Theos-Talk Archives (May 2000 Message tt00313)

I don't know that being colorful about your birth date qualifies you as a
chronic liar!  Al Gore is notorious as an embellisher of his resume, but few
accuse him of being dishonest or less than honorable.  Women also have a
habit of fudging their birth date.

There was a low point in my life when I found Leadbeater's books 35 years
ago that helped me greatly.  Enough so, that I joined the Theosophy Society
recently.

People do not excel at everthing equally.  There are always some
compartments where they do not fare as well or fail, that includes HPB as
well.  When they succeed spectacularly in one area, you don't give them a
free ride elsewhere.

The truth probably lies somewhere between George Tillet and Aryel and
agendas.

David Blankenship






----- Original Message -----
From: "theos-talk-digest" <owner-theos-talk-digest@pippin.imagiware.com>
To: <theos-talk-digest@pippin.imagiware.com>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 12:27 AM
Subject: theos-talk-digest V1 #1147


>
> theos-talk-digest        Friday, May 26 2000        Volume 01 : Number
1147
>
>
>
>
> This is the digest form of Theosophical Talk, a mailing list
> for letters to the editor of THEOSOPHY WORLD and discussion
> of theosophical ideas and teachings.
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe to the non-digest version of this
> list, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe"
> to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. For the digest version,
> sent the command to theos-talk-digest-request@theosophy.com.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 18:11:17 GMT
> From: "David Green" <davidgreen@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Theos-World From Dr Gregory Tillett on CW Leadbeater's birthdate
>
> From Dr Gregory Tillett on CW Leadbeater's birthdate
>
> Although one might have thought the question of the date of
> Charles Webster Leadbeater¹s birth was resolved by the
> publication in my book, The Elder Brother in 1982, it would seem
> that this is not so. The Theosophical Publishing House at Adyar,
> after a period from 1982 when they tended to include the date of
> Leadbeater¹s death on the covers of his books but not to mention
> the year of his birth, has now begun to republish Leadbeater¹s
> books with the dates 1847-1934 for his life. More bizarrely, at
> its meeting in Sydney in the latter half of 1996, the General
> Episcopal Synod of the Liberal Catholic Church by resolution
> declared that Leadbeater was born in 1847, despite apparent
> evidence to the contrary. The Church had, apparently, originally
> accepted the corrected birth date, publishing a booklet by Hugh
> Shearman which stated (and attempted to explain) it, and
> revising material published by the Liberal Catholic Institute of
> Studies to include (but not note or explain) the changed date.
> Why, therefore, would anyone now bother to try to promote an
> obviously false date ?
>
> The answer is fairly obvious. If Leadbeater could not tell the
> truth about the basic facts of his early life, what trust can be
> placed in his clairvoyant vision ? If someone is dishonest about
> that which is open to external assessment, what credibility can
> they have regarding that which is known only to them ?
> In Leadbeater¹s case, if he can be shown to be untruthful
> regarding the prosaic events of his childhood and early life,
> what assessment is to be made of accounts of life on Mars,
> discussions with inner plane Masters or clairvoyant descriptions
> of everything from the archaeology of Atlantis to the history of
> Christianity, the causes of cancer or the post-mortem state of
> someone¹s beloved cat?
>
> Leadbeater claimed, consistently and in print, to have been born
> on February 17, 1947. It seems a simple enough question, and one
> which any individual could and should be able to answer: when
> were you born ?  There are, however, in Leadbeater¹s case, two
> answers to that question: the answer given by Leadbeater
> (February 17, 1847) and the answer given by the birth
> certificate in the General Register Office in London, and other
> documents (February 16, 1854). It may be that, for some complex
> family reason, an individual might believe they were born a
> little earlier or later than was the case. Even a year, perhaps,
> to conceal a pregnancy prior to marriage. But, presumably, most
> people would know if the discrepancy was of seven years. Could a
> seven year old boy seriously be passed off as a newborn ? So,
> presumably,  in Leadbeater¹s case only one of these dates can be
> correct ? Well, not necessarily. After the publication of The
> Elder Brother in 1982, the Liberal Catholic Church and the
> Theosophical Society, astutely, dealt with the problem by
> virtually never mentioning the book. A small biographical
> pamphlet on Leadbeater by the eminent Theosophist and Liberal
> Catholic priest, Hugh Shearman, was, however, released by the
> Church¹s publisher, the St Alban Press. It accepted the 1854
> birthrate and suggested that the conflict of dates was
> inexplicable and unimportant.
