[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: What shall we do for our fellow...Mahatma?

Nov 11, 2002 03:31 PM
by netemara888

If you really go back to the original intent of TS it was 
brotherhood. And that is also one of the main tenets of Islam--
brotherhood. Did this get lost in the minds of those who would be TS 
detractors/derailers? Just because there were honest and painful  
discussions about race? The concepts that SD presented are for 
everyman. That was also her purpose to make the higher knowledge 
plain or clear for all men. But she first had to pass muster with the 
academics, political powers and those who would read her first: the 
white middle classes.

She was a master politician herself: she said what the people wanted 
to hear. But she also told the truth about the evolution and position 
of the races. No matter how well it was said, it would NEVER go down 
easily with those who would find a platform by which to proffer their 
own careers. One said person, who died recently, Stephen J. Gould. He 
had a big academic career and used it to try and destroy any 
semblance of credibility for HPB. That is recent history. So it goes 
on. But I mean to vindicate her writings.


--- In theos-talk@y..., "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@a...> wrote:
> Hi all of you,
> I can only suggest, that people add some more ('of the 7 keys') 
value to the Upanishads. Since Theosophy doesn't differ so much from 
the teachings of the Upanishads - i.e. when correctly understood... - 
But as said it differs ! (But it is not for all to really learn true 
> 1. Some thoughts:
> I got this excerpt by Blavatsky:
> "And, because we refuse to accept the fallacies of some psycho-
physiologists as the last word of science, do we furnish thereby a 
new proof that free will is an hallucination? We deride the 
animalistic idea. How far more scientific and logical, besides being 
as poetical as it is grand, is the teaching in the Kathopanishad, 
which, in a beautiful and descriptive metaphor, says that: "The 
senses are the horses, body is the chariot, mind (kama-manas) is the 
reins, and intellect (or free will) the charioteer." Verily, there is 
more exact science in the less important of the Upanishads, composed 
thousands of years ago, than in all the materialistic ravings of 
modern "physico-biology" and "psychophysiology" put together! " 
> ("Studies in Occultism" By H. P. Blavatsky; - the chapter 
on 'Psyhic and Noetic acton'
sio/sio-pan.htm) ;
> And this excerpt by Blavatsky:
> "There is, and can be, no doubt that Vedanta and (exoteric) 
Buddhism do not hold your view, but ours. Moreover, one could 
scarcely dispute that Lord Buddha--whatever esoteric doctrine he may 
have taught--founded monasteries, or that he favoured and assisted in 
doing so. Whether he expected all his disciples to become 
Bodhisattvas may be doubtful, but he certainly pointed out the "happy 
life" of a Bhikshu as the road to salvation; he expressly abstained 
from teaching cosmology or any worldly science; he never meddled with 
the worldly affairs of men, but every assistance he rendered them was 
entirely restricted to showing them the road to deliverance from 
existence. And just the same with Vedanta. It prohibits any 
attachment to worldly views and interests, or enquiries after 
cosmology or evolution a fortiori socialism and any other world-
improvement. All this Vedanta calls Agnana (Buddhism: Avidya), while 
Gnana or wisdom--the only aim of a sage (Gnani)--is but the striving 
for the realization of the eternal (true reality, Atma).(a) 
> Answer (a). It depends on what you call Vedanta--whether the 
Dwaita, the Adwaita, or the Visishtadwaita. That we differ from all 
these, is no news, and I have spoken of it repeatedly. Yet in the 
esotericism of the Upanishads, when correctly understood, and our 
esotericism, there will not be found much difference. Nor have I ever 
disputed any of the facts about Buddha as now brought forward; 
although these are facts from only his exoteric biography. Nor has he 
invented or drawn from his inner consciousness the philosophy he 
taught, but only the method of his rendering it. Buddhism being 
simply esoteric Bodhism taught before him secretly in the arcana of 
the Brahminical temples, contains, of course, more than one doctrine 
of which the Lord Buddha never spoke of in public. But this shows in 
no way that he did not teach them to his Arhats. Again, 
between "attachment to worldly views or interests" and the study of 
Cosmology, which is not "a worldly science" however, there is an 
abyss. One pertains to religious and philosophical asceticism, the 
other is necessary for the study of Occultism--which is not 
Buddhistic, but universal. Without the study of cosmogony and 
theogony which teach the hidden value of every force in Nature and 
their direct correspondence to, and relation with, the forces in man 
(or the principles) no occult psychophysics or knowledge of man as he 
truly is, is possible. No one is forced to study esoteric philosophy 
unless he likes it, nor has anyone ever confused Occultism with 
Buddhism or Vedantism.--H.P.B."
> ("WHAT SHALL WE DO FOR OUR FELLOW-MEN?" Article by H. P. Blavatsky, 
oktober 1889 ---
> 2. The following are just views - Feel free to agree or....disagree:
> Sweet and good words are the best to use. The create peace and 
ease. But, when people talk about tough issues they often get a 
crowd. I mean no harm...
> A word on the - to some - possible racism in the theosophical 
Mahatma Letters. I have to agree, that whenever the fearfull person 
hear talks about 'races' or 'rootraces' or the like - the issue 
racism comparatively easy comes to its mind. --- And especially when 
ones eyes meet with that 'strange' theosophical LOGO containing 
a .... a Swastika, whatever that is? Maybe a piece of Krupp Staal or 
just a few lines of drawing? 
> The frightened ones are not in doubt.
> And a magazine called 'Lucifer'. Oh dear - oh dear - were are we 
> You see Hitler Jugend was no joke - is was seroius stuff (or more 
precis evil business, and that was NO good, and should be avoided):
> As long as Theosophy has teachings (on dead-letter print) on what 
to other and more frigthened people are a "special" teaching on 
races - there will be fear - and fear for, that theosophy will 
mislead children.
> Today mind-manipulation is said to be out of the question in 
Theosophical or ordinary schools or at scout-meetings.
> But is that really true ?
> And the Racist propaganda  la J. Goebbels has that vanished from 
the childrens eyes on TV, PC-games etc...? Or is it just cleverly 
hidden today?
> I do hope, that you all will understand, that only non-violence, 
peace, love, good deeds and the like really can be the path forward 
on this planet. 
> We will for sure all of our small loyalities have to totally 
transcend our race, tribe, culture and nation - if we are going to 
have peace on this planet.
> As long as Theosophy or MAIN Theosophical groups in their PR and 
tone of voice lacks being an example for others to follow - it will 
fail in its tasks on the Wisdom teachings. The -dead-letter 
theosophical teachings will have to be replaced by the 7 keys, 
mentioned by Blavatsky. ("The Secret Doctrine" by Blavatsky, vol1., 
p. 318-19)
> Let Theosophy take care of their children with a high quality of 
historical teachings in a most TRUE and proper sense of non-voilence. 
> And let children be certain on, where they have you when the talk 
about sexuality and A-RYAN races comes around - then certainly 
no 'theosophical priest' named "W.C.Lumsy", his followers or the like 
will be relevant as a TRUE theosophical teacher.
> Atma=Brahman 
> Feel free to do your best...
> from
> M. Sufilight with ... shall we say...high hopes...and a smile >:-)
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application