Theos-Talk Archives (May 2004 Message tt00131)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, colleen wall <niceisis@y...> 
wrote:
> 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.

Colleen,

I agree, this forum is useful. It has been a muse for me at times as 
well. 

I looked into AMORC like 30 years ago, and only recall that I 
thought it too prosaic for my taste. I ended up with Sant Mat 
because I knew the intricacies of meditation and psychism and wanted 
to increase my meditation by working under a living guru who 
promised that this would help me to master meditation.

My answer to you would be to ask yourself: "What is my spiritual 
goal at this time?" That would give you the answer. My goal in 1979 
was to master meditation and RS promised that and I took them up on 
it. I will tell you that I went from meditating 30 minutes per day 
to more than 3 hours per day for 20 years under RS. 

Netemara
> 
> 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@c...
> 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@s...)
> 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 other authors
> 
> --- 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@c...
> 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]