From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 1 00:03:11 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA20374 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 31 May 2000 23:46:16 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000531234313.026f7ae0@mail.eden.com> X-Sender: ramadoss@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 23:43:13 -0500 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya In-Reply-To: <3935A569.F928451D@bmu.com.pe> References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us> <012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding> <3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com This is an issue the K himself addressed. He may have reached whatever transformation he had with a great amount of effort, while he stated that instant transformation is possible for anyone who tries. He gave the example of the great risk and time and trouble that Columbus had to go through when he travelled by ship to the America. Today, most take the easy method of taking a commercial airline flight. So he did not have a double standard. Something to think about. mkr At 06:51 PM 05/31/2000 -0500, you wrote: quoting: >Regarding the feasibility of Krishnamurti’s suggestion of a profound fundamental transformation of the human consciousness, it has to be pointed out that Krishnamurti did not arrive at that level of consciousness by way of his own proposed instantaneous ‘non-method.’(16) He arrived there solely by treading first the path of initiation under a Master (17)--going almost to its final conclusion--then stepped aside, and denounced the whole method.(18) < -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 1 06:29:08 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id GAA22908 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 06:15:44 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: ASANAT@aol.com Message-ID: <7c.63e8b3f.26679f7c@aol.com> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 07:14:04 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: New Website on the Early History of the Theosophical Soci... To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 81 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Leon, Thanks for your message. It's possible that the University of Vienna is a fine institution in every respect, especially given its history as such. If that is so, perhaps the problem here may be that whoever was responsible at UV for selecting material for this project is not knowledgeable enough of this particular subject, or does have a bias against the TS and/or HPB while making the assumption that such a bias is academically justified. I wonder if anyone on this list has any contact with the UV, especially the relevant parties in this case, and contribute towards correcting this error? If there is no such person on this list, perhaps you, Leon, might want to address them. After all, now you have double karma on this issue! First, because of your family pedigree at the UV. Then, because of your "hasty" defense of the UV. Just kidding. But seriously, this could conceivably be just an "inocent" error on someone's part, or in any case one which may be corrected. I am convinced that the time has come when HPB and her work will be increasingly recognized and respected everywhere, especially in academic circles. I have seen two or three documentaries on the cable A&E channel, in which HPB has been referred to quite respectfully, in academic contexts. And more books are coming out now, in which the same is true. So I believe it would not be a "forlorn hope" type of activity to try to correct the error (though it's worth correcting, even if the attempt seems to be a forlorn hope). My best to all, Aryel In a message dated 5/10/00 12:09:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LeonMaurer@aol.com writes: << Aryel, You are absolutely correct. I did misunderstand Frank's position and was too hasty in my response, but I had no chance to evaluate my first judgment since my initial, off-the-top-of-my-head response was accidentally mailed before I had a chance to review it in a less impulsive mood.:-) Upon rereading it, I realized my mistake, but it was too late to recall. Afterward, I carefully read the entire Paul Johnson material at the U of Vienna site and understood what a pernicious and biased article it was and that Frank's position was entirely justified. Thank you for your clarifications, which I fully agree with. I hope this clears the record, as I now withdraw my apparent defense of the University of Vienna -- which could very well be a hotbed of Neo Nazi propaganda, and materialistic prejudice these days. Since my Grandfather, a freemason who was far from being a materialist, attended that school in the late nineteenth Century, I assumed it had not changed its stripes. Good lesson... And reminds me that the CIA was once a very liberal minded organization during its World War II OSS days when several of my old idealistic friends served in it. Shows us all, that it's dangerous to rely on "established authority's" past records. LHM In a message dated 05/09/00 5:31:47 PM, ASANAT@aol.com writes: >In a message dated 4/17/00 5:09:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >LeonMaurer@aol.com writes: > ><< > In a message dated 04/16/00 3:00:02 AM, ringding@blinx.de writes: > > >O no, not again that idiotic pseudo-scientific and pseudo- > >theosophical fairy tale book. > > > >If the University of Vienna calls on their web-site this really > >an "scientific" book we first have to talk about what is Science. > >Frank > > Oh no, not again... Another idiotic prejudgement based on nothing more than > rumors -- that attempt to denigrate theosophy without any knowledge of > what it really teaches. Shades of the 1890s British Psychical Society, and > the other "Luddites" prior to that time -- and afterwards. > > The teachings of theosophy have to be taken on their own thoroughly > understood merits... And, no research (valid or not) by historical scholars, > attempting to prove or disprove the truth or falsity of HPB's claims about > her association with "Masters of Wisdom" has any value in that respect. > > Perhaps you ought to read the Mission Statement as well as the history of > the University of Vienna before doubting its authority as one of the foremost >world class centers of scientific teachings and religious philosophies. >>> > >Dear Leon: > >Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you grossly misunderstood what >Frank said. You wrote an extremely long e-mail in response to him, basically >defending the University of Vienna. But Frank did not mention the UV at >all. He was complaining (and rightly so, in my humble view) about J. Paul >Johnson's books. > >I think JPJ has done us all a great service in one respect: In his work, he >has shown -- beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that HPB DID know personally a >number of scholars and adventurers of her time. That fact confirms the fact >that she did travel around the world as a very serious student -- that she, >like them, was a scholar & world-trotter, a female Indiana Jones of her time. > Since her travels had been disputed by many authors (who, now we know >for sure, thanks to JPJ, did not have the evidence for their unsupported >OPINIONS), JPJ has done a great service to HPB scholarship, in that sense. > >But when it comes to the subject of the Masters, JPJ turns out to be no >better than HPB's best detractors of former times, who seemed to feel it was >"open season" on her, without the need to provide evidence. JPJ claims >in all of his books that there were no Masters at all in early TS history, & >that HPB INVENTED them (as others had claimed she had invented her travels). >But JPJ DELIBERATELY ignores the main sources of evidence for their real >physical existence. To my mind, although there are other sources, the >main are three: > >1. Colonel Henry Steel Olcott's six volumes of Old Diary Leaves, backed >by archival material. Olcott provided numerous signed affidavits of the >physical visits of the Masters, in the period covered between 1874-1907. > >These affidavits were signed by a number of people who met the Masters >physically, many of whom had no connection with the TS, & therefore no >apparent reason to lie. The signings of these affidavits were in turn >witnessed by third parties, in every instance. > >Olcott earned his rank in the Civil War because of his radical honesty, >capacity to detect fraud, & tremendous courage: He was in charge of >investigating fraud & graft in the military during the war, saved the country >millions of dollars (what would be billions in today's market), & put away >quite a number of criminals, who often threatened his life. That is why he >was put in charge of the then extremely sensitive investigation into the >assassination of President Lincoln, because of the very high esteem in >which he was held by both those of the North & the South. > >Throughout his life, Olcott was at various times a scientist (he wrote >an important book on sorghum), a lawyer, and a journalist. All these >professions require having a very sharp mind, and the ability not to be >easily duped. Further, he was one of the most highly respected psychic >investigators of his time (until just before he met HPB, when his life >changed), because of all the psychic frauds he exposed. > >JPJ NEVER mentions the evidence carefully collected over so many years by >Olcott. The only possible explanations I can think of for this neglectare >either that JPJ is ignorant of Olcott's overwhelming evidence, or thathe had >a preconceived opinion before he began doing his "research." If he was >ignorant of Olcott's critical evidence, he is no researcher, since that >should have been a major source for his work. If he knew Olcott's vital >evidence, but deliberately hid it from his readers, he is no researcher, >because in that case he is more interested in promoting an opinion for >which he KNOWS there is no evidence. In either case, he is no researcher. > >2. Geoffrey Barborka, in The Mahatmas and Their Letters, provides additional >evidence for the physical existence of the Masters in that period. JPJ does >not address this scholarly research, just as he had not addressed Olcott's >evidence. > >3. In my book The Inner Life of Krishnamurti, I provide what I think is very >strong evidence to the effect that J. Krishnamurti had a very close contact >with the Masters throughout his very long life, from the time when he was >a boy, until 10 days before he died. For reasons I give there, I believe this >evidence to be even stronger than that of Olcott. Briefly, it provides, in >addition to that of the Masters' physical presence throughout K's life, the >internal evidence of a teaching that I show in my work to be at the leading >edge of philosophy, psychology, and education, among other fields. JPJ >ignores this, as well. > >If the University of Vienna considers such to be the level of quality of >the research it looks for, then, no matter how successful in other areas, in >this particular instance the UV is supporting PREJUDICE, not RESEARCH. As I >think I have shown here, that is a FACT. > >I agree with you that, in the end, HPB's relationship to the Masters is not >so much what matters, as the intrinsic worth of her work. On the other hand, >if there were Masters physically present in her life, as she said all along, >that fact needs to be taken into account in any FAIR presentation of the >facts. To assume, in blatant disregard for the facts, that something is not >the case simply because one decides personally that it cannot be (perhaps >>for some idiotic reason), does not do honor to ANY university, nor to any >self-respecting theosophist. > >In good cheer, > >Aryel >> -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 1 06:43:45 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id GAA24134 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 06:35:05 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: ASANAT@aol.com Message-ID: <69.5ae517d.2667a404@aol.com> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 07:33:24 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World FW: MONADS IN EVOLUTION Part I To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 81 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 5/10/00 1:54:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LeonMaurer@aol.com writes: << If I may put my two cents worth in here... (The dialogue between Daniel and Dallas) I would like to say that, without the "conceptual system of cosmo- and anthropo-genesis -- that HPB so carefully explained in the Secret Doctrine was the necessary foundation for theosophists to "prove" logically and conceptively to themselves as well as to the "common man" that Brotherhood IS a "Law of Nature" -- transformation, alone, would be useless in forwarding the aims, purposes, and work of the Theosophical Movement ... >> Dear Leon, I'm afraid your statement here flatly contradicts what HPB & her teachers said on the subject, as I fully document in my two papers "The Secret Doctrine, Krishnamurti, and Transformation," and "Transformation: Vital Essence of HPB's Secret Doctrine." These two papers may be obtained at Rodolfo Don's website, teosofia.com. Brotherhood is not -- and cannot be -- merely a product of the analytical mind, a major source of ALL of our troubles. Many organized religions, political parties, and ideologies promote "brotherhood," yet promote the killing of people and the destruction of culture and property for the sake of that IDEAL of the analytical mind. True brotherhood can only be the result of someone being in a theosophical, divine-like, state of awareness. If such a state of awareness is not present, it is impossible to have brotherhood. Such states are the states in which there is compassion-insight. And it is only from such wisdom-compassion that can come a true sense of kinship with others, with all that is. Otherwise, what we have is THE ANALYTICAL MIND playing with itself. All best, Aryel -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 1 07:55:34 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id HAA30577 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 07:42:27 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000601073917.02c14840@mail.eden.com> X-Sender: ramadoss@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 07:39:17 -0500 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theos-World FW: MONADS IN EVOLUTION Part I In-Reply-To: <69.5ae517d.2667a404@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com At 07:33 AM 06/01/2000 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 5/10/00 1:54:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >Brotherhood is not -- and cannot be -- merely a product of the analytical mind, a major source of ALL of our troubles. Many organized religions, political parties, and ideologies promote "brotherhood," yet promote the killing of people and the destruction of culture and property for the sake of that IDEAL of the analytical mind. True brotherhood can only be the result of someone being in a theosophical, divine-like, state of awareness. If such a state of awareness is not present, it is impossible to have brotherhood. Such states are the states in which there is compassion-insight. And it is only from such wisdom-compassion that can come a true sense of kinship with others, with all that is. Otherwise, what we have is THE ANALYTICAL MIND playing with itself. All best, Aryel I think Aryel has hit the nail on its head. I think that it is a fundamental yet non intellectual change that would be the starting point of realizing oneness of life in all its forms. Intellectual change is perhaps the beginning of this "process". In my experience, anyone who is exposed to theosophical "philosophy" seem to undergo a change inspite of themselves, which can be a mini-transformation. mkr -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 1 15:41:25 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id PAA13082 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:38:49 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <009501bfcc09$0ec00360$d7de603e@ringding> From: "Frank Reitemeyer" To: References: <005701bfcb7c$31643fe0$f108c5a9@azstarnet.com> Subject: Re: Theos-World 3 more items added to BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 16:25:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Daniel, thank you very much for sharing this important stuff with the internet community. Seems as able individuals can do more for the cause as big outer organizations... Frank > *** Madame Blavatsky on Gerald Massey's "Lectures" and "Natural Genesis." > [Reprinted from The Agnostic Journal (London), October 3, 1891, p. 214. As > far as I know, this Blavatsky letter has never been reprinted since its > original publication in 1891. In fact, I just discovered this letter late > last night! And you're reading it today! ] -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 1 17:39:31 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA27220 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:25:09 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: Teos9@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:23:27 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Charlatanesque imitations of Occultism and Theosophy . . . . ... To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 104 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 05/31/00 10:56:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, blafoun@azstarnet.com writes: << My questions to Todd Lorentz and all other readers of this email are: Do you believe that there are such "garbled" and "distorted" presentations of Theosophy? If so, can you give any examples of such "charlatanesque imitations" in the last 109 years? >> Hello Daniel, I think that anyone who has been around any TS group for a while, would not have a problem finding out about Theosophical Charlatans. However, your questions provoked an even more important question from my point of view. Does anyone associated with ULT or other fundamentalist theosophical groups think that there is any valid theosophy outside of HPB's or Judge's teachings. Has anything come along in the last 109 years that can be considered acceptable? If so can examples be given? Are we indeed frozen in time, confined only to the study of the founders? Can it be that the works of HPB et al. which in some regards can be considered the definitive treatise on the subject of pervasive evolution, does not itself evolve? Louis -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 1 17:47:27 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA28183 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:33:24 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <20000601223146.18565.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [203.146.64.164] From: "Andrew Basler" To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World The Masters' view on CWL Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 22:31:46 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com >From: Teos9@aol.com >Care to cite some reference sources for this remarkable report? Thanks. > Dear Louis The account was recorded by Annie Besant herself, Howard Murphet wrote about it in his book "Hammer on the Mountain, Life of Henry Steel Olcott" during his stay in Adyar. He had been given a Writer's Fellowship to do biographies on each of the two founders of the Society. His another book, "When Daylight Comes",is biography of HPB. -Andrew ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 1 18:04:11 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA26359 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 17:16:59 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: Teos9@aol.com Message-ID: <68.419f512.26683a6c@aol.com> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:15:08 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 104 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 05/31/00 4:08:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tlorentz@telusplanet.net writes: << If Benjamin Creme is wrong or completely out of it, then we will all get a laugh at his expense, and at ourselves, sometime down the road. >> Not necessarily so Todd. I have been watching Creme be wrong since the mid 1980s. In a public address in Boston followed by a series of private meetings, he stated his "predictions" and specifically named the time and effects that the world would observe. One was the public appearance of Maitreya and the ensuing acknowledgment of his arrival by the world press. No such acknowledgment ever appeared. Nobody laughed him into oblivion. Creme's appearance on the television talk shows circuit with like announcements of market crashes, grand alignment catastrophe's and further sightings of Maitreya all proved to be insubstantial and inconclusive on the world scale that he was talking about. Again, he did not disappear nor become laughed at as another new age kook. Instead, he withdrew from the public arena for a while, founded SHARE, and waited for a new generation of innocent, unread, untrained students of esoteric philosophy top appear. They did not bring independent in depth study of Blavatsky or Bailey to the format. They learned all that they know about Bailey first (because that is Creme's forte') and then, a few went on to study Share's version of classical theosophy. My point is that movements like Cremes, or the Millerites, or Heaven's gate groupies, etc., do NOT have to be right, and they will not be laughed out of existence for being wrong. They simply transform into the next delusion. There are always enough sheep in the world willing to be led to a new pasture if the shepherd even acts like he knows where he is going or, if he will tell them how to get there. It is just so much easier to follow than to discover. I do not mean to rain on your parade Todd. You have obviously done considerable study in your chosen field and your opinion is interesting. However it is NOT an opinion I have not heard before. Indeed, fifteen years ago in Boston I heard it straight out of the horses mouth. I have yet to see any of Benjamin Creme's predictions come to pass, in a conclusive fashion. Louis -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 1 18:33:13 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA00458 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:16:52 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <000001bfcc1f$cb4c7020$2912f4d8@denniski> From: "Dennis Kier" To: References: <20000525174154.74393.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Theos-World From Dr Gregory Tillett: Concerning Mr Sanat's Comments on THE ELDER BROTHER Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 17:35:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com ----- Original Message ----- From: David Green To: Cc: ; ; ; ; Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 10:41 AM Subject: Theos-World From Dr Gregory Tillett: Concerning Mr Sanat's Comments on THE ELDER BROTHER > Dear Mr Green: > > Thank you for forwarding me a copy of Mr Sanatąs comments on my > biography of Leadbeater. Is Dr. Tillett's doctoral thesis available on line at the college or university where he obtained the degree? It would be interesting to see the thesis itself without all the editorial outrage from an author toward a critic. I suspect that many an author has wished for a public forum to answer his critics. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 1 18:57:19 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA03646 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 18:50:34 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000601174909.007a55b0@pop.telusplanet.net> X-Sender: tlorentz@pop.telusplanet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 17:49:09 -0600 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: Todd Lorentz Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya In-Reply-To: <68.419f512.26683a6c@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Hi Louis, >My point is that movements like Cremes, >or the Millerites, or Heaven's gate >groupies, etc., do NOT have to be right, >and they will not be laughed out of >existence for being wrong. They simply >transform into the next delusion. >There are always enough sheep in the world >willing to be led to a new pasture >if the shepherd even acts like he knows >where he is going or, if he will tell >them how to get there. It is just so much >easier to follow than to discover. Yes, I agree. Your point is well taken. Todd -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 1 20:49:34 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA18911 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:40:53 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39372E06.8B4@wworld.com> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 20:46:14 -0700 From: scott holloman X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya References: <3935F267.AAB@wworld.com> <3935E5DD.37F7210F@sprynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com I couldn't agree more.Wisdom comes from many sources;e.g. I see it each day in the individuals I work with whom are "unknowns".Taking a work literally which has gone through re-writes and "translations"even recently is not advisable.The wisdom is there but facts can become fuzzy.As with many things wisdom can be extracted even if the facts are ambiguous.Can anyone really receive the true meaning mean't by an individual?The limits of written and oral language I suppose. Your friend Scotty Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > scott holloman wrote: > > > > Forgive me but Jesus is well known, > > There are many supposed source of wisdom, such as Jesus and Moses, for > whom there is not one iota of reliable historical evidence of their > existence. Doesn't make the wisdom any less valid. However, to use their > existence as proof of modern wannabe's is like stating the Bible is > historical proof of their existence. > > Bart Lidofsky > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 1 21:04:34 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA19028 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:41:57 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39372E5F.51E1@wworld.com> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 20:47:44 -0700 From: scott holloman X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us> <012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding> <3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.3.32.20000531234313.026f7ae0@mail.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pippin.imagiware.com id UAA19026 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Ahhh;evolution! M K Ramadoss wrote: > > This is an issue the K himself addressed. > > He may have reached whatever transformation he had with a great amount of > effort, while he stated that instant transformation is possible for anyone > who tries. He gave the example of the great risk and time and trouble that > Columbus had to go through when he travelled by ship to the America. Today, > most take the easy method of taking a commercial airline flight. So he did > not have a double standard. > > Something to think about. > > mkr > > At 06:51 PM 05/31/2000 -0500, you wrote: quoting: > > >Regarding the feasibility of Krishnamurti’s suggestion of a profound > fundamental transformation of > the human consciousness, it has to be pointed out that Krishnamurti did not > arrive at that level of > consciousness by way of his own proposed instantaneous ‘non-method.’(16) > He arrived there solely > by treading first the path of initiation under a Master (17)--going almost > to its final conclusion--then > stepped aside, and denounced the whole method.(18) > < > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 2 04:09:40 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id EAA31776 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 04:08:04 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000602040459.02b9d580@mail.eden.com> X-Sender: ramadoss@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 04:04:59 -0500 To: theos-l@list.vnet.net From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Theos-World HPB Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com I recently ran into a very interesting letter that HPB wrote to "The World" which speaks for itself. I am excerpting it below and many would enjoy reading it. HPB's fearlessness is legendary. The letter clearly shows how open her life is and how she dares anyone to dig up any dirt from the past if they can. In today's cyberworld of e-mail and keyboards, maillists, newsgroups, one finds from time to time, message posters masquerading under assumed names because they are not bold enough to stand up and counted for their views and opinions because they are afraid of being found out who they really are. mkr ====================== A Card from Madame Blavatsky (The World, NY, May 6, 1877) To: The Editor of The World: Sir: Since the first month of my arrival in America I began, for reasons mysterious but perhaps intelligible, to provoke hatred among those who pretend to be on good terms with me, if not the best of friends. Slanderous reports, vile insinuations, innuendo, have rained about me........ ....At various times I have been charged with (1) drunkenness; (2) forgery; (3) being a Russian Spy; (4) with being an anti-Russian Spy; (5) with being no Russian at all, but a French adventuress; (6) of having been in jail for theft; (7) of being a mistress of a Polish count; (8) with murdering seven husbands; (9) with bigamy; (10) of being the mistress of Colonel Olcott; (11) also of an acrobat. Other things might be mentioned, but decency forbids..... ....But I wish to say for myself just this: that I defy any person in America to come forward and prove a single charge against my honor. I invite everyone possessed of such proofs as will vindicate them in a court of justice to publish them over their own signatures in the newspapers. I will furnish to everyone a list of my several residences, and contribute towards paying detectives to trace my every step. But I hereby give notice that if any more unverifiable slanders can be traced to responsible sources, I will invoke the protection of the law, which, on the theory of your national Constitution, was made for heathen as well as Christian denizens. And I further notify slanderers of a speculative turn that no blackmail is paid at No. 302 West Forty-seventh Street. Respectfully, H P Blavatsky May 5, 1877 ============ -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 2 10:34:50 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA16654 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:30:27 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <003201bfcca7$2f402180$fa85fc3f@wilma> From: "Govert W. Schuller" To: References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us><012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding><3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.3.32.20000531234313.026f7ae0@mail.eden.com> Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 10:28:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Hello, mkr. thanks for responding to the paragraph [see below] MKR:This is an issue the K himself addressed. He may have reached whatever transformation he had with a great amount of effort, GOVERT: Not only by his own effort. Anrias' Maitreya said: "Thus although Krishnamurti was right to emphasize the necessity for independent thought, he was wrong in assuming that everyone else, regardless of past Karma and present limitations, could instantly reach that point which he himself had only reached through lives of effort, and by the aid of those Cosmic Forces apportioned to him solely for his office as Herald of the New Age." MKR: while he stated that instant transformation is possible for anyone who tries. GOVERT: He can very well state that, but fact remains that nobody proved it to be true. MKR: He gave the example of the great risk and time and trouble that Columbus had to go through when he travelled by ship to the America. Today, most take the easy method of taking a commercial airline flight. GOVERT: This metaphor is not working for me, because even with modern flight technology you need 1) time, a no-no for K, 2) planning, another no-no, and 3) help from the captain, another no-no. MKR: So he did not have a double standard. GOVERT: I don't see the reasoning here At 06:51 PM 05/31/2000 -0500, you wrote: quoting: >Regarding the feasibility of Krishnamurti's suggestion of a profound fundamental transformation of the human consciousness, it has to be pointed out that Krishnamurti did not arrive at that level of consciousness by way of his own proposed instantaneous 'non-method.'(16) He arrived there solely by treading first the path of initiation under a Master (17)--going almost to its final conclusion--then stepped aside, and denounced the whole method.(18) < -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 2 11:14:11 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA23155 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:08:57 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <003c01bfccac$8d032ce0$fa85fc3f@wilma> From: "Govert W. Schuller" To: "Theosophy list" References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us> <012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding> <3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net> <3935A569.F928451D@bmu.com.pe> Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:06:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear David, Thanks for bringing up these issues about K and Maitreya. I picked out some of your comments and will try to elaborate. DAVID: "I think that, the obvious disctintion between the two Maitreyas, requires some kind of proof from Govert, too. Or at least, some commentary." GOVERT: My belief that the real Maitreya communicated through David Anrias is based on the following intricately connected factors: 1) Cyril Scott presented Anrias as a genuine contact with the Masters. 2) Based on his 'Initiate' books and his book on music I consider Scott himself a contact of the Masters. 3) The reasonable and balanced theosophical nature of the remarks both Scott's 'Sir Thomas' and Anrias' Maitreya make about K and his teachings. 4) The effectiveness of Anrias' portraits for meditation, or just inspiration. 5) The consensus of almost all the Masters' emissaries that the project with K was genuine but unsuccesful. (IMO: CWL, Hodson, Ballard, Prophet, Anrias, Scott) 6) The impossibilty to reconcile HPB's deeper teachings on the path with those of K and the gravity of the implications when these differences are reasoned to their logical conclusion. Meanwhile I'm also awaiting a book on K by Jean Overton Fuller in which she would elaborate on her ideas pertaining to Scott's and Anrias' views on K. I have been communicating with her on this topic before and posted our exchange on Alpheus. See: http://www.alpheus.org/fuller.htm. DAVID: "As I see the difference betwen these two points of view (Aryel and Govert´s), the problem must be resolved entirely in the plane of doctrine, not in the plane of biographies." GOVERT: In the case of K and theosophy I regard endnotes 5. and 7. of my paper as the two life buoys to extract oneself from K's fascinating teachings. (See: http://www.alpheus.org/onk.htm) HPB's contrasting of correct esoteric Vedanta and erroneous exoteric Vedanta are almost completely parallel to comparing theosophy to K. So far I have not received any comments on these points of doctrine, though I find them most important. DAVID: "I think it wold be interesting to hear Aryel´s commentary of this paper, and to know Govert´s proofs or reasons that could confirm the identity of the Masters mentioned here." GOVERT: I met Aryel a couple of months ago at Wheaton and befriended him. When I met him he already was busy formulating a response to the paper. I'm sure in due course we'll hear from him. As for my proofs of the identity of all the Masters quoted (Kuthumi, 'Sir Thomas,' Maitreya, El Morya), it boils down to the question whether the emissaries representing them (Scott, Anrias, Ballard, Prophet) are genuine. Again I can only give some factors which together make a complex argument. 1) Ballard was apoached by Saint Germain in 1930 just one year after K's irreversible disconnection with the world teacher project by dissolving the Order of the Star in 1929. No coincidence in my view. 2) The for me convincing content, vibration and transformative effects of the messages coming from these emissaries. 3) The above mentioned considerations regarding Scott and Anrias. 4) The explanation that the sometimes contradictory teachings coming from the different emissaries are due to their own strongly held opinions, which color the communications. 5) The particular logic of the successive events from HPB to CWL/AB to K to Ballard to Innocente to Prophet. Here I see the period 1875 till 1929 (the founding of the TS till the dissolution of the OSE) as one unit, and the period 1930 till now (Saint Geramain's contacting of Ballard till the messengership now of Monroe and Carolyn Shearer) as another unit. 6) The insights gained from explanations by later messengers about the ideas and behavior of former messengers and what the Masters tried to accomplish. (AB on HPB, Anrias on AB and K, Scott on K, Prophet on K and Ballard, etc.) 7) The idea that the Masters will keep on fielding messengers to keep open a line of communication with humanity. There are many more considerations which bear on the subject, but these seem to be some of the major ones. They are all part of a whole, which admittedly is my own construct or thesis, but is nevertheless for me most reasonable and satisfactory. It incorporates the existence of the Masters, their messengers, the basics of theosophy, progressive revelation, an explanation of K's stature as an important teacher, and many more things on which we probably all agree. Govert ----- Original Message ----- From: ernesto To: Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 6:51 PM Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya Dear Tood: You wrote: > > If I remember correctly, Maitreya said that Krishnamurti was an ideal > disciple. His disciplined thought process was exceptional. > > Of course, there was much talk about the fact that Krishnamurti was often > over-shadowed by Maitreya during many of his lectures. Krishnamurti spoke > of the Masters and was very much aware of Maitreya. > I have been reading what Govert Schuller, a member of this list, wrote about K's teachings, and also what he informs us about the Maitreya's opinion on K´s teachings. The Maitreya that you are talking about, evidently, is not the one who is mentioned by Govert. We asked you for proofs, and you answered (tough answer is still being evaluated). I think that, the obvious disctintion between the two Maitreyas, requires some kind of proof from Govert, too. Or at least, some commentary. It is not only a matter of who of these two pwople is Maitreya, if any, but also a matter of teachings, as we will see. The paper of Govert (reflections and notes from the Masters about K´s teachings) differs considerably from Aryel Sanat´s view of K's theachings, too. As I see the difference betwen these two points of view (Aryel and Govert´s), the problem must be resolved entirely in the plane of doctrine, not in the plane of biographies. In my personal opinion, after reading Govert´s paper, how could we think that K's teachings were inspired in the Pure Doctrine? How could we think that K´s techings helps us to discover the real Theosophy?. Theosophy seems, in very important matters, CLEARLY OPPOSITE to K's teachings. I repeat that it is not a matter of boigraphy, but a matter of doctrines. And FACTS (as Aryel Sanat likes to say) of what K and HPB (and the Masters, Govert?) said. There are K's and HPB's books to compare. I suppose these are FACTS. In a previous mail, Govert mentioned the web page where we could find his quotations on the matter of K´s teachings. As he mentiones his web page, and as that web page is of public access, I reproduce it now: GOVERT SCHULLER. "Krishnamurti: An Esoteric View of his Teachings" A question which might interest many Theosophists is what Blavatsky and the Masters might have thought about the teachings of Krishnamurti. Although Blavatsky died before Krishnamurti was born, she fortunately left some writings which are helpful in determining on what points her teachings agree and disagree with those of Krishnamurti. The focus will be on their differences because some disagreements pertain directly to the foundations of Krishnamurti's teachings.(1) For example, Blavatsky stresses that one cannot pass over even one step on the path to higher consciousness (2), yet Krishnamurti summarily rejects not only a path of graduated levels in attaining truth (3), but also the very existence of a higher self to unite with.(4) Furthermore, Blavatsky makes it clear that a Guru plays an essential part in one's mastery of higher consciousness (5), while Krishnamurti repudiates the role of a spiritual teacher.(6) The differences even take a dramatic turn when it becomes clear that Blavatsky seriously warns about the kind of philosophy Krishnamurti teaches. She writes that certain doctrines in exoteric Vedantism--which are very similar to Krishnamurti's teachings--might have the effect of disconnecting the soul or the personal self from its higher source, the higher self.(7) This in turn might cause the 'second death' of the soul, which is like an implosion of consciousness into nothingness (8) as opposed to the 'second birth' of the soul when she expands into divinity by first uniting with the higher self and ultimately with the divine self. These differences are not just philosophical and void of spiritual relevance. From an esoteric point of view they are of great significance. Aside from the serious and grave warnings inferred from Blavatsky's writings, the Masters themselves made some specific comments on Krishnamurti's teachings. Lord Maitreya, for example, pointed out that Krishnamurti made a mistake in assuming that anyone could reach his level of consciousness immediately.(9) An English Master indicated that Krishnamurti is teaching an erroneous version of Advaita Vedanta (10), confirming indeed what was gleaned from Blavatsky. Furthermore, this Master warned for some serious dangers in Krishnamurti's teachings, notably his rejection of an esoteric system of spiritual evaluation and his invitation to intense meditation without occult protection.(11) According to this Master, engaging in Krishnamurti's brand of Advaitism might lead to hypocrisy and self-delusion.(12) Krishnamurti's former Guru, Kuthumi, likewise expressed a stern warning about the consequences of his philosophy.(13) Finally, Geoffrey Hodson, a prominent Theosophist and clairvoyant pupil of the Masters, accuses Krishnamurti of circular reasoning (14) and intellectual arrogance.(15) Again, it has to be stressed that these errors are not just a matter of intellectual interest without spiritual consequences. The very health, even survival, of one's spiritual being is involved here. Regarding the feasibility of Krishnamurti's suggestion of a profound fundamental transformation of the human consciousness, it has to be pointed out that Krishnamurti did not arrive at that level of consciousness by way of his own proposed instantaneous 'non-method.'(16) He arrived there solely by treading first the path of initiation under a Master (17)--going almost to its final conclusion--then stepped aside, and denounced the whole method.(18) Furthermore, Vimala Thakar, the only one who executed his kind of transformation in a credible way (19)--and as such could prove its feasability--did not arrive there by his proposed 'non-method' either. Instead, she transformed because Krishnamurti acted as Guru to her. She first gradually acquired an experimental understanding of his erroneous brand of Advaita Vedantism and then Krishnamurti, while laying hands on her for healing an auditory ailment, initiated her into his rebellious state of consciousness.(20) To quote Blavatsky, applying Krishnamurti's 'non-method' is "like destroying a bridge over an impassable chasm; The traveler can never reach the goal on the other shore."(21) The foregoing does not imply that there are no truthful and salutary insights to be found in Krishnamurti's teachings. He exhorts people to think for themselves (22) and to change in a fundamental way (23); he skillfully diagnoses certain dangers of the human ego or synthetic self (24); and he invokes with compassion a sense of urgency about the dangerous situation mankind is in.(25) But these pearls have to be found in a sea of errors. If the foundations of his teachings are erroneous then also its superstructure. A well-grounded Theosophical conception of human nature and a mastery of the "abstruse difficulties of Indian metaphysics"(26) are indispensable to catch these pearls. Even then, one might easily trip over the pearls and land in the mire of Krishnamurti's misconceptions. Due to the deceptive, even mesmerizing properties of Krishnamurti's teachings--notwithstanding the apparent awakening and helpful qualities they have--one might not even be aware of it. In the same way that Krishnamurti's teachings can have a temporary beneficial effect upon certain individuals, a civilization based on his teachings might be successful in its first stages of growth.(27) But, in the end, if not propped up or saved by esoteric corrections and guidance, it will falter, break down and disintegrate. It will never have the chance to develop into a Golden Age, because it rejects the Wisdom Religion.(28) Parallel to this notion is the idea that an individual will find the opposite of enlightenment if he rejects the age-old path of graded initiations. © Govert Schüller 1997 HOME Endnotes 1. At the same time it is an undeniable fact that Theosophy and Krishnamurti have much in common. So much even that some Theosophists consider Krishnamurti's teachings a modern expression of the ageless Wisdom Religion. In many respects both are also very close to Vedantism, especially the monist (Advaita) version. The likeness between Krishnamurti's teachings and Vedantism, albeit Blavatsky's understanding of it, will become hopefully clearer in endnotes 5 and 7, in which Blavatsky contrasts esoteric and exoteric interpretations of Vedanta. The esoteric interpretation is Theosophical and the exoteric interpretation is similar to Krishnamurti's position. Endnote 10 contains the explicit remarks of a Master arguing that Krishnamurti is indeed teaching Advaita Vedanta. About the likeness between Theosophy and Advaita Vedanta, Blavatsky states that "in the Esoteric philosophy [i.e. Theosophy], which reconciles all these systems... the nearest exponent... is the Vedanta as expounded by the Advaita Vedantists." H.P.Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine (Los Angeles: The Theosophy Company, 1964), Vol. I, p. 55. For more of Blavatsky on Advaita see H.J. Spierenberg, The Vedanta Commentaries of H.P.Blavatsky (San Diego: Point Loma Publications, 1992), pp. 4-5. Return to Text 2. "No single rung of the ladder leading to knowledge can be skipped. No personality [personal self or soul] can ever reach or bring itself into communication with Atmâ [divine self], except through Buddhi-Manas [higher self]..." H.P. Blavatsky, The Esoteric Writings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky: A Synthesis of Science, Philosophy and Religion (Wheaton IL: Theosophical Publishing House, 1980), p. 414. Return to Text 3. "This idea of a gradual process, this idea of gradual psychological evolution of man is very gratifying... . This gradual concept, which psychologically is generally called evolution, seems to me utterly false." J. Krishnamurti, The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti (Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1992), Vol. XVII, p. 67. Return to Text 4. "Most of us do not want to know what we are. We invent the higher self, the supreme self, the atma, and all the innumerable ideas, to escape from the reality of what we are--the actual everyday, every-minute reality of what we are. And we do not know what we are from day by day, and on that we impose something which thought has bred as the atma, which tradition has handed over as the higher self." J. Krishnamurti, The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti (Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1992), Vol. XIII, p. 151. Return to Text 5. Blavatsky wrote: "There is a great difference between an Avatara and a Jivanmukti: one, as already stated, is an illusive appearance, Karma-less, and having never before incarnated; the other, the Jivanmukta, is one who obtains Nirvana by his individual merits. To this expression again an uncompromising, philosophical Vedantin would object. He might say that as the condition of the Avatara and the Jivanmukta are one and the same state, no amount of personal merit, in howsoever many incarnations, can lead its possessor to Nirvana. Nirvana, he would say is actionless; how then can any action lead to it? It is neither a result nor a cause, but an ever-present, eternal Is, as Nagasena defined it. Hence it can have no relation to, or concern with, action, merit, or demerit, since these are subject to Karma. All this is very true, but still to our mind there is an important difference between the two. An Avatara is; a Jivanmukta becomes one. If the state of the two is identical, not so are the causes which lead to it. An Avatara is a descent of a God into an illusive form; a Jivanmukta, who may have passed through numberless incarnations and may have accumulated merit in them, certainly does not become a Nirvani because of that merit, but only because of the Karma generated by it, which leads and guides him in the direction of the Guru who will initiate him into the mystery of Nirvana and who alone can help him reach his abode." H.P.Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine (Adyar, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1938) Adyar Edition, Vol. V, p. 352. Or: Idem., Collected Writings (Wheaton IL: Theosophical Publishing House, 1985) Vol. XIV, p. 374. Or: Idem., The Esoteric Writings, pp. 293-294. Return to Text 6. "I have told you frankly that Masters are unessential, that the idea of Masters is nothing more than a toy to the man who really seeks truth." J. Krishnamurti, The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti (Dubuque IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1991), Vol. I, p. 173. Krishnamurti himself wrote: "The core of Krishnamurti's teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: 'Truth is a pathless land.' Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection." J. Krishnamurti, The Core of Krishnamurti's Teaching (Ojai CA: Krishnamurti Foundation of America, n.d.). Return to Text 7. Blavatsky wrote: "In order not to confuse the mind of the western student with the abstruse difficulties of Indian metaphysics, let him view the lower manas, or mind, as the personal ego [personal self] during the waking state, and as Antahkarana only during those moments when it aspires towards its higher Ego [higher self], and thus becomes the medium of communication between the two. It is for this reason called the 'Path.'... Seeing that the faculty and function of Antahkarana is as necessary as the medium of the ear for hearing, or that of the eye for seeing; then so long as the feeling of ahamkâra, that is, of the personal "I" or selfishness [the synthetic self], is not entirely crushed out in man, and the lower mind not entirely merged into and become one with the higher Buddhi-Manas [higher self], it stands to reason that to destroy Atahkarana is like destroying a bridge over an impassable chasm; The traveler can never reach the goal on the other shore. And there lies the difference between the exoteric and the esoteric teaching. The former makes the Vedânta state that so long as mind (the lower) clings through Antahkarana to Spirit (Buddha-Manas) [higher self] it is impossible for it to acquire true Spiritual Wisdom, Jnyâna, and that this can only be attained by seeking to come en rapport with the Universal Soul (Atmâ) [the divine self]; that, in fact, it is by ignoring the higher Mind [higher self] altogether that one reaches Râja Yoga. We say it is not so. No single rung of the ladder leading to knowledge can be skipped. No personality can ever reach or bring itself into communication with Atmâ, except through Buddhi-Manas; to try to become a Jivanmukta or a Mahâtmâ, before one has become an adept or even a Naljor (a sinless man) is like trying to reach to Ceylon from India without crossing the sea. Therefore we are told that if we destroy Antahkarana before the personal [personal self] is absolutely under the control of the impersonal Ego [the higher self], we risk to lose the latter and be severed for ever from it, unless indeed we hasten to re-establish the communication by a supreme and final effort. It is only when we are indissolubly linked with the essence of the divine Mind [higher self] that we have to destroy Antahkarana." H.P.Blavatsky, The Esoteric Writings, pp. 413-414. Krishnamurti's teaching neatly corresponds to the exoteric position as presented here by Blavatsky, for he proposes to access directly the impersonal universal creative intelligence (Atma) by tossing out aspiration (Antahkarana) and denying the existence of the higher self (Buddhi-Manas). Return to Text 8. Blavatsky warns: "Be it far from me the suspicion that any of the esoteric students have reached to any considerable point down the plane of spiritual descent. All the same I warn you to avoid taking the first step. You may not reach the bottom in this life or the next, but you may now generate causes which will insure you spiritual destruction in your third, fourth, fifth, or even some subsequent birth... Finally, keep ever in mind the consciousness that though you see no Master by your bedside, nor hear one audible whisper in the silence of the still night, yet the Holy Power is about you, the Holy Light is shining into your hour of spiritual need and aspirations, and it will be no fault of the MASTERS, or of their humble mouthpiece and servant, if through perversity or moral feebleness some of you cut yourselves off from these higher potencies, and step upon the declivity that leads to Avitchi [state of soulless-ness]." H.P.Blavatsky, The Esoteric Writings, p. 418. Return to Text 9. Lord Maitreya: "Thus although Krishnamurti was right to emphasize the necessity for independent thought, he was wrong in assuming that everyone else, regardless of past Karma and present limitations, could instantly reach that point which he himself had only reached through lives of effort, and by the aid of those Cosmic Forces apportioned to him solely for his office as Herald of the New Age." Lord Maitreya in David Anrias, Through the Eyes of the Masters: Meditations and Portraits (London: Routledge, 1932), p. 67. [Full text of Maitreya's message on Krishnamurti] Any of the Masters quoted in these endnotes I believe to be genuine members of the Great White Brotherhood. Return to Text 10. 'Sir Thomas,' an English Master said: "Also instead of giving forth the new Teaching so badly needed, he [Krishnamurti] escaped from the responsibilities of his office as prophet and teacher by reverting to a past incarnation, and an ancient philosophy of his own race [Advaita Vedantism] with which you are familiar, but which is useless for the Western World in the present cycle. But those to whom he speaks think they are receiving a new message, and as such it carries undue weight. The message he should have delivered, he has failed to deliver--or only partly delivered. Nothing about Art--no plans for the new sub-race--educational schemes dropped--and in place of all this: Advaita, a philosophy for chelas, and one of the most easily misunderstood paths to liberation... He who attempts to teach Advaita, and omits all Sanscrit terms, courts failure. Sanscrit words engender an occult vibration which is lost when translated. Western words not suitable to describe subjective states of consciousness, because their associations are mainly mundane... Another flaw in this pseudo-Advaita which Krishnamurti is giving out, is that he addresses the personality, the physical plane man [personal self], as if he were the Monad [divine self] or at least the Ego [higher self]. Of course the Monad, the Divine Spark, is the Absolute Existence-Knowledge-Bliss, and hence eternally free, but that doesn't mean that the personality down here, immersed in endless-seeming Karmic difficulties, can share its consciousness, or even that of the Ego--the link between the personality and the Monad." 'Sir Thomas,' an English Master, in: His Pupil [Cyril Scott], The Initiate in the Dark Cycle (London: Routledge, 1932), pp. 136-139. Return to Text [Full text of relevant chapter] 11. 'Sir Thomas' again: "Well did my Brother Koot Hoomi say that Krishnamurti had destroyed all the many stairways to God, while his own remains incomplete. Also being incomplete it may lead to dangers unforeseen by those who attempt to climb it. Danger Number One: Krishnamurti's casting aside of time-honoured definitions and classifications leaves aspirant without true scale of values. Danger Number Two: climbing his particular staircase necessitates constant meditation, which in its turn necessitates constant protection from Guru--and Guru not allowed by Krishnamurti. Of course a moderate degree may be practiced in safety without a Guru, but long-continued meditation leads to states of consciousness and excursions on to other planes where the Master's guidance is absolutely indispensable." 'Sir Thomas,' in His Pupil, p. 138. Return to Text [Full text of relevant chapter] 12. "Krishnamurti's Advaitism, which is not to be confounded with the recognized form of that philosophy, will, I fear, lead his followers nowhere except perhaps to hypocrisy and self-delusion." 'Sir Thomas,' in: His Pupil, p. 139. Return to Text 13. Kuthumi dictated in 1975: "Today Krishnamurti, denounced by the Brotherhood, denounces the true teachers and the path of initiation, proclaiming that the individual needs only himself and that this is the only God there is. Leading thousands of youth in the direction of sophisticated disobedience to the God within [divine self], to Christ the inner mentor [higher self], and to the masters of the Brotherhood, this fallen one has been the instrument of a philosophy that is not and does not in any way represent the true teachings of the Great White Brotherhood." (Relevant Paragraphs) Kuthumi, "An Exposé of False Teachings," Pearls of Wisdom, Vol. XIX, no.5, p. 29. Copyright © 1976, Summit University Press, P.O. Box 5000, Corwin Springs, Montana 59030-5000. (406) 848-9891. Web site: http://www.tls.org/ Return to Text 14. Hodson wrote: "Here are his words [Krishnamurti's] on the subject: 'When we understand profoundly the significance of our existence, of the process of ignorance and action, we will see what we call purpose has no significance. The mere search for the purpose of life covers up, detracts from the comprehension of oneself.' That quotation is a perfect example of the closed circle of thought outside of which I for one find myself to be shut when endeavouring to comprehend these teachings... He seems to put the very goal itself as the first step towards its attainment." Geoffrey Hodson, Krishnamurti and the Search for Light (Sydney: St.Alban Press, n.d.), pp. 12-13. Return to Text 15. "In him, singleness of purpose has developed into intolerance. Unique individuality has become a fetish, worship of which produces narrow-mindedness and causes him to display distinct signs of intellectual arrogance. He alone is right. Everyone else, from the Lord Buddha down to the latest teacher of the Law, is wrong, criminally wrong." Ibid. p. 8. Return to Text 16. Theosophist John Algeo correctly observes that Krishnamurti is "teaching ends without means." John Algeo, review of Krishnamurti--Love and Freedom by Peter Michel in Quest Vol. 8, no. 3 (Autumn 1995), p. 86. Return to Text 17. See Mary Lutyens, Krishnamurti: The Years of Awakening (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1975), for the story of Krishnamurti's initiations and spiritual development. See Charles W. Leadbeater, The Masters and the Path (Adyar, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1925) for a Theosophical understanding of the initiatory process. Return to Text 18. "The Arhat initiation is the one in which the Master withdraws all guidance from his pupil, who may have to negotiate the most difficult problems without being allowed to ask any questions. He has to rely entirely on his own judgment, and if he makes mistakes, must bear the consequences. And so what did Krishnamurti do? Like the proverbial manservant who knows he is about to be given notice, he gave notice first. In other words, he cut himself adrift from the White Lodge, and repudiated all of us. And unfortunately he induced others far below him in spiritual evolution to do likewise." 'Sir Thomas,' in: His Pupil, p. 139. Return to Text 19. "I wish I could describe how I witnessed the ego [the synthetic self] being torn to pieces and being thrown to the winds... . The center of thinking dissolved into nothingness." Vimala Thakar, On an Eternal Voyage (Ahmedabad, India: The New Order Book Co., 1969), pp. 46-47. Return to Text 20. Vimala Thakar thought, and I think correctly, that her transformation had something to do with the healing-sessions with Krishnamurti. She wrote: "I have told you [Krishnamurti] about the invasion of a new awareness, irresistible and uncontrollable. I have told you how it has swept away everything. Now--this has something to do with the healing." Thakar, p. 43. Krishnamurti on the contrary was quite sure that the two phenomena were not related. Apparently, when she published her autobiography against Krishnamurti's wishes, he ended their friendship and later his biographers gave her the silent treatment. Return to Text 21. See endnote 7. Return to Text 22. "If with all its power and superiority, one cannot think for oneself, there can be no peace in the world." J.Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954), p. 64. For this Krishnamurti received some compliments from the Masters: "He did good work in teaching people to use their own brain." 'Sir Thomas,' in: His Pupil, p. 139. And: "Krishnamurti was right to emphasize the necessity for independent thought." Lord Maitreya in: David Anrias, p. 67. Return to Text 23. "One sees that there must be change in oneself--the more sensitive, the more alert and intelligent one is, the more one is aware that there must be a deep, abiding, living change." J.Krishnamurti, The Awakening of Intelligence (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), p. 43. Return to Text 24. "But when the mind seeks a timeless state which will go into action in order to destroy the [synthetic] self, is that not another form of experience which is strengthening the 'me'[synthetic self]?... So, having projected this state of continuance in a timeless state as a spiritual entity, you have an experience; and such an experience only strengthens the self." From chapter IX, "What is the Self," in The First and Last Freedom, pp. 76-82. It is hard to find quotes by Krishnamurti, uncontaminated by his basic errors. In the previous quote, for example, Krishnamurti does not differentiate between aspirations of the soul, which are wholesome (see endnote 7 about the Antahkarana), and ambitions of the mind, which might be destructive depending on who or what principle directs the mind. This line of thought makes him throw out the baby (the soul) together with the bathwater (the synthetic self). Return to Text 25. "We have learned now the power of propaganda and that is one of the greatest calamities that can happen: to use ideas as a means to transform man... Man is not important--systems, ideas, have become important. Man no longer has any significance. We can destroy millions of men as long as we produce a result and the result is justified by ideas... When the intellect has the upper hand in human life, it brings about an unprecedented crisis." From "On the Present Crisis," in The First and Last Freedom, pp. 145-146. Return to Text 26. See endnote 7. Return to Text 27. The whole Krishnamurti phenomenon might be one of world-historical significance. We might be observing the birth of a completely new, though flawed, religion and civilization based on Krishnamurti's teachings, with its geographical center in India and its outposts in the West. For some interesting ideas about the rise and fall of civilizations see Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History (London: Oxford University Press, 1946). Return to Text 28. H.P. Blavatsky had high hopes for the Judeo-Christian and Indic civilizations to transform themselves into a "heaven" in the 21st century with the aid of the Theosophical Society, led by a prophesied "torch-bearer of Truth," expected in the last quarter of the 20th century. See her Conclusion, "The Future of the Theosophical Society," in The Key to Theosophy (Pasadena CA: Theosophical University Press, 1995), pp. 304-307. Annie Besant defended her involvement with Krishnamurti by referring explicitly to Blavatsky's view about the future mission of the Theosophical Society and the "torch-bearer of Truth." She clearly believed Krishnamurti to be the vehicle for that expected teacher. She wrote in 1912 that the only difference between herself and Blavatsky regarding the coming of "the next great Teacher" was that "she put that event perhaps half a century later than I do. Which of us is right only time can show." Annie Besant, "Freedom of Opinion in the T.S.," letter to The Vâhan 21\8 (March 1912), p. 153. With the 20th century now drawing to a close; the world in a state of unparalleled crisis, the Theosophical Society only a minor agent of change and no sign of a "torch-bearer of Truth" connected with it, it behooves Theosophists to contemplate the texts quoted in this pamphlet and consider an alternative perception of the esoteric history of the 20th century. My own proposal is contained in a pamphlet, The Masters and Their Emissaries: From H.P.B. to Guru Ma and Beyond, in which is stated that the teachings of the Masters, which were originally planned to be given through Krishnamurti, were given through Guy and Edna Ballard in the 30s and 40s, through Geraldine Innocente in the 50s, through Mark and Elizabeth Prophet in the 50s till the 90s, and through Monroe and Carolyn Shearer from 1995 on. For an overview of a wide variety of other Theosophical views of Krishnamurti see Krishnamurti and the World Teacher Project: Some Theosophical Perceptions. - - - - - - I think it wold be interesting to hear Aryel´s commentary of this paper, and to know Govert´s proofs or reasons that could confirm the identity of the Masters mentioned here. Friendly, DAVID C. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 2 11:39:12 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA26373 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:24:26 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: ASANAT@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:20:44 EDT Subject: Theos-World Re: Krishnamurti and phenomenology To: act-l@list.vnet.net, theos-talk@theosophy.com CC: ARASantaFE@aol.com, nppress@vais.net (Elliot Ryan), csanabri@skadden.com, averea@juno.com (Armando Verea) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 81 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 5/9/00 6:07:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, schuller@prodigy.net writes: << > In a message dated 4/3/00 12:50:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > schuller@prodigy.net writes: > As I see it now, Krishnamurti in his many expositions applied a very pure, > though somehow 'naive,' phenomenological method in describing the human > condition, the constitution of the emperical ego and the transformative > effect of pre-supposition-less awareness. Aryel wrote [with my remarks]: > Anyone who identifies K unqualifiedly with phenomenlogy (P) has either not > understood at all his work, or has reasons for wanting to thus misrepresent > him. [Before presenting a third alternative of characterizing those who see and investigate similarities between K(rishnamurti) and P(henomenology), it has to be pointed out that these 'investigators' (Agarwal, Gunturu, myself [as a beginner]) do not identify "K unqualifiedly with phenomenlogy." On the contrary. Gunturu makes a carefull comparisson, and points out the subtle similarities and differences between the two, in order to contribute to a better understanding of K. Agarwal uses K's and Sartre's thought to better understand fragmentation and consciousness. >> Dear Govert, Please note the following: You say that "K in his many expositions applied a very pure, though somehow "naive," phenomenological method in describing the human condition, the constitution of the empirical ego and the transformative effect of presuppositionless awareness." Your statement says (among other things) that it is proper & correct to characterize K as a phenomenologist. To do that is to state unqualifiedly that K WAS a phenomenologist. This strikes me as being grossly incorrect. A PHENOMENOLOGIST might look at what K was doing, and say to herself: "Gee, that looks a lot like what I try to do & promote." But to go from that "a-ha!" experience to stating unequivocally that K was "a phenomenologist" is to take an unwarranted step, even from a logical point of view (I mean, if you symbolize it logically, it becomes obvious that the claim is flatly false). As I suggested in my message, it is eminently more appropriate to go the other way. That is, K points out to me that the analytical mind is wreaking havoc with my life. I listen to that observation. I look into the dynamics of daily life, & I come to a point in which I have an "a-ha!" of my own, which might be put into words something like this: "By Jove! Look at what the analytical mind is doing! I AM creating all these images based on my conditioning. I AM responding to others & to WHAT IS as if it all were but a series of images predetermined by that conditioning. The analytical mind IS organizing all of it so that there is the (false) impression that "I" am moving from here (wherever "here" is, psychologically), to "there." That is, I see that I am degenerating in various ways, & the analytical mind tells me I can "fix" that by "doing X," which will bring "nirvana" or some such result at the end of that tunnel. Seeing that -- & much more along those lines -- awareness is no longer swayed so easily by the analytical mind. In that process, there is, among many others, the "a-ha!" that what "I" thought was "my" consciousness, is really the consciousness of humanity, and that the transformation of that consciousness is, in fact, the transformation of the whole field of human consciousness. By Jove!" I say, "what a revolutionarily different way to be this is!" Now, the moment you begin to analyze that whole process, to put it into more or less "neat" categories, the analytical mind is back firmly on the saddle. That, precisely, is what phenomenology does. Please look at yourself, in the passage quoted above, doing just that. As you say, "Gunturu makes a careful comparison, and points out the subtle similarities and differences between the two, in order to contribute to a better understanding of K." Such comparisons can only come from the analytical mind. They leave our lives exactly as they were before making them. There is no transformation here. Humanity is still going down the toilet, while these otherwise "neat" comparisons are being made. (I hope you don't mind my having made a phenomenological description of what is involved in these two very different processes! Remember: We're just talking here. We're in the wolf's den, the turf of the analytical mind, whenever we use words, whenever we try to persuade each other. This process of talking or writing may have a place. But it's not what really matters.) A major problem here, as I see it, is that what I perceive to be the grossly mistaken assumption is being made, that K was "a philosopher" in the academic sense. That is, it is assumed that K had "a position" just like any other thinker whose thought has been conditioned by her upbringing, genes, Kantian categories, etc. That is a gross misrepresentation of K, & only someone who deeply misunderstands him, could engage in this little analytical game. This will NEVER lead "to a better understanding of K," as you suggest. Au contraire! The ONLY relevant way of "understanding K" that I am aware of, is to ENGAGE in the process of cleaning up one's own house, which is always quite in need of such cleaning. There is no other way, my friend. I realize that the analytical mind is all-engrossing, deeply mesmerizing. One can think of many reasons why this is so. In a way, one could say we all are sort-of "hard-wired" with conditioning, at many levels. The analytical mind provides "soothing" explanations & palliatives that make it seem as if "things are better" when there is an acceptance of its most tempting offerings. Perhaps the analytical mind is, at bottom, what is behind the multidimensional human penchant for being drugged, at various levels. We as a species have accepted "religion" even when it became obvious that it was no longer delivering the goods. We have accepted philosophical systems (including phenomenology) even though we continue seeing that they need revision, eventually to the point of having to put them completely aside -- and CHOOSING a new one! (didn't we learn ANYTHING from seeing that such systems DO NOT WORK, that is, they do not do what they claim they can do?) That failing, we use chemicals, drugs, to soothe our pain. ALL of those alternatives -- & many others we seek after, in our seemingly never-ending quest for escaping from our actual daily responsibility -- strike me as coming from the analytical mind. They all follow, like the analytical mind, an algorithm, a certain pattern, which always looks (suspiciously, I may add) like an argument of two-valued logic: "If I do X (premise), I'll be OK (conclusion)." Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'm still confused, unable to relate wholesomely with others or with the environment, generating conflict -- degenerating. You may see some good points in phenomenology if you look at its various ever-changing "schools" from what the analytical mind might (erroneously) conceive as "the Krishnamurti perspective." There may some good, TEMPORARY, LIMITED use of making such an analysis, for those still mesmerized by the drug-like addictions generated by the analytical mind. But at some point, dear Govert, an "a-ha!" into all this comes about, & the wrongful use of the analytical mind (that is, using it to inquire into "deeper" matters) is dropped. When that moment comes, it happens with the casualness with which one puts in the garbage can a Kleenex one has just used to its maximum purpose, not with the pomp & circumstance surrounding the king's death. Its epitaph need not be "Rest in Peace." That's too formal, & gives it far more importance & is far more analytical than is required. Perhaps a more proper epitaph for the (improperly used) analytical mind might be something like: "Good riddance! Boy, what a PEST that was! Smelled to high heaven, too!" With much affection, Aryel -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 2 11:54:12 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA00572 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:47:10 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: ASANAT@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:43:14 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World FW: MONADS IN EVOLUTION Part I To: theos-talk@theosophy.com CC: ARASantaFE@aol.com, nppress@vais.net (Elliot Ryan), csanabri@skadden.com, averea@juno.com (Armando Verea) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 81 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 6/1/00 8:55:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ramadoss@eden.com writes: << At 07:33 AM 06/01/2000 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 5/10/00 1:54:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >Brotherhood is not -- and cannot be -- merely a product of the analytical mind, a major source of ALL of our troubles. Many organized religions, political parties, and ideologies promote "brotherhood," yet promote the killing of people and the destruction of culture and property for the sake of that IDEAL of the analytical mind. True brotherhood can only be the result of someone being in a theosophical, divine-like, state of awareness. If such a state of awareness is not present, it is impossible to have brotherhood. Such states are the states in which there is compassion-insight. And it is only from such wisdom-compassion that can come a true sense of kinship with others, with all that is. Otherwise, what we have is THE ANALYTICAL MIND playing with itself. All best, Aryel I think Aryel has hit the nail on its head. I think that it is a fundamental yet non intellectual change that would be the starting point of realizing oneness of life in all its forms. Intellectual change is perhaps the beginning of this "process". In my experience, anyone who is exposed to theosophical "philosophy" seem to undergo a change inspite of themselves, which can be a mini-transformation. mkr >> mkr, Precisely. HPB & her teachers spoke of the "esoteric science" being communicated in seven keys. There is the metaphysical, the mythical, the astrological... But THE ONE key without all of those are ineffectual, is the psychological or mystical key. As they explained with unequivocal clarity in "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels," that key is the key of regeneration, or initiation -- or, as we might say today, of TRANSFORMATION. (Exact references given in my two papers on transformation, which can be found in Rodolfo Don's website, teosofia.com.) Unfortunately, the vast majority of members of the TS, including leaders & authors, continue to promote the anti-HPB, anti-Masters notion that theosophy IS a metaphysics, a mere product of the analytical mind, and that brotherhood is AN IDEAL to be followed -- not a consequence of living in the context of theosophical states of awareness. Aryel -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 2 14:06:18 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA27549 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:01:28 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393800E4.90A914B5@bmu.com.pe> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 13:45:56 -0500 From: ernesto X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [es] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World FW: MONADS IN EVOLUTION Part I References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server: VPOP3 V1.3.4 - Registered to: Cyberline Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Aryel: If we use the name 'Theosophy' for describing a metaphysical system -wich is the common use of the word-, or if we use the name 'Theosophy' for describing a state of awareness -wich is a really rare use of the word applied to a spiritual state-... is it really important, after all? I mean, is it really impossible to think that there may be serious studiers of Theosophy, or esoterism in general, that desire, act for, fight for, dream, and trie to live with the state of awareness you mention, but at the same time use the name Theosophy when they describe a known system of metaphysics? Will we think that if you use that term in that way, so you don´t desire, act for, fight for, dream and trie to experience an state of awareness? Clearly this conclussion would be very wrong. Look: A: Democracy is a political system where the State has the following characters ...If we want to understand what is democracy, we could read ........ B: No, that is not democracy. Democracy is a psychological state of freedom and ... Do they really say different things? Of course not. Does A not want what B mentions? No. In fact, if A is a normal person, A desires as much as B that psychological state of freedom. But we can see that A is using the term in its normal sense, and that B is using the term in a new intentioned way. If they don´t think different, why do they discusse? That is no necessary. There won´t be more democracy in the world if we all assign to the term ´democracy´ the meaning introduced by B, and forget the usual meaning. Aryel, words are simply conventions, they mean what most of members of a society understand when they hear it. That is no sin. Probably nobody in the list, using 'Theosophy' as a word to indicate a metaphysical system, rejects your observation about the vital trascendence of the state of awareness. So, we don´t need to have discussions without any real utility, such as the one between A and B. Friendly, DAVID C. ASANAT@aol.com escribió: > In a message dated 6/1/00 8:55:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ramadoss@eden.com > writes: > > << At 07:33 AM 06/01/2000 EDT, you wrote: > >In a message dated 5/10/00 1:54:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >Brotherhood is not -- and cannot be -- merely a product of the analytical > mind, a major source of ALL of our troubles. Many organized religions, > political parties, and ideologies promote "brotherhood," yet promote the > killing of people and the destruction of culture and property for the sake > of > that IDEAL of the analytical mind. > True brotherhood can only be the result of someone being in a theosophical, > divine-like, state of awareness. If such a state of awareness is not > present, it is impossible to have brotherhood. Such states are the states > in > which there is compassion-insight. And it is only from such > wisdom-compassion that can come a true sense of kinship with others, with > all > that is. Otherwise, what we have is THE ANALYTICAL MIND playing with itself. > All best, > Aryel > > > I think Aryel has hit the nail on its head. > > I think that it is a fundamental yet non intellectual change that would be > the starting point of realizing oneness of life in all its forms. > Intellectual change is perhaps the beginning of this "process". In my > experience, anyone who is exposed to theosophical "philosophy" seem to > undergo a change inspite of themselves, which can be a mini-transformation. > > mkr >> > > mkr, > > Precisely. HPB & her teachers spoke of the "esoteric science" being > communicated in seven keys. There is the metaphysical, the mythical, the > astrological... But THE ONE key without all of those are ineffectual, is the > psychological or mystical key. As they explained with unequivocal clarity in > "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels," that key is the key of regeneration, > or initiation -- or, as we might say today, of TRANSFORMATION. (Exact > references given in my two papers on transformation, which can be found in > Rodolfo Don's website, teosofia.com.) > Unfortunately, the vast majority of members of the TS, including leaders & > authors, continue to promote the anti-HPB, anti-Masters notion that theosophy > IS a metaphysics, a mere product of the analytical mind, and that brotherhood > is AN IDEAL to be followed -- not a consequence of living in the context of > theosophical states of awareness. > > Aryel > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 2 16:08:51 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id QAA09950 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:02:53 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393820AC.24AA69CA@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 17:01:32 -0400 From: Michele Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Krishnamurti and phenomenology References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Aryel - Since you've written so much about it..... Will you give me your operational definition of the 'analytical mind', it's uses and limits? (Sorry if I've missed it here). Not just 'It's what we use in everyday thought', please? I mean - does it include the informing function of the limbic system (midbrain), which would include our 'feeling' that we are experiencing transrational states of consciousness, the animal cortex, which would include retrieving memory but not verbal recall, or are you defining the 'analytical brain' as that BY WHICH we translate incoming information from ANY source into the 'thought processor' of human language (the upper cortex)? And how, in your system, do you differentiate amongst all of the above? Thanks. Michele Lidofsky ASANAT@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 5/9/00 6:07:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > schuller@prodigy.net writes: > > << > In a message dated 4/3/00 12:50:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > schuller@prodigy.net writes: > > > As I see it now, Krishnamurti in his many expositions applied a very pure, > > though somehow 'naive,' phenomenological method in describing the human > > condition, the constitution of the emperical ego and the transformative > > effect of pre-supposition-less awareness. > > Aryel wrote [with my remarks]: > > > Anyone who identifies K unqualifiedly with phenomenlogy (P) has either not > > understood at all his work, or has reasons for wanting to thus misrepresent > > him. > > [Before presenting a third alternative of characterizing those who see and > investigate similarities between K(rishnamurti) and P(henomenology), it has > to > be pointed out that these > 'investigators' (Agarwal, Gunturu, myself [as a beginner]) do not identify "K > unqualifiedly with > phenomenlogy." On the contrary. Gunturu makes a carefull comparisson, and > points > out the subtle similarities and differences between the two, in order to > contribute to a better understanding of K. Agarwal uses K's and Sartre's > thought to better understand fragmentation and consciousness. >> > > Dear Govert, > > Please note the following: > You say that "K in his many expositions applied a very pure, though somehow > "naive," phenomenological method in describing the human condition, the > constitution of the empirical ego and the transformative effect of > presuppositionless awareness." > Your statement says (among other things) that it is proper & correct to > characterize K as a phenomenologist. To do that is to state unqualifiedly > that K WAS a phenomenologist. This strikes me as being grossly incorrect. A > PHENOMENOLOGIST might look at what K was doing, and say to herself: "Gee, > that looks a lot like what I try to do & promote." But to go from that > "a-ha!" experience to stating unequivocally that K was "a phenomenologist" is > to take an unwarranted step, even from a logical point of view (I mean, if > you symbolize it logically, it becomes obvious that the claim is flatly > false). > As I suggested in my message, it is eminently more appropriate to go the > other way. That is, K points out to me that the analytical mind is wreaking > havoc with my life. I listen to that observation. I look into the dynamics > of daily life, & I come to a point in which I have an "a-ha!" of my own, > which might be put into words something like this: > "By Jove! Look at what the analytical mind is doing! I AM creating all > these images based on my conditioning. I AM responding to others & to WHAT > IS as if it all were but a series of images predetermined by that > conditioning. The analytical mind IS organizing all of it so that there is > the (false) impression that "I" am moving from here (wherever "here" is, > psychologically), to "there." That is, I see that I am degenerating in > various ways, & the analytical mind tells me I can "fix" that by "doing X," > which will bring "nirvana" or some such result at the end of that tunnel. > Seeing that -- & much more along those lines -- awareness is no longer swayed > so easily by the analytical mind. In that process, there is, among many > others, the "a-ha!" that what "I" thought was "my" consciousness, is really > the consciousness of humanity, and that the transformation of that > consciousness is, in fact, the transformation of the whole field of human > consciousness. By Jove!" I say, "what a revolutionarily different way to be > this is!" > Now, the moment you begin to analyze that whole process, to put it into more > or less "neat" categories, the analytical mind is back firmly on the saddle. > That, precisely, is what phenomenology does. Please look at yourself, in the > passage quoted above, doing just that. As you say, "Gunturu makes a careful > comparison, and points out the subtle similarities and differences between > the two, in order to contribute to a better understanding of K." > Such comparisons can only come from the analytical mind. They leave our > lives exactly as they were before making them. There is no transformation > here. Humanity is still going down the toilet, while these otherwise "neat" > comparisons are being made. (I hope you don't mind my having made a > phenomenological description of what is involved in these two very different > processes! Remember: We're just talking here. We're in the wolf's den, the > turf of the analytical mind, whenever we use words, whenever we try to > persuade each other. This process of talking or writing may have a place. > But it's not what really matters.) > A major problem here, as I see it, is that what I perceive to be the grossly > mistaken assumption is being made, that K was "a philosopher" in the academic > sense. That is, it is assumed that K had "a position" just like any other > thinker whose thought has been conditioned by her upbringing, genes, Kantian > categories, etc. That is a gross misrepresentation of K, & only someone who > deeply misunderstands him, could engage in this little analytical game. > This will NEVER lead "to a better understanding of K," as you suggest. Au > contraire! The ONLY relevant way of "understanding K" that I am aware of, is > to ENGAGE in the process of cleaning up one's own house, which is always > quite in need of such cleaning. There is no other way, my friend. > I realize that the analytical mind is all-engrossing, deeply mesmerizing. > One can think of many reasons why this is so. In a way, one could say we all > are sort-of "hard-wired" with conditioning, at many levels. The analytical > mind provides "soothing" explanations & palliatives that make it seem as if > "things are better" when there is an acceptance of its most tempting > offerings. Perhaps the analytical mind is, at bottom, what is behind the > multidimensional human penchant for being drugged, at various levels. We as > a species have accepted "religion" even when it became obvious that it was no > longer delivering the goods. We have accepted philosophical systems > (including phenomenology) even though we continue seeing that they need > revision, eventually to the point of having to put them completely aside -- > and CHOOSING a new one! (didn't we learn ANYTHING from seeing that such > systems DO NOT WORK, that is, they do not do what they claim they can do?) > That failing, we use chemicals, drugs, to soothe our pain. > ALL of those alternatives -- & many others we seek after, in our seemingly > never-ending quest for escaping from our actual daily responsibility -- > strike me as coming from the analytical mind. They all follow, like the > analytical mind, an algorithm, a certain pattern, which always looks > (suspiciously, I may add) like an argument of two-valued logic: "If I do X > (premise), I'll be OK (conclusion)." Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'm still > confused, unable to relate wholesomely with others or with the environment, > generating conflict -- degenerating. > You may see some good points in phenomenology if you look at its various > ever-changing "schools" from what the analytical mind might (erroneously) > conceive as "the Krishnamurti perspective." There may some good, TEMPORARY, > LIMITED use of making such an analysis, for those still mesmerized by the > drug-like addictions generated by the analytical mind. But at some point, > dear Govert, an "a-ha!" into all this comes about, & the wrongful use of the > analytical mind (that is, using it to inquire into "deeper" matters) is > dropped. When that moment comes, it happens with the casualness with which > one puts in the garbage can a Kleenex one has just used to its maximum > purpose, not with the pomp & circumstance surrounding the king's death. > Its epitaph need not be "Rest in Peace." That's too formal, & gives it far > more importance & is far more analytical than is required. Perhaps a more > proper epitaph for the (improperly used) analytical mind might be something > like: "Good riddance! Boy, what a PEST that was! Smelled to high heaven, > too!" > With much affection, > Aryel > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 2 16:41:07 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id QAA13533 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 16:34:16 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ Message-ID: <00e701bfccda$94b3a040$a40bc5a9@azstarnet.com> From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" To: References: <393800E4.90A914B5@bmu.com.pe> Subject: Theos-World One's sincerity does not guarantee the truthfulness of one's beliefs Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:35:48 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com One's sincerity does not guarantee the truthfulness of one's beliefs Over the past few years on all the various internet discussion groups, I have seen comments made by various theosophical students stating directly or indirectly that a person's sincerity is somehow relevant to the validity or truthfulness of one's views or belief system. But if you do a little thinking on the subject, you will see the fallacy on that type of thinking. Even in a communication from the Master Morya, a telling phrase is used: "erroneous and sincere beliefs" http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-134.htm In other words, a sincere belief may yet be erroneous! For example, there are millions of sincere Christians who believe in the orthodox heaven and hell and believe that Jesus Christ alone can give human beings salvation. The sincerity and goodness of these people do not really have any bearing on the truthfulness or falsity of their beliefs on these matters. There are thousands of humanists who believe a human is only a physical being and there is no life after death. But the sincerity with which that belief is held is really irrelevant as to the truthfulness or not of that view. I could multiply the examples by the dozens. Let us turn our attention to a similar way of thinking about the truthfulness of visionary experiences. I have heard a number of Alice Bailey students imply that Mrs. Bailey was a sincere, good person and therefore that these qualities somehow validate her claims and teachings. But the fallacy in this kind of thinking can be shown by again referring to the words of Master Morya. In describing a mystic in India, the Master wrote: "Suby Ram -- a truly good man -- yet a devotee of another error. Not his guru's voice -- his own. The voice of a pure, unselfish, earnest soul, absorbed in misguided, misdirected mysticism. Add to it a chronic disorder in that portion of the brain which responds to clear vision and the secret is soon told: that disorder was developed by forced visions; by hatha yog and prolonged asceticism. S. Ram is the chief medium and at same time the principal magnetic factor, who spreads his disease by infection -- unconsciously to himself; who innoculates with his vision all the other disciples. There is one general law of vision (physical and mental or spiritual) but there is a qualifying special law proving that all vision must be determined by the quality or grade of man's spirit and soul, and also by the ability to translate divers qualities of waves of astral light into consciousness. There is but one general law of life, but innumerable laws qualify and determine the myriads of forms perceived and of sounds heard. There are those who are willingly and others who are unwillingly -- blind. Mediums belong to the former, sensitives to the latter. Unless regularly initiated and trained -- concerning the spiritual insight of things and the supposed revelations made unto man in all ages from Socrates down to Swedenborg and "Fern" -- no self-tutored seer or clairaudient ever saw or heard quite correctly." http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-40.htm Notice that Suby Ram is described by the Master as "a truly good man" and as "a pure, unselfish, earnest soul." But all those good qualities didn't keep the man from being a victim of "misguided, misdirected mysticism" and having a psychic "disorder" and "infection". Master Morya goes on to make comments about Suby Ram's deceased guru: "You are right: they say and affirm that the one and only God of the Universe was incarnated in their guru, and were such an individual to exist he would certainly be higher than any "planetary." But they are idolators, my friend. Their guru was no initiate only a man of extraordinary purity of life and powers of endurance. He had never consented to give up his notions of a personal god and even gods though offered more than once. He was born an orthodox Hindu and died a self-reformed Hindu, something like Kechub-Ch-Sen but higher purer and with no ambition to taint his bright soul. Many of us have regretted his self-delusion but he was too good to be forcibly interfered with. Join them and learn -- but remember your sacred promise to K.H. Two months more and he will be with us. I think of sending her to you. I believe you could persuade her for I do not wish to use my authority in this case." http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-40.htm Suby Ram's deceased guru turns out to be Siva Dayal Saheb, the founder of the Radha Soami Satsang, a well-known religious movement in India. See the ENCYCLOPĆDIA BRITANNICA: http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/7/0,5716,69797+1+68032,00.html http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,63974+1+62394,00.html Dayal Saheb is revered by several million followers as the founder of the Radha Soami religion. Down through the decades his followers have done much good social work such as setting up soup kitchens to feed the hungry, establishing schools, hospitals, etc. Even Master Morya described Dayal as "a man of extraordinary purity of life" and as "a self-reformed Hindu . . . with no ambition to taint his bright soul." Yet the Master M. told A.P. Sinnett that Dayal was "no initiate" and furthermore was a victim of "self-delusion" and held "sincere and erroneous" notions "of a personal god and even gods." There are many more examples that could be culled from the Mahatma Letters and HPB's writings. Unfortunately, our sincerity and good qualities do not guarantee that the beliefs and views that we hold are true, correct and accurate. Our sincerity and good qualities do not necessarily validate the truthfulness of our inner "visions" and "intuitions." -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 2 23:25:10 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA20316 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:18:32 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <002101bfcd12$85f38e20$b2f8fe3f@wilma> From: "Govert W. Schuller" To: References: <393820AC.24AA69CA@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Krishnamurti and phenomenology Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:16:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Michele Lidofsky Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Krishnamurti and phenomenology > Dear Aryel - > > Since you've written so much about it..... > > Will you give me your operational definition of the 'analytical mind', > it's uses and limits? (Sorry if I've missed it here). Not just 'It's > what we use in everyday thought', please? I mean - does it include the > informing function of the limbic system (midbrain), which would include > our 'feeling' that we are experiencing transrational states of > consciousness, the animal cortex, which would include retrieving memory > but not verbal recall, or are you defining the 'analytical brain' as > that BY WHICH we translate incoming information from ANY source into the > 'thought processor' of human language (the upper cortex)? And how, in > your system, do you differentiate amongst all of the above? Thanks. > > Michele Lidofsky Dear Aryel, May I add to these questions the following: 1) What's the kind of mind K uses when he talks and dialogues? 