All Considering » Theosophy

Channeling: real, unreal? Divine, human?

Katinka - Spirituality — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:07:43 +0000

On my recent post about Mahatmas, someone commented that Ascended Masters sound a lot like spirit guides and that the main thing is they know more than we do.

Well, perhaps.

The main issue here, it seems to me, isn’t so much knowledge as wisdom. Science has given us plenty of knowledge and plenty of doubt to go along with it. What science cannot give us is guidance in our lives. Though it has to be said that psychology does help in that direction at least a bit.

Unfortunately the spirit world cannot be relied upon to give wise advice either. Psychologists are aware of this of course: psychosis and schizophrenia are both characterized by hearing voices. In those cases what the voices are saying is hardly helpful, let alone wise and true.

We had a mass murderer in the Netherlands recently. After his death the police took a look at all the files pertaining to him and made a report. One fact stood out for me: he’d been increasingly religious, he lost his job and then the voices became destructive.

What he lost with his job was all hope of a normal place in society. He turned to shooting innocent people in a shopping center.

Examples like that give the spirit world a bad name. From a theosophical perspective there are roughly five possible sources of inspiration:

Lying spirits
Nature spirits who know the dynamics of the area they rule, this can included angels and arch angels who stay in touch with the whole world. Rule is perhaps the wrong word here, but I can’t find a better. My sense is that these spirits are sort of the personification of the collective spirit of that area.
Our own Higher Self: not all knowing, but the repository of all our own wisdom gathered throughout several lives.
Mahatmas and other human beings who communicate clairvoyantly. These may be good or bad or indifferent just like ordinary human beings are.
Last but not least: any of the above, mixed in with our own conditionings and expectations.

In short: channeling is no guarantee of quality. On the contrary it seems to me that any author hiding behind channeled sources is forgoing the human responsibility to judge for themselves. In other words: being led by a channel, a spirit guide or even God is a way of saying (as indeed many Christians do say) ‘I’m not strong enough, help me’. This is of course a self-fulfilling prophecy and unfortunately has been statistically shown to be of no help at all even in getting over addiction.

I studied what the early theosophists wrote about the White Brotherhood and the Spiritual Path. My first online project, The Esoteric Studies Guide, was the result.

The primary motive behind the work of the Mahatmas for the good of Humanity as a whole. Their most pressing consideration was motive. Selfish motive or a motive to help humanity.

I have to add that any claim to be in touch with the Masters is, within prominent theosophical circles, a disqualification of the very claim: it is thought that these days no messenger of the Masters would declare themselves publicly. Even if they would: the Mahatmas would make darn sure the messenger was going to speak for them, not some unconscious amalgam of sources, spirits etc. Which means that the channel would at least have had to meet them face to face and probably go through the kind of rigorous training Blavatsky went through, for years.
Let’s face it though: human masters would have email these days. The need for clairvoyant communications as a means of writing books and such seems very slight these days.

Let me quote Blavatsky herself:

There is a road, steep and thorny, beset with perils of every kind, but yet a road, and it leads to the very heart of the Universe:
I can tell you how to find those who will show you the secret gateway that opens inward only, and closes fast behind the neophyte for evermore.
There is no danger that dauntless courage cannot conquer;
there is no trial that spotless purity cannot pass through;
there is no difficulty that strong intellect cannot surmount.
For those who win onwards there is reward past all telling — the power to bless and save humanity;
for those who fail, there are other lives in which success may come.

Notice the values of courage, spotless purity, strong intellect and ultimately ‘the power to bless and save humanity’.

None of those values can be got by becoming a channel, because to become a channel is at best a way to let the unconscious speak out, at worse the road to dependence on impulse and grand sounding words. Don’t get me wrong: it’s a good thing to know what you’re unconscious is saying and it may even be a good thing to immerse yourself in it for a while, but ultimately the conscious mind has to gain enlightenment and it can’t do that by walking away from the responsibility of being alive.

As perhaps you all have noticed: I have not written for a while. That was because I was myself struggling with the temptation to become a channel. I could not write about spiritual issues before the choice was made. Wisdom Man: Banjo Clarke, an Aboriginal Elder reminded me of the value of real human wisdom. It may not be as ‘perfect’ sounding as channeled messages, but it’s a lot more practical and real.