>
> One correspondent wrote to me alleging that the Jesuits had
> changed documents relating to Leadbeater¹s early life as part of
> their ongoing attempts to destroy Theosophy!  Another
> correspondent explained that Leadbeater himself had been a
> Jesuit agent intent upon destroying the Theosophical Society and
> that the ³missing seven years² (which were, of course, not
> missing at all!) were accounted for by the time he had spent in
> his Jesuit training.  Yet another Theosophist wrote assuring me
> that Leadbeater himself, for reasons not fully explained,
> occultly changed the documents to prevent anyone finding out
> about his early life. These explanations, as unconvincing as
> they may be to non-believing scholars, serve the explain away
> the apparent conflict between claim and reality.
>
> Although the bishops of the Liberal Catholic Synod did not,
> unfortunately, develop the reasoning for their decision (at
> least in any public document) the answer, presumably, must be
> that there were two Charles Webster Leadbeaters, and that my
> research found the wrong one. There is evidence of one Charles
> Webster Leadbeater; his birth certificate (not to mention his
> mother¹s and father¹s marriage and death certificates) are in
> the Public Record Office in London. So, there must be another
> one, born in 1847.
>
> There are, it seems to me, some fundamental problems with a two
> Leadbeaters theory. It requires that two boys, each named
> Charles Webster, with the fairly uncommon surname of Leadbeater,
> were born to parents (both of whom had identical names) in a
> relatively small town seven years apart, and that the birth of
> the first (and the Theosophical Leadbeater) in 1847 was not
> registered, but the birth of the second in 1854 was registered.
> Possible, I suppose, but at what level of probability ?
> However, the improbability of this scenario increases. Census
> returns from the period reveal the movements of the family of
> the Charles Leadbeater born in 1854, and records exist of
> marriage and deaths of his mother and father (who both died on
> the same dates given for his parents¹ deaths by the hypothetical
> Leadbeater of 1847). There are, almost needless to say, no
> census returns disclosing the existence of another family with
> parents and child of the same names within the periods in
> question, nor birth, marriage or death records for the parents
> of this alternative Leadbeater. The degree of difficulty
> increases.  But - for the two Charles Webster Leadbeaters theory
> - - it gets more worse. There is, in the archives of the
> Theosophical Society at Adyar, some handwritten notes by
> Jinarajadasa of Leadbeater¹s family background; I possess a copy
> of those notes. They give a quite detailed family tree, and the
> information came from Leadbeater himself (as Jinarajadasa
> notes). The level of improbability now increases exponentially:
> the family tree described in the notes is identical to the
> family tree of the Leadbeater, born in 1854. Can we assume that
> over multiple generations, the two Leadbeaters (1847 and 1854)
> shared families in which every member was identical in name ?
> Perhaps ..... but it becomes yet more complicated.
>
> Given that Theosophical and Liberal Catholic Church publications
> (not to mention Leadbeater¹s own writings) identify him as the
> nephew (through the marriage of his father¹s sister, Mary) of a
> prominent Anglican clergyman, William Wolfe Capes, a further
> problem emerges. We must - if we accept  the two Charles Webster
> Leadbeaters theory - now also accept that William Wolfe Capes
> had two nephews, each of them called Charles Webster Leadbeater,
> and born (to different parents ? at least to fathers with
> identical names, and mothers with identical names) seven years
> apart, and each the son of Cape¹s wife¹s brother. Does this mean
> that the father of both Leadbeaters was a bigamist married to
> two women of the same name ?  or two sisters of the same name ?
