Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00086)

Hi Brigtte and all of you,

I think I understand your picture.
But Brigtte, what do you know about - Senzar ?? 
And did the Mahatmas use Senzar - and/ or the 'seven keys' of Blavatskys (and others though some uses another name on this) - in their letters ??
When did the mentioned letters occur - year and date - how was the circumstance on the planet etc. at the given time. What did Randolph do at that time alive or not. 
Was each word in the letters a code - only for the (higher) initiated ?? 
Was the manner the words were put on paper a subject for clairvoyant investigation, i.e. was there and is there still a code in the letters - which haven't been discovered by academic historians ??
Was there a watermark on the letters - when they were received ??
And was the letters - later changed - so the invisible code disappered again - by ESP and the like ??
Who knows ?? (And other questions could come to ones mind.)
I don't know - because I havn't studied this subject yet. Sorry.

Can anyone helps us out here ??


The above seems also important questions to put forward - and answered - before anyone jumps to conclusions to early.

>From time to time - we experience that scriptures lose their meanings and get more or less distorted - because - time passes - the sorrundings changes- the cultures changes - humanity evolves to another place in their ongoing evolution.
That, I think also includes the Mahatma Letters - year 2002 - although I can't say exactly in what manner, in this email, this holds true, because that would require a lot of writing.

So the key to Randolph versus Blavatsky - Mahatma letters - could be the above - it could be as you state it, (I understand you like that) - i.e. false play by Blavatsky - or -- it could be that Blavatsky and the real Masters wanted to attract aspirants to Theosophy at that time --- or later today 2002 - that they had already THEN planned to reject som types of personalities - so they won't use time on Theosophy year 2002, - -- or even maybe so that they WOULD use time on Theosophy year - in the manner that you do Brigitte.

Wisdom is good. Let us learn how much wisdom is needed, so we can see how ignorant we are.

Let us seek wisdom.

Brigtte : I can for instance recommend the books "The Sufis" and "Learninghow to learn" by the esoterical sufi Idries Shah (d.1996).


So now what.
Feel free to comment.


from
Sufilight




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bri_mue" <bri_mue@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World P.B. Randolph and Blavatsky


> The "Masters" (whoever they where, do you know ?) quoted Randolph in 
> the Mahatma letters, that supposed to have been written by "Tibetans".
> So this evidence is slightly more important.
> The Masters supposed to have been near "perfect" beings, that where 
> readings scripts in Senzar, in their cave library in Tibet, quoting 
> copying an American occultist ?
> Brigitte
> --- In theos-talk@y..., "Morten Sufilight" <teosophy@m...> wrote:
> > Hi, Steve and all of you,
> > 
> > Thank you for your answer.
> > But, Steve what kind of "involvment" do we talk about ? In what 
> manner was Blavatsky associated with Randolph. Is there any reason to 
> suggest, that Blavatsky considered Randolph as her teacher - or did 
> she just quote some of his - words or materials - just to attract - 
> seekers of visdoms teaching, - or are there other important issues 
> going in to the picture here ??
> > Do you suggest that Blavatsky considered Prandolph as a teacher - 
> and if so, what is that based on - a few remarks etc. or something 
> more substantial ??
> > 
> > I think that Blavatsky's writings to a great extent were done - 
> with due respect for the present curcumstances on the Planet. But - I 
> do'nt think she really seriously considered Randolph a teacher - ever 
> since 1874 and onward to 1891. (maybe Akasha - I am 100% certain.)
> > 
> > from
> > Sufilight
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Steve Stubbs" <stevestubbs@y...>
> > To: <theos-talk@y...>
> > Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 5:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: Theos-World P.B. Randolph and Blavatsky
> > 
> > 
> > > I am not sure I understand the question. If you read
> > > Mary Neff's collection of autobiographical fragments,
> > > Blavatsky said everywhere she went she searched for
> > > teachers. She arrived in New York in 1874. At that
> > > time Randolph was in Boston claiming to have been
> > > initiated in the mystic East. That claim would have
> > > rung her bell for sure. There is evidence she was
> > > associated with his organization, and she mentions two
> > > of his books, EULIS and PRE-ADAMITE MAN, by name and
> > > quotes from SEERSHIP. She would not have been
> > > involved with Randolph personally by the end of 1875,
> > > because he took a gun and shot his brains out. She
> > > may or may not have maintained some connection with
> > > his much less illustrious successor, the dowdy Mr.
> > > Dowd, and it is evident she was influenced by his
> > > books and practied mirror gazing.
> > > 
> > > --- Morten Sufilight <teosophy@m...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi Steve. and all of you,
> > > > 
> > > > I would like to know, what the meaning of the term
> > > > "involved" is - in the below?
> > > > And in what manneer do we talk about "involved" ?
> > > > 
> > > > from
> > > > Sufilight
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > > From: "Steve Stubbs" <stevestubbs@y...>
> > > > To: <theos-talk@y...>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 5:28 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Theos-World P.B. Randolph and Blavatsky
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > --- Blavatsky Archives
> > > > <blavatskyarchives@y...>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Steve, please tell me where is the evidence to
> > > > show
> > > > > > that Blavatsky was "involved" with Randolph and
> > > > his
> > > > > > movement in the first place so that she could
> > > > then
> > > > > > "break decisively with him and his movement"?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi, Daniel:
> > > > > 
> > > > > You must not have been following the e-mails. 
> > > > Please
> > > > > refer to the e-mails of the past few days, in
> > > > which
> > > > > much of the evidence has been laid out and your
> > > > > questions have all been answered.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Steve
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > > Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> > > > > http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
> > > > > 
> > > > >  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> > > http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>