Theos-Talk Archives (May 2004 Message tt00115)

I would like to find out what you have to say of the AMORC and RC theories I really enjoy what I have learned from all of you such detail much knowledge here I am on the path and every turn I learn more I want to thank you for your wisdom 

theos-talk@yahoogroups.com wrote:There are 8 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Fwd: Blavatsky and Net: On the loss of psychic innocence
From: "netemara888" 
2. Re: Rich Taylor on Blavatsky's "appropriations" of text from other authors
From: "netemara888" 
3. Why did Blavatsky use "Lucifer?"
From: "netemara888" 
4. Re: Why did Blavatsky use "Lucifer?"
From: "thalprin" 
5. Re: Re: Rich Taylor on Blavatsky's "appropriations" of text from ...
From: samblo@cs.com
6. Re: Rich Taylor on Blavatsky's "appropriations" of text from othe...
From: MKR
7. RE: ISLAM -- UNDERSTANDING IT
From: "Dallas TenBroeck" 
8. RE: Rich Taylor on Blavatsky's "appropriation AAA-Wesley (amerman@sbcglobal.net)
From: "Dallas TenBroeck" 


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 14:09:55 -0000
From: "netemara888" 
Subject: Fwd: Blavatsky and Net: On the loss of psychic innocence

--- In theosophy_talks_truth@yahoogroups.com, "netemara888" 
wrote:
--- In radhasoamistudies@yahoogroups.com, netemara888 

wrote:
May 8 -- In honor of White Lotus Day


PHILOSOPHERS AND PHILOSOPHICULES

Article by H. P. Blavatsky

We shall in vain interpret their words by the notions of our 
philosophy and the doctrines in our schools. --LOCKE 

Could Locke have been talking about future thinkers and their works?



Knowledge of the lowest kind is un-unified knowledge; Science is 
partially unified knowledge; Philosophy is completely unified 
knowledge. --HERBERT SPENCER

Here is a quote she chose from Herbert Spencer which in fact has 
proven prophetic in the world of physics. They are currently 
seeking 
the Grand Unified Theory AKA the GUT, which they believe MAY occur 
with the finding and mapping of the Higgs particle. Something which 
of course was unheard of in the late 1800's. And what is more 
surreal 
is that Spencer is linking philosophy and physics. In that sense 
creating the bridge between the future marriage of science as 
physics 
(theoretical and cosmological) with that of philosophy. Einstein is 
said to have kept a copy of the Secret Doctrines on his desk. 


***********
Blavatsky:
"Our age is regarded as being pre-eminently critical: an age which 
analyses closely, and whose public refuses to accept anything 
offered 
for its consideration before it has fully scrutinized the subject. 
Such is the boast of our century; but such is not quite the opinion 
of the impartial observer."
Net:
How clever, how insightful, how creative, how true that: nothing 
changes. In the late 1800's we have a world observer and purveyor 
of 
all the disciplines noting that it was common for the thinking man 
to 
believe he was the skeptic. That he was critical in his thinking, 
and 
therefore refused to accept warmed-over doctrines which were not at 
first scrutinized, such as religions and cults. However, she 
disagrees by calling herself the impartial observer. That `modern' 
man is not the critical thinker and analyzer he thinks he is. You 
might say this observation was not scientific but anecdotal. One 
might also ask is this representative of the thinking man today AKA 
as an atheist, or antichrist by Christians? I would bet that one 
could come up with some anecdotal things which are as true as 
gospel. 
Then submit them to scientific study and voila, you have spent lots 
of money in research only to reach the same conclusions. It has a 
name, it's called government. You could establish these `facts' 
especially if you have lived as an American all your life. For 
example, Americans love their cars, but hate to drive and especially 
to get stuck in traffic. Or, Americans think they are spiritual and 
good people and do not go to church in the large numbers they once 
did, but still think of themselves as religious and/or spiritual. 
This is antithetical to those who do practice a faith or follow a 
spiritual discipline. But it also seems to be in vogue to assign a 
category for all those who simple possess the normal faculties and 
are literate or educated (Wilber is not alone in this toying). What 
is that class; enlightenment of course. 
Blavatsky:
"At all events it is an opinion highly exaggerated since this 
boasted analytical scrutiny is applied only to that which interferes 
in no way with national, social, or personal prejudices. On the 
other 
hand everything that is malevolent, destructive to reputation, 
wicked 
and slanderous, is received with open embrace, accepted joyfully, 
and 
made the subject of everlasting public gossip, without any scrutiny 
or the slightest hesitation, but verily on a blind faith of the most 
elastic kind."
Net:
I especially appreciate her winning terminology :'blind faith of the 
most elastic kind.' She directly contradicts what humanity of the 
day 
held: that they were enlightened. She points out that in point of 
fact they were not. She says they are simply vicious gossips who do 
not know what the hairy heck they are talking about. They are basing 
conclusions on unsubstantiated and uneducated opinions. In other 
words it was common practice for the public tar-and-feather 
maligning 
to occur with any public figure. And I am saying that this was in 
reality the forerunner to the rags of journalism which has become 
the 
bane of movie stars, royalty and celebrities in general. And in 
this 
day and age it has become the bane of the guru, the good guy, the 
god, and the grumpy old jivas who just want to have fun. It is also 
the forerunner to the loss of psychic innocence of man. Oh, much 
has 
been made of man's loss of sexual innocence, but I propose that it 
was really the other way around. First the loss of psychic 
innocence, in other words everyone knows what everyone else is 
doing, 
saying and thinking, and this openness led to the sexual open nature 
of the 1960's and continues today. 


