Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00344)

Well, here we have another seminar in disingenuous
argument. For the nth time Dallas brings out his
beloved "dead woman" argument, which says that nobody
can study the life of someone who is dead. The
standard is of course applied very selectively. He
does not apply it to himself, or to Sylvia Cranston,
or to others. He only applies it to those to whom he
wishes to apply it. But in the same post he says that
the dead woman in question is not dead but alive. (!) 
If she is alive and not dead, then it would appear we
are not constrained by the "dead woman" argument from
studying her life. Or does he want to have it both
ways? Then there is a lot of irrelevant stuff about
reincarnation, and comments on badly written novels
mentioning Jesus. This is the irrelevance technique
we discussed earlier. Use as much irrelevant material
as possible to confuse the issue. Upton Sinclair has
nothing whatever to do with the Ootan Liatto matter. 
Why doesn't he bring Jacqueline Susanne into the
picture? How did E.M. Forster get left out? Why not
Evelyn Waugh? Why Sinclair? Dallas goes on to refute
statements I never made in the first place (another
rhetorical technique), and then says in effect that
statements made by Blavatsky herself and by her
acolyte, Olcott, must not be acknowledged in any way
unless it is somehow pleasing and interesting to him
personally.

I think I hear him singing the song, I AM THE WORLD
here. But in unhappy fact he is not the whole world.

It is Blavatsky who wrote about soma. I didn't write
about that. It is Olcott who described experiences he
had while stoned. I did not do that. It is Blavatsky
who said she drank potions so she could have the
experience of "projecting" her "double." I didn't
write about that.

If any criticizing is going on here, Blavatsky and
Olcott must have criticized themselves, and Dallas is
criticizing everyone else. That she smoked, toked,
swore, drank, married, took lovers, and abused people
are simply historical facts. Stating facts is not
putting judgements on people, but HIDING those facts
and insisting that others hide them as well and
sneaking around is making an implied judgement. There
is no way around that. If the Fundamentalists cannot
face their own history squarely, then they are making
a statement that their own movement has a guilty
secret. Being non judgmental is only possible if we
face facts squarely and honestly and ask the question:
"So what?" An observer by definition cannot hide
facts and cover things up without ceasing, ipso facto,
to be non judgmental.

I don't care if Blavatsky had an occasional snort. 
That issue, incidentally, was introduced by Dallas
TenBroek and Daniel Caldwell, as the record shows. I
was not even aware of it. Thanks, guys, for educating
me on that point.

As for whether she smoked hash or not, consider this:
in ancient times a certain individual sought a
revelation. To that end he told his followers to bug
off, and, being a priest of the Egyptian god Osiris,
ascended the mountain where that deity was said in
mythology to have been born. There he sought for and
found a plant which he recognied by species. He set
it on fire and he shoved his face into the smoke until
he thought the plant was talking to him. At that
point he was so out of it, he thought the plant was
burning and yet not burning. The mountain was Mount
Sinai and the priest was Moses.

Desiring further revelations he ascended another
mountain, this one an active volcano, and inhaled more
smoke. Voila! Another revelation. The mountains of
the Sinai desert never have been volcanic, but the
legend says he found one anyway. Go figure. Armed
with this new revelation he founded his own religion,
which survives to this day and spawned an offshoot
which claims a billion followers.

So what? Truth be told, every religion probably has a
similar origin. They all originated in a cloud of
smoke somewhere. If some sneak around and try to
conceal that fact, then it is they, and not I, who are
passing judgement on their forbears. There is no
judgement in honesty. Judgement does exist where
there is cant, dishonesty, and concealment.

Let judgement cease and let the truth come out. The
truth is, Olcott was stoned. His own words prove it.

