Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00616)

Dear Nigel,

Please read the posts again, the personal attack was initiated by Carl/Henry against me personally and my interpretation of HPB's words. 

Carl wrote : Hello Cass, you are correct. It's a free country, and you 
certainly don't have to be subject to the "actual" facts. The list 
does not require anyone to accept Blavatsky's writings as 
authoritative or even true, but we do want to represent her 
teachings fairly and factually. That is not a matter of personal 
belief or imagination. It is simply a matter of examining the 
texts. The most direct path is to go straight to the source. We 
want to by-pass Blavatsky according to Beasant, or Blavatsky 
according to Leadbeater,or Blavatsky according to Bailey, or even 
Blavatsky according to our own fancy. We have the text, and it is 
the purpose of this list to examine the text and allow it to 
interpret itself.


Cass: Nigel that is precisely what I did, I went straight to the source and included extracts from The Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled. These, however, were transubstantiated into "a matter of (my) personal belief or imagination."

Carl wrote : Then, are you basing your claim about body and soul 
upon "imagination"??? Can you see that we are not having a discussion about personal "imagination," but rather a critical study of the writings of HPB.

Cass: Imagination had nothing to do with it. I supplied texts to support my "thinking" but sought other opinions to verify if my innate reasoning was able to be verified, authenticated, or dislodged as faulty. It was a critical study of the writings of HPB. If "shooting me down" was the object, he would have best been served by "shooting me down by backing up his opposing view with reason, logic and quotes from the SD, and not by attacking my veracity. 

Carl/Henry wrote: There are so many lists online that take a subjective approach to 
the study of theosophy, and the result is a hodge-podge of New Age 
religions. If we are just another one of those lists, then we have 
no purpose. We might a well just join those groups, if we are going 
to accept the position of neo-theosophy and New Age.

Cass: The implication being that I have taken a subjective approach and not an objective approach to HPB's works. Now I have been branded a neo-theosophist and a New Age exponent. 

Carl wrote: You have every right to do so, just as others have the 
right to rely upon Jesus and vicarious atonement, and others may 
choose to be Vaisnavas and seek a personal god. 

Cass: Now who is using sarcasm here? I particularly took umbrage to the "vicarious atonement" pronounced on me and all those who see the Master Jesus as a spiritual source in their life? I simply pointed this out.


Carl wrote: I am only saying that our discussion has a theme, and we don't want to lose that 
focus. When one brings up a new discussion here, he will be asked how that ties in with Blavatsky. 

Cass: I repeatedly provided extracts to support my enquiry into Matter and Spirit. They were totally ignored, and replaced with a lecture on curriculum and front page illustrations, with the implied suggestion that I would be best served on a psychic or new age forum.


Well here I am just sitting and twiddling my thumbs and up pops your email, which clearly states that you support the moderator's decision. I tried to email you but it bounced back. I didnt accuse you of anything except having your own opinion on the subject.

I did not personally attack anyone, on the contrary, I have shown my deepest respect of, by defending, HPB, Jesus, Plato, Socrates and myself. And the suggestion that my question was Leadbeater, Besant and Bailey oriented was simply naive.

If I have been banned because, as you and the moderator say, "The study will remain 
Blavatsky centered." I refute the charge and state I am not guilty of the crime ascribed to me.

Carl wrote as you reminded us, You are not permitted to call others "ignorant" because they disagree with you - at least not on this list.

This rule should be applied to all, as you read between the lines, you must be able to see that Carl/Henry was in fact calling me ignorant. And where or when did I specifically accuse anyone of being ignorant, because if I did I cannot recall it or find it in any of my previous postings on the subject.

Rather than have a schoolyard brawl about who is on who's side what is your understanding of the subject matter? That is, spirit and matter are one. 

Cass







nhcareyta <nhcareyta@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Dear Cass
You raise a number of issues, to some of which it may be my 
responsibility to respond.

By attaching my posting to Blavatsky-Study group onto this your 
posting, and your reference to "members of that group, who obviously 
support the decision" (to ban you from that group), it appears you 
may have misrepresented my posting by incorrectly inferring my 
support for that decision based on your apparent perception 
of "authorantarianship" and "curriculum."

My expressed appreciation to the moderator of that group was wholly 
concerned with "maintaining its focus on the writings of HPB and her 
Masters"; the "sub-title" of their site being "The study will remain 
Blavatsky centered."

It has been a concern of mine for many years that HPB and her 
teachers' writings are often misrepresented and even misquoted to 
substantiate one or another personal theory or opinion. 
Moreover, a number of high profile authors have even falsely claimed 
to represent her and their teachings whilst flatly contradicting many 
of them. 

Some students claim that Theosophy stands for anything at all of an 
esoteric nature. Evidently, HPB and her teachers' version did not 
support this position. From my understanding of their own words, many 
of HPB and her teachers' Theosophical concepts are quite specific in 
a number of areas which do not necessarily support or agree with 
certain other ideas. This does not necessarily make theirs right, but 
it does make them manifestly different. 

After considerable study and comparison of various theosophical 
teachings, consideration of the issues of credibility of truth in 
reporting and investigation of ideas subsequently validated by 
science, the preferred version of Theosophical information to use as 
my starting point for esoteric investigation is that of HPB and her 
Mahatmas. From this position, as our Academy website describes "These 
works are studied in the light of science, philosophy, psychology and 
religion, both ancient and modern."
It is highly appropriate to me that there is a forum in this large 
world of ours where this specific type of investigation and study can 
occur in a dignified manner and in an atmosphere of legitimate, 
rational challenge.

Although really none of my business, but as mentioned, you have 
accused me of supporting the decision, it is my perception that your 
banning from that group probably had little to do with your 
references to "authorantarianship" or "curriculum." Rather it may 
have had, in the words of the moderator you quoted in your earlier 
posting, more to do with: "Sorry Cass. This is not a serious 
response. It's a personal attack. You are not permitted to call 
others "ignorant" because they disagree with you - at least not on 
this list. Nor is it appropriate to accuse others of slander. Thanks 
for your input, but I really think you will do better on another list 
that shares your opinions and has other rules of conduct. Farewell. "

Regards
Nigel


-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva wrote:
> 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 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]





Yahoo! Groups Links









__________________________________________________
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]