2) In what way would his mind differ from our mind? 4) What are you using when explaining and/or defending K? 3) How would you express your ideas on this when using theosophical concepts like manas and buddhi etc.? Govert -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 2 23:55:10 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA22556 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:47:46 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <3938AAF6.4F6E@wworld.com> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 23:51:34 -0700 From: scott holloman X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us> <012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding> <3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net> <3935A569.F928451D@bmu.com.pe> <003c01bfccac$8d032ce0$fa85fc3f@wilma> Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 3 00:10:10 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id AAA23821 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 00:00:02 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <3938ADDA.7ED9@wworld.com> Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 00:03:54 -0700 From: scott holloman X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us><012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding><3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.3.32.20000531234313.026f7ae0@mail.eden.com> <003201bfcca7$2f402180$fa85fc3f@wilma> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com I can learn from others leasons.Saving time and suffering is noble.Evolution is intrinsic and quantam? 2x2=4 4x4=16 16x16=132 I wrote a paper on evolution;it SEEMS intrinsic;the leaps are amazing. Scotty Govert W. Schuller wrote: > > Hello, mkr. thanks for responding to the paragraph [see below] > > MKR:This is an issue the K himself addressed. > > He may have reached whatever transformation he had with a great amount of > effort, > > GOVERT: Not only by his own effort. Anrias' Maitreya said: "Thus although > Krishnamurti was right to emphasize the necessity for independent thought, he > was wrong in assuming that everyone else, regardless of past Karma and present > limitations, could instantly reach that point which he himself had only reached > through lives of effort, and by the aid of those Cosmic Forces apportioned to > him solely for his office as Herald of the New Age." > > MKR: while he stated that instant transformation is possible for anyone > who tries. > > GOVERT: He can very well state that, but fact remains that nobody proved it to > be true. > > MKR: He gave the example of the great risk and time and trouble that > Columbus had to go through when he travelled by ship to the America. Today, > most take the easy method of taking a commercial airline flight. > > GOVERT: This metaphor is not working for me, because even with modern flight > technology you need 1) time, a no-no for K, 2) planning, another no-no, and 3) > help from the captain, another no-no. > > MKR: So he did not have a double standard. > > GOVERT: I don't see the reasoning here > > At 06:51 PM 05/31/2000 -0500, you wrote: quoting: > > >Regarding the feasibility of Krishnamurti's suggestion of a profound > fundamental transformation of > the human consciousness, it has to be pointed out that Krishnamurti did not > arrive at that level of > consciousness by way of his own proposed instantaneous 'non-method.'(16) > He arrived there solely > by treading first the path of initiation under a Master (17)--going almost > to its final conclusion--then > stepped aside, and denounced the whole method.(18) > < > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 3 00:20:27 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA23179 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 2 Jun 2000 23:54:36 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <3938AC86.7EFB@wworld.com> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 23:58:14 -0700 From: scott holloman X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us><012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding><3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.3.32.20000531234313.026f7ae0@mail.eden.com> <003201bfcca7$2f402180$fa85fc3f@wilma> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com It seems that some how evolution has been forgotten.Human evolution proceeds at an exponential rate ;that which has happened gathers speed and momentum.Fire;Bronze ;industrial revolution;computers;space travel as well as spiritual growth.I'am glad to witness it. Scotty Govert W. Schuller wrote: > > Hello, mkr. thanks for responding to the paragraph [see below] > > MKR:This is an issue the K himself addressed. > > He may have reached whatever transformation he had with a great amount of > effort, > > GOVERT: Not only by his own effort. Anrias' Maitreya said: "Thus although > Krishnamurti was right to emphasize the necessity for independent thought, he > was wrong in assuming that everyone else, regardless of past Karma and present > limitations, could instantly reach that point which he himself had only reached > through lives of effort, and by the aid of those Cosmic Forces apportioned to > him solely for his office as Herald of the New Age." > > MKR: while he stated that instant transformation is possible for anyone > who tries. > > GOVERT: He can very well state that, but fact remains that nobody proved it to > be true. > > MKR: He gave the example of the great risk and time and trouble that > Columbus had to go through when he travelled by ship to the America. Today, > most take the easy method of taking a commercial airline flight. > > GOVERT: This metaphor is not working for me, because even with modern flight > technology you need 1) time, a no-no for K, 2) planning, another no-no, and 3) > help from the captain, another no-no. > > MKR: So he did not have a double standard. > > GOVERT: I don't see the reasoning here > > At 06:51 PM 05/31/2000 -0500, you wrote: quoting: > > >Regarding the feasibility of Krishnamurti's suggestion of a profound > fundamental transformation of > the human consciousness, it has to be pointed out that Krishnamurti did not > arrive at that level of > consciousness by way of his own proposed instantaneous 'non-method.'(16) > He arrived there solely > by treading first the path of initiation under a Master (17)--going almost > to its final conclusion--then > stepped aside, and denounced the whole method.(18) > < > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 3 00:30:53 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id AAA24256 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 00:06:02 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <3938AF3F.585C@wworld.com> Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 00:09:51 -0700 From: scott holloman X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World One's sincerity does not guarantee the truthfulness of one's beliefs References: <393800E4.90A914B5@bmu.com.pe> <00e701bfccda$94b3a040$a40bc5a9@azstarnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pippin.imagiware.com id AAA24254 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com I need truth but I can only decide what is good and truth for me. D.Caldwell/M.Graye wrote: > > One's sincerity does not guarantee the truthfulness of one's beliefs > > Over the past few years on all the various internet > discussion groups, I have seen comments made by > various theosophical students stating directly or > indirectly that a person's sincerity is somehow > relevant to the validity or truthfulness of one's views > or belief system. > > But if you do a little thinking on the subject, you > will see the fallacy on that type of thinking. > > Even in a communication from the Master Morya, > a telling phrase is used: > > "erroneous and sincere beliefs" > > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-134.htm > > In other words, a sincere belief may yet be erroneous! > > For example, there are millions of sincere Christians > who believe in the orthodox heaven and hell and believe > that Jesus Christ alone can give human beings salvation. > The sincerity and goodness of these people do not > really have any bearing on the truthfulness or falsity of > their beliefs on these matters. > > There are thousands of humanists who believe a human > is only a physical being and there is no life after death. > But the sincerity with which that belief is held is really > irrelevant as to the truthfulness or not of that view. > > I could multiply the examples by the dozens. > > Let us turn our attention to a similar way of thinking about > the truthfulness of visionary experiences. I have heard > a number of Alice Bailey students imply that Mrs. Bailey > was a sincere, good person and therefore that these > qualities somehow validate her claims and teachings. > > But the fallacy in this kind of thinking can be shown by > again referring to the words of Master Morya. In describing > a mystic in India, the Master wrote: > > "Suby Ram -- a truly good man -- yet a devotee of another error. Not his > guru's voice -- his own. The voice of a pure, unselfish, earnest soul, > absorbed in misguided, misdirected mysticism. Add to it a chronic disorder > in that portion of the brain which responds to clear vision and the secret > is soon told: that disorder was developed by forced visions; by hatha yog > and prolonged asceticism. S. Ram is the chief medium and at same time the > principal magnetic factor, who spreads his disease by infection -- > unconsciously to himself; who innoculates with his vision all the other > disciples. There is one general law of vision (physical and mental or > spiritual) but there is a qualifying special law proving that all vision > must be determined by the quality or grade of man's spirit and soul, and > also by the ability to translate divers qualities of waves of astral light > into consciousness. There is but one general law of life, but innumerable > laws qualify and determine the myriads of forms perceived and of sounds > heard. There are those who are willingly and others who are unwillingly -- > blind. Mediums belong to the former, sensitives to the latter. Unless > regularly initiated and trained -- concerning the spiritual insight of > things and the supposed revelations made unto man in all ages from Socrates > down to Swedenborg and "Fern" -- no self-tutored seer or clairaudient ever > saw or heard quite correctly." > > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-40.htm > > Notice that Suby Ram is described by the Master as "a > truly good man" and as "a pure, unselfish, earnest soul." But all > those good qualities didn't keep the man from being a victim of > "misguided, misdirected mysticism" and having a psychic "disorder" > and "infection". > > Master Morya goes on to make comments about Suby Ram's deceased > guru: > > "You are right: they say and affirm that the one and only God of the > Universe was > incarnated in their guru, and were such an individual to exist he would > certainly be higher than any "planetary." But they are idolators, my friend. > Their guru was no initiate only a man of extraordinary purity of life and > powers of endurance. He had never consented to give up his notions of a > personal god and even gods though offered more than once. He was born an > orthodox Hindu and died a self-reformed Hindu, something like Kechub-Ch-Sen > but higher purer and with no ambition to taint his bright soul. Many of us > have regretted his self-delusion but he was too good to be forcibly > interfered with. Join them and learn -- but remember your sacred promise to > K.H. Two months more and he will be with us. I think of sending her to you. > I believe you could persuade her for I do not wish to use my authority in > this case." > > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-40.htm > > Suby Ram's deceased guru turns out to be Siva Dayal Saheb, the founder of > the Radha Soami Satsang, a well-known religious movement in India. See > the ENCYCLOPĆDIA BRITANNICA: > http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/7/0,5716,69797+1+68032,00.html > > http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,63974+1+62394,00.html > > Dayal Saheb is revered by several million followers as the founder of the > Radha > Soami religion. Down through the decades his followers have done much good > social work such as setting up soup kitchens to feed the hungry, > establishing schools, > hospitals, etc. > > Even Master Morya described Dayal as "a man of extraordinary purity of life" > and > as "a self-reformed Hindu . . . with no ambition to taint his bright soul." > Yet the Master M. told A.P. Sinnett that Dayal was "no initiate" and > furthermore > was a victim of "self-delusion" and held "sincere and erroneous" notions > "of a personal god and even gods." > > There are many more examples that could be culled from the Mahatma Letters > and HPB's writings. > > Unfortunately, our sincerity and good qualities do not guarantee that the > beliefs > and views that we hold are true, correct and accurate. Our sincerity and > good qualities do not necessarily validate the truthfulness of our inner > "visions" and > "intuitions." > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 3 01:17:07 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id BAA31134 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 01:16:26 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000603001619.0086eb80@mail.telusplanet.net> X-Sender: tlorentz@mail.telusplanet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 00:16:19 -0600 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: Todd Lorentz Subject: Theos-World- On Proof of Maitreya and Sincerity In-Reply-To: <003c01bfccac$8d032ce0$fa85fc3f@wilma> References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us> <012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding> <3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net> <3935A569.F928451D@bmu.com.pe> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com David, >DAVID: "I think that, the obvious disctintion between the two >Maitreyas, requires some kind of proof from Govert, too. Or at least, some >commentary." > >GOVERT: My belief that the real Maitreya communicated through David Anrias is >based on the following intricately connected factors: > >1) Cyril Scott presented Anrias as a genuine contact with the Masters. >2) Based on his 'Initiate' books and his book on music I consider Scott himself >a contact of the Masters. >3) The reasonable and balanced theosophical nature of the remarks both Scott's >'Sir Thomas' and Anrias' Maitreya make about K and his teachings. > >4) The effectiveness of Anrias' portraits for meditation, or just inspiration. > >5) The consensus of almost all the Masters' emissaries that the project with K >was genuine but unsuccesful. (IMO: CWL, Hodson, Ballard, Prophet, Anrias, Scott) > >6) The impossibilty to reconcile HPB's deeper teachings on the path with those >of K and the gravity of the implications when these differences are reasoned to >their logical conclusion. But these aren't really proofs......are they? If I might say, they appear to be conjecture, heresay, speculation and, at most, an educated guess based upon, perhaps, intuition. It can be as easily dimissed as what *I* have offered as my "opinion" about the externalization of Maitreya and the Hierarchy at this time according to Benjamin Creme. I am well aware, and have stated so before, that I am doubtful about providing any form of "proof" that would convince anyone of Maitreya's presence in the world today. In that, I intentionally put forth my opinion so that the reader would be aware of my personal bias and obviously, dismiss it. I would even go so far as to say that one could, and possibly should, dismiss what Benjamin Creme says regarding Maitreya and the externalization of the Hierarchy. While interesting, no one is 100% sure that it is not simply the philosophical opinion of some few individuals. But that is not the information that I provided for the readers who requested more information, to follow up on. I provided specific events, news reports, publications, records, and named specific individuals (some very well repected individuals - i.e., Wayne Peterson, retired US Diplomat) who have stated directly and many times publically that they are having direct, in the flesh, experiences of Maitreya. Additionally, they are having these experiences, sometimes, in groups. This includes a large press conference, over a decade ago now, with many world leaders and representatives as attendees, including reporters, where Maitreya *demonstrated* openly to the shocked gathering His identity as the Christ. Many others from around the world, from ordinary walks of life, have continued to meet with Maitreya. Several that were spoken with were not even aware of the "Creme Story" when they spoke openly about their often miraculous experiences. Only later do they recognize the picture, when shown, of the individual who was photographed in Nairobi (Maitreya) as the One they experienced. There are so many important and difficult to discount events that tie together to make this a powerfully coherent story that has stretched over 2 decades now. It is obvious to me that the events that are unfolding are well out of the hands of Benjamin Creme and are affecting people from all walks of life and all nations. I have not met Maitreya myself in person. But I have read too many documented stories, made by such diverse reporters from all over the world, and from such unrelated individuals, that it is simply astonishing. In general terms, there are superficial inconsistencies in what Creme claims as the timing for the reappearance. He has always been extremely adamant that it has always been "*his own* immediate belief that the reappearance would happen at such and such a time". Be that as it may......then remove Creme from the picture for the moment. That then brings us back to where we should be....the facts. Let's start in Nairobi, Kenya, for example. What of the eyewitness accounts by 6000 people who saw him mysteriously appear and disappear, speak to the crowd in perfect swahili, the spontaneous healings that took place, the instant recognition by the crowd that it was the Christ (even though he is in a Pakistani Mayavarupi)? The photos, the newspaper story in the Kenya Times, other eyewitness accounts as reported on the Share website.....what do we do with that? Then, there are the accounts of other events - eyewitness accounts - of flesh and blood meetings with Maitreya. Accounts by Wayne Peterson, Buddy Piper, etc. There are radio interviews given by these gentleman on a regular basis (see details at: http://www.TransmissionMeditation.org/interviews.html >One's sincerity does not guarantee the truthfulness of one's beliefs So let's not divert our attention from the facts by attempting to dismiss the possibility of this story by throwing question on the validity of the story-teller's *opinion* or *beliefs* (or apparant sincerity, thereof). Simply look at the facts. If you can legitimately dis-prove them, then I'm sure there are 6000 people in Nairobi, Kenya who would be interested. Todd -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 3 03:58:28 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id DAA08256 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 03:45:13 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: <14.4698658.266a1ec3@aol.com> Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 04:41:39 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World- On Proof of Maitreya and Sincerity To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com How can anyone believe anything based on other peoples documentation of what they have witnessed? In fact, how can anyone take as gospel anything written in a newspaper? Many reporters have been knows to twist the truth or lie to get a good story. Some of them could even be caught up in the mass delusion -- which is a psychological possibility ... Especially amongst backward, ignorant and superstitious crowds of people that probably made up the crowd of 6,000 in Nairobi. Ask any Christian missionary how easy it is to convert such people. How can we be sure that those 6,000 so called witnesses actually experienced what a "reporter" states they did? How can we be sure that the so called, respectable (because, well known, or an accepted politician), is telling the truth? Or, that he was not experiencing a self generated delusion? How can we be sure that the 6,000 people weren't mass hypnotized, as many crowds have been who gave reports of seeing a fakir disappear at the top of his rope -- as has happened innumerable times in India? HPB warned us about taking as truth any statement based on someone's authority. The wordy arguments given forth in the many past commentaries on the credibility of Creme and the authenticity of his self proclaimed "Christ" are as valid as those proclaimed by the many former nut case "Jesus Christs" in rubber rooms (and now wandering the streets) who have made the same claims -- but without the "respected" backing and notoriety given to the present wearer of the mantle of Christ. Even the Pope has a better claim for that position. Jim Jones claimed the same things and look where that got him and his followers. And, why did so many believe that Krishnamurti was the "coming Avatar" -- until he, himself, denounced the phony story built up around him by the "respected" leaders of the Theosophical Society? Without seeing a so called miracle for oneself (and even then we can't be sure we are not wishful thinking, hallucinating, hypnotized, or just plain fooled) is proof of nothing at all. So, why waste all this talk on such foolishness? Besides, what's it all got to do with theosophy and its discussion on this forum? Does arguing about the claims of so called, "Messiahs" make us any wiser? LHM In a message dated 06/03/00 2:14:56 AM, tlorentz@telusplanet.net writes: >But these aren't really proofs......are they? If I might say, they appear >to be conjecture, heresay, speculation and, at most, an educated guess >based upon, perhaps, intuition. It can be as easily dimissed as what *I* >have offered as my "opinion" about the externalization of Maitreya and >the Hierarchy at this time according to Benjamin Creme. > I am well aware, and have stated so before, that I am doubtful about >providing any form of "proof" that would convince anyone of Maitreya's >presence in the world today. In that, I intentionally put forth my opinion >so that the reader would be aware of my personal bias and obviously, >dismiss it. I would even go so far as to say that one could, and possibly >should, dismiss what Benjamin Creme says regarding Maitreya and the >externalization of the Hierarchy. While interesting, no one is 100% sure >that it is not simply the philosophical opinion of some few individuals. > But that is not the information that I provided for the readers who >requested more information, to follow up on. I provided specific events, >news reports, publications, records, and named specific individuals (some >very well repected individuals - i.e., Wayne Peterson, retired US Diplomat) >who have stated directly and many times publically that they are having >direct, in the flesh, experiences of Maitreya. Additionally, they are >having these experiences, sometimes, in groups. This includes a large >press conference, over a decade ago now, with many world leaders and >representatives as attendees, including reporters, where Maitreya >*demonstrated* openly to the shocked gathering His identity as the Christ. >Many others from around the world, from ordinary walks of life, have >continued to meet with Maitreya. Several that were spoken with were not >even aware of the "Creme Story" when they spoke openly about their often >miraculous experiences. Only later do they recognize the picture, when >shown, of the individual who was photographed in Nairobi (Maitreya) as >the >One they experienced. > There are so many important and difficult to discount events that tie >together to make this a powerfully coherent story that has stretched over >2 decades now. It is obvious to me that the events that are unfolding are >well out of the hands of Benjamin Creme and are affecting people from all >walks of life and all nations. > I have not met Maitreya myself in person. But I have read too many >documented stories, made by such diverse reporters from all over the world, >and from such unrelated individuals, that it is simply astonishing. In >general terms, there are superficial inconsistencies in what Creme claims >as the timing for the reappearance. He has always been extremely adamant >that it has always been "*his own* immediate belief that the reappearance >would happen at such and such a time". Be that as it may......then remove >Creme from the picture for the moment. That then brings us back to where >we should be....the facts. > Let's start in Nairobi, Kenya, for example. What of the eyewitness >accounts by 6000 people who saw him mysteriously appear and disappear, >speak to the crowd in perfect swahili, the spontaneous healings that took >place, the instant recognition by the crowd that it was the Christ (even >though he is in a Pakistani Mayavarupi)? The photos, the newspaper story >in the Kenya Times, other eyewitness accounts as reported on the Share >website.....what do we do with that? Then, there are the accounts of other >events - eyewitness accounts - of flesh and blood meetings with Maitreya. >Accounts by Wayne Peterson, Buddy Piper, etc. There are radio interviews >given by these gentleman on a regular basis (see details at: >http://www.TransmissionMeditation.org/interviews.html > >>One's sincerity does not guarantee the truthfulness of one's beliefs > > So let's not divert our attention from the facts by attempting to >dismiss the possibility of this story by throwing question on the validity >of the story-teller's *opinion* or *beliefs* (or apparant sincerity, >thereof). Simply look at the facts. If you can legitimately dis-prove >them, then I'm sure there are 6000 people in Nairobi, Kenya who would be >interested. > >Todd -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 3 08:24:39 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id IAA04368 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 08:14:59 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: ASANAT@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:11:20 EDT Subject: Theos-World Re: Krishnamurti and phenomenology To: act-l@list.vnet.net, theos-talk@theosophy.com CC: ARASantaFE@aol.com, nppress@vais.net (Elliot Ryan), csanabri@skadden.com, averea@juno.com (Armando Verea) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 81 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 5/9/00 6:07:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, schuller@prodigy.net writes: << Aryel wrote: > P was initially developed by Edmund Husserl with the specific intention > that it be A TOOL to be used in SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. That is, P is A METHOD > of research. Govert responded: [This is not entirely correct. P[henomenology] can be better characterized, not as a tool or method, but as a transformed attitude in the realm of philosophical research--not scientific research--in order to generate essential insights. >> Dear Govert, I find it fascinating that you say here that P is not "a tool or method." Yet you began your long e-mail with these words: "As I see it now, Krishnamurti in his many expositions applied a very pure though somehow 'naive' PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD in describing the human condition." So, which is it? Being a little rusty on my phenomenology, I checked the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (entry Husserl, Edmund), & I find there this little gem: In his INITIAL researches into P (which you will note, is what I specifically referred to), P proposed (in the Logische Untersuchungen, or Logical Investigations, for those of you whose German is rusty), that phenomenological descriptions require a "transcendental-phenomenological reduction." And, as the article tells us, such a reduction, which is a sine qua non of P, "is a METHODOLOGICAL DEVICE, required before one can begin to do phenomenology." So I am at a loss. You seem to know something that these chaps at the Encyclopedia don't know. You must have some esoteric knowledge of what P "really" is, which the experts don't know about. Please, don't be shy. We're all waiting -- with baited breath, no less -- to discover what P is, if not a method of research. You tell us here that P is, instead, "a transformed attitude in the realm of philosophical research -- not scientific research -- in order to generate essential insights." So you are telling us that P research has -- like ALL analytical approaches -- this form: "If you do X, you'll get W," where "W" stands for "wonderfulness." That wonderfulness can be called by some "nirvana," by others "satori," by others "salvation." Phenomenologists choose to call it (in this version of P) "essential insights." The FACT that it has this form, tells us right away that P is an ANALYTICAL tool, a method, which follows that algorithm based on two-valued logic. What K is talking about, if I understand him correctly, does not involve ANY algorithm. If he is, then I part company with him. But someone must show me that he is, and I don't think that's going to happen. The analytical mind is what needs to be transcended, if humanity is ever to be free from the trammels of confusion, mutual torment, conflict, that has been the rule for as far as our collective memory goes. K (like HPB's teachers) was speaking of the dire, urgent need to bring about a mutation of the physical brain. That is, the synapses of the human brain have been working for SO LONG along paths dictated by two-valued logic and the concomitant analytical approach, that it takes a truly "superhuman effort" to create new synaptic paths. That is what initiation, transformation, is meant to bring about. The effort is "superhuman," however, only from an analytical perspective, which, again, is "all" we have known, so far. A new way of employing the human brain must come about, if we are to survive as a species, if we are to be able to live harmoniously within ourselves, with each other, with all that is. I'm afraid, my friend, that such a radical mutation CANNOT come about by using the very approach that has been getting us into trouble at every conceivable level for much too long. Yes, the phenomenological approach does "sound like" the real thing. But so does any other approach deviced by the analytical mind. You find veritable gems, for instance, in Buddhism, where a "P-like" methodology can be found, in several schools, each with different approaches. (You might find of interest an excellent phenomenological book, David Edward Shaner, The Bodymind Experience in Japanese Buddhism. A Phenomenological Perspective of Kukai and Dogen.) It can also be found in the Christian mass, if it is followed in theosophical states of awareness, from beginning to end (I hope you have done this; it can be quite extraordinary). Some claim to find it, alas, in pentecostal ravings, in which they speak in tongues & commune with the holy ghost. Unfortunately, ALL OF THE ABOVE each follow an algorithm, a formula. "If you do X, you'll get W. That's for sure." THEY ALL WORK. Why? Because that is the nature of a two-valued logical argument! Once you accept the premises of a particular universe of discourse, you're history. ALL such universes of discourse have been devised by profoundly clever people, so they all work -- for as long as you buy into the whole system. But buying into the whole system implies segregating oneself from others who do not thus "buy it." It also segregates us from ourselves, because one can NEVER be a PERFECT X (Buddhist, Xtian, phenomenologist). So there will ALWAYS be inner conflict within oneself, between WHAT IS, and WHAT SHOULD BE. This conflict is the INEVITABLE fruit of any and all systems & methods, regardless of where they come from. Please, keep in mind that the analytical mind is a wonderful tool. It has served us marvelously & made it possible for us to survive as a species, & to live in comfort at present. It is properly used in its own area, namely, for purely mechanical, physical situations. It has served us so well there, in fact, that it seems like a darned shame one cannot use it as effectively when it comes to things that "matter" to us (ethics, religious experience, aesthetics, researches into what is). In those areas, it is 100% out of its depth -- and is MOST DANGEROUS. Whenever it has done so, it has led to all the wars, oppressions, repressions, and awfulnesses we as a species have committed. Still does, as we speak. This is VERY SERIOUS business, my friend. This is not just picking "one philosophy" over another, some new analytical game. A great deal is at stake here. So: If we as a species are EVER to be free of this nightmare, it can only happen by being free of our conditioning -- and of its constant companion (when misapplied), the analytical mind. There does not seem to be any other way out of this, my friend. Lest I be misunderstood, let me explain further: One does not engage in this "in order to" be free of conditioning, in order to bring about some utopia. If one does so, one is following yet another algorithm, another formula. This is extremely subtle for most of us, because we are so caught up in the analytical way, which is ALL that we have known -- before K came into the picture. No one in history had ever pointed this out, in just this way. Even the Buddha, Nagarjuna & Shankaracharya (who, to my knowledge, came closest to saying precisely this), were all working within their particular universes of discourse (predetermined by Asian culture). So, what do you think? All my love, Aryel -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 3 09:39:25 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id JAA09413 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:18:22 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ Message-ID: <002a01bfcd66$fb8ddd80$3a0ac5a9@azstarnet.com> From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" To: References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us><012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding><3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net><3935A569.F928451D@bmu.com.pe> <3.0.5.32.20000603001619.0086eb80@mail.telusplanet.net> Subject: Theos-World Share International, Benjamin Creme and Maitreya Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 07:20:51 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com For readers interested in knowing more about the claims of Benjamin Creme, I suggest you visit the website for Share International http://www.shareintl.org/index.htm Background information on: Benjamin Creme Signs and miracles Transmission Meditation Ageless Wisdom Teachings Frequently asked questions (FAQs) can be found at: http://www.shareintl.org/background/background.htm The following FAQs are very informative and give you Benjamin Creme's views on the Maitreya: "A list of the most asked questions in the last 20 years answered by Benjamin Creme" http://www.shareintl.org/background/FAQ/faq_main.htm Books for sale and other suggested reading can be found at the following two web pages: Books by Benjamin Creme http://www.shareintl.org/background/bcreme/BC_book.htm Suggested further reading http://www.shareintl.org/background/printed/further.htm -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 3 09:41:54 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id JAA09834 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:24:15 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: ASANAT@aol.com Message-ID: <5a.604cd3c.266a6dfc@aol.com> Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 10:19:40 EDT Subject: Theos-World Re: Krishnamurti and phenomenology To: act-l@list.vnet.net, theos-talk@theosophy.com CC: ARASantaFE@aol.com, nppress@vais.net (Elliot Ryan), csanabri@skadden.com, averea@juno.com (Armando Verea) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 81 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 5/9/00 6:07:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, schuller@prodigy.net writes: << Husserl's ideal was to transform philosophy into a rigourous science of essences (as opposed to facts, which is the realm of positive science) by penetrating deeper into the essence of its own art, which finds its paralel in K's own learning about learning. >> Dear Govert, Comparing H with K is an activity of the analytical mind. As such, it'll lead relentlessly, inevitably, towards shallowness & danger. Aryel Govert said: << At the same time we have to realize that K himself did not see such a great chasm between scientific research and what he himself was doing: "We are going to explore together very slowly, patiently, hesitantly, to find out. It is like good scientists looking through a microscope and seeing exactly the same thing. Because if you are a scientist in the laboratory using a microscope, you must show what you see to another scientist, so both of you see exactly what is." ] >> Dear Govert, Quoting K is a thankless task, perhaps a fruitless one, when it comes down to brass tacks. Call it a forlorn hope. The only thing that'll help understanding him better is to ENGAGE in choiceless awareness, & that involves no words, no concepts, no analysis, no quotes. Yes, one could say with him that "the word is not the thing." But such quoting can lead to the creation of yet one more analytical system, if one is not EXTREMELY careful. Yes, he was "scientific" in his approach. But he was clearly speaking here of the ATTITUDE of a "good scientist" (not many of those around, unfortunately). That is, one needs to make the grand inner exploration "together," as K pointed out so very often, because it is extremely important. One must carry out the investigation "slowly, patiently, hesitantly." This is not someone advocating a method, scientific or otherwise. So this quote (& any other quote of K's you might use) underlines precisely what I've been pointing out in these messages: There is an impassable chasm between phenomenology & K, just as there is an impassable chasm between ANY system or method & K. Love, Aryel -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 3 10:00:14 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id JAA12763 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:55:38 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39391E8D.8FF146D5@west.net> Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 08:04:50 -0700 From: Spencer Organization: Spence Surfboards X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us><012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding><3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.3.32.20000531234313.026f7ae0@mail.eden.com> <003201bfcca7$2f402180$fa85fc3f@wilma> <3938ADDA.7ED9@wworld.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------4C7031356B1895224FD99CBA" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4C7031356B1895224FD99CBA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Learning is pursued through daily addition; Tao is practiced through daily subtraction." Lao Tzu scott holloman wrote: > I can learn from others leasons.Saving time and suffering is > noble.Evolution is intrinsic and quantam? > 2x2=4 > 4x4=16 > 16x16=132 > I wrote a paper on evolution;it SEEMS intrinsic;the leaps are > amazing. Scotty > Govert W. Schuller wrote: > > > > Hello, mkr. thanks for responding to the paragraph [see below] > > > > MKR:This is an issue the K himself addressed. > > > > He may have reached whatever transformation he had with a great amount of > > effort, > > > > GOVERT: Not only by his own effort. Anrias' Maitreya said: "Thus although > > Krishnamurti was right to emphasize the necessity for independent thought, he > > was wrong in assuming that everyone else, regardless of past Karma and present > > limitations, could instantly reach that point which he himself had only reached > > through lives of effort, and by the aid of those Cosmic Forces apportioned to > > him solely for his office as Herald of the New Age." > > > > MKR: while he stated that instant transformation is possible for anyone > > who tries. > > > > GOVERT: He can very well state that, but fact remains that nobody proved it to > > be true. > > > > MKR: He gave the example of the great risk and time and trouble that > > Columbus had to go through when he travelled by ship to the America. Today, > > most take the easy method of taking a commercial airline flight. > > > > GOVERT: This metaphor is not working for me, because even with modern flight > > technology you need 1) time, a no-no for K, 2) planning, another no-no, and 3) > > help from the captain, another no-no. > > > > MKR: So he did not have a double standard. > > > > GOVERT: I don't see the reasoning here > > > > At 06:51 PM 05/31/2000 -0500, you wrote: quoting: > > > > >Regarding the feasibility of Krishnamurti's suggestion of a profound > > fundamental transformation of > > the human consciousness, it has to be pointed out that Krishnamurti did not > > arrive at that level of > > consciousness by way of his own proposed instantaneous 'non-method.'(16) > > He arrived there solely > > by treading first the path of initiation under a Master (17)--going almost > > to its final conclusion--then > > stepped aside, and denounced the whole method.(18) > > < > > > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. --------------4C7031356B1895224FD99CBA Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="kellogg.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Spencer Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="kellogg.vcf" begin:vcard n:Kellogg;Spencer x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:kellogg@west.net x-mozilla-cpt:;1 fn:Spencer Kellogg end:vcard --------------4C7031356B1895224FD99CBA-- -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 3 10:27:29 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA15707 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 10:18:18 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ Message-ID: <000701bfcd6f$7242af20$3a0ac5a9@azstarnet.com> From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" To: Subject: Theos-World MODERN APOSTLES AND PSEUDO-MESSIAHS by H.P. Blavatsky Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 08:21:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MODERN APOSTLES AND PSEUDO-MESSIAHS by H.P. Blavatsky http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/ModernApostlesAndPseudoMessiahs.htm Below are some choice paragraphs from Madame Blavatsky's sensible article on this subject: ------------------------------------------------------------------ There has probably never been a period within our recollection more given to the production of "great missions" and missionaries than the present. The movement began, apparently, about a hundred years ago. . . . Then followed a period of moral decadence in the messianic perceptions and works. The polygamy taught and practised by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young has been one of the strangest features of any modern revelation or so-called religion. . . . . With the spread of the spiritualistic cult, the Messiah craze has vastly increased, and men and women alike have been involved in its whirlpools. Given, a strong desire to reform somehow the religious or social aspect of the world, a personal hatred of certain of its aspects, and a belief in visions and messages, and the result was sure; the "Messiah" arose with a universal panacea for the ills of mankind. If he (very often she) did not make the claim, it was made for him. Carried away by the magnetic force, the eloquence, the courage, the single idea of the apostle pro tem, numbers, for very varied reasons, accepted him or her as the revelator of the hour and of all time. . . . Some of these apostles denounce alike Spiritualism and Theosophy; some accept the latter, but weave it anew into a version of their own; and some have apparently arisen, independently of any other cult, through the force of their own or somebody else's conviction. . . . There is an avowed re-incarnation of Buddha in the United States, and an avowed re-incarnation of Christ. Both have followers; both have been interviewed and said their best. They and others like unto them have had signs, illuminations, knowledge not common to men, and events pointing in a marked way to this their final destiny. There has even been a whisper here and there of supernatural births. . . . Each seems to be putting the crown upon his own head. If Theosophy had done nothing else, it would have made a demand on human gratitude in placing the truth and falsehood of these psychic experiences, unfoldments, or delusions as the case might be, plainly before the people, and explaining their rationale. . . . Wherever Theosophy spreads, there it is impossible for the deluded to mislead, or the deluded to follow. It opens a new path, a forgotten philosophy which has lived through the ages, a knowledge of the psychic nature of man, which reveals alike the true status of the Catholic saint, and the spiritualistic medium the Church condemns. . . . It hushes the "Lo here! and lo there!" and declares the Christ, like the kingdom of heaven, to be within. . . . To enumerate the various "Messiahs" and their beliefs and works would fill volumes. It is needless. When claims conflict, all, on the face of it, cannot be true. Some have taught less error than others. It is almost the only distinction. . . . Of one thing, rationally-minded people, apart from Theosophists, may be sure. And that is, service for humanity is its all-sufficient reward; and that empty jars are the most resonant of sound. To know a very little of the philosophy of life, of man's power to redeem wrongs and to teach others, to perceive how to thread the tangled maze of existence on this globe, and to accomplish aught of lasting and spiritual benefit, is to annihilate all desire or thought of posing as a heaven-sent saviour of the people. For a very little self-knowledge is a leveller indeed, and more democratic than the most ultra-radical can desire. The best practical reformers of the outside abuses we have known, such as slavery, deprivation of the rights of woman, legal tyrannies, oppressions of the poor, have never dreamed of posing as Messiahs. . . . With the advent of Theosophy, the Messiah-craze surely has had its day, and sees its doom. . . . Saviours to their race, in a sense, have lived and will live. Rarely has one been known. Rare has been the occasion when thus to be known has been either expedient or possible. . . . LUCIFER (London), July, 1890, pp. 379-383 http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/ModernApostlesAndPseudoMessiahs.htm Also reprinted in HPB's COLLECTED WRITINGS, Volume XII, pp. 256-262. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 3 10:32:41 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA17008 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 10:28:57 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: ASANAT@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:25:09 EDT Subject: Theos-World Re: The Inner Life of Krishnamurti To: act-l@list.vnet.net, theos-talk@theosophy.com CC: ARASantaFE@aol.com, nppress@vais.net (Elliot Ryan), csanabri@skadden.com, averea@juno.com (Armando Verea) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 81 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 5/11/00 1:48:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, schuller@prodigy.net writes: << > In a message dated 4/3/00 12:50:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > schuller@prodigy.net writes: > << As I see it now, Krishnamurti in his many expositions applied a very pure, > though somehow 'naive,' phenomenological method in describing the human > condition, the constitution of the emperical ego and the transformative > effect of pre-supposition-less awareness. Though he was not trained in > methodological phenomenology and probably never read anything in that area, > there are some researchers agreeing that what he did was executing the > phenomenological reduction and the transcedental reduction just by the power > of his sincerity, authenticity and observational acumen.>> Aryel responded: > Anyone who CLAIMS, FALSELY, that K was a > phenomenologist needs to give at least one item of evidence for such a > preposterous claim. The evidence MUST consist of showing at least one item > from K's work in which he unequivocally is advocating a method, since that is > what P is. If no such evidence exists, as I say there isn't, we need to move > on, and not waste any more time on this dead end. Govert again: There is no one claiming that K was a phenomenologist, only that what he was doing in his talks resembles some of the more recognizable procedures which can be found in P, which is quite similar to your recognition of kinship between K and P as you yourself stated on p.144 in your book, which I'll reproduce in a seperate e-mail. >> Govert, I'd put it (most appropriately, I believe) the other way around: Phenomenologists are attempting to do, analytically, what K actually does. It is phenomenologists who might learn from K, not the other way around. Otherwise, it would be exactly like saying that the false coin was invented before there was a real one. What I'm saying is that, like all mimicking, this one may be cute or perhaps even funny. But PLEASE: Accept no substitutes! Ultimately, what really matters is: Is there the continuous, never-ending process of transformation going on in my daily life? If not, all this talk will not help any, & WILL be pregnant with dangers of all sorts, as pointed out in my previous e-mail. The only reason why it becomes important to refer to K is that, as it happens, no one in history has ever presented this urgent need for transformation in an as inescapably clear a fashion, as he did. But as he himself said often, he was "only a telephone." So his "importance" consists in this: We get the phone call, with the message: "Mutate, boys & girls!" The normal thing to do, then, once one has heard the message, is to HANG UP THE DARNED PHONE!! Worshipping the telephone, or engaging in endless discussions about it, is sort of silly. Going back to it to dial that 900 number again, over & over again, seems kind of addictive, & disconnected from our daily lives -- sort of dysfunctional, like everything else that comes from the analytical mind, when misapplied by (mis)using it for the purpose of exploring into "things that matter." I had very specific purposes in referring to phenomenology in my book. In my work (not only in The Inner Life) I have sometimes referred to P as closely akin to what is required in transformation (whether as expressed in the ancient perennial lineage, or in K), since phenomenological research consists in part of a repudiation of all metaphysics, & of a PSYCHOLOGICAL exploration. A purpose in making this connection with P is pedagogical: People who know of phenomenology, but who might not know as much about K, might be tempted to go read K, in order to see for themselves in just what ways K would be similar to P. But once they go to K, my job is, in a way, finished. Now it's up to them, to look into themselves, not as a method (since, as we've seen, that is dangerous, & doesn't lead anywhere -- & rather slowly, at that), but choicelessly. "Choicelessly" is not just a word; it's not a concept. This goes to the heart of why I wrote this book. My main, deeper intention was to lead as many human beings as possible to see the urgent necessity for transformation. In a way, all the more or less fascinating material regarding K's inner life in it is almost like an upaya (as Buddhists might say), a "skillful mean" to lead people to transformation, as much as that is possible through merely reading a book. In this attempt, I tried to leave no stone unturned: I tried to reach as many as possible. That is why the book is chock-full-of references to so very many schools & approaches. My aim was to get as many of these to see the need for transformation, & ENGAGE in it. That failing, my hope was for the next best thing: If my readers would not get that message directly from me, perhaps they would be intrigued enough to go see what the old maestro himself said. My references to phenomenology had this (& almost exclusively this) purpose in mind. To put it in HPB's terms: There are "seven keys" that one must turn in order to enter the temple of divine wisdom (theosophy). One of those keys is the phenomenological key. Another is the metaphysical. Another is the mythical. Another is the astrological. All of these "seven" keys can lead to entering the temple of divine wisdom. But any & all of them are 100% useless, unless the candidate FIRST turns the psychological or mystical key. That is the key of "regeneration," as HPB called it in "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels." The most alert candidates, the most serious, would get this, & proceed with regeneration, without being ENCUMBERED by the distractions implicit in ALL the other keys. This means that a "very alert candidate" might come upon transformation (in the perennial sense) through P, even despite the needless allures fraught with danger & shallowness of P itself. Unfortunately, such alert candidates have always been rare, very few, & far between. As I see it, it IS possible to come upon transformation through P, just as it was possible for Christopher Columbus to come to America in a journey fraught with danger & incalculable difficulties. But then was then. We can now fly by jet, in comfort & with minimal dangers. Since now there is "K," why would one want to make such a journey on caravels, & insist that EVERYONE MUST use caravels & only caravels to do so? This is why it became necessary to present the ancient wisdom in this "new" way. This is why the message has perhaps come from Tushita Heaven, from whence the Lord Maitreya is said by Tibetan Buddhists (& as quoted by HPB in the 1897 edition of the SD) to have delivered the teaching of prajnaparamita to Nagarjuna, that no perennial teacher will provide distractions, any more: It's TRANSFORMATION, OR BUST. The problem, perhaps, is that we humans are too obtuse, too insensitive, too inalert. That's perhaps, at bottom, why we get so caught up in the "other" keys. As K put it, most poignantly: "The tears of all the world have created the World Teacher." Somehow, that does not strike me as idle talk. Love, Aryel -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 3 11:04:22 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA21160 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 11:00:10 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ Message-ID: <006801bfcd75$4b7093c0$3a0ac5a9@azstarnet.com> From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" To: Subject: Theos-World Madame Blavatsky on the Christ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:03:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Madame Blavatsky wrote as follows on the Christ: ". . . . Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy presence, and of the consummation of the age?" asked the Disciples of the MASTER, on the Mount of Olives. The reply given by the "Man of Sorrow," the Chréstos, on his trial, but also on his way to triumph, as Christos, or Christ, is prophetic, and very suggestive. It is a warning indeed. The answer must be quoted in full. Jesus . . . . said unto them:-- "Take heed that no man lead you astray. For many shall come in my name saying, I am the Christ; and shall lead many astray. And ye shall hear of wars . . . . but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines and earthquakes in divers places. But all these things are the beginning of travail. . . . Many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray . . . . then shall the end come. . . . when ye see the abomination of desolation which was spoken through Daniel. . . . Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is the Christ, or There; believe him not. . . . If they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the wilderness, go not forth; behold, he is in the inner chambers, believe them not. For as the lightning cometh forth from the East, and is seen even in the West, so shall be the presence of the Son of Man, etc., etc." Two things become evident to all in the above passages, now that their false rendering is corrected in the revision text: (a) "the coming of Christ," means the presence of CHRISTOS in a regenerated world, and not at all the actual coming in body of "Christ" Jesus; (b) this Christ is to be sought neither in the wilderness nor "in the inner chambers," nor in the sanctuary of any temple or church built by man; for Christ--the true esoteric SAVIOUR--is no man, but the DIVINE PRINCIPLE in every human being. He who strives to resurrect the Spirit crucified in him by his own terrestrial passions, and buried deep in the "sepulchre" of his sinful flesh; he who has the strength to roll back the stone of matter from the door of his own inner sanctuary, he has the risen Christ in him. The "Son of Man" is no child of the bond-woman--flesh, but verily of the free-woman--Spirit, the child of man's own deeds, and the fruit of his own spiritual labour. On the other hand, at no time since the Christian era, have the precursor signs described in Matthew applied so graphically and forcibly to any epoch as they do to our own times. When has nation arisen against nation more than at this time? When have "famines"--another name for destitute pauperism, and the famished multitudes of the proletariat--been more cruel, earthquakes more frequent, or covered such an area simultaneously, as for the last few years? Millenarians and Adventists of robust faith, may go on saying that "the coming of (the carnalised) Christ" is near at hand, and prepare themselves for "the end of the world." Theosophists--at any rate, some of them--who understand the hidden meaning of the universally-expected Avatars, Messiahs, Sosioshes and Christs--know that it is no "end of the world," but "the consummation of the age," i.e., the close of a cycle, which is now fast approaching. . . . Many and many a time the warning about the "false Christs" and prophets who shall lead people astray has been interpreted by charitable Christians, the worshippers of the dead-letter of their scripture, as applying to mystics generally, and Theosophists most especially. The recent work by Mr. Pember, "Earth's Earliest Ages," is a proof of it. Nevertheless, it seems very evident that the words in Matthew's Gospel and others can hardly apply to Theosophists. For these were never found saying that Christ is "Here" or "There," in wilderness or city, and least of all in the "inner chamber" behind the altar of any modern church. Whether Heathen or Christian by birth, they refuse to materialise and thus degrade that which is the purest and grandest ideal--the symbol of symbols--namely, the immortal Divine Spirit in man, whether it be called Horus, Krishna, Buddha, or Christ. None of them has ever yet said: "I am the Christ"; for those born in the West feel themselves, so far, only Chréstians, however much they may strive to become Christians in Spirit. It is to those, who in their great conceit and pride refuse to win the right of such appellation by first leading the life of Chrestos; to those who haughtily proclaim themselves Christians (the glorified, the anointed) by sole virtue of baptism when but a few days old--that the above-quoted words of Jesus apply most forcibly. Can the prophetic insight of him who uttered this remarkable warning be doubted by any one who sees the numerous "false prophets" and pseudo-apostles (of Christ), now roaming over the world? . . . . The "Christ principle," the awakened and glorified Spirit of Truth, being universal and eternal, the true Christos cannot be monopolized by any one person, even though that person has chosen to arrogate to himself the title of the "Vicar of Christ," or of the "Head" of that or another State-religion. The spirits of "Chrest" and "Christ" cannot be confined to any creed or sect, only because that sect chooses to exalt itself above the heads of all other religions or sects. . . . The first key that one has to use to unravel the dark secrets involved in the mystic name of Christ, is the key which unlocked the door to the ancient mysteries of the primitive Aryans, Sabeans and Egyptians. The Gnosis supplanted by the Christian scheme was universal. It was the echo of the primordial wisdom-religion which had once been the heirloom of the whole of mankind; and, therefore, one may truly say that, in its purely metaphysical aspect, the Spirit of Christ (the divine logos) was present in humanity from the beginning of it. The author of the Clementine Homilies is right; the mystery of Christos--now supposed to have been taught by Jesus of Nazareth--"was identical" with that which from the first had been communicated "to those who were worthy," as quoted in another lecture. We may learn from the Gospel according to Luke, that the "worthy" were those who had been initiated into the mysteries of the Gnosis, and who were "accounted worthy" to attain that "resurrection from the dead" in this life . . . . "those who knew that they could die no more, being equal to the angels as sons of God and sons of the Resurrection." In other words, they were the great adepts of whatever religion; and the words apply to all those who, without being Initiates, strive and succeed, through personal efforts to live the life and to attain the naturally ensuing spiritual illumination in blending their personality--(the "Son") with (the "Father,") their individual divine Spirit, the God within them. This "resurrection" can never be monopolized by the Christians, but is the spiritual birth-right of every human being endowed with soul and spirit, whatever his religion may be. Such individual is a Christ-man. On the other hand, those who choose to ignore the Christ (principle) within themselves, must die unregenerate heathens--baptism, sacraments, lip-prayers, and belief in dogmas notwithstanding. In order to follow this explanation, the reader must bear in mind the real archaic meaning of the paronomasia involved in the two terms Chréstos and Christos. The former means certainly more than merely "a good," and "excellent man," while the latter was never applied to any one living man, but to every Initiate at the moment of his second birth and resurrection. He who finds Christos within himself and recognises the latter as his only "way," becomes a follower and an Apostle of Christ, though he may have never been baptised, nor even have met a "Christian," still less call himself one. . . . Excerpted from H.P. Blavatsky's "The Esoteric Character of the Gospels" LUCIFER (London), November, 1887 http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/EsotericCharacterOfTheGospels.htm Also reprinted in H.P.B.'s COLLECTED WRITINGS, Volume VIII, pp. 172-184 -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 3 12:42:49 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id MAA02419 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:40:10 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: ASANAT@aol.com Message-ID: <15.4a3eab5.266a9c1d@aol.com> Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 13:36:29 EDT Subject: Theos-World Krishnamurti and phenomenology To: act-l@list.vnet.net, theos-talk@theosophy.com CC: ARASantaFE@aol.com, nppress@vais.net (Elliot Ryan), csanabri@skadden.com, averea@juno.com (Armando Verea) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 81 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com On 5/11/00 Govert said: << As for the possibility of K advocating a method I'd like to come back to the quote reproduced in my previous e-mail: "We are going to explore together very slowly, patiently, hesitantly, to find out. It is like good scientists looking through a microscope and seeing exactly the same thing. Because if you are a scientist in the laboratory using a microscope, you must show what you see to another scientist, so both of you see exactly what is." K is, on first reading, clearly comparing here, in a positive way, his mode of exploration with the scientific method. He is of course not saying that what he does is the same as the scientific method, but nevertheless he makes an appeal to our understanding of scientific method in order for us to understand better what K tries to show as his way of exploration. For me this implies that somehow a 'mode' or 'way' or 'method' is involved in what K is trying to do. >> Dear Govert, I believe I already responded fully to this point in a previous e-mail. I may add here that "the scientific method" CONSISTS of developing hypotheses based on empirical testing & experience, & then testing those hypotheses, in order to develop THEORIES. That is why it is a METHOD: Like all methods, it follows a formula, an algorithm. There is absolutely no such algorithm, formula, in any of K's work. You have obviously not given an example. Try again (& again, & again, & again...). You won't find it. I saw K -- a number of times, at that -- reject totally something being said to him by his audience, in which he was being quoted. I'll give you one of many instances, taken out of a discussion session from the 1970s in Ojai. K was trying to get the ball rolling, as to what we all might want to discuss. It came to this: "Why are we degenerating?" So K threw that question back at the audience. Someone yelled from the back of the room "Fragmentation!" thus quoting a word K had used & discussed thoroughly very many times, to show that fragmentation is indeed at the heart of our degenerating. K's response was swift, intense, passionate. He said: "That's rubbish! Forget about that! I don't want to hear that word again! This is a serious inquiry into why the human condition is degenerating. So the question is: Why are we degenerating?" Though I put it in quote marks, the reference is from memory, & the words are probably not quite exact. But I did witness, quite a number of times, K rejecting his own words. You find him do just that quite a number of times in the various dialogues between him & scholars & others, which have been published. K's work is most emphatically not about words, concepts, algorithms, methods, systems, or any other excrescence coming from the analytical mind. One REALLY needs to get that. Otherwise, we'll be going round & round, as if in a merry-go-round, not getting anywhere. A major shift in the human organism MUST take place. Such a shift will NEVER happen, for as long as one continues to rely on that most unreliable of all guides, the analytical mind. One might say that the analytical mind is the mother of all unreliance, when it comes to exploring "what matters" to humans. Aryel Govert said: Against this interpretation it could be argued that K's comparison of science and what he himself does, does not apply to that element of the scientific procedure called method, but to another element called intersubjectivity, i.e. the problem of communicating scientific results, or in K's words "show what you see... so both of you see exactly what is." So, it's not so much a matter of procedure or method with which K is concerned here, but of sharing results, which in K's case are actually not results, in the sense of a final product of a procedure, but a shared clear view of what is. Dear Govert, As you say, "it's not so much a matter of procedure or method with which K is concerned here" (or anywhere else, I might say), "but of sharing results." This strikes me as an odd statement. Can you find a single quote in which K said to anyone: "See what results you get from what I'm telling you, & then compare them with my results"? I don't think so. You won't find such a statement, anywhere. This is your own imagination, working too hard to create a straw man that you call "K," so you can then tear it down. Look within, my friend. Why are you doing this? Where does this passion against K come from? It obviously has nothing to do with K's work in itself. So we must look elsewhere. What do you think? Aryel Govert said: As a formerly purist Krishnamurtian I might have been satisfied with this last formula [sic], but now, after not believing anymore in the complete enlightenment of K, nor believing anymore in the infallibility of his statements, nor believing anymore in his status as the telephone for the Masters, I feel compelled to submit K's teachings to a variety of investigations to sort out truth from error, both in K's teachings itself and also in the various criticisms leveled against him. Dear Govert, As Spock might say, upon witnessing some form of human behavior: "Fascinating!" I think it's wonderful that you are no longer "a Krishnamurtian." Neither am I. Never have been one. So it's great we both SEEM to belong to the non-Krishnamurtian club! I have never "believed" in K's "enlightenment," either (whatever that might mean), much less in "the infallibility of his statements" (!!!!!!!!!!??????). DID you ever REALLY believe in a person's INFALLIBILITY? I find that very hard to understand. I truly can't compute it. WHY would ANYONE follow someone else in so slavish a manner? I'm truly baffled. "Fascinating!" I do not believe, either, in "his status as the telephone for the Masters." I have RESEARCHED the issue, & noted that he himself stated throughout his very long life (contrary to what MOST others have said, including authors about his life) that he was indeed such a telephone, & that HPB had made exactly the same claim about herself. Looking VERY CAREFULLY at K's work, I see it to be at the leading edge of philosophy, for reasons that will be spelled out for the benefit of philosophy scholars in my upcoming work THE ANALYTICAL FALLACY (I have been very fortunate to be able to discuss K's place in today's philosophical arena with some of the top philosophers in the world in various areas, & haven't encountered any peeps from them, so far, except, of course, when I first tell them, since "we all know" K couldn't possibly be anything but some kind of New Age freak"; but that's a story for another time. But the question I have asked myself numerous times is: Where did K's insights & observations come from? Everyone who knew him said he was just a very shy, country-boyish sort of person, greatly interested in arming & disarming mechanical gadgets. He had no formal education. Flunked the entrance exams at Oxford three times, even though he had tutors working hard with him, to get him through (with the same help, his younger brother Nytia passed, the first time). Apart from Agatha Christie & similar authors of "thrillers," he didn't read much. WHERE, I ask, did his insights come from? I do not claim to know. Never have. But WHERE did they come from? I am truly asking that question of anyone within hearing of it. Please, please, give me an answer. Don't let that question pass. Do give an answer. But it must be a credible one. Otherwise, we're playing games. The only more or less credible answer I have encountered is the one that K himself gave, that he was a telephone for other dimensions of being. (In his later years, he did not personalize these dimensions by referring to "Masters," for reasons I discuss amply in my book, & which strike me as being excellent reasons.) I do not know whether K was "a telephone" for these other dimensions. But no other explanation I have seen, so far, seems to explain this extraordinary phenomenon. In the end, it truly does not matter, whether he was a telephone or an ice cream stick. What matters is whether there is transformation going on in one's daily life. But if we are momentarily discussing what could possibly be the source for this phenomenon, & we want to discuss it seriously, we MUST give a serious answer, coming from the depths of our being, not on some knee-jerk reaction coming from personal experiences or from our background. What, then, IS the source for this extraordinary collection of insights & observations? Your comments, Govert, seem to imply -- rather strongly, at that -- that you accepted K as a very high AUTHORITY. If so, that was, of course, your prerogative. But it also implies not having listened at all to K's constant harping on the dangers of following authorities, at any level. So this only could have been AN IMAGE of your own personal fantasy. Following an authority -- ANY authority -- implies that the process of transformation is not going on in one's daily life. That was, of course, presumably "then." But, in a strange way, you seem to be still following that authority. That is, why the depths of disappointment at K for not fulfilling the expectations generated by your self-created image of what you thought he should have been? If the guy was wrong, drop him like a hot potato, & move on, by all means. But why continue holding on, with both hands, at that, to those IMAGES? Why bother? Since 1963, when I first encountered K, I, too, felt "compelled to submit K's teachings to a variety of investigations to sort out truth from error, both in K's teachings itself and also in the various criticisms leveled against him." You see, I had been an investigator into these issues since I was a boy, & before encountering K, had never found anyone who had the kind of passion about discovering that which is, which I saw in him. He was the first "kindred spirit" I had ever encountered. THAT is what attracted me to him. But as an investigator, this meant I had to be extremely careful, not to merely "follow the bouncing ball" of whatever K said. I could see very easily, from the beginning, that this could be very mesmerizing, that I might be led by my own instincts the wrong way. So I proceeded to put it to the test. I did that in many ways. I became a Buddhist, practicing at first Vipassana, as in the Theravada school, then Zen, & finally Tibetan (primarily Nyingmapa). I participated in Gurdjieff work, dabbled in sufism, got minor orders in the LCC, got involved in Co-Masonry, got degrees in philosophy (in an attempt to see, as you are now trying to do, where he might be leading me astray). I found myself being thrown back upon myself, over, & over, & over again. Now, it is not so much a question of "having come home, at last," or of (a la Martin Luther King, Jr.), "been to the mountaintop." It's not like that, at all. It's just that the very many ways in which the analytical mind can lure one into blind alleys have turned so transparent, their dangers seen clearly as being so tremendous, & their inefficacy so obvious, it is simply not possible to go that way, ever again. There's NOTHING there, my friend. When you hear the excited call of some "new" form of the analytical mind, telling you invitingly: "Gold! Gold! Thar's gold up in them thar' mount'ns!" -- don't you believe it. It's pyrite, fool's gold. That's ALL you'll find, because that's ALL the analytical mind has to offer. But you have to see this for yourself. No amount of talking or writing by anybody will help. I know. But it IS useful to hear this. If there is any truth in it, it WILL stay with you, & it will be your teacher, when you're ready to hear it -- whether now, ten years from now, or in some future incarnation. Please, don't think I'm speaking condescendingly. That is most emphatically not where I'm coming from. I'm talking to you like a brother. Who knows? Perhaps I'm all wrong about this. I live daily with the understanding that being fallible is intrinsic to all of us ("even" K!) , & so I'm very sensitive to that failing in myself. If it is I who is mistaken about this, then perhaps something in what you're saying will stay with me, & enlighten me at some point. Such is the nature of our predicament. The inquiry is a constant journey, with no "Holy Grail" at the "end" of it. With all my love, Aryel -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 3 14:47:52 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA12926 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 14:22:25 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39395AA5.62276FB9@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 15:21:09 -0400 From: Michele Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Krishnamurti and phenomenology References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > << Aryel wrote: It can also be found in > the Christian mass, if it is followed in theosophical states of awareness, > from beginning to end (I hope you have done this; it can be quite > extraordinary). My friend Aryel, I am still having a great deal of difficulty following your arguments without your defining its terms. So, in addition to answers to the questions that Govert (thank you, G.) and I have posted before, I would find it helpful if you would elucidate upon another of your propositions. Since {as expressed above) you seem to be saying you have experienced same: What exactly is a 'theosophical state of awareness'? How do you know that you are (or were) in it? When 'following' the mass in such a state of awareness, does the transfer and interpretation of incoming information from SOME parts (especially the midbrain) of the physical brain - auditory (hearing the music), olfactory (smelling the incense), visual (watching the actions of the celebrants), vestibular (that which keeps you upright on your knees) - still remain functional, and in use? Are you saying that in a 'theosophical state of awareness' only the function of the reasoning/language and upper cortical centers of the physical brain are 'put in the garbage can' as you have indicated? You have cautioned Govert about the importance of being very precise in his definition of philosophical terms within this discussion, so you can appreciate my interest in clarifying these issues. Thanks again for your time- Michele L. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 3 20:31:58 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA16115 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 3 Jun 2000 20:17:24 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: CoNewsNet2@aol.com Message-ID: <73.3d66565.266b074d@aol.com> Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:13:49 EDT Subject: Re: Re: Theos-World- On Proof of Maitreya and Sincerity To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 84 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 6/3/0 3:56:03, you wrote: <> Dear Leon, The trouble with you is, you need to put your glasses on so you can see that the Keizer IS wearing clothes. Thank you for a refreshing breeze ! Femia -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 4 11:55:47 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA07147 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:32:59 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: MorganArts@aol.com Message-ID: <2b.68766f0.266bddd4@aol.com> Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 12:29:08 EDT Subject: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 102 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com As stated by Leon Maurer <> Please remember that the first Fundamental Proposition in Theosophy is Universal Brotherhood. Judgmentalism and slinging stereotypes based on race or nation is not a way to find truth. In Peace, Kate -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 4 12:52:12 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id MAA16260 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 12:44:58 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393A9556.4EA70D3D@sprynet.com> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 13:43:50 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us><012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding><3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.3.32.20000531234313.026f7ae0@mail.eden.com> <003201bfcca7$2f402180$fa85fc3f@wilma> <3938ADDA.7ED9@wworld.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com scott holloman wrote: > > I can learn from others leasons.Saving time and suffering is > noble.Evolution is intrinsic and quantam? > 2x2=4 > 4x4=16 > 16x16=132 In order to save you time and suffering, may I point out that your arithmetic needs a little work? Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 4 15:57:56 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id PAA08031 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 15:33:54 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000604152855.0093c620@mail.eden.com> X-Sender: ramadoss@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 15:28:55 -0500 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Theos-World TSA Annual Meeting Proxy In-Reply-To: <393A9556.4EA70D3D@sprynet.com> References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us> <012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding> <3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.3.32.20000531234313.026f7ae0@mail.eden.com> <003201bfcca7$2f402180$fa85fc3f@wilma> <3938ADDA.7ED9@wworld.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com If anyone on the list is attending the annual meeting, let us know. Some may consider giving the proxy if the member is an independent one. mkr -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 4 21:21:25 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA10015 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 21:08:55 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393B0B74.567191C7@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 22:07:48 -0400 From: Michele Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart References: <2b.68766f0.266bddd4@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MorganArts@aol.com wrote: > > > As stated by Leon Maurer > < ignorant and superstitious crowds of people that probably made up the crowd > of 6,000 in Nairobi. Ask any Christian missionary how easy it is to convert > such people.>> Actually, I was more curious as to who went through the crowd to verify that each and every one of the 6,000 actually believed that the 'man in white' working the crowd was the Maitreya of Benjamin Creme... Michele L. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 4 21:55:12 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA14714 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 21:43:56 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393B30EF.7407@wworld.com> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 21:47:44 -0700 From: scott holloman X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart References: <2b.68766f0.266bddd4@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Kate and Leon both have valid points. MorganArts@aol.com wrote: > > > As stated by Leon Maurer > < ignorant and superstitious crowds of people that probably made up the crowd > of 6,000 in Nairobi. Ask any Christian missionary how easy it is to convert > such people.>> > > Please remember that the first Fundamental Proposition in Theosophy is > Universal Brotherhood. Judgmentalism and slinging stereotypes based on race > or nation is not a way to find truth. > > In Peace, > Kate > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 4 22:10:12 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA17888 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 22:06:05 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393B3628.12A9@wworld.com> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 22:10:00 -0700 From: scott holloman X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us><012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding><3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.3.32.20000531234313.026f7ae0@mail.eden.com> <003201bfcca7$2f402180$fa85fc3f@wilma> <3938ADDA.7ED9@wworld.com> <393A9556.4EA70D3D@sprynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Thanks Bart for pointing out my error.16x16=256?(typing tired)Any way my point is that the leap gets larger between leaps. It seems technologically humans have done more recently than in the past;does this apply to spiritual and evolution leaps also?Thoughts? Friends Scotty Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > scott holloman wrote: > > > > I can learn from others leasons.Saving time and suffering is > > noble.Evolution is intrinsic and quantam? > > 2x2=4 > > 4x4=16 > > 16x16=132 > > In order to save you time and suffering, may I point out that your > arithmetic needs a little work? > > Bart Lidofsky > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 4 22:40:12 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA22945 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 22:38:56 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000604214018.007bda70@mail.telusplanet.net> X-Sender: tlorentz@mail.telusplanet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 21:40:18 -0600 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: Todd Lorentz Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart In-Reply-To: <393B0B74.567191C7@mindspring.com> References: <2b.68766f0.266bddd4@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Hi Michele, >Actually, I was more curious as to >who went through the crowd to verify >that each and every one of the 6,000 >actually believed that the 'man in >white' working the crowd was the Maitreya of Benjamin Creme... No...the people recognised him as the Christ and were in tears and calling out his name "Jesus, Jesus!" Later, Benjamin Creme reported independently that that was Maitreya. Still later, many people from around the world continue to see this same man, identify Him in photos and say He is the Christ. Many of these people do not even know Benjamin Creme, or his story. And many time the people are not necessarily sure that it is the Christ. Some think it is the Imam Mahdi, some Krishne, etc.,.....and some just feel He was an extraordinary man. Todd -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 4 22:56:02 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA23985 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 22:44:44 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393B3F37.1567@wworld.com> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 22:48:40 -0700 From: scott holloman X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart References: <2b.68766f0.266bddd4@aol.com> <393B0B74.567191C7@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Of corse you have a good point.As with all humans we all have our own filters that give us our individual accounts of events.Who is to say that this event is accurate.So much has been written and re-written that some part of ego and prejudice has been applied however vigilant the author. Even in our time a spin is given on news stories and the like.Common sense and intuition probably need to be applied.Events this day arrive almost instantaniously therefore of corse the world seems an awful place.Atrocities have been happening for the length of our existence;they were perhaps not communicated to the rest of the world as quickly as today.The media perhaps focus on the dramatic and terrible because so many are stimulated by it,but I beleive there are many good,good things happening all the time that may be rather boring and uninteresting to the media except for "miracles"that may gain ratings.Acts of hate happen often ,but don't acts of kindness happen often also?Query:did the human heart invent religion?Is good and evil of our own invention? Friends,Scotty Michele Lidofsky wrote: > > MorganArts@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > As stated by Leon Maurer > > < > ignorant and superstitious crowds of people that probably made up the crowd > > of 6,000 in Nairobi. Ask any Christian missionary how easy it is to convert > > such people.>> > > Actually, I was more curious as to who went through the crowd to verify > that each and every one of the 6,000 actually believed that the 'man in > white' working the crowd was the Maitreya of Benjamin Creme... > > Michele L. > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 4 23:11:02 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA25784 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 22:56:35 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ Message-ID: <002001bfcea0$a936e6e0$b60bc5a9@azstarnet.com> From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" To: "Caldwell, Daniel H." Subject: Theos-World More items just added to the BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:46:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm More items have just been added to the archives: *** "Memorandum at End of HPB's Esoteric Instruction No. II" [This "Memorandum" by H.P.B. is to be found at the end of Esoteric Instruction No. II (in both the first [mimeograph] edition of 1889 and the second [printed] edition issued by the Aryan Press of New York in 1890. This "Memorandum" is missing from later editions of the Instructions, including the version published in Volume XII of H.P.B.'s Collected Writings.] *** "A.P. Sinnett's Deposition to the Society for Psychical Research." [Reprinted from an unpublished draft of the "First Report of the Committee of the Society for Psychical Research, Appointed to Investigate the Evidence for Marvellous Phenomena offered by Certain Members of the Theosophical Society" preserved in the Archives of the Society for Psychical Research, London.] *** "A Note from Mahatma Morya to A.P. Sinnett" Daniel H. Caldwell danielhcaldwell@hotmail.com BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 4 23:41:36 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA30895 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 23:31:00 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 00:27:26 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 101 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 6/4/00 10:37:51 PM Central Daylight Time, tlorentz@telusplanet.net writes: << Still later, many people from around the world continue to see this same man, identify Him in photos and say He is the Christ. Many of these people do not even know Benjamin Creme, or his story. And many time the people are not necessarily sure that it is the Christ. Some think it is the Imam Mahdi, some Krishne, etc.,.....and some just feel He was an extraordinary man. Todd >> And some of us find the photo manipulation to be incredibly poor, about the equivalent of bad 1950's ufo pics. Maitreya obviously needs a better computer system in that London flophouse he's hiding in when not pouring water on the heads of the faithful. One would think that with all the money Ben Creme is raking in on this scam he could find a better place for his prophet to live. But hell, at least now we know who P. T. Barnum reincarnated as because this Maitreya nonsense again proves the dictum, "There's one born every minute." Chuck the Disgusted Heretic -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 4 23:56:36 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA30873 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 4 Jun 2000 23:30:36 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <003701bfcea6$896a47c0$46fafe3f@wilma> From: "Govert W. Schuller" To: "Theosophy list" References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us><012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding><3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.3.32.20000531234313.026f7ae0@mail.eden.com> <003201bfcca7$2f402180$fa85fc3f@wilma> <3938AC86.7EFB@wworld.com> Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 23:28:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com ----- Original Message ----- From: scott holloman Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya > It seems that some how evolution has been forgotten.Human evolution > proceeds at an exponential rate ;that which has happened gathers speed > and momentum.Fire;Bronze ;industrial revolution;computers;space travel > as well as spiritual growth.I'am glad to witness it. Dear Scott, I do agree that spirituality is an evolutionary process that might sometimes go with leaps and bounds. For Krishnamurti though it is a fallacy to think along those lines. Govert -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 5 03:51:47 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id DAA18299 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 03:48:36 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 04:45:02 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/04/00 12:53:53 PM, MorganArts@aol.com writes: >As stated by Leon Maurer ><ignorant and superstitious crowds of people that probably made up the crowd >of 6,000 in Nairobi. Ask any Christian missionary how easy it is to convert >such people.>> > >Please remember that the first Fundamental Proposition in Theosophy is >Universal Brotherhood. Judgmentalism and slinging stereotypes based on >race or nation is not a way to find truth. > >In Peace, >Kate You're right. However, no "racial or national stereotyping" was intended. The remark (not a "statement") you quoted, although taken out of context, was modified by the word "probably" -- and was meant merely as a "wake up" or "warning" example of how people can be taken in, fooled or misled by any demagogues. Especially, if they, as a group, have an inherent biased position in favor of a particular religious or political belief, or cultural superstition. For another such example, remember Hitler and his influence over millions of "Christian" Germans, who fell in love with him and were converted to a new religion of "universal brotherhood" -- amongst "Aryans" alone -- with Adolph as their "savior"-- just like the "6,000" Nairobians fell in love with their imagined returned "Christ"... Or, was it an imposing actor dressed up to look like their idolic Jesus statues? Don't you think that falling for such obvious fallacies, and passively or emotionally accepting the mind control of a self proclaimed "savior" along with his hierarchy of sycophants -- who may have ulterior motives (no matter what they say they believe or are promoting) -- is a sign of fundamental "ignorance" (no matter how intellectually, religiously, or culturally educated one is)? This, so called "Maitreya," for instance, could just as well be the puppet of a "behind the scenes" controlling cabal who use him as a "front" for their nefarious schemes to takeover the world. It's wise for us to never forget the past -- unless, one day, we (with our liberty lost to a ruling religious and cultural dictatorship) may be saying, "why didn't we see that right from the beginning, and cut it off before it began?". My intent is simply to open peoples eyes (and minds) to these possibilities before they commit themselves to new demagogues who may use theosophical teachings, twisted to fit any specific religion and their ikons, as their starting base -- as Hitler did (and, even got the Pope to concord with him). "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" - Guatama Buddha and Jesus Christ (paraphrased by Thomas Jefferson) As for "Peace" (as the power structure or thier wannabees would give it to us, enforced by "policemen" and/or pseudo religious homilies and false theologies)... Without liberty, equality, and brotherhood, based on a true understanding of the truths of theosophy, the word "peace," like "law and order," has become a meaningless mantra justifying more and more individual and group separations, suppressions and oppressions. A good example of this "police state" mentality, supported by so called 'Christian principles" and "New World Order" "political correctness," that some of us "observers" see building up in New York City, as the gateway to America, and the cultural, economic, and governmental "model" of many other cities -- is a perfect sign of this trend toward curtailment of individual liberties that is slowly growing around us, and is being fueled by our misled or thoughtless acquiescence. Leon Maurer -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 5 08:05:06 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id IAA05748 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 08:01:24 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393A9E3A.EC7AB4A0@bmu.com.pe> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 13:21:46 -0500 From: ernesto X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [es] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya References: <68.419f512.26683a6c@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server: VPOP3 V1.3.4 - Registered to: Cyberline Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Teos9@aol.com escribió: > I have been watching Creme be wrong since the mid > 1980s. In a public address in Boston followed by a series of private > meetings, he stated his "predictions" and specifically named the time and > effects that the world would observe. One was the public appearance of > Maitreya and the ensuing acknowledgment of his arrival by the world press. No > such acknowledgment ever appeared. > Creme's > appearance on the television talk shows circuit with like announcements of > market crashes, grand alignment catastrophe's and further sightings of > Maitreya all proved to be insubstantial and inconclusive on the world scale > that he was talking about. Dear Louis: May be many members of this list are familiarized with the public adress of Boston that you mention. As that is not my case at all, I would ask you if you can guive us more details on the matter. How did Creme´s claims proved to be insubstantial and inconclusive? Do you say that Creme mentioned the time of Maitreya appearance? Where can I look for information about that public adress of Boston, if I don´t live in U.S.A.? Friendly, DAVID C. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 5 08:17:20 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id IAA05740 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 08:01:22 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393A9BD0.13F0081C@bmu.com.pe> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 13:11:28 -0500 From: ernesto X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [es] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World- On Proof of Maitreya and Sincerity References: <14.4698658.266a1ec3@aol.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;boundary="------------ABEED0C2E02114E203BDDE8D" X-Server: VPOP3 V1.3.4 - Registered to: Cyberline Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com --------------ABEED0C2E02114E203BDDE8D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Mr. Leon: You wrote: > How can we be sure that those 6,000 so called witnesses > actually experienced what a "reporter" states they did? How can we be sure > that the so called, respectable (because, well known, or an accepted > politician), is telling the truth? Or, that he was not experiencing a self > generated delusion? How can we be sure that the 6,000 people weren't mass > hypnotized, as many crowds have been who gave reports of seeing a fakir > disappear at the top of his rope -- as has happened innumerable times in > India? There is a photograph! So, hypnotism is out of a serious possibility. Of course, we must ask if the photo itself is a trick. But, what about the testimonies guiven to a reporter years after, that Todd sent us in a previous e-mail? Do they also lie? Hard to believe that there is like a complot of years made to maintain a lie, involucrating so many differente people ... the photografer, the reporter that went to Nairobi after years, the two different eyewitnesses. The topic of this discussion may certainly provoke scepticism. That is also my case. But I think that scepticism is a good tool for investigation, just if we don´t loose its place. If we were sceptic at all, would we be seriosuly interested in esoterism? Would we be seriously interested in reading, for example, The Mahatma Letters? Who can guive enough proofs of the existence and identity of the so called Masters of the White Broterhood, if the matter were discussed in a court? If we were sceptical at all, seriosusly, (as, by the way, Krishnamurti dangerously and innocently recommended for his non-method), wouldn´t we live in the jail of Descartes´solipsism? So, will we have to believe in Creme´s claims? I don´t mean that. Let´s investigate that patiently, that´s all. If that were true, it would be tremendous to the world. Would that make us wise?. The only conffirmation of the claim, of corse, not. But, woudn´t that put us in the Way of a Master? Is that not important? Why do we consider seriously, for example, the hyphotesis of the Seven Root Races? Because HPB thaught that? No. Because she said she learned it from the Masters. And, so, we consider seriously this theory, against ALL actual reputated antrophology and archeology . Certainly, the existence of man since 300,000 years or more, and even much, much, much before also in the previous Rond, is a dream of non sense from the scientific point of view. So, will we say, if we want to be honest with our positions, that finding a Masters is not important, very important ... and even more? Krishnamurti would say no, of course. But he could say that after he received a instruction. And if we take seriously his words, don´t we see that they leave us to the Descartes´solipsism? (Remember also Govert´s paper). But if we also think that K´s non method leave us to freedom ... is it not also a prejudice, a learned idea, the only one that can make us follow the non-method? Because if we really want to put away our mental ideas, as Krishnamurti emphatically and ingenually suggests (instead of understanding that ideas, a methaphysic, may be, for mental creatures as we are now, a instrumental and valuable, though transitorius tool), wouldn´t we be in the non-sense of existence experimented by Sartre? We don´t know personally the so called Masters (Koot Houmi, and others), but we feel that HPB´s are serious ideas to be considered. How much more important will be for us, then, to find, to know, a Master! So, Leon, I think that this topic of discussion IS important. DAVID C. --------------ABEED0C2E02114E203BDDE8D Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  
Dear Mr. Leon:

