From leonmaurer@aol.com Wed Aug 01 00:16:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: LeonMaurer@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 1 Aug 2001 07:16:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 95345 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 07:16:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2001 07:16:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2001 07:16:01 -0000 Received: from LeonMaurer@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.e4.18a6feaa (16789) for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 03:15:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 03:15:50 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World The end To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 28 From: leonmaurer@aol.com Your arguments (to be frank:-) are total baloney, and your one tracked, narrow minded ranting has gone beyond all levels of propriety. The only "TRUTH" worth talking about in this forum are the fundamental truths of theosophy -- not YOUR opinionated, self labeled "truths" (more like gossip, which HPB abhored) that focuses on personalities rather than theosophical study, and puts the organization in the same catagory as the individual student. No organization has any claim to being theosophical in itself, and can only be judged by the quality of its members along with its stated theosophical principles, aims, goals, and ends in view -- which they all agree to follow. The personal actions of any of them, or their self chosen or elected "leaders" has no relation to the value each individual student gets from the independent "self devised and self determined" study of the teachings as originally presented by HPB and the Masters. Maybe you should read the ULT Declaration again... And let us know where it says anything about personality or leaders (other than including them in the catagory of "side issues" that it has "no time or inclination to take part in."). Your proofs -- of what? Some supposed disagreements between long dead leaders, based on nothing more than hearsay and spurious documents that have nothing to do with independent or group theosophical studies? -- are as vacuous and unfounded as your prejudices and your opinions. Your "master race" philosophy of labeling people -- not of your self righteous ilk, who may need theosophy to help them reach "self realization," and in the process, strengthen their character -- as "weak" or "neurotic," and excluding them as worthless members of our theosophical brotherhood, is in direct violation of theosophical principles that prove "universal brotherhood" is a "law of nature." It is also in direct contradiction to the objects of the Theosophical Movement that, right from the beginning, regarded as Theosophists "all who are engaged in the true service of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, condition or organization." So, how does that square with your idea of a "good theosophist"? Any other idea that its the organizational form or its leadership that's important, rather than the individual, smacks of the same sort of ersatz theosophcal distortions propounded by Hitler in his Mein Kampf. Theosophy has no room for nazism, or those that parrot their ideas of dictatorial government, and use their propaganda techniques to foment dissension with the aim of destroying groups that don't agree with the "parrots'" dictatorial and fascistic "politics." (It doesn't deserve the distinction of calling it "philosophy"). So, start acting llike a real "theosophist," or go form your own dictatorial non-theosophical political party in another forum. LHM In a message dated 07/31/01 3:29:02 PM, ringding@blinx.de (Frank) writes: >Louis: >who are newly awakened, is not being violated here. If we continue to belabor >the PERCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES of organizational theosophy, when do we find >time to serve one another with the evolving, LIVING theosophy, of today. > >Frank: >For a Theosophist there is NO distinction between word and action. >If you want to play ostrich and live further on with LIES (if you admit >that only one version can be true) then you are free to do so. >But to new students it would be shameful to play further on the good >Theosophist and at the same time suppress the truth - which is not >LIVING, but KILLING Theosophy. >The TS was started to fight for the truth and not for the peace of misleaded >students. >A student who loves the truth and acts unpersonally researches in all >directions and considers all facts, even if they might contradict its own >views. To play ostrich in historical matters (which of course do affect the >present) means not only prevent newbies from the truth, it is also a sigh >of selfishness. > >Louis: >Can we really afford to loose a single, true seeker whose awakening spirit >has been drawn to the magnetic center of esoteric studies? > >Frank: >No we can't afford it. That is the reason why we have just right now the >discussion to find out the truth. As long there is no TRUTH among >Theosophists as long there will be only attraction to the weak ones, to >neurotics etc. But the Theosophical Movement has no need for such people, >at least in any position as it is the aim of the TS to create a new culture >and a new civilization. That can only be done with strong people, with will, >power, discrimination and compassion, not with weak, sentimental psychics. > >Louis: >Perhaps another list needs to be started that clearly states, it deals only >with the BATTLEGROUND ISSUES OF HISTORICAL THEOSOPHY! Could be >very popular indeed. > >Frank: >Perhaps with an ULT member as "moderator"?? >I don't think so. This list is quite right for any discussion. >Perhaps you don't understand it, but although we are talking about matters >long years back they are nevertheless matters of the PRESENT as the problems >are still unsolved. >And, seriously: How can I trust in any person or organization of TODAY >of which I have proofs that they lied in the past to the public and to its >members? >To my humble opinion it is time for tabula rasa. >We Theosophists should be strong enough to solve our problems for ourselves, >otherwise there will come third parties taking over our job. Is it that >what you want? Surely not. >The ULT'ers are invited to live Theosophy - as you say - and lay the truth >on the table. >This is the only way a progress of the Theosophical Movement can have any >success. The ostrich policy gives perhaps some peace for weak souls, but it is the >death blow for Theosophy. From leonmaurer@aol.com Wed Aug 01 02:07:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: LeonMaurer@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 1 Aug 2001 09:07:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 13355 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 09:07:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2001 09:07:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2001 09:07:26 -0000 Received: from LeonMaurer@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.38.19ba3ab2 (16789) for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 05:07:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <38.19ba3ab2.289920c6@aol.com> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 05:07:18 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Crosbie expelled To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 28 From: leonmaurer@aol.com Frank, I wonder if you think that your unfounded assertion of a so called FACT based on a spurious document that you cannot verify constitutes any sort of valid argument? Or, even that a supposed entry in such an "imaginary" document that indicated someone who resigned has been "expelled" has any basis in "truth" (even if such document exists and such a notation was actually made)? If Crosbie resigned -- which I believe he did judging from (in addition to his own writings) by the pains he took to assure that ULT would never become such a dictatorial organization as Tingley's group -- it must have been for a good reason, and I'm sure that in such a case, those he was in contention with would certainly be inclined to consider him as "expelled" -- to save face -- rather than admit that he had such a reason to resign (which, to them, would be a bad one). What dictatorial organization would ever give a member who resigned for good cause, the benefit of the doubt? If that's the kind of "truth" seeker you are -- who is looking for a reason (based on personalities, angst, innuendoes, and biased opinions) to discredit a serious group of theosophical TRUTH seekers -- I wonder just how much of a "theosophist" (in the sense stated in the ULT Declaration) you really are? Incidentally, I resigned from the TS some 40 year ago (before I found ULT or knew it even existed) -- probably for some of the same reasons Crosbie did. Some of their phony gurus, psychic and spiritualist teachings, and other side issues, as well as their rigid formalities of organization, appeals for donations, lecture fees and dues, along with their focus on personalities, did not gel with my serious study of the original theosophical teachings. (I'm not sure, but I suspect that they might have had reason to put "expelled" next to my name after I told them in no uncertain terms why I couldn't stomach them and wanted out.:-) But, then, I'm no Crosbie. All one has to do is read his writings, and compare it with HPB's and WQJ's to know what a "true" theosophist he was. LHM In a message dated 07/30/01 5:27:00 PM, ringding@blinx.de writes: >Dear Dallas and Leon, >that Robert Crosbie didn't left the HQ by "free will" as the ULT myth goes >but was expelled "for good cause" as The FORUM article has it, but that >he actually was kicked out is a matter of FACT. > >The TS Point Loma membership record book has an entry for Robert Crosbie >joining the TS on June 5, 1888. Writing in red ink over the date are the >words "Marked off 1904 -- Expelled." > >Perhaps anyone who lives nearby the Pasadena TS who holds the archives >of the former Point Loma TS can make a photocopy of it, scan it and present >it here for the sake of truth seekers. >Frank From dalval14@earthlink.net Wed Aug 01 03:35:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: dalval14@earthlink.net X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 1 Aug 2001 10:35:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 41924 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 10:35:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2001 10:35:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net) (207.217.120.74) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2001 10:35:32 -0000 Received: from earthlink (pool0059.cvx11-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.188.59]) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA11809; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 03:35:24 -0700 (PDT) To: "Theosophy Study List" Subject: RE: Joining the ULT: Several questions to Dallas Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 03:29:51 -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 V5.00.3018.1300 In-Reply-To: From: dalval14@earthlink.net Wednesday, August 01, 2001 Dear Daniel: I am putting some notes below in the text of your posting to me. These are sent as they are the result of my observation and participation for many years in U.L.T. activities. I hope you don't mind the informality, but I am short on time. Dal ======================== -----Original Message----- From: Blavatsky Archives [mailto:blavatskyarchives@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 5:51 PM To: Theosophy Study List Subject: Joining the ULT: Several questions to Dallas Dear Dallas, In one of your recent emails, you suggest that I become an associate of ULT so I can know what goes on in the ULT by personal experience. Before I would take such an action, I would certainly need to know more. For example, you constantly refer to the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS' DECLARATION. I find a copy at: http://www.theosophycompany.org/declar.html Is this the ONLY written document that "governs" the ULT and its associates? DTB As far as I know it is. See also THE FRIENDLY PHILOSOPHER by Robert Crosbie where it is reproduced on p. 415. As a preliminary to that you will find a number of his letters under the title IN THE BEGINNING from p. 363 on, in which some of the questions and difficulties noted by early students are covered. The first 15 or so letters of THE SPIRIT IN THE BODY also occasionally deal with U.L.T. (see p. 37 bottom, for instance). I also see at the bottom of this document a "form signed by Associates of the United Lodge of Theosophists" Also the 3 objects. Are these also written documents that govern the ULT? DTB That is the yellow card on which is printed the DECLARATION OF THE U.L.T. and a clause that says the applicant who wants to become an "associate" has understood the Declaration. You say there is no written bylaws or written constitution. So are you in effect saying this DECLARATION is the only written document governing the ULT? DTB correct. OBTW is the Phoenix "association" a lodge or a discussion group? DTB For many years it has been a U.L.T. Lodge What is the difference between a lodge and a discussion group? DTB A Lodge usually has its own address, and rents or owns the building in which meetings are held. A discussion Group is usually preliminary to the formation of a Lodge and it may meet informally at someone's home. Are there "unwritten" guidelines, rules, verbal "do's and dont's", call them whatever you like, that "govern" the lodges whether it is the LA lodge or the Phoenix AZ lodge? DTB As far as I know the U.L.T. Lodge has no secret guide lines or dos and don'ts other than the normal ones of civilized conduct. Those who are working in the Lodge have volunteered for certain duties and any one who joins as an associate can volunteer to assist. But no one need expect that any specific work will promptly be assigned to them. The primary focus is the STUDY of THEOSOPHY as detailed in the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS of H.P.Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge Secondary, so-called "Teachings of Theosophy" are not the focus for study. I do not know what the "Phoenix AZ Lodge" is. There is a "Phoenix U.L.T." and I assume the "AZ" is the postal contraction for the mailing address: ARIZONA. If I lived in Los Angeles and became an associate of the ULT and started attending weekly meetings of the LA Lodge, I assume there must be a list of "do's and dont's" that associates are expected to follow. If they exist, are these written down or do you just learn them thru your interaction with associates? DTB As said above the focus is the same. THE STUDY OF THEOSOPHY and the PRESERVATION of the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS described above. Your attending or not is entirely of and by your own free choice. U.L.T. associates are all volunteers, and are free to chose what we will or will not do. In the Lodge at the times of meeting there are traditions that are observed as to the format employed. These are the normal observances and courtesies that people follow who gather together for mutual study. The rules of common sense and common decent behaviour prevail in all ULTs to my knowledge. We all know those. We all come to study together, to assist one another, and to forward the pure and original teachings of THEOSOPHY, so that the present and coming generations may profit, as we have, from them. It is assumed that each associate has these as his own motives, and an understanding of the meaning of the DECLARATION as his/her basis for association and attending the Lodge. Each U.L.T. is autonomous, amorphous, but not an anarchy or a chaos. All its work is conducted in a spirit and atmosphere of anonymity. This is observed because it is the STUDY OF THEOSOPHY that is the focus and not any person's opinion. Statements made concerning THEOSOPHY ought to be backed up by direct references to the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS. Since I live in Tucson, if I sign that form, what lodge do I become an associate of? I don't think there is either a lodge or study group in Tucson. If I lived in Phoenix, would I become an associate of that one? Or could I choose even tho' I lived in Phoenix, to become an associate of, let us, say the LA Lodge? DTB Every associate is automatically an associate of any Lodge. And their constructive contributions to study and voluntary assistance, are welcomed as such. They are welcome to attend the meetings of any U.L.T. but so is everybody else. You are right there is no U.L.T. Lodge or Study Group in Tucson. As such you are free to choose to affiliate ourself with any of the U.L.T. Lodges you choose. I also ask these questions because some of your own comments about the ULT prompt me to think about these issues. DTB Perfectly right, and wise to ask. Best wishes, Dallas Daniel ===== Daniel H. Caldwell info@blavatskyarchives.com BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES http://blavatskyarchives.com You can always access BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES by simply typing into the URL address bar the following 6 characters: hpb.cc __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: dalval14@earthlink.net List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-14759P@list.vnet.net From nick.weeks@worldnet.att.net Wed Aug 01 08:31:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nick.Weeks@worldnet.att.net X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 1 Aug 2001 15:31:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 62928 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 15:05:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2001 15:05:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net) (204.127.131.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2001 15:05:57 -0000 Received: from pavilion ([12.80.9.162]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP id <20010801150553.BSMS15499.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@pavilion> for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 15:05:53 +0000 Message-ID: <001101c11a9b$b1fa2ba0$a209500c@pavilion> To: References: <38.19ba3ab2.289920c6@aol.com> Subject: Re: Crosbie expelled Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:07:33 -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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 From: "Nick Weeks" Leaving aside the reason for Crosbie's expulsion, I can state that the membership book is not "imaginary". In 1979 Boris de Zirkoff was shown this book and his written testimony confirms its existence and the accuracy of Frank's quoting of the Crosbie entry. Although Leon may not believe this, I am only mentioning this fact because I value truth -- whether comfortable or painful. Nicholas From: To: Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 2:07 AM Subject: Re: Theos-World Crosbie expelled > Frank, I wonder if you think that your unfounded assertion of a so called > FACT based on a spurious document that you cannot verify constitutes any sort > of valid argument? Or, even that a supposed entry in such an "imaginary" > document that indicated someone who resigned has been "expelled" has any > basis in "truth" (even if such document exists and such a notation was > actually made)? From ramadoss@infohwy.com Wed Aug 01 13:25:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ramadoss@infohwy.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 1 Aug 2001 20:25:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 76665 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 19:06:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2001 19:06:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO picard.bizchek.com) (208.210.50.206) by mta3 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2001 19:06:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 10451 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 19:06:25 -0000 Received: from 1cust193.tnt44.hou3.da.uu.net (HELO infohwy.com) (63.42.149.193) by mail1.bizchek.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 2001 19:06:25 -0000 Message-ID: <3B6852DA.4BE4F53B@infohwy.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 14:04:58 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-l@list.vnet.net, "theos-talk@yahoogroups.com" , ramadoss@infohwy.com Subject: Unpublished Material - Copyright Issue Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: ramadoss@infohwy.com The issue of copyright relative to material which is not published - either in print or in any electronic media, including Internet based e-mail - comes up from time to time. Several months ago, I was in a controversy dealing with the copyright limits of unpublished material. The author, a person well-known in theosophical circles, asserted (erroneously - whether deliberate or not, I do not know) that no one has any right to disclose any of the the content of any unpublished material; and this I thought was a super-clever application of copyright laws to prevent diclosure of info that may make some one or some organization or both not look good. So I went to research the matter. The research was very revealing. Years ago, someone got hold of some unpublished material written by the famous provocative writer J. D. Salinger. When some of the material - as I reall - was quoted and appeared in print media, there was a litigation which went all the way to U.S. Supreme Court and it was held that as per the then existing Copyright law, the disclosure and quoting was totally prohibited. The decision was far reaching as far as the newsmedia is concerned. Most of the time newsmedia gets much of their investigatory journalism material from unpublished and confidential material and hence would prevent such material even from disclosure or quoting. So the work of newsmedia would be severely hampered. So Senate and Congress recognized the problem and went to work to fix this problem and the copyright law was amended. Under the amendment, the fair use concept of quoting and disclosure of unpublished material is ok and does not violate US Copyright laws and this is the current copyright law. As this may be of interest to some of the subscribers here, I thought I should share this info. mkr From ringding@blinx.de Wed Aug 01 13:29:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ringding@blinx.de X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 1 Aug 2001 20:29:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 25371 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 19:07:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2001 19:07:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.blinx.de) (194.115.26.35) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2001 19:07:29 -0000 Received: (from amavis@localhost) by mail.blinx.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id f71J7Pl08313 for theos-talk@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 21:07:25 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: mail.blinx.de: Processed by amavis with -C /etc/sendmail.orig.cf Received: from captaink (cppp-224.blinx.de [62.96.222.224]) by mail.blinx.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with SMTP id f71J7Nl08300 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 21:07:23 +0200 Message-ID: <000801c11abd$4c402d60$e0de603e@captaink> To: References: <3d.f320474.28984502@aol.com> Subject: Re: Theos-World Politics & Theosophy Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 22:56:25 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-9 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" >Some years ago the dispute at one of the lodges in Chicago got so animated >that the other tenants in the building called the police. They were certain >someone was being murdered. (true story) Chuck, similar accoured f.e. when HPB and Olcott were disputing about the right way. Frank From sherab@telocity.com Wed Aug 01 14:19:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: sherab@telocity.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 1 Aug 2001 21:19:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 73778 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 19:55:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2001 19:55:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n2.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.10.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2001 19:55:20 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sherab@telocity.com Received: from [10.1.10.125] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Aug 2001 19:55:20 -0000 Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 19:55:16 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Passing On Theosophy - Eldon B. Tucker Message-ID: <9k9mr4+f8io@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 693 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 63.201.91.204 From: sherab@telocity.com This posting is to thank Eldon B. Tucker for the very fine and inspiring article in Theosophy World about "Passing On Theosophy". Truly spoken from the heart, this is the spirit of Theosophy, the path of compassion. To me, a lurker here now and again, there seems much energy wasted in vituperant discord. While numerous inquirers seem to come and go the same few names still seem to dominate the postings. Are their any nameable incarnations who are considered teaching Masters who are self acknowledged Theosophists? Would not a living tradition acknowledge such a lineage? Curiously wondering, in gratituted for what I have learned from the Theosophists. Sherab May all benefit From teos9@aol.com Wed Aug 01 14:43:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Teos9@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 1 Aug 2001 21:43:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 85310 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 20:19:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2001 20:19:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2001 20:19:32 -0000 Received: from Teos9@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.f6.d67e21a (16782) for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 16:19:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 16:19:28 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World The end To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 124 From: teos9@aol.com In a message dated 7/31/2001 3:28:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ringding@blinx.de writes: > Louis: > who are newly awakened, is not being violated here. If we continue to > belabor > the PERCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES of organizational theosophy, when do we find time > to serve one another with the evolving, LIVING theosophy, of today. > > Frank: > For a Theosophist there is NO distinction between word and action. > If you want to play ostrich and live further on with LIES (if you admit that > only one version can be true) then you are free to do so. > But to new students it would be shameful to play further on the good > Theosophist and at > the same time suppress the truth - which is not LIVING, but KILLING > Theosophy. > The TS was started to fight for the truth and not for the peace of misleaded > students. > A student who loves the truth and acts unpersonally researches in all > directions and considers all facts, even if they might contradict its own > views. > To play ostrich in historical matters (which of course do affect the > present) means not only prevent newbies from the truth, it is also a sigh of > selfishness. > > Louis: > Can we really afford to loose a single, true seeker whose awakening spirit > has been drawn to the magnetic center of esoteric studies? > > Frank: > No we can't afford it. That is the reason why we have just right now the > discussion to find out the truth. As long there is no TRUTH among > Theosophists as long there will be only attraction to the weak ones, to > neurotics etc. But the Theosophical Movement has no need for such people, at > least in any position as it is the aim of the TS to create a new culture and > a new civilization. That can only be done with strong people, with will, > power, discrimination and compassion, not with weak, sentimental psychics. > > Louis: > Perhaps another list needs to be started that clearly states, it deals only > with the BATTLEGROUND ISSUES OF HISTORICAL THEOSOPHY! Could be very popular > indeed. > > Frank: > Perhaps with an ULT member as "moderator"?? > I don't think so. This list is quite right for any discussion. > Perhaps you don't understand it, but although we are talking about matters > long years back they are nevertheless matters of the PRESENT as the problems > are still unsolved. > And, seriously: How can I trust in any person or organization of TODAY of > which I have proofs that they lied in the past to the public and to its > members? > To my humble opinion it is time for tabula rasa. > We Theosophists should be strong enough to solve our problems for ourselves, > otherwise there will come third parties taking over our job. Is it that what > you want? Surely not. > The ULT'ers are invited to live Theosophy - as you say - and lay the truth > on the table. > This is the only way a progress of the Theosophical Movement can have any > success. > The ostrich policy gives perhaps some peace for weak souls, but it is the > death blow for Theosophy. > > Frank, I have been watching your replies to various list members, for some time now. In my opinion, you are beginning to RANT. This is a classic sign of a fanatic personality disorder. It is abundantly clear that there is no room for give and take in any conversation with you. An unvarying, obsessive return, to the same old perceptions of "Theosophy a' la' Frank Reitemeyer," has become quite tedious and boring. As I have no wish to enter such a one sided, unenlightening conversation with you or anyone, for that matter. I herby concede to you the right to RANT ad infinitum. However it will be without my attention, for I will exercise my right to use the delete button every time I see a message bearing your name. Have fun, Louis From eldon@theosophy.com Wed Aug 01 15:03:44 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: eldon@theosophy.