzalez. Climb to the summit and look, or do you > prefer to go to bed and beg me to describe it to > you? Would you be satisfied with my description? > Then you have no substance, then you are a second- > hand human being. > > (PAUSE) > > Ruben: How does mediocrity end? > > Krishnamurti: As you get rid of the contents of human > consciousness, will you get rid of all word? > > Ruben: Without saying "Krishnamurti is talking to me". > > Krishnamurti: Or he who listens is a "respectable Dr." You simply > listen totally in pure silence. > > Ruben: Nevertheless, even with no words, I'll be able to > talk meaningfully from deep silence. > > Krishnamurti: For the first time, quite sir. The word God is not > God. > > Ruben: Will it help to stop sex with my wife? (*) > > Krishnamurti: Dr. Gonzalez, if you love, you love your wife, then > you do what you will and there is beauty in what > you do. Don't worry about sex, do it or don't. Now, > let's be silent for a while because Mr. and Mrs. > Lillifelt will be here soon. We will have to talk, > because you know well Dr. Gonzalez, that I will not > live forever. Perhaps ten years more and the chap > will be gone. > > COMMENTS > > (*) The relationship with my wife ended three years later when she > left our house, which I immediately got rid of. Ever since then I > live in the desert without securing my future. > > The meeting followed the dialogue but I have already written about > it. > > Krishnmurti died almost exactly ten years later. From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 1 13:51:35 1999 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 13:26:17 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Conversations with Krishnamurti 4/5 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990101132617.012e3a6c@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Part four: David Walker wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > This is the fourth piece by Dr. Ruben Feldman-Gonzalez recalling > his dialogues with Krishnamurti. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > March 30, 1980 > Ojai - California > There may be one day of error in this date > > Ruben: Last year we couldn't talk too much. Mary > (Zimbalist) takes good care of you. She didn't let > me see you. Simple as that (laughing). > > Krishnamurti: I asked her to live longer than I will, so she helps > me to take care of "the horse". They claim that I > take care of my body as a cavalry officer takes care > of his horse. Maria is a good officer. > > Ruben: I guess that without her it would be difficult to be > even one minute by yourself, with so many people > wanting to talk to you. People love you. > > Krishnamurti: No, very few want to discuss anything serious. They > fall in love with me and want to be close, that's > all. It's not that they love. > > Ruben: I'm glad to know Dr. David Bohm will talk with you > and that the talks will be recorded. Please tell him > I'd like to see him again. > > Krishnamurti: Yes, we will record our talks with Dr. Bohm. I didn't > know what we would do in the two days in California > this time, but seems it will happen. > > Ruben: I hope you talk about the problem of time. It was > when I had my first contact with That, at the > Frankfurt Airport in 1978, that I understood what is > irrelevant time. It was the last thing I understood, > the difference between relevant and irrelevant time. > I think if somebody understands that difference right > away That has to barge in. > > Krishnamurti: Quite, Dr. Gonzalez. > > Ruben: It's a pity that that "contact" is not a voluntary > thing, because I would not like to live in any other > way anymore. It's like healing or group-mind. It > happens without one knowing how or why: It's perhaps > semi-deliberate... > > Krishnamurti: Don't get trapped in it when it happens. > > Ruben: No, but it's fascinating. > > Krishnamurti: It would be good to have you in our dialogue with Dr. > Bohm, somebody who knows about the brain and > intellectual psychology. > > Ruben: Excuse me, but I'm not ready to participate in that > dialogue. I'm going through a family crisis, my sons > are in Argentina, and it's better not to talk about > that. You might remember that last year, after having > a walk with them, you told me: "Don't ask them what > happened". That was in April 1979. Their mother left > our house abruptly in August 79. Is all this > irrelevant time? > > Krishnamurti: Yes, but you said you have tried the Ocean water. > Don't avoid exposure Dr. Gonzalez. You already have > something to say. I hope you'll participate and > contribute. > > Ruben: I'm very sorry I can't do it right now. It's not that > I don't want it or that I'm afraid. I simply can't. > I think I'm going through a small night of the soul, > as they used to say. > > Krishnamurti: I hope you can. Speak and expect no-thing. Don't > expect to preserve your respectable merits, untie the > ocean. The Ocean will flood Dr. Gonzalez. There will > be nothing left of him. > > (PAUSE) > > Ruben: I'm thinking of working only four hours a day and > living in the desert or by the sea, far from big > cities. I made contacts in San Luis Obispo, Santa > Barbara (with Dr. Ben whom you know so well), > Ventura, Hawaii, etc. I want to live simply and with > austerity. In November 1979 I refused an offer by Dr. > Karl Pribram at Stanford University in California, to > work with him in brain research. > > Krishnamurti: You love and you do what you will. But austerity may > not be simple. > > Ruben: I got rid of everything I had. > > Krishnamurti: Be careful that austerity be simple. > > Ruben: What do you mean? > > Krishnamurti: You may live in a mansion and spend the night in a > grand hotel, as long as your future is not in your > memory. He who dies being rich has lived in vain. > > Ruben: I agree. The doubts I have refer to the security of > my two sons. I only don't want to have more children. > I'm a pediatric surgeon and a pediatric neurologist-- > psychiatrist, but I don't know what to tell my > children. The world is not fit for children. > > Krishnamurti: Be responsible with the commitments you have taken > upon yourself, but don't worry. > > Ruben: I think my first commitment is to share the treasure > of That when one truly lives in it. I'm spending > everything I can spare traveling around the world and > talking from That. That has come several times. > > Krishnamurti: Yes, you look different. Since you come from Latin > America, why not concentrate on Latin America? > Tickets and hotels are more and more expensive every > day and you know how difficult it is to get a visa > sometimes. > > Nobody will pay your expenses from Latin American. > Those who could pay will not listen and those who > listen will not pay. Besides that, you need to take > care of your health, you need exercise, Dr. Gonzalez. > It's a problem to be in a hospital, all plans > altered. That's what happened to me in 1977 when they > operated upon my prostate. It was a chance to die and > never come back, but there is a lot to do yet. You > think it's generous to forget one's health, right? > > Ruben: (laughing) I think it's the problem of almost every > physician, the idea that you have to take care of > people's health and forget oneself. I was lucky to be > born in a vegetarian home, that I never drank > (alcohol) or used drugs or tobacco. > > Krishnamurti: Beware of your generosity, Dr. Gonzalez, the end of > the body shouldn't be precipitated by suicide nor the > generosity of forgetting one's own body. > > What do you do when you talk with people in Latin > America? Have you ever tried to ask a question in a > group for nobody to answer? See what happens. > > Ruben: I speak in Universities with professors and students. > When riots and strikes start (which happens quite > often due to the situation of oppression and plunder > of which Latin America is victim) then I rent a hotel > lecture-room, place an ad in a local paper (all quite > expensive) and I invite the whole town, as I have > done repeatedly in Caracas, Santiago, Buenos Aires, > Rosario, several towns in Mexico and Lima. > > In Costa Rica there were no problems at the > University (San Jose). Perhaps that's because Costa > Rica has no Army. > > I speak of time and its relationship to > consciousness, to perception. I speak of "Unitary > Perception". Local gurus don't like me to talk > because that's the end of their spiritual business. > I also understand that when you told me "you talk" > it's implicit I'm the only one responsible for what > I say. I do not represent you nor interpret your > teaching. > > Krishnamurti: Quite. Don't forget that in silence flowers an > intuitive understanding. Do you talk of living > orderly and peacefully and honestly? That's not so > difficult and that's the beginning. It's important to > emphasize a radical change in daily life. Partial > reforms (political, economic, ideologic) are not > enough. > > Ruben: But they are urgently needed in Latin America, > otherwise a lot of blood will be spilled. > > Krishnamurti: yes, but without a radical psychological > transformation a partial reform will only > procrastinate the blood spill. > > (PAUSE) > > Ruben: If wars don't stop today, there will be war > tomorrow. > > (PAUSE) > > Krishnamurti: Have you been flattered or invalidated? > > Ruben: More flattered than invalidated. Both may be the > same. > > Krishnamurti: They are both rubbish, don't you see? They have > done it with me, all my life. To adore or to mock > is easier than listening. You know. > > Ruben: I see it clearly. But change seems to be difficult. > > Krishnamurti: Do you know that you can help those students to > change? > > Ruben: I hope so... but... that contradicts... > > Krishnamurti: Give them all your compassion and all your > intelligence and even the last minute of your time > and energy, but learn to rest in silence. You work > too much. Listen well to each one of them. In > intelligence and compassion you are a little sun. > You'll give light and warmth... and some will praise > you, or will mock you from the shadows. Some others > will sit in the sun. (LONG PAUSE) > > Ruben: Do you think I should speak without using my name > (anonymously)? > > Krishnamurti: Dr. Gonzalez you have four names, don't confuse me > even more with your anonymity. Do not avoid exposure. > Don't be afraid of loosing anything. There's nothing > to loose. You told me you're responsible for what > you say, anonymous or not! > > Ruben: What do I do with healing? > > Krishnamurti: Healing the body is of secondary importance. Do what > you will. But don't do it because someone wants it. > > Ruben: What do you do with the aura? > > Krishnamurti: Nothing. We have discussed this matter the first time > we met. If you get trapped in something marvelous > you'll not allow for the next marvelous thing to > happen. Leave the aura alone. Leave kundalini alone. > "That" cleanses everything. You don't need to worry. > > Ruben: Sometimes you see something unbearable in someone you > love. What do you do? > > Krishnamurti: Do you have predilections? Or will you look for some > reason for it? It seems unbearable to love someone > who will not get interested in That. There is a > brother I would like to get interested... he > resists... but that's that. > > Ruben: The saddest thing for me is to see what human beings > could be but are not. I would even stop watching the > news, but it's hard. > > (LONG PAUSE) > > Krishnamurti: I watch the news sometimes, or else someone else > summarizes them for me. The spiritual state of > mankind is deplorable. Don't you see how urgently > necessary your own transformation is, Dr. Gonzalez? > Every child should travel around the world. Then they > could cry for all mankind and they would stop > thinking as Argentineans, Hindis, Russians, American, > Japanese, etc. > > Ruben: Nothing seems to be enough to understand something so > simple. > > Krishnamurti: Your own total psychological transformation is > enough. It's enough to get rid of mankind's > consciousness. It's necessary to do so and that is > the pure silence and the pure peace of the brain. > But that can't be left for tomorrow, if one is > serious. > > Ruben: Silence without name. > > Krishnamurti: It's like a house which doesn't have a place for > silence... it will be a house with a lot of activity, > plenty of noise, but there That will not enter. There > has to be a room in each house where the only thing > you can do there is to be silent and nothing else. > That room will be the flame of the house. > > Ruben: Then each home would be like a temple... > > Krishnamurti: Each home would be a home without sorrow, that is a > good home. > > (LONG PAUSE) > > Krishnamurti: Well Dr. Gonzalez, it's time to go now. I'm sorry. > > Ruben: Krishnaji, before we go... I hope you give me the > names of those you think have understood you best, > even when not absolutely well. I'd like to talk with > all of them. > > Krishnamurti: They are few, so find them and meet them. Untie > the ocean together. > > Ruben: Thank you for all, my friend. From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 1 13:55:24 1999 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 13:22:58 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Conversations with Krishnamurti 1/5 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990101132258.0150e808@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In response to posting an excerpt on CWL's clairvoyance, some questions were raised. I am posting the five part msg from which I excerpted the passage. mkr ========= Hi Rob, I'd like to follow your example and post a K text. I got it from David Walker who gathered together a small e-mail group of people interested in k. He mailed it to us in five discrete segments. I'll do the same. I don't know enough about computers to do it otherwise. Regards, Hermann David Walker wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > This is the first piece by Dr. Ruben Feldman-Gonzalez recalling > his dialogues with Krishnamurti. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > P R O L O G U E > > During my encounters with people many asked me to write of my > dialogues with Krishnamurti, even knowing I would be retrieving > them only from my memory since only a few had been recorded. > So it was that I started to think of writing some of my memories > down. > > Nevertheless, some other friends felt that it was unnecessary to > write my memories since Krishnamurti had done such a beautiful work > of exposition of life and truth for mankind with his own books, > videos and audiotapes. > > I hope that anyone who reads "My Dialogues with Krishnamurti" feels > the need to read Krishnamurti himself. > > I have almost stopped reading, and if I do it is only to read > "Krishnamurti Journals" or "Commentaries On Living" by Krishnamurti > and "Collected Works of Krishnamurti" (17 volumes Kendall-Hunt) > (1933-1967). > > Looking For The North > > Political contradiction in Argentina was always high. > > It came to one of its highest points, though, by the end of August > 1972. > > During this time a group of leftist, guerrilla men and women were > killed while in jail at Trelew-Argentina, and I was horrified to > hear that one of them had been a friend of the family. > > I started to get phone calls prompting me to take sides in the > armed struggle: "If you are not for the left you are for the > right", a man's voice had told me on the phone before he hung-up > while I was taking care of a recently born baby in Villada, > Argentina, Aug. 23rd 1972. > > The following day I went to Buenos Aires to get a visa to the > U.S.A. (1972). > > If man looses respect for life we are all at risk from each other. > Man becomes his own executioner. > > Only after two years I got a temporary visa to enter the U.S.A. > Every Argentinian was suspicious then. > > I stopped over in Puerto Rico. There was a man there I wanted to > meet: Enrique Biascoechea. > > I did meet him. He was dying. He had been a friend of Krishnamurti > since age nine. > > He wrote a letter to Krishnamurti telling him that I had left > behind my parents, two baby sons, possessions, friends, profession, > comfort, and status in order to travel to meet with him. > > That was in June 1974. Enrique died in Nov 1974. > > After reaching the U.S. I soon found myself working 16 hours a day > as a resident physician in Pennsylvania. I needed a dictionary to > dictate my notes. Of the other eight hours of the day I spent four > in the basement to study medicine in English to revalidate my > license. I slept three or four hours a day and ate only once a day, > taking coffee in the morning and again at lunchtime simply to keep > myself awake. > > Sometimes I wondered how my body could bear so much abuse! > > I got letters from Argentina: "Misery. My family and my friends > kept disappearing". > > I had given up hope to meet Krishnamurti when I got a letter from > Mrs. Zimbalist, dated Jan. 5th 1975 in Ojai, California telling me > I had a personal interview with Krishnamurti on march 23rd at 4 > P.M. at the Huntington Hotel in San Francisco, California. > > Mrs. Zimbalist volunteered her time for Krishnamurti as a devoted > secretary. She is the widow of the late Sam Zimbalist who had > produced the reknowned film "Ben Hur". > > At four P.M. on March 23rd 1975 sharp I knocked at Krishnamurti's > door. Mrs. Zimbalist did everything to make me feel comfortable. > > Krishnmurti came after five minutes. I stood up from the armchair > to shake his hand. He looked smaller than I expected him to be. He > wore an old blue jacket. He sat in front of me with nothing in > between the two chairs. Mrs. Zimbalist left silently. > > We sat there looking at each other. I will never be able to > describe that moment when Krishnmurti was gazing at me. > > I felt at the same time all the love I had felt for my parents, my > sons, my girlfriends, my friends (dead or alive)... > > There was long silence. > > Krishnamurti said: Biascoechea says you are ready to work for the > Foundation. > > I said: I may not be wise or free enough for that. > > Krishnamurti: You will. > > Ruben: What would the work imply? > > Krishnamurti: Publishing books, videos and tapes. > > Ruben: That implies managing money. > > Krishnamurti: Millions of dollars. > > Ruben: That horrifies me. I'm not ready for that. I thought > I would have to travel with you, type your lectures > from recorded tapes.... things like that. > > Krishnamurti: (Laughing) You can do more than that Dr... > > Ruben: My name is Ruben Ernesto Feldman-Gonzalez. > > Krishnamurti: That's confusing, may I call you Dr. Gonzalez? > > Ruben: Of course, but my real name is Anger. > > Krishnamurti: (touching my left knee) Ah! I'm glad you don't wear > a mask like so many that come to me pretending to be > saints. > > Ruben: I'm far from that. I feel a complete repugnance for > the so-called political situation of Argentina, my > country of birth, and even for the way my profession > is practiced. I'm a pediatric surgeon. I had started > to study psychiatry (July 1974) in Pennsylvania to > see why the world has gone so crazy. Nevertheless I'm > not impressed, the approach to treatment in > psychiatry is conventional... standardized. I'll > leave psychiatry too. I don't know what I will do. > > Krishnamurti: Don't leave psychiatry. Change it. > > Ruben: I never thought you would give me concrete advice > like that. It sounds absurd though. Changing > psychiatry sounds like changing the color of the > crickets of the world. > > Krishnamurti: You have to change psychiatry. > > Ruben: I wish I knew what you meant. > > Krishnamurti: You have to meet Dr. David Bohm in London. Let's go > there soon. > > Ruben: I wish I could, perhaps if I get a loan. > > Krishnamurti: No! Don't ask for a loan. You'll meet him soon > anyway. > > Ruben: I need to make changes. I have no peace. Friends have > disappeared in Argentina. Everything seems so chaotic > and corrupt.... > > Krishnamurti: (smiling) You need exercise (Krishnamurti touched my > belly with the tip of his left index finger). > > Ruben: I work 16 hours a day and then I have to sit to study > for four hours a day before I go to sleep. All this > to renew my medical license in the USA. > > Krishnamurti: That's an excuse. Take care of yourself. You need > exercise. You look like a bull. > > Ruben: Sometimes I feel that I need to share my > understanding with people around the world. What do > you say to that? > > Krishnamurti: You speak. > > A very long silence followed. I had expected him to tell me to > "stay put" and spend the rest of my life in silent meditation. With > very few words he was the perfect mirror for my own contradictions > to emerge and be clearly seen. > > He insisted: The Foundation in Puerto Rico has no head. I hope > you will take it (he grabbed my left knee). > > Ruben: Krishnaji, when I was with Biascoechea everything > seemed so easy. Now I see I don't have the peace of > mind, the right skills nor the freedom (the sons and > two parents to feed) to dedicate myself sensibly to > such an important and difficult task. It is certainly > no picnic. > > Krishnamurti: I hope you take it. > > Another long silence followed. > > Krishnamurti discussed several items regarding the Foundation's > translations, people like Salvado Sendra, Vimala Thakar, personal > and ideological struggles within the Foundations, etc. > > Ruben: I'm eager to meet Salvador and Vimala... but people > from the Fourth Path are trying to mix what you say > with what others have said and are quite willing to > control the Foundations. > > Krishnamurti: That has been going on all the time and not only with > them. The Fourth Path is a path of violence which > reinforces the ego and the wish to control life and > its course. Do not touch it. The first insight is to > drop everything non-essential for the total > liberation of mankind. > > Ruben: Now that you mention the non-essential.... Why did > you allow the biography of yours written by Lutyens > to be published? It's gossipy and superficial, and it > may not be right selling "At the Feet of the Master" > ... with your name on it. > > Krishnamurti: Not my books. > > Ruben: And they are making a profit. > > Krishnamurti: It's not my business. > > Ruben: How would you recommend your books to be read, and > in what order? > > Krishnamurti: Do not read them like a novel. Read slowly as if your > life was in every word and every sentence. Start with > the last one and then if there is an interest go > backwards through the first one. > > Ruben: Should we read all your books? > > Krishnamurti: If you take a train in San Francisco to go to Los > Angeles... would you get off in Santa Barabara? > > We both laughed. One had to laugh very often in the company of > Krishnamurti. Today the order of the books would be: > > "Ending of Time" > "The Awakening of Intelligence" > "Commentaries on Living" > "Journal" > "Freedom from the Known", etc. > "Collected Works" (1933-67) > > I asked: Why don't you eat meat? > > He answered: Pity. > > I expected a longer lecture but that was all he said. Again a long > silence. The silence was alive, the silence of two alert friends > seeing together the same thing at the same time. > > He stood up and said. "Excuse me Dr. Gonzalez, I'll prepare some > tea for you". > > At the kitchen in the big suite he whispered something with Mrs. > Zimbalist who was sitting there. > > He came back with a cup of tea. He said: "Tea of roses for you". > > I sipped it, but I didn't like it. I left it on the little table > beside us. > > Ruben: Can we talk about meditation? > > Krishnamurti: Is there anything else? > > Ruben: Well, the very word meditation is used by gurus of > all kinds to make money, sell silly books, > techniques, pillows, crystals, mantras, and incense. > > Krishnamurti: I have been using the word for 50 years. I can't > change it now. People will have to see I use the word > with a different meaning. I do not use the word > meditation with its traditional meaning! > > Ruben: What about using the expression "Unitary Perception" > instead. > > Krishnamurti: You use it. > > (Krishnamurti said he would not use the word meditation anymore > during his last talk in England in 1985, ten years later.) > > Krishnamurti: Why not live very simply? > Call it meditation or Unitary Perception. > Self protection and self aggrandizement through money > making and success have to end in order to live > simply. To live simply is to live intelligently, > without an observer in observation. If you believe > you have to go back to Argentina to be loyal to some > concept of yours you are not simple. If you are angry > you are not simple. If you are full of sorrow you > can't love anyone. Can you be spontaneous and simply > act with not too much planning? > > Ruben: You are not saying I have to remain alone and live in > poverty and silence. > > Krishnamurti: Would that be simple? > Would you be escaping from life? > The consummation of truth is not to be successful or > wealthy... but do you want complete truth? > Look for success or money and you'll find > frustration. Look for truth and you'll receive total > peace of mind and joy. Will you be one of the few? Or > will you continue being one of the many worshippers > of money and success? > > After a long silence, he said: "Dr. Gonzalez, your tea must be cold > already, finish it!" > > I didn't have the courage to say no and I did finish it silently. > > He said: "Let's meet tomorrow at eight A.M. > > Krishnamurti went with me to the door, opened it for me and smiled > lovingly saying: "Good bye". > > I said: What noun should be applied to what you teach-- > "message", "gospel",..., or what? > > Krishnamurti said: Call it "the teachings". Let's meet tomorrow > at eight A.M., right here. > > I spend the rest of the afternoon by myself in my room, which I had > rented at the same hotel where Krishnamurti was staying. > > I felt like a Condor for the rest of the day. > > I met Krishnamurti by chance in the lobby that evening. I walked > with him for awhile. > > I saw a couple of very beautiful girls. > > I said: "God, how beautiful they are". > > He said: "Only well fed". > > I said: "Krishnaji, I felt like a Condor the whole afternoon, full > of peace and joy and love. I think it's because I spent some time > with you." > > Krishnamurti said: "For how long do you want to be infected?" - From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 1 19:18:45 1999 Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 20:13:15 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: Re: Questions for Rich, Jerry, Dallas et al concerning what the Mahatmas are talking about in their references about "Shammars", "Dugpas" etc. Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/31/98 2:52:58 PM, someone wrote: >>Even if we concede for the sake of discussion that the Dugpas are >>actually the Bonpas, what do the Dugpas and Shammars have to do with >>events in Europe and England? > >I suspect that HPB simply used Dugpa as a personification of an >evil person and thus they are everywhere. It is much more likely (to anyone who has really studied ALL the writings of HPB) that she used the word to identify those who are members of an evil cabal of black magicians connected with the mostly primitive and "ignorant" Tibetan Buddhist sects--(most likely the Red Hat Bonpas, Nyingmapas, and their clones, who are, for the most part, practitioners of ritual Tantric and shamanistic magic and the ritual use of powerful herbal psychodelic drugs.) They are certainly everywhere, since they helped Hitler during his reign of terror and have been used by the CIA during their notorious drug and psychic mind control experiments after the war. Since the above writer also seems to agree they are "everywhere"--I don't "suspect", but actually KNOW (from first hand experience), that they have already infiltrated into theosophical groups and have shown up in theosophical lodges and forums posing as Tibetan Buddhists or as Dugpa apologists. They also claim to be sincere theosophists. Although when tested closely, they sometimes give away their weak knowledge (but some are very knowledgeable). Their "act" whether by an actual Dugpa or a Dupe is to introduce Tibetan Buddhist studies, using the second object as an excuse, and in the course of it, nit pick the S.D. and use subtle propaganda techniques to discredit HPB and the Masters--in order to undermine theosophy--which they fear, and which was and still is their most deadly enemy. This fear and animosity is evidenced by the extra pains Hitler took (with Dugpa help) since the mid '30's to root out and murder, in "special" political concentration camps, ALL theosophists in Germany and the occupied countries. I know this, also, from first hand information gathered in Germany before the war ended--because "I vas dere Sharlie" (ULT "old timers" and MI vets will know what I mean.:-) If one would read Mein Kampf, it would become obvious that Hitler's major "textbooks" were the Secret Doctrine (along with Aliester Crowley's books on "Magick" as practiced by the "Brothers of the Golden Dawn" and the TIBETAN DUGPAS). Adolph Shickelgruber (a.k.a. Der Fuehrer) studied these books when he was 17 as an art student in Munich--and learned all about the Dugpas and Tibetan black magic (See: THE SWORD OF DESTINY, Ravenswood) Unfortunately, as HPB well knew, we sometimes have to accept the bad with the good. (I have in the course of the last 20 years rooted out three such infiltrators from the ULT lodges, one of whom had reached the state of "platform lecturer" with a 15 year history as a "sincere" student. His giveaway was the use of an eidetic memory to quote from a vast number of scriptural books which he could memorize in one fast reading. He then could rehearse a lecture until he could present it perfectly with certain "acting" tricks (such as Ronald Reagen used) to indicate "sincerity". He would also wear Tibetan jewelry that would indicate he was a Vajrayana Buddhist, use hand mudras that were obviously Tantric in origin, and led a "secret" life in his workaday world that was clearly not theosophical. I wouldn't be surprised if Dugpas or one of their "stooges" or "apologists" showed up here one of these days (if they haven't already.:-( I suggest we at least be vigilant in order to "separate the wheat from the chaff". You can know them by their fruits. With respect to the second object and its admonition to study the ancient and modern religions--which they use for an excuse--they can only talk about and proselytize Tibetan Buddhism, a relatively modern religion (on a par with Christianity) as compared to the really ancient religions of the Brahmins, the Egyptians, and the Hebrews (all of which were rooted in ANCIENT Atlantis). The actual purpose of studying both old and new religions is to point out the contrast between them and to demonstrate that modern religions have lost the ancient theosophical wisdom that was the basis of the old religions. As an added note. Long after HPB and the Masters alerted us to them--before the Dugpas came to America through England (with Crowley) and through Germany (with Hitler)--it was the Christian "Dugpas" (or Jesuit dupes) who infiltrated the theosophical movement through Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater and introduced the false doctrines of "Liberal Catholicism" with a new, "reformed theosophy" ritual magic (but not called so). . . Then, with the help of another dupe, Alice Bailey, who channeled to DK, a Dugpa Master posing as the teacher of M and KH--these pseudo Christian infiltrators enticed out all the rest of the "Christ" conditioned gullible or greedy members of the original TS by offering them a re-coming of the "world group" Messiah, as themselves, plus a new form of ritual "magick" based on "invocations". As a support of this, they downgraded the S.D. to the "kindergarten" preparation for the phoney DK's pseudo magical "advanced teaching" in the "Treatise on Cosmic Fire". For more on this check out: http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/HPBvsAB.html (Study of these new "psychic religions"--including the Rosicrucians many of whom are also former theosophists--actually falls under the 3rd object, and is certainly more worthwhile than the pointless study of modern Tibetan religions without direct comparison to the ancient religions that they have left behind and forgotten--which is the purpose of the 2nd object.) Stay tuned, LHM From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 2 01:32:23 1999 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 23:22:41 -0800 From: "Martin Leiderman" Subject: Re: Questions for Rich, Jerry, Dallas et al concerning what Message-ID: <368DC935.7C54FF0B@lainet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 the Mahatmas are talking about in their references about "Shammars", "Dugpas" etc. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Leon, You must be one of the great leaders of ULT since you can "root out" people from it as you wrote recently: > > "I have in the course of the last 20 years rooted out three such infiltrators > from the ULT lodges, one of whom had reached the state of "platform lecturer" > with a 15 year history as a "sincere" student. " > > > And also you wrote: > > "As an added note. Long after HPB and the Masters alerted us to them--before > the Dugpas came to America through England (with Crowley) and through Germany > (with Hitler)--it was the Christian "Dugpas" (or Jesuit dupes) who infiltrated > the theosophical movement through Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater and > introduced the false doctrines of "Liberal Catholicism" with a new, "reformed > theosophy" ritual magic (but not called so). . . Then, with the help of > another dupe, Alice Bailey, who channeled to DK, a Dugpa Master posing as the > teacher of M and KH--these pseudo Christian infiltrators enticed out all the > rest of the "Christ" conditioned gullible or greedy members of the original TS > by offering them a re-coming of the "world group" Messiah, as themselves, plus > a new form of ritual "magick" based on "invocations". As a support of this, > they downgraded the S.D. to the "kindergarten" preparation for the phoney DK's > pseudo magical "advanced teaching" in the "Treatise on Cosmic Fire". > > > What else do you teach at ULT. I know several people who go there (like > Dallas, and Wes) and I would like to know what other doctrines they are > exposed to. What is your opinion on G. de Purucker and James Long. I like his book Expanding Horizons which I am studying in Spanish. Are they in the same group of AB, CWL etc. Martin Leiderman in West Los Angeles, CA From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 2 01:47:23 1999 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 23:36:32 -0800 From: "Martin Leiderman" Subject: Re: Krishnamurti on CWL's Clairvoyance Message-ID: <368DCC7D.FA50A6C9@lainet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3.0.3.32.19981229203649.012b3238@mail.eden.com> <368D0D9D.7AEB3642@lainet.com> <368D1BE4.534EC7D1@eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Ramadoss, Thanks for the 4 part post. I will printed and give it to members of the Spanish Lodge here in LA that are very fond of K. Martin Leiderman in West Los Angeles > From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 2 03:47:23 1999 Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 02:39:08 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Questions for Rich, Jerry, Dallas et al concerning what the Mahatmas are talking about in their references about "Shammars", "Dugpas" etc. Message-ID: <000101be363c$24d180c0$920e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <368DC935.7C54FF0B@lainet.com> Jan 2nd 1999 Dear Martin: As far as my association with the ULT is concerned (for the past 60 years or so) there has been no deviation in the ULT, or among the many "Associates" of the ULT in applying in full the DECLARATION of POLICY of the ULT. It has NO OFFICERS or BYE-LAWS and therefore has NO LEADERS. Everyone is a student-teacher. I tend to believe that Leon allowed his rhetoric to get away from him as nowhere in my experience has anyone been "commissioned" to "root-out" form the ranks of those who have become "associates" of the ULT anyone for any reason. Each is invited to mind their own business and do the best they can with others and for others. The work of the ULT is focussed on providing the original works on Theosophy by HPB and WQJ; and, in providing a forum for their discussion and study. This is Brotherhood in action. Let's be reasonable. 1 - we are all immortals. So we cannot eliminate each other. Our common source of origin is the ONE UNIVERSAL SPIRIT. Nature offers all of us a place where we can live and work together. The ULT expressly states in each of its published programs that there are no restrictions on attendance, and all those who are interested in its work are free to attend. No fees or dues are ever charged, and no "door-keepers" stands to bar anyone from attending those meetings as advertised. 2 - No one is asked or invited to make any judgments of others or their motives. Hence there could be no "rooting-out" of anyone. We always have to live with one-another and we are only expected to do as well as we can - honestly and sincerely. There is enough to keep us all very well occupied and with little or no time left over to worry about how others are doing or not doing. 3 - each of us makes his own Karma as he goes along. None of us are so "pure" that we do not make errors of judgment, choice, etc. We are invited to apply without limits the first Object of the Theosophical Movement: Brotherhood - and in so doing, establish a focus, a nucleus, where others also work, have the same opportunity to study, learn, inquire, etc... as we have done. Thus we can see how the Karma (of a group), of all those who participate in Theosophical endeavors no matter what designation they give to themselves as individuals or as groups, is established for a joint future. 4 - In terms of the third Fundamental of the SD (Vol. I pp 14 - 19) we all labor together and are bound by our own decisions. If great Nature allows us to continue in this physical body in this incarnation, then there are possibilities for our improving our nature and working closer to the universal Goal. Nature is the impartial judge of all we think, feel and do, and no one man or group is "told-off" to act as policeman. 5 - - I recently posted an answer to questions that Mr. Daniel Caldwell asked. These relate to the Eye and the Heart Doctrines. I will insert again those portions that seem to be relevant ========================================== " Dec 30th 1998 Dallas offers: In my esteem the Mahatmas in writing as they did, desired to distinguish between the SELFISH and the UNSELFISH "Paths" and those who follow those two schools - imbued with the motives and choices relative to those separate states of mind and personal "goals." There were at that time some confusions of opinion (and it apparently still persists, mainly because we are only able to perceive the EXTERNAL APPEARANCE of things and people, and are unable to see what their inner nature and motives are) as regards Tibetan sects - so it became necessary for the Mahatmas in writing Sinnett and Hume (and others) to draw those distinctions. They speak mainly about the inner motives. Applications can be made all around the world when we consider the motives that drive religious movements (especially the congregational ones: Judaism, Islam, Christianity). In addition to this are the motives of those who participate (and who does not ?) in "capitalism," "socialism," and various other forms of business and politics, where living conditions are enforced on vast masses of people. [ It should be noted that while the several sects of Buddhism encourage the monastic life for those who wish to adopt it, either for life, or for some shorter period (or periods), it is not congregational, any more than is Hinduism. Attendance at temples is purely voluntary and no one is under compulsion to attend. ] Essentially, to me, the ethical and moral implications of Theosophical philosophy and doctrine are more important than details. The "theory" is given at length in the "metaphysics" so that the practical applications to daily life by those who desire to improve their methods of living may be adopted. It is essential to recognized that there can be no final compulsive discipline. [ That would generate the "Eye Doctrine." ] Rites and rituals which lose their meaning arise from such compulsion in time. Better is time spent to offer explanations of the metaphysics, so that those who desire may see how their applications in daily life may be used by them. Of necessity, each one selects and determines for himself what those will be. [ This selection and use is the "Heart Doctrine." Every one of us builds his own as he lives. ] The "way out of this morass" is to first apprehend what are the basic concepts of continuing life": -- 1) the immortality of man's True Essence - his Spiritual Soul-Mind; 2) that this is not only man's condition but that there is a bond between every least component of Nature, taken as a whole. 3) the progress of all beings is evolutionary, is essentially one of a growth of intelligence and consciousness rather than merely a physical one. The physical always provides a base for the emotional and the mental planes of experience and growth. All "progress" is self-chosen. 4) Nature is lawful in its entirety; and impartial, universal and immutable LAWS prevail and pervade the whole of Nature in all its departments, of which Mankind is one. The Sciences prove and use this fact all the time. We depend on this for our continued physical life. 5) All evolution starts on the subtle planes of Spiritual nature, and concurrent with those, are the development of material forms. At this, our present stage, the two have merged. Consequently we perceive in our minds and feeling natures the conflict and uncertainty of the two divergent/convergent streams of development. It becomes our duty to resolve these in our own minds - by studying Nature and OURSELVES, and our capacities and potentials. Much more could be said, and in fact is said in Theosophical literature - such as emanated from the pen of HPB. It deserves correlation and close study in order to verify its accuracy. Such study has to be done individually. There can be no vicarious advance. No one can trust any conclusions except his own. The conclusions that are offered by many who are good thinkers need to be carefully reviewed, questioned, and checked by each "student" in this vast School of Life and living. We are so accustomed in our present culture to trust "authority" that it is rare to meet with those who insist on verifying all that they adopt and use. Authorities are usually found to offer shaky views for which they claim accuracy and often universality. Time and again these have been proven faulty. Humility and honesty demand that all opinions be carefully labeled, so that the naïve and the untutored are not misled. All through the writings of HPB one can find that she distinguishes between the "DOCTRINE OF THE EYE," and the "DOCTRINE OF THE HEART." The first is intense selfishness and isolation from the rest of Nature - even though this is quite impossible - it is an impossible attitude when forced to its logical conclusions. The second is found to harmonize with nature's ways of adjusting evolution in the widest possible sweep of view. It is brotherly, compassionate, considerate, merciful, forgiving, and yet demands that we as independent minds prove this each for themselves." I believe that this also answers your question about what is taught (in general) at ULT. It is THEOSOPHY as originally expressed in the writings of HPB and WQJ. All ULT work is centered around that and focused on the transmission of this "message" with as much purity as possible to those who will be following us. Let us not forget that "reincarnation" is a fact for all of us. We are those who lived, worked, studied and built in previous civilizations. And in the future we will be reincarnating in our descendents - so why not be "reasonable" and leave for our return a basis that we can contact and use with the least possible difficulty. It is clear that we ought to be working on ourselves and our study, so that we know whether Theosophy is accurate, true, reasonable, or is not. It is quite futile for us to try to perpetuate something in which we have no real confidence. Now, these are subjects on which many will have different views either wholly or partially. It is only fair if there is disagreement that further inquiry and questions be directed for our consideration. I will be glad to answer. In my opinion no one need spend time "defending themselves or their views." We are here to discuss Theosophy and to find out what are the principles that are valid and basic from which all practical derivations can be made. If de Puruker and Mr. J. Long (also Annie Besant and Leadbeater) write for Theosophy, clearly and based on the fundamentals of the original message, then no one will have anything but praise for their efforts. If however, they are found to deviate from the original presentation, they will have to do the necessary explaining to those who inquire about any differences of them. In regard to the writings of AB and CWL a valid comparison was made by Margaret Thomas ( THEOSOPHY OR NEO-THEOSOPHY) as early as 1924. It will be well for those who desire to know about the differences in doctrine to read this book. Of recent days, Mr. G. Farthing of England former General Secretary of the TS ] has been writing on the same subject and his notes and pamphlets ought to be secured and carefully read. To sum up briefly: In the writings of HPB and WQJ readers will find out what Theosophy is. In the writings of all subsequent writers (including myself) they will secure opinions that are either close or divergent from the original impulse. Each student has to study and make up his own mind on these things. With best wishes for this new year, Dallas > From: Martin Leiderman > Subject: Re: Questions for Rich, Jerry, Dallas et al concerning what the Mahatmas are talking about in their references about "Shammars", "Dugpas" etc. Dear Leon, You must be one of the great leaders of ULT since you can "root out" people from it as you wrote recently: > > "I have in the course of the last 20 years rooted out three such infiltrators > from the ULT lodges, one of whom had reached the state of "platform lecturer" > with a 15 year history as a "sincere" student. " > > > And also you wrote: > > "As an added note. Long after HPB and the Masters alerted us to them--before > the Dugpas came to America through England (with Crowley) and through Germany > (with Hitler)--it was the Christian "Dugpas" (or Jesuit dupes) who infiltrated > the theosophical movement through Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater and > introduced the false doctrines of "Liberal Catholicism" with a new, "reformed > theosophy" ritual magic (but not called so). . . Then, with the help of > another dupe, Alice Bailey, who channeled to DK, a Dugpa Master posing as the > teacher of M and KH--these pseudo Christian infiltrators enticed out all the > rest of the "Christ" conditioned gullible or greedy members of the original TS > by offering them a re-coming of the "world group" Messiah, as themselves, plus > a new form of ritual "magick" based on "invocations". As a support of this, > they downgraded the S.D. to the "kindergarten" preparation for the phoney DK's > pseudo magical "advanced teaching" in the "Treatise on Cosmic Fire". > > > What else do you teach at ULT. I know several people who go there (like > Dallas, and Wes) and I would like to know what other doctrines they are > exposed to. What is your opinion on G. de Purucker and James Long. I like his book Expanding Horizons which I am studying in Spanish. Are they in the same group of AB, CWL etc. Martin Leiderman in West Los Angeles, CA theos-talk@theosophy.com of From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 2 09:16:41 1999 Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 08:36:41 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Krishnamurti on CWL's Clairvoyance Message-ID: <368E2EF9.88BF02CC@eden.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3.0.3.32.19981229203649.012b3238@mail.eden.com> <368D0D9D.7AEB3642@lainet.com> <368D1BE4.534EC7D1@eden.com> <368DCC7D.FA50A6C9@lainet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Martin: The material I posted, I saw for the first time a couple of days ago. Hence it is very likely those in your lodge may not have seen and hopefully will be helpful. ...mkr BTW: There are 5 parts, and I mistated it as 4 parts. Martin Leiderman wrote: > Dear Ramadoss, > > Thanks for the 4 part post. > I will printed and give it to members of the Spanish Lodge here in LA that are > very fond of K. > > Martin Leiderman > in West Los Angeles From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 2 10:13:34 1999 Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 09:27:45 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Questions for Rich, Jerry, Dallas et al concerning what @@ the Mahatmas are talking about in their references about "Shammars", Message-ID: <368E3AF1.ED49768A@eden.