Mahatmas versus Ascended Masters

Katinka - Spirituality — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:59:33 +0000

Pablo Sender has written another excellent article. This time he goes into the Ascended Masters from a theosophical perspective. He doesn’t try and figure out who the Ascended Masters are, which I think is wise, as they’re probably a rather mixed bunch. Instead he tells us, from theosophical sources, who the Masters (and the White Brotherhood) are and he gives you some insight into who the Ascended Masters may be…

Are the Ascended Masters spirits, gods or living men? The theosophical Mahatmas were certainly said to be the latter.

Read Pablo Sender‘s article on the Mahatmas vs the Ascended Masters.

Blavatsky’s Psychology

Katinka - Spirituality — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:52:03 +0000

The title of this piece is rather ambitious. I’m not going to go in depth into this topic right now: I’m sure there is enough material on the topic to write a book about, which I might just end up writing. Just not today.

Usually when theosophists talk about Madame Blavatsky’s psychology, which implicitly they do a lot, they will start and finish with the sevenfold constitution of man (which includes women).

This view of individuals is linear: body, emotion, mind, something higher than mind, and the representative of the divine in each of us.

This scheme has the advantage of simplicity as well as fitting in with a straight forward linear view of spiritual growth. Frank Dyer, a frequent visitor of this blog, commented on my blog about theosophical organizational issues as follows recently. I quote it here because while I disagree, I would have agreed not too long ago.

One can be completely well adjusted by mental health standards and still be at a comparatively low level with respect to spiritual advancement. Let the mental health system take care of individuals who have mental health problems that interfere with their daily lives. Theosophy was never meant to address this. Once the individual has mastered the presenting mental health problem at least partially, then he or she may be ready to do Theosophical work.

Implicit in that quote is a view of spiritual growth which is linear: only the mentally well adjusted can go beyond that to something more spiritual. However, those with mental health problems often experience things that can only be called ‘spiritual’. So… is it really true that there’s mentally ill people, mentally healthy people, and spiritual people – and never shall the first and the latter meet?

I think that’s nonsense. Such a linear view does not correspond to my experience on the path, my reading of psychological literature or the deeper teachings I have gleaned from Blavatsky’s collected writings.

Funnily enough, I was already of that opinion, or something much like it, at the age of 21: I devised an eightfold constitution of man in which the eighth ingredient corresponded to what Blavatsky called the probationary stage of the path: when everything hidden inside will come out and some people go quite mad. This was also referred to as ‘pledge fever’.

On Frank’s side of the bargain however, we have Blavatsky stressing the following qualifications for spiritual discipleship (becoming a chela):

Perfect physical health;

Absolute mental and physical purity;

Unselfishness of purpose; universal charity; pity for all animate beings;

Truthfulness and unswerving faith in the law of Karma, independent of any power in nature that could interfere: a law whose course is not to be obstructed by any agency, not to be caused to deviate by prayer or propitiatory exoteric ceremonies;

A courage undaunted in every emergency, even by peril to life;

An intuitional perception of one’s being the vehicle of the manifested Avalokitesvara or Divine Atman (Spirit);

Calm indifference for, but a just appreciation of everything that constitutes the objective and transitory world, in its relation with, and to, the invisible regions.

How is that relevant? Well, it relates to the central role in blavatsky’s esoteric teachings of the concept that people are ‘tested’. I interpret that as a psychological mill people go through when they are serious about the bodhisattva vow – surely an analogue to the third requirement here ‘unselfishness of purpose, universal charity, pity for all animate beings’. (The Text of the Pledge ES members took during Blavatsky’s time)

I take a few mental leaps to get to that conclusion, which I’d have to substantiate if that book ever gets written. For now however it suffices to note that this concept of being tested, and the risk of madness that it involves for the overly ambitious who don’t know themselves, hardly fits the neat view of the Theosophical Society as a place only the sane have any business in. The fact is, the line between sane and in need of help is not nearly as sharp as the psychologically naive might hope.