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 1 Aug 2001 22:03:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 94815 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 20:37:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2001 20:37:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pippin.imagiware.com) (205.254.196.9) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Aug 2001 20:37:35 -0000 Received: from SCRIBE.theosophy.com ([167.167.110.112]) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA07251 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 15:43:40 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010801133307.00a1a7c0@pop3.norton.antivirus> X-Sender: eldon/theosophy.com@pop3.norton.antivirus X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 13:37:26 -0700 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Unpublished Material - Copyright Issue In-Reply-To: <3B6852DA.4BE4F53B@infohwy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Eldon B Tucker MKR: I just did a quick search using google.com and found a description of US copyright law concerning unpublished manuscripts at: http://www.mycounsel.com/content/intelprop/copyright/duration/unpublished.html I've cut-and-pasted the description at the end of this message. -- Eldon ---- text follows ---- Unpublished works created before Jan. 1, 1978, fall into a special class of works with regard to the term of copyright protection. The current copyright statute provides that works created before 1978 that have neither been published nor registered for copyright will be protected in the same way that post-1978 works are protected. That is, the term of copyright protection for such a work is the life of the author plus 70 years (for joint works, the life of the last surviving author plus 70 years). If the work is anonymous, pseudonymous or a work made for hire, the term of protection is 95 years from the year of first publication of the work or 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. The present copyright statute provides that unpublished works created before 1978 cannot expire before Dec. 31, 2002. Further, if such a pre-1978 work is published between Jan. 1, 1978, and Dec. 21, 2003, its copyright cannot expire before Dec. 31, 2047. These periods of protection aren't affected by the date the authors of such works die. For example: An ancestor of yours was born in 1881 and wrote a novel that was never published. Your ancestor died at the age of 50 in 1931. Under normal circumstances, the copyright protection would have expired in 2001, but now--thanks to the statute--the copyright protection lasts until December 31, 2002. This provision has interesting implications for anyone who has an ancestor who kept a diary or was a novelist or composer. Old manuscripts and other works that would have become public domain many years ago had they been published before 1978 may be eligible for copyright protection well into the next century. From ringding@blinx.de Wed Aug 01 18:11:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ringding@blinx.de X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 01:11:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 59221 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 00:08:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 00:08:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.blinx.de) (194.115.26.35) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 00:08:39 -0000 Received: (from amavis@localhost) by mail.blinx.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id f7208ce27671 for theos-talk@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:08:38 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: mail.blinx.de: Processed by amavis with -C /etc/sendmail.orig.cf Received: from captaink (cppp-210.blinx.de [62.96.222.210]) by mail.blinx.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with SMTP id f7208al27655 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:08:36 +0200 Message-ID: <00ec01c11ae7$5e831120$f0de603e@captaink> To: References: <9k9mr4+f8io@eGroups.com> Subject: Re: Theos-World Passing On Theosophy - Eldon B. Tucker Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:08:30 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-9 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Eldon, I agree with Sherab. Also from me much thanks, not only for your recent good article, but for all the much time you've spent to create the first online magazine "Theosophy World" with electronical reprints of valuable, but today rare to find articles. A great task! Sherab, yes of course there is a lineage. The Masters work uninterruptly in the outer world of men, either silent or not silent. Also there is a Guruparampara, that is a serial line of teachers, torchbearers, coming one after another, and at special times together. The outer-world guruparampara, the Hermetic chain, in the modern theosophical movement, which was scheduled as the modern exoteric Mystery school by its founders, was unbroken from 1875 to 1942. This guruparampara is built by persons which by other means are also called "messengers". This technical term means that there comes one with a message of the lodge, which he delivers (only) to those who are ready. That is no master race ideology as twisted thinking of foes or misinformed students may have it, as those who are ready are become not selected by third ones, they make themselve ready, from within. A weak mind or a neurotic cannot understand it as likewise a dog cannot understand mathematics, so this people come to the wrong conclusion that there is someone outside of them who is responsibly for that" injustice. The known psychologist Paul Watzlawick has many funny examples for that twisted thinking. The four messengers who built the holy chain in the outer world were: 1. HPB 2. Judge 3. Katherine Tingley 4. Gottfried de Purucker. All messengers taught their pupils: "Keep the link unbroken". There are inner and out rounds for messengers. There are messengers who built a whole platonic year. There are messengers who built an age of 2,160 years. This messenger is also called World teacher. The World teacher, the Avatara, for our new age was HPB, as with her birth began a new age (Aquarius). Would have this secret esoteric teaching been known to the students of HPB, there would have been no place for some misleading and selfish students to make propaganda for their kind of world teacher and place themselves on the sunny side as his "Herolds". There are many ways how messengers work. Not all messengers are allowed to make public statements about their occult status (so with Judge), only the closiest pupils are informed (in the case of Judge he transformed at an ES Convention to his real, asiatic body). Purucker as one of the highest Adepts which ever entered the Western hemisphere was one of the messengers who were able to speak openly about their status. P. was a high Tibetan Adept. In the 1930's there were, according to Purucker, actually five messengers from the Lodge working, but they were not generally known to non-initiates. To my understanding the then General Secretary of the British Section and compiler of the Mahatma letters, Mr Trevor Barker, and Boris de Zirkoff, who together with Katherine Tingley and Gottfried de Purucker launched special work to save HPB's work and collect all what was reachable world wide for the benefit of later generations of serious students to come for the next centuries, these two chelas were in close connection with the chaldeo-aryan-tibetan Lodge of the transhimalayan Brotherhood. An example of outer rounds for messengers would be the messenger who is said to work in every last decade of a century. This rounds were made public during the lifetime of the first two messengers. Under Purucker the teaching was a little more unveiled and today we know (if we allow) that there are many messengers of many degrees. All are working uninterrupted for the uplifting of humanity, whether John Algeo believes it or not (he seems to think that the Lodge sends only messengers at certain times, but that are only exoteric dead letter speculations and is no knowledge about real esoteric facts). Please consider that this are the views of the Point Loma school and that not all lineages in the broad theosophical movement accept this. Many, those who follow the little, or damaged, vehicle, and who judge only from exoteric or dead letter knowledge but not from the higher knowledge taught in the esoteric degrees by the messengers, may even not admit, that higher degrees existed or that there exists anything like the office of a "messenger". But nevertheless, this are the esoteric facts and can be found in the esoteric books of this messengers. A good source is f.e. the twelve vol. set "Esoteric Teachings" by G. de Purucker, available from Point Loma Publications http://www.wisdomtraditions.com/ Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 9:55 PM Subject: Theos-World Passing On Theosophy - Eldon B. Tucker This posting is to thank Eldon B. Tucker for the very fine and inspiring article in Theosophy World about "Passing On Theosophy". Truly spoken from the heart, this is the spirit of Theosophy, the path of compassion. To me, a lurker here now and again, there seems much energy wasted in vituperant discord. While numerous inquirers seem to come and go the same few names still seem to dominate the postings. Are their any nameable incarnations who are considered teaching Masters who are self acknowledged Theosophists? Would not a living tradition acknowledge such a lineage? Curiously wondering, in gratituted for what I have learned from the Theosophists. Sherab May all benefit From ringding@blinx.de Wed Aug 01 18:11:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ringding@blinx.de X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 01:11:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 59158 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 00:08:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 00:08:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.blinx.de) (194.115.26.35) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 00:08:38 -0000 Received: (from amavis@localhost) by mail.blinx.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id f7208an27660 for theos-talk@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:08:36 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: mail.blinx.de: Processed by amavis with -C /etc/sendmail.orig.cf Received: from captaink (cppp-210.blinx.de [62.96.222.210]) by mail.blinx.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with SMTP id f7208Zl27645 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:08:35 +0200 Message-ID: <00eb01c11ae7$5db9a6a0$f0de603e@captaink> To: References: <38.19ba3ab2.289920c6@aol.com> <001101c11a9b$b1fa2ba0$a209500c@pavilion> Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Crosbie expelled Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 00:54:51 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-9 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Nick: Leaving aside the reason for Crosbie's expulsion, I can state that the membership book is not "imaginary". In 1979 Boris de Zirkoff was shown this book and his written testimony confirms its existence and the accuracy of Frank's quoting of the Crosbie entry. Although Leon may not believe this, I am only mentioning this fact because I value truth -- whether comfortable or painful. Frank: Thanks Nick for the additional info. It's new to me that Boris is eyewitness of the membership book and it's important to me as I regard Boris as an hard working Adept for the cause. To my humble understanding there can be no room for a jesuitically misinterpretation that under the alleged dictatorship of KT the word "expelled" really meant "resigned". This pseudo-logical argument of Leon (it is exactly this kind of twisted thinking of members of his organization which seems to be the politically correct way of thinking there which cannot be understood by many who email me privately) has as axiom that KT was a dictator. But that are only the lies of the ULT'ers and the fact that they repeat this lies, which are only based on the personality, jealousy and ignorance, since decades, makes it not truer. In fact, KT gave the most possible freedom, she made the people think for themselves, she made Theosophy practically, she teached them the deeper, esoteric doctrines, she continued in word, spirit and action the work of Judge and HPB, including the launching of theosophical Raja Yoga-schools and a theosophical university whoch were plans of both Judge and HPB but they were too overworked and later on to sick to do it. She preserved the original teachings, reprinted the books, brought of new books, collected together HPB's letters and articles which were spread over the world and was eager in preparation of the publication of the Blavatsky Collected Writings, the Mahatma Letters etc. Is there any other theosophist besides HPB herself (KT herself being in close touch with Judge and HPB for those who have eyes and ears) who did a loftier, better work? Who and where, please? The tree shall be known by its fruits. See what KT really did and not the hearsay nonsense, lies and slanders the ULT spreads against KT since decades as a revenge that she kicked him out as he was unable to do the masters work. Without KT there would be no one of us here know what HPB and the Masters really taught. She alone against an army of enemies inner and outer saw the danger and had the will power to do what have been must done. Without KT Theosophy would be really dead today, only a parody. Her fruits show that she was a progressed high chela, an Adept if you like, and that she had her knowledge from the very same source as HPB did. Both HPB and KT came from the same parent star to use an astrological pattern. KT was the only candidate for TS and ES (!!) as well whom Judge allowed entrance without formailty, f.e. vow etc. It is been said that Judge was aware of the fact that she would be in the near future the third serial messenger even before she for herself got that very clear, in the 1880's. That seems to be the main reason that Judge has watched and protected her. Her work, WHAT she did and HOW and WHEN she did it is a triple proof for any occultist who this being was, no matter what cheap gossip and personality quarrels from the goalless, hateful, dead letter worshipping, twisted Hinayana ULT'ers say in its now 90 year WAR against the TRUTH and against true Theosophy. From ringding@blinx.de Wed Aug 01 18:13:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ringding@blinx.de X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 01:13:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 66555 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 00:08:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 00:08:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.blinx.de) (194.115.26.35) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 00:08:36 -0000 Received: (from amavis@localhost) by mail.blinx.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id f7208Zf27650 for theos-talk@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:08:35 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: mail.blinx.de: Processed by amavis with -C /etc/sendmail.orig.cf Received: from captaink (cppp-210.blinx.de [62.96.222.210]) by mail.blinx.