> or did he marry two women of the same name sequentially ?  Or
> did Capes have two wives, named Mary ? Or were there two William
> Wolfe Capes each married to a sister of Leadbeater¹s father,
> both of whom were named Mary ? And, if so, why is there no
> genealogical record of the wife who gave birth to the 1847
> Charles ? Perhaps Capes had two sisters (with the same names)
> who married two men (with the same names) ? Even if the
> statistical probability of such a situation was too remote, the
> genealogical evidence removes this not an option. Genealogical
> evidence certainly shows that the Leadbeater born in 1854 was
> Capes¹ nephew, and obtained entry to the Anglican ministry
> through Capes¹ influence, at the same time and in the same
> place, and in the same manner, as the Leadbeater born in 1847.
> It is really only with his ordination into the Anglican Church
> that the public record and Leadbeater¹s biographical claims in
> his writings begin to coincide. Certainly his statements about
> the dates and circumstances of his ordination are correct.  But,
> for  those who hold to the two Charles Webster Leadbeaters
> theory there is now an apparently insurmountable problem: the
> Charles Webster Leadbeater who was ordained as an Anglican
> priest by the Bishop of Winchester on St Thomas¹ Day, 1879,
> (and who was the nephew of William Wolfe Capes) gave as his
> birth date the one shown on the birth certificate available from
> the General Register Office in London: February 16, 1854.
> Unless, of course, there were two Charles Webster Leadbeaters,
> both the nephews of William Wolf Capes (and born of parents with
> identical names....) ordained in the same service on the same
> day (which the church records show that there were not), the two
> Charles Webster Leadbeaters theory would now seem to have
> totally collapsed. Unless we move into total fantasy land with
> two Bishops of Winchester and two churches, each in a different
> town called Farnham (perhaps in different dimensions) in each of
> which a different Leadbeater, the nephew of a different Capes,
> was ordained on the same day.
>
> Lest doubt be cast on my own ability to undertake historical or
> genealogical research, it should be noted that when, while The
> Elder Brother was still being written, I informed the then
> President of the Theosophical Society, John Coats,  of my
> discoveries regarding Leadbeater¹s early life. I did this
> against the strongly expressed wishes of my publisher, and in
> the interests of fairness, lest there was some explanation which
> ought to be included in my biography. Coats immediately had a
> full investigation undertaken in England. This was done by Miss
> Lilian Storey,  Librarian of the Theosophical Society in London
> and a very competent genealogist; her research both confirmed
> mine, and produced considerably more evidence, including
> substantial data from census returns and other official records.
> Although personally deeply distressed by the findings, Coats
> provided me with copies of Miss Storey¹s report and all the
> related documents. These came to me too late for inclusion in
> The Elder Brother but are contained, with yet further material
> relating to Leadbeater¹s early life, in my doctoral thesis. Yet
> further material relating to the birth date and the years prior
> to ordination have been uncovered since the submission of my
> thesis. I would personally prefer a more exciting explanation of
> Leadbeater¹s birth date than simple deceit. Some vast conspiracy
> involving the alteration of masses of public records has
> enormous appeal. Until evidence of some such improbable
> explanation is produced, those who publish the claim that C.W.
> Leadbeater was born in 1947 are simply perpetrating a fraud. I
> would be greatly pleased to hear from either the Theosophical
> Publishing House, Adyar, or the Synod of the Liberal Catholic
> Church. I am more than willing to consider any historical
> evidence, and will happily - and publicly - retract my error
> regarding Leadbeater¹s birth date.
>
> [Forwarded to theos-talk from Dr Gregory Tillett.]
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
> - -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 18:11:56 -0500
> From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
> Subject: Re: Theos-World hackers are around!
>
> The issue of break-in was discussed by our local linux user group and
seems
> to be very common occurrence. While I do not know the specific details,
> everyone in the group was advising a firewall to be built. It looks it is
> very easy if you are using linux.