You wrote:
 

How can we be sure that those 6,000 so called witnesses
actually experienced what a "reporter" states they did?  How can we be sure
that the so called, respectable (because, well known, or an accepted
politician), is telling the truth?  Or, that he was not experiencing a self
generated delusion?  How can we be sure that the 6,000 people weren't mass
hypnotized, as many crowds have been who gave reports of seeing a fakir
disappear at the top of his rope -- as has happened innumerable times in
India?
There is a photograph!  So, hypnotism is out of a serious possibility.  Of course, we must ask if the photo itself is a trick.  But, what about the testimonies guiven to a reporter years after, that Todd sent us in a previous e-mail?

Do they also lie?  Hard to believe that there is like a complot of years made to maintain a lie, involucrating so many differente people ... the photografer, the reporter that went to Nairobi after years, the two different eyewitnesses.

The topic of this discussion may certainly provoke scepticism.  That is also my case.

But I think that scepticism is a good tool for investigation, just if we don´t loose its place.

If we were sceptic at all, would we be seriosuly interested in esoterism?  Would we be seriously interested in reading, for example, The Mahatma Letters? Who can guive enough proofs of the existence and identity of the so called Masters of the White Broterhood, if the matter were discussed in a court?

If we were sceptical at all, seriosusly, (as, by the way, Krishnamurti dangerously and innocently recommended for his non-method), wouldn´t we live in the jail of Descartes´solipsism?

So, will we have to believe in Creme´s claims?  I don´t mean that.  Let´s investigate that patiently, that´s all.  If that were true, it would be tremendous to the world.  Would that make us wise?.  The only conffirmation of the claim, of corse, not.  But, woudn´t that put us in the Way of a Master?  Is that not important?

Why do we consider seriously, for example, the hyphotesis of the Seven Root Races?  Because HPB thaught that?  No.  Because she said she learned it from the Masters.  And, so, we consider seriously this theory, against ALL actual reputated antrophology and archeology .  Certainly, the existence of man since 300,000 years or more, and even much, much, much before also in the previous Rond, is a dream of non sense from the scientific point of view.

So, will we say, if we want to be honest with our positions, that finding a Masters is not important, very important ... and even more?

Krishnamurti would say no, of course.  But he could say that after he received a instruction.  And if we take seriously his words, don´t we see that they leave us to the Descartes´solipsism?  (Remember also Govert´s paper).  But if we also think that K´s non method leave us to freedom ... is it not also a prejudice, a learned idea, the only one that can make us follow the non-method?

Because if we really want to put away our mental ideas, as Krishnamurti emphatically and ingenually suggests (instead of understanding that ideas, a methaphysic, may be, for mental creatures as we are now, a instrumental and valuable, though transitorius tool), wouldn´t we be in the non-sense of existence experimented by Sartre?

We don´t know personally the so called Masters (Koot Houmi, and others), but we feel that HPB´s are serious ideas to be considered.  How much more important will be for us, then, to find, to know, a Master!

So, Leon, I think that this topic of discussion IS important.

DAVID C.
  --------------ABEED0C2E02114E203BDDE8D-- -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 5 09:04:46 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id JAA12059 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 09:02:02 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <000201bfcf10$a982a100$954156d1@pavilion> From: "Barbara" To: Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:05:56 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com -----Original Message----- From: LeonMaurer@aol.com To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Date: Monday, June 05, 2000 1:48 AM Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart I rarely respond to these discussions (being a new member and not understanding a lot of what is said) but Leon answer reminded of the following saying: "You can peace or you can have liberty. Don't count on having both of them at the same time." Robert Heinlein. See you, Barbara > >Leon Maurer > > > >-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > >Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and >teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of >"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 5 11:03:19 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA28935 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:02:02 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393BC79D.D38F0E90@bmu.com.pe> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 10:30:37 -0500 From: ernesto X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [es] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Theos-World Re: On the Coming of Maitreya References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server: VPOP3 V1.3.4 - Registered to: Cyberline Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com LeonMaurer@aol.com escribió: > This, so called "Maitreya," for instance, could just as well be the puppet of > a "behind the scenes" controlling cabal who use him as a "front" for their > nefarious schemes to takeover the world. It's wise for us to never forget > the past -- unless, one day, we (with our liberty lost to a ruling religious > and cultural dictatorship) may be saying, "why didn't we see that right from > the beginning, and cut it off before it began?". > Dear Leon, Todd and others: These are interesting words, in a sense that I am almost sure that the same Leon did not want to mean. But, considering possibilities, for a serious studying of the matter (related to this Maitreya, the Mahatmas, and the New Age, too), if we want to have a complete figure of the possibilities it is very interesting to look at the following: 1. René Guénon´s book titled: (in Spanish) El Reino de la Cantidad y los Signos de los Tiempos (something like: The Kingdom of Quantity and The Signs of Time). He was a french studier, that become later teacher of the sufi Tradition, very hard critic of the New Age and critic about the identity and purposes of so called mahatmas. 2. Another position, completely different than Todd´s one about Maitreya, and also very diferent from Guénon´s position at surface (tough just deeply the same), is the Antroposophical position, based on Rudolf Steiner´s writings. We can find these position in: http://www.geocities.com/athens/sparta/1105/ahriman.htm and also in: http://www.team.com.pl/fenix/edition_1315/page04_e.html If we want to know the truth, we will have to know all the figure of positions about the matter we are looking for. The matter of the Maitreya COULD be one of the most important. Friendly, DAVID C. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 5 11:49:12 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA00396 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:34:03 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393A9BD0.13F0081C@bmu.com.pe> Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 13:11:28 -0500 From: ernesto X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [es] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World- On Proof of Maitreya and Sincerity References: <14.4698658.266a1ec3@aol.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;boundary="------------ABEED0C2E02114E203BDDE8D" X-Server: VPOP3 V1.3.4 - Registered to: Cyberline Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com --------------ABEED0C2E02114E203BDDE8D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear Mr. Leon: You wrote: > How can we be sure that those 6,000 so called witnesses > actually experienced what a "reporter" states they did? How can we be sure > that the so called, respectable (because, well known, or an accepted > politician), is telling the truth? Or, that he was not experiencing a self > generated delusion? How can we be sure that the 6,000 people weren't mass > hypnotized, as many crowds have been who gave reports of seeing a fakir > disappear at the top of his rope -- as has happened innumerable times in > India? There is a photograph! So, hypnotism is out of a serious possibility. Of course, we must ask if the photo itself is a trick. But, what about the testimonies guiven to a reporter years after, that Todd sent us in a previous e-mail? Do they also lie? Hard to believe that there is like a complot of years made to maintain a lie, involucrating so many differente people ... the photografer, the reporter that went to Nairobi after years, the two different eyewitnesses. The topic of this discussion may certainly provoke scepticism. That is also my case. But I think that scepticism is a good tool for investigation, just if we don´t loose its place. If we were sceptic at all, would we be seriosuly interested in esoterism? Would we be seriously interested in reading, for example, The Mahatma Letters? Who can guive enough proofs of the existence and identity of the so called Masters of the White Broterhood, if the matter were discussed in a court? If we were sceptical at all, seriosusly, (as, by the way, Krishnamurti dangerously and innocently recommended for his non-method), wouldn´t we live in the jail of Descartes´solipsism? So, will we have to believe in Creme´s claims? I don´t mean that. Let´s investigate that patiently, that´s all. If that were true, it would be tremendous to the world. Would that make us wise?. The only conffirmation of the claim, of corse, not. But, woudn´t that put us in the Way of a Master? Is that not important? Why do we consider seriously, for example, the hyphotesis of the Seven Root Races? Because HPB thaught that? No. Because she said she learned it from the Masters. And, so, we consider seriously this theory, against ALL actual reputated antrophology and archeology . Certainly, the existence of man since 300,000 years or more, and even much, much, much before also in the previous Rond, is a dream of non sense from the scientific point of view. So, will we say, if we want to be honest with our positions, that finding a Masters is not important, very important ... and even more? Krishnamurti would say no, of course. But he could say that after he received a instruction. And if we take seriously his words, don´t we see that they leave us to the Descartes´solipsism? (Remember also Govert´s paper). But if we also think that K´s non method leave us to freedom ... is it not also a prejudice, a learned idea, the only one that can make us follow the non-method? Because if we really want to put away our mental ideas, as Krishnamurti emphatically and ingenually suggests (instead of understanding that ideas, a methaphysic, may be, for mental creatures as we are now, a instrumental and valuable, though transitorius tool), wouldn´t we be in the non-sense of existence experimented by Sartre? We don´t know personally the so called Masters (Koot Houmi, and others), but we feel that HPB´s are serious ideas to be considered. How much more important will be for us, then, to find, to know, a Master! So, Leon, I think that this topic of discussion IS important. DAVID C. --------------ABEED0C2E02114E203BDDE8D Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  
Dear Mr. Leon:

You wrote:
 

How can we be sure that those 6,000 so called witnesses
actually experienced what a "reporter" states they did?  How can we be sure
that the so called, respectable (because, well known, or an accepted
politician), is telling the truth?  Or, that he was not experiencing a self
generated delusion?  How can we be sure that the 6,000 people weren't mass
hypnotized, as many crowds have been who gave reports of seeing a fakir
disappear at the top of his rope -- as has happened innumerable times in
India?
There is a photograph!  So, hypnotism is out of a serious possibility.  Of course, we must ask if the photo itself is a trick.  But, what about the testimonies guiven to a reporter years after, that Todd sent us in a previous e-mail?

Do they also lie?  Hard to believe that there is like a complot of years made to maintain a lie, involucrating so many differente people ... the photografer, the reporter that went to Nairobi after years, the two different eyewitnesses.

The topic of this discussion may certainly provoke scepticism.  That is also my case.

But I think that scepticism is a good tool for investigation, just if we don´t loose its place.

If we were sceptic at all, would we be seriosuly interested in esoterism?  Would we be seriously interested in reading, for example, The Mahatma Letters? Who can guive enough proofs of the existence and identity of the so called Masters of the White Broterhood, if the matter were discussed in a court?

If we were sceptical at all, seriosusly, (as, by the way, Krishnamurti dangerously and innocently recommended for his non-method), wouldn´t we live in the jail of Descartes´solipsism?

So, will we have to believe in Creme´s claims?  I don´t mean that.  Let´s investigate that patiently, that´s all.  If that were true, it would be tremendous to the world.  Would that make us wise?.  The only conffirmation of the claim, of corse, not.  But, woudn´t that put us in the Way of a Master?  Is that not important?

Why do we consider seriously, for example, the hyphotesis of the Seven Root Races?  Because HPB thaught that?  No.  Because she said she learned it from the Masters.  And, so, we consider seriously this theory, against ALL actual reputated antrophology and archeology .  Certainly, the existence of man since 300,000 years or more, and even much, much, much before also in the previous Rond, is a dream of non sense from the scientific point of view.

So, will we say, if we want to be honest with our positions, that finding a Masters is not important, very important ... and even more?

Krishnamurti would say no, of course.  But he could say that after he received a instruction.  And if we take seriously his words, don´t we see that they leave us to the Descartes´solipsism?  (Remember also Govert´s paper).  But if we also think that K´s non method leave us to freedom ... is it not also a prejudice, a learned idea, the only one that can make us follow the non-method?

Because if we really want to put away our mental ideas, as Krishnamurti emphatically and ingenually suggests (instead of understanding that ideas, a methaphysic, may be, for mental creatures as we are now, a instrumental and valuable, though transitorius tool), wouldn´t we be in the non-sense of existence experimented by Sartre?

We don´t know personally the so called Masters (Koot Houmi, and others), but we feel that HPB´s are serious ideas to be considered.  How much more important will be for us, then, to find, to know, a Master!

So, Leon, I think that this topic of discussion IS important.

DAVID C.
  --------------ABEED0C2E02114E203BDDE8D-- -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 5 11:56:36 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA01046 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:39:41 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393BD789.325DE48@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 12:38:33 -0400 From: Michele Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart References: <000201bfcf10$a982a100$954156d1@pavilion> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Barbara wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: LeonMaurer@aol.com > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Date: Monday, June 05, 2000 1:48 AM > Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart > "You can peace or you can have liberty. Don't count on having both of them > at the same time." > Robert Heinlein. > > See you, > > Barbara Absolutely agree with both Leon and Barbara. We must be wary of being lulled into some totalitarian, yet mindlessly peaceful police type state due to an easy to fall into error of misguided pacifism - whether it's due to one's conviction of Christian principles or the theosophical conviction that "we are all one". (I am reminded here of Annie Besant's referral to what she called "weak minded theosophists' who would refuse to fight even to retain their own liberty). Anyone who doesn't understand this is well advised to read dissident Soviet writer Yevgeny Zamyatin's classic dystopian novel, 'We', describing the regimented but blissfully peaceful life in a society ruled over by an all-powerful "Benefactor". There is a reason Russia suppressed it for sixty years. Michele L. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 5 14:42:26 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA29795 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:40:46 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393C01E9.885B6E6F@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 15:39:21 -0400 From: Michele Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart References: <000201bfcf10$a982a100$954156d1@pavilion> <393BD789.325DE48@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Friends - I forgot to delete Leon Maurer's heading from his original message when I sent in my reply to Barbara in this thread/ heading. In case there is any misunderstanding, the quote from Robert Heinlein was posted by Barbara, not Leon. Sorry! Michele L. Michele Lidofsky wrote: > > Barbara wrote: > > Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart > > > "You can peace or you can have liberty. Don't count on having both of them > > at the same time." > > Robert Heinlein. > > > > See you, > > > > Barbara > > Absolutely agree with both Leon and Barbara. We must be wary of being > lulled into some totalitarian, yet mindlessly peaceful police type state > due to an easy to fall into error of misguided pacifism - whether it's > due to one's conviction of Christian principles or the theosophical > conviction that "we are all one". (I am reminded here of Annie Besant's > referral to what she called "weak minded theosophists' who would refuse > to fight even to retain their own liberty). Anyone who doesn't > understand this is well advised to read dissident Soviet writer Yevgeny > Zamyatin's classic dystopian novel, 'We', describing the regimented > but blissfully peaceful life in a society ruled over by an all-powerful > "Benefactor". There is a reason Russia suppressed it for sixty years. > > Michele L. > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 5 21:04:30 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA09267 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 20:46:24 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393C57AA.7CB5EA28@sprynet.com> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 21:45:14 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart References: <2b.68766f0.266bddd4@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MorganArts@aol.com wrote: > As stated by Leon Maurer > < ignorant and superstitious crowds of people that probably made up the crowd > of 6,000 in Nairobi. Ask any Christian missionary how easy it is to convert > such people.>> > > Please remember that the first Fundamental Proposition in Theosophy is > Universal Brotherhood. No, it isn't. Nor, for that matter, is it the 1st Object of the Theosophical Society (although it is mentioned in the 1st Object). In any case, I would be interested in learning what you mean by Universal Brotherhood, and exactly how Leon's statement violated it (you gave a general idea, but it would be interesting to know specifically what your problem was). Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 5 21:24:08 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA10923 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 21:03:41 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393C5BB2.3C0471BD@sprynet.com> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:02:26 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World- On Proof of Maitreya and Sincerity References: <14.4698658.266a1ec3@aol.com> <393A9BD0.13F0081C@bmu.com.pe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com ernesto wrote: > > > How can we be sure that those 6,000 so called witnesses > > actually experienced what a "reporter" states they did? How can we > > be sure > > that the so called, respectable (because, well known, or an accepted > > > > politician), is telling the truth? Or, that he was not experiencing > > a self > > generated delusion? How can we be sure that the 6,000 people > > weren't mass > > hypnotized, as many crowds have been who gave reports of seeing a > > fakir > > disappear at the top of his rope -- as has happened innumerable > > times in > > India? > > There is a photograph! So, hypnotism is out of a serious > possibility. Of course, we must ask if the photo itself is a trick. There is a photo of a man in a crowd. That is all. There is an auto insurance company which uses that kind of evidence in its ads as a joke. Also, I have not seen an iota of evidence that the crowd all saw him (what was the crowd there for, in the first place?) or that they thought that he was anything other than another face in the crowd. > But, what about the testimonies guiven to a reporter years after, that > Todd sent us in a previous e-mail? > > Do they also lie? Hard to believe that there is like a complot of > years made to maintain a lie, involucrating so many differente people > ... the photografer, the reporter that went to Nairobi after years, > the two different eyewitnesses. Depends on how much they were paid, or how gullible they were. Look at all the people Uri Geller had fooled. > If we were sceptic at all, would we be seriosuly interested in > esoterism? Would we be seriously interested in reading, for example, > The Mahatma Letters? Who can guive enough proofs of the existence and > identity of the so called Masters of the White Broterhood, if the > matter were discussed in a court? What does one have to do with the other? The Mahatmas themselves said that it was up to us to judge the rightness and wrongness of what they wrote, and we were not to take what they said as true based on faith. > If we were sceptical at all, seriosusly, (as, by the way, Krishnamurti > dangerously and innocently recommended for his non-method), wouldn´t > we live in the jail of Descartes´solipsism? Nope. > Why do we consider seriously, for example, the hyphotesis of the Seven > Root Races? Because HPB thaught that? No. Because she said she > learned it from the Masters. Not me. And if that is true for you, you are going against what the Mahatmas themselves said. > And, so, we consider seriously this > theory, against ALL actual reputated antrophology and archeology . > Certainly, the existence of man since 300,000 years or more, and even > much, much, much before also in the previous Rond, is a dream of non > sense from the scientific point of view. Possibly. Or perhaps we are misinterpreting Blavatsky, the scientific evidence, or both. > So, will we say, if we want to be honest with our positions, that > finding a Masters is not important, very important ... and even more? That's pretty much the size of it. > Because if we really want to put away our mental ideas, as > Krishnamurti emphatically and ingenually suggests (instead of > understanding that ideas, a methaphysic, may be, for mental creatures > as we are now, a instrumental and valuable, though transitorius tool), > wouldn´t we be in the non-sense of existence experimented by Sartre? He also told us to put away our feelings first. If one tries to abandon the Budhi Manas without abandoning the Kama Manas, then one reverts back to 4th Root Race technology. Nothing terribly wrong with that, except that it's a case of been there, done that; evolutionarily speaking, a dead end. > We don´t know personally the so called Masters (Koot Houmi, and > others), but we feel that HPB´s are serious ideas to be considered. > How much more important will be for us, then, to find, to know, a > Master! Not terribly. Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 5 21:52:04 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA12810 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 21:21:52 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393C5FFB.47B68456@sprynet.com> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:20:43 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart References: <2b.68766f0.266bddd4@aol.com> <3.0.5.32.20000604214018.007bda70@mail.telusplanet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Todd Lorentz wrote: > > Hi Michele, > > >Actually, I was more curious as to > >who went through the crowd to verify > >that each and every one of the 6,000 > >actually believed that the 'man in > >white' working the crowd was the Maitreya of Benjamin Creme... > No...the people recognised him as the Christ and were in tears and > calling out his name "Jesus, Jesus!" > > Later, Benjamin Creme reported independently that that was Maitreya. Well, make up your mind. Was he Jesus, or Maitreya? Jesus, if he ever existed, was born 2000 years ago. The guy in the photo didn't look THAT old. He looked especially good for a dead guy. Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 5 22:08:38 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA15779 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 21:49:22 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393C666D.A42C1164@sprynet.com> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:48:13 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart References: <000201bfcf10$a982a100$954156d1@pavilion> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Barbara wrote: > I rarely respond to these discussions (being a new member and not > understanding a lot of what is said) but Leon answer reminded of the > following saying: > "You can peace or you can have liberty. Don't count on having both of > them at the same time." > Robert Heinlein. Who, in turn, took it from Ben Franklin's: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " --Historical Review of Pennsylvania. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 5 22:23:15 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA15695 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 21:48:34 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <007601bfcf61$1c3cfec0$a7e3fea9@livingroom> From: "Wayne Benge" To: Subject: Theos-World Maitreya appearance Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 21:42:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0073_01BFCF36.FFE75EC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0073_01BFCF36.FFE75EC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I am rather new to theosophy. I thought it was a compound word formed = from theos and philosophy. I then read Mrs. Bailey's unfinished = biography. From her, I have the impression that theosophy is the study = of God to the extent that we can understand, truth being somewhat = subjective and personal. She appears to ask the reader to judge truth = for himself. Is Maitreya a teacher? Does it signify a change in how God relates to = humanity? As I understand it, Jesus came to teach the reality of the = Jewish religion to the Jews, and Christianity was born. The reality was = taught to Jew and Gentile alike. God is there for anyone, just as = gravity is there for anyone. God has to be chosen, gravity does not. = The reality of God must exist for Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Jew, ... = etc. Is this true for Theosophy? Is this the meaning of Brotherhood? Catch you around, Wayne Benge ------=_NextPart_000_0073_01BFCF36.FFE75EC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,
 
I am rather new to theosophy.  I thought it was = a=20 compound word formed from theos and philosophy.  I then read Mrs. = Bailey's=20 unfinished biography.  From her, I have the impression that = theosophy is=20 the study of God to the extent that we can understand, truth being = somewhat=20 subjective and personal.  She appears to ask the reader to judge = truth for=20 himself.
 
Is Maitreya a teacher?  Does it signify a = change in how=20 God relates to humanity?  As I understand it, Jesus came to teach = the=20 reality of the Jewish religion to the Jews, and Christianity was = born.  The=20 reality was taught to Jew and Gentile alike.  God is there for = anyone, just=20 as gravity is there for anyone.  God has to be chosen, gravity does = not.  The reality of God must exist for Muslim, Buddhist, = Christian, Jew,=20 ... etc.
 
Is this true for Theosophy?  Is this the = meaning of=20 Brotherhood?
 