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 "Dugpas" etc. References: <368DC935.7C54FF0B@lainet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Leon wrote: > "As an added note. Long after HPB and the Masters alerted us to them--before > the Dugpas came to America through England (with Crowley) and through Germany > (with Hitler)--it was the Christian "Dugpas" (or Jesuit dupes) who infiltrated > the theosophical movement through Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater and > introduced the false doctrines of "Liberal Catholicism" with a new, "reformed > theosophy" ritual magic (but not called so). . . Then, with the help of > another dupe, Alice Bailey, who channeled to DK, a Dugpa Master posing as the > teacher of M and KH--these pseudo Christian infiltrators enticed out all the > rest of the "Christ" conditioned gullible or greedy members of the original TS > by offering them a re-coming of the "world group" Messiah, as themselves, plus > a new form of ritual "magick" based on "invocations". As a support of this, > they downgraded the S.D. to the "kindergarten" preparation for the phoney DK's > pseudo magical "advanced teaching" in the "Treatise on Cosmic Fire". You are entitled to your conclusions. However one should not overlook the facts, especially regarding Besant and CWL. Whether one regards what they wrote and taught pass the litmus test of Theosophy or not, whether one likes them are not, thousands of people around the world were introduced to Theosophy by their works. If one comes to Theosophy and it makes a difference in their lives and the lives of those who come in contact with them, and lives the first Object -- Brotherhood /Sistehood/Siblinghood, to me, it is far more important than the details of Cosmogenesis and Anthrapogenesis. They served as signposts and all of us, including me, who were introduced to Theosophy are ever grateful -- as one of the Adepts told AP Sinnett -- Ingratitude is not one of their vices. My 0.02 mkr From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 2 11:13:32 1999 Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 11:59:02 EST From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Questions for Rich, Jerry, Dallas et al concerning what the M... Message-ID: <8fc5f848.368e5056@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-01-02 02:33:01 EST, you write: << Dear Leon, You must be one of the great leaders of ULT since you can "root out" people from it as you wrote recently: >> He must be a real terror in the potato fields, with all that rooting going on. Chuck From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 2 11:20:25 1999 Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 09:28:43 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Re: A Blavatsky Student Gives View on "Karmamudra"----More on Message-ID: <368E493A.1D6C3384@azstarnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 "karmamudra": READER BEWARE---THIS IS SOMEWHAT DISTASTEFUL AND POSSIBILY EVEN "X-RATED" TO SOME Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit SUBJECT: Re: A Blavatsky Student Gives View on "Karmamudra" More on "karmamudra": READER BEWARE!!! THIS IS SOMEWHAT DISTASTEFUL AND POSSIBLY EVEN "X-RATED" TO SOME READERS. PLEASE DO NOT READ IF EASILY OFFENDED. This is my reply to my correspondent who wrote the posting titled "A Blavatsky Student Gives View on 'Karmamudra'." Daniel ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------, This is in answer to your email. You ask about David Reigle's view on karmamudra. From numerous talks on the telephone, it is my understanding that he believes that there is a symbolic dimension to, for example, Tsong Kha Pa's writings on karmamudra. In other words, he doesn't take it literally. Part of his view is based, I believe, on much of what Madame Blavatsky writes throughout her writings on symbolism, etc. I sent David Reigle a gift copy of TSONGKHAPA'S SIX YOGAS OF NAROPA translated by Glenn Mullin. After reading this translation, especially on karmamudra (pp. 164-165), where Tongkhapa writes about "sexual play", and also writes: ". . . those wishing to engage physically in the sexual yoga should be qualified" and even writes about entering "into sexual union with this visualized consort [a mandala dakini]" and arousing "the four blisses", ---I take it that David considers this all as somehow symbolic. Also I believe he said that the original Tibetan does not use the word "sexual". This is an addition by Mullin probably based on what he has learned from his Gelugpa teachers. This seems to be David's "view" on the material. I'm hoping David will write something in his own words on this topic. Also related to this was David's comments that the term "wine" is used in the Kalachakra texts, but should we take this literally or should it be taken more symbolically as the term wine is used, for example, in the Sufi tradition? He also pointed out that human "reincarnation" into the animal kingdom is accepted literally by the Gelugpas, but would or should Theosophists or Blavatsky students ALSO accept this as literal truth? I have found in Blavatsky's writings a number of passages which I think are relevant (to some degree) to the literal or symbolic nature of "karmamudra". Here are two passages in THE COLLECTED WRITINGS: (1) Volume X, pp. 155-156 on Gichtel. I quote but one excerpt from two pages of HPB's text which should be read in its complete form: "From Marcus, the Gnostic, down to the last mystic student of the Kabala and Occultism, that which they called their 'Bride' was 'Occult Truth,' personified as a NAKED MAIDEN, otherwise called Sophia or Wisdom." Caps added. What is the term in the Buddhist Tantras for "Wisdom"? (2) Volume XII, pp. 558-559 from HPB's E.S. Instruction No. II. "Those who know the history of Simon have the two versions before them, that of White and of Black Magic, at their option, in the much talked of union of Simon with Helena, whom he called his Epinoia (Thought)." Was Helena "a beautiful and ACTUAL woman"? Caps added. Did Simon engage in "sexual union" with Helena? HPB answers these questions as follows: "Indeed, the chief rites of this kind of magic are based on such digusting LITERAL interpretation of noble myths. . . . Those who understood it CORRECTLY knew what was meant by 'Helena'. It was the marriage of Nous (Atma-Buddhi) with Manas. . . .Helena was the Sakti of the inner man, the female potency." Caps added. And HPB also writes in the SD (I, 381): "Such is the cosmic and ideal significance of this great symbol [the lotus] with the Eastern peoples. But, applied to practical and exoteric worship -- which had also its esoteric symbology -- the lotus became in time the carrier and container of a more terrestrial idea. No dogmatic religion has ever escaped the sexual element in it; and to this day it soils the moral beauty of the root idea. . . . It is the profane of the past ages who have degraded the pure ideal of cosmic creation into an emblem of mere human reproduction and sexual functions: it is the esoteric teachings, and the initiates of the Future, whose mission it is, and will be, to redeem and ennoble once more the primitive conception so sadly profaned by its crude and gross application to exoteric dogmas and personations by theological and ecclesiastical religionists. The silent worship of abstract or noumenal Nature, the only divine manifestation, is the one ennobling religion of Humanity." Keeping in mind what HPB writes above about the "lotus", compare that with what Agehananda Bharati, an authority on Tantra, writes in the context of "Buddhist tantric practice": "In Vajrayana practice today the preliminary exercises take up a much larger portion than sexual congress; in fact, the latter element is now often eliminated. . . . Where there is actual copulation, retention of semen is axiomatic: 'having brought down the *vajra* into the lotus, let him not eject the knowledge mind.' Such use of code or 'intentional language' is a feature shared by Hindu and Buddhist tantrism. It serves a key terminology for the initiates and as a means to screen the teachings from outsiders. 'Knowledge-mind' (bodhicitta), for example, is a code term for semen." So "lotus" and "vajra" are code terms for what?? And compare the above with what Daniel Cozort in HIGHEST YOGA TANTRA (based on Gelugpa tradition) writes: "This sexual union, real or imagined, causes the substance drop to appear at the tip of the sexual organ, but the drop is not emitted, being willfully held in place." So drop ("bindu" or "thig le") is a code term for ------? Having read and reread Cozort's book, I am amazed at its resemblance to various Hindu Hatha Yogic texts. Also compare the material in Cozort's book with what HPB writes in her three Esoteric Section Instructions. It seems to me that there is a world of difference in the two views. I'm certainly open to new data and facts and so will keep an open mind, but for the most part I prefer the symbolic approach. This seems to me much more in keeping with Blavatsky's and the Mahatmas' views. Also more in keeping with my understanding of mysticism and from my own mystical experiences. Sorry the above was written in haste and may be somewhat disjointed. Will be glad to fill in any blanks. Also would appreciate more input from you so as to CONTRAST your view with David Reigle's "take". Daniel From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 2 13:16:42 1999 Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 13:12:53 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Re: Questions for Rich, Jerry, Dallas et al concerning what the Mahatmas are talking about in their references about "Shammars", "Dugpas" etc. Message-ID: <001f01be367b$85061c00$4fcb37c0@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Since the above writer also seems to >agree they are "everywhere"--I don't "suspect", but actually KNOW (from first >hand experience), that they have already infiltrated into theosophical groups >and have shown up in theosophical lodges Leon, I suspect from your postings that you are one of their bosses. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 2 13:21:05 1999 Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 13:30:21 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Re: A Blavatsky Student Gives View on "Karmamudra"----More on "karmamudra": READER BEWARE---THIS IS SOMEWHAT DISTASTEFUL AND POSSIBILY EVEN "X-RATED" TO SOME Message-ID: <004001be367d$f6423aa0$4fcb37c0@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >What is the term in the Buddhist Tantras for "Wisdom"? > Usually it is jnana, which gives jnanamudra as "wisdom seal." >(2) Volume XII, pp. 558-559 from HPB's E.S. Instruction No. II. > >"Those who know the history of Simon have the two versions before them, >that of >White and of Black Magic, at their option, in the much talked of union >of Simon >with Helena, whom he called his Epinoia (Thought)." > >Was Helena "a beautiful and ACTUAL woman"? Caps added. > >Did Simon engage in "sexual union" with Helena? > Yes and yes. The Epinoia as a consort is pretty much what Cowley did with his Scarlet Women. >HPB answers these questions as follows: > >"Indeed, the chief rites of this kind of magic are based on such >digusting >LITERAL interpretation of noble myths. . . . Those who understood it >CORRECTLY >knew what was meant by 'Helena'. It was the marriage of Nous >(Atma-Buddhi) >with Manas. . . .Helena was the Sakti of the inner man, the female >potency." >Caps added. > Here I beleive she is correct. Even Tibetan Tantra implies multiple levels of meaning, and the physical interpretation is only one. >And HPB also writes in the SD (I, 381): > >"Such is the cosmic and ideal significance of this great symbol [the >lotus] with the Eastern peoples. But, applied to practical and exoteric >worship -- which had also its esoteric symbology -- the lotus became in >time the carrier and container of a more terrestrial idea. No dogmatic >religion has ever escaped the sexual element in it; and to this day it >soils the moral beauty of the root idea. . Here she is speaking out in a typical Victorian manner claiming that sex is a degeneration. Many historians would say that sex is the original interpretation, and spiritual meanings followed later. Insofar as the lotus is concerned, it is a symbol in the Jungian archetypal sense and thus must have multiple meanings. >So "lotus" and "vajra" are code terms for what?? > They are equivalent to yoni and lingum, ketis and phallus. They have an obvious physical reference but also mental and spiritual associations. >And compare the above with what Daniel Cozort in HIGHEST YOGA TANTRA >(based on >Gelugpa tradition) writes: > >"This sexual union, real or imagined, causes the substance drop to >appear at >the tip of the sexual organ, but the drop is not emitted, being >willfully held >in place." > >So drop ("bindu" or "thig le") is a code term for ------? > In Tibet, thig le means both compassion and semen It is the Tibetan for Bodicitta and sometomes bindu although bindu as "drop" can be either white (semen) or red (blood). >I'm certainly open to new data and facts and so will keep an open mind, >but for >the most part I prefer the symbolic approach. This seems to me much >more in >keeping with Blavatsky's and the Mahatmas' views. Also more in keeping >with my >understanding of mysticism and from my own mystical experiences. > According to Jung, you can't have one without the other. True archetypal symbols always have multiple and oppositional meanings which change over time and culture (the cat, for example, has been both deified and slain at various times). Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 2 14:18:24 1999 Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 13:08:00 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Re: -More on "karmamudra" == "Creation" and "polarity." How does Karma work ? Message-ID: <000101be3693$ffc2c700$9b0e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <368E493A.1D6C3384@azstarnet.com> nJan 2nd 1999 Dear friends: I find it amazing and distressing to note how much attention is being given to the exoteric speculations about the union of the male and the female in the last moth or so of exchanges. Why not let us all consult the S D and look up what HPB has to say about the primordial separation of the "sexes" their subsequent "unions," the result of which is our Kosmos - and then, see if this, as a process, is repeated for our little Cosmos: the Solar system, and finally for our "Earth" and all the beings that evolve on it. Every time we wake up, I think we can trace how we repeat the whole process in miniature, if we look for our memory of how we arouse ourselves to waking consciousness daily. Theosophy teaches that the spiritual soul in man and woman (ATMA-BUDDHI) has no "sex." It uses at each incarnation that kind of body where its Karma allows the best resolution of causes set up earlier in previous lives. So it is, after all, not very important whether we use male or female bodies, so long as we learn from the experience. The primary idea is, I think, that we are, each of us, immortals, and we are trying to assure ourselves of this fact, and then decide how to make use of it. In my opinion: This obsession with "sex" is a degradation of the great idea of unity that allows for, first duality, and then, the "multiplicity" that is needed for the "creation" of a fresh form for a returning immortal Ego to enter and use. All the "lower kingdoms" of nature participate in this process, and they do so under "natural impulse, unconsciously. WE are responsible in general for their training, and we ought to treat them as our "children," if we assume that responsibility. Our responsibilities as parents are important. Are these not to be considered ? How is it that we have become so interested in adventure and pleasure that we cease asking these vital questions ? What are we doing to each-other, to the rest of nature around us, and to our very real physical children when we generate them ? Why should we limit our inquiries to the ideas and illustrations of Tantrik texts that degrade and physicalize (and psychically debase) the grand idea of the family and connubial life? It is unfortunate that we seem, as a race, at this bend of the cycle, to be obsessed with the psychic enjoyment of "sex." Should this not be considered from its deeper aspects ? Who among us cares for the karmic results of promiscuity ? What kind of a future are we projecting for ourselves when we have finished with our short-lived physical "enjoyments?" Do we really think that Theosophy and Nature condones our ignorance and our very selfish obsessions ? What are the responsibilities that are incumbent on married life and the raising of children? But the consideration of this would require a long article, and this is long enough. Theosophy speaks of the TWO ONES: the transcendent and the immanent (SD I 130 top). The first, the ABSOLUTE can never be described by the personal lower mind of incarnated man, but it may be considered as a logical necessity - and THAT which is the Pervasive yet never to be limited LIVING BACKGROUND of all being [ the Ain-Soph of the Kabalist, the Parabrahmam of the Hindu, etc...]. Then when the never-dormant Karmic cycles demand that the Universe rise out of its Pralayic sleep (LONG AS THEY ARE, THEY ARE SUCCESSIVE) we are given an idea of the Creative ONE, on the most tenuous planes of the spiritual. Its ex-istence demands at that remotest point a refined SUBSTANCE - the first vestige of MATTER [Mulaprakriti -- Maha-Buddhi - Akasa and other names ] If that (central yet universal) Creative Point (in the Circle of limitations), is called the Logos, the Creator, the Prime Number, etc..., and given as designation the active "male" potency; then the MATTER which is associated with it [ Suddha-Sattwa Theosophical Glossary, p. 311) - primordial CONSCIOUSNESS or MAHAT ] is treated as the opposite "pole," and said to be the "female" potency (Vach-Speech, Isis, Lakshmi, etc....) Acting together as "husband and wife," these produce the Active Creator which becomes active on the next plane down of materiality - that of the Mind-Manas in its universal aspect named MAHAT. This Active Creator (the Second, or Creative Logos) working with its "mother" interacts with her to produce the 7 Sons - or "Creators," Rishis, Yogis, Manus, Sephiroth, Prajapatis, etc...) Thus we have the "Three in One." It is represented by described triangle embracing 3 planes in the SD I 200 diagram. Below it are the 7 that are in evolution. Ours in particular is "Globe D" the 4th or the "balance," the mediator between beginning and ending. Here is where we are and evolution is actively proceeding as we rise into the planes of the mind. Thus the "husband" (male potency) produces the wife (female potency), interacts with her and produces a son, and in turn at the lower level this 'son" interacts with its 'mother" to produce the 7 basic "creators of Kosmos." And this progression is repeated for every smaller Cosmos in the Universal manifestation, right down to the physical molecule and the "life-atoms" (Monads, skandhas, etc.) Thus if we look closely at the diagram of manifestation in SD I 200 we see the Spiritual Three, based on the transcended first Three. The next 4 planes provide the area where the 7 lower "creators," "races of mankind" "principles," etc... work and interact as each "life-atom (Monad) individualizes and becomes more and more a Mind-being. This is where we are. However, in my opinion, if we do not study this pattern and do not familiarize ourselves with the implications in our daily lives of the 7 principles of nature and of man, of Karma, and of the ultimate Goal or perfectibility or WISDOM and COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE of our Universe, we delay our own progress and understanding of this great program. And what is more, we delay that of others. We can become very learned about the ephemera of scholasticism and yet remain ignorant of the general purpose of our lives and of the rest of the Universe, and its progress. A sense of the importance of Brotherhood can cure this. I hope that these ideas may be of help in resolving this morass of opinions. Let's get a basis from which we can proceed and cease hurling quotations from various sources, Tibetan, Buddhistic, Chinese, Indian, etc... which make no sense unless the underlying patterns are known and employed. There is no way that metaphysics can be studied solely with the aid of materialistic interpretations that are not correlated with the metaphysical source from which they are derived. The esoteric keys that Theosophy offers, can do this, and these superficial and rather useless positions based on modern interpretations of ancient texts can be resolved if we make use of the information that Theosophy offers. That is basic to all (see SD I 272-3 Item "1") which is in all our hands, but which many of us seem to avoid getting familiar with so as to make actual applications of that information. The main problem (as I see it) is that we are selective in our considerations and we tend to reject or avoid such propositions as do not reflect our immediate interests, whether they be true or not. So we remain ignorant of the "other side" of the situation. I would recommend using the INDEX to the SD and review what is said in the SD on "creation," "sex," "male and female," etc... Best wishes, Dallas > From: Caldwell/Graye > Subject: Re: A Blavatsky Student Gives View on "Karmamudra"----More on "karmamudra": READER BEWARE---THIS IS SOMEWHAT DISTASTEFUL AND POSSIBILY EVEN "X-RATED" TO SOME > SUBJECT: Re: A Blavatsky Student Gives View on "Karmamudra" More on "karmamudra": READER BEWARE!!! THIS IS SOMEWHAT DISTASTEFUL AND POSSIBLY EVEN "X-RATED" TO SOME READERS. PLEASE DO NOT READ IF EASILY OFFENDED. This is my reply to my correspondent who wrote the posting titled "A Blavatsky Student Gives View on 'Karmamudra'." Daniel +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++ ------------, This is in answer to your email. You ask about David Reigle's view on karmamudra. From numerous talks on the telephone, it is my understanding that he believes that there is a symbolic dimension to, for example, Tsong Kha Pa's writings on karmamudra. In other words, he doesn't take it literally. Part of his view is based, I believe, on much of what Madame Blavatsky writes throughout her writings on symbolism, etc. I sent David Reigle a gift copy of TSONGKHAPA'S SIX YOGAS OF NAROPA translated by Glenn Mullin. After reading this translation, especially on karmamudra (pp. 164-165), where Tongkhapa writes about "sexual play", and also writes: ". . . those wishing to engage physically in the sexual yoga should be qualified" and even writes about entering "into sexual union with this visualized consort [a mandala dakini]" and arousing "the four blisses", ---I take it that David considers this all as somehow symbolic. Also I believe he said that the original Tibetan does not use the word "sexual". This is an addition by Mullin probably based on what he has learned from his Gelugpa teachers. This seems to be David's "view" on the material. I'm hoping David will write something in his own words on this topic. Also related to this was David's comments that the term "wine" is used in the Kalachakra texts, but should we take this literally or should it be taken more symbolically as the term wine is used, for example, in the Sufi tradition? He also pointed out that human "reincarnation" into the animal kingdom is accepted literally by the Gelugpas, but would or should Theosophists or Blavatsky students ALSO accept this as literal truth? I have found in Blavatsky's writings a number of passages which I think are relevant (to some degree) to the literal or symbolic nature of "karmamudra". Here are two passages in THE COLLECTED WRITINGS: (1) Volume X, pp. 155-156 on Gichtel. I quote but one excerpt from two pages of HPB's text which should be read in its complete form: "From Marcus, the Gnostic, down to the last mystic student of the Kabala and Occultism, that which they called their 'Bride' was 'Occult Truth,' personified as a NAKED MAIDEN, otherwise called Sophia or Wisdom." Caps added. What is the term in the Buddhist Tantras for "Wisdom"? (2) Volume XII, pp. 558-559 from HPB's E.S. Instruction No. II. "Those who know the history of Simon have the two versions before them, that of White and of Black Magic, at their option, in the much talked of union of Simon with Helena, whom he called his Epinoia (Thought)." Was Helena "a beautiful and ACTUAL woman"? Caps added. Did Simon engage in "sexual union" with Helena? HPB answers these questions as follows: "Indeed, the chief rites of this kind of magic are based on such digusting LITERAL interpretation of noble myths. . . . Those who understood it CORRECTLY knew what was meant by 'Helena'. It was the marriage of Nous (Atma-Buddhi) with Manas. . . .Helena was the Sakti of the inner man, the female potency." Caps added. And HPB also writes in the SD (I, 381): "Such is the cosmic and ideal significance of this great symbol [the lotus] with the Eastern peoples. But, applied to practical and exoteric worship -- which had also its esoteric symbology -- the lotus became in time the carrier and container of a more terrestrial idea. No dogmatic religion has ever escaped the sexual element in it; and to this day it soils the moral beauty of the root idea. . . . It is the profane of the past ages who have degraded the pure ideal of cosmic creation into an emblem of mere human reproduction and sexual functions: it is the esoteric teachings, and the initiates of the Future, whose mission it is, and will be, to redeem and ennoble once more the primitive conception so sadly profaned by its crude and gross application to exoteric dogmas and personations by theological and ecclesiastical religionists. The silent worship of abstract or noumenal Nature, the only divine manifestation, is the one ennobling religion of Humanity." Keeping in mind what HPB writes above about the "lotus", compare that with what Agehananda Bharati, an authority on Tantra, writes in the context of "Buddhist tantric practice": "In Vajrayana practice today the preliminary exercises take up a much larger portion than sexual congress; in fact, the latter element is now often eliminated. . . . Where there is actual copulation, retention of semen is axiomatic: 'having brought down the *vajra* into the lotus, let him not eject the knowledge mind.' Such use of code or 'intentional language' is a feature shared by Hindu and Buddhist tantrism. It serves a key terminology for the initiates and as a means to screen the teachings from outsiders. 'Knowledge-mind' (bodhicitta), for example, is a code term for semen." So "lotus" and "vajra" are code terms for what?? And compare the above with what Daniel Cozort in HIGHEST YOGA TANTRA (based on Gelugpa tradition) writes: "This sexual union, real or imagined, causes the substance drop to appear at the tip of the sexual organ, but the drop is not emitted, being willfully held in place." So drop ("bindu" or "thig le") is a code term for ------? Having read and reread Cozort's book, I am amazed at its resemblance to various Hindu Hatha Yogic texts. Also compare the material in Cozort's book with what HPB writes in her three Esoteric Section Instructions. It seems to me that there is a world of difference in the two views. I'm certainly open to new data and facts and so will keep an open mind, but for the most part I prefer the symbolic approach. This seems to me much more in keeping with Blavatsky's and the Mahatmas' views. Also more in keeping with my understanding of mysticism and from my own mystical experiences. Sorry the above was written in haste and may be somewhat disjointed. Will be glad to fill in any blanks. Also would appreciate more input from you so as to CONTRAST your view with David Reigle's "take". Daniel blafoun@azstarnet.com +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ theos-talk@theosophy.com of From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 2 22:14:56 1999 Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 22:04:06 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Sex and Spiritual Practices Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990102220406.011d83e0@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <006b01be34c7$f39de4a0$027d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" We had a lot of discussions on Karmamudra and thanks to everyone who brought various viewpoints on it. There are 1001 things in life and nature about which many do not know about, would it not be wonderful if we could find some one who has practiced Karmamudra (and any other related exercises/practices) hence could give us first hand feedback. This may lead to a better understanding as to what these are and what results can be expected. Till then all we can possibly do is to speculate and discuss second, third, ...nth hand. mkr From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 3 03:16:45 1999 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 03:36:09 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: Re: Questions for Rich, Jerry, Dallas et al concerning what the Mahatmas are talking about in their references about "Shammars", "Dugpas" etc. Message-ID: <2501559e.368f2bf9@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/2/99 7:33:01 AM, martinle@lainet.com wrote: >Dear Leon, >You must be one of the great leaders of ULT since you can "root out" people >from it as you wrote recently: > Thank you for the compliment. But, who said anything about teaching at ULT? I certainly didn't. You don't have to be a teacher in order to observe and learn, or act on your own knowledge and information.. >> "I have in the course of the last 20 years rooted out three such infiltrators >> from the ULT lodges, one of whom had reached the state of "platform >> lecturer" with a 15 year history as a "sincere" student. " >> You can take that as you wish. Even to burying your head in the sand and ignoring it, but I know what I know. If you are really interested and I could trust that you were a true theosophist with no axes to grind, I could give you the whole story, verbally, on how this "rooting out" took place, as well as confirmation by a number of other trustworthy theosophists. But you would have to come to see us in person. > And also you wrote: > >>"As an added note. Long after HPB and the Masters alerted us to them-- >>before the Dugpas came to America through England (with Crowley) and >>through Germany (with Hitler)--it was the Christian "Dugpas" (or Jesuit >>dupes) who infiltrated the theosophical movement through Annie Besant and >>Charles Leadbeater and introduced the false doctrines of "Liberal >>Catholicism" with a new, "reformed theosophy" ritual magic (but not called >>so). . . Then, with the help of another dupe, Alice Bailey, who channeled to >>DK, a Dugpa Master posing as the teacher of M and KH--these pseud >>Christian infiltrators enticed out all the rest of the "Christ" conditioned >>gullible or greedy members of the original TS by offering them a re-coming >>of the "world group" Messiah--as themselves, plus a new form >>of ritual "magick" based on "invocations". As a support of this, >>they downgraded the S.D. to the "kindergarten" in preparation for the phoney >>DK's pseudo magical "advanced teaching" in the "Treatise on Cosmic Fire". This, too, comes from long and deep study and analysis of the history of these people, their writings and their organizations, plus personal first hand experience of their inner workings during and after WW2. You can also take that as you wish. It was simply given out to awaken theosophists to the dangers they may be facing. "To be forewarned is to be forearmed". >> >> What else do you teach at ULT. I know several people who go there (like >> Dallas, and Wes) and I would like to know what other doctrines they are >> exposed to. None of that is "taught at ULT". All that anyone teaches at ULT is straight theosophy based on the teachings of HPB and WQJ. . . And nothing else. . . Unless someone is slyly using the platform or the classroom (as at least one has done in New York) to inject subtle proselytizing of and induce membership in exoteric religious sects. Most likely a Buddhist cult or sect, since the basic teachings of the Buddha, himself--(but not of its later cults, especially some Tibetan sects)--are entirely theosophical. Therefore, I wish to assure you and other inquirers, that not one word of what I have spoken about here--(solely for the benefit of new students listening in to this forum who might be misled by religious proselytizers presenting themselves as theosophists and possibly intending to discredit HPB and the Masters)--is taught at ULT. It was simply put forward in this forum only as a warning, since I have detected what I see as a stream of Tibetan Buddhist propaganda designed to justify certain Tantric practices and defend their practitioners, some of whom might be Dugpas--black magicians from Tibet and their followers--who are deadly enemies of theosophy, as HPB and her non- Tibetan Teachers have pointed out. If anyone doubts any of this, go check it out for yourselves, or forget it. If not, and you think there might be some truth in what I suspect, just take warning and be vigilant in determining the motives behind anyone using modern (after Buddha or Jesus) "exoteric" religious scripture to disprove theosophy, discredit its teachers, or proselytize an exoteric derivative religion. Only the "Ancient" esoteric religions are capable of confirming the validity of the theosophical teachings. Many of the modern Tibetan Buddhist scriptures have the same taints of self-serving priest craft distortions as the Christian Bible, and they have no credibility as foundations of theosophical teachings (other than the direct teachings of both Buddha and Jesus) which, come solely from the Secret Doctrine presented by HPB. Whether her teachings are right or wrong, however, each student has to check out and decide for himself. > >What is your opinion on G. de Purucker and James Long. I like his book >Expanding Horizons which I am studying in Spanish. Are they in the same >group of AB, CWL, etc. I have no opinion.--since I have not studied all their writings. As the Masters say, "you shall know them by their fruits". If they advocate practice of ritual magic or psychic phenomena for selfish reasons, personal power, or put their own spin on theosophy, etc., they may very well be in the same group. Or, they could be harmless theorists who think they have a clear interpretation of the theosophical cosmology or source of energy (as I have with my scientific field theory of ABC). All that really counts, is motive. So, it pays to inquire of any writer, what his motives are for saying what he says--before making any judgements.. I wish to state here catagorically, in reference to the ongoing discussion of Tibetan Buddhist practices, that I have no reason to qualify or prove anything I've said--that is simply being presented as theories, warnings or alerts--much of it based on my personal experience and long study of these matters. It's up to each student of theosophy to make up his own mind as to their truth or falsity through his own "self devised and self determined study and effort". But, I would be happy to answer or refer to the correct source any question asked by the sincere student searching for theosophical knowledge. Best wishes Leon From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 3 03:21:38 1999 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 02:00:25 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Some Quotations from Theosophical sources Message-ID: <000301be36ff$e3d1f220$a50e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jan 4th 1999- January 4th being the Theosophical New Year NEW YEAR HPB in writing in LUCIFER on the New Year said: "Let no one imagine that it is a mere fancy, the attaching of importance to the birth of the year. The astral life of the earth is young and strong between Christmas and Easter. Those who form their wishes now, will have added strength to fulfill them consistently." ...Let no one mistake the importance and potency of numbers--as symbols. Everything in the Universe was framed according to the eternal proportions and combinations of numbers. "God geometrizes," and numbers and numerals are the fundamental basis of all systems of mysticism, philosophy, and religion. The respective festivals of the year and their dates were all fixed according to the Sun--the "father of all calendars" and of the Zodiac, or the sun-god and the twelve great, but still minor gods..." HPB -- THE YEAR IS DEAD ULT - HPB Articles I p. 504 "The 3rd day of the month was sacred to Pallas Athene, the goddess of Wisdom; and January the 4th is the day of Mercury (Hermes, Buddha), who is credited with adding brains to the heads of those who are civil to him...December the 25th was the day of the birth of the sun for those who inhabited the Northern hemisphere..." ( - idem, p. 505 ) "According to our theosophical tenets, every man or woman is endowed, more or less, with a magnetic potentiality, which when helped by a sincere, and especially by an intense and indomitable will--is the most effective of magic levers placed by Nature in human hands--for woe as for weal. Let us then, theosophists, use that will to send a sincere greeting and a wish of good luck for the new Year to every living creature under the sun...Let us try and feel especially kind and forgiving to our foes and persecutors, honest or dishonest..." HPB "1890" LUCIFER, Jan 1890, Vol. 5., p. 357. ULT HPB Articles II, p. 495 "If, for generations we have "shut out the world from the Knowledge of our Knowledge," it is on account of its absolute unfitness; and if, notwithstanding proofs given, it still refuses yielding to evidence, then will we at the End of this cycle retire into solitude and our kingdom of silence once more...We have offered to exhume the primeval strata of man's being, his basic nature, and lay bare the wonderful complications or his inner Self...and demonstrate it scientifically...It is our mission to plunge and bring the pearls of Truth to the surface...For countless generations hath the adept builded a fane of imperishable rocks, a giant's Tower of Infinite Thought, wherein the Titan dwelt, and will yet, if need be, dwell alone, emerging from it but at the end of every cycle, to invite the elect of mankind to co-operate with him and help in his turn enlighten superstitious man. And we will go on in that periodical work of ours; we will not allow ourselves to be baffled in our philanthropic attempts until that day when the foundations of a new continent of thought are so firmly built that no amount of opposition and ignorant malice guided by the Brethren of the Shadow will be found to prevail." Mahatma Letters, p. 50-1 Transition Cycle "We are the bottom of a cycle and evidently in a transitory state, Plato divides the intellectual progress of the universe during every cycle into fertile and barren periods...We are in a barren period the eighteenth century during which the malignant fever of skepticism broke out so irrepressibly, has entailed unbelief as an hereditary disease upon the nineteenth. The divine intellect is veiled in man; his animal brain alone philosophizes." ISIS I 247 [WQJ I 211, LET 71-2, OCEAN 4, 50 55, 126, IS II 366-9] "...I told you long ago to expect many and great disturbances of all kinds as one cycle was closing and the other beginning its fateful activities. You already see in the seismological phenomena of late occurrence some of the proof; you will see a great many more and shortly..." M L 396 "The ultimate origin or beginning of man is not to be discovered, although we may know when and from where the men of this globe came from. Man never was not. If not on this globe, then on some other, he ever was, and will ever be in existence somewhere in the Cosmos. Ever perfecting and reaching up to the image of the Heavenly Man, he is always becoming." OCEAN p. 127 "The object of [the] amalgamation and precipitation is to give to every race the benefit of the progress and power of the whole derived from prior progress in other planets and systems...Nature never does her work in a hasty or undue fashion, but, by the sure method of mixture, precipitation, and separation, brings about the greatest perfection...Hence man did not spring from a single pair. Neither did he come from any tribe or family of monkey...7 races of men appeared simultaneously on the earth..." OCEAN p. 122-3 "...man came to this globe from another planet, though of course then a being of very great power before being completely enmeshed in matter, so the lower kingdoms came likewise in germ and type from other planets, and carry on their evolution step by step upward by the aid of man, who is, in all periods of manifestation, at the front of the wave of life...This is the point where the intelligent aid and interference from a mind or mass of minds is absolutely necessary. Such aid and interference was and is the fact, for nature unaided cannot do the work right...It is Man who does this. Not the man of the day, weak and ignorant as he is, but great souls, high and holy men of immense power, knowledge and wisdom...just as every man would now know he could become...Various names have been given to these beings now removed from our plane. They are the Dhyanis, the Creators, the Guides, the Great Spirits, and so on by many titles..." OCEAN p. 130-1 "These cycles, according to the Chaldean philosophy, do not embrace all mankind at one and the same time...the metaphysical views of Plato were based upon the strictest mathematical principles...(p. 7) geometry, of all sciences, the only one which proceeds from universals to particulars was precisely the method employed by Plato in his philosophy..." "...The sacred numbers of the universe in their esoteric combination solve the great problem (the cosmological theory of numerals which Pythagoras learned from the Egyptian hierophants, is alone able to reconcile the two units, matter and spirit...) and explain the theory of radiation and the cycle of the emanations. The lower orders before they develop into higher ones must emanate from the higher spiritual ones, and when arrived at the turning-point, be reabsorbed again into the infinite." ISIS I 6 - 7 From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 3 04:13:40 1999 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 04:20:33 EST From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: An Old un-Theosophical prejudice. Message-ID: <2939bae6.368f3661@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/2/99 8:18:26 PM, Dallas wrote: <> ---Very well put. <> This is a mistake that Dallas and many other Theosophists continually make. I am a LONG-TIME student of Tantric Buddhist texts, and they are really very little about sex. The Tantras (in Buddhism) that I am familiar with speak mostly of mantras, meditation, and visualizations of oneself as a fully Enlightened Buddha. An example follows. One begins a meditation session with various ways to purify oneself, such as reaffirming the bodhisattva vow, placing oneself under the care of the Buddha's of all time, and making homage to one's direct guru and one's lineage. "Impure" breaths and forces are expelled, while one imagines that one is breathing in the exhalations of a Buddha or bodhisattva figure. One makes offerings and vows for generosity, kindness, and the absence of various negative emotions. Then one begins to meditated by visualizing oneself as a cosmic Buddha. In one's right hand one may hold a vajra (diamond-thunder complex symbol) in the left a lotus (equally complex symbol), on one's head a sacred fire, or perhaps radiant mist. One has before one the Buddhist Scriptures, a choir of monks on the right, a choir of Enlightened laypeople on the left, complex images before and behind. One is to remain in the state of contemplative unity, complete absence of "self." Afterward, one may chant a sutra, particularly the Diamond Sutra or Metta (Kindness sutra), one thanks the Buddha and the guru for their kindness, and concludes by dedicating one's merit to all beings. This is the content of a typical Tantra. The text then spends most of its time explaining the complex symbolism of each and every piece of the ritual sitting. These are profound teachings, not sexual instructions or exhortations to physical pleasures. Let me reiterate: most Tantric texts do not mention sex, either to condone it or condemn it. What *is* this obsession? I am interested in Buddhist works, particularly Tibetan works, for the light they shed on HPB's sources, and for the light HPB's writings shed on Tibetan Buddhism. I think the two studied in combination are extremely helpful for many students, as HPB's teachings can explain otherwise opaque symbols and ideas in Buddhism, while Buddhist texts can round out the student's understanding of HPB's references, for instance karma, devachan (a Tibetan word, by the way, not Sanskrit), Avalokiteshvara, Amitabha, Tsong Kha Pa etc. etc. Knowing the native contexts of these difficult terms can be very, well -- enlightening. None of this is sexual. To call the Buddhist Tantras "sexual" is grossly unfair, probably brought on by the plethora of New Age (Westernized) books that use and abuse Tantras in this way. Again, I implore the list members to ACTUALLY INVESTIGATE the Buddhist Tantras now in print, and disabuse themselves of this old, very un- Theosophical prejudice. For starters, let me recommend INTRODUCTION TO TANTRA by Lama Yeshe by Wisdom Publications. Readers will be pleased to know there is simply nothing "sexual" in that book. It is all about meditative techniques to achieve and remain in the highest state of contemplation, called "Buddha Mind." If writers will *refuse* to actually educate themselvs, and yet continue to abuse Buddhist works and make charges, they place themselves in real jeopardy of hurting others, turning them from valid inquiry, while making themselves look like biased fools. Rich From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 3 15:17:36 1999 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 15:33:05 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: Re: Re: Questions for Rich, Jerry, Dallas et al concerning what the Mahatmas are talking about in their references about "Shammars", "Dugpas" etc. Message-ID: <40dc8fe2.368fd401@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/2/99 7:16:35 PM, Jerry S. wrote: >> Since the above writer also seems to >>agree they are "everywhere"--I don't "suspect", but actually KNOW (from >>first hand experience), that they have already infiltrated into theosophical >>groups and have shown up in theosophical lodges >> >Leon, I suspect from your postings that you are one of their bosses. Jerry, I'm almost sure from your postings that you are one of THEM. The words are out. We'll let the readers decide. LHM From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 3 15:22:23 1999 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 13:50:30 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: An Old un-Theosophical prejudice. == Prejudice ? On what basis ? Message-ID: <000401be3763$162d2560$b60e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <2939bae6.368f3661@aol.com> Jan 3rd 1999 Dear Rich: May I put it this way: I am sure that the Tantrik schools and their literature do not exclusively deal with "sex." 2nd. There are two broad divisions of those that follow their codes: the RIGHT HAND PATH (the "Dakshinacharyas" ) and the LEFT HAND PATH (the "Vamanacharyas" ). The Tantras are in effect anything of the "esoteric" that is made EXOTERIC. To that extent Theosophy may be classified among the Dakshinacharya texts. It has put into plain text, for all to read, some of the most fundamental teachings concerning our Evolution, processes of individual work and offers, as a result, for personal consideration a choice of "Goals". There is no question of "prejudice" here. As I see it: Prejudice arises only when one decides to accept ideas on the face value of the words in which they are expressed. This face-value consideration is what is called the "Eye-Doctrine." [ It the subject matter for academic studies and disputations - it is discursive rather than correlative. And, it glorifies the personality and its very limited ambitions - which are of transient value and perish with the death of the present body. This is how I would characterize this. ] The "Heart Doctrine" (as I see it) is the individual decision making process that guides the individual through the tests and pitfalls of life. It may be based on "Eye Doctrine" texts as a starting point, but then it becomes a matter of self-choice and individual selection. It emphasizes the concept of UNIVERSALITY; of the Individual Self -- being "one among many." The innate immortality of Man and the universality of Brotherhood, based on the common Source (SPIRIT) from which we have all emanated, are the next considerations. Those are NOT the concepts of the "Eye Doctrine" texts, (although they may recognize them, they refute them) nor does the study of those "selfish-oriented" Tantras promote a search for the inner ethical and moral application of universal truths and laws. In Theosophy (as I see it) we are seeking to understand how "immortals" deal with other "immortals." Both being "hidden" under the veils of matter. How do we bring out the innate universality in each one of us, and how do we assist in refining the "matter" with which those "veils" are made ? The problem is not that the Immortal HIGHER SELF within is at loggerheads with other "HIGHER SELVES", but rather, that the "veils" with which it is surrounded (our personality - created by our Karmic past choices) has mistakenly assumed that it (and not the HIGHER SELF) is the most important thing. However there is a cautionary note that is raised for all who study Theosophy, or any other philosophy, and ancient or modern glosses and commentaries. It is the question of MOTIVE. Is the text offered altruistic, or is it not - does it concern itself with the betterment of mankind and with the advancement of all "creatures" in it, or does it not ? This is where karma is made based on our perception and choices. This is where argument and disputation arises. That, as I see it is the sum and substance of the whole matter, but I also recognize that others may see or phrase it differently. Dallas From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 3 18:13:54 1999 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 18:40:44 EST From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Questions for Rich, Jerry, Dallas et al concerning what the M... Message-ID: <48d27885.368ffffc@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-01-03 16:17:37 EST, you write: << Jerry, I'm almost sure from your postings that you are one of THEM. >> Well, Jerry, is it true? Do you have one of those cool, red hats hidden away in the back room? What I really want to know is whether or not the Dugpas still use those neat little decoder rings for their astral messages. Chuck From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 3 18:18:16 1999 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 18:27:08 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: An Old un-Theosophical prejudice. Message-ID: <6dc70b45.368ffccc@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/3/99 10:13:29 AM, Rich wrote: >To call the Buddhist Tantras "sexual" is grossly unfair, probably brought on >by the plethora of New Age (Westernized) books that use and abuse Tantras in >this way. Again, I implore the list members to ACTUALLY INVESTIGATE the >Buddhist Tantras now in print, and disabuse themselves of this old, very un- >Theosophical prejudice. For starters, let me recommend INTRODUCTION TO TANTRA >by Lama Yeshe by Wisdom Publications. Readers will be pleased to know there >is simply nothing "sexual" in that book. It is all about meditative >techniques to achieve and remain in the highest state of contemplation, called >"Buddha Mind." > >If writers will *refuse* to actually educate themselvs, and yet continue to >abuse Buddhist works and make charges, they place themselves in real jeopardy >of hurting others, turning them from valid inquiry, while making themselves >look like biased fools. Please understand that what you take as apparently contra Tantra arguments have not been against the concepts of Tantra teaching per se--which is as you say, for the most part, simply ritual meditative techniques to achieve the laudable state of Bodhicitta mind--but was specifically referring to the practices of "sexual" Tantra teachings that are, in a sense, ritual magic designed primarily for the Tulku reincarnations of high lamas, as well as misused as a means to raise Kundalini for purposes of gaining magical powers, extreme sensory gratifications, or selfish and immoral usages harmful to others. These latter applications are typically used by the "black magicians" which HPB called Dugpas. These Dugpas are the enemies of theosophy as well as of the Masters, and they can sometimes be recognized by their inadvertent admission of the use or approval of such Sexual (or "karmamudra" as they call them) Tantra practices. The only reason this subject was brought up (by this writer, at least.) was, as useful information about the real purpose of such teachings in Tibet--(in the face of the apparent misinformation first posted)--in order to expose their extreme dangers as a practice for untrained experimenters, as well as a warning or awareness-alert to new theosophy students who might be misled by such "Dugpas" or their apologists (dupes) who pose as knowledgeable theosophists. I hope this clears up your pique against those of us who have shown our annoyance at some of this sexual Tantra talk along with Tibetan Buddhist proselytizing in what should be a discussion group devoted to the further clarification of the theosophical teachings. Also forgive me, Rich, if what I have quoted from HPB about "ignorant Lamas" has hurt your feelings. Between you and me, I am well aware of the vows an "initiated" Tibetan Buddhist must take to protect their Lama-Guru and their Lineage--since some of my best friends (and my former wife :-) are Buddhists. :) LHM From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 3 23:17:23 1999 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 23:18:02 EST From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Re: Re: An Old un-Theosophical prejudice. Message-ID: <4472d231.369040fa@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/4/99 12:18:02 AM, Leon wrote: <> This is quite true. But then, the Tibetan instructions for ALL Tantras are very explicit, whether relating to so-called "karmamudra" or not. Tantric rituals are not for the uninitiated, nor for the beginner nor even the educated. Tantric practices have generally been reserved for the most extremely gifted Buddhist practitioners, chosen by trained masters, after many, many years of "mundane" (Mahayana) Buddhist practice. I myself will never in this lifetime, I suspect, be worthy of such advanced instruction, which is why I merely repeat what I have learned of Tantras from my academic education as well as my interaction with lamas and practitioners in the Tibetan community. <> I definitely don't have hurt feelings over comments in this arena. I think Blavatsky, as usual, is quite right: most Tibetan lamas ARE ignorant. To be entitled to the designation "lama" one has only to successfully complete the standard 3-year, 3-month retreat led by a Buddhist master. The title "lama" is merely an honorific, and is held by many people, including several thousand individuals who are held to be (major and minor) "incarnations" of preceding personalities. So "lama" is not a high or rare designation. At the same time, HPB herself recognized the power and authority of such high lamas as the Panchen (Teshu/Tashi) Lama and the Dalai Lama. You will find that when I quote from Tibetan teachers and texts, my quotes are from highly educated, and usually profoundly spiritual, Tibetan scholars and leaders. I do not repeat the gossip I hear from Tibetan friends and dilettantes. Lastly, I am very disappointed to see the name-calling going on in this forum. Disagreements are natural, and for my part civil debate is always welcome, especially if the goal is to explore and clarify the teachings of Theosophy as reported by HPB. Also, I think it *is* wise to bring up the fact that selfish, materialistic forces exist in our world which would seek to betray Theosophy and undermine humanity's progress towards its great and distant goal. Calling each other Dugpas, however, even in jest, seems to me to play more into the hands of such forces than to uphold the Brotherhood and unity which stems from the first fundamental proposition in the Secret Doctrine, and the First Object of the Theosophical Movement. These ideals are FIRST for a reason. I certainly hope the accusations and "flaming" emails will cease. Rich From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 4 15:57:34 1999 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:32:43 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Questions for Rich, Jerry, Dallas et al concerning what the M... Message-ID: <003201be3829$c4af7400$0b7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ><< Jerry, I'm almost sure from your postings that you are one of THEM. >> > >Well, Jerry, is it true? Do you have one of those cool, red hats hidden away >in the back room? > Damn. Leon found me out. >What I really want to know is whether or not the Dugpas still use those neat >little decoder rings for their astral messages. > >Chuck > Yeah, thats the main reason I joined. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 4 16:06:06 1999 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:37:44 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: An Old un-Theosophical prejudice. Message-ID: <003701be382a$77b22ca0$0b7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > These Dugpas are the enemies of theosophy as well as >of the Masters, and they can sometimes be recognized by their inadvertent >admission of the use or approval of such Sexual (or "karmamudra" as they call >them) Tantra practices. > The idea expressed here by Leon is exactly the fallacy of HPB's going too far in her good vs evil diatribes. We get so wrapped up in looking under our beds for enemies that we fail to understand the message of compassion or what it can do. HPB would probably turn over in her grave if she read the above nonsense, but after all, its mostly her fault (no, she wasn't perfect, but this, I think, was probably her gravest error). Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 4 16:34:00 1999 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 16:55:55 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Paranoid Theosophists? Message-ID: <004401be382d$02127380$0b7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Lastly, I am very disappointed to see the name-calling going on in this forum. >Disagreements are natural, and for my part civil debate is always welcome, >especially if the goal is to explore and clarify the teachings of Theosophy as >reported by HPB Rich, you are probably referring to me Leon and myself here. One of the problems with discussions on the internet is that after a long and detailed discussion of some subject, a newcomer enters who begins it all over again. I am, to be sure, tired of the constant arguments over good and evil, ethics and morality, etc that I have endured on this listserve. I blame it on HPB herself, who acted out of need in her puritanical world. I am still appalled by the blinders-on black-white good-evil worldviews of so many otherwise good and sincere Theosophists who should know better in today's world. Oh well. I have given up on Leon, and now just respond in humor. I have no bad feelings toward anyone (nor do you, I am sure) over any topic discussed. Its not a personal thing, but rather I find myself at times responding emotionally to an outdated if not downright pathological (according to modern psychology such black and white worldviews are distinctive of borderline personality disorders) worldview that as Theosophists I would hope we had all outgrown. And the outright fear and disgust at the subject of sex by today's Theosophist is enough to have Freud turn in his grave and most of today's psychologists would equate this with paranoia. Under such conditions, having any kind of mature discussion on such topics is impossible. Theosophists read ad infinum about love and compassion, but it seems to me that many have very narrow views that border on neurosis. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 4 16:58:54 1999 Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 11:51:26 +1300 From: "John Vorstermans" Subject: Re: An Old un-Theosophical prejudice. Message-ID: <369145EE.E130EADD@actrix.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6dc70b45.368ffccc@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > These Dugpas are the enemies of theosophy as well as of the Masters .. Rather a sad phrase. I consider myself a theosophist or student of the wisdom tradition but would never call anyone an "enemy". Certainly there are aspects one can dislike about a personality or a soul can even get so totally lost in an incarnation that the personality almost completely takes over.... but always there is the hope that they will find their way eventually. We also need to recognise that there are lessons in everyone's path and therefore to judge anyone simply because of one life is unwise. To gain true wisdom we often need to fall into the deepest crevices, slowly climb out to the mountain peak to only fall again. All roads lead to Nirvana. John From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 4 19:34:23 1999 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 18:15:43 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <000201be3851$4cc46b80$af0e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <003701be382a$77b22ca0$0b7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Jan 4th 1999 Dear Jerry: Again, allow me to say that I think none of us are qualified to criticize HPB or the Masters. You and I may have opinions. But we do not have certainty. Or do you, and if so from where ? When any of us will have the ability to write a SECRET DOCTRINE, or even a KEY TO THEOSOPHY, we might arrogate to ourselves the right to voice a question or an opinion direct to her on matters that we find confusing in her life-work. Personally I do not think that any one of us has such a right and I would ask you to advance any proof, other than your unsupported opinion about her competence. Has anyone proved that she "made mistakes?" Or has "misled" anyone ? I can understand your being annoyed at the constant reference to her name by me and some others who reverence her. But that is our problem and not yours. What is a fact is: that without her and her work, we would not have THEOSOPHY. As such I believe that respect is due to her, especially as she is not here to defend herself. Again I say that it is not courageous to criticize those who are unable to defend themselves. I somehow do not believe that you desire to ally yourself with that category of person. By all means put forth your suspicions and doubts. But why not frame them as questions? What is it exactly that you suspect or doubt? This gives others a chance to respond with those details you may not be aware of. Have you, for instance, read "SHE BEING DEATH YET SPEAKETH ?" It is a report of a lecture that Jasper Niemand delivered at the T S in New York on the occasion of WHITE LOTUS DAY in 1892 - the first anniversary of HPB's death. It consists of extracts from HPB's letters. It was printed in PATH for June, July and August 1892. In the ULT Edition of "HPB's Collected Articles," it is in Vol. 1, p. 115 -123. [ It is also available through " http://www.blavatsky.net " for reading or as a download. ]. There HPB lets you read her innermost thought about Theosophy, the T S, Masters, and the future of the T S - also her problems, work and the faults she finds in her own performance. Reference to the extracts of such letters is what I mean when I ask you for any "proof" of what you assert. Dallas From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 4 20:14:15 1999 Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 21:03:20 -0500 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <369172E8.6C8AB1C7@sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000201be3851$4cc46b80$af0e97cf@netway.nwc.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: > Again, allow me to say that I think none of us are qualified to > criticize HPB or the Masters. > > You and I may have opinions. But we do not have certainty. Or > do you, and if so from where ? Did Blavatsky have certainty? Did the Masters have certainty? > When any of us will have the ability to write a SECRET DOCTRINE, > or even a KEY TO THEOSOPHY, we might arrogate to ourselves the > right to voice a question or an opinion direct to her on matters > that we find confusing in her life-work. We have the shoulders of giants on which to stand. Bart Lidofsky From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 4 20:29:18 1999 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:14:07 -0000 From: "Al Wilkinson" Subject: Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <002e01be3851$144623c0$b4b959c3@alan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dallas Writes: >When any of us will have the ability to write a SECRET DOCTRINE, >or even a KEY TO THEOSOPHY, we might arrogate to ourselves the >right to voice a question or an opinion direct to her on matters >that we find confusing in her life-work. That sounds like good advice. But a lot of slander has been placed upon Aliester Crowley and surley non of us could write Magick Book 4 or the Equinox. Isn't it at all possable that H.P.B. could've been wrong in a few places (I wouldn't know which) and that some people could point out those errors? Just musing, Alan From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 4 20:59:06 1999 Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 20:52:06 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990104205206.0078e1c8@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <002e01be3851$144623c0$b4b959c3@alan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:14 AM 1/5/1999 -0000, Al wrote: >But a lot of slander has been placed upon >Aliester Crowley and surley non of us could write Magick Book 4 or the >Equinox. Crowley used to refer to Krishnamurti as "nigger". Each one of us can come to our own conclusion regarding Crowley. mkr From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 4 21:44:26 1999 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 20:30:02 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <000201be3864$0ff126e0$ab0e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <369172E8.6C8AB1C7@sprynet.com> Dec 4th 1999 Dallas offers: In answer to the question of HPB's and Masters' "certainty." I would unhesitatingly state that in my opinion they had that to an extent that we are not able to guess at or evaluate. WE are not Their peers. Again I take the SECRET DOCTRINE as my base. Who among us could correlate the ancient religions and philosophies, or trace the history of our world as they have? Who amongst can trace the secret esotericism of those ancients and make it visible and available to us so as to form a consecutive and correlated doctrine ? The past century has seen far more confirmation of HPB's statements than they have of criticism . Some of the greatest minds among us, past and present have used her ideas and visions for their progression. Has HPB made mistakes - find out where she speaks of those and what she has to say concerning them. Try reading her 'MY BOOKS" for example or "SHE BEING DEAD YET SPEAKETH," of "WHY I DO NOT RETURN TO INDIA." [ Sources: ULT "HPB Articles," Vol. I p. 475, 115, 106. ] All three of these speak to that subject. Look up her letters to Mr. A.P.Sinnett and those of the Masters if you wish to have the material to establish a base of understanding her nature, and the difficulties she encountered and surpassed. This work has to be done individually and none of us can afford to adopt the opinions of others who have written after she passed away and had no means of defending herself against. Note well that many have tried to attack her in the matter of her personal life, and have not succeeded. As regards her statements concerning philosophy, religion, and their common source none has so far with any success contradicted those statements. Details of a small caliber, possibly proof-reader's errors, or the errors of well-intentioned but ignorant assistants, have been detected, but nothing of any substantial nature has been attributed directly to her pen, nor have they impaired the coherency of the philosophy of Theosophy which she delivered as a "message" from the Masters for us to consider. Has this philosophy been well studied ? Let those who are concerned answer. Dallas From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 4 21:59:59 1999 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 03:51:46 -0000 From: "Al Wilkinson" Subject: A person and his teachings/character/life Message-ID: <005701be385e$b81f68a0$b4b959c3@alan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MKR Said: >Crowley used to refer to Krishnamurti as "nigger". Each one of us can come >to our own conclusion regarding Crowley.<< This is a main concern for me. I was referring to his teachings. Should a person's remarks reflect upon their teaching's and spiritual progress? Can't we seperate the two? Some things that I find in theosophy I find in Crowley - is he to be classed as 'evil' because of his sometimes stupidity or his ritual magick? The only reason I'm asking is that Crowley and the O.T.O. present some serious hurdles which often deflect me from where I thought I was heading: this is happening now and it is a real concern. Alan From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 4 23:29:07 1999 Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 15:51:04 +1000 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: That Damn Gag Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990105155104.0089f430@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >From Intiations and Initiates in Tibet , Alexandra David Neel p21-22 : "Amongst the guardians of mystic traditions it is fitting to mention the line of the Kahyudpas, the sect of the "lineal transmission of orders or precepts". Its spiritual ancestors are two Hindus, Tilopa of Bengal and Narota of Kasmir, both of whom lived about the tenth century. It is uncertain who taught Tilopa the 'dam ngag' which was subsequently imported into Tibet by a disciple of Narota, the Lama Marpa. Instead of a probable narrative we have nothing but a legend which is largely symbolical (see 'With Mystics and Magicians in Tibet p167). In addition to his fantastic initiation by a Dakini, the Tibetans believe that he was instructed by the mythical Dordje Chang, or even that he was an emanation of this latter. The same thing is said of the Lama Marpa who, as we have just stated, introduced the teachings of Narota into Tibet. In his turn, Marpa communicated this dam ngag to the famous ascetic, the poet Milarespa (11th century) who imparted it to his disciple Tagpo Lhadje (Dwagpo Lhardje). Later on the line divided into six sects and sub-sects, the two most important of which are the Karma Kahgyud and the Dugpa Kahgyud. The former, whose name is generally abridged to that of Karmapas, constitute one of the most important sects of the "Red Caps". Theot chief abode, the residence of one of the spiritual descendants of Tilopa, is at Tolung Tsurpug, in the mountains, to the west of Lhasa. As regards the Dugpa Kahgyuds, some authors have utterly mistaken their character by looking upon the term as indictaing a sorceror who practises a terrible form of black magic. Dug (written hbrug) signifies Thunder. the Dugpa sect, comprising those of the Centre and the South, dates from the twelth century. It was founded by a disciple of Tagpo Lhadje, the Lama Chodje Tsangpa Gyarespa, sometimes called Tulku Pasgam Wangpo. Tradition states that when this latter began to build the monastery of Ralung, a violent storm suddenly arose. looking upon this incident as an omen, the Lama gave the name of "Thunder" to the new monastery. the monks who took up their quarters there, and subsequently all belonging to the same sect, were called "Those of the Thunder" (dugpas). The monks of the Dug-Ralung became famous for their learning. They preached theit doctrine in Bhutan and there set up monasteries. This caused the district to be called Dug yul (The Land of Thunder), the name still given to it by its inhabitants and the Tibetans. Thus we see that Dugpa applies alike to the natives of bhutan and to the followers of one of the sub-sects of the Kahgyudpas. This is not a sect of "Black Magicians" whose doctrine is "dugpism", as I have heard it called by certain foreigners. Indeed, the three principal Lamaist sects now existing: the Gelugspas ("yellow caps"), the Kahgyudpas (including the Dugpas), and the Sakyapas (the two latter being "red caps" - all have one common spiritual ancestor in the Hindu Philosopher Atisha" From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 5 01:12:35 1999 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:07:23 EST From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <3e2b55c6.3691ba2b@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/5/99 1:34:22 AM, Dallas wrote to Jerry: <> I realize that Dallas's message is to Jerry, so probably it is none of my business. But as it was posted on the public forum, I can't refrain from responding. If the above quote were in fact the operating principle of the Theosopical Movement today, and not just Dallas's personal stance, *I would quit today.* The idea that one may not "voice a question or an opinion" unless one can produce a work like The Secret Doctrine is preposterous. This is setting up a church, with a choir of believers who fall right into line, singing the praises of the Christ-figure. Let me state, clearly for all readers, that I am not interested in the Church of Theosophy. Further, I should be terrified if the above quote ever became the prevailing attitude among Theosophical students. Dallas further writes, <> I realize that the preceding stream of discussion on Gelugpas, Nyingmapas, Tibetan Buddhism, Karmamudra, etc., has been long and tiresome, especially for those without extensive Buddhist background. However, I and several others have time and again brought forward "proofs" (in the form of modern scholarship, as well as quotes from the ORIGINAL texts by the likes to Tsong Kha Pa and dharma-heirs) that, if she is TAKEN LITERALLY, Blavatsky appears to be wrong on not one, but several points relating to Tibetan Buddhism. That has been the burdern of the entire preceding month or more of discussion. The fact that HPB might have been wrong about those points (and this isn't yet clear in my mind, since I suspect I may misunderstand her) does *NOT* invalidate all of Theosophy, or make HPB a fool or a dreamer. It indicates that she, or her sources, or some aspect of their communication to us, erred. <> Neither Jerry nor I nor anyone else on this forum, I think, is "annoyed" by the constant reference to HPB's name. This is, for goodness' sake, a THEOSOPHICAL discussion list. What *is* annoying, however, are the regular attempts by several participants to use quotes from HPB to *terminate* discussion. Quotes from HPB which illuminate the discussions at hand are extremely valuable. Quotes which purport to show that certain participants are Dugpas, or that everyone should give up modern scholarship and just worship HPB, are useless and a real turn-off. <> This is perhaps the greatest fallacy I've heard on this list, and the most dangerous, and here it is: to criticize something Blavatsky WROTE is to criticize her as a person, a spiritual giant, a leader, a pioneer, one who sacrificed her health, freedom, and good name to give us a spiritual life worth living in the West. To criticize any single statement Blavatsky is, to whit, to turn one's back on her and betray the entire movement. What illogical nonsense. Why is it so impossible to conceive of the idea that one with REVERENCE for HPB might also investigate her work and find disagreements, confusions, typographical errors, and errors of fact? I will go out on a long limb here and say that, if HPB were to witness the discussion on this list, I think she would find those who seek truth at all costs, even against the mass of conservative Theosophy-types, are truly the courageous ones. Those who are willing to forgo the establishment, to think for themselves, to study the same texts that HPB claims to have studies, to risk one's good Theosophical name and the friendships that come out of being "orthodox" and "cooperative" -- these are the courageous ones, and I think HPB would applaud. (She would probably also kick our butts for being so stupid as to miss the obvious meanings in her work which explain our current dilemmas.) There are certainly Theosophists who are content to read Blavatsky's works, and read them again, and read them again, and read them again, and read them again. I will not (here) criticize such a method of work. If it seems valuable to a person, then so be it. There are other "Methods of Theosophical Work," (an article by William Q. Judge), which in my mind are equally legitimate, if not more so. This is to attempt to give oneself a Theosophical education by reading HPB, then learning about what she refers to as parallel movements to Theosophy in history (Mahayana Buddhism, Gnosticism, Vedantic Hinduism, Kabbala, Tibetan Tantra). Then comparing those source with HPB's teachings again. Then, using intellect and intuition, trying to grasp a larger portion of the perennial philosophy (of which HPB is only an aspect) than hitherto grasped. Taken together with meditation on certain "root texts" like The Voice of the Silence, one may get a very good understanding of not only Blavatsky's teachings, but the sweep and scope of the last 5,000 years of human spiritual endeavor. It is a wider, deeper course of study than most Theosophical centers can provide, and it also confers the benefit on the student of beings able to PROVE the accuracy of HPB's teachings by reference to dozens of other authors and spiritual texts in history (and not just quotes from her). This method may not appeal to all, or even many. But I question the right of others to criticize this method. One may say this latter method risks becoming wrapped up in the Eye Doctrine. But one may respond that the former method (basically memorization) risks becoming wrapped up in fundamentalism and ignorance of everything beyond the purview of HPB's words. Rich From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 5 02:57:36 1999 Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 00:51:59 -0800 From: "Martin Leiderman" Subject: To Leon in brotherhood, I hope Message-ID: <3691D2A8.BEB6964C@lainet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2501559e.368f2bf9@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "Be humble if thou wouldst attain to Wisdom. Be humbler still, when Wisdom thou has mastered. Be like the Ocean which receives all streams and rivers. The Ocean’s mighty calm remains unmoved; It feels them not … The way to final freedom is within the SELF." The Voice of the Silence Leon, Thanks for your response. I take your post the way that comes out of your keyboard. Dallas, you see, the ‘rooting out’ was not bad rhetoric by Leon, but a fact that took place. We are all humans. And things like that happens in every organization. Leon, I see you as a sincere person with lots of unconscious anger (probably towards Besant, CWL, AAB, and others). One, whose anger has turned into resentments which has turned into a neuroses. A person whose mind, as a normal process, generated a defense mechanism by making up a ‘Dugpa’ conspiracy theory. And now with the added mission ? evoking the Hero or World Savior Archetype- to ‘uproot’ from ULT and attack in this list anyone who does not conform to your own expectation of what theosophy or the Theosophical Society should be. That is my naked opinion. Influence by nobody but your writings. And yes this is the karma I got by reading your comments. For me Theosophy is beyond HPB, WQJ, etc.; since Theosophy is much older than those wonderful individuals; and Theosophy, like Life is larger than the books we read and treasure. Besides HPB, and the M. L. , I study AB, CWL, Tingley (her book: Theosophy: The Path of the Mystic is one of my dearest one) , GDP, and others, I read AAB if I please to do so without any guilt, and without fear. And I have found something good and useful in all. And … I have nothing to hide about it. If people choose to follow Theosophy according to the vision of Besant, Judge, Crosbie or any other way, so be it. We do not need judges to dispense judgment about it. I see the same type of individuals, no better no worse in all 3 theosophical organizations, or in Meditation Mountain in Ojai, and with the same philosophical, artistic, scientific, religious, and mystical needs and quests. Each of them will find a way to express their soul-call, whether in a study group, in a music school, in LCC, in hatha yoga, bakti yoga, un-yoga or with the guru of their choice like shuchabanana or another. It does not matter. They all good, unless they cause misery and suffering to others, unless they go about their life insulting other groups similar to his/her. I have been called Mara by some Hare Krishnas and Satan by some Christians and probably Dugpa by you now. It is the same thing, it is the same fanaticism, it is the same person(ality). The enemy are not those people in search of Divine-Wisdom in any form, but is always within. In me and in you. The heresies are the same. Krishnamurti gives a lot of inside in this. But I would like to see the evidence since you invited me to see you. I live in sunny Los Angeles, and you? But it should be more than "saw someone inviting someone to a church meeting, or to a home to read AAB, and so on." Now tell me this: Has WQJ, or Mr. Crosbie ever said that Besant was being used by the Dugpa? If yes, where? This is only for more theosophical history knowledge which you seem to have a lot. ================================================ Changing the subject to a more constructive note: ================================================ On the other hand, the reason I dwell on this is other than to attack Leon; but a more profound quest on the practical aspects of Theosophy. I strongly believe that Theosophy offers a set of tools, and teachings that empowers the person to work out psychological traumas, complexes, neuroses, and any other barrier (like defense mechanisms) that keeps us from realizing higher state of consciousness. Dallas in couple posts has written about this (which I misplaced due to the enormous amount of emails). And I plan to follow up with comments and suggestions to be used in our daily life. After reading Plato, I believe that friendship and brotherhood means to share the best in us. What works and what does not work in creating understanding. But on the other hand, if Theosophy does not offer any practical side dealing with our conscious or unconscious make up (but a set of theoretical facts about the Kosmos we lived in) , then people has no other option but to look for that help in modern psychologists (like Freudians, Jungian, and many other bright individuals like Ken Wilber, etc) or exoteric religious practices. I would like to see discussions on these tools and techniques that Theosophy offers to fulfill our destiny, like in the quote from the Voice: "Be like the Ocean which receives all streams and rivers. The Ocean’s mighty calm remains unmoved…" ============================================================================ Sorry if I insulted any of you, besides Leon, who insulted me. (yeah, yeah, I know, I'm very human, with a big personality, but I'm like that at home, at work, and at the Spanish Lodge where I am the President (yes, yeah, yeah, I know what you are going to say about that too, so save your words) , and trying to improve a bit daily. I also hope that near future generation of theosophists may go beyond the "Dugpas conspiracies" and accept every theosophist 's choices of sources of inspiration and study without a frontal brutal attack. With great hope in Theosophy at the reach of all, Martin Leiderman in the sunny part of West Los Angeles From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 5 04:57:41 1999 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 05:52:05 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: Paranoid Theosophists? Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/4/99 10:34:02 PM, Jerry S wrote: (Rich) >>Lastly, I am very disappointed to see the name-calling going on in thisforum. >>Disagreements are natural, and for my part civil debate is always welcome, >>especially if the goal is to explore and clarify the teachings of Theosophy >>as reported by HPB I agree with this. But, as yet I haven't heard one serious theosophical idea presented in this debate. All I heard was criticism of HPB and the Teachers with no valid counter arguments or alternative ideas presented logically or from valid esoteric sources. > >Rich, you are probably referring to me Leon and myself here. One of the >problems with discussions on the internet is that after a long and detailed >discussion of some subject, a newcomer enters who begins it all over >again. I am, to be sure, tired of the constant arguments over good and >evil, ethics and morality, etc that I have endured on this listserve. I >blame it on HPB herself, who acted out of need in her puritanical world. I am >still appalled by the blinders-on black-white good-evil worldviews of >so many otherwise good and sincere Theosophists who should know >better in today's world. Oh well. I have given up on Leon, and now >just respond in humor. I have no bad feelings toward anyone (nor do you, >I am sure) over any topic discussed. Its not a personal thing, but rather >I find myself at times responding emotionally to an outdated if not >downright pathological (according to modern psychology such black >and white worldviews are distinctive of borderline personality disorders) >worldview that as Theosophists I would hope we had all outgrown. And >the outright fear and disgust at the subject of sex by today's Theosophist >is enough to have Freud turn in his grave and most of today's >psychologists would equate this with paranoia. Under such conditions, >having any kind of mature discussion on such topics is impossible. >Theosophists read ad infinum about love and compassion, but it seems >to me that many have very narrow views that border on neurosis. As for this cop out. . . The circle is now complete. The one who started the name calling and now the one who professes to end it--goes on and on without let up. What better way to defend oneself (even from an imaginary attack) than to call the opposer (or is it "exposer"?) crazy. . . And, of course, prove by this, HPB's observation--(ref: the "Freudian slip", "me Leon and myself")--that one who criticizes another is usually exposing his own faults and foibles. (Don't you know paranoia usually accompanies schizophrenia?:-). . . At the same time, this also gives credence to my original point--that the aim of this Tantra Sex "debate" (started by J.S., to be precise) was motivated solely to "put the blame on Mame". :-) If not, why is that always the bottom line (at least from that side of the debate)? Incidentally, I am no newcomer in this particular discussion (nor in many other more scientific and reasoned forums concerning the nature of consciousness and matter, which is also a concern of theosophy) but have been "watching" here since long before it was introduced (by you know who). And I never would have entered it if I didn't hear some wrong remarks about Sexual Tantra, as well as unfounded attacks against theosophy. (Attacks later directed at me, personally, for pointing out the errors) I can stand a reasoned argument to disprove a statement or an opinion I put forth, but a bald "nonsense" without a valid counter argument, and thereby, implying the writer is a fool, deserves whatever it gets back. I enjoy a good sparring match, whether on a personal or an intellectual level. And certainly, if no one wants to listen in they can always take your advice and trash these letters. (BTW, why didn't you, as you said you would?) It also shouldn't stop anyone from continuing their debates (so long as they keep personal digs out of it--even to the dead ones.:-) Seriously, though, What makes you think my observations about Dugpas have anything to do with you personally, and why would my, as well as HPB's discussion about the dangers and real untheosophical purposes of Sexual Tantra have any reference to our (lumped together with "today's theosophists") "puritanism" (whatever that means)--or that we have any "fear and disgust at the subject of Sex"? What has sex per se, got to do with commenting on "dangerous ritual sexual practices"? And where did you hear me (or HPB for that matter) speaking about "ethics" or "morality" in relation to comments about Tantra?. So, it's apparent that your comments, steeped in inuendo and personal attacks, are the most prejudicial and anti-theosophical remarks ever heard in a supposedly theosophical discussion by a supposed theosophist (in spite of your claim to be responding with humor). So, the "proof of the pudding is in the eating", as they say, and as we all now can see, "the shoe fits". Since you insist on continuing these personal attacks, you can see that I don't mind joining in the fun and "calling a spade a spade". The real joke here is the pot calling the kettle black.and in the processes putting its foot in its mouth. So, if you want to continue your "debate" without interruption, watch what you say publicly about other people, including dead ones who can't defend themselves. Best regards, Leon From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 5 07:57:35 1999 Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 07:50:35 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: A person and his teachings/character/life Message-ID: <369218AB.EDBEE6EB@eden.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <005701be385e$b81f68a0$b4b959c3@alan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Your point is well taken. However, it is very degrading to anyone to call another human being as a "nigger". If someone finds his writings helpful, then it is upto that person to come to his/her conclusions. However, the additional piece of information might help to keep the person's attitudes in perspective. mkr Al wrote: > MKR Said: > > >Crowley used to refer to Krishnamurti as "nigger". Each one of us can come > >to our own conclusion regarding Crowley.<< > > This is a main concern for me. I was referring to his teachings. Should a > person's remarks reflect upon their teaching's and spiritual progress? Can't > we seperate the two? Some things that I find in theosophy I find in > Crowley - is he to be classed as 'evil' because of his sometimes stupidity > or his ritual magick? > > The only reason I'm asking is that Crowley and the O.T.O. present some > serious hurdles which often deflect me from where I thought I was heading: > this is happening now and it is a real concern. From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 5 10:28:32 1999 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 09:18:20 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: To Leon in brotherhood, - WHAT ARE TH TOOLS THAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO US ? Message-ID: <000301be38cf$675bae80$9d0e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <3691D2A8.BEB6964C@lainet.com> Jan 5th 1999 Dear Martin: I am very little concerned about the wanderings of the mind of individuals. If one concentrates on what Theosophy has to teach we are not led astray by opinions. However we have the duty of defending calumniated reputations, if we would be true to the Sources of our knowledge. Knowledge, if also WISE, defends itself, and needs no advocates, only exponents. WE owe Theosophy to HPB and to the Masters who stood behind her, and whom she called the WISE - members of the Great Brotherhood of good-will to mankind. (see SD I 207-210) As far as I am concerned Theosophy has been introduced to me by Judge and HPB - consequently I owe then a debt of deep gratitude. Behind them stand the Masters and the Great Lodge. We all owe Them the gratitude and respect which their achievements and sacrifice for us imply. I agree (if I understand you correctly) that Theosophy is to be considered a record of the History of the Ages and of the many adepts and devotees (chelas) who have verified the great LAW as it operates in the many departments of Nature. ( SD I 272-3) In this process they, we, all of us, are to be perceived as a united whole, in spite of the many apparently divergent paths we choose for our personal selves in each day, each life, etc... we all reconverge together in the final analysis. While I can understand the modern psychology as described by such chosen "authorities" as Freud, Jung, Adler, Maslow, Jones, etc.... When I compare it (modern psychological conclusions) to the "wholeness" of the Theosophical concept (which includes the spiritual and the Manasic as immortal but immaterial beings -- who are the actual support of our temporary being) I see that it concerns itself largely with the description and account of the PERSONALITY, i.e.: Lower Manas enveloped in the clouds of Kama, as it is presently to be met in each of us. When our modern psychologists have perceived the IMMORTAL BEING which is the CAUSE of the personality, then we will have some real progress. If they can adopt the concept that Theosophy offers of the Spiritual being the actual source of all things, I mean ATMA, BUDDHI, and MANAS ). But, I can also see that if such modern psychologists begin speaking of the "Spiritual" they will soon be ostracized as "fools" by the majority of their "peers." To me it is not important as to "who" wrote what. It is however important to make sure that what is written is reasonable. As I see it we are all in that position. But few have the courage to say it clearly and openly. Are we able to bear the isolation that may result from adopting an "unpopular" position and declaring it openly, soliciting others to investigate it? Any learning process is a testing process. The selection of "trustworthy authorities" is dangerous unless one has gone through the process of testing each statement with the logic of wholeness. Any time one "accepts" without verification is a danger point. We do not actually know, but we are trusting the say-so of some other. For example, when one sits in a University and studies for a doctorate, are we not verifying the accuracy of earlier conclusions ? It is not only the leaning of the scholarly process, but also a testing of whether or not we have the strength and independence to stand on our own academic work and declare clearly and honestly what we have discovered ? We learn there that "Unity is strength." But, is it to be the continued unity of the blind or of those who "see ?" Obviously, if it is the "blind" who review individual work and have the power to "grant a degree" is misused to deny honest scholarship the position one has earned. It is the "appliers" alone, and not the "system" that ought to be blamed. This is also true in "Societies," and other bodies which serve to "recognize" scholarly work. [ See for instance the current controversy between geologists and Egyptologists on the antiquity of the Sphinx. ] I am sure that to progress in Theosophy it is incumbent on each one of us to ask constantly - How does this fresh statement mesh with others ? Does the jig-saw puzzle (or mosaic) of thought, philosophy, psychology, etc... make up a WHOLE, or is it somewhere, somehow, an attempt to put square pegs into round holes, etc... -- and demand in spite of all logic that they be "fitted" simply because of the "authority" of the claimant (which has to be defended at all costs even in the face of truth and honesty.)? I have said that we owe to HPB and the Masters who stood behind her the entire exposition that we now study as THEOSOPHY. Are we making Theosophy ours ? Or do we regard it as a kind of pastiche, a collage of statements that we have some respect for, but have not verified. Interiorly, we may have an intuition: "That is true," But in our personal minds we remain unsure, and perhaps we are afraid to verify, because some cherished thing that we "like" will have to be altered ? Above all: Are we prepared to live our lives ethically and morally on the basis of the philosophy of the Buddha, and of Theosophy ? In what way would a "theosophical life" diverge from an honest, sincere, diligent, and compassionate life ? And if we make mental distinctions between those "idealisms," then what are they ,and why? Obviously such questions and answers are personal to us only and cannot be of use to anyone else. This kind of self-analysis will reveal what is our actual nature - that which is private to us, and unknown by others. It provides us (as INDIVIDUALITIES) with a view of what the "Lower Mind," which we use in our embodied waking existence, actually is in its ethical nature. What does the "Looking at it" do for our own self-evaluation ? It is the HIGHER, THE IMMORTAL MANAS, linked to Atma and to (and a part of) the Divine Three-In-One our own MONAD that alone can perform such a survey. Students in these posts ask what is "practical Theosophy. It is basically securing in this life a true knowledge of our active Lower Manas and its motives. We then, as practical psychologists (and each of us is such a one, like it or not) set about amending our "ambassador" - the Lower Mind. Here is (as I see it) where the real "battle" is. It is the determination of what the "ambassador - Lower Mind" shall say or do in physical life on behalf of the HIGHER MIND which is the source of its ex-istence. And this is not easy to see. The very fact that we can conceive of such a bifurcation implies that it is a fact and we are able to perceive and handle it. [ The BHAGAVAD GITA is full of this kind of self-analysis if we assume that Krishna is our HIGHER SELF, and Arjuna is the best aspect of the Lower Manas - that which aspires to become one with , and actor and the active chooser as the ambassador of the HIGHER SELF in personal life. ] When I write of my vision of the great "pilgrimage" of the immortal Soul (Manas), this is what I have in mind. But why should anyone consider this to be important until they have proved or disproved the validity of the statement ? We are all inherently IMMORTALS. Our "School" is the World and our Universe. Our progress is by self-choice. Law is immutable and covers all things, past, present, and future. Unity is in Spirit, not in the constructs of matter. Human progress is through reincarnation. Final Perfection is a Goal for all Beings, including ourselves. Finally, the greatest assistance we can provide to the growth of intelligence in Nature is to apply our acquired wisdom to help others. Everyone (I mean the lower Mind) wants a "shortcut." And with great unanimity we/they adopt what they "like" instead of what is valid on an eternal basis. What are the "virtues?" Why are they so designated ? Where do they lead us ? Are they really at odds with our likes and dislikes? And if so why ? These are questions and points we al need to resolve for ourselves. Theosophy provides us with the metaphysics, the philosophy of living, and the mental and moral tools to do our own study, prove our independent value to ourselves and then progress on a "path" which we see more clearly and therefore are able to choose with accuracy - and thus develop our own future. The so-called "virtues" are expressions of the practice of LAWFULNESS in daily life. No more, no less. In general we (as personalities) are obsessed by our own mortality and a fear of "death." We do not perceive it as "sleep" because it is most difficult for the Lower Mind to perceive that while its "name" may be lost, it actually continues in the virtues and character that it has developed and uses now for its constant work of adapting its choices to the Universal and the Eternal. This is the important concept it is able to develop now with this in mind. We do not fear sleep. We are not conscious of the billions of "little-lives" atoms, molecules and cells that enter, are developed and used in our bodies (not only physical, but emotional, mental, and psychical), and then they leave us. If we are wounded and bleed, we do not sense the "despair" (if any) of those blood cells that leaving us, are doomed to death while they help to staunch the blood-flow and thus preserve life for the greater being? Physiologist who study the human physical structure tell us that the body renews itself internally and imperceptibly almost entirely each year. Yet, our consciousness as a, a MIND, does not alter much - considering the things we have thought over and adopted or rejected in that interval. Theosophy states that the "personality renews itself entirely every 7 years. In that marvelous article THE ELIXIR OF LIFE this process is explained, and applied to a life where spiritual aspiration - self-induced and self-applied makes enormous moral changes in the individual constitution of the "personality." The "permanent astral" reflects this change and the adopting in a practical way of the virtues that are so well explained in THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE. Best wishes, as always, Dallas From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 5 15:57:39 1999 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:39:01 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <001801be38f3$cfaecb60$0d7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Dear Jerry: > >Again, allow me to say that I think none of us are qualified to >criticize HPB or the Masters. Dallas, although I know you mean well here, this is just another way of saying that none of us are qualified to think for ourselves. Sorry, but I don't agree with this automaton approach. I do criticize her on occasion, but not very often. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 5 16:02:56 1999 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:35:53 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Paraniod Theosophists Message-ID: <000d01be38f3$5ff2ab20$0d7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Several years ago I presented my ideas on ethics and morals on this list (as well as on theos-l) and was received by more flames than even I had anticipated. More recently I mentioned the karmamudra and sex, and have stirred up yet another hornet's nest. Many Theosophists resist my views on right and wrong and on sex, and would rather dismiss both topics as unfit subjects for discussion. OK, so why did I bring them up here? It is not, as some may think, just to stir up trouble, nor is it just for fun. There was, I have to admit, a method to my madness. To briefly discuss my reasons, let me remove my Theosophy Hat and put on my Psychology Hat instead. I have two Ph.D.s both focusing on Jungian psychology, and I am also a licensed professional counselor (LPC) so I feel like I have at least some authority to wear such a hat once in awhile. Most people have at least heard of Jung's individuation process. Few know what it entails. Primarily it is a maturing process for the psyche which grows and matures much like the body. It really has relevance only during the second half of life (after 35 or 40 years). It has many stages, but only four main ones. It is the first two that I would like to briefly discuss. The first main stage is coming to terms with the Shadow, an archetype that holds everything we hate, fear, and despise. We tend to build up a persona that reflects how we want to be, and place everything we don't like in the Shadow. The Shadow determines how we view good and evil. When we dream, we act and think without the persona, and for this reason I have stated that our dreams serve as our spiritual barometer. As the contents of our Shadow are brought out into consciousness, we gradually realize that good and evil really only exist in our minds, and that they seem to be out in the external world only because of our psychic projection. After the Shadow is assimilated, we will no longer see other people as good or evil. The world and its inhabitants will be seen rather as shades of grey. The second developmental task is confrontation and assimilation of the anima/animus. This archetype determines how we view sex in any and all of its characteristics and expressions. It is also the chief cause of psychic projection. When assimilated we no longer need to project our inner feelings and emotions outward onto people and events. We will, instead, be able to see the world as it really is without distortion by our personal worldview (this is also the goal of many yogic and Buddhist meditation exercises). Let me give two examples of such projections. When I mention sex on this list, I get feedback implying that I am a Black Magician. When I mention that good and evil are psychic "value tones" that don't exist anywhere in the world except in the human mind, I am accused of being a Black Magician. Even mentioning sex in terms of Buddhism as part of the second Objective brings out hatred and fear by some. Now, if those who oppose these two ideas and choose not to enter into any discussion of them are under 35 or 40 years, then that is OK and I respect their personal choice. However, if these folks are over 40, then they have a serious psychological problem and should consider counseling or therapy. To avoid facing these two issues during the second half of life leads to what is called "pathological aging." Only by facing them and coming to terms with them can we hope for "successful aging" (this was the subject of my second dissertation, so I feel that I know at least something about this subject). Of course we can always fall back on the rationalization that Theosophy is not psychology and keep on avoiding issues that we consider too unpleasant or too disgusting to talk about. But I have to wonder if Theosophy and psychology are really all that far apart (certainly Theosophy goes much farther, but a healthy ego, like a healthy body, is something that even a Theosophist can use). Now I am removing my Psychology Hat and replacing my Theosophy Hat. We are all divine sparks and exactly identical consciousness-centers, and I love all of you. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 5 16:12:38 1999 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:54:32 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: A person and his teachings/character/life Message-ID: <002d01be38f5$fafbc6e0$0d7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >The only reason I'm asking is that Crowley and the O.T.O. present some >serious hurdles which often deflect me from where I thought I was heading: >this is happening now and it is a real concern. > >Alan In what way? Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 5 16:17:28 1999 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:52:40 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <002401be38f5$b85d0740$0d7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Crowley used to refer to Krishnamurti as "nigger". Each one of us can come >to our own conclusion regarding Crowley. > >mkr > Doss, Crowley, like most of us (HPB included) was a product of his time. The word wasn't such a perjoritive in those days and we do, after all, need to forgive because we see relationships from a higher plane today. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 5 16:27:21 1999 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 16:49:14 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <001b01be38f5$3d87b740$0d7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >I can understand your being annoyed at the constant reference to >her name by me and some others who reverence her. But that is >our problem and not yours. > I respect her. You revere her. I think that this is the essential difference between us. >By all means put forth your suspicions and doubts. But why not >frame them as questions? What is it exactly that you suspect or >doubt? This gives others a chance to respond with those details >you may not be aware of. Well, as a matter of fact, Dallas, this is exactly what I thought I was doing. I have only said that she was plain "wrong" in a few instances that I am relatively certain are typos. All other times I simply differ in opinion, and I have always tried to make that clear. Her teaching on sex (the need for celibacy and chastity) is not "wrong." It is a valid approach to take, and one that I simply disagree with personally. I would ask, for example, how sexual relations could possibly make any difference in one's spirituality? In fact, I believed we have all discussed this before. I used to be a convinced Episcopal. Then I became a convinced Christian Scientist. Then a convinced yogi. Then a convinced Tantrist. Then a convinced Theosophist. If life has taught me anything at all it is to always hold fast to doubt and to think for yourself. I have vowed to never be a convinced anything. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 5 17:24:59 1999 Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 09:56:08 +1000 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: An Old un-Theosophical prejudice. Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990106095608.007bcd90@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <369145EE.E130EADD@actrix.co.nz> References: <6dc70b45.368ffccc@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" If anybody as an enemy of Theosophy it is any group or individual that preaches the opposite doctrines ie a group that says we are all not one and that there are chosen or special people......I wonder who that could be.... Flame Me Flame Me my Friend I'm not the only one......... At 11:51 AM 1/5/99 +1300, you wrote: > > >> These Dugpas are the enemies of theosophy as well as of the Masters .. > >Rather a sad phrase. I consider myself a theosophist or student of the >wisdom tradition but would never call anyone an "enemy". Certainly >there are aspects one can dislike about a personality or a soul can >even get so totally lost in an incarnation that the personality almost >completely takes over.... but always there is the hope that they will >find their way eventually. > >We also need to recognise that there are lessons in everyone's path and >therefore to judge anyone simply because of one life is unwise. To gain >true >wisdom we often need to fall into the deepest crevices, slowly climb out >to the mountain peak to only fall again. > >All roads lead to Nirvana. > >John > > > > From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 5 17:40:07 1999 Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 23:38:52 -0000 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: RE: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <000701be3904$8cfb89a0$0f084ad4@bazzer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <002401be38f5$b85d0740$0d7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> > >Crowley used to refer to Krishnamurti as "nigger". Each one of > us can come to our own conclusion regarding Crowley. Crowley's legacy to Humanity amounts to zero. > Doss, Crowley, like most of us (HPB included) was a product of his > time. The word wasn't such a perjoritive in those days and we > do, after all, need to forgive because we see relationships from a higher > plane today. Do we really see relationships from a "higher plane" today? Have you seen the TV advertisements, soap opera's and afternoon chat shows recently? Are we not full to the brim with worship of personality and appearance? Is the subtle deception/dishonesty of political correctness (read: you may think what you like providing you *say* what *we* like) a question of relationships from a "higher plane"? Best wishes, Paul From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 5 20:55:06 1999 Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 21:46:40 -0500 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: A person and his teachings/character/life Message-ID: <3692CE90.62B5550E@sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <005701be385e$b81f68a0$b4b959c3@alan> <369218AB.EDBEE6EB@eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit M K Ramadoss wrote: > > Your point is well taken. However, it is very degrading to anyone to call > another human being as a "nigger". If someone finds his writings helpful, then > it is upto that person to come to his/her conclusions. However, the additional > piece of information might help to keep the person's attitudes in perspective. It is today. Was it as much so in the 1920's? Bart Lidofsky From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 5 22:57:45 1999 Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 22:50:23 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990105225023.01105904@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <002401be38f5$b85d0740$0d7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 04:52 PM 1/5/1999 -0500, Jerry Schueler wrote: >>Crowley used to refer to Krishnamurti as "nigger". Each one of us can come >>to our own conclusion regarding Crowley. >> >>mkr >> > > >Doss, Crowley, like most of us (HPB included) was a product of his >time. The word wasn't such a perjoritive in those days and we >do, after all, need to forgive because we see relationships from a higher >plane today. > >Jerry S. Jerry, Agreed. Everybody is to be forgiven for everything in the long run. What else one could do? But facts are facts and should not be ignored, IMHO. mkr From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 6 07:09:57 1999 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 05:27:47 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <000401be3978$59774500$ad0e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <001b01be38f5$3d87b740$0d7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Jan 6th 1999 Dear Jerry: Thanks and understood. As far as I am concerned I would say that the "groups" we affiliate ourselves to from time to time do not reflect what "we" are inherently. We are always "ourselves." We are the ones who "decide," and grow or retrogress depending on the decisions we implement. If we live for ourselves, we are to that extent "selfish." If we seek to assist others -in any way - we are to that extent unselfish. I have always thought it very important to discover who and what I am. What do I learn, How do I understand ? Am I independent, or dependent ? etc... What are "ideals ?" and if found how are they to be applied ? Our "affiliations" in our lives, are chosen for various reasons, but our own nature is handled only by us. Best wishes to you, Dal ========================================== From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 6 07:18:14 1999 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 05:27:57 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <000a01be3978$5fb7eaa0$ad0e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <001801be38f3$cfaecb60$0d7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Jan 6th 1999 Dear Jerry: Not at all - the logic doesn't work. Our freedom of thought cannot be taken away from us. The fact that we may see differently implies not only independence but also the freedom to think as we believe it is valuable to do so. No amount of "lip-service" will change this. A "slave" like Epictetus is bound by the rules of his servitude. He may philosophize, or be may rebel like Spartacus did and cause his followers unnamable pain - the choice is always individual, no matter what are the circumstances. If you discuss HPB then make a balance between petty details of possible proof-reading error and the general PHILOSOPHY of Theosophy that she advanced - making no special claim for herself. The selflessness is alone a power which we can all aspire to. Respect for a duty performed by another (HPB) as no one else so far (that we know of) has been able to do ought to help us keep that balance. That is how I see it. Dal > From: Jerry Schueler > Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 1:39 PM > Subject: Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? >Dear Jerry: > >Again, allow me to say that I think none of us are qualified to >criticize HPB or the Masters. Dallas, although I know you mean well here, this is just another way of saying that none of us are qualified to think for ourselves. Sorry, but I don't agree with this automaton approach. I do criticize her on occasion, but not very often. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 6 07:24:58 1999 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 05:27:54 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Re: Paranoid Theosophists Message-ID: <000501be3978$5dfbe2c0$ad0e97cf@netway.nwc.net> In-Reply-To: <000d01be38f3$5ff2ab20$0d7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Dear Jerry: I read what you write concerning your studies and achievements. Very good. Now of the various schools of psychology you have studied and worked at, which has the greatest value ? Is it the analysis of the "personality" -- the "Lower self" as it is called in theosophy, or is it the more comprehensive approach that includes all aspects of LIFE --from the incomprehensible ABSOLUTENESS down to the purely selfish and "one-life" material existence? Which has fundamentally more power and also more peace and harmlessness -- the hard isolation of selfishness rooted in a fear of "death ?" or that which sees the Universe as "embodied consciousness" and a range of potential growth (through self-effort) which every single entity can achieve, each for themselves, with full independence and a full range of understanding that encompasses eventually every other being without disturbing it? I have often asked myself these questions and am still searching for answers, while speaking and writing of what seem to be useful to us all. Dallas From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 6 09:13:19 1999 Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 07:06:52 -0800 From: "Eldon B Tucker" Subject: Fwd: Request for assistance (from an non-subscriber) Message-Id: <199901061507.JAA19602@pippin.imagiware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi. If anyone has any information that might be helpful, perhaps they could post it to the list and cc: Susan Eshelman? -- Eldon >From: Susan Eshelman >Reply-To: "seshelman@jstream.com" >To: "'review@theosophy.com'" >Subject: Request for assistance >Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:23:15 -0800 >Organization: J-Stream >X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 >Encoding: 23 TEXT > >Greetings, > >I have long been interested in Theosophy, and wish I had the time at >present to become involved with the on-line community. But, work presses >hard these days. I write to ask for your assistance, perhaps via the >listserv group. I'm trying to determine if there is a Theosophical source >for a poem known as "Brahma", which refers to the "Red Slayer". The >passage: > >If the red slayer thinks he slays >Or the slain thinks he is slain >he knows not well the way in which >I turn and pass and come again. > > >If you or any of yours can assist in identifying this passage, I'd be very >grateful. > >Kind regards, > >Susan Eshelman > >seshelman@jstream.com > From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 6 12:42:41 1999 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:55:53 -0000 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: RE: An Old un-Theosophical prejudice. Message-ID: <000001be399d$cd6d65a0$39084ad4@bazzer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990106095608.007bcd90@ozemail.com.au> > >All roads lead to Nirvana. No. Some lead to "hell" (state, not place). Nirvana is temporary. Best wishes, P. From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 6 15:53:00 1999 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:31:00 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <001001be39bb$dc1fed20$167d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >> >Crowley used to refer to Krishnamurti as "nigger". Each one of >> us can come to our own conclusion regarding Crowley. > >Crowley's legacy to Humanity amounts to zero. > Like him or not, this is not a true statement. His OTO has as many or more members than the TS and his influence in virtually all of today's magical and occult schools is enormous. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 6 15:58:03 1999 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 16:37:11 EST From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Re: Fwd: Request for assistance (from an non-subscriber) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/6/99 3:13:47 PM, Susan Eshelman wrote: I'm trying to determine if there is a Theosophical source >for a poem known as "Brahma", which refers to the "Red Slayer". The >passage: If the red slayer thinks he slays >Or the slain think he is slain >he knows not well the subtle ways >I keep, and pass, and turn again. Here's the rest of the poem: Far or forgot to me is near; Sahdow and sunlight are the same; The vanish'd gods to me appear; And one to me are shame and fame. THey reckon ill who leave me out; When me they fly, I am the wings; I am the doubter and the doubt, And I the hymn the Brahmin sings. THe strong gods pine for my abode, ANd pine in vain the sacred Seven; But thou, meek lover of the good! Find me, and turn thy back on heaven. Written by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), after having explored Hinduism. Apparently, his immediate texts were the Vishnu Purana and the Bhagavad-Gita. From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 6 18:53:01 1999 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 19:36:02 EST From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: An Old un-Theosophical prejudice. Message-ID: <46175d3c.36940172@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-01-06 13:42:36 EST, you write: << No. Some lead to "hell" (state, not place) >> And the really BAD ones lead to Wisconsin. Chuck From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 6 19:07:27 1999 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 19:42:11 EST From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <77fa9df3.369402e3@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-01-06 16:53:16 EST, you write: << Like him or not, this is not a true statement. His OTO has as many or more members than the TS and his influence in virtually all of today's magical and occult schools is enormous. Jerry S. >> As opposed to Krishnamurti who was, for the most part, an incomprehensible bore. The greatest gift that Crowley left us, in addition to some fantastic magickal scholarship and some real fun rituals, is the fact that one can follow a spiritual path and not have to pay any attention to the pompous eunuchoid fools who say you have to give up all the fun things in life, like sex, to do it. Chuck From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 6 19:08:01 1999 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 00:52:41 -0000 From: "Al Wilkinson" Subject: Re: A person and his teachings/character/life Message-ID: <028101be39d8$1cf21960$85b959c3@alan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jerry, thanks for asking about what way Crowley and the O.T.O. present hurdles. Out of all the members on this list you are the main one who gets critisized, yet the only one to offer help about this subject. Talk about heart or eye doctrine! I'm not swayed by Crowley on any point of personal power or magickal abilities - but rather the life, the spiritual qualities he writes about (especially in Temple of Solomon the King). His theorys and views on spiritual and material, and the methods of union seem to be different from Theosophy. And I get pulled this way and that way with my thoughts on which one to learn from. I like(d) theosophy a lot. I thought I had found the teaching which resonated inside. It 'sempt relaxed (I mean the living) without the struggle - a bit like Christianity. But suddenly my view gets distracted back to Thelema. I find it hard to really pinpoint the problem. But there seems to be something missing from the people of Theosophy. It might just be those on the list (apart from a few exceptions) who show a dryness and lack sparkle. Some have great knowledge and giant intellects, but I cannot see the real life. I ask for help, not once but several times, and non is forthcoming. I wasn't asking the group to chew my cud, in the words of Leon. I was asking because I thought the people cared and wanted to help in the practicle aspect's, not merely doctrine. For example, I wished everyone a happy christmas, but not one kind remark was return. Theosophy seems to encompass a lot of christian morals. As Crowley said, The word of sin is restriction. And I don't want to be bound up again as it gets to painful when you fall. I had considered joining the O.T.O or A.A. before I came across theosophy. Then I scrapped the O.T.O. and read HPB. And over the past few months I have heard on this list our ritual magick is part of the left hand path and that Crowley was so-called evil. This brought back the division and the pain of which one (if any) show'd and practiced what I needed. I hope you can read between the lines and entangle what I've read and what I am trying to say. Some times I just want to hold the magickal sword, shout and die: because always swapping, changing and falling is the hardest part, the sharpest pain. Al From owner-theos-talk Thu Jan 7 10:01:32 1999 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 08:47:12 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B. or THEOSOPHY ? Message-ID: <000101be3a5d$61c013a0$b10e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <3e2b55c6.3691ba2b@aol.com> Jan 6th 1999 Dear Rich: I read your contribution of Jan 4th and respond. All that I write is my opinion. I am responsible for it alone. I am afraid we are again talking at "cross-purposes," and saying mainly the same things in different words. However, I do not necessarily endorse or accept "modern scholarship" unless the logic that is advanced is clear to all of us. This I await to see. I think that you and I agree that anyone can say anything they please or ask any question concerning the PHILOSOPHY OF THEOSOPHY. It is certainly open to discussion and individual study. All those who are serious students of philosophy, religion, and the past history of our globe are doing that. But concerning HPB as a person, I would object to criticism of her life and methods and ask for proof. She is no longer able here and now to answer directly old calumnies and slanders or other defamatory statements. Consequently, when I become aware of such I respond. If the matter concerns the philosophy of THEOSOPHY, I ask to see proofs. I await someone who can write anything that approaches the quality and coverage of a SECRET DOCTRINE, or an ISIS UNVEILED, or even a KEY TO THEOSOPHY. I would concede to them the right to offer to make coherent and consecutive changes to Theosophy and its logic (if possible). So far I have heard claims and seen no proofs. If and when such "proofs" emerge, then we will all have some work to do - in the meantime, why do we not (all of us) really buckle down and study and learn what THEOSOPHY IS ? There are many opinions floating around, but that which would be valuable to each student (in my opinion) is an ability to find what the record of Theosophy actually says on a subject of research. Not vague references, but actual clear ones that others can go to and also verify. In the past 110 years that Theosophy has been available to us, students have prepared Indexes, Glosses, and collected as many scraps of original writings, articles, letters, answers, notes, etc ... so that the mosaic of Theosophical philosophy can be fully displayed, and it, or the details and proofs advanced can be seen by anyone, and consulted for accuracy or fault. I would say that this "openness" makes it invulnerable. >From time to time writers and speakers emerge who (for reasons known to themselves) have made it a point to state to state that HPB made "mistakes" in regard to what ? Are they fundamental concepts of metaphysics, of universality, of ethics, of history ? Or are they some small and petty details when compared with the WHOLE ? Some are quite obviously proof-readers' and co-editors' errors - and these are acknowledged in both MAHATMA LETTERS and in some of HPB's articles, particularly "MY BOOKS" -- I do not see any substantial challenge to the philosophy yet. What is found sketched to Sinnett in Mahatma Letters following the publishing of ISIS UNVEILED (1877), and amplified in articles and discussion in THE THEOSOPHIST, PATH, and LUCIFER magazines is to be found given in greater detail in THE SECRET DOCTRINE. As far as I am aware no one has so far set themselves up to challenge that ! Some claim that HPB erred (in the light of modern scholarship ?) in making some definitions regarding Tibetan Buddhism, Tantraism, Mahayana, Hinayana, Bhons, Dugpas, Gelugpas, etc.. I have no basis yet for verifying that such current scholarship, or MSS that have now been made available (I assume they are copies of original texts ?) are accurate or correct to the originals. Apparently they relate to the interpretation of HISTORY, and not to the doctrines or observations concerning ethical applications that have been made public and exoteric? To some extent such claims (so far unsupported as I see it) carry the implication that what has been stated by HPB is incorrect (as a whole or as a part - details unspecified usually). I observe that when, during HPB's life-time, her accuracy was questioned, The Masters of Wisdom, to whom she was responsible, issued a "certificate of authorship." This was given by the Masters to Dr. Hubbe-Schleiden [PATH, Vol. 8, p. 1 ]. Are we now to say that They are also in error ? Or is this a concealed challenge to Their existence ? No doubt some have, and will come forward, with detailed demonstrations of those errors, and then we will be able to see just how much, or how wide and important those errors are. Let us give an actual dimension to such things, as Sylvia Cranston has in her biography of HPB. In the meantime, why should I (or anyone) accept and seemingly unsupported claim or opinion? Allow me to ask: How "original" are the texts quoted from ? How does one know they are authentic and not amended in copying (much as the Brahmins did during the days of Akbar when such original texts as might be available were secreted and abridged - then made available as authentic texts - silenced for ever on such vital subjects as THE SECRET DOCTRINE and THEOSOPHY reveal at last for our consideration (SD I xxiii-iv) ? I do not understand what you mean by "if HPB is taken literally [she]...appears to be wrong on...several points relating to Tibetan Buddhism." Until those (non-literal meanings ?) are exposed to our common view this remains unsupported by any evidence that can be cross checked either in philosophy or in factual and original texts. As I see it, discussion cannot be terminated unless someone stops answering. I agree that trying to show who are "Dugpas" or not, today, is irrelevant, and also 'unsupported.' We do not know enough. The defense of "ill spoken of the "dead" (and without adequate proof) is not fallacious, as I see it. It is a mark of respect by the honorable. What is found objectionable is unsupported statements. If there is something that needs rectifying, then, in parallel columns original statements can be contrasted - that exposes the matter for all to see. And that I would consider to be most valuable. It has, for one thing, the power to prevent endless wrangles and clears the air. That this exchange occurs between us, is plainly evidence of "free thought." No one asks anyone to either agree or to blindly follow anything. No one seeks to impose ones' views on another, but only expose them for consideration. Theosophy invites clear thought on definite principles of logic and on Universal Facts, and not a panoply of individual or private opinions. I think we can agree on this. The sources to be investigated have never been restricted, nor have the nature of the questions asked. Facts are asked for, and the opportunity for their independent examination. Finally, each student will inevitably decide for himself or herself what is reasonable, true, fair, universal and impersonal; and, they will make their own choices regardless of what conclusions you or I may arrive at personally. I hope this clears the air. Best wishes to you, Dallas ============================= From owner-theos-talk Thu Jan 7 10:31:22 1999 Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 08:26:04 -0800 From: "Eldon B Tucker" Subject: Re: A person and his teachings/character/life Message-Id: <199901071626.KAA31754@pippin.imagiware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <028101be39d8$1cf21960$85b959c3@alan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Al: [writing to Jerry] >Crowley ... His theories and views on spiritual and material, and >the methods of union seem to be different from Theosophy. What does he say, and how does it seem to differ? (The differences provide an opportunity for some philosophical exploration.) >I find it hard to really pinpoint the problem. But there seems to be >something missing from the people of Theosophy. It might just be those on >the list (apart from a few exceptions) who show a dryness and lack sparkle. >Some have great knowledge and giant intellects, but I cannot see the real >life. That doesn't mean that the people are lacking in the other qualities of a well-rounded person, including having a warm heart. It just means that you're seeing only one face to them, only one aspect of them. It's rare to find a knowledgeable group of people to explore the deeper reaches of the theosophical philosophy, to do some "deep space exploration" of high metaphysics with. If that's all you see them doing on the list, you're getting a one-sided view of their overall natures. It doesn't mean that there is nothing more than that to them. Some lists are more social in nature, and have a stronger personal touch to them. They're easier places to meet people and make friends. It's possible to do so anywhere, but much easier in places where the topic and focus of discussion is in that direction, rather than one of gazing in awe at the wonder and majesty of the universe, both seen and unseen. What you seem to be noticing, which is often missing from theosophical discussions, is the *something more* that can and should be present. It's the "sparkle factor," the sense of wonder and magic and excitement of discovery, the fires of creativity, the inflaming power of the spirit, which can be behind and empowering the ideas as they are shared. (That is, buddhi-manas, or mind enflamed by the fire of spirit, rather than just manas by itself, mind devoid of higher inspiration.) >I ask for help, not once but several times, and non is forthcoming. I >wasn't asking the group to chew my cud, in the words of Leon. I was asking >because I thought the people cared and wanted to help in the practical >aspect's, not merely doctrine. One problem may be that there's so much email going out that it's hard to carefully look over every message and so some may be overlooked. Another is that because of the impersonal nature of the medium -- ascii email over the Internet -- it's hard to establish both a mind-to-mind and a heart-to-heart connection with others. >For example, I wished everyone a happy >christmas, but not one kind remark was return. A mailing list can be anything that you make of it. Whatever you'd like to see, you'll bring about by continuing to write in a certain way. Abstract discussions are encouraged by people posting abstract pieces. Historic discussions are encouraged by others posting on theosophical history. Other discussions dealing with personal experiences and concerns in life are the same -- they're begun because someone is interested and continues to write about them. >I had considered joining the O.T.O or A.A. before I came across >theosophy. Then I scrapped the O.T.O. and read HPB. And over the >past few months I have heard on this list our ritual magick is >part of the left hand path and that Crowley was so-called evil. >This brought back the division and the pain of which one (if >any) show'd and practiced what I needed. First, I'd say that most Theosophists would say that each person should follow that path to spiritual development that works for them, and not follow something based upon some external authority, or patterned after what works for another. And it's fairly useless to say "this is good and that is bad" without explaining and convincing the other person. A much better approach is to say: "this is how *we* do it, and why we think our way is a better one, and here's all the benefits and advantages of our approach over others, now you decide which you'd like to try." To do this, though, requires someone to be familiar with the theosophical approach *as a spiritual practice*, and not just as a form of book study. Because there's no organized theosophical religion, with sangha, gurus, formalized training, etc., it's harder to know that there's *something there* just by attending a study class, unless some in the class are aware of the *depths* and make some effort to articulate them. Without going into *what* it is -- quite an involved subject! -- I'd just say that if you study the theosophical philosophy, ponder its deeper side, keep alive your spiritual inquiry into life, and work on opening up your mind/heart, that can and will take you places. The deeper places that it takes you, though, aren't those that can readily be put into books or talked about much in advance, and they're not brought about simply by the external manipulation of one's outer life. There's good to come from diet, exercise, regular meditation, control of temper, cultivation of kindness, contemplation of loft thoughts, involvement in unselfish activities, staying connected to innovative movements that help evolve humanity, etc. These all help set the environment in which certain inner growth can occur and one's inner nature can ripen. There's much more to the process, but it comes *from within outwards*, and opens up on its own accord, and the growing ability to *know* philosophically is but the precursor to much more ... And so I'd say that there *is* something to the theosophical approach, even if it's not always apparent when one attends some theosophical groups or classes, from what seems to be offered one, as a new student. -- Eldon From owner-theos-talk Thu Jan 7 13:13:12 1999 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 19:04:15 -0000 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: RE: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <000601be3a70$8558f3a0$32084ad4@bazzer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <001001be39bb$dc1fed20$167d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> > >> >Crowley used to refer to Krishnamurti as "nigger". Each one of > >> us can come to our own conclusion regarding Crowley. > > > >Crowley's legacy to Humanity amounts to zero. > > > > Like him or not, this is not a true statement. His OTO has as many > or more members than the TS and his influence in virtually all of > today's magical and occult schools is enormous. > > Jerry S. The term "legacy" should have been prefaced by the word "valuable", "beneficient", or something simliar to have given a clearer meaning, perhaps. Membership numbers, i.e. quantity, have no inherent claim to value/quality. Neither does "influence" necessarily indicate beneficient motive/action (Hitler being an example). In what respect have any of today's "magical and occult schools" aided Humanity as a WHOLE? Read "The Key to Theosophy", pages 20 -27 etc, facsimile edition. Best wishes, Paul. From owner-theos-talk Thu Jan 7 13:25:14 1999 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 19:04:17 -0000 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: RE: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <000701be3a70$8643efe0$32084ad4@bazzer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <77fa9df3.369402e3@aol.com> > << Like him or not, this is not a true statement. His OTO has as many > or more members than the TS and his influence in virtually all of > today's magical and occult schools is enormous. > > Jerry S. > >> > > As opposed to Krishnamurti who was, for the most part, an incomprehensible > bore. The greatest gift that Crowley left us, in addition to > some fantastic > magickal scholarship and some real fun rituals, is the fact that one can > follow a spiritual path and not have to pay any attention to the pompous > eunuchoid fools who say you have to give up all the fun things in > life, like sex, to do it. > >Chuck Extracts from "Occultism Versus The Occult Arts" (Lucifer, 1888): ". . . . Siddhis (or the Arhat powers) are only for those who are able to "lead the life," to comply with the terrible sacrifices required for such a training, and to comply with them to the very letter. Let them know at once and remember always, that true Occultism or Theosophy is the "Great Renunciation of SELF," unconditionally and absolutely, in thought as in action. It is ALTRUISM, and it throws him who practices it out of calculation of the ranks of the living altogether. "Not for himself, but for the world, he lives," as soon as he has pledged himself to the work. Much is forgiven during the first years of probation. But, no sooner is he "accepted" than his personality must disappear, and he has to become a mere beneficient force in Nature. There are two poles for him after that, two paths, and no midward place of rest. He has either to ascend laboriously, step by step, often through numerous incarnations and no Devachanic break, the golden ladder leading to Mahatmaship (the Arhat or Bodhisatva condition), or - he will let himself slide down the ladder at the first false step, and roll down into Dugpaship. . . ." "The aspirant has to choose absolutely between the life of the world and the life of Occultism. It is useless and vain to endeavour to unite the two, for no one can serve two masters and satisfy both. No one can serve his body and the higher Soul, and do his family duty and his universal duty, without depriving either one or the other of its rights; for he will either lend his ear to the "still small voice" and fail to hear the cries of his little ones, or, he will listen but to the wants of the latter and remain deaf to the voice of Humanity. It would be a ceaseless, a maddening struggle for almost any married man, who would persue true practical Occultism, instead of its theoretical philosophy. For he would find himself ever hesitating between the voice of the impersonal divine love of Humanity, and that of the personal, terrestrial love. And this could only lead him to fail in one or the other, or perhaps in both his duties. Worse than this. For, whoever indulges after having pledged himself to OCCULTISM in the gratification of a terrestrial love or lust, must feel an almost immediate result; that of being irresistably dragged from the impersonal divine state down to the lower plane of matter. Sensual, even mental self-gratification, involves the immediate loss of the powers of spiritual discernment; the voice of the MASTER can no longer be distinguished from that of one's passions or even that of a Dugpa; the right from wrong; sound morality from mere casuistry." So much for "fun rituals", "sex" and the like, eh. Best wishes, Paul From owner-theos-talk Thu Jan 7 19:32:49 1999 Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 19:12:39 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: A person and his teachings/character/life Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990107191239.0140feb0@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <028101be39d8$1cf21960$85b959c3@alan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Dear Al: I am sorry to read your msg. I may not have closely followed your msgs. If you could re-state in a couple of lines what you are looking for, then some of us can try to see how we can help. mkr From owner-theos-talk Thu Jan 7 20:30:22 1999 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:20:55 -0000 From: "Al Wilkinson" Subject: Re: A person and his teachings/character/life Message-ID: <000c01be3aad$9bd60400$a89e01d4@alan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks Eldon and MKR for responding. I'm looking for life. Not merely material but spiritual. Everything seems confusion. But I guess I created this myself be looking into everything spiritual/magickal I could find. And then one thought conflicts with another and my mind tenses up in unbearable leavels. I find no fun in material things. No hopes, no dreams, no goals. Ten years ago I rejected a computer programming job which paid £800 in favour of spiritual pursuits. Now I'm 29 I feel as though my life is over and the spiritual life, thoughts and action is getting slower and harder with every turn I take. I'm scared of falling again. I would like help on how to prevent it. How can I mix spiritual with material existence when one seems to block out the other? When I get interested in one thing it takes over my life. I consume it. Then the fire is gone. If I offended anyone by my previous post, then I'm sorry. It's not often I let my emotion's get in my way. This is about life. I enjoy the studies, but I need some real practical advice for a beginning student. Thanks, Alan From owner-theos-talk Thu Jan 7 21:16:28 1999 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 19:56:51 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Kym's memo of Jan 4th == an attempt at answering Message-ID: <000401be3aba$ef7801a0$920e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jan 7th 1999 Dear Kym: Enjoyed going over your comments on my earlier post - but as it would be too long to add these I'll start a new series of observations. I think that the philosophy of Theosophy starts at the other pole from our normal point of philosophical and psychological view points - I mean those developed in the past 200 300 years in the "West." By this I mean that the "Eastern" starting point has been the UNIVERSE in its largest and most tenuous aspect: "Spirit." This is held to be the "opposite" of "Matter." To explain this is not easy. But one thing that our scientists today will concede is that what we call matter is actually only the "phenomena" of the forces and energies that whirling atoms and molecules determine. We never ever completely get "down to matter" - although we use physical things all the time, and depend on their retaining their qualities and usage. Thus, they admit that there is some inner force that is intelligent and is able to draw all the many parts needed for a form to exist together. This factor of an honest retention of quality by physical things is held as part of the evidence to the lawfulness of the Universe. Hence the Second proposition (Space, Universality, Spirit being the First) - the Second proposition is that LAW prevails everywhere, and all that is "alive" depends on that factor being honest and constant. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering, astronomy are all to my mind examples of this honest universality of law. Without the laws of Life that involve Spirit and Matter at all points, the Third proposition of universal Evolution could not operate. That is the increasing sensitivity of Life as it manifests in forms of increasing complexity. It is also taken as a given that each "life-atom" is an immortal Force - an Energy which has no termination. The whole of Nature - the whole Universe - is made up of these living centers of Life. Mankind is an example of these - a group that for this particular time has reached the point where it can take its own evolution in its own hands. It is the struggle in which every human is involved - of becoming universally self-conscious. Now, how is that as a "challenge?" But let also approach the same from a slightly different view-point. What is it that evolves ? Here we might start with a "suppose." Suppose that "Spirit" mixing with "Matter" at all points induces Intelligence in the forms thus assembled under Law. This would imply that each "Form" has a reigning Intelligence that lives within, behind, and energizes it. [ I have just been looking at a Scientific News-release where they have succeeded in attaching in the Brain of a person who (after a massive stroke) was totally disabled except for evidence that the brain still functioned - he was a vet and was on life-support - anyway, the brain cells were induced to grow into the and around the gold electrodes implanted in certain brain centers, and when this was complete, the vet, after training, was able to cause a computer cursor to spell out words and to indicate how he felt. Observing this the scientists said that this demonstrated that the MIND was able to use the BRAIN, and it showed how the two were linked. The will of the Mind to influence the brain centers registered as electrical impulses that caused the cursor to move to definite areas which the vet could see on the screen and which his doctors were able to understand. ] Where does this "Intelligence" begin to work its way up the "ladder of Evolution ?" We could see it like the old Hermetists did: "A "Spark" becomes a stone; a stone, becomes a plant; a plant, an animal; an animal, a man; a man, an angel; an angel, a God. When has the "One spark" ever been diminished by change ?" The question of "good" and "bad" is a difficult one to consider since it invokes a common idea of ethics and morality - and just as the "laws of the land" do, it presumes that there is a certain norm in cultural and communal behavior which everyone is supposed to observe voluntarily. Interestingly enough if one travels over the world, no matter what country one goes to the same general ethical ideas prevail even though the religion and culture may be quite different from ours. The unanimity of conduct would suggest that there is a great common base for living all over the world. In Theosophy this is not viewed as something that is separate from the general rule of LAW in the evolutionary process. After all the human brain is, agreeably, only a tool and it does what it is told to do by the Mind that employs it. It, in turn directs the body, and serves as a go-between between the Spirit in Man and the body he tenants. But the mind in man and woman is essentially and inherently free-willed. You speak of the excitement and the "spice of life." I think we all experience this in our own ways. Challenge need not be daring do, unless we feel it is somehow important to challenge those norms and live at times "over the edge." In doing so, hopefully we endanger no one but ourselves ! Is it success to live, or do, without being "caught ?" Does this not imply we have a deep-seated knowledge and respect for laws that secure the harmony, balance and moderation that makes for community and family life ? But, perhaps this sounds very insipid. And one might ask "What in us is it that enjoys ?" Who is the "enjoyer?" How long does enjoyment last ? What are the goals of "enjoyment ?" If we want "variety" in what areas should we seek ? Are we building a fund of solid and valuable experience or, are we merely wasting time ? As to "truth" - I think we are always aware of it. If we say or do something that is less than truth, and I think we are all involved on this score, because we don't yet fully visualize the results or ramifications of our choices as they may impact others or ourselves, later on. But just because we are not able, or not interested in mentally previewing the possible effects we start, does not mean that they will not come about. The example of dropping a stone into a pond is often used to show that deeds always have consequences. Suppose that by prayer, praise or petition one could have the effects of our thoughts and acts "forgiven." Can we not ask "Why me ?" "What about others who may try to secure action against me ?" Who will be "God's" favorite ? Is it fair for God to play favorites ?" And so on. And what about the compensation that may be due to victims or their families ? Who will settle that ? Then comes compassion and forgiveness. These are very important. I would say that hey are always due in our attitude to others, in trying to understand what they feel and think. But this is the way that an intelligent and sensitive person ought to react to others, in an effort to maintain a harmony of common relations. I would say that if we are made the victims, then these two qualities become essential for us to apply and to repress any desire for revenge or retaliation. But I also think this is very difficult to agree to. If Law, as a universal method of relations exists in the abstract, then its manifestation, it would seem to me, would be inherent in the living situation of all beings. The laws of life seem to become more complex as we observe how the "inorganic" materials of "stones" and "minerals" pass into the "organic" composition of "plants." Plants show a different level of sensitiveness - the various trophisms. Passing further to the animal kingdom, we have a whole new range of sensitivity and independence that can be viewed there. And when finally the human stage is reached the inclusion of free-will, and the Mind gives the "form" a chance to comprehend the universalities, absolutes, and laws of the environment of the his Earth, and Universe. The mind reaches out in all ways, to seek data, to observe relationships and to verify laws that operate everywhere. I do not think I would be unfair to suggest that beyond the man stage, where thought and control are developed there are areas of service to mankind as a whole, of assistance to those who "know still less that we do." I agree with you that defining "reality," "love" "reward and punishment" is difficult. Since they exist as concepts (with many variations of meaning attributed to them) how are we going to define them, or find a common meeting room ? They are very important as they related to every aspect of our lives and families. To me, the word "belief" either implies a well thought out and logical conclusion or, may imply a blind acceptance of some "authoritative" assertion - something that I either have to prove the truth of, or something which I accept without proving, "on faith." Personally I want to KNOW. If I am told that there is a God with the powers of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, then I want to understand. If IT is omnipresent, then it is present in me. At no time can I escape the purview of God - hence in ITS omniscience, IT knows all about me all the time. This leaves the third aspect of omnipotence to be explained. I would say that the fact that anything is alive or in existence demonstrates that God (or Nature) has a use for it, and permits it to "live." Man, hence, has no right to judge or decide what lives or dies, what is hurt or loved, and what will be assisted in evolving, or hat will be retarded. These things are all handled under God's Laws. [ That is, if what I write is fair and true so far. ] But if God is everywhere then Nature is a synonym for God. Reality is all our existences, taken as a whole. Love is the condition of compassion as regards all living things. Our "freedom of will" is the wonderful opportunity of learning all these things, including the secret workings of God/Nature and participating actively and voluntarily in this great process. But, is this not a description of our general situation - of the "human situation," and of the condition of all living things as they relate to others around them ? You observe that we cannot possibly remember everything. And this is true if we consider our normal ability. But there have been exceptions, as for instance those people who have "photographic memories" - and forget nothing they see or hear. Then experiments in hypnosis show that there is in all subjects there is a subliminal, subjective register of impressions which can, under special circumstances, be invoked and made visible and audible to the operator. It is said in Theosophy that all Nature, the very walls around us, serve as recording agents of our actions words and thoughts. I also agree with you that we, as humans will not be "souls" operating as "computers." That does not make sense with the evidence we have so far. "Pushy" Theosophy does not really insist on anything. It only describes our world, personal and universal situation. It exists as a record of the investigations of many, many students, some living today, as we are, and others who lived in past times, but all have contributed to a survey of the workings of Nature in all her many departments. If it is only description, then we ought to investigate to find out if that description is fair and accurate. I would not say that Theosophy insists on "reward and punishment." Rather I think it describes the way in which nature works with us, trying to get us to become self-educated. We grasp many things and some we are not yet able to understand. Some bog down at the challenge, and others feel they have to "find out." It is probable that those who are challenged transform the depth and width of their knowledge through that effort. Cast your mind back to your own school experience. Broadly, there are three kinds of students in any classroom : those who WANT TO KNOW and consequently study all they can reach. Those who coast along doing a normal minimum, nothing extra, etc...; and finally, those who really don't care and feel "pushed" by the system, their families, the need for "passing exams and getting out of School" and there are dozens of variants. And none of these are cast in stone, as from time to time we enter or pass out of those divisions in regard to some aspects of our lives. What I think is important is that we all have the same wonderful potential. We are a form of aggregated "matter" animated by a "Spirit." We feel intensely about many things and we investigate our feelings with our Minds. We are constantly reviewing our thoughts and attitudes and our goals, but we do not all keep a careful record of our findings and store it for future use in our "Minds." If we could do that and make a daily review, we probably could be able to do a lot better (each one of us) than we are doing. So, to me the fact that Karma (a name for Law) exists and operates is not one to instill "fear." It just says that "we gets what we pays for." It also takes care of those who are made unwilling victims. And it is only justice that the perpetrator of a wrong gets to see the effect of his actions some time. Why not consider that God is inside of us, and that we can seek ITS help and guidance at times of difficulty - not a miracle, but a friendly help - such as the "Voice of Conscience" or the "Intuition" can give ? Thus the Son (or Daughter) of Man is able to invoke the assistance of the Father of All. And everyone is able to do that regardless of race, religion, sex or color. Now I wonder if all this is just nonsense or if it will make some sense to you ? With best wishes, Dallas ======================================= From owner-theos-talk Thu Jan 7 23:04:03 1999 Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 22:42:59 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: A person and his teachings/character/life Message-ID: <36958CD3.39D3FFA7@eden.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000c01be3aad$9bd60400$a89e01d4@alan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Al: Thanks for your quick response. I think that each one of us have to resolve our own problems, and all any outside entity can provide is bits and pieces of information, which in many cases will be invaluable. Having said this, let me share some ideas, viewpoints, as one friend to another. The current conditions you are faced with are factual. If they are reviewed objectively along with the objectives and aspirations, along with their prioritization, then there could be an understanding of the current problem. A clear understanding of the problem itself will provide a solution. In looking at spirtual matters, we do have to consider the current conditions. If one has bills to pay and needs food and shelter, then using one's skills to earn some money to meet the basic needs need not be in conflict with the spiritual aspirations -- whatever they may be. The only exception would be, unless one is starving, one may want to avoid any work that is causing pain to man/woman or beast or environment. Having met the basic needs, one can launch on any spiritual inquiry that one feels comfortable. One's growth need not lead to externally/internally detectable evidence, since all growth is in non physical world. It is also my feeling that growth may lead to better appreciation of human relationships and go hand in hand with personal sacrifice and altruism to benefit our fellow beings and all other entities. In this day and age, there are many many outfits which may seem/claim to offer "spiritual" progress. However, I use certain redflags to avoid them. Some of them are: 1. They want you to "pay" for any spiritual information. 2. They want to control you and your conscience. 3. They want you to "believe" in their doctrines and/or dogmas. 4. They want you to conform to certain rules. 5. They want your wealth. 6. They have a set of public "beliefs" or objects, but the leadership have their hidden beliefs, which may not be apparent on the surface. 