Frank is of course hardly alone in a linear view of spiritual development. Ken Wilber is equally guilty. The main difference? Ken Wilber thinks anybody who is serious on the spiritual path should go into therapy at some point. He also thinks people at all levels of spiritual development get breakthrough spiritual experiences. Now it’s not clear whether he talks about the same spiritual path as Blavatsky does, but it’s surely much alike.

I don’t agree with the part about everybody on the spiritual path needing therapy, but I’m not sure it’s for the right reasons and I challenge anybody who agrees with me with the following question:

Is it fear that stops you from considering therapy, or are you absolutely sure it would do you no good?

No, I don’t expect an answer in the comments. Personally I think the people who are sure therapy could have nothing to offer them are the most likely to benefit from it. The spiritual path does require a practical understanding of psychological processes and therapy is one way of getting that.

Notes

For the Blavatsky loving reader a few more details. A non-linear vision of the individual and their relation to the universe see The Inner Group Teachings of H.P. Blavatsky: To Her Personal Pupils (1890-91). Note that manas and buddhi are in the same level on p. 107 (though admittedly not in the majority of charts in the book), and that this is effectively a three dimensional view on the situation.

My late teen and early twenties selection of quotes in the esoteric studies guide. See particular w.q. Judge on being tested and Damodar and the Pioneers of the Theosophical Movement.

H.P. Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, Benjamin Creme and others

Katinka - Spirituality — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:23:33 +0000

In my previous post I talked about the quality of a spiritual teacher, and how to sense it. However, since I get asked this question a lot, I’d like to go into the Blavatsky-Bailey-Creme triangle a bit more.

Last night we had a lecturer in our The Hague theosophical lodge, who was – aside from being a former journalist with a big Dutch newspaper – the author of a book about the world view of Shakespeare. Peter Liefhebber sees in Shakespeare a teacher of what theosophists would call ‘The Great White Brotherhood‘ and others might refer to as ‘The Perennial Philosophy’. In short: in cloaked words Shakespeare refers to reincarnation, karma, the eternal nature of the soul, the unity of all that IS and more.

Peter Liefhebber is relevant to today’s post, because while he played lip service to Blavatsky, he is clearly more of an Alice Bailey man. And he’s supportive of Benjamin Creme, who he described as audacious. Well – he certainly made me see that Benjamin Creme might have a point, even though my conclusion is still that I don’t see what’s so interesting about him.

Let’s start with the basic premise though:

According to H.P. Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, Benjamin Creme and a host of other theosophical teachers, there’s a brotherhood of adepts, mahatmas or brothers – spiritual teachers with occult powers and (compared to us normal folk) near omniscience. They have strict rules about how to use their powers, because to use them is to invoke karma - and besides, their main aim in life is to help on humanity. Because they know karma to be a fact, what they want is NOT to force humanity in any one direction. Anything we do has to be our own choice. Instead all they can do is give hints every once in a while to give us more options than we might have seen on our own. That’s the only guidance they’re allowed to give humanity as a whole. Individual humans may be helped on their spiritual path of course, and some will become the next generation of Mahatmas (like Djual Khul presumably).

In Blavatsky’s time it wasn’t clear to the brotherhood whether they should work out in the open at all. Two brothers, Koot Hoomi and Morya, got permission to (in their spare time) teach not just Blavatsky herself, but also A.P. Sinnett – which gave us the Mahatma Letters. The aim of that teaching was, because that’s how Sinnett wanted it, learning to understand the world view of the Mahatmas: the occult truths. This is what shaped Blavatsky’s teachings: the people of her time wanted a world view to compete with science, Christianity and Spiritualism that included the truths in all three and helped explain the discrepancies. She also incorporated major aspects of Hindu and Buddhist world views into her work.

The brothers in the meantime were most interested in helping humanities suppressed masses – inequality was still the norm – gain in self confidence and freedom. Hence the first object of the Theosophical Society: a brotherhood of humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex etc. (my paraphrase).

We’re talking the 19th century here. There wasn’t any talk of human rights yet. The revolution of the 60′s with equal rights for colored people in the US wasn’t fought yet. South Africa hadn’t even developed it’s ‘apartheid’ regime yet. The British Empire was as yet whole, and few people dared even mention independence for India. Olcott had to go to Britain to get them to accept some of the Buddhist holidays as national holidays for Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Women did not have the right to vote.

