Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00278)

Dear LHM, 

see my comments below at >>>>>>

Message 9399 of 9481 


From: leonmaurer@a... 
Date: Mon Dec 2, 2002 10:41 pm
Subject: Re: Theos-World Answer To Daniel and Goodbye To Theos Talk 
Friends



To all of us,

As for my two cents worth -- (with all due respect for the opinions, 
beliefs, 
wisdom, and vast knowledge of both ancient and modem religious 
scripture of 
the reverend Bhakti Ananda Goswami)...

Aside from the obviously anthropomorphized phallic interpretation 
personalizing the fundamentally lawful metaphysical Cosmogenesis 

>>>>>>>I recommend all scientifically minded theosophists to study 
the Organismic Set Theory of the late Father of the Field of 
Mathematical Biology (or Mathematical Biophysics), Dr. Nicholas 
Rashevsky. He was the Mentor of my own Father, Ralph L. Sherman Sr., 
the Founder of J.M. Richards Laboratories, Biophysics. In Dr. 
Rashevsky's summary presentation of his life's work, co-published 
posthumously by J.M. Richards Laboratories and The Society for 
Mathematical Biology, and edited by Dr. George Karreman, Dr. A.F. 
Bartholomay, Dr. A. E. Ruark and Dr. H. D.Landahl,(1972) Dr. 
Rashvesky presents his "Organismic Sets, Some Reflections on the 
Nature of Life and Society". In this brilliant work, he masterfully 
describes the development of Mathematical Physics and Biology, the 
Postulate of Nondeducibility, the Theory of Sets and Spaces, and the 
Theory of Relations. Dr. Rashevsky then formally defines Organismic 
Sets, Postulates Relational Forces, and describes the Mortality of 
Organismic Sets. Then he discusses Equilibria in Organismic Sets, 
Polymorphism, Metamorphosis and Similar Phenomena. He treats the 
subject of the Organizer or President of Sets, Leadership, 
Aggressiveness and Submissiveness, Donors and Receptors in Binary 
Relations from the sub-organic molecular through the biological realm 
and WHY THERE ARE ONLY TWO SEXES [GIVING and RECEIVING] at most 
involved in sexual reproduction. He concludes with an examination of 
Structures Produced by Relational Forces, the Evolution of Organismic 
Sets, and the Einstein-Eddington Surmise. 

>>>>>>>>When I first read this amazing work, I was stunned at its 
similarity to the physics and metaphysics of the ancient Vedic-
Vaishnava source-works, the same ones that HPB and so many others, 
including some of the greatest scientists of the last two centuries 
found fascinating. To call this ancient revelation, recognition or 
intuition (...I don't care how you interpret it) of the all-
pervasiveness of BINARY RELATIONS IN PHYSICS AND BIOLOGY 
an "obviously anthropomorphized phallic interpretation" is 
preposterous. For theosophists who are standing on the shoulders of 
giants to insult those giants is a pretty small-minded and arrogant 
thing. My only suggestion to You Mr. LHM, and all sincere seekers 
like yourself, is not to prejudicially reject the historical 
testimony of the Deity whose scriptures contain such amazing things. 
Humility even in the face of profound human inspiration is always a 
good idea. The Sanskrit Bhakti Shastra have been providing 'food for 
thought' to some of the worlds greatest thinkers for thousands of 
years. A little respect for these literatures and their God Ess is in 
order. Respect where it is deserved is a good thing. 

starting from the Absolute beginning, results in the conjunctive yet 
apparent 
separation between "static" (omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent) 
primal 
(zero-point) consciousness or "spirit" and its surrounding "active" 
or 
dynamic primal shells of force or "matter," into the metaphysical 
emanation 
and involution of spherical, coadunate but not consubstantial, and 
phenomenal 
"zero-point hyperspace energy" fields, each consisting of a hierarchy 
of 
(zero-point) self aware progenitors on each descending level or plane 
of 
conscious substance dependently arising out of Absolute abstract 
space... The 
following discourse, from a metaphysical point of view, is perfectly 
in c
oncordance with my 60 year study and correlation of ancient occult 
wisdom -- 
that was entirely reiterated, if not confirmed, by the teachings of 
HPB in 
the Secret Doctrine and in her other explanatory writings, as well as 
in the 
scriptural references she pointed to. 

Therefore, to comprehend (be consciously aware of) one's 
interdependent 
relationship to this hierarchy, or one's inherent unity with it, 
without loss 
of diversity -- does not require "worship" of any such higher 
consciousness 
that stands between ourselves and the holistic all knowing and all 
willing 
consciousness of the primal source -- but, simply, requires "respect" 
and 
"gratitude" for their teachings of compassionate love of all beings 
and the 
realization of one's (individual personal) self unity with the primal 
(higher 
impersonal) Self of all. If this impersonal view, and its 
concordant "path" 
to enlightenment (proper names, words of description, or "historical" 
references to ancient scripture personalities notwithstanding) is 
classified 
as "atheist" by those of a personalized "theist" belief -- then so be 
it... 
And, to argue about this difference of opinion with respect to 
fundamental 
truths is pointless... Since, both views, subject to the "religious" 
or 
"yoga" practices one engages in, lead to the same bodhisattva (wisdom 
of 
harmony) end in view -- defined by "theosophists" ("all those in the 
true 
service of humanity") as, the realization of the Self, and the 
practice of 
altruism and Universal Brotherhood... (Leaving aside for further 
discussion 
all theories or interpretations of the evolution of "rounds" 
and "races" from 
either theosophical, metaphysical, physical, scientific, or 
scriptural points 
of view.)