7. The want to shut you up in the guise of such sheepish following will lead to enlightenment in this life or in some unknown future life. This may be done in such a highly sophisticated manner that you will not realize about this until you get caught in it. I will be very very cautious if I find any one or more of the above in any organization. After all, I believe we are all grown up adults and need to take initiative and act *now* once our objectives are clear. Any one with an open mind and is fearless to act will be seen as a threat by any organized system because of the lack of predictability. I want you to think of some of the items I have mentioned. Till you decide what you are comfortable with, you can keep your money and need not join any organization. Hope the above may give you some ideas. mkr Al wrote: > Thanks Eldon and MKR for responding. > > I'm looking for life. Not merely material but spiritual. Everything seems > confusion. But I guess I created this myself be looking into everything > spiritual/magickal I could find. And then one thought conflicts with another > and my mind tenses up in unbearable leavels. I find no fun in material > things. No hopes, no dreams, no goals. Ten years ago I rejected a computer > programming job which paid £800 in favour of spiritual pursuits. Now I'm 29 > I feel as though my life is over and the spiritual life, thoughts and action > is getting slower and harder with every turn I take. > > I'm scared of falling again. I would like help on how to prevent it. How can > I mix spiritual with material existence when one seems to block out the > other? When I get interested in one thing it takes over my life. I consume > it. Then the fire is gone. > > If I offended anyone by my previous post, then I'm sorry. It's not often I > let my emotion's get in my way. > > This is about life. I enjoy the studies, but I need some real practical > advice for a beginning student. > > Thanks, Alan From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 8 10:57:44 1999 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:34:04 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: AC & HPB Message-ID: <004601be3b24$b5389bc0$177d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Crowley ... His theories and views on spiritual and material, and >>the methods of union seem to be different from Theosophy. > >What does he say, and how does it seem to differ? (The differences >provide an opportunity for some philosophical exploration.) > Eldon, Crowley taught both reincarnation and karma, cycles, and many other Theosophical ideas. He wrote that HPB was an Adept (he did not give out this kind of recognition lightly) and so his theory is not much different from hers. However, he regarded Theosophists as "Toshosophists" and considered them sheep following a safe but far too slow path. Differences between AC and HPB are largely in style and practical approach. As too having a topic to explore, the one that I feel strongly about it how we view karma. Dallas and others who take the literal exoteric approach to karma see it as an eye-for-an-eye doctrine that will literally never end. This idea falls in line with much of HPB's writings. She was, I think, bringing the new idea of karma to the West, and she and Judge were heavily exoteric in their teaching. I have tried to present a more esoteric view, but the responses indicate to me that few if any on this list have a clue as to what I am saying. Anyway, AC knew only Hinayana Buddhism. He was not versed in the Mahayana let alone the Varjrayana as was HPB, and this fact accounts for much of the sharp criticism he had of her Buddhist writing. Thus we see little of the bodisattva in his works, nor does he emphasize compassion. But he does, in my view, sketch out a far better view of the higher planes and how to get there, then she does. His description of the higher Aethyrs shows that he had an understanding of the jivamukti and how to end one's personal karma and also the need to eliminate the ego. This is clear in his teachings, but it is not clear in his biographies that he ever reduced his very much. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 8 11:04:10 1999 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:09:27 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: A person and his teachings/character/life Message-ID: <001f01be3b21$456a3360$177d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >I'm not swayed by Crowley on any point of personal power or magickal >abilities - but rather the life, the spiritual qualities he writes about >(especially in Temple of Solomon the King). His theorys and views on >spiritual and material, and the methods of union seem to be different from >Theosophy. And I get pulled this way and that way with my thoughts on which >one to learn from. > As a practicing magician of sorts, I am indeed swayed by his magical abilities, which were enormous. He also had a rather large ego. I have condensed the difference between his OTO and modern Theosophy in terms of currents as follows: The OTO current is masculine, hard, dry, serious, and dangerous but can be very rewarding. The Theosophical current is feminine, soft, cautionary, and slow but safe. I am convinced by my own study and practice of both that the two currents are complementary rather than oppositional. >I like(d) theosophy a lot. I thought I had found the teaching which >resonated inside. It 'sempt relaxed (I mean the living) without the >struggle - a bit like Christianity. But suddenly my view gets distracted >back to Thelema. > One way to view the two is to look at Theosophy as the theoretical background and magic (Thelema or any other) as a practical application (this idea is from Dion Fortune). >I find it hard to really pinpoint the problem. But there seems to be >something missing from the people of Theosophy. It might just be those on >the list (apart from a few exceptions) who show a dryness and lack sparkle. Most are "stuck" in mentation which does tent toward dryness. Spirit is a living thing that you get from inner experience, not from reading. >Some have great knowledge and giant intellects, but I cannot see the real >life. I ask for help, not once but several times, and non is forthcoming. I >wasn't asking the group to chew my cud, in the words of Leon. I was asking >because I thought the people cared and wanted to help in the practicle >aspect's, not merely doctrine. For example, I wished everyone a happy >christmas, but not one kind remark was return. You will probably have to take the tack that I have used and not expect any reward or kind returns, but just do what is in your heart anyway. I have come to see that Theosophists are just a bunch of people much like any other and the same dynamics have to be applied. >Theosophy seems to encompass a lot of christian morals. As Crowley said, The >word of sin is restriction. And I don't want to be bound up again as it gets >to painful when you fall. > Here I have to agree with you. Crowley, who is considered a Black Magican of the worst kind by most all Theosophists, was right when he said that the only real sin is restriction. The idea of sin comes from the concept of good and evil, a concept that originates from the archetypal Shadow. There are very few people who have faced this problem successfully. >I had considered joining the O.T.O or A.A. before I came across theosophy. >Then I scrapped the O.T.O. and read HPB. And over the past few months I have >heard on this list our ritual magick is part of the left hand path and that >Crowley was so-called evil. This brought back the division and the pain of >which one (if any) show'd and practiced what I needed. > You sound a like like me here. I almost joined the OTO too. In fact, I only rejected the idea after they told me that I was not allowed to join any group that didn't accept Thelema, and thus if I joined I would have to quit the TS. Since I really do not like to be told what I can and can't do, I never joined. But I am currently writing a column for an OTO journal, and I embrace a lot of what they teach. >I hope you can read between the lines and entangle what I've read and what I >am trying to say. Some times I just want to hold the magickal sword, shout >and die: because always swapping, changing and falling is the hardest part, >the sharpest pain. > >Al Well, although you will take a lot of flaming from folks on this list, (Oh well, I get a lot of flames from magical lists too) I have found that it is possible to hold a Sword and still respect HPB and her message (a lot like Chuck, who is a practicing Chaos Magician and Theosophist). Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 8 11:12:03 1999 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:49:38 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Response to Dallas Message-ID: <001001be3b1e$8129a3c0$177d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >Is it the analysis of the "personality" -- the "Lower self" as it is called in theosophy, or is it the more comprehensive approach that includes all aspects of LIFE --from the incomprehensible ABSOLUTENESS down to the purely selfish and "one-life" material existence?> Dallas, both psychology and Theosophy have value to me. The primary value in psychology is as a study of human behavior. Modern psychology is very good at figuring out why we do the things that we do. It is very good on diagnosis. It is very poor on treatment, but it is a young "science" and hopefully will develop over the years. >Which has fundamentally more power and also more peace and harmlessness > Both have power, depending on what you are looking for. If you look to the body, then modern medical science is good. If you look to the human mind then modern psychology is good. If you want to look at things higher than the mind, then Theosophy is good. Theosophy is of little help to me in determining why I do something. To say its just my karma, for example, is a lot like a Christian telling me its just God's will. It doesn't help. But if you tell me that I am doing something because I am projecting my inner unconscious fears or because I have a complex or phobia or compulsion, then I can get a handle on what to do to fix the problem. We all have to find our own answers. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 8 11:59:03 1999 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:22:13 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: A person and his teachings/character/life Message-ID: <005c01be3b2b$6f60cd00$177d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > How can >I mix spiritual with material existence when one seems to block out the >other? You have to realize that matter and spirit are two sides of the same coin. Its all in the seeing, or in our response to situations, not the situations themselves. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 8 12:09:31 1999 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:20:18 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <005301be3b2b$2a7fbe80$177d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >In what respect have any of today's "magical and occult schools" aided >Humanity as a WHOLE? Read "The Key to Theosophy", pages 20 -27 etc, >facsimile edition. > >Best wishes, >Paul. Actually there are many. Let me just give you one. Crowley taught that we were now in a new age, the age of Horus, and one of its distinguishing features, he said, was equality of the sexes. This idea, foreign at the time he gave it, was strengthened by his followers over many years, and today we certainly see this occuring at least in some countries. Most magic work is not noticable, nor are its results acknowledged. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 8 13:57:49 1999 Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 13:21:32 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990108132132.010b7420@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <005301be3b2b$2a7fbe80$177d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:20 PM 1/8/1999 -0500, you wrote: >>In what respect have any of today's "magical and occult schools" aided >>Humanity as a WHOLE? Read "The Key to Theosophy", pages 20 -27 etc, >>facsimile edition. >> >>Best wishes, >>Paul. > > >Actually there are many. Let me just give you one. Crowley taught >that we were now in a new age, the age of Horus, and one of its >distinguishing features, he said, was equality of the sexes. This >idea, foreign at the time he gave it, was strengthened by his followers >over many years, and today we certainly see this occuring at least in >some countries. Most magic work is not noticable, nor are its results >acknowledged. > >Jerry S. I think that the First Object of TS does make the equality of sexes, including equality of races, castes, creeds etc basic to TS. This was at a time the differences to caste, creed, race, sex, color etc were rampant and so I find that the Founders of TS were quite ahead on this issue. mkr From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 8 18:57:41 1999 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 17:55:20 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Response to Dallas Message-ID: <000501be3b73$1d0383c0$970e97cf@netway.nwc.net> In-Reply-To: <001001be3b1e$8129a3c0$177d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Dear Jerry: Thanks for your comments on Theosophy and psychology (modern). The only thing that our modern views seem to lack is the concept of the "Mind-Human" being an "immortal pilgrim" -- that each life is only one of many stages, and that our view of the personality here and now, may be very fragmented -- taking the whole into account. (I mean the reincarnation aspect, under the law of karma). In terms of explanations, I agree that modern psychology explains a great deal of the actions of the personal being -- a mind that is linked to emotions -- especially those that tend to isolate us from others. If the view of Theosophical psychology turns out to be a wider - more accurate and world-embracing one, and perhaps a more correct perspective, then many ideas and tenets of "modern psychology" will have to change. The expansion will not be to its detriment, I think, but to its advantage. I think this is the only thing that can be said now -- they are similar, yet different, because of the basis from which they work. From owner-theos-talk Fri Jan 8 20:00:48 1999 Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 12:05:14 +1000 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: A person and his teachings/character/life Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990109120514.0083ad70@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <36958CD3.39D3FFA7@eden.com> References: <000c01be3aad$9bd60400$a89e01d4@alan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Another quote from Alexandra David-Neels book, Initiations and Initiates in Tibet (page 8): "Even when they have rejected belief in an immmaterial and immortal soul regarded as there true 'ego' , most Occidentals continue to picture to themselves an homogenous entity which endures from birth to death at least. This entity may undergo change, may become better or worse, but it is not supposed that these changes must follow one another from minute to minute. Thus, failing to observe the manifestations which break the continuity of a persons habitual aspect, we talk of a man who is good or bad, austere or dissolute, etc..... The Lamaist Mystics deny the existence of this 'ego'. They assert that it is no more than a concatenation of transformations, an aggregate whose elements, material and mental alike, act and re-act upon one another and are incessantly being exchanged for those of the neighbouring aggregates. Thus the individual, as they see him, is like the swift current of a river or the many aspects of a whirlpool. Advanced disciples are able to recognise, amid this succession of individuals showing themselves in their master, the one from whom useful lessons and counsels may be obtained. In order to profit thereby, they tolerate the inferior manifestations which appear to them in the same Lama, just as they would patiently wait the passing of a sage in a crowd of people" Any response to this item? Namaste NOS the Red Cap Dugpa (aka Darren) but only 49% of the time. From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 9 02:00:48 1999 Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 23:06:32 -0800 From: "Martin Leiderman" Subject: Shangri-la found Message-ID: <3696FFE8.BF1F0084@lainet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000501be3b73$1d0383c0$970e97cf@netway.nwc.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chicago Tribune reported yesterday: =========================================== TIBET DISCOVERY A REAL-LIFE SHANGRI-LA By Michael Kilian Washington Bureau January 8, 1999 WASHINGTON -- Explorers have finally found Shangri-La. It may not be quite the storied, verdant, utopian Himalayan paradise of James Hilton's 1933 novel "Lost Horizon" and subsequent movies of the same name. But it is verdant, it is a kind of paradise, and it is hidden deep within Tibet's Himalayan Mountains in a monstrously steep gorge within a gorge. There is no record of any human visiting or even seeing the area before. Tucked beneath a mountain spur at a sharp bend of the Tsangpo River, where the cliffsides are only 75 yards apart and cast perpetual shadows, the place failed to show up even on satellite surveillance photographs of the area. "If there is a Shangri-La, this is it," said Rebecca Martin, director of the National Geographic Society's Expeditions Board, which sponsored the trek. "This is a pretty startling discovery--especially in a time when many people are saying, `What's left to discover?' " Tentatively named the Hidden Falls of the Tsangpo by the explorers and located in a forbidding region called Pemako that Tibetans consider highly sacred, the elusive site was reached by American explorers Ian Baker, Ken Storm Jr. and Brian Harvey late last year, though the society did not make its confirmation of their success official until Thursday. In addition to a spectacular 100-foot-high waterfall--long rumored but until now undocumented--they found a subtropical garden, between 23,000-foot and 26,000-foot mountains, at the bottom of a 4,000-foot-high cliff. According to Martin, it's the world's deepest mountain gorge. "It's a place teeming with life," said Storm in a telephone interview from his office in the Minneapolis suburb of Burnsville. "It's a terribly wild river, with many small waterfalls, heavy rapids and a tremendous current surging through. Yet there are all kinds of flora--subtropical pine, rhododendrons, craggy fir and hemlock and spruce on the hillsides--it's lush. Just a tremendous wild garden landscape." The animals there include a rare, horned creature called the takin, sacred to Tibetan Buddhists. For the whole article go to: www.chicagotribune.com select: search and type: shangri la Martin Leiderman From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 9 05:59:12 1999 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 11:29:40 -0000 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: RE: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <000101be3bc3$58724d60$10084ad4@bazzer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <005301be3b2b$2a7fbe80$177d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> > >In what respect have any of today's "magical and occult schools" aided > >Humanity as a WHOLE? Read "The Key to Theosophy", pages 20 -27 etc, > >facsimile edition. > > > >Best wishes, > >Paul. > > > Actually there are many. Let me just give you one. Crowley taught > that we were now in a new age, the age of Horus, and one of its > distinguishing features, he said, was equality of the sexes. This > idea, foreign at the time he gave it, was strengthened by his followers > over many years, and today we certainly see this occuring at least in > some countries. Most magic work is not noticable, nor are its results > acknowledged. > > Jerry S. Hi Jerry, As MKR posts recently, original TS Objects broached the question of the relevance of gender way before A.C., as did the (genuine) Mystery Scools etc. (NB: original TS Objects phrase it as "without distinction" of sex, race, etc., which is not necessarily the same as "equality" of the sexes. That which is sex-less has no need of "equality". Neither, for that matter, did HPB). The motion of cycles/ages has been taught for millennia. A.C.'s "new age" is hardly divine revelation (even assuming it is a correct interpretation). As we know, there are 'ages' within 'ages', each with its particular theme/relevance. Is it a correct understanding that A.C.'s contribution to "equality of the sexes" also ran to the generous use of sex stimulents (e.g. 'sex appeal' perfumes) and a sustained entorage of female 'disciples'? Still no evidence of today's "magical and occult schools" (exoteric, one must presume, as they are public knowledge) contributing anything of value to Humanity AS A WHOLE. Anyhow, let's return to Theosophy. Best, Paul. From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 9 07:57:41 1999 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:26:08 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: January 08, 1999 == Kym's posting and question -- death and grieving Message-ID: <000101be3bdc$03751040$8f0e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Jan 9th 1999 Dear Kym: As to the presence of "God." Theosophically the "principle" "GOD" IS THE HIGHEST QUALITY ONE CAN IMAGINE. (not shouting - just emphasis) How can "IT" (THE HIGHEST) be a "person?" With this view Theosophy states that God is a Force, a Power of Life, a universal and all-pervasive support for all living things. You may ask me : "Then what has Theosophy to say about the grief we all feel when one who is near and dear leaves for regions so far unknown to us - the body dies. What happens to the "Soul?" Is such a parting completely final ? Without going into details, Theosophy states that every "Soul" is immortal, and while many bodies are used as it progresses ever onward, and many relatives and friends are distressed by the great separation, the fact is that "death" is only a longer aspect of what we call sleep. We do not fear going to sleep and we fully expect to awaken the next morning. We do fear the "sleep" named "death," because we have not yet developed the consciousness that bridges the gap of death and sees in our personal memory (to day) our so many past lives, and anticipates our so many future lives - in the company of the relatives and friends (and enemies also) that we have in this life, or in earlier ones. So we are forced to consider the philosophy relating to death and the record of those who have consciously been in and out of those states and remembered them. If we have been brought up in a religion that pictures humans as the playthings of a whimsical "God," and each life as a single unattached episode, out of which, if we "behave" we may secure an "eternal existence in 'Heaven,'" it may be at first, very difficult to perceive the change in thought which a philosophy such as Theosophy offers. If, let us say, one is brought up in Hinduism, and uses the BHAGAVAD GITA as a scriptural guide, then the idea of reincarnation and self-guidance, the return to relatives and friends would be one that we had grown up with. The idea of Karma as a continuity of relationships would be natural. At one time when Christianity was fresh, the link to Buddhism was clear, as Jesus the divine prophet and reformer of the Jews (I am come but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel) had learned from Buddhist monks who had settled on the shores of the Jordan and the Dead Sea many years before, and He had actually visited India as well as Egypt before returning to Judea to attempt a reform his people. Buddhism (500 BC) is a reform of Hinduism, and emphasizes the ethics that the Bhagavad Gita taught (3000 BC). Now what has the philosophy of Theosophy to offer ? In Theosophy every human is viewed as an immortal mind (or Soul). Thus in Theosophy we say: "Man is a soul." Instead of saying "Man has a soul, and can lose it through persistent "wrong-doing." It (the mind-soul that each of us is, essentially) uses many bodies, and constantly reestablishes relations with its loved ones from life to life under the law of Karma. Death is a long sleep. For the relatives who "wait around for the new awakening" the delay is fearsome - hence the grieving. The loss of contact is very shocking No amount of philosophy relieves any one of us of the shock of sudden separation. But on consideration, we can see how a philosophy of Life and of living, such as Theosophy envisages and explains, helps us change grief into hope and aspiration as we all can look forward to the time when we reincarnate eventually all together again. I have written of the Theosophical 7-fold scheme of nature and of man. Also of the view that we are "eternal Pilgrims" and we wend our way through many lives with our companions seeking to ever expand our range of knowledge and experience. In the 7-fold scheme that Theosophy advances for consideration as constituting Nature and Man, everything starts with the God-principle (or SPIRIT). And this is followed in a natural way by the "memory-storage" aspect of "God-Spirit, or, "WISDOM." Thus you have God and Wisdom at the beginning or "at the top of the starting list." Each being, each human has their own individual "ray" of this ONE Spirit at its core at the center of its "Real Self." And this is why the free-will and free-thought of every individual is ineradicable. Neither of these can be eliminated or damned or done-away-with logically and philosophically. OK so far ? Next follows the observation "principle" or MIND - the power to see, to perceive, to think. And this is also named "Soul." But to use the word properly needs the soul-qualities to be enumerated. The fact that there is in us a "Perceiver," at once implies that there are objects to perceive and the concept of the "material principles" becomes a necessity. In this we have to keep in mind that every one of the "principles" is a basis for seeing, understanding, experiencing and living. Every "being," whether atom, molecule, stone, plant, animal, man, angel, "god," has each their own "environment" which includes Spirit, Wisdom, Mind, and "material form." The next idea that emerges is the one that considers every "form" to be energized by a special sentient principle which we could name "feeling" - or sentience, the power to perceive "self," and "other selves." Feelings work with the "mind," but are different, as their range is of a different level. They express essentially: giving and taking, attraction and repulsion, love and hate - and all the range of feeling and emotion in between. Feeling by itself is the pure instinct of the "animal consciousness." In mankind it is closely associated with the Mind. In fact it makes the Mind-principle dual: The "higher-Mind: is that which is attracted to Wisdom and spirit; the "Lower-Mind" is that which is closely allied with our feelings and desires. It is that aspect of Mind which is active in us here and how as we are all "awake." [ In sleep and dreams, other aspects of the mind take over. That is a story in itself. ] As it (the feeling, desire principles) is associated with humans, it is only through the Mind-principle that it enlarges its range of vision. But, by its experience (before coming into contact with humans) it was limited to the survival and preservation and perpetuation of itself and its species as the instinct of the free, untamed animal. When mind is added, the panorama of the "desires and passions" increases enormously. And this is where we all are at present. The difference between mind and feeling is that "feeling" alone cannot reason. Reason (a Mind-faculty) can, however, see and visualize the future of any course that the feelings (and passions, and desires) design. It may therefore serve as a brake to the exuberance of such desires - because it sees danger and harm that might ultimately arise if the feelings are allowed to run without check - in an exaggerated and unregulated manner. Are we not always in such situations ? Is there not always a dialog going on between the feelings and desires and the Mind ? When evolution starts, three great aspects of living commence working again together (Nothing is created from nothing. When the Universe (as a Big Bang - of what - how - from where) starts, Spirit as Life, begins working with MIND (perception and feeling) and with MATTER (forms). It is thus natural that the "form-side" of evolution proceeds in harmony with Mind and with Wisdom-Spirit. Harmony is always dynamic and it is continued balance, and all three taken together represent the varied aspects of our living. [ see SD I 181 ] The "form side" of evolution starts with the individualized "Rays" of the One spirit which animate the "life-atoms" - a universal phenomenon - as there are "life-atoms" everywhere and no "void" anywhere. One could characterize this as "chaos" because in the beginning it appears unorganized. Then, under the impulse of the great LAW of Living ( named Karma ) the "life-atoms" are drawn together by the Great Mind-beings who have graduated earlier from the School of Life. It is their duty, as "fashioners," "molders" to cause the many structures of Space to aggregate - so that eventually mind-being might reside there and progress (as we do here). And so we have asteroids, comets, planets, suns, and galaxies - all "forms" aggregated out of countless "life-atoms-MONADS." They (these great Mind-beings) have the power and the Will to assist NATURE (God) to form the magnetic and electrical frame-work on which all "life-atoms" (named MONADS) work and live together. This is called the "astral" or starry form. The Great Life-currents as a breath of pulsing, cyclic force runs through this vast Universe and touches in its many ways each of the forms that have come together to form the worlds and suns. Then we have the development on each globe of the forms in which intelligence has experience. Instinct and feeling are developed in the plant and more individually in the animal kingdoms. Finally we have mankind as a separate but united aspect of the INTELLIGENT whole, each is a free willed Being. Each is striving to understand and live harmoniously with the WHOLE - not as slave or fixture, but as a willing assistant. Thus we find ourselves each life entering a new "day" in the great "School of Life." And this is why we need not truly grieve when our near and dear ones depart - for only a while. They live and will return, along with us in the future. We need to understand and be patient. As to assistance and relationship with those who have gone on ahead. Theosophy teaches that each disembodied MIND goes into an intensely closed and meditative state (named Devachan) where the whole of the past life is reviewed so as to cull out of it those ideas, notions and experiences that are the best qualities that can be built into its continuing character. This is done every time we pass from one life to a fresh one. To think kindly and with love and affection of those who have passed on is helpful to them and to us, but we cannot interfere or break into their own private work. If we could we would shatter their ability to proceed, and nature sets this barrier out of compassion for them, and as a help to us this philosophy is made available. There are those who claim to be able to "speak to the dead." Such as channelers etc. All that they are able to do is to contact this image from which the real Mind-soul has left - to enter its meditative retreat which cannot be pried open or invaded. Now this is only a brief survey of the questions and reasons that your comments evoke. If you happen to have a copy of HPB's KEY TO THEOSOPHY, and an INDEX, look up "After Death States," Kamaloca, Devachan, Rebirth, Reincarnation if you want to get the full picture. In Mr. Judge's THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY you will find similar explanations. Both can be trusted. But, the reading and review of the logic of Theosophy is something everyone has to do for themselves. Its veracity has to be challenged and then proved. Best wishes, Dallas > Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 23:59:49 -0700 > From: "Kym Smith" > Subject: Does grief have dominion over death? Dear Dallas, You wrote: >Why not consider that God is inside of us, and that we can seek >ITS help and guidance at times of difficulty - not a miracle, but >a friendly help - such as the "Voice of Conscience" or the >"Intuition" can give ? I understand, I think, what you are saying - it kind of reminds me of "Pascal's Wager" (where it is better to believe in God rather than not because if God does exist and one has lived according to God's Laws, all will be well; and even if God turns out not to exist, it won't matter anyway and you would have, for the benefit of humanity, lived a good and compassionate life). It makes sense. I'm still wiggly about the philosophy of Karma - still too many holes in it for me, but I suppose that shall consist throughout my current lifetime. Thank you for your kind and gentle responses to my questions. Having someone take the time to listen to you - whether agreement is reached or not - is rare and always welcome. I have one more question (for you and all on this list): I have just lost a most precious loved one due to sudden death. I have read that grieving for one who has passed over can actually hinder their journey - that the grief of those 'left behind' can serve as a kind of tie to the earthly realm for the deceased one. In one way, this makes sense, but in another way, it seems unfair (that word again!) that one who has passed on can be at the 'mercy' of those who grieve and rage against the death. Does the grief and pain of those left behind affect the one who has passed on? If so, in what way? I am interested in any thoughts or comments on this particular theory. It seems so hard not to grieve, and, not to mention how guilty a loved one could end up feeling if they knew they were "holding back" the deceased loved one! It seems we must grieve - some of us harder than others. Maybe we need to be taught "how" to grieve rightly. . .but it is so, so, so difficult. By the way, I know that people on this list are compassionate enough to offer me words of condolence, but it is not necessary - besides, I'm one of those who gets weird at mushy stuff. . .got it? Kym From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 9 12:00:51 1999 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 12:38:29 EST From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: Shangri-la found Message-ID: <74825268.36979415@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Michael Kilian is a satirist who writes society and humor columns. There is no Shangri-la. Chuck From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 9 14:57:44 1999 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 15:26:56 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Helping Humanity Message-ID: <000a01be3c0e$685a2720$147d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >>Jerry S. > >I think that the First Object of TS does make the equality of sexes, >including equality of races, castes, creeds etc basic to TS. This was at a >time the differences to caste, creed, race, sex, color etc were rampant and >so I find that the Founders of TS were quite ahead on this issue. > >mkr Doss, maybe I used a poor example, but yes, I agree that the TS had already started this process along. This is a good example of how Theosophy and Magic can work together. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 9 15:04:16 1999 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 15:36:37 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: A person and his teachings/character/life Message-ID: <002401be3c0f$c210a7c0$147d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David-Neel was a true initiate and her writings contain genuine Tibetan Buddhist teachings. Many of today's Tibetans have acknowledged her. Personally, I agree completely with the quote you posted and I repeat below. Jerry S. >Another quote from Alexandra David-Neels book, Initiations and Initiates in >Tibet (page 8): > >"Even when they have rejected belief in an immmaterial and immortal soul >regarded as there true 'ego' , most Occidentals continue to picture to >themselves an homogenous entity which endures from birth to death at least. >This entity may undergo change, may become better or worse, but it is not >supposed that these changes must follow one another from minute to minute. >Thus, failing to observe the manifestations which break the continuity of a >persons habitual aspect, we talk of a man who is good or bad, austere or >dissolute, etc..... >The Lamaist Mystics deny the existence of this 'ego'. They assert that it >is no more than a concatenation of transformations, an aggregate whose >elements, material and mental alike, act and re-act upon one another and >are incessantly being exchanged for those of the neighbouring aggregates. >Thus the individual, as they see him, is like the swift current of a river >or the many aspects of a whirlpool. >Advanced disciples are able to recognise, amid this succession of >individuals showing themselves in their master, the one from whom useful >lessons and counsels may be obtained. In order to profit thereby, they >tolerate the inferior manifestations which appear to them in the same Lama, >just as they would patiently wait the passing of a sage in a crowd of people" > >Any response to this item? > >Namaste > >NOS the Red Cap Dugpa (aka Darren) >but only 49% of the time. > > > > From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 9 15:07:40 1999 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 15:33:24 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Response to Dallas Message-ID: <001f01be3c0f$4f0ed260$147d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> >If the view of Theosophical psychology turns out to be a wider - more accurate and world-embracing one, and perhaps a more correct perspective, then many ideas and tenets of "modern psychology" will have to change. The expansion will not be to its detriment, I think, but to its advantage.> Dallas, modern psychology already is changing vis a vis transpersonal psychology. A recent ACA journal spoke of the need for counselors to accept the religious views of clients and to work within their religious context. This is a big departure from the past where religion was considered a pathology or crutch. From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 9 15:57:42 1999 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 16:32:48 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Shangri-la found Message-ID: <005001be3c17$9b673820$147d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Michael Kilian is a satirist who writes society and humor columns. > >There is no Shangri-la. > >Chuck Drat! I just packed my bags for nothing. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 9 16:01:32 1999 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 16:31:34 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <004101be3c17$6f34d3c0$147d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >As MKR posts recently, original TS Objects broached the question of the >relevance of gender way before A.C., as did the (genuine) Mystery Scools >etc. (NB: original TS Objects phrase it as "without distinction" of sex, >race, etc., which is not necessarily the same as "equality" of the sexes. >That which is sex-less has no need of "equality". Neither, for that matter, >did HPB). > Agreed. But then again, "that which is sex-less" has no need for much of anything. >The motion of cycles/ages has been taught for millennia. A.C.'s "new age" is >hardly divine revelation (even assuming it is a correct interpretation). As >we know, there are 'ages' within 'ages', each with its particular >theme/relevance. > His Aeon of Horus came at the new Age of Aquarius anyway, so I think we all agree that we are beginning a new age of some kind. >Is it a correct understanding that A.C.'s contribution to "equality of the >sexes" also ran to the generous use of sex stimulents (e.g. 'sex appeal' >perfumes) and a sustained entorage of female 'disciples'? > Uncle's Al's writings have helped contribute to an equality of the sexes, but not his personal behavior or attitude. Most biographies show him more than just a little sexist. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 9 18:57:39 1999 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 10:55:40 +1000 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: A person and his teachings/character/life Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990110105540.00843ab0@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <002401be3c0f$c210a7c0$147d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Jerry,thanks for your comment on David-Neel. I have only just encountered her writings, but already I find her amazing. Surely few people have stayed in Tibet as long as her. This is why i am amazed that no-one commented about my previous David-Neel quote Re: Origin of the word Dugpa. And just an aside, if anyone is interested (and it may be synchronicity at play), another newsgroup I am on has also just brought up Crowley v Theosophy - but this group has nothing to do with either - if interested visit the following website, and then join the NOVELTY mailing list (shamanic, I Ching, Fractals, Terrence Mckenna, Castaneda etc): http://www.levity.com/~eschaton Cheers all and Have a Wonderful 2nd to last year of the Century. Dugpa Dazz At 03:36 PM 1/9/99 -0500, you wrote: >David-Neel was a true initiate and her writings contain genuine >Tibetan Buddhist teachings. Many of today's Tibetans have >acknowledged her. Personally, I agree completely with the >quote you posted and I repeat below. > >Jerry S. > > > >>Another quote from Alexandra David-Neels book, Initiations and Initiates in >>Tibet (page 8): >> >>"Even when they have rejected belief in an immmaterial and immortal soul >>regarded as there true 'ego' , most Occidentals continue to picture to >>themselves an homogenous entity which endures from birth to death at least. >>This entity may undergo change, may become better or worse, but it is not >>supposed that these changes must follow one another from minute to minute. >>Thus, failing to observe the manifestations which break the continuity of a >>persons habitual aspect, we talk of a man who is good or bad, austere or >>dissolute, etc..... >>The Lamaist Mystics deny the existence of this 'ego'. They assert that it >>is no more than a concatenation of transformations, an aggregate whose >>elements, material and mental alike, act and re-act upon one another and >>are incessantly being exchanged for those of the neighbouring aggregates. >>Thus the individual, as they see him, is like the swift current of a river >>or the many aspects of a whirlpool. >>Advanced disciples are able to recognise, amid this succession of >>individuals showing themselves in their master, the one from whom useful >>lessons and counsels may be obtained. In order to profit thereby, they >>tolerate the inferior manifestations which appear to them in the same Lama, >>just as they would patiently wait the passing of a sage in a crowd of >people" >> >>Any response to this item? >> >>Namaste >> >>NOS the Red Cap Dugpa (aka Darren) >>but only 49% of the time. >> >> >> >> > > > > > From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 9 19:06:05 1999 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 19:49:01 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: AC & HPB Message-ID: <23ff9227.3697f8fd@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/8/99 4:58:39 PM, someone wrote: >Eldon, Crowley taught both reincarnation and karma, cycles, >and many other Theosophical ideas. He wrote that HPB was an >Adept (he did not give out this kind of recognition lightly) and >so his theory is not much different from hers. However, >he regarded Theosophists as "Toshosophists" and considered >them sheep following a safe but far too slow path. Differences >between AC and HPB are largely in style and practical approach. How does that whitewash Crowley as a "good guy"? Did HPB ever say that white or black magicians didn't use and know the same universal laws and principles"? Differences between AC and HPB are solely based on motive, not on such superficial things as "style" and "practical approach'. Let's call a spade a spade. Crowley was not only a racist and an anti-Semite, he was also a "Dugpa" (black magician). And his "Do as thou Wilt" was also the motto of the Nazi occultists, justifying their ritual murders. It's obvious that Crowley's theories are the exact opposite of HPB's. > >As too having a topic to explore, the one that I feel strongly >about it how we view karma. Dallas and others who take the >literal exoteric approach to karma see it as an eye-for-an-eye >doctrine that will literally never end. This idea falls in line with >much of HPB's writings. She was, I think, bringing the new idea >of karma to the West, and she and Judge were heavily exoteric >in their teaching. I have tried to present a more esoteric view, >but the responses indicate to me that few if any on this list >have a clue as to what I am saying. What are you saying? How can you justify swapping HPB's and the Masters esoteric scientific and philosophical views with totally unfounded (or not even superficially verified) exoteric opinions of modern black magicians? The Nazi propagandist, Hermann Goebbels who used similar reversals, was much more subtle than that. Maybe we aught to read his treatise on how to turn black into white. (Or have we already--without fully understanding the linguistic traps and self contradictions one can get into?) >Anyway, AC knew only >Hinayana Buddhism. He was not versed in the Mahayana >let alone the Varjrayana as was HPB, and this fact accounts >for much of the sharp criticism he had of her Buddhist writing. >Thus we see little of the bodisattva in his works, nor does he >emphasize compassion. Is that so? How could Crowley accept those other "yanas" when they were so opposed to his own separatists and selfish views? I thought he disagreed with HPB because he was, by his own choice, the direct opposite of a Bodhisattva--as only a Dugpa black magician, or a selfish Hinayana "Pratyeka Buddha" could be. One, believing in total altruism and selflessness at risk of one's own life, and the other, believing in complete selfishness at risk of everyone else's. Knowing "about" the twin doctrines of reincarnation and karma has nothing to do with the higher wisdom or not--if ones's "knowing" about them is not true knowledge of their inner workings, transformative mechanisms, and interdependent subtleties. Few theosophists, today--unless they can read the Secret Doctrine from both a purely scientific as as well as an intuitive point of view--may even have a small portion of this true knowledge--but I'm sure that was not the case with either WQJ or HPB, or their Adept teachers. How Crowley (or anyone for that matter) could have gotten this knowledge, or any further knowledge from a more esoteric source than the SD is beyond comprehension. To make such a bald assertion believable, one would have to produce that alleged esoteric source. Or, prove that Crowley and his teachers were wiser than HPB and her teachers--considering their diametrically opposing interpretations of the Book of Dzyan. I wonder how many theosophists or if any occult magicians know that the original book is both a moral-ethical as well as a metaphysical-magical treatise--which takes the entire SD and its commentaries to unravel and decipher. HPB even pointed out, both in the SD and in her other writings, the errors made by the cultish secret societies (using black magic) where Crowley must have gotten his occult knowledge.. >But he does, in my view, sketch out >a far better view of the higher planes and how to get there, then >she does. His description of the higher Aethyrs shows >that he had an understanding of the jivamukti and how >to end one's personal karma and also the need to eliminate the >ego. This is clear in his teachings, but it is not clear in his >biographies that he ever reduced his very much. How better a view is that? And what evidence do you have that it is better? The way to get to the "higher Aethyrs" (sic) of Crowley (the negative energy planes outside of (or underneath) our positive space--used by black magicians--not necessarily the same etheric or astral light planes spoken of by the Masters), to "end one's karma", and to "eliminate the ego"--was the way Crowley, Hitler and their "black magician" cohorts seem to always do it (including the 200 Tibetan Dugpas who were reported dead from suicide in Berlin after the war). And that is to use the special, "easy", "instant", and "painless" suicide drugs supplied them by their Tibetan Dugpa advisors and herbal drugmasters (to be used whenever their genocidal ritual magic would fail and put them in jeopardy of being "exposed" or executed, painfully, by their enemies. How many times in the past has that happened in the magical secret societies that gave rise to the O.T.O., Crowley's A.'.A.'., and his Thelema teachings?) Such an action, jumps them straight into Avitchi, a special hell world, where, I'm told, there is no karma, no nirvana, and no return. This is the kind of cowardice to avoid payment in kind that is the especial practice of those who would attack others who cannot defend themselves--as the Nazis attacked and almost annihilated their own and their their occupied countries' population of jews, elderly infirm, mental patients, and "inferior racial stocks". In spite of the "opinions" of Crowley's defenders--based mostly on what Crowley or his self serving disciples wrote about themselves--he and some of his followers were known Nazi sympathizers, and were on the British "subversive" lists before and during WW2. He was also a close friend of Rosenberg--Hitler's occult mystical teacher--the leading "occult"philosopher of the O.T.O in Germany, and the teacher and advisor to Crowley and the SS leaders and butchers, Himmler, Heydrich, Bormann, Baarbe. Eichmann and the like--as well as the "architect" and "justifier of their "master race" theories, mass murders, and their "human sacrificial" rituals. Crowley also visited Hitler several times before the war. And there is reason to believe that he was called on by Hitler and his cronies from time to time for advice. So much for his defense by supposed theosophists--who also, however subtly they disguise it, are continually critical of HPB and show no evidence to back up such criticism other than reference to the teachings of black magicians or exoteric religious scriptures. Incidentally, all this is in government records that can be accessed under the Freedom of Information Act--if not classified for "National Security" by the high level SS Nazis who infiltrated our government (when the NSA was formed, and the OSS broke up to became the CIA after the war). Some of Crowley's disciples as well as their Tibetan Dugpa friends, I've heard from reliable sources, also advised the CIA in its drug and mind control experiments starting in the late 40's and 50's (if not still going on today). Followers of Crowley's form of ritual magic ("black", since it's aim is for selfish purposes, and allows no "conscience" to interfere)--who also follow his unrestricted "do as thou wilt" philosophy--cannot be "theosophists" (in the motivational sense of the teachings of HPB and the Masters) except in "lip service" only. The motives of these two different types of "occult schools" are certainly and evidentially not "complementary" but entirely opposite to each other. It's like saying there can be "Dugpa theosophists" or "theosophical Dugpas". An obvious contradiction in terms. To call oneself a practitioner of "O.T.O.", "A.'.A.'.", or "Chaos"-type magic and a "theosophist" at the same time is an oxymoronic expression of the most blatent kind. In the declaration of the ULT, it says, "It regards as theosophists all those in the true service of humanity. . .". Therefore, how can Crowley and his cohorts--(who cannot practice altruism which is the essence of theosophical teachings, and who are taught just the opposite)--call themselves "theosophists, without being labeled hypocrites and poseurs?. As one great Master said. . . "You shall know them by their fruits". To carefully study Crowley's, as well as the Nazi occultists' teachings and practices to find out who they are and how they think--so that they can be recognized in their disguises and in their actions and reactions--is one thing. To study it for the purposes of practicing it's magic, or following it's rules of conduct--is quite another. Except for the metaphysics and ontology (which is the same for both white and black magicians) there's not one drop of "theosophy", as taught by the Masters, in Crowley's teachings or his practices. >Well, although you will take a lot of flaming from folks on this list, (Oh >well, I get a lot of flames from magical lists too) I have found that it is >possible to hold a Sword and still respect HPB and her message (a lot like Chuck, >who is a practicing Chaos Magician and Theosophist). Did you know that Hitler thoroughly studied the Secret Doctrine while he was a student in Vienna? I'm sure he respected HPB, too. Certainly, these critics of HPB "respect" her, (as they profess Crowley did) since she was an occultist and magician with, in my view, greater occult knowledge by far than their equally respected (I presume) guru, Mr. Crowley. (None of us, however, not having seen the magic of either of them are in any position to judge who is the better magician.) In any event, this so called "respect" for a fellow magician (although one with entirely opposite motivations, as well as opposite moral-ethical teachings) does not a "theosophist" make. So, why would such critics continue to try to denigrate or discredit HPB (and her defenders) using Crowley's and Tibetan black magic teachings while at the same time hypocritically posing as theosophists? What are the real motives behind such subterfuge and proselytizing? My advice to all "real" theosophists, who, with conviction, follow it's teachings in the true spirit of HPB and the Masters--is to take whatever these sort of people say with a grain of salt. . . And, to all others--to study both opposing philosophies with an open mind, make your own decision, and choose your side. But, be prepared, in either case, for the karmic consequences. In any event, it's wise not to waffle between them. It's impossible to serve two masters at one time. The consequences, if tried, could lead to much pain and suffering. LHM From owner-theos-talk Sat Jan 9 22:57:38 1999 Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 21:59:50 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: AC & HPB Message-ID: <369825B6.9D357610@eden.