Catch you around,
 
Wayne Benge
------=_NextPart_000_0073_01BFCF36.FFE75EC0-- -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 5 23:32:18 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA27722 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:25:17 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000605222558.00794d90@mail.telusplanet.net> X-Sender: tlorentz@mail.telusplanet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:25:58 -0600 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: Todd Lorentz Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. In-Reply-To: <393C5FFB.47B68456@sprynet.com> References: <2b.68766f0.266bddd4@aol.com> <3.0.5.32.20000604214018.007bda70@mail.telusplanet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Bart, > Well, make up your mind. Was he Jesus, >or Maitreya? Jesus, if he ever >existed, was born 2000 years ago. The guy >in the photo didn't look THAT >old. He looked especially good for a dead guy. The gathering was a religious gathering of 6000 Christians. They recognized Him (IN THEIR HEARTS!!!) as Jesus (Christ). They weren't looking at the color of His skin or whatever. They knew it in their hearts and were proclaiming it. Later, Ben confirmed that the man, in fact, was Maitreya. And many stories since and after have corresponded to this, apart from Ben. The people in the crowd did not know Him as Maitreya, which is His personal name. They recognized him as Christ (or Jesus). People from other faiths have believed Him to be Krishna, or the Imam Mahdi or whatever is their representative. They see Him as their Divine Representative. I note a specific air of condescension in your letters Bart. If you're really not serious about it, or you feel you need to work your karma out on me, then I would prefer we just drop it and change the subject. It is sometimes difficult to contain all of the details of a story, that has stretched over 20 years, in the span of one or two e-mails. There will, of course, appear to be inconsistencies. It takes effort to search out all the details and get the full picture. It is true that this story *could* turn out to be a billion different "what-ifs". If you are simply bent on pouring out streams of suspicion and speculation without *really* looking into it then what is your point? Please save your energy. Todd -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 00:00:20 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA29305 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:39:43 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-ID: <28.6920630.266dd9b7@aol.com> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:36:07 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 101 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 6/5/00 10:56:45 PM Central Daylight Time, bartl@sprynet.com writes: << The guy in the photo didn't look THAT old. He looked especially good for a dead guy. Bart Lidofsky >> He'd have looked better if they had used a later version of Photoshop! Do these folks really expect us to take this nonsense seriously? Chuck the Extremely Disgusted Heretic -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 00:04:10 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA30718 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:54:30 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: MorganArts@aol.com Message-ID: <32.5fa1b6f.266ddd34@aol.com> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:51:00 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 102 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Bart, Thank you for clarifying the First Proposition of the Fundamentals. Let me first state that I welcomed and thank Leon for his thoughtful and clear response to my concern which I pasted below. I do not know the truth of Maitreya. Lacking any real unopinionated information, I wait for real information of proof or lack thereof . I understand everyone's concern about blindly following people or losing one's liberties and ability to form opinions and ideas. I in no way sanction the loss of freedom of speech or expression. However, I do think that a blanket statement about a group of people albeit prefaced with "probably" is not a way to the path of truth. After you have interviewed the people, gone through the statements and explored both sides, then I think you may ascertain the character of people. I don't believe any of us were in Nairobi in order to make any kind of judgment. I stated that I did research on the claims of archive material at CNN and found none. No one responded to this. Do these exist? Is there any statement of actual witnesses beyond Benjamin Creme? If not, perhaps we should move on to another topic until more information is unearthed. I agree that we do not want to be the "Germans" blindly following Hitler as stated below. However, neither do we want to take the route of oppressors by continuing stereotypes of people from a third world country as being "backward and superstitious". Blavatsky had stated we would not find the Path through analytical, self righteous thinking but would have to move beyond that. I am not proposing as "officer Jenny" would say-a " mindlessly peaceful police type state due to an easy to fall into error of misguided pacifism - whether it's due to one's conviction of Christian principles or the theosophical conviction that "we are all one". (I am reminded here of Annie Besant's referral to what she called "weak minded theosophists' who would refuse to fight even to retain their own liberty)." I do not believe it is weak minded theosophy to challenge statements that do not necessarily offer any real information but use opinion and damaging conjecture to make a point. I am not advocating a police state of any kind. Just to practice some ideas that were set forth by Blavatsky. Many on this list seem more about being right than exploring ideas. I would not have had a problem with the statement if it had simply explored the idea of the possibility of fakery by the supposed Maitreya and the following of such by a group of people. But to blatantly call people backwards, superstitious and ignorant without knowing any of them or giving them the honor of asking is to continue the very practices that create strife in this world. Do we remember McCarthy? Anyone who perhaps practiced a different idea of politics was called a Communist and blackballed? "Probably" was used very effectively in that case. I quote from Blavatsky in the "Key to Theosophy". "How little this principle of Universal Brotherhood is understood by the masses of mankind, how seldom its transcendent importance is recognised, may be seen in the diversity of opinion and fictitious interpretations regarding the Theosophical Society. This Society was organized on this one principle, the essential Brotherhood of Man, as herein briefly outlined and imperfectly set forth." Again, I thank Leon for his thoughtful response and have pasted it below. Kate from Leon: You're right. However, no "racial or national stereotyping" was intended. The remark (not a "statement") you quoted, although taken out of context, was modified by the word "probably" -- and was meant merely as a "wake up" or "warning" example of how people can be taken in, fooled or misled by any demagogues. Especially, if they, as a group, have an inherent biased position in favor of a particular religious or political belief, or cultural superstition. For another such example, remember Hitler and his influence over millions of "Christian" Germans, who fell in love with him and were converted to a new religion of "universal brotherhood" -- amongst "Aryans" alone -- with Adolph as their "savior"-- just like the "6,000" Nairobians fell in love with their imagined returned "Christ"... Or, was it an imposing actor dressed up to look like their idolic Jesus statues? Don't you think that falling for such obvious fallacies, and passively or emotionally accepting the mind control of a self proclaimed "savior" along with his hierarchy of sycophants -- who may have ulterior motives (no matter what they say they believe or are promoting) -- is a sign of fundamental "ignorance" (no matter how intellectually, religiously, or culturally educated one is)? This, so called "Maitreya," for instance, could just as well be the puppet of a "behind the scenes" controlling cabal who use him as a "front" for their nefarious schemes to takeover the world. It's wise for us to never forget the past -- unless, one day, we (with our liberty lost to a ruling religious and cultural dictatorship) may be saying, "why didn't we see that right from the beginning, and cut it off before it began?". My intent is simply to open peoples eyes (and minds) to these possibilities before they commit themselves to new demagogues who may use theosophical teachings, twisted to fit any specific religion and their ikons, as their starting base -- as Hitler did (and, even got the Pope to concord with him). "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" - Guatama Buddha and Jesus Christ (paraphrased by Thomas Jefferson) As for "Peace" (as the power structure or thier wannabees would give it to us, enforced by "policemen" and/or pseudo religious homilies and false theologies)... Without liberty, equality, and brotherhood, based on a true understanding of the truths of theosophy, the word "peace," like "law and order," has become a meaningless mantra justifying more and more individual and group separations, suppressions and oppressions. A good example of this "police state" mentality, supported by so called 'Christian principles" and "New World Order" "political correctness," that some of us "observers" see building up in New York City, as the gateway to America, and the cultural, economic, and governmental "model" of many other cities -- is a perfect sign of this trend toward curtailment of individual liberties that is slowly growing around us, and is being fueled by our misled or thoughtless acquiescence. Leon Maurer -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 01:34:11 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id BAA08191 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 01:08:07 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000606000439.007a0a60@mail.telusplanet.net> X-Sender: tlorentz@mail.telusplanet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 00:04:39 -0600 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: Todd Lorentz Subject: Re: Theos-World Maitreya appearance In-Reply-To: <007601bfcf61$1c3cfec0$a7e3fea9@livingroom> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Hi Wayne, >Is Maitreya a teacher? Yes, in the truest sense of the word I think. There has been a very strong urge against accumulating any followers. In fact, Maitreya has stated openly that if you try to "follow" Him (as in "give blind allegence") you would loose Him. At any rate, He states a major part of His mission as coming to teach the Art of Self Realization, and that it is the personal experience of the "Self" that matters very much. If you get that, then all other problems in the woprld have the potential to be solved. All else comes follows from knowing and experiencing that we are not separate. In fact, any "sin" that one could imagine in the human being steps from the one major "sin of separation". From that one belief - that we are separate from each other and nature - all other distortions or sins arise in the human personality. >Does it signify a change in how God >relates to humanity? As I understand it, >Jesus came to teach the reality of the >Jewish religion to the Jews, and Christianity >was born. The reality was taught to Jew and >Gentile alike. God is there for anyone, just >as gravity is there for anyone. God has to be >chosen, gravity does not. The reality of God >must exist for Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Jew, ... etc. Maitreya's message is much the same. I would say that Jesus came for humanity, although the Christians have made Him "their boy", so to speak. He does not belong to the Christians exclusively, in the same way that the Buddha does not belong to the Buddhists exclusively, nor Krishna to the Hindus. At every Age, a new teacher comes to deliver a new dispensation to humanity, a next step or deeper insight in the nature of divinity, etc. Past teachers include Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Hermes, Vyasa, etc, etc. Each teacher brings a new insight or new perspective on reality, but they are all a part of the one Spiritual Hierarchy that guides our planet. Blavatsky and Bailey would certainly be initiates in that Hierarchy and had specifics parts in the Plan. Maitreya represents the next step in that ongoing revelation so, in some ways, it's "business as usual". There are differences, however, in that this time the Hierarchy is in the process of externalization. That is they will slowly and progressively work outwardly in the world, in full view, guiding the nations with wise counsel. It will be up to humanity to choose to accept this guidance or not (free will) and it is up to humanity to put into action the recommendations put forth by the Hierarchy to "salvage" the present world degradations. Without humanity's willing cooperation, naught can be done. So this also represent a bit of a new method of work for the Hierarchy and Humanity in that they will be openly working together. The relationship that has been esoteric will become exoteric. This certainly symbolizes that humanity has reached a stage, as a world disciple, wherein there is some "contact" with the world soul (represented by the Hierarchy). This will certainly inaugurate an experience of "Brotherhood" for humanity which has until now been lacking in general. This is a great achievement for humanity, although there will be greater levels of this to understand and express in the future. For example, for the Hierarchy this represents the expression of "Group Work" and a demonstration of Brotherhood at such a synthetic level that we cannot fathom. This is a part of their evolutionary journey as well as ours. Todd -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 01:36:00 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id BAA10174 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 01:24:26 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393C98D3.CC506834@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 02:23:15 -0400 From: Michele Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. References: <2b.68766f0.266bddd4@aol.com> <3.0.5.32.20000604214018.007bda70@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.5.32.20000605222558.00794d90@mail.telusplanet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Todd Lorentz wrote: > I note a specific air of condescension in your letters Bart. Dear Todd, you are really quite ingenuous. It is true that this story > *could* turn out to be a billion different "what-ifs". If you are simply > bent on pouring out streams of suspicion and speculation without *really* > looking into it then what is your point? Please save your energy. You know, I think you are right. And that goes for many of us. Michele L. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 02:12:41 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id CAA15509 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 02:03:46 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393CA20C.2E15E1A8@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 03:02:36 -0400 From: Michele Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Let's Remember the Heart References: <32.5fa1b6f.266ddd34@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MorganArts@aol.com wrote: > I am not advocating a police state of any kind. I know you're not. And I think you took some of my statements out of context, too - they were quite unrelated to your concerns about stereotyping groups of people. They were a completely independent statement of agreement with some other comments posted by Leon and Barbara regarding a peripheral issue that had come up about the current political scene. (At least, as I understood it...) :} Sincerely, Michele L. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 04:43:48 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id EAA29512 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 04:29:24 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Peter Merriott" To: Subject: Theos-World Universal Brotherhood and Objects of the TS Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:26:13 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <393C57AA.7CB5EA28@sprynet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Leon wrote: > > Please remember that the first Fundamental Proposition in Theosophy is > > Universal Brotherhood. Bart replied: > No, it isn't. Nor, for that matter, is it the 1st Object of the > Theosophical Society (although it is mentioned in the 1st Object). Below is an extract from a paper by HPB written in 1886, called the "Original Programme" Manuscript. HPB begins that paper by stating: "In order to leave no room for equivocation, the members of the T.S. have to be reminded of the origin of the Society in 1875. Sent to the U.S. of America in 1873 for the purpose of organising a group of workers on the psychic plane, two years later the writer received orders from her Master and Teacher to form the nucleus of a regular Society whose objects were broadly stated as follows: 1. Universal Brotherhood; 2. No Distinction to be made by any member between the races, creeds, or social positions, but every member had to be judged and dealt by on his personal merits; 3. To study the philosophies of the East - those of India chiefly, presenting them gradually to the public in various works that would interpret exoteric religions in the light of esoteric teachings; 4. To oppose materialism and theological dogmatism in every possible way, by demonstrating the existence of occult forces unknown to science, in nature, and the presence of psychic and spiritual powers in man; trying at the same time to enlarge the views of Spiritualists by showing them that there are other, many other agencies at work in the production of the phenomena besides the "Spirits" of the dead. Superstition had to be exposed and avoided; occult forces, BENEFICENT AND MALEFICENT - ever surrounding us and manifesting their presence in various ways - demonstrated to the best of our ability. H.P.Blavatsky Corres. Secty T.S. Ostende, Oct 3rd 1886" [The full manuscript can be found in Collected Writings, Vol VII, pp 145-171: words in caps were italicised in original] -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 07:16:53 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id HAA12821 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 07:09:51 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-ID: <1e.62e899d.266e4351@aol.com> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 08:06:41 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 101 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 6/6/00 12:33:32 AM Central Daylight Time, tlorentz@telusplanet.net writes: << The gathering was a religious gathering of 6000 Christians. They recognized Him (IN THEIR HEARTS!!!) as Jesus (Christ). They weren't looking at the color of His skin or whatever. They knew it in their hearts and were proclaiming it. >> Well, they sure didn't know it in their heads! Chuck the Disgusted Heretic -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 07:48:31 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id HAA15355 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 07:41:14 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rdon@mail.garlic.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <007601bfcf61$1c3cfec0$a7e3fea9@livingroom> References: <007601bfcf61$1c3cfec0$a7e3fea9@livingroom> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 05:38:06 -0700 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: Rodolfo Don Subject: Re: Theos-World Maitreya appearance Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1251827401==_ma============" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com --============_-1251827401==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Wayne, Theosophy is the "wisdom possessed by the gods." The 'God' of the theologians is no more than a belief, it has no reality. Truth is that which is. It has nothing to do with what we belief. Maitreya is not a person, just like Christ is not a person either. It is GOODNESS incarnated and also TRUTH. Why can't we treat this subject with the respect that it deserves is beyond my understanding. Rodolfo Don >Hello, > >I am rather new to theosophy. I thought it was a compound word >formed from theos and philosophy. I then read Mrs. Bailey's >unfinished biography. From her, I have the impression that >theosophy is the study of God to the extent that we can understand, >truth being somewhat subjective and personal. She appears to ask >the reader to judge truth for himself. > >Is Maitreya a teacher? Does it signify a change in how God relates >to humanity? As I understand it, Jesus came to teach the reality of >the Jewish religion to the Jews, and Christianity was born. The >reality was taught to Jew and Gentile alike. God is there for >anyone, just as gravity is there for anyone. God has to be chosen, >gravity does not. The reality of God must exist for Muslim, >Buddhist, Christian, Jew, ... etc. > >Is this true for Theosophy? Is this the meaning of Brotherhood? > >Catch you around, > >Wayne Benge --============_-1251827401==_ma============ Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Wayne, Theosophy is the "wisdom possessed by the gods." The 'God' of the theologians is no more than a belief, it has no reality. Truth is that which is. It has nothing to do with what we belief. Maitreya is not a person, just like Christ is not a person either. It is GOODNESS incarnated and also TRUTH. Why can't we treat this subject with the respect that it deserves is beyond my understanding. Rodolfo Don Hello, I am rather new to theosophy. I thought it was a compound word formed from theos and philosophy. I then read Mrs. Bailey's unfinished biography. From her, I have the impression that theosophy is the study of God to the extent that we can understand, truth being somewhat subjective and personal. She appears to ask the reader to judge truth for himself. Is Maitreya a teacher? Does it signify a change in how God relates to humanity? As I understand it, Jesus came to teach the reality of the Jewish religion to the Jews, and Christianity was born. The reality was taught to Jew and Gentile alike. God is there for anyone, just as gravity is there for anyone. God has to be chosen, gravity does not. The reality of God must exist for Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Jew, ... etc. Is this true for Theosophy? Is this the meaning of Brotherhood? Catch you around, Wayne Benge --============_-1251827401==_ma============-- -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 11:21:20 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA13203 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:20:33 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <003101bfcfd2$d802b0c0$fef8fe3f@wilma> From: "Govert W. Schuller" To: "Theosophy list" References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us><012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding><3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net><3935A569.F928451D@bmu.com.pe> <3.0.5.32.20000603001619.0086eb80@mail.telusplanet.net> Subject: Re: Theos-World- On Proof of Maitreya and Sincerity Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:18:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > >DAVID: "I think that, the obvious disctintion between the two > >Maitreyas, requires some kind of proof from Govert, too. Or at least, some > >commentary." > > > >GOVERT: My belief that the real Maitreya communicated through David Anrias is > >based on the following intricately connected factors: > > > >1) Cyril Scott presented Anrias as a genuine contact with the Masters. > >2) Based on his 'Initiate' books and his book on music I consider Scott > himself etc.etc. DAVID: > But these aren't really proofs......are they? If I might say, they appear > to be conjecture, heresay, speculation and, at most, an educated guess > based upon, perhaps, intuition. It can be as easily dimissed as what *I* > have offered as my "opinion" about the externalization of Maitreya and the > Hierarchy at this time according to Benjamin Creme. GOVERT: You are right. All these considerations are justifications for a certain theosophical theology. They should maybe be named 'subjective proofs.' That's how I experience the little tidbits here and there that I find and which seem to fit neatly into, and sometimes even strengthen, my belief. It's certainly not all facts and evidence, as Aryel claims for his position. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 11:49:17 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA15969 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:37:07 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <003901bfcfd5$28134b40$fef8fe3f@wilma> From: "Govert W. Schuller" To: "Theosophy list" , "Thoesophy Activists List" References: Subject: Theos-World Re: method? Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:34:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com ----- Original Message ----- From: katinka hesselink Subject: method? > Dear Govert, > > The problem with the scientific method is that it the > scientific method is not the only thing scientists do. > What people call the scientific method is an > approximation of what scientists in general do. But > when someone is involved in really looking through a > microscope and observing, then that has nothing to do > with forming a hypothesis, drawing conclusions and > then testing the conclusions. There is a magic to > science as much as there is a magic to art. It may be > that a lot of art is done by way of a method, still, > real art starts somewhere else. In the same way: a lot > of science may be done by the scientific method, but > the real breakthroughs and therefore the really > original scientists, have something extra, even if > their actions may look like the scientific method - > from the outside and especially in hindsight. > > The same probably goes for Krishnamurti - what he > describes does look - from the outside (and to me, > when I am not *in the mood*) - like a method, but > there > is that something else, and that something else is the > important issue, not the method. Dear Katinka, I agree that there is more to K than just method. The element of magic and art are indeed there. Aryel makes the argument that there is no method at all involved in what K is advocating and doing. I' m saying K does follow certain steps which I recognize from both science and phenomenology. In the same way phenomenology is neither just a method, but has its own art and magic as well. So far I can see three important elements involved in both science, K and phenomenology: 1) A changed or transformed attitude or intention towards the world. a) Science saying 'let's look only at those phenomena of the world which we can clasify, explain, measure, experiment with etc.' b) K saying 'let's look very carefully at what is' c) and phenomenology saying 'let's suspend our belief in the existence of the world and only look at what is given directly to consciousness and how consciousness is aware of what is given.' 2) A method of investigation. a) Science doing its clasifying, explaining, measuring, experimenting etc. b) K describing his 'what is' as he finds it. c) Phenomenology applying its different 'suspensions' and 'reductions' after which it also tries to faithfully describe its found structures and essences. 3) The art-element of it a) Science being a very creative process in its effort to see connections, formulate theories, devise experiments and experimental equipment, quantify its findings, etc. (The creativity meant here has nothing to do with the metaphysical question whether scienctific laws are human constructs or discoveries of truths already there.) b) K explicitly refering to the art of listening and questioning. Also, and I deduce this from his philosophy, everytime K says something it's new to him, for he claims to be in a state of consciousness where he is one with the universal process of creation. c) Husserl's Phenomenology was so fruitfull and inspiring that it created a whole new philosophical movement, to which belong many very original and creative thinkers. Husserl might indeed have opened an infinite field of investigation, as he himself and others claim. Govert -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 13:33:34 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id NAA06744 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:20:19 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393D3D5E.E7EDFEB7@bmu.com.pe> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:05:19 -0500 From: ernesto X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [es] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World- On Proof of Maitreya and Sincerity References: <001d01bfc0e5$e24a57f0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us><012e01bfc29a$83d83500$a5de603e@ringding><3.0.5.32.20000524022353.00795c30@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000525111652.007dd100@mail.telusplanet.net><3.0.5.32.20000531015831.008307c0@mail.telusplanet.net><3935A569.F928451D@bmu.com.pe> <3.0.5.32.20000603001619.0086eb80@mail.telusplanet.net> <003101bfcfd2$d802b0c0$fef8fe3f@wilma> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server: VPOP3 V1.3.4 - Registered to: Cyberline Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Govert: I did not write "But these aren´t really proffs ..." and the following. Todd wrote that. > GOVERT:: It's certainly not all facts and > evidence, as Aryel claims for his position. > Bytheway, I think that FACTS and EVIDENCE, as Aryel desires, are inevitably under the own preconceptions, except in the sciences of no-world (I mean, the sciences of pure construccions, like mathematics and logic). And, we must remember, this is a "fact" known since many decades in philosophy of social sciences (Heidegger and Hermeneutics). Ingenuous positivism (like Comte´s vision of social sciences) has been abandoned since much years, and it is necessary that we remember this, when we have discussions about facts, because I feel that the continuous claim for facts and evidence in this list, may be misunderstood, and may be an indication that we are beeing enough pretentious and proud to think that we have inevitably the truth. Facts have their place in discussions. But they may be interpreted in different manners. In a discussion, knowing that, we must have proofs of relevant facts, AND rational argumentations about how we interprete the facts. DAVID C. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 15:56:45 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id PAA31632 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:50:43 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Peter Merriott" To: Subject: RE: Theos-World Re: method? Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:46:46 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <003901bfcfd5$28134b40$fef8fe3f@wilma> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Govert, Thanks for your thoughts here, and also recently, on Phenomenology. I agree with much of what you say on this and would like to add a few observations of my own. But first a quick thought on Krishnamurti. I have heard him speak and I've also read and reflected deeply on almost all of his published talks and Notebooks. I would say there is a recognisable 'method' in the way he goes about his explorations with those who meet with him whether as a group and/or on a 'one to one' basis. And it would be fair to say that Krishnamurti invariably reaches the same 'conclusions' (if one dare use that word with regards to him!) and restates the same principles over and over again. However, whether there is a "methodology" in his own direct approach to "What is" only he can say. With regards Phenomenology, which has developed in all kinds of directions since Husserl's time, there are indeed many similarities to Krishnamurti's approach. I would add that there are also some differences, to be fair. I'm not sure, for example, that Krishnamurti would have been interested in carrying out a full Textural and Structural Analysis of interviews carried out with research participants on a particular 'experiential' topic. I am a lifelong (well, so far!) student of HPB, I also have a background in Transpersonal Psychology and Psychotherapy and have carried out a small number of Phenomenological Research projects into 'transpersonal' (mainly mystical) experiences. I prefer to say that I have used a Phenemenological *approach* to exploring such experiences and 'states'. I say "approach" rather than "method", for the methodology is really only a part of something much larger. And of course, the state of mind and awareness one brings to such explorations is also important. For even in the methodological analysis, which comes later on in the research, one needs to intuitively-reflectively enter into the material in order to bring out a synthesis of meanings and essences of the experience under study. Interestingly, when using this approach with research participants, people invariably find themselves accessing the very states of consciousness they are describing as the descriptive words tend to become merely 'pointers' to the underlying moment to moment experience that emerges. Invariably new meanings and 'essences' arise for the research participants in a way that 'meaning' itself may become something that is 'felt', 'sensed' 'experienced' as having a 'fabric' and substance of its own that trancends the words and ideas used, and which brings about its own transformation. This seems to be the case whether one is looking at so called negative or so called positive experiences. As a psychotherapist working with a Transpersonal (spiritual) perspective, I also use this approach (phenomenological) to explore the difficulties, blocks, sufferings and joys that people bring along as part of their story. Once again I find it is an approach that brings transformation as it allows (paradoxically) people to both 'enter into' and to 'step back' from their moment to moment experience. I wont say any more about this as it is not the right forum, but for me this seems to touch upon and reflect, to one degree or another, our essential nature - namely the SELF. For paradoxically the SELF is both *in* everything and yet *transcends* everything, like the ONE circle of the symbol whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. I would add that whether it is in the therapeutic or the research setting, whatever transformation that may occur it is not something that can be *made* to happen, and when it does it is often surprising and unexpected, 'something' the personal ego would not have imagined or anticipated. And it is something that affects, though to different extents, both parties ie therapist and person sharing, or, researcher and research-participant. There are many other aspects of this approach some of which I have not mentioned as you have already touched upon them. Hope the above adds something useful. ...Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Govert W. Schuller > Sent: 06 June 2000 17:35 > To: Theosophy list; Thoesophy Activists List > Subject: Theos-World Re: method? > Dear Katinka, > > I agree that there is more to K than just method. The element of > magic and art > are indeed there. Aryel makes the argument that there is no method at all > involved in what K is advocating and doing. I' m saying K does > follow certain > steps which I recognize from both science and phenomenology. In > the same way > phenomenology is neither just a method, but has its own art and > magic as well. > So far I can see three important elements involved in both science, K and > phenomenology: > > Govert -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 18:50:21 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA20151 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:39:33 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 19:35:45 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/06/00 1:33:32 AM, tlorentz@telusplanet.net writes: >Bart, > >> Well, make up your mind. Was he Jesus, >>or Maitreya? Jesus, if he ever >>existed, was born 2000 years ago. The guy >>in the photo didn't look THAT >>old. He looked especially good for a dead guy. > >The gathering was a religious gathering of 6000 Christians. They >recognized Him (IN THEIR HEARTS!!!) as Jesus (Christ). They weren't >looking at the color of His skin or whatever. They knew it in their hearts >and were proclaiming it. I think that Bart makes a very good point. If recognizing Jesus "in their hearts" by devout, blind believing Christians (which is what that "religion" has been preaching without any foundation, other than hearsay, for thousands of years) is any sort of "evidence" that either Jesus ever existed, that he will or can return "in the flesh", or that the "character who showed up at their meeting is anything more than a charlatan, is very poor evidence indeed, and does not belong in a forum of theosophists... Who are taught to test every metaphysical or religious idea for themselves... The complete antithesis of what is preached by this and many other "organized" religions. There are at least two things a true theosophist cannot be... One is a worshipper of any God, figurehead or authority... Another, is a member of any religion that denies the validity or the rule of karma and the doctrine of reincarnation (coupled with individual, self determined choice, based on self devised study) as determiners of the fates or destinies of all sentient beings... (Thus, totally denying any sort of personal "God" or "Savior" as intermediary.) > >Later, Ben confirmed that the man, in fact, was Maitreya. And many stories >since and after have corresponded to this, apart from Ben. The people in >the crowd did not know Him as Maitreya, which is His personal name. They >recognized him as Christ (or Jesus). People from other faiths have >believed Him to be Krishna, or the Imam Mahdi or whatever is their >representative. They see Him as their Divine Representative. Good for them -- if that's what they want to believe. But even more reason to be suspicious of the motives of both Creme and Maitreya. What has this crowd's "organized" and probably brain washed religious belief, based on pure emotion and mob psychology, as well as the "charisma" of the so called "Christ" figure who appeared before them (and fulfilled their pre conceived expectations) -- got to do with to do with "truth" or acceptance of such a belief by theosophists? Who, are taught that such blind and irrational gullibility is completely wrong and dangerous, as well as the easy to use tools of those clever ones who seek to prey on, dominate and/or control masses of people for their own ends. Even if those ends were in exact conformance with theosophical principles, such methods would still be wrong, and in violation of theosophical principles of noninterference. That is why the Masters have repeatedly told us that they cannot take part directly in human affairs. Even Jesus (if he existed as reported) -- as a Hebrew Rebbe, could never have imagined forming a separate, organized religion -- especially, around himself as its figurehead. > >I note a specific air of condescension in your letters Bart. If you're >really not serious about it, or you feel you need to work your karma out >on me, then I would prefer we just drop it and change the subject. I can't speak for Bart... But, I think you should drop this subject. For one reason -- that this is not a forum to discuss or proselytize any of the beliefs or practices of Christianity -- whose record of conformance to any of the objects of the theosophical movement, or to the understanding of the true nature of reality and the fundamental principles underlying karma and reincarnation, is very poor indeed. This insistence on promoting characters such a Creme and his belief in the return of the Christ, Mahdi, Maitreya, or Messiah, appears to be just another attempt to Christianize, Islamize, Hinduize or Hebrewize Theosophy. If you are a tool or mouthpiece of such untheosophical actions, you might as well stop talking about it on this forum, or bear the brunt of at least my counter arguments -- if not Bart's (whose comments, along with mine, might appear to you as condescension -- but certainly is not from my point of view). When we hear either Creme or his Maitreya side kick begin to teach theosophical truths to their Christian followers, and compare their words with the political agendas of their close associates and promoters, we can then judge whether or not Maitreya is a real representative or agent of the "Masters," a Master or Adept himself -- or a complete charlatan. In any event, we can only recognize them by their fruits. And, so far, the fruits of these characters are pretty meager... No better than gratuitous platitudes, in fact... And, highly conducive to the wary presumption by open minded theosophists that they may be charlatans or "fakirs" -- as many similar, self proclaimed "descended Masters" have most likely been before them, or now appearing along with them. > >It is sometimes difficult to contain all of the details of a story, that >has stretched over 20 years, in the span of one or two e-mails. There >will, of course, appear to be inconsistencies. It takes effort to search >out all the details and get the full picture. It is true that this story >*could* turn out to be a billion different "what-ifs". If you are simply >bent on pouring out streams of suspicion and speculation without *really* >looking into it then what is your point? Please save your energy. Better, if you save your own energy. Theosophy has been around for over a hundred years, and as yet, no one has found any inconsistencies in the original teachings. Real theosophists can have nothing but suspicion about the validity of any and all appearances of so called "Masters" -- and are enjoined by their teachers, as well as by the nature of theosophy itself, to seriously question the credibility of any claimants who profess to speak for the Masters -- including all self proclaimed "channelers", "avatars," and "gurus," from Leadbeater, Bailey and Profit, to krishnamurti, Rajneesh and Mahesh Yogi, even as far out as L Ron Hubbard, and others like them -- who either form their own religions, or attempt to twist the followers of others to their own points of view for various personal reasons -- well intentioned or otherwise. Even HPB tells us to question, from the point of view of skepticism and agnosticism, "everything" that she teaches us -- and then form our own convictions about what is true and what is not. With this in mind, let each of us go about our own individual search for truth and the seeking of our own Master -- "within the sanctuary of our own hearts and minds" -- and with resort to no vicarious atonement or guidance from living teachers, except from those who, being more advanced than ourselves along the path, can help direct us individually through its intricate windings, and warn us of the dangers along the practical "meditative" route leading to adeptship and ultimate enlightenment. Best wishes, and "May good karma be all our desserts." LHM -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 21:06:10 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA05488 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:53:48 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393E7EF7.BEB980A6@netvigator.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 09:57:27 -0700 From: tryde X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Theos-World a site to visit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Hi everybody, A few weeks ago, I got below site from a friend. By visiting the site every day, one can help feed somebody in need and also help to save the rainforest, it feels great to help even in a small way...so, please spend 6 clicks (of your mouse)a day at this site. The 6 clicks are: 1st click: on the web address in your Personal Toolbar Folder (where you might save the address) 2nd click: on the "donate food" icon. You do not pay anything (the sponsors of the site do) 3rd Click: on the back button: to go back to the main page of "thehungersite". 4th Click: on the Rainforest icon at the top of the page,then... 5th Click: on the donate land-free icon... Again, you don't have to pay anything.. the sponsors of the site do... 6th Click: to leave the site..... The Site is: http://www.thehungersite.com The sponsors of the site accept one donation per day from everybody and anybody...So please spend a few minutes a day when you switch on your computer and help others. Regards. Peter Tryde -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 21:16:10 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA05848 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:56:06 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393DAB68.48BC4839@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 21:54:48 -0400 From: Michele Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > There are at least two things a true theosophist cannot be... One is a > worshipper of any God, figurehead or authority... Another, is a member of any > religion that denies the validity or the rule of karma and the doctrine of > reincarnation (coupled with individual, self determined choice, based on self > devised study) as determiners of the fates or destinies of all sentient > beings... Hello, everyone - I have a question I would like to present to the group... About a year or two ago I was very surprised to hear a highly knowledgeable theosophical author mention that HPB taught that not EVERYBODY will reincarnate. Upon expressing my skepticism, s/he referred me to this quote in 'The Key to Theosophy'- (TUP 1987 pp. 190-191) "If during life the ultimate and desperate effort of the INNER SELF (Manas) ,to unite something of the personality with itself and the high glimmering ray of the divine Buddhi is thwarted; if this ray is allowed to be more and more shut out from the ever-thickening crust of physical brain, the Spiritual Ego or Manas, once freed from the body, remains severed entirely from the ethereal relic of the personality; and the latter, or KAMA RUPA, following its earthly attractions. is drawn into and remains in HADES, which we call the KAMA-LOKA. These are "the withered branches" mentioned by Jesus as being cut off from the VINE. Annihilation, however, is never instantaneous, and may require centuries sometimes for its accomplishment..." In other words - if there is never an effort made or succeeded to "create a soul" - when the body dies; that's it - because there would be nothing left after that body is gone TO reincarnate. I was still a disbeliever. My friend remarked that this was a result of erroneous theosophical thinking; I needed to consider, since there is really only ONE THING, it doesn't matter if many of the 'sparks' from the flame die, because the one flame remains alive. I later read another HPB quote somewhere in the literature that the masses, as peasants on the hillside, mostly live happy, even good and decent lives, but because unexamined and unenlightened, these masses are mostly annihilated. (This quote I will have to research to supply the reference for; has anyone else ever seen it)? Has anybody ever heard of this idea as a basic theosophical postulate? As a CONTROVERSIAL theosophical postulate, even? Or is this just the accepted wisdom? The members of our group of ten or twelve in our TS lodge couldn't agree. (So what else is new...) I'd appreciate any input on this question, and thanks in advance! Michele L. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 21:31:20 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA10176 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:27:48 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393DB2DB.EE10C18C@sprynet.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 22:26:35 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. References: <2b.68766f0.266bddd4@aol.com> <3.0.5.32.20000604214018.007bda70@mail.telusplanet.net> <3.0.5.32.20000605222558.00794d90@mail.telusplanet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Todd Lorentz wrote: > > Well, make up your mind. Was he Jesus, > >or Maitreya? Jesus, if he ever > >existed, was born 2000 years ago. The guy > >in the photo didn't look THAT > >old. He looked especially good for a dead guy. > > The gathering was a religious gathering of 6000 Christians. They > recognized Him (IN THEIR HEARTS!!!) as Jesus (Christ). They weren't > looking at the color of His skin or whatever. They knew it in their > hearts and were proclaiming it. Are you saying that they were acting through their emotions, through kama manas? We are in the 5th Root Race, not the 4th. We have better ways of determining the truth. > Later, Ben confirmed that the man, in fact, was Maitreya. And many > stories since and after have corresponded to this, apart from Ben. The > people in the crowd did not know Him as Maitreya, which is His personal > name. Moria, in Mahatma Letter #10 (#88 in chronological sequence), wrote, "Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H." > They recognized him as Christ (or Jesus). People from other faiths have > believed Him to be Krishna, or the Imam Mahdi or whatever is their > representative. They see Him as their Divine Representative. In the English NIV Bible, in Matthew, 4, 5-7, it says, "Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "`He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" Jesus answered him, "It is also written: `Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" It seems like your Maitreya said "yes" to Satan's offer. > I note a specific air of condescension in your letters Bart. If you're > really not serious about it, I am quite serious about my condescension. You are assisting a con artist who is using people's faith to enrich himself. Your actions are excusable, as you obviously believe in what you are doing. Benjamin Creme, however, is despicable. In Theosophical doctrine, you are supposed to take hold of your own evolution, not wait around for some self-proclaimed savior to do it for you. Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 21:41:23 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA11359 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:35:54 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393DB4C1.A531980A@sprynet.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 22:34:41 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Theos-World Universal Brotherhood References: <32.5fa1b6f.266ddd34@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MorganArts@aol.com wrote: > Thank you for clarifying the First Proposition of the Fundamentals. Actually, I didn't; I merely corrected a typo on your part. > However, I do think that a blanket statement about a group of > people albeit prefaced with "probably" is not a way to the path of > truth. Note that one can speak in generalities about a group; it is when one talks about the individuals that we cannot necessarily associate the characteristics of the group to the individual. For example, I would dare say that you are against racial profiling, but you also probably make sure your car doors are locked when going through a high-crime minority neighborhood (on the other hand, if you are going though a middle or upper-class minority neighborhood, you probably don't). It is not that you think that any given individual may try to commit a crime against you; you just know that there is a higher probability that SOMEBODY is going to do something. This is not to say that Leon's assessment was correct, it is to say that it is not necessarily violating the principle of Universal Brotherhood. Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 21:46:18 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA12515 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:44:58 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393DB6E2.737F5447@sprynet.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 22:43:46 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Universal Brotherhood and Objects of the TS References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Peter Merriott wrote: > > > Please remember that the first Fundamental Proposition in Theosophy is > > > Universal Brotherhood. > > Bart replied: > > No, it isn't. Nor, for that matter, is it the 1st Object of the > > Theosophical Society (although it is mentioned in the 1st Object). . > Below is an extract from a paper by HPB written in 1886, called the > "Original Programme" Manuscript. HPB begins that paper by stating: . > "In order to leave no room for equivocation, the members of the T.S. have > to be reminded of the origin of the Society in 1875. Sent to the U.S. of > America in 1873 for the purpose of organising a group of workers on the > psychic plane, two years later the writer received orders from her Master > and Teacher to form the nucleus of a regular Society whose objects were > broadly stated as follows: > > 1. Universal Brotherhood; The wording of the Objects were changed numerous times from the inception of the Society even to the current day. It is certainly possible that at one time, that was the wording of the 1st Object, but it was not the wording of the 1st Object at the inception of the TS, nor is it the wording today. Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 21:51:01 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA13208 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 21:50:11 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Free Tibet" To: Subject: RE: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:22:49 +0930 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com As an aside to all this Christ nonsense - Has anybody read Sir laurence Gardeners 'Bloodline of the Holy Grail' - Quite conclusive methinks.... OM nos > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of LeonMaurer@aol.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 9:06 AM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. > > > > > In a message dated 06/06/00 1:33:32 AM, tlorentz@telusplanet.net writes: > > >Bart, > > > >> Well, make up your mind. Was he Jesus, > >>or Maitreya? Jesus, if he ever > >>existed, was born 2000 years ago. The guy > >>in the photo didn't look THAT > >>old. He looked especially good for a dead guy. > > > >The gathering was a religious gathering of 6000 Christians. They > >recognized Him (IN THEIR HEARTS!!!) as Jesus (Christ). They weren't > >looking at the color of His skin or whatever. They knew it in > their hearts > >and were proclaiming it. > > I think that Bart makes a very good point. If recognizing Jesus > "in their hearts" by devout, blind believing Christians (which is > what that > "religion" has been preaching without any foundation, other than > hearsay, for > thousands of years) is any sort of "evidence" that either Jesus > ever existed, > that he will or can return "in the flesh", or that the "character > who showed > up at their meeting is anything more than a charlatan, is very > poor evidence > indeed, and does not belong in a forum of theosophists... Who > are taught to > test every metaphysical or religious idea for themselves... The complete > antithesis of what is preached by this and many other "organized" > religions. > > There are at least two things a true theosophist cannot be... One is a > worshipper of any God, figurehead or authority... Another, is a > member of any > religion that denies the validity or the rule of karma and the > doctrine of > reincarnation (coupled with individual, self determined choice, > based on self > devised study) as determiners of the fates or destinies of all sentient > beings... (Thus, totally denying any sort of personal "God" or > "Savior" as > intermediary.) > > > >Later, Ben confirmed that the man, in fact, was Maitreya. And > many stories > >since and after have corresponded to this, apart from Ben. The people in > >the crowd did not know Him as Maitreya, which is His personal name. They > >recognized him as Christ (or Jesus). People from other faiths have > >believed Him to be Krishna, or the Imam Mahdi or whatever is their > >representative. They see Him as their Divine Representative. > > Good for them -- if that's what they want to believe. But even > more reason > to be suspicious of the motives of both Creme and Maitreya. What > has this > crowd's "organized" and probably brain washed religious belief, > based on pure > emotion and mob psychology, as well as the "charisma" of the so called > "Christ" figure who appeared before them (and fulfilled their pre > conceived > expectations) -- got to do with to do with "truth" or acceptance > of such a > belief by theosophists? Who, are taught that such blind and irrational > gullibility is completely wrong and dangerous, as well as the easy to use > tools of those clever ones who seek to prey on, dominate and/or control > masses of people for their own ends. Even if those ends were in exact > conformance with theosophical principles, such methods would > still be wrong, > and in violation of theosophical principles of noninterference. > That is why > the Masters have repeatedly told us that they cannot take part > directly in > human affairs. Even Jesus (if he existed as reported) -- as a > Hebrew Rebbe, > could never have imagined forming a separate, organized religion -- > especially, around himself as its figurehead. > > > >I note a specific air of condescension in your letters Bart. If you're > >really not serious about it, or you feel you need to work your karma out > >on me, then I would prefer we just drop it and change the subject. > > I can't speak for Bart... But, I think you should drop this > subject. For one > reason -- that this is not a forum to discuss or proselytize any of the > beliefs or practices of Christianity -- whose record of > conformance to any of > the objects of the theosophical movement, or to the understanding > of the true > nature of reality and the fundamental principles underlying karma and > reincarnation, is very poor indeed. > > This insistence on promoting characters such a Creme and his > belief in the > return of the Christ, Mahdi, Maitreya, or Messiah, appears to be > just another > attempt to Christianize, Islamize, Hinduize or Hebrewize > Theosophy. If you > are a tool or mouthpiece of such untheosophical actions, you > might as well > stop talking about it on this forum, or bear the brunt of at > least my counter > arguments -- if not Bart's (whose comments, along with mine, > might appear to > you as condescension -- but certainly is not from my point of view). > > When we hear either Creme or his Maitreya side kick begin to teach > theosophical truths to their Christian followers, and compare their words > with the political agendas of their close associates and > promoters, we can > then judge whether or not Maitreya is a real representative or > agent of the > "Masters," a Master or Adept himself -- or a complete charlatan. In any > event, we can only recognize them by their fruits. And, so far, > the fruits > of these characters are pretty meager... No better than gratuitous > platitudes, in fact... And, highly conducive to the wary > presumption by open > minded theosophists that they may be charlatans or "fakirs" -- as many > similar, self proclaimed "descended Masters" have most likely been before > them, or now appearing along with them. > > > >It is sometimes difficult to contain all of the details of a story, that > >has stretched over 20 years, in the span of one or two e-mails. There > >will, of course, appear to be inconsistencies. It takes effort to search > >out all the details and get the full picture. It is true that this story > >*could* turn out to be a billion different "what-ifs". If you are simply > >bent on pouring out streams of suspicion and speculation without *really* > >looking into it then what is your point? Please save your energy. > > Better, if you save your own energy. Theosophy has been around > for over a > hundred years, and as yet, no one has found any inconsistencies in the > original teachings. Real theosophists can have nothing but > suspicion about > the validity of any and all appearances of so called "Masters" -- and are > enjoined by their teachers, as well as by the nature of theosophy > itself, to > seriously question the credibility of any claimants who profess > to speak for > the Masters -- including all self proclaimed "channelers", > "avatars," and > "gurus," from Leadbeater, Bailey and Profit, to krishnamurti, > Rajneesh and > Mahesh Yogi, even as far out as L Ron Hubbard, and others like > them -- who > either form their own religions, or attempt to twist the > followers of others > to their own points of view for various personal reasons -- well > intentioned > or otherwise. Even HPB tells us to question, from the point of view of > skepticism and agnosticism, "everything" that she teaches us -- > and then form > our own convictions about what is true and what is not. > > With this in mind, let each of us go about our own individual search for > truth and the seeking of our own Master -- "within the sanctuary > of our own > hearts and minds" -- and with resort to no vicarious atonement or > guidance > from living teachers, except from those who, being more advanced than > ourselves along the path, can help direct us individually through its > intricate windings, and warn us of the dangers along the practical > "meditative" route leading to adeptship and ultimate enlightenment. > > Best wishes, and "May good karma be all our desserts." > > LHM > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 23:06:28 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA22794 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:54:55 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393DD71B.556D4E83@lainet.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 21:01:16 -0800 From: Martin Leiderman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Universal Brotherhood and Objects of the TS References: <393DB6E2.737F5447@sprynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com It would be interesting to know the history of the changes in the wording of the 3 Objects. Is there an article out there describing the changes, who made them and when, etc? Thanks Martin Leiderman Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > The wording of the Objects were changed numerous times from the > inception of the Society even to the current day. It is certainly > possible that at one time, that was the wording of the 1st Object, but > it was not the wording of the 1st Object at the inception of the TS, nor > is it the wording today. > > Bart Lidofsky > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 23:14:36 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA22051 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:48:49 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393DC5D4.88087D50@sprynet.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 23:47:32 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > There are at least two things a true theosophist cannot be... One is a > worshipper of any God, figurehead or authority... Another, is a member > of any religion that denies the validity or the rule of karma and the > doctrine of reincarnation (coupled with individual, self determined > choice, based on self devised study) as determiners of the fates or > destinies of all sentient beings... (Thus, totally denying any sort of > personal "God" or "Savior" as intermediary.) Actually, the Mahatmas would probably disagree with that; Koothoomi stated that each person should seek the truth their own religion (part of recognizing Anna Kingsford's election as President of the London Lodge in spite of her Christianity). > even as far out as L Ron Hubbard, and others like them -- Historical note: Aleister Crowley referred to L. Ron Hubbard as the most evil man he had ever met. Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 6 23:18:44 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA21879 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:47:35 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000606224235.025b6100@mail.eden.com> X-Sender: ramadoss@mail.eden.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 22:42:35 -0500 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theos-World a site to visit In-Reply-To: <393E7EF7.BEB980A6@netvigator.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com The problem with the site is that it seems tobe a business and somebody seems to be making money. mkr At 09:57 AM 06/07/2000 -0700, you wrote: >Hi everybody, > >A few weeks ago, I got below site from a friend. By visiting the >site every day, one can help feed somebody in need and also >help to save the rainforest, it feels great to help even in a small >way...so, please spend 6 clicks (of your mouse)a day at this site. >The 6 clicks are: > >1st click: on the web address in your Personal Toolbar Folder >(where you might save the address) > >2nd click: on the "donate food" icon. You do not pay anything >(the sponsors of the site do) > >3rd Click: on the back button: to go back to the main page of >"thehungersite". > >4th Click: on the Rainforest icon at the top of the page,then... > >5th Click: on the donate land-free icon... Again, you don't have >to pay anything.. the sponsors of the site do... > >6th Click: to leave the site..... > >The Site is: http://www.thehungersite.com > >The sponsors of the site accept one donation per day from everybody and >anybody...So please spend a few minutes a day when you switch on your >computer and help others. > >Regards. > >Peter Tryde -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 7 00:18:44 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id AAA00850 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:05:50 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <002201bfd03d$ca97ed40$80f9fe3f@wilma> From: "Govert W. Schuller" To: References: <393DAB68.48BC4839@mindspring.com> Subject: Theos-World Second Death Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:17:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Michele, The doctrine of soul annihilation is IMO a constant in the teachings of the adepts. See the following quote from a Summit Lighthouse source: "The times demand of our chelas a tremendous output of energy. Given the unconditional nature of God's gift of free will to his sons and daughters, the soul can make the ultimate choice to be exalted in God or to be debased in the depths of Death and Hell. Therefore, in their exercise of free will, many souls will take the high road that leads to reunion with God while others will take the low road of self-annihilation. Souls who take that low road will go through the second death at the conclusion of the Piscean dispensation, to reincarnate no more. For the second death is a finality of finalities, wherein the soul is permanently snuffed out and the silver cord shrivels up and ceases to be. And so at the conclusion of the Piscean age, it is entirely possible that earth's population will be significantly reduced because untold numbers of souls will have taken the option to cease to exist rather than to claim their individuality in God." -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 7 00:19:21 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id AAA00846 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:05:49 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <002101bfd03d$c93772e0$80f9fe3f@wilma> From: "Govert W. Schuller" To: References: <393DAB68.48BC4839@mindspring.com> Subject: Theos-World Second Death Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:53:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Michele Lidofsky Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. > > I later read another HPB quote somewhere in the literature that the > masses, as peasants on the hillside, mostly live happy, even good and > decent lives, but because unexamined and unenlightened, these masses are > mostly annihilated. (This quote I will have to research to supply the > reference for; has anyone else ever seen it)? > > Has anybody ever heard of this idea as a basic theosophical > postulate? As a CONTROVERSIAL theosophical postulate, even? Or is this > just the accepted wisdom? The members of our group of ten or twelve in > our TS lodge couldn't agree. (So what else is new...) > > I'd appreciate any input on this question, and thanks in advance! Dear Michele, In my paper on K I used the following quotes from HPB to make the point "that certain doctrines in exoteric Vedantism--which are very similar to Krishnamurti' s teachings--might have the effect of disconnecting the soul or the personal self from its higher source, the higher self.(7) This in turn might cause the 'second death' of the soul, which is like an implosion of consciousness into nothingness (8) as opposed to the 'second birth' of the soul when she expands into divinity by first uniting with the higher self and ultimately with the divine self." 7. Blavatsky wrote: "In order not to confuse the mind of the western student with the abstruse difficulties of Indian metaphysics, let him view the lower manas, or mind, as the personal ego [personal self] during the waking state, and as Antahkarana only during those moments when it aspires towards its higher Ego [higher self], and thus becomes the medium of communication between the two. It is for this reason called the 'Path.'... Seeing that the faculty and function of Antahkarana is as necessary as the medium of the ear for hearing, or that of the eye for seeing; then so long as the feeling of ahamkâra, that is, of the personal "I" or selfishness [the synthetic self], is not entirely crushed out in man, and the lower mind not entirely merged into and become one with the higher Buddhi-Manas [higher self], it stands to reason that to destroy Atahkarana is like destroying a bridge over an impassable chasm; The traveler can never reach the goal on the other shore. And there lies the difference between the exoteric and the esoteric teaching. The former makes the Vedânta state that so long as mind (the lower) clings through Antahkarana to Spirit (Buddha-Manas) [higher self] it is impossible for it to acquire true Spiritual Wisdom, Jnyâna, and that this can only be attained by seeking to come en rapport with the Universal Soul (Atmâ) [the divine self]; that, in fact, it is by ignoring the higher Mind [higher self] altogether that one reaches Râja Yoga. We say it is not so. No single rung of the ladder leading to knowledge can be skipped. No personality can ever reach or bring itself into communication with Atmâ, except through Buddhi-Manas; to try to become a Jivanmukta or a Mahâtmâ, before one has become an adept or even a Naljor (a sinless man) is like trying to reach to Ceylon from India without crossing the sea. Therefore we are told that if we destroy Antahkarana before the personal [personal self] is absolutely under the control of the impersonal Ego [the higher self], we risk to lose the latter and be severed for ever from it, unless indeed we hasten to re-establish the communication by a supreme and final effort. It is only when we are indissolubly linked with the essence of the divine Mind [higher self] that we have to destroy Antahkarana." H.P.Blavatsky, The Esoteric Writings, pp. 413-414. Krishnamurti's teaching neatly corresponds to the exoteric position as presented here by Blavatsky, for he proposes to access directly the impersonal universal creative intelligence (Atma) by tossing out aspiration (Antahkarana) and denying the existence of the higher self (Buddhi-Manas). 8. "Be it far from me the suspicion that any of the esoteric students have reached to any considerable point down the plane of spiritual descent. All the same I warn you to avoid taking the first step. You may not reach the bottom in this life or the next, but you may now generate causes which will insure you spiritual destruction in your third, fourth, fifth, or even some subsequent birth... Finally, keep ever in mind the consciousness that though you see no Master by your bedside, nor hear one audible whisper in the silence of the still night, yet the Holy Power is about you, the Holy Light is shining into your hour of spiritual need and aspirations, and it will be no fault of the MASTERS, or of their humble mouthpiece and servant, if through perversity or moral feebleness some of you cut yourselves off from these higher potencies, and step upon the declivity that leads to Avitchi [state of soulless-ness]." H.P.Blavatsky, The Esoteric Writings, p. 418. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 7 00:47:42 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id AAA07092 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:40:37 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393DFD4D.49A1@wworld.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:44:13 -0700 From: scott holloman X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-KIT (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. References: <393DC5D4.88087D50@sprynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com OK which is it?"generally speaking"the truth to each religion; or the truth to theosophy; or the personal truth which is found individually; or the "truth";or Bart's truth.Correct me or"us"(I'm sure you will)pertaining to the true path.Our individual paths in this or any other medium intertwine,is this the correct way or will you quote from a convenient source once again.True theosophy?Who is appointed to tell all what that is?Taking care of each other IS universal brotherhood.Perhaps I'am "backwards"or even inferior.There are many people and groups who are "backwards",does that mean they are not wise?I was under the impression that theosophy was the WISDOM religion,is nothing to be learned from all? Will I be annihilated for being simplistic and "unenlightened" or am I perhaps partially enlightened?Perhaps we should be specific about the objective of theosophy.Humans love to be either or.To be specific about an objective pertaining to any philosophy is silly.Philosophy will always be a fuzzy science at best.HPB was wise and if she was in contact with the masters that is good,but it is left up to us to take what she put forth as gospel then we are defeating our own destinies. friends Scotty Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > > There are at least two things a true theosophist cannot be... One is a > > worshipper of any God, figurehead or authority... Another, is a member > > of any religion that denies the validity or the rule of karma and the > > doctrine of reincarnation (coupled with individual, self determined > > choice, based on self devised study) as determiners of the fates or > > destinies of all sentient beings... (Thus, totally denying any sort of > > personal "God" or "Savior" as intermediary.) > > Actually, the Mahatmas would probably disagree with that; Koothoomi > stated that each person should seek the truth their own religion (part > of recognizing Anna Kingsford's election as President of the London > Lodge in spite of her Christianity). > > > even as far out as L Ron Hubbard, and others like them -- > > Historical note: Aleister Crowley referred to L. Ron Hubbard as the > most evil man he had ever met. > > Bart Lidofsky > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 7 03:24:52 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id DAA26268 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 03:18:32 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: <32.60b373f.266f5e91@aol.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 04:15:13 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Maitreya appearance To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/06/00 3:28:12 AM, tlorentz@telusplanet.net writes: > >Hi Wayne, > >>Is Maitreya a teacher? > >Yes, in the truest sense of the word I think. There has been a very strong >urge against accumulating any followers. In fact, Maitreya has stated >openly that if you try to "follow" Him (as in "give blind allegence") you >would loose Him. At any rate, He states a major part of His mission as >coming to teach the Art of Self Realization, and that it is the personal >experience of the "Self" that matters very much. If you get that, then >all other problems in the woprld have the potential to be solved. All else >comes follows from knowing and experiencing that we are not separate. >In fact, any "sin" that one could imagine in the human being steps from the >one major "sin of separation". From that one belief - that we are separate >from each other and nature - all other distortions or sins arise in the >human personality. What's new in this teaching that already has not been thoroughly covered in the teachings of HPB and the Masters? If Maitreya is the "new messenger" for this cycle, then what is it that sets him apart from the older teachers of theosophy's "Heart Doctrine," or the many other "gurus" around today who are saying and teaching the same things? On what basis do you specifically accept him as the "One" and only "descended Master" for this new age, and try so hard to persuade others to join you in such "blind" belief? ... As is obvious from the reaction of the 6,000, pre conditioned Christian Nairobi's you tout as "witnesses" (which word also is, BTW, a typical Christian proselytizer's jargon) never mind the possibility that such "witnessing" can be totally delusional. > >>Does it signify a change in how God >>relates to humanity? As I understand it, >>Jesus came to teach the reality of the >>Jewish religion to the Jews, and Christianity >>was born. The reality was taught to Jew and >>Gentile alike. God is there for anyone, just >>as gravity is there for anyone. God has to be >>chosen, gravity does not. The reality of God >>must exist for Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Jew, ... etc. > >Maitreya's message is much the same. I would say that Jesus came for >humanity, although the Christians have made Him "their boy", so to speak. >He does not belong to the Christians exclusively, in the same way that >the Buddha does not belong to the Buddhists exclusively, nor Krishna to the >Hindus. That's true... But, since when was the Christian theology and belief system (which incidentally, denies karma and reincarnation -- which the Jews don't) the "reality" of the Jewish religion? I thought that both Buddha and Jesus (a/k/a the Rebbe, Joshua) spoke out solely to reform their respective religions by taking away the power of their self serving priestcrafty rulers... Joshua, to end the exploitation power of the Rabbi's materialism and greed, and Guatama, to end the Hindu caste system for similar reasons. Neither of them changed any of the fundamental theosophical roots of their res pective religions, which were almost identical, nor gave up believing in their impersonal divine roots, or ineffable "God" (for which the Christian personal God, "Jehovah" is a poor substitute). Although they both brought their disciples a simplified interpretation of their respective religion's esoteric spiritual beliefs and ideas of brotherhood, ethics and morality. It was only the Priests of the Christian religion, which started several hundred years after the supposed death of Jesus (if he ever actually existed), that created the contrived theology with its Heaven and Hell and false creationism, that they believe in today -- which is what Chogyam Trungpa, founder of the Buddhist Naropa Institute, called, a typical example of "Spiritual Materialism." So, would you kindly explain what "God" you are talking about? Also, tell us if you are parroting the "new dispensation" of Maitreya, or if all that prophesying is solely your own opinions and beliefs? What has Maitreya got to say about "brotherhood" and "compassion" that the original founders of all these religions he is supposedly reorganizing, hasn't already said? Tell us how is he going to bring them all together in one group action? What is that action? >At every Age, a new teacher comes to deliver a new dispensation to >humanity, a next step or deeper insight in the nature of divinity, etc. >Past teachers include Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Hermes, Vyasa, etc, etc. >Each teacher brings a new insight or new perspective on reality, but they >are all a part of the one Spiritual Hierarchy that guides our planet. >Blavatsky and Bailey would certainly be initiates in that Hierarchy and >had specifics parts in the Plan. Could it be possible, since HPB came in the last 200 year cycle of the old Jesus AND Buddha initiated Piscine age (around 2000 years or 1/12th of the period of Earths precession on its axis) -- that she might be the "New Teacher" of the Now forthcoming Age of Aquarius? And that all who come after her are simply minor figures on the world stage and bring nothing esoterically new that wasn't already thoroughly exposed exoterically ("for the intuitive student" to sort out) in the SD, along with all her other writings and those of her direct students and associates? I, for one, have never found anything "new" in most later teachings of those so called "neo-theosophists" and "New Age" gurus who came after HPB (even when true, since much of these teachings, I found, were twisted and distorted out of all semblance of consistent occult reality) that I didn't already know from intuitive and meditative study of the SD, as well as of most of the other occult literature HPB referenced -- and more. So, It would be interesting to know... What actually is that "new dispensation" of Maitreya? What can it add to the three fundamental principles, and the three objects of the theosophical movement? What is the "new insight and perspective on reality" this teacher supposedly brings? What is the nature of its part in the "plan"? What is that "plan"? And, how does it differ from what has already been taught by the message for the 20th century given out by HPB, and relayed by the thousands of theosophists (among them, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists) who have understood and promulgated it to their own co-religionists, and others, since then? I'm sure we all would also be interested in the practical means Maitreya has for solving the problems of the world and reversing the damage done to the Earth, its environments and its ecology. > >Maitreya represents the next step in that ongoing revelation so, in some >ways, it's "business as usual." There are differences, however, in that >this time the Hierarchy is in the process of externalization. That is they >will slowly and progressively work outwardly in the world, in full view, >guiding the nations with wise counsel. It will be up to humanity to choose >to accept this guidance or not (free will) and it is up to humanity to >put into action the recommendations put forth by the Hierarchy to "salvage" >the present world degradations. Without humanity's willing cooperation, >naught can be done. Cooperation toward what end? What makes you so sure the "Hierarchy (whoever you think they are) are "in the process of externalization" -- other than the dubious word of Benjamin Creme and his (probably self named) Maitreya, who claims to be a descended Master (yet, does and says things that a real Master would never do... See my previous posts)? What is the plan to "salvage the present world degradations"? Seems, as if all this talk is an obvious repeat of the same plan Besant and Leadbeater had when they brought in Krishnamurti as the new Savior, which he later denied. I wonder if this Maitreya will be as wise? So far, I have not read anything that Maitreya says that differs radically from the fundamental teachings of theosophy which anyone can get from a book. > >So this also represent a bit of a new method of work for the Hierarchy and >Humanity in that they will be openly working together. The relationship >that has been esoteric will become exoteric. This certainly symbolizes >that humanity has reached a stage, as a world disciple, wherein there is >some "contact" with the world soul (represented by the Hierarchy). Makes no sense. Even Jesus couldn't accomplish any meaningful changes while he was on the scene. And the Christians who followed him, didn't do much better. In fact, they managed to make things even worse for ceturies to come. Did you get that information directly from the Master's themselves, or are you just parroting Creme? At least Bailey had the dubious credentials of DK, and a generally mystical, if not totally incoherent, new theory of "rays" and "white magic" to back up her claim of a "new dispensation" (which incidentally, is a solely Christian concept). Is it possible that this Maitreya is just another rung on the ladder of attempts to Christianize theosophy, starting with Besant and leadbeater, followed by Bailey, and now ending with a last ditch effort by Creme -- with a possibly innocent and wise Maitreya as his tool? Or, are they both in cahoots? The coincidences here with the Besant - Leadbetter - Bailey connection are becoming more and more obvious the more you say about it -- and especially when we read the things Creme has to say on these same subjects. > >This will certainly inaugurate an experience of "Brotherhood" for humanity >which has until now been lacking in general. This is a great achievement >for humanity, although there will be greater levels of this to understand >and express in the future. For example, for the Hierarchy this represents >the expression of "Group Work" and a demonstration of Brotherhood at such >a synthetic level that we cannot fathom. This is a part of their >evolutionary journey as well as ours. What makes you so sure of something "that we cannot fathom"? are you just guessing or do you have some facts or ven logic to back up your wild assumptions. How will he do all that? What will inaugurate such an experience? Christian's accepting a new reappearance of Jesus? Muslims accepting the appearance of the Mahdi? Hindus and Buddhists accepting the appearance in the flesh of the Kalki avatar, or the "real" Maitreya? How will that improve the concept of "Universal Brotherhood"? Sounds more and more like Bailey and her empty dream that group prayer and acceptance of the Christian belief in the coming of a "savior" will solve all the problems of the world. IMHO, without a definite "image" of a future "unity in diversity" based on "liberty with equality" that everyone from Nairobi and Iran to America and China can enthusiastically accept and live with along with their own idea of (the good) "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -- no amount of group "prayer" or reorganization of the world's religions will ever work -- nor will any "magic" led by phony Masters. It could be possible, though, if that "savior" can convince everyone that he is truly the representative of the hierarchy, and at the same time, can issue and enforce (without policemen and governmental edicts) his command that everyone immediately join in a "universal brotherhood" -- throw off all differences and separations between the various religions and their sectarianisms, along with the secular world, and put them all to work in correcting the "depredations" brought about by their forebears. It certainly would be interesting to find out how he would be accomplishing all that. So far, all we have heard seems to be nothing but "Big Talk" without any substance or qualifications. C'mon... Give us some real ideas to discuss here, other than all this pointless and endless proselytizing of yet another new Messiah, and arguing about whether or not he's another phony flash in the pan -- or a legitimate teacher and clarifier of the theosophical truths -- that HPB, apparently, already brought to us in its first and last fundamental "dispensation." In any event, if Maitreya really were able to do what he says, lays his "new" plan out so all can hear, and proves that the plan confirms with theosophical truth, and has no ulterior motives, I would be the first one to join in and give him help. But, without such assurances, I wouldn't recommend that anyone accept him blindly on the word of proselytizers who spout old and tired, empty talk -- signifying nothing but their own wishful thinking. LHM -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 7 04:08:39 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id DAA28658 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 03:53:39 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: <34.62c4010.266f66bc@aol.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 04:50:04 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Universal Brotherhood and Objects of the TS To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/06/00 10:09:23 AM, caduceus@dial.pipex.com writes: >Leon wrote: >> > Please remember that the first Fundamental Proposition in Theosophy >> > is Universal Brotherhood. > >Bart replied: >> No, it isn't. Nor, for that matter, is it the 1st Object of the >> Theosophical Society (although it is mentioned in the 1st Object). I never wrote that line attributed to me. It was written by someone else in response to a letter I wrote on a different subject. However, the first fundamental proposition does, in fact, constitute the entire basis of Universal Brotherhood -- since during the period of absolute unity, or pure "beness," prior to manifestation and transformation into separate "beings", all natures are contained within the one Nature in perfect harmony. Thus Universal Brotherhood is one of the most fundamental laws of Nature. Leon -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 7 05:43:46 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id FAA09562 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 05:34:05 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Peter Merriott" To: Subject: Theos-World HPB's comments on Universal Brotherhood and First Objects of the TS. Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:30:47 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <393DB6E2.737F5447@sprynet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Bart, In response to Leon, you wrote that Universal Brotherhood is NOT > the 1st Object of the Theosophical Society (although it > is mentioned in the 1st Object). Would you share the reasoning behind your view and what you understand the First Object to mean? Below are a few of the many passages from HPB which show what she, as one of the Founders, understood the First Object of the TS to be, despite differences in wording from time to time. The first passage is from the one I have already offered which also shows what HPB's Master understood the first Object to be and upon whose orders HPB was acting as Founder. ...Peter "In order to leave no room for equivocation, the members of the T.S. have to be reminded of the origin of the Society in 1875. Sent to the U.S. of America in 1873 for the purpose of organising a group of workers on the psychic plane, two years later the writer received orders from her Master and Teacher to form the nucleus of a regular Society whose objects were broadly stated as follows: 1. Universal Brotherhood; 2. [etc etc] [from "The Original Programme", in Collected Writings, Vol VII, pp 145-171) ======= "In spite of everything, from the very day of the formation of our Society in the United States, fourteen years ago, our teachings have met with an entirely unforseen reception. The original program had to be enlarged... This expansion was brought about by the ever increasing number of our adherents... However, while our program was enlarged, it was not in the last altered as far as its principle objects were concerned, except unfortunately, in the case of the one which was closest to our heart, namely, the first, ie Universal Brotherhood without distinction of race, creed or colour. In spite of all our efforts, this object has been almost constantly ignored, or become a dead letter..." (Collected Writings XI: 125) ======= "It is only by the close brotherly union of men's inner SELVES, of soul solidarity, of the growth and development of that feeling which makes one suffer when one thinks of the suffering of others, that the reign of Justice and equality for all can ever be inaugarated. This is the first of the three fundamental objects for which the Theosophical Society was established, and called the 'Universal Brotherhood of Man' without distinction of race, colour, or creed." (Collected Writings X: 74) ======= "It is well known that the first rule of the society is to carry out the object of forming the nucleus of a universal brotherhood. The practical working of this rule was explained by those who laid it down, to the following effect: HE WHO DOES NOT PRACTICE ALTRUISM; HE WHO IS NOT PREPARED TO SHARE HIS LAST MORSEL WITH A WEAKER OR POORER THAN HIMSELF; HE WHO NEGLECTS TO HELP HIS BROTHER MAN, OF WHATEVER RACE, NATION OR CREED, WHENEVER AND WHEREVER HE MEETS SUFFERING, AND WHO TURNS A DEAF EAR TO THE CRY OF HUMAN MISERY; HE WHO HEARS AN INNOCENT ERSON SLANDERED, WHETHER A BROTHER THEOSPHIST OF NOT, AND DOES NOT UNDERTAKE HIS DEFENCE AS HE WOULD UNDERTAKE HIS OWN - IS NO THEOSOPHIST" (Collected Writings VIII: 170-171, capitalised words are done so in the original) ======= "Now our Society, as was explained even to the outside public repeatedly, has one general, and several - if not minor, at least less prominent aims.... As to the former - the chief aims of the Theosophical Fraternity - it is hardly necessary to remind any Fellow of what it is. Our fundamental object is UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD, kind feelings and moral help profered to all and every Brother, whatever his creed and views." (CW VIII: 470) ======= "This should never be forgotten, nor should the following fact be overlooked. On the day when Theosophy will have accomplished its most holy and most important mission - namely, to unite firmly a body of men of all nations in brotherly love and bent on a pure altuistic work, not on a labour with selfish motives - on that day only will Theosophy become any higher than any nominal brotherhood of man." (CW IX 244) ======= "For fouteen years our Theosophical Society has been before the public. Born with the threefold object of infusing more mutual brotherly feeling in mankind; of investigating the mysteries of nature from the Spiritual and Psychic aspect; and, of doing a tardy justice to the civilizations and Wisdom of Eastern pre-Christian nations and literature..." (CW XI 53) ======= "Is it because Mr. Bradlaugh is an Individualist... that he cannot sympathise with such a lofty ideal as the Universal Brotherhood of Man?... But if perchance he clings to his theories on the face of his practice, then let us leave aside this, the first object of the T.S." (CW XI 334) ======= "...the three well known objects of the Society - 1. Brotherhood of man: Study of Oriental philosophies; 3. Investigation of the hidden forces in nature and man." (CW XII 293) ======= "The three officially declared objects of our society are: 1. To form the nucleus of a universal brotherhood of humanity, without distinction of of race, creed, sex, caste, or color. 2. [etc].. ..When we postulate the idea of universal brotherhood, we wish it understood that it is held in no Utopian sense, though we do not dream of realising it at once on the ordinary plane of social and national relations. Most assuredly, if this view of the kinship of all mankind could gain universal acceptance, the improved sense of moral responsibility it would engender would cause most social evils and international asperities to disappear; for true altruism, instead of the present egoism, would be the rule the world over. So we have written down as the first of our declared objects this altuistic asservation..." (CW XII 302-303) ======= "You cannot have forgotten what I told you repeatedly at Simla and what the Master K. H. wrote to you himself, namely, that the T.S. is first of all a universal Brotherhood, not a Society for phenomena and occultism. Yours to the end H. P. Blavatsky." (Mahatma Letters; No 138) ======= "The term "Universal Brotherhood" is no idle phrase. Humanity in the mass has a paramount claim upon us, as I try to explain in my letter to Mr. Hume, which you had better ask the loan of. It is the only secure foundation for universal morality. If it be a dream, it is at least a noble one for mankind and it is the aspiration of the true adept. Yours faithfully, Koot' Hoomi Lal Singh." (Mahatma Letter No.4) =================================== > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Bart Lidofsky > Sent: 07 June 2000 03:44 > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World Universal Brotherhood and Objects of the TS > > >Leon wrote: > > > > Please remember that the first Fundamental Proposition in > Theosophy is > > > > Universal Brotherhood. > > > > Bart replied: > > > No, it isn't. Nor, for that matter, is it the 1st Object of the > > > Theosophical Society (although it is mentioned in the 1st Object). -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 7 06:52:19 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id GAA13315 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 06:46:09 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <003301bfd072$cc4fe360$26a9f2d4@kimpouls> From: "Kim Poulsen" To: References: <393DAB68.48BC4839@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. (Death of the Soul) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:22:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Michele, the doctrine you refer to is sometimes called the "death of the soul" All who have lived upon earth, live there still in new exemplars of their types, but the souls which have surpassed their type receive elsewhere a new form based upon a more perfect type, as they mount ever on the ladder of worlds;[From one loka to the other; from a positive world of causes and activity, to a negative world of effects and passivity.--ED. THEOS.] the bad exemplars are broken, and their matter returned into the general mass.[Into Cosmic matter, when they necessarily lose their self-consciousness or individuality or are annihilated, as the Eastern Kabalists say.--ED. THEOS.] [STRAY THOUGHTS ON DEATH AND SATAN, by Eliphas Levi, annotations by HPB] At that point the great Law begins its work of selection. Matter found entirely divorced from spirit is thrown over into the still lower worlds -- into the sixth "GATE" or "way of rebirth" of the vegetable and mineral worlds, and of the primitive animal forms. From thence, matter ground over in the workshop of nature proceeds soulless back to its Mother Fount; while the Egos purified of their dross are enabled to resume their progress once more onward. It is here, then, that the laggard Egos perish by the millions. It is the solemn moment of the "survival of the fittest," the annihilation of those unfit. It is but matter (or material man) which is compelled by its own weight to descend to the very bottom of the "circle of necessity" to there assume animal form; as to the winner of that race throughout the worlds -- the Spiritual Ego, he will ascend from star to star, from one world to another, circling onward to rebecome the once pure planetary Spirit, then higher still, to finally reach its first starting point, and from thence -- to merge into MYSTERY. [Mahatma Letter 9] But suppose it is not a question of a Bacon, a Goethe, a Shelley, a Howard, but of some hum-drum person, some colourless, flaxless personality, who never impinged upon the world enough to make himself felt: what then? Simply that his devachanic state is as colourless and feeble as was his personality. How could it be otherwise since cause and effect are equal. But suppose a case of a monster of wickedness, sensuality, ambition, avarice, pride, deceit, etc.: but who nevertheless has a germ or germs of something better, flashes of a more divine nature -- where is he to go? The said spark smouldering under a heap of dirt will counteract, nevertheless, the attraction of the eighth sphere, whither fall but absolute nonentities; "failures of nature" to be remodelled entirely, whose divine monad separated itself from the five principles during their life-time, (whether in the next preceding or several preceding births, since such cases are also on our records), and who have lived as soulless human beings. (1) These persons whose sixth principle has left them (while the seventh having lost its vahan (or vehicle) can exist independently no longer) their fifth or animal Soul of course goes down "the bottomless pit." This will perhaps make Eliphas Levi's hints still more clear to you, if you read over what he says, and my remarks on the margin thereon (see Theosophist, October, 1881, Article "Death" [See above, Kim]) and reflect upon the words used: such as drones, etc. [Mahatma Letter 25. Note that the Editor's Annotations may be identical with KH's remarks on the margin] ....they will be absorbed in the current by the force which has produced them, and will return to the central and eternal fire'." The "central and eternal fire" is that disintegrating Force, that gradually consumes and burns out the Kama-rupa, or "personality," in the Kama-loka, whither it goes after death. .... the Personal Ego, becoming at one with its divine parent, shares in the immortality of the latter. Otherwise.... [PSYCHIC AND NOËTIC ACTION, by HPB] I gave the outlines of the Occult doctrine in the Theosophist of October, 1881, and November, 1882, but could not go into details, and therefore got very much embarrased when called upon to explain. Yet I have written there plainly enough about "useless drones," those who refuse to become co-workers with Nature and who perish by millions during the Mantvantaric life-cycle...[etc.] .... Thus we find two kinds of soulless beings on earth: those who have lost their Higher Ego in the present incarnation, and those who are born soulless, having been severed from their Spiritual Soul in the preceding birth....[etc.] [HPB in ES Paper 3, see CW XII 636-641, or Secret Doctrine, 5th or 6th ed., vol 5, page 499-502. This contains the fullest description of the doctrine I have seen.] The courses open to the Divine Ego after separation are two - S. D., III, 524. a. It can start a fresh series of incarnations. b. It can return to the "bosom of the Father" and be gathered back to the Monad. Two courses are open to the lower discarded self - S. D., III, 525, 527. a. If with a physical body it becomes a soulless man. In this case there is hope. b. If without a physical body it becomes a spook, or one form of the Dweller on the Threshold. [Alice Bailey, A Treatise on Cosmic Fire, p. 1017. This is a very able summary of the ES paper above. SD Page numbers refer to the 3rd Adyar ed.] Michele, the above quotes should serve as a few examples of this doctrine, controversial as far as A.O Hume and others doubted it, but clearly taught in the Mahatma Letters, and in the works of HPB, T. Subba Row, and.... Alice Bailey. It is not however jolly peasants on hill-side which are in the dangerzone, but: 1. Dabblers in magic [HPB terms CW XII, p. 606] 2. Highly advanced (and hence highly responsible) humans, who life after life persists in developing mind and ignoring spirit (many modern scientists may be taken as examples). [No time to look up reference] The key to this whole line of thought lies in the problem of individuality (or "Self"). When the memory of a whole sequence of incarnations are "blanked out", "erased in the book of life", there cannot be any possible identification with a new series. The problem of individuality is as great (and unknown) in Parinirvana. Shankara describes the state of Sat (be-ness) as homogeneous as like "honey collected from many flowers." [i.e There are no distinction observed within the "honey" ] Entities leaves that state (of Nirvana) as the same species into which they entered it. [And remember that Space itself is impressed with that film, or "astral photographs" or "akashic records", which may serve as the "memory-basis" for continued "individualized existence" ] I hope this will be of help, Michele. Writing under under the scrutiny of so many judges of what is "true theosophy", "pseudo-teosophy" (and even jesuitical conspiracies !??!), etc., I chose the form of respectable (in this tiny environment) HPB quotations ;-) Kim ----- Original Message ----- From: Michele Lidofsky To: Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 3:54 AM Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. > > > LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > > > There are at least two things a true theosophist cannot be... One is a > > worshipper of any God, figurehead or authority... Another, is a member of any > > religion that denies the validity or the rule of karma and the doctrine of > > reincarnation (coupled with individual, self determined choice, based on self > > devised study) as determiners of the fates or destinies of all sentient > > beings... > > > Hello, everyone - > > I have a question I would like to present to the group... About a > year or two ago I was very surprised to hear a highly knowledgeable > theosophical author mention that HPB taught that not EVERYBODY will > reincarnate. Upon expressing my skepticism, s/he referred me to this > quote in 'The Key to Theosophy'- (TUP 1987 pp. 190-191) > > "If during life the ultimate and desperate effort of the INNER SELF > (Manas) ,to unite something of the personality with itself and the high > glimmering ray of the divine Buddhi is thwarted; if this ray is allowed > to be more and more shut out from the ever-thickening crust of physical > brain, the Spiritual Ego or Manas, once freed from the body, remains > severed entirely from the ethereal relic of the personality; and the > latter, or KAMA RUPA, following its earthly attractions. is drawn into > and remains in HADES, which we call the KAMA-LOKA. These are "the > withered branches" mentioned by Jesus as being cut off from the VINE. > Annihilation, however, is never instantaneous, and may require centuries > sometimes for its accomplishment..." > > In other words - if there is never an effort made or succeeded to > "create a soul" - when the body dies; that's it - because there would > be nothing left after that body is gone TO reincarnate. > > I was still a disbeliever. My friend remarked that this was a result > of erroneous theosophical thinking; I needed to consider, since there is > really only ONE THING, it doesn't matter if many of the 'sparks' from > the flame die, because the one flame remains alive. > > I later read another HPB quote somewhere in the literature that the > masses, as peasants on the hillside, mostly live happy, even good and > decent lives, but because unexamined and unenlightened, these masses are > mostly annihilated. (This quote I will have to research to supply the > reference for; has anyone else ever seen it)? > > Has anybody ever heard of this idea as a basic theosophical > postulate? As a CONTROVERSIAL theosophical postulate, even? Or is this > just the accepted wisdom? The members of our group of ten or twelve in > our TS lodge couldn't agree. (So what else is new...) > > I'd appreciate any input on this question, and thanks in advance! > > Michele L. > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 7 12:45:06 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id MAA23456 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 12:34:58 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393E8777.F87FF6AE@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 13:33:43 -0400 From: Michele Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. References: <393DC5D4.88087D50@sprynet.com> <393DFD4D.49A1@wworld.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com scott holloman wrote: > Will I be annihilated for being simplistic and "unenlightened" or am I > perhaps partially enlightened? No, as I understand the theosophical teaching, it is only those who never even ATTEMPT to 'go inward' and reach the true self, or those whose materialistic interest is so great and/or so selfish that they utterly deny this higher self who will eventually break the 'silver cord', leading to annihilation. (And you are far from simplistic). To be specific about > an objective pertaining to any philosophy is silly.Philosophy will > always be a fuzzy science at best. Absolutely agreed. I have been playing the devil's advocate on this matter in this mail list, but I see too many seekers who try desperately to reify or concretize concepts which, at present, are metaphorical 'guideposts' at best. As David C. wrote recently, you can't construct an operational definition for a metaphysical abstract, IF it cannot currently be empirically/scientifically "proven". What you CAN do is meditate (to seek insights pointing to reality), hypothesize upon these insights, investigate (exploring psychic experiences with others, as documented by many early Christian experimenters, with the goal of finding out whether their inner experiences had common elements as a "control" is one way), share these insights and experiences with others if you think they may be helpful, and have fun discussing them. And don't worry - someday the hard sciences will catch up...:) Michele L. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 7 15:07:49 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id PAA11578 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:02:32 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <000501bfd0bb$06c37dc0$5a86fc3f@wilma> From: "Govert W. Schuller" To: "Theosophy list" References: Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: method? Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:14:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Peter, Your observations are most welcome. My recent interest in phenomenology also grew out of studying some trans-personal psychology and therapy, and a re-ignited interest in Sartre's conception of consciousness as compared with Krishnamurti. Instrumental in this was my reading of "Metaphors of Consciousness," a collection of very illuminating papers edited by Rolf von Eckartsberg and Ronald S. Valle. I can wholeheartedly recommend this book to all theosophists for it combines many theosophical themes like spirituality, consciousness, science, eastern philosophy, transcendental philosophy etc. The copy I read came from from the Olcott Library and was apparently checked out many times. (I'm just rereading the papers: 'The Nature of consciousness: the Existential-Phenomenological Approach' and 'Phenomenology and Neuropsychology: Two Appoaches to Consciousness,' both of which are most clear in giving a sense of what phenomenology is about) Since then I have had quite some experiences like 'direct insights' and altered states of consciousness, which were induced by the study and application of phenomenology. These experiences all seem to be on the same level as similar experiences induced by reading K or Theosophy and can even be interconnected by careful analysis. Phenomenologically speaking they could indeed be described as the 'intuiting of essences' enabled by a transformed state of mind, similar to your description. Having these kinds of experiences is not a claim to truth, but are more like the first baby-steps in an ongoing investigation, of which the major focus is a critical evaluation of K's teachings. Peter, I do think that trans-personal psychology and therapy are ligitimate subjects for theosophists, because they pertain to the nature of consciousness and its transformation, which are central issues to the theosophical endeavour, as Aryel pointed out. Besides study and meditation and yoga (and other disciplines), therapy should be included as a tool for deepening one's spirituality and should be de-pathologized, meaning that relatively sane people like we are should see therapy as an opportunity and not only as a life-bouy for neurotic and psychotic people (who might be facing the second death and can use some help to re-ignite their spirituality if they would choose so). Govert ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Merriott Subject: RE: Theos-World Re: method? > Dear Govert, > > Thanks for your thoughts here, and also recently, on Phenomenology. I agree > with much of what you say on this and would like to add a few observations > of my own. But first a quick thought on Krishnamurti. I have heard him > speak and I've also read and reflected deeply on almost all of his published > talks and Notebooks. I would say there is a recognisable 'method' in the > way he goes about his explorations with those who meet with him whether as a > group and/or on a 'one to one' basis. And it would be fair to say that > Krishnamurti invariably reaches the same 'conclusions' (if one dare use that > word with regards to him!) and restates the same principles over and over > again. However, whether there is a "methodology" in his own direct approach > to "What is" only he can say. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 7 17:37:13 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA00539 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:32:58 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <003401bfd0d0$0715afe0$8385fc3f@wilma> From: "Govert W. Schuller" To: "Theosophy list" References: Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Krishnamurti and phenomenology Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:30:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 8:11 AM Subject: Theos-World Re: Krishnamurti and phenomenology ARYEL: P was initially developed by Edmund Husserl with the specific intention > > that it be A TOOL to be used in SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. That is, P is A > METHOD > > of research. GOVERT: [This is not entirely correct. P[henomenology] can be better characterized, > not as a tool or method, but as a transformed attitude in the realm of > philosophical research--not scientific research--in order to generate > essential insights. >> ARYEL: I find it fascinating that you say here that P is not "a tool or method." > Yet you began your long e-mail with these words: > > "As I see it now, Krishnamurti in his many expositions applied a very pure > though somehow 'naive' PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD in describing the human > condition." > > So, which is it? Being a little rusty on my phenomenology, I checked the > Encyclopedia of Philosophy (entry Husserl, Edmund), & I find there this > little gem: In his INITIAL researches into P (which you will note, is what I > specifically referred to), P proposed (in the Logische Untersuchungen, or > Logical Investigations, for those of you whose German is rusty), that > phenomenological descriptions require a "transcendental-phenomenological > reduction." And, as the article tells us, such a reduction, which is a sine > qua non of P, "is a METHODOLOGICAL DEVICE, required before one can begin to > do phenomenology." > So I am at a loss. You seem to know something that these chaps at the > Encyclopedia don't know. You must have some esoteric knowledge of what P > "really" is, which the experts don't know about. Please, don't be shy. > We're all waiting -- with baited breath, no less -- to discover what P is, if > not a method of research. Sorry to confuse you, Aryel. The question seems to revolve around the idea that both K and P have both methodological as well as non-methodological elements, the importance of which are differently evaluated. In a previous e-mail I made the statement that both science, K and phenomenology have in common three elements: 1) a transformed attitude or an altered state of consciousness in order to establish a field of investigation within which certain observable phenomena may become accessible. Certain elements of this transformed attitude might become phenomena for investigation by themselves after an appropiate higher level of altered state has been attained in order to investigate the previous altered state. This might sound technical, but both science, K and phenomenology reflect upon themselves to better understand what it is doing and will have the effect of purifying the different transformed attitudes from extraneous elements like smuggled-in, unverified, metaphysical concepts. But before all of this higher investigation can happen one has to be well introduced into the first field by way of being exposed to its specific problems and solutions, which will take a certain amount of time. 2) The method of investigation proper, which I think for all three comes down to letting essences show forth for description by eliminating all contingent or non-essential features from the phenomenon under investigation. For example science eliminated form, substance and other features from the phenomenon gravitation to find that mass is one of its essential elements. K eliminates jealousy, possesiveness, imagination, thought etc. from the phenomenon love to come to an essential insight about that phenomenon. And P developed its own eliminative devices, one of which is the 'epoche,' i.e. the elimination of the belief in the existence of the world in order to disengage from it and better investigate our relationship to it. And another device is the 'variation in imagination' by which a phenomenon might be changed in thought experiments to find out what are the contingent and necessary elements. One of its major finds being the intentionality of consciousnes, meaning that consciousness is always consciousness OF something and its correlate that consciousness has many ways to be conscious of something, of which modes like perceiving, hearing, imagining, remembering are the more obvious examples, with each having their own essential features by which they can be distinguished. In this way P can, as a philosophy of knowledge, investigate the scientific mode of consciousness, which is closed to itself, though one could implement, as has been done, a sociology or psychology of the scientific endeavour, but that would still be within the field of scientific endeavour. And P could also investigate the Krishnamurtian mode of investigation by looking very carefully at what kind of discourse K is presenting by eliminating the questions of its truth and its goal of total transformation. This would also mean to break through the mesmeric quality of K's discourse, even making that quality an object of hermeneutic-phenomenological investigation. P also investigated its own mode of consciousness and methodology, which actually was Husserl's major focus in the latter part of his life. 3) The creative element in K, P and science. I covered this more or less in my response to Katinka of 6-6-00. Time also prevents me to get deeper into this for I'm going on vacation. Govert -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 7 21:18:33 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA23480 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 20:52:50 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000607184856.00bbe100@theosophy.com> X-Sender: eldon@theosophy.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 18:49:58 -0700 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: Theos-World Fwd: Faster than Light Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Here's something interesting from the theos-l mailing list. -- Eldon >From: "Gerald Schueler" >Subject: Faster than Light >Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:18:01 -0400 > >For those interested in science, I just recieved the following email from >the Technical Director at the Army Evaluation Center, where I work as a >contractor. I am copying it below in full. The scientific implications, if >true, would seem to be staggering. > >Jerry S. > >****************************** > >June 4 2000 UNITED STATES >Eureka! Scientists break speed of light Jonathan Leake >, Science Editor > >SCIENTISTS claim they have broken the ultimate speed barrier: the speed of >light. In research carried out in the United States, particle physicists >have shown that light pulses can be accelerated to up to 300 times their >normal velocity of 186,000 miles per second. The implications, like the >speed, are mind-boggling. On one interpretation it means that light will >arrive at its destination almost before it has started its journey. In >effect, it is leaping forward in time. Exact details of the findings remain >confidential because they have been submitted to Nature, the international >scientific journal, for review prior to possible publication. The work was >carried out by Dr Lijun Wang, of the NEC research institute in Princeton, >who transmitted a pulse of light towards a chamber filled with specially >treated caesium gas. Before the pulse had fully entered the chamber it had >gone right through it and travelled a further 60ft across the laboratory. In >effect it existed in two places at once, a phenomenon that Wang explains by >saying it travelled 300 times faster than light. The research is already >causing controversy among physicists. What bothers them is that if light >could travel forward in time it could carry information. This would breach >one of the basic principles in physics - causality, which says that a cause >must come before an effect. It would also shatter Einstein's theory of >relativity since it depends in part on the speed of light being >unbreachable. This weekend Wang said he could not give details but >confirmed: "Our light pulses did indeed travel faster than the accepted >speed of light. I hope it will give us a much better understanding of the >nature of light and how it behaves." Dr Raymond Chiao, professor of physics >at the University of California at Berkeley, who is familiar with Wang's >work, said he was impressedby the findings. "This is a fascinating >experiment," he said. In Italy, another group of physicists has also >succeeded in breaking the light speed barrier. In a newly published paper, >physicists at the Italian National Research Council described how they >propagated microwaves at 25% above normal light speed. The group speculates >that it could be possible to transmit information faster than light. Dr >Guenter Nimtz, of Cologne University, an expert in the field, agrees. He >believes that information can be sent faster than light and last week gave a >paper describing how it could be done to a conference in Edinburgh. He >believes, however, that this will not breach the principle of causality >because the time taken to interpret the signal would fritter away all the >savings. "The most likely application for this is not in time travel but in >speeding up the way signals move through computer circuits," he said. >Wang's experiment is the latest and possibly the most important evidence >that the physical world may not operate according to any of the accepted >conventions. In the new world that modern science is beginning to perceive, >sub-atomic particles can apparently exist in two places at the same time - >making no distinction between space and time. Separate experiments carried >out by Chiao illustrate this. He showed that in certain circumstances >photons - the particles of which light is made - could apparently jump >between two points separated by a barrier in what appears to be zero time. >The process, known as tunnelling, has been used to make some of the most >sensitive electron microscopes. The implications of Wang's experiments will >arouse fierce debate. Many will question whether his work can be interpreted >as proving that light can exceed its normal speed - suggesting that another >mechanism may be at work. Neil Turok, professor of mathematical physics at >Cambridge University, said he awaited the details with interest, but added: >"I doubt this will change our view of the fundamental laws of physics." >Wang emphasises that his experiments are relevant only to light and may not >apply to other physical entities. But scientists are beginning to accept >that man may eventually exploit some of these characteristics for >inter-stellar space travel. > >Henry A. Romberg, Technical Director >Combat Support Evaluation Directorate -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 7 22:04:27 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA30832 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:00:31 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393F0BF9.856447D5@sprynet.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 22:59:05 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. References: <393DC5D4.88087D50@sprynet.com> <393DFD4D.49A1@wworld.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com scott holloman wrote: > > OK which is it?"generally speaking"the truth to each religion; or the > truth to theosophy; or the personal truth which is found individually; > or the "truth";or Bart's truth. If you refer to "Bart's" truth, please make sure that it was a message that Bart wrote, and NOT a message that Bart quoted. > Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > > LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > > > There are at least two things a true theosophist cannot be... One is a > > > worshipper of any God, figurehead or authority... Another, is a member > > > of any religion that denies the validity or the rule of karma and the > > > doctrine of reincarnation (coupled with individual, self determined > > > choice, based on self devised study) as determiners of the fates or > > > destinies of all sentient beings... (Thus, totally denying any sort of > > > personal "God" or "Savior" as intermediary.) > > > > Actually, the Mahatmas would probably disagree with that; Koothoomi > > stated that each person should seek the truth their own religion (part > > of recognizing Anna Kingsford's election as President of the London > > Lodge in spite of her Christianity). > > > > > even as far out as L Ron Hubbard, and others like them -- > > > > Historical note: Aleister Crowley referred to L. Ron Hubbard as the > > most evil man he had ever met. > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 7 22:20:25 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA32232 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:11:06 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393F0E7D.F7DD84DE@sprynet.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:09:49 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World HPB's comments on Universal Brotherhood and First Objects of the TS. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Peter Merriott wrote: > > Bart, > > In response to Leon, you wrote that Universal Brotherhood is NOT > > > the 1st Object of the Theosophical Society (although it > > is mentioned in the 1st Object). > > Would you share the reasoning behind your view and what you understand > the First Object to mean? The 1st Object is that the Theosophical Society form a NUCLEUS of the Brotherhood of Humanity; that such a Brotherhood exists is assumed (which is about the only dogma the TS has; Annie Besant once said that the only belief that is required of a TS member is that s/he believes in a Brotherhood of Humanity, although we must remember, she also said, that even those who don't believe in a Brotherhood of Humanity are still our Brothers). We cannot form the Brotherhood of Humanity; it exists regardless of what we do. What we can do (if one looks at all the Objects together) is demonstrate on an objective basis that the Brotherhood of Humanity is a physical fact, and not just wishful thinking. Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 7 22:45:52 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA03305 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:36:34 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000607213319.007ac510@pop.telusplanet.net> X-Sender: tlorentz@pop.telusplanet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 21:33:19 -0600 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: Todd Lorentz Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Leon, >you might as well >stop talking about it on this forum > >Better, if you save your own energy. Yes, I'm sorry, you're right. I have reflected more deeply upon my comments and feel that I have definitely overstepped my rights as a participant in this group and have infringed a great deal upon the group. You are right in asserting that this is definitely not the forum for this kind of discussion. I was simply caught up in the requests for further information and got carried away with my own glamours in this area. I ended up defending the information which I did not wish to do. It is only there if someone wanted to check it out for themselves. The information had been presented a long time ago on this forum and there is nothing definitive about it from first glance. In fact, the criticisms leveled at the information are valid and I ought to have respected that from the beginning and left it alone. I will not be responding to further questions on this topic unless they are sent directly to my personal address. Sincerely, Todd Lorentz -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 7 23:00:45 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA31365 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:04:36 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393F0CF4.51587036@sprynet.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:03:16 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Universal Brotherhood and Objects of the TS References: <34.62c4010.266f66bc@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 06/06/00 10:09:23 AM, caduceus@dial.pipex.com writes: > > >Leon wrote: > >> > Please remember that the first Fundamental Proposition in Theosophy > >> > is Universal Brotherhood. > > > >Bart replied: > >> No, it isn't. Nor, for that matter, is it the 1st Object of the > >> Theosophical Society (although it is mentioned in the 1st Object). > > I never wrote that line attributed to me. It was written by someone else in > response to a letter I wrote on a different subject. I knew that; I thought I was clear about it. Sorry. > However, the first > fundamental proposition does, in fact, constitute the entire basis of > Universal Brotherhood -- since during the period of absolute unity, or pure > "beness," prior to manifestation and transformation into separate "beings", > all natures are contained within the one Nature in perfect harmony. Thus > Universal Brotherhood is one of the most fundamental laws of Nature. It certainly is a logical conclusion from the 1st Fundamental Proposition, but the 1st FP is far more than that. Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 8 01:22:38 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id BAA28102 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:11:34 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <007601bfd10f$cf12e5a0$d0bbfea9@livingroom> From: "Wayne Benge" To: References: <3.0.5.32.20000606000439.007a0a60@mail.telusplanet.net> Subject: Re: Theos-World Maitreya appearance Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:09:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Hello, It is refreshing to find a group on the internet that isn't full of flame and self importance. Just good straight forward conversation. > >Is Maitreya a teacher? > > Yes, in the truest sense of the word I think. There has been a very strong > urge against accumulating any followers. > > > At every Age, a new teacher comes to deliver a new dispensation to > humanity, a next step or deeper insight in the nature of divinity, etc. > Maitreya represents the next step in that ongoing revelation so, in some > ways, it's "business as usual". Without humanity's willing cooperation, naught can be done. > > So this also represent a bit of a new method of work for the Hierarchy and > Humanity in that they will be openly working together. The relationship > that has been esoteric will become exoteric. This certainly symbolizes > that humanity has reached a stage, as a world disciple, wherein there is > some "contact" with the world soul (represented by the Hierarchy). I look forward to more such conversation. Thanks, Wayne -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 8 01:36:41 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id BAA28114 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:11:38 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <007701bfd10f$cfdc5020$d0bbfea9@livingroom> From: "Wayne Benge" To: References: <32.60b373f.266f5e91@aol.com> Subject: Re: Theos-World Maitreya appearance Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:40:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Hello, > > That's true... But, since when was the Christian theology and belief system > (which incidentally, denies karma and reincarnation -- which the Jews don't) > the "reality" of the Jewish religion? Karma is simply "Be not deceived, God is not mocked. Whatever ye sow, so surely shall ye reap". Reincarnation doesn't need anyone to believe it. It either is, or isn't, but it doesn't change this life in anyway, except to possibly promise Justice. The concept of reincarnation is comforting because it promises justice. For me, I have no knowledge of a past life or future life. All I have is now. The reality of the Jewish religion was not to reserve one day, the Sabbath, for God. Each day we live like any other. The Sabbath was sort of a minimum. The sacrifices were supposed to be something given freely to God that a person values, rather than a minimum payment. God the Father was supposed to be "Daddy" -- personal. We are supposed to immerse ourself in the way of life God wants, happily. God gave the Jews a set of minimums that they cast in concrete. > I thought that both Buddha and Jesus > (a/k/a the Rebbe, Joshua) spoke out solely to reform > their respective religions by taking away the power of their self serving priestcrafty > rulers... Joshua, to end the exploitation power of the Rabbi's materialism > and greed, and Guatama, to end the Hindu caste system for similar reasons. For sure, Jesus did that. > So, would you kindly explain what "God" you are talking about? To me, God is universal Higher Power in charge of humanity that various people have called Jehovah, Allah, The Great Spirit, etc. Also, tell us > if you are parroting the "new dispensation" of Maitreya, or if all that > prophesying is solely your own opinions and beliefs? All I have -- is solely my own opinions and beliefs. Only. > So far, all we have heard seems to be nothing but "Big Talk" > without any substance or qualifications. C'mon... Give us some real ideas to > discuss here, other than all this pointless and endless proselytizing of yet > another new Messiah, What would you like to talk about? -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 8 01:52:36 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id BAA32454 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:43:30 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393F4042.DBC2CDB0@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 02:42:10 -0400 From: Michele Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. References: <3.0.6.32.20000607213319.007ac510@pop.telusplanet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Todd Lorentz wrote: > > Yes, I'm sorry, you're right. I have reflected more deeply upon my > comments and feel that I have definitely overstepped my rights as a > participant in this group and have infringed a great deal upon the group. > You are right in asserting that this is definitely not the forum for this > kind of discussion. I was simply caught up in the requests for further > information and got carried away with my own glamours in this area. Dear Todd, I think that you are wise not to continue this discussion in this forum. I trust that your beliefs are heartfelt and that you set out in your enthusiasm to share them with those who had asked for information. I know from personal experience how easy it is to get carried away by an emotional, re-active exchange into defense and justification of your position. I just wanted you to know that I appreciate your sincerity and your desire to do good, and want to extend to you my very best wishes. Sincerely, Michele L. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 8 02:08:49 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id BAA28091 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:11:33 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <007501bfd10f$ce27e960$d0bbfea9@livingroom> From: "Wayne Benge" To: References: <007601bfcf61$1c3cfec0$a7e3fea9@livingroom> Subject: Re: Theos-World Maitreya appearance Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 23:02:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0053_01BFD0D4.83181160" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0053_01BFD0D4.83181160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, Wayne, Theosophy is the "wisdom possessed by the gods." The 'God' of the = theologians is no more than a belief, it has no reality. Truth is that = which is. It has nothing to do with what we belief. Maitreya is not a person, just like Christ is not a person either. It = is GOODNESS incarnated and also TRUTH. Why can't we treat this subject = with the respect that it deserves is beyond my understanding. I agree that Truth is that which is. Belief is based upon what we do = (or attempt to do and fail at). Most people I have met say it is = possible to believe one thing and do another. We always do what we = believe. I really don't know anything about Maitreya yet, I don't mean = any disrespect. Wayne Benge ------=_NextPart_000_0053_01BFD0D4.83181160 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,

Wayne,

Theosophy is the "wisdom possessed by the gods." = The 'God'=20 of the theologians is no more than a belief, it has no reality. Truth = is that=20 which is. It has nothing to do with what we belief.

