theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World IMPORTANT THEOS-TALK ANNOUNCEMENT (read this carefully)

May 14, 2006 03:01 AM
by M. Sufilight


Hallo Cass and all,

My views are:

I will answer.

1. About postings.
Cass wrote:
"What, if anything, is anyone going to learn about Theosophy from these postings?
Is it not possible that those interested in continuing this argument correspond privately
with each other?"

I ask, which postings?
In a recent email I talked about the role of a guru and some theosophical techniques.
I thought, that it was very helpful to some readers.
Somewhere in this link is the info. Just a thought, remember, I am not saying that a
moderator is a guru. :-)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/33330

A few views:
However mass-emailing is not a good idea, unless it is used - compassionately - as a
technique seeking to provoke a theosophical experince or helpful exchanges of views.
The problem with that technique is, that it is annoying a lot of members at this forum,
especially because of the structure of the Yahoo-based forum.
So the present problems might have to do with this issue. I do hope Eldon reads this.
I find it wise to keep the number of emails down at such a forum as this, and if possible
keep the written words in each email down. I suggest, that we only seek to email
quality and only email when in Need and not in emotional Want. When I started as a member
at Theos-talk we were about 60-70 members. Today we are past 300.

I agree Cass:
If there is a matter of importance to some of us, we can email it in private, even use mass-emailing.
And Eldon can ask us to do that, if it is too much for his heart and perhaps others heart
of compassion. I think it is fair to say, that not many will object to that idea. That
is what I suggest we do on this kind of a forum.


2. This went further in length than intended, but I hope it will be helpful.

Cass wrote:
"I personally would like to hear your views on Channelling. Whether in theosophical
terms this is explainable phenomena as we were told that the only communication we
have with the dead is through their shells. However, in these times, there seems to be
more and more evidence that channelling is a phenomena that exists. How does one
know the accuracy or authenticity of a channelled being?"

a)
I will do my best, while sort of not knowing everything about the subject.
First what is considered channeling today? My views on the matter depends a bit on
how the word Channeling is defined.

Meriam Websters online version says:
"Pronunciation: 'cha-n&l-&r
Function: noun
: a person who conveys thoughts or energy from a source believed to be outside
the person's body or conscious mind; specifically : one who speaks for nonphysical
beings or spirits"

Apart from all the New Age craze and the phony channelers, I will say the following.
In general I would say, that true and real channeling was what Blavatsky, the chelas and
initiates in the good old days of theosophy did, - and also what among some happens today.
More precisely, Channeling can happen through telepathy, receiving aksaha information
and by using various modes of ESP, and other issues. Some modes of ESP are not
explained very well in books. They have to be experienced. The level of channeling
is also important.
What is most important when channeling is to have with you harmony in both your heart of
compassion and your head of Knowledge, while having them thrown into meditation
on Atma or ParaBrahman, and while your physical body moves around or are at rest.
Some scall it Harmony between head, heart and hands.
A bit difficult these english sentences. :-) I do hope you get the idea.

Important. One should have ones heart of compassion active when channeling.
If the heart of compassion is somehow lacking, you will run into trouble or suffering after a while.
Then you will learn, and a new level is reached.

b)
What you are told about shells might not be that true.
My views are, that When exploring such communications, or channelings, one will have to
learn to distinguish between what is a shell (or a phantom), what is a deceased,
what is a spirit/soul, what is a materialised entitiy, even what is a black magician,
what is a Nirmanakaya, what is the bodies awaiting rebirth and a few other issues.
And a shell is not just a shell.

One will be tested, so to learn to distinguish between what is what by life
experiences and by teachers.