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with SMTP id f7208Xl27641 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:08:33 +0200 Message-ID: <00ea01c11ae7$5d010500$f0de603e@captaink> To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20010801010320.00a30d20@mail.infohiwy.net> Subject: Re: Theos-World Theosophical Organizations Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 00:01:49 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-9 From: "Frank Reitemeyer" Doss: On the other hand, if an organization is an association of people with a common interest, then there is no requirement for any formal legal organizational setup and it may be impossible to get any information about it or from it. The above is the situation with all organizations including theosophical ones. Frank: All well said: "if an organization is an association of people with a common interest" - but that counts surely not for the Theosophists. The most hate and quarrel in life I found in theosophical circles and the fact that someone enters a theosophical groups makes him not a Theosophists. It shows only the he/she/it is just INTERESTED in it, but that does not mean that he/he/it has understood it, even after some decades or lifes. I hardly met ever three "Theosophists" which even would agree in the definition what Theosophy is, even from the same lineage - not to think of other lineages. In fact, the way Theosophy is interpreted in the Adyar lineage is not understood by ULT - and reverse. Or what ULT interprets is not understood by Pasadena-ists and reverse etc. etc. etc. Perhaps it is because that each of these schools is either downwards or upwards compatible to each other with the result that a higher school can understand what a lower school says but not reverse. Perhaps scholars should find out if and how the today four main lineages are relating to each other: 1. Point Loma 2. Adyar 3. Pasadena 4. ULT A clear view on this could lead to a better understanding and could help to try to cooperate. But unless each lineage is not aware what the other lineage means in using the same words or which doctrines are accepted and which not - there can be no progress in the whole theosophical movement, no real understanding (I mean not just emotionalism) if we play further on ostrich. It's time for tabula rasa. Purucker was around 1940 of the opinion that for a long time to come the theosophical movement would not be able to understand the other lineage and cooperate. But this is 60 years back, perhaps we have today a little bit more cleverness. From ramadoss@infohwy.com Wed Aug 01 18:48:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ramadoss@infohwy.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 01:48:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 70809 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 00:45:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 00:45:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO picard.bizchek.com) (208.210.50.206) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 00:45:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 28887 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 00:45:07 -0000 Received: from 1cust172.tnt42.hou3.da.uu.net (HELO infohwy.com) (63.42.9.172) by mail1.bizchek.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 00:45:07 -0000 Message-ID: <3B68A237.7567167C@infohwy.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 19:43:35 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Unpublished Material - Copyright Issue References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010801133307.00a1a7c0@pop3.norton.antivirus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: ramadoss@infohwy.com Eldon: Thanks for the info. As you may have noticed, the emphasis of my post was the right of everyone to quote from unpublished material under the fair use concept without any need for any permission from the copyright holder. For example if I come across an unpublished document which contained information that I feel might be of interest to the public, it is within my right to make a brief quote to disclose the info in the document and discuss the content generally without having to be concerned with copyright issue. This would not violate U S Copyright laws since I would be within the "fair use" exception provided under the Copyright laws. mkr Eldon B Tucker wrote: > MKR: > > I just did a quick search using google.com and found a > description of US copyright law concerning unpublished > manuscripts at: > > http://www.mycounsel.com/content/intelprop/copyright/duration/unpublished.html > > I've cut-and-pasted the description at the end of > this message. > > -- Eldon > > ---- text follows ---- > > Unpublished works created before Jan. 1, 1978, fall into a > special class of works with regard to the term of copyright > protection. > > The current copyright statute provides that works created before > 1978 that have neither been published nor registered for > copyright will be protected in the same way that post-1978 works > are protected. That is, the term of copyright protection for > such a work is the life of the author plus 70 years (for joint > works, the life of the last surviving author plus 70 years). If > the work is anonymous, pseudonymous or a work made for hire, the > term of protection is 95 years from the year of first publication > of the work or 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever > expires first. > > The present copyright statute provides that unpublished works > created before 1978 cannot expire before Dec. 31, 2002. > Further, if such a pre-1978 work is published between Jan. 1, > 1978, and Dec. 21, 2003, its copyright cannot expire before Dec. > 31, 2047. These periods of protection aren't affected by the > date the authors of such works die. For example: > > An ancestor of yours was born in 1881 and wrote a novel that was > never published. Your ancestor died at the age of 50 in 1931. > Under normal circumstances, the copyright protection would have > expired in 2001, but now--thanks to the statute--the copyright > protection lasts until December 31, 2002. > > This provision has interesting implications for anyone who has an > ancestor who kept a diary or was a novelist or composer. Old > manuscripts and other works that would have become public domain > many years ago had they been published before 1978 may be > eligible for copyright protection well into the next century. > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From nos@granite.net.au Wed Aug 01 19:26:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nos@granite.net.au X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 02:26:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 81619 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 01:23:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 01:23:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.granite.net.au) (203.132.126.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 01:23:44 -0000 Received: from nos (victor56k-08.granite.net.au [203.38.211.71]) by mail.granite.net.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA22709 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:57:48 +0930 To: Subject: RE: Theos-World Theosophical Organizations Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:57:01 +0930 Message-ID: <002d01c11af2$3b94cd60$4101a8c0@nos> 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, Build 10.0.2605 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <00ea01c11ae7$5d010500$f0de603e@captaink> Importance: Normal From: "nos" HPB states in numerous places that most Esoteric Schools (especially free masonry) were compromised by the Jesuits - surely this is what happened to the TS. - Is that the crux of the argument? Nos ##-----Original Message----- ##From: Frank Reitemeyer [mailto:ringding@blinx.de] ##Sent: Thursday, 2 August 2001 7:32 AM ##To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com ##Subject: Re: Theos-World Theosophical Organizations ## ## ##Doss: ##On the other hand, if an organization is an association of ##people with a common interest, then there is no requirement ##for any formal legal organizational setup and it may be ##impossible to get any information about it or from it. ## ##The above is the situation with all organizations including ##theosophical ones. ## ##Frank: ##All well said: "if an organization is an association of ##people with a common interest" - but that counts surely not ##for the Theosophists. The most hate and quarrel in life I ##found in theosophical circles and the fact that someone ##enters a theosophical groups makes him not a Theosophists. It ##shows only the he/she/it is just INTERESTED in it, but that ##does not mean that he/he/it has understood it, even after ##some decades or lifes. I hardly met ever three "Theosophists" ##which even would agree in the definition what Theosophy is, ##even from the same lineage - not to think of other lineages. ##In fact, the way Theosophy is interpreted in the Adyar ##lineage is not understood by ULT - and reverse. Or what ULT ##interprets is not understood by Pasadena-ists and reverse ##etc. etc. etc. Perhaps it is because that each of these ##schools is either downwards or upwards compatible to each ##other with the result that a higher school can understand ##what a lower school says but not reverse. Perhaps scholars ##should find out if and how the today four main lineages are ##relating to each other: ## ##1. Point Loma ##2. Adyar ##3. Pasadena ##4. ULT ## ##A clear view on this could lead to a better understanding and ##could help to try to cooperate. But unless each lineage is ##not aware what the other lineage means in using the same ##words or which doctrines are accepted and which not - there ##can be no progress in the whole theosophical movement, no ##real understanding (I mean not just emotionalism) if we play ##further on ostrich. It's time for tabula rasa. Purucker was ##around 1940 of the opinion that for a long time to come the ##theosophical movement would not be able to understand the ##other lineage and cooperate. But this is 60 years back, ##perhaps we have today a little bit more cleverness. ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to ##http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ## ## From ramadoss@infohwy.com Wed Aug 01 21:09:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ramadoss@infohwy.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 04:09:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 6216 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 04:04:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 04:04:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO picard.bizchek.com) (208.210.50.206) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 04:04:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 23829 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 04:04:54 -0000 Received: from 1cust252.tnt48.hou3.da.uu.net (HELO infohwy.com) (63.42.146.252) by mail1.bizchek.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 04:04:54 -0000 Message-ID: <3B68D10B.4A69C586@infohwy.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:03:24 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Theosophical Organizations References: <5.1.0.14.0.20010801010320.00a30d20@mail.infohiwy.net> <00ea01c11ae7$5d010500$f0de603e@captaink> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: ramadoss@infohwy.com I think with the increased use of Internet, a day will come when those interested in theosophy will come to theosophy via Internet not via one of the organizations. And over a period of time the walls between organizations becomes insignificant except for those who have an axe to grind either exoterically or esoterically. Frank Reitemeyer wrote: > Doss: > On the other hand, if an organization is an association of people with a > common interest, then there is no requirement for any formal legal > organizational setup and it may be impossible to get any information about > it or from it. > > The above is the situation with all organizations including theosophical > ones. > > Frank: > All well said: "if an organization is an association of people with a common > interest" - but that counts surely not for the Theosophists. The most hate > and quarrel in life I found in theosophical circles and the fact that > someone enters a theosophical groups makes him not a Theosophists. It shows > only the he/she/it is just INTERESTED in it, but that does not mean that > he/he/it has understood it, even after some decades or lifes. I hardly met > ever three "Theosophists" which even would agree in the definition what > Theosophy is, even from the same lineage - not to think of other lineages. > In fact, the way Theosophy is interpreted in the Adyar lineage is not > understood by ULT - and reverse. Or what ULT interprets is not understood by > Pasadena-ists and reverse etc. etc. etc. > Perhaps it is because that each of these schools is either downwards or > upwards compatible to each other with the result that a higher school can > understand what a lower school says but not reverse. > Perhaps scholars should find out if and how the today four main lineages are > relating to each other: > > 1. Point Loma > 2. Adyar > 3. Pasadena > 4. ULT > > A clear view on this could lead to a better understanding and could help to > try to cooperate. But unless each lineage is not aware what the other > lineage means in using the same words or which doctrines are accepted and > which not - there can be no progress in the whole theosophical movement, no > real understanding (I mean not just emotionalism) if we play further on > ostrich. It's time for tabula rasa. > Purucker was around 1940 of the opinion that for a long time to come the > theosophical movement would not be able to understand the other lineage and > cooperate. But this is 60 years back, perhaps we have today a little bit > more cleverness. From toy77@aol.com Thu Aug 02 01:32:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: TOY77@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 08:32:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 79515 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 08:32:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 08:32:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d08.