>
> mkr
>
>
> At 07:59 PM 05/24/2000 -0700, you wrote:
> >I'm posting the following message as a warning to others
> >on the list. It's apparently dangerous to be connected
> >to the Internet, without being careful about security,
> >especially when you're online all the time with DSL.
> >
> >My www.mahat.com experimental server was broken into
> >yesterday, then used by someone for hacking. Anyone
> >have any ideas regarding how they got in, or suggestions
> >on how to make sure my system is safe before I take
> >it online again?
> >
> >-- Eldon Tucker
> >
> >>Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 19:42:28 -0700
> >>To: trouble@pbi.net, keith@fastdata.net
> >>From: Eldon B Tucker <eldon@theosophy.com>
> >>Subject: fastdata.net hacker breaking into my pacbell.net computer
> >>
> >>This message is regarding my pacbell.net computer, mahat.com,
> >>which was broken into yesterday. (Note that clancy.mahat.com
> >>is an alternate name for mahat.com.) I consider this a serious
> >>matter, and expect that it will be looked into.
> >>
> >>After getting a call at about 10:50 PM (PDT) yesterday
> >>that someone's computer was being hacked into from my
> >>linux box, mahat.com, I investigated files and logs on
> >>the system, and find that my computer had been broken
> >>into and was in use by some hacker.
> >>
> >>Someone from 208.21.139.183 connected to my system,
> >>changed the password for 'gdm', ftp'ed some files,
> >>then may have connected from different computers and
> >>run things -- who knows what? -- until I found out
> >>about the problem and turned off the computer.
> >>
> >>The hacker seems to have been initally been connected
> >>through a dial in port, dial183.fastdata.net, having
> >>connected to my system at 22:08:10 PDT.
> >>
> >>A question for fastdata.net, the apparent host
> >>to the hacker, and for pacbell.net, my ISP and
> >>host to the machine that was broken into: Is it
> >>possible, knowing a particular dial-in port and
> >>time of access, to identify the particular user
> >>of fastdata.net and investigate his/her activities?
> >>
> >>A second question for pacbell.net: Do you have
> >>any suggestions as to how someone can conneted
> >>and change a password without having first been
> >>logged onto the system? (There's no record of a
> >>telnet just prior to the password change.) I
> >>don't feel safe connecting my computer to the
> >>internet again, even if I change some passwords,
> >>until I know how the initial break in happened.
> >>
> >>-- Eldon Tucker
> >>
> >>----
> >>
> >>Information that I've pieced together from various
> >>files and logs follow. Lines are generally identified by the
> >>file that they came from.)
> >>
> >>(I'm not sure if this is revelant.)
> >>
> >>-rwxr-xr-x   1 root     root       179260 May 23 22:28 /bin/screen
> >>prw-------   1 root     root            0 May 23 22:43
> /tmp/screens/S-root/7857.pts-1.clancy
> >>
> >>---- episode 1 (at 18:46:59)
> >>
> >>(I'm not sure if this is relevant.)
> >>
> >>00:00 clancy in.telnetd[7280]: connect from 207.114.4.46
(/var/log/messages)
> >>
> >>---- episode 2 (at 22:08:10 PDT)
> >>
> >>(This is the initial hack.)
> >>
> >>00:00 clancy in.telnetd[7805]: connect from 208.21.139.183
> (/var/log/messages)
> >>00:57 clancy PAM_pwdb[7811]: password for (gdm/42) changed by ((null)/0)
> (/var/log/messages)
> >>     <
> gdm:$1$SOUOZBTa$jfldaf2zoxrKh9WECYkhS0:11100:0:99999:7:-1:-1:134538460
> (/etc/shadow)
> >>     >
> gdm:$1$kWRfP1c.$PBs.7nIR4gjO1VYPUvssi.:11095:0:99999:7:-1:-1:134537332
> (/etc/shadow)
> >>01:39 clancy in.ftpd[7818]: connect from 208.21.139.183
(/var/log/messages)
> >>01:40 clancy ftpd[7818]: FTP LOGIN FROM dial183.fastdata.net
> [208.21.139.183], gdm (/var/log/messages)
> >>03:03 4 dial183.fastdata.net 7449 /tmp/b.tgz b _ i r gdm ftp 0 * c
> (/var/log/xferlog)
> >>03:11 7 dial183.fastdata.net 10244 /tmp/z b _ i r gdm ftp 0 * c
> (/var/log/xferlog)
> >>03:18 5 dial183.fastdata.net 12716 /tmp/amdx b _ i r gdm ftp 0 * c
> (/var/log/xferlog)
> >>03:42 clancy ftpd[7818]: FTP session closed (/var/log/messages)
> >>
> >>---- episode 3 (at 22:35:24)
> >>
> >>(This is a followup hack.)