Her observations and my own are true. But can they be classified as 
philosophy or science? Philosophy being the systematic study of 
knowledge, and science being the body of knowledge whose results can 
be reproduced by others. So I am asking now that we have admitted 
to 
a loss of psychic innocence can we now learn it and transmit it to 
others? Can it become a replacement, in part, of the current day 
educational system.

Of course, one need not make multitudinous arguments that direct 
observation leads to knowledge, it is after all the basis of 
science. But can one judge and understand and transmit something 
which has been acquired by personal, inner experience judged from 
the 
standpoint of philosophy, logic and/or the hard sciences? In other 
words, can that which has been acquired by direct perception (not 
solely the 5 senses) and experience be transmitted by words, 
parables, metaphors, and writings? Or must it, to be fully 
understood be transmitted primarily in the same manner it was 
received? 


The answer to that question may lie in the belief that future 
generations will be more psychic in their approach to learning and 
to 
education in general. They will be educated through a process 
of `osmosis' if you will. Why do I say this? Because as an 
objective 
observer, practitioner, and scholar of education and its systems I 
see the same thing that other professors and scholars see: a steady 
decline in the educational and thinking process of those who are 
coming along now. What will be the future remedy? I propose that 
it might be a kind of "psychic osmosis." It reminds me of another 
word: psychosis. But then those who have seen this new science have 
been called delusional have they not?


Blavatsky:
"We challenge contradiction on this point. Neither unpopular 
characters nor their work are judged in our day on their intrinsic 
value, but merely on their author's personality and the prejudiced 
opinion thereon of the masses."


Net:
Here is the sine qua non of what the cult busting and exposing the 
psychic is about. It is based on the personality. The presence of a 
strong personality is essential. So, if one substituted the word 
author for guru it would read: their work [is not] judged in our day 
on intrinsic value, but merely on the guru's personality and the 
prejudiced opinion thereon of the masses. I am not saying this is a 
bad thing, au contraire, I am saying it is a turning point in the 
evolution of the man who takes away the candy. The baby is now 
crying. And so it must somehow be replaced it with something 
healthier, say cooked or raw carrots, but is it more palatable, more 
digestible to the baby ?


