Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tt00061)

MORE DISCUSSION!

> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 20:13:00 +0200 (MET DST)
> From: "Michael Rogge" <wichm@xs4all.nl>
> Subject: Identity of Masters
>
> Paul K.  has limited his scenario's as to the fallibility of the
> teachings of the Masters to three.  A fourth is that the Masters
> were Mme Blavatsky's Guides or Communicators.
>
> I do not think that the enquirer into the possible identity of
> the so-called Masters can do without a study of Spiritualism,
> channeling, multiple personalities and all that.
>
> One cannot ignore the fact that Mme.Blavatsky had been deeply
> involved in Spiritualism.  She may have renounced it for good
> reasons, but whether she could control her mediumistic faculties
> is another matter.  The Hare Brothers, Gertrude Williams and
> other commentators have drawn attention to the development of the
> Mahatma letters from the primitive epistels of Tuitit Bey from
> the Observatory of Luxor (TRY!), who seem obviously a foreplay
> for the later far more sophisticated Mahatma letters.
>
> Anyone familiar with spirititistic communications cannot be but
> struck by the familiar authority in which these "entities" always
> present themselves (Seth).  (In fact the inspiration of Biblical
> prophets by a communicator calling himself "Jahwe" should be seen
> in the same light.) Whether these manifesting personalities are
> part of the psyche of the medium or represent actual discarnated
> spirits is difficult to say.  Anyhow, they seem often to bear
> resemblance to the medium.
>
> If one studies these communications through the past 150 years
> one thing becomes clear, they hardly tell anything new.  They
> represent always the way of thinking of their times.  Striking is
> their moralistic and didactical tone, the temporariness of their
> teachings and the fallibility of their predictions.
>
> Or as PAUL K' states:"Find me evidence of any real spiritual
> Master of the 19th century who knew the truth unveiled by 20th
> century science.".  One could extend this to spiritistic
> communicators as well, who also made the sitters believe that
> they were of high origin, Jesus Himself, Buddha, etc etc.
> Especially remarkable is the changing identity towards figures
> that had an appeal in their time.  The emergence of ufonauts as
> communicators, practically absent in 19th century Spiritualism,
> dominate the post-WW2-channeling scene.  After Einstein
> multi-dimensional personalities emerged (Seth).  It is remarkable
> that these subjects were almost ignored by the Masters.
>
> Then there is the development of the handwriting and grammar
> (Russian grammatical mistakes).  Admittedly many were explained
> by her, but rather inconvincingly.
>
> Apparently under influence of Mme.Blavatsky's later hostility
> towards Spiritualism and the "empty shell" nature of its
> communicators, faithful Theosophists have shied away from
> studying the history of Spiritualism with an open mind.
>
> > "I suspect that somewhere in Tibet some individuals are right now
> > having a good laugh"
>
> -- wrote Paul.
>
> There is little reason for laughter over there, but whether there
> is a Master amongst them, is even more doubtful.
>
> It seems to me naive to surmise that there are such individuals
> in Tibet, unless one attaches any credence to the fantasies in
> Paul Baird's: Masters of Wisdom.
>
> I have met a number of Tibetan monks, some from the inner circle
> of the Dalai Lama.  I was always tempted to tell them about the
> Theosophic Masters and to ask their opinion.  Invariably my
> account was met by laughter and amusement that Westerners could
> be kidded into believing that such beings ever existed in Tibet.
>
> ERNEST EGERTON WOOD.
>
> Are the enquirers familiar with his disillusioned book: Is this
> Theosophy? In 1936 he writes: "I learned to detest theosophical
> politics, with their hiding of everything that does not redound
> to the credit of those in power and their perpetual circles of
> mutual admiration, but I was left with a high regard for the
> theosophists scattered over the world as a lovable - albeit most
> innocent and childlike - body of people."
>
> MICHAEL R.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: 28 Jul 96 14:37:53 EDT
> From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
> Subject: Re: To Eldon Re: The MLs
>
> Eldon,
>
> I enjoyed your response to Paul and your attempt to defend the
> MLs.  I actually agree with you for the most part.  Some quick
> things:
>
> I believe that the MLs say that the sun is not in combustion.
> This is a remarkable statement coming from last century.  The MLs
> also say that some suns or planets will be heard before they are
> seen, and this too has come true.