> >>
> >>00:00 clancy identd[7923]: Connection from madsax-1.dsl.speakeasy.net
> (/var/log/messages)
> >>00:01 clancy identd[7923]: from: 216.231.35.44 (
> madsax-1.dsl.speakeasy.net ) for: 3065, 53 (/var/log/messages)
> >>00:21 clancy identd[7924]: Connection from subaudio.mydriasis.com
> (/var/log/messages)
> >>00:21 clancy identd[7924]: from: 216.231.36.141 ( subaudio.mydriasis.com
> ) for: 1059, 53 (/var/log/messages)
> >>02:46 clancy fingerd[7927]: rejected @mahat.com  (/var/log/messages)
> >>02:46 clancy in.fingerd[7927]: connect from 216.231.48.154
> (/var/log/messages)
> >>02:51 clancy fingerd[7929]: rejected @mahat.com  (/var/log/messages)
> >>02:51 clancy in.fingerd[7929]: connect from XXX.XXX.XX.XX
> (/var/log/messages)
> >>03:42 jonesin-0.dsl.speakeasy.net /var/spool/httpd/access_log (top
webpage)
> >>
> >>---- call at about 22:50:00
> >>
> >>I got an anonymous call by someone who won't identify himself
> >>demand that I stop trying to hack into their system. The man wouldn't
> >>explain what is happening, what he meant by "hack into his
> >>system". I powered down my system, then booted it after work today,
> >>the next day, after disconnecting the computer from the lan and
> >>from the internet.
>
>
> - -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 16:20:59 -0700
> From: "Eugene Carpenter" <ecarpent@co.la.ca.us>
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Fundamental theosohical principles and their
relationship toscience.
>
> Kim,
>
> Please take your time.  No hurry.  As D.K. has written, "Make haste
slowly."
> !
>
> I'm very pleased that these thoughts have some interest to you.
>
> I haven't heard very much about those secret groups.  That makes good
sense!
>
>   I found the secret doctrine and Alice Bailey to be interesting but very
> hard.  Studying them and getting not very far led me to the conclusion
that
> I'd better think things through as best I could myself.  So I've thought
and
> thought and thought, starting at the beginning with the fundamentals.  I
was
> pleasantly surprised.  Like the camel wanting only to warm it's nose a bit
I
> found that by thinking for myself I was slowly being admitted to a rather
> neat club of folks, those who do their own thinking.  Then Blavatsky and
> Bailey started to have more meaning.  One can't learn all about tennis by
> reading and studying it.  One must play.
> So I'm at the roots of that inverted Tree of Knowledge and I try to stay
> focussed there until I understand as much as possible, this life, before
> "descending" into the more complicatedly intellectual realms and applying
> this to the medical field.  The question remains.  Can we all together
> understand the transcendental basis for our Life here together?  I mean
> really understand it.  Your last e-mail let's me know, yes, yes we can.  I
> can see that you have researched into and are atuned to the same study
space
> as myself and many others.  I am starting to see the answers to basic
> questions becoming now obvious, on the early pages of the Secret Doctrine,
> and I'm interested why what is now more obvious was years ago so obscure.
> Dallas is right- on when stress is on the psychological key.  I think that
> as things are harmonized psychologically then the mathematical key becomes
> sort of an insiders language for communication, but, not before.  But each
> one is different and goes through different phases at different times.