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.40) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 08:32:42 -0000 Received: from TOY77@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.38.19c7e5f5 (3983) for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 04:32:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <38.19c7e5f5.289a6a20@aol.com> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 04:32:32 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World SIRCAM Virus To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 56 From: toy77@aol.com From dalval14@earthlink.net Thu Aug 02 04:55:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: dalval14@earthlink.net X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 11:55:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 80301 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 11:55:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 11:55:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net) (207.217.121.12) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 11:55:54 -0000 Received: from earthlink (pool0032.cvx4-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.146.32]) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA02091; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 04:55:43 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: RE: Received Truth -- Does THEOSPHY fall into this category? Dallas tries to answer Dr. G. Tillett Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 04:49:56 -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 V5.00.3018.1300 From: dalval14@earthlink.net 08/02/2001 2:12 AM Re: "Received Truth" and Theosophy -- does it fall into that category ? Dear Gregory: Thanks for the definition. Likewise I agree that this kind of exchange is stimulating, and, I hope reasonably useful. Some exchange of meanings may be necessary as one's (my) usage of words tends to acquire, perhaps some special meaning (to me) -- and I may not realise how strange they could sound to another -- so you will have to check me out if the answers or comments I make are unclear. Please do not hesitate to take me to task if anything I say appears unreasonable, etc... I am always anxious to learn and grow in any direction that is valuable and reasonable. I try as far as possible to avoid "belief," "faith," and assumptions as a basis for exposing my thinking. I have found that those color any development. If one is focused on discovering the impersonal and universal "truth" about something, then one must make deep searching probes of the basis and the development of ones concepts. Help me in this. I apologize in advance if I tend to be verbose. May I put in some comments/queries below in the text of your kind letter ? It will help keep me in line and focused, as I tend to be diffuse. Also I think I have the bad habit of trying to give source references (familiar to me) and reasoning, logic, etc.. that I have thought out for myself, and this may be based on those assumptions or reasoning. Best wishes, Dallas ========================== -----Original Message----- From: dalval14@earthlink.net [mailto:dalval14@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 6:01 PM To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Theos-World RE Received Truth Tuesday, July 31, 2001 Dear Dr. Tillett: Thanks for the definition. This is only an acknowledgment. I want to look over the definition you have so kindly sent so that I might comment on it, if I can Best wishes, Dallas ======================= -----Original Message----- From: gregory@zeta.org.au [mailto:gregory@zeta.org.au] Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 12:57 PM To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Theos-World Received Truth In response to Dallas' positing: The concept of Received Truth is used by some scholars of religion (like me), plus some in the areas studying other ideological systems, to describe a system of belief which has been "given" (usually, but not always, on the basis of a claim of Divine Authority) by a teacher to disciples, and which the disciples are unable to question. ================================================ DTB Understood. Than "Received Truth" is a fact provable in Nature, or it is something that cannot be proved. I would say as a preliminary that if a "revelation" is made, it is either 1. true, or , 2. only some partial version of truth (possibly a opinion) , or, 3. it is a falsehood as a result of misunderstanding or deliberate obfuscation. In which case it misleads. But in this latter case, the fact that if it is deliberate, it implies that its obverse exists and can be found. To "reveal" implies that a "truth" is already in place and the "revealer" shows his followers what this is, even though he may not explain it. To "reveal" is not necessarily to "explain." If an "explanation" is offered then it is assumed that comparisons will be encouraged to independent thought, so that individuals can ascertain for themselves the veracity or accuracy of statements made. There will be a chain of logic, from a premise all can agree to, and, then, there are links, facts, pathways of communication and a coherence that serve to provide an entire system with plausibility. It is also assumed that there are uniform facts and laws that any one can discover and test for accuracy. Logic, independent observation and facts are then considered to be universals and present accurate conditions that all would be able to verify and compare among themselves. "Divine Authority" is in my esteem something that has to be compared with other such pronouncements -- for coherence, and reasonableness. A claim to this as basis ought to be made clear, and it ought to be based on facts that any one can discover, test and develop an understanding of. It seem s to exclude the comparative and critical capacity of individual members of the audience. I may be reading too much into your words, but these ideas seem to emerge as I consider them. I hope I am not diverging from your simple statement. Someone makes a statement and attributes this to an unquestionable "divine authority." May it also be assumed that inquiry and cross questioning is not very welcome? To which I would say: "If so, why so?" It there is a "teacher / disciple relationship the implication to me is that the disciple can be raised to the level of understanding and sight that the Prophet or the "Authority" says they have -- or as in the case of Muhammed, he exclaims and declares without explanation -- (as in certain Suras from the Koran) In the BHAGAVAD Gita the nature of teaching by Krishna to Arjuna, is by dialog and logic. Gautama the Buddha gave sermons and taught his companions in the Sangha, but he always placed his teachings in the forms of simple commons sense and logic, inviting all to reason them out for themselves. Similarly, Jesus in his mission and speeches made simple logical appeal to the ethical side of Judaism. He was a learned Rabbi and knew the Torah and the rest of the Jewish scriptures, but he essentially worked with the poor and the laboring class. Is it not curious that he declared he came to the "lost sheep of Israel," but, it is the "gentiles" who have made of his life and work a "religion." But, who, nowadays, actively practices the injunctions he gave, say, in the Sermon On The Mount ? ================================ Multiple examples are found in Christian history. For example, the claim of Papal Infallibility is a Received Truth which is not, within the Roman Catholic Church's theological system, a matter for open discussion, challenge, intellectual analysis or scholarly criticism - except by those who will find themselves penalized or excluded for doing so (for example, Hans Kung). ================================= DTB Understood and agreed. ================================= Received Truth is given for acceptance, not as the beginning of a discussion. It can be argued for (which is what True Believers do), but not intellectually considered with an open and critical mind (which is what scholars are supposed to do). Jehovah's Witnesses cannot (if they wish to remain as such) approach the prohibition on blood transfusions as a topic for debate (or even discussion). ================================= DTB In other words AUTHORITY speaks. Let there be silence thereafter. Questions discussion research, open and critical mental effort are unwelcome. ================================== Of course, Received Truth is found outside religion (as popularly defined). The "true Marxist" or the "true Freudian" (although I am not sure if either such still exist) cannot take their teachers doctrines as theories or claims for consideration; they are statements of fact, unchanging, unchangeable, recognized as such by the True Believer and "attacked" (a word used by True Believers to refer to any questioning of the Received Truth) by unbelievers or (worse!) Heretics. ============================= DTB Rigidity in such cases can lead to absurdities, when statements are placed in a more universal and logical context. We have to decide exactly what will fit such a context. There are many opinions about those criteria. But is it possible that there are some impersonal, universal, and true, honest and fair expressions on the basis of the things we deal with so casually in our lives and which we accept without much probing. How do we secure some grasp of "universals "metaphysics, " and "logic" pertaining thereto ? For instance, historically, the invasions by the Catholic forces of Spain and Portugal, (or the Muslim invasions of all their neighboring lands from Morocco and Spain to India, Indonesia, and Central Asia) and the subsequent enslavement of vast populations, on the thesis that it was God's will that they be forced into either Catholicism or Islam, leaves, to me, the implication that for millennia "God" was satisfied with things as they were. And it is the fanatics among men who justified horrors and atrocities. Farther, that there has to be somewhere a more reasonable, a more encouraging atmosphere than extermination, as an alternative to forced conversions. My conclusion is that all "belief systems" may have been, somewhere during the passage of years, distorted and made inhumane and repressively tyrannical. But this is not "god's" fiat, it is the decision of selfish and wealth (and power) hungry men. But this is of course not a study of "Received Truth" In fact I would say that the use of "Truth" may be quite incorrect, and provisionally one might say "the Authority of Might." Of course the "right" is banished and is given no place at all -- hence no questioning or investigation on a free basis. Heretics were "questioners" I seem to remember. They questioned "Authority." ======================================= Heresy is, essentially, a challenge to the Received Truth from within (and inevitably leads to the Heretics being forced out.... and often then establishing a new Received Truth position). Thus, the Adyar position has to be that Leadbeater's claims are true; they are Received Truth. ================================ DTB But those are not the original Theosophical teachings of H. P. Blavatsky. Of course you know that. I merely mention it because it gives a reason for the existence of the U.L.T. . U.L.T. is based on the concept that those original words and phrases may contain a value to which present and future students deserve access. [ Witness the great efforts currently being put forth to discover from fragments of old documents, a single basic text for the BIBLE. ] In the "original printing and words" of theosophical doctrine and exposition, it is thought that there is a continuing value. We seek it individually, and are careful not to impose our views on any one. We discuss meanings together. And often they form the base for articles that appear in THEOSOPHY magazine, (Los Angeles ) or the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT magazine (Bombay). And, we try to preserve this freedom of study, research and consultation (through the U.L.T. ) so as to avoid the confusion which developed (as an example) in the evolution of the numerous Christian sects, each of which chose some version of that Bible and declared it authentic and authoritative. As I observed, the main method used for straight-jacketing persons into a particular belief was aimed at the children. The children were taught not to reason, but to HAVE FAITH. -- what "faith" meant was never explained. And thus they were confined by this preliminary "boxing," into some division or other of Christianity (and other religions do a comparable job). ======================================== ULT approaches Robert Crosbies version of history in the same way. He CANNOT have been expelled from Pt Loma, therefore discussion of the topic can only occur in a defence (by them) or attack (by unbelivers of heretics) paradigm. Pt Loma (I presume) takes the reverse position. ========================================= DTB What you say sounds reasonable. Crosbie himself wrote his version and the Pt. Loma THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY has its own. About 1904 was the time when Mr. and Mrs. Crosbie left. I think it does no particular good to try and insist on one version or the other. No resolution can be achieved at this stage. What criteria can be relied on? I would say that the course of the two bodies, their philosophy of deportment, and their work with Theosophy ought to be the only basis we can presently use, to arrive at a probable approximation to the truth, since the versions of the Primaries are opposed. ================================= Almost inevitably, just what constitute any given tradition of Received Truth develops over time into competing rivalries about just the Received Truth is, or what are true (as opposed to false) interpretations of it. ================================== DTB Agreed. This relates to events and personalities and the present day proponents can say very little because of the time gap. ================================== Thus: Adyar, Pt Loma, ULT, et al as the "only true successors" to the H. P. Blavatsky tradition. =================================== DTB That is their responsibility. The faithfulness with which they discharge it will be noted by historians in our future. However this leaves the discovery and discussion about value lagging. Has this significance? If so, how is it to be considered and possibly identified? =================================== To suggest that Theosophy (assuming a single, monolithic version of it exists) as a description of "facts of nature" requires the assumption of a Received Truth position. =================================== DTB It has been an urge since I was a lad, to study and discover if Theosophy is TRUE. In my search I have discovered what appears to me to be a thread of logic that wends its way through all aspects of its doctrines and presentation of history and pre-history. For me there is coherency and logic there and I sense a purpose, an end to the evolutionary ladder that spells "perfection -- a perfection of knowledge, which being all-inclusive, gives an understanding of law. I must add farther to this and emphasize it, such knowledge is and cannot be applied selfishly for dominance and personal ease of enjoyment. It is a universal birthright ad hence ought to be shared with all -- even if that proves to be a forlorn hope. That would then address the qualities of generosity and of brotherhood. It is the apotheosis of the Family of Man and is probably always a matter of individual decision as well as attainment. I am left with the sense that there is possibly in it a valuable clue to our presence here, and to the Natural laws that underlie and support our living. I sense that this is important and ought to be investigated thoroughly. I can mentally appreciate the idea that "Space" is illimitable. But this does not tell me why it is there or where it comes from. And what will ultimately happen to it when the cycle of progressive evolution winds down. I can see in all departments of scientific investigation that the basic life blocks of Nature (call them the subatomic entities, the atoms, molecules, cells, crystals, unicellular beings and the vast aggregates of cells that constitute our complex bodies, and other living things) live under their own laws of inter-relatedness. But I continue: Why are they here? What is their purpose? What is this sense of "I-ness" and egoity that I have? Is Intelligence resident in nature's most minute entities? Does time and space combine to frame school-rooms for our experience? Is there some purpose to life other than amassing information about the minutiae of Nature, and the fact that laws have been laid down there by an Intelligence that evidently encompasses the world, the solar-system and our Universe? Is there a primal CAUSE ? Are we living in an intermediate state between ignorance and wisdom? Are we as humans, using our minds to discover these things? If there is no cause, then why this complexity and curious sense of purpose, -- and what, what is curiosity itself? Are we going anywhere? Does death of the body bring all this work of a life-time to a screeching and apparently purposeless halt? Is there possibly a perfection to be attained or aspired to? If this is not too far outside your chosen parameters