Now that first object of the Theosophical Society is a self evident norm that most well meaning people take for granted. While the problems between people of different races and creeds aren’t over – they’re firmly on the world agenda, and there’s a consensus amongst most that freedom of religion is important. Alright, the Chinese government may not agree, but it doesn’t get many countries to avoid the Nobel Peace Prize.

By the time we get to Alice Bailey the world had changed. The Theosophical Society, though never very large, had certainly become prominent due to Besant’s involvement. While science and religion were still on the agenda, people were getting more interested in the spiritual path towards becoming a Mahatma themselves. This shaped Bailey’s version of the Mahatmic teachings: she taught both a world view and a spiritual path. The result is that her books are way more legible to most people (not to me though), less nuanced when it comes to the ultimate truths – and her teachings, through the Arcane school, are more practical as well. Though still pretty hidden and secret.

Also, in India there was an independence movement and education was no longer automatically Christian in nature. Alice Bailey herself, despite having lived as a Christian missionary in India, seems to me to have a more parochial outlook.

She continues many of Blavatsky’s themes but doesn’t write anything that’s socially revolutionary for her time. While I do think her teachings may be genuine in the sense that she really did have a connection to a real life Mahatma – I’m not sure she was a very faithful amanuensis to him. It’s a bit like taking notes in class: some people are very good at only giving the teacher’s statements, others fill in the blanks with their own understanding more. Either way: college notes are never as reliable as a book a teacher has written himself.

By the time we get to Benjamin Creme the world had changed again. Also: Creme is an artist. Apparently, based on what Liefhebber said last night, he claims that Maitreya has been on tv several times this year. The main aim, according to Creme, of the White Brotherhood at this time is: food, health care and education for everybody. Worthy aims I’m sure. And yes, it might well be that these aims are what humanity needs to hear right now. We might not be ready to implement them world wide, but with equality clearly on the agenda and in many places practiced to a reasonable extent – the brotherhood might think it’s time for the next practical step.

However, if Maitreya has been on TV several times, it ought to be possible to tell us who Maitreya IS. What human body he’s in. Then again, telling us would remove the mystery of course. From a mahatmic standpoint that mystery is an important ingredient to set us thinking. At least, that’s the reason Sinnett got when the Mahatmas refused to prove irrevocably for the eyes of everybody, that their occult powers were real. [He'd decided that if an Indian newspaper were to appear simultaneously in London as well - that nobody could deny there were occult powers involved. These days of course that would not be a miracle at all: with the internet it's perfectly feasible. However, in the days of telegraphs and steam boats, it would indeed have been a great feat.] The Mahatmas said that they had no interest in proving their existence. They were interested in putting doubt in people’s minds, setting them thinking.

From that perspective Benjamin Creme is perfectly in the tradition of the representatives of the White Brotherhood over the past 150 years or so. Mystery it is. However, that doesn’t make his teachings in any way interesting the way Blavatsky’s are still interesting to me.

Post script: Geoffrey Hodson

In response to a question by Frank Dyer:

You mention AAB and Benjamin Creme, both of whom are really outside the Theosophical mainstream. I would be interested in your thoughts about Geoffrey Hodson, a mainstream TS [Theosophical Society] figure whose posthumously published autobiography discloses that he claimed to have had extensive contact with a number of Mahatmas, as well as HPB [Blavatsky]! He also claimed that a certain Mahatma helped him with some of his better known books. If all this is legit, then he should be getting lots more recognition than he has received. And if it’s not legit, then Mr. Hodson was seriously self-deluded (or frankly delusional), in spite of his wide acceptance by theosophists of the Adyar camp. Quite a problem.

However much I may believe that clairvoyance is possible, I’m not really all that interested in what clairvoyants have to say. So I have not studied Geoffrey Hodson’s work in detail. Still, I have read some of his work. It seems to me spiritually healthy and possibly true. This means that his claim that he had support from Mahatmas may well be true. I think the ‘problem’ is not any graver than the similar problem with Blavatsky or Bailey. Every teacher who claims a connection to the Masters will have people doubting them. That doubt is an essential part of the spiritual path.