Maitreya is = not a=20 person, just like Christ is not a person either. It is GOODNESS = incarnated and=20 also TRUTH. Why can't we treat this subject with the respect that it = deserves=20 is beyond my understanding.

I agree that Truth = is that=20 which is.  Belief is based upon what we do (or attempt to do and = fail=20 at).  Most people I have met say it is possible to believe one = thing and=20 do another.  We always do what we believe.  I really don't = know=20 anything about Maitreya yet, I don't mean any disrespect.
 
Wayne = Benge
------=_NextPart_000_0053_01BFD0D4.83181160-- -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 8 16:34:29 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id QAA04802 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:27:25 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39400AC7.F8139254@bmu.com.pe> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 16:06:15 -0500 From: ernesto X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [es] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World- Justificacion of Theosophical credibility: On theMasters References: <14.4698658.266a1ec3@aol.com> <393A9BD0.13F0081C@bmu.com.pe> <393C5BB2.3C0471BD@sprynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server: VPOP3 V1.3.4 - Registered to: Cyberline Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Bart: Your communication guives me an opportunity for reflectioning about why a theosophist studier walks on the Path trough Theosophical Society, Books of HBP (and others). And, as there has been a lot of missunderstanding about the what-does-theosophy-mean-discussion, much of it being merely a matter of simply words, as I said previously, I will have to make many precisions. I will analyze no biografical, psichologhical or sociological explanation of why people finds interesting the Theosophical methapysic. I don´t search for the individual explanations of their behavior about Theosophy. I am searching for a justification. Explanation and Justification are differentes, of course, as it is understood in Theory of Argumentation. In the first case, we look for identifying the causes-effects about a point. In the second case, we look for an argumentation (reasons, not causes) that may leave us to support a conclusion. There may be two conclusions that require a justification: 1) the moral valuation that one can have about the activities or purposes of the TS. The justification would put us in a moral argument. I don´t look for that. 2) the idea that HPB´s writings contains very probably truths. (Please: don´t say that thruth is a state of awareness ..., because I know that, but I am using the term in its common meaning. Understand me in such a meaning). So, if we (not Masters, not clairvoyant, merely studiers) had to make an argument concluding that HPB's writings contanis very probably truths, żwhat would we say? Let´s remember: > > > DAVID: If we were sceptic at all, would we be seriosuly interested in > > esoterism? Would we be seriously interested in reading, for example, > > The Mahatma Letters? Who can guive enough proofs of the existence and > > identity of the so called Masters of the White Broterhood, if the > > matter were discussed in a court? > > BART: What does one have to do with the other? The Mahatmas themselves > said > that it was up to us to judge the rightness and wrongness of what they > wrote, and we were not to take what they said as true based on faith. I think that Mahatmas really want that we verify what they say by ourselves. That denies a blind faith. But the same Mahatmas and Blavatsky made what a non studier could call "miracles" (as we can see in The Occult World, of Sinnet), because (I think) they wanted to create in us not a blind faith but a honest trust in the possibility of what they were saying. The same kind of trust that Buddha recommended to have in relation with his teachings. That is not a blind faith: it is trust, and it is not demonstration. I think that may be you are interpreting their claim for self-verification, too rationalist. If we had to eliminate even the trust, as not important, and we (not Masters, merely studiers) try to confirm the teachings: would we confirm them? For example: > > DAVID: > Why do we consider seriously, for example, the hyphotesis of the Seven > > Root Races? Because HPB thaught that? No. Because she said she > > learned it from the Masters. > > BART: Not me. And if that is true for you, you are going against what the > Mahatmas themselves said. > Bart, if I interpreted your words literally, as what they appearantly and ingenuously want to mean, I'd have to think that it is not important for you, on the Seven Root Races idea, the trust on Mahatmas. If it were so, and if you take seriously that Idea, I´d have to ask you if you are clairvoyant. Because if it were not like that (as I assume), then you couldn´t take seriously that hypothesis. And if you answered me that actually there are scientifical reasons to think that: man lived on earth in the time of dynosauries, that primitive man was really giant, that primitive man was hermafrodite, that in really ancient times Venus had its humanity, and so on (just to talk about the theosophical anthropogenesis), then it would be evident that, in our time, you would be making bad science fiction, or that you would be believing in a dream of scientifical non-sense. If you are not a clairvoyant, and you take seriously the theosophical teachings I have just referred, how do you do that? I woudnt´d understand. See: > > > DAVID:And, so, we consider seriously this > > theory, against ALL actual reputated antrophology and archeology . > > Certainly, the existence of man since 300,000 years or more, and even > > much, much, much before also in the previous Rond, is a dream of non > > sense from the scientific point of view. > > BART: Possibly. Or perhaps we are misinterpreting Blavatsky, the > scientific > evidence, or both. Ahhh, that is another possibility. That you think HPB did not taught that ideas that I mentioned. But clearly it is not so. She did it, and I don´t quote the hundreds of places where she doe it, because I think that is obvious. That we are misinterpreting the scientific evidence? May be. Science is not synonymous of truth. Just Gnosis is Truth. Moreover, scientifical theories change almost every year in many cases. May be in fifty years science will say that primitive man was hermafrodite, and so on. But, again, if you say (actually) that it is not important the trust on Masters, how could you seriously consider those teachings, if we are living on actual science, and not in a fictional fifty-years-after science? > > DAVID: > So, will we say, if we want to be honest with our positions, that > > finding a Masters is not important, very important ... and even more? > It seems to me (nor a Master, not a clairvoyant, not an arhat-born) quite false or even proud to say, then, that finding a Master is not very important. Why is theosophist a theosophist? Because he was borned like that? Because science guided him there? Or because he trusts on a message from those he believes are the Masters? Friendly, DAVID C. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 8 18:30:10 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA18382 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:22:07 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <393EEF49.EC065848@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 17:56:42 -0700 From: Dennis Kier X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. References: <393DC5D4.88087D50@sprynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > even as far out as L Ron Hubbard, and others like them -- > > Historical note: Aleister Crowley referred to L. Ron Hubbard as the > most evil man he had ever met. > > Bart Lidofsky > But at the time AC died, wasn't L. Ron still just a science-fiction writer? I used to like his "Old Doc Methusela" stories, before he wrote Dianetics. Dennis -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 8 20:54:21 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA01475 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:34:38 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <3940494F.81028567@sprynet.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 21:33:03 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. References: <393DC5D4.88087D50@sprynet.com> <393EEF49.EC065848@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dennis Kier wrote: > > Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > > even as far out as L Ron Hubbard, and others like them -- > > > > Historical note: Aleister Crowley referred to L. Ron Hubbard as the > > most evil man he had ever met. > > > > But at the time AC died, wasn't L. Ron still just a science-fiction writer? I > used to like his "Old Doc Methusela" stories, before he wrote Dianetics. He was writing articles on "dianetics" while he was still writing (I liked the ODM stories, too, btw). Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 8 20:57:18 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA01776 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:36:42 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <394049D1.4E89CC85@sprynet.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 21:35:13 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Maitreya appearance References: <32.60b373f.266f5e91@aol.com> <007701bfd10f$cfdc5020$d0bbfea9@livingroom> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Wayne Benge wrote: > The reality of the Jewish religion was not to reserve one day, the > Sabbath, for God. Each day we live like any other. The Sabbath was > sort of a minimum. The sacrifices were supposed to be something given > freely to God that a person values, rather than a minimum payment. God > the Father was supposed to be "Daddy" -- personal. We are supposed to > immerse ourself in the way of life God wants, happily. God gave the > Jews a set of minimums that they cast in concrete. And what edition of the Talmud did that appear in? Or is your knowledge of Judaism 2nd hand? Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 8 21:51:24 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA09563 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:43:16 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <3940595F.F54D6CD2@sprynet.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 22:41:35 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World- Justificacion of Theosophical credibility: On theMasters References: <14.4698658.266a1ec3@aol.com> <393A9BD0.13F0081C@bmu.com.pe> <393C5BB2.3C0471BD@sprynet.com> <39400AC7.F8139254@bmu.com.pe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Just as an example of what I was talking about... ernesto wrote: > > > DAVID:And, so, we consider seriously this > > > theory, against ALL actual reputated antrophology and archeology . > > > Certainly, the existence of man since 300,000 years or more, and > > > even much, much, much before also in the previous Rond, is a dream > > > of nonsense from the scientific point of view. > > > > BART: Possibly. Or perhaps we are misinterpreting Blavatsky, > > the scientific evidence, or both. > > Ahhh, that is another possibility. That you think HPB did not taught > that ideas that I mentioned. But clearly it is not so. She did it, and > I don´t quote the hundreds of places where she doe it, because I think > that is obvious. But what is a human? Is it a being with two arms, two legs, two eyes, ears, a head, a torso, in the form of what we call "humanoid"? If so, then Blavatsky's description of the 4th Root Race would have required that the laws of physics have radically changed in an extremely short period of time (or, as the Christian fundamentalists believe, Satan has planted false evidence around). Note that the 1st Root Race was not humanoid at all; it was barely physical at all. One CAN reincarnate into a HIGHER form of life, after all. > That we are misinterpreting the scientific evidence? May be. Science > is not synonymous of truth. Just Gnosis is Truth. Moreover, > scientifical theories change almost every year in many cases. May be in > fifty years science will say that primitive man was hermafrodite, and so > on. Possibly. But I was thinking in terms of the direction of evolution. Most scientists assume that it was pull; evolved bodies caused evolved "souls". But Blavatsky implies that it was push; evolved "souls" caused evolved bodies. Given that, if the apes were an unsuccessful attempt to evolve our current human bodies, that would reconcile Blavatsky's statement that apes were descended from humans with the anthropological evidence. Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 8 22:35:18 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA10779 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 21:53:08 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Free Tibet" To: Subject: RE: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:25:38 +0930 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <393EEF49.EC065848@earthlink.net> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Battlefield Earth has now been completed as a movie by John Travolta. Pulpish but subliminal. nos > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Dennis Kier > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 10:27 AM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. > > > > > Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > > even as far out as L Ron Hubbard, and others like them -- > > > > Historical note: Aleister Crowley referred to L. Ron > Hubbard as the > > most evil man he had ever met. > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > > > But at the time AC died, wasn't L. Ron still just a > science-fiction writer? I > used to like his "Old Doc Methusela" stories, before he wrote Dianetics. > > Dennis > > > > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 9 03:51:07 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id DAA23590 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 03:39:41 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: <38.70884db.26720662@aol.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 04:35:46 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World- On Proof of Maitreya and Sincerity To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pippin.imagiware.com id DAA23588 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/05/00 9:20:35 AM, ernesto@bmu.com.pe (David C.) writes: >Dear Mr. Leon: You wrote: > >> How can we be sure that those 6,000 so called witnesses >> actually experienced what a "reporter" states they did? How can we be >>sure that the so called, respectable (because, well known, or an accepted >> politician), is telling the truth? Or, that he was not experiencing, a self >> generated delusion? How can we be sure that the 6,000 people weren't >> mass hypnotized, as many crowds have been who gave reports of seeing a >> fakir disappear at the top of his rope -- as has happened innumerable times >> in India? > >There is a photograph! So, hypnotism is out of a serious possibility. Of >course, we must ask if the photo itself is a trick. But, what about the >testimonies guiven to a reporter years after, that Todd sent us in a previous >e-mail? Photo's are meaningless as any means to evaluate what is in the hearts and minds of their subjects. Testimonials also carry no weight, whatsoever, in any discussion of what is truth or not. To believe anyone's testimony, no matter who they are or what their authority, without thorough investigation and testing for oneself, on both intuitive and rational levels, is utter foolishness. > >Do they also lie? Hard to believe that there is like a complot of years >made to maintain a lie, involucrating so many differente people ... the >photografer, the reporter that went to Nairobi after years, the two different >eyewitnesses. Yes, judging from all the false information given out in this world related to religion, government, economics, business, etc., it's best for us to assume that everyone lies until it is proven different. Eyewitnesses are also very unreliable. Ask any police inspector, how different the stories are for every eyewitness to the same crime. > >The topic of this discussion may certainly provoke scepticism. That is >also my case. But I think that scepticism is a good tool for investigation, >just if we don´t loose its place. The only investigation that one can rely on is that which he personally engages in. Talking about it in open forum, based on other people's beliefs or opinions, is a meaningless exercise in futility. > >If we were sceptic at all, would we be seriosuly interested in esoterism? > Would we be seriously interested in reading, for example, The Mahatma >Letters? Who can guive enough proofs of the existence and identity of the so >called Masters of the White Broterhood, if the matter were discussed in a >court? If we were sceptical at all, seriosusly, (as, by the way, Krishnamurti >dangerously and innocently recommended for his non-method), wouldn´t we >live in the jail of Descartes´solipsism? Speaking for myself... The only reason I started studies in esotericism is because I was a skeptic. One Master teacher once told me that the reason why I was his best student, is because I questioned everything he said, and gave him the opportunity to question himself and find ways to explain it better to his other students. So, for any student of esotericism, once started, and not finding any holes in the fundamental truths, it becomes easy to read and follow the teachings of anyone who bases his teachings on those same fundamentals. The only thing that matters is what the Masters say, not who they are. Also, since when is Descartes a solipsist? And, even if he was, what has solipsism got to do with careful subjective and objective evaluation of the nature of reality -- from any point of view? > >So, will we have to believe in Creme´s claims? I don´t mean that. Let´s >investigate that patiently, that´s all. If that were true, it would be >tremendous to the world. Would that make us wise?. The only conffirmation >of the claim, of corse, not. But, woudn´t that put us in the Way of a Master? > Is that not important? So investigate for yourself, and leave others to do the same. I've already investigated Creme, and conclude that he is an impostor and a dangerous demagogue. There's nothing in what you say that would "put us in the Way of a Master." Each one of us can find our own Master within, and by so doing, find that Way for ourselves. > >Why do we consider seriously, for example, the hyphotesis of the Seven Root >Races? Because HPB thaught that? No. Because she said she learned it >from the Masters. And, so, we consider seriously this theory, against ALL >actual reputated antrophology and archeology . Certainly, the existence of >man since 300,000 years or more, and even much, much, much before also in >the previous Rond, is a dream of non sense from the scientific point of view. > We don't believe in the seven root races because HPB taught it, or got it from the Masters -- but only if we understand the fundamental truths that leave us no alternative but to consider it a valid conclusion. So, who cares what the scientists believe? They are caught in the trap of reductive and empirical thinking of their own making. So, what difference does that make to our own individual searches for truth (both scientifically and philosophica lly, as well as spiritually)? Didn't HPB call the Secret Doctrine, "a synthesis of science, religion and philosophy"? How can we separate them -- if we want to practice universal brotherhood and be effective Bodhisattvas or Masters in this or a future life? That's what HPB meant when she said "theosophy is practical idealism." >So, will we say, if we want to be honest with our positions, that finding >a Masters is not important, very important ... and even more? >Krishnamurti would say no, of course. But he could say that after he received >a instruction. And if we take seriously his words, don´t we see that they >leave us to the Descartes´solipsism? (Remember also Govert´s paper). >But if we also think that K´s non method leave us to freedom ... is it not also >a prejudice, a learned idea, the only one that can make us follow the non >method? That makes no sense. What these people say or do (including Govert) has no relevance to our own search for truth or the method of finding enlightenment. Whether their interpretations of theosophy, methods or other teachings are right or wrong, is for each of us to find out for ourselves, and not get embroiled in pointless arguments about it. My best advice for any of us who can't find their truths in HPB and the Masters, is to go study all of them, and separate the chaff from the wheat for themselves. > >Because if we really want to put away our mental ideas, as Krishnamurti >emphatically and ingenually suggests (instead of understanding that ideas, >a methaphysic, may be, for mental creatures as we are now, a instrumental >and valuable, though transitorius tool), wouldn´t we be in the non-sense of >existence experimented by Sartre? I don't understand what you are saying. But, both Krishnamurti and Sartre have given us valid ideas based on their particular and individual points of view. It's up to us, individually, to synthesize these ideas and place them in their proper perspective... After which, we will find the real truth that underlies them both. Theosophy does just that in its overall combined teaching of both the heart and the head doctrine -- which are both necessary to arrive at a true Self realization. The universe is a combination and interplay of both spirit and matter. Even Buddhi as the vehicle of spirit is, in itself, material in essence, as is Manas... Both of which are linked with each other as well, as with all our lower natures, through the vibrational energies or "fields" of manifest space -- down to the quarks themselves that make up our physical bodies. How could they be causative, karma connected, and interact with each other, if they were not all composed of the same substance? The only thing that is separate from all this "substance," is our spirit alone, linked to the "Supreme Spirit" which, together, the roots of our awareness and the power of our will, both of which resides in the ubiquitous and timeless zero-point of absolute stillness plus the infinite energy of absolute motion surrounding it. All else is substance or matter rooted in "awakened" or manifest motion in time. To "realize" (experience) this in all its aspects, in both heart and mind, is the goal of "enlightenment" -- as Patanjali (as well as HPB and WQJ) so clearly points out. Unfortunately, Krishnamurti, as well as many other neo-theosophists, before and since, although mostly correct as far as they go, have only given part of the total picture. The Head and Heart Doctrines cannot be separated -- no matter how cleverly the neo-theosphists argue their interpretations, contrived mysticisms, and self serving and/or particular points of view. >We don´t know personally the so called Masters (Koot Houmi, and others), >but we feel that HPB´s are serious ideas to be considered. How much more >important will be for us, then, to find, to know, a Master!. But there is only one "Master" that we have to know... And, that is the one that is within us -- and always has been. We can only get to know that Master by "learning" to hear its "Voice in the Silence" (after we "stop" our own minds and its discursive thinking about what and whom we are conditioned to believe) and begin to experience it (or them) for ourselves. The Masters that HPB learned from, can be believed in solely by the truths they teach -- which we all are required (as instructed by HPB) to verify for ourselves. > >So, Leon, I think that this topic of discussion IS important. Yes, very important... But only to open our own minds, balance out intuition with our reason, and to counteract the false prophets and proselytizers of spiritual enlightenment who enjoin (mesmerize, or force) us to follow their rules of blind faith and credulous belief in their supposed "authorities" -- dressed up in all sorts of religious, mystical and political garbs -- who, while lip servicing brotherhood and peace, do nothing more than separate and confuse the unthinking masses, distort or deny the fundamental theosophical truths, and increase the power of these "dictators," their "army's of the Lord," so to speak (their police "enforcers," "priests," or economic and governmental converts) over their sheep-like "believers" -- who blindly follow their leaders and carry out their orders (no matter how unfairly or oppressively) to the detriment of those not in their group or members of their religions, political and economic organizations, or so called, "esoteric Lodges" (under whatever particular names they go by). So, while we may look into these self proclaimed prophets or masters for ourselves, talking about them here, on a personal level, is a waste of time and energy. I'm glad that the one who first brought it up finally figured that out for himself. So, it's time we all dropped the subject... Although this doesn't mean stopping discussion of the essence of any of their their teachings that may be in conformance with the "fundamental principles" (along with the deductive truths they support). LHM -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 9 05:16:07 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id FAA11529 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 05:07:23 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Peter Merriott" To: Subject: RE: Theos-World HPB's comments on Universal Brotherhood and First Objects of the TS. Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:03:45 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <393F0E7D.F7DD84DE@sprynet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Thanks Bart, I understand what you are saying now. I would put it a little differently to yourself. I agree with you that Theosophy does state Universal Brotherhood is a fact in Nature. I also have a sense that the First Object of the TS was for members to *work towards* making that underlying fact a 'reality' in our dealings with one another and the world at large. This seems consistent with HPB's words about the original programme being: "to form the nucleus of a regular Society whose objects were broadly stated as follows: 1.Universal Brotherhood; 2. [etc] 3. [etc]" HPB could have formed "the nucleus a regular society" for any number of reasons, yet she makes the point of stating in many places that: "Our fundamental object is UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD, kind feelings and moral help profered to all and every Brother, whatever his creed and views."... and ... "to unite firmly a body of men of all nations in brotherly love and bent on a pure altuistic work, not on a labour with selfish motives " and she adds "on that day only will Theosophy become any higher than any nominal brotherhood of man." Putting it in different words, HPB wrote that the TS was "Born with the threefold object of infusing more mutual brotherly feeling in mankind; of investigating the mysteries of nature from the Spiritual and Psychic aspect; and, of doing a tardy justice to the civilizations and Wisdom of Eastern pre-Christian nations and literature..." In another place HPB writes of the practical application of this First Object in the form of "Practical Altruism". (see preveious post) This practical application of Universal Brotherhood comes before the other two objects namely the exploration of the Eastern Wisdom and the underlying mysteries of nature. The Master KH writes something that bears directly in this: "It is he alone who has the love of humanity at heart, who is capable of grasping thoroughly the idea of a regenerating practical Brotherhood who is entitled to the possession of our secrets. He alone, such a man -- will never misuse his powers, as there will be no fear that he should turn them to selfish ends. A man who places not the good of mankind above his own good is not worthy of becoming our chela -- he is not worthy of becoming higher in knowledge than his neighbour." (Mahatma Letters No. 38) That students of Theosophy did not (and no doubt we still do not) do enough to realise this aim of "regenerating practical Brotherhood" was the cause of HPB's expressed disappointment when writing about the first Object of "Universal Brotherhood": "In spite of all our efforts, this object has been almost constantly ignored, or become a dead letter..." (Collected Writings XI: 125) ...Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Bart Lidofsky > Sent: 08 June 2000 04:10 > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World HPB's comments on Universal Brotherhood and > First Objects of the TS. > The 1st Object is that the Theosophical Society form a > NUCLEUS of the > Brotherhood of Humanity; that such a Brotherhood exists is assumed > (which is about the only dogma the TS has; Annie Besant once said that > the only belief that is required of a TS member is that s/he believes in > a Brotherhood of Humanity, although we must remember, she also said, > that even those who don't believe in a Brotherhood of Humanity are still > our Brothers). We cannot form the Brotherhood of Humanity; it exists > regardless of what we do. What we can do (if one looks at all the > Objects together) is demonstrate on an objective basis that the > Brotherhood of Humanity is a physical fact, and not just wishful > thinking. > > Bart Lidofsky > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 9 11:22:22 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA19724 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:20:01 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <3941172E.D4C7395B@bmu.com.pe> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:11:26 -0500 From: ernesto X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [es] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World- Justificacion of Theosophical credibility: OntheMasters References: <14.4698658.266a1ec3@aol.com> <393A9BD0.13F0081C@bmu.com.pe> <393C5BB2.3C0471BD@sprynet.com> <39400AC7.F8139254@bmu.com.pe> <3940595F.F54D6CD2@sprynet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server: VPOP3 V1.3.4 - Registered to: Cyberline Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Bart Lidofsky escribió: > > But what is a human? Is it a being with two arms, two legs, two eyes, > ears, a head, a torso, in the form of what we call "humanoid"? If so, > then Blavatsky's description of the 4th Root Race would have required > that the laws of physics have radically changed in an extremely short > period of time (or, as the Christian fundamentalists believe, Satan has > planted false evidence around). Note that the 1st Root Race was not > humanoid at all; it was barely physical at all. One CAN reincarnate into > a HIGHER form of life, after all. > Bart, I still don´t understand what you are trying to do. By mentioning the non fisical 1st Root Race, or the 4 th Root Race, it seems that you try to say science is not in complete disaccord with theosophical antropologie. But we can´t hid the evident. Theosophy teaches an enormous antiquity for the 5 th Root Race. And also teaches that seven Root Races lived in earth before, and also before. Just to mention something. >From a scientifical point of view (and I repeat that science is far away of being synonymous of truth; just Gnosis is real Truth), this ideas are science fiction, non-sense. > BART: if the apes were an unsuccessful attempt to > evolve our current human bodies, that would reconcile Blavatsky's > statement that apes were descended from humans with the anthropological > evidence. > > Bart Lidofsky > Again, Bart, we can´t hide the evident by doing it. All I trie to do mentioning evidents conflicts between actual science and Theosophical anthropologie is make a question: which is the fundamental basis for the idea that theosophical techings (HPB´s writing) are very probably true. A question not for an autobiographical explanation of each theosophist, but for a reasoned justification. And a question not to a Master or a clairvoyant, but to most of us. As I see this things, the basis of all (in a so mentioned justification) is the trust (not a blind faith, of course) in Masters. Am I wrong? Could you tell me, or any other, what could be the reasoned justification, its possibilities, its limits, etc.? You have not answered that. And I think it is important, if we really want to differenciate from the common blind-believers. If we resolve this, we will be able to discuss later if it is important, or in wich way it is important, to find a Master. P.D. Why did you mention the Christian fundamentalists? I hope that I will be not confused with them, or with that attitude. I also believe that in a rational discussion arguments speak for themselves, and that it is not important to mention a supposed (worst if bad supposed) character of the personality of the other person. I say this because you said, in the beginning of your mail: "... Just an example of what I was talking about". Friendly, DAVID C. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 9 12:38:26 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id MAA30125 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:23:19 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39412117.1D86F8D5@bmu.com.pe> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:53:44 -0500 From: ernesto X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [es] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Theos-World Justification of theosopichal credibility: On the Masters. References: <38.70884db.26720662@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server: VPOP3 V1.3.4 - Registered to: Cyberline Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote:: > since when is Descartes a solipsist? I don´t say that he was solipsist. I wasn´t enough clear. In fact, he went beyond his first Meditation. I meant that, as philosophy showed after Descartes, he didn´t guive any real reason to go beyond the first Meditation. And that is the problem of actual epistemology, and the theorie of truth. I meant that cartesianism - in its historical value- leave us only to the first Meditation. > And, even if he was, > what has solipsism got to do with careful subjective and objective evaluation > of the nature of reality -- from any point of view? > It has to do with all of that. It´s a matter of epistemology. Solipsism is the negation of a possibility of knowledge. It brings us just anihilation, not in the buddhist way of Zen (and that is the problem), but in the way of non-sense of existence, in Sartre´s way. And what I say is that Krishnamurti´s way of leaving us to the Truth, when heard, is ingenuously cartesian (in the sense of the First Meditation of Descartes), but he also says, at the same time, that this non-methos leave us to truth. But if will agree with him, we have to presuppose a zen buddhist-like understanding of his words, and of the nature of mind, and the existence of Trascendence, but didn´t K said that we didn´t had to do that: to assume as true a teaching (even with simply trust, not with blind faith)? That is, I think, K´s internal contradiction. And the proof that teachings have value. > > > > >Why do we consider seriously, for example, the hyphotesis of the Seven Root > >Races? Because HPB thaught that? No. Because she said she learned it > >from the Masters. And, so, we consider seriously this theory, against ALL > >actual reputated antrophology and archeology . Certainly, the existence of > >man since 300,000 years or more, and even much, much, much before also in > >the previous Rond, is a dream of non sense from the scientific point of view. > > > We don't believe in the seven root races because HPB taught it, or got it > from the Masters -- but only if we understand the fundamental truths that > leave us no alternative but to consider it a valid conclusion. It is very interesting. Are you talking about an "As above, below"-reasoning that leave us to accept the theorie of the Seven Roots Races? What did you exactly men? I would like to herad that. > > >So, will we say, if we want to be honest with our positions, that finding > >a Masters is not important, very important ... and even more? > >Krishnamurti would say no, of course. But he could say that after he > received > >a instruction. And if we take seriously his words, don´t we see that they > >leave us to the Descartes´solipsism? (Remember also Govert´s paper). > >But if we also think that K´s non method leave us to freedom ... is it not > also > >a prejudice, a learned idea, the only one that can make us follow the non > >method? > > That makes no sense. What these people say or do (including Govert) has no > relevance to our own search for truth or the method of finding enlightenment. > Whether their interpretations of theosophy, methods or other teachings are > right or wrong, is for each of us to find out for ourselves, and not get > embroiled in pointless arguments about it. My best advice for any of us who > can't find their truths in HPB and the Masters, is to go study all of them, > and separate the chaff from the wheat for themselves. > Why were you, as you mentioned in your e-mail, a studier with a Master teacher? I think that your answer will explain exactly what I trie to say. You were just misunderstanding my indication that finding a Master is important. I don´t think that a Master will guive us the freedom, or the Ilumination. It is in ourselves. And I agree with you here. But by the same reason you went to a Master teaching, I think (and in that sense) that it is important to find a Master. No more than that. Imagine that an Avatar comes to the world. Would you tell us that just you have the right to studie with a Master teacher? Of course not. It´s been just a misunderstanding of the sense of my words (or my attitude), I think. > > > > >We don´t know personally the so called Masters (Koot Houmi, and others), > >but we feel that HPB´s are serious ideas to be considered. How much more > >important will be for us, then, to find, to know, a Master!. > > But there is only one "Master" that we have to know... And, that is the one > that is within us -- and always has been. As you can see, I really agree with you. Friendly, DAVID C. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 9 15:44:43 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id PAA26188 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:37:37 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39415533.6718FB1@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:36:03 -0400 From: Michele Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Theos-World An Article on Consciousness Studies Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear friends, There is an article in the current U.S. News & World Report http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000612/mind.htm in the 'Science & Ideas' section that those of you interested in consciousness studies might want to take a look at. It refers to the work of a philosopher of mind whom I, as a theosophist, have found intriguing. It summarizes the views of the non-reductionist yet scientifically oriented David Chalmers, of the University of Arizona, who is head of the consciousness studies program there. There are also some links on the page to tell you more about his work. I thoroughly enjoyed his book, 'The Conscious Mind - in Search of a Fundamental Theory'. A general statement of his views can also be found in a paper of his called 'Moving Forward on the Problems of Consciousness' which in the past could be downloaded from his personal web site. Michele L. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 9 18:58:50 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA17227 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:41:56 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ Message-ID: <002201bfd26c$7b1778e0$ae09c5a9@azstarnet.com> From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" To: Cc: References: <39415533.6718FB1@mindspring.com> Subject: Theos-World Re: An Article on Consciousness Studies Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:43:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Thanks Michele for the article! Here are some links to Consciousness studies, etc. on the web: Go to: http://www.eskimo.com/~saritepe/consciousness.html Daniel ----- Original Message ----- From: Michele Lidofsky To: Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 1:36 PM Subject: Theos-World An Article on Consciousness Studies > > Dear friends, > > There is an article in the current U.S. News & World Report > http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000612/mind.htm in the 'Science & > Ideas' section that those of you interested in consciousness studies > might want to take a look at. It refers to the work of a philosopher of > mind whom I, as a theosophist, have found intriguing. It summarizes the > views of the non-reductionist yet scientifically oriented David > Chalmers, of the University of Arizona, who is head of the consciousness > studies program there. There are also some links on the page to tell > you more about his work. > > I thoroughly enjoyed his book, 'The Conscious Mind - in Search of a > Fundamental Theory'. A general statement of his views can also be found > in a paper of his called 'Moving Forward on the Problems of > Consciousness' which in the past could be downloaded from his personal > web site. > > Michele L. > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 9 19:34:03 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id TAA20338 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:28:58 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39418B72.61C424E@sprynet.com> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:27:30 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com What's worse is that it is rumored that the Battlefield Earth series was ghost written by Philip Jose Farmer, otherwise an excellent writer... Bart Lidofsky Free Tibet wrote: > > Battlefield Earth has now been completed as a movie by John Travolta. > Pulpish but subliminal. > > nos > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com > > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Dennis Kier > > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 10:27 AM > > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. > > > > > > > > > > Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > > > > even as far out as L Ron Hubbard, and others like them -- > > > > > > Historical note: Aleister Crowley referred to L. Ron > > Hubbard as the > > > most evil man he had ever met. > > > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > > > > > > But at the time AC died, wasn't L. Ron still just a > > science-fiction writer? I > > used to like his "Old Doc Methusela" stories, before he wrote Dianetics. > > > > Dennis > > > > > > > > > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 9 20:38:53 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA27060 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:28:45 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39419976.A476C392@sprynet.com> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 21:27:18 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World HPB's comments on Universal Brotherhood and First Objects of the TS. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Your way of looking at it certainly has validity. Peter Merriott wrote: > > Thanks Bart, > > I understand what you are saying now. I would put it a little > differently to yourself. Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 9 20:52:17 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA27575 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 20:37:20 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39419B78.CEC1FF03@sprynet.com> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 21:35:52 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World- Justificacion of Theosophical credibility: OntheMasters References: <14.4698658.266a1ec3@aol.com> <393A9BD0.13F0081C@bmu.com.pe> <393C5BB2.3C0471BD@sprynet.com> <39400AC7.F8139254@bmu.com.pe> <3940595F.F54D6CD2@sprynet.com> <3941172E.D4C7395B@bmu.com.pe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com ernesto wrote: > > Bart Lidofsky escribió: > > > > > But what is a human? Is it a being with two arms, two legs, > > two eyes, > > ears, a head, a torso, in the form of what we call "humanoid"? If so, > > then Blavatsky's description of the 4th Root Race would have required > > that the laws of physics have radically changed in an extremely short > > period of time (or, as the Christian fundamentalists believe, Satan > > has > > planted false evidence around). Note that the 1st Root Race was not > > humanoid at all; it was barely physical at all. One CAN reincarnate > > into > > a HIGHER form of life, after all. > > > > Bart, I still don´t understand what you are trying to do. By mentioning > the non fisical 1st Root Race, or the 4 th Root Race, it seems that you > try to say science is not in complete disaccord with theosophical > antropologie. But we can´t hid the evident. > > Theosophy teaches an enormous antiquity for the 5 th Root Race. I am saying that the 4th Root Race could very well have had non-humanoid bodies; they would still be human. Perhaps they were the "serpent" mentioned in the book of Genesis, who lost their humanity when the 5th root race accepted it (symbolically, by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge). Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 10 02:59:47 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id CAA30209 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 02:40:43 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: <73.40cc2ff.26734a30@aol.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 03:37:20 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/07/00 12:12:38 AM, bartl@sprynet.com writes: >LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: >> There are at least two things a true theosophist cannot be... One is a >> worshipper of any God, figurehead or authority... Another, is a member >> of any religion that denies the validity or the rule of karma and the >> doctrine of reincarnation (coupled with individual, self determined >> choice, based on self devised study) as determiners of the fates or >> destinies of all sentient beings... (Thus, totally denying any sort of > >> personal "God" or "Savior" as intermediary.) > > Actually, the Mahatmas would probably disagree with that; Koothoomi >stated that each person should seek the truth their own religion (part >of recognizing Anna Kingsford's election as President of the London >Lodge in spite of her Christianity). I doubt it... Since the Mahatmas as well as HPB said, in effect, that while every exoteric religion is based on some semblance of the eternal Wisdom, there are in each of them distortions and falsehoods that the discerning student must determine for himself and discard, while selecting only those truths that conform with the fundamental principles and their reasonable conclusions. The belief in a personal God, a vicarious atonement, and a savior are parts of those Christian falsehoods that have to be weeded out. Therefore, any theosophist can be a follower of the teachings of Christ and benefit from those truths without accepting any of the false theologies of the organized religion, or denying any of the cosmogenetic and athropogenetic truths of theosophy, its principles and its objects. Yeshua (or Jesus, as Romanized) himself, who spoke nothing in his sermons about the false theology that the later Christian priests contrived for their own crafty purposes -- as a Hebrew Rebbe, was an esoteric Kabbalist, whose teachings, even today, are identical with the esoteric Brahmanic teachings that parallels and confirms theosophy (as presented to the West by HPB and the Mahatmas). Jesus spoke to and of the Godhead that the Kabbalists know of as Ein-Soph (equivalent to Parabrahm) -- and not to the so called Christian God, Jehovah... A transmogrified male aspect of the second emanation of Ein-Soph, Binah, the feminine aspect, representing Wisdom -- whom the Hebrews identified in their language with the mystical name, Yod, Hay, Voh, Hay (mispronounced, ye-ho-va-ah, by the later Christianized Romans, and further modified by its English translation in the King James bible). It would be well to study what HPB had to say on this subject. LHM > >> even as far out as L Ron Hubbard, and others like them -- > > Historical note: Aleister Crowley referred to L. Ron Hubbard as the >most evil man he had ever met. While I can't agree or disagree with Crowley on this point -- judging from his own record, I would take anything he says about his competitors with a grain of salt. According to my information (culled by some of my military intelligence friends from British MI-5 records after WW II ) he was also a gre at help to Hitler in the early 30's by giving him some useful angles on the use of occult mantric and mudric magic. Thanks to Crowley, Hitler's use of incoherent and illogical oratorical mantras, along with staged physical mudras, was how he mesmerized his immense Nuremberg audiences into perfectly synchronized, triply choreographed arm stretching and shouts of Sieg Heil ... BTW, the journalist/writer (I forget his name) of the History of the Third Reich, said he never could understand why -- without understanding anything that Hitler was saying -- he jumped out of his seat and reacted that way when he attended one of Hitler's Nuremberg pageants before the war. Incidentally, referring to my remark above, Crowley is one of the "others like them" that I had in mind. LHM -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 10 09:45:45 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id JAA07151 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:44:26 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39425666.2A24E12C@west.net> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 07:53:41 -0700 From: Spencer Organization: Spence Surfboards X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Fundamental theosohical principles and their relationship to science. References: <11.4695b56.2666bd36@aol.com> <3935DE67.C4BF4FE@sprynet.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------A38B210C80F026598CEDE6FA" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------A38B210C80F026598CEDE6FA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just a little number fun while we're all busy discussing the merits of "Battlefield Earth." "Beyond all else, to be human is to radiate benevolence." R.N. Iyer benevolence = 1 + 4 + 3 + 4 + 1 + 4 + 2 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 4 = 32 = 3 + 2 = 5 light = 2 + 8 + 6 + 7 + 9 = 32 = 3 + 2 = 5 Spencer Bart Lidofsky wrote: > LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > > So, what? Many of us learned that in the 3rd grade. While interesting > > to some, perhaps, in handling numbers (e.g. arithmatic using the > > extraction of nines) ... But, without linking such numerical tricks > > with any relationship to the "actual" fundamental nature of reality > > encompassing the synthesis of universal causation, law, and evolution, > > where's the esoteric science or the philosophy? > > Why do people sing in the shower? Because one can extract anything they > want from noise. It can be an excellent meditative practice, or, like > anything else, it can be taken too far. Saying that life = death can be > a useful mental exercise. One can always hit a bullseye by painting the > target around the bullet-hole. But to use it as proof that one is an > expert shot, well... > > Bart Lidofsky > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. --------------A38B210C80F026598CEDE6FA Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="kellogg.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Spencer Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="kellogg.vcf" begin:vcard n:Kellogg;Spencer x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:kellogg@west.net x-mozilla-cpt:;1 fn:Spencer Kellogg end:vcard --------------A38B210C80F026598CEDE6FA-- -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 10 10:21:48 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA08435 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 10:03:11 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <004601bfd2ec$55872be0$e783fea9@livingroom> From: "Wayne Benge" To: References: <32.60b373f.266f5e91@aol.com> <007701bfd10f$cfdc5020$d0bbfea9@livingroom> <394049D1.4E89CC85@sprynet.com> Subject: Re: Theos-World Maitreya appearance Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:32:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Hello, > And what edition of the Talmud did that appear in? Or is your knowledge > of Judaism 2nd hand? > > Bart Lidofsky > It took me a couple of messages to understand where you were coming from, but now I understand. Wayne Benge -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 10 10:33:10 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA08442 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 10:03:12 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <004701bfd2ec$565fd8a0$e783fea9@livingroom> From: "Wayne Benge" To: References: <73.40cc2ff.26734a30@aol.com> Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:56:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > > > > Actually, the Mahatmas would probably disagree with that; Koothoomi > >stated that each person should seek the truth their own religion (part > >of recognizing Anna Kingsford's election as President of the London > >Lodge in spite of her Christianity). > > I doubt it... Since the Mahatmas as well as HPB said, in effect, that while > every exoteric religion is based on some semblance of the eternal Wisdom, > there are in each of them distortions and falsehoods that the discerning > student must determine for himself and discard, while selecting only those > truths that conform with the fundamental principles and their reasonable > conclusions. > > The belief in a personal God, a vicarious atonement, and a savior are parts > of those Christian falsehoods that have to be weeded out. Therefore, any I don't know how anyone can not experience God personally, and a savior is a matter of perspective. When a person is drowning, and another person comes along and tells him to stand up -- the water is three feet deep, that other person is perceived as savior. As for atonement, we are who we are, not who we were. Vicarious atonement is a child's game, but children seem to need it. Sometimes I think the Earth is a playpen. Human beings don't mature very fast. The classic religions tried to help the masses, and certain people used those religions politically. That is why we can't let ourselves follow others blindly. Oral Roberts, "Send me money or God is going to call me home" Bye Robert. That is why I have an interest in Theosophy. It seems to be shouting to stand up on your own, and get rid of the chaff. I have know about Theosophy for about six months. I like what I see. Wayne Benge -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 10 12:00:29 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA18935 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 11:54:16 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39427263.E678EE95@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 12:52:51 -0400 From: Michele Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. References: <73.40cc2ff.26734a30@aol.com> <004701bfd2ec$565fd8a0$e783fea9@livingroom> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Wayne Benge wrote: > I don't know how anyone can not experience God personally, and a savior is a > matter of perspective. When a person is drowning, and another person comes > along and tells him to stand up -- the water is three feet deep, that other > person is perceived as savior. Hi, Wayne - I would offer, that in theosophy, when that other person comes along and "tells him to stand up", that person is NOT God, (or Parabrahm, or Ein-soph, or the uncognizable One), but is a messenger or a vehicle for the universal wisdom or the knowledge of the truth (logos). S/he is more akin to the metaphorical finger pointing to the moon. And as everyone knows, (or should know) you ought not to worship the finger pointing to the moon. So the perception of the rescuer as a 'savior' is erroneous, an emotional re-action. Michele Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 10 17:22:56 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA15791 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 17:10:20 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <003101bfd328$02d92100$e783fea9@livingroom> From: "Wayne Benge" To: References: <73.40cc2ff.26734a30@aol.com> <004701bfd2ec$565fd8a0$e783fea9@livingroom> <39427263.E678EE95@mindspring.com> Subject: Theos-World Re: Know God personally Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 16:54:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Hello, > > along and tells him to stand up -- the water is three feet deep, that other > > person is perceived as savior. > > I would offer, that in theosophy, when that other person comes along and > "tells him to stand up", that person is NOT God, (or Parabrahm, or > Ein-soph, or the uncognizable One), but is a messenger or a vehicle for > the universal wisdom or the knowledge of the truth (logos). S/he is > more akin to the metaphorical finger pointing to the moon. And as > everyone knows, (or should know) you ought not to worship the finger > pointing to the moon. So the perception of the rescuer as a 'savior' is > erroneous, an emotional re-action. > I agree. That person is not God. The savior is an emotional reaction, but savior anyway. The savior should not be worshiped. The concept of adoring anyone or any object feels wrong to me. I personally think we worship God when we act according to how we believe God would have us act. Morally. Responsibily. I like the idea of that person being called a messenger or vehicle for universal wisdom. The knowledge of truth. I really like that. Wayne Benge -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 10 18:27:20 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA23404 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 18:27:03 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000610182141.00941df0@mail.eden.com> X-Sender: ramadoss@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 18:21:41 -0500 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. In-Reply-To: <004701bfd2ec$565fd8a0$e783fea9@livingroom> References: <73.40cc2ff.26734a30@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com At 09:56 AM 06/10/2000 -0500, you wrote: That is why I have an interest in Theosophy. It seems to be shouting to stand up on your own, and get rid of the chaff. I have know about Theosophy for about six months. I like what I see. >Wayne Benge It is the most difficult thing and at times you are alone, not isolated. The interest you have is addictive and will be with you rest of your life (based on my personal experience). And that is the beauty of theosophy. mkr -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 10 22:18:52 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA09101 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 22:18:04 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <200006110310.e5B3AVs07928@mail3.primary.net> From: "N.Malcom" To: Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 22:15:22 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Although I know the points you are all making, I might add another viewpoint from someone afraid of water. Anyone perceived as a god(by themselves or others) who stands on the bank and says "stand up" might be considered a savior by some, but to me I'd drather have a typical theosophist who is very aware of the human condition within themselves, wade out and help me stand up. That's why people drown in small amounts of water, they can't decide which way is up. That's why this list is so important. It's often the little puddles that cause us problems, and someone who has inhaled a little water themselves, can wade in without fear and with a lot of humity. All the theory in the cosmos doesn't help if we always stand on the bank and give advice. That's why "living the life" is important. Just another way of looking at the illustration given. The more viewpoints offered, the more options for comment. nancy ---------- > From: M K Ramadoss > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. > Date: Saturday, June 10, 2000 6:21 PM > > At 09:56 AM 06/10/2000 -0500, you wrote: > > That is why I have an interest in Theosophy. It seems to be shouting to > stand up on your own, and get rid of the chaff. I have know about Theosophy > for about six months. I like what I see. > > >Wayne Benge > > It is the most difficult thing and at times you are alone, not isolated. > > The interest you have is addictive and will be with you rest of your life > (based on my personal experience). And that is the beauty of theosophy. > > mkr > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 11 23:31:30 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA00985 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:23:29 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ Message-ID: <001001bfd425$148c9820$c80bc5a9@azstarnet.com> From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" To: "Caldwell, Daniel H." Subject: Theos-World Nine more items have just been added to the BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 21:16:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm Nine more items have just been added to the archives. See section "New Items Recently Added to the Archives." *** "Madame Blavatsky" by P* * * * * * [Reprinted from The Woman's Herald (London), May 16, 1891, pp. 465-466.] *** "Communication with Masters" by H.P. Blavatsky [Reprinted from The Theosophist (Adyar, Madras, India), February 1908, pp. 393-394.] *** "Letter of H.P. Blavatsky to Dr. Elliott Coues." [Reprinted from The Theosophical Forum (Point Loma, California), October 15, 1933, pp. 47-48.) *** "The Frauds of Madame Blavatsky" by Wm. Emmette Coleman. [Reprinted from The Summerland (Summerland, California), April 18, 1891, p. 2.] *** "Theosophy and Spiritualism" by Wm. Emmette Coleman. [Reprinted from The Religio-Philosophical Journal (Chicago, Illinois), August 6, 1881, p. 2.] *** "Mr. Sinnett's Circular" by Richard Hodgson. [Reprinted from the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (London), November 1885, pp. 109-112.] *** "The Charges Against Mr. Eglinton" by Eleanor Mildred Sidgwick. [Reprinted from the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (London), November 1886, pp. 467-469.] *** "Mr. Eglinton" by Eleanor Mildred Sidgwick. [Reprinted from the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (London), June 1886, pp. 282-287.] *** "Mr. Sinnett's Resignation: A Letter from A.P. Sinnett." [Reprinted from the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (London), October 1885, pp. 86-87. Daniel H. Caldwell danielhcaldwell@hotmail.com BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 12 02:55:00 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id CAA15695 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 02:47:11 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 03:43:25 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Justification of theosopichal credibility: On the Masters. To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/09/00 1:41:40 PM, ernesto@bmu.com.pe writes: (snip) >> >Why do we consider seriously, for example, the hyphotesis of the Seven >> >Root Races? Because HPB thaught that? No. Because she said she learned >> >it from the Masters. And, so, we consider seriously this theory, against >> >ALL actual reputated antrophology and archeology . Certainly, the >> >existence of man since 300,000 years or more, and even much, much, >> >much before also in the previous Rond, is a dream of non sense from the >> >scientific point of view. > >> We don't believe in the seven root races because HPB taught it, or got >> it from the Masters -- but only if we understand the fundamental truths >> that leave us no alternative but to consider it a valid conclusion. > >It is very interesting. Are you talking about an "As above, below"-reasoning >that leave us to accept the theorie of the Seven Roots Races? What did you >exactly mean? I would like to hear that. No. The statement, "As above, so below," is, by itself, an unconfirmed and arbitrarily conclusive idea that, if true, must be derived from and conform with the Fundamental Laws of Nature -- whose actions on both the macrocosmic and microcosmic levels should be thoroughly studied and understood, or "realized," before one can truly believe that such a statement is a fact. What I meant, was that there cannot be any valid reason to belief in the "seven root races, just because a respected Master or Mahatma told us so. For any theosophical or metaphysical concept to be accepted as true, one has to thoroughly study and understand the universal laws or Nature, and examine their causes and effects with relation to that particular concept -- in order to "prove" to oneself that it actually is a valid "fact" of Nature. It follows, that if we fully understand the three Fundamental Principles, and particularly, the second -- which implies that the rules governing all evolution of the universe (from its initial self awareness in spirit, to the myriad forms [fields] of matter that emanate and evolve out of its inherent and infinite "space") are the "laws of cycles and periodicity" -- we can go back in our mind's eye to the origin of cycles in the spinning energy of pre cosmic, non dimensional, zero-point space... And, then, by following the progression of its emanation and evolution by a sort of graphical analytical mind experimentation ("meditation with a seed," according to Patanjali) -- we can envision how these proto-circles of "spinning energy" propagate themselves to maintain their eternal "wholeness" -- although separated into the seven fold "planes" of bubbles within bubbles within bubbles, etc., as already implied, but not yet proven, in the new, multidimensional Superstring and M-brane theories. Incidentally, these theories are almost what HPB predicted would begin to be accepted by science toward the end of the 20th century -- as its theorists get closer and closer to considering the reality of the metaphysical theosophical truths. With such knowledge, coupled with the use of analogy and correspondence, we can begin to logically as well as intuitively realize that all cyclic phenomena -- (starting with the initial emanation of the primal fields and ending with the progression of the rounds and races, the inner natures of man, the chakras, etc.) -- always occurs in seven analogous stages and appears three dimensionally on seven simultaneous planes ("in coadunation, but not in consubstantiality"). For a symbolic picture of how these fields propagate, ad infinitum (as above, so below) in three, seven, fourteen, etc., "chakra fields", surrounding their zero-points or laya centers, see: http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html I hope that this clarifies my meaning -- and reinforces, as well, my admonition (in parallel with HPB's and WQJ's advice) that no theosophical information should be taken as gospel truth without thorough "self determined and self devised" study, investigation and testing -- using our intuition, alo ng with our (verified) knowledge and powers of reason. Blind belief in any "authority" -- no matter how well respected -- can never give anyone "Self realization", along with a true understanding of the confluence of all the fundamental forces of nature that are necessary for the chela to achieve before attaining the power of the "Siddhis," and the "enlightenment" or "transformation" that follows -- when one can finally experience, with full understanding, the "ultimate division of time," and become free of all karma and as wise as the Buddha (as clearly pointed out by Patanjali as well as HPB, and further explained by WQJ). How else is one to eventually learn to rebuild the astral body, as well as to control and extend each lifetime, so as to become, ultimately, an effective bodhisattvah Adept, whose only motives are to help guide humanity to its ultimate destiny, and assist, or intervene on consciousness levels, when mankind's accumulated karma might threaten to destroy the planet itself and all the sentient beings on it. LHM -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 12 18:14:05 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA29947 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:11:04 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <000201bfd4c3$90263ec0$539ab2d1@denniski> From: "Dennis Kier" To: References: <393DC5D4.88087D50@sprynet.com> <393EEF49.EC065848@earthlink.net> <3940494F.81028567@sprynet.com> Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:31:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Bart Lidofsky To: Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 6:33 PM Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. > Dennis Kier wrote: > > > > Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > > > > even as far out as L Ron Hubbard, and others like them -- > > > > > > Historical note: Aleister Crowley referred to L. Ron Hubbard as the > > > most evil man he had ever met. > > > > > > > But at the time AC died, wasn't L. Ron still just a science-fiction writer? I > > used to like his "Old Doc Methusela" stories, before he wrote Dianetics. > > He was writing articles on "dianetics" while he was still writing (I > liked the ODM stories, too, btw). I guess that you have a better memory than I do. I don't recall any thing on Dianetics before the whole issue of "Astounding" was given over to the Dianetics book/article. Dennis Kier -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 12 18:51:35 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA00431 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:36:10 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <3945720D.32C994DF@bmu.com.pe> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:28:13 -0500 From: ernesto X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [es] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Justification of theosopichal credibility: On theMasters. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server: VPOP3 V1.3.4 - Registered to: Cyberline Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Mr. Leon Maurer: You wrote: > > It follows, that if we fully understand the three Fundamental Principles, and > particularly, the second -- which implies that the rules governing all > evolution of the universe (from its initial self awareness in spirit, to the > myriad forms [fields] of matter that emanate and evolve out of its inherent > and infinite "space") are the "laws of cycles and periodicity" -- we can go > back in our mind's eye to the origin of cycles in the spinning energy of pre > cosmic, non dimensional, zero-point space... And, then, by following the > progression of its emanation and evolution by a sort of graphical analytical > mind experimentation ("meditation with a seed," according to Patanjali) -- we > can envision how these proto-circles of "spinning energy" propagate > themselves to maintain their eternal "wholeness" -- although separated into > the seven fold "planes" of bubbles within bubbles within bubbles, etc., as > already implied, but not yet proven, in the new, multidimensional Superstring > and M-brane theories... > > With such knowledge, coupled with the use of analogy and correspondence, we > can begin to logically as well as intuitively realize that all cyclic > phenomena -- (starting with the initial emanation of the primal fields and > ending with the progression of the rounds and races, the inner natures of > man, the chakras, etc.) -- always occurs in seven analogous stages and > appears three dimensionally on seven simultaneous planes ("in coadunation, > but not in consubstantiality"). There is something that I still don´t understand. I could agree with you that, following those indications, humanity should pass through seven analogous stages. But, is it also a necessary conclusion, from those indications, that the stages would mean Races? Why not simply periods? Is it always period = Race? Couldn´t it be other way? Is it also a necessary conclusion that the first Race would be no physical, or that the Second and Third Races would have the special form of reproduction that is indicated in the SD? That old man had to be androgynous? Or is it also a necessary conclussion the enormous and (actually) non scientifically supported antiquity of each Race, including (and over all) the Fifth Root Race (a question apparently eluded by Bart)? It doesn´t seem to be so. And, if those doctrines can´t be followed from the indications you guive, I´d have to ask again: wich is the ultimate reason that should leave us (in a rational Justification) to accept those doctrines? The trust I mentioned? Friendly, David C. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 12 20:07:33 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA09112 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:03:51 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39458822.FD78ED91@sprynet.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:02:26 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. References: <393DC5D4.88087D50@sprynet.com> <393EEF49.EC065848@earthlink.net> <3940494F.81028567@sprynet.com> <000201bfd4c3$90263ec0$539ab2d1@denniski> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dennis Kier wrote: > I guess that you have a better memory than I do. I don't recall any thing on > Dianetics before the whole issue of "Astounding" was given over to the > Dianetics book/article. Not my memory; my father's and Isaac Asimov's memory. Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 13 01:31:54 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id BAA21948 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:11:23 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: <36.72719e5.267729a8@aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:07:36 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/10/00 11:30:43 AM, benge@adsnet.com writes: >I don't know how anyone can not experience God personally, and a savior is a >matter of perspective. When a person is drowning, and another person comes >along and tells him to stand up -- the water is three feet deep, that other >person is perceived as savior. "Experiencing God, personally," as the divine power within us all (through the culmination of deep meditation, or otherwise), and believing in a "personal" God who is the absolute ruler of your individual destiny -- are two different things. The impersonal Godhead (Ein Soph or Parabrahm), as the ineffable divine power behind universal origin and evolution, has no relationship or personal interest in any individual part of, or being in, the universe. Believing that someone who saves your life is your savior is one thing, and believing that a so called "Son of God Savior," such as Jesus died to save you from reaping karmic punishment for your own sins -- is another. The latter idea, called "vicarious atonement," was contrived by the priests of the Christian Church long after Jesus died, and directly contradicts the theosophical teachings, as well as the direct teachings of Jesus himself. For a look at who this biblical character really was, his relationship to the Church founded in his name, and what he actually believed in, see: http://members.aol.com/graphinc/wwtmcjc.html Understanding that you are a relatively new student of theosophy -- when you study a bit more of the esoteric teachings of theosophy and the comparative religion given us by HPB in Isis Unveiled and the Secret Doctrine, you will be even better able to discriminate between and understand the meaning of the above ideas -- that you, apparently, misinterpreted completely from reading the letter commented on. LHM -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 13 11:03:26 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA20389 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:56:06 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39464A64.DB603C48@bmu.com.pe> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:51:17 -0500 From: ernesto X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [es] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. References: <36.72719e5.267729a8@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server: VPOP3 V1.3.4 - Registered to: Cyberline Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear friends: Do any of you know if in this list has been previously discussed Aleister Crowley's teachings in relation with Theosophy? Do any of you know what he opined about HPB's teachers? Or the Mahatmas' opinion about himm, if any? DAVID C. LeonMaurer@aol.com escribió: > In a message dated 06/10/00 11:30:43 AM, benge@adsnet.com writes: > > >I don't know how anyone can not experience God personally, and a savior is a > >matter of perspective. When a person is drowning, and another person comes > >along and tells him to stand up -- the water is three feet deep, that other > >person is perceived as savior. > > "Experiencing God, personally," as the divine power within us all (through > the culmination of deep meditation, or otherwise), and believing in a > "personal" God who is the absolute ruler of your individual destiny -- are > two different things. The impersonal Godhead (Ein Soph or Parabrahm), as the > ineffable divine power behind universal origin and evolution, has no > relationship or personal interest in any individual part of, or being in, the > universe. > > Believing that someone who saves your life is your savior is one thing, and > believing that a so called "Son of God Savior," such as Jesus died to save > you from reaping karmic punishment for your own sins -- is another. The > latter idea, called "vicarious atonement," was contrived by the priests of > the Christian Church long after Jesus died, and directly contradicts the > theosophical teachings, as well as the direct teachings of Jesus himself. > For a look at who this biblical character really was, his relationship to the > Church founded in his name, and what he actually believed in, see: > http://members.aol.com/graphinc/wwtmcjc.html > > Understanding that you are a relatively new student of theosophy -- when you > study a bit more of the esoteric teachings of theosophy and the comparative > religion given us by HPB in Isis Unveiled and the Secret Doctrine, you will > be even better able to discriminate between and understand the meaning of the > above ideas -- that you, apparently, misinterpreted completely from reading > the letter commented on. > > LHM > > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 13 18:18:56 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA17086 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:18:15 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:14:04 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/12/00 7:12:11 PM, dennw3k@earthlink.net Dennis Kier) writes: >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Bart Lidofsky >To: >Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 6:33 PM >Subject: Re: Theos-World - Christ in Nairobi. > >> Dennis Kier wrote: >> > >> > Bart Lidofsky wrote: >> > >> > > > even as far out as L Ron Hubbard, and others like them -- >> > > Historical note: Aleister Crowley referred to L. Ron Hubbard >> > > as the most evil man he had ever met. >> > But at the time AC died, wasn't L. Ron still just a science-fiction writer? >> > I used to like his "Old Doc Methusela" stories, before he wrote >> > Dianetics. >> He was writing articles on "dianetics" while he was still writing (I >> liked the ODM stories, too, btw). >I guess that you have a better memory than I do. I don't recall any thing >on Dianetics before the whole issue of "Astounding" was given over to the >Dianetics book/article. If my memory still serves, John Campbell wrote several editorials and published a number of Hubbard's articles on his theory of Dianetics in the Science/Fact section of Astounding Science Fiction magazine before the Dianetics book was separately published in 1953. Incidentally, when the book first came out, being a great fan of both Campbell and Hubbard -- to test it's validity, I practiced Dianetics (with a relative as suggested) and, after almost a year, became what is today called by scientologists, "a book auditor"... Although the states of "release," and afterward, "clear," that, according to Hubbard, we were supposed to have reached after all "engrams" had been resolved, and we had confirmed all "foetal engrammatic memories" -- was later proven to be a mutually reinforced self delusion... As I suspect (although there were some normal psychological benefits in our own case) is the case with most present day scientologists -- even going so far as their ultimate achievemnet of so called "Operating Thetan" -- which I also suspect, is really their euphanism for "black magician" or "crafty priest," Incidentally, I have since, examined much of the so called "secret" teachings of the Scientologists (see: http://www.xenu.net/) and have no reason to doubt my original negative evaluation of it over 30 years ago. Prior to that time, I found the basic ideas of Dianetics -- since it fit in with my scientific and engineering mode of mind -- valid as a workable, synthetic theory of psychotherapy, memory regression, and self analysis (seemingly based on a synthesis of Buddhist, Hindu, and western psychologies)... I held this view until Hubbard followed up Dianetics with the concept of Scientology as a new religion, and I realized the pernicious, self serving purpose behind his presentation of such basically twisted therapeutic methods -- which, essentially, could be used reversibly for a sort of operator controlled, self hypnotic, "brainwashing" -- with the help of a completely phony (although impressive to the sientifically unsophisticated) pseudoscientific "E (for emotion)-meter"... Essentially, a primative "lie detector," that could easily put masses of people under the powerful control of a few selfish leaders who were practicing nothing more than a ruthless, karma-manipulative "black magic." Later, when studying the SD, and recalling what I had learned earlier from my alchemist father, I realized where Hubbard got his ideas from, and that he was using occult truths and twisting them with his prodigious "Science Fiction" writing skills, along with his education as an engineer -- for his own maliciously selfish purposes -- in a similar manner to the way Adolph Hitler used the same occult material to make himself into a similarly worshipped "God" figure or world "savior". But, for Hubbard, I think, it was more like a fantastic pathologically egomaniacal, and intellectually satisfying "science fact/fictional" game he could play as the "Grand Master" -- with the whole world, as it is presently constituted, becoming the game pieces he could manipulate and control. What better way to express his egotistic self image as a brilliant writer, engineer and mystic than to be the author-publisher and living hero/ruler/savior/messiah of a "real life" science fiction story come true, that encompasses the whole world and all the people in it? For him it may have been such a game... But, once hooked within the "Scientology Org" by the promise of the "release" (from suffering) and the "clearing" (similar to enlightenment), as wsed through the organization by some, it becomes almost impossible to quit until one is bled dry financially, and is forced to follow the party line (based on nothing more than greed and selfishness) in their external life in order to maintain personal solvency... And, also, to continue feeding the religious organization, and its multimillionaire inner circle... Or, become, literally, a "slave" to their hierarchy, and work directly for them to proselytize and expand the movement -- which, incidentally, can be as ruthless to outsiders and its enemies, and as frugal to is workers, as were the Nazi's. All in all, discounting the intrinsic value of the undistorted occult ideas behind Dianetics itself, Scientology is a cleverly contrived pyramidal "Ponzi scheme" confidence game that Hubbard "engineered" (based on all the ancient occultism and its "black" applications) to be self empowered to grow exponentially until it was large enough to make Hubbard "King of the World," with a separate jurisdiction of his own (the "Sea Org") backed by his "insider" cabal -- who could, as Hubbard envisioned, float around the oceans (and, eventually, in outer space) outside the jurisdiction of all other countries and their laws. Today, while it has quietly gone partially underground to avoid being banned in this country, as it was in Germany and other countries that recognize its Nazi parallels, it is still growing and quite dangerous... Especially, since it plays along with the conservative far right and semi-fascist attitudes that are becoming more and more prevalent in the former allied countries since WW II (following the escape and immigration into the Americas, of hundreds of thousands of former Nazi's... But that's another story.) For this reason Theosophists should be particularly aware of its activities, since, in principle, it is the direct antithesis of theosophy's fundamental principles and its altruistic teachings and practices. In this sense, judging by the insidious effect Scientology has in successfully (and silently) infiltrating its organization throughout the world by capturing some of its leaders and celebrities, and judging by the number of lives that have been destroyed or diverted from the correct evolutionary path toward true bodhisattva enlightenment -- Aliester Crowley was, apparently, quite right in saying (if he actually did) that Hubbard was "the most evil man he had ever met." (But, as I said before, Crowley was no angel himself... And, as the old saying goes, "it takes one to know one.":-) LHM -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 13 19:39:54 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id TAA27020 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:36:17 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <3946D32C.84627F01@sprynet.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:34:52 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. References: <36.72719e5.267729a8@aol.com> <39464A64.DB603C48@bmu.com.pe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com ernesto wrote: > Do any of you know if in this list has been previously discussed > Aleister Crowley's teachings in relation with Theosophy? Do any of you > know what he opined about HPB's teachers? Or the Mahatmas' opinion about > himm, if any? Aleister Crowley claims that a Master gave secrets to the Golden Dawn, and there was a LOT of cross-membership between the groups. The basic difference between Crowley and Blavatsky, in my opinion, is the importance of the practice of magic (or magick, as Crowley spelled it, to differentiate it from stage magic). Blavatsky felt that magic comes with evolution, Crowley believed that evolution came through the practice of magic. Otherwise, Crowley's Thelema (Divine Will) was very close to Theosophy. Note, "Do what thou wilt, let that be the whole of the Law" refers to what Crowley calls "Divine Will"; in other words, if one follows one's true Will (Atma-Budhi), then one can only do the correct thing. Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 13 19:43:10 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id TAA27282 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:37:39 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Free Tibet" To: Subject: RE: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:10:25 +0930 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <39464A64.DB603C48@bmu.com.pe> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com I brought it up about 18 months ago I think. Pretty much got attacked left right and centre.... nos > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of ernesto > Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 12:21 AM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. > > > > Dear friends: > > Do any of you know if in this list has been previously discussed Aleister > Crowley's teachings in relation with Theosophy? Do any of you > know what he > opined about HPB's teachers? Or the Mahatmas' opinion about himm, if any? > > DAVID C. > > > > > LeonMaurer@aol.com escribió: > > > In a message dated 06/10/00 11:30:43 AM, benge@adsnet.com writes: > > > > >I don't know how anyone can not experience God personally, and > a savior is a > > >matter of perspective. When a person is drowning, and another > person comes > > >along and tells him to stand up -- the water is three feet > deep, that other > > >person is perceived as savior. > > > > "Experiencing God, personally," as the divine power within us > all (through > > the culmination of deep meditation, or otherwise), and believing in a > > "personal" God who is the absolute ruler of your individual > destiny -- are > > two different things. The impersonal Godhead (Ein Soph or > Parabrahm), as the > > ineffable divine power behind universal origin and evolution, has no > > relationship or personal interest in any individual part of, or > being in, the > > universe. > > > > Believing that someone who saves your life is your savior is > one thing, and > > believing that a so called "Son of God Savior," such as Jesus > died to save > > you from reaping karmic punishment for your own sins -- is another. The > > latter idea, called "vicarious atonement," was contrived by the > priests of > > the Christian Church long after Jesus died, and directly contradicts the > > theosophical teachings, as well as the direct teachings of > Jesus himself. > > For a look at who this biblical character really was, his > relationship to the > > Church founded in his name, and what he actually believed in, see: > > http://members.aol.com/graphinc/wwtmcjc.html > > > > Understanding that you are a relatively new student of > theosophy -- when you > > study a bit more of the esoteric teachings of theosophy and the > comparative > > religion given us by HPB in Isis Unveiled and the Secret > Doctrine, you will > > be even better able to discriminate between and understand the > meaning of the > > above ideas -- that you, apparently, misinterpreted completely > from reading > > the letter commented on. > > > > LHM > > > > > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 14 04:05:31 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id DAA22068 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 03:47:00 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: <6e.35447d.26789fa6@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:43:18 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/13/00 8:37:29 PM, bartl@sprynet.com writes: >ernesto wrote: >> Do any of you know if in this list has been previously discussed >> Aleister Crowley's teachings in relation with Theosophy? Do any of you >> know what he opined about HPB's teachers? Or the Mahatmas' opinion about >> himm, if any? > > Aleister Crowley claims that a Master gave secrets to the Golden Dawn, >and there was a LOT of cross-membership between the groups. The basic >difference between Crowley and Blavatsky, in my opinion, is the >importance of the practice of magic (or magick, as Crowley spelled it, >to differentiate it from stage magic). Blavatsky felt that magic comes >with evolution, Crowley believed that evolution came through the >practice of magic. Otherwise, Crowley's Thelema (Divine Will) was very >close to Theosophy. Note, "Do what thou wilt, let that be the whole of >the Law" refers to what Crowley calls "Divine Will"; in other words, if >one follows one's true Will (Atma-Budhi), then one can only do the >correct thing. Unfortunately, Crowley's views and teachings of Magick was the reason why Hitler chose the Brothers of the Golden Dawn as his occult model for his "black magick" and the ritual mystical practices of his Shutz Staffel (SS), rather than HPB's theosophical teachings (even though they probably helped feed his "Aryan Race" concepts, as well as giving him the symbols of Nazism). The upshot was that members of the Golden Dawn group in Germany were taken into the Nazi Party and became some of Hitler's inner circle, while members of the TS were placed in concentration camps, and some executed. Heinrich Himmler was one of those Brothers of the Golden Dawn who helped organize the SS -- which used Crowley's concept of "Magick as the Mother of evolution," and "Do what thou wilt" as a justification of the heartless management of the concentration camps, and the extermination of the Jews and other so called "inferior races," that the SS supervised. Its for these reasons why, in a previous post, I implied that in my opinion, Aliester Crowley was cut in the relatively similar, self centered and egotistical mind mold as L. Ron Hubbard -- and Hitler. LHM -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 14 14:17:33 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA31654 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:12:11 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: SDTHEOSOPHY@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:08:23 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. (an oxymoron) To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 102 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Folks, Crowley was a man who's personal life made the Marque De Sade look like a punk kid. If you have the bad taste and misfortune to read "Confessions of a Drug Fiend," It will prove my words by his own admission. Interpol tried all his life to prove the charges set against him by many a woman (and man). His life's goal was to be evil, and to insidiously, using a base form of glamor, to lead others to the left hand path! His "student," Israel Reguardie, is a prime example of his success, as he is the one who continued Crowley's influence Into present day "New Age" literature. Crowley has nothing to do with Theosophy, except where he shows how to use his low form of Magik for selfish purpose; therefore distorting everything HPB tried to show. I know this will hurt a few feelings, but it is my hope to warn anyone interested in following a Spiritual path, against Aleister Crowley and his writings. Peace Pat -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 14 16:28:27 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id QAA18719 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:16:21 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: Drpsionic@aol.com Message-ID: <54.5333ee2.26794f46@aol.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:12:38 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. (an oxymoron) To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 101 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 6/14/00 2:35:30 PM Central Daylight Time, SDTHEOSOPHY@aol.com writes: << Dear Folks, Crowley was a man who's personal life made the Marque De Sade look like a punk kid. >> Yep, he was my kind of people. Chuck the Heretic -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 14 17:44:43 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA29504 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:35:51 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:32:16 -0700 From: 01csn888884 <01csn888884@skuz.net> X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.42) Personal Organization: Consciousness, Inc. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1281093620.20000614153216@skuz.net> To: "SDTHEOSOPHY@aol.com" Subject: Re[2]: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. (an oxymoron) In-reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Wednesday, June 14, 2000, 12:08:23 PM, you wrote: Sac> Dear Folks, Crowley was a man who's personal life made the Marque De Sade Sac> look like a punk kid. If you have the bad taste and misfortune to read Sac> "Confessions of a Drug Fiend," It will prove my words by his own admission. Sac> Interpol tried all his life to prove the charges set against him by many a Sac> woman (and man). His life's goal was to be evil, and to insidiously, using a Sac> base form of glamor, to lead others to the left hand path! His "student," Sac> Israel Reguardie, is a prime example of his success, as he is the one who Sac> continued Crowley's influence Into present day "New Age" literature. Crowley Sac> has nothing to do with Theosophy, except where he shows how to use his low Sac> form of Magik for selfish purpose; therefore distorting everything HPB tried Sac> to show. I know this will hurt a few feelings, but it is my hope to warn Sac> anyone interested in following a Spiritual path, against Aleister Crowley and Sac> his writings. Peace Pat Sac> -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Sac> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and Sac> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of Sac> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. Good show :-) -- mailto:01csn888884@skuz.net -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 14 18:09:35 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA31363 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:54:24 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000614174857.00917100@mail.eden.com> X-Sender: ramadoss@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:48:57 -0500 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. (an oxymoron) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Crowley used to refer to Jiddu Krishnamurti as a Nigger. You can draw your own conclusion about him. mkr At 03:08 PM 06/14/2000 EDT, you wrote: >Dear Folks, Crowley was a man who's personal life made the Marque De Sade >look like a punk kid. >>>clip<<<< >. Crowley >has nothing to do with Theosophy, except where he shows how to use his low >form of Magik for selfish purpose; therefore distorting everything HPB tried >to show. I know this will hurt a few feelings, but it is my hope to warn >anyone interested in following a Spiritual path, against Aleister Crowley and >his writings. Peace Pat -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 14 18:29:31 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA01588 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:23:20 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <000201bfd657$a2ab5720$ebe8b3d1@denniski> From: "Dennis Kier" To: References: <36.72719e5.267729a8@aol.com> <39464A64.DB603C48@bmu.com.pe> Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:57:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com ----- Original Message ----- From: ernesto To: Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 7:51 AM Subject: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. > > Dear friends: > > Do any of you know if in this list has been previously discussed Aleister > Crowley's teachings in relation with Theosophy? Do any of you know what he > opined about HPB's teachers? Or the Mahatmas' opinion about himm, if any? I would hope that their opinion is negative. In Magic Without Tears, he gives about 3 pages to HPB, Besant and Krishnamurti, all unpleasant, and distorted. -at about page 88-90. It is not worth persuing. With his writing, you never know whether he knows what he is writing about, or just writes from ignorance, or malitiousness. [I wish this browser had a spell checker-]. With some of his books, and the Equinoxes, he had trouble with indexes. There aren't many. The index in Magic Without Tears has no entry for THEOSOPHY, but it does refer to Besant, and Blavatsky. I DO recall that Israel Regardie had a definite negative opinion of Alice Bailey. Crowley was more negative toward Besant than toward HPB as I read it, although I didn't study those pages just now, to see exactly what his definitions of White Adepts, Yellow Adepts, and all the rest were about. Perhaps it was about race. He specifically mentioned the "race" of Krishnamurti, although I think that that was wrong, or mistaken. But then, the British when in India referred to the natives with the "N" word, so perhaps he was basing his opinion on the common British practice at the time of referring to all conquered peoples negatively. The Masters in their letters to Sinnett, referred to that word as applied to them by the British, - and THEY are not amused. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 14 20:53:28 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA16897 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:46:36 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <3948305C.4EAAEB27@bmu.com.pe> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:24:45 -0500 From: ernesto X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [es] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. (an oxymoron) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server: VPOP3 V1.3.4 - Registered to: Cyberline Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com SDTHEOSOPHY@aol.com escribió: > Interpol tried all his life to prove the charges set against him by many a > woman (and man). His life's goal was to be evil, and to insidiously, using a > base form of glamor, to lead others to the left hand path! żCould you please explain the facts that you have in mind? It is interesting to me. David C. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 14 22:57:13 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA05952 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:48:57 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <394851D6.A69EE2C9@sprynet.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:47:34 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. References: <6e.35447d.26789fa6@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > Unfortunately, Crowley's views and teachings of Magick was the reason > why Hitler chose the Brothers of the Golden Dawn as his occult model for > his "black magick" and the ritual mystical practices of his Shutz > Staffel (SS), rather than HPB's theosophical teachings (even though they probably helped feed his "Aryan Race" concepts, as well as giving him > the symbols of Nazism). The upshot was that members of the Golden Dawn > group in Germany were taken into the Nazi Party and became some of > Hitler's inner circle, while members of the TS were placed in > concentration camps, and some executed. Heinrich Himmler was one of > those Brothers of the Golden Dawn who helped organize the SS -- which > used Crowley's concept of "Magick as the Mother of evolution," > and "Do what thou wilt" as a justification of the heartless management > of the concentration camps, and the extermination of the Jews and other > so called "inferior races," that the SS supervised. Its for these > reasons why, in a previous post, I implied that in my opinion, Aliester > Crowley was cut in the relatively similar, self centered and egotistical > mind mold as L. Ron Hubbard > -- and Hitler. A) Crowley had long since left the Golden Dawn when Hitler came around. B) The Nazi's twisted the Golden Dawn beliefs just as much as they twisted the Theosophical beliefs. The difference was that there was a non-Nazi Theosophical Society, but there was no Golden Dawn (Crowley having had gone to the OTO by then). Aleister Crowley, in fact, was the one who came up with the two-finger "V" symbol to act as a counterpart to the swastika. C) Crowley wasn't anywhere near as bad as the press painted him. He DID have a quick mind, a sharp wit and a nasty temper, which gained him a lot of enemies. He also cloaked his writings in a veneer of evil, so that those who just skimmed would not understand what he wrote, and those looking for evil would not be able to use it. He was also openly bisexual in a society where it was scandalous to be openly sexual. Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 14 23:06:21 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA08827 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:01:29 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <394854C6.49D76AF0@sprynet.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:00:06 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. (an oxymoron) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com SDTHEOSOPHY@aol.com wrote: > > Dear Folks, Crowley was a man who's personal life made the Marque De > Sade look like a punk kid. If you have the bad taste and misfortune to > read "Confessions of a Drug Fiend," It will prove my words by his own > admission. Did YOU read it? > Interpol tried all his life to prove the charges set against > him by many a woman (and man). I'd like to see documentation on that. I'd like to see documentation that Interpol ever tried to prove ANYTHING; Interpol is a central information office for police, so that police of many countries can coordinate their information with each other, NOT an investigative body (except in action/adventure stories). > His life's goal was to be evil, and to > insidiously, using a base form of glamor, to lead others to the left > hand path! His "student," Israel Reguardie, is a prime example of his > success, as he is the one who continued Crowley's influence Into present > day "New Age" literature. Israel Regardie was well-thought of by so many people (generally considered to be the Colonel Pickering to Crowley's Henry Higgins) that I find it hard to believe that you know anything more than rumor. > Crowley has nothing to do with Theosophy, > except where he shows how to use his low form of Magik for selfish > purpose; therefore distorting everything HPB tried to show. I know this > will hurt a few feelings, but it is my hope to warn anyone interested in > following a Spiritual path, against Aleister Crowley and his writings. Well, even Crowley warned people not to believe things just because they read it in a book... Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 15 00:01:39 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA20403 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:52:37 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <394860C3.E8E3F837@sprynet.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:51:15 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. References: <36.72719e5.267729a8@aol.com> <39464A64.DB603C48@bmu.com.pe> <000201bfd657$a2ab5720$ebe8b3d1@denniski> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dennis Kier wrote: > I DO recall that Israel Regardie had a definite negative opinion of > Alice Bailey. And a very positive one on H. P. Blavatsky, considering her to be equal in stature to Aleister Crowley (and this from a man who was Crowley's personal secretary and main disciple). Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 15 00:08:11 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA20011 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:50:23 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <3948603C.3E4D3087@sprynet.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:49:00 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. (an oxymoron) References: <3.0.3.32.20000614174857.00917100@mail.eden.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com M K Ramadoss wrote: > > Crowley used to refer to Jiddu Krishnamurti as a Nigger. > You can draw your own conclusion about him. That made him a typical Englishman of his time. Also, he frequently used nasty epithets as weapons against those who he felt had slighted him. One reason for a lot of hatred in the TS against him was his feud with then-Theosophist Dion Fortune (who later made up with him; in his last decade, he had really mellowed out). Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 15 02:57:08 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id CAA09582 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02:40:40 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: <20.74a9bf8.2679e187@aol.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:36:39 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. (an oxymoron) To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com For those interested in finding out who and what Aliester Crowley was from several points of view, check out the web sites at: http://www.fadmag.com/fallen/items/crowley/index.html http://www.crl.com/~thelema/home.html -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 15 09:41:22 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id JAA16722 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:40:31 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <001301bfd6d7$012507e0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us> From: "Eugene Carpenter" To: Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 07:35:51 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Yes. Saint Augustine, in contrast, wrote, Love and then do what thy will. Love is the difference. Gene -----Original Message----- From: Bart Lidofsky To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 9:35 PM Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. >LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: >> Unfortunately, Crowley's views and teachings of Magick was the reason >> why Hitler chose the Brothers of the Golden Dawn as his occult model for >> his "black magick" and the ritual mystical practices of his Shutz >> Staffel (SS), rather than HPB's theosophical teachings (even though they > probably helped feed his "Aryan Race" concepts, as well as giving him >> the symbols of Nazism). The upshot was that members of the Golden Dawn >> group in Germany were taken into the Nazi Party and became some of >> Hitler's inner circle, while members of the TS were placed in >> concentration camps, and some executed. Heinrich Himmler was one of >> those Brothers of the Golden Dawn who helped organize the SS -- which >> used Crowley's concept of "Magick as the Mother of evolution," >> and "Do what thou wilt" as a justification of the heartless management >> of the concentration camps, and the extermination of the Jews and other >> so called "inferior races," that the SS supervised. Its for these >> reasons why, in a previous post, I implied that in my opinion, Aliester >> Crowley was cut in the relatively similar, self centered and egotistical >> mind mold as L. Ron Hubbard >> -- and Hitler. > > A) Crowley had long since left the Golden Dawn when Hitler came around. > > B) The Nazi's twisted the Golden Dawn beliefs just as much as they >twisted the Theosophical beliefs. The difference was that there was a >non-Nazi Theosophical Society, but there was no Golden Dawn (Crowley >having had gone to the OTO by then). Aleister Crowley, in fact, was the >one who came up with the two-finger "V" symbol to act as a counterpart >to the swastika. > > C) Crowley wasn't anywhere near as bad as the press painted him. He DID >have a quick mind, a sharp wit and a nasty temper, which gained him a >lot of enemies. He also cloaked his writings in a veneer of evil, so >that those who just skimmed would not understand what he wrote, and >those looking for evil would not be able to use it. He was also openly >bisexual in a society where it was scandalous to be openly sexual. > > Bart Lidofsky > >-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > >Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and >teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of >"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 15 13:40:48 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id NAA21484 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:38:25 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "dalval2nwc.net" To: "AAA-BN-BASIC" Subject: Theos-World FW: DTB = MONADS & EVOLUTION [bn-basic] Question on involution Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:26:05 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com June 15, 2000 Dear Shersy: MONADS are immortal units of ATMA/BUDDHI. They "begin" when the Universe manifests (says Theosophy). They are "the immoral pilgrims," whether they are using mineral, vegetable or animal "forms / bodies." [ Each "kingdom" represents a level of experience, -- a range in which they can progress. ] In the human stage (range of consciousness) they develop self-consciousness. Independence, understanding of RESPONSIBILITY. The moral results of CHOOSING becomes clear to them. LAW in NATURE is cooperative. Defy, deny or break the laws of BROTHERHOOD brings on retribution from the whole of Nature. Apply this to your questions. We are all as MONADS innately divine. We become aw are of this gradually in the human kingdom. Then we choose to voluntarily adopt the rules of self-control and self-sacrifice. WE ACT AS BROTHERS OUGHT TO DO. This alone leads to PERFECTION. Our freedom is then self-administered. Passage from one stage to the next may take long periods of time. But our consciousness of the passage of time may vary, as for instance a very detailed and long dream may actually take only seconds. Science is beginning to realise this. Best wishes, Dal D. T. B. -----Original Message----- From: Shersy17@aol.com [mailto:Shersy17@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 10:35 AM To: basic@blavatsky.net Subject: [bn-basic] Question on involution Hello all, I have a question and have not yet found the answer that feels right for me.. regarding involution...if there are a certain number of Monads within this round, and involution means the consciousness goes through mineral, plant and animal kingdom before becoming human..have the Monads in this round already gone through those kingdoms, or are they already humans from a previous round and just reincarnating again and again to become divine? And also, the mineral consciousness...is that going to eventually evolve into human in this round or would that be the next round? Gets confusing to me. Thanks for any clarification. Sherry --- Current topic is at http://www.blavatsky.net/talk/bnbasic/basicSyllabus.htm You are currently subscribed to bn-basic as: [dalval@nwc.net] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-bn-basic-5269940B@lists.lyris.net -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 15 21:59:53 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA15307 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:45:53 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Free Tibet" To: Subject: RE: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:18:18 +0930 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <001301bfd6d7$012507e0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com No I beleive Crowley wrote : Love is the Law Love under Will. nos > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Eugene Carpenter > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 12:06 AM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. > > > Yes. Saint Augustine, in contrast, wrote, Love and then do what thy will. > Love is the difference. > > Gene > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 9:35 PM > Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. > > > >LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > >> Unfortunately, Crowley's views and teachings of Magick was the reason > >> why Hitler chose the Brothers of the Golden Dawn as his occult > model for > >> his "black magick" and the ritual mystical practices of his Shutz > >> Staffel (SS), rather than HPB's theosophical teachings (even > though they > > probably helped feed his "Aryan Race" concepts, as well as giving him > >> the symbols of Nazism). The upshot was that members of the Golden Dawn > >> group in Germany were taken into the Nazi Party and became some of > >> Hitler's inner circle, while members of the TS were placed in > >> concentration camps, and some executed. Heinrich Himmler was one of > >> those Brothers of the Golden Dawn who helped organize the SS -- which > >> used Crowley's concept of "Magick as the Mother of evolution," > >> and "Do what thou wilt" as a justification of the heartless management > >> of the concentration camps, and the extermination of the Jews and other > >> so called "inferior races," that the SS supervised. Its for these > >> reasons why, in a previous post, I implied that in my opinion, Aliester > >> Crowley was cut in the relatively similar, self centered and > egotistical > >> mind mold as L. Ron Hubbard > >> -- and Hitler. > > > > A) Crowley had long since left the Golden Dawn when Hitler came around. > > > > B) The Nazi's twisted the Golden Dawn beliefs just as much as they > >twisted the Theosophical beliefs. The difference was that there was a > >non-Nazi Theosophical Society, but there was no Golden Dawn (Crowley > >having had gone to the OTO by then). Aleister Crowley, in fact, was the > >one who came up with the two-finger "V" symbol to act as a counterpart > >to the swastika. > > > > C) Crowley wasn't anywhere near as bad as the press painted him. He DID > >have a quick mind, a sharp wit and a nasty temper, which gained him a > >lot of enemies. He also cloaked his writings in a veneer of evil, so > >that those who just skimmed would not understand what he wrote, and > >those looking for evil would not be able to use it. He was also openly > >bisexual in a society where it was scandalous to be openly sexual. > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > > >-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > > >Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > >teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > >"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > > > > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 15 22:51:29 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA23757 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:47:02 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Free Tibet" To: Subject: RE: Theos-World FW: DTB = MONADS & EVOLUTION [bn-basic] Question on involution Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:19:52 +0930 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com (quick lets break up the crowley thread ;-) ) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of dalval2nwc.net > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 3:56 AM > To: AAA-BN-BASIC > Subject: Theos-World FW: DTB = MONADS & EVOLUTION [bn-basic] Question on > involution > > > June 15, 2000 > Dear Shersy: > > MONADS are immortal units of ATMA/BUDDHI. They "begin" when the > Universe manifests (says Theosophy). They are "the immoral > pilgrims," whether they are using mineral, vegetable or animal > "forms / bodies." [ Each "kingdom" represents a level of > experience, -- a range in which they can progress. ] In the > human stage (range of consciousness) they develop > self-consciousness. Independence, understanding of > RESPONSIBILITY. The moral results of CHOOSING becomes clear to > them. LAW in NATURE is cooperative. Defy, deny or break the > laws of BROTHERHOOD brings on retribution from the whole of > Nature. > > Apply this to your questions. > > We are all as MONADS innately divine. We become aw are of this > gradually in the human kingdom. Then we choose to voluntarily > adopt the rules of self-control and self-sacrifice. WE ACT AS > BROTHERS OUGHT TO DO. This alone leads to PERFECTION. > > Our freedom is then self-administered. > > Passage from one stage to the next may take long periods of time. > But our consciousness of the passage of time may vary, as for > instance a very detailed and long dream may actually take only > seconds. > > Science is beginning to realise this. > > Best wishes, > > Dal > > D. T. B. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shersy17@aol.com [mailto:Shersy17@aol.com] > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 10:35 AM > To: basic@blavatsky.net > Subject: [bn-basic] Question on involution > > Hello all, > > I have a question and have not yet found the answer that feels > right for me.. > > regarding involution...if there are a certain number of Monads > within this > round, and involution means the consciousness goes through > mineral, plant and > animal kingdom before becoming human..have the Monads in this > round already > gone through those kingdoms, or are they already humans from a > previous round > and just reincarnating again and again to become divine? > > And also, the mineral consciousness...is that going to eventually > evolve into > human in this round or would that be the next round? > > Gets confusing to me. Thanks for any clarification. > > Sherry > > --- > Current topic is at > http://www.blavatsky.net/talk/bnbasic/basicSyllabus.htm > You are currently subscribed to bn-basic as: [dalval@nwc.net] > To unsubscribe, forward this message to > leave-bn-basic-5269940B@lists.lyris.net > > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 16 15:22:22 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id PAA00901 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:11:15 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: <1e.6b09263.267be307@aol.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:07:35 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. (an oxymoron) To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/15/00 12:03:51 AM, bartl@sprynet.com writes: Well, even Crowley warned people not to believe things just because they read it in a book... Yes... Good advice. And, it's also not a good idea to criticize anyone just because they hear negative gossip from others -- or to defend them either, based on the word of anyone -- no matter what their self professed or reported authority or expertise. My suggestion for theosophists (and other followers of "esoteric" mystical teachings) is that they study the writings of Crowley, as well as all other occultists, neo theosophists, mystic philosophers and gurus, from Gurdjieff, Leadbeater, Ouspensky, Bailey, Plato, Aristotle, Gautama, Lao Tse, etc. to HPB, WQJ, and the Masters, etc... Compare them... And, cull what they can from all of them that are consistent with Fundamental Principles -- and, discard whatever seems to be in disagreement with one's intuitive (tempered by reason) moral, ethical, occult, philosophical and scientific understandings of reality... Then, form their own opinions and convictions, work on further realization of the Self, and remain silent... Except, to question and discuss specific points of information that they don't understand, or have the ability, wisdom and the knowledge to help clarify the scientific, religious and philosophical understanding of others. All else, are "side issues," related to "personalities," that have no place in THIS or any other "theosophical" symposium. LHM -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 16 15:26:14 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id PAA02647 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:22:26 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: <77.58304e9.267be5a1@aol.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:18:41 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/15/00 12:59:17 AM, bartl@sprynet.com writes: >Dennis Kier wrote: >> I DO recall that Israel Regardie had a definite negative opinion of >> Alice Bailey. > > And a very positive one on H. P. Blavatsky, considering her to be equal >in stature to Aleister Crowley (and this from a man who was Crowley's >personal secretary and main disciple). And, most likely, completely biased. HPB and Crowley are beyond comparison -- since, their motives and practices were entirely opposite, as well as, IMHO, their intellects -- not to mention the source of their knowledge and information. In any event, discussing this here is much ado about nothing. LHM -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 16 18:27:12 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA25335 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:22:32 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <000801bfd7e9$deb63c60$15eab3d1@denniski> From: "Dennis Kier" To: References: <36.72719e5.267729a8@aol.com> <39464A64.DB603C48@bmu.com.pe> <000201bfd657$a2ab5720$ebe8b3d1@denniski> <394860C3.E8E3F837@sprynet.com> Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:39:16 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Dennis Kier wrote: > > I DO recall that Israel Regardie had a definite negative opinion of > > Alice Bailey. > > And a very positive one on H. P. Blavatsky, considering her to be equal > in stature to Aleister Crowley (and this from a man who was Crowley's > personal secretary and main disciple). Thank you for that. I have read his views on AAB, somewhere, in a book or one of the interview pieces, but don't recall seeing any reference to HPB. I have many of his books, and used to have a set of the 4 original Golden Dawn with the hand colored plates. Unfortunately, Volume 1 was in short supply, but I found a copy of it in a book store on Hollywood Blvd, complete with an insription by IFR. Then I later found that it had been stolen from the lady who he had given it to. He had a home and office on Coldwater Canyon Blvd, so I mailed it back to him. He sent me back a nice note, saying that it had arrived in the mail, just as he ane the lady he had originally given it to were having lunch. I think this was the lady who sponcored his entrance into the Golden Dawn. He also sent a copy of his latest book (at the time), The Eye In The Triangle, inscribed to me. I have a favorable impression of him. Karma! Dennis -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 16 23:21:50 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA19486 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:11:33 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <394AFA19.28293903@sprynet.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:10:01 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. (an oxymoron) References: <1e.6b09263.267be307@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > My suggestion for theosophists (and other followers of "esoteric" > mystical teachings) is that they study the writings of Crowley, as well > as all other occultists, neo theosophists, mystic philosophers and > gurus, from Gurdjieff, Leadbeater, Ouspensky, Bailey, Plato, Aristotle, > Gautama, Lao Tse, etc. to HPB, WQJ, and the Masters, etc... Compare > them... And, cull what they can from all of them that are consistent > with Fundamental Principles -- etc. Not just a good idea; it's an expansion of the 2nd Object... Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 17 00:16:37 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id AAA24818 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:02:13 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:58:32 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/15/00 10:58:25 PM, nos@granite.net.au writes: >No I beleive Crowley wrote : Love is the Law Love under Will. In what book, or whose dream? -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 17 08:48:44 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id IAA11477 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:34:44 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 06:31:21 -0700 From: 01csn888884 <01csn888884@skuz.net> X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.42) Personal Organization: Consciousness, Inc. X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <826048772.20000617063121@anonmail.net> To: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re[2]: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. (an oxymoron) In-reply-To: <394AFA19.28293903@sprynet.com> References: <1e.6b09263.267be307@aol.com> <394AFA19.28293903@sprynet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com And while one is *studying* all of these wonderful suggested items, do not give a moment's thought to the magnetism being absorbed by so doing ... unless, of course, one has *mastered* the means by which to avoid doing so. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 17 10:58:48 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA26300 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 10:46:10 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: ASANAT@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:42:32 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World B. Creme, maitreya, HPB, avatars, the TS, & K To: theos-talk@theosophy.com, act-l@list.vnet.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 81 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pippin.imagiware.com id KAA26296 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 5/24/00 12:06:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ernesto@bmu.com.pe writes: << Surprising to me. Todd Lorentz wrote: > There are many well-known public figures who are > now stepping forward to confirm that they have met Maitreya and believe he > is the Christ. One of these public figures is Wayne Peterson - a recently > retired US diplomat who is currently publishing a book on his experiences > with the Masters during his 20 year career with the US government > diplomatic Services. Another well-known public figure is former Soviet > leader Gorbechev. President Bush sent two separate envoys to see Maitreya > in London during the Gulf War, and the Vatican has sent several top aides > to meet with Maitreya also. Todd, are you sure this is not a neo-myth (or neo-lie) of the New Age thinkers? The result of something like a message after "channeling"? Or something even more perishable? I am sincerely interested in what you are saying, so please I´d like you to say which are the proofs of that information, real proofs. The Vatican trying to meet with Maitreya ... Wasn´t it said in the Bible that the Christ would come back in his full glory?, that every nation of the world would recognize him? (wich makes me personally think in the Kalki Avatara coming to terminate the present Kali Yuga, and originate the New Golden Age, the really New Age). There has been nothing like that still. Just people saying always (as it was informed us that there would happen) that the Christ is here, or the Christ is there. I just think that if we believed in all the New Age thinkers, the Christ would have come in this century, in different persons, a lot of times. But the Kali Yuga still goes on. I repeat that I am very interested in what you are saying, but if you don´t want that we considere you just as a "believer" more of one " modern guru" more, it would be very important (for the truth, and for all of us), that you can indicate the proofs of what you are saying. Friendly, DAVID C. >> Dear David, For whatever it's worth, I went to see Peterson when he was here in Washington, D.C. promoting his book(s) & Benjamin Creme's message. The impression I got from the experience was almost exactly like the one you get from Todd. Ever since C.W. Leadbeater & Annie Besant announced that HPB & her teachers had told them, under oath of (temporary) secrecy, that the purpose for their founding the TS was that it would be the herald of the new era dawning during these times, & the concomitant avataric manifestation that is said by HPB & her teachers ALWAYS to come at such times, a veritable plethora of "avatars" has come into view. And when CWL & AB stated that the same teachers had told them that J. Krishnamurti would be the focal point of that avataric manifestation at this time, well, that's when (grossly misunderstood) "Theosophical" teachings hit the fan, spinning in their wake every single New Age organization, author, & book, to date. Everyone of these, it seems, has had its own "avatar," though they prefer to use the expression that according to CWL & AB was suggested by the Masters, "the World Teacher." Whenever you see anyone calling himself or someone else "the World Teacher," you're seeing someone who is ripping off an expression that was original, & meant to refer exclusively to the phenomenon that was expected to happen in connection with K. But "by their fruits ye shall know them." Not a single one of these numerous "Maitreyas" (of whom there seems, sometimes, to be as many as talk show hosts) has given a serious message of transformation. One can find that exclusively in J. Krishnamurti's work. That fact goes directly to the reality of the presence of the Masters in the history of the TS, both in HPB's time & in CWL/AB's time, since otherwise (as I've discussed more thoroughly in The Inner Life of Krishnamurti), it is not possible to make sense of what were Krishnamurti's sources for the truly transformative message he gave. As I show, there & elsewhere, there is a seamless connection between HPB, CWL/AB, & K, such that it is not possible to understand any one of them, unless one takes all the others into account (I'll give you some evidence of this below). Knowing this is, of course, no guarantee that one will have a "deeper" understanding. Or put in other words, knowing that is a necessary, but never a sufficient reason, for having a deeper understanding. The above statements about K cannot be made regarding any one of the many, many, many "avatars" going around, since that time. They all capitalize on a PERSONALITY, on worshipping, or following, or somehow accepting -- on someone else's word -- that "X" is the "new Christ." I do not know that K was "the messiah," nor do I think it's possible for anyone to credibly declare such a thing. In my book, I do not make any such statement, nor in any of my talks & other writings. The personality of J. Krishnamurti is absolutely irrelevant to this issue, when seen esoterically, as I briefly discuss below. But the fact remains that K did give a message that corresponds precisely with the requirements set by Friedrich Nietzsche as what one would expect of "the philosopher of the future." I'm working on a book on this very subject. As I show in a separate book I'm working on (meant also for academic philosophers) K was THE pointman of all recent philosophy, & therefore more than just at the leading edge of it. I show in my philosophical work that K was setting a new standard for how philosophy is to be made in the future, at least for centuries to come, & why the way philosophy has been done hitherto does not work at all, as Nietszche, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, & others pointed out in very different ways. The same statement of inadequacy can be made about various Asian philosophies, all of which are tainted by their being REGIONAL philosophies, with a mostly local appeal, one that relies on a certain tradition. The very first time in the history of mankind when someone has given a teaching that is truly & uncompromisingly universal, is to be found in the work of J. Krishnamurti. That work, as I document in my book, did not come from him, according to him. According to K, the teaching came from the source that had been identified at the time of CWL & AB as "Maitreya." I say all this about K's importance to philosophy (without which you cannot have any other discipline) only to point to the fact that what K said needs to be taken very seriously in itself, independently of any IDEAS one may have about what "Theosophy" is, or of one's notions of what an "avatar" should be. But anyone who is promoting the adoration (in any form, at any level) of someone else's PERSONALITY, is promoting precisely the sort of dark teaching that has kept humanity in the dumps for much too long. The time has come to put all that dangerous childishness behind us, & to start taking responsibility for our lives, on a daily basis, without any appeal to any person, teaching, or organization. That includes, of course, & most eminently, K & whatever he said. It is each of us who has to face error, misjudgment, danger -- our darker side, if you will. And it is each of us who can only make it possible for there to be a transformation such as would help bring about a veritable new era for humankind. For whatever it's worth, my present perception of the notion of the avatar (which is constantly subject to revision, since I'm a researcher, not a spinner of theories) goes more or less as follows: I totally agree with what HPB & her teachers said, to the effect that the new "X" (call it the avatar, the new race, the new human type, or whatever else, along those lines) is not about a person, whether that person is a Planetary Spirit (as the Masters referred to such avatars), or an ordinary person, such as you or I. The transformation is one "in human consciousness," as HPB put it, as quoted in my book. That is, the "avatar" is not so much a PERSONALITY, as a moment of transformation for all of humanity. Yes, that phenomenon may & does manifest itself primarily through one human being. But I totally agree with what you say, that such a phenomenon would be likely to manifest itself through numerous forms just at the time period in which humanity is ready for the grand transformation. This means that, as I understand it as of now, all the New Age teachers ("avatars" or not) manifest that quality in some form, however limited. HPB, Alice Bailey, Nicholas Roerich, all manifested that avataric moment, at some level. So did Walt Disney, Steven Spielberg, & Shirley McLaine. That also includes all talk show hosts. But by far the most serious aspect of all this is whether one personally sees the tremendous, once-in-a-planetary-chain opportunity we all have RIGHT NOW, & which will no longer be here very soon, when that crack in the door that has been ajar since HPB's time, will be slammed shut. The opportunity is simultaneously a profound responsibility each of us has to engage in that grand transformation, to the very best of our abilities. We will not see an opportunity like this for thousands of years, once the door is shut, which ought to happen within the lifetimes of many of us. As the Master KH put it, referring to "the Planetary spirits, those who can no longer err": "But these appear on Earth but at the origin of every NEW human kind; at the junction of, and close of the two ends of the great cycle." (ML, letter IX, also SD & CW references below.) We are told by the same source elsewhere that precisely such a cycle would begin after the year 1897: "...the end of the first Kali Yuga cycle (1897), and a few years beyond, as the smaller dark cycle happens to overlap the great one." (SD, "controversial" Adyar edition of 1971, v. 5, p. 466; see also CW, v. 12, pp. 600-602). And as the same source clarifies in the previous page of the above reference: "The truths revealed to man by the "Planetary Spirits" ... who will appear on earth as Avataras only at the beginning of every new human Race, and at the junctions or close of the two ends of the small and great cycles..." (SD, v. 5, p. 465, CW, v. 12, pp. 600-602) That is, HPB & her teachers are telling us here that there WOULD BE an avataric manifestation during the 20th Century. This was not told publicly to anyone, & was not taught or written clearly anywhere. But in my research, which includes a book on this exact subject, I show that CWL & AB were stating the plain truth, when they said this was the main reason why the TS was founded. In fact, the above quote is followed a few lines later by this statement: "Those units among you who will have raised themselves on the "Path" over their fellow-students, in their Esoteric sphere, will, as the "Elect" spoken of did and do in the Parent Brotherhoods, receive the last explanatory details and the ultimate key to what they learn." Since the only ones among HPB's & the Master's disciples who ever spoke of this later were CWL & AB, it seems obvious that this passage refers to them. They did indeed have information that was totally unknown by everyone else in the TS (perhaps with literally a handful of exceptions). To this day (as witness remarks made by various "old" Theosophists disparaging CWL, even in these theosophical lists), the vast majority of those who know anything about these subjects, believe there is absolutely no evidence, one way or the other, to support the claims made by CWL & AB in this regard. Yet I have now shown in my research that there is solid evidence suggesting that CWL & AB were but stating the plain truth. The quotes above, even by themselves, ought to show to everyone except the most bigoted & obtuse, that CWL & AB must indeed have had a direct connection with the Masters. Otherwise they could not have known this. Please recall that when they were called on (by "concerned citizen" Theosophists) to show proofs of their claims regarding the avatar & related teachings being the reason why the TS was started, they always gave very lame quotes from HPB, quotes that did not really address this issue squarely, such as those to be found at the end of the Key to Theosophy. So it seems that Leadbeater & Besant did not know themselves that the documented evidence was there. Or perhaps they did know it was there, but had been told by the Masters not to give it out, so that everyone would have to exercise their own intuition, rather than rely on "scriptures" (the SD, et al) badly read. Whatever the "explanation" for their not knowing the evidence WAS there, the fact remains that they must have had such a contact with the Masters, since they could not have gotten this information from any other source. The significance of the return of an avatar, according to the same sources, is given in the same passage, which they place in italics, for great emphasis: "This is done so as to warrant them [the eternal truths] from being lost or entirely forgotten in ages hereafter by the forthcoming generations." If I read that right, it's telling us that what really matters about an avataric manifestation is not any person, put THE TEACHING, the message, which one must inscribe in letters of fire upon one's own heart, in daily life. Otherwise, it is not THAT teaching. A teaching that is merely words & following a system or a method, is related to theosophical truths only in a very peripheral way. As they say, again in the same passage: "The mission of the Planetary Spirit is but to strike the KEYNOTE OF TRUTH. When once he has directed the vibration of the latter to run its course uninterruptedly along the concatenation of the race to the end of the cycle, he disappears from our earth until the following Planetary Manvantara." As I said above, such a moment is close to happening, as we speak. Everything that we are now taking for granted, childishly assuming it will be here tomorrow, will be gone. When that happens -- & everything all around us, & not only HPB, is screaming out loud, telling us that it will -- ALL we each will have is ourselves. So what really matters is whether transformation is taking place in our lives right now. All this talk of avatars, like ALL TALK, while fascinating at a shallower level, needs to be put aside at some point, at which point one resolutely & definitively moves along with the extraordinarily unique avataric moment, and get with it about the only thing that really matters, ultimately. So let's engage in transformation, which comes from the silence and is in the silence, and is not related to any of these words. With love, Aryel -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 17 11:59:25 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA00407 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:57:17 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <394BB015.D889ECB1@west.net> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 10:06:34 -0700 From: Spencer Organization: Spence Surfboards X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World B. Creme, maitreya, HPB, avatars, the TS, & K References: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------028948A184E6221A28E51B14" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------028948A184E6221A28E51B14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > ...that the Christ is here, or the Christ > is there. > > According to some the following is about as close to utter gibberish as one can get, nonsense and "not theosophical in the least." Nevertheless, Christ = 2 + 7 + 7 + 8 + 8 + 9 + = 41 = 1 + 4 = 5 light = 2 + 8 + 6 + 7 + 9 = 32 = 3 + 2 = 5 On one level of manifestation then, that of calculation based on the belief that certain numbers relate to certain letters of the alphabet, one can see that, Christ = light Christ is neither here nor there but, like light, Christ is. To attach to either a personality is to invite a fall. Spencer --------------028948A184E6221A28E51B14 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="kellogg.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Spencer Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="kellogg.vcf" begin:vcard n:Kellogg;Spencer x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:kellogg@west.net x-mozilla-cpt:;1 fn:Spencer Kellogg end:vcard --------------028948A184E6221A28E51B14-- -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 17 13:05:20 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id MAA05920 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:53:46 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <20000617175012.89876.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [169.197.8.135] From: "David Green" To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Theos-World Mr Sanat writes "I'm a researcher": The Year of Charles W Leadbeater's Birth Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:50:12 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Mr Sanat----- Since you're a researcher, explain for theos-talk readers why in your TPH book on J. Krishnamurti you gave Mr Charles Webster Leadbeater's birth year as 1847. Dr Gregory Tillett, in recent reply to your unfounded attacks on his Leadbeater biography "The Elder Brother," wrote---- "...having recently read Mr Sanat's extraordinary work on Krishnamurti, I would not anticipate serious historical commentary from him. For all his assertions in this commentary that 'the facts & the evidence are the facts & evidence', Mr Sanat appears not to apply that principle in his own work. He notes, for example, Leadbeater's dates as 1847-1934 (p. 8), apparently unwilling to allow the fact and the evidence of Leadbeater's birth certificate and other documentary evidence to the year of his birth to get in the way of a Theosophical myth and a Leadbeaterian falsehood..." Mr Sanat, if "the facts & the evidence are the facts & evidence", explain to theos-talk readers why you cite Mr Leadbeater as being born in 1847 instead of 1854 & what facts & evidence support your preference for1847 date. Below is Dr Tillett's extended comments on Mr Leadbeater's birthdate. Dr Tillett is currently subscribing to theos-talk & will be interested in reading your comments on the year C W Leadbeater was born. David Green Dr Tillett in regards to Mr Leadbeater's birth year------- Although one might have thought the question of the date of Charles Webster Leadbeaterąs birth was resolved by the publication in my book, The Elder Brother in 1982, it would seem that this is not so. The Theosophical Publishing House at Adyar, after a period from 1982 when they tended to include the date of Leadbeaterąs death on the covers of his books but not to mention the year of his birth, has now begun to republish Leadbeaterąs books with the dates 1847-1934 for his life. More bizarrely, at its meeting in Sydney in the latter half of 1996, the General Episcopal Synod of the Liberal Catholic Church by resolution declared that Leadbeater was born in 1847, despite apparent evidence to the contrary. The Church had, apparently, originally accepted the corrected birth date, publishing a booklet by Hugh Shearman which stated (and attempted to explain) it, and revising material published by the Liberal Catholic Institute of Studies to include (but not note or explain) the changed date. Why, therefore, would anyone now bother to try to promote an obviously false date ? The answer is fairly obvious. If Leadbeater could not tell the truth about the basic facts of his early life, what trust can be placed in his clairvoyant vision ? If someone is dishonest about that which is open to external assessment, what credibility can they have regarding that which is known only to them ? In Leadbeaterąs case, if he can be shown to be untruthful regarding the prosaic events of his childhood and early life, what assessment is to be made of accounts of life on Mars, discussions with inner plane Masters or clairvoyant descriptions of everything from the archaeology of Atlantis to the history of Christianity, the causes of cancer or the post-mortem state of someoneąs beloved cat? Leadbeater claimed, consistently and in print, to have been born on February 17, 1847. It seems a simple enough question, and one which any individual could and should be able to answer: when were you born ? There are, however, in Leadbeaterąs case, two answers to that question: the answer given by Leadbeater (February 17, 1847) and the answer given by the birth certificate in the General Register Office in London, and other documents (February 16, 1854). It may be that, for some complex family reason, an individual might believe they were born a little earlier or later than was the case. Even a year, perhaps, to conceal a pregnancy prior to marriage. But, presumably, most people would know if the discrepancy was of seven years. Could a seven year old boy seriously be passed off as a newborn ? So, presumably, in Leadbeaterąs case only one of these dates can be correct ? Well, not necessarily. After the publication of The Elder Brother in 1982, the Liberal Catholic Church and the Theosophical Society, astutely, dealt with the problem by virtually never mentioning the book. A small biographical pamphlet on Leadbeater by the eminent Theosophist and Liberal Catholic priest, Hugh Shearman, was, however, released by the Churchąs publisher, the St Alban Press. It accepted the 1854 birthrate and suggested that the conflict of dates was inexplicable and unimportant. One correspondent wrote to me alleging that the Jesuits had changed documents relating to Leadbeaterąs early life as part of their ongoing attempts to destroy Theosophy! Another correspondent explained that Leadbeater himself had been a Jesuit agent intent upon destroying the Theosophical Society and that the łmissing seven years˛ (which were, of course, not missing at all!) were accounted for by the time he had spent in his Jesuit training. Yet another Theosophist wrote assuring me that Leadbeater himself, for reasons not fully explained, occultly changed the documents to prevent anyone finding out about his early life. These explanations, as unconvincing as they may be to non-believing scholars, serve the explain away the apparent conflict between claim and reality. Although the bishops of the Liberal Catholic Synod did not, unfortunately, develop the reasoning for their decision (at least in any public document) the answer, presumably, must be that there were two Charles Webster Leadbeaters, and that my research found the wrong one. There is evidence of one Charles Webster Leadbeater; his birth certificate (not to mention his motherąs and fatherąs marriage and death certificates) are in the Public Record Office in London. So, there must be another one, born in 1847. There are, it seems to me, some fundamental problems with a two Leadbeaters theory. It requires that two boys, each named Charles Webster, with the fairly uncommon surname of Leadbeater, were born to parents (both of whom had identical names) in a relatively small town seven years apart, and that the birth of the first (and the Theosophical Leadbeater) in 1847 was not registered, but the birth of the second in 1854 was registered. Possible, I suppose, but at what level of probability ? However, the improbability of this scenario increases. Census returns from the period reveal the movements of the family of the Charles Leadbeater born in 1854, and records exist of marriage and deaths of his mother and father (who both died on the same dates given for his parentsą deaths by the hypothetical Leadbeater of 1847). There are, almost needless to say, no census returns disclosing the existence of another family with parents and child of the same names within the periods in question, nor birth, marriage or death records for the parents of this alternative Leadbeater. The degree of difficulty increases. But - for the two Charles Webster Leadbeaters theory - it gets more worse. There is, in the archives of the Theosophical Society at Adyar, some handwritten notes by Jinarajadasa of Leadbeaterąs family background; I possess a copy of those notes. They give a quite detailed family tree, and the information came from Leadbeater himself (as Jinarajadasa notes). The level of improbability now increases exponentially: the family tree described in the notes is identical to the family tree of the Leadbeater, born in 1854. Can we assume that over multiple generations, the two Leadbeaters (1847 and 1854) shared families in which every member was identical in name ? Perhaps ..... but it becomes yet more complicated. Given that Theosophical and Liberal Catholic Church publications (not to mention Leadbeaterąs own writings) identify him as the nephew (through the marriage of his fatherąs sister, Mary) of a prominent Anglican clergyman, William Wolfe Capes, a further problem emerges. We must - if we accept the two Charles Webster Leadbeaters theory - now also accept that William Wolfe Capes had two nephews, each of them called Charles Webster Leadbeater, and born (to different parents ? at least to fathers with identical names, and mothers with identical names) seven years apart, and each the son of Capeąs wifeąs brother. Does this mean that the father of both Leadbeaters was a bigamist married to two women of the same name ? or two sisters of the same name ? or did he marry two women of the same name sequentially ? Or did Capes have two wives, named Mary ? Or were there two William Wolfe Capes each married to a sister of Leadbeaterąs father, both of whom were named Mary ? And, if so, why is there no genealogical record of the wife who gave birth to the 1847 Charles ? Perhaps Capes had two sisters (with the same names) who married two men (with the same names) ? Even if the statistical probability of such a situation was too remote, the genealogical evidence removes this not an option. Genealogical evidence certainly shows that the Leadbeater born in 1854 was Capesą nephew, and obtained entry to the Anglican ministry through Capesą influence, at the same time and in the same place, and in the same manner, as the Leadbeater born in 1847. It is really only with his ordination into the Anglican Church that the public record and Leadbeaterąs biographical claims in his writings begin to coincide. Certainly his statements about the dates and circumstances of his ordination are correct. But, for those who hold to the two Charles Webster Leadbeaters theory there is now an apparently insurmountable problem: the Charles Webster Leadbeater who was ordained as an Anglican priest by the Bishop of Winchester on St Thomasą Day, 1879, (and who was the nephew of William Wolfe Capes) gave as his birth date the one shown on the birth certificate available from the General Register Office in London: February 16, 1854. Unless, of course, there were two Charles Webster Leadbeaters, both the nephews of William Wolf Capes (and born of parents with identical names....) ordained in the same service on the same day (which the church records show that there were not), the two Charles Webster Leadbeaters theory would now seem to have totally collapsed. Unless we move into total fantasy land with two Bishops of Winchester and two churches, each in a different town called Farnham (perhaps in different dimensions) in each of which a different Leadbeater, the nephew of a different Capes, was ordained on the same day. Lest doubt be cast on my own ability to undertake historical or genealogical research, it should be noted that when, while The Elder Brother was still being written, I informed the then President of the Theosophical Society, John Coats, of my discoveries regarding Leadbeaterąs early life. I did this against the strongly expressed wishes of my publisher, and in the interests of fairness, lest there was some explanation which ought to be included in my biography. Coats immediately had a full investigation undertaken in England. This was done by Miss Lilian Storey, Librarian of the Theosophical Society in London and a very competent genealogist; her research both confirmed mine, and produced considerably more evidence, including substantial data from census returns and other official records. Although personally deeply distressed by the findings, Coats provided me with copies of Miss Storeyąs report and all the related documents. These came to me too late for inclusion in The Elder Brother but are contained, with yet further material relating to Leadbeaterąs early life, in my doctoral thesis. Yet further material relating to the birth date and the years prior to ordination have been uncovered since the submission of my thesis. I would personally prefer a more exciting explanation of Leadbeaterąs birth date than simple deceit. Some vast conspiracy involving the alteration of masses of public records has enormous appeal. Until evidence of some such improbable explanation is produced, those who publish the claim that C.W. Leadbeater was born in 1947 are simply perpetrating a fraud. I would be greatly pleased to hear from either the Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, or the Synod of the Liberal Catholic Church. I am more than willing to consider any historical evidence, and will happily - and publicly - retract my error regarding Leadbeaterąs birth date. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 17 13:35:19 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id NAA09324 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:30:40 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: <98.672fb13.267d1cf0@aol.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:26:56 EDT Subject: Re: Re[2]: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. (an oxymoron) To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/17/00 9:51:52 AM, 01csn888884@skuz.net writes: >And while one is *studying* all of these wonderful >suggested items, do not give a moment's thought to the >magnetism being absorbed by so doing ... unless, of >course, one has *mastered* the means by which to >avoid doing so. Of course, in your book I suppose, ignorance is bliss. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 17 14:06:12 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA12579 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:02:20 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <394BCAE2.7AF832C1@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:00:50 -0400 From: Michele Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Mr Sanat writes "I'm a researcher": The Year of Charles W Leadbeater's Birth References: <20000617175012.89876.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com David Green wrote: > > Dear Mr Sanat----- > > Since you're a researcher, explain for theos-talk readers why in your TPH > book on J. Krishnamurti you gave Mr Charles Webster Leadbeater's birth year > as 1847. David - Oh, no , not again, PLEASE!!!! Won't you kindly consider plugging this needless energy drain by giving this futile line of argument its rightful time in Devachan before dragging it back to life again? Thanks. Michele L. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 17 23:06:16 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA29375 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:56:19 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <394C4809.827C3FE3@sprynet.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:54:49 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. (an oxymoron) References: <1e.6b09263.267be307@aol.com> <394AFA19.28293903@sprynet.com> <826048772.20000617063121@anonmail.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com I guess you don't believe in the 3 Objects of the Theosophical Society (at least a few of them...) 01csn888884 wrote: > > And while one is *studying* all of these wonderful > suggested items, do not give a moment's thought to the > magnetism being absorbed by so doing ... unless, of > course, one has *mastered* the means by which to > avoid doing so. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 17 23:21:16 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA28945 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:51:11 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <394C46D5.183F3ADF@sprynet.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:49:41 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Book of the Law: I,57: Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well! He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the fortress, and the great mystery of the House of God. All these old letters of my Book are aright; but * is not the Star. This also is secret: my prophet shall reveal it to the wise. LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 06/15/00 10:58:25 PM, nos@granite.net.au writes: > > >No I beleive Crowley wrote : Love is the Law Love under Will. > > In what book, or whose dream? -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 18 04:27:27 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id EAA27372 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:15:55 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Free Tibet" To: Subject: RE: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:48:52 +0930 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <394C46D5.183F3ADF@sprynet.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Thanks Bart - I'm sure i wasn't dreaming ! ;-) (or am i?) nos > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Bart Lidofsky > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 1:20 PM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. > > > Book of the Law: > > I,57: Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. > Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and > love. > There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye > well! > He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the > fortress, > and the great mystery of the House of God. All these old > letters of my Book are aright; but * is not the Star. > This > also is secret: my prophet shall reveal it to the wise. > > LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > > > > In a message dated 06/15/00 10:58:25 PM, nos@granite.net.au writes: > > > > >No I beleive Crowley wrote : Love is the Law Love under Will. > > > > In what book, or whose dream? > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 18 06:54:15 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id GAA20148 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 06:42:58 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: Teos9@aol.com Message-ID: <97.6e04b6d.267e0ee9@aol.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 07:39:21 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. (an oxymoron) To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 108 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/16/00 4:43:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LeonMaurer@aol.com writes: << My suggestion for theosophists (and other followers of "esoteric" mystical teachings) is that they study the writings of Crowley, as well as all other occultists, neo theosophists, mystic philosophers and gurus, from Gurdjieff, Leadbeater, Ouspensky, Bailey, Plato, Aristotle, Gautama, Lao Tse, etc. to HPB, WQJ, and the Masters, etc... Compare them... And, cull what they can from all of them that are consistent with Fundamental Principles -- and, discard whatever seems to be in disagreement with one's intuitive (tempered by reason) moral, ethical, occult, philosophical and scientific understandings of reality... Then, form their own opinions and convictions, work on further realization of the Self, and remain silent... Except, to question and discuss specific points of information that they don't understand, or have the ability, wisdom and the knowledge to help clarify the scientific, religious and philosophical understanding of others. All else, are "side issues," related to "personalities," that have no place in THIS or any other "theosophical" symposium. LHM >> Bravo Leon. Your comment above is what makes this list worth reading. From time to time someone "nails" it. A statement that is clear, well articulated, and straight forward about how theosophists can best conduct their studies for intellectual and spiritual enrichment. Well, done Leon. Louis -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 18 09:03:10 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id IAA29526 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:59:50 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: ASANAT@aol.com Message-ID: <9a.65140a4.267e2efd@aol.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 09:56:13 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 81 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 5/26/00 6:06:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Drpsionic@aol.com writes: << Consider this. If the Maitreya (and I've been biting my cheek over this one!) is the second coming of Christ (not including the many times involving Mary Magdelene, three apostles and several local goats) he would not be someone we would want to remain around. Just think of all the bloodshed Xtianity is responsible for, then add nuclear warheads. Frankly I find the idea that humanity somehow needs a divine figurehead to descend from the clouds, do a few magic tricks called miracles and spew holy nonsense in order to set the world to right an insult against the human spirit and an excuse to impose yet another tyranny on a world that has grown sick of them. If I thought for one minute that this Maitreya fellow really existed and was not a creation of the fevered imagination of Benjamin Creme I would fire up the tepaphone and see how divine he really is. Chuck the Heretic >> Atta boy, Chuck!! You tell'em! Aryel -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 18 09:20:37 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id JAA30988 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 09:19:04 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: ASANAT@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:15:26 EDT Subject: Theos-World Re: Aryel Sanat schedule for June-July To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 81 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear friends, As always, I'm most interested in meeting any of you personally that happen to be in areas where I'll be. I wish others on the list would do the same, & let us know when you're traveling. I think it'd be a great way to get to know each other better. I'll give a talk on "The Inner Life of Krishnamurti" at the Quest Bookshop in Charlottesville, Virginia next Saturday, June 24, at 7 p.m, & an extensive Q&A is expected, according to the owner. This bookshop has no connection whatsoever with either the TS or Quest Books. The owner simply thought it'd be a good name when she started it, about 30 years ago. Also, I still have plans to be at the Convention in Olcott in July. Unfortunately, Connie & I can't stay for the Summer Session, so we'll be leaving sometime on Sunday. Govert Schuller has already expressed via private e-mail that he'll be interested in us getting together again. If others will be there, & wish just to break bread, or perhaps get into a serious discussion, that'll be great. I know Govert will welcome it, as well. All the best, Aryel -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 18 16:50:54 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id QAA04878 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:39:33 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:35:57 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Justification of theosopichal credibility: On theMasters. To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pippin.imagiware.com id QAA04875 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/12/00 7:49:21 PM, ernesto@bmu.com.pe writes: >Dear Mr. Leon Maurer: >You wrote: >> >> It follows, that if we fully understand the three Fundamental Principles, >> and particularly, the second -- which implies that the rules governing all >> evolution of the universe (from its initial self awareness in spirit, to the >> myriad forms [fields] of matter that emanate and evolve out of its inherent >> and infinite "space") are the "laws of cycles and periodicity" -- we can go >> back in our mind's eye to the origin of cycles in the spinning energy of pre >> cosmic, non dimensional, zero-point space... And, then, by following the >> progression of its emanation and evolution by a sort of graphical analytical >> mind experimentation ("meditation with a seed," according to Patanjali) >> -- we can envision how these proto-circles of "spinning energy" propagate >> themselves to maintain their eternal "wholeness" -- although separated >> into the seven fold "planes" of bubbles within bubbles within bubbles, etc., >> as already implied, but not yet proven, in the new, multidimensional >> Superstring and M-brane theories... >> >> With such knowledge, coupled with the use of analogy and correspondence, >> we can begin to logically as well as intuitively realize that all cyclic >> phenomena -- (starting with the initial emanation of the primal fields and >> ending with the progression of the rounds and races, the inner natures of >> man, the chakras, etc.) -- always occurs in seven analogous stages and >> appears three dimensionally on seven simultaneous planes ("in coadunation, >> but not in consubstantiality"). > >There is something that I still don't understand. I could agree with you that, >following those indications, humanity should pass through seven analogous >stages. But, is it also a necessary conclusion, from those indications, that the >stages would mean Races? Why not simply periods? Is it always period = >Race? Couldn´t it be other way? It is both. With the hope of not being accused of oversimplifying, we might say that everything is interdependently based on the idea that spin = circle = cycle, and refers to the seven fold nature of the first or primal manifest cycle as expressed in seven stages or changes of conditions during 7 periods of time, starting from zero -- e.g., looking at it from a graphical (sine wave) point of view, as follows: (State or condition/time period) (1/1) Rising to the positive peak. (2/0) Changing direction at the positive peak. (3/2) Falling to zero. (4/0) Crossing through zero and changing polarity. (5/3) Falling to the negative trough. (6/0) changing direction at the negative trough. (7/4) Rising to zero. After which, the cycle repeats the same changes in seven states or conditions and 4 periods of time... But, at a further level of involution (which reflects itself in subsequent evolution) that can be represented as a "spiral" or "vortex." All cycles of involution and evolution, then, are based on these seven phenomenal aspects of the primal cycle (subject to our conscious interference) -- which is both infinite in extension as well as duration -- with all subsequent cyclic changes occurring "within" the envelope of the primal, all containing field. See diagram at: http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html After the initial impulse of manifestation and inflation of the initial "spinergy" to the primal field of "electrical" force that encompasses the whole universe, the cycles repeat analogously and correspondingly... And, as the manifest energy decreases and its lines of force spiral in toward its primal center (which is everywhere) -- to form the fields within fields within fields that, together, eventually evolve the universe out of the involved patterns of forms -- "remembered" in its energy interference patterns (of its previous involution and evolution) that are reflected and refracted through every descending energy level, field, or plane of subsequent gradual and sequential materialization, to holistically encompass the evolution of all things and levels of consciousness and matter in the entire, universe -- which exists, eternally, within and around the absolute, "empty" space that empowers it... And, which we consider as "divine," simply because we cannot grasp or explain its inherent infinite nature with our finite minds. >Is it also a necessary conclusion that the first >Race would be not physical, or that the Second and Third Races would have the >special form of reproduction that is indicated in the SD? That old man had to >be androgynous? Or is it also a necessary conclusion the enormous and >(actually) non scientifically supported antiquity of each Race, including (and >over all) the Fifth Root Race (a question apparently eluded by Bart)? By analogy and correspondence, joined with reason and direct intuition, accessed through meditation -- when one thoroughly grasps the scientific, philosophical and religious connotations and interrelationships of the three fundamental principles -- all that follows... And, can be easily accepted... Resulting in firm inner conviction, by the "equal minded" (open, simultaneously, to both higher [Buddhic] and lower [Kamic} Manas) thinking human being. Therefore, based on such understandings, as HPB pointed out, all such esoteric teachings of rounds and races can be proven to oneself to be both reasonable and essential. Reductive science alone, as presently practiced with its built-in materialistic bias, cannot be relied on for validation or proof of any of the above facts of Nature... Except, as they "appear" to us to be on the physical plane -- subject to our necessarily imperfect and limited physical senses and observational tools... Although, they may be implied by the perfect tools of pure mathematics -- as has been shown recently in the fields of post modern quantum physics, with their new theories of Superstrings, M-branes, quantum fields and gravity, zero-point energy, etc... Implying, that there are "explicate" and "implicate" orders of nature that resolve into multidimensional fields that encompass both consciousness and matter, etc. It still remains for them, however to link such knowledge with the teachings of theosophy that carries it to it ultimate resolution as the "theory of everything" -- which is science's present goal. Fortunately, theosophy has already given us such a theory and its ultimate conclusions to mull over for the benefit of our own, and others whom we can show the path to ultimate enlightenment or Self realization -- for the benefit of all humanity. > >It doesn´t seem to be so. And, if those doctrines can´t be followed from >the indications you give, I´d have to ask again: which is the ultimate reason >that should leave us (in a rational Justification) to accept those doctrines? > The trust I mentioned? No. it should be based solely on the intuition and logical reasoning that synthesizes and understands the analogies and correspondences, coupled with meditative direct inner experience, that "prove" (in ones own consciousness and mind) and gives one the solidly grounded conviction that "as above so below" is a valid presumption... And, that the universe is, in actuality, governed by the laws of cycles, along with analogy and correspondence -- and is modified, positively or negatively, by the karma that all sentient beings willfully produce -- consciously or not. The scientific concept of such vibratory fields, their interpenetration, and the holographic nature of their information retention, transformation, and transmission "resonantly" through such "electrical" fields, is another lynch pin in helping grasp the unification of all aspects of the universe, and its ability to retain the memory of all its actions -- as energetic forces that ultimately must be resolved of all imbalances created by US -- as individual parts of such fields -- who make changes, good or bad, based on free will and individual choice. Thus, all the objects of the Theosophical Movement and the teachings of the Masters (through the vehicle of HPB) are vindicated and can be trusted as truth -- without blind faith or reliance on "authorities." LHM (with the help of .^. ;-) -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 18 16:57:50 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id QAA05801 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:53:45 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000618164827.02887780@mail.eden.com> X-Sender: ramadoss@mail.eden.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:48:27 -0500 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Aryel Sanat schedule for June-July In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com At 10:15 AM 06/18/2000 EDT, Aryel Sanat wrote: Dear friends, As always, I'm most interested in meeting any of you personally that happen to be in areas where I'll be. I wish others on the list would do the same, & let us know when you're traveling. I think it'd be a great way to get to know each other better. --- I think personal one to one contact has some chemistry that is always beneficial and also we can put a face to the name(or assumed name ? ) of the persons we may be familiar with via these maillists and other private correspondence. I do not plan to be at the Annual Meeting at Olcott. So I will have to wait for another opportunity to meet with you and it will come soon. By the way, I live in San Antonio, Texas and I would like to meet with anyon anyone planning to visit or pass thru San Antonio; if a couple of days advance notice is possible, anyone visiting can stay with me. This standing invitation is always there as I have indicated a couple of times in the past. Unlike some, who wants to keep their addresses, phone numbers etc. confidential, I am listed in white pages, yellow pages, residence pages and everywhere ... so contacting me should be no problem for anyone. mkr -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 18 22:00:14 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA04487 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:57:27 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <394D8BCA.CF49BC82@sprynet.