Theos-Talk Archives (October 2002 Message tt00035)

HI Dallas and all of you,

Thanks for your answer. I think disagree somewhat with you Dallas.
My answer is also lenghty, but be patient with me.

Dallas wrote in the below: "Each one frames his own understanding an derives
an opinion therefrom."

My Sufilight view:
Well, and that is what you have done for you - Dallas.
I can understand, that - you - havn't got time to go into the 'wrangle ' on
Roerich and Bailey. Well fine for you.
Other readers could be interested. Am I right ?

Dallas wrote:
"They seem to be concerned mainly with their own interpretation of some
theosophical teachings and basing themselves on those, they appear to
have created a kind of sectarian division -- and that takes one away
from the FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY."

My Sufilight view:
Well, I think that it is exactly claims like that coming from you Dallas or
others, which often are putting other interested peoples views DOWN with a
phrase put like "I know better" and "I have experience etc. etc." or
something similar.
What is your interpretation af the scriptures but your very own?
Comparative studies can lead interested readers very far. They might be able
to understand (here at Theos-World and elsewhere), that Theosophy is NOT and
never has been BIBLE-STUDY on the writings of HPB, - and the importance of
the teachings of Atma-Vidya. Well, some might.

BUT, that doesn't imply, that I am not agreeing on, that a greater number
(and maybe even all) of the later Theosophical offshots and branches have
some problems dealing with Theosophy as it really is, although I would bet a
number of them mean well, and mean no harm to anyone.
If you could be more - specific with your opinions - as Short as morally
possible - with your quotes on "BLAVATSKY: Collected Works (TPH)" and
other papers it would be fine. I am sure some readers would like to know,
what the truth about Theosophy really is.

Dallas also wrote:
"For myself, I have no time to try to grasp, or revive, their (Roerich
and Bailey) point of view in detail -- also I would say: it appears
quite different from H P B's "Message from the Masters" which is the
basis for THEOSOPHY -- and thus diverges -- goes too far
(incomprehensively) from the ORIGINAL."

My Sufilight view:
Well, you mention you have no time to 'grasp' or 'revive' etc. etc. But, yet
you do answer this email, just to make a stance ? Is this a contradiction ?

Dallas wrote:
"No one need personally be "put down." We generally don't know enough.
I do know enough to see the difference. That appears irreconcilable."

My Sufilight view:
The first sentence is allrigth. But - Dallas I ask, is it so, - that the
phrase you use, that YOU 'know enough to see the difference' is implying
that YOU know BETTER than others or the TRUTH about the matter ? And if not,
why then not accept the importance comparative studies really indeed has to
the students of Theosophy ? If you think you do so, why then this funny
email to Theos-World ? (I hope you understand I am trying to make a point.)

Dallas wrote:
"Again, any valuation has to be based on universal and impersonal
principles, and not on any pretended or claimed authority. Each one will
make such a judgment for themselves."

My Sufilight view:
I agree. So you do agree then, that comparative studying is all right ? Or
what ?
(With the idea, that we keep what we think are core theosophy and HPB into
the picture from time to time, so not to go astray.)

Dallas wrote:
"Of opinions, and the shifting politics on the surface, there are many,
and lead nowhere, and are not even very entertaining."

My Sufilight view:
Arrh Dallas, I think they are entertaining indeed, but are maybe not really
lifting people spiritually, because they are as you say 'on the surface',
but comparative studies are NOT on the surface, right ?
It is maybe just so, that the tone of voice sometimes need adjusting ,- so
no harm comes to the parties or readers involved. Here it is done by the
list it self and the moderators. Time and place is important here.

Dallas wrote:
"So I return to the main point that has always meant the most for
myself: What is the basis? Is it made plain? Can I use any part of
it? Can others use it? Does it help on the progress of humanity?"

My Sufilight view:
I can only agree a lot on that !
So what is the basis, that the other 'theosophical' groups miss, apart from
maybe knowing better and theosophical Bible-studying etc. ?

Dallas wrote:
"Those bases ought to be made quite clear. The rest is (to me) a
morass of opinions, and in some cases of apologies, or more or less subtle
attacks. I detect an attempt to sway minds of those who are
not familiar with the ins and outs of history. I wonder why that is
done."