It’s not really a problem to the Theosophical Society, in my view, because in the TS we’re free to believe whatever we want – as long as we believe in the necessity of the first object.

Moreover: Geoffrey Hodson, like William Quan Judge, may be more ‘theosophically’ mainstream – but neither made a mark upon the world. In that sense Bailey and Creme have way more in common with Blavatsky.

Either way – the teachings of Hodson have to stand on their own two feet. I they’re true and relevant, they’ll survive. If they’re not, they’ll be forgotten. Whether he was helped by Mahatmas is ultimately not relevant. Again: compare to a university student. Just because they have a teacher help them write their papers, doesn’t mean what they end up writing represents what the teacher would say.

The certainty of truth

Katinka - Spirituality — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:49:23 +0000

Many people believe in old myths that contradict other beliefs and scientific evidence, and this causes division. Religious dogmas and myths were created before people had the benefit of modern science. Science attempts to objectively discover how life works, and religion attempts to subjectively find a way to live in harmony with life, so they both have pieces to the same puzzle. The organization’s main project, Truth Contest, aims to combine the objective and the subjective to find and define the underlying truth in everything, thereby uniting science and religion toward a common goal. For the first time, people will know right from wrong for certain. This will present a certain morality which will serve as the foundation for a united world.

Quoted from a correspondent who wanted a link from my site. Well – despite me not really liking the website – I guess they got their link now.

Seriously, I think there’s a big misconception here. Science is all about accepting uncertainty, and open questions and seeking for the few things that ARE certain. Most people can’t live like that, which is why even scientists turn into atheists sometimes. They feel there is no proof for a Divine Something, so they choose to just believe there is No Divine Something (usually called God). But the real scientist just realizes that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven, so it’s not science’s problem.

The students who wrote the above press release for their site missed one thing: certainty is not something we can have in this life. We can want it, look for it, etc. However ultimate certainty is a mirage. No certainty we find can be ultimate, except perhaps this one: that all is uncertainty.

Well, perhaps I’m overdoing it. There is the certainties science brings. The law of gravity for instance. But plains and birds still fly. No simplistic way of looking at the world can solve all questions. Can I prove that? No. Of course not. It would be a disproving of my statement, were I able to prove it.

However, centuries of science knocking down every truth people thought they had certainly adds to my conviction. And a few years ago rising stock markets seemed a given. Now we know it wasn’t. Ethics – they’re obviously human constructs, culturally dependent. Sure – in a globalising world, cultures may grow together a bit more. But what’s honesty to one person, is indiscretion to another. One person things human rights are the primary value, another that poverty and economic development are more important. Should we focus most on green energy, or on social welfare. Is safety more important, or the freedom to carry guns? There are few ethical questions that people universally agree about. I even had one correspondent tell me the Dalai Lama was ethically wrong in being peaceful about how to approach China.

That’s it for now – I’m not feeling too well and am still more busy than I thought I’d be. So I’m not promising to keep this up. Hope you all enjoyed.

God and the Absolute, theosophy quote

Katinka - Spirituality — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:37:03 +0000

W.Q. Judge quote, The Theosophical Forum of New York, December 1892, p. 3)

“Theosophy holds God to be One and eternal, – Absoluteness itself. The Bible says that man was made in the image of God. Man we understand to be composed of seven principles, – a union of the three higher, the immortal principles with the four lower, those which disintegrate and go back to the dust. Are not all these principles, or parts, which are found in man, found also in God? I ask because some teach “Nothing is but Spirit.” Matter seems to me to be one aspect of Spirit. It comes from something and goes back to its place, and there is no place outside of God.

