Theos-Talk Archives (September 2002 Message tt00104)

Hi. I realize I am new on here, but now, thanks to Dalval's message of
yesterday, I AM here. I do not understand why you would want a person who is
as intelligent as Brian, if not indeed brilliant, and obviously VERY
interested in theosophy, to leave your list. All he is doing is giving words
and his opinion. I have noticed there has been a lot of in-fighting on these
theosophy lists. On Universal Seeker there was talk of one theosophist
cyber-stalking another, etc. On here, someone left this list because
someone was banned, and others left because they did not like someone's
messages, etc. There is no shouting on here or on any list. These are
written words. They are silent. If you or I have a reaction, if someone is
an irritant, it is a blessing. Is not the pearl formed around the tiny
impurity within an oyster? Even though I have said I do not know that much
about theosophy, I have been studying these lists and websites for some
time, and I have many books by theosophists in my library, not just
recently, but for many years. It is a fascinating topic. All about the
interchanges of certain substances and materials, some very subtle, within
ourselves and with others, with the end result of some kind of transmutation
of these materials that is beneficial, right? If I am wrong, please correct
me in your own words, not words you have read in a book. I do not see too
much deep enquiry here (right now), but a lot of looking back at and
analyzing of the past. Brian has a passion.about your subject. That is so
obvious. Why would you kick someone like this off your list? Why don't you
ask him why he is so interested in this subject? Maybe he won't tell you,
but maybe he will. If we learn to use our own words and communicate honestly
and simply about ideas, we will discover new ideas, and our words will make
a bridge. Something intelligent, outside of all this, that does not need to
look back and analyze, but is fully attentive to what is, AS IT IS, will
solve the problem of Brian, and there will be instantaneous learning that
does not take place over
time. --------------------------------------------Dalval, here is further
commentary on your message of September 5, which I hope everyone will read
again. I personally, am very interested in BREAD MAKING and the various
subtle substances and material and their interactions which result in the
making of bread. When this quality of interaction occurs ON A CERTAIN LEVEL,
sangha or spiritual community is formed. This has nothing to do with
Buddhism or any religion. It is about the middle. But what is the middle of
seven, 3;5? What does "eight" mean, if not an infinite process that is
alive and ongoing? I notice M. Blavatsky has spoken quite brilliantly of
the use in the Bible of the word "elohim" (as a three-fold force or trinity
of gods), and this is interesting to me. But if we look at a human being as
a three-fold emanation, we need to look at two threes, not one, as for man,
who is always IN RELATIONSHIP, a good number and one which represents the
middle would be six. If we take eight and put it with the scale of seven (to
represent an ongoing process) we get six (15). This a KEY number, as six
represents a kind of stabilization. There is much talk on these theosophy
lists of planes and levels. In carpentry, a plane is a level. It makes a
wood (would) surface even and smooth. I will have to study this further if
I stay on here, but for now, to put the concept of planes into my own little
words. A plane is the connection of points into a line and the extension of
that line into a surface. A plane smoothes things out. In a human there are
different kinds of planes. There is the "plane" of a reaction, such as a
racist reaction, where certain elements in a human, such as the adrenal
function and memory are connected to an incomplete perception in such a way
that certain details of reality, such as "this person is a unique individual
and also, much like myself" are unconsciously eliminated. Then there is
another kind of "plane" where incoming material is TOTALLY perceived by a
very alive intelligence, in such a way that each point is individual at the
same time it is connected, and the results instantaneously correlated so
that a conscious movement occurs. If this process leaves no remainder, there
is an emanation. There are also two points, the point where light affects
something in the brain in such a way that certain hormonal processes are
accomplished and another point that is buried deep within. I notice people
have been talking about Aurobindo. He spoke a lot about a seed of light
buried deep within the earth, right? This could be called LUCifer, or the
morning star. When we remove the six from eight, we get the number two, the
number of the devil, or duality, so to speak. (When we add the number six to
eight, we get something else). When we transmute this number two into an
ELEVEN, (11), we get an open channel, which can almost be equated to a
material bridge, as anything that exists, that IS, IS material. When we have
this bridge, we have accomplished the making of BREAD. I have deliberately
incorporated this material into the message about Brian, because it is
connected to Brian. Without a certain special ferment, the making of the
bread will not be accomplished. I did not read this in a book by M.
Blavatsky or by Krishnamurti or in the Bible or whatever. I have studied
this process in my own life. Without Brian, you will not make conscious
bread. This is just an individual assessment, of course, but we do not get
to choose our irritant. If we want to make the irritant stronger, that is
one thing. If we want to make it weaker or take it away, that is another.
Without Brian's message, or your message, Leon, I never could have made
this response to Dalval's message. Hope you are able to put your own grain
of salt on this material and assimilate it as consciously as possible into
your functioning as a food, but be sure to save a little particle for the
"hungry ghosts." Sincerely
Wry------------------------------------------------- Original Message -----
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Aurobindo on Theosophy :


> Dredging up old political history referring to individual leaders of the
old
> Theosophical Society after the death of HPB, has nothing whatever to do
with
> the goals and aims of theosophy, per se, or the validity of its
metaphysical
> teachings. This is a typical propagandist's ploy.
>
> The so called "evolutionary scheme" of theosophy -- as a theory of
universal
> involution and evolution of both consciousness and matter presented by
HPB --
> that can be subjectively proven, individually, by deep study of
fundamental
> principles as they work in nature, along with introspective meditative
> intuition and deduction, stands on an even higher level than so called
> "scientific evolution" which refers, objectively, reductively and
inductively
> only to the physical body... And is, as such, is only a small part of the
> overall theosophical theory -- which also includes consciousness or
spirit.
