From leonmaurer@aol.com Fri Aug 01 02:12:52 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: LeonMaurer@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 70440 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2003 09:12:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2003 09:12:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.35) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 2003 09:12:52 -0000 Received: from LeonMaurer@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id r.112.26c5861a (30960) for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 05:12:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <112.26c5861a.2c5b890e@aol.com> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 05:12:46 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World re "free will" and "transcending karma,"Leon, and ... 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 45 From: leonmaurer@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=4099972 X-Yahoo-Profile: leonmaurer1 Mauri, Uh... Thanks for your explanation. I think I got what you were speculating about. Although, I'm not too sure -- since I have a hard time dealing with duality's such as esoteric-exoteric, light-dark, up-down, in-out, or words with different meanings linked with brackets, etc. Actually, I'm mostly a right brained thinker (although I use my left brain to write such thoughts down) and see most things in both linear and non linear terms of multidimensional or multilayered pictures or images (actually, from three [or more] opposing points of view rather than two as most people do). Obviously, the triangles being the first forms or things start with trinities, then transform to quaternaries, and finally add up as sevenfold -- rather than as duality's. For example, I can't think of up and down, or in and out, etc., without adding "in-between" or "in the middle"... Nor, can I see dark or light without imagining another state of vision which is neither dark nor light. Also, I see the universe as being both empty and full, as well as every degree of some-things in between -- all interconnected by rigorous laws of inertia or inaction, motion or action, and harmony or balance. In addition, I can't imagine esoteric or exoteric teachings or truths without considering unexplainable learning's or intuitive truths. So, you see, I have a hard time dealing with people who speculate between one thing and another, or see things as either black or white. In fact, I guess you could say that my seeming "multiplicity" comes from my using a sort of fuzzy logic in everything I think about or do. This sort of logical thinking depends on seeing things that are apparenty separate or opposite as inherently connected. Since, duality's cannot stand alone -- whenever discussions get down to considering or speculating about opposites, or take opposite sides on a particular question, I see the "in-betweens" (in all their different shadings) as the only true reality (that needs no speculation about to understand). For example. It's an absolute fact that the first "real" number, or geometric form, had to be 3 -- since, when the universe was 1 or 2, it could have no form. And, those two numbers (like zero and infinity) are not essentially real as things in themselves. That is, they do not exist until the 3 or triple form (either triangle or spherical) appears all at once. Thus, speculating (about theosophical ideas) in dualistic or monistic terms, has no real meaning for me -- since the fundamental monad or first "being" had to be triune in nature... As would every being or form subsequently. And, every theosophical truth can be tested against, and must be consistent with the three fundamental principles. Thus, in my language, there are no ifs, ands or buts (with or without quotes :-)... But, there are, either, or, and another. (Although, neither are speculative -- since they either are, or they are not -- or they are neither.) I hope this clears everything up for you. Non speculatively (for the moment), either Leon, Lenny, or Len (or ) (Depending on our level of association, friendship or familiarity :) In a message dated 07/31/03 8:51:57 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes: >Leon wrote: <names, I feel I should try to respond. But, even if I understood >what your questions or speculations referred to, I couldn't >comment on them coherently since I am not familiar with the >new language you are using to state them. Please explain your >last sentence in plain English, and quote the letter you are >responding to (no need to attribute the author). >> > >Okay. My last sentence was: > > <"Alternately," from a "Higher" perspective) be seen as somewhat >equally mayavic, (ie, as essentially mayavic as the >dualistic/multiplistic "free will" of "ordinary reality"), along with >a conditioned or worldview-related "contrast" >("interpretive"/karmic variant) that might be theoretically known >as "unfree will" (?)... so that a "r/Realer " question about "higher >free will" (if such a question might evolve from whatever >essentially speculative/"intuitive," modelistic, or Theosophic >sources?) might concern the transcendence of such essentially >dualistic/karmic dream-reality, (if "dualistic" with >interpretive/multiplistic variables, as per Leon), as by was of, eg, >whatever apparent bridging effects, models, interpretive/karmic >tendencies such as Theosophy ... ?>> > >In other words, (and this issue, that might be seen as sort of >"esoteric/exoteric," seems to come up often enough on these >lists?), while "essentially dualistic/multiplistic reality" (where the > >quotes refer to the essentially interpretive, or karmic/mayavic >nature of that kind of "reality," if in whatever "established" >format; and where the quotes on "essentially" are meant to alert >the reader to the "interpretive nature" of such "reality," in the >sense that "essentially interpretive" is meant as >"karmic/mayavic") ... so: from the beginning: In other words, >while "esentially dualistic reality" would appear to support and >supply much material for the primary means by which humans, >in general, cope on this plane, wouldn't it be in the interests of >those who would transcend karma, or those who would even >think about transcending karma, to at least "allow for," say, (in >whatever inerpretive/individualistic manner that might seem >relevant), alternate, or "Alternate," thoughts and worldviews: (in >the sense that) such as might be seen to be offered when literal >(or dualistic/multiplistic, exoteric, karmic/mayavic, mainstream) >interpretations (of Theosophy, say) are considered "primarily" >(say?) as clues (in need of reading between the lines) about what >is really (or "Really") going on ... ? > >For example, "free will" might be seen (possibly?) from a >fundamentally different pespective if one were to realize >something about the mayavic nature of a "free" that can only >exist ("essentially," "in exoterics") in contrast to its opposite ... >so, >(when writing that reply to a post that appeared July 29 on BN >Study, for example), I was hoping to convey something, >somehow, about transcending such a >dualistic/multiplistic/mayavic reality---not that exoterics, in any >shape or form, can directly enough even as much as point to the >kind of experiential/Occult "esoterics" that would appear to be >"hinted at" by that kind "transcending" (so, in other words, I >suspect that I might be kind of between a rock and hard place >when even as much as trying to "hint at" such transcending ... ^:-/ >... ) > > <> > >I wrote: << (if "dualistic" with interpretive/multiplistic variables, > >as per Leon) >> That was in reference to what seem to me to be >your "interpretive variables" (apparent thought patterns, ABC's, >etc) about "the nature of reality/truth." Somewhere along the >line I seem to have picked up the impression that you might tend >to see your "interpetive variables" as being "multiplistic" rather >than (as per my "apparent interpretive tendency," or choice of >words) "essentially dualistic," within certain kinds of "relevant >contexts" such as might be evoked by such as "transcending >karma." To me, that apparent preference on your part, Leon, >(which "apparent" is, of course, so much speculation on my part, >after all!), seems, in a sense, interesting: I keep wondering if >your involvements (thought patterns, ABC's) with "apparent >multiplicity" (in a sense!) might have in some way "complicated" >your approach to life, in general, to the extent that you might >have trouble, in a sense, stopping or slowing down your "sense of >priorities," so that you might often tend to find yourself (maybe?) >having a somewhat "more primary preference," (as in "the study >of Theosophy") for various "apparent multiplistics," or "scientific >multiplistic," in favor of what might be seen (?) as somewhat >"more reduced" and basic (or "b/Basic") apparent dualistics;" >not that the multiplistics of "scientific approaches" (with or >without quotes) don't have current-worldview relevance, but ... I >keep wondering if your basic (apparent to me) interpretive >preference might tend to manifest in terms of (an assigning of), 1, >a "basic duality" (in a sense?) to "apparent multiplicity," (in >senses that might be seen as "relevant enough"?), or, 2, do you >have a "basic tendency" to get so involved in the apparent >(interpetive/karmic) multiplicity of life, in general, that the >"duality" of "ordinary reality" (ie, in interpretive/basic, >life-evaluative terms) might be put on some kind of back burner, >maybe, (if not substantially overlooked, maybe?), possibly in the >form of an apparent (ie, interpretive/karmic) multiplicity (ie, not >that a preference for "dualistic essentials" in "basic >life-evaluative or theoretical terms" isn't interpretive/karmic, >"anyway," but/"but"...). > ><context) references for all words placed in quotes or separated by >slashes. Thanks. Leon>> > >Among other things, I often tend to use quotes on these lists to >alert the reader that the standard definition (of "interpretive", >"essentially," etc) is offered, (if somewhat speculatively, by me), >with an intended/interpretive or alternate "contextual variant" >that, in my intended to-be-read-between-the-lines context >(whether or not I manage to convey my "intended meaning," just >then), the standard meaning is "contextually offered" from a >supplemental, or "possibly alternate," (if speculative), >perspective. But I often skip the quotes, anyway, leaving the >reader to see, or not see, that I used invisible quotes, thinking >that the reader might, or might not, read between the lines (ie, not >that quotes are all that crucial or necessary, after all, in a sense, >but ... or "but" ...). > >Speculatively, >Mauri From mhart@idirect.ca Fri Aug 01 06:28:11 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhart@idirect.ca X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 73750 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2003 13:28:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2003 13:28:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO twiddle.look.ca) (207.136.80.125) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 2003 13:28:09 -0000 Received: from on-osh-ap3-05-36.look.ca ([216.154.45.227] helo=idirect.ca) by twiddle.look.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19iZx1-00058A-Hw; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 13:28:07 +0000 Message-ID: <3F2A6E0F.FA40CC4D@idirect.ca> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 09:41:35 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "theos-talk@yahoogroups.com" , Theosophy Study List X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mhart@idirect.ca Subject: Leon and ... whatever ... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.1 required=6.5 tests=USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_XM,X_ACCEPT_LANG version=2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) X-SA-Exim-Version: 3.0 (built Thu Jun 5 09:58:17 GMT 2003) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes From: Mauri X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=60894584 X-Yahoo-Profile: sunzenn Leon wrote: <> What I was trying to find words for in that last post of mine had to do with (as far as I can figure) not so much a matter of black and white or grayscales, per se, as much as whatever might be one's ... (how can I describe it ... ^:-/...) like a fundamental or primary life interest (or how about "heart felt," or "heart-related," or "heartific," basic motivational thing, or heart-root/basic nature (as might be exhibited, in various ways, even during one's much younger days), say ... nice Theosophical word that "heartific," eh, tee hee he?) in relation to such as transcending karma or Theosophics, so that, along those kinds of criteria, the impression (rightly or wrongly), that you seem to have created in my mind (apparently, as per your ABC's, scientifics and such ...) is that there would appear to be much emphasis on your part on ... or, to put it another way: it's as if (as per the impression that I seem to have developed) you seem to be fascinated by the multiplicity, variety, complexity of your apparent (interpretive/karmic) environment to the extent that your intellectuall involvements seem to be largely rooted in that kind of multiplicity instead of, as a result of a kind of going back to basics (a "basics" in keeping with those who would kind of "heartifically" transcend karma, to my way of thinking, speculating) ... so instead of, in a sense, winding down (as might be expected of those who might have some kind of "realistic interest" in such as transcending karma?), you seem to be winding up, instead, as per the impession you seem to be creating, Leon, with (what might be called?) your scientizing and intellectualizing (which, after all, are just so many karmic/mayavic residues in need of venting in order to ferret out the "basics" beyond such phenomenal, karmic, mayavic appearances---or do you see it that way?), so ... ^:-) ... Hmm ... Speculatively, Mauri PS Yesterday went to a talk given by Radha Bernier. I very much enjoyed her talk. Found out that her father's father was involved in Theosophy in India during HPB's time. The topic of the talk was "Spiritual Regeneration." That is, apparently the materialistic, selfish ways of mankind are in need of fixing, which made much sense to me. At the end of the talk we in the audience got to ask questions. My question was "how would you define free will in relation to the Esoteric Tradition?" Apparently, as per my interpetation, she responded to the effect that "free will" has to do with some form of deep reflection and spiritual regeneration (if I have it right). My recall of her answer, in more specific terms, seems vague, though. PPS Afterward, talking to somebody about that talk, I said if I were to give some kind of Theosophical talk, people would probably all fall asleep in about five minutes, if not leave, or die laughing, or whatever. PPPS In other words, it's not that I don't sympathize with you, Leon, but/"but"... ^:-) ... From stevestubbs@yahoo.com Fri Aug 01 09:33:28 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: stevestubbs@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 14255 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2003 16:33:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2003 16:33:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n37.