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <23ff9227.3697f8fd@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Leon: The AC issue has come up from time to time in this and other theos lists. Your comprehensive response is very informative and useful. Thanks. mkr From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 10 13:04:26 1999 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:25:07 -0000 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: RE: AC & HPB Message-ID: <000e01be3c8b$e07a8880$18084ad4@bazzer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <23ff9227.3697f8fd@aol.com> LHM wrote re Crowley etc... Thanks for the informative and illusion-busting contribution, Leon. All the best, P. From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 10 13:11:07 1999 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 10:25:08 -0800 From: "Eldon B Tucker" Subject: THEOSOPHY WORLD and theos-talk Message-Id: <4.0.2.19990110102127.008ede90@theosophy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The THEOSOPHY WORLD and theos-talk archives, previously available online only in ftp format, are now online and accessible in html, text, and pkzip format. They can be accessed through a new top-level web page: Theosophy World The online archives will be updated on an occasional basis -- the time involved precludes their being updated every month -- but they currently are up-to-date as of the January 1999 issue and end-of-December theos-talk postings. Any comments or feedback on how to change/improve things are welcome. -- Eldon Tucker From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 10 13:15:37 1999 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 11:25:08 -0000 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: RE: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <000f01be3c8b$e1332a20$18084ad4@bazzer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <004101be3c17$6f34d3c0$147d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> > >Is it a correct understanding that A.C.'s contribution to > "equality of the > >sexes" also ran to the generous use of sex stimulents (e.g. 'sex appeal' > >perfumes) and a sustained entorage of female 'disciples'? > > > > Uncle's Al's writings have helped contribute to an equality of the > sexes, but not his personal behavior or attitude. Most biographies > show him more than just a little sexist. Which about sums up the hypocrasy of "Uncle Al". "Gime me chastity and continency - but not yet!" (St. Augustine). P. From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 10 13:18:57 1999 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:49:49 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: AC & HPB Message-ID: <000e01be3cc1$9f435fa0$0b7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >How does that whitewash Crowley as a "good guy"? Did HPB ever say that white >or black magicians didn't use and know the same universal laws and >principles"? Differences between AC and HPB are solely based on motive, not >on such superficial things as "style" and "practical approach'. Let's call a >spade a spade. Crowley was not only a racist and an anti-Semite, he was also >a "Dugpa" (black magician). And his "Do as thou Wilt" was also the motto of >the Nazi occultists, justifying their ritual murders. It's obvious that >Crowley's theories are the exact opposite of HPB's. Why must I always be the one to defend Crowley? There is a lot about him that I can't defend. Some would probably say the same about HPB (especially the Jesuits, whom she lombasted). As to motive, Crowley's motive was to do the Great Work, and only that. If you are going to sound like someone who likes to attack Uncle Al without ever reading him, then fine, because that is what your last statement implies to me, and I have spend many years studying and comparing both. I would, however, challenge you to find "theories" of the two that are "exact opposites." You won't be able to do it unless you take both out of context. >Is that so? How could Crowley accept those other "yanas" when they were so >opposed to his own separatists and selfish views? Actually, they weren't. The Vajrayana dovetails with his teachings nicely except for emphasis. But neither Mahayana nor Vajrayana were known to Crowley that I can tell from his writings. His very best friend, George Cecil Jones, if I recall rightly, became a Hinayana Buddhist and he taught this to Crowley as "Buddhism." > I thought he disagreed with >HPB because he was, by his own choice, the direct opposite of a >Bodhisattva--as only a Dugpa black magician, or a selfish Hinayana "Pratyeka >Buddha" could be. I am not aware that Crowley even knew what a Bodhisattva was. And pray tell where do think he "disagreed with HPB????" I have read almost all of both, and have found no such disagreement. >One, believing in total altruism and selflessness at risk >of one's own life, and the other, believing in complete selfishness at risk of >everyone else's. > What one or the other "believed" is a mute point. Crowley taught that every man and women is a star, an exact equivalent to HPB's idea that we all have an inner spark of divinity. They differed strongly in practical application and in emphasis, but their basic teachings are the same (Crowley even claimed to have been sent from the same Great White Brotherhood or Lodge). They were both Teachers but they taught very different types of students (HPB was appealing to the general masses, while Crowley only to a select few). When ever you or anyone else labels another person as a Black Magican, this is almost always a psychic projection from your own Shadow. >... Or, prove that Crowley and his teachers >were wiser than HPB and her teachers- This kind of childish stuff is not worth discussing. There is NO proof of anything at all. All of life, and certainly all of any worldview or belief system is taken on faith or direct experience, but can never ever be proved to anyone else. This is an occult law that I got from reading HPB. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 10 13:19:26 1999 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 13:24:43 -0000 From: "Al Wilkinson" Subject: AC/HPB Message-ID: <005201be3c9c$d50fcda0$9eb959c3@alan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't know whether Crowley was or was not a Nazi sympathizer or what not. Neither do I care. If by an outright rejection of Crowley's teachings and methods then aren't we avoiding the merging of the opposities? Through what I've read of AC's work I can't see the emphasise on selfishness (maybe, though in his personal side), but rather a bent towards totally spiritual and selfless growth. Some of his spiritual visions are totally inspiring. I've not come across that in any theosophy book yet (then again, I've not read much). Leon said: >>Snip<...The way to get to the "higher Aethyrs" (sic) of Crowley (the negative energy planes outside of (or underneath) our positive space--used by black magicians--not necessarily the same etheric or astral light planes spoken of by the Masters),...<< I suppose you've been there to experience and make this absolute judgement. Maybe that could explain certain things >>And his "Do as thou Wilt" was also the motto of the Nazi occultists, justifying their ritual murders.<< Phew! So the Nazi's didn't follow Crowleys motto which was "Do What Thou Wilt". There is a huge difference between 'Do what you want' (which is what you are suggesting it means) and the original motto of 'Do what thou will shall be the whole of the Law - Love is the Law, Love under will" As an aside, I read somewhere that HPB became a member of the Golden Dawn. And that A.C. wrote an extensive commentary to the Voice of Silence. If so, as anyone got a copy they could point me to? Anyway, I'm of to read the Secret Doctrine. If it worked for Crowley, then it might work for me (Big evil grin) Alan From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 10 13:34:30 1999 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 05:42:16 EST From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Re: Re: AC & HPB Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/10/99 1:05:56 AM, Leon wrote: <> This misleading statement equates Dugpas with Pratyekabuddhas -- something HPB *never* did. In all the Buddhist literature, a Pratyekabuddha is nothing like what HPB describes as a Black Magician. Pratyekabuddhas are considered higher than Arhats, because Pratyekabuddhas are self-enlightened, without needing the crutch of a teacher. However, they did not cultivate charity and compassion to the degree required to possess the full abilities of a Buddha, who is marvellously equipped to lead and educate others. Pratyekabuddhas are NOT considered evil, harmful, or agreeable to sacrificing others to gain their way. (I defy anyone to produce a Buddhist quote that says otherwise.) Pratyekabuddhas are, rather, known for their withdrawal from the world and its disturbances. They are not known as antagonistic to the world -- if that were the case, how could they be considered enlightened? That *is* what the Sanskrit word "buddha" means. We need to be careful with loaded, technical terms-- or we will end up in a great deal of confusion, and embarass Blavatsky's teachings by attributing to her things she knew much better than to say. Rich From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 10 14:19:29 1999 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 13:07:35 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: FW: Crowley vs Theosophical "Path" Message-ID: <000701be3cdd$3f963480$b50e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > From: "Dallas TenBroeck" > Sent: Sunday, January 10, 1999 12:35 PM > Subject: Crowley vs Theosophical "Path" Dec 10th 1999 Dear Leon: I had a quick look at some of Crowley's ideas and those of his followers like Israel Regardie several years ago. It seemed to me that they concentrated too much on personal development and not enough on the togetherness that marks those who follow the path that HPB and the Masters delineate. I would characterize that as "togetherness," or a compassion for one's companions and co-workers. And a desire to assist all with whom we have friendly or personal relations. I do not believe in following any other path than that which I choose. However I do look at the suggestions and reports on the trials that others expose to view. Also I try to take into consideration all that is reasonable and coherent. As Karma would have it, each pays eventually for the ethical aspect of the choices that they make. I would say we cannot escape from our past choices, and can only modify the effects of those by some form of personal change we might adopt now in receiving the result. If we resent our circumstances and focus our will on those whom we consider to be responsible, we miss the educative aspect of the various situations we encounter. I would say we ought to practice a certain detachment, so as to be able to turn "evil" into "good." Now, if we deem we are ephemera, (as personalities we may consider ourselves to be apart, and 'separate'), and exist for this present personal life only, then the errors of a personal desire for acceleration can be magnified, as we seek to cram as much experience and dare into the fleeting minutes and seconds of our waking lives - and usually regardless of the karmic consequences. Our "desire" makes us forget to check out the long-term effect of present motives and works. Our "Buddhi-Manas" [ our "Wise and Experienced-Mind"] is set on the back-burner as something that is too much of a brake to our desire for excitement and speed. I say: "Speed -- for what ?" Now, if we are immortals as MONADS [SPIRIT-SOUL-MIND], and if time as such is irrelevant, then, logically, why are we so much in a hurry ? Where do WE aim going? And if we ever get "there" what will we be doing after that ? Which is more valuable - the personality of this life-time, or the INDIVIDUALITY that is an eternal ENTITY ? Have we investigated the HIGHER SELF and its existence ? (See HPB's discussion over the Secret Doctrine with some of her pupils as reported in TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE, pp 66 - 76 {of the ULT Edition) for instance carefully.) If it is difficult to answer these questions intelligently and briefly, as there are so many important points to define and consider, but for those who have some of the Theosophical fundamentals ready t mind on might say, briefly: then I would say there is some danger in the practices, or path that tries for personal results as practical magic for the personality only as shown. Does this make sense to you ? Best wishes, Dallas ======================== From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 10 14:23:58 1999 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 13:06:39 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Some Quotes from Theosophical Sources Message-ID: <000501be3cdd$1ed88d60$b50e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jan 10th 1999 These quotes are offered for consideration by us all: Dallas ================================== "The first and fundamental dogma of Occultism is Universal Unity (or Homogeneity) under three aspects." SD I 58 "Esoteric philosophy teaches that everything lives and is conscious, but not that all life and consciousness are similar to those of human or even animal beings. Life we look upon as "the one form of existence," manifesting in what is called matter; or, as in man, what, incorrectly separating them, we name Spirit, Soul, and Matter." SD I 49 "The Secret Doctrine teaches the progressive development of everything, worlds as well as atoms; and this stupendous development has neither conceivable beginning nor imaginable end. Our "universe" is only one of an infinite number of Universes...links in the great Cosmic chain or Universes..." SD I 43 "Matter is the vehicle for the manifestation of soul on this plane of existence, and soul is the vehicle on a higher plane for the manifestation of spirit, and these three are a trinity synthesized by Life, which pervades them all --...universal life..." SD I 49 "The Finite cannot conceive the Infinite, nor can it apply to It its own standard of mental experiences...The matter-moving Nous [Mind], the animating Soul, immanent in every atom, manifested in man, latent in the stone, has different degrees of power; and this pantheistic idea of a general Spirit-Soul pervading all nature is the oldest of all the philosophical notions." SD I 51 "The idea that things can cease to exist and still BE, is a fundamental one in Eastern psychology." SD I 54 "Consciousness implies limitations and qualifications; something to be conscious of, and someone to be conscious of it. But ABSOLUTE CONSCIOUSNESS contains the cognizer, the thing cognized and the cognition, all three in itself and all three ONE." SD I 56 ""Every Soul-endowed man is an ANUPADAKA in a latent state. ANUPADAKA: "parentless," or, without progenitors is a mystical designation. [They are also named] Dhyan Chohans...Dhyani-Buddhas... [and] correspond mystically to the human Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. ] SD I 52 [ see also: HPB Articles Vol. II p. 271, "the perfected being; TRANSACTIONS, p. 50-52 ] "When MAHAT [Universal Mind] develops into the feeling of Self-Consciousness - "I" - then it assumes the name of Egoism...which means when MAHAT is transformed into the human Manas [Mind]...and becomes AHAM-ship [ I-AM-ness ]." SD I 75 "There is but One Universal Element, which is infinite, unborn, and undying, and that all the rest- as in the world of phenomena [our World] - are but so many various differentiated aspects and transformations (correlations...) of the ONE, from Cosmical down to microcosmical effects...then the first and chief difficulty will disappear and Occult Cosmology way be mastered." SD I 75 "All that we are is the result of what we have thought, all that we are is founded on our thoughts and made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him like his own shadow which never leaves him." Gautama Buddha DHAMMAPADA [ Footfalls of the Law - p. 1 Verse 2 ] "He reviled me, he beat me and then conquered and plundered me." Presses such thoughts tie their mind with the intention of retaliation. In them hatred does not cease." ( Verse 3 ) "In this world, never is enmity appeased by hatred; enmity is ever appeased by Love. This is the Law Eternal." [ Verse 5 ] "Those who live in the pleasure-ground of fancy, see truth in the unreal and untruth in the real. They never arrive at TRUTH." Verse 11 ] "Whoso lives pursuing pleasure, his senses unrestrained, immoderate in eating, indolent, devitalized-him, verily doth Mara [The demon of Temptation personified] uproot, as a gale uproots an ill-rooted tree." [ Verse 7 ] From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 10 15:19:25 1999 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:13:39 -0000 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: RE: Re: AC & HPB Message-ID: <000101be3cde$181fdc20$48084ad4@bazzer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Rich wrote: > Pratyekabuddhas are considered higher than Arhats, Or, by reverse logic, Arhats are considered lower than Pratyeka Buddhas. Yes? Well, no. This is complete nonsense. >From "The Voice of the Silence". Concerning Pratyeka-Buddha (Glossary to Part II): "Caring nothing for the woes of mankind or to help it, but only for their own *bliss*, they enter Nirvana and - disappear from the sight and hearts of men. In Northern Buddhism a 'Pratyeka Buddha' is a synonym of spiritual Selfishness" (Glossary to Part II). Further, (Glossary to Part III): "(32). In the Northern Buddhist phraseology all the great Arhats, Adepts and Saints are called Buddhas. (33). A *Bodhisattva* is, in the hierarchy, less than a "perfect Buddha." In the exoteric parlance these two are very much confused. Yet the innate and right popular perception, owing to that self-sacrifice, has placed a Bodhisattva higher in its reverence than a Buddha." (34). This same popular reverence calls "Buddhas of Compassion" those *Bodhisattvas* who, having reached the rank of an Arhat (i.e., have completed the *fourth* or *seventh* Path), refuse to pass into the Nirvanic state or 'don the *Dharmakaya* robe and cross to the other shore,' as it would then become beyond their power to assist men even so little as Karma permits. . . . . ." The summation of the VOICE of the SILENCE is, thus: JOY UNTO YE, O MEN OF MYALBA (35.) A PILGRIM HATH RETURNED BACK "FROM THE OTHER SHORE." A NEW ARHAN (36) IS BORN . . . . *Peace to all beings* (37). How on Myalba can Pratyeka-Buddha be considered "higher" than Arhan/Arhat? Preposterous; a thousand times preposterous. Best wishes, Paul From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 10 16:05:22 1999 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:53:51 -0000 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: RE: AC & HPB Message-ID: <000201be3ce3$b5c9da20$48084ad4@bazzer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <000e01be3cc1$9f435fa0$0b7d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> Jerry wrote: > I am not aware that Crowley even knew what a Bodhisattva was. In which case he must: (a) Have either been (very) short of the mark and didn't know/understand/study anything of the Arhat Doctrine; or (b) Ignored what is, after all, a basic tennet of even popular (Mahayana) Buddhism. The seemingly endless (some might say pointless) discussions on Crowley & Co. may be/are distracting many from the purpose of this List (i.e. Theosophy). . . . so thank you Dallas for the recent quotes which hopefully may help put us back on track. Best, Paul. From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 10 18:06:01 1999 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 18:59:44 EST From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Re: AC/HPB Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/10/99 7:19:20 PM, Alan wrote: <> I'm afraid you have it backwards, my friend. It was refugees from HPB's Esoteric Section that joined the Golden Dawn, like W.B. Yeats. The Golden Dawn was formed well *after* the Theosophical Society, and I truly suspect most of The Dawn's best stuff was "appropriated" from HPB -- without credit given, of course. Aleister Crowley indeed wrote a Commentary on The Voice of the Silence. But I know a much better commentary -- HPB's own writings. If anyone knew what she wrote and what she wanted to say, she did. Try The Key to Theosophy by HPB and The Ocean of Theosophy by William Q. Judge. They are great places to start getting a handle on the concepts and terms of The Voice of the Silence. Never forget that Crowley was doing "his own thing." He did not claim to be part of the Theosophical movement, and I strongly doubt the Theosophists would have had him. The first object of the Theosophical Society was to form a nucleus of Universal Brotherhood, not a school of magic. (Refer to the Maha- Chohan's letter chastizing Sinnett and others) Crowley, however, talked much of brotherhood, but was *really* interested in a school of magic. I would be interested to hear what humanitarian works Crowley performed, OUTSIDE of a "ritual magic" setting. HPB was known for such things as trading in her first-class ticket so that a stranded woman could ride on a ship to America, while HPB rode third-class in the boiler room. Has Crowley similarly LIVED THE LIFE? Rich From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 10 18:14:34 1999 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 18:59:32 EST From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Mindless quotes Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/10/99 9:19:20 PM, Paul quotes: <<> Pratyekabuddhas are considered higher than Arhats, Or, by reverse logic, Arhats are considered lower than Pratyeka Buddhas. Yes? Well, no. This is complete nonsense. >From "The Voice of the Silence". Concerning Pratyeka-Buddha (Glossary to Part II): "Caring nothing for the woes of mankind or to help it, but only for their own *bliss*, they enter Nirvana and - disappear from the sight and hearts of men. In Northern Buddhism a 'Pratyeka Buddha' is a synonym of spiritual Selfishness" (Glossary to Part II). Further, (Glossary to Part III): "(32). In the Northern Buddhist phraseology all the great Arhats, Adepts and Saints are called Buddhas. (33). A *Bodhisattva* is, in the hierarchy, less than a "perfect Buddha." In the exoteric parlance these two are very much confused. Yet the innate and right popular perception, owing to that self-sacrifice, has placed a Bodhisattva higher in its reverence than a Buddha." (34). This same popular reverence calls "Buddhas of Compassion" those *Bodhisattvas* who, having reached the rank of an Arhat (i.e., have completed the *fourth* or *seventh* Path), refuse to pass into the Nirvanic state or 'don the *Dharmakaya* robe and cross to the other shore,' as it would then become beyond their power to assist men even so little as Karma permits. . . . . .>> Paul! You can quote well, but you have really confused all the above terms. And your quotes, out of context, actually confuse matters more, because you haven't read any Buddhism, you only have HPB's scattered definitions. You are content to parrot HPB word-for-word, and then throw down the gauntlet as if you've proven your point. Quotes from HPB, however, really only prove that you own her books and can read them. Here's a different, "overview" method, and you will see both the skill and the idiosyncrasy of HPB. This is my paraphrasing of Buddhist definitions, and I invite other students of Buddhism to back me up or show that I am wrong: (1) Arhats are graduates of the Hinayana (small vehicle) path. They are considered "freed from impurities" and thus freed from the wheel of rebirth. They are free to go on to Nirvana. "Arhat" literally means "one who has slain the enemies." Arhats are NOT enlightened, not omniscient, only "free." (2) Pratyekabuddhas *are* considered higher adepts, by *BUDDHISM* (which is what I wrote, if you bothered to check). These beings are considered enlightened (meaning far-seeing and wise) as well as free from bondage karmically. Their name means literally "prati-eka" (by oneself) "buddha" (enlightened). But they did not put in the lifetimes of compassion to develop the higher virtues of skill-in-means and compassion to be able to help others. Thus, in a spiritual sense, they are wise but selfish. Not in the sense of selfish as in "hurting others" but in the sense of "leaving them to their fate" and proceeding on to Nirvana. No one in Buddhism, southern or northern, worships the Pratyekabuddhas, though both traditions mention them as existing. (3) Bodhisattva. A "wisdom-being," one who has taken a vow to become a Buddha, and is variously progressed along that path. Many of us on this list have taken the vow, but I suspect we are more "embryonic bodhisattvas." Still, our heart is in the right place. Certain mythological bodhisattvas are worshipped by the masses, because they are considered to be *just about* to become Buddhas (like Maitreya), or because they have been bodhisattvas so long they have developed tremendous powers, nearly equal to a full Buddha (Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara). (4) A Buddha, a *samyak-sambuddha*, a "fully enlightened Master" is the only one who, having freed himself, has the ability to free others in whatever their condition, language, culture, race, or psychological problems. These beings are worshipped. These beings are rare, and are said to incarnate very seldom, perhaps once a kalpa. And a kalpa, by anyone's defition, is a long, long time. Because they are so precious, their writings are preserved very carefully, because that may be all we have for a long time to come. HPB calls the recent Buddha "the highest adept ever to appear on the planet." What I have written above is all from BUDDHIST points of view, not Theosophical. Now, having gotten some authentic Buddhism, we compare to HPB's quotes provided by Paul, and see that in some cases she is talking loosely. When HPB speaks of "the great Arhats," she is not referring to all Arhats, only the great ones. These are Buddhas. But you couldn't know that unless you had read some Buddhism outside of HPB. Next quote: HPB first says bodhisattvas are lower than Buddhas, but the exoteric masses rightly put them above Buddhas. This is wrong, in theory, according to HPB, but both beings a masters of compassion and self-sacrifice. Therefore, in this paragraph, HPB is emphasizing that fact. She still believes Buddhas are higher than bodhisattvas. She says so. The final quote also shows that Arhats are lower, then those who "pass on" are bodhisattvas, and those who complete the goal are Buddhas. It doesn't mention pratyekabuddhas at all. So it's not a terribly helpful quote. I state again that HPB is not making up these terms, she is borrowing them from source material, which 99% of Theosophists haven't bothered to read for themselves. It causes a great deal of confusion, and embarrasses us to inquirers who have studied other traditions. Because all we can say is "we have faith in HPB" and we can't prove why. One reason we know she's authentic, however, is because we see HPB time and again using technical terms "correctly," the way the native traditions use them. Then she adds more, the esoteric side. Rich From owner-theos-talk Sun Jan 10 23:35:07 1999 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:23:38 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: WHO PLAYED THAT TRICK ON H.P.B.? THE PUZZLE OF "THE THEOSOPHICAL Message-ID: <36998AD9.F9B2EFDB@azstarnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 GLOSSARY." By Boris De Zirkoff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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, 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. First published in Theosophia (Winter 1967-68) From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 00:20:31 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 01:12:39 EST From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: WHO PLAYED THAT TRICK ON H.P.B.? THE PUZZLE OF "THE THEOSOPH... Message-ID: <6687cd8d.36999657@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-01-11 00:35:34 EST, you write: << 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. >> This is way way out of my field of knowledge, but from what you've written it sounds like a satire that got taken seriously. Chuck From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 00:24:25 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 01:08:29 EST From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: AC/HPB Message-ID: <5e4a77a8.3699955d@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-01-10 19:06:09 EST, you write: << It was refugees from HPB's Esoteric Section that joined the Golden Dawn, like W.B. Yeats. The Golden Dawn was formed well *after* the Theosophical Society, and I truly suspect most of The Dawn's best stuff was "appropriated" from HPB -- without credit given, of course. >> Wrong wrong wrong. The Golden Dawn was formed approximately the same time as the TS and the two organizations shared memberships for some time with perfect amity. The fact is that HPB was heavily influenced by Eliphas Levi, whom she seems to have known during her stay in France before coming to America as were the founders of the Golden Dawn and both Levi and Blavatsky knew Bulwer-Lytton who seems to have planted his mark on the ideas and writings of the two of them. The original plan for the shrine room in the London Lodge was a duplicate of the ritual chamber described by Levi in his writings about his attempt to conjure the shade of Appolonius of Tyana. The original program of the ES was in many was intended as a compliment to the teachings of the GD as it is referred to in early ES writings and some pains were taken to avoid duplicating material. Chuck From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 00:49:23 1999 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:34:32 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Some Observations on the Claims made by Boris de Zirkoff and others Message-ID: <36999B76.57D053BD@azstarnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 about Madame Blavatsky's THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Some Observations on the Claims made by Boris de Zirkoff and others about Madame Blavatsky's THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY by Daniel H. Caldwell 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 the above quote from THE PERENNIAL WISDOM, let us focus on the following TWO statements: [1] > 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. The time period referred to is Autumn 1890. [2] > 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 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"? 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.'] 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. In Dec 1998 on Theos-Talk, the following "negative" opinions about HPB'S THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY were posted by two other Blavatsky students: STATEMENT 1: "The Glossary is indeed full of errors. . . . Had I the time I would find dozens of entries I think are suspicious and contradict earlier writings of HPB, especially the SD. . . . Mead wrote a great deal of it, and it waited for HPB's approval. After she died, the MSS. were simply published without HPB's thoroughgoing edit. Much of what's in there is from HPB, and I feel certain much is not." STATEMENT 2: "The fact is that HPB died before she had finished one third of the TG. The unedited manuscript was picked up by other much less informed theosophists who added to it and produced the present inconsistent and garbled version." [Compare these statements with what Boris de Zirkoff wrote in his article on the TG.] It would appear that the above two statements are based on the reasoning that since there are alleged "errors" and "contradictions" in the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, therefore, H.P. Blavatsky did NOT write those portions of the text. Instead, it is hypothesized that, G.R.S. Mead or other unnamed "less informed theosophists" wrote the portions containing the errors and inconsistencies. It is alleged that these "additions" to HPB's genuine manuscript were written sometime after May 8, 1891 but prior to the publication of THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY in early 1892. The added material was incorporated into HPB's text and palmed off as genuine Blavatsky writing. This appears to be the gist of the reasoning in the above two statements. These two opinions appear similar to the ones previously made by Boris de Zirkoff and Jerry Hejka-Edkins. First of all, these are SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS against Mr. Mead and other personal students of HPB. Let us take the above reasoning and see if it holds up in light of the following evidence: For example, Boris de Zirkoff writes that "the definitions of the Days and Nights of Brahma are entirely wrong [in THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY]." Are we to conclude therefore that HPB could not have written those definitions? Is that what Mr. de Zirkoff is asking us to do? I assume this is his line of thinking. But these SAME definitions appear in the 60-page glossary appended to the second edition of THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY. This second edition of the KEY was published in late 1890 while HPB was still alive. And in the Preface to this second edition, HPB writes: "I have added a copious 'Glossary' of all the technical terms. . . .[to this second edition]." Or take the original edition of THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE. H.P.B. writes in a note to the main text: "Eternity with the Orientals has quite another signification than it has with us. It stands generally for the 100 years or 'age' of Brahma, the duration of a Kalpa or a period of 4,320,000,000 years." pp. 74-75. Yet Dr. Jean-Louis Siemons considers the time-period given as "a palpable error." And in the Theosophy Company's edition of THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE, the error has also been "corrected." Would Boris or Rich or Leon maintain that these "errors" in texts published during HPB's lifetime were ALSO made by G.R.S. Mead or other unnamed "less informed theosophists."? Another example: Rich writes--- "Here are the few investigations I have time to share today, a few Glossary entries which have minor typos to serious errors of fact. . . " He then cites several including the following example: "Dugpas: According to my knowledge (and I'm checking with my prof) the word does not mean anything close to "red hat." Rather, one of its various homonyms (and it's tough to know which one because HPB spells things phonetically and not "correctly" with silent letters) it means evil, poisonous. I have previously posted my feelings on this topic, but the hard and fast distinction which may in the 15th century have applied to Yellow and Red Hats is not only misleading but pernicious, condemning as it does most Tibetans to the Evil School. But then HPB contradicts herself, and states that most Dugpas live in Bhutan, unaware of pure Northern Buddhism. So does Dugpa mean "Red Hat" for HPB (in which case Tibet is full of them) or "Bonpo," a practitioner of native Tibetan religion -- most of whom currently live in Bhutan. I think it's the latter, and we should all stop castigating the poor Lamas who belong to schools predating the Gelugpa (Dalai Lama) sect. But in any case, the translation "Red Hat" is, I feel certain, completely wrong. I'll update you with my (practising Buddhist) professor's knowledge." It is unclear to me whether Rich believes HPB was in "error" when writing about "dugpas" OR whether the "error" should be blamed on poor Mr. Mead. But if Rich or Boris is insisting that this is another "error" indicating that HPB did NOT write it, then please turn to THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE, p. 90 and read HPB's note on the Dugpas: "The *Bhons* or *Dugpas*, the sect of the 'Red Caps,' are regarded as the most versed in sorcery. They inhabit Western and little Tibet and Bhutan. They are all Tantrikas. . . ." [Compare this to what KH writes about "Tantrikas".] Is there an "error" here in the VOICE note? Is Rich ready to attribute this statement in the VOICE to the pen of Mead or "other much less informed theosophists"? Also consult published articles in which HPB writes about the Dugpas. Are there "errors" about the dugpas in these writings of HPB (published during her lifetime)? Example: HPB writes: "In Sikkim and Tibet they are called Dugpas (red-caps). . . ." COLLECTED WRITINGS, VI, p. 198. Also reprinted in Theosophy Company's 3 volume edition of HPB's THEOSOPHICAL ARTICLES (article on "Elementals.") The above observations are just a few instances that convince me that Boris de Zirkoff's contentions concerning THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY are in gross error. In her labors on the manuscript of THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, Madame Blavatsky compiled "definitions" of terms from more than a dozen scholarly books. In numerous entries of this compiled material, H.P.B. then ADDED her "occult interpretation" or esoteric viewpoint. Many of the errors to be found in the GLOSSARY are derived from errors in the books from which H.P.B. extracted the "tabulation of facts". In light of the above, there are no good reasons to accuse G.R.S. Mead of adding additional material to the manuscript of THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY after H.P.B.'s death. From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 01:34:23 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:32:33 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: Re: AC & HPB Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Rich With reference to your letter following, I would like to say that you are right about a Pratyaka Buddha, and I did not intend to equate them with Dugpas or black magicians (as HPB described them). Please forgive the implied connection which was the result in hasyy formation of my sentence. Note, however, that I did refer to "selfish" pratyika Buddhas who "could be" motivated oppositely to HPB (who was a true Bodhisattva, and certainly a Buddha, according to your definition.). I believe, however, the word Buddha actually means *one* who is enlightened. i.e.; In the sense of reaching a state which Patanjali calls "isolation". Both the Bodhisattva with the nature of a true, compassionate Buddha who forsakes Nirvana) and a Pratyika Buddha (one who when enlightened enters directly into Nirvana) would have that same state of enlightenment--but one would have taken the unselfish vow to remain out of Nirvana and accept continuing incarnations until the last unenlightened being has been enlightened and passes into Nirvana--while other would selfishly enter Nirvana immediately and ignore the suffering of all sentient beings throughout eternity. Of course, after the pralaya and at the beginning of the new manvantara, those in last would be the great ones out first who become the Dhyani Chohans, or highests "gods" while those in first would become the last ones out to begin the entire chain of evolution, with all its ignorance and suffering all over again. This must be the way karma actually works. As one sows ---------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 1/10/99 7:34:28 PM, Richtay@aol.com writes: >In a message dated 1/10/99 1:05:56 AM, Leon wrote: > ><opposed to his own separatists and selfish views? I thought he disagreed >with >HPB because he was, by his own choice, the direct opposite of a >Bodhisattva--as only a Dugpa black magician, or a selfish Hinayana "Pratyeka >Buddha" could be. One, believing in total altruism and selflessness at >risk >of one's own life, and the other, believing in complete selfishness at >risk of >everyone else's. >> > >This misleading statement equates Dugpas with Pratyekabuddhas -- something >HPB >*never* did. In all the Buddhist literature, a Pratyekabuddha is nothing >like what HPB describes as a Black Magician. Pratyekabuddhas are considered >higher than Arhats, because Pratyekabuddhas are self-enlightened, without >needing the crutch of a teacher. However, they did not cultivate charity >and >compassion to the degree required to possess the full abilities of a Buddha, >who is marvellously equipped to lead and educate others. > >Pratyekabuddhas are NOT considered evil, harmful, or agreeable to sacrificing >others to gain their way. (I defy anyone to produce a Buddhist quote that >says otherwise.) Pratyekabuddhas are, rather, known for their withdrawal >from >the world and its disturbances. They are not known as antagonistic to >the >world -- if that were the case, how could they be considered enlightened? >That *is* what the Sanskrit word "buddha" means. > >We need to be careful with loaded, technical terms-- or we will end up >in a >great deal of confusion, and embarass Blavatsky's teachings by attributing >to >her things she knew much better than to say. > >Rich > From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 02:04:24 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:55:36 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: RE: AC & HPB Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Again, thank you Paul. Leon --------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 1/10/99 10:05:58 PM, bazzer@bazzer.co.uk writes: >Jerry wrote: > >> I am not aware that Crowley even knew what a Bodhisattva was. > >In which case he must: > >(a) Have either been (very) short of the mark and didn't >know/understand/study anything of the Arhat Doctrine; > >or > >(b) Ignored what is, after all, a basic tennet of even popular (Mahayana) >Buddhism. > >The seemingly endless (some might say pointless) discussions on Crowley >& >Co. may be/are distracting many from the purpose of this List (i.e. >Theosophy). . . . so thank you Dallas for the recent quotes which hopefully >may help put us back on track. > >Best, >Paul. > From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 02:12:28 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 02:52:43 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: RE: Re: AC & HPB Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Thank you Paul Leon ------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 1/10/99 9:19:20 PM, bazzer@bazzer.co.uk writes: >Rich wrote: > >> Pratyekabuddhas are considered higher than Arhats, > >Or, by reverse logic, Arhats are considered lower than Pratyeka Buddhas. >Yes? Well, no. This is complete nonsense. > >From "The Voice of the Silence". > >Concerning Pratyeka-Buddha (Glossary to Part II): > >"Caring nothing for the woes of mankind or to help it, but only for their >own *bliss*, they enter Nirvana and - disappear from the sight and hearts >of men. In Northern Buddhism a 'Pratyeka Buddha' is a synonym of spiritual >Selfishness" (Glossary to Part II). > >Further, (Glossary to Part III): > >"(32). In the Northern Buddhist phraseology all the great Arhats, Adepts >and Saints are called Buddhas. > >(33). A *Bodhisattva* is, in the hierarchy, less than a "perfect Buddha." >In the exoteric parlance these two are very much confused. Yet the innate >and right popular perception, owing to that self-sacrifice, has placed >a >Bodhisattva higher in its reverence than a Buddha." > >(34). This same popular reverence calls "Buddhas of Compassion" those >*Bodhisattvas* who, having reached the rank of an Arhat (i.e., have >completed the *fourth* or *seventh* Path), refuse to pass into the Nirvanic >state or 'don the *Dharmakaya* robe and cross to the other shore,' as it >would then become beyond their power to assist men even so little as Karma >permits. . . . . ." > >The summation of the VOICE of the SILENCE is, thus: > > > JOY UNTO YE, O MEN OF MYALBA (35.) > > A PILGRIM HATH RETURNED BACK "FROM THE > OTHER SHORE." > > A NEW ARHAN (36) IS BORN . . . . > > *Peace to all beings* (37). > > >How on Myalba can Pratyeka-Buddha be considered "higher" than Arhan/Arhat? >Preposterous; a thousand times preposterous. From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 02:19:23 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 03:08:09 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: Re: RE: ARE WE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE H.P.B.? Message-ID: <8511f890.3699b169@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/5/99 10:27:26 PM, Jerry S wrote: >I used to be a convinced Episcopal. Then I became a convinced >Christian Scientist. Then a convinced yogi. Then a convinced >Tantrist. Then a convinced Theosophist. If life has taught me >anything at all it is to always hold fast to doubt and to think for >yourself. I have vowed to never be a convinced anything. There's nothing wrong with doubt. But, then, are we wrong to assume that you are now as unconvinced of theosophy as you are about all those other convictions that came before? Are you also unconvinced of the psychological theories that got you your degrees? If so, then what makes you such an expert about anything--including Theosophy or the motives of theosophists you claim have attacked your views unjustifiably? Are you not even convinced of the brilliance of your presumptions? Or, convinced you're one who knows everything about how everyone else thinks? Or, convinced of the validity of the unproved psychological theories you base your judgments on? Or, convinced that your two PhD's and a passel of psychoanalytical jargon--that misinterpreted everyone's motives who called you out on your defense of Tantric sex (as a black magic process), Dugpas, Crowley, et al., plus your obvious attempts to discredit HPB (and missed the mark on all counts by a country mile)--gives you some sort of authority as a brilliant commentator on any of the subjects YOU brought up? If not, then what are you convinced of? How can anyone be taken seriously who is not even convinced that what he is saying is correct or true? Judging by the number of convictions you had in the past, and could so easily be switched from one to another, I wonder if you ever knew very much about anything you ever claimed to know--including psychology and theosophy--posing as if you were a fully studied and convinced expert in both? Or, are your statements about theosophy and its teachers and your personal digs and psychologizing (that started this controversy) just off-the-wall opinions based on nothing at all, and simply designed to provoke argument? So, what are those degrees (mentioned in your previous post) worth--other than what it cost in money, time and energy to get them? Lip service about one's spirituality and brotherhood holds no credibility over one's actions and attitudes. And, academic credentials, by themselves, don't make anyone an authority on anything. Of course, thinking for oneself is highly laudable. . . Provided one has sufficient motivation, time and energy to study every hypothesis thoroughly, and test every conclusion for oneself. Doesn't the fact that your knowledge of psychology rests on the theories and work of those (and a selected few at that) who came before you or taught you--based on their authority, their unverified theories, and their opinions and interpretations--make it obvious that whatever convictions you do have or ever had in the past aren't worth a hill of beans in a reasoned debate based on real, first hand knowledge of theosophy (as the synthesis of Science, religion and philosophy gathered over many thousands of years by many hundreds if not thousands of trained observers)? You've constantly misinterpreted the motives of all those who have disagreed with your views, and since you admittedly have no convictions, your arguments designed to discredit HPB, and now Dallas and me, have no theosophical or psychological validity whatsoever. In fact, your indirect (and recently, pompously direct) psychologizing of us is one helluva funny joke.:-);-) z I know people who have gotten their scientific degrees by memorizing every formula they read in their textbooks, and writing their theses by quoting or paraphrasing the work done by those who taught them or came before them. I also know others who never memorized a formula, but whenever required, derived them from fundamental scientific principles, and wrote their theses, based solely on their own original hypothesis, reasoned thinking and careful experimentation. I wonder which one of those could maybe end up getting a Nobel prize, and in which category we each imagine ourselves to be with respect to this discussion? So, if the shoe fits. . . (I'm willing to wear it.:-) Be assured there's no intention to be personal, although its difficult when you continue on such a level (by innuendo, psychologizing and other diversionary tactics) to side track (I won't say attack:-) those who disagree with you. So, let's cut out all this pointless argumentation and go back, if that's our game, to counseling and psychologizing people who are more ignorant than we are, or discussing theosophy so that we all may be better able to understand it, and consequently, "be better able to help and teach others".:-) In the meantime, I think everyone has the right to question theosophy and the statements made in the S.D.--but without personally denigrating its teachers' credibility, or making contrary assertions unless they have sufficient demonstrable subjective or objective proof consistent with fundamental principles (and, not such questionable proof as reference to exoteric or so called "esoteric" organized religious scriptural sources that are much later than the Book of Dzyan) . (I hope we could, at least, agree on those.) Theosophy cannot be argued against, since it is based on a book written more than 8,000 years ago which rests on fundamental principles that either have to be accepted or not as being valid. If not so accepted in all their aspects, or if there is any inconsistency on any level, then the whole structure falls apart and no conviction is possible. Without such conviction of the truths of theosophy as a consistent and unassailable body of knowledge, one cannot do anything but take, blindly, whatever his guru, his mind or his heart tells him is the truth. . . Each for himself or herself, and hopefully, resist any attempt to proselytize other serious students and/or divert them from the knowledge gained by their own self devised and self determined efforts. This is not to say, that it's improper to correct anyone who may have a wrong interpretation or a wrong view of theosophy. But this correction can only be based on the original teachings given out in the S.D. And, no later scriptures have any validity other than their right to have their own interpretation--which may be correct or not--but can never be "authoritative" in any case. The only authentic source or references are the words of the original teachers who wrote, or understood the Book of Dzyan, from which all the root teachings of theosophy and all subsequent religions originate. And, even then, those teachers (including their "messenger," HPB) cannot be authoritative since the philosophy must stand or fall on its own reasonableness and consistency in explaining ALL the laws and actions of the universe and its parts, as well as the origins, evolution and purpose of all the sentient beings in it. Of course, any practice or theory presented by any "modern" or "ancient" religion, if not consistent with these teachings and the fundamental principles they rest on, will have no validity whatsoever as an argument for or against theosophy. Even inadvertent minor errors, whether typographical, mistranslations, or otherwise made by the authors, editors or printers of the S.D. should have no bearing on any discussion of theosophy as a science, as a philosophy, or as a "wisdom religion." LHM From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 09:34:23 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:58:49 -0800 From: "Mike Perala" Subject: Re: theos-talk-digest V1 #657 Message-ID: <369ABA69.5945@dlc.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <199901110006.SAA12143@pippin.imagiware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > > I thought he disagreed with > >HPB because he was, by his own choice, the direct opposite of a > >Bodhisattva--as only a Dugpa black magician, or a selfish Hinayana > "Pratyeka > >Buddha" could be. If Gautama Buddha would have chosen not to teach others what he had realized, wouldn`t he be a ´Pratyeka`Buddha? Or what does that mean? Mika From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 09:38:23 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 07:24:31 PST From: "David Green" Subject: [1] W Judge's 1895 letter on messages from dead Mrs Blavatsky Message-ID: <19990111152432.15461.