It's
> wonderful.
>
> My point is that this is a rational system  that each one of us can an
will
> search and find the answers through meditation and contemplation whether
we
> study HPB or AAB both or neither.  The Universe loves us emensely and will
> not leave us out of it's evolution 'cause we aren't studying this or that.
> There is a musical and magical and orderly way that we thinkers can
organize
> our thinking in regard to color and sound and number.  The ancients knew
how
> and we can learn how and then our individual world views can merge into
one
> world view.  Telepathic communication will become much easier.  Continuity
> of consciousness will be more and more common.  It's all that training in
> the mode of Francis Bacon and Aristotle that must be transfigured and
merged
> with the Theosophic mode so that Divine Logic and human experience are
once
> again one.  The Dance of Life, Shiva and Radha?
>
> This morning I was thinking that consciousness expresses the trinity, it
> itself as one part of the three, as:
>
> Consciousness
> Consciousness of Consciousness
> Consciousness of Consciousness of Consciousness
>
> It is just that simple.
>
> Or
>
>
> (                  )
> (     (     )     )
> (    ((   ))      )
>
>
> or
>
> NULL
> UNITY
> TWO
>
> or
>
>
> Consciousness
> Self
> Consciousness of Self
>
>
> And here I stay, or, I start to feel a bit scatterred.  The permutations
of
> these three consciousness states give the four atributes and are exact
> defintions of Buddhic-intuition, Science, Idealism and Devotion, and
> Ceremonial Order and Magic(or our physical world).
>
> These three states of consciousness are not the trinity.  They correspond
to
> the trinity.
>
> This will all have to be proved.  It would be truely tragic for anyone to
> accept this without understanding it.  I have been wrong so many times.
> Beware.
>
> Gene
>
>
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Poulsen <kpoulsen@vip.cybercity.dk>
> To: theos-talk@theosophy.com <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
> Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 3:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Fundamental theosohical principles and their
> relationship toscience.
>
>
> >Gene, I have little time just now to investigate your system in detail
> >(which differs a little from my own "working hypothesis"). I will love to
> do
> >it later, especially in light of the system of Leibniz, and other
similar.
> >But I will share something with you: are you familiar with the secret
> >Himalayan schools? The Kashmir Shaivites, the Buddhist and Hindu
> >tantricists?
>
>
> - -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:47:27 -0400
> From: Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com>
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Aryan and Semitic
>
> Peter Merriott wrote:
>
> > The ancient Jews got all their knowledge -- religious as well as
profane --
> > from the nations with which we see them mixed up from the earliest
periods.
> > Even the oldest of all sciences, their kabalistic "secret doctrine," may
be
> > traced in each detail to its primeval source, Upper India, or Turkestan,
far
> > before the time of a distinct separation between the Aryan and Semitic
> > nations.
>
>     This fits in well with the Kabballistic legend about Abraham and his
sons.
> The Bible says that Abraham gave to Isaac everything he had, and gave
gifts to
> his other sons who went to the East. This seems rather strange; if you
give away
> all you have, how do you have anything left to give as gifts? The answer
is the
> one thing you can give away and still have: wisdom. The concept is that
Abraham
> gave his sons occult wisdom, in particular, who proceeded to spread the
wisdom
> throughout the East.
>
>     Bart Lidofsky
>
>
>
> - -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:51:27 -0400
> From: Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com>
> Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya
>
> Todd Lorentz wrote:
>
> > Yes, but that doesn't conflict with what I have described above.  It
also
> > said that He would return "like a thief in the night".  If this story is
> > true, then that has certainly been fulfilled.
>
>     I can certainly see the resemblence.
>
>     Bart Lidofsky
>
>
>
> - -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:43:03 -0400
> From: Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com>
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Fundamental theosohical principles and their
relationship toscience.