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.105) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 2003 16:33:23 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.165] by n37.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Aug 2003 16:33:22 -0000 Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:33:21 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Theos-World: Masters & Karma Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 545 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "stevestubbs" X-Originating-IP: 67.30.13.98 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=7712190 X-Yahoo-Profile: stevestubbs --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Katinka Hesselink" wrote: > Which would explain the facts you also talk about which counteract > your theory. This stuff is hardly conclusive yet. Well, it is not my theory. I read a synopsis somewhere years ago of some research done by someone else. Something that keeps nagging at the back of my mind is how she determined that the Countess of Lovelace was left handed. If the veracity of that claim turned out to be questionable, that would raise doubts about the rest of her data. From Nisk98114@aol.com Fri Aug 01 10:23:42 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nisk98114@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 29519 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2003 17:23:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m16.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2003 17:23:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 2003 17:23:41 -0000 Received: from Nisk98114@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id r.a8.2086acde (3948) for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:23:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 13:23:27 EDT Subject: Re: re "free will" and "transcending karma,"Leon, and ... To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10641 From: Nisk98114@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=84166184 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I actually read(as in red) all that you wrote.Let's have some more of that Mauri. LOL :O) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mauri, Uh... Thanks for your explanation. I think I got what you were speculating about. Although, I'm not too sure -- since I have a hard time dealing with duality's such as esoteric-exoteric, light-dark, up-down, in-out, or words with different meanings linked with brackets, etc. Actually, I'm mostly a right brained thinker (although I use my left brain to write such thoughts down) and see most things in both linear and non linear terms of multidimensional or multilayered pictures or images (actually, from three [or more] opposing points of view rather than two as most people do). Obviously, the triangles being the first forms or things start with trinities, then transform to quaternaries, and finally add up as sevenfold -- rather than as duality's. For example, I can't think of up and down, or in and out, etc., without adding "in-between" or "in the middle"... Nor, can I see dark or light without imagining another state of vision which is neither dark nor light. Also, I see the universe as being both empty and full, as well as every degree of some-things in between -- all interconnected by rigorous laws of inertia or inaction, motion or action, and harmony or balance. In addition, I can't imagine esoteric or exoteric teachings or truths without considering unexplainable learning's or intuitive truths. So, you see, I have a hard time dealing with people who speculate between one thing and another, or see things as either black or white. In fact, I guess you could say that my seeming "multiplicity" comes from my using a sort of fuzzy logic in everything I think about or do. This sort of logical thinking depends on seeing things that are apparenty separate or opposite as inherently connected. Since, duality's cannot stand alone -- whenever discussions get down to considering or speculating about opposites, or take opposite sides on a particular question, I see the "in-betweens" (in all their different shadings) as the only true reality (that needs no speculation about to understand). For example. It's an absolute fact that the first "real" number, or geometric form, had to be 3 -- since, when the universe was 1 or 2, it could have no form. And, those two numbers (like zero and infinity) are not essentially real as things in themselves. That is, they do not exist until the 3 or triple form (either triangle or spherical) appears all at once. Thus, speculating (about theosophical ideas) in dualistic or monistic terms, has no real meaning for me -- since the fundamental monad or first "being" had to be triune in nature... As would every being or form subsequently. And, every theosophical truth can be tested against, and must be consistent with the three fundamental principles. Thus, in my language, there are no ifs, ands or buts (with or without quotes :-)... But, there are, either, or, and another. (Although, neither are speculative -- since they either are, or they are not -- or they are neither.) I hope this clears everything up for you. Non speculatively (for the moment), [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dalval14@earthlink.net Fri Aug 01 16:30:58 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: dalval14@earthlink.net X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 57621 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2003 23:30:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Aug 2003 23:30:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net) (207.217.120.122) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Aug 2003 23:30:58 -0000 Received: from pool0400.cvx36-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.19.145] helo=earthlink) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19ijMI-0005O7-00; Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:30:51 -0700 To: "AA-BN--Study" Subject: RE: Question on 3 gunas Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:32:06 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <7a.452c3934.2c5bfe35@aol.com> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal From: Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=52898573 X-Yahoo-Profile: dalval2 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Friday, August 01, 2003 =20 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Re=C2=A0= 3 GUNAS; 1. SPIRIT=C2=A0 -=C2=A0 2. MATTER=C2=A0 --=C2=A0 3. MIND/DESIRE = =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0or =20 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 1.=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 PERFECT UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 2.=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 PURIFIED SUBSTANCE/MATTER =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 3.=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 FREEDOM OF CHOICE =3D ACTION & P= ROGRESS =20 Dear Friends: =20 This is a philosophical concept underlying the reality of manifestation and= all evolving Spiritual Beings. =20 Briefly: the choices we made in past lives, and in the past of this life, = =C2=A0have produced our present circumstances.=C2=A0 Our present choices, w= hen combined with those will produce our future.=C2=A0 This causes the diff= erences as individuals and as persons that identify us all. =20 The basic concept is the universal urge to perfection.=C2=A0 The Immortalit= y of the entity.=C2=A0 The cooperative brotherhood of the entire Universe.= =C2=A0 Are the root concepts to be ever kept in mind. =20 Considering the BHAGAVAD GITA : =20 Krishna is a spiritual teacher. He has been through the =E2=80=9Cman-stage.= =E2=80=9D=C2=A0 He is an AVATAR or a high spiritual Being who periodically = returns to strike a =E2=80=9Ckey-note=E2=80=9D for the benefit of all human= progress. =20 Arjuna is an aspiring Mind -- a personal =E2=80=9CLower Mind=E2=80=9D (kama= -manas) in its higher aspect, such as we all are.=C2=A0 He is in the Mind-s= tage where he desires to understand, and then use =E2=80=9CSpiritual Knowle= dge, and make Karma now, that will help (not obstruct); him in the future. =20 The Kurus, headed by the evil cousin Duryodhana, and thee 100 sons of Dhrit= arashtra (the Blind king) =C2=A0represent our =E2=80=9Cskandhas=E2=80=9D (o= r those Monads of lesser experience, coming to us from past choices).=C2=A0= They now seek to obstruct -- like an army -- and obscure truth by directin= g us to short-termed =E2=80=9Cpleasure.=E2=80=9D The wisdom-aspiring pupil = learns about them and how to subdue them in himself.=20 =20 Psychologically expressed:=20 =20 All beings are immortal spiritual entities.=C2=A0 Monads.=20 =20 There are many levels and kinds of descriptions given of the Monads (which = is faulty, says The SECRET DOCTRINE, because the Monad as such, has no qual= ities other than SPIRITUAL EXCELLENCE (S D=C2=A0 I=C2=A0 174-5fn,=C2=A0 II = 185-6). =C2=A0 =20 However for brevity and ease they are spoken of as uncountable UNITS (S D= =C2=A0 I=C2=A0 289), all in contact on various planes with each other, and = they form the UNIVERSE IN MANIFESTATION and EVOLUTION.=C2=A0 Two broad divi= sions are given:=C2=A0 1. Monads as SPIRITUAL ENTITIES. And, 2. Monads as C= enters of collective but Individualized evolutionary efforts, characterised= as stages of consciousness under the incremental stages of: mineral, veget= able, animal, human and perfected human.=C2=A0=20 =20 Each is at its stage and state of advance towards perfect WISDOM.=C2=A0 The= y are attracted to us by affinity (Karma) and because we used them as our t= ools in the past. (S D=C2=A0 I 611-12, 614-5, 619, 623, 627, 631-2) =20 This is a vast subject and requires much mediation upon it. =20 Best wishes, =20 Dallas =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 =20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: =C2=A0N Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 10:33 AM To: Blavatsky-Study Subject: Re: Question on 3 gunas =20 Dear Dallas, All In one of the posts Dallas mentioned as: =E2=80=9CIn the BHAGAVAD GITA Krishna speaks in several places of the "guna= s" [-- the 3 great qualities of nature -- our Universe and ourselves --] They are 1. SATTVA ( Spirit), 2. TAMAS (Matter), and, 3. RAJAS (Activity, characterized by desire and will, the latter being the potency of Law universal. Any two "Gunas" in combination, is balanced by the contrast of the third. Krishna says they are Purity and Universality (SATTVA), Forms and Selfish limitations (TAMAS) and Mind, disc= rimination and ignorance (RAJAS). As an example, in our own psychological n= ature we can see ( because of the impartiality of the universal Spiritual C= onsciousness), that "Mind" is dual, depending on which of the counterbalancing two (SATTVA and TAMAS) it is confronted by.[C= hapters XIV and XVII]=E2=80=9D The combination of these gunas differ from person to person, subject to su= bject, place to place. Is it? =C2=A0 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leonmaurer@aol.com Sat Aug 02 01:54:52 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: LeonMaurer@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 13654 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2003 08:54:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2003 08:54:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 2003 08:54:51 -0000 Received: from LeonMaurer@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id r.1f0.e4e5da4 (3972) for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 04:54:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1f0.e4e5da4.2c5cd658@aol.com> Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 04:54:48 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Leon and ... whatever ... 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 45 From: leonmaurer@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=4099972 X-Yahoo-Profile: leonmaurer1 Yep Mauri. I think we are seeing things the same way, more or less, -- but. we don't seem to talk about it the same way. :-) Actually, there is both a heart doctrine and a head doctrine. While they must go together to make us knowledgeable, wise and effective theosophists, we certainly can talk about them separately, as the occasion calls for... Much like the scientific metaphysics in the SD is talked about separately from the yoga or spiritual practices in the Voice of the Silence. And, even in the SD, there is a separation, sometimes, from the pure science or metaphysics of Cosmogenesis and the thoughtless or willful, heartfelt or intellectual actions of the hierarchy of Dhyan Chohans, etc. Be assured that when I "intellectualize" or "scientize" (as you call it), or logically present the scientific basis of universal involution and evolution (that is consistent with what we can learn about the cutting edges of contemporary science) or talk about consciousness, compassion, and responsibility, as the circumstances may be -- I always consider them in context with each other and test their consistency with each other. As it is, I find that there is a serious lack of understanding, among most students of theosophy, about the aims and purposes of the "Theosophical Movement," the "Three Fundamental Principles," and particularly, the second principle that considers basic scientific and metaphysical laws that empower and link the first and last principle, explains the logical mechanisms of karma and reincarnation -- as well as justifies the cyclic Movement itself. So, when I talk about such laws and their causes and effects, I tend to concentrate on making them understood from both an intellectual as well as an intuitive point of view -- without bringing in the more or less goody goody emotional romanticism that the Heart Doctrine generates in some people. On the other hand, when I talk about the Heart Doctrine, I like to be sure that the fundamental metaphysics that underlies and governs it, is also understood. That's why theosophy is so difficult to teach orally or in writing, but easy to learn solely through serious self devised and self determined intellectual and intuitive study of the Metaphysics of the Secret Doctrine (plus consistent interpretations such as ABC, esoteric writings of HPB, WQJ, all the great Sages, etc.) along with the full time practice of the theosophical Yoga of compassion and altruism as taught in the Voice of the Silence (with the help of Patanjali's Yoga sutras, Tao Te Ching, I-Ching, Bhagavad Gita, etc.). Along with all this, one must ask serious questions and not be satisfied with the answers until every