Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00619)

Dear Cass
Thank you for your response.
Maybe it's our different way of understanding sentences, but your 
statement: "If I have been banned because, as you and the moderator 
say, "The study will remain Blavatsky centered", is once again 
implying that I have supported your ban because you have not been 
Blavatsky centred. Once again, this is not true. Please read again 
what was written. Misunderstanding can cause unnecessary angst,and we 
have had more than enough angst and nastiness on this forum in recent 
weeks.

To your question on the nature of spirit and matter being one, the 
crux of this lies in the interpretation of "one." From my 
understanding, Spirit and Matter are One in Essence as Unity. However 
in manifestation, through conscious perception, spirit and matter are 
two, abeit two sides of the one coin, a polarity indeed. HPB wrote 
about the closest philosophy to hers (and her Ms) in terms of this as 
being Advaita Vedanta. A being non, Dva being dual. She steered away 
from the trap of considering that all is the one of monism partly 
based on the philosophical premise that "one" is an abstraction and 
is only "real" when in relationship to another, thereby implying 
duality eg; one apple ie; one in relationship to the apple. She also 
talked about the perceiver and that which is perceived in terms that 
whilst they are not "separate", they are different and distinct. 
She also differentiated between be-ness, being and becoming which are 
all part of this philosophical puzzle.
What are your views?
Regards
Nigel



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