--- A must read on the issue "Shells", astralbodies and doppelgangers. ---
DIALOGUES BETWEEN THE TWO EDITORS - Lucifer. December 1888
"Most likely, and we shall answer, in addition to what has been said, that the "thought power" or aspect of the Mayavi or "Illusion body," merges after death entirely into the causal body or the conscious, thinking EGO. The animal elements, or power of desire of the "Dream body," absorbing after death that which it has collected (through its insatiable desire to live) during life; i.e., all the astral vitality as well as all the impressions of its material acts and thoughts while it lived in possession of the body, forms the "Spook" or Kama rupa. Our Theosophists know well enough that after death the higher Manas unites with the Monad and passes into Devachan, while the dregs of the lower rnanas or animal mind go to form this Spook. This has life in it, but hardly any consciousness, except, as it were by proxy, when it is drawn into the current of a medium." (HPB and M. C.)
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/DialoguesBetweenTheTwoEditorspv.htm

In the somewhat incomplete theosophical glossary - 1892, we have:
- Shells. A Kabbalistic name for the phantoms of the dead, the "spirits" of the Spiritualists, figuring in physical phenomena; so named on account of their being simply illusive forms, empty of their higher principles.
- Spirit. The lack of any mutual agreement between writers in the use of this word has resulted in dire confusion. It is commonly made synonymous with soul; and the lexicographers countenance the usage. In Theosophical teachings the term "Spirit" is applied solely to that which belongs directly to Universal Consciousness, and which is its homogeneous and unadulterated emanation. Thus, the higher Mind in Man or his Ego (Manas) is, when linked indissolubly with Buddhi, a spirit; while the term "Soul", human or even animal (the lower Manas acting in animals as instinct), is applied only to Kama-Manas, and qualified as the living soul. This is nephesh, in Hebrew, the "breath of life". Spirit is formless and immaterial, being, when individualised, of the highest spiritual substance -- Suddasatwa, the divine essence, of which the body of the manifesting highest Dhyanis are formed. Therefore, the Theosophists reject the appellation "Spirits" for those phantoms which appear in the phenomenal manifestations of the Spiritualists, and call them "shells", and various other names. (See "Sukshma Sarira".) Spirit, in short, is no entity in the sense of having form; for, as Buddhist philosophy has it, where there is a form, there is a cause for pain and suffering. But each individual spirit -- this individuality lasting only throughout the manvantaric life-cycle -- may be described as a centre of consciousness, a self-sentient and self-conscious centre; a state, not a conditioned individual. This is why there is such a wealth of words in Sanskrit to express the different States of Being, Beings and Entities, each appellation showing the philosophical difference, the plane to which such unit belongs, and the degree of its spirituality or materiality. Unfortunately these terms are almost untranslatable into our Western tongues.
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/ctg/ctg-hp.htm

"Nirmanakaya is the name given to the astral forms (in their completeness) of adepts, who have progressed too high on the path of knowledge and absolute truth, to go into the state of Devachan; and have on the other hand, deliberately refused the bliss of nirvana, in order to help Humanity by invisibly guiding and helping on the same path of progress elect men. But these astrals are not empty shells, but complete monads made up of the 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th principles. There is another order of nirmanakaya, however, of which much will be said in the Secret Doctrine."
(H. P. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled vol. 2, p. 41)

" "Monstrum horrendum informe cui lumen ademptum" . . . . is the fittest epithet to be applied to most of the "Lillies" and "Joes" of the Spirit World. But we do not mean at all--following in this the example of Spiritualists, who are determined to believe in no other "Spirits" than those of the "dear departed" ones--to maintain that save Nature Spirits or Elementals, Shells, or Elementaries, and "Gods" and genii, there are no other Spirits from the invisible realms; or no really holy and grand Spirits--who communicate with mortals. For it is not so. What the Occultists and Kabalists said all along, and the Theosophists now repeat, is, that holy Spirits will not visit promiscuous sťance-rooms, nor will they intermarry with living men and women."
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/ThoughtsOnTheElementals.htm
(THOUGHTS ON THE ELEMENTALS - article by H. P. Blavatsky 1890)


A lot of channeling happening today do not take the above into account. That
is one reason why we have all this New Age craziness - with channelers and seers.
And some of them are really phonies, and call themselves theosophist or something similar.
And thanks for asking. Honestly, I am somehow still learning to distinguish
between what is shell and what is not.
An etherical-physical materialisation of Blavatsky in for instance ones bedroom might happen.
Distinguishing from where such an entity comes is sometimes difficult, sometimes not.