angle is covered, and then personally confirmed. It's also good to remember that when one explains theosophy, one must never talk down to the inquirer, but remain on the same high, impersonal intellectual level of HPB and the Masters (especially when you have to publicly counter some wrong interpretations of exoteric Buddhists who think they know theosophy in its deepest aspects :-). In this light, other than the answering of specific questions of serious students on whatever level they ask them, or correcting errors of interpretation, or countering or correcting false or incomplete teachings, all the gratuitous preaching of theosophy or offering specific personalized yoga practices on forums such as this is like blowing in the wind... Although I really think that Dallas' compilations of quotes, along with his comments, under specific subject areas of the original teachings, is a great service to us all. All the rest, is mostly babble that goes in one ear and out the other... (Except, maybe, for you, me and a few others who like to dig deeper -- without tearing anybody down personally -- than most people can stomach. :-) Best regards, Lenny P.S. Speculatively, it appears to me that the difference between us, apparently, is that you like to speculate in your writing about things you are not too sure you know in their entirety, and I can only write about things that I already know or ask direct questions about what I don't know. Of course, if I can't prove for myself that the answer is absolutely true, it remains in the area of speculation -- until I do... Then, I can write about it with a clear conscience. (Even though it may be paradoxical, there is such a thing as "absolute truth" -- although one can hardly speak about it -- but only infer it.) The idea is to test the knowledge by seeing if I can describe it in such a clear manner that no one can refute it through science, mathematics, or logic. (Although, some have tried, and usually end up calling me names -- or scratching their head. :-) Another thing I like to do (actually in a spirit of fun, sometimes) is exposing the wrong views of people who think they have all the answers. In that sense, I am "dangerous" as someone recently pointed out. But, that is only to those who try to pull the wool over other's eyes, use gossip, false accusations, and personal innuendoes to make their points, or unjustifiably attack, disparage, or discredit my friends, associates, or teachers. (Note the trinities, which confirms what I said in my last letter about duality's being incomplete considerations. ;) <'/:o)> In a message dated 08/01/03 9:29:46 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes: >Leon wrote: <people who speculate between one thing and another, or see >things as either black or white. >> > >What I was trying to find words for in that last post of mine had >to do with (as far as I can figure) not so much a matter of black >and white or grayscales, per se, as much as whatever might be >one's ... (how can I describe it ... ^:-/...) like a fundamental or >primary life interest (or how about "heart felt," or "heart-related," >or "heartific," basic motivational thing, or heart-root/basic nature >(as might be exhibited, in various ways, even during one's much >younger days), say ... nice Theosophical word that "heartific," eh, >tee hee he?) in relation to such as transcending karma or >Theosophics, so that, along those kinds of criteria, the impression >(rightly or wrongly), that you seem to have created in my mind >(apparently, as per your ABC's, scientifics and such ...) is that >there would appear to be much emphasis on your part on ... or, to >put it another way: it's as if (as per the impression that I seem to >have developed) you seem to be fascinated by the multiplicity, >variety, complexity of your apparent (interpretive/karmic) >environment to the extent that your intellectuall involvements >seem to be largely rooted in that kind of multiplicity instead of, >as a result of a kind of going back to basics (a "basics" in keeping >with those who would kind of "heartifically" transcend karma, to >my way of thinking, speculating) ... so instead of, in a sense, >winding down (as might be expected of those who might have >some kind of "realistic interest" in such as transcending karma?), >you seem to be winding up, instead, as per the impession you >seem to be creating, Leon, with (what might be called?) your >scientizing and intellectualizing (which, after all, are just so >many karmic/mayavic residues in need of venting in order to >ferret out the "basics" beyond such phenomenal, karmic, mayavic >appearances---or do you see it that way?), so ... ^:-) ... Hmm ... > >Speculatively, >Mauri > >PS Yesterday went to a talk given by Radha Bernier. I very >much enjoyed her talk. Found out that her father's father was >involved in Theosophy in India during HPB's time. The topic of >the talk was "Spiritual Regeneration." That is, apparently the >materialistic, selfish ways of mankind are in need of fixing, which >made much sense to me. At the end of the talk we in the >audience got to ask questions. My question was "how would >you define free will in relation to the Esoteric Tradition?" >Apparently, as per my interpetation, she responded to the effect >that "free will" has to do with some form of deep reflection and >spiritual regeneration (if I have it right). My recall of her answer, > >in more specific terms, seems vague, though. > >PPS Afterward, talking to somebody about that talk, I said if I were >to >give some kind of Theosophical talk, people would probably all >fall asleep in about five minutes, if not leave, or die laughing, >or whatever. > >PPPS In other words, it's not that I don't sympathize with you, Leon, > >but/"but"... ^:-) ... > From leonmaurer@aol.com Sat Aug 02 02:20:42 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: LeonMaurer@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 70495 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2003 09:20:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m16.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2003 09:20:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 2003 09:20:41 -0000 Received: from LeonMaurer@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id r.78.44d31c1d (3972) for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 05:20:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <78.44d31c1d.2c5cdc60@aol.com> Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 05:20:32 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: re "free will" and "transcending karma,"Leon, and ... 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 45 From: leonmaurer@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=4099972 X-Yahoo-Profile: leonmaurer1 I wonder what makes you think Mauri wrote that? Funny how things get scrambled up when they are taken out of context. Maybe you should re read (as in reed) the entire correspondence, including the quotes. Thanks for the kudos, anyway. ;o) In a message dated 08/01/03 1:24:52 PM, Nisk98114@aol.com writes: >I actually read(as in red) all that you wrote.Let's have some more of that > >Mauri. LOL :O) >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Mauri, >Uh... Thanks for your explanation. I think I got what you were speculating > >about. Although, I'm not too sure -- since I have a hard time dealing with > >duality's such as esoteric-exoteric, light-dark, up-down, in-out, or words > >with >different meanings linked with brackets, etc. > >Actually, I'm mostly a right brained thinker (although I use my left brain >to > >write such thoughts down) and see most things in both linear and non linear > >terms of multidimensional or multilayered pictures or images (actually, >from >three [or more] opposing points of view rather than two as most people >do). >Obviously, the triangles being the first forms or things start with >trinities, >then transform to quaternaries, and finally add up as sevenfold -- rather > >than >as duality's. For example, I can't think of up and down, or in and out, > >etc., >without adding "in-between" or "in the middle"... Nor, can I see dark or > >light >without imagining another state of vision which is neither dark nor light. > >Also, I see the universe as being both empty and full, as well as every > >degree >of some-things in between -- all interconnected by rigorous laws of inertia > >or >inaction, motion or action, and harmony or balance. In addition, I can't > >imagine esoteric or exoteric teachings or truths without considering >unexplainable learning's or intuitive truths. > >So, you see, I have a hard time dealing with people who speculate between >one > >thing and another, or see things as either black or white. In fact, I guess > >you could say that my seeming "multiplicity" comes from my using a sort >of >fuzzy logic in everything I think about or do. This sort of logical thinking > > >depends on seeing things that are apparenty separate or opposite as >inherently >connected. Since, duality's cannot stand alone -- whenever discussions >get >down >to considering or speculating about opposites, or take opposite sides on >a >particular question, I see the "in-betweens" (in all their different >shadings) as >the only true reality (that needs no speculation about to understand). > For >example. It's an absolute fact that the first "real" number, or geometric > >form, >had to be 3 -- since, when the universe was 1 or 2, it could have no form. > >And, those two numbers (like zero and infinity) are not essentially real >as >things in themselves. That is, they do not exist until the 3 or triple >form >(either triangle or spherical) appears all at once. > >Thus, speculating (about theosophical ideas) in dualistic or monistic terms, > >has no real meaning for me -- since the fundamental monad or first "being" > >had >to be triune in nature... As would every being or form subsequently. And, > >every theosophical truth can be tested against, and must be consistent >with >the >three fundamental principles. Thus, in my language, there are no ifs, >ands >or >buts (with or without quotes :-)... But, there are, either, or, and another. > > >(Although, neither are speculative -- since they either are, or they are >not >-- or they are neither.) I hope this clears everything up for you. > >Non speculatively (for the moment), > From DempseyEliz@aol.com Sat Aug 02 02:34:36 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: DempseyEliz@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 46670 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2003 09:34:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2003 09:34:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r06.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.102) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 2003 09:34:35 -0000 Received: from DempseyEliz@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id r.144.167c4911 (14374) for ; Sat, 2 Aug 2003 05:34:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <144.167c4911.2c5cdfa9@aol.com> Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 05:34:33 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World TRUTH H P B ON TRUTH, REAL ANDTRUTH RELATIVE To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh OS X sub 35 From: DempseyEliz@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=146432401 Thank you for the beautiful selections from the article by HPB, "What is Truth?" From mhart@idirect.ca Sat Aug 02 12:27:16 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhart@idirect.ca X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 56816 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2003 19:27:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Aug 2003 19:27:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gozer.look.ca) (207.136.80.10) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Aug 2003 19:27:04 -0000 Received: from on-osh-ap3-03-22.look.ca ([216.154.45.117] helo=idirect.ca) by gozer.look.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19j21t-0002F3-70; Sat, 02 Aug 2003 19:27:01 +0000 Message-ID: <3F2C13B0.EC65EC81@idirect.ca> Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 15:40:32 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "theos-talk@yahoogroups.com" , Theosophy Study List X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mhart@idirect.ca Subject: re esoteric/exoteric, Leon and ... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=6.5 tests=SATISFACTION,USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_XM,X_ACCEPT_LANG version=2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) X-SA-Exim-Version: 3.0 (built Mon Jun 2 17:21:47 GMT 2003) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes From: Mauri X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=60894584 X-Yahoo-Profile: sunzenn Lenny (one of Leons relations?) wrote: <> ^:-) ... <> I thought the "Dhyan Chohans" were like "Higher Selves," or something like that, so if you're saying that they can be "thoughtless," one might wonder in what sense/perspective that kind of "thoughtless" might apply, or seem to apply from an exoteric perspective ... <> OK ... <> Here's where we might tend to go off on different tangents. I'm referring to that last sentence. I seem to be kind of fundamentally stacked up so that, as far as exoterics (or karmic/mayavic dualistic/multiplistic "logic of ordinary reality") are concerned, I don't seem to want to be particularly satisfied with any answer, in principle, in a sense, regardless of how many exoteric angles were taken into account in its creation, as I do not, "personally," (ie, exoterically), find more than passing "every-angle" satisfaction in the "logic of ordinary reality." Not that ... << Speculatively, it appears to me that the difference between us, apparently, is that you like to speculate in your writing about things you are not too sure you know in their entirety, and I can only write about things that I already know or ask direct questions about what I don't know. >> I repeat: Here's where we might tend to go off on different tangents. I'm referring to that last sentence. I seem to be kind of fundamentally stacked up so that, as far as exoterics (or karmic/mayavic dualistic/multiplistic "logic of ordinary reality") are concerned, I don't seem to want to be particularly satisfied with any answer, in principle, regardless of how many exoteric angles were taken into account in its creation, as I do not, "personally," (ie, exoterically), find more than passing "every-angle" satisfaction in the "logic of ordinary reality." On the other hand, if I were to acquire more of some kind of experiential/Occult/esoteric k/Knowledge (ie, by way of direct enough means) my speculative ways might be somewhat modified, possibly, for all I know. <> I suspect that, in exoterics, such as "absolutely true" may have have whatever kind of "true enough" relevance, from whatever perspective, or established perspective, but/"but"... The quoted "but" refers to my sense that "answers" in exoterics are limited, mayavic, conditional, etc, and so might lead, in some cases, for some people (?), towards considerations, or theoretical/intuitive "buts" that might be brought about by thoughts about, or intuitive allowances made for, transcending such realities, answers, proofs, "absolute truths," "clear consciencenesses," limits, karma, maya---in cases where the topic of such transcending (if not the transcending itself, in experiential terms) might be considered (by some?) somewhat relevant. <<(Even though it may be paradoxical, there is such a thing as "absolute truth" -- although one can hardly speak about it -- but only infer it.) The idea is to test the knowledge by seeing if I can describe it in such a clear manner that no one can refute it through science, mathematics, or logic.