Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00659)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@y...> wrote:
> Nigel,
> I dont want to argue with you, but you agreed with Carl that the 
Forum should be kept Blavatsky centered. Carl stated that I was not 
complying to this rule.

Dear Cass
Thank you for your post and for the above clear point you make. This 
is not arguing to me, rather, it is effective communication in an 
attempt to better understand each other's position.
Firstly, in supporting Carl's position of maintaining Blavatsky_Study 
as a Blavatsky centred site, I was applauding the fact that there is 
a forum in the world where all those claiming to represent HPB and 
her teachers' propositions need to validate their claims through the 
use of as many direct quotes as can reasonably be expected for 
justification of those claims. This is the system used in academia 
which ensures, as far as is possible, truth and accuracy in 
reporting. This was the motivation behind my posting and had nothing 
to do with whether or not you should be banned from the site. As 
mentioned previously, that decision was none of my business and I 
held no position on it one way or the other.
As a result of your accusation that I was supporting your ban due to 
your (alleged) failure to remain Blavatsky centred, I offered the 
suggestion that perhaps it had more to do with the content of your 
quote from Carl who referred to your alleged use of the 
words "ignorant" and "slander" which he interpreted as a "personal 
attack". In that quote he intimated, here paraphrased, that this was 
unacceptable behaviour for that forum. 
My reason for surmising this, and it was speculation only, was that 
you had each been conducting a very interesting dialogue, albeit that 
he was pressing you for what he required as more substantive 
reasoning through further direct quotes; those already given by you 
being perceived by him as less than satisfactory in justifying your 
perception of HPB's position. 
Given the mandate of that group, that of attempting to probe HPB's 
teachings more deeply rather than potentially contradicting them from 
personal opinion, and from what would be to me a reasonable course of 
action, were you ONLY to be persistently refusing to offer further 
direct quotes to justify your rationale as to your understanding of 
her teachings, I would sincerely hope that Carl's worst course of 
action might be to firstly issue you with an advice as to the nature 
of his group (which he seemed to do if memory serves) followed by a 
warning perhaps, with the additional option of simply not posting 
your comments as the penultimate course of action. This is why it 
seems to me that his action was probably (hopefully) based more on 
the former suggested reason of "behaviour" than so much on the 
latter. As stated, this is all speculation on my part and may well be 
wide of the mark. It is merely an attempt for each of us to 
understand a situation for which I had nothing to do but in which I 
somehow found myself involved.
Finally, and at great risk of you perceiving this as patronising, (I 
sincerely trust you will not) you appear to me to be a sincere 
student willing to listen and hear another's point of view whilst 
sharing and holding to your position until convinced otherwise. To 
me, this is dynamic dialogue which can be one of the essential tools 
to uncover new perspectives. Agreeing to disagree as you stated 
earlier is a highly agreeable condition to me. What is unacceptable 
to me in terms of debate is where someone refuses to acknowledge 
considerable and significant evidence to the contrary of their 
position, for reasons of politics, blind belief or sheer 
bloodymindedness. 
It will be my pleasure to dialogue with you whether with direct 
quotes, speculatively or indeed with personal opinions which this 
forum permits.

With regards to sharing my understanding on Be-ness, Being and 
Becoming, the quotes on perceived and perceiver and your posting on 
Initiations please allow me some time to respond. As some others well 
know, my time at this stage is extremely limited.

Regards
Nigel








--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@y...> wrote:
> Nigel,
> I dont want to argue with you, but you agreed with Carl that the 
Forum should be kept Blavatsky centered. Carl stated that I was not 
complying to this rule. Let's leave it there, I agree 
misunderstandings can cause angst, and it appears that on the subject 
of spirit and matter we are both looking at the same animal, but 
looking at it from different angles. If you would like to give me 
some context in regard to be-ness,being and becoming it would help in 
my response. Also the passage that states the Perceiver and the 
Perceived although not separate are distinct.
> Cheers
> Cass 
> 
> nhcareyta <nhcareyta@y...> wrote:
> 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 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 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]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]