>
> While I agree that science has proved some of the MLs right, it
> has also proved some to be wrong, which is about right for
> predictions (the future is a world of probabilities, and not even
> an Adept can always be sure of what will happen).  However, as a
> long-time student of Tibetan Buddhism, I find most of the MLs to
> be accurate, with only a few slips, probably due to the languages
> during translation to English.  Good essay.
>
> Jerry S.
> Member, TI
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 09:54:58
> From: "Macnev Uri" <saf@angel.elektra.ru>
> Subject: Atlantida
>
> Hello!
>
> =========================
> * Forwarded by Macnev Uri
> * From : Kay Ziatz
> =========================
>
> For: pmmkien@main.com (Paul M.M. Kieniewicz)
> Subj: Atlantida
>
> p> Can anyone tell me where to look for Atlantis and Lemuria?
>
> In late period of Atlantis, there were two main islands, each one
> approx.  like Spain in size.  The eastern was a south of mountain
> Tenerife (it was a northern mountain of the island & exceeded
> Monteblanc in height).  The western one was somewhere in Caribean
> region, maybe in Saragassa see.  One was called Daitia, the
> second - Rutha (I've forgot which of them).  But it doesn't mean
> that you should look for remains there - those regions were more
> destroyed than others.  It would be best to look on perepherial
> areas.
>
> I cannot say smth.  on Lemuria - it was so long ago...  ;) But
> HPB is _wrong_ when she writes that the giant statues on the
> island of Rapa-nui are remains of Lemuria.  Reasearches by Thor
> Heyerdahl showed that they are midaeval.  He found others, more
> ancient statues which were less and matched southamerican ones.
> When first europeans visited this island, the statues stood, but
> later they were layd down by island inhabitants.  It looks very
> suspicious - they didn't fall millions of years when entire
> continents were destroyed, but were layd down by a wild
> polynesians.  The stone roads, which lead to see shore had no
> prolongation under the water, too.  To save a HPB's reputa- tion,
> i should note that she borrowed this information from some
> european author (I forgot which from), but not from the mahatmas.
>
> For more information see "Aku-aku" by Thor Heyerdahl.
>
> Here i quote some facts which prove information on Atlantis,
> because someone here criticized it.
>
> In Yakutia (USSR), on the bank of river Bereleh, there were fo-
> und a lot of mammonth bones.  Radiocarbone analysis showed that
> they died 12000 years ago (it matches the theosophical date of
> Atlantis catastrophe - 9564 B.C., june or july).  They all died
> simultaneously by unknown reason - rather by water.  By remains
> of meal on their stomachs it was defined that it happened in
> summer.
>
> Soviet scientists who explored a bottom of Karskoe see (north of
> Russia) discovered that Gulfstream didn't reach Nordic Icy ocean
> before.  But 10-12000 years ago it did.  It was like some barrier
> disappeared, which prevented gulfstream of reaching nordic seas.
>
> American scientists reported that 12000 years ago volcanic ac-
> tivity in Atlantic ocean was extremely high.  They defined it by
> layers of volcanic powder on the ocean bottom.
>
> In 50s american archaeologists have found in mountains of Kur-
> distan a big carst cavern.  Layers on the floor (by carbon ana-
> lysis) show that a layers for 12-29000 years ago are absent.  But
> older & newer ones remain.  It may show that these layers are
> washed off by water.  (Excavations lead by prof.  Solecky showed
> that this cave called Shanidat was inhabited a whole 100000
> years).  Fragments of rock which falled in the 12000 la- yer show
> that then were eartquackes.
>
> (This information is borroved from a book "All about Atlantis" by
> V.  Scherbakov, Moscow, 1990)
>
> W/best regards, Konstantin Zaitzev  2:5020/360.4 Fidonet
>
> Address for personal replies:
> Kay_Ziatz%p4.f360.n5020.z2.fidonet.org@gate.phantom.ru
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: "Richard Taylor" <richtay@aol.com>
>
> To my mind all of the discussion smacks of Mr.  Judge's article,
> "The Adepts and Modern Science," where Mr.  Judge reminds
> Theosophists that, while the Adepts have respect for Western
> science to a certain point, for its progressive, mind-opening and
> helpful aspects, They strongly condemn it for its materialism,
> arrogance, and worst of all its total lack of a philanthropic
> basis.