I have not the hardihood, as the Editor has, to affirm in one breath that we must not speculate on the Infinite, and in the next to give attributes to the Infinite, such as immanency in all things, separability from us, and the like, and, taking his advice to confine ourselves to common-sense and what we can know, I waive the discussion on the question of the Absolute or an infinite God. It is hopeless. The quotation in the question proceeds in use therein upon the assumption of a God who can be understood and described either directly or by analogy or contrast. This is wholly beyond me. But I am quite willing to repeat that the Teachers whom I follow say that the Absolute exists and cannot be discovered nor known; that at the dawning of what is commonly called creation and evolution Spirit and Matter appear in space. This I accept, for it fits in with the logic of the rest of the doctrine. They call this the first differentiation. The assertion – made chiefly by the schools of mind-cure – assumes that spirit only is, but cannot explain nor justify the assumption, which is only, indeed, for the purpose of founding other assertions regarding mere bodily ills of no great consequence except to the weak or those devoted to material enjoyments. It is further taught and seemingly with reason that, in all, seven cosmic differentiations take place, and from these the sevenfold constitution of man is derived. His gross body stands for the whole of gross matter, his astral body for another differentiation, his passions for the energy of the heterogeneous cosmos, his life copies another of the seven, and so on until all are complete. But if you postulate a God, you must put man either in him or outside; and if the latter then your God is not infinite, but has in his universe something that is not himself – for the Infinite must be all. It is much safer to construe these Bible verses in the old Theosophical way, which would in the present instance show that man is made in the image of his God, who is his Higher Self. If the other position is adopted, that of postulating a God and giving him any attributes whatever, then your mind can have no possibility of reaching a conclusion save by the arguments and distinctions made by the schoolmen of Europe and the disputing theologians of India, -and that conclusion may temporarily, say for one life, satisfy you, but it will remain false. It belongs to the great number of the illusions of matter which are ever deluding the mind of man.”

Blavatsky about the symbolism of the Christian Cross

Katinka - Spirituality — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:33:06 +0000

One of my Dutch readers wondered after reading my piece about symbols, about the meaning of the Christian Cross according to H.P. Blavatsky. I thought I’d look it up. The closest I could find on the topic was Blavatsky on Crucifixion. She says there that:

The cross itself, to which the whole man was attached, is a well-known phallic emblem, representing the strongest form of human-earth sensuality; and that is a very symbol on which to crucify the man to death.

The horizontal stands for the female, the vertical for the male. It’s phallic and limited at least in part because the circle is missing. The circle puts the whole thing in the context of the Universe, the All, the Divine etc. This is why many theosophists prefer the Egyptian cross. Without the circle the cross can only stand as a symbol for something in the world, not for the sumtotal.

Madame Blavatsky compares Jesus on the cross to Prometheus, who also was made to hang and suffer. He hung from a rock, not a cross, but the spiritual significance isn’t much different.

He is another victim, for he is crucified on the Cross of Love, on the rock of human passions, a sacrifice to his devotion to the cause of the spiritual element in Humanity.

but…

after the Cross comes the transfiguration

That is: through suffering and spiritual death, new life is possible in spirit. That’s as far as I can go for the individual interpretation, however there’s also a more universal meaning hinted at here. The spiritual is trapped in the physical, through which it learns and suffers. Were it but free! However, we’re meant to be stuck here.

Comment Zen

This is my interpretation of Blavatsky. Don’t mistake it for my opinion on the subject. I don’t know much about the Divine after all. Other interpretations are welcome.

KH, Koot Hoomi and Katinka Hesselink

Katinka - Spirituality — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:10:51 +0000

Yes, that’s tongue in cheek headline.

For those not ‘in the know’, Koot Hoomi was one of Blavatsky’s Masters. With his friend Morya he wrote a lot of letters that form some of the earliest theosophical literature. The Masters, or Mahatmas as they are often called, often abbreviated their names. This has become something of a theosophical pattern. So we are as likely to write HPB as H.P. Blavatsky, HSO for Henry Steel Olcott, WQJ for William Quan Judge, K.H. For Koot Hoomi and M. for Moria. The pattern continues in later theosophists: J.K. (or just K) for Jiddu Krishnamurti, A.B. for Annie Besant, G. de P for Gottfried de Purucker and A.A.B. for Alice (Ann) Bailey.

This matter of using abbreviations was taken quite seriously, but of course it only applies to the really serious theosophists. HPB even wrote in her copy of her ‘The Voice of the Silence’ “From HPB to H.P. Blavatsky, with no kind regards”. As I said in my overview of theosophical abbreviations, “This is usually interpreted to mean that the inner HPB – the higher self – didn’t appreciate the troubles her personality – H.P.Blavatsky – got herself into.”