I hope this gives us some more "food for thought."

LHM

In a message dated 11/27/02 10:57:32 PM, bhakti.eohn@v... writes:

>>>>It should be kept in mind that the Vedic-Vaishnava sources 
>themselves are centuries to thousands of years older than the 
>commentaries of either Shankara or Madhva. These source works, like 
>the Vedic Hymns, are without doubt the testimony of worshipers of 
the 
>Giving (Masculine) PERSONAL DEITY PURUSHA or VISHNU and His 
Receiving 
>(Feminine) PRAKRITI SAKTI / SHEKINAH. They clearly promote YOGA, 
>which means NOT to merge two into one, but to YOKE two together, TO 
>MOVE AS ONE as in a pair / yoke of oxen ! The word CONJUGAL tells 
>the entire tale about what real, authentic YOGA was all 
about...hence 
>BRIDAL MYSTICISM. The root JUG in CONJUGAL, like YOKE, means to join 
>TWO AS ONE, but not to obliterate their diversity in that unity. 
>Think YOGA-YOKE-CONJUGAL. 


**********************************************************************
*************************************

Message 9419 of 9481 


From: leonmaurer@a... 
Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 8:16 pm
Subject: Re:Evolution of Theosophical Thought between 1880 and 1888




Dear HH Bhakti Ananda Goswami,

Thank you for a very clear and interesting comparison between the 
various 
schools of religious study originating in the East. However, upon 
thorough 
examination, I see their variety of worship and practices simply as 
differences of individual opinion and/or interpretation of the 
fundamental 
metaphysical truths that must have been thoroughly known to those 
ancient and 
earliest Masters of Wisdom (of all our individual lineage's) who came 
long 
before any of these teachings were put into writing (and thereby 
subject to 
human fallibility). 

Consequently, in this, as well as in all your commentaries, I find no 
grounds 
for your contention that the basic metaphysical teachings of 
theosophy 
starting with the three fundamental principles as presented in the 
Proem of 
the Secret Doctrine, along with the Book of Dzyan -- (inconsistencies 
in the 
SD commentaries, and Mahatma Letters notwithstanding) -- has been in 
any way 
refuted... Nor has there been a truly consistent alternative theory 
of 
universal origins, involution, and evolution presented by you. 

As for the connection of this fundamental metaphysics (as truly 
discerned by 
the perceptive and intuitive theosophical student) with a particular 
form of 
worship or yoga practiced by any religious group, I think that such 
relationship must be left to the free choice or decision of each 
individual 
theosophist -- without being overly influenced by the proselytizing 
coercion 
(directed toward your own practice) that is obvious in your writings.

Respectfully,

LHM


>>>>Dear LHM,

>>>>>I have made no attempt to refute "the basic metaphysical 
teachings of theosophy", or to present an "alternative theory of 
universal origins" etc as you have stated. My sole purpose in 
writing about the claimed mastery of the Mahatmas was to compare 
their teachings involving Sanskrit Vedic-Vaishnava terms and 
doctrines with what is actually there in the real-historical-world 
very ancient sources. I have contended that Sanskrit words and Vedic-
Vaishnava doctrines, found in the Mahatma letters, have been used out 
of context in a way that obscures their true historical genealogy and 
in some cases their authentic meaning. These words and doctrines 
have been appropriated from Vaishnava tradition (oral or written, it 
makes no difference,) and mis-used by selectively removing them from 
their theistic context and denying their theistic content. I reject 
the Theosophical proposition that the Theosophical Mahatmas and HPB 
were not ..."subject to human fallibility)" 
as you seem to claim.

>>>>>While you dismiss the value of the truly ancient written 
shastras / scriptures, as "subject to human fallibility" , it appears 
that you accept the Mahatma Letters and HPB's writings as being 
singularly free of any such fallibility. You also assume that I am 
a religious person engaged in ... "proselytizing coercion (directed 
toward your own practice) that is obvious in your writings."

>>>>>Actually if you were familiar with my writings concerning the 
history of various traditions of Vaishnavism, Buddhism, Judaism and 
Christianity, you would be aware that I use the exact same 
interdisciplinary scientific historical approach to the study of 
these thought systems as I employ in my study of the Theosophy. 

>>>>>Read my bio notes and you will see that I am initiated in a 
variety of religious traditions and practices, so which one(s) of 
these do you claim I am promoting ? 