>
> The current discussion on Atlantis reminds one of this.  The "new
> geology" (meaning, what geology has become with the discovery of
> tectonic plates and ice ages not so many decades ago) now has all
> the arrogance and presumption of nineteenth century physics,
> which claimed to have discovered all the great physical laws, and
> was only in the process of refining them to the next decimal for
> their equations.
>
> So we now have an accurate map of the ocean floor.  So people
> imagine they can see how the continents used to fit together.
> I've seen those maps.  They are utterly unconvincing as arguments
> against lost continents.  Sure, there is continental drift.  We
> measure it yearly in millimeters, and in rare cases in inches.
> This doesn't preclude cataclysmic changes.
>
> We can watch certain mountain ranges rise and sink inch by inch
> too.  But then we see that Mount St.  Helens can go off with a
> bang and drastically change the local landscape.  Pompeii was
> buried all in a heap with just such an occasion.  Common sense
> should tell us that if even in RECORDED history such drastic
> LOCAL geologic changes take place, certainly very great ones may
> take place once in a while, very suddenly.
>
> But it is the presumption of modern science which is the most
> senseless, rather than any one particular theory of the day (only
> to be changed on the morrow).  Why, it is only 150 years ago that
> we discovered dinosaurs once roamed the earth.  First we found a
> bone here, then one there.  Now it seems they lived here in
> DROVES for MILLIONS of years.  What a surprise! Only this century
> did we discover galaxies outside the Milky Way.  The same for
> continental drift and the THEORY of "Pangeia." And tomorrow, what
> new great discoveries will we make, forcing us to radically
> revise all we write today?
>
> The teaching of the Adepts is not that of passing shadows, and
> while most Theosophists shrink from the science of the Mahatmas
> Letters, there are many of us who stand by it, not as dogma to be
> imbibed, however bitter the taste, but as sensible, internally
> consistent, logical and philanthropically based theory.  Let the
> scientists of the day make all the ruckus they will.  In one
> hundred years HPB's book will still be in print--because they
> will still be useful to millions of people--while almost NOTHING
> printed by any scientist today will be read by anyone except
> scholars of the history of science, looking for the ancestry of
> the new science of the end of the 21st century -- when things we
> haven't even DREAMED of today will be in common use then.
>
> For those who have direct experience of great beings -- and there
> are a good many on the planet today, right now -- this discussion
> about how awful the science of HPB and her teachers is seems so
> shallow and myopic.  It is such a big, occult, amazing world, and
> if there are those who think HPB and her Teachers are silly and
> wrong, so be it.  These folks are simply missing out on many
> wonderful opportunities, and their earth-bound views will have to
> await the pronouncements of Official Science before the occult
> theories will be accepted.  That could be quite a long time, but
> it will happen.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 96 10:31:27 EDT
> From: "K Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
> Subject: Re: Atlantis et al.
>
> According to Paul M.M. Kieniewicz:
>
> > you've no way of telling if it's all BS.  But the stuff that can
> > be checked should be checked.
>
> And the consequences of the checking should be publicized in TS
> journals and their implications discussed openly.  Dream on!
>
> > To me, it all smacks of a coverup of sorts.  Theosophists have a
> > tendency when faced with such a discrepancy either to edit the
> > discrepancy out of future editions, or explain them away with
> > statements such as: "Atlantis is only a myth", "The Masters
> > weren't being literal", "This is an occult truth and not a
> > physical one." Or "You, Paul K., have the wrong background and
> > can't be a useful judge of these weighty matters..."
>
> Gee, that last one sounds familar except for the placement of the
> K.! There appears to be a total lack of interest in any real,
> open engagement with the teachings as a body of doctrine subject
> to analysis, comparison, etc.  This movement is intellectually
> dying if not dead.
>
> > These are to my mind all attempts to evade the fact that we are
> > unwilling to put Theosophy to the test, and when we are faced
> > with discrepancies - we are unwilling to admit that these exist.
> > Because IF - Atlantis never had any physical (not to mention
> > etheric or other) existence, the basic teachings DO fall down
> > like a house of cards.