Using the abbreviations for a name is seen as a sort of impersonal way of referring to a person. It’s a sign of respect for their inner wisdom. I’m not sure it works quite like that in practice, but that’s the sense one gets. Perhaps its comparable to people getting a new name when they’re initiated into a monastery for instance. Except that with Theosophists the practice seems to have stopped. Nobody refers to Radha Burnier, the current TS president, as RB for instance.

Fortunately or unfortunately – depending on how you look at it – my parents unknowingly gave me a VERY theosophically sound name, when it comes to the abbreviation. They named me Katinka Hesselink and did not give me a second name to enable me to dodge the bullet.

Online this manifests mainly as an editorial problem. When I put a note in a text I put online that someone else has written, I can’t just close it with ‘K.H.’, because to theosophists that would suggest that Koot Hoomi himself had written it. I usually resort to just using my first name, it’s unique enough after all.

On theosophical forums, and in private references, people do sometimes call me KH. I’m always a bit embarrassed and try to discourage the practice. Still, it’s obviously something of an honor to have such an illustrious abbreviation to my name

I have used KH7 as a screen name in some online venues but I think it goes too far outside the theosophical pattern to expect people to start using that when referring to me.

What do you all think: should I be shy about this abbreviation business, or wear it proudly like some divine acknowledgment that I’m bound to be of importance to the Theosophical Movement?

Free will, culture and responsibility

Katinka - Spirituality — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:54:51 +0000

There is a consistent stream in our culture that everything is determined by circumstance: genes, conditioning, wealth… But most aside from genes, all those are the product of people acting on each other. The free will debate can also be framed as a responsibility debate. Who is responsible? If there is no free will, does that mean there is no responsibility? Or the other way around: if we choose our destiny, does that mean we’re to blame if something goes wrong? Like an earthquake?

In the philosophical debate there are few contenders on the outskirts. Few argue that everything in our lives is free will. Those who talk about The Secret and The Law of Attraction are very close to this extreme view. They feel we are responsible for everything that happens in our lives. Whether it’s a financial crisis, unemployment, alcoholism or Katrina.

On the other side of the spectrum there is an equally small group that argues that people are totally determined in what they do: genes, God and circumstance determine everything. Most philosophers are somewhere in the middle: there are things outside our control, but there are also things we actively choose.

Even theologians generally don’t think God’s omniscience implies lack of free will on our part. They’ve created a view called ‘middle knowledge’. God knows our options and our free will and choose to let us make our own mistakes. This does not necessarily mean He knows the outcome. (I hope I summarized that correctly)

The second world war brought the debate to a head: who among the many colluders were really responsible? To what extent can Germans a nation be blamed for what happened? The Nuremberg trials were an exercise in trying to determine the extent of moral and legal responsibility. Based on the idea of ‘crimes against humanity’, they were revolutionary in trying people for things that were legal for them to do. This illustrates, as the movie ‘the reader’ does too, that there are few black and whites in these things. The result of the whole social process was black, but on an individual level most people lived in grays. That’s the most scary thing about the Second World War: that it was so easy for things to turn out awful.

Politicians, philosophers and theologians chose, en masse, to put individual responsibility first after that. Cultural relativity can only go so far. Mass murder and genocide are evils that needs to be fought.

Or in other words: ethics and law are not the same thing, but ethics became law at Neurenberg. For a while.

This is the first in a series I’m doing on free will.

What do you all think: do we have free will? Do we have responsibility? Are we determined by genes, neurology and circumstance?

Uplifting science news: universe and environment

Katinka - Spirituality — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:44:32 +0000

The Dec. 2009 issue of Scientific American seems unusually boring at first sight. At a more thorough reading though, it has some interesting tidbits relevant to this blog:

A bouncy universe

Recent theoretical physics calculations by Horava split time from space in the General Theory of Relativity. The result is that cosmologically it’s no longer a big bang that’s predicted as the s art of the universe, but more of a big bounce.

In ordinary words this means that time is, within this theory, no longer a dimension like length. The question why time has a direction (we can’t go back in time, while we can walk up and down a road several times), unlike the other dimensions of space, is solved. But more importantly this new theory predicts the measurement of illusory matter, that’s really not there. Dark matter is now a maya of science, instead of a question to be solved.

