Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00610)

Hi all,
Can some one out there with computer experience, please explain to me, how,although banned from the above subject group, I am receiving, messages from members of that group, who obviously support the decision. And it is their right and freedom to do, but to have no right of return is somewhat onesided.

I think this also raises the question of the Internet in the new Millenia. How does a website generate its funds? Do advertisers pay for space? Do links pay for space? Do the web search engines get paid? Why do adults need to be moderated? I am really quite ignorant about all this, and ask these questions sincerely. Neither am I upset or "mad" that I was banned from bn-study. But it does raise the question on authorantarianship and curriculum. It's as if one must visit the Principal's office, two visits and you are out. Will anything really change when those in these positions still hold the balance of power as is seen in the educational systems of the world, the political systems of the world, etc anyone who rocks the boat is expelled, anyone who thinks outside of the square is labelled a troublemaker. 

If the internet is going to be a real "think tank" I believe that the delete button should be in the hands of the individual and not handed over to a self appointed authority on the subject. If we, the users, continually, hand over our power to others, we will always be under their power. And only able to "talk the talk" of the show host.

As I am unable to reach bn-study through the normal channels, I have posted this sad situation to this group, as I know, many members are part of both associations, and I know from past experience that the moderator of this group, treats us as adults, and would think long and hard before banning any group member. Perhaps in the future, the banning of an individual should be put to the vote by the rest of the group, that way, it is a group decision and not an individual's choice. A true democray, perhaps?

Just wondering
Cass




nhcareyta <nhcareyta@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Dear Carl and all
Greetings from Perth, Australia.

Firstly, thank you for this discussion group and for maintaining its 
focus on the writings of HPB and her Masters. Thank you also for 
writing so clearly that whether HPB was right or wrong in her 
pronouncements is inconsequential as regards the actual nature of 
this group. Too often, those of us who focus on her and her teachers' 
works as our starting and comparison point are 
branded "fundamentalists" or "blind devotees." Nothing could be 
further from the truth, however it seems no amount of words can 
explain this subtlety to some.
That said, in a posting to another group I wrote recently:
"In saying that, and at the risk of annoying others by repeating 
myself yet again, this does not mean to me that HPB, or her Mahatmas 
for that matter, were/are all knowing beings. (They were the first to 
denounce that perspective) It is merely saying that for me, she and 
they have demonstrated an enormously profound grasp of the occult 
science of our dimension of existence, which only deep and continued 
study and practice, of the mind and heart, can hope to begin to 
apprehend."

Carl, you wrote:
"There are several Blavatsky groups online, and I have visited most 
of them. I was astonished to find how HPB has been used to promote 
all kinds of notions - New Age, neo-theosophy, spiritualism, 
Christian sacramentalism, etc."

It is for this and other reasons that a number of us left one of the 
Theosophical Societies and established an HPB/Mahatmas (hers!) study 
centre for which we gave the name Theosophical Academy. We chose this 
name because nothing short of continued deep study and contemplation 
of their works can hope to uncover the pathway to insight into their 
version of the genuine mysteries of existence in this dimension. So 
often, students read a little, assume a lot and begin to misrepresent 
and misquote her and their teachings. 
Your recent posting, highlighting the inaccuracy of assuming HPB 
wrote from a monist perspective, (Blake's and others' visions and 
experiences that body and soul are identical etc) is of fundamental 
importance from a philosophical and occult perspective. As you wrote, 
she made clear distinctions between body and soul, as she did between 
Parabrahman and perceptual existence (Mulaprakriti through Mahat):
"To know itself or oneself, necessitates consciousness and perception 
(both limited faculties in relation to any subject except Parabrahm), 
to be cognized. Hence the "Eternal Breath which knows itself not." 
Infinity cannot comprehend Finiteness. The Boundless can have no 
relation to the bounded and the conditioned." (S.D. Stanza 2.)
She also spoke strongly against her/their version of Theosophy as 
validating the philosophical position of subjective idealism, where 
all is merely a projection of mind. (Modern Idealism, Worse Than
Materialism. [The Theosophist, Vol. XVIII, No. 1, October, 1896, pp. 
9-12] [Collected Writings Vol 8]
These and many other points bring to mind a phrase "Theosophy is 
everything, but not everything is Theosophy."
Finally and once again, her and their teachings may or may not be 
entirely accurate, but they at least deserve the greatest respect and 
the deepest study as they are clearly the most profound and expansive 
rendition of Theosophy to date.
Thank you again for your work as moderator of this most important 
group. It will be my pleasure to participate as time permits.
Best wishes
Nigel Carey







---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Blavatsky_Study/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Blavatsky_Study-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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