My Sufilight view:
Allright Dallas, but I - myself - am not attempting to sway anyone minds by
implying, that I know better, quite on the contrary. I stated a view, and do
so now.
You state that there is no leaders in Theosophy. And yet there are so in a
certain sense anyway. And we all know that.
So why this contradiction ?
I would say there ought to be no authorities unleess some persons or groups
need and cry for these authorities. Because if people do that, the
authorities will come. Else I agree.
That the Masters are capeable of writing words using a different style of
writing to a different audience, should and ought not be a surprise to
anyone. The Masters are familar with the use of 'the 7 keys' mentioned by
HPB, as well as dead-letter reading and teaching. Let us remember, that the
societies then where none of them information societies like the ones we
have today.

You seem in the last part of you email to imply, that some has misused
'Djual Khools' name to there own ends or without wisdom. Can you please be
more specific ?
If it is the books of Alice A. Bailey you have in mind, then please remember
that at the start of every book there is a page named 'EXTRACT FROM A
STATEMENT BY THE TIBETAN' one should read that to understand, the there is
NO authority there ! ( Her books and the statement is here online:
http://www.netnews.org/bk/statement.html )

A view is: It is often the readers themselves who fall for authority or has
problems with the mentioned issues, who react strangely to that statement
and the contents of the books.

You did cut my email short and omitted the following, which is a basic
methodology on others system of teachings and how Theosophy is or at least
ought to deal with them.
Here it is again:
But let us cull the good we find in each - book of wisdom teaching.
And if the particular book hasn't anything at all to offer our own little
SELF, then let us reject it.
But let us not just like that go around and say, that others shouldn't read
it, because it gives our own little selves a headeache. Becuase that COULD
be wrong ! But other times it is not wrong.
Ignorance doesn't make you a MASTER !

We could say: One book or article by this author is good for you where you
are now on the path,... AND another one by another author is good for
someone else for the time being at least.

Later,... well later (as time goes by) we sometimes changes our minds,
and... other times certainly not.

But most times we changes our conciousness and walk the PATH or
transforms...
Rethink that if you want to learn.

To me the real base is HPB's writings, but that is not to imply, that my
real base isn't Idries Shah's, when that is proper, or The Bhagavad Gita,
when time comes. It all depends on what the needs are at present.
I have not only one author to consider, but a hole number of them, and Alice
A. Bailey And Helena Roerich are included.
But, I don't and won't, in my inner being, follow them as any kind of
Bibles - dead-letter OR not - and all.
It is the living spirit of the wisdom teaching, that I follow, - the Path of
the Masters and the Avatars.
I cull the good I find in each. Some books I won't recommend any on this
list to read.
On another list, they will be great, viewed from a standpoint of wisdom !

I add this to the above:
HPB wrote in "The Key to Theosophy", Section 2, question 2):
"ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case,
besides Buddhistic ethics?
THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no
philosophy in particular: we cull good
we find in each. But here, again, it must be stated that, like
all other ancient systems, Theosophy is divided
into Exoteric and Esoteric Sections."

And let us remember that !
Even so some groups today - omit the Esoteric Section !




from
Sufilight with comparative studies...and of course peace and love...










----- Original Message -----
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 2:18 AM
Subject: Theos-World RE: Roerich against Bailey...!? NEW ?