>
>     I took a look at the page, and found the same thing as I have found in
most
> "mystic number" systems; the significance is attached to the number, then
the
> number is attached to the phenomena, and then the phenomena are used as
evidence
> of the importance of the number. Most of these "mystic numbers" are chosen
for
> purely sensory reasons; we have 5 fingers on each hand, 12 and 60 are
easily
> divisble, and 7 is the number of objects in the sky that, from the point
of view
> of the unaided human eye, appear to move relative to the stars.
>
>     There is actually a significance to the number 7, but it is entirely
> illusory. That becomes clear from a reading of THE DIVINE PLAN.
>
>     Bart Lidofsky
>
> Kim Poulsen wrote:
>
> > Bart:
> > (I like being asked for my sources) You ask:
> > >     Where do those seven fractions come from? And how do they yield
those
> > whole
> > > numbers?
> > (you problably did not read the beginning of the thread?)
> >
> > First check out this URL
> > http://www.new-universe.com/pythagoras/mcclain.html
> > Which contain the essay "Musical Theory and Ancient Cosmology" by Ernest
G.
> > McClain.
>
>
> - -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 05:24:03 GMT
> From: "David Green" <davidgreen@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Theos-World Mr Sanat, can you answer one question?
>
> Mr Sanat ----
>
> What year was Mr C W Leadbeater born?
>
> David
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
> - -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 05:37:01 GMT
> From: "David Green" <davidgreen@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Theos-World Mr Tenbroeck, can you frankly answer one question?
>
> Mr Tenbroeck ----
>
> Sometime after 1900, did Mr Robert
> Crosbie believe or claim he was in communication
> with the dead W Q Judge?
>
> David
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
> - -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 05:51:10 GMT
> From: "David Green" <davidgreen@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Theos-World Mr Poulsen, can you answer one question?
>
> Mr Poulsen -----
>
> Do you believe teachings in Mrs Bailey's
> 26 books are fully consistent with teachings
> in Mrs Blavatsky's books?
>
> David
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
> - -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 03:07:02 EDT
> From: LeonMaurer@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Fundamental theosohical principles and their
relationship toscience.
>
> To set the record a bit straighter for those who read these numerological
> dialogues and who are not overly fascinated by apparently mystical numbers
> that  -- while in many cases reflective of occult processes -- are
sometimes
> presented and taken totally out of context... Consider the following.
>
> Without showing the logical basis of such numbers and their cabalistic
> reductions -- with direct reference to and correlation with the nonlinear
> cyclic and spherical forces ("music of the spheres") from which they
> originate and reflect -- could be entirely superficial as well as
meaningless
> and misleading to most serious students of occult or esoteric theosophy --
> especially, beginners.
>
> The "why" and "how" in these teachings and understandings are as equally
> important as the "what" and "wherefor."  The I Ching is a good example of
> this, since its  numbers and their relationships are simply a symbolic
> reflection of the esoteric teachings given out in its commentaries, and
have
> no fundamental meaning in themselves -- except to serve as an symbolic
> mathematical or geometric tool linking the objective questioner indirectly
> with the subjectivity of the oracle -- whose metaphoric pronouncements, as
> translated by the ancient Chinese Taoist philosophers, still requires, for
> proper interpretation, a profound and intuitive knowledge of the spherical
> and multidimnsional "tai-chi" forms of primal energy fields and the
nonlinear
> laws and relationships of their cycles and periodicities that require
> nonlinear forms of mathematical geometries -- yet to be fully understood
or
> codified, except partially, perhaps, in the graphical interpretations of
> fractal and non-euclidian geometries used in the new sciences of chaos,
> "simplicity" and "complexity," as well as in some aspects of post modern
> quantum and sub-quantum physics such as Superstring and Membrane theories.