Channeling a spiritual deceased, and not a shell can happen.
Then you are for instance communicating with a Nirmanakaya or a reincarnated initaite.
You will just have to learn to distinguish between what is what, so you don't get deceived.

- - -

What beautiful places there are on the inner levels. Just Imaging how it looks like when a body is being
prepared for incarnation in the physical. Devas and builders at work.
A little baby being born. :-)


I hope I helped you.



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...








----- Original Message ----- From: "Cass Silva" <silva_cass@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World IMPORTANT THEOS-TALK ANNOUNCEMENT (read this carefully)


Hi Morten,
My feelings are that Theos-Talk has been hijacked by the incessant challenges of the past. What, if anything, is anyone going to learn about Theosophy from these postings? Is it not possible that those interested in continuing this argument correspond privately with each other?

I personally would like to hear your views on Channelling. Whether in theosophical terms this is explainable phenomena as we were told that the only communication we have with the dead is through their shells. However, in these times, there seems to be more and more evidence that channelling is a phenomena that exists. How does one know the accuracy or authenticity of a channelled being?

Cass

"M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@stofanet.dk> wrote: Hallo Eldon and all,

My views are:

If you are serious with the below email, then I am dead serious with mine.
I disagree with your below email. And disagreeing with a moderator, is not
an easy thing.

I will tell you Eldon and all members, that I am very close at reaching a
decision to leave Theos-talk.
I have to draw the line somewhere. Eldon, I write this email, because I
might have misunderstood your below email.

If you, Eldon and friends, want scholary exchanges and emotional tea and
talk as the most important
to take place at Theos-talk, it is your choice, but I will protest if this
is, what you are driving at.
If people at Theos-talk - only - are allowed free debates when the number of
members at Theos-talk
are climbing, I will disagree. It is quality and not quantity in teaching
(and not moderation), which are important.

We might some of us lose our heads in debates, - and as moderators. And some
of us are not very well versed in the english language.
If our knowledge of scholary english is an excuse to close our threads, I
disagree.


Eldon wrote:
"A second thread is about there being plots to subvert Theosophy and
the suggestion that some participants on the list might be somehow
involved."
---
"It is time that we move on, so I am stating that as of Monday morning,
the two threads be closed. That gives everyone about a day to write
any final thoughts on the subject. I am also stating that the ad
hominem attacks must stop. Granted, someone might lose his or her
temper and have a one-time outburst, and then express sorrow about the
mistake. But a persistent pattern of lashing out at people must not
continue."

Sufilight comments and asks:
You did not explain why you closed the second thread.
So I will ask:
-Why close it?
-What thread are you in fact referring to?
-What is wrong with this suggestion or claim you talk about?

- Did Blavatsky's article "THEOSOPHY OR JESUITISM?" show the Jesuits their
motives?
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/TheosophyOrJesuitism.htm
- Are we allowed to exchange views upon this topic?
- And there was never written by Blavatsky anything in Lucifer about the
dangers some persons posed to Theosophy?
- So Blavatsky was wrong and created plots and conspiracies against the
Jesuits?


- How do you define an "attack"?
- Mass-emailing to promote ones own website is that an attack?
- The question is whether, there always really is an Ad hominem attack
taking place,
or it is just an email seeking to provoke a theosophical experience? Who is
to judge?
- And is the provoking of a theosophical experience allowed at Theos-talk
anymore?
- Was Blavatsky's article on "THEOSOPHY OR JESUITISM?" an Ad hominem attack
on the Jesuitis?

These questions aught to be answered.
I have to ask a lot, because your below email makes me uncertain about your
moderation level.

Eldon wrote:
"The list is independent. It is not subject to the
particular agenda and politics of any theosophical organization."

Not anymore it seems.



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...