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain W Judge's 1895 letter re messages from dead Mrs Blavatsky. Letter in handwriting of W Judge and preserved in Archives, Theosophical Society, Pasadena, CA. Letter published in "O E Library Critic", Novem 1932 by editor Dr H N Stokes. Letter dated Jan 4, 1895. D Green "All Communications herein must be marked 'Private' and contain no other Business. E.S.T. WILLIAM Q. JUDGE 144 Madison Avenue, New York, Jan. 4, 1895 Dr. A. Keightley (for Councillors etc.) Comrades Enclosed is an exact transcript of what HPB said to me Jany 3, prematurely ended by a visitor - as usual & as results from European continual nagging at me. It is word for word. More will be said later. You can let all worthy & devoted loyalists read this - It may be read in a proper group. Copies not to be made. This is to be kept with Council papers. Fraternally William Q. Judge Go to no extremes in thought or act hereupon." Transcript of dead Mrs Blavatsky's message to W Judge enclosed in Judge's letter: "HPB. Jany 3 1895 Yours is not a (bootless) or fruitless) errand. You have nobly sustained our cause in the crisis. Be encouraged. Well did Master know the staunch fearless attributes of your soul when he directed me to make you leader of our craft in America. As the centre of our force is attacked the more does our light work for the right. Victory is ours. All will end for the good of all. Mistakes have been made but you have not gone far from the lines laid down by Master. My desire is for you to be careful about sending out Instructions to the E.S. for treacherous and unworthy persons are within the gates, & all new ideas will be appropriated by the other side after x x x x. The forces are out and annihilation is the only thing that can interfere. Let me tell you some of the things I have learned since I absented myself from the outer world. Many of the problems of life that should have been solved if we had been more together have come up before me & I have learned much. I am, next to the American work, interested in Spain. Ireland can take care of itself. In the pine woods I have found a lodge which I knew something about before I went away. There, seven chelas & the light they show that some day will be better known, I will describe to you at our next meeting. There is much connected with it that can be used for irradiating forces in this country for there is a subtle connection. Be sure that at our next meeting it is not forgotten x x x x Slowly the light from this Lodge is being thrown over Spain & I see that from the old corpse of bigotry superstition & credulity will be reared a temple of light which will unite its forces with that of America & Ireland & from these three points I know that humanity will be saved. x x x This battle of light & darkness in our midst seems but small (little) when I view the work before us x x x and the ends and prospects of our work shall stem the tide of this cruel & unworthy persecution. Under all work shall stem the tide of this cruel & unworthy persecution. Under all of it & over it all the Masters hand; be sure that all is well for thee. x x x x. The light mentioned in Spain is of seven sides & a purple & yellow light. On each of the seven sides is a star. This represents the Lodge of Spain. Connect yourself with it as you will be directed. x x x I will not permit you to resign nor will I permit you to submit to further investigation. Form your plans for the American work. Keep all your lines perfect with sustaining points & leave the rest to us. This is to your questions of last night. x x x x x I will not touch on minor points. They will take care of themselves. Master is not after minor points. Let us turn our eyes to the American future of Theosophy. x x x x (Interruption & conclusion by a visitor)" In Novem 1932 magazine, article's title is "A letter from W.Q. Judge to Dr. A. Keightley." Besides letterhead, rest of letter "written in ink in the handwriting of William Q. Judge." Transcript of dead Mrs Blavatsky's words also in W Judge's handwriting. This certified by Iverson L Harris, Joseph H Fussell, Elsie V Savage, Margherita Siren & Helen Harris. Stokes confirms W Judge was residing in New York early Janu 1895. Date confirmation also found in E S T circular April 3, 1896. Note also '95 letter is E S T handwritten letter & not printed E S T circular ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 09:49:23 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 07:45:06 PST From: "David Green" Subject: [3] K Tingley channels discarnate Judge Message-ID: <19990111154507.6612.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain K Tingley channels discarnate Judge There's a letter by Mr Emil August Neresheimer dated March 31, 1896. Letter written to Alice Cleather in England. Original in T.S. Pasadena archives. Published in EA Greenwalt 1955 book on TS Point Loma. Excerpts follow: "The day after he [Judge] died he sent for me through [a symbol here designating Mrs K Tingley] with whom he made me acquainted in 1894........ Next day early I called, could not connect with him [Judge], all I could get through [Mrs Tingley] was 'to go slow, immensely slow.' He had something to say before the incineration. He came again at 12 m. next day but said nothing of any account. [Mrs Tingley] was not conscious. Two days afterward I was sent for in the evening.............I went, made notes of what he [Judge] wished me to say to the others, which was mostly retailing my entire connection, introduction by him [Judge] to [Mrs Tingley], all that transpired about the arrangement of the Convention of 1895, program of which was furnished me by [Mrs Tingley] and which was carried out. This I did to the (skeptical) audience consisting of E.T.H. Patterson, James Pryse, Griscom, Fussell (who were all designated to hear it) and I also transmitted the appointment for all of us to meet at Purple's [Mrs Tingley] same evening at 7:45 p.m. The Rajah [Judge] commenced to talk almost immediately through [Mrs Tingley], suggesting to select the Outer-Head and the Council. First change of feeling occurred at recognition of the Rajah. Skepticism was carried to the winds, doubts vanished, and spontaneity prevailed........I tell you the thing was most wonderful and impressive......" Neresheimer was close friend of W Judge & executor of Judge's will. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 09:54:08 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 07:35:15 PST From: "David Green" Subject: [2]W Judge to K Tingley re dead Mrs Blavatsky communications Message-ID: <19990111153516.18692.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain W Judge to K Tingley re dead Mrs Blavatsky communications Letter handwritten by W Judge. Printed in "O E Library Critic" Octo 1932. "[Jan] 5th [1895] on the train [from N Y to Chicago] Dear Purple [Mrs Tingley] Just as I was leaving some foreign letters came & I sent his letter so you could see how he is. I wish you would get those glasses I spoke of as you do not like to read with what you have. You ought to see how he is now, for he is either lying on purpose in the letter or speaking his heart. I think the latter. I do not know what proof he wants or would accept. You see he has not taken well what I said as to an anonymous letter. He may tell it to all the rest & thus prevent their sending any. In the other letter is one from the printer who saw prince long ago-----I told you of him-----He tirades agst the Hdqr's crowd like anything. Now about this Spanish idea. It's a good one-----but. It will raise a lot of ideas & talk. It will raise some jealousy. She [Mrs Blavatsky] was right in saying, as she said today that she did not mean to exclude the rest of Europe and that those now in the work in Spain had not used all efforts. They have not. Now the prominent man there has not accepted the order. Would it be well to tell him what she has said? It looks to me like a good idea. He does believe in HPB and R will certainly have no such message for him. If you think well of this plan I will write to him from Chicago. They report that the R crowd in London are now beginning to pretend to hear from Master. They will have revelations soon. They intend to try & show tht HPB changed her opinion of me in 1891. I shall have you in mind every day. Why dont you put down briefly things you get & not have them all lost. Well the train jolts & I stop. It seems singular the Truth does not come. Why do you suppose? Good night I forgot that small bottle for gargle----- as usual. But I [here is inserted astrological sign Aries. W Judge born in sign Aries] have the white oil. Nasty." [Letter ends here.] This W Judge letter in article "A letter from W.Q. Judge to Katherine Tingely." "O.E. Critic" Octo 1932. After transcription, certification reads----- "The above is an exact copy made by me of an original letter in William Q. Judge's handwriting, written on two sides of one sheet of white paper." etc etc etc etc Signed Iverson L Harris & confirmed J H Fussell, Helena Harris, Elsie V Savage & Margherita Siren. Original in T.S. Pasadena, CA ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 10:04:22 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 07:52:24 PST From: "David Green" Subject: [4]Rajah is name for W Judge Message-ID: <19990111155225.4506.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Rajah is name for W Judge. W Judge was known as----Rajah. References are found in "Theosophy"---May 1896. "the Rajah---as the real W.Q.J. was so often called" wrote "T." "He was called by some The Rajah." wrote E Neresheimer. "Letters that have helped me", p 274 E Hargrove mentions--- "On morning of March 19th, he [W Judge] asked me to make full enquires............... Mr. Neresheimer called that afternoon, and it was after he had said goodbye, and when I was sitting by the side of Mr. Judge's sofa, that the "Rajah" suddenly roused the body out of the half-sleep in which it had been lying, and with his unmistakable force said: "There should be calmness. Hold fast. Go slow."....................... Also p 294 in "Letters", E Neresheimer repeats re W Judge-- ""He never tired of making things plain and simple............He was called by some "The Rajah." ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 10:11:39 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 07:58:54 PST From: "David Green" Subject: [5]James M Pryse's article on Rajah & W Judge Message-ID: <19990111155856.13447.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain James M Pryse's article on Rajah & W Judge-------- "The Bogus Rajah Portrait" "Canadian Theosophist" June 15th 1932 p 124-5 While living in London I made the acquaintance of a young man, a genuine Occultist (I'll call him Mr. X.), who at one time did me a great service------saved my life, in fact. I painted an oil portrait of him from memory; but being a very poor painter I got Mrs. Lloyd to help me. She was an excellent artist and one of the few persons I have met who was really clairvoyant. When I mentally called up the image of my friend she would see it visually, and so between us we got a very good likeness of him. (We made many other pictures by this method; and later in Dublin my gifted Theosophical chum, the poet and artist AE, and I, often amused ourselves in the same way.) Now, Mr. X. was a white man, European; but it happened to please my fancy to have his portrait match the one of the Master M. which I had, a copy of the painting by Schmiechen, and so we gave Mr. X. the complexion of a Hindu. Later, when Mr. Judge was visiting me in my room at the Headquarters, he stood for quite a long time looking at this portrait of Mr. X. (which was hanging on the wall), then turned to me and said solemnly, "That is a picture of my Higher Self". For the moment I thought he was joking; for a picture of a "Higher Self" is to me unthinkable. But he was serious. He did not know Mr. X. and mistook the darkhued portrait for that of a Hindu. I should have undeceived him, but he was so awe-struck by the supposed likeness of his "Higher Self" that I hadn't the heart to correct his ridiculous mistake. Anyway, I thought, it came as near to being a picture of his "Higher Self" as anything he would ever obtain! He asked me to let him have a copy of it made. Of course I could not refuse; so he had an artist come up to my room and paint a copy. Judge sailed for New York before the copy was finished; but Dr. Buck, who sailed later, took it to him. Judge painted several copies of it, and the last time I saw him, shortly before his death, he showed me his latest copy, which he said was a better likeness than the others! So my wrong-complexioned portrait of Mr. X. is the original of the "Rajah" exploited by the Judge-Tingley- ites. I still have the original. Mrs. G.M. Coffin, a Welsh-American and quite clairvoyant, was the only Theosophist I know who had really seen Mr. X. She told me that she had recognized the "Rajah" portrait as a likeness of Mr. X., but was puzzled by the wrong colour until I explained to her how the white man came to be portrayed Hinduishly. In Mrs Blavatsky's "Collected Writings" 12th volu p 761-5, J Pryse bio sketch describes him as ----- "Outstanding Theosophical worker and writer//////////////////////////// a man of great probity and of unselfish devotion to the principles of Theosophy and the objectives of our Movement" ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 10:34:23 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:19:43 PST From: "David Green" Subject: [6]U L T book attacks W Judge's letters about dead Mrs Blavatsky and K Tingley Message-ID: <19990111161944.25037.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain "The Theosophical Movement"-----1951 book for sale by United Lodge of Theosophists-----offers [below] commentary on purported messages W Judge received from dead Mrs Blavatsky, etc... >"In 1932, several years after >the death of Mrs. Tingley, some >of the 'notes' or pages from the >'occult diary' [of W Judge] came >to light in the pages of the >'O.E. Libary Critic.' Dr. H.N. >Stokes, editor of the 'Critic,' >then expressed his own opinion >that the 'notes' were in Judge's >handwriting, but left the reader >to conclude that this identifi- >cation proves, not that Mrs. >Tingley was properly chosen as >Judge's successor in the >'true line' of the Movement, >but rather that Judge was >deluded into thinking that >he had received spiritualistic >communications from H.P.B.! >Now if Dr. Stokes suspected >that Judge was a broken reed, >the victim of such psychic >follies, how could Mr. Ryan >cite Stokes in support of the >Tingley succession? Mr. Ryan, >apparently, welcomed Stokes' >judgment that the psychically >received notes were in Judge's >handwriting, but the price >he paid for this vindication >was the reduction of Judge to a >dabbler in Spirtualism, a >mere psychic dupe. Judge, >whom H.P.B. called 'part of >myself for aeons past,' >needed a medium, a 'helper,' >to get in touch with H.P.B.! >What can succession to such a >'leader' be worth?............ >............. >The Theosophical 'succession' >of Mrs. Tingley thus becomes >lost in a morass of psychic >delusion, of claims and >counter-claims. If the >'evidence' for it be accepted, >Judge becomes a guileless psychic >and virtual 'disciple' of Mrs. >Tingley. If the evidence is >rejected, Mrs. Tingley becomes >at best a self-deluded woman, at >worst a charlatan, and so, also, >her close supporters." pages >286-88 > Central question: Are W Judge epistles forgeries or authentic letters? If authentic, Judge believed he was receiving messages from dead Mrs Blavatsky. If authentic, Mrs K Tingley close friend of Judge. U L T book fails to mention that W Judge's handwriting in these letters and messages were examined by Stokes & old friends of W Judge. Dr Stokes wrote----- "I was furnished with photographs of most of these forgotten and now rediscovered documents. These I compared, with the assistance of old friends of Judge, with unquestionably genuine and personal letters of Judge in their possession and in the presence of a person expert in examining handwriting, and the unanimous conclusion was that the documents were actually written by Judge." "OE Library Critic" Novem----Decem 1934 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 14:02:19 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:49:34 -0000 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: Despised/lowest/dead letter. . . Pratyeka Buddhas Message-ID: <000501be3d9b$832640a0$36084ad4@bazzer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Rich: > <<> Pratyekabuddhas are considered higher than Arhats, Paul: > Or, by reverse logic, Arhats are considered lower than Pratyeka Buddhas. > Yes? Well, no. This is complete nonsense. > > From "The Voice of the Silence". > > Concerning Pratyeka-Buddha (Glossary to Part II): > > "Caring nothing for the woes of mankind or to help it, but only for their > own *bliss*, they enter Nirvana and - disappear from the sight and hearts > of men. In Northern Buddhism a 'Pratyeka Buddha' is a synonym of spiritual > Selfishness" (Glossary to Part II). > Further, (Glossary to Part III): > > "(32). In the Northern Buddhist phraseology all the great Arhats, Adepts > and Saints are called Buddhas. > > (33). A *Bodhisattva* is, in the hierarchy, less than a "perfect Buddha." > In the exoteric parlance these two are very much confused. Yet the innate > and right popular perception, owing to that self-sacrifice, has placed a > Bodhisattva higher in its reverence than a Buddha." > > (34). This same popular reverence calls "Buddhas of Compassion" those > *Bodhisattvas* who, having reached the rank of an Arhat (i.e., have > completed the *fourth* or *seventh* Path), refuse to pass into > the Nirvanic > state or 'don the *Dharmakaya* robe and cross to the other shore,' as it > would then become beyond their power to assist men even so little as Karma > permits. . . . . .>> > > Paul! You can quote well, but you have really confused all the > above terms. > And your quotes, out of context, actually confuse matters more, > because you > haven't read any Buddhism, you only have HPB's scattered > definitions. You are > content to parrot HPB word-for-word, and then throw down the > gauntlet as if > you've proven your point. Quotes from HPB, however, really only > prove that > you own her books and can read them. More parrot quotes. . . . . Mahatma Letter XVI: "(1) The *Paccika Yana* - (in Sanskrit "Pratyeka") means literally - the "personal vehicle" or personal *Ego*, a combination of the five lower principles." Theosophical Glossary (published after HPB was withdrawn): "Pratyeka Buddha (Sk.) The same as "*Pasi*-Buddha". The Pratyeka Buddha is a degree which belongs exclusively to the Yoga-charya school, yet it is one of a high intellectual development with no true spirituality. It is the *dead-letter* of the Yoga laws, in which intellect and comprehension play the greatest part, added to the strict carrying out of the rules of the inner development. It is one of the three paths to Nirvana, and the lowest, in which a Yogi - "without teacher and without saving others" - by the mere force of will and technical observances, attains to a kind of nominal Buddhaship individually; doing no good to anyone, but working selfishly for his own salvation and himself alone. The Pratyekas are respected outwardly but are despised inwardly by those of keen or spiritual appreciation. A Pratyeka is generally compared to a "Khadga" or solitary rhinoceros and called *Ekashringa Rishi*, a selfish solitary Rishi (or saint). "As crossing Sansara ('the ocean of birth and death' or the series of incarnations), suppressing errors, and yet not attaining to absolute perfection, the Pratyeka Buddha is compared with a horse which crosses a river swimming, without touching the ground." (*Sanskrit-Chinese Dict.*) He is far below a true "Buddha of Compassion." He strives only for the reaching of Nirvana." To repeat (parrot fashion): "The Pratyekas are respected outwardly but are despised inwardly by those of keen or spiritual appreciation". Best wishes, Paul From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 14:15:47 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:49:27 -0000 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: Arhat/Arhan etc. Message-ID: <000301be3d9b$7f6986c0$36084ad4@bazzer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Mahatma Letter XXV: "But the *complete* recollection of all the lives - (earthly and devachanic) *omniscience* - in short - comes but at the great end of the full seven Rounds (unless one had become in the interim a Bodhisatwa, an Arhat) - the "threshold" of Nirvana meaning an indefinite period". Mahatma Letter No. X: "Meditation here means the superhuman (not supernatural) qualities, or arhatship in its highest of spiritual powers". SD, I, 206/207: "(b) There are four grades of initiation mentioned in exoteric works, which are known respectively in Sanskrit as “Sçrôtâpanna,” “Sagardagan,” “Anagamin,” and “Arhan”—the four paths to Nirvana, in this, our fourth Round, hearing the same appellations. The Arhan, though he can see the Past, the Present, and the Future, is not yet the highest Initiate; for the Adept himself, the initiated candidate, becomes chela (pupil) to a higher Initiate. Three further higher grades have to be conquered by the Arhan who would reach the apex; of the ladder of Arhatship. There are those who have reached it even in this fifth race of ours, but the faculties necessary for the attainment of these highergrades will be fully developed in the average ascetic only at the end of this Root-Race, and in the Sixth and Seventh. Thus there will always be Initiates and the Profane till the end of this minor Manvantara, the present life-cycle. The Arhats of the “fire-mist” of the 7th rung are but one remove from the Root-Base of their Hierarchy—the highest on Earth, and our Terrestrial chain. This “Root-Base” has a name which can only be translated by several compound words into English”—“the ever-living-human-Banyan.” This “Wondrous Being” descended from a “high region,” they say, in the early part of the Third Age, before the separation of the sexes of the Third Race. This Third Race is sometimes called collectively “the Sons of Passive Yoga,” i.e., it was produced unconsciously by the second Race, which, as it was intellectually inactive, is supposed to have been constantly plunged in a kind of blank or abstract contemplation, as required by the conditions of the Yoga state. In the first or earlier portion of the existence of this third race, while it was yet in its state of purity, the “Sons of Wisdom,” who, as will be seen, incarnated in this Third Race, produced by Kriyasakti a progeny called the “Sons of Ad” or “of the Fire-Mist,” the “Sons of Will and Yoga,” etc. They were a conscious production, as a portion of the race was already animated with the divine spark of spiritual, superior intelligence. It was not a Race, this progeny. It was at first a wondrous Being, called the “Initiator,” and after him a group of semi-divine and semi-human beings. “Set apart” in Archaic genesis for certain purposes, they are those in whom are said to have incarnated the highest Dhyanis, “Munis and Rishis from previous Manvantaras”—to form the nursery for future human adepts, on this earth and during the present cycle. These “Sons of Will and Yoga” born, so to speak, in an immaculate way, remained, it is explained, entirely apart from the rest of mankind. The “BEING” just referred to, which has to remain nameless, is the Tree from which, in subsequent ages, all the great historically known Sages and Hierophants, such as the Rishi Kapila, Hermes, Enoch, Orpheus, etc., etc., have branched off. As objective man, he is the mysterious (to the profane—the ever invisible) yet ever present Personage about whom legends are rife in the East, especially among the Occultists and the students of the Sacred Science. It is he who changes form, yet remains ever the same. And it is he again who holds spiritual sway over the initiated Adepts throughout the whole world. He is, as said, the “Nameless One” who has so many names, and yet whose names and whose very nature are unknown. He is the “Initiator,” called the “GREAT SACRIFICE. For, sitting at the threshold of LIGHT, he looks into it from within the circle of Darkness, which he will not cross; nor will he quit his post till the last day of this life-cycle. Why does the solitary Watcher remain at his self-chosen post? Why does he sit by the fountain of primeval Wisdom, of which he drinks no longer, as he has naught to learn which he does not know—aye, neither on this Earth, nor in its heaven ? Because the lonely, sore-footed pilgrims on their way back to their home are never sure to the last moment of not losing their way in this limitless desert of illusion and matter called Earth-Life. Because he would fain show the way to that region of freedom and light, from which he is a voluntary exile himself, to every prisoner who has succeeded in liberating himself from the bonds of flesh and illusion. Because, in short, he has sacrificed himself for the sake of mankind, though but a few Elect may profit by the GREAT SACRIFICE." From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 14:28:43 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:49:30 -0000 From: "Bazzer (Paul)" Subject: RE: Mindless quotes Message-ID: <000401be3d9b$811ded80$36084ad4@bazzer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: As far as one is aware. . . . Nowhere in "The Secret Doctrine" is Pratyeka Buddha ever mentioned. Not even once. Conclusions?! Best wishes, Paul Rich: <<> Pratyekabuddhas are considered higher than Arhats, Paul: > Or, by reverse logic, Arhats are considered lower than Pratyeka Buddhas. > Yes? Well, no. This is complete nonsense. > From "The Voice of the Silence". > > Concerning Pratyeka-Buddha (Glossary to Part II): > > "Caring nothing for the woes of mankind or to help it, but only for their > own *bliss*, they enter Nirvana and - disappear from the sight and hearts > of men. In Northern Buddhism a 'Pratyeka Buddha' is a synonym of spiritual > Selfishness" (Glossary to Part II). > Further, (Glossary to Part III): > > "(32). In the Northern Buddhist phraseology all the great Arhats, Adepts > and Saints are called Buddhas. > > (33). A *Bodhisattva* is, in the hierarchy, less than a "perfect Buddha." > In the exoteric parlance these two are very much confused. Yet the innate > and right popular perception, owing to that self-sacrifice, has placed a > Bodhisattva higher in its reverence than a Buddha." > > (34). This same popular reverence calls "Buddhas of Compassion" those > *Bodhisattvas* who, having reached the rank of an Arhat (i.e., have > completed the *fourth* or *seventh* Path), refuse to pass into > the Nirvanic > state or 'don the *Dharmakaya* robe and cross to the other shore,' as it > would then become beyond their power to assist men even so little as Karma > permits. . . . . .>> > > Paul! You can quote well, but you have really confused all the > above terms. > And your quotes, out of context, actually confuse matters more, > because you > haven't read any Buddhism, you only have HPB's scattered > definitions. You are > content to parrot HPB word-for-word, and then throw down the > gauntlet as if > you've proven your point. Quotes from HPB, however, really only > prove that > you own her books and can read them. > > Here's a different, "overview" method, and you will see both the > skill and the > idiosyncrasy of HPB. This is my paraphrasing of Buddhist > definitions, and I > invite other students of Buddhism to back me up or show that I am wrong: > > (1) Arhats are graduates of the Hinayana (small vehicle) path. They are > considered "freed from impurities" and thus freed from the wheel > of rebirth. > They are free to go on to Nirvana. "Arhat" literally means "one > who has slain > the enemies." Arhats are NOT enlightened, not omniscient, only "free." > > (2) Pratyekabuddhas *are* considered higher adepts, by *BUDDHISM* > (which is > what I wrote, if you bothered to check). These beings are considered > enlightened (meaning far-seeing and wise) as well as free from bondage > karmically. Their name means literally "prati-eka" (by oneself) "buddha" > (enlightened). But they did not put in the lifetimes of > compassion to develop > the higher virtues of skill-in-means and compassion to be able to > help others. > Thus, in a spiritual sense, they are wise but selfish. Not in > the sense of > selfish as in "hurting others" but in the sense of "leaving them to their > fate" and proceeding on to Nirvana. No one in Buddhism, southern > or northern, > worships the Pratyekabuddhas, though both traditions mention them > as existing. > > (3) Bodhisattva. A "wisdom-being," one who has taken a vow to become a > Buddha, and is variously progressed along that path. Many of us > on this list > have taken the vow, but I suspect we are more "embryonic bodhisattvas." > Still, our heart is in the right place. Certain mythological > bodhisattvas are > worshipped by the masses, because they are considered to be *just > about* to > become Buddhas (like Maitreya), or because they have been > bodhisattvas so long > they have developed tremendous powers, nearly equal to a full Buddha > (Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara). > > (4) A Buddha, a *samyak-sambuddha*, a "fully enlightened Master" > is the only > one who, having freed himself, has the ability to free others in whatever > their condition, language, culture, race, or psychological > problems. These > beings are worshipped. These beings are rare, and are said to > incarnate very > seldom, perhaps once a kalpa. And a kalpa, by anyone's defition, > is a long, > long time. Because they are so precious, their writings are > preserved very > carefully, because that may be all we have for a long time to > come. HPB calls > the recent Buddha "the highest adept ever to appear on the planet." > > What I have written above is all from BUDDHIST points of view, not > Theosophical. Now, having gotten some authentic Buddhism, we > compare to HPB's > quotes provided by Paul, and see that in some cases she is > talking loosely. > > When HPB speaks of "the great Arhats," she is not referring to all Arhats, > only the great ones. These are Buddhas. But you couldn't know > that unless > you had read some Buddhism outside of HPB. > > Next quote: HPB first says bodhisattvas are lower than Buddhas, but the > exoteric masses rightly put them above Buddhas. This is wrong, in theory, > according to HPB, but both beings a masters of compassion and > self-sacrifice. > Therefore, in this paragraph, HPB is emphasizing that fact. She still > believes Buddhas are higher than bodhisattvas. She says so. > > The final quote also shows that Arhats are lower, then those who > "pass on" are > bodhisattvas, and those who complete the goal are Buddhas. It > doesn't mention > pratyekabuddhas at all. So it's not a terribly helpful quote. > > I state again that HPB is not making up these terms, she is borrowing them > from source material, which 99% of Theosophists haven't bothered > to read for > themselves. It causes a great deal of confusion, and embarrasses us to > inquirers who have studied other traditions. Because all we can > say is "we > have faith in HPB" and we can't prove why. One reason we know she's > authentic, however, is because we see HPB time and again using > technical terms > "correctly," the way the native traditions use them. Then she > adds more, the > esoteric side. > > Rich > > > From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 14:45:45 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:28:43 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: AC & HPB Message-ID: <001b01be3da0$fc18d4a0$127d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Dear Leon: >The AC issue has come up from time to time in this and other theos lists. Your >comprehensive response is very informative and useful. Thanks. > >mkr > Also very wrong and misleading, but I have to agree that Leon is presenting the typical Theosophical viewpoint here. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 15:00:51 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:27:20 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Re: AC & HPB Message-ID: <001201be3da0$ca56cb20$127d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Pratyekabuddhas are considered >higher than Arhats, because Pratyekabuddhas are self-enlightened... Rich, I have been arguing this about the Pratyekabuddhas for years with no success at all. Purucker and others have labeled this person one who is "spiritually selfish" and so most Theosophists lump them into their little bag of evil black magicans. As you rightly say, this just ain't so. But I doubt that you will have much better success getting this over than I did. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 15:15:06 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:34:15 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: AC & HPB Message-ID: <003201be3da1$c2222840$127d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Jerry wrote: > >> I am not aware that Crowley even knew what a Bodhisattva was. > >In which case he must: > >(a) Have either been (very) short of the mark and didn't >know/understand/study anything of the Arhat Doctrine; > Not at all. Why should a Theravadinist know anything of Bodisattvas? FYI, the doctrine of Arhats (Theravadin) and the doctrine of Bodhisattvas (Mahayana) are from two different schools. >or > >(b) Ignored what is, after all, a basic tennet of even popular (Mahayana) >Buddhism. > What is "popular" today was largely unknown in Crowley's day. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 15:15:59 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 16:02:26 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: AC/HPB Message-ID: <005401be3da5$b1bffc80$127d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chuck, Thanks for setting the record straight. All of the leaders of the original TS and GD got along just fine. Too bad things degenerated. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 15:29:43 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:46:22 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: AC/HPB Message-ID: <003701be3da3$739598e0$127d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >In a message dated 1/10/99 7:19:20 PM, Alan wrote: > >< >And that A.C. wrote an extensive commentary to the Voice of Silence. If so, > >as anyone got a copy they could point me to?>> > >I'm afraid you have it backwards, my friend. It was refugees from HPB's >Esoteric Section that joined the Golden Dawn, like W.B. Yeats. The Golden >Dawn was formed well *after* the Theosophical Society, and I truly suspect >most of The Dawn's best stuff was "appropriated" from HPB -- without credit >given, of course. > W.W. Westcott was both a founder of the GD and an inner member of HPB's inner group. And yes, the founders of the GD did acknowledge their indebtedness to HPB. I have already stated here that Crowley called HPB an Adept. >Aleister Crowley indeed wrote a Commentary on The Voice of the Silence. But I >know a much better commentary -- HPB's own writings. If anyone knew what she >wrote and what she wanted to say, she did. Try The Key to Theosophy by HPB >and The Ocean of Theosophy by William Q. Judge. They are great places to >start getting a handle on the concepts and terms of The Voice of the Silence. > I have already written of his "commentary" and given good rationale for why he scorned her words. Lets not go over this stuff yet agina, please. >Never forget that Crowley was doing "his own thing." He did not claim to be >part of the Theosophical movement, and I strongly doubt the Theosophists would >have had him. The first object of the Theosophical Society was to form a >nucleus of Universal Brotherhood, not a school of magic. (Refer to the Maha- >Chohan's letter chastizing Sinnett and others) Crowley, however, talked much >of brotherhood, but was *really* interested in a school of magic. > Absolutely right. Their Sources were similar, but their motivations and purposes were very different, thus their appeal was to different groups. >I would be interested to hear what humanitarian works Crowley performed, >OUTSIDE of a "ritual magic" setting. HPB was known for such things as trading >in her first-class ticket so that a stranded woman could ride on a ship to >America, while HPB rode third-class in the boiler room. Has Crowley similarly >LIVED THE LIFE? > >Rich > Here is one area in which HPB clearly excels. Crowley practiced magic, while Blavatsky practiced altruism (except some of her writings show a temporary loss of compassion against those whom she felt opposed her mission). However, as I have said before, if I went by a person's life story I would never have joined a TS because of the scandalous behavior I first read about Blavatsky. I find it humorous for Theosophists to criticize Crowley when Blavatsky was just as "wild" (traveling over the world with men, smoking, cussing, maybe having an illegitimate child, occult fakery, etc etc). But I stayed because I liked what she had to say. Should I do less for Crowley? Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 15:34:12 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:56:32 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Response to Rich Message-ID: <003e01be3da4$eb51f3a0$127d96d1@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Here's a different, "overview" method, and you will see both the skill and the >idiosyncrasy of HPB. This is my paraphrasing of Buddhist definitions, and I >invite other students of Buddhism to back me up or show that I am wrong: > >(1) Arhats are graduates of the Hinayana (small vehicle) path. They are >considered "freed from impurities" and thus freed from the wheel of rebirth. >They are free to go on to Nirvana. "Arhat" literally means "one who has slain >the enemies." Arhats are NOT enlightened, not omniscient, only "free." > Enlightenment is relative and has degrees. I think that most Buddhists would acknowledge at least some degree of enlightenment in an Arhat. >(2) Pratyekabuddhas *are* considered higher adepts, by *BUDDHISM* (which is >what I wrote, if you bothered to check). These beings are considered >enlightened (meaning far-seeing and wise) as well as free from bondage >karmically. Their name means literally "prati-eka" (by oneself) "buddha" >(enlightened). Vajrayanist sometimes call them a rhinocerous to indicate their solitary nature. But they are Buddhas none the less. > But they did not put in the lifetimes of compassion to develop >the higher virtues of skill-in-means and compassion to be able to help others. >Thus, in a spiritual sense, they are wise but selfish. Not in the sense of >selfish as in "hurting others" but in the sense of "leaving them to their >fate" and proceeding on to Nirvana. No one in Buddhism, southern or northern, >worships the Pratyekabuddhas, though both traditions mention them as existing. > You are clearly speaking here from a Mahayana viewpoint. The Thervadin would argue that compassion is no longer necessary or even desirable after direct realization of maya--that all "persons" or entities are illusion. I see this as two ways of looking at things, and to be honest I am not sure which is "right" because it has more to do with attitude than anything else. >(3) Bodhisattva. A "wisdom-being," one who has taken a vow to become a >Buddha, and is variously progressed along that path. Many of us on this list >have taken the vow, but I suspect we are more "embryonic bodhisattvas." >Still, our heart is in the right place. As far as I know, the "vow" is to NOT become a Buddha until all living beings can be Buddhas too. Am I wrong here? Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 17:28:00 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:50:23 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: [1] W Judge's 1895 letter on messages from dead Mrs Blavatsky Message-ID: <000d01be3dbd$27b8fa60$990e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <19990111152432.15461.qmail@hotmail.com> Jan 11th 1999 All of a sudden we have a spate of comments on Mr. Judge's "LETTERS" and his relations with Mrs. Tingley, etc... Whatever is available as a matter of history can be checked by students. However it is not the personal transmission of anything that is ever in question, or important, as nothing that is esoteric or occult can ever be "transferred." Any advance of any kind on those planes has to be self-generated and spontaneous, and no claims are of any consequence. What needs to be done is to examine the contents, and the nature of the information conveyed. Is it IN LINE with occult and esoteric Theosophical history and ethics - or not. Is it universal, impersonal, and does it assist students to grow and improve themselves ? No external "authorities" or "Opinions" can vouch for any communication that is said to pertain to occultism. Each has to be tested by the Intuition and each has to be also tested with what we know manasically of the doctrine. This is as I understand the matter. Dallas From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 23:27:34 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:01:39 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: AC/HPB Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/11/99 9:16:05 PM, gschueler@netgsi.com writes: >Thanks for setting the record straight. All of the leaders >of the original TS and GD got along just fine. Too bad >things degenerated. Baloney. The original TS was HPB, HO and WQJ. And we all know what they thought of and taught about all the necromancer and black magic secret societies upon whose teachings the GD was founded. LHM From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 23:36:10 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:18:28 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: AC & HPB Message-ID: <9c57c276.369acd14@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/11/99 8:45:52 PM, gschueler@netgsi.com writes: >>Dear Leon: > >>The AC issue has come up from time to time in this and other theos lists. >>Your comprehensive response is very informative and useful. Thanks. >>mkr > >Also very wrong and misleading, but I have to agree that Leon >is presenting the typical Theosophical viewpoint here. As Jerry's defense of Crowley is the typical "black magicians" viewpoint, and nothing but propaganda to whitewash the leader of a "sexual magic" teaching and practicing organization whose roots were, in fact, the foundation of Nazi occultism and supplied the justification for their genocide. From owner-theos-talk Mon Jan 11 23:40:20 1999 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 23:55:30 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: AC & HPB Message-ID: <44edabf.369ad5c2@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/11/99 9:14:53 PM, gschueler@netgsi.com writes: >>Jerry wrote: >> >>> I am not aware that Crowley even knew what a Bodhisattva was. >> >>In which case he must: >>(a) Have either been (very) short of the mark and didn't >>know/understand/study anything of the Arhat Doctrine; >> >Not at all. Why should a Theravadinist know anything of Bodisattvas? >FYI, the doctrine of Arhats (Theravadin) and the doctrine of >Bodhisattvas (Mahayana) are from two different schools. I thought such a briliant occultist as Crowley was supposed to be--should have, at least, known a little bit of what HPB knew and taught in the SD--which I'm sure he must have read--since he was said to have "respected" her as a fellow "occultist". Nevertheless, not knowing about a Bodhisattva, doesn't excuse him from being just the opposite--and an unconscionable racist anti Semite to boot. > >>or >>(b) Ignored what is, after all, a basic tennet of even popular (Mahayana) >>Buddhism. >> >What is "popular" today was largely unknown in Crowley's day. >Jerry S. Still no excuse. What's the purpose of these mindless sophistic arguments in defense of Crowley? From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 00:27:35 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:16:44 EST From: "Chuck Cosimano" Subject: Re: AC/HPB Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-01-12 00:27:29 EST, you write: << Baloney. The original TS was HPB, HO and WQJ. And we all know what they thought of and taught about all the necromancer and black magic secret societies upon whose teachings the GD was founded. LHM >> this clown can't even remember that there were six original members! Thank the gods for killfiles. Chuck From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 01:27:09 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:38:34 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: AC/HPB Message-ID: <88b3eb71.369aedea@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/11/99 9:29:40 PM, gschueler@netgsi.com writes: >Here is one area in which HPB clearly excels. Crowley practiced magic, >while Blavatsky practiced altruism (except some of her writings show a >temporary loss of compassion against those whom she felt opposed >her mission). However, as I have said before, if I went by a person's >life story I would never have joined a TS because of the scandalous >behavior I first read about Blavatsky. I find it humorous for Theosophists >to criticize Crowley when Blavatsky was just as "wild" (traveling over >the world with men, smoking, cussing, maybe having an illegitimate >child, occult fakery, etc etc). But I stayed because I liked what she >had to say. Should I do less for Crowley? So, from this can we take it that it's okay to like Crowley because he teaches us to have "compassion" for all the Nazi's who wore the death head symbol on their uniforms, or for rapists who practice his sexual black magic? And, how can you so presumptuously and falsely compare HPB's temporary loss of her compassion for enemies of the human race (which it was her mission to save and protect) and, in the same breath compare her "rumored" minor peccadilloes with Crowley's (recorded) unconscionable sexual depravities and his condoning of Nazi brutalities? The more you talk the further into your mouth your foot goes. (But maybe you haven't got a foot to put in your mouth--since, after spouting all this misdirected and misleading defense of Crowley along with all your duplicitous character assassination of HPB, you haven't got a leg left to stand on.:-) But do you think we might be justified in forgiving you--in the spirit of brotherhood and compassion--since you did say you "liked what she had to say"? (But, then, since you also said, previously--you had no convictions--what would that be worth? :-) My suggestion is we get off this time killing junk mail nonsense and get back to discussing theosophy. After all, isn't that what this forum is supposed to be for? LHM From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 04:27:08 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 04:30:48 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: AC/HPB Message-ID: <3750cab9.369b1648@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/12/99 6:27:27 AM, Drpsionic@aol.com writes: >In a message dated 99-01-12 00:27:29 EST, you write: > ><< > Baloney. The original TS was HPB, HO and WQJ. And we all know what they > thought of and taught about all the necromancer and black magic secret > societies upon whose teachings the GD was founded. > > LHM >> > >this clown can't even remember that there were six original members! Thank >the gods for killfiles. > >Chuck Very clever. What did we say about nit pickers (and their sycophants) who use innuendo, sidetracking, misinterpretation, ridicule, psychologizing and other diversionary tactics to avoid answering arguments that puncture their falsities and preconceptions? What I meant to say, and left out in my haste, was the "original TS founders" --since I have no idea what those other "charter" members had to say about the GD or its "black magic" precursor groups. I wonder who are the real "clowns" are in this "side issue" discussion--whose underlying thrust was to discredit HPB and theosophy? So, how about letting theosophy speak for itself--instead of picking on its "non-authoritative" disseminators and clarifiers? LHM From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 08:27:12 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:24:11 -0600 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: RE: [1] W Judge's 1895 letter on messages from dead Mrs Blavatsky Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990112082411.00697448@mail.eden.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <000d01be3dbd$27b8fa60$990e97cf@netway.nwc.net> References: <19990111152432.15461.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Well said, Dallas. ...mkr PS: David Green, as I recall was working on a research project. May be he can confirm if this is so and what the objectives are and what the end product is going to be -- a book or thesis etc. From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 10:50:20 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:56:55 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: AC/HPB and the Launching of the TS Message-ID: <000101be3e4c$90831960$a00e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <3750cab9.369b1648@aol.com> Jan 12th 1999 HPB wrote early in the history of modern Theosophy: [Blavatsky: COLLECTED WORKS Vol. 1, p. 300 ] "In the name, then, of logic and common sense, before bandying epithets, let us submit our differences to the arbitrament of reason. Let us compare all things, putting aside emotionalism and prejudice as unworthy of the logician and the experimentalist, hold fast only to that which passes the ordeal of ultimate analysis." BCW I 300 [ "Views of the Theosophists," Modern Panarion, p. 132, end of the article ] I believe this criteria ought to rule us all in the matter of controversy In that very same volume I, on pp. 121-5 the formation of the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY is spread out as history, by quoting from HPB's SCRAPBOOKS. On pages 72-3, 94 are additional references. In the magazine PATH, Vol. 10, p. 368-9 a difference in procedure is described by HPB, as she attributes to Judge, and not to Olcott, the first writing of a note suggesting the starting of the TS. On p. 124 Vol. 1 of the B: C W one will find the names of the original 16 founding members of the T S. Of these only HPB, Olcott and Judge remained members to the end of their respective lives, supporting and promoting the T and Theosophy. If we are going to exchange notes about History, then let us go to information that is accurate - it will save time and maintain credibility for the writers. Best wishes, Dallas. From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 13:13:58 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:58:59 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: HPB -- What is the Theosophy that she taught ? How valuable is it to us to consider ? Message-ID: <000301be3e66$009e1920$a00e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <9c57c276.369acd14@aol.com> Jan 12th 1999 Dear Friends: Whatever the "typical Theosophical viewpoint" may be in some people's minds, it is in fact as diverse as humanity is. Why is that? Why is it that people cannot be lumped into a group by the imagination of others, and there are always exceptions ? If one is truly aware of what Theosophy teaches, then one becomes aware of the universality of our condition, and the many ramifications that we constantly establish and change. We are to that extent KARMIC "agents" with a great freedom to alter our condition and position (if we know what it is and what our powers truly are). Yet, we as those, many "Karmic agents" are ourselves wrapped in other laws that cannot be destroyed or broken. It would be a fallacy to believe that the laws of society and human relationships are variable and flexible while the whole of Nature's rules and regulations ( as in mathematics, chemistry, engineering, physics or astronomy ) are rigid and not "flexible or whimsical. [ Why do WE endow "God" (if a personal and anthropomorphic 'god' is meant) with human attributes, vanity, pride, favoritism, etc... ? ] Unfortunately there is altogether too much of the characterization by "name," "fame" and prejudice, one way or the other, and it seems to be assumed these can be used as a kind of a universal lever to settle one's opinions vs. others. This gets no one anywhere, and one might as well not respond to such arguments. However they need underlining. Impartially, then, there are many powers and forces in ourselves which are reflections of their far greater counterparts in NATURE. Those are the great LAWS - the "KARMA" of a Universe, of a Galaxy, of a Solar System or of a World, like our Earth, if you will. The common regulations which we all depend on for living. Not just human relations, but food, shelter, protection, etc... and then inter-action and cooperation among millions of human beings, known, and unknown. We cannot intellectually or morally ever totally isolate ourselves, from the mass of humanity. And any "progress" we may make, inevitably reacts on others, and like the head of a Comet, we have a trail of sympathizers (and non-sympathizers) in our van. Then what are we ? We are mind-beings says Theosophy, and we live in a physical body made up of all the elements of Nature, visible and invisible. We are immortal Spirit-Souls, or Monads (Spirit-Mind-Body) in essential constitution. We temporarily, for this life-time, adopt the mind attitude (if we let ourselves do this) of our PERSONALITY - the lower, embodied desire-entwined mind. A little reflection can assure each of us of the accuracy of this situation. As mind-beings we have the power to decide our own future, employing the motives, and understanding of our universe we have so far adopted. But we need to find out if indeed the feelings we have, and the passions we give residence to, are different from the "Mind." What does THEOSOPHY do: It sets before us the concept that there is actually a far greater horizon of facts than in our religions, politics and community beliefs and mores, that we have to take into account. To that extent it liberates our minds and offers for consideration more important views that the ordinary I-MYSELF-ALONE. What does the philosophy of THEOSOPHY offer: 1. It shows that the Universe is ONE in its essentiality. In regard to the ultimate SOURCE from which the emanation of the evolutionary cycle begins, the SECRET DOCTRINE (I - 445) Offers: "There was neither day nor night, nor sky nor earth, nor darkness nor light, nor any other thing save only ONE, unapprehensible by intellect, or THAT which is Brahma and Pums (Spirit) and Pradhana (crude matter)." A similar extract from the Rig-Veda will be fund in the SD I p. 26 - a slightly different rendition of the same ideas. 