>
> That depends on what you mean by "basic teachings." Neither the
> three objects, nor the three fundamental propositions of the SD,
> nor the mystical insights of the Voice, nor anything else that
> attracted me to Theosophy in the first place, is falling down
> like a house of cards because of the misinformation about history
> and science in the literature.  If one were to search for a
> spiritual movement with teachings that were not contradicted by
> contemporary science, I don't think it could be found.  What's
> crucial is the willingness to engage in dialogue with new
> discoveries, synthesize them, modify our flawed beliefs
> accordingly.  That's precisely what HPB wanted the TS to
> exemplify.  But it turned out considerably worse in that regard,
> more inflexible in its "scriptural" literalism, than the
> mainstream Christians HPB criticized so much.
>
> > If the few statements that can be checked in the teaching turn
> > out to be wrong, then the ones that can't be checked are probably
> > just as wrong.
>
> Non sequitur.
>
> > How about "There is no religion higher than truth"?
>
> "Theosophy is not a religion, it is truth itself.  So this is
> about those *other* people who don't have truth but only
> religion, and has no application at all to *us* who are privy to
> direct messages from Those Who Know." That's basically the
> mindset, I'm afraid.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 10:28:11 EDT
> From: "Eldon B Tucker" <eldon@theosophy.com>
> Subject: A House of Cards? (Reply to Paul K.)
>
> Paul K:
>
> The basic approach that you seem to be taking is based upon the
> rule that the simplest explanation is generally the best, as
> illustrated by the story of ocam's razor.
>
> >From the standpoint of a westerner, brought up in a certain
>
> culture and educated a certain way about the nature of the world
> and how life works, the simplest explanation would be the one
> that fits in the most easily with what you already know and
> believe.
>
> What is simplest, though, is not always true. The simplest, most
> direct explanation as to why someone acts differently than a
> Fundamentalist Christian thinks proper might be "the devil made
> him do it." To the Fundamentalist, that is the application of his
> ocam's razor. But it is false.
>
> When someone reviews the theosophical literature, and finds
> references to science, and they appear obviously wrong, the
> simplest explanation *to him* might be that the whole thing was
> made up. That may satisfy him, but again I'd say it was not the
> truth.
>
> How does one tell if there's something to be found in the
> theosophical literature, in the various metaphysical doctrines
> that are expounded? One way is an innate deja vu, a recognition
> and inner accord with what is taught. There's a sense that one
> has known these things before, and that they have the ring of
> truth to them.
>
> A second approach is through a study of various religious and
> philosophical traditions of the world. Does Theosophy offer a
> key that unlocks their meanings? Does it reveal a common thread
> of thought behind the many approaches? Blavatsky makes a case for
> this in THE SECRET DOCTRINE. The theosophical materials are
> consistent with or have ties with other great traditions.
>
> When I pick up a book by Kalu Rinpoche, I find materials that are
> in perfect accord, for instance, with what I might find in
> Theosophy. I could also read something by Manly Hall, talking
> about the Mysteries, and hear of the same thread of teachings,
> this time from someone without any organization seeking
> followers.
>
> Yet a third approach comes from "living the life". It comes from
> inner changes that result from treading the spiritual Path. One
> grows in both experience, knowledge, and ability to perceive
> life, and the teachings grow on one, they both aid one in
> understanding life as well as help put into words what one is
> experiencing.
>
> The theosophical literature is not based upon scientific
> pronouncements, and does not need to distance itself from them.
> The reason, I think, certain writers need to have their material
> reviewed, and subject to revision, is based upon how they arrived
> at what they said. Leadbeater, in his books like "The Inner
> Life", was giving materials arrived at by psychical
> investigation, which is highly unreliable.
>
> This is different than Blavatsky's materials, which were arrived
> at by study, training, and intellectual means. In one case,
> someone is writing down as scientific fact whatever they perceive
> from out-of-the-body experiences. In the other case, someone is
> passing on knowledge from a mahatmic Wisdom Tradition.
>
> I also like the motto "There is no religion higher than truth".
> It was, I recall, the motto of the Maharajah of Benares, and
> adopted by the T.S. I don't think, though, that the first person
> to invoke the motto has the upper hand on reality, truth, and
> insight into life.
>
> You mention a few highly judgemental terms like "cover up". This
> term, for instance, implies the hiding of something, with perhaps
> some element of wrong doing. I don't think the term is
> appropriate.