>>>>>>The fact is that I am, and have always been, a staunch defender 
of fearlessly honest inquiry into the historicity of any religious 
path, a promoter of objective interdisciplinary scientific study, and 
an interfaith dialogue, study and cooperation activist. My main 
concern with the Mahatma Letters and Theosophy is the 'historical 
honesty' of it all, not the doctrines per se. The Advaita Vedantic 
lineages clearly identify themselves as such. So do the Theravadin 
Buddhists, the Sattvic Shaivites, the Tantric Shakti worshipers, the 
Vaishnava Lineages etc, who all exhibit historical honesty about 
their innovators and / or predecessor traditions. Such real-world 
traditions are PROUD of their illustrious saints and scholars and 
carefully preserve and promote their teachings. Their literatures 
are 'open books' and the membership is a matter of public record. 
Unlike secret societies, these exoteric traditions are committed to 
publicly 'testifying' to the riches of their inheritance. Truth in 
advertising is what they WANT to be known and respected for. 

>>>>>It is the basic 'truth in advertising' of the Theosophical 
Society that I am concerned about. It is not that I am picking on 
Theosophy alone either. I have endured death-threats for exposing 
the redacted portions of a Hindu text, (the Maha Bhavishya Purana), 
which is accepted as infallible scripture by millions of Hindus, 
including some Vaishnavas. I have worked to expose the Protocols of 
the Elders of Zion, the bogus transplanted 'Egyptian' civilization of 
the Book of Mormon, nonsense in the Urantia Book, the writings of A. 
Bailey and E. C. Prophet, Ellen White and other plagiarist and 
historical fiction writing retro-'prophets'. I have documented 
detailed connections between the Alexandrian Heliopolitan Asyla 
Federation worship of Asclepius and proto-Catholic Helenistic 
Judaism. I have studied the Alexandrian Greek Septuagint comparing 
it to Sanskrit Vaishnava and Buddhist traditions of the previous and 
same eras. All of this honest inquiry has not made me popular with 
the fundamentalists in any of these traditions whose faith is 
dependent on historical denial and forms of collective amnesia. I 
am not on a crusade to de-construct Theosophy any more than I am on 
one to deconstruct Christianity or Vaishnavism. I am on a quest for 
the truth about ideas, both good ones and dangerous ones. I follow 
the evidence wherever it leads. 

>>>>>My interest in the issue of the truth claims regarding the 
identity of the Mahatmas and the existence of the Stanzas of Dzyan is 
simply for the sake of reality. As a Madhva-Gaudiya lineage 
Vaishnava, I DO CONFESS to knowing that there is such a thing as 
HISTORICAL REALITY. I do not accept the its-all-one sophistries and 
what-is-truth-anyway relativism of many Advaitis, Theosophists and 
New Agers. As far as I am concerned, it does make a difference if 
the Mahatma Letters were the writings of Beings as claimed by the 
Theosophists, or the mere product of a dedicated group of 
esotericists trying to make a lasting contribution to humanity. When 
I see Vaishnava Sanskrit theistic source-works and terms abused in 
the Mahatma Letters or The Secret Doctrine etc. it sets off my TRUTH 
ABUSE alarm, and I, feeling a responsibility to TRUTH must defend it. 

>>>>>>I am sure that the Theosophists on this egroup are people of 
integrity that believe in the value of studying the Mahatma Letters 
and other writings of HPB, however, I want to encourage them to 
consider that no matter how brilliant HBP was, (and I do consider her 
to have been quite gifted), they should not limit themselves to 
reading the Mahatma Letters and her books, but should also consider 
that the well she really drew from is still flowing today, and 
deserves to be sampled directly for its truth and life-giving waters. 

>>>>>wishing you all pax and prema,

>>>>>Bhakti Ananda Goswami 


**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
**********************************
REGARDING THEOS-TALK Message 9438 
From: "kpauljohnson" 
Date: Wed Dec 4, 2002 11:01 pm
Subject: Masters, myths, and a misconstrued thesis

>>>>>>I am in general agreement with Mr. Johnson. From the internal 
evidence in the letters it appears to me that the Mahatma Letters 
represent the learning / knowledge-base of HPB and some of her very 
real, fallible mortal friends. Sometimes the letters seem to have 
had a particular 'voice' and other times they seem to have been 
somewhat of a composite effort. Overall, I do see in the letters a 
group effort by some very gifted and educationally privileged 
persons, who collaborated for both noble and sometimes for less than 
noble reasons. These collaborators exerted different influences 
over time, which resulted in an odd attempt to reconcile some 
historically adversarial thought-systems. Thus sometimes the 
Theravadin Buddhist anatta related doctrines seemed prominent in the 
letters, and other times the these pure Theravadin doctrines were 
compromised with atma=brahman Advaita Vedantic (adwaiti) ideas. In 
summary, I agree with Paul Johnson that "HPB's adept sponsors were 
a succession of human mentors rather than a cosmic hierarchy of 
supermen."