End of story,

Steve

--- dalval14@earthlink.net wrote:
> Saturday, December 15, 2001
> 
> Dear Steve:
> 
> Surely you jest !
> 
> What about REINCARNATION and the persistence of the
> SPIRITUAL EGO
> in the after-death states until reincarnation occurs
> under Karma
> ? Do you discard this possibility ? If you do
> then some of the
> most profound and important aspects of theosophical
> metaphysics
> and doctrine are excised from consideration.
> 
> And why should not an Adept, as I hold that H P B
> was, and is, --
> not continue to work (after the physical death of
> her last body)
> using the Nirmanakayic body (the spiritually
> individualized body)
> ? Of course Karma prohibits demonstrating this fact
> to most
> others, but it does not make it a falsity.
> All adepts have the faculty of doing this and are
> always in
> contact with each other, even though with our
> physically limited
> senses may not perceive this, except occasionally. 
> You may of
> course disagree with me on this, but, I would wonder
> why.
> 
> It does lend a great deal of mystery (because it
> deals with the
> underlying force-field energies that locate and
> adjust all
> physical matter, and are the real creators of all
> structures and
> form of MATTER--such as we know it) to speculators,
> especially
> those who would rather never see an Adept like H P B
> again in
> their midst. [ As an example: take the fictional
> accounts of
> the possible return of Jesus to this time and
> civilization --
> that claims Him as their founder. 1. Dostoevsky in
> THE BROTHERS
> KARAMAZOV wrote that brilliant chapter called THE
> GRAND
> INQUISITOR. 2. Upton Sinclair in the early 1920s
> wrote a
> book -- fiction -- "THEY CALL ME CARPENTER" in which
> Jesus visits
> Los Angeles in the turbulent 20s. There are a
> couple of
> examples. And there are more, like Neville Shute's 
> "AROUND THE
> BEND." ]
> 
> Of course if you resist and refute these 4 basic
> ideas:
> 
> 1. the Immortality of all the components (monads --
> SPIRIT /
> MATTER) of the Universe (including Man), and
> 
> 2. Reincarnation, a process whereby the Spirit/Soul
> (the energic
> center) of every being and humanity, progressively
> acquires fresh
> bodies when the present forms are exhausted and
> reach the end of
> their usefulness, and
> 
> 3. Karma (universal and individualized LAW and laws
> -- impartial
> and omnipresent in the Universe, and
> 
> 4. Universal Evolution.... then there is no point
> in
> continuing.
> 
> Personally I think those ideas make far more sense
> (when
> considered as a working hypothesis) than those that
> are currently
> circulated in the various religions and speculative
> philosophico-psychologies of today (and which remain
> largely
> unproven). My observation is that they divide us
> through
> 'cul-de-sac' analysis, and lack that synthetic
> quality which
> NATURE exhibits in all her numerous interlocking
> departments. If
> NATURE (as a sensitive and infinitely conscious and
> intelligent
> ENTITY, did not take care of us physically -- at
> least -- then
> who would, and who is? That is an aspect of our
> existence which
> is rarely addressed. H P B has considered it in her
> presentation
> of Theosophy.
> 
> I say, and maintain with all the vigor I know how to
> express, H P
> B is very much alive wherever she may be and
> whatever she may be
> doing. So are the "Masters." So are all the Noble
> Souls down
> the ages that have lived and worked, trying to draw
> men's minds
> to consider something else than a mere handful of
> years of life
> as the only opportunity they have to become wise and
> live in
> spiritual accord as brothers with the rest of
> humanity and nature
> as a whole. But so, too, according to Theosophical
> teachings,
> are we all, when this physical body dies. Each life
> is like a
> day at school. And we are all immortal pupils, with
> the same
> potentials. Do we resent in school our teachers,
> and the
> professors at University, or the Savants who do
> prime research
> into Nature for the advancement of Science ? We
> know that with
> determination and effort we too can transform our
> ignorance and
> "no knowledge" into sound memory and reasoning that
> will enable
> us to emulate them to the full. We need only make
> such a
> determination and then apply our WILL to the job.
> 
> Most believe the end of the body (death) is the end
> of
> everything. I happen to disagree. And for myself I
> have good
> reason to be sure of that. Death is a prolonged
> SLEEP. The
> "waking up" in a "new body" is a resumption of one's
> CONTINUING
> life.
> 
> Maybe Theosophical doctrines are not interesting to
> you, or only
> partly so. But it is you (and I) who make a
> selection from the
> total menu of metaphysical and philosophical ideas
> and facts that
> Theosophy deals with. Its curriculum covers the
> universe in both
> breadth and depth, as the History of Ideas reveals
> -- it has
> always had its Witnesses and their testimony shows a
> continuity
> of vision and of thought, that makes for the
> unification of
> Science, Philosophy and Religion.
> 
> On the other hand the fragmentation of the study of
> nature into
> departments makes for a disunity among disciplines
> such as we
> witness today. And our development of Science and
> investigation
> into Nature is only about 3 to 400 years old. Our
> concepts of
> earlier civilizations are largely theorized on
> fragments and
> relicts, and hypothesized on concepts of
> civilization current
> today, but which may have been totally different
> then. When
> written or ceramic records disappear, we judge that
> the condition
> of mankind everywhere is "savagery. and ignorance." 
> Yet from
> time to time paleontologists and archeologists dig
> up evidence
> from deposited strata millions of years old of
> sciences and arts
> such as we have developed or use currently. 
> Paradox. No
> explanation. Usually the evidence is "forgotten" or
> concealed.
> One ought to make an extensive catalog of these. I
> believe a
> couple of archeologists in the San Diego area have
> published this
> recently.
> 
> But no one (in my esteem) has a license to slander
> (speak 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com