>
> Perhaps there is some element of it with regard to Leadbeater's
> writings, where his attempts to use psychical abilities to
> advance science have since been shown to have been off the mark.
> But not with regard to what Theosophy is about, its real core,
> its essential meaning: the philosophy, worldview, and status as a
> genuine path to the Mysteries.
>
> There is no evasion, no unwillingness to put Theosophy to the
> test. But the test *is not* a scientific report card. The test
> is something that can take years, or even lifetimes. It is in
> undertaking the study and living the life.
>
> You might say that since this is not readily apparent, and it is
> not provable in your life and in the lives of your coworkers,
> that it is untrue. You're entitled to that view, and in a free
> marketplace of ideas, I'm equally entitled to my dissenting view.
>
> If you had no education in mathematics, and were shown a complex
> mathematical proof, covering a half-dozen pages, and knew no
> geometry, trigonometry, calculus, etc., you might be inclined to
> dismiss the whole thing. If the only verifiable bits of the
> proof you could relate true were obviously untrue to you, it
> might be possible that you'd dismiss the whole thing.
>
> In this case, you'd have a situation where the person of average
> education would not be able to verify the proof, but would have
> to reserve judgment, and defer to the opinion of those recognized
> to be knowledgable in the field.
>
> In the field of spiritual development, dealing with the hidden
> side of life and the Mahatmas, the most advanced of humanity, we
> have a similar situation.
>
> It is very possible, and in accord with the idea that truth comes
> before all religions, that any of us, with regard to certain
> occult truths, "have the wrong background and can't be a useful
> judge of these weighty matters." That is, there *are* things in
> life that we do not have the background to comprehend, but have
> to defer to the views of experts, *until we acquire the necessary
> background ourselves*, and see for ourselves the truth of the
> matter.
>
> This is true for all of us, in many fields of study and in many
> areas of experience. I'd have to defer, for instance, to what a
> chemist says about chemistry, having no formal training in that
> area.
>
> Theosophy won't collapse like a house of cards, as someone finds
> a few references to science to discredit. It may sway the
> interest of a few borderline seekers, people without a strong
> draw to the philosophy, but apart from that, I see little
> happening.
>
> The biggest draw is to those with an inner recognition, an
> attraction that does not care how sloppily a book is written or
> how highly it is disfavored by public opinion. The draw is the
> inner evolutionary urge, the urge to move beyond the present
> human condition. This is something that no amount of words will
> "prove" nor evoke in someone. Each of us is responsible to
> create our own necessary state of "inner ripeness" for this, to
> make ourselves fertile to the germination of the spiritual.
>
> In the eyes of some, Theosophy is a priori proven false, and no
> amount of philosophical discourse will change things. In the
> eyes of others, Theosophy is a (non-exclusive) source of an inner
> Wisdom of life that is precious, priceless, beyond compare.
> Either might claim that "truth" is on their side.
>
> The latter, those finding a connection to the Wisdom Tradition,
> have a obviously greater benefit. Is their benefit real? Is what
> they study based upon the actual way that life works? I'd agree
> with them. But each of us has to make his own way through life,
> and that includes doing, studying, and being those things that
> appeal to them.
>
> If Theosophy seems nonsensical and simply confuses things, the
> best advice for the person seeing it that way is: stay away,
> forget this stuff, don't return until or unless your heart tells
> you that something is being missed. On the other hand, if it
> seems to be a wide open doorway, leading to a whole new world of
> experience, I'd say: don't hesitate, jump in and do it!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 96 11:44:49 EDT
> From: "K Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
> Subject: Re: A House of Cards? (Reply to Paul K.)
>
> According to Eldon Tucker <eldon@theosophy.com>:
>
> > How does one tell if there's something to be found in the
> > theosophical literature, in the various metaphysical doctrines
> > that are expounded? One way is an innate deja vu, a recognition
> > and inner accord with what is taught. There's a sense that one
> > has known these things before, and that they have the ring of
> > truth to them.
>
> So far, so good.  I know precisely what you mean, experienced it
> intensely, dreamed about the SD while reading it for the first
> time, and so on.  We're talking intuitive recognition here.  But
> what if things have the "ring of truth" not because they are true
> but because they are familiar falsehoods? If I was a Mormon in my
> last life, perhaps golden plates and Moroni will set off my "deja
> vu" "ring of truth" in this one.  Doesn't make it a bit more
> true.