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:56:10 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com And it was so hard. :) I spent a whole 5 minutes looking up "love under law will Crowley" on an Internet search service to find it. Bart Free Tibet wrote: > > Thanks Bart - I'm sure i wasn't dreaming ! ;-) (or am i?) > > nos > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com > > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Bart Lidofsky > > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 1:20 PM > > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. > > > > > > Book of the Law: > > > > I,57: Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. > > Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and > > love. > > There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye > > well! > > He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the > > fortress, > > and the great mystery of the House of God. All these old > > letters of my Book are aright; but * is not the Star. > > This > > also is secret: my prophet shall reveal it to the wise. > > > > LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 06/15/00 10:58:25 PM, nos@granite.net.au writes: > > > > > > >No I beleive Crowley wrote : Love is the Law Love under Will. > > > > > > In what book, or whose dream? > > > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 18 23:28:13 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA16575 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 2000 23:25:51 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ Message-ID: <001901bfd9a5$588362e0$8708c5a9@azstarnet.com> From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" To: "Caldwell, Daniel H." Subject: Theos-World Two RARE items added to the BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:16:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm Two RARE items have just been added to the archives. See section "New Items Recently Added to the Archives." *** "Personal Immortality" by Lord Queensberry [Reprinted from The Agnostic Journal (London), September 27, 1890, pp. 194-195.] *** "Personal Immortality" by H.P. Blavatsky [Reprinted from The Agnostic Journal (London), October 4, 1890, pp. 214-215. H.P.B.'s article is in reply to the above article by Lord Queensberry. This article is not included in HPB's "Collected Writings" and apparently has never been reprinted in the last 110 years.] Daniel H. Caldwell danielhcaldwell@hotmail.com BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 19 20:50:28 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA20170 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:46:55 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Free Tibet" To: Subject: RE: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:19:32 +0930 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-reply-to: <394D8BCA.CF49BC82@sprynet.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com I actually did the same but my computer crashed.. I thought Karama was telling me something but when i finally got back up and running you'd done all the 'hard' legwork. I notice no apology from Leon. nos > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Bart Lidofsky > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 12:26 PM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. > > > And it was so hard. :) I spent a whole 5 minutes looking up > "love under > law will Crowley" on an Internet search service to find it. > > Bart > > Free Tibet wrote: > > > > Thanks Bart - I'm sure i wasn't dreaming ! ;-) (or am i?) > > > > nos > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com > > > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Bart Lidofsky > > > Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 1:20 PM > > > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > > > Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. > > > > > > > > > Book of the Law: > > > > > > I,57: Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. > > > Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and > > > love. > > > There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye > > > well! > > > He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the > > > fortress, > > > and the great mystery of the House of God. > All these old > > > letters of my Book are aright; but * is not the Star. > > > This > > > also is secret: my prophet shall reveal it to the wise. > > > > > > LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 06/15/00 10:58:25 PM, nos@granite.net.au writes: > > > > > > > > >No I beleive Crowley wrote : Love is the Law Love under Will. > > > > > > > > In what book, or whose dream? > > > > > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > > > > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > > > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > > > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > > > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 20 00:37:55 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id AAA21308 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:34:51 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: <20.7810b1d.26805ba5@aol.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:31:17 EDT Subject: Theos-World Re: Tests for ABC To: IamIou@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/18/00 5:58:41 PM, IamIou writes: >Theories are a dime a dozen...Beautiful theories cost a quarter. Some, >like yours, have a certain plausibility due to being at least literate...But >in the end, no matter what you or I may think, theories are only as good >as their tests...I would therefore suggest that you augment your list of >"readings" with a list of tests that could be performed to validate the >theory, in the form: Thanks for the kudos. Also, for your good suggestions. To show objective proof sure would be nice if it were possible. But, actually, as far as I'm concerned, scientific theories are only as valid as their closeness to truth (or their usefulness in creating beneficial technologies). However, their usefulness, insofar as they add to or subtract from our knowledge and wisdom, as well as contribute to our lives as freer, more honorable, ethical, moral, and happy human beings (or the opposite) -- is quite another matter -- and where my primary interests really lie. The one thing that the theory of ABC could set out to prove, however, would be that Universal Brotherhood is a fundamental law of Nature. Unfortunately (for scientists or intellectuals who require empirical proofs), ABC is based on an extremely old, logically scientific paradigm that considers the universe as far more complex in one direction (although far simpler in another) than materialistically oriented, reductive or empirical science has yet to understand. Therefore, as far as I can see, no current "scientific methods" (other than pure mathematics, or the acceptance of "subjective" evidence through controlled "altered states" experiments) will ever be able to "physically" or "objectively" determine or explain the actual nature of (nonmaterial) consciousness and mind, or the actual "processes" of their causative interrelationships with (material) brains and bodies... For one reason -- that such groupings are made up out of entirely different substances (or modes of energy) and exist on entirely different levels, dimensions, or phases of coenergetic fields that are, essentially, involved and evolved from the fundamentally eternal source of primal vibrational (cyclic) energy, or "spinergy" -- that forever obeys the fundamental laws of cyclic motion -- as expressed throughout all coenergetic fields derived from this primal source. (From consciousness, mind and memory to the electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravitational fields of matter). And, which: [1] periodically starts its expansion holistically, from, non dimensional, ZERO-point space (and time), and INFINITE energy -- with the capability of containing, in potentiality or in expression, infinite degrees of holographically linked patterns of form, intelligence, and information (or knowledge). And, [2] is infinitely divisible as well as infinitely extensible when inflated out of the initial abstract spinergy of the "Void." And, [3] underlies "everything" that can occur (according to the fundamental laws of both energy fields and cycles) prior to and after the "big bang" -- which is only the beginning of our lower physical/material level of energetic existence and evolution, as well as the end stage of the inflation process that started at the zero-point of infinite awareness, and its initial spinergy's invisible involution and evolution... First, into the fields of consciousness [universal mind and memory]... And, then, descending into the lower energy, higher density fields of "tangible" matter... (Where we play around with measurements and such.:-) Unfortunately, except for the advanced post-quantum theorists (who, BTW, are not so far away from ABC theory), science, as a whole, is now at the same stage -- with reference to explaining awareness, and how we actually see, think, imagine, or consciously experience, and their relationship with mind and matter -- as it was almost a hundred years ago with respect to their understanding of relativity and quantum theoretical physics. Then, they were so much in love with the materially mechanistic theories of Newton and his crowd, that they couldn't see the forest for the trees when Einstein came along to give them a new paradigm. Now, the story is still pretty much the same -- although there are many scientists around these days who are beginning to see that Einstein merely opened the door, and that the universe that begins where relativity and quantum physics leave off, is far more subtly complex and yet more simple than they could ever prove by objective evidence. How long did it take science to prove, by experiment, the validity of E=Mc^2? ... 0r, that light could be bent by gravitational force? ... Or that the observer could effect the physical state or characteristic of a quantum particle? .How long will it take for them to prove that an accelerating physical body shortens toward zero length (in the direction it is traveling) as its velocity approaches the speed of light? Or, what about the many things taken for granted today by science, based on the mathematical formulas of relativity and quantum mechanics -- that have not yet been proven by any sort of scientific experiment? >If ABC is true, then x y and z will be found to be the case. Not necessarily. How do you objectively detect a "quanta" of astral light? However, we do it all the time, internally and subjectively. Actually, the theory of ABC cannot be proven by any means that require instruments that can only detect energies or fields that are functioning on the material levels... Since, scientifically, it is based on the same pure mathematics that underlie the multidimensional Superstring, M-brane and ZPE theories of postmodern physics -- for which, as yet, no one has come up with any measurable proofs (other than the "Casimir Effect" which seems to prove the existence of invisible and immeasurable amounts of zero-point energy in the apparent "vacuum" of so called, "empty" space). But, even the bulk of quantum theories, today, have nothing more solid behind them than mathematical equations. Besides, I am not an academic scientist with access to laboratories and grants, nor a mathematician, and really have no interest in trying to prove the ABC theory. (But, I would be happy to contribute whatever I know about it to help any scientist who might wish to do so.) The actual credibility of the ABC theory, along with most all of the post=modern, holographic universe and multidimensional field theories rest on several basic assumptions. Firstly, that physical scientific methods cannot falsify these concepts. Secondly, that these theories answer all the presently unanswered scientific questions -- such as, explaining the bais of extra sensory perception, psychic healing, the causative nature of consciousness, the source and operation of the qualia of consciousness, the transfer of information from brain to mind, the causative linkages between body, brain, mind, awareness and free will, etc. ABC, therefore, in conjunction with the mathematics of some post modern physics and cosmological theories, can completely explain these scientific mysteries, and is, at the same time, fully in conformance with all relativistic and quantum cosmological theories -- from Einstein to the latest quantum field, quantum gravity and other post-quantum and sub-quantum theories of today. >In other words, make a list of logically inferred events, occurrences, >measurable quanta that can be perceived or registered by instruments. >Tell us what cannot happen in your theory (for example, Einstein predicted >that "straight" light couldn't be found passing a large body; it would be >bent, curved). All I can say is that I haven't approached this theory from the point of view of a professional scientist -- but simply to express my views that the universe goes far deeper than any scientists working with events, occurrences and measurable quanta can even imagine. Nevertheless, since any statement made by Einstein also applies to ABC, which incidentally shows, diagrammatically, that all field lines of force must be curved, I will leave those predictions for the scientists who now are working around the fringes of it all. In the meantime, all ll I am really interested in, is that ordinary people come to realize, on the basis of the rational theory of coenergetic fields and its ultimate acceptance by accredited scientists (of which I am not), that they -- as an individualized awareness in temporary control of their own, ordered or disordered (as the case may be) coadunate but consubstantial fields of energetic forces that make up their minds and bodies -- are each as eternal in their spiritual consciousness and awareness, as the universe is, was, and ever will be -- which, in itself, as the pure and infinite essence of all manifest energy and its "images" -- that can neither be created, nor destroyed -- but simply changed from one form or state to another. Hope that clarifies things a bit further. LHM http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/ http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 20 03:01:11 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id CAA29972 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:50:35 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <20000620074704.50684.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [203.146.64.164] From: "Andrew Basler" To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:47:04 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com It is remarkable that both of favourite Crowley's mottos -Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law- and -Love is the law, love under will- are reflected in Krishnamurti's philosophy as in his notebook of 29th Nov 1961: "Love and there is no sin; love and do what you will and then there is no sorrow." However, both seemed to forget what they once wrote. The former of his translation of Eliphas Levi's Theory of the Will, Axiom II: "To will evil, is to will death. A perverse will is a beginning of suicide." The latter of his writing while under the instruction of his Guru: "He who has forgotten his childhood and lost sympathy with the children is not the man who can teach them or help them." -Andrew >From: Bart Lidofsky >Book of the Law: > >I,57: Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. > Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and >love. > There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye >well! > He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the >fortress, > and the great mystery of the House of God. All these old > letters of my Book are aright; but * is not the Star. >This > also is secret: my prophet shall reveal it to the wise. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 20 08:33:26 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id IAA27083 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:30:41 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000620082526.02eb1a00@mail.eden.com> X-Sender: ramadoss@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:25:26 -0500 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. In-Reply-To: <20000620074704.50684.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Where is this quote from? At 07:47 AM 06/20/2000 GMT, you wrote: > >"He who has forgotten >his childhood and lost sympathy with the children is not the man who can >teach them or help them." > >-Andrew -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 20 11:09:20 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA14844 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:04:42 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f X-Sent-via: StarNet http://www.azstarnet.com/ Message-ID: <005401bfdad1$c4e7aa40$8708c5a9@azstarnet.com> From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" To: "Caldwell, Daniel H." Subject: Theos-World "The Book of Dzyan"--a review of Tim Maroney's book Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:07:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com This is taken via Deja.Com from the discussion group: alt.horror.cthulhu Forum: alt.horror.cthulhu Thread: "The Book of Dzyan"--a review Subject: "The Book of Dzyan"--a review Date: 04/02/2000 Author: James Russell THE BOOK OF DZYAN Being a Manuscript Curiously Received by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky with Diverse and Rare Texts of Related Interest Selected and Introduced by Tim Maroney. Chaosium Publication 6027, published February 2000. Review by James Russell. ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== Amongst the assorted stylistic trappings of Cthulhu Mythos fiction, there have always been the various books, those volumes of grave and horrifying revelations such as the "Necronomicon", the "Pnakotic Manuscripts", the "Book of Eibon", "Unaussprechlichen Kulten", and so forth. While all of these have been fictional creations-despite claims by certain people who really should know better that the "Necronomicon" is/was a real book-concocted from the imaginations of their respective creators, one Mythos book is actually an authentic text, namely the "Book of Dzyan". At least, it's authentic in that it predates H.P. Lovecraft's work and was included by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, in her book "The Secret Doctrine", published in 1888; whether it has any reality beyond that is something I don't know. I also don't know much about the research that's been done into the matter of Lovecraft's familiarity with Theosophy. At any rate, though, he was certainly unfamiliar with the "Book of Dzyan" when E. Hoffmann Price introduced him to it in 1933, as recounted in "Selected Letters" volume IV; see letters 602 to Price (Feb. 15 1933), 604 to Clark Ashton Smith (Feb. 18 1933) and 610 to Elizabeth Toldridge (March 25 1933). To Smith he wrote: "Price has dug up another cycle of actual folklore involving an allegedly primordial thing called 'The Book of Dzyan'. I don't know where E. Hoffmann got hold of this stuff, but it sounds damn good." Good enough for Lovecraft to co-opt in passing as a "Mythos" book in "The Haunter of the Dark", even if he otherwise knew nothing about it. Chaosium have published a series of collections of Mythos fiction over the past few years, which are now being supplemented by a series of Lovecraft's "occult sources". "The Book of Dzyan" is the first of these, and I'll be interested to see what else Chaosium has in store. The present volume, which is edited by Tim Maroney, is divided into three roughly equal parts: 1) Maroney's introductory biographical essay. 2) The "Book of Dzyan" itself-the complete text as presented in "The Secret Doctrine" with a small amount of Mme Blavatsky's commentary from that book, plus a curious continuation of "Dzyan" by A.S. Raleigh and the Temple of the People, published in 1914. 3) An abridged version (which still runs for nearly a hundred pages) of the report made by the Society for Psychical Research in 1884. The 19th century occult revival produced a number of odd and interesting figures, and HPB was one of the more odd and interesting ones. On the whole neither the S.P.R. report nor Maroney's biographical piece paint a terribly flattering portrait of Mme Blavatsky. Maroney does say in her favour, though, that "However much her critics might deride her work as mere fabrication, nonetheless Blavatsky was in tune with *something* beyond the normal sphere", so I suppose it's best left to the individual to make up their own mind. Maroney's introductory materials are well written, sometimes with an element of dry humour (of C.W. Leadbeater he notes that "not only [had he] counseled boys in masturbation, [he] provided them a helping hand"; A.S. Raleigh's comments on his "Stanzas of Dzjn [sic]" have been "elided as an act of mercy"), though some will probably find his comments on Lovecraft contentious. Although HPL professed a dim view of occultism and real occult texts, finding it more fun to invent things like the "Necronomicon", Maroney notes that he did have a certain fascination with these things that meant we shouldn't take such declarations at face value (though at least he doesn't overtly assume the Lovecraft-as-practicing-occultist position). I'd answer that by quoting HPL's words to Nils Frome that he found these things interesting "because I don't believe them" and move on. "The Book of Dzyan" itself only amounts to a very small portion of the overall book, about thirteen pages in all out of about two hundred and fifty (not including endnotes), seven stanzas of "cosmic evolution" and twelve of "anthropogenesis". Of this latter section, a note by HPB states that "Only forty-nine Slokas [i.e. verses] out of several hundred are here given", so even "The Secret Doctrine" includes only a minimal amount of the purported text. Maroney's introduction describes it as "very much a 'weird tale'"; there are passages of pseudo(?)-Hindu obscurantism such as "But where was the Dangma when the Alaya of the universe was in Paramartha and the great wheel was Anupadaka"?-where indeed?-but there are other more interesting and sensible passages. Much the same can be said of HPB's commentary from "The Secret Doctrine"; the excerpts from that "damned thick, square book" presented here make me somewhat glad that I've never attempted to read the entire work. As for Raleigh's purported continuation, the "Stanzas of Dzjn", well, they're another matter altogether. Maroney describes them as requiring extensive reworking to bring them up to the par of a Dungeons & Dragons module, which is pretty damning but not inaccurate. Perhaps the last section is the most interesting, the S.P.R. report of 1884, which did, and continues to do, vast damage to the reputation of HPB. This is pretty self-explanatory-designed as it was to prove that the psychic phenomena performed by Mme Blavatsky (particularly in the matter of the "Mahatma Letters") were fraudulent in nature-so I won't spend much time on it here. I'll only mention that its somewhat spiteful origin-instigated by Emma Coulomb after the latter was unceremoniously booted out of the Theosophical Society, whereupon she took it upon herself to show up Mme Blavatsky's tricks-does point out the disappointingly human nature of occult groups of this sort; for all the lofty ideals, they can be terribly childish when they try. (Witness the occasional outbursts of the Yaddith Lodge, for example.) In the end, the "Book of Dzyan" itself is much like any other occult text: only as frightening or interesting as you let it be. For my money, it pretty much fulfils Lovecraft's statements about "seriously-written books on dark, occult and supernatural themes-in all truth they don't amount to much." No doubt whatever dark thoughts HPL could've cooked up in his fertile brain about the Book of Dzyan would've far outstripped the actuality of the book. As a whole, though, this is an interesting volume, and a worthwhile initiative on Chaosium's part, and as I said earlier, I'll be interested to see what else they have in line for this new series. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 20 12:51:32 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id MAA29851 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:48:47 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: ASANAT@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:45:09 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Aryel Sanat schedule for June-July To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 81 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 6/18/00 5:55:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ramadoss@eden.com writes: << I think personal one to one contact has some chemistry that is always beneficial and also we can put a face to the name(or assumed name ? ) of the persons we may be familiar with via these maillists and other private correspondence. By the way, I live in San Antonio, Texas and I would like to meet with anyon anyone planning to visit or pass thru San Antonio; if a couple of days advance notice is possible, anyone visiting can stay with me. This standing invitation is always there as I have indicated a couple of times in the past. >> That's great! I might take you up on that, sometime. Though we are short of space right now, a similar offer is open to those of you coming to the Washington, D.C. area. I live in Arlington, VA, which is just across the Potomac from the capital. We're planning to move soon (one of several reasons I've had to cut down on my participation on the list). When that happens, there'll be more room. Aryel -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 20 17:44:09 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id RAA08581 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:29:20 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <007301bfdb06$71c6bd80$a2de603e@l4l9k9> From: "Frank Reitemeyer" To: References: <3.0.3.32.20000602040459.02b9d580@mail.eden.com> Subject: Re: Theos-World HPB Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:24:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > In today's cyberworld of e-mail and keyboards, maillists, newsgroups, one > finds from time to time, message posters masquerading under assumed names > because they are not bold enough to stand up and counted for their views > and opinions because they are afraid of being found out who they really are. > > mkr The Anti-Blavatsky-Net censors emails to the study-list which refer to Judge and successorship. What would have HPB said about that as she wrote about Judge in 1889 that he is the ONLY ONE remained true to the cause. On this Net also articles are offered under the good name of Judge, but the contents are Anti-Judge and they are not included in Dara Eklund's Judge collection "Echoes of the Orient" (3 vol. + Index). It may be of interest that this policy - to censor and suppress pro-Judge emails and at the same time offer faked Judge articles - is all done by hidden ULT officials. Ironically, the ULT claims to follow Judge. And the ULT says that they have no officials, but the hidden officials (they are never named) act actually as officials. But they are not responsible to anyone as they act in the background and no member is allowed to know who is a hidden official as the ULT bylaws state that they have such officials. An excerption may be the Net case, as ULT official Mr Reed Carson is frankly stated as responsible for the Anti-Blavatsky and Anti-Judge policy. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 21 11:12:45 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA10205 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:08:23 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <20000621160456.69783.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [203.146.64.164] From: "Andrew Basler" To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:04:56 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com >From: M K Ramadoss > >Where is this quote from? > > >"He who has forgotten > >his childhood and lost sympathy with the children is not the man who can > >teach them or help them." > > >From At the feet of the Master, the first and only book of Krishnamurti that is not overwhelmed with the forceful reflection of one who is lost in the pathless land. K was oblivious not only of everything that happened before 1929, but most of the things he was not interested in or did not want to remember. Mary Lutyens, his eminent biographer, wrote that "He wouldn't be able to tell you what happened a fortnight ago...He is very fully alive in the present and excited about what goes on inside himself from day to day." -Andrew ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 21 19:25:59 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id TAA14939 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:22:03 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Free Tibet" To: Subject: RE: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:55:04 +0930 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <20000621160456.69783.qmail@hotmail.com> Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Sounds like someone who was smoking a lot of hash....a la Sai Baba! nos > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Andrew Basler > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 1:35 AM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. > > > >From: M K Ramadoss > > > >Where is this quote from? > > > > >"He who has forgotten > > >his childhood and lost sympathy with the children is not the > man who can > > >teach them or help them." > > > > > >From At the feet of the Master, the first and only book of > Krishnamurti that > is not overwhelmed with the forceful reflection of one who is lost in the > pathless land. > > K was oblivious not only of everything that happened before 1929, > but most > of the things he was not interested in or did not want to remember. Mary > Lutyens, his eminent biographer, wrote that "He wouldn't be able to tell > you what happened a fortnight ago...He is very fully alive in the present > and excited about what goes on inside himself from day to day." > > -Andrew > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 21 23:28:20 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA18028 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:11:56 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <02a501bfdbff$9b839ae0$c9c9fea9@livingroom> From: "JuneBug" To: References: <20000621160456.69783.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Theos-World Who am I? Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:09:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Hello, I just finished reading a book called Initiation Human and Solar. I know I am going to need to read it again. Most of the books in this series read like text books. Here is my question. If a person can be a level 1 initiate from a previous life, and still not remember that previous life, who am I, according to Theosophy? In some respects, there is no such thing as reincarnation, because there is no incarnation to begin with, such that life as I understand it goes. This is the only time I can, or will be, Wayne Benge. Perhaps, I thought, the real me is this higher self that sets up a life such as mine. The Initiate starts to talk with this higher self? Is the higher self the real me? Curious, Wayne Benge -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 22 04:04:19 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id DAA07199 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 03:49:11 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: Teos9@aol.com Message-ID: <36.795ca66.26832c47@aol.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 04:45:59 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Who am I? To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 108 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/22/00 12:26:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, benge@adsnet.com writes: << In some respects, there is no such thing as reincarnation, because there is no incarnation to begin with, such that life as I understand it goes. This is the only time I can, or will be, Wayne Benge. Perhaps, I thought, the real me is this higher self that sets up a life such as mine. The Initiate starts to talk with this higher self? Is the higher self the real me? >> Yes, of course Wayne. The eternal (divine) part of ones natures is it's non physical identity. The path of initiation is the continual striving to actualize that identity while incarnated in a physical vehicle. We wear these physical bodies as one wears many suits of clothes. At the end of the day we put the old suit away (sometimes never to be worn again) and next morning, don a fresh new suit. The suits change but their wearer is ever the same. Grown somewhat wiser or skillful or more mature, perhaps but still the same wearer of the clothes. <> In the particular series of books you mention here, you are your essential (immortal) identity. Often referred to in that series as your "Ego," capital E, to denote higher self, as opposed to the "personality" sometime referred to as the "ego," or lower self. Personality, in those works, refer to the dense physical body, the lower desire nature and the rational mental nature (left Brain) as a single, fused unit. These two are often referred to in Theosophy, as upper and lower Triads. Hope this helps. Louis -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 22 14:03:23 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA08627 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:01:41 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "dalval2nwc.net" To: Subject: Theos-World RE: [bn-basic] General Question for S.D. Enthusiasts Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:29:40 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dallas offers: FUNDAMENTALS: HPB in THE MIND IN NATURE [LUCIFER, Sept 1896 -- ULT HPB Articles Vol. 2, p. 220-221] offers a most important and thought provoking survey of these which we ought to become familiar with. "Based on...the ancient Mysteries...all without one exception , reflect the most important of the once universal beliefs...as an IMPERSONAL, DIVINE PRINCIPLE, absolute in Nature, and UNKNOWABLE to the "brain" INTELLECT, or the conditioned and limited man. To imagine any witness to it in the manifested universe, other than as UNIVERSAL MIND, the SOUL of the UNIVERSE--is impossible. That alone which stands as an undying and ceaseless evidence and proof of that ONE PRINCIPLE, is the presence of an UNDENIABLE DESIGN in KOSMIC MECHANISM, the birth, growth, death, and transformation of EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE, from the silent and unreachable stars down to the humble lichen, from an to the invisible lives, now called microbes. Hence the universal acceptation of "THOUGHT DIVINE." The Animal Mundi of all antiquity. This idea of MAHAT (the great) AKASHA or Brahma's aura of transformation with the Hindus, of ALAYA, "the DIVINE SOUL of thought and COMPASSION" of the trans-Himalayan mystics; of Plato's "PERPETUALLY REASONING DIVINITY," is the oldest of all the doctrines now known to, and believed in, by man...." --HPB : THE MIND IN NATURE - Lucifer Sept. 1896; ULT HPB's Articles II 220-221. Everything relates, finally, to these. Any question or answer in theosophy relates to these for its basis. We ought to make it a habit of tracing the connections when faced with a puzzle. Best wishes, D. T. B. -----Original Message----- From: Jerome Wheeler [mailto:ultinla@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 2:18 PM To: basic@blavatsky.net Subject: [bn-basic] General Question for S.D. Enthusiasts Usually when three fundamentals are pointed to, it seems to be assumed that their formal rendition occurs in the SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol. I, from pp. 14 thru 17 (or possibly first break on 18), yet HPB does not actually conclude her presentation until first break on p. 20. Is it a lapse to not use these last several pages, or is it our lack of clear understanding why all this material is included under Proposition (c) --- or what students call "the third fundamental." I have often wondered if the third is not the most difficult of all. It's easy enough to say "life, law, & being" or "deity, cycles, and evolution," but then there's the gnawing sensation that you haven't made living beings of these sounds-in-the-air. Godel's theorem probably applies to the third, and perhaps the first as well. The unspeakables in this seeker's brain are so huge that I can only agree with the Chinese philosopher Chuang, who said that "the things that men do know can in no way be compared, numerically speaking, to the things that are unknown." Yet, despite the rudimentary nature of our understanding, even that little justifies their inherent reasonableness and the power they have to throw light upon daily problems as they arise. Their truth becomes evident by USE rather than brain-elucidation. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 22 14:49:03 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA13815 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:36:11 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Peter Merriott" To: Subject: Theos-World Intellect and 'thinking Ego' Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:31:14 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear friends, Below are some reflections on 'intellect' and the 'thinking Ego'. In Theosophy and the Ancient Wisdom in general we find the term 'intellect' is used in a variety of ways. HPB refers to "finite intellect", "brain-intellect", "physical-intellect", "human-intellect" "divine intellect" and so on. Mahat "Universal Mind" is also called "universal intellect", or the "intellectual ideation of the Universe". Or put another way: "UNIVERSAL SOUL is ... that which we call the sixth principle of intellectual Kosmos, on the manifested plane of being. It is Mahat, or Mahabuddhi, the great Soul, the vehicle of Spirit, the first primeval reflection of the formless CAUSE, and that which is even beyond SPIRIT." (SD I 420) Interestingly, many people who downplay the role of the 'mind' and 'intellect', at least as *they* understand them, often say we have to go beyond the intellect and access Buddhi, our intuition. Yet the sanskrit term "Buddhi" means "the power of forming and retaining conceptions and general notions, intelligence, reason, intellect, mind, discernment.." (See Monier Williams - Sanskrit English Dictionary ) Buddhi, our sixth principle, is sometimes refered to as 'spiritual intellect'. It is also described as the characteristic property of Mahat (SD I 373). This is turn is sometimes refered to as "divine Intellect" (eg SD I 288). The Egyptians spoke of "Creative Intellect (or Divine Wisdom)" Maybe most of us do not seek the Creative / Divine Wisdom within ourselves and perhaps it was for this reason that Eliphas Levi wrote that the "divine intellect is veiled in man; his animal brain alone philosophizes." (SD II 74) Those who are able to access the "divine intellect" within themselves gradually acquire JNANASAKTI, that which is called in the SD, "The power of intellect, of real Wisdom or Knowledge." Why is it thus referred to as "real Wisdom or Knowledge"? Perhaps because this kind of 'intellect' has its roots in primordial substance, intellectual and divine in nature: "To become complete and comprehensible, a cosmogonical theory has to start with a primordial Substance diffused throughout boundless Space, of an intellectual and divine Nature. That substance must be the Soul and Spirit, the Synthesis and Seventh Principle of the manifested Kosmos, and, to serve as a spiritual Upadhi to this, there must be the sixth, its vehicle -- primordial physical matter, so to speak, though its nature must escape for ever our limited normal senses." (SD I 594) Our 'divine ancestors', those who awakened 'mind, manas' in humanity are referred to as the Sons of Mahat (Manasaputras). They are of the three formless (arupa) classes of Pitris. Those Lunar Pitris who provided the forms are distinguished from the Manasaputras by virtue of "the former being intellectual and spiritual, the latter material and devoid of intellect." (SD 2 91) Commenting on what some of the Stanzas of Dzyan teach, HPB writes: "...they teach belief in conscious Powers and Spiritual Entities; in terrestrial, semi-intelligent, and highly intellectual Forces on other planes*;.... [footnote] * Their intellection, of course, being of quite a different nature to any we can conceive of on Earth." (SD I 478) Clearly then "intellect" and "intellection", from the Occult and Theosophical standpoint is an immense field of which we know but little at the present time. It is this field of 'conciousness' that the Monad enters into in order to pass through the 'school of life'. As we find in the SD: "The MONAD emerges from its state of spiritual and intellectual unconsciousness; and, skipping the first two planes -- too near the ABSOLUTE to permit of any correlation with anything on a lower plane -- it gets direct into the plane of Mentality. But there is no plane in the whole universe with a wider margin, or a wider field of action in its almost endless gradations of perceptive and apperceptive qualities, than this plane, which has in its turn an appropriate smaller plane for every "form," from the "mineral" monad up to the time when that monad blossoms forth by evolution into the DIVINE MONAD." (SD 1 175) Because of its 'wide margin' this plane touches the heights and depths of consciousness. Simplistically put, we can see this in the dual aspect of Mind, higher and lower (heaven aspiring and materialistic tending). The former, the 'heaven aspiring' mind, (the spark) seeks to reunite itself to that which is in truth its own essence (the flame). It is this which HPB calls "the human Ego... the higher Manas: the intellectual fruition and the efflorescence of the intellectual self-conscious Egotism -- in the higher spiritual sense." (SD II 79) There are so many qualities we need to develop on the spiritual path. The VOICE of the SILENCE outlines the 'paramitas' to be developed and many obsctacles the aspirant has to overcome on the way. The VOICE of the SILENCE states on its first page: "The mind is the great slayer of the real, let the disciple slay the slayer" But we may need to reflect on exactly what this means. Is it the ability 'to think' in its deepest sense that we are asked to destroy? I don't believe it is. Rather it is the sense of 'seperateness' which is an aspect of the lower Manas, rather Kama-Manas (the personality), that has to be weeded out. For keep in mind what is written in Section II of THE VOICE in THE TWO PATHS: "Have perseverence as one who doth forevermore endure. Thy shadows live and vanish (18); that which in thee shall live for ever, that which in thee KNOWS, for it is knowledge (19), is not of fleeting life: it is the man that was, that is, and will be, for whom the hour shall never strike." (p31, Original Edition, capitalised words were italicised in original) In the end Glossary to THE VOICE we find the "shadows" that live and vanish refers to the "Personalities" or "Physical bodies" which are evanescent (p84)" But what is that which "KNOWS", which "is knowledge [and] is not of fleeting life"? HPB states that this is: "(19) MIND (MANAS) the thinking Principle or Ego in man,.. referred to 'Knowledge' itself, because the human EGOS are called MANASA-PUTRAS the sons of (universal) Mind."(p84) Thus we should heed well, it is NOT the "thinking Principle or Ego in man" that the disciple is asked to destroy on the first page of the VOICE of the SILENCE. For HPB refers to this principle as "the man that was, that is, and will be, for whom the hour shall never strike." It is the "thinking man" which is the re-incarnting EGO. How can this be slain by the disciple? If there is any doubt that this is what HPB means by this then see the KEY to THEOSOPHY, where the Enquirer asks, "what is it that reincarnates, in your belief?". HPB replies: "The Spiritual thinking Ego, the permanent principle in man, or that which is the seat of Manas. It is not Atma, or even Atma-Buddhi, regarded as the dual Monad, which is the individual, or divine man, but Manas; for Atman is the Universal ALL, and becomes the HIGHER-SELF of man only in conjunction with Buddhi, its vehicle, which links IT to the individuality (or divine man). For it is the Buddhi-Manas which is called the Causal body, (the United 5th and 6th Principles) and which is Consciousness, that connects it with every personality it inhabits on earth." (Key to Theosophy page 121) Those who like to qoute the first page of "THE VOICE of the SILENCE" may also like to look at the first page of the PREFACE in "THE KEY to THEOSOPHY", where commenting on her work HPB writes: "That it should succeed in making Theosophy intelligible without mental effort on the part of the reader, would be too much to expect... To the mentally lazy and obtuse, Theosophy must remain a riddle..." ...Peter -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 22 18:45:27 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA08821 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:20:27 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39515A53.F9C9D2B5@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:14:12 -0700 From: Dennis Kier X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. References: <20000621160456.69783.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > K was oblivious not only of everything that happened before 1929, but most > of the things he was not interested in or did not want to remember. Mary > Lutyens, his eminent biographer, wrote that "He wouldn't be able to tell > you what happened a fortnight ago...He is very fully alive in the present > and excited about what goes on inside himself from day to day." > But, on the other hand, _I_ sometimes have trouble remembering what happened last week, until I consult the memos that I write on my callendar, and think about it for a while. I do remember the big things that involve others, but the little things are quickly forgotten. Am I the only one [now that K is no longer with us] that this happens to? Dennis -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 23 00:58:39 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id AAA09571 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:26:46 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000623002113.024a6ca0@mail.eden.com> X-Sender: ramadoss@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:21:13 -0500 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. In-Reply-To: <39515A53.F9C9D2B5@earthlink.net> References: <20000621160456.69783.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com At 05:14 PM 06/21/2000 -0700, you wrote: > > > >> K was oblivious not only of everything that happened before 1929, but most >> of the things he was not interested in or did not want to remember. Mary >> Lutyens, his eminent biographer, wrote that "He wouldn't be able to tell >> you what happened a fortnight ago...He is very fully alive in the present >> and excited about what goes on inside himself from day to day." >> > >But, on the other hand, _I_ sometimes have trouble remembering what happened last >week, until I consult the memos that I write on my callendar, and think about it >for a while. > >I do remember the big things that involve others, but the little things are >quickly forgotten. Am I the only one [now that K is no longer with us] that this >happens to? > >Dennis It has happened to me many times. Usually I have given some small help to some one long time ago and have completely forgotten their name or what I did. Out of the blue, from time to time, one of my friends will tell me that they met so and so and he inquired of me. mkr -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 23 02:16:23 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id BAA16904 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:41:18 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:37:46 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Maitreya appearance To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/08/00 2:34:25 AM, benge@adsnet.com writes: >Hello, > >> That's true... But, since when was the Christian theology and belief system >> (which incidentally, denies karma and reincarnation -- which the Jews don't) >> the "reality" of the Jewish religion? > >Karma is simply "Be not deceived, God is not mocked. Whatever ye sow, so >surely shall ye reap". Reincarnation doesn't need anyone to believe it. It >either is, or isn't, but it doesn't change this life in anyway, except to >possibly promise Justice. The concept of reincarnation is comforting >because it promises justice. For me, I have no knowledge of a past life >or future life. All I have is now. Then why don't you use it effectively and through your own self devised and self determined efforts, try to determine the basis and prove, for yourself, either the truth or untruth of the reality of reincarnation. Then we can talk about it reasonably. But, not, if we just hypocritically accept it, while believing in a mostly contradictory religion, just because we like the idea of justice. There is a scientific reason why that justice is built into the foundation of the universe and why universal brotherhood (not brotherhood among selected groupings) is a law of nature, that can only be expressed by understanding reincarnation, karma and the apparent separation between spirit and matter, along with the idea of an eternal Spiritual consciousness that is totally responsible for its own choices of action. This completely negates the Christian idea of a personal God or "savior" who is the Supreme Dictator, and who, as a "personality" can take vengeance and make judgments that can send us off after only one life on Earth to the permanent fires of Hell or the pleasures of Heaven. How can you reconcile that with the Truths of theosophy? Or, with the idea that real "Justice" can only come about through the action of karma over many lifetimes? Or with that of Jesus, himself, who spoke only of the principles behind his own religion? Which is, pure Hebrew Kabbala, and which was and is still is in perfect agreement with theosophical principles -- including the idea of an unknown Deific Principle (Ein-Soph or "No Thing") THAT has no conscious or personal relationship to the manifest universe, or its individual beings, except through the veil of its first emanation, Kether, or Mulaprakriti -- who is, in turn, followed by and dependent upon its further emanations into the nine intelligent "powers" or "builders" of Nature -- which, themselves, cannot act other than in conformance with the laws of karma. Unfortunately, there can be some bad apples in every bushel (even throughout the so called "hierarchy") who like to control everything for themselves. It may be that one of their next lower "emanaters" pictured himself as a "Personal God" and twisted Christianity -- when he had the opportunity in his role of "Satan" -- into a contrived "religion" justifying his dictatorship over the lives of all its followers while, hypocritically, using a wise Hebrew figurehead along with his valid "Heart Doctrine" teachings as a "Front" for its totally fallacious separatist theology and false dogmas. If their original figurehead, Jesus (if he ever actually existed as they picture him) were alive anytime from after the third century until today, he would have denounced them all as scoundrels, usurpers and deniers of the true Wisdom Religion and its "Masters" (whether these Masters were Hindu/Buddhist, Hebrew/Kabbalist, Muslim/Sufi, Taoist, or other similar esoteric religions). Vide, the concocted story of the three Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, that attempts to prove that the coming of Jesus was sanctified by all the other great religions of the world, Mazdaism, Buddhism and Taoism. Unfortunately, history proves that they all had their own great teachers who each brought the identical theosophical teachings to their own peoples, as the Rebbe Yeshua did to his. BTW, "As they sow, so shall they reap" was spoken by John (as a parable for karma) who was more of a philosopher at the time he said it than a Christian... As we know them, after they formed a "Mother Church" (which he identified as "The Whore of Babylon in Revelations) around Jesus as a figurehead and "idol," along with the "Virgin Mary" as part of a so called "Holy Trinity of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost... A dogma, that, anthropomorphizes, materializes, and in a sense, trivializes -- as well as prevents the learning, by those trapped in Christian theology, of what is essentially an esoteric reality of great significance to ones understanding of the laws of karma, the meaning of "eternal life," the inevitability and essentiality of reincarnation, etc. And, also prevents the recognition of the fallacies of Christian fundamentalist dogmas of a personal God, resurrection, Heaven, Hell, Satan, creationism, vicarious atonement, Papal infallibility, denial of theosophical scientific evolution, etc., etc. Isn't it far better to practice Universal Brotherhood because we understand the unity of all, and have compassion and empathy for all beings, than to do it because someone tells us to, or threatens us with fire and brimstone if we don't? > >The reality of the Jewish religion was not to reserve one day, the Sabbath, >for God. Each day we live like any other. The Sabbath was sort of a >minimum. The sacrifices were supposed to be something given freely to God >that a person values, rather than a minimum payment. God the Father was >supposed to be "Daddy" -- personal. We are supposed to immerse ourself >in the way of life God wants, happily. God gave the Jews a set of minimums >that they cast in concrete. Those incoherent remarks, based on the dogma of an anthropomorphized, separate and personal "God," are totally without any foundation in either reason, intuition or reality. There is no "wanting" on the part of the actual, impersonal "Godhead" (Ein Soph, or no "thing") -- which, based on Hebrew Cabalistic truths, are identical to the original teachings of the Rebbe Yeshua (whom the Christians call Jesus)... And which has no relationship, whatsoever, to the dogmas and edicts taught throughout all of Christianity today -- except for some enlightened Christian mystics, Jews for Jesus, etc., who understand and accept theosophical principles, while practicing the original Heart Doctrine of the one who had the wisdom of the Christos that all his Hebrew Essene, Buddhist, Taoist, etc., 'brother" rabbis, gurus, teachers, etc. had. One can accept Jesus as a guide and teacher, realize his as well as one's own connection to the Godhead or divine source, and even call oneself a Christian, without having to accept any dogmas of the Christian Church or their interpretations of the Bible -- as there are many descendants of the Hebrews who call themselves, Jews, and respect the same Godhead, who also do not practice any of the Dogmas of the organized Judaism that grew out of its original Cabalistic teachings (that are, incidentally, identical to theosophy). It's unfortunate that Yeshua could not give out his "pearls" of esoteric wisdom at that time, and that it took 2000 years before it was possible to do so (by the Mahatmas, with the help of HPB). Perhaps, that recent "exposure" of the Christian priest's crafty motives, the falsity of their personal God and their dogmas, and the misuse of Christianity by Hitler and their pandering to it, is the reason why the Christian leaders, today, are so careful to bend over backwards in "public" support of the Jews, and Israel, no matter what their politics. But, It could be that many of them still may privately condone the distribution of the completely spurious "Protocols of Zion" and stay very quiet or deny any connection when Christian dominated KKK's, skin heads, white supremacists, and other separatist and violent hate groups use the Christian Bible to justify their ideas and actions. > > I thought that both Buddha and Jesus > (a/k/a the Rebbe, Joshua) spoke > > out solely to reform their respective religions by taking away the power of >> their self serving priestcrafty rulers... >> Joshua, to end the exploitation power of the Rabbi's materialism >> and greed, and Guatama, to end the Hindu caste system for similar reasons. > >For sure, Jesus did that. > >> So, would you kindly explain what "God" you are talking about? > >To me, God is universal Higher Power in charge of humanity that various >people have called Jehovah, Allah, The Great Spirit, etc. Naming it is not explaining it. Nevertheless, you are perfectly entitled to choose anyone or thing that you believe "is in charge of humanity" -- especially, if you ignorantly fall for the fear of the threatened retribution that may follow if you don't, or the promised paradise if you do. But, the only ONE really "in charge of humanity" is the Self within each of us -- that we either realize for ourselves, understand the basic karmic laws that govern its being, and follow its edicts based on the knowledge, intuition and wisdom gained through our own self devised and self determined efforts... Or, we can blindly follow the leader's of dogmatic religions who profess to be spokesmen for their imaginary "God" -- whose dictatorship (as well as their own) they wish to impose on everyone by inculcating a "blind belief" or "faith" in a nonexistent God and a false interpretation of theosophical truths -- with just enough similarity to our inborn intuitive knowledge to be believable, so long as we don't use out reason to examine its inconsistencies. Hitler, black magician that he was, used the same tactics and converted most of the German (Christian) people whom he knew were well prepared to believe any mystical hogwash -- so long as it had sufficient christianized "authority" (no matter how fallacious or distorted) behind it. Not only did he claim to have brought a "new dispensation," but he even warned us in his Mein Kampf, that he intended to anchor his National Socialism (Nazi party) on the gullibility of most Christians to believe anything told them about the Jews that denies their "chosen people" status and paints them as "communist" enemies of the state... And, therefore, would not defend them when he used Jews as scapegoats and slave labor, while he secretly exterminated all their Rabbis and knowledgeable intellectuals (including all theosophists, BTW) who knew the fundamental truths and could, ultimately, expose his nefarious scheme. Of course, we can believe that he was crazy... But, the predominantly Christian (mostly Protestant) Germans, nevertheless, fell for all of his falsities (that were no more far fetched than their own Biblical misinterpretations and dogmas). This explains the Power that "blind belief" and faith in "authorities" gives to those intending to enslave others (physically, economically, mentally and/or spiritually) to serve their own selfish purposes, or their misdirected and sometimes (they think) "good intentions"... For which, as said, "Hell is paved with..." > >> Also, tell us >> if you are parroting the "new dispensation" of Maitreya, or if all that >> prophesying is solely your own opinions and beliefs? > >All I have -- is solely my own opinions and beliefs. Only. Based on what? The Christian dogmas? Hearsay? Nothing? It certainly doesn't appear (judging from what you say) to have any reasonable basis of wisdom or synthesized knowledge of universal (scientific, philosophical, or religious) realities, behind it. If it's just your groundless and "blind belief" opinions, on the other hand, then why work so hard to convince us that there is some kind of "new dispensation" (based on nothing more than "hearsay") behind that? And why harangue us to believe your personally accepted "authority" whose ideas and opinions also, apparently, are wobbling between fundamental principles of theosophy and mostly contradictory Christian theology. This seems to be the typical hypocritical stand of those who try to influence others by trying to keep their feet in more than one camp at a time. Hitler and his crowd did just that. They pandered to Christian theology, and gave themselves the credentials to bring down a "new dispensation." So, did most Christian missionaries, as they tailored their dogmas to fit in with the local pagan religions or voodoo's. God save us from such wonderful "saviors" who give us a personal God based on such flexible reasoning and contrived mores, that it can condone almost anything. Admittedly, Brotherhood, universal or not, as well as selected moral and ethical precepts are grounds to compare one religion with another, but what's so new about Maitreya's dispensation? All he appears to be doing is Christianizing theosophy along the same line of Besant, Leadbeater and Bailey, The only difference, is that behind him stand some possibly shady characters who may be using him as a tool to put their own ruling cabals into power -- as the Christians have done for ages since the Holy Roman Empire -- by infiltrating governments (or talking their kings into conquering them in the name of their God) and then setting themselves up as the only politically correct religion ... And, thereby, influencing, and sometimes controlling, the laws that fit their narrow sectarian views and fills the coffers of their priestcrafty leaders. Of course there are many Christians, especially among some of the Protestant sects (although still easy to influence into voting as a block using Christian precepts and priestly authorities, along with twisted interpretations of the Bible) who do not fit this mode or condone the actions of "The Mother Church" and its army of Jesuit "enforcers" of the self serving, so called "Laws of (a) God," stolen from the Jews -- that they cleverly and intentionally fabricated, misinterpreted (and twisted all out of their reasonable understanding) to suit their own purposes. It's interesting that this threatened exposure of their criminality, apparently, is the major reason for the church sanctioned, false and unreasonable accusations, hatred and persecution of the Jews throughout Christian history that fell right into the hands of Hitler and his followers. > >> So far, all we have heard seems to be nothing but "Big Talk" >> without any substance or qualifications. C'mon... Give us some real >> ideas to discuss here, other than all this pointless and endless proselytizing >> of yet another new Messiah, > >What would you like to talk about? Reality. Truth. Theosophy, and its synthesis of science, religion and philosophy, and its better understanding. Take your pick. But, my suggestion is that; if you wish to tout these "blind beliefs" of yours, and desire to proselytize the wonderful benefits of Christianity, while promoting a new "Messiah" along with his "New Dispensation" -- that you do it on other forums that attract, less discerning and more gullible correspondents than this one. Nevertheless, thanks for giving me the opportunity to put these ideas about theosophy, in contrast with organized religious brain washing, into proper perspective, and in wide circulation -- that theosophists might use to reinforce their own understandings and convictions, as well as in response to similar "public" distortions of truth and reality. LHM -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 23 04:52:08 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id EAA03539 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 04:23:02 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Free Tibet" To: Subject: RE: Theos-World Maitreya appearance Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 18:55:40 +0930 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Doesn't sound much different from the USA today.... nos > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of LeonMaurer@aol.com > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 4:08 PM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World Maitreya appearance > > > > In a message dated 06/08/00 2:34:25 AM, benge@adsnet.com writes: > > >Hello, > > > >> That's true... But, since when was the Christian theology and > belief system > >> (which incidentally, denies karma and reincarnation -- which the Jews > don't) > >> the "reality" of the Jewish religion? > > > >Karma is simply "Be not deceived, God is not mocked. Whatever ye sow, so > >surely shall ye reap". Reincarnation doesn't need anyone to > believe it. It > >either is, or isn't, but it doesn't change this life in anyway, except to > >possibly promise Justice. The concept of reincarnation is comforting > >because it promises justice. For me, I have no knowledge of a past life > >or future life. All I have is now. > > Then why don't you use it effectively and through your own self > devised and > self determined efforts, try to determine the basis and prove, > for yourself, > either the truth or untruth of the reality of reincarnation. Then we can > talk about it reasonably. But, not, if we just hypocritically accept it, > while believing in a mostly contradictory religion, just because > we like the > idea of justice. There is a scientific reason why that justice > is built into > the foundation of the universe and why universal brotherhood (not > brotherhood > among selected groupings) is a law of nature, that can only be > expressed by > understanding reincarnation, karma and the apparent separation > between spirit > and matter, along with the idea of an eternal Spiritual > consciousness that is > totally responsible for its own choices of action. > > This completely negates the Christian idea of a personal God or > "savior" who > is the Supreme Dictator, and who, as a "personality" can take > vengeance and > make judgments that can send us off after only one life on Earth to the > permanent fires of Hell or the pleasures of Heaven. How can you > reconcile > that with the Truths of theosophy? Or, with the idea that real > "Justice" can > only come about through the action of karma over many lifetimes? Or with > that of Jesus, himself, who spoke only of the principles behind his own > religion? Which is, pure Hebrew Kabbala, and which was and is still is in > perfect agreement with theosophical principles -- including the > idea of an > unknown Deific Principle (Ein-Soph or "No Thing") THAT has no > conscious or > personal relationship to the manifest universe, or its individual beings, > except through the veil of its first emanation, Kether, or > Mulaprakriti -- > who is, in turn, followed by and dependent upon its further > emanations into > the nine intelligent "powers" or "builders" of Nature -- which, > themselves, > cannot act other than in conformance with the laws of karma. > > Unfortunately, there can be some bad apples in every bushel (even > throughout > the so called "hierarchy") who like to control everything for > themselves. It > may be that one of their next lower "emanaters" pictured himself as a > "Personal God" and twisted Christianity -- when he had the > opportunity in his > role of "Satan" -- into a contrived "religion" justifying his > dictatorship > over the lives of all its followers while, hypocritically, using > a wise Hebrew > figurehead along with his valid "Heart Doctrine" teachings as a > "Front" for > its totally fallacious separatist theology and false dogmas. > > If their original figurehead, Jesus (if he ever actually existed as they > picture him) were alive anytime from after the third century > until today, he > would have denounced them all as scoundrels, usurpers and deniers > of the true > Wisdom Religion and its "Masters" (whether these Masters were > Hindu/Buddhist, > Hebrew/Kabbalist, Muslim/Sufi, Taoist, or other similar esoteric > religions). > Vide, the concocted story of the three Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, that > attempts to prove that the coming of Jesus was sanctified by all > the other > great religions of the world, Mazdaism, Buddhism and Taoism. > Unfortunately, > history proves that they all had their own great teachers who > each brought > the identical theosophical teachings to their own peoples, as the Rebbe > Yeshua did to his. > > BTW, "As they sow, so shall they reap" was spoken by John (as a > parable for > karma) who was more of a philosopher at the time he said it than a > Christian... As we know them, after they formed a "Mother Church" > (which he > identified as "The Whore of Babylon in Revelations) around Jesus as a > figurehead and "idol," along with the "Virgin Mary" as part of a > so called > "Holy Trinity of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost... A dogma, that, > anthropomorphizes, materializes, and in a sense, trivializes -- > as well as > prevents the learning, by those trapped in Christian theology, of what is > essentially an esoteric reality of great significance to ones > understanding > of the laws of karma, the meaning of "eternal life," the > inevitability and > essentiality of reincarnation, etc. And, also prevents the > recognition of > the fallacies of Christian fundamentalist dogmas of a personal God, > resurrection, Heaven, Hell, Satan, creationism, vicarious > atonement, Papal > infallibility, denial of theosophical scientific evolution, etc., etc. > > Isn't it far better to practice Universal Brotherhood because we > understand > the unity of all, and have compassion and empathy for all beings, > than to do > it because someone tells us to, or threatens us with fire and > brimstone if we > don't? > > > >The reality of the Jewish religion was not to reserve one day, > the Sabbath, > >for God. Each day we live like any other. The Sabbath was sort of a > >minimum. The sacrifices were supposed to be something given > freely to God > >that a person values, rather than a minimum payment. God the Father was > >supposed to be "Daddy" -- personal. We are supposed to immerse ourself > >in the way of life God wants, happily. God gave the Jews a set > of minimums > >that they cast in concrete. > > Those incoherent remarks, based on the dogma of an anthropomorphized, > separate and personal "God," are totally without any foundation in either > reason, intuition or reality. There is no "wanting" on the part of the > actual, impersonal "Godhead" (Ein Soph, or no "thing") -- which, based on > Hebrew Cabalistic truths, are identical to the original teachings of the > Rebbe Yeshua (whom the Christians call Jesus)... And which has no > relationship, whatsoever, to the dogmas and edicts taught > throughout all of > Christianity today -- except for some enlightened Christian > mystics, Jews for > Jesus, etc., who understand and accept theosophical principles, while > practicing the original Heart Doctrine of the one who had the > wisdom of the > Christos that all his Hebrew Essene, Buddhist, Taoist, etc., 'brother" > rabbis, gurus, teachers, etc. had. > > One can accept Jesus as a guide and teacher, realize his as well > as one's own > connection to the Godhead or divine source, and even call oneself a > Christian, without having to accept any dogmas of the Christian Church or > their interpretations of the Bible -- as there are many > descendants of the > Hebrews who call themselves, Jews, and respect the same Godhead, > who also do > not practice any of the Dogmas of the organized Judaism that grew > out of its > original Cabalistic teachings (that are, incidentally, identical to > theosophy). > > It's unfortunate that Yeshua could not give out his "pearls" of esoteric > wisdom at that time, and that it took 2000 years before it was > possible to do > so (by the Mahatmas, with the help of HPB). Perhaps, that recent > "exposure" > of the Christian priest's crafty motives, the falsity of their > personal God > and their dogmas, and the misuse of Christianity by Hitler and their > pandering to it, is the reason why the Christian leaders, today, are so > careful to bend over backwards in "public" support of the Jews, > and Israel, > no matter what their politics. But, It could be that many of > them still may > privately condone the distribution of the completely spurious > "Protocols of > Zion" and stay very quiet or deny any connection when Christian dominated > KKK's, skin heads, white supremacists, and other separatist and > violent hate > groups use the Christian Bible to justify their ideas and actions. > > > > I thought that both Buddha and Jesus > (a/k/a the Rebbe, Joshua) spoke > > > out solely to reform their respective religions by taking > away the power > of > >> their self serving priestcrafty rulers... > >> Joshua, to end the exploitation power of the Rabbi's materialism > >> and greed, and Guatama, to end the Hindu caste system for > similar reasons. > > > >For sure, Jesus did that. > > > >> So, would you kindly explain what "God" you are talking about? > > > >To me, God is universal Higher Power in charge of humanity that various > >people have called Jehovah, Allah, The Great Spirit, etc. > > Naming it is not explaining it. Nevertheless, you are perfectly > entitled to > choose anyone or thing that you believe "is in charge of humanity" -- > especially, if you ignorantly fall for the fear of the threatened > retribution > that may follow if you don't, or the promised paradise if you do. > But, the > only ONE really "in charge of humanity" is the Self within each > of us -- that > we either realize for ourselves, understand the basic karmic laws > that govern > its being, and follow its edicts based on the knowledge, > intuition and wisdom > gained through our own self devised and self determined > efforts... Or, we can > blindly follow the leader's of dogmatic religions who profess to > be spokesmen > for their imaginary "God" -- whose dictatorship (as well as their > own) they > wish to impose on everyone by inculcating a "blind belief" or > "faith" in a > nonexistent God and a false interpretation of theosophical truths -- with > just enough similarity to our inborn intuitive knowledge to be > believable, so > long as we don't use out reason to examine its inconsistencies. > > Hitler, black magician that he was, used the same tactics and > converted most > of the German (Christian) people whom he knew were well prepared > to believe > any mystical hogwash -- so long as it had sufficient christianized > "authority" (no matter how fallacious or distorted) behind it. > Not only did > he claim to have brought a "new dispensation," but he even warned > us in his > Mein Kampf, that he intended to anchor his National Socialism > (Nazi party) on > the gullibility of most Christians to believe anything told them > about the > Jews that denies their "chosen people" status and paints them as > "communist" > enemies of the state... And, therefore, would not defend them > when he used > Jews as scapegoats and slave labor, while he secretly > exterminated all their > Rabbis and knowledgeable intellectuals (including all > theosophists, BTW) who > knew the fundamental truths and could, ultimately, expose his nefarious > scheme. Of course, we can believe that he was crazy... But, the > predominantly Christian (mostly Protestant) Germans, > nevertheless, fell for > all of his falsities (that were no more far fetched than their > own Biblical > misinterpretations and dogmas). This explains the Power that > "blind belief" > and faith in "authorities" gives to those intending to enslave others > (physically, economically, mentally and/or spiritually) to serve > their own > selfish purposes, or their misdirected and sometimes (they think) "good > intentions"... For which, as said, "Hell is paved with..." > > > >> Also, tell us > >> if you are parroting the "new dispensation" of Maitreya, or if all that > >> prophesying is solely your own opinions and beliefs? > > > >All I have -- is solely my own opinions and beliefs. Only. > > Based on what? The Christian dogmas? Hearsay? Nothing? It > certainly doesn't > appear (judging from what you say) to have any reasonable basis > of wisdom or > synthesized knowledge of universal (scientific, philosophical, or > religious) > realities, behind it. > > If it's just your groundless and "blind belief" opinions, on the > other hand, > then why work so hard to convince us that there is some kind of "new > dispensation" (based on nothing more than "hearsay") behind that? > And why > harangue us to believe your personally accepted "authority" whose > ideas and > opinions also, apparently, are wobbling between fundamental principles of > theosophy and mostly contradictory Christian theology. This > seems to be the > typical hypocritical stand of those who try to influence others > by trying to > keep their feet in more than one camp at a time. Hitler and his crowd did > just that. They pandered to Christian theology, and gave themselves the > credentials to bring down a "new dispensation." So, did most Christian > missionaries, as they tailored their dogmas to fit in with the > local pagan > religions or voodoo's. God save us from such wonderful "saviors" > who give us > a personal God based on such flexible reasoning and contrived > mores, that it > can condone almost anything. > > Admittedly, Brotherhood, universal or not, as well as selected moral and > ethical precepts are grounds to compare one religion with > another, but what's > so new about Maitreya's dispensation? All he appears to be doing is > Christianizing theosophy along the same line of Besant, Leadbeater and > Bailey, The only difference, is that behind him stand some > possibly shady > characters who may be using him as a tool to put their own ruling > cabals into > power -- as the Christians have done for ages since the Holy > Roman Empire -- > by infiltrating governments (or talking their kings into > conquering them in > the name of their God) and then setting themselves up as the only > politically > correct religion ... And, thereby, influencing, and sometimes > controlling, > the laws that fit their narrow sectarian views and fills the > coffers of their > priestcrafty leaders. > > Of course there are many Christians, especially among some of the > Protestant > sects (although still easy to influence into voting as a block using > Christian precepts and priestly authorities, along with twisted > interpretations of the Bible) who do not fit this mode or condone > the actions > of "The Mother Church" and its army of Jesuit "enforcers" of the self > serving, so called "Laws of (a) God," stolen from the Jews -- that they > cleverly and intentionally fabricated, misinterpreted (and > twisted all out of > their reasonable understanding) to suit their own purposes. It's > interesting > that this threatened exposure of their criminality, apparently, > is the major > reason for the church sanctioned, false and unreasonable > accusations, hatred > and persecution of the Jews throughout Christian history that > fell right into > the hands of Hitler and his followers. > > > >> So far, all we have heard seems to be nothing but "Big Talk" > >> without any substance or qualifications. C'mon... Give us some real > >> ideas to discuss here, other than all this pointless and endless > proselytizing > >> of yet another new Messiah, > > > >What would you like to talk about? > > Reality. Truth. Theosophy, and its synthesis of science, religion and > philosophy, and its better understanding. Take your pick. > > But, my suggestion is that; if you wish to tout these "blind beliefs" of > yours, and desire to proselytize the wonderful benefits of Christianity, > while promoting a new "Messiah" along with his "New Dispensation" > -- that you > do it on other forums that attract, less discerning and more gullible > correspondents than this one. > > Nevertheless, thanks for giving me the opportunity to put these > ideas about > theosophy, in contrast with organized religious brain washing, > into proper > perspective, and in wide circulation -- that theosophists might use to > reinforce their own understandings and convictions, as well as in > response to > similar "public" distortions of truth and reality. > > LHM > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 23 11:38:56 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA05965 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:37:08 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <20000623163345.1902.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [203.157.0.183] From: "Andrew Basler" To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:33:45 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com >From: Dennis Kier >But, on the other hand, _I_ sometimes have trouble remembering what >happened last >week, until I consult the memos that I write on my callendar, and think >about it >for a while. > >I do remember the big things that involve others, but the little things are >quickly forgotten. Am I the only one [now that K is no longer with us] that >this >happens to? > Of course not, you can include me on the list of living forgetful persons(there are three now). But everything is relative, as we progress slowly and inevitably we shall reach the plentitude of awareness and memory even of the little things. Then we may complain as KH did in one of his letter to Sinnett "I never forget what I once see or read. A bad habit." (ML 49) -Andrew ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 23 11:46:34 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA07110 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:45:49 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39538D76.FFE3223E@bmu.com.pe> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:16:54 -0500 From: ernesto X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [es] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Theos-World Re: About Christianity References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server: VPOP3 V1.3.4 - Registered to: Cyberline Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Leon: Excuse if I speak what I say, or what I think, but I am tired of this kind of misunderstanding ... something really incredible when we know, even just a little as in my case, of christian theology, or christian misticism. I don´t think that christianism is the best way. No. I think that there are many misunderstandings, even in the real (not the fictional) theology. And I think that actual christianity is only the exoterical form of a historically lost esoterical christianism. However, even with these ideas, I think that you are talking about something I coludn´t seriously call christianism. You talk about Christian theology, but it seems you really don´t know what you are talking about. You talk about christianity, and again it seems you don´t know what you are talking about. Your knwoledge of christianism is very poor: you apareantly know just its mass-ignorant-political caricature of picture. Do you know that there has been Holy Wars even in the history of Budism? But, will we say that was really budism? Of course not. There may be even Holy Wars, but Light remains different. There and here. The mass-ignorant-political caricature of picture of christianism that you have in mind (as if it were the total and real and unvaluable christianism) looks like the hebrew tradition in the time of Jesus. But in this case, you recognize that Light remains different (Just as Jesus: he said, in the mountain, do what they say, but don´t act like them). You have good words for the hebrew kabalist tradition, don´t you? To talk, in this context, about Hitler ... whow Leon, there you were not thinking clearly, just feeling. Christianism vs. evolution?? Have you read Teilhard de Chardin?? You said: > This completely negates the Christian idea of a personal God or "savior" who > is the Supreme Dictator, and who, as a "personality" can take vengeance and > make judgments that can send us off after only one life on Earth to the > permanent fires of Hell or the pleasures of Heaven. If we want to understand the value of a Spiritual Tradition (and I don´t know if you think that christianism is a Spiritual Tradition), we must compare it with others, in the same levels. Do we want to know its perennial value? Let´s see their Masters, Saints, Mistics, just as we do in the case of Budism, when we want to know its perennial value. We can´t compare a caricature of one vs. the high spiritual teachings in the other. So, if you talk about a Supreme Dictator, I see that you really don´t have (excuse me for these words) the slightest idea of the high experiences, the high teachings of the Christian Tradition -even the exoterical one. Let´s talk about the idea of a personal God. You talk about it as if it were a ignorant idea (a satanic idea, if Satan existed). Well, at least equally ignorant (or equally true, in the sense where it is true) as the idea of the Bhakti Yoga, and the Great Gurus of that tradition. Later on, equally ignorant as the teachings, about that, of Sri Aurobindo or Swami Vivekananda. If that is ignorance, at least is a very valuable ignorance. May be not the most valuable, but very valuable. And I am not talking in terms of piety, but in a metaphisical sense. Let´s talk about Heaven and Hell. I agree with you that these ideas are wrong. But, I have a doubt. Are these ideas equally wrong as the kabalistic teachings about that? I say: Could you prove me that kabalists didn´t teach something diferent in the deep meaning? Eliphas Levi, known as a great kabalist, thought something like those ideas, as if those ideas where the kabalistic ones. At least, about eternity of Hell. He may have recognized many exceptions, due to a very unusual self and painful efforce when we are dead. But I talk about the similarity of the teachings in the substance. Was that the kabalistic teachings? Did kabalists teach reincarnation, for example? Coul you prove it without making magic with the words of the texts? If you are going to use a non literal interpretation, could you tell us (just to be sure that is not a merely imaginary meaning, but a real code of simbolical language effectively and uniformely used) how could we agree, with an explanation of the simbological code, and the prove of its uniform use in various texts, how could we agree with that interpretation? If language is a language, and its rules of meanings are really semantic rules, it will be not important if I want to believe or not in reincarnation. I will have to conclude that reincarnation was thaught by kabalists, even if I don´t like that. The same that, if I learn english as a foreign language, it doesn´t matter if I am Marx, I will have to conclude that Milton Friedman said what he said. Because, just if reincarnationists can see reincarnation in the kabalistic tradition, or in the Bible, couldn´t it be that they see what they want to see, just because they wanted that? So, if you say that Jesus taught pur kabalistic truths, could you (or anyone else) prove that the Bible teachs reincarnation, for example? Because may be here happens that only reincarnationists see reincarnation there. Have we read many books of history of religions? We don´t find there the idea that Christianism thaught reincarnation. Instead of that, we find that it is a great difference between judeo-cristianism and oriental religions. Just reincarnationists see reincarnation there? Wasn´t it supposed to be a merely result of interpretation, the application of semantic rules? DAVID C. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 23 12:20:29 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id MAA10078 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:07:42 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <20000623170419.41319.