>> I tend to agree that there are relative "absolute truths" in various karmic settings. Some examples: brick walls, Mack trucks, fundamentalists, mosquitos, etc, etc. <<(Although, some have tried, and usually end up calling me names -- or scratching their head. :-) >> ^:-) ... <> Me too, in my way, I guess. <> In my case, though, seeing as most people seem to have long ago given up trying to decipher what I'm saying, in the first place ... and I have a hard time seeing how the rest could regard my posts to be anything like dangerous. <> "Trinities," I suspect, is part of exoterics (no matter how relevantly, realistically, etc), so ... That is, not that ... << <'/:o)> >> ^:-) One might wonder what happened to your nose, there ... ? . Speculatively, Mauri From danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com Sat Aug 02 23:06:17 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 42859 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2003 06:06:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m18.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2003 06:06:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n32.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.100) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Aug 2003 06:06:16 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.186] by n32.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Aug 2003 06:06:16 -0000 Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 06:06:15 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Steve Stubbs: Olcott's testimony & Johnson's comment about liars Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 5565 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" X-Originating-IP: 69.9.20.19 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=39205895 X-Yahoo-Profile: danielhcaldwell Steve, You write that you still consider Olcott's testimony in a positive light and you add: "It would be nice if there were more than one witness with Olcott's qualifications." But exactly what qualifications [positive?] of Olcott's are you referring to? K. Paul Johnson considers Olcott a LIAR. Is this the qualification you were thinking about?? :) Johnson wrote: "Liars are not necessarily people who never tell the truth, as some skeptical writers about HPB seem to assume. They may lie for strategic reasons, and according to my study of the evidence both HPB and Olcott had abundant reasons for LYING ABOUT THE MASTERS. The challenge for the historical researcher who lives in a world of myriad shades of grey rather than simplistic black and white is to determine when people are lying and when they are telling the truth, and why. Olcott did not lie all the time, and wanted to convey to the world his genuine conviction of the reality of the Masters. But he sometimes was obliged to lie in order to protect their privacy, just as HPB was. My conclusion about truthtelling and lying by Olcott is the same as about HPB; both wanted to tell as much of the truth about the Masters as they could without risking their exposure to the public." quoted from" http://members.tripod.com/~dlane5/pjimp.html CAPS ADDED Ah, but the hard part is "to determine when people are lying and when they are telling the truth." So Steve, do you think Olcott was lying when he related in OLD DIARY LEAVES, Vol. II that at Bombay in the year 1880: "On the evening of 4th August, a Mahatma visited HPB, and I was called in to see him before he left. He dictated a long and important letter to an influential friend of ours at Paris, and gave me important hints about the management of current [Theosophical] Society affairs. I was sent away before his visit terminated, and left him sitting in HPB's room." p. 208 Steve, was Olcott lying about a Mahatma actually visiting him and HPB on this date? In Johnson's first book, it would appear that Johnson believed Olcott was telling the truth when Olcott wrote that a certain man ["a Mahatma"] visited the Founders as narrated above. Johnson was even willing at that time to speculate that this "Mahatma" might be a certain historical person named Afghani. Johnson wrote: "In light of available knowledge of Afghani's comings and goings in India, can he be connected to the Founders of the Theosophical Society? The evidence is intriguing if not convincing. The first problem is that Olcott rarely identifies adepts when they appear in his narrative, beyond the fact of their status as such. Thus, on August 4, 1880, [Olcott tells us that] `a Mahatma visited H.P.B., and I was called in to see him before he left. He dictated a long and important letter to an influential friend of ours at Paris, and gave me important hints about the management of current Society affairs....'" "Although there is no stated identity of this Mahatma, the mention of Paris rings true, since Afghani was indeed to proceed to Paris, where he must have had an influential friend from the evidence presented." Notice that Johnson writes: "The first problem is that Olcott rarely identifies adepts when they appear in his narrative, beyond the fact of their status as such." Again he writes: ". . . there is no stated identity of this Mahatma . . . . " But is the above incident or Johnson's comments about the incident RELATED in anyway to Johnson's initial comment about LIARS and more specifically his comment that Olcott ". .. sometimes was obliged to lie in order to protect their privacy, just as HPB was"??? I consulted Olcott's handwritten diary for that date and found that Olcott did identify the Mahatma. It was Morya. So how does this identification that I made fit in with Johnson's speculation that "Maharaja Ranbir Singh of Kashmir has many correspondences to Morya as described by HPB"? Johnson assures his readers in THE MASTERS REVEALED that enough accurate information is available to make a persuasive case for Morya's identity as this historical figure [Maharaja Ranbir Singh]. (pp. 5-6.) In light of the above, I ask you Steve: Was the Master Morya sitting in HPB's room on Aug. 4, 1880 actually the Maharaja Ranbir Singh???? I know of no evidence that would locate the Maharaja in Bombay on that date. And Johnson has never provided any evidence that the Maharaja was in Bombay on that date. THEREFORE WHO IN THE HELL WAS THIS MAN IN BOMBAY ON THAT DATE????? Publicly Olcott never identified who the "Mahatma" was. It was only more than one hundred years later that I discovered and published Olcott's diary entry showing that the unidentified Mahatma was actually Morya. So is Olcott lying in this incident? Hoping you will think thru the issues I have raised and not ignore them as some people have. Daniel H. Caldwell BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm -------------------------------------------------------------- "...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at their right value; and unless a judge compares notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision." H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- You can always access our main site by simply typing into the URL address bar the following 6 characters: hpb.cc -------------------------------------------------------------- From global-theosophy@adslhome.dk Sun Aug 03 02:26:36 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: global-theosophy@adslhome.dk X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 49480 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2003 09:26:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2003 09:26:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pfepa.post.tele.dk) (193.162.153.2) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Aug 2003 09:26:33 -0000 Received: from kidhr (0x50a44e22.arcnxx9.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk [80.164.78.34]) by pfepa.post.tele.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 39FDA47FF75 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2003 11:26:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <005401c359a0$8a5a02a0$224ea450@opasia.dk> To: "Theos Talk" Subject: A Curriculum of a Theosophical School ? and ! Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 11:20:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=106996622 X-Yahoo-Profile: kidhr7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all of you, My views are: Here is an interesting piece of spiritual teaching...taken from the book "Learning how to learn" by Idries Shah. Sylvia Cranston author of the biography "HPB" has called Idries Shah an overlooked author. The following piece was copied from http://www.katinkahesselink.net/sufi/teacher.html . What do the Theosophical readers and teachers think about the below ??? Is it Theosophy or not ? A Curriculum of a School "Q: Could you give us a view of the curriculum of a School, from 'inside the School' so to speak?" "A: In our teaching, we must group correctly these elements: the pupils, the teacher and the circumstances of study. Only at the right time and place, with the teacher suitable to these, and with the right body of students, can our studies be said to be capable of coherent development." "Does this sound difficult or unreasonable? Let us compare these requirements with an analogy of our needs: the ordinary educational institution." "If we are learning, say, physics, we must have a man skilled in physics [having successfully completed his own training; able also to teach; and with a mandate to teach]; students who want to learn and who have capacity and some background for the study; and adequate laboratories and other facilities for the studies to take place." "A physics teacher could not make any real progress with a class of idiots, or people who primarily wanted power or fame or gain through physics. These factors would be getting in the way of the teaching. A class of brilliant students, faced with a man who knew no physics, or who only had a smattering, would make little progress. A good teacher, with a student body, could do little unless the instruments and equipment, the building and so on, were available as and when needed." "Yet this principle, so well established in conventional studies of all kinds, is largely passed over and has fallen into disuse, among esotericists. Why? Because they have a primitive and unenlightened attitude towards teaching. Like an oaf who has just heard of physics or only seen some of its manifestations, the would-be student wants it all *now*. He does not care about the necessary presence of other students. He wants to skip the curriculum and he sees no connection between the building and the subject of physics. So he does not want a laboratory." "Just observe what happens when people try to carry on learning or teaching without the correct grouping of the three essentials:" "Would-be students always try to operate their studies with only one, or at the most two, of the three factors. Teachers try to teach those who are unsuitable, because of the difficulties of finding enough people to form a class. Students who have no teacher try to teach themselves. Transpose this into a group of people trying to learn physics, and you will see some of their problems. Others group themselves around the literature and methodology of older schools, trying to make the scrap material of someone else's physics laboratory work. They formalize rituals, become obsessed by principles and slogans, assign disproportionate importance to the elements which are only tools, but which they regard as a more significant heritage." "Anyone can think of several schools, cults, religions, systems of psychology or philosophy which fall into the above classifications." "We must categorically affirm that it is impossible to increase human knowledge in the higher field by these methods. The statistical possibility of useful gains within a reasonable time is so remote as to be excluded from one's calculations." "Why, then, do people insist on raking over the embers and looking for truth when they have little chance of finding it? Simply because they are using their conditioning propensity, not their capacity for higher perception, to try to follow the path. There is intellectual stimulus and emotional attraction in the mere effort to plumb the unknown. When the ordinary human mind encounters evidences of a higher state of being, of even when it conceives the possibility of them, it will invariably conclude that there is some possibility of progress for that mind without the application of the factors of teaching-teacher-students-time-and-place which are essentials." "Man has few alternatives in his search for truth. He may rely upon his unaided intellect, and gamble that he is capable of perceiving truth or even the way to truth. This is a poor, but an attractive, gamble. Or he can gamble upon the claims of an individual or institution which claims to have such a way. This gamble, too, is a poor one. Aside from a very few, wo/men in general lack a sufficiently developed perception to tell them:" 1.. Not to trust their own unaided mentation; 2.. Who or what to trust. "There are, in consequence, two main schools of thought in this matter. Some say 'Follow your own promptings'; the other says: 'Trust this or that intuition'. Each is really useless to the ordinary wo/man. Each will help him use up his time." "The bitter truth is that before man can know his own inadequacy, or the competence of another man or institution, he must first learn something which will enable him to perceive both. Note well that his perception itself is a product of right study; not of instinct or emotional attraction to the individual, nor yet of desiring to 'go it alone'. This is 'Learning How To Learn." "All this means, of course, that we are postulating here the need for preparatory study before school work takes place. We deny that a man can study and properly benefit from school work until he is equipped for it: any more than a person can study space-navigation unless he has a grasp of mathematics." "This is not to say that a man (or a woman) cannot have a sensation of truth. But the unorganized and fragmented mind which is most people's heritage tends to distort the quality and quantity of this sensation, leading to almost completely false conclusions about what can or should be done." "This is not to say, either, that man cannot take part in studies and activities which impinge upon that portion of him which is connected with a higher life and cognition. But the mere application of special techniques [often to everyone, regardless of their current state and requirements] will not transform that man's consciousness. It will only feed into, and disturb, more or less permanently, centers of thought and feeling where it does not belong. Thus it is that something which should be a blessing becomes a curse. Sugar, shall we say, for a normal person is nutritionally useful. To a diabetic, it can be poison." "Therefore, before the techniques of study and development are made available to the student, he must be enabled to profit by them in the direction in which they are supposed to lead, not in short-term indulgence." "Thus our curriculum takes two parts: the first is in the providing of materials of a preparatory nature, in order to equip the individual to become a student. The second is the development itself." "If we, or anybody else, supply such study or preparatory material prematurely, it will only operate on a lower level than it could. The result will be harmless at best. At worst, it will condition, train, the mind of the individual to think and behave in patterns which are nothing less than automatic. In this latter way one can make what seem to be converts, unwittingly play upon emotions, on lesser desires and the conditioning propensity; train people to loyalty to individuals, found and maintain institutions which seem more or less serious or constructive. But no real progress towards knowledge of the human being and the other dimension in which he partly lives will in fact be made... ... ...." Is this what the different theosophical branches are doing ? If not, then why not ? from M. Sufilight with peace and love... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leonmaurer@aol.com Sun Aug 03 02:46:06 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: LeonMaurer@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 46193 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2003 09:46:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2003 09:46:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m02.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.5) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Aug 2003 09:46:06 -0000 Received: from LeonMaurer@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id r.c1.34dee6e7 (25305) for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2003 05:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 05:46:00 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World re esoteric/exoteric, Leon and ... 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 45 From: leonmaurer@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=4099972 X-Yahoo-Profile: leonmaurer1 Mauri, referring to your comments below, I don't think I can respond to your statements or questions in any reasonable way, since I still don't know what you mean by "exoterics" and how you distinguish it from "esoterics." Things, ideas, or concepts are either true or not, real or not and should be considered in those lights regardless of the levels of reality we assign them to, or the framework of reality they occur in. As I said before, I don't find it easy to understand the mixing of categories that you engage in by separating with slashes, loaded (but undefined) words having different subtleties of meaning. In other words, your remarks and comments are not specific enough for me to relate any definite thoughts or ideas with them. As for Dhyan Chohans, they are the builders of the Cosmos and the guides of its evolution, yet still conditioned beings, and are of different degrees of involution as well as wisdom, themselves. Thus, they can be thoughtless or thoughtful, and either act correctly (with or without thought) or incorrectly make mistakes through wrong thought -- as per the "fallen angels" spoken of by Blavatsky. (It's also obvious, according to fundamental laws of karma, that there cannot be any "being" or "entity" in the universe that doesn't have both a lower and a higher nature linked by a form of mind, or instinct if you like, that governs its outward actions.) However, since this goes into the realm of a much deeper study of occultism than we can easily discuss in this forum, I don't think I can say much more about it... And, particularly, since it's irrelevant in light of the context of my original comments about separation of the head and heart doctrines or of metaphysics and yoga (while considering their interdependence) for purposes of study or practice. Regarding the question about my nose. That :o) makeup only appears when I've just finished doing a bit of clowning. Best regards, Leo Actually, that's not another relation, but just another nickname or abbreviation that other people have given me -- like Leon is an abbreviation of Leonard[o] that my Mother's obstetrician hung on my birth certificate -- like he gave my brother, Normandy, "Norm." And my other brother, Robert[o], "Rob." (Did you ever wonder where the name Bob came from?) (Actually, my father was also a joker when it came to naming us. :-) I also figure if you can abbreviate a name, you can also extend it. Guess that's why I use different variations of my first name depending on the different life styles and occupations I've had over the past 80 years or so. (And why I sometimes switch my first and middle names.) In the army, and in college afterward, my nickname was Flash. I suspect that was because, like the tortoise, I seemed to start doing any job or test very slowly, but always seemed to finish it more or less perfectly before anyone else got halfway through. I suppose, also (not to brag but to tell it like it is) that's why, in four years of college, while working at several different jobs, and art directing and editing three campus publications, I managed to accumulate enough credits in different science and engineering disciplines to have my choice of four different undergraduate degrees. Nobody ever could figure out how I did all that, but my motto has always been, "the more things you have to do, the more time you have to do something else." (And, being fundamentally lazy -- still have time to loaf a lot. :-) The trick is focus and concentration and seeing the reality of things from a multiplicity of different angles and viewpoints. But, enough rambling for now. In a message dated 08/02/03 3:27:40 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes: >Lenny (one of Leons relations?) wrote: <are seeing things the same way, more or less, -- but. we don't seem >to talk about it the same way. :-) >> > >^:-) ... > ><While they must go together to make us knowledgeable, wise and >effective theosophists, we certainly can talk about them >separately, as the occasion calls for... Much like the scientific >metaphysics in the SD is talked about separately from the yoga >or spiritual practices in the Voice of the Silence. And, even in >the SD, there is a separation, sometimes, from the pure science or >metaphysics of Cosmogenesis and the thoughtless or willful, >heartfelt or intellectual actions of the hierarchy of Dhyan >Chohans, etc. >> > >I thought the "Dhyan Chohans" were like "Higher Selves," or >something like that, so if you're saying that they can be >"thoughtless," one might wonder in what sense/perspective that >kind of "thoughtless" might apply, or seem to apply from an >exoteric perspective ... > ><call it), or logically present the scientific basis of universal >involution and evolution (that is consistent with what we can >learn about the cutting edges of contemporary science) or talk >about consciousness, compassion, and responsibility, as the >circumstances may be -- I always consider them in context with >each other and test their consistency with each other. >> > >OK ... > ><among most students of theosophy, about the aims and purposes >of the "Theosophical Movement," the "Three Fundamental >Principles," and particularly, the second principle that considers >basic scientific and metaphysical laws that empower and link the >first and last principle, explains the logical mechanisms of karma >and reincarnation -- as well as justifies the cyclic Movement >itself. So, when I talk about such laws and their causes >and effects, I tend to concentrate on making them understood >from both an intellectual as well as an intuitive point of view -- >without bringing in the more or less goody goody emotional >romanticism that the Heart Doctrine generates in some people. >On the other hand, when I talk about the Heart Doctrine, I like >to be sure that the fundamental metaphysics that underlies and >governs it, is also understood. That's why theosophy is so >difficult to teach orally or in writing, but easy to learn solely >through serious self devised and self determined intellectual and >intuitive study of the Metaphysics of the Secret Doctrine >(plus consistent interpretations such as ABC, esoteric writings of >HPB, WQJ, all the great Sages, etc.) along with the full time >practice of the theosophical Yoga of compassion and altruism as >taught in the Voice of the Silence (with the help of Patanjali's >Yoga sutras, Tao Te Ching, I-Ching, Bhagavad Gita, >etc.). Along with all this, one must ask serious questions and not >be satisfied with the answers until every angle is covered, and >then personally confirmed. >> > >Here's where we might tend to go off on different tangents. I'm >referring to that last sentence. I seem to be kind of >fundamentally stacked up so that, as far as exoterics (or >karmic/mayavic dualistic/multiplistic "logic of ordinary reality") >are concerned, I don't seem to want to be particularly satisfied >with any answer, in principle, in a sense, regardless of how many >exoteric angles were taken into account in its creation, as I do >not, "personally," (ie, exoterically), find more than passing >"every-angle" satisfaction in the "logic of ordinary reality." Not >that ... > ><< Speculatively, it appears to me that the difference between us, >apparently, is that you like to speculate in your writing about >things you are not too sure you know in their entirety, and I can >only write about things that I already know or ask direct >questions about what I don't know. >> > >I repeat: Here's where we might tend to go off on different >tangents. I'm referring to that last sentence. I seem to be kind of >fundamentally stacked up so that, as far as exoterics (or >karmic/mayavic dualistic/multiplistic "logic of ordinary reality") >are concerned, I don't seem to want to be particularly satisfied >with any answer, in principle, regardless of how many exoteric >angles were taken into account in its creation, as I do not, >"personally," (ie, exoterically), find more than passing >"every-angle" satisfaction in the "logic of ordinary reality." > >On the other hand, if I were to acquire more of some kind of >experiential/Occult/esoteric k/Knowledge (ie, by way of direct >enough means) my speculative ways might be somewhat >modified, possibly, for all I know. > ><absolutely true, it remains in the area of speculation -- until I >do... Then, I can write about it with a clear conscience.>> > >I suspect that, in exoterics, such as "absolutely true" may have >have whatever kind of "true enough" relevance, from whatever >perspective, or established perspective, but/"but"... The quoted >"but" refers to my sense that "answers" in exoterics are limited, >mayavic, conditional, etc, and so might lead, in some cases, for >some people (?), towards considerations, or theoretical/intuitive >"buts" that might be brought about by thoughts about, or >intuitive allowances made for, transcending such realities, >answers, proofs, "absolute truths," "clear consciencenesses," >limits, karma, maya---in cases where the topic of such >transcending (if not the transcending itself, in experiential terms) >might be considered (by some?) somewhat relevant. > > <<(Even though it may be paradoxical, there is such a thing as >"absolute truth" -- although one can hardly speak about it -- but >only infer it.) The idea is to test the knowledge by seeing if I can >describe it in such a clear manner that no one can refute it >through science, mathematics, or logic.>> > >I tend to agree that there are relative "absolute truths" >in various karmic settings. Some examples: brick walls, Mack >trucks, fundamentalists, mosquitos, etc, etc. > ><<(Although, some have tried, and usually end up calling me >names -- or scratching their head. :-) >> > >^:-) ... > ><sometimes) is exposing the wrong views of people who think they >have all the answers. >> > >Me too, in my way, I guess. > ><out. >> > >In my case, though, seeing as most people seem to have long ago >given up trying to decipher what I'm saying, in the first place ... >and I have a hard time seeing how the rest could regard my posts >to be anything like dangerous. > ><eyes, use gossip, false accusations, and personal innuendoes to >make their points, or unjustifiably attack, disparage, or discredit >my friends, associates, or teachers. (Note the trinities, which >confirms what I said in my last letter about duality's being >incomplete considerations. ;)>> > >"Trinities," I suspect, is part of exoterics (no matter how >relevantly, realistically, etc), so ... That is, not that ... > ><< <'/:o)> >> > >^:-) One might wonder what happened to your nose, there ... ? From stevestubbs@yahoo.com Sun Aug 03 07:39:57 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: stevestubbs@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 29510 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2003 14:39:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m16.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2003 14:39:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.84) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Aug 2003 14:39:54 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.249] by n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Aug 2003 14:39:53 -0000 Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 14:39:50 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Steve Stubbs: Olcott's testimony & Johnson's comment about liars Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1324 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "stevestubbs" X-Originating-IP: 67.30.0.107 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=7712190 X-Yahoo-Profile: stevestubbs --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" wrote: > K. Paul Johnson considers Olcott a LIAR. Is this the > qualification you were thinking about?? :) He may be right but there is some element of bias here. He considers pro-Blavatsky witnesses (Ramaswamier, et al) consistently to be liars and anti-Blavatsky witnesses consistently to be tellers of whole truth. I think these biases areunconscious, but they appear in everyone, pro- and antu-Theosophical that I have read. Only neutral observers can assess the evidence objectively. Unless I am mistaken he was born some considerable time after Olcott died. The people who knew Olcott, friends and enemies alike, considered him a man of unimpeachable integrity. Some of his enemies thought him a fool. But only those critics who never met him thought he was a liar. The only exception of which I am aware is Max Mueller, who interviewed Olcott. In the course of the interview, Olcott allegedly told him that miracles were necessary because new religions, like new gardens, have to be MANURED. Olcott was surprised that this private comment made its way into print and tried to retract it in his OLD DIARY LEAVES. That is the only bit of evidence of which I am aware that supports the thesis of K. Paul Johndon. From Nisk98114@aol.com Sun Aug 03 07:48:59 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: Nisk98114@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 40613 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2003 14:48:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2003 14:48:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m04.