Another issue that this theory helps deal with is of a more metaphysical kind. Blavatsky supports ancient Hindu thought in saying that the universe is periodically recreated. This fits a ‘bouncy’ theory much better than a big bang with a continuously expanding universe.

Before we go all ‘Hallelujah’ over this, the theory does have the slight problem that when the earth and planets are allowed to be realistic, instead of perfect spheres, the prediction no longer fits the observed results… Further mathematical creativity may solve this problem though. (p.

Upcoming solutions to environmental problems

It’s no secret for you, my readers, that I consider environmental problems to be the most serious problem facing humanity. I don’t just mean climate change btw. The whole last issue of Scientific American is devoted to solutions to such problems. I’ll share the ones I thought most promising.

A no money down solar plan.
Isn’t this smart? Your electric company will install your solar panel, and you get energy for less money than before, while your provider (who has to make money somehow) obviously ALSO makes money off that same energy. No more buying expensive equipment hoping for monetary gains in future. Instead, if this plan goes through, you just sign up for a plan and get cheaper energy as a result. I imagine such a plan would include maintenance etc. Everybody wins and we’ll finally get some serious energy from a renewable source. (p. 28)
Cement as a carbon sponge
It’s a small paragraph in the magazine, but I think it’s genius. As they say ‘Traditional cement production creates at least 5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, but new materials could create carbon neutral cement. ‘ Novachem proposes Magnesium oxide to make cement that naturally absorbs CO2 as it hardens. If they can find a workable procedure for this, it would mean CO2 gets absorbed from the atmosphere in the production of cement. This has the advantage of less heavy material being brought on site, reducing traffic related CO2 emissions. They only call this carbon neutral BTW, because the very moving of anything still brings carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the production of magnesium oxide probably also uses energy which comes from non-renewable energy sources. Still, the idea is beautiful and sounds practical. (p. 33)
Saltwater crops
Less prominent than the energy debate, the fresh water problem has been on the mind of environmentalists for as long as the energy problem. With growing populations worldwide, it becomes necessary to feed humanity on ever scarcer fresh water. Instead researchers in Adelaide, Australia, are developing salt resistant plants: rice and wheat for instance. This would be a tremendous help in countries near the sea where salt water is always plentiful and fresh water scarce. Israel and Bangladesh come to mind. (p. 33)
Solitary honeybees
I’m sure most of you have read about the collapse of honeybee colonies. The disorder has killed off more than a third of honeybee colonies since 2006. The blue orchard bee may be able to pick up where the honeybee left off: one solitary bee can pollinate as much territory as 50 honeybees, apparently. (p. 33)

An environmental problem: methane

As the climate changes and ice melts, a green house gas is released: methane. On p. 45 Scientific American reminds us, with vivid photographs of this issue. Very impressive is the picture of a flame coming out of the ice: the methane being burned by scientists as it is released from the ice.

Unfortunately methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so this is something likely to increase global temperatures.

An ancient computer

In 1900 an old artifact was found at the bottom of the Mediterranean ocean. At first glance it seemed insignificant. Closer scruteny made it seem a clock from second century BC. That in itself was marvelous: a clock that old was a unique find. But recent research shows that this wasn’t just a clock: it was a calculator. That is: closely related to our computers. As the researchers note: just before their society collapsed, the ancient greeks came closer to our socities technology than we would have thought possible. (p. 52-59)

All Considering » Theosophy

Channeling: real, unreal? Divine, human?

Related Posts

Mahatmas versus Ascended Masters

Related Posts

Blavatsky’s Psychology

Notes

Related Posts

H.P. Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, Benjamin Creme and others

Post script: Geoffrey Hodson

Related Posts

The certainty of truth

Related Posts

God and the Absolute, theosophy quote

W.Q. Judge quote, The Theosophical Forum of New York, December 1892, p. 3)

Related Posts

Blavatsky about the symbolism of the Christian Cross

Comment Zen

Related Posts

KH, Koot Hoomi and Katinka Hesselink

Related Posts

Free will, culture and responsibility

Related Posts

Uplifting science news: universe and environment

A bouncy universe

Upcoming solutions to environmental problems

An environmental problem: methane

An ancient computer

Related Posts