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [203.157.0.183] From: "Andrew Basler" To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Intellect and 'thinking Ego' Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:04:18 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com >From: "Peter Merriott" > "The mind is the great slayer of the real, let the disciple slay the >slayer" > >But we may need to reflect on exactly what this means. Is it the ability >'to think' in its deepest sense that we are asked to destroy? I don't >believe it is. Rather it is the sense of 'seperateness' which is an aspect >of the lower Manas, rather Kama-Manas (the personality), that has to be >weeded out How about 'temporary destroy'? It is not only the sense of 'separateness' but mental processes including thinking activity, memory and others that the mind signifies. It is the same chitta in the second sentence of Yoga Sutra of Patanjali "Yoga Chittavritti Nirodha "-Yoga is inhibitions of the mental processes. Patanjali (occult tradition hold that he was Govinda, Sankara's guru) further clarified this mental processes as right knowledge (pramana), illusion, logical construction(vikalpa), sleep and memory. All these which is the lower Manas has to be slain or withdrawn in order that the *real* becomes manifest. HPB told of the process "There comes a moment in the highest meditation, when the Lower Manas is withdrawn into the Triad, which thus becomes the Quaternary, the Tetraktys of Pythagoras...This withdrawal of the Lower Manas from the Lower Quaternary, and the formation of the Tetraktys, is the Turya state; it is entered on the Fourth Path." (IG 193) This lower Manas is not permanently destroyed, or else the adept cannot communicate his higher state to others or even maintain his ordinary life after returning from Samadhi. KH also reassured us of the possibility of gaining knowledge without using analytical mind. "Believe me, there comes a moment in the life of an adept, when the hardships he has passed through are a thousandfold rewarded. In order to acquire further knowledge, he has no more to go through a minute and slow process of investigation and comparison of various objects, but is accorded an instantaneous, implicit insight into every first truth... the adept sees and feels and lives in the very source of all fundamental truths." (ML 31) With the mind, all is at best relative truth, but without the strong mind there is no possibility to attain absolute truth. It is fatal error to dethrone the mind before the time is ripe, the mind itself will trick most of those who make such an attempt into hypocrisy or worst,-insanity. -Andrew ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Fri Jun 23 13:12:03 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id MAA16485 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:59:20 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "dalval2nwc.net" To: "Theosophy Study List" Subject: Theos-World RE: Dallas' e-mail Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:47:52 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com June 22 2000 Dear Kym: Your message makes one think. Let me see if this proves to be of help: WHY DO WE EXIST? WHY ARE THINGS AS THEY ARE? These are difficult to answer if we try to do so from the point of view of our present limited experience. We need to ask ourselves why we know we are both limited (by birth, circumstances, education, this life's memories, etc... and the POTENTIAL from which these limits can be viewed AS LIMITS. If there is that in us which perceives the DIFFERENCE, then that point of perception is not LIMITED. Using this as a basis then we have a series of perceptive levels, from UNITY to extreme diversity. Yet even in DIVERSITY, taking even a single ultimate, there will always be (as in the MONAD) the contrast of SPIRIT (perfection, wholeness, unity, wisdom, law, universality, un-selfishness, stability, etc... all universals) vs. MATTER (isolation, form, limitations, selfishness, ignorance, etc...) But DUALITY is insufficient. The ability to perceive DIFFERENCE implies a THIRD FACTOR. It is MIND. The Power to perceive the contrasts that the interaction of SPIRIT/MATTER continuously demonstrate. This TRINITY in manifestation demonstrates the CAUSE -- it is wisdomism, to coin a word. Ancient sages said: "Desire first arose in IT that was the primal germ of mind. And which Sages, searching with their intellect, have discovered in their HEART to be the bond which connects ENTITY with non-entity," or Manas with pure Atma-Buddhi." [ SD II 276, Theos. Glossary, p. 171 ] This is an answer in terms of meta-physics, and it may prove difficult to satisfy the purely brain-mind with it. But it is the only answer that satisfied me so far. One has to acquire a sense of permanence. The survival of the REAL MAN -- the THINKER as a concept is all-essential. If we deny that, then in deed, we become materialists and in a material universe there is no answer as to CAUSE. All causes begin in the non-material. Perhaps this is why THEOSOPHY is so difficult fro some to grasp. It takes out of the material -- which explains NOTHING into the CAUSAL area -- which gives balance to the whole structure of our being. It is something that needs deep thought (meditation) about. Why is a GOD invoked? Are we important to IT, or is IT important to us as a kind of marvelous or miraculous solution? Or can we think ourselves out of the dilemma? Why do we need to be afraid of anything? If we are one with, or a part of -- the UNIVERSE, then we are automatically a part of GOD-UNIVERSE. It is one with us also. Protection and understanding are natural between parent and child. No? Should any parent desire its child to remain ignorant? Best wishes. D. T. B. -----Original Message----- From: kymsmithSent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 4:56 PM To: Theosophy Study List Subject: Re: Dallas' e-mail Dallas offered in another e-mail: **************** This idea of MAHAT (the great) AKASHA or Brahma's aura of transformation with the Hindus, of ALAYA, "the DIVINE SOUL of thought and COMPASSION" of the trans-Himalayan mystics; of Plato's "PERPETUALLY REASONING DIVINITY," is the oldest of all the doctrines now known to, and believed in, by man...." --HPB : THE MIND IN NATURE - Lucifer Sept. 1896; ULT HPB's Articles II 220-221. Everything relates, finally, to these. Any question or answer in theosophy relates to these for its basis. We ought to make it a habit of tracing the connections when faced with a puzzle. ********************* But HPB does not answer what is for me the fundamental question: Why is there life at all? Why are there people and grass and poopies and animals and sugar? I mean, WHAT'S THE POINT? "Tracing the connections" seems little help in this area. Why would the "Soul of the Universe" need anything or desire anything? To do so seems to suggest an 'imperfection' since, in human thought, perfection is without any need or desire. And if 'God' is imperfect or has needs, then, unless there is something higher than God, there exists at this time no such thing as perfection. Yet, many occultic writings speak about "Nirvana" or "Heaven" or the 'consciousness without need or desire' as if such a 'thing' or 'being' already is. But I do not see any evidence or. . .ahem. . .logic in such a theory. I partly subscribe to the idea that this universe was created by a 'demi-god' and that helps a bit in dealing with the 'good vs. evil' problem. But the philosophy of a 'demi-god' creator is like reading a chapter in the middle of a book (as it is with most philosophies). A Jesuit priest once told me, after I asked the question why God "creates," that God is Love and Love needs to exchange and co-create. Ok, but then that throws out the concept of anything being in and of itself, deathless and eternal and self-content and self-fulfilled. Until humanity can reconcile why God can be perfect and yet still need - or even possess the capability - to create, creature comforts such as ice cream will continue to be huge profit-makers. Then again, if it comes out that God does have needs, many of us will turn to heroin to cope with the death of heaven. To know that even God is vulnerable is. . .well. . .you know. . .and, not to mention that in order to fulfill a need of God's, His/Her/Its creations have, and continue to, undergo a great deal of suffering. And THAT opens up another box of messy philosophical questions. Kym --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.NET List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-539B@list.vnet.net -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 24 18:40:52 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA13015 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:33:05 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAsAhQuv2iB1MD/zL5N32yEQKZUIrghWAIUPtbKUJw3qbklg31uFBoUrmuhNIo= From: DLMarini@webtv.net (lynn marini) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:30:10 -0700 (PDT) To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: About Christianity Message-ID: <25113-39554482-3957@storefull-166.iap.bryant.webtv.net> In-Reply-To: ernesto 's message of Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:16:54 -0500 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a communication from Ernesto to Leon on Fri 6/23/2000 11:16am PDT+2-- Ernesto states that Leon is ignorant re: true doctrine of Christianity. I beg to differ. As a former member for 10yrsof a Christian monastic order, Leon is right on. I find Ernesto's comments regarding ignorance to be rather judgemental. IF we were about judging then I might tell Ernesto to use his "spell check" & that there is no such word "Christianityism" Given your sentence structure Ernesto, I am going to assume that English is not your first language & assume that you are coming from a heart & place of pure intent & that perhaps, us maybe, you did not realize how critical & judgemental your communication sounds. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sat Jun 24 18:49:04 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA13520 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:38:02 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhUArIY/nI3gko8rmWFM4YSQ8bIObXQCFBSOEPMu1G5a6HwXfbpxY7YW42xC From: DLMarini@webtv.net (lynn marini) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:35:11 -0700 (PDT) To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. Message-ID: <25113-395545AF-3971@storefull-166.iap.bryant.webtv.net> In-Reply-To: M K Ramadoss 's message of Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:21:13 -0500 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary=WebTV-Mail-13459-1696 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com --WebTV-Mail-13459-1696 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit And I believe it happens to most all of us mortals who are not 100% conscious of our own divinity 100% of the time. Oh the bonds that unite us one to another. Practice random acts of kindness & senseless acts of beauty. EXPECT A MIRACLE! --WebTV-Mail-13459-1696 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from mailsorter-101-12.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.49) by storefull-164.iap.bryant.webtv.net with WTV-SMTP; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from pippin.imagiware.com (pippin.imagiware.com [205.254.196.9]) by mailsorter-101-12.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8-wtv-f/ms.dwm.v7+dul2) with ESMTP id XAA09829; Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id AAA09571 for theos-talk-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:26:46 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000623002113.024a6ca0@mail.eden.com> X-Sender: ramadoss@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:21:13 -0500 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. In-Reply-To: <39515A53.F9C9D2B5@earthlink.net> References: <20000621160456.69783.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com At 05:14 PM 06/21/2000 -0700, you wrote: > > > >> K was oblivious not only of everything that happened before 1929, but most >> of the things he was not interested in or did not want to remember. Mary >> Lutyens, his eminent biographer, wrote that "He wouldn't be able to tell >> you what happened a fortnight ago...He is very fully alive in the present >> and excited about what goes on inside himself from day to day." >> > >But, on the other hand, _I_ sometimes have trouble remembering what happened last >week, until I consult the memos that I write on my callendar, and think about it >for a while. > >I do remember the big things that involve others, but the little things are >quickly forgotten. Am I the only one [now that K is no longer with us] that this >happens to? > >Dennis It has happened to me many times. Usually I have given some small help to some one long time ago and have completely forgotten their name or what I did. Out of the blue, from time to time, one of my friends will tell me that they met so and so and he inquired of me. mkr -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. --WebTV-Mail-13459-1696-- -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 25 10:27:02 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA08080 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 10:25:42 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <004c01bfdeb9$13fc96a0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us> From: "Eugene Carpenter" To: Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: Dallas' e-mail Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 08:21:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com To be or not to be To exist of not to exist Existence does not exist. Existence is existence. To exist is to be exhiled. We seem to exist yet. . . We do not, not really We are existence. We only think And feel And behave As if We existed, separate from others. Such is the effect of Illusion Glamour Bad Habits We "see through a glass darkly". We are the one, not one of the many. Such is only appearances, Appearances only. We are beyond all such appearances. We see the divine absolutely divine orderly Chaos Imperfectly. It is our perception that fails us. We are inbetween seeing the divine order of perfect randomness And the perfect order of the Absolutely Nothing(to us), Between the Infinite Circle And the Non-dimensional point, Mere Representations Of Space and Motion of Nothing at All. -----Original Message----- From: dalval2nwc.net To: Theosophy Study List Date: Friday, June 23, 2000 11:20 AM Subject: Theos-World RE: Dallas' e-mail >June 22 2000 > >Dear Kym: > >Your message makes one think. Let me see if this proves to be of >help: > > >WHY DO WE EXIST? WHY ARE THINGS AS THEY ARE? > > >These are difficult to answer if we try to do so from the point >of view of our present limited experience. > >We need to ask ourselves why we know we are both limited (by >birth, circumstances, education, this life's memories, etc... and >the POTENTIAL from which these limits can be viewed AS LIMITS. > >If there is that in us which perceives the DIFFERENCE, then that >point of perception is not LIMITED. > >Using this as a basis then we have a series of perceptive levels, >from UNITY to extreme diversity. Yet even in DIVERSITY, taking >even a single ultimate, there will always be (as in the MONAD) >the contrast of SPIRIT (perfection, wholeness, unity, wisdom, >law, universality, un-selfishness, stability, etc... all >universals) vs. MATTER (isolation, form, limitations, >selfishness, ignorance, etc...) But DUALITY is insufficient. >The ability to perceive DIFFERENCE implies a THIRD FACTOR. It is >MIND. The Power to perceive the contrasts that the interaction >of SPIRIT/MATTER continuously demonstrate. > >This TRINITY in manifestation demonstrates the CAUSE -- it is >wisdomism, to coin a word. > >Ancient sages said: "Desire first arose in IT that was the >primal germ of mind. And which Sages, searching with their >intellect, have discovered in their HEART to be the bond which >connects ENTITY with non-entity," or Manas with pure >Atma-Buddhi." [ SD II 276, Theos. Glossary, p. 171 ] > >This is an answer in terms of meta-physics, and it may prove >difficult to satisfy the purely brain-mind with it. But it is >the only answer that satisfied me so far. One has to acquire a >sense of permanence. The survival of the REAL MAN -- the THINKER >as a concept is all-essential. If we deny that, then in deed, we >become materialists and in a material universe there is no answer >as to CAUSE. All causes begin in the non-material. > >Perhaps this is why THEOSOPHY is so difficult fro some to grasp. >It takes out of the material -- which explains NOTHING into the >CAUSAL area -- which gives balance to the whole structure of our >being. > >It is something that needs deep thought (meditation) about. > >Why is a GOD invoked? Are we important to IT, or is IT important >to us as a kind of marvelous or miraculous solution? Or can we >think ourselves out of the dilemma? > >Why do we need to be afraid of anything? If we are one with, or >a part of -- the UNIVERSE, then we are automatically a part of >GOD-UNIVERSE. It is one with us also. Protection and >understanding are natural between parent and child. No? Should >any parent desire its child to remain ignorant? > >Best wishes. > > >D. T. B. > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: kymsmithSent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 4:56 PM >To: Theosophy Study List >Subject: Re: Dallas' e-mail > >Dallas offered in another e-mail: > >**************** > >This idea of MAHAT (the great) AKASHA or Brahma's aura of >transformation with the Hindus, of ALAYA, "the DIVINE SOUL of >thought and COMPASSION" of the trans-Himalayan mystics; of >Plato's "PERPETUALLY REASONING DIVINITY," is the oldest of all >the doctrines now known to, and believed in, by man...." --HPB >: THE MIND IN NATURE - Lucifer Sept. 1896; ULT HPB's >Articles II 220-221. > >Everything relates, finally, to these. Any question or answer in >theosophy relates to these for its basis. We ought to make it a >habit of tracing the connections when faced with a puzzle. > > >********************* > >But HPB does not answer what is for me the fundamental question: >Why is >there life at all? Why are there people and grass and poopies >and animals >and sugar? I mean, WHAT'S THE POINT? > >"Tracing the connections" seems little help in this area. Why >would the >"Soul of the Universe" need anything or desire anything? To do >so seems to >suggest an 'imperfection' since, in human thought, perfection is >without >any need or desire. And if 'God' is imperfect or has needs, >then, unless >there is something higher than God, there exists at this time no >such thing >as perfection. Yet, many occultic writings speak about "Nirvana" >or >"Heaven" or the 'consciousness without need or desire' as if such >a 'thing' >or 'being' already is. But I do not see any evidence or. . >.ahem. . .logic >in such a theory. > >I partly subscribe to the idea that this universe was created by >a >'demi-god' and that helps a bit in dealing with the 'good vs. >evil' >problem. But the philosophy of a 'demi-god' creator is like >reading a >chapter in the middle of a book (as it is with most >philosophies). A >Jesuit priest once told me, after I asked the question why God >"creates," >that God is Love and Love needs to exchange and co-create. Ok, >but then >that throws out the concept of anything being in and of itself, >deathless >and eternal and self-content and self-fulfilled. > >Until humanity can reconcile why God can be perfect and yet still >need - or >even possess the capability - to create, creature comforts such >as ice >cream will continue to be huge profit-makers. Then again, if it >comes out >that God does have needs, many of us will turn to heroin to cope >with the >death of heaven. To know that even God is vulnerable is. . >.well. . .you >know. . .and, not to mention that in order to fulfill a need of >God's, >His/Her/Its creations have, and continue to, undergo a great deal >of >suffering. And THAT opens up another box of messy philosophical >questions. > > >Kym > > >--- >You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.NET >List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l >To unsubscribe send a blank email to >leave-theos-l-539B@list.vnet.net > > >-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > >Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and >teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of >"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 25 11:36:47 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA12686 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:35:19 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <001501bfdec2$ce11fbd0$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us> From: "Eugene Carpenter" To: Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: About Christianity Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:31:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com True. There is exoteric- personality- dominated- Christian- Churchianity and there is the esoteric- love- dominated- true Christian- faith. This is true in all the great religions. The new testament doesn't seem to teach re-incarnation as it is an esoteric text and teaches from Christ's point of view, and outside of his parables to the masses, is targeted toward disciples of love. Re-incarnation is true from the exoteric personality point of view but not true from the esoteric inner Christ Soul point of view. The Soul is Eternal. Personalities, little appearances on the world stage, come and go. One eternal Individual is appearing with difference masks on the world stage from time to time. The exoteric and esoteric points of view can be harmonized. Each is correct from the proper perspective and from the proper motive and sincere heart. This is my opinion only, of course, not a proclamation of truth. That's beyond me. Gene -----Original Message----- From: ernesto To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Date: Friday, June 23, 2000 9:55 AM Subject: Theos-World Re: About Christianity > >Leon: > >Excuse if I speak what I say, or what I think, but I am tired of this kind of >misunderstanding ... something really incredible when we know, even just a little >as in my case, of christian theology, or christian misticism. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 25 11:51:46 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA14029 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:48:19 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <002801bfdec4$9ea2aa00$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us> From: "Eugene Carpenter" To: Subject: Re: Theos-World Who am I? Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:44:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Wayne, Yes. You, the Higher Self, the True Individual, the Detached Observer have appeared in this appearance of a world and have confronted the appearance of the this world and have created a person, a mask, and will, with a nice and lovely natural peaceful death, as Wayne, be over and done with. You as the true conscious Higher Self will remain and according to karma will be on stage once again at some apparent time confronting the appearances of life starting where Wayne left off. Re-incarnation is a rare event wherein Wayne gets into an accident and dies tragically and the etheric body is allowed by Nature to remain intact and enter into a new body that has also become available through karma. Re-incarnation is the exception to the rule. Rebirth is the common ritual. Ian Stevenson has proved the fact of re-incarnation in nature, to my mind, in his forty years of studying children that seem to remember their past lives. For more info please contact me. Gene -----Original Message----- From: JuneBug To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 9:30 PM Subject: Theos-World Who am I? >Hello, > >I just finished reading a book called Initiation Human and Solar. I know I >am going to need to read it again. Most of the books in this series read >like text books. > >Here is my question. If a person can be a level 1 initiate from a previous >life, and still not remember that previous life, who am I, according to >Theosophy? > >In some respects, there is no such thing as reincarnation, because there is >no incarnation to begin with, such that life as I understand it goes. This >is the only time I can, or will be, Wayne Benge. Perhaps, I thought, the >real me is this higher self that sets up a life such as mine. The Initiate >starts to talk with this higher self? Is the higher self the real me? > >Curious, > >Wayne Benge > > >-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > >Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and >teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of >"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 25 12:01:32 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id LAA14760 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 11:59:36 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <005001bfdec6$327bac80$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us> From: "Eugene Carpenter" To: Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:55:41 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Yes. Where from. It is so beautiful. Gene -----Original Message----- From: M K Ramadoss To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 6:57 AM Subject: Re: Theos-World Aleister Crowley and Theosophy. >Where is this quote from? > > >At 07:47 AM 06/20/2000 GMT, you wrote: >> >>"He who has forgotten >>his childhood and lost sympathy with the children is not the man who can >>teach them or help them." >> >>-Andrew > > >-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > >Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and >teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of >"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 25 14:28:29 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id OAA28514 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 14:23:54 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "dalval2nwc.net" To: "Thoesophy Activists List" Subject: Theos-World RE: ethnic diversity? Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 12:12:10 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com To focus on the differences of skin color, or heredity, is not to follow the path of the SOUL. At best it is adopting some partial view of brotherhood -- and if adopted will produce proportionate partial results. Universal is UNIVERSAL. The Whole of THEOSOPHICAL teaching aims at eliminating any pre-conceived or any prejudiced views. Unfortunately our education, and cultural environment tend to emphasize these all the time. No excuses are of any assistance. Nor is Theosophy something that can be patched or tailored to fit our present prejudices. I note a tendency to try to materialize the SD statements and to cause them to resemble the materialism of present day scientific theories. Consider that Theosophy is a way of presenting to us the FACTS of our evolutionary path as IMMORTAL MONADS, and not as PERSONAL MIND-BEINGS with SELFISHNESS as a base. Rounds, Globes, Races, Sub-races, Family-races are not only divisions in evolutionary time, but indicate the complexity of 7 great divisions of the UNIVERSAL MIND working though the vehicles of form and consciousness that have to be learned and then understood, and applied practically. All learning is INTELLECTUAL -- it is not a barrier, but it encourages freedom of thought along PRINCIPLES that are in themselves UNIVERSAL and IMPERSONAL. The mind is our tool. We have to become masters of it. D. T. B. -----Original Message----- From: Bart Lidofsky [mailto:bartl@sprynet.com] Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 10:08 AM To: Thoesophy Activists List Subject: Re: ethnic diversity? M K Ramadoss wrote: > In the USA, in the lodges I have visited, mainly in Texas, the > afro-american and hispanic membership is extremely light. In New York, we have a Spanish Lodge (with meetings taking place in the Spanish language) who uses the facilities of the New York Lodge. While we do have a number of black members, it is not in proportion with the black population of the city (or even black usage of our library and bookshops). > At the national > level, all the national secretaries/presidents there have been none of the > afro-american or hispanic origin -- as far I am aware of. I have known you to be generally honest in the past, but, by leaving out "vice presidents" from your list, you seem to be purposefully ignoring our 2nd Vice President, Timothy Boyd. > Recently, when I > visited the national website, I noticed that the photos of the National > Officers. An afro-american or hispanic person is likely to take notice of > this and make their own conclusion about the organization. Tim is up there. > Also I do not > know if any effort is being spear headed to bring theosophy to these ethnic > minorities, many of whom are less literate and less affluent. Note that Theosophy tends to be the academic arm of the "New Age" (the real thing, not the stuff that rhymes with "sewage"), so tends to appeal to those more interested in academia. Yet, as I said, the customer base of the Quest Bookshop in New York and the patrons of the Emily Sellon Memorial Library are largely Americans of African descent. > As for fitting into the lodges, I have not seen any problem. However when > the question of being elected to official positions, it could be a > different. It depends on the membership majority. We have a black member of our Board of Directors; she also hosts the video showings and has brought in a number of new members through them. Bart Lidofsky --- You are currently subscribed to act-l as: dalval@nwc.net List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=act-l To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-act-l-10931P@list.vnet.net -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 25 17:09:50 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id QAA08774 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:58:00 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f X-Sent: 25 Jun 2000 21:54:37 GMT Message-ID: <395680F2.98F88CCD@pacbell.net> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:00:18 -0700 From: Wes Amerman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-PBI-NC404 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Theos-World BlavatskyNet and ULT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com On Wednesday, June 21, Frank Reitemeyer wrote: > The Anti-Blavatsky-Net censors emails to the study-list which refer to Judge > and successorship. > What would have HPB said about that as she wrote about Judge in 1889 that he > is the ONLY ONE remained true to the cause. > On this Net also articles are offered under the good name of Judge, but the > contents are Anti-Judge and they are not included in Dara Eklund's Judge > collection "Echoes of the Orient" (3 vol. + Index). > It may be of interest that this policy - to censor and suppress pro-Judge > emails and at the same time offer faked Judge articles - is all done by > hidden ULT officials. > Ironically, the ULT claims to follow Judge. And the ULT says that they have > no officials, but the hidden officials (they are never named) act actually > as officials. > But they are not responsible to anyone as they act in the background and no > member is allowed to know who is a hidden official as the ULT bylaws state > that they have such officials. An excerption may be the Net case, as ULT > official Mr Reed Carson is frankly stated as responsible for the > Anti-Blavatsky and Anti-Judge policy. > Dear Friends, Frank, your differences with another discussion list hardly deserve attention here, except that your accusations are simply untrue, and continue to sow dissension where it is not needed -- among sincere friends and students of Theosophy. Furthermore, those who read your words are only hearing your version of the matter. For the sake of fairness, at least, allow me to share another view: Everyone who spends any time on this discussion list knows that it is "unmoderated" -- you and everyone else are free to post what you will, and I have yet to hear of any post that was rejected. BlavatskyNet, on the other hand, hosts two "moderated" discussion lists -- "Study" for serious students, and "Basic" for newcomers --which it declared as such from the beginning. Both are aimed at a specific study of Blavatsky's works, and neither is a completely open forum, although a wide range of topics is discussed. Furthermore, comments that may be perfectly acceptable in and of themselves are sometimes rejected in order to keep the discussion focused on a specific topic. Unmoderated and moderated formats serve different purposes; both have their strengths and weaknesses, but both also have the potential for unique contributions to the theosophical movement. Trying to treat a moderated list as if it were an unmoderated one can only lead to misunderstanding and frustration, as it apparently has done in your case. What you say of Mr. Judge is true -- HPB praised him on several occasions for his devotion and priceless hard work in the cause of Theosophy. However, if you have criticisms of what was or was not actually written by Judge, and what should or should not be included in a complete collection of his works, why not bring up the merits and/or demerits of individual articles for open discussion, rather than your general, unanswerable smears about "faked Judge articles"? Your claims of "hidden ULT officials" working behind the scenes at BlavatskyNet is simply laughable. Reed Carson is not a "ULT official" as you state. BlavatskyNet was founded entirely independent of ULT or any other Theosophical group, lodge, association or society, and remains so to this day. For the record, I am one of the moderators for the BlavatskyNet Basic discussion list, but have nothing to do with the BN Study list. Finally, you are mixing up your complaints about BlavatskyNet and those about ULT in a completely untrue and unsatisfactory manner. As a long-time ULT Associate, I myself have had many differences of opinion with fellow associates (for a better look at my thoughts in this area, see my article entitled "Theosophy and Belief," in Theosophy World #37, for July, 1999). If you have specific suggestions on how ULT might improve its work, I would be happy to discuss some of the issues you think are important, but they have nothing to do with BlavatskyNet. Alternatively, I might suggest you either join a Lodge or form one yourself. At any rate, sniping from the sidelines is hardly constructive and does nothing to correct any imperfections you see. Please sir, give it a rest. You have been over this before. 'Nuf said, IMHO. Best Regards, Wes Amerman -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Sun Jun 25 23:24:02 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id XAA23636 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:19:29 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAsAhRSq4+qix9atwPDY0WV8Vh47sPBKgIULbB9DkW6LECI8WL4Q7lrvp3iDaw= From: DLMarini@webtv.net (lynn marini) Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:16:40 -0700 (PDT) To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World BlavatskyNet and ULT Message-ID: <25114-3956D928-6666@storefull-166.iap.bryant.webtv.net> In-Reply-To: Wes Amerman 's message of Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:00:18 -0700 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary=WebTV-Mail-26031-2893 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com --WebTV-Mail-26031-2893 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To whom it may concern, ie moderator Thank you for your response to Frank R which I hope nipped in the bud, what I perceived to be the seeds of discord. As a new person to this site & an "inquiring mind" I do not find postings of that nature to be very helpful. Albeit there is that 1st Amendment right. I do not really care to know about the "argument" but I would appreciate an explantion or definition of "ULT" thank you. lynn m. Practice random acts of kindness & senseless acts of beauty. EXPECT A MIRACLE! --WebTV-Mail-26031-2893 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from mailsorter-101-7.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.41) by storefull-167.iap.bryant.webtv.net with WTV-SMTP; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:10:05 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from pippin.imagiware.com (pippin.imagiware.com [205.254.196.9]) by mailsorter-101-7.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8-wtv-f/ms.dwm.v7+dul2) with ESMTP id PAA20716; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id QAA08774 for theos-talk-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:58:00 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f X-Sent: 25 Jun 2000 21:54:37 GMT Message-ID: <395680F2.98F88CCD@pacbell.net> Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:00:18 -0700 From: Wes Amerman X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-PBI-NC404 (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Theos-World BlavatskyNet and ULT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com On Wednesday, June 21, Frank Reitemeyer wrote: > The Anti-Blavatsky-Net censors emails to the study-list which refer to Judge > and successorship. > What would have HPB said about that as she wrote about Judge in 1889 that he > is the ONLY ONE remained true to the cause. > On this Net also articles are offered under the good name of Judge, but the > contents are Anti-Judge and they are not included in Dara Eklund's Judge > collection "Echoes of the Orient" (3 vol. + Index). > It may be of interest that this policy - to censor and suppress pro-Judge > emails and at the same time offer faked Judge articles - is all done by > hidden ULT officials. > Ironically, the ULT claims to follow Judge. And the ULT says that they have > no officials, but the hidden officials (they are never named) act actually > as officials. > But they are not responsible to anyone as they act in the background and no > member is allowed to know who is a hidden official as the ULT bylaws state > that they have such officials. An excerption may be the Net case, as ULT > official Mr Reed Carson is frankly stated as responsible for the > Anti-Blavatsky and Anti-Judge policy. > Dear Friends, Frank, your differences with another discussion list hardly deserve attention here, except that your accusations are simply untrue, and continue to sow dissension where it is not needed -- among sincere friends and students of Theosophy. Furthermore, those who read your words are only hearing your version of the matter. For the sake of fairness, at least, allow me to share another view: Everyone who spends any time on this discussion list knows that it is "unmoderated" -- you and everyone else are free to post what you will, and I have yet to hear of any post that was rejected. BlavatskyNet, on the other hand, hosts two "moderated" discussion lists -- "Study" for serious students, and "Basic" for newcomers --which it declared as such from the beginning. Both are aimed at a specific study of Blavatsky's works, and neither is a completely open forum, although a wide range of topics is discussed. Furthermore, comments that may be perfectly acceptable in and of themselves are sometimes rejected in order to keep the discussion focused on a specific topic. Unmoderated and moderated formats serve different purposes; both have their strengths and weaknesses, but both also have the potential for unique contributions to the theosophical movement. Trying to treat a moderated list as if it were an unmoderated one can only lead to misunderstanding and frustration, as it apparently has done in your case. What you say of Mr. Judge is true -- HPB praised him on several occasions for his devotion and priceless hard work in the cause of Theosophy. However, if you have criticisms of what was or was not actually written by Judge, and what should or should not be included in a complete collection of his works, why not bring up the merits and/or demerits of individual articles for open discussion, rather than your general, unanswerable smears about "faked Judge articles"? Your claims of "hidden ULT officials" working behind the scenes at BlavatskyNet is simply laughable. Reed Carson is not a "ULT official" as you state. BlavatskyNet was founded entirely independent of ULT or any other Theosophical group, lodge, association or society, and remains so to this day. For the record, I am one of the moderators for the BlavatskyNet Basic discussion list, but have nothing to do with the BN Study list. Finally, you are mixing up your complaints about BlavatskyNet and those about ULT in a completely untrue and unsatisfactory manner. As a long-time ULT Associate, I myself have had many differences of opinion with fellow associates (for a better look at my thoughts in this area, see my article entitled "Theosophy and Belief," in Theosophy World #37, for July, 1999). If you have specific suggestions on how ULT might improve its work, I would be happy to discuss some of the issues you think are important, but they have nothing to do with BlavatskyNet. Alternatively, I might suggest you either join a Lodge or form one yourself. At any rate, sniping from the sidelines is hardly constructive and does nothing to correct any imperfections you see. Please sir, give it a rest. You have been over this before. 'Nuf said, IMHO. Best Regards, Wes Amerman -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. --WebTV-Mail-26031-2893-- -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 26 14:09:38 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id NAA28725 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:53:58 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "dalval2nwc.net" To: "AAA-DAL" Subject: RE: Theos-World BlavatskyNet and ULT Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:42:32 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <25114-3956D928-6666@storefull-166.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Kym: ULT is a name given to principles and ideas that are Theosophical - metaphysical, and provable by any one. UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS was started in 1909 by Robert Crosbie and some friends who desired to continue to make the original teachings OF theosophy available. -- as recorded in the writings of HPB and WQJ. It has only 2 functions: 1. Keeping those ORIGINAL WRITINGS in print and making them available at the lowest possible price to students. 2. Providing an open NO CHARGE forum for their discussion. It has NO ORGANIZATION as such. Free and independent students join and contribute to these 2 objects as they deem necessary. As an ASSOCIATION it is free to all and open to all. It encourages independent study and work. I have been associated with it since 1940 and so far am content with its procedures and objectives Dallas D. T. B. -----Original Message----- From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com [mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of lynn marini Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 9:17 PM To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World BlavatskyNet and ULT To whom it may concern, ie moderator Thank you for your response to Frank R which I hope nipped in the bud, what I perceived to be the seeds of discord. As a new person to this site & an "inquiring mind" I do not find postings of that nature to be very helpful. Albeit there is that 1st Amendment right. I do not really care to know about the "argument" but I would appreciate an explantion or definition of "ULT" thank you. lynn m. Practice random acts of kindness & senseless acts of beauty. EXPECT A MIRACLE! -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 26 15:56:19 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id PAA13304 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:41:02 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:34:03 -0700 From: Wes Amerman Subject: Theos-World ULT To: theos-talk Message-id: <3957BE3B.A4C2886F@pacbell.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-PBI-NC404 (Win98; U) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com I do not really care to know about the "argument" but I would appreciate an explantion or definition of "ULT" thank you. lynn m. Dear Lynn, The "ULT," or United Lodge of Theosophists, is an association of individual students of theosophy. Originally formed in 1909, it seeks to further the objects of the modern theosophical movement, but should not be seen as an alternative or a competitor to other theosophical groups. It is an ideal as much as anything else -- anyone may "join" by signing its associates pledge, and no one is ever asked about his/her theosophical or other affiliations or memberships. It holds public meetings, study classes, etc. in many cities and countries, and publishes the works of HPB and Judge. More information can be found by following the Roadmap links on BlavatskyNet, or at http://www.ult.org/ or http://www.theosophycompany.org/ Best Regards, Wes -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Mon Jun 26 20:48:12 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA16836 for theos-talk-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:26:13 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <39580278.50CF972C@sprynet.com> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:25:12 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World BlavatskyNet and ULT References: <25114-3956D928-6666@storefull-166.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com For better or worse (and, largely, better) John Meade, the list "owner", does not moderate. This group goes where it may, and, most of the time, it works, and when it doesn't, the duration is short. Bart Lidofsky lynn marini wrote: > > To whom it may concern, ie moderator > Thank you for your response to Frank R which I hope nipped in the bud, > what I perceived to be the seeds of discord. As a new person to this > site & an "inquiring mind" I do not find postings of that nature to be > very helpful. Albeit there is that 1st Amendment right. > I do not really care to know about the "argument" but I would appreciate > an explantion or definition of "ULT" > thank you. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 27 03:43:59 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id DAA02635 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 03:40:04 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: <8e.6f764c2.2689c199@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:36:41 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: About Christianity To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Language: en X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pippin.imagiware.com id DAA02633 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/25/00 1:24:29 PM, ecarpent@co.la.ca.us writes: >True. There is exoteric- personality- dominated- Christian- Churchianity >and there is the esoteric- love- dominated- true Christian- faith. This >is true in all the great religions. No disagreement here... Although not entirely true of the "Wisdom Religion" which is the greatest of all, and has no exoteric, personality dominated teachings -- of which Jesus, The Christ, was in perfect agreement with. >The new testament doesn't seem to teach re-incarnation as it is an esoteric >text and teaches from Christ's point of view, and outside of his parables >to the masses, is targeted toward disciples of love. Re-incarnation is true >from the exoteric personality point of view but not true from the esoteric >inner Christ Soul point of view. The Soul is Eternal. Personalities, >little appearances on the world stage, come and go. One eternal Individual >is appearing with difference masks on the world stage from time to time. >The exoteric and esoteric points of view can be harmonized. Each is correct >from the proper perspective and from the proper motive and sincere heart. >This is my opinion only, of course, not a proclamation of truth. That's >beyond me. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But what you say makes little sense from a theosophical point of view. The new Testament is not "esoteric" -- since the esoteric knowledge upon which Jesus' based his sermons were never given out in its edited and doctored printed versions. In fact, as an exoteric, man made document based on the hearsay reports of only a few of Jesus disciples (with much contradictory apocrypha left out) there are no esoteric or hidden occult teachings in it at all (discounting the euphemistic and completely misunderstood "Revelations" of John). You can't have your cake and eat it, too. There can be only one correct view of reincarnation and karma -- which is based on the immutable laws of the universe that stem out of the Divine, Absolute "Oneness" or "Beness" (Ein Soph, Parabrahm), or the "real" unknowable, unexplainable and impersonal "Godhead" -- along with the "Fundamental Principles" that govern ALL of its manifestations, involutions and evolutions -- which Jesus never spoke about except by inference, as parables, or as conclusive recommendations or observations reported as "eye witnesses" by his esoterically ignorant disciples... Nor did he demonstrate these truths, other than as unexplained, so called "miracles" -- (which were really based on the true knowledge of the correlation of natural, occult forces and energies and their associative "Siddhis" or psychic powers known to all "Self realized" or "enlightened" Adepts and Masters). Jesus even said -- speaking as the direct reflection of the Supreme Spirit, or "I am ThAT I am" (as God or THAT Spiritual consciousness identified itself to Moses) -- "I AM the Way, the Light and the Truth"... Referring to the Spiritual Soul or higher SELF within us all... While he told his disciples that they must pray t o THAT God in "private," and that even they could perform his miracles once they realized their true nature as being identical to his own -- as well as to THAT God's. Also, Jesus didn't always speak in parables, since he told the Rabbis -- who asked him how he became so knowledgeable in the "Law" as a "Scribe" -- that it was learned from his "father in Heaven" (referring to the dead Joseph, at whose feet he worked as a carpenter) -- who orally passed on to him the Torah (laws)... As is done by every father to his sons in the ancient Hebraic tradition of oral teachings... And, as is still done, to this very day, in the most traditionally pure and kabbalistically knowledgeable Hebrew families. According to the esoteric Brahmanic, Kabbalistic and Theosophical teachings, the "individualized soul" is not eternal (when we speak of the personalized "soul," (Rauch) as Manas linked to the lower, animal nature -- as the OT apparently assumes). It is only the "higher soul" or Self (Nephesh) that is eternal. This is another example of the confusion that Christianity has engendered in its followers, along with its other mistaken dogmas based on misinterpretation of the esoteric Hebrew Kabbalistic, Theosophical, or "Divine Wisdom" -- which IS the whole "truth" when correctly comprehended. However, this does not, in any way, contradict or deny the value and truth of the "Heart Doctrine" as taught by the Rebbe Yeshua (Jesus), or the esoteric teachings of reincarnation and karma given directly to his disciples, and confirmed by his statements quoted in the NT, as well as by the teachings in the OT (or Talmud) -- which he thoroughly understood... But, that were later distorted by the "Christian Church" founders and its "God annointed" ruling Kings, into their pernicious anathemas and false interpretations leading to the dogmas of vicarious atonement, resurrection, heaven, hell, a personal, vengeful God, the separate Devil or Satan, the denial of reincarnation and karma, etc. (To understand Jesus' acceptance of reincarnation, read (with discriminatve understanding): Matt. 11:10,14, 15; Matt.16:13,14,15; St. John 17:5; Malachi 4:5). Yeshua's understanding of karma is too obvious from his fundamental moral and ethical teachings to even refer to any specific biblical references other than, "Figs from thistles don't grow," and "As you sow, so shall you reap", etc. It's the Monad, the "spiritual soul" alone -- composed of higher, irrational or intuitive Manas, linked through Buddhi to the Atma, the Spirit in man, the true Christos (which, as a "ray" of the Supreme Spirit, is identical to it) -- that is eternal. But, that Spiritual Self has nothing to do with the "personality" or temporary existences of the animalized, "personal soul," the "illusory" self, or lower nature -- who makes the karma (whether ignorantly or intentionally) and which, governed by the fundamental and immutable laws of universal justice based on cause and effect, cycles and periodicity, and mediated by the influential interpenetration of the holographic information-carrying, seven fold, "coadunate but not consubstantial" spiritual and material energy fields -- forces the spiritual Soul or higher Self to pay the piper, so to speak... As a direct karmic result of the ignorance, or the malicious intent of the false "animal soul" (that the Christians falsely say has only "one life in the body" before it is judged by the Christian God, and is either punished or rewarded by Him). Therefore, there is no need, and indeed, no rationale, scientifically, philosophically, or otherwise, for a priest invented, anthropomorphized "personal God" to punish us for our sins in the "eternal fires of hell." Karma, through the equal and opposite reactive power of cyclic law, takes care of that all by itself. Thus, "Vengeance is mine says the Lord" is a perfectly true statement -- provided we substitute for the English word "Lord" the word "Law" (which is the real meaning and translation of the original Hebrew). Also, we might ask, if there were such a supposed, all powerful, and humanly vengeful "being" (pictured in many Christian's conceptions as a "male" with a long beard) that "created Man in his own image" -- who or what "created" Him? And, if He (Jehovah) is such an all pervading purveyor of "Goodness" and "Love," where did the similarly personalized "Satan" or the "Devil" come from? Therefore, it follows, that so long as that "personal" soul, or lower self remains in ignorance of its true nature, it is obligated -- by the force of the "skandas", or reactive karmic tendencies it alone creates –- to impel its spiritual partner, the higher Self or spiritual soul, to reincarnate and pay the piper, so to speak, in incarnated human suffering -- with no conscious memory of its past "sins" -- until all the injustices, imbalances, and disharmonies (that it's illusory animalized and ignorant counterpart inadvertently or intentionally created) have been compensated for, balanced and harmonized. That is the real meaning of "God's justice" and the purpose of reincarnation. To fully understand this, I suggest you carefully study William Q. Judge's "Aphorisms on Karma." But, all is not hopeless for such temporarily "lost souls"... And reincarnation need not be an individually uncontrolled, automatic process... Since, the Spiritual Self -- once freed of its karma by elimination of its animal soul's ignorance through the gaining of spiritual knowledge and wisdom, along with the realization that it is the one and only Self of all, and by reversing all of its lower nature's impure motives by sincerely vowing to correctly follow the pure "Heart Doctrine" as taught by Yeshua (as well as Guatama, the Buddha) , or the "path" of "altruism" taught by theosophy -- can then transcend its past karma... Either by selfishly entering Nirvana and escaping rebirth in this Manvantara, or, with the realization that "the Self of one is the Self of all" -- by accepting the role of a "Bodhisattva," and continuing to help and teach others, while practicing "universal brotherhood," for as many incarnations it takes to resolve all the harm caused by its former "separateness." (Due to the selfish, desire driven intent, or "sins," of all its individualized lower selves, in direct violation or ignorance of their common higher Self consciousness, or conscience, and without understanding of the immutable workings of karmic law.) Each such Bodhisattva (and there could be many of them "waking up" and "born again" every day), is the true meaning of the "return of the Christ" incarnate. When all of us have reached that stage of enlightenment, is when the "Universal Brotherhood" of all mankind will have been achieved. But, all we can do now is become the "nucleus" of such a brotherhood. This is the primary goal of the Theosophical Movement, that transcends all religions, and synthesizes their commonly rooted fundamental truths into one "Wisdom religion." That is why "a true theosophist" considers him/herself "a member of no cult or sect, but a member of each and all"... And, whose "end in view" is to attain "a truer realization of the Self" so as to be "better able to help and teach others," as well as to become a "nucleus of Universal Brotherhood," with a true understanding of the "Fundamental Principles" and their underlying and immutable "Laws of Universal Nature," or Karma, that leads inadvertently to reincarnation, in order to fulfill the true God's "impersonal" justice. I hope that this clarifies a bit further the real nature of God, its Divine justice, the lower self, the higher Self, and their dual souls, and serves as some "food for thought" for us to chew on. LHM -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 27 08:04:00 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id HAA26194 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:42:16 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Peter Merriott" To: Subject: RE: Theos-World Intellect and 'thinking Ego' Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:38:50 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20000623170419.41319.qmail@hotmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Andrew, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. By way of sharing some further thoughts of my own I offer the below. They are not offered as contradicting anything you have said, but merely to extend the exploration. I agree with you that it is the modifications of the the mind that have to inhibited in the passage you refer to from Patanjali. But has you rightly suggest these are inhibited and are not destroyed, as such. The way I understand this in general is that at incarnation the Higher Manas (the reincarnating Ego) emits a Ray which 'enters' into the the lower vehicles. It this ray which is the focus around which the material from the astral and physical 'planes' (the skandhas) is gathered to form the personality (kama-manas). In fact Manas is the pivot around which both the higher and lower principles revolve, so to speak. HPB obviously puts this much better than I do in the SD, where she writes: "the two higher principles [atma and buddhi] can have no individuality on Earth, cannot be man, unless there is (a) the Mind, the Manas-Ego, to cognize itself, and (b) the terrestrial false personality, or the body of egotistical desires and personal Will, to cement the whole, as if round a pivot (which it is, truly), to the physical form of man. It is the Fifth and the Fourth principles* -- Manas and Kama rupa -- that contain the dual personality: the real immortal Ego (if it assimilates itself to the two higher) and the false and transitory personality" (SD II 241) The key result of the interplay between this Ray and its vehicles (ie the astral / physical with their respective senses etc) is the 'personal consciousness' (kama-manas) which IS that particular personality for the duration of that incarnation. Of itself this ray is pure, because it is of the HIGHER MANAS, which is itself inseparable from the Monad (Atma-Buddhi). Hence we find in the SD: "What is human mind in its higher aspect, whence comes it, if it is not a portion of the essence...of a higher Being: one from a higher and divine plane?" (SD II 81) However this ray gets tainted, polluted, through its association with the lower vehicles, particularly through its association with Kama, the principle of desire. It has to free itself of this pollution before it can be completely withdrawn, after death, into the HIGHER EGO. Those aspects of its 'experience' that are noble, alruistic, pure and generally reflective of the higher principles and fundamental spiritual laws in nature, it can 'take' into devachan. The interplay between this 'Ray' and what we might call the 'astral manas', the 'mind stuff' of the lower manasic 'plane' is what produces the "chitta vrittis" referred to by Patanajali. As you have already pointed out, these are generally referred to as: 1) right knowledge, 2) wrong knowledge, 3) fancy, 4) sleep, 5) memory As I understand it, all these pertain to the lower Manas alone. The 'right knowledge' here is not the RIGHT KNOWLEDGE which arises when Manas aligns itself to Buddhi. Nor is the "sleep" mentioned that DREAMLESS SLEEP associated with higher states of samadhi. If they were then they would not need to be inhibited *prior* to Samadhi. Now, there is nothing in the above that suggest that the mind is destroyed. The passage from HPB (given below)that you qouted also suggests the mind, as such, is not destroyed. For if the Lower Manas is destroyed it cannot then be withdrawn into the higher Triad. > "There comes a moment in the highest meditation, > when the Lower Manas is withdrawn into the > Triad, which thus becomes the Quaternary, the > Tetraktys of Pythagoras...This withdrawal of the > Lower Manas from the Lower Quaternary, and the > formation of the Tetraktys, is the Turya state; > it is entered on the Fourth Path." (IG 193) Perhaps we can understand this a little better if we keep look for some correlations between the process described in the above passage and the process that occurs when the Ego goes into devachan, after death. Each involves a withdrawal of the lower Manas into the Higher Triad. The highest Samadhi is carried out 'consciously' by the few who are able to do so. The after death process and union of the lower with the Higher takes place automatically for the vast majority of us. The former leads to 'dreamless sleep', the Turya state. The latter leads to a 'spiritual dream like state' (devachan). In either process the Mind, as such, is not destroyed but withdrawn and MERGED into the higher. That which is destroyed, dis-integrated, in the after death process are those elements of the personal consciousness that were materially selfish in one way or another and not 'worthy' of being withdrawn, along with the Ray, into the Higher Triad. It is thus the Kama-rupa form, the dregs of the lower mind, that is destroyed - at least temporarily, for the skandhas will return and re-form the material tendencies of the new personality in the next birth. For the vast majority of us this 'dis-integration' of the lower principles happens automatically. On the path of Initiation this may have to be done consciously. Is this what is meant when the the VOICE OF THE SILENCE states, "The Mind is the great Slayer of the Real. Let the Disciple slay the Slayer." ? For if we read a few pages further on in THE VOICE the disciple is told, outright, what it is that must be slain. "Before the "mystic Power" can make of thee a god, Lanoo, thou must have gained the faculty to slay thy lunar form at will. The Self of matter and the SELF of Spirit can never meet. One of the twain must disappear; there is no place for both." (p12) That which is to be slain is not 'the Mind', as such, but the LUNAR FORM, the "Self of Matter", that personal conciousness built up around the materialistic desire nature and the delusion of separatness - kama-manas, or at least its dregs. It is that Self of Matter which is caught in the web of illusion - the "Great Heresy" described in THE VOICE as: "(8)Attavada, the heresy of the belief in Soul or rather the separateness of Soul or SELF from the ONE UNIVERSAL, Infinite SELF." (page 74, original edition) Our task appears to be to live a life that is based on the spiritual laws of One-ness and Botherhood to do all that we can to purify the mind of its attachments to Kama, and to purify our actions so that as much as possible of our lives is worthy of being 'raised up' to the Higher Spiritual Triad. ...Peter -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Tue Jun 27 15:48:19 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id PAA31731 for theos-talk-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:43:14 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: LeonMaurer@aol.com Message-ID: <20.7df211b.268a6a81@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:37:21 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World BlavatskyNet and ULT To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 28 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 06/26/00 12:22:32 AM, DLMarini@webtv.net writes: >To whom it may concern, ie moderator >Thank you for your response to Frank R which I hope nipped in the bud, >what I perceived to be the seeds of discord. As a new person to this >site & an "inquiring mind" I do not find postings of that nature to be >very helpful. Albeit there is that 1st Amendment right. >I do not really care to know about the "argument" but I would appreciate >an explantion or definition of "ULT" >thank you. >lynn m. The following might answer your question Declaration of the United Lodge of Theosophists (ULT) The policy of this Lodge is independent devotion to the cause of Theosophy, without professing attachment to any Theosophical organization. It is loyal to the great Founders of the Theosophical movement, but does not concern itself with dissensions or differences of individual opinion. The work it has on hand and the end it keeps in view are too absorbing and too lofty to leave it the time or inclination to take part in side issues. That work and that end is the dissemination of the fundamental principles of the Philosphy of Theosophy, and the exemplification in practice of those principles, through a truer realization of the SELF; a profounder conviction of Universal Brotherhood. It holds that the unassailable basis for union among Theosophists, wherever and however situated, is "similarity of aim, purpose and teaching," and therefore has neither Constitution, By-Laws nor Officers, the sole bond between its Associates being that basis. And it aims to disseminate this idea among Theosophists in the furtherance of Unity. It regards as Theosophists all who are engaged in the true service of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, condition or organization, and It welcomes to its association all those who are in accord with its declared purposes and who desire to fit themselves, by study and otherwise, to be the better able to help and teach others. "The true Theosophist belongs to no cult or sect, yet belongs to each and all." The following is the form signed by Associates of the United lodge of Theosophists: Being in sympathy with the purposes of this Lodge, as set forth in its "Declaration," I hereby record my desire to be enrolled as an Associate, it being understood that such association calls for no obligation on my part, other than that which I, myself, determine. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 28 09:14:44 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id JAA04483 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 09:11:47 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000628064419.00d08e10@theosophy.com> X-Sender: eldon@theosophy.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:08:25 -0700 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: Re: Theos-World BlavatskyNet and ULT In-Reply-To: <39580278.50CF972C@sprynet.com> References: <25114-3956D928-6666@storefull-166.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Bart: You've been posting on several lists, and perhaps didn't notice that you wrote this message to theos-talk, whereas you're referring to the theos-l list, which John Mead started. Both theos-l and theos-talk are unmoderated. Messages go out when someone posts them. Moderated mailing lists have their place too, because materials that are offensive, off-topic, or excessively long can be filtered out. The problem, though, with moderated lists, is that the process of moderation stifles creative self-expression and takes away the spontaneous nature of the discussions. This can be both good and bad -- certainly different than unmoderated lists. Some moderated lists have languished, like the ts-l list, which may have a very few digests going out in a good month, even though the number of subscribers may be more that those on theos-talk or theos-l. Other moderated lists like the two on Blavatsky Net have seemed to do fine, because of the high exposure the site gives to the list and the fact that there are so many subscribers that the percentage that have the patience for moderated lists is enough to sustain on-going discussions. The problem with moderated lists, though, is that whenever someone's postings are rejected by the moderator, and they're told that their postings are unsuitable, there's a tendency for one to feel slighted, and for one to see unfair censorship even when such is not intended. Frank's reaction to having some of his messages rejected by Blavatsky Net, and his frustration is understandable. He may feel a bit stronger about having some of his postings censored than many of us might, because of what he's seeing happen in his home country, Germany. There is an initial effort there, by the government, to consider a ban on the sale of certain theosophical books, like THE SECRET DOCTRINE, because of certain remarks that are considered racist. It has also been hinted that perhaps the book would be allowed to be sold, with offending passages blacked out. One bookstore has been approached regarding this matter, but it may be a trial case, to see what can be done, before a more generalized ban/censorship might be approached. Theosophical groups in the country have not shown much interest in trying to help out the situation. The above is about all I know of the situation. I've seen an email or two, and just read an article about the situation in the latest issue of FOHAT MAGAZINE. If I had personal exposure to real efforts underway to censor Theosophy, I'd certainly be extra sensitive to what might feel like censorship by moderated mailing lists. -- Eldon At 09:25 PM 6/26/00 -0400, you wrote: > For better or worse (and, largely, better) John Meade, the list >"owner", does not moderate. This group goes where it may, and, most of >the time, it works, and when it doesn't, the duration is short. > > Bart Lidofsky > >lynn marini wrote: >> >> To whom it may concern, ie moderator >> Thank you for your response to Frank R which I hope nipped in the bud, >> what I perceived to be the seeds of discord. As a new person to this >> site & an "inquiring mind" I do not find postings of that nature to be >> very helpful. Albeit there is that 1st Amendment right. >> I do not really care to know about the "argument" but I would appreciate >> an explantion or definition of "ULT" >> thank you. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 28 10:35:33 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id KAA17331 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 10:24:46 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <002901bfe114$79b14740$2920020a@toetag105.its.co.la.ca.us> From: "Eugene Carpenter" To: Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: About Christianity Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:20:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Dear Leon, You are a most beauty-filled thinker and writer. What you have written seems elegant and gorgious. I have learned that the exoteric is personality stuff and the esoteric is transpersonality stuff. It seems to me that the Gospel of the New Testament, though changed and edited and censored, etc is still a great spiritual document and very very theosophic/Platonic in it's information. It seems to be the story of an idealistic and devoted man who goes through all the initiations from the first through the fourth(the crucifixtion or renunciation) all the while overshadowed by the Christ(or the one with full planetary group consciousness) who takes a higher initiation during this process. But. See. Here one gets into information that is given to one by the Bailey books and is not valued by many on this list. Each must be able to think freely and gradually understand in one's own way. Anyway your understanding seems deep and so very well thought out. Who am I to argue? I'm very glad that we each search our Souls for the light and express that knowledge to each other with love and understanding. It is all much ado about NOTHING, exquisitely so. Gene -----Original Message----- From: LeonMaurer@aol.com To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 1:50 AM Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: About Christianity > >In a message dated 06/25/00 1:24:29 PM, ecarpent@co.la.ca.us writes: > >>True. There is exoteric- personality- dominated- Christian- Churchianity >>and there is the esoteric- love- dominated- true Christian- faith. This >>is true in all the great religions. > >No disagreement here... Although not entirely true of the "Wisdom Religion" >which is the greatest of all, and has no exoteric, personality dominated >teachings -- of which Jesus, The Christ, was in perfect agreement with. > >>The new testament doesn't seem to teach re-incarnation as it is an esoteric >>text and teaches from Christ's point of view, and outside of his parables >>to the masses, is targeted toward disciples of love. Re-incarnation is true >>from the exoteric personality point of view but not true from the esoteric >>inner Christ Soul point of view. The Soul is Eternal. Personalities, >>little appearances on the world stage, come and go. One eternal Individual >>is appearing with difference masks on the world stage from time to time. >>The exoteric and esoteric points of view can be harmonized. Each is correct >>from the proper perspective and from the proper motive and sincere heart. >>This is my opinion only, of course, not a proclamation of truth. That's >>beyond me. > >Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But what you say makes little >sense from a theosophical point of view. The new Testament is not "esoteric" >-- since the esoteric knowledge upon which Jesus' based his sermons were >never given out in its edited and doctored printed versions. In fact, as an >exoteric, man made document based on the hearsay reports of only a few of >Jesus disciples (with much contradictory apocrypha left out) there are no >esoteric or hidden occult teachings in it at all (discounting the euphemistic >and completely misunderstood "Revelations" of John). You can't have your >cake and eat it, too. > >There can be only one correct view of reincarnation and karma -- which is >based on the immutable laws of the universe that stem out of the Divine, >Absolute "Oneness" or "Beness" (Ein Soph, Parabrahm), or the "real" >unknowable, unexplainable and impersonal "Godhead" -- along with the >"Fundamental Principles" that govern ALL of its manifestations, involutions >and evolutions -- which Jesus never spoke about except by inference, as >parables, or as conclusive recommendations or observations reported as "eye >witnesses" by his esoterically ignorant disciples... Nor did he demonstrate >these truths, other than as unexplained, so called "miracles" -- (which were >really based on the true knowledge of the correlation of natural, occult >forces and energies and their associative "Siddhis" or psychic powers known >to all "Self realized" or "enlightened" Adepts and Masters). Jesus even said >-- speaking as the direct reflection of the Supreme Spirit, or "I am ThAT I >am" (as God or THAT Spiritual consciousness identified itself to Moses) -- "I >AM the Way, the Light and the Truth"... Referring to the Spiritual Soul or >higher SELF within us all... While he told his disciples that they must pray t >o THAT God in "private," and that even they could perform his miracles once >they realized their true nature as being identical to his own -- as well as >to THAT God's. > >Also, Jesus didn't always speak in parables, since he told the Rabbis -- who >asked him how he became so knowledgeable in the "Law" as a "Scribe" -- that >it was learned from his "father in Heaven" (referring to the dead Joseph, at >whose feet he worked as a carpenter) -- who orally passed on to him the Torah >(laws)... As is done by every father to his sons in the ancient Hebraic >tradition of oral teachings... And, as is still done, to this very day, in >the most traditionally pure and kabbalistically knowledgeable Hebrew >families. > >According to the esoteric Brahmanic, Kabbalistic and Theosophical teachings, >the "individualized soul" is not eternal (when we speak of the personalized >"soul," (Rauch) as Manas linked to the lower, animal nature -- as the OT >apparently assumes). It is only the "higher soul" or Self (Nephesh) that is >eternal. This is another example of the confusion that Christianity has >engendered in its followers, along with its other mistaken dogmas based on >misinterpretation of the esoteric Hebrew Kabbalistic, Theosophical, or >"Divine Wisdom" -- which IS the whole "truth" when correctly comprehended. > >However, this does not, in any way, contradict or deny the value and truth of >the "Heart Doctrine" as taught by the Rebbe Yeshua (Jesus), or the esoteric >teachings of reincarnation and karma given directly to his disciples, and >confirmed by his statements quoted in the NT, as well as by the teachings in >the OT (or Talmud) -- which he thoroughly understood... But, that were later >distorted by the "Christian Church" founders and its "God annointed" ruling >Kings, into their pernicious anathemas and false interpretations leading to >the dogmas of vicarious atonement, resurrection, heaven, hell, a personal, >vengeful God, the separate Devil or Satan, the denial of reincarnation and >karma, etc. > >(To understand Jesus' acceptance of reincarnation, read (with discriminatve >understanding): Matt. 11:10,14, 15; Matt.16:13,14,15; St. John 17:5; Malachi >4:5). Yeshua's understanding of karma is too obvious from his fundamental >moral and ethical teachings to even refer to any specific biblical references >other than, "Figs from thistles don't grow," and "As you sow, so shall you >reap", etc. > >It's the Monad, the "spiritual soul" alone -- composed of higher, irrational >or intuitive Manas, linked through Buddhi to the Atma, the Spirit in man, the >true Christos (which, as a "ray" of the Supreme Spirit, is identical to it) >-- that is eternal. But, that Spiritual Self has nothing to do with the >"personality" or temporary existences of the animalized, "personal soul," the >"illusory" self, or lower nature -- who makes the karma (whether ignorantly >or intentionally) and which, governed by the fundamental and immutable laws >of universal justice based on cause and effect, cycles and periodicity, and >mediated by the influential interpenetration of the holographic >information-carrying, seven fold, "coadunate but not consubstantial" >spiritual and material energy fields -- forces the spiritual Soul or higher >Self to pay the piper, so to speak... As a direct karmic result of the >ignorance, or the malicious intent of the false "animal soul" (that the >Christians falsely say has only "one life in the body" before it is judged by >the Christian God, and is either punished or rewarded by Him). > >Therefore, there is no need, and indeed, no rationale, scientifically, >philosophically, or otherwise, for a priest invented, anthropomorphized >"personal God" to punish us for our sins in the "eternal fires of hell." >Karma, through the equal and opposite reactive power of cyclic law, takes >care of that all by itself. Thus, "Vengeance is mine says the Lord" is a >perfectly true statement -- provided we substitute for the English word >"Lord" the word "Law" (which is the real meaning and translation of the >original Hebrew). Also, we might ask, if there were such a supposed, all >powerful, and humanly vengeful "being" (pictured in many Christian's >conceptions as a "male" with a long beard) that "created Man in his own >image" -- who or what "created" Him? And, if He (Jehovah) is such an all >pervading purveyor of "Goodness" and "Love," where did the similarly >personalized "Satan" or the "Devil" come from? > >Therefore, it follows, that so long as that "personal" soul, or lower self >remains in ignorance of its true nature, it is obligated -- by the force of >the "skandas", or reactive karmic tendencies it alone creates –- to impel its >spiritual partner, the higher Self or spiritual soul, to reincarnate and pay >the piper, so to speak, in incarnated human suffering -- with no conscious >memory of its past "sins" -- until all the injustices, imbalances, and >disharmonies (that it's illusory animalized and ignorant counterpart >inadvertently or intentionally created) have been compensated for, balanced >and harmonized. That is the real meaning of "God's justice" and the purpose >of reincarnation. To fully understand this, I suggest you carefully study >William Q. Judge's "Aphorisms on Karma." > >But, all is not hopeless for such temporarily "lost souls"... And >reincarnation need not be an individually uncontrolled, automatic process... >Since, the Spiritual Self -- once freed of its karma by elimination of its >animal soul's ignorance through the gaining of spiritual knowledge and >wisdom, along with the realization that it is the one and only Self of all, >and by reversing all of its lower nature's impure motives by sincerely vowing >to correctly follow the pure "Heart Doctrine" as taught by Yeshua (as well as >Guatama, the Buddha) , or the "path" of "altruism" taught by theosophy -- can >then transcend its past karma... Either by selfishly entering Nirvana and >escaping rebirth in this Manvantara, or, with the realization that "the Self >of one is the Self of all" -- by accepting the role of a "Bodhisattva," and >continuing to help and teach others, while practicing "universal >brotherhood," for as many incarnations it takes to resolve all the harm >caused by its former "separateness." (Due to the selfish, desire driven >intent, or "sins," of all its individualized lower selves, in direct >violation or ignorance of their common higher Self consciousness, or >conscience, and without understanding of the immutable workings of karmic >law.) > >Each such Bodhisattva (and there could be many of them "waking up" and "born >again" every day), is the true meaning of the "return of the Christ" >incarnate. When all of us have reached that stage of enlightenment, is when >the "Universal Brotherhood" of all mankind will have been achieved. But, all >we can do now is become the "nucleus" of such a brotherhood. This is the >primary goal of the Theosophical Movement, that transcends all religions, and >synthesizes their commonly rooted fundamental truths into one "Wisdom >religion." That is why "a true theosophist" considers him/herself "a member >of no cult or sect, but a member of each and all"... And, whose "end in view" >is to attain "a truer realization of the Self" so as to be "better able to >help and teach others," as well as to become a "nucleus of Universal >Brotherhood," with a true understanding of the "Fundamental Principles" and >their underlying and immutable "Laws of Universal Nature," or Karma, that >leads inadvertently to reincarnation, in order to fulfill the true God's >"impersonal" justice. > >I hope that this clarifies a bit further the real nature of God, its Divine >justice, the lower self, the higher Self, and their dual souls, and serves as >some "food for thought" for us to chew on. > >LHM > > > > >-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > >Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and >teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of >"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 28 20:29:04 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id UAA15584 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:18:03 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: "Free Tibet" To: "Theos-Talk@Theosophy.Com" Subject: Theos-World Dalai Lama on Larry King Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:47:31 +0930 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Did anyone see the Larry King interview with Larry King on Wednesday? I thought Larry King was rude, obnoxious and totally the typical american... His Holiness however was as always courteous, wise and a not little bemused. He did however struggle with his english... namaste nos -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Wed Jun 28 21:53:49 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id VAA31718 for theos-talk-outgoing; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:44:18 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: CoNewsNet2@aol.com Message-ID: <27.7795e78.268c1137@aol.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:40:55 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Dalai Lama on Larry King To: theos-talk@theosophy.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 84 Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com In a message dated 6/28/0 20:37:03, you wrote: <> I did not see the interview. However A Chat friend from ' Life - Beliefs Buddhism' send me a link with the transcript. In case you want to read it for yourself, here is the link .Click here: CNN Transcript - Larry King Live: The Dalai Lama Discusses Science and Spirituality - June 26, 2000 If the link does not open, let me know and I will Email you a copy of the actual transcript. Femia -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 29 00:09:44 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id AAA26687 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:00:43 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <395AD7C3.9DAF797F@sprynet.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:59:47 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World BlavatskyNet and ULT References: <25114-3956D928-6666@storefull-166.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20000628064419.00d08e10@theosophy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Eldon B Tucker wrote: > > Bart: > > You've been posting on several lists, and perhaps didn't notice that > you wrote this message to theos-talk, whereas you're referring to the > theos-l list, which John Mead started. Yeesh!!!! I'm sorry, I got my Tuckers and Meads mixed up. > Some moderated lists have languished, like the ts-l list, which > may have a very few digests going out in a good month, even though > the number of subscribers may be more that those on theos-talk or > theos-l. I just sent a letter to National about that; I tried to get my wife subscribed to ts-l, and discovered I couldn't find the instructions. If there's no new members to replace the old members, any list will die (although ts-l never reached quite the level of original messages to ensure its continuation on its own momentum; I have noticed that, in slow times, you yourself have seeded this list to help it grow). > though, is that whenever someone's postings are rejected by the > moderator, and they're told that their postings are unsuitable, there's > a tendency for one to feel slighted, and for one to see unfair > censorship even when such is not intended. A good moderator has to not only tell a user why their message was not accepted, but also suggest changes and/or omissions, and be willing to consider an appeal of the poster does not believe that the message violated any rules. And the rules should be clearly posted on a regular basis. Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 29 18:59:02 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id SAA25704 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 18:56:29 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-ID: <395BE368.51600D56@schoolemail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:01:44 -0700 From: E X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD compaq (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Theosophy Study List , theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Theos-World Hey?? what's wrong with this list?? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Where everybody go?? One cannot be absent for a while, for pepole dissapearing from the list?? Eldon, did you disuscribe me?? AAAKKHH!!! Or even worse: What happened to the list!? The last issue i got was from april 10! See ya guys, don't forget to send me the issues!! (Or is my suscription overdue?) Estrella -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 29 19:39:04 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id TAA00536 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:38:39 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f From: ramadoss@eden.com Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000629193332.007cd410@mail.eden.com> X-Sender: ramadoss@mail.eden.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:33:32 -0500 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Hey?? what's wrong with this list?? Cc: E In-Reply-To: <395BE368.51600D56@schoolemail.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com I have been getting mail with no break. Is everything else ok at your end? mkr At 05:01 PM 06/29/2000 -0700, you wrote: > > >Where everybody go?? > >One cannot be absent for a while, for pepole dissapearing from the list?? >Eldon, did you disuscribe me?? AAAKKHH!!! >Or even worse: What happened to the list!? > >The last issue i got was from april 10! > >See ya guys, don't forget to send me the issues!! (Or is my suscription >overdue?) > >Estrella > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com Thu Jun 29 22:19:19 2000 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) id WAA31929 for theos-talk-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:17:56 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: pippin.imagiware.com: majordom set sender to owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com using -f Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000629200936.00d29100@theosophy.com> X-Sender: eldon@theosophy.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 20:14:35 -0700 To: theos-talk@theosophy.com From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: Re: Theos-World Hey?? what's wrong with this list?? Cc: Lloltlit@schoolemail.com In-Reply-To: <395BE368.51600D56@schoolemail.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com Reply-To: theos-talk@theosophy.com Estrella: At 05:01 PM 6/29/00 -0700, you wrote: >Where everybody go?? > >One cannot be absent for a while, for pepole dissapearing from the list?? >Eldon, did you disuscribe me?? AAAKKHH!!! >Or even worse: What happened to the list!? > >The last issue i got was from april 10! > >See ya guys, don't forget to send me the issues!! (Or is my suscription >overdue?) The problem is with your mailbox at schoolemail.com. You're subscribed to theos-talk-digest, and get one or two digests a day. But the digests have been continually bounced back to me with the message that your mailbox is full. I've kept you on the list, and ignored the "mailbox full" messages for quite a while now, waiting for you to check your email and for the problem to clear itself up. You might want to check your mail more often, or get more than one mailbox, perhaps having one for one mailing list and another for another mailing list, so that no mailbox gets too full. Hope things are cleared up and back to normal now. -- Eldon -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.