would some discussion of this be valuable? All these questions arise because of my study of theosophy. ================================ Why not accept that (for example) Roman Catholicism, Marxism, Freudianism, Buddhism or Islam are simply a description of the "facts of nature"? ================================== DTB I would test them with relative comparables and work out the logic that they imply and which they have developed. In my study of ISIS UNVEILED and The SECRET DOCTRINE I find that H.P.Blavatsky has done a good part of this work, and opened the question to individual study, criticism. Farther, she has not tried to impose any fixed view, although she does provide some logical developments for consideration. She offers much, but expects no following and certainly no faith or blind belief. I find she starts with Nature as it is, and looks for causes. She asks for the potential and logical future, can we envisage any that is reasonable? Instead of belied and faith she offers hard study and independent thought as a process that permeates Nature and encourages man's independent development as a thinker. She never asks any one to "accept" her views, but she offers a great system in broad description and asks if we can find if it fits the facts and situations in which we are currently engaged. She encourages individual logic and repels any attempt at the adoption of short-cuts that would encourage "blind belief." =================================== Even the acceptance of HPB's teachings (again, assuming that a single consensus could be attained as to what those teachings were) is a received Truth position. How is it to be tested? Why is it assumed to be more accurate as a description than, say, the teachings of Swedenborg or Steiner? All disciples of Received Truth can provide arguments and evidence to support their claims, but all ultimately begin with a Faith Position. ==================================== DTB You are probably right about a "Faith Position" -- But I have not found it. Perhaps I am blind to my own shortcomings. I have tried to adopt a questioning attitude, while recognizing the influence of my environment and my heredity as well as other factors that I may not have been able to identify. Where is the stability so needed that we may clearly measure change and watch the effect of forces more accurately? Is there, for instance "mental force?" is there a power behind "emotions?" Are they the same or different. How does my "will" operate to raise my hand or type you these words and ideas ? I must admit that I enjoy the metaphysical logic and the development that is applied to our Universe, world and ourselves. I find freedom to think there and also having studied many faiths, I have found that those developed AFTER the original "Teacher" left the scene, and all that was left was the memory, more or less accurate, of the "teachings." There is where rigidity sprang up, and "Faiths" and "Beliefs" began. So far in the study of the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY I have failed to find such an imposition. Of course those who published revised and edited editions of H.P.Blavatsky's works did introduce the "faith" and "Authority" concept, or they would not have altered them -- without at least honestly telling students where and why they made those changes. The effect of the U.L.T. publishing textual reprints of the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS in the 1920/1930 nd using them for study and reference has forces all the various Theosophical Publishing Houses t reprint the ORIGINAL unedited books and articles. The material that has gone out of print relative to the writings of H.P.Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge has now been reproduced and made available for the modern student. Theosophy encourages investigation. Faith and authority and Blind Belief discourage it. H.P.Blavatsky did not commence a line of "successors" with apostolic powers, and a supposed authority t declare what truth was. She published books that displayed some of the inner workings and laws of the Universe, nature and man and invited examination and research. There is a vast defence in approach and attitude in this. Einstein and others have used The SECRET DOCTRINE for study and to examine the statements made there. So there has t be something useful. ====================================== I am not arguing with the value of holding to a Received Truth position (it undoubtedly makes life much simpler, and more easily understandable). But it needs to be recognized for what it is. ====================================== DT I am in full agreement with you on that. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The only objection that can be raised is that this kind of study and inquiry tends to be too close to the lunatic fringe of half baked "eastern mysticism," "yoga," "chakras," etc... But even these, to us odd things, do have some basis in fact I have discovered. But that does not make me a "believer," but only an "observer" who is as attentive as possible in that work. Yet I say, even those have to be considered if there is evidence that they give some facts concerning an area that we tend to shy away from. ======================================== I am sorry to have been somewhat wordy and (probably) incoherent! Thank you for your (as always) stimulating and provocative posting. It's good to be part of a discussion list that stimulates the mind! Dr Gregory Tillett ================================ Dear Gregory: It is I who tend to be wordy,. You are coherent and far more precise than I am. But we have only covered a fragment of what ought to be explored. That is if we are interested. The question of whether the doctrines of Theosophy have any substance is important. They will be always considered in the category of "Received Truths" so long as they are not looked into to see if there is anything valuable there. Failing that effort, the conclusions will be as you suggest. And, I am afraid not much will be gained. If you find typos in this excuse me. It is now 4.52a.m. and I must catch some sleep. Best wishes to you, Dallas. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From dalval14@earthlink.net Thu Aug 02 04:56:55 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: dalval14@earthlink.net X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 11:56:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 83146 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 11:56:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 11:56:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net) (207.217.121.12) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 11:56:41 -0000 Received: from earthlink (pool0032.cvx4-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.146.32]) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA00356; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 04:55:03 -0700 (PDT) To: "Theosophy Study List" Subject: RE: Theosophical Organizations -- ULT and its "Fiduciaries" Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 04:49:31 -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 V5.00.3018.1300 From: dalval14@earthlink.net Thursday, August 02, 2001 Dear Bart: You are wrong in assuming that the U.L.T. has property. It does not. It uses the property owned on its behalf by the THEOSOPHY COMPANY which is a fiduciary legally empowered to do just that. The fiduciary of any Lodge was required by the Govt. as otherwise the U.L.T. cannot legally handle funds, property and publications, etc... The U.L.T. pursues it objectives: They are only two: 1. Continuing to make available the ORIGINAL WRITINGS OF H.P.Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge. 2. Providing a forum for their study and discussion. All other matters are "side issues" and, if you read the DECLARATION carefully you will be able to decide if it does what it says it is constituted to do. Let me make it clear, as this is written as a result of my observation for many years and in many Lodges and Study Groups of the U.L.T.: The Fiduciary is not the Master of the ULT it is the SERVANT of that U.L.T. As the Fiduciary is usually made up of Trustees or directors (as required by Law -- the details are filed annually) who generally are the more experienced and older "associates" of that Lodge, they may some of them wear "two hats." Originally and subsequently they were chosen by consultation and conference with one another. The .fiduciary has all the trappings of a NOT FOR PROFIT organization (as required by law). The U.L.T. shuns "Constitution, By-Laws and Officers." (It is not required by law to have them.) So what could be clearer ? The U.L.T. per se, in its work, has no need for, nor is it attached to the facilities provided by a fiduciary that handles funds and property for it. A trust is a trust. Trustees are there to act trustworthy. What is bizarre about that? Dal ========================================= -----Original Message----- From: ramadoss@infohwy.com [mailto:ramadoss@infohwy.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 6:33 AM To: Theosophy Study List Subject: Re: Theosophical Organizations Bart wrote: ramadoss@infohwy.com wrote: > If any non-profit organization is formally organized, then usually it is > setup as a non profit corporation governed by the laws of the state in > which it is located. Such organizations are governed by a Board of > Directors (can be called by other names such as Trustees) (they can be > appointed or elected by any procedure set up by the organization) and > legally they have ultimate decision making powers on all matters concerning > the organization. The names of the Board of Directors are required to be > furnished annually to the State and is public information. and then... > On the other hand, if an organization is an association of people with a > common interest, then there is no requirement for any formal legal > organizational setup and it may be impossible to get any information about > it or from it. That is true. But if the organization owns property, particularly real property, then it MUST be set up as a NFP. Now, the ULT is apparently set up as two separate organizations; one an organization for Theosophical study, and the other a NFP designed to own and be responsible for any property owned. The NFP is supposed to go along with the wishes of the organization using the property. Now, let me give a f'rinstance. As I have mentioned, in New York City, the ULT has control over some prime real estate. A fundamentalist Christian group finds out about this, and the set-up of the ULT. So they send a couple of hundred of their members to join the ULT, and come up with a teaching they call Theosophy that the basis of Theosophy is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as one's personal savior (this HAS been done before; look up Messianic Judaism, where Christian fundamentalist groups did pretty much the same thing with some Jewish groups). Now, my question is: Is there any mechanism in place to keep that from happening? And, if such a mechanism is in place, then what keeps that mechanism from being used against a hostile takeover by groups who, for example, want to study Leadbeater, Besant, Bailey, Ballard, or Prophet? Bart Lidofsky MKR: Protecting against such an eventuality is very easy. I am sure there are many legal ways of doing it. (I am not a lawyer so I do not know all the techniques.) One way to do it is how the Board of Directors are selected or appointed. In a closed system, the existing Board appoints new or replacement Director. Several years ago, I had the opportunity of setting up such a setup for a local non profit organization and it has so far worked ok and also prevented from any outside interference in its matters. mkr --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: dalval14@earthlink.net List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-14759P@list.vnet.net From ramadoss@infohwy.com Thu Aug 02 05:36:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ramadoss@infohwy.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 12:36:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 72486 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 12:36:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 12:36:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO picard.bizchek.com) (208.210.50.206) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 12:36:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 7929 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 12:36:55 -0000 Received: from 1cust8.tnt48.hou3.da.uu.net (HELO infohwy.com) (63.42.146.8) by mail1.bizchek.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 12:36:55 -0000 Message-ID: <3B694911.6F8F2EE2@infohwy.com> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 07:35:29 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Theosophical Organizations -- ULT and its "Fiduciaries" References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: ramadoss@infohwy.com Dear Dallas: I think the setup of keeping ULT and Theosophy Company separate has a lot of merits. I have seen situations when there were instances where somewhat similar setup was considered by individuals who wanted to donate property and at the same time prevent some central authority trying to sell or dispose them off due to any kind of dispute and the money spent on projects that the original donors never had in mind. In some such situations, when the property holding entity's articles of incorporation are drawn up, it may not even have the word of theosophy explicitly mentioned for the fear of some theosophical organization trying to claim ownership because the charter has been cancelled or revoked for any reason. Theosophical organizations are not an exception to get involved in expensive litigation. mkr >Thursday, August 02, 2001 Dear Bart: You are wrong in assuming that the U.L.T. has property. It does not. It uses the property owned on its behalf by the THEOSOPHY COMPANY which is a fiduciary legally empowered to do just that. The fiduciary of any Lodge was required by the Govt. as otherwise the U.L.T. cannot legally handle funds, property and publications, etc... The U.L.T. pursues it objectives: They are only two: 1. Continuing to make available the ORIGINAL WRITINGS OF H.P.Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge. 2. Providing a forum for their study and discussion. All other matters are "side issues" and, if you read the DECLARATION carefully you will be able to decide if it does what it says it is constituted to do. Let me make it clear, as this is written as a result of my observation for many years and in many Lodges and Study Groups of the U.L.T.: The Fiduciary is not the Master of the ULT it is the SERVANT of that U.L.T. As the Fiduciary is usually made up of Trustees or directors (as required by Law -- the details are filed annually) who generally are the more experienced and older "associates" of that Lodge, they may some of them wear "two hats." Originally and subsequently they were chosen by consultation and conference with one another. The .fiduciary has all the trappings of a NOT FOR PROFIT organization (as required by law). The U.L.T. shuns "Constitution, By-Laws and Officers." (It is not required by law to have them.) So what could be clearer ? The U.L.T. per se, in its work, has no need for, nor is it attached to the facilities provided by a fiduciary that handles funds and property for it. A trust is a trust. Trustees are there to act trustworthy. What is bizarre about that? Dal From ramadoss@infohwy.com Thu Aug 02 09:16:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ramadoss@infohwy.