Conclusion: In my humble opinion I believe that Blavatsky was wrong 
but for the right reasons. She concluded that man was not becoming 
critical and skeptical in his thinking partly based on the extreme 
criticism she endured by person and persons who were not 
as `enlightened' as she in her discipline. She begins, but I 
conclude: that the beginning of the new age saw its birth at the end 
of the 19th century when people began scrutinizing and publishing 
the 
fruit of that scrutiny in articles, books and through the airwaves 
(talking to each other). This trend continued into the 19th century 
when that century saw an explosion of books, articles, newspapers 
and 
fortunes lost and made on the written word. Never before, nor since 
in the history of man has man been able to turn simple paper with 
black words on it into gold bullion. That could be the modern 
philosopher's stone. So with the written word firmly entrenched in 
the minds of man, he proceeded to move ahead with what has become 
the 
second coming of education. Why? Because now education could be 
made 
widely available to everyone. Not just to the white man, the rich 
man, or the brilliant man, but available to the poor of all colors, 
both genders regardless of their SES. 


However, their is a declining significance of education in our 
present day. Why? Because the veil of secrecy has been lifted. 
There is an information explosion not only with the mundane and the 
critical and the scandal but a bundle of info that consists of more 
knowledge than one person could possibly digest in a lifetime. But 
the reader is aware of this. But is the reader aware that the 
centuries old attacks on personalities and the obsession with 
royalty 
and celebrities, and the loss of seclusion of the private 
individual 
would bring us all to the internet?
--- End forwarded message ---
--- End forwarded message ---




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 14:17:37 -0000
From: "netemara888" 
Subject: Re: Rich Taylor on Blavatsky's "appropriations" of text from otherauthors

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
wrote:
> Rich Taylor writes in the rough draft of his dissertation on
> Blavatsky and Buddhism:
> 
> "I merely state here the objective fact that Blavatsky's writings
> contain the words and ideas of other Western writers, 
unacknowledged, 
> and that these appropriations sometimes are made to appear as 
> emanating from a hidden or occult source like Tibetan Buddhist 
Tantras." 
> See http://www.blavatsky.net/forum/taylor/tibetanSources10.htm
> 
> One should be aware that Rich's contention of "appropriation" is
> in contradiction to what Anita Atkins (Sylvia Cranston) and 
> Michael Gomes have publicly stated in their biographical writings 
> on Blavatsky. 
> 
> See Rich's text for his detailed documentation.
> 
> Earlier in the same section, Rich gives more details:
> 
> "HPB has altered Schlagintweit's text [in his THE BUDDHISM OF
> TIBET] especially the correspondences in the three realms-but 
> there is no question that overall she has lifted this passage from 
> his book originally. Nota bene Blavatsky's footnote, where she 
> claims to be giving out statements from the secret portions of 
> the Kålachakra Tantra. However, HPB's statements are
> merely rephrasings of Schlagintweit, taken from his chapter on
> Kålachakra, where he gives the Tibetan translation Dus Kyi Khorlo-a
> technically correct and not a phonetic spelling, which as we have 
> seen (at length above) was the habit of HPB. In HPB's ten-page 
> chapter entitled 'The Mystery of Buddhism,' which this passage 
> is taken from, Blavatsky does not mention even once
> Schlagintweit, his book, or any contemporary Western author
> except A.P. Sinnett, her student. For all HPB's unique knowledge of
> Kålachakra Tantra, as described in the previous section, this 
> appropriation of published work (and many others like it) would 
> appear to be quite damaging to her claims."
> 
> If the unacknowledged appropriations appear damaging, what
> appears even worse is that "these appropriations sometimes are 
> MADE TO APPEAR as emanating from a hidden or occult source 
> like Tibetan Buddhist Tantras."
> 
> Why would Blavatsky attribute appropriated material from
> Schlagintweit's book to a hidden or occult source?
> 
> And I believe there is at least one example of this in HPB's
> translation of the VOICE where she appropriates text from 
> Schlagintweit and makes it appear to be from a "hidden or occult 
> source"!
> 
> How many more examples are there of this kind of which we are
> absolutely ignorant????!!!
> 
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> http://hpb.cc
> http://theosophy.info
> 

I know she was loose with the pen and the lips. There was also a 
controversy that JFK did not write "Profiles in COurage" and it had 
to be proven in court that he was the writer but someone helped him 
and they were trying to give full credit to that someone. 

This time I have to again quote spiritual and scientific sources, 
but in addition I have the personal experience to help illuminate 
the physics.