> Oct 4, 2002
>
>
> Dear Friend:
>
> Thanks for the link. I looked over it I will try to answer as best I
> can based on what I have learned from a study of theosophy and its
> history. The same basis can be acquired by any student who has access
> to the "original and unedited LITERATURE of THEOSOPHY. Each one
> frames his own understanding an derives an opinion therefrom.
>
> I am truly unable to find the time to go into the wrangle you
> illustrate as between Roerich and Bailey. To my reading and view they
> add little to THEOSOPHY. They are to me, superficial.
>
> They seem to be concerned mainly with their own interpretation of some
> theosophical teachings and basing themselves on those, they appear to
> have created a kind of sectarian division -- and that takes one away
> from the FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY.
>
> Additionally they disagree on matters related to the THEOSOPHICAL
> SOCIETY -- and that has little to do with the fundamentals of
> THEOSOPHY. One need only read H P B's article: A PUZZLE FROM ADYAR
> [BLAVATSKY: Collected Works (TPH), Vol. XI, p. 378], or her letter:
> WHY I DO NOT RETURN TO INDIA [BLAVATSKY: Collected Works (TPH), Vol.
> XII, p 156] to know exactly what the relation between THEOSOPHY and
> the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY are. It is important to keep these in mind.
>
> I would add that one also should be familiar with her articles: THE
> ORGANIZATION OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY [THEOSOPHIST, Oct. 1886,
> reprinted in June 1924 same journal], and THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY:
> ITS MISSION AND ITS FUTURE [LUCIFER, August 1888, Vol. II, p. 421] --
> those give us her perspective as to the mutual relationship. Sadly,
> many students are not very familiar with these 4 articles.
>
> For myself, I have no time to try to grasp, or revive, their (Roerich
> and Bailey) point of view in detail -- also I would say: it appears
> quite different from H P B's "Message from the Masters" which is the
> basis for THEOSOPHY -- and thus diverges -- goes too far
> (incomprehensively) from the ORIGINAL.
>
> No one need personally be "put down." We generally don't know enough.
> I do know enough to see the difference. That appears irreconcilable.
>
> H P B always explains, the others do not offer that facility. That
> troubles me.
>
> That which is of interest to me is not the more recent historical
> aspects, or even the various opinions, but, for myself, I try to cut
> through to the basis and the fundamentals of what is being said. Are
> the opinions useful, general, impersonal and correct from the point
> of view of logic -- a logic that any one can appreciate?
>
> I want to know why things are said. What are the PRINCIPLES on which
> they are based.
>
> As I understand it, THEOSOPHY is a definite teaching based on the
> historical perspectives and actual observations of immortal Great
> Minds -- and these records cover an enormous time-period. (see S D I
> pp. 276-7) Our present is only a very narrow and superficial slice (a
> little over 100 years only) of that which is now in the past covering
> observations for millions if not billions of years..
>
> The past cannot be reconstructed with the few relicts and artifacts
> that our researchers have found. But the Records of the Lodge of
> Great Adepts has such a complete record (says H P B in the
> introduction to ISIS UNVEILED and The SECRET DOCTRINE) -- and they can
> place events and trends with great accuracy. In the S D, for
> instance, some of these are given. But we can learn from these more
> modern offerings, if the reports given are true, and accurate. Again,
> any valuation has to be based on universal and impersonal principles,
> and not on any pretended or claimed authority. Each one will make
> such a judgment for themselves.
>
> Those bases ought to be made quite clear. The rest is (to me) a
> morass of opinions, and in some cases of apologies, or more or less
> subtle attacks. I detect an attempt to sway minds of those who are
> not familiar with the ins and outs of history. I wonder why that is
> done.
>
> My conclusion is that after H P B had completed her mission, it became
> (and is today) most essential for those who desire to benefit from
> THEOSOPHY (I mean ourselves) to study and learn it. Then we have one
> basis for judgment.
>
> Of opinions, and the shifting politics on the surface, there are many,
> and lead nowhere, and are not even very entertaining.
>
> So I return to the main point that has always meant the most for
> myself: What is the basis? Is it made plain? Can I use any part of
> it? Can others use it? Does it help on the progress of humanity?
>
> In Theosophy there are NO LEADERS. There are the TEACHINGS. Those
> are available to all to study and to apply. In effect, each
> individual becomes his own teacher, and for safety and support he can
> discuss his findings or speculations (?) with other students with a
> view to a consolidation of their discoveries and findings -- such as
> we are dong now.
>
> I look on "Agni Yoga" literally, as the words signify: the "fire of
> truth, that burns to ashes all personal opinions."
>
> It does not impress me to find that "Djual Khool" is named as the
> basis for certain teachings and declarations after H P B's death. One
> need only to read what is written in MAHATMA LETTERS by him, on behalf
> of the TEACHER, and see if the style and content agree with those
> later "teachings." That, to me is highly significant. At no time
> does he claim "authority." At no time (in MAHATMA LETTERS) does he
> presume to modify or alter the Masters words or teachings. So it is
> inconsistent to do so later.
>
> Let me know if this sounds reasonable.
>
> Dallas
>
> =======================
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M N O
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 5:12 AM
> To:
> Subject: Roerich against Bailey...!? NEW ?
>
> Hi all of you,
>
> I recently got an email from the author of the following website.
> There are some interesting articles there on comparative theosophical
> studies , which could have your interest.
>
> http://www.esotericastrologer.org/AABHPBHR2.htm#HRAAB
>
> A view:
> Comparative studies should maybe be done more often in Theosophical
> circles.
> And no one should put anyone down because they don't follow the
> majority in a group or a Theosphical Society.
> Wisdom teaching is wisdom teaching; - as long as the theosophical
> aspirant mean no harm everyhting is all right.
> Fear and power struggles in Theosophical groups and organizations
> should not be considered the PATH forward.
> That which is important is the relations among people, and that one is
> showing others how to be an example - a theosophical example on wisdom
> and compassion.
> The group leaders fears for others hidden agendas or their raise in
> importance, --- I think more often than not lead theosophical
> organizations to split apart.
> Of course that is not the only reason.
>
> cut
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>