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 16:16:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 35198 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 16:16:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 16:16:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO VOLTAIRE.stic.net) (204.57.118.5) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 16:16:12 -0000 Received: from infohwy.com ([216.198.60.178]) by VOLTAIRE.stic.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-70040U18500L11000S0V35) with ESMTP id net for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 11:16:11 -0500 Message-ID: <3B697EB8.F86D5DB@infohwy.com> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 11:24:24 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Theosophical Organizations -- ULT and its "Fiduciaries" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: ramadoss Dear Dallas: I think the setup of keeping ULT and Theosophy Company separate has a lot of merits. I have seen situations when there were instances where somewhat similar setup was considered by individuals who wanted to donate property and at the same time prevent some central authority trying to sell or dispose them off due to any kind of dispute and the money spent on projects that the original donors never had in mind. In some such situations, when the property holding entity's articles of incorporation are drawn up, it may not even have the word of theosophy explicitly mentioned for the fear of some theosophical organization trying to claim ownership because the charter has been cancelled or revoked for any reason. Theosophical organizations are not an exception to get involved in expensive litigation. mkr >Thursday, August 02, 2001 Dear Bart: You are wrong in assuming that the U.L.T. has property. It does not. It uses the property owned on its behalf by the THEOSOPHY COMPANY which is a fiduciary legally empowered to do just that. The fiduciary of any Lodge was required by the Govt. as otherwise the U.L.T. cannot legally handle funds, property and publications, etc... The U.L.T. pursues it objectives: They are only two: 1. Continuing to make available the ORIGINAL WRITINGS OF H.P.Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge. 2. Providing a forum for their study and discussion. All other matters are "side issues" and, if you read the DECLARATION carefully you will be able to decide if it does what it says it is constituted to do. Let me make it clear, as this is written as a result of my observation for many years and in many Lodges and Study Groups of the U.L.T.: The Fiduciary is not the Master of the ULT it is the SERVANT of that U.L.T. As the Fiduciary is usually made up of Trustees or directors (as required by Law -- the details are filed annually) who generally are the more experienced and older "associates" of that Lodge, they may some of them wear "two hats." Originally and subsequently they were chosen by consultation and conference with one another. The .fiduciary has all the trappings of a NOT FOR PROFIT organization (as required by law). The U.L.T. shuns "Constitution, By-Laws and Officers." (It is not required by law to have them.) So what could be clearer ? The U.L.T. per se, in its work, has no need for, nor is it attached to the facilities provided by a fiduciary that handles funds and property for it. A trust is a trust. Trustees are there to act trustworthy. What is bizarre about that? Dal From sherab@telocity.com Thu Aug 02 15:04:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: sherab@telocity.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 22:04:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 70389 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 22:04:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 22:04:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n18.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.1.37) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 22:04:02 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sherab@telocity.com Received: from [10.1.10.118] by mr.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Aug 2001 22:04:02 -0000 Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 22:04:00 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Passing On Theosophy - Eldon B. Tucker Message-ID: <9kciog+tb2b@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <00ec01c11ae7$5e831120$f0de603e@captaink> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 4241 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 63.201.89.141 From: sherab@telocity.com --- In theos-talk@y..., "Frank Reitemeyer" wrote: > Sherab, yes of course there is a lineage. ... Also > there is a Guruparampara, that is a serial line of > teachers, torchbearers, coming one after another, and > at special times together. The outer-world guruparampara, > the Hermetic chain, in the modern theosophical movement, > which was scheduled as the modern exoteric Mystery school > by its founders, was unbroken from 1875 to 1942. This > guruparampara is built by persons which by other means > are also called "messengers". This technical term means > that there comes one with a message of the lodge, which > he delivers (only) to those who are ready. Then by this I should understand that the last open messenger, but not a master, of the "modern theosophical movement" or "mystery school", was G. De Purucker? > The four messengers who built the holy chain in the outer > world were: 1. HPB 2. Judge 3. Katherine Tingley 4. Gottfried > de Purucker. It surprises me that there is no mention of any of the acknowledged Tibetan Masters that have found there way down out of the Himalaya in the last 50 years to teach that have passed on from foreign soils. Does the modern theosophical movement here not consider these fully realized and commonly acknowledged enlightened beings to be theosophists too? > There are many ways how messengers work. Not all messengers > are allowed to make public statements about their occult > status (so with Judge), only the closiest pupils are informed > (in the case of Judge he transformed at an ES Convention to > his real, asiatic body). I am not familiar with this incident. Could you give a little more detail as to explain? > Purucker as one of the highest Adepts which ever > entered the Western hemisphere was one of the > messengers who were able to speak openly about > their status. P. was a high Tibetan Adept. Do you mean that Purucker had attained the level of the "Path of Seeing", an arhat? > Please consider that this are the views of the Point Loma > school and that not all lineages in the broad theosophical > movement accept this. Thank you for acknowledging this. It is noted that the names of the teachers of the other branches of the modern theosophical movement were not mentioned but were taken into account. > A good source is f.e. the twelve vol. set "Esoteric > Teachings" by G. de Purucker, available from Point > Loma Publications Thanks again, I have read them all. So to summarize, there are members of the modern theosophical society and those who are not members that have come into contact with the published works of the 'messengers' who abide by the precepts of the teachings. These 'living links' embody the 'spirit' of theosophy and when by the merit of their own efforts have revealed to them more of the teachings as they are ready to receive. The message of the path of compassion appears in all the wisdom traditions of the world. If there is any one teaching in all of HPB works that I could point to, it is that of the fundamental proposition of what is "occult", and that is, that which is behind the word or the "dead letter" as Frank has put it. In other words the spirit and intent of the teaching that is to be understood. With that in mind, then why is there all this bickering, arguement, and discord in this forum? If anything I would expect that the dialogue here would be about what IS in accord between the various theosophical branch views. And if there are issues of discord then they should be agreeably enumumerated and there should be a full and open face debate in assembly with the expectation that the losing party adopt the view of the victor. Is this not the way a living tradition works? It seems to me that too many people come to theosophy and turn away because of this arrogance of View. Does not the Skandha of Formations, intellect, note that of the 26 unvirtuous mental occurences, View: View based on perishable aggregates, View of holding to extremes, Opposite view, Holding one's views as supreme, and Holding one's morality and discipline as supreme, are all considered to be un-wholesome? Please be kindly in heart with all. Sherab From dalval14@earthlink.net Thu Aug 02 15:20:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: dalval14@earthlink.net X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 22:19:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 11014 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 22:18:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 22:18:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO robin.mail.pas.earthlink.net) (207.217.120.65) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 22:18:04 -0000 Received: from earthlink (pool0267.cvx11-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.189.12]) by robin.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA04476 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:17:28 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: RE: Theos-World SIRCAM Virus Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:12:03 -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 V5.00.3018.1300 In-Reply-To: <38.19c7e5f5.289a6a20@aol.com> From: dalval14@earthlink.net Dear Myrra: As you can see nothing came over on your positing Dal -----Original Message----- From: toy77@aol.com [mailto:toy77@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:33 AM To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Theos-World SIRCAM Virus Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From eldon@theosophy.com Thu Aug 02 15:29:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: eldon@theosophy.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 2 Aug 2001 22:29:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 38628 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2001 22:28:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2001 22:28:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pippin.imagiware.com) (205.254.196.9) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 22:28:47 -0000 Received: from SCRIBE.theosophy.com (sc-24-160-56-170.socal.rr.com [24.160.56.170]) by pippin.imagiware.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA31638 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:34:50 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010802152523.00a16ec0@pop3.norton.antivirus> X-Sender: eldon/theosophy.com@pop3.norton.antivirus X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 15:28:42 -0700 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Theos-World SIRCAM Virus In-Reply-To: References: <38.19c7e5f5.289a6a20@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Eldon B Tucker Perhaps the email was being sent as an attachment? The theos-talk mailing list is configured to strip away any attachments. This is because viruses can be sent as emails, and Yahoo Groups does not scan email attachments to see if they contain viruses. If someone wants to make a file available to people, they can put it online and mention its url in a message posted to theos-talk. Or they can send it to me, and I'll virus scan it, put it in the theos-talk file archives, and send a message telling people how to access it. -- Eldon At 03:12 PM 8/2/01 -0700, you wrote: >Dear Myrra: > >As you can see nothing came over on your positing > >Dal > >-----Original Message----- >From: toy77@aol.com [mailto:toy77@aol.com] >Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:33 AM >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: Theos-World SIRCAM Virus > > > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From ramadoss@infohwy.com Thu Aug 02 21:07:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: ramadoss@infohwy.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 04:07:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 30064 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 04:07:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 04:07:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO picard.bizchek.com) (208.210.50.206) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 04:07:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 29692 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 04:07:57 -0000 Received: from 1cust1.tnt48.hou3.da.uu.net (HELO infohwy.com) (63.42.146.1) by mail1.bizchek.com with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 04:07:57 -0000 Message-ID: <3B6A2344.10F9D219@infohwy.com> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 23:06:29 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: theos-l@list.vnet.net, theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Some interesting issues Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: ramadoss@infohwy.com Some time ago, I was 'invited' to join a theosophical/spiritual maillist discussion group subscription to which is by invitation only. While I felt honored by the invitation, (I do not like being part of any exclusive club) I declined the invitation since I felt that generally theosophy and spiritual discussions should be done in open forums so that everyone can benefit. >From time to time one receives private e-mail relative to theosophical/spiritual matters marked confidential or private or secret or super secret or some such designation since the originator does not want or is afraid of unfavorable publicity. Sometime one cannot even verify if the originator is a real person or an assumed name trying to disguise the real identity. Again it has been my general personal belief and policy that all theosophical and spiritual matters should be discussed in the open as such I have told my correspondents that I reserve the right to disclose or quote the material in the e-mail since it would be of benefit to everyone in the maillists. And this policy has worked very well so far and has cut down private e-mail on theosophical or spiritual matters. Just thought I should share with everyone. mkr From nos@granite.net.au Thu Aug 02 21:54:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nos@granite.net.au X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 04:54:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 61710 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 04:54:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 04:54:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.granite.net.au) (203.132.126.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 04:54:10 -0000 Received: from nos (victor56k-35.granite.net.au [203.38.211.100]) by mail.granite.net.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA19172 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:28:35 +0930 To: Subject: RE: Theos-World Some interesting issues Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:27:39 +0930 Message-ID: <000001c11bd8$d33d9980$4101a8c0@nos> 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, Build 10.0.2605 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3B6A2344.10F9D219@infohwy.