>
> Notice that HPB in the Secret Doctrine, always explained the occult
> derivations, relationships and significances whenever she made reference
to
> cabalistic numbers.  The reason for this is that one of the main purposes
of
> HPB's (and the Master's) exposure of esoteric theosophy was to help us
> simultaneously combine nonlinear and linear (abstract and objective,
> macrocosmic and microcosmic, as above so below, etc.) understandings,
while
> closing the gap and opening the bridge between linear left brain and
> nonlinear right brain network-type thinking -- which, to thoroughly
> comprehend the esoteric teachings, must be merged together.  Her purpose
(as
> well as that of the Masters) was to awaken the intuition and assist in
> training the linear and nonlinear linked graphical imagination of
prospective
> chelas and possible future initiates... The opposite of whom would be the
> possibly brain washed blind believers in pseudo esoteric dogmas... As is
> observed among many members of organized religions and followers of some
so
> called psychic cultists and other neo-theosophists or "new age"
teachers --
> who would like to see a "new world order" based on hierarchical and linear
> numbers with the masses under easy control of their rulers (note the
linear
> connotation of the word "rulers") while still maintaining a semblance of
> individual choice.
> The quickest way to accomplish such mind control would be to teach their
> members to either concentrate solely on the abstract level of pure
> spirituality as well as its associated rituals (which makes them
> non-resistors to their "controllers" or "gurus" mystical pronouncements),
or
> focus on the concrete level of numbers, formulas, letters and words (which
> gives them an inclination to confine their thinking into an externally
> determined linear order that blindly follows their leader's ends).
> Unfortunately, this is highly prevalent, today, in many schools of so
called
> esoteric teachings, some of which profess to be based on fundamental
> theosophy.
>
> It's good to remember, in light of the above, that the DNA linear
numerical
> code, for example, cannot function unless it is linked to the actual
> multidimensional nonlinear Astral fields that organically empower the
> proteins and magnetically guides their elements into their 3-dimensional
> chemical forms and body positions.  Is this the reason that while science
can
> superficially observe, count, and analyze the structure of the genes
> themselves, as well as understand the physical nature of the 4 chemical
bases
> of amino acids that compose the genetic code, they can't entirely explain
how
> such codes work to actually build and position the 3-dimensional protein
> molecules or biological organisms that the DNA-RNA (strings of code)
> partially serves to guide?  They see only what they believe to be the
cause
> and the effect, but have little understanding of the actual coenergetic
field
> related processes in between.  Perhaps if scientists could recognize the
> existence of an Astral body which is formed of pure field interference
> patterns of magnetic energy in a higher order dimensional space, they
would
> have no trouble explaining these fundamental processes of life, as well as
> evolution, and their linkages to the DNA code.
>
> Please don't take these observations as any denial of the validity of
> esoteric numerology (which can be very useful as both confirmation of
occult
> principles as well as in the recognition of analogies and
correspondences) --
> but simply, as food for thought in self-determining its value in helping
> better understand the fundamental principles and the derivative teachings
of
> theosophy along with its roots in esoteric occultism.
>
> LHM
>
>
> In a message dated 05/24/00 7:33:06 PM, kellogg@west.net writes:
>
> >> <SNIP>
> >
> >> As above, so below:
> >
> >As (above) so (below)
> >
> >As 01414 so 14242
> >
> >As  0 + 1 + 4 + 1 + 4 so 1 + 4 + 2 + 4 + 2
> >
> >As 10 so 13
> >
> >As 10 so 1 + 3
> >
> >As 10 so 4
> >
> >The difference is six.
> >
> >60 = 6 + 0 = 6
> >
> >Descent = 3 + 4 + 8 + 2 + 4 + 3 + 9
> >
> >Descent = 33 = 3 + 3 = 6
> >
> >Tetragrammaton = 9 + 4 + 9 + 7 + 0 + 6 + 7 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 9  + 4 + 3
> >= 58 =
> >5 + 8 = 13 = 1 + 3 = 4
> >
> >Tetraktis =  9 + 4 + 9 + 7 + 0 + 1 + 9 + 8 + 8 = 55 = 5 + 5 = 10, "The
> >Sacred
> >Pythagorean number Number."
> >
> ><SNIP>
> >
> >Spencer
> >
>
> - -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
>
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of theos-talk-digest V1 #1147
> *********************************
>


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.