She was not a scholar in the truest sense but there is no excuse for 
not giving credit each and every time. Where were her editors?

Netemara
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 14:25:24 -0000
From: "netemara888" 
Subject: Why did Blavatsky use "Lucifer?"

as a vehicle and a messenger. And then AAB is said to have taken it 
up and shortened it to Lucis. I was thinking about this in light 
of "light" as understood by physics and psychics.

Netemara

Any thoughts, information or facts welcome



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 14:51:37 -0000
From: "thalprin" 
Subject: Re: Why did Blavatsky use "Lucifer?"

Oh, yeah, eye think that's right on Net!


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "netemara888" 
wrote:
> as a vehicle and a messenger. And then AAB is said to have taken it 
> up and shortened it to Lucis. I was thinking about this in light 
> of "light" as understood by physics and psychics.
> 
> Netemara
> 
> Any thoughts, information or facts welcome



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 13:22:27 EDT
From: samblo@cs.com
Subject: Re: Re: Rich Taylor on Blavatsky's "appropriations" of text from ...

Netemara, Daniel, and all,
This issue of alleged plagerization seems to be perpetual and periodic 
since Blavatsky first authored
authored her works. A few years ago I asked of all the Authors, 
Scholars, on this list the question: 
What was the existent Statute of LAW in England and the USA for the 
period of 1875-91 that
established the Legal Obligation of "citing Source and Author Credits 
exhaustively." " The reason
being that I not having personal knowledge of any Statute in either 
country and the specific
wording thereof, wanted to know and, if possible read those Statutes 
that mediate and Govern
published works by any Author or User of extant resources. Since it 
is possible that there was not
a Legal Statute that forced Citation at the time I wanted to clear 
this up, relying on the ability of the
Authors and Scholars on this list to enlighten us all by providing 
that analytical proof. To this day
after asking the question there has been only the deafening silence of 
the wolves. No one responded,
none posted the extant Statute of either the USA or England. So if 
Blavatsky was not Obligated by
Statute to cite author and source by being bound over under the 
compulsion of a Statute of LAW,
then what remains is only the convention of an "understood" courtesy 
out of respect of a class
of Peers and no legal requirement to do so. New Laws are made on a 
regular basis here and in
England, and all Laws did not appear on the Seventh Day of Creation and 
that includes Author Citation.
So if the Authors and Scholars remain silent and provide not the proof 
what right Legally do they have 
to persist in acting so outraged?

John


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 14:55:53 -0500
From: MKR
Subject: Re: Rich Taylor on Blavatsky's "appropriations" of text from othe...

It is well known that almost all of HPB's writings were the result of 
"dictations" and she herself has mentioned that many times she herself did 
not understand what she wrote.

In the light of the Mahatma K.H.'s response to the Kiddle Incident, where 
in it was stated some of the ideas and phrases were picked from writings 
that have taken place in the past and some that were to come in the future, 
I would be more concerned with the simple question whether her writings 
were useful to us personally and had the effect of transforming us.

After all the hair-splitting and arguments we can have, this seems to be 
the litmus test for me.

My 0.02

mkr

----------


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.679 / Virus Database: 441 - Release Date: 05/07/04


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 05:36:10 -0700
From: "Dallas TenBroeck" 
Subject: RE: ISLAM -- UNDERSTANDING IT

May 10, 2004

Re ISLAM and OTHER RELIGIOUS SOURCES


Dear Friend:

It is impossible to give sane and stable answers to matters of
ever-shifting politics and inter-country relationships, which appear
continuously involved in political posturing , painting false images
of ones self and conditions, and secrecy of the most outrageous
internal immorality. 

We are bewildered by a stream of hideous and horrible events now being
laid bare before us. What is most appalling, is the delay in
redressing such conditions and practices. Saying publicly or privately
that one is "sorry," and, that a whole country, as focused in an
official of whatever level, is "apologizing," shows no great
consideration for those who are victims. 

How can their torture be redressed? What kind of reparations are to
be carried out? How can we - the average people - be assured that
such viciousness is never allowed to continue, or that at some future

=== message truncated ===

		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]