>
> > A second approach is through a study of various religious and
> > philosophical traditions of the world. Does Theosophy offer a
> > key that unlocks their meanings? Does it reveal a common thread
> > of thought behind the many approaches? Blavatsky makes a case for
> > this in THE SECRET DOCTRINE. The theosophical materials are
> > consistent with or have ties with other great traditions.
>
> Yes and no.  Consistent with AND inconsistent with, depending on
> the writer, the book, and the tradition in question.  This
> criterion definitely cuts both ways.  If you were to poll 100
> scholars of religion who happened to be somewhat familiar with
> HPB, as to how accurately she described the traditions from which
> she drew, I don't think the majority would give her high marks.
> (However, she knew as much or more than experts of her time, so
> it isn't fair to compare her to contemporary experts UNLESS you
> assert that her sources of information were superior thereto-- as
> you do.)
>
> > at what they said. Leadbeater, in his books like "The Inner
> > Life", was giving materials arrived at by psychical
> > investigation, which is highly unreliable.
> >
>
> Then own up to that rather than pretend the problem doesn't exist
> by careful censorship of the embarrassing parts.
>
> > This is different than Blavatsky's materials, which were arrived
> > at by study, training, and intellectual means.
>
> Exclusive of psychical investigation?
>
> > In one case,
> > someone is writing down as scientific fact whatever they perceive
> > from out-of-the-body experiences. In the other case, someone is
> > passing on knowledge from a mahatmic Wisdom Tradition.
>
> It's hardly so clear-cut.  Leadbeater's clairvoyance operated
> within the general framework of Theosophical ideas, despite all
> his variations and alterations thereof.  And your description of
> HPB's teachings as "knowledge" simply begs the question Paul K.
> is raising.  Is it really knowledge? Were her sources really
> "Mahatmic" and were they all adherents of a single
> "wisdom-tradition"? Just what do those terms mean anyway? Those
> are questions she *wanted us to ponder and explore* not heresies
> that should not even be expressed in Theosophical discourse.  > >
> You mention a few highly judgemental terms like "cover up".  This
>
> > term, for instance, implies the hiding of something, with perhaps
> > some element of wrong doing. I don't think the term is
> > appropriate.
> >
>
> I can't think of anything more appropriate.  Posthumous editing
> in order to make someone appear less fallible than he was is
> hiding something, and is wrong-doing.
>
> > There is no evasion, no unwillingness to put Theosophy to the
> > test. But the test *is not* a scientific report card. The test
> > is something that can take years, or even lifetimes. It is in
> > undertaking the study and living the life.
>
> So, *the* test is this multi-lifetime evaluation based on
> applying the teachings before you have confirmed their
> reliability by intellectual analysis? There is systemic, rigid
> refusal to put Theosophy to the test intellectually in the sense
> that Paul K.  means.  You are exemplifying this refusal by
> denying that the test he describes has any legitimacy.  > > You
> might say that since this is not readily apparent, and it is
>
> > not provable in your life and in the lives of your coworkers,
> > that it is untrue. You're entitled to that view, and in a free
> > marketplace of ideas, I'm equally entitled to my dissenting view.
> >
>
> But you are not entitled to tell people who don't share it that
> they don't belong in the movement.
>
> > Theosophy won't collapse like a house of cards, as someone finds
> > a few references to science to discredit. It may sway the
> > interest of a few borderline seekers, people without a strong
> > draw to the philosophy, but apart from that, I see little
> > happening.
>
> Agreed.  But it's not a few references, but many, that are
> problematic.  And you keep describing people as "borderline" as
> if you are confident that you are making an *objective
> assessment*.  Au contraire, when you and others of like mind
> dismiss some Theosophists as "borderline" you are making a
> *subjective assessment* based on *borders of your own definition*
> that unfortunately becomes *self-fulfilling prophecy.* > > If
> Theosophy seems nonsensical and simply confuses things, the
>
> > best advice for the person seeing it that way is: stay away,
> > forget this stuff, don't return until or unless your heart tells
> > you that something is being missed. On the other hand, if it
> > seems to be a wide open doorway, leading to a whole new world of
> > experience, I'd say: don't hesitate, jump in and do it!