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.7) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Aug 2003 14:48:58 -0000 Received: from Nisk98114@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id r.48.206ebde4 (4468) for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2003 10:48:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <48.206ebde4.2c5e7aca@aol.com> Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 10:48:42 EDT Subject: Re: Re: re "free will" and "transcending karma,"Leon, and ... To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10641 From: Nisk98114@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=84166184 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think i was looking at that with my "middle" brain. :O) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 05:20:32 EDT From: leonmaurer@aol.com I wonder what makes you think Mauri wrote that? Funny how things get scrambled up when they are taken out of context. Maybe you should re read (as in reed) the entire correspondence, including the quotes. Thanks for the kudos, anyway. ;o) In a message dated 08/01/03 1:24:52 PM, Nisk98114@aol.com writes: I actually read(as in red) all that you wrote.Let's have some more of that Mauri. LOL :O) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mauri, Uh... Thanks for your explanation. I think I got what you were speculating about. Although, I'm not too sure -- since I have a hard time dealing with duality's such as esoteric-exoteric, light-dark, up-down, in-out, or words with different meanings linked with brackets, etc. Actually, I'm mostly a right brained thinker (although I use my left brain to write such thoughts down) and see most things in both linear and non linear terms of multidimensional or multilayered pictures or images (actually, from three [or more] opposing points of view rather than two as most people do). Obviously, the triangles being the first forms or things start with trinities, then transform to quaternaries, and finally add up as sevenfold -- rather than as duality's. For example, I can't think of up and down, or in and out, etc., without adding "in-between" or "in the middle"... Nor, can I see dark or light without imagining another state of vision which is neither dark nor light. Also, I see the universe as being both empty and full, as well as every degree of some-things in between -- all interconnected by rigorous laws of inertia or inaction, motion or action, and harmony or balance. In addition, I can't imagine esoteric or exoteric teachings or truths without considering unexplainable learning's or intuitive truths. So, you see, I have a hard time dealing with people who speculate between one thing and another, or see things as either black or white. In fact, I guess you could say that my seeming "multiplicity" comes from my using a sort of fuzzy logic in everything I think about or do. This sort of logical thinking depends on seeing things that are apparenty separate or opposite as inherently connected. Since, duality's cannot stand alone -- whenever discussions get down to considering or speculating about opposites, or take opposite sides on a particular question, I see the "in-betweens" (in all their different shadings) as the only true reality (that needs no speculation about to understand). For example. It's an absolute fact that the first "real" number, or geometric form, had to be 3 -- since, when the universe was 1 or 2, it could have no form. And, those two numbers (like zero and infinity) are not essentially real as things in themselves. That is, they do not exist until the 3 or triple form (either triangle or spherical) appears all at once. Thus, speculating (about theosophical ideas) in dualistic or monistic terms, has no real meaning for me -- since the fundamental monad or first "being" had to be triune in nature... As would every being or form subsequently. And, every theosophical truth can be tested against, and must be consistent with the three fundamental principles. Thus, in my language, there are no ifs, ands or buts (with or without quotes :-)... But, there are, either, or, and another. (Although, neither are speculative -- since they either are, or they are not -- or they are neither.) I hope this clears everything up for you. Non speculatively (for the moment), [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mhart@idirect.ca Sun Aug 03 20:24:09 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhart@idirect.ca X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 42125 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2003 03:24:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Aug 2003 03:24:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO twiddle.look.ca) (207.136.80.125) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 2003 03:24:09 -0000 Received: from on-osh-ap3-02-15.look.ca ([216.154.45.62] helo=idirect.ca) by twiddle.look.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19jVx8-0003Lw-5F; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 03:24:06 +0000 Message-ID: <3F2DD505.DE3F134@idirect.ca> Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 23:37:41 -0400 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "theos-talk@yahoogroups.com" , Theosophy Study List X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mhart@idirect.ca Subject: trying to define "exoteric/esoteric" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-100.1 required=6.5 tests=USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_XM,USER_IN_WHITELIST,X_ACCEPT_LANG version=2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) X-SA-Exim-Version: 3.0 (built Thu Jun 5 09:58:17 GMT 2003) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes From: Mauri X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=60894584 X-Yahoo-Profile: sunzenn Leo (a relative of Leon, I think) wrote: <> If I could I would point out the differences between esoteric and exoteric, but since one (exoteric) is relatable or meaningful of understandable (quotes optional, of course) in some dualistic/multiplistic manner, and the other ("esoteric" in the esoteric/Occult/experiential sense) isn't, how can anybody successfully enough, these days, (for the most part, generally speaking?), point out "meaningful enough" differences between those two ("esoteric/exoteric") in any kind of "ordinarily understandable logic," eh ... That's why I occasionally use 'but/"but's'", eg, trying to (apparently in vain?) suggest that "ordinary logic" is to be supplemented (at least per my speculative perspective, tentative intention) by way of whatever basically (apparently/interpretively) "less-logical," "intuitive preference" (say?) one might imagine as being in conrast to the unquoted, regular but, (ie, I'm assuming that some people (such as students of Theosophy) might at least "allow for" preferences or esoteric/Occult/experiential, Basically Alternative views that cannot be passed on in any language, in as much as such "views" are acknowledged as not describable in the logic/language of "ordinary reality," and can only be experienced. Which part of that explanation wasn't clear enough? "Exoteric" is whatever is "understandable" in terms of whatever language/knowledge, while "esoteric" is not "understandable" in the logic of "ordinary reality" in as much as it's whatever can only be directly experienced: For example, how would you describe a particular color to a congenitally blind person (to whom colors would be esoteric, in a sense, at least theoretically)? Or how would you describe a concert to a congenitally deaf person (to whom sounds would be esoteric, in a sense, at least theoretically)? Though one might wonder (?) if the congenitally blind/deaf might intuit/imagine colors and sounds, in some way, maybe ... In other words, seems to me that when we scientize, philosophize, intellectualize, Theosophize, modellize, etc, we humans might be generally, on average, kind of stuck within certain collective/individualistic guidelines, or within the generally accepted worldview that we like to think that we "know about" (at least in karmic/mayavic dualistic/multiplistic terms, as per a Broader, or a Mahayanic---or even Nihayanic?--- Theosophic view?); so, the way I tend to see it, students of Theosophy ought to know better, to some extent, to know that there's a "basically alternate," esoteric view, (that can't be explained about any which way, in that it can only be directly experienced---or would you prefer to super-size "basically alternate" with caps, maybe?) offering a bridge, of sorts (in some cases?), towards transcending karmic/mayavic worldviews. How can anybody fail to see the "sense" (in a sense!?) I'm making here!? That is, I may not be making "enough sense" (to say the least, among other things?) conventionally enough, (not to mention unconventional conventionalism), but/"but"... <> If you mean that in conventional terms, I might tend to agree, in some sense, depending on ... whatever; but/"but"... And I've been under the impression that this might be a sort of Theosophical list, so ... On the other hand---or same hand, really---some exoteric things, concepts, truths, realitities may be seen (as by students of Theosophy) as having Path-related significance, in whatever individualistic/collective sense, which significance might be seen, of course, as a "good" thing. I'm not quibbling about that. Apparently we all need whatever kinds of stepping stones that seem to make sense to us. But/"but," at the same time, wouldn't students of Theosophy have some interest in aspects of their studies that they can only, theoretically, assign to an esoteric/experiential Reality that they cannot relate to because they haven't experienced it (where the quoted "but" refers to an acknowledged form of "experiencing" thats of a Fundamentally different order of reality that transcends karma, a Higher reality or Being that's "realizable/experientiable only after Enlightenment, or at least after some kind of partial enlightenment---that "but" being, in that sense, an undefinable "but" that, in that sense--as I tend to see it---could do with some way of distinguishing it from the regular, potentially definable buts of "ordinary logic.") <> In my last spiel I went at some length about that kind of thing, and attempted some more specifying today, I think, so, what can I say. I tried, I think. <> Apparently you (Leon), in your way, know more about them DC's then me. I wonder what Gerald, Dallas, and other's might have to say about what might be called "thoughtless aspects" (ie, from our limited/karmic exoteric perspective, at any rate, eh) that might be seen as "attributable to some DC's natures." But/"but" ... I keep wondering if there might be a but/"but" in there, in some sense, somewhere, maybe, that, if we knew more about it (if by way of whatever undescribable esoteric experience), might offer us a somewhat "more meaningful" perspective, or feeling, or something, in some sense, maybe, about what might seem to be some form of "thoughtlessness" from the perspective of "ordinary logic." <> Oh, okay. I was speculating that you might've been hitting the bottle a few times, lately, and ... Speculatively, Mauri From global-theosophy@adslhome.dk Mon Aug 04 00:06:58 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: global-theosophy@adslhome.dk X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 15445 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2003 07:06:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Aug 2003 07:06:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pfepc.post.tele.dk) (193.162.153.4) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 2003 07:06:57 -0000 Received: from kidhr (0x50a44e22.arcnxx9.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk [80.164.78.34]) by pfepc.post.tele.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 4522B262984 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 09:06:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <000e01c35a56$333674c0$224ea450@opasia.dk> To: References: <3F2DD505.DE3F134@idirect.ca> Subject: Re: Theos-World trying to define "exoteric/esoteric" Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 09:01:16 +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 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=106996622 X-Yahoo-Profile: kidhr7 Hi all of you, My views are only views: Maybe this will help some of the readers: "All that can be acquired by instinct and by the use of the concrete mind functioning through the physical brain can be considered as dealing with that which we call exoteric. It is thus evident how the range of fact will differ according to: The age of the soul. Experience developed and used. Condition of the brain and the physical body. Circumstances and environment. As time progresses and man reaches a fair state of evolution, mind is more rapidly developed, and a new factor comes gradually into play. Little by little the intuition, or the transcendental mind, begins to function, and eventually supersedes the lower or concrete mind..." "...As we consider these points, it will become apparent that the esoteric aspects of knowledge are really those zones of consciousness which are not yet conquered, and brought within the radius of control of the indwelling Entity." --- and --- " In the Secret Doctrine we are told that there are seven branches of knowledge mentioned in the Puranas. - S. D., I, 192. Correspondences can here be worked out in connection with: The seven Rays, the Lords of Sacrifice, Love and Knowledge. The seven states of consciousness. The seven states of matter or planes. The seven types of forces. The seven Initiations and many other septenates. The Gnosis, the hidden Knowledge, is the seventh Principle, the six schools of Indian philosophy are the six principles - S. D., I, 299. These six schools are: The school of Logic - Proof of right perception. The atomic school - System of particulars. Elements. Alchemy and chemistry. The Sankhya school - System of numbers. The materialistic school. The theory of the seven states of matter or prakriti. The school of Yoga - Union. The rule of daily life. Mysticism. The school of Ceremonial Ritual. - Religion. Worship of the devas or Gods. The Vedanta school - Has to do with non-duality. Deal with the relation of Atma in man to the Logos. The Gnosis or hidden knowledge is the same as Atma vidya, or Theosophy, and includes the other six." No need for naming the author i think. The texts should speak for it self - else it is not valid. from M. Sufilight with peace and love... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mauri" To: ; "Theosophy Study List" Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 5:37 AM Subject: Theos-World trying to define "exoteric/esoteric" > Leo (a relative of Leon, I think) wrote: < your comments below, I don't think I can respond to your > statements or questions in any reasonable way, since I still don't > know what you mean by "exoterics" and how you distinguish it > from "esoterics." >> > > If I could I would point out the differences between esoteric and > exoteric, but since one (exoteric) is relatable or meaningful of > understandable (quotes optional, of course) in some > dualistic/multiplistic manner, and the other ("esoteric" in the > esoteric/Occult/experiential sense) isn't, how can anybody > successfully enough, these days, (for the most part, generally > speaking?), point out "meaningful enough" differences between > those two ("esoteric/exoteric") in any kind of "ordinarily > understandable logic," eh ... That's why I occasionally use > 'but/"but's'", eg, trying to (apparently in vain?) suggest that > "ordinary logic" is to be supplemented (at least per my > speculative perspective, tentative intention) by way of whatever > basically (apparently/interpretively) "less-logical," "intuitive > preference" (say?) one might imagine as being in conrast to the > unquoted, regular but, (ie, I'm assuming that some people (such > as students of Theosophy) might at least "allow for" preferences > or esoteric/Occult/experiential, Basically Alternative views that > cannot be passed on in any language, in as much as such > "views" are acknowledged as not describable in the > logic/language of "ordinary reality," and can only be > experienced. Which part of that explanation wasn't clear > enough? "Exoteric" is whatever is "understandable" in terms of > whatever language/knowledge, while "esoteric" is not > "understandable" in the logic of "ordinary reality" in as much as > it's whatever can only be directly experienced: For example, how > would you describe a particular color to a congenitally blind > person (to whom colors would be esoteric, in a sense, at least > theoretically)? Or how would you describe a concert to a > congenitally deaf person (to whom sounds would be esoteric, in a > sense, at least theoretically)? Though one might wonder (?) if > the congenitally blind/deaf might intuit/imagine colors and > sounds, in some way, maybe ... > > In other words, seems to me that when we scientize, > philosophize, intellectualize, Theosophize, modellize, etc, we > humans might be generally, on average, kind of stuck within > certain collective/individualistic guidelines, or within the > generally accepted worldview that we like to think that we > "know about" (at least in karmic/mayavic dualistic/multiplistic > terms, as per a Broader, or a Mahayanic---or even Nihayanic?--- > Theosophic view?); so, the way I tend to see it, students of > Theosophy ought to know better, to some extent, to know that > there's a "basically alternate," esoteric view, (that can't be > explained about any which way, in that it can only be directly > experienced---or would you prefer to super-size "basically > alternate" with caps, maybe?) offering a bridge, of sorts (in some > cases?), towards transcending karmic/mayavic worldviews. > > How can anybody fail to see the "sense" (in a sense!?) I'm > making here!? That is, I may not be making "enough sense" (to > say the least, among other things?) conventionally enough, (not > to mention unconventional conventionalism), but/"but"... > > < should be considered in those lights regardless of the levels of > reality we assign them to, or the framework of reality they occur > in.>> > > If you mean that in conventional terms, I might tend to agree, in > some sense, depending on ... whatever; but/"but"... And I've been > under the impression that this might be a sort of Theosophical > list, so ... On the other hand---or same hand, really---some > exoteric things, concepts, truths, realitities may be seen (as by > students of Theosophy) as having Path-related significance, in > whatever individualistic/collective sense, which significance > might be seen, of course, as a "good" thing. I'm not quibbling > about that. Apparently we all need whatever kinds of stepping > stones that seem to make sense to us. But/"but," at the same > time, wouldn't students of Theosophy have some interest in > aspects of their studies that they can only, theoretically, assign to > an esoteric/experiential Reality that they cannot relate to > because they haven't experienced it (where the quoted "but" > refers to an acknowledged form of "experiencing" thats of a > Fundamentally different order of reality that transcends karma, a > Higher reality or Being that's "realizable/experientiable only after > Enlightenment, or at least after some kind of partial > enlightenment---that "but" being, in that sense, an undefinable > "but" that, in that sense--as I tend to see it---could do with some > way of distinguishing it from the regular, potentially definable > buts of "ordinary logic.") > > < of categories that you engage in by separating with slashes, > loaded (but undefined) words having different subtleties of > meaning. In other words, your remarks and comments are not > specific enough for me to relate any definite thoughts or ideas > with them. >> > > In my last spiel I went at some length about that kind of thing, > and attempted some more specifying today, I think, so, what can > I say. I tried, I think. > > < and the guides of its evolution, yet still conditioned beings, and > are of different degrees of involution as well as wisdom, > themselves. Thus, they can be thoughtless or thoughtful, and > either act correctly (with or without thought) or incorrectly make > mistakes through wrong thought -- as per the "fallen angels" > spoken of by Blavatsky. (It's also obvious, according to > fundamental laws of karma, that there cannot be any "being" or > "entity" in the universe that doesn't have both a lower and a > higher nature linked by a form of mind, or instinct if you like, > that governs its outward actions.) However, since this goes into > the realm of a much deeper study of occultism than we can easily > discuss in this forum, I don't think I can say much more about > it... And, particularly, since it's irrelevant in light of the context > of > my original comments about separation of the head and heart > doctrines or of metaphysics and yoga (while considering their > interdependence) for purposes of study or practice. >> > > Apparently you (Leon), in your way, know more about them > DC's then me. I wonder what Gerald, Dallas, and other's might > have to say about what might be called "thoughtless aspects" (ie, > from our limited/karmic exoteric perspective, at any rate, eh) that > might be seen as "attributable to some DC's natures." But/"but" > ... I keep wondering if there might be a but/"but" in there, in > some sense, somewhere, maybe, that, if we knew more about it (if > by way of whatever undescribable esoteric experience), might > offer us a somewhat "more meaningful" perspective, or feeling, or > something, in some sense, maybe, about what might seem to be > some form of "thoughtlessness" from the perspective of "ordinary > logic." > > < appears when I've just finished doing a bit of clowning. ??>> > > Oh, okay. I was speculating that you might've been hitting the > bottle a few times, lately, and ... > > Speculatively, > Mauri > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > From leonmaurer@aol.com Mon Aug 04 00:55:04 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: LeonMaurer@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 46831 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2003 07:55:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Aug 2003 07:55:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 2003 07:55:03 -0000 Received: from LeonMaurer@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id r.f7.2ea9b61f (3850) for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 03:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 03:54:58 EDT Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Re: re "free will" and "transcending karma,"Leon, and ... 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 45 From: leonmaurer@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=4099972 X-Yahoo-Profile: leonmaurer1 I think you've got it. (Although you let it fool you in this instance :-) Actually, it's the "middle" brain (Corpus Collosum) that can see everything from the inside out and outside in, simultaneously, and can combine "images" with "words" so that they make sense to that center of intuitive (or "middle") mental consciousness that is above (both within and without) the Left-right brain (along with all its neurological connections) -- that is nothing more than an electrical transponder (or transceiver) for purposes of (with the help of the "middle" brain) translating those "things" (connected with our sensory mechanisms as well as our perception and will) into formless forms of pure "ideation" that the higher mind (linked in the middle as part of the triune monad) can comprehend as fundamental truths, ideas, or things in themselves, rather than illusions. Unfortunately, unless our higher intuitive nature that is neither in or out, up or down, over or under, higher or lower, etc., is connected with our middle brain -- which is the physical link between the right and the left brains -- I guess that the above profundity is as clear as mud. <\':o)> BTW, the way to make this connection, one must not be either here nor there, but everywhere, must examine things from all directions, and must consider opposites as being both sides of a single reality with infinite possibilities for change (in between) from one to the other. Fundamentally, it all begins with and depends on the law of cycles modified (and sometimes frozen in apparent but temporary knots of changlessness) by the natural laws of inertia, motion, and harmony. How does this apply to our everyday understanding of true reality, and how to deal with its illusions? Why not ask your "middle" brain (with the help of your "middle" mind) to show (and tell) you? :-) We could also look up in the writings of HPB where she spoke about the linking of the twin hemispheres. (Maybe Dallas might have the references.) In a message dated 08/03/03 10:49:55 AM, Nisk98114@aol.com writes: > I think i was looking at that with my "middle" brain. :O)] Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 05:20:32 EDT From: leonmaurer@aol.com I wonder what makes you think Mauri wrote that? Funny how things get scrambled up when they are taken out of context. Maybe you should re read (as in reed) the entire correspondence, including the quotes. Thanks for the kudos, anyway. ;o) In a message dated 08/01/03 1:24:52 PM, Nisk98114@aol.com writes: I actually read(as in red) all that you wrote.Let's have some more of that Mauri. LOL :O) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mauri, Uh... Thanks for your explanation. I think I got what you were speculating about. Although, I'm not too sure -- since I have a hard time dealing with duality's such as esoteric-exoteric, light-dark, up-down, in-out, or words with different meanings linked with brackets, etc. Actually, I'm mostly a right brained thinker (although I use my left brain to write such thoughts down) and see most things in both linear and non linear terms of multidimensional or multilayered pictures or images (actually, from three [or more] opposing points of view rather than two as most people do). Obviously, the triangles being the first forms or things start with trinities, then transform to quaternaries, and finally add up as sevenfold -- rather than as duality's. For example, I can't think of up and down, or in and out, etc., without adding "in-between" or "in the middle"... Nor, can I see dark or light without imagining another state of vision which is neither dark nor light. Also, I see the universe as being both empty and full, as well as every degree of some-things in between -- all interconnected by rigorous laws of inertia or inaction, motion or action, and harmony or balance. In addition, I can't imagine esoteric or exoteric teachings or truths without considering unexplainable learning's or intuitive truths. So, you see, I have a hard time dealing with people who speculate between one thing and another, or see things as either black or white. In fact, I guess you could say that my seeming "multiplicity" comes from my using a sort of fuzzy logic in everything I think about or do. This sort of logical thinking depends on seeing things that are apparenty separate or opposite as inherently connected. Since, duality's cannot stand alone -- whenever discussions get down to considering or speculating about opposites, or take opposite sides on a particular question, I see the "in-betweens" (in all their different shadings) as the only true reality (that needs no speculation about to understand). For example. It's an absolute fact that the first "real" number, or geometric form, had to be 3 -- since, when the universe was 1 or 2, it could have no form. And, those two numbers (like zero and infinity) are not essentially real as things in themselves. That is, they do not exist until the 3 or triple form (either triangular or spherical) appears all at once. Thus, speculating (about theosophical ideas) in dualistic or monistic terms, has no real meaning for me -- since the fundamental monad or first "being" had to be triune in nature... As would every being or form subsequently. And, every theosophical truth can be tested against, and must be consistent with the three fundamental principles. Thus, in my language, there are no ifs, ands or buts (with or without quotes :-)... But, there are, either, or, and another. (Although, neither are speculative -- since they either are, or they are not -- or they are neither.) I hope this clears everything up for you. Non speculatively (for the moment), Leon From mail@katinkahesselink.net Tue Aug 05 06:29:03 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: mail@katinkahesselink.net X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 82171 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2003 13:28:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2003 13:28:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n31.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.99) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Aug 2003 13:29:01 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.122] by n31.