Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00085)

Hey gang,

Eldon's right-- So far I've spent several hundred on assorted car
repairs and it still ain't right, and now I've got a lightning
struck satellite receiver.  Holding my breath for computer
hassles at work or home.  But that snafu energy doesn't
necessarily mean we shouldn't try to communicate.  Although Merc
retro makes it harder, it may also be effective in that there's a
quality of "going back over" issues.  Responding to various
posts:

Richard, thanks for the insightful words.  Sometimes I wonder if
it's a regional or national thing, that Southerners and
Midwesterners are a lot more committed to conflict avoidance than
Northerners or Westerners.  And Aussies seem comfortable with
what most Americans would consider rudeness.  Most of the ugliness on
this list has always come from the Western US.  Wonder if that's coincidental
or if the relative rootlessness out there makes people feel they
can just say anything.  Be nasty to people around here (small VA town)
and you'll be ostracized for the rest of your life.  But more
profoundly your case makes sense-- there is a direct correlation
between the way people believe what they believe and the way they
feel authorized to treat unbelievers.

Kym, you're a hoot!  Glad you appreciate the double entendre.
Seriously, my own observation of my celibate years is that
celibacy is useful in avoiding entanglements that would take
one's energies away from a particular focus.  But otherwise it is
quite destructive of the ability to connect with people in a
loving way, a genuine open-hearted way, and I see this in many
cases I've observed.  Fear of women is part of it, but the real
issue isn't avoidance of sex or women, but LOVE.  Deep issues
here.  He hath spoken.

Daniel, I'm going one step down the slippery slope of responding
to your misreadings of me AND NO FURTHER.  Well, maybe two.  You
call it a "significant admission" that I call Ooton Liatto and
friend "two real adepts."  But surely you realize that what I mean by "real
adepts" does not include any of the assumptions you seem to bring
to it.  I just meant real people, who were occultists of some
sort and knew HPB.  Didn't endorse the paranormal phenomenon as
you know.  Also, you say I'm skeptical about the possibility of
organizations of adepts being connected to HPB.  Clearly a
misreading; I've gone to great lengths to ferret out just such
associations in her life, such as Masonic, Rosicrucian, Sikh,
Sufi, etc. connections.  I just don't accept that all these
diverse separate "brotherhoods" were One Big Brotherhood
except in a metahistorical and metaphysical sense.  Sure there
were some connections.  But no Great Big Conspiracy running the
world.  But hey, let's not talk about this any more.  If you want
to dissect my Cayce book, more power to you.  Statute of
limitations is up on my theories about HPB's Masters which were first
published in 1990.  Frankly, I've lost interest in discussing it.

Thanks, Murray, for pointing the discussion back to what I
considered the real issue.  There are lots of "real adepts"
around, genuine holders of lineages of Sufism, Vedanta, Tibetan
Buddhism, etc.  Why should we focus on inaccessible hypothetical
adepts, if we want to connect to Masters, when there are so many
genuine, flesh and blood, authorized exemplars of traditions HPB
endorsed as being her sources?  I just don't get it, EXCEPT that
a real guru might tell us we're wrong whereas the imaginary kind
always endorse everything we think and do?  And, as a friend with
UFOlogy connections said, people are always more impressed by
spacemen from another galaxy than by men from Mars.  Distance
adds enchantment.

Cheers,
Paul