2. We are a part of it and share in every part of its potentials. These are, briefly: SPIRIT or "Supreme Being, symbolized by "Truth and Goodness." MATTER or "Body and Form", symbolized by selfishness and isolation. And, finally, MIND or Universal Consciousness and Intelligence, which at the time of 'manifestation' emanates myriads of undying MONADS, symbolized by its "Rays" - and these are an enormous range of immortal beings ranging in potential from the "atoms" through mankind, to the Highest of the Beings one can imagine - the Buddhas, Dhyan Chohans, and "Creators" who are fully aware of the actuality of the Nature of the Universe, and make themselves AGENTS for the evolutionary wave, and They are primarily active in the framing of a new evolutionary pattern out of the memories and remnants of the older ones. We think of them as Sages, Rishis, Mahatmas, Patriarchs, Elohim, Creators, "Gods," Builders, and they form the ancient College of the WISE. 3. Spirit (or ultimate Good as Law) sustains all life. Matter (as form and apparent limits) serves seemingly to isolate us. Our MIND is able to see both positions and therefore is an "arbiter" and a decision maker. We are not bound by the prejudices of our education and up-bringing, but are free to make decisions for ourselves-within certain limits. And, those limits can be ascertained. 4. The MIND in humans is a specialized organ of PERCEPTION. It is in itself independent and free, but may allow itself to be swayed or colored, temporarily or for long times by "OPINIONS." And these opinions may be either true or false.. 5. The faculty of "desire, and passion - emotion, instinct, etc.," is a most potent one and is the product of the gradual evolution of the powers that emanate from the form side of evolution. They are "personal" in the sense that they MASK our true nature not only from ourselves, but from others for a long or short time. When the difference between desire and mind is perceived the "mask" falls and the true nature of our personality and our mind stands revealed in the forum of the ONE SPIRITUAL RAY which is the MONAD in evolution. Thus we are able to "see ourselves." 6. The distinction between "good and evil" or "pleasure and pain" becomes on whereby we perceive the results of our choices. In a Universe that runs under law we either assist or delay and/or retard our own progress and that of others by deliberately or unconsciously choosing to act with or against the great laws. 7. Evolution is universal. The "Atom" is as much under law as we are, or as the rest of the Earth is. It is ONE LAW and not many. It is the same for all. It is essentially the brotherhood of MONADS - each an IMMORTAL. To sum it up as HPB does in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY (p. 233) : "Let me briefly remind you what these principles are-universal Unity and Causation; Human solidarity; the Law of Karma; Reincarnation. These are the four golden links of the golden chain which should bind humanity into one family, one universal Brotherhood." KEY 233 It is quite probable that there are those who will say: all that is basic Theosophy. True. But on an applications of thee basics to any situation, question, or proposition, an answer can be derived which will be in tune with the rest. With best wishes to all, Dallas ======================= From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 13:41:34 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:30:50 EST From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Re: RE: Mindless quotes Message-ID: <86c1a3c6.369ba2ea@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Paul, As always, your quotes are lovely. But what do you imagine you have proved, other than, once again, you own the same books I do, and can quote from them with equal ability. What I wrote about the rankings of Arhat, Pratyekabuddha, Bodhisattva and Buddha still stand. They are in that order, HPB understood them to be in that order, and your quotes don't say a word about that. So are we having a discussion, where you actually choose to say something specific, or will you simply type out some more quotes which are equally off-topic? Rich From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 13:49:58 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:31:00 EST From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Re: Response to Rich Message-ID: <4b4487a1.369ba2f4@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/11/99 9:34:09 PM, Jerry wrote: <<>(3) Bodhisattva. A "wisdom-being," one who has taken a vow to become a >Buddha, and is variously progressed along that path. Many of us on this list >have taken the vow, but I suspect we are more "embryonic bodhisattvas." >Still, our heart is in the right place. As far as I know, the "vow" is to NOT become a Buddha until all living beings can be Buddhas too. Am I wrong here?>> When I get a moment, I'll look up some definitive Buddhist references for you. For the moment, I would propose that it is not only possible but most desirable to become a full Buddha as soon as possible, the better to "help and teach others." However, being a Buddha does *not* imply disappearing into Niravana. I think we should distinguish between full enlightenment, and the extinction of "presence" implied by Nirvana. We must assume, I think, that Lord Gautama was fully enlightened, yet Mahayanists (and HPB) say that he is still "around." Rich From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 13:54:34 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:30:56 EST From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Re: Despised/lowest/dead letter. . . Pratyeka Buddhas Message-ID: <65f0dfc7.369ba2f0@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/11/99 8:02:46 PM, Paul wrote: <> Yes, Paul, there IS a yana called "Pratyeka-buddha-yana." (Paccika is Pali, Pratyeka is Sanskrit, same word.) Do you know how many yanas there are, according to Vajrayana Buddhism? Nine. Now, search around in HPB's writings and see if you find a reference to that. No? But I know she knew about them, even if she never states it directly. (She does that a lot, so you have to be careful.) The lowest yana (of the nine) is "shravaka-yana." Its fruit is an Arhat. The second-lowest yana (of the nine) is "pratyeka-buddha-yana." You can guess what it's product is. Then there is the Mahayana. And six yanas after that. I'm afriad quoting from HPB won't help you there, you have to read behind the scenes, and then go back and read HPB again to *understand*. But frankly, this discussion is tedious and, I think, fruitless. However many quotes from Buddhism I might supply (and these terms are *BUDDHIST* -- they owned them before HPB was born) you will simply quote HPB, and assume that she is the supreme authority on all matters Asian. Which is fine, if that's what you choose to believe. Rich From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 13:58:59 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:31:04 EST From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Three fundamental propositions Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/11/99 8:19:20 AM, Leon wrote: <> I wish I could be sure of the existence of the book or the date of its writing. Actually, I suspect that *none* of us know anything, really, about the true original or nature of the Stanzas of Dzyan. We can only take HPB on faith here, or deny. What I do think is pretty undeniable, and the whole reason she laid them out, is the three fundamental propositions of the S.D. We don't need to accept the existence of a mysterious book, or a date for its composition, to see the inherent reasonableness of those propositions. (If any new readers are unclear as to what those principles are, just pipe up and dozens of people can fill you in.) And, having digested those three propositions, and seeing what follows from them (brotherood, karma, reincarnation, cycles, etc. etc. etc.) and seeing how coherent and logical and intuitive the ENTIRE system of Theosophy is, it makes it a lot easier to assume that HPB is truly in touch with something important, which may in fact stem from a very ancient book and a long lineage of guardians who care for that wisdom. At least, that's been my little sequence of logic. I may pick at little statements HPB says, and correct her dates/spelling/whatever, but I never dream of tackling those fundamental propositions. And that's why she highlights them, and bases her entire teaching on them. Maybe we could have a conversation about those propositions? Rich From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 15:16:28 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:57:12 EST From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Terms Message-ID: <2a0c59cf.369bb728@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/11/99 9:00:41 PM, Jerry wrote: <<> Pratyekabuddhas are considered >higher than Arhats, because Pratyekabuddhas are self-enlightened... Rich, I have been arguing this about the Pratyekabuddhas for years with no success at all. Purucker and others have labeled this person one who is "spiritually selfish" and so most Theosophists lump them into their little bag of evil black magicans. As you rightly say, this just ain't so. But I doubt that you will have much better success getting this over than I did.>> Jerry, I will already concede defeat here. You are right. At the mere mention of the term, "friends" are spouting off every quote HPB ever made about Buddhism in general, while never addressing the point, that Buddhism originated these terms, and they are the source to which we should turn for definitions. According to my understanding, HPB *does* know the original meanings and usages of Buddhist terms, yet her students don't, because they won't do the work she did. If people are interested in HPB quotes on Buddhism, try Hand Speierenberg's THE BUDDHISM OF HPB BLAVATSKY. That will save a lot of page turning when mindlessly copying out quotes. For my part, if people don't care to learn about the original meaning of terms before HPB used them, it's no business of mine, and I'll shut up. Rich From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 15:25:49 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:57:03 EST From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Re: AC/HPB Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/10/99 7:19:20 PM, Alan wrote: <> Why do we think "merging of opposites" is a good thing? I understand the need to move above and beyond opposites, but I don't think that always means "merging" them. As for respecting and using Crowley, even though he's at odds with HPB -- that depends on what you really think of him. Myself, finding no value in his work whatsoever, I think of it this way. Studying Blavatsky is like eating good food. Studying Crowley is like eating yucky food. Yes, I agree it would be good to move above and beyond the need for material food altogether -- but seeing as how I want to sustain my body, I chose to eat good food. Mixing healthy and putrid food does not move me any closer to transcending the pairs of opposites. It just makes you sick. For those who respect Crowley, forgive me for my opinions. But I find him to be an egomaniac and a real distraction from the "still, small path." Talented he may have been, accomplished and learned as well. But wise? An altruistic guide for humanity? One who devoted his life to the uplift of the masses? Hardly. He is merely a distraction from the teachings of Theosophy, as so many things are today. Rich From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 15:31:28 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:56:48 EST From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Buddhas and bodhisattvas Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/11/99 7:34:23 AM, Leon wrote: <> Sanskrit is a funny language. Many words may look alike which have related but different meanings. The word "buddha" may indeed refer to "one who is enlightened," but that is a secondary meaning. The word is a past participle from the verbal root "budh" meaning to awaken. So buddha means "awakened, enlightened." Only in a secondary fashion can it be turned into "ONE WHO IS awakened." <> Here I quite agree. Pratyeka Buddhas (in Buddhism) are followed or worshipped by no one. They *are* considered selfish: "saved" but unable and/or unwilling to "save." Bodhisattvas are the dominants figures in Mahayana Buddhism and huge sub-religions form around them. I think it is quite fair (and even stated in the New Testament!) that "the first shall be last" as far as karma, while the long-suffering Bodhisattvas are truly they great ones. Great quote, Leon. I was thinking about that statement all day yesterday. Rich From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 19:28:24 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:17:09 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: == PRATYEKHA BUDDHA and NIRVANA Message-ID: <000101be3e9a$d7227d40$ad0e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <000401be3d9b$811ded80$36084ad4@bazzer> Jan 12th 1999 Even if the subject of the PRATYEKHA Buddha and the PASSI buddha were not taken up in the S.D. there are hints there that relate to them when we start with the definitions we are given in VOICE p. 47 footnote at the end of THE TWO PATHS THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, p. 261 - HPB devotes 1/2 a page to explaining this (idem.) p. 345 (top of the page) under "Trikaya" "this Pratyekha Buddha state refers to him who lives all for himself and very little for others, occupying the middle of the vehicle, filling it all and leaving no room for others. Such is the selfish candidate for Nirvana." Theos. Glossary P. 232 Nirvana, Nirvani MAHATMA LETTERS, p. 115 [ XVI ] The Master explains the difference between the "Passi" or "Pratyekha" [ the perfection of the "personal vehicle" ] and the "Amita" or "Amrita" Buddha which is the perfection of the "immortal vehicle." This distinction is made clear in KEY p. 113 bottom The forced return from Nirvana of such MONADS as take this temporary isolation or "Liberation Path" is described in suggestive passages in THE SECRET DOCTRINE See: SD I 371 329-330 571 SD II 79-80 109-110 233fn In the Magazine THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (Bombay) references to this are made in T Mvt. Vol. 10,p. 174; T Mvt. Vol. 14, p. 11 Also in THE ARYAN PATH (Bombay ULT) Vol. 1, p. 656. In Mr. Judge's COLLECTED ARTICLES edited and published by Theosophy Company references will be found in Vol. 1, p. 9, 390 to the state of the personality that, perfected but selfish in personality, adopts Nirvana and severs its connection with mankind for a long time, until karma forces it to reunite and re-enter the stream of evolution again. In a collection of Mr. Judge's ANSWERS from the THEOSOPHICAL FORUM (Theos. Company) p. 4. The distinction between a Nirvanee and a JIVANMUKTA is made clear. [ see also T. Glossary p. 165 ) Nirvana is called a Maya SD II 615, [ a personal state - SD II 610 ] Blavatsky, COLLECTED WORKS, Vol. 6, p. 248-9 the ultimate fate of the MONAD is discussed. MOKSHA ( Liberation) T Glos 216, ISIS II 116-117 286 320-322 I hope this proves to be of help. Dallas > From: Bazzer > Sent: Monday, January 11, 1999 11:50 AM > Subject: RE: Mindless quotes As far as one is aware. . . . Nowhere in "The Secret Doctrine" is Pratyeka Buddha ever mention ed. Not even once. Conclusions?! Best wishes, Paul Rich: <<> Pratyekabuddhas are considered higher than Arhats, Paul: > Or, by reverse logic, Arhats are considered lower than Pratyeka Buddhas. > Yes? Well, no. This is complete nonsense. > From "The Voice of the Silence". > > Concerning Pratyeka-Buddha (Glossary to Part II): > > "Caring nothing for the woes of mankind or to help it, but only for their > own *bliss*, they enter Nirvana and - disappear from the sight and hearts > of men. In Northern Buddhism a 'Pratyeka Buddha' is a synonym of spiritual > Selfishness" (Glossary to Part II). > Further, (Glossary to Part III): > > "(32). In the Northern Buddhist phraseology all the great Arhats, Adepts > and Saints are called Buddhas. > > (33). A *Bodhisattva* is, in the hierarchy, less than a "perfect Buddha." > In the exoteric parlance these two are very much confused. Yet the innate > and right popular perception, owing to that self-sacrifice, has placed a > Bodhisattva higher in its reverence than a Buddha." > > (34). This same popular reverence calls "Buddhas of Compassion" those > *Bodhisattvas* who, having reached the rank of an Arhat (i.e., have > completed the *fourth* or *seventh* Path), refuse to pass into > the Nirvanic > state or 'don the *Dharmakaya* robe and cross to the other shore,' as it > would then become beyond their power to assist men even so little as Karma > permits. . . . . .>> > > Paul! You can quote well, but you have really confused all the > above terms. > And your quotes, out of context, actually confuse matters more, > because you > haven't read any Buddhism, you only have HPB's scattered > definitions. You are > content to parrot HPB word-for-word, and then throw down the > gauntlet as if > you've proven your point. Quotes from HPB, however, really only > prove that > you own her books and can read them. > > Here's a different, "overview" method, and you will see both the > skill and the > idiosyncrasy of HPB. This is my paraphrasing of Buddhist > definitions, and I > invite other students of Buddhism to back me up or show that I am wrong: > > (1) Arhats are graduates of the Hinayana (small vehicle) path. They are > considered "freed from impurities" and thus freed from the wheel > of rebirth. > They are free to go on to Nirvana. "Arhat" literally means "one > who has slain > the enemies." Arhats are NOT enlightened, not omniscient, only "free." > > (2) Pratyekabuddhas *are* considered higher adepts, by *BUDDHISM* > (which is > what I wrote, if you bothered to check). These beings are considered > enlightened (meaning far-seeing and wise) as well as free from bondage > karmically. Their name means literally "prati-eka" (by oneself) "buddha" > (enlightened). But they did not put in the lifetimes of > compassion to develop > the higher virtues of skill-in-means and compassion to be able to > help others. > Thus, in a spiritual sense, they are wise but selfish. Not in > the sense of > selfish as in "hurting others" but in the sense of "leaving them to their > fate" and proceeding on to Nirvana. No one in Buddhism, southern > or northern, > worships the Pratyekabuddhas, though both traditions mention them > as existing. > > (3) Bodhisattva. A "wisdom-being," one who has taken a vow to become a > Buddha, and is variously progressed along that path. Many of us > on this list > have taken the vow, but I suspect we are more "embryonic bodhisattvas." > Still, our heart is in the right place. Certain mythological > bodhisattvas are > worshipped by the masses, because they are considered to be *just > about* to > become Buddhas (like Maitreya), or because they have been > bodhisattvas so long > they have developed tremendous powers, nearly equal to a full Buddha > (Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara). > > (4) A Buddha, a *samyak-sambuddha*, a "fully enlightened Master" > is the only > one who, having freed himself, has the ability to free others in whatever > their condition, language, culture, race, or psychological > problems. These > beings are worshipped. These beings are rare, and are said to > incarnate very > seldom, perhaps once a kalpa. And a kalpa, by anyone's defition, > is a long, > long time. Because they are so precious, their writings are > preserved very > carefully, because that may be all we have for a long time to > come. HPB calls > the recent Buddha "the highest adept ever to appear on the planet." > > What I have written above is all from BUDDHIST points of view, not > Theosophical. Now, having gotten some authentic Buddhism, we > compare to HPB's > quotes provided by Paul, and see that in some cases she is > talking loosely. > > When HPB speaks of "the great Arhats," she is not referring to all Arhats, > only the great ones. These are Buddhas. But you couldn't know > that unless > you had read some Buddhism outside of HPB. > > Next quote: HPB first says bodhisattvas are lower than Buddhas, but the > exoteric masses rightly put them above Buddhas. This is wrong, in theory, > according to HPB, but both beings a masters of compassion and > self-sacrifice. > Therefore, in this paragraph, HPB is emphasizing that fact. She still > believes Buddhas are higher than bodhisattvas. She says so. > > The final quote also shows that Arhats are lower, then those who > "pass on" are > bodhisattvas, and those who complete the goal are Buddhas. It > doesn't mention > pratyekabuddhas at all. So it's not a terribly helpful quote. > > I state again that HPB is not making up these terms, she is borrowing them > from source material, which 99% of Theosophists haven't bothered > to read for > themselves. It causes a great deal of confusion, and embarrasses us to > inquirers who have studied other traditions. Because all we can > say is "we > have faith in HPB" and we can't prove why. One reason we know she's > authentic, however, is because we see HPB time and again using > technical terms > "correctly," the way the native traditions use them. Then she > adds more, the > esoteric side. > > Rich > theos-talk@theosophy.com > consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > theos-talk@theosophy.com of From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 20:13:43 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:55:16 -0500 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: AC/HPB Message-ID: <369BFD04.E6FB7882@sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3750cab9.369b1648@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > Very clever. What did we say about nit pickers (and their sycophants) who use > innuendo, sidetracking, misinterpretation, ridicule, psychologizing and other > diversionary tactics to avoid answering arguments that puncture their > falsities and preconceptions? I know! I know! We say they're Leon Maurer talking about Aleister Crowley and the Golden Dawn members! OK, let's get serious, now. Can you please define certain terms you have been throwing around: 1) Black Magic 2) Sexual Depravity 3) Necromancy Bart Lidofsky From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 20:21:31 1999 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:50:17 -0500 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Subject: Re: AC & HPB Message-ID: <369BFBD9.A5CAF9C1@sprynet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9c57c276.369acd14@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > As Jerry's defense of Crowley is the typical "black magicians" viewpoint, and > nothing but propaganda to whitewash the leader of a "sexual magic" teaching > and practicing organization whose roots were, in fact, the foundation of Nazi > occultism and supplied the justification for their genocide. No more than Theosophy was. Hitler was an equal opportunity idea twister, and a lot of people were fooled by the early Nazi party. When Winston Churchill wanted to create a symbol for England to counteract the power of the Nazi Swastik, he went to Aleister Crowley, who came up with the "V" symbol. Bart Lidofsky From owner-theos-talk Tue Jan 12 23:23:38 1999 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:06:26 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: Three fundamental propositions Message-ID: <8e66953c.369c29d2@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/12/99 7:58:45 PM, Richtay@aol.com writes: >In a message dated 1/11/99 8:19:20 AM, Leon wrote: > ><more than 8,000 years ago which rests on fundamental principles that either >have to be accepted or not as being valid. >> > >I wish I could be sure of the existence of the book or the date of its >writing. Actually, I suspect that *none* of us know anything, really, >about the true original or nature of the Stanzas of Dzyan. We can only take >HPB on faith here, or deny. I don't think the Book of Dzyan must be taken on faith "only". . . Since the Stanzas themselves, if carefully studied line by line and understood (by correlating all the commentaries on them by HPB) exactly conforms to and is consistent with the Three Fundamental Principles. In particular, there is a close correlation of its numerology with the Second Principle. Also, they contain the fundamental conceptual geometry behind all the derivative laws of nature (based on fundamental spin or absolute abstract cyclic motion underlying all subsequent phenomenal vibratory motion) which, in turn, underlies and presages all the modern and post modern scientific discoveries since Einstein intuited E=mc^2 directly from the evolutionary paths and numerological formulas presented in the stanzas, and further clarified in the commentaries. It is also possible, based on careful study of the SD, that Einstein derived his new mathematics of Tensor Analysis from certain suggestions made by HPB in the commentaries. (Else, why would Einstein have had that well worn and margin notated SD on his desk during his entire time in America and at his bedside when he died? **) Best wishes, Leon ** http://users.aol.com/unIwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 13 03:05:09 1999 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 03:57:23 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: AC/HPB Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/13/99 2:13:34 AM, bartl@sprynet.com writes: > Can you please define certain terms you have been throwing around: Sure, as I was taught them without referring to any particular dictionary definition. > 1) Black Magic The practice of magic through the use of the lower kundalini (sexual) energies for motives of selfish phenomenalization or to control and/or cause harm to others. . . As opposed to white magic that uses the higher consciousness and mental energies solely for unselfish, altruistic or benevolent purposes. It's a fact (known to all practicing magicians) that the use of the lower energies for causing selfish psychic or physicalized phenomena requires the drawing and focusing of such energy from or through the "medium" of another person or persons (to avoid energy depletion of the magician or the burning out of his own astral nerve channels). Consequently, black magic is a form of astral vampirism that inevitably causes harm to others, and is, therefore, consummately evil. So called "spiritualist mediums" who "speak with the dead" are, in a sense, unknowingly practicing a form of "black magic" vampirism--causing varying degrees of astral (and ultimately physical), as well as psychic damage to both themselves and their seance partners. > 2) Sexual Depravity (I don't remember "throwing around" this term.) The practice of sexual magic. e.g. The use of Tantric sexual practices to raise Kundalini energy for purposes of black magic. This phrase also includes the practice of rape and other forms of sexual molestation or harassment for personal gratification at the expense of (harm) to another--physically or psychically. It does NOT refer to any forms of consensual or onanistic sexual practices for purposes of self or mutual gratification, or reproduction. . . Although, so I have been told, one cannot achieve sattva, or complete spiritual awakening, without total celibacy. i.e. Total detachment or "isolation" from both pain and pleasure, and the elimination of all physical or sensory "passions" (attractions and aversions). > 3) Necromancy (I don't remember "throwing around" this word either.) The practice of Black magic which utilizes through a "medium" the energies of the lower nature (astral or emotional), and in some cases, the astral or "kamalocal" remains of the recent dead. LHM From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 13 04:20:07 1999 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 05:11:30 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: AC & HPB Message-ID: <2b63276b.369c7152@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/13/99 2:21:15 AM, bartl@sprynet.com writes: >LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: >> As Jerry's defense of Crowley is the typical "black magicians" viewpoint, and >> nothing but propaganda to whitewash the leader of a "sexual magic" teaching >> and practicing organization whose roots were, in fact, the foundation >> of Nazi occultism and supplied the justification for their genocide. > > No more than Theosophy was. Hitler was an equal opportunity idea >twister, and a lot of people were fooled by the early Nazi party. That's a new twist. Are you saying that Theosophy supplied the justification for Hitler's and the Nazi's genocide? Where did you get that from? Or, are you also in the same group of propagandists as the other Crowley lovers, black magic justifiers, and HPB detractors?. . . None of whom realize that theosophy is not the sciences, philosophies or religions discussed in the "Secret Doctrine", but the "synthesis" of the "roots" of all of them based on the Book of Dzyan and the three fundamental principles--all of which leads to "Universal Brotherhood" and pure "altruism" in word and deed. . . Just the opposite of what both Hitler and Crowley preached. > > When Winston Churchill wanted to create a symbol for England to >counteract the power of the Nazi Swastik, he went to Aleister Crowley, >who came up with the "V" symbol. What kind of baloney is that? Did you just make it up, or could you have picked it up from one of Crowley's (who was on the British subversive lists when the War broke out) sycophant biographers? As far as I know, the "V" symbol was simply the initial of the word "Victory", and the expressive sign was reinvented by Churchill himself when, in a speech during the "Battle of Britain", he put up his fingers in the "V" sign and said "let's make it Vee for Victory". Crowley couldn't teach Churchill anything about how to inspire people to help each other in a desperate situation. Besides, how could the "V" sign be a substitute for the swastika? (If anything, and judging by it's use as a hand signal, it could only have substituted for the Nazi's "Heil Hitler" salute--although that wouldn't make much sense.) The "British Bulldog" wrapped in the UK flag and it's starred cross was enough of a power "symbol" to counteract the Nazi swastika. I think the "V" (for Victory) sign (not symbol) was first used during the American revolution by George Washington, and was also the obvious sign we all used during the '60's civil rights movement. It is never the sign or symbol that inspires a movement or an action, but it's the motive and understandings of the leaders of such a movement that inspires the sign or symbol. Vide, the symbol of the TS designed by HPB, the swastika designed by Hitler, the O.T.O. and A.'.A.'. symbols designed by Crowley, the U.S flag designed by George Washington (I think), and the reverse of the Great Seal of the U.S. designed by Tom Payne with the help of Tom Jefferson. LHM From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 13 07:10:12 1999 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:52:22 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Response to Rich Message-ID: <003e01be3ef3$90f67ac0$4fcb37c0@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >I think we should distinguish between full enlightenment, and the extinction >of "presence" implied by Nirvana. We must assume, I think, that Lord Gautama >was fully enlightened, yet Mahayanists (and HPB) say that he is still >"around." > >Rich So far as I know, this is one of the basic differences between the Theravadin and Mahayana. HPB was clearly in the Mahayana camp. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 13 07:23:49 1999 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 07:55:06 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Three fundamental propositions Message-ID: <004501be3ef3$f21fd4e0$4fcb37c0@gschueler.netgsi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >What I do think is pretty undeniable, and the whole reason she laid them out, >is the three fundamental propositions of the S.D. We don't need to accept the >existence of a mysterious book, or a date for its composition, to see the >inherent reasonableness of those propositions. As a matter of fact, I had already come to realize these three prior to coming into Theosophy. Jerry S. From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 13 10:11:29 1999 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 09:05:20 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: AC/HPB -- "Black Magic" Message-ID: <000101be3f16$e7c17bc0$9b0e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Jan 13th 1999 Dallas offers: KUNDALINI SAKTI is described in SD I 292-3, VOICE footnotes on page 10 and 13; THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, p. 182, 13 (Akasa), 330 (See Isis I xlii-iii, 368-9); 10 (Agni Dhatu Samadhi). As far as I can determine KUNDALINI has not been related to sexual or creative action on this the physical gross-matter plane, unless it has been debased by promiscuity. But perhaps someone has some reference that clarifies this better. If so please advise me. I would be grateful to know of it. As far as I know some of the TANTRAS are full of descriptions and directions - but are they accurate? Are they designed to obscure, and act as "blinds?" I do not think that a literal translation of any oriental text is ever accurate to the point of spiritualizing meanings, and the transmutation (from literal writings to universal understanding) has to be done in one's own mind and under the direction of the interior INITIATOR: the HIGHER SELF (ATMA-BUDDHI), as a result of long and deep study, - one in which the whole of the Esoteric Philosophy is grasped and at hand for the SPIRITUAL WILL to use. And that is what I understand that true INITIATION means - there is no sudden gift, nor can any lessons for money, ever give the real meaning of these things. The disciple under the guidance of a True Teacher, with every moral faculty fully developed can alone be trusted to Initiate himself. In this sense all the 7 Saktis are combined into their synthetic SEVENTH (not described) and the transformation is interior, as suggested in THE ELIXIR OF LIFE, [ FIVE YEARS OF THEOSOPHY, p. 1] Dallas ===================================================== From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 13 11:23:19 1999 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 17:08:51 -0000 From: "Al Wilkinson" Subject: RE: AC/HPB/I-Ching Message-ID: <000101be3f17$647f13c0$3e8959c3@alan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: > Studying Blavatsky is like eating good food. Studying Crowley is > like eating > yucky food. Agreed, Rich. I've been listening to the comments posted about A.C. and reflected upon my previous views and posts. I figured that I'm not in a stable position to judge Theosophy with Thelema. Like you, I find it more light 'n bright reading theosophy. But I wonder if this was because it presents a secure "pen", a bit like Christianity did. A big change of subject: Anyone any ideas on the I-Ching? I'm not trying to take the subject off Theosophy but rather learn more. As Theosophy gives a means of life (does it?) then I feel that all aspects should be examined. Leon, sorry for the recent stab. You seem knowledgeable but rather condemning to others who differ from your views. Alan From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 13 11:53:18 1999 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:40:17 -0800 From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Response to Rich == Who and where is GAUTAMA BUDDHA today ? Message-ID: <000501be3f24$2b17b8a0$9b0e97cf@netway.nwc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <003e01be3ef3$90f67ac0$4fcb37c0@gschueler.netgsi.com> Jan 13th 1999 Dallas offers references on this: Please see VOICE OF THE SILENCE p. 78-9 footnote. "The DHARMAKAYA body is that of a complete Buddha, i.e., no body at all, but an ideal breath; Consciousness merged in the Universal Consciousness, or Soul devoid of every attribute. Once a Dharmakaya, an Adept or Buddha leaves behind him every possible relation with or thought for, this earth. [ also see PRATYEKHA BUDDHA VOICE p. 47 footnote ] Thus to be enabled to help humanity, an Adept who has won the right to Nirvana, "renounces the DHARMAKAYA body" in mystic parlance; keeps of the SAMBHOGAKAYA only the great and complete knowledge, and remains in his NIRMANAKAYA body. The Esoteric School teaches that Gautama Buddha, with several of his Arhats, is such a NIRMANAKAYA, higher than whom on account of the great renunciation and sacrifice for mankind, there is none known." VOICE p. 78 FOOTNOTE In the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, refer to GAUTAMA BUDDHA, BUDDHA, NIRMANAKAYA, SAMBHOGAKAYA, and DHARMAKAYA, also TRIKAYA. I hope this serves to clear up some definitions. We all ought to make it a practice to look up these things on our own in those wonderful books: SECRET DOCTRINE, ISIS UNVEILED, KEY TO THEOSOPHY, VOICE OF THE SILENCE and the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY. The major works all have INDEXES and those enable s to trace references which we can each assemble for accuracy and a deepened understanding. In the study of Occultism and all tools available ought to be used. Our "initiation" depends on the work that WE do. It is not a gift. It is self-evolved by great and persistent effort. Those are my thoughts on the subject. Dallas > From: Jerry Schueler > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 4:52 AM > Subject: Re: Response to Rich >I think we should distinguish between full enlightenment, and the extinction >of "presence" implied by Nirvana. We must assume, I think, that Lord Gautama >was fully enlightened, yet Mahayanists (and HPB) say that he is still >"around." > >Rich So far as I know, this is one of the basic differences between the Theravadin and Mahayana. HPB was clearly in the Mahayana camp. Jerry S. theos-talk@theosophy.com of From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 13 12:38:18 1999 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:31:34 -0700 From: "Daniel H Caldwell" Subject: Dallas talks about Indexes to Blavatsky's Writings Message-ID: <369CE686.AD96057C@azstarnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000501be3f24$2b17b8a0$9b0e97cf@netway.nwc.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dallas wrote: "We all ought to make it a practice to look up these things on our own in those wonderful books: SECRET DOCTRINE, ISIS UNVEILED, KEY TO THEOSOPHY, VOICE OF THE SILENCE and the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY. The major works all have INDEXES and those enable us to trace references which we can each assemble for accuracy and a deepened understanding. In the study of Occultism all tools available ought to be used." Daniel replies: I agree with Dallas when he writes: "In the study of Occultism ALL tools available ought to be used." As far as indexes to HPB's writings, are most Blavatsky students aware of the following excellent indexes? ***Vol. 15 of the COLLECTED WRITINGS of HPB, which is an 617 page index to the 14 volumes of her articles. Excellent. ***Index to the COLLECTED WRITINGS edition of ISIS UNVEILED. This is a detailed 130 page index. Very helpful. And those that use the TUP or TC editions of ISIS, can also use this CW index. Also includes an extensive 53 page bibliography of titles used by HPB in her first major work. ***Index to the COLLECTED WRITINGS edition of THE SECRET DOCTRINE. An index of 494 pp. with an additional 84 page bibliography of the works quoted by HPB in her magnum opus. ***Index of the SECRET DOCTRINE prepared by John. Van Mater and associates. Theosophical University Press. 432 page index. ***Index to THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY in the Theosophical University Press edition. ***Index to the 1992 Quest edition of THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE. ***The Theosophy Company has smaller indexes to THE SECRET DOCTRINE, ISIS UNVEILED and HPB'S THEOSOPHICAL ARTICLES (3 volumes). etc. etc. I find that some Blavatsky students outside the Adyar, Wheaton T.S. have a tendency to ignore the indexes to the COLLECTED WRITINGS series that Boris de Zirkoff worked on for decades. IMO, this is unfortunate. Hopefully those who have neglected these indexes will heed Dallas' words: "In the study of Occultism ALL TOOLS AVAILABLE ought to be used." From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 13 13:55:09 1999 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:44:23 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: Response to Rich Message-ID: <690f9db9.369cf797@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/13/99 1:10:03 PM, gschueler@netgsi.com writes: >So far as I know, this is one of the basic differences between the >Theravadin and Mahayana. HPB was clearly in the Mahayana camp. Wrong. HPB was in the Theosophical "camp" which has a far more esoteric and fundamental view of cosmic reality and the laws of reincarnation and karma than either the Theravadin, the Mahayana, the Vajrayana, or any other exoteric religious schools. LHM From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 13 19:57:12 1999 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:26:49 +1000 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Re: AC & HPB Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990114122649.00828d10@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2b63276b.369c7152@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >symbol of the TS designed by HPB, the swastika designed by Hitler, the O.T.O. >and A.'.A.'. symbols designed by Crowley, the U.S flag designed by George >Washington (I think), and the reverse of the Great Seal of the U.S. designed >by Tom Payne with the help of Tom Jefferson. > >LHM Ah, so Leon doesn't know everything. I suggest you look into who REALLY designed the great seal of the USA. One Esoteric Clue........spartacus. WLP "There is No Religion Higher than Truth" Motto of the Theosophical Society From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 13 20:09:04 1999 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:26:53 +1000 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: RE: AC/HPB/I-Ching Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990114122653.0082e720@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <000101be3f17$647f13c0$3e8959c3@alan> References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >A big change of subject: Anyone any ideas on the I-Ching? I'm not trying to >take the subject off Theosophy but rather learn more. As Theosophy gives a >means of life (does it?) then I feel that all aspects should be examined. Al, Have you read 'The Invisible Landscape - mind, hallucinogens and the I Ching" by Terrence and Dennis McKenna ? Here is an excerpt (p121): "The discussion now moves from the methodological and philosophical bases of our experiment to a rather formal exposition of the calendrical potentials offered by the structure of the sequence of the hexagrams used in the class Chinese divinatory system, the I Ching. This concern may appear to be far removed from the molecular basis of Amazonian shamanic trance, but in fact divination is the especial pregrogative of the shaman, whatever the cultural context. It is one of the major signs of a shaman's command of a superhuman condition. the three thousand year old King Wen sequence of the sixty-four hexagrams of the I Ching is among the oldest structures abstractions extant, yet the nature of the ordering principles preserved in that seqquence remains unelucidated. The I Ching is a mathematical divinitory tool of great age whose probable origin is in the mountainous heart of Asia - the home of classical shamansim and Taoist Magic - it is a centrally important part of humanity's shamanic heritage that is rich in complications..... ....The I Ching, through its concern with detailing the dynamics of change and process, may hold the key to modeling the temporal dimension that metabolism creates for organisms, the temporal dimension without which mind could not manifest" Terrence Mckenna has tied in I Ching, Fractal Geometry and the concept of Novelty/Habit into a theory called the Timewave. For those interested check out his website at: http://www.levity.com/~eschaton. Cheers DP "There is No Religion Higher than Truth" Motto of the Theosophical Society From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 13 20:13:21 1999 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:25:11 +1000 From: "Darren Porter" Subject: Red Caps and Padmasambhava Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990114122511.00831430@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Yet another quote from Alexandra David-Neels 'Initiations and Initiates in Tibet". Perhaps this time someone may like to deal with what she says rather than ignoring it. "Tsong kharpa was simply a religious master. Continuing the work tentaively begun by Atisa and his disciple Domton, he did his best to reform the very lax monastic disciples of the Tibetan Clergy. For this reason, his disciple were called gelugspas (dgelugspa), "those who have virtuous habits". The name of the yellow caps was given to them because Tsong Khapa, doubtless to distinguish them from the other monks who wore red, imposed on them a yellow headress. Still this simple reason did not appear satisfactory to people enamoured of the marvellous" (p115) "We are wrong if we imagine that Tsong Khapa aimed at bringing lamaism back to the doctrine of the original Buddhism by eliminating accretions of Hindu-Tantric and Bon-Shamanist origin. He was quite as ritualistic as the former "red caps", and adhered to the greater part of their superstitions. The essential points - one might almost say the only ones - of his reforms dealt with monastic disciple. Whereas the "red caps" allow the drinking of fermented liquor and exact celibacy only from monks who have received the major ordination (that of gelong - virtuos mendicant), Tsong Khapa forbade marriage and the use of fermented drink to all members of the clergy without distinction"(p116) "Nevertheless, Tsong Khapas reform, though introducing a stricter discipline in some of the Lama clergy, had by no means quenched within them the thirst after worldly possessions and dignities. The power exercised by the Grand Lama of Sakya excited the jealousy of the abbots of Gahlden. Lobzany Gyatso, the fifth of them in order of succession, achieved his ends by obtaining the supprt of a Mongol prince who had seized Tibet. The prince destroyed the power of the red sects. Large numbers of their monasteries were razed to the ground and others confiscated on behalf of the "yellow caps", their members being forcibly incorporated with these latter. The temperal sovereignty of Tibet was given to Lobzang Gyatso by his Mongol protector, as it had been given about four centuries earlier by another Mongol, Kublai Khan, to the Grand Lama of Sakya."p118-119. Dordje Jigsyed was the Grand Yidam of the Sect of the Yellow caps - one of his teachings is his dubthabs of which there are 4 - shiwa, gyaispa, wangwa and tagpo. All of these rites are for obtaining personal benefit. So by HPB, Leon et al's defintion Dordje was a red cap. Now I'm even more confused. It sounds like Dordje should take his red and yellow cap and try and get some work at McDonalds ! Now for my next point: the Bardo Thodrol: (or The Tibetan Book of the Dead)... What linage is this book considered to belong to? Why does HPB not reference it? This is what Sogyal Rinpoche has to say: " The actual name (of the Tibetan book of the Dead) is Bardo Todrol Chenmo, which means "the great liberation through hearing in the Bardo". Bardo teachings are exremely ancient, and found in what are called the Dzogchen Tantras. These teachings have a lineage stretching back beyond human masters to the Primordial Buddha (Samantabhadra or Kuntuzangpo), who represents the absolute, naked, sky-like primordial purity of the nature of our mind. But the Bardo Todrol Chenmo itself is part of one large cycle of teachings handed down by the master Padmasambhana and revealed in the fourteenth century by the Tibetan visionary Karma Lingpa". Having read both the SD and the BTC I know which is supposedly esoteric and which is in fact the exoteric.When we read HPB we cannot escape the influence of Victorian Attitudes in her writings. And it is these that must be removed - a lot of so-called Theosophists aren't going to like it - but "There is no religion higher than truth" Namaste to All darren "There is No Religion Higher than Truth" Motto of the Theosophical Society From owner-theos-talk Wed Jan 13 21:55:36 1999 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:36:25 EST From: "Leon Maurer" Subject: Re: AC & HPB Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/14/99 1:57:01 AM, dport@ozemail.com.au writes: >Ah, so Leon doesn't know everything. I suggest you look into who REALLY >designed the great seal of the USA. One Esoteric Clue........spartacus. I actually said, the "REVERSE of the Geat Seal" (which is on the left side of the backside of the Dollar Bill.) > >WLP > >"There is No Religion Higher than Truth" > >Motto of the Theosophical Society Actually that was a motto of HPB, "Satyat Nasti Paro Dharma", which she said was the motto of some Indian Rajah (I don't rememeber who that was, but maybe someone else may know and enlighten us). From owner-theos-talk Thu Jan 14 03:10:06 1999 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:54:23 EST From: "Richard Taylor" Subject: Re: Red Caps and Padmasambhava Message-ID: <847dfe12.369db0bf@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/14/99 2:13:22 AM, Darren wrote: <> It's a Nyingma text. <> Great question. Actually, it's not part of canonical Tibetan Buddhism, but a "terma" or "revealed/discovered" text. Either HPB did not know about it, didn't care about it, or didn't consider it appropriate as a Nyingmapa text, given that she was such a Gelugpa cheerleader. Rich From owner-theos-talk Thu Jan 14 08:10:08 1999 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:00:38 -0000 From: "Al Wilkinson" Subject: RE: HPB/I-Ching Message-ID: <000001be3fc6$43a65000$538959c3@alan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990114122653.0082e720@ozemail.com.au> Darren, thanks for the excerpt. And I only thought the I Ching was a cool prediction too . I'll check out the web site, and try to buy the book. Thanks, Alan > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com]On Behalf Of D. Porter > Sent: 14 January 1999 02:27 > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: RE: AC/HPB/I-Ching > > > >A big change of subject: Anyone any ideas on the I-Ching? I'm > not trying to > >take the subject off Theosophy but rather learn more. As > Theosophy gives a > >means of life (does it?) then I feel that all aspects should be examined. > > Al, > > Have you read 'The Invisible Landscape - mind, hallucinogens and the I > Ching" by Terrence and Dennis McKenna ? > > Here is an excerpt (p121): > > "The discussion now moves from the methodological and philosophical bases > of our experiment to a rather formal exposition of the calendrical > potentials offered by the structure of the sequence of the hexagrams used > in the class Chinese divinatory system, the I Ching. This concern may > appear to be far removed from the molecular basis of Amazonian shamanic > trance, but in fact divination is the especial pregrogative of the shaman, > whatever the cultural context. It is one of the major signs of a shaman's > command of a superhuman condition. the three thousand year old King Wen > sequence of the sixty-four hexagrams of the I Ching is among the oldest > structures abstractions extant, yet the nature of the ordering principles > preserved in that seqquence remains unelucidated. The I Ching is a > mathematical divinitor