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Aug 2003 13:29:00 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:28:59 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Subject: interesting Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 124 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "Katinka Hesselink" X-Originating-IP: 217.121.208.124 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92802723 X-Yahoo-Profile: katinka_hesselink Hi all, Many of you may be interested in the following group: http://www.doukhobor-homepage.com/history_who.html Katinka From leonmaurer@aol.com Tue Aug 05 15:22:04 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: LeonMaurer@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 21266 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2003 22:22:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Aug 2003 22:22:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Aug 2003 22:22:03 -0000 Received: from LeonMaurer@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.) id b.17f.1ee4ddad (1320); Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:21:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <17f.1ee4ddad.2c6187fa@aol.com> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 18:21:46 EDT Subject: Re: Science and Theosophy (esoteric philosophy) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: undisclosed-recipients:; X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 45 From: leonmaurer@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=4099972 X-Yahoo-Profile: leonmaurer1 Interesting teaching related to a new scientific paradigm being examined at major universities throughout the world... Pertaining to zero-point fields that empower all physical and biological energies and forms... And, resting on same scientific/metaphysical basis as; (1) the theory of ABC (Awareness and perception or "experience of consciousness" is an a-priori inherent function of the ubiquitous zero-point itself, and the "contents of consciousness" are holographic interference patterned modulations of the triune, quaternary, and seven fold zero-point fields surrounding them); (2) the modern theory of Superstrings/M-branes (hyperspace fields within fields within fields empowered by vibrating strings of force on their spherical surfaces originating from the zero-point); (3) the metaphysical teachings of the ancient Secret Doctrine of the East (encompassing all of the above, and more). http://www.wddty.co.uk/thefield/ltf/ltf_samples.asp?img=ltf1.jpg References: http://superstringtheory.com/ http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/GraduateAdmissions/greene/greene.html http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/ http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/invlutionflddiagnotate.gif http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Invlutionfldmirror2.gif http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd-hp.htm http://web.wt.net/~cbenton/kabbalah/string.htm From compiler@wisdomworld.org Wed Aug 06 08:20:03 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: compiler@wisdomworld.org X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 62633 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2003 15:20:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Aug 2003 15:20:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ams004.ftl.affinity.com) (216.219.253.199) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 2003 15:20:01 -0000 Received: from wisdomworld.org ([68.32.59.58]) by ams.ftl.affinity.com with ESMTP id <218452-28099>; Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:18:53 -0400 Message-ID: <3F312A20.A0ECBFF9@wisdomworld.org> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:17:35 -0500 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: compiler@wisdomworld.org Subject: "THEOSOPHY AND EDUCATION" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Compiler X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=46028585 X-Yahoo-Profile: john_compiler_wisdomworld I hope that many readers, especially newcomers to theosophy, will find this "Theosophy and Education" article from THEOSOPHY magazine, which is found on my WisdomWorld.org web site in the "Introductory", "Setting the Stage" book of 166 articles, which was especially compiled for newcomers to Theosophy, to be very informative and useful; and that it may be the type of article that spurs some people to think of things to respond with -- either by commenting on some of the subjects and things in it, or by talking about the subjects in different ways, or by asking questions, or by providing answers to those that may be asked: THEOSOPHY AND EDUCATION (Article #67 in the book): http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting/education.html The link to the Index page containing the 166 articles in the book is found below. Dear newcomers to Theosophy: I sincerely do hope that my web site offers a well-rounded overall view of Theosophy and the Theosophical Movement. The 3 main links to everything on it are found below. Please know that I'm only the compiler of all the articles found on my web site; I'm not a scholar; and also that I personally do not like to take part in conversations, even though I do hope that what I present from time to time will help a little in the discussions being carried on by others. So please do not be insulted when I do not respond if someone addresses me, or addresses anything that is found in any of the articles on my web site; I leave that for others to deal with if they want to -- whether pro, con, neutral, friendly or unfriendly. John DeSantis (Compiler) ------- You may find a great deal of the Truth that you are searching for here: WisdomWorld.org web site (Main Page): http://www.wisdomworld.org This is the Index page of the "Introductory", "Setting the Stage" book, which was especially compiled for newcomers to Theosophy: http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting.html The page where "Additional" articles are slowly being added (which contains 18 sections that can each be clicked on at the top of the page in order to go directly down to them, as well as to get the link to any particular section that you may want to use in a posting on a discussion board, or in an e-mail to someone): http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/index.html "PUBLIC & PRIVATE ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT FORUM": This next link is to the most updated version of my economic proposal to humanity, a practical project to help our suffering world that I also consider to be Theosophical. In it you will find a new and unique, but mostly unknown, economic system model that might be able to put an end to involuntary poverty on earth. How? It presents a way to fully finance everything of importance that is needed in every nation. Because of this it's well worth pointing to. Please note that, for strategic reasons, of wanting it to have the best chance of being accepted by all peoples worldwide, no matter what their religious, philosophical, and scientific beliefs are, I've put it on a completely different web site; it contains no mention of, or link to, the Theosophy and the Theosophical Movement that is presented on my WisdomWorld.org web site: http://www.PublicAndPrivateEnterprise.org ------- From danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com Wed Aug 06 20:53:31 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 85379 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2003 03:53:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Aug 2003 03:53:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web41006.mail.yahoo.com) (66.218.93.5) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Aug 2003 03:53:30 -0000 Message-ID: <20030807035330.3317.qmail@web41006.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [69.9.20.19] by web41006.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:53:30 PDT Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 20:53:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Books on H.P.B.'s Life, Writings & Teachings To: ".DanielHCaldwell" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=39205895 X-Yahoo-Profile: danielhcaldwell For a comprehensive listing of books on H.P.B.'s life, writings & teachings, see: http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/intromaterial.htm#sug • H.P.B.'s Life, Writings & Teachings: 16 Recommended Introductory Titles • H.P.B.'s Life & Work: 20 Biographies, Histories, & Special Studies • H.P.B.'s Major Works • The Mahatmas & Their Letters: Bookshelf of 9 Recommended Titles • Start a Class on H.P.B.'s Life, Writings & Teachings • Blavatsky Reference Books: Compiled & annotated by H. J. Spierenburg • Books by & about H.P.B. from Theosophical University Press • Suggested Reading on H.P.B. & Theosophy from Quest Books • Recommended Blavatsky Books from the Theosophy Company • Books by & about H.P.B. from Kessinger Publishing • Special Issues of Sunrise Magazine on H.P.B. Happy reading! ===== Daniel H. Caldwell BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm -------------------------------------------------------------- "...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at their right value; and unless a judge compares notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision." H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- You can always access our main site by simply typing into the URL address bar the following 6 characters: hpb.cc -------------------------------------------------------------- From dalval14@earthlink.net Thu Aug 07 02:56:20 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: dalval14@earthlink.net X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 82863 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2003 09:56:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Aug 2003 09:56:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net) (207.217.120.122) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Aug 2003 09:56:20 -0000 Received: from pool0073.cvx12-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.226.73] helo=earthlink) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19khUl-0005XL-00; Thu, 07 Aug 2003 02:55:43 -0700 To: "AA-BN--Study" Subject: Yours of Aug 6th 2003 -- Present and Future? What wil it be ? Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 02:57:04 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 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 V6.00.2800.1165 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "dalval14" Reply-To: X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=52898573 X-Yahoo-Profile: dalval2 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thursday, August 07, 2003 Re: Present and Future? What will it be ? Dear Joe, and Friends You wrote: -- =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D JF=20 The question that all of these brings up is the same. We are on the verge of recreating ourselves, in ways that we have only the dimmest concept of the effects. What kind of ethics is going to guide our development? What yardstick of wisdom will we use? Are we going to bring into reality what Timaeus and the Rig Veda warned of thousands of years ago?=20=20 =20 In any case, I hope this has given you some additional food for thought and perhaps will be the opening of a dialogue that will produce some imaginative approaches and perhaps even solutions to the conundrums posed by these issues. Please feel free to share this e-mail with whomever you see fit. My intent is simply to promote dialogue on important issues among people of all persuasions, spiritual, philosophical, scientific and otherwise. =20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Dallas: Let me inter-observe: DTB Theosophy considers the universe (Nature), of which man is an integral part, as an interactive =93school=94 consisting of immortal elementary individuals (Monads -- of United Spirit/matter immoral Individuals) and their environment consists of a large mass of =93Monads of lesser experience.=94 [ see S D I 632-3, 619-20, 623, ] Everything is included in this concept that visualizes an immortal mass of =93students=94 at various levels all passing through various stages of experience until individual =93perfection,=94 or, graduation. The =93graduation=94 is considered to be the apotheosis of spiritual Perfection, and of wisdom. The titles given to such successful ones, are, among others, Masters of Wisdom, Christs, Mahatmas, Bodhisattvas, Buddhas, Avatars, Dhyanis [ Gnyanis--the WISE ]. Their advent among men create a lasting impression and frequently religions spring up among their later successors and adherents. These wise ones have always existed, and in fact are our Elder Brothers. [see ISIS UNVEILED II, pp. 98-105, 593 top] All this complexity has existed (not imagined or fancied) for aeons of time. The rules and Laws (which are justice, fairness, compassion and total equity) are called Karma (in general they are the virtues -- which rule all conditions, situations and individuals always. In Theosophy, The SECRET DOCTRINE and ISIS UNVEILED trace these hints and remnants, and emphasizes for us moderns, their similarities and analogies Mankind, considered psychologically and intellectually, is in a =93balance situation=94-- midway. It is equilibrized in intelligence and spiritual consciousness (ethics) with ignorance, selfishness and the vices of the intellectually selfish. Mankind is a transition stage, wherein the =93desire burdened Personality, by its own choice and efforts, transforms itself out of that selfish set of. limits into the universal Potential of an immortal universal WISE ONE. Constitutionally, it decides to do NO HARM to any one. It makes itself altruistic and noble. In mankind, the ignorance, fantasy and indolence of the =93personality=94(Kama) and [the proud isolation of selfishness], is equipoised by the close proximity of the INDIVIDUALITY -- the Spiritual Immortal and generous immortal Soul (the Higher Manas). This latter is always engaged in education -- it passes on the ethics of superior Men, to those seeking for a sure guidance to be applied in their own life. And it provides in addition, the logic and rationale of the virtues. It banishes =93authority,=94 =93blind belief,=94 and the whimsical fancies and powers, of an imagined =93personal God.=94 It proclaims the realm of Law everywhere. Karma, it says, provides compensation, for the least of harm (or good) done to another - the redress thereof, being essential to progress of the individual who is harmed, the one who harms and the advancement of the whole.=20=20 Benevolence, generosity, and sharing are always considered superior to selfishness. Kurzweil and Heinlein wrote of the selfish personality and its lawless selfish enhancement basically the forced sacrifice of the =93many=94 for the pleasure and success of the =93few.=94 Nature does not work that way. Hence, the short l