Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00441)

Hello Wes
<<<I've really had enough.>>>
That is a bit of an under statement!
To hear H.P.B. and the Master's talked of in such a way is awful, isn't it?
And for anyone new to Theosophy, it is not encouraging. Isn't that why we
don't know who the Masters (and H.P.B. for that matter) really are.
Just delete those backward and unhelpful mails. They are full of error
(another under statement). They are total rubbish!

The lists build up their own elemental, and it can really take hold. We can
get caught up in that if we allow it, and get taken away from Theosophy.
The list is called Theos-World. But Theosophy is not *of* this world
(although it can hopefully operate in it). Practical Theosophy.

H.P.B. is surely not to be seen as academic or scholarly?
Rather a Theosophist and Occultist. A fifth rounder. It is so good. It
lifts the spirit. H.P.B. "had enough" of things too at times. Even
though she died over 110 years ago the *backward* still keep maligning her.
There are now scientists who study "The Secret Doctrine" and have to get 2nd
copies, because the first ones are full up with their notes. Apart from
Leon, that aspect rarely comes into the discussions.
B/Bs vitriol is backward, behind and out dated. Finish.

There is a lot going on (S.D. - wise), but often outside the Theosophical
Movement and theosophical lists. For example, there was a chap just a
couple of months ago who picked up the S.D. for the first time and saw so
much in it straight away. Light, heat, moisture, magnetism, force, sevens,
electricity, rounds, races, chains, 7 principles...and answers to questions
his University lecturers could give no answer. All in the space of a couple
of hours. It was so great to see it Wes. An *eye* opener, to put it
mildly.
Support comes from Science, Physics, Medicine, etc.
We can sit and study/meditate the S.D. That is fine. But someone in
medicine (or not), for example, can put that in to practice through mesmeric
healing. That kind of thing.

<<<Instead, you criticize the more abstruse and difficult
concepts (such as rounds and races, of which you have absolutely NO clue)>>>
Just as well perhaps, as they are a real clue, but

"A clue, which is, perhaps, no clue to the present generation -- especially
the Westerns -- protected as they are by their very blindness and ignorant
materialistic disbelief in the occult; but a clue which would, nevertheless,
have been very real in the early centuries of the Christian era, to people
fully convinced of the reality of occultism, and entering a cycle of
degradation, which made them rife for abuse of occult powers and sorcery of
the worst description. (SD Introductory page xxxv)

Was it such a good thing when gunpowder was no longer "occult" knowledge,
and came into the public domain?

It is always good to read your mails Wes.
Theosophy is just so tremendous!
Thanks
Tony



-----Original Message-----
From: Wes Amerman [mailto:amerman@theosophy.net]
Sent: 15 November 2002 9:22 am
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World RE: Re: The Mahatma Letters


Brian/Brigitte,

<As for "credentials", I know they say yours are close to zero.>

I've really had enough. First of all, you refused to discuss any idea
seriously with me, and completely ignored my questions and comments, weeks
and months ago, about the shortcomings of modern science and the gaps in its
approach to evolution and consciousness. All you seem to want to do is
bash Theosophy and any attempt to defend it, all the while quoting from
secondary sources who share your derogatory views. Seldom, if ever, do you
cite the source Theosophy which you claim is faulty. And, when someone
(Daniel, Dallas or Leon, for example) quotes Blavatsky or someone who
supports her to show another side to the matter, you put them down and
attack them personally, as you most recently did by saying Daniel has "no
credentials!"

Why not just take an IDEA to task? I don't mean a secondary, latter day
student's interpretation, well-known or not, but a bona fide idea from
Blavatsky or her Teachers? If you disagree with Theosophy, why not have the
courage to discuss the central ideas: spiritual evolution, karma,
reincarnation, etc. and their relationships to human lives, needs and
aspirations today? Instead, you criticize the more abstruse and difficult
concepts (such as rounds and races, of which you have absolutely NO clue),
and then garble and misinterpret them to make it seem that they support the
most heinous of UN-brotherly sentiments and actions!

<Bhakti Anada Goswhami , I only know him from his letters, made an
intelligent impression on me. As for his credentials, I looked them up ,
see below.>
<Brian : I posted clearly WHY the letters where typed in
<all caps, I decided to do the most fair I could think of , give this
< obviously expert person, a voice.

As far as Mr. Goswhami [sic] goes, I don't know nor could care less what his
credentials might be -- as if he were some sort of authority on Blavatsky!
Daniel provided the following timely quote from Mr. Goswami, which should
make it abundantly clear that the latter has absolutely no idea what
Theosophy is about:

"H. P. Blavatsky and the Theosophists and early Aryanists made Sri
Lanka one of their world headquarters for exporting their militant
atheism. Aryosophist esotericism in Britain and Germany became
pervaded with Theravadin Buddhist thought. This 'Aryanism' doctrine
of voidism and related moral relativism eventually became central to
the conscienceless atrocities of the Third Reich. Theravadin
Buddhist voidism has not been a benevolent force in history ! . ."

There is so much mere assertion, misinformation and innuendo contained just
in this first paragraph that I hardly know where to start -- What, for
example, is Theosophy's "militant atheism?" Blavatsky fought, to be sure,
against dogmatic religion and religious hypocrisy, but to accuse her of
"atheism" is the height of ignorance. What is the value of such contrived
phrases as "Aryosophist esotericism," "voidism" and "related moral
relativism?" On the surface or to the uneducated, they might sound
learned, but they reek of academic bullshit. This conclusion is supported
by the next sentence, that these ideas "eventually became central to the
conscienceless atrocities of the Third Reich."!!!!!!!! What crap, Brian.
And you have the temerity to bring this man forward on this list and promote
him as an "authority" on Theosophy and Blavatsky???? I'm sure anyone who
has ever read Blavatsky with half an eye open could find ample references in
her writings to refute this garbage. One line from Blavatsky should suffice
as a start: "Theosophy is altruism, and we cannot repeat it too often."
And have you ever read the first object of the Theosophical Society: "To
form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without distinction
of race, color or creed?" [Key to Theosophy, p 39]

Just what is your purpose in "contributing" to this list? To prove that
there are "experts" in academia who share your views? To dissuade inquirers
from looking into Theosophy? To attack your least favorite historical
personages and hope that others will come to share your biases?

Best Regards,
Wes Amerman




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/