>
> And if you have a strong intuitive sense that Theosophy is an
> open doorway to a new realm of experience AND that much of it is
> nonsensical and confusing, then what? Jump in and have
> Theosophists attack you for lack of firmness in your faith? Stay
> away and lose the opportunity to learn and share with others of
> like interests? Not much of a choice.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 20:57:02 -0500
> From: "Paul M Kieniewicz" <pmmkien@main.com>
> Subject: Putting the Mahatma Letters to the Test
>
> Alan and Paul,
>
> I appreciate your thoughts concerning my last postings.  The
> entire train of thought was stimulated by Paul's suggestion that
> the ML might be subjected to textual critisicm.
>
> Well -- How about it?
>
> Caould one put out (in installments) a red letter edition of the
> ML, analagous to the red letter edition of the Bible put out by
> the Jesus seminar.  One could assign each paragraph a category:
>
> RED- We can say with some certainty that a Mahatma or his Chela
> is the author of this part.
>
> PINK -- It might have been a Master, but could just as easily
> have originated from HPB.  However it does sound like a Master
> speaking
>
> BROWN -- HPB for sure/ conscious or channeled from some inferior
> entity.
>
> BLACK --- Total BS.  HPB must have been drunk when she wrote this
> one.It definitely was not a Master or Chela who wrote this.
>
> Of course - I understand the obstacles to carrying out such a
> plan.  First -- you need a fairly unbiased group of people who
> are willing to lay down ground rules for such an investigation --
> standards of textual critisism, and then to abide by these
> standards regardless of which Theosophical persuasion they come
> from.  The toughest part might be to agree to those standards.
> But -- maybe it can be done.
>
> Examples of such standards would be -- can the paragraph be
> traced to HPB, things that were written and discussed in the late
> 19th century by other writers.  Does the paragraph appear really
> at odds with what HPB might have thought or written about? This
> might make a paragraph appear more authentic.
>
> Let each person cast their vote.  (There's the rub!)
>
> Such analysis would undoubtly tend to place a lot of material in
> the brown and black categories that -- could belong in the red or
> pink, but can't be proved to belong there.
>
> And then another problem, who would thank such people for their
> efforts? Adyar Theosophists? Point Loma? Sceptics?
>
> Anyone want to (or have time) for such an endeavor ?
>
> Paul K.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Maxim Osinovsky" <mosinovs@library.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: Re: Putting the Mahatma Letters to the Test
>
> On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Paul M.M. Kieniewicz wrote:
>
> > Could one put out (in installments) a red letter edition of the
> > ML, analagous to the red letter edition of the Bible put out by
> > the Jesus seminar.  One could assign each paragraph a category:
> > ...
> >
> > such an investigation -- standards of textual critisism, and then
> > to abide by these standards regardless of which Theosophical
> > persuasion they come from.  The toughest part might be to agree
> > to those standards.  But -- maybe it can be done.
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> This project might be of some value as a scholarly enterprise
> sponsored by the Department of Comparative Religion of a major
> research university,--but in the context of the theosophical
> movement, what's the good of it? If we are going to rely on the
> advice of our higher selves and our spiritual intuition, such
> issues as authenticity etc.  of ML are not an issue at all.  I
> cannot imagine myself agreeing with a learned opinion of an
> expert panel if it is not supported by my inner knowledge.  On
> the other hand, if I smell a truth in a certain writing I do not
> need to verify the authorship--in fact I do not care about it.
>
> Of course if theosophy is going to become another religion, then
> it may be important to establish a body of canonical
> scriptures...
>
> It would be also a good idea to clarify the issue of objective
> vs.  subjective proofs in spiritual disciplines, the Doctrine of
> Heart vs.  the Doctrine of Heart.  In particular, I am wondering
> if it is possible to prove anything at all in the spiritual
> disciplines.  Is it possible that they are based on a different
> kind of paradigm? If so then the general tone of discussions on
> this email list may need to be changed.  From a certain
> perspective, many discussions going on the list are attempts at
> making sense of the illusion; indirectly, it may lead to true
> knowledge and liberation, too, but there are more direct ways to
> achieve that goal.
>
> Max