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "nos" MKR - I wholeheartedly agree - if there are issues that shouldn't be talked about in open it would only be things that would defame or slander a living individual etc ##-----Original Message----- ##From: ramadoss@infohwy.com [mailto:ramadoss@infohwy.com] ##Sent: Friday, 3 August 2001 1:36 PM ##To: theos-l@list.vnet.net; theos-talk@yahoogroups.com ##Subject: Theos-World Some interesting issues ## ## ##Some time ago, I was 'invited' to join a ##theosophical/spiritual maillist discussion group subscription ##to which is by invitation only. While I felt honored by the ##invitation, (I do not like being part of any exclusive club) ##I declined the invitation since I felt that generally ##theosophy and spiritual discussions should be done in open ##forums so that everyone can benefit. ## ##>From time to time one receives private e-mail relative to ##theosophical/spiritual matters marked confidential or private ##or secret or super secret or some such designation since the ##originator does not want or is afraid of unfavorable ##publicity. Sometime one cannot even verify if the originator ##is a real person or an assumed name trying to disguise the ##real identity. Again it has been my general personal belief ##and policy that all theosophical and spiritual matters should ##be discussed in the open as such I have told my ##correspondents that I reserve the right to disclose or quote ##the material in the e-mail since it would be of benefit to ##everyone in the maillists. And this policy has worked very ##well so far and has cut down private e-mail on theosophical ##or spiritual matters. ## ##Just thought I should share with everyone. ## ##mkr ## ## ## From blavatskyarchives@yahoo.com Fri Aug 03 09:55:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: blavatskyarchives@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 16:55:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 34840 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 16:55:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 16:55:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n29.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.2.184) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 16:55:05 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: blavatskyarchives@yahoo.com Received: from [10.1.10.65] by b05.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Aug 2001 16:55:05 -0000 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 16:55:04 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: What did Dallas Tenbroeck really mean by using the word "verbatim"? Message-ID: <9kel18+ld65@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 12882 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 169.197.11.180 From: "Blavatsky Archives" Subject: What did Dallas Tenbroeck really mean by using the word "verbatim"? Over the last several years on the Internet's public Theosophical forums, Dallas Tenbroeck has made numerous statements about "verbatim" or "accurate verbatim" reprints of H.P. Blavatsky's and W.Q. Judge's original writings. Here are just three examples from numerous statements made by Dallas on this subject: ------------------------------------------------- (1) "During the last years of his life, from 1912 to 1919 Crosbie edited the magazine THEOSOPHY. . . In those pages he reprinted most of the original articles and answers to questions which HPB and Judge has printed originally in THEOSOPHIST, LUCIFER, and PATH magazines. . . . Those articles have been made into books as accurate verbatim reprints of the originals, and are made available by ULT." ------------------------------------------------- (2) "Most of the articles of H.P.B. and Judge and other students had gone out of print. Verbatim reprints of these were then issued in the magazine THEOSOPHY." ------------------------------------------------- (3) ". . . THEOSOPHY CO. has done a verbatim reprint of the 1889 edition [of the Voice of the Silence]. There exists a facsimile edition - but I do not know who issued it . . . . -------------------------------------------------- At one point several years ago, I asked Dallas about his "preferences" and "recommendations" concerning originals, facsimiles of originals, verbatim reprints, edited reprints, etc. of Madame Blavatsky's writings. He wrote the following most important reply: ---------------------------------------------------- (4) "I prefer a facsimile edition - no question of authenticity. Comments and changes can be put in an ADDENDUM for students to consult. "Verbatim editions are acceptable, if truly and accurately VERBATIM - no changes or emendations or interpolations. Any such can be handled through an ADDENDUM." ---------------------------------------------------- Looking at the above statements (1), (2) and (3) from Dallas' pen, one might ponder on Dallas' definition of the word "verbatim". His statement (4) above gives his view on the meaning of "verbatim". A verbatim reprint would have NO changes NO emendations NO interpolations made to the original text. I give below from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (online), some definitions of these key words used by Dallas: verbatim --- in the exact words : word for word to emend --- to correct usually by textual alterations emendation --- an alteration designed to correct or improve interpolate --- to alter or corrupt (as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter >From these definitions, one can plainly see that a verbatim edition would be "in the exact words" of HPB as found in the her original editions. No textual alterations would be found in a verbatim edition. No corrections would be made. No insertion of new words or matter would be in a "truly and accurately" reprint of HPB's works. When Dallas first gave the above definition in statement (4) I immediately thought of the "verbatim editions" of ISIS UNVEILED, KEY TO THEOSOPHY and VOICE OF THE SILEENCE currently published by Theosophical University Press of Pasadena, California. This publisher has RE-typeset the texts from the original editions of these works. TUP's INTENT has been to produce exact "word for word " reproductions of HPB's texts. Therefore, no changes were intentionally introduced into the text. No "corrections" were made in spelling of words, punctuation or alleged errors. However, some unintentional changes may have been introduced in this laborious process of typesetting. The above definition of "verbatim" as found in Dallas' statement (4) and as also found in the dictionary definitions are repeatedly confirmed by Dallas in many of his other postings over many years. I give below a good sample of these additional statements by Dallas. His comments corroborate the above statements concerning the meaning of "verbatim". -------------------------------------------------------------------- (5) "In the final editing of the SD HPB (1888) was assisted by a number of persons and it is quite possible that some erros [errors] in proof reading, etc... have crept in. But that does not give anyone the right to change what she put her signature to. If such errors are detected, then out of respect for her and the two Masters who gave their certificate of co-authorship to that work, I would say that no one ought to 'edit' those, without due warning at every change to readers, by suitable foot-notes -- yet we find that by 1893 a 'third and Reveised Edition of the SD was issued with over 40,000 alterations, UNMARKED, as compared to the original 1888 edition." ---------------------------------------------- (6) ". . . when people insert their 'corrections' unmarked into the original text they are taking a liberty with that original. If they do find some valuable changes that ought to be considered, a list in an ADDENDUM would be a far more suitable way of recording those and offering them for the consideration of succeeding waves of students and seekers." --------------------------------------------- (7) "Publish the original as ORIGINAL. "Put in an Appendix and therein list those changes that study an scholarship reveal to be necessary (?) alterations. Give the reason why and the source to be checked by the student for accuracy." ----------------------------------------------- (8) "All changes or scholarly findings ought to find place in an ADDENDUM to the original text, so that all can be reviewed by the student. "No one likes to find that someone else has interposed their thinking (however learned) between himself and the original. That is the height of presumption, in my esteem." -------------------------------------------------- (9) Concerning "all reprints" of HPB's writings, Dallas wrote: ". . . . LEAVE THE ORIGINAL TEXT UNCHANGED, but place 'Bullets' or some other markers in the margins, and in an ADDENDUM, page by page, add their comments and proposed changes. That would be fair to future students, and also raise their personal integrity higher - but what has happened, although irreversible, need not be perpetuated hereafter." ------------------------------------------------ (10) "I am satisfied that there are changes [in later editions] and whether they are good or bad, whether they amplify or detract, is not the problem, PROVIDING THEY ARE IDENTIFIED, so that trusting student can know whether that was what HPB wrote OR NOT." ---------------------------------------------- (11) "If you wish I can give you as an example the little book that the Adyar Theosophical Publishing House issued under H.P.Blavatsky's name as PRACTICAL OCCULTISM It is one of the articles she wrote. If you have a copy then compare it with the same article you have reprinted by the U.L.T. in OCCULTISM OR RAJA-YOGA. The U.L.T. is verbatim from H.P.Blavatsky's original article -- remember proof reading it myself years ago. The ADYAR version has been heavily edited. . . . "In U.L.T. I don't have to worry -- the originals are available on a reliable basis . . . . Personally I would rather deal with H.P.Blavatsky's 'mistakes' than with those created by others who have had the temerity to believe they knew better than she did, and had the audacity to introduce changes which she did not authorize. . . ." ------------------------------------------------- In light of some of the above statements and the STANDARD Dallas has enunciated innumerable times, I asked Dallas several years ago if he would please tell his readers what editions of HPB's works he preferred and recommended. To my question, he listed his preferences and recommendations including the following words about HPB's VOICE OF THE SILENCE: ". . . THEOSOPHY CO. has done a verbatim reprint of the 1889 edition [of the Voice of the Silence]. There exists a facsimile edition - but I do not know who issued it . . . ." Dallas' preference and recommendation of the edition of the VOICE published by the Theosophy Company completely puzzled and baffled me. I knew from my own research that numerous changes and emendations had been introduced into this Theosophy Company ed. of HPB's classic when compared with the original 1889 ed. How could Dallas call this TC edition "a verbatim reprint of the 1889 edition." especially in light of his many statements quoted earlier in this posting? When I publicly pointed out these observations, Dallas wrote back at one point: "I looked up in Webster's dictionary the meaning of 'Verbatim.' It says : 'word for word, in the same words.' . . . "I have in the past checked the T. Co. edition with the original 1889 VOICE, of which I have a copy autographed by HPB, (that I purchased in 1964 from John Watkins in London) and found it to be indeed 'word by word, in the same words.' " I replied at some point that Dallas was certainly in error about this TC edition being verbatim ["word by word, in the same words"] with the original. But in two later emails, Dallas admitted that certain kinds of changes had indeed been made. ". . . it is quite clear to me that the T. Co. edition of the text of the VOICE has changes in format, punctuation, numbering, footnotes, and even in the spelling of some of the "foreign" words (as diacritical marks were not used). No argument there." This seemed quite puzzling to me in light of his previous use of the term "verbatim". I was even more "dumbfounded" that Dallas was still recommending to new students and inquirers this Theosophy Company edition in which not only the changes, emendations, corrections and interpolations were to be found but in addition nothing in this TC edition indicated that changes had actually been made. No publisher's or editor's Note telling the reader that corrections, etc. had been made to HPB's original text was to found anywhere in the Theosophy Company edition. In other words, all these changes were UNMARKED to use a word Dallas likes to use. Had not Dallas written before in clear and unmistakable terms on this very point of UMARKED editing as well as to even more important ethical issues? Here are just a few excerpts from Dallas' pen already quoted earlier in this email relevant to the ethical dimension: "If such errors are detected [in HPB's original SECRET DOCTRINE], then OUT OF RESPECT for her and the two Masters who gave their certificate of co-authorship to that work, I would say that no one ought to 'edit' those, without due warning at every change to readers, by suitable foot-notes." Caps added. ". . . when people insert their 'corrections' unmarked into the original text they are TAKING A LIBERTY with that original." Caps added. "No one likes to find that someone else has interposed their thinking (however learned) between himself and the original. That is the HEIGHT OF PRESUMPTION, in my esteem." Caps added. Had not Dallas written that all such changes should be clearly MARKED especially putting them in an appendix separate from HPB's original text "so that trusting student can know whether that was what HPB wrote OR NOT"? In light of all of the above, why would Dallas still prefer and recommend this Theosophy Company edition? His reply to this question of why he would still be preferring and recommending this TC edition is in part as follows: "Why should I not recommend the T. Co. edition? Did you find any changes in meaning ? The difference in the PREFACE as to the spelling of 'Bhagavad Gita / Bhagavadgita' seem to me to fall under this. In any case that is not the TEXT of the VOICE." As soon as I read this and similar statements I knew that Dallas, for reasons best known to him, was now quibbling with me about the definition of "verbatim"!! No longer was he defining "verbatim" as he had formerly done, now Dallas was changing the focus and suggesting that we should not be concerned with whether actual alterations had been done to the TEXT , but instead we should be concerned with whether or or not the alteration had actually changed the MEANING!! In part two, I will explore Dallas' "new stance" on what verbatim means. In closing this section, I now wonder what Dallas really meant when he wrote: "Those articles [by Blavatsky and Judge] have been made into books as accurate verbatim reprints of the originals, and are made available by ULT." Does he mean by "verbatim" in this statement that no alterations to the text of these articles will be found in these compilations or does he mean that changes and corrections may have been made but none of the changes alter the meaning of the