>
> It's interesting that since consciousness became a legitimate study of
> science about ten years ago -- after ignoring it for almost two centuries,
> and after tons of papers and millions of words, both in scientific
journals
> and on 3 or more heavily subscribed e-mail forums -- Science still hasn't
> solved the hard problems of the origin, genesis, and nature of awareness
and
> its experience, or the "binding" of the brain to both consciousness and
mind.
> Meta-scientific and metaphysical, theosophy, however, has completely
> answered these questions and correlated them with the more self evident
> aspects of the so called "scientific evolutionary theories." Unfortunately
> for science, there are so many narrow specialties, that no theory of
> evolution has ever be correlated with any theory of physics that underlie
> biology and physiology. Therefore, evolutionists completely ignore the
laws
> of indeterminacy of quantum physics, the laws of relativity, and the
concepts
> of multidimensional nonmaterial zero-point fields postulated by the
> postmodern Superstring/M-brane theories. Theosophy, on the other hand, is
> completely consistent with all these scientific theories.
>
> So, regardless of your claims for the reason Aurobindo hated Annie Besant
and
> her followers, that doesn't change the fact that none of his actions or
> writings indicate that he wasn't fully in agreement with the theosophical
> theories of metaphysical evolution.
>
> Since your game, evident from your past trolling of this list as Brigitte
> Meuhlegger, and your use of similar tactics now, is to denigrate theosophy
> and discredit HPB by bringing up unrelated historical or political
issues --
> I think a vote should be taken by the members whether or not the owner
should
> ban you again from further postings.
> As an alternative, rather than continue haranguing this list with your
> gratuitous theosophy and HPB bashing, why don't you just cease and desist?
> I'm sure that anyone interested in whatever secon hand negative gossip you
> are compelled to spill indeterminably about theosophy in general and
> theosophists in particular, can easily be found on your web site.
>
> In a message dated 09/12/02 9:45:31 AM, brianmuehlbach@yahoo.com writes:
>
> >Presumably the reason Aurobindo was so angry at Theosophy not just
> >Besant, is because he previously risked his life for Indian independence
> >of the British and spend years in jail for that. Thereafter Aurobindo
> >moved from British India to a French protectorate where he lived until
> >he died.
> >
> >Despite individual differences between theosophists, there is remarkably
> >little divergence in the evolutionary scheme they present. In fact, the
> >impression of a lack of originality evoked by their common discourse
> >works eerily on the reader, who is made to feel that this new mythology
> >is virtually interchangeable with science, so strongly is its content
fixed
> >and closed to interpretation.
> >
> >Theosophist Geoffrey Barborka's update of theosophical wisdom, The
> >Story of Human Evolution (1979), follows Voltaire and specifically
> >invokes Genesis in the preface to claim a biblical precedent for
> >describing human evolution in inflated terms.
> >
> >Besant's use of reincarnated souls traversing through world history and
> >world empires functions as a rhetorical device to argue for the
> >fulfillment of a plan by imperial conquest: Now it is to us Theosophists
> >significant and interesting that the bulk of the Souls to whom this offer
is
> >made have twice before builded an Empire and have carried its burden;
> >for the majority of tile Souls that made the Egyptian Empire lived again
> >
> >upon earth in the Roman Republic and Empire, and have been and are
> >being born into the Anglo-Saxon, and indeed into the whole Teutonic,
> >race. Men who wrought in the Rome on the Tiber are working now in
> >the Rome on the Thames, and are again Empire-building. (Besant,
> >Theosophy and Imperialism, p.3)
> >
> >The recourse to mystical interpretation provides Besant necessary relief
> >from having to account for the recent history of imperialist
> >appropriations of foreign territory. Besant to put forth a concept of the
> >British empire as a mighty trust, charged with a religious obligation.
> >" Great Britain is a model for the future Federation of the world. The
> >world is not yet ripe, because of the great differences between Races,
> >to join them all together in perfect Federation. But it is possible here
> >[i.e., in India], where there are links, which have been bonds of Empire
> >and shall become links of Commonwealth if you can bring about Union,
> >Union between India and Britain, between East and West, between Asia
> >and Europe. It is not an Empire made by force but a commonwealth
> >made by mutual goodwill and friendliness." (Besant, Britain's Place in
> >the Great Plan, p. 53.)
> >
> >Besant's plea for Indian self-government "within" the empire was not
> > the same thing as a call for Indian independence from Britain which
> >Indian nationalists were seeking.
> >
> >When Annie Besant visited Ahmedabad in March 1918, she and Gandhi
> >still shared the same carriage in a big procession. Soon however, the
> >rise of non-co-operation campaigns led by Gandhi marked a downward
> >trend. Imperiled with losing the majority for her views in Madras
> >Congress, Annie Besant packed the provincial Congress committee
> >with supporters 'including European women and children.
> >In a speech against non-co-operation.
> >
> >Besant, supported by her Hindu University's princely (the Raj installed
> >by
> >the British) financial backers, cut short Gandhi's speech against the
> >princes' riches. Gandhi did not report it in his autobiography.
> >
> >Pro Gandhi TS members where expelled from the Esoteric Section as
> >the TS leadership claimed: non-co-operation was against the Masters.'
> >
> >
> > Brian
> >
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>