----- Original Message ----- From: "Eldon B Tucker"
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 10:47 PM
Subject: Theos-World IMPORTANT THEOS-TALK ANNOUNCEMENT (read this carefully)


[Read this carefully if you are actively participating in the mailing
list or are considering doing so.]

The past few months have been a wild time at theos-talk, but now it is
time for things to return to the type of discussion for which
theos-talk was intended.

The purpose of the list is to allow people of all backgrounds to share
their interests as seekers and as students of the theosophical
philosophy. The list is independent. It is not subject to the
particular agenda and politics of any theosophical organization.

The list does not have any special people that are entitled to write
on behalf of Theosophy, correcting others and telling them they are
wrong when they disagree. People can think differently and do not have
to adhere to the outlook of anyone's favorite theosophical organization.

It is a place for learning and sharing ideas. With people from all the
different theosophical traditions welcome, there will be differing
views on things. Disagreement is fine, although we can learn new
things from one another.

The hope is that people will come to respect others of different
backgrounds, form a growing brotherhood, broaden their thinking,
clarify their ideas, and learn from the experience.

The first important rule of behavior is being respectful of others.
Remember that you are talking to people. It is not any different than
if you had a theosophical meeting in your living room and you are
conversing face to face with them. Watch how you express yourself.
Stop and listen to how you are putting your ideas into words.

We should tolerate differing views. We are all entitled to write and
have our own views. We should not find ourselves attacked when we
disagree with someone else's favorite author.

Ad hominem attacks are unacceptable. This is when we reply in a
discussion with an attack on the other person or the person's motives.
This is a discussion list, not a fighting club. Everyone, try to stick
to the points under discussion without name calling or saying others
are acting with bad motives.

What does this mean? You do not tell everyone what someone else's
agenda is, nor call someone else a liar or slanderer, nor judge and
tell everyone if he or she is a Theosophist or not, nor speak for him
or her about what his or her motives may be. Stick to positions and
premises rather than attack personalities.

If you are unclear about what someone said, ask them. Each person is
entitled to speak for himself or herself about what is meant. You are
not entitled to tell them and everyone else what they actually mean.

An additional rule of good behavior is that you do not hound someone
about things they have not been discussing and do not want to talk
about. If, say, Paul Johnson were to be on the list again and write
about an interesting book he had read, he would be within his rights
as a theosophical seeker to want to talk about it without being called
to task by sharp critics of books he wrote many years earlier.

This is not a historical research list nor is it a mouthpiece for the
United Lodge of Theosophists, the Theosophical Society [Adyar], the
Theosophical Society [Pasadena], nor any other particular group.
Long-running fights between groups should not be bitterly fought out
here between hard-line supporters.

Right now, there are some active threads of discussion that are
getting tiresome. They are getting nowhere and have had the effect of
driving people away. In the past week, three people have unsubscribed,
including one that lasted less than a day, someone that initially
indicated great interest in learning about Theosophy and that was
likely gravely disappointed in what she read.

One thread is about there being two editorial styles of gathering and
offering historic information on Blavatsky. We have repeatedly read of
the merits of each approach and been exposed to far too much name-calling.

A second thread is about there being plots to subvert Theosophy and
the suggestion that some participants on the list might be somehow
involved.

We are here on the list to learn about Theosophy and consider a broad
spectrum of emerging ideas that might broaden our thinking on life. We
are not here to squabble over styles of historic books nor are we here
to play a game of "Who is the real Dugpa?"

It is time that we move on, so I am stating that as of Monday morning,
the two threads be closed. That gives everyone about a day to write
any final thoughts on the subject. I am also stating that the ad
hominem attacks must stop. Granted, someone might lose his or her
temper and have a one-time outburst, and then express sorrow about the
mistake. But a persistent pattern of lashing out at people must not
continue.

This is an unmoderated list and I would like it to remain that way.
But if any individual cannot behave, he or she might face personal
moderation (or expulsion in extreme cases). Each person has the right
to express himself or herself, but not to deny others their equal
rights of expression.








Yahoo! Groups Links











Yahoo! Groups Links









---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links









[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application