Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00037)

Dec 29 2002

Dear Wry:

On what basis would the philosophy of theosophy (which is a history of
our evolutionary progress) be redesigned?

I don't get it Why would tinkering be needed?

Most students haven't read or studied THEOSOPHY as they ought to.

So discussions of that nature ought to be set aside until there is
real knowledge to use and discuss with.

Best wishes,

Dallas

=============

-----Original Message-----
From: wry [mailto:wry1111@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 6:18 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com; AA-B-Study
Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: HPB and after her -- some T S history

Hi. Perhaps the kind of very small talk, political arguing, arguing in
general, nitpicking, looking back at little inconsequential details
from the
past and analyzing them etc. is a result of the condition of the
theosophy
movement at the present time. I have not seen anything quite like the
bickering on theosophy lists on any other lists I have been on that
are of
about this size. Generally speaking, though not always, people can get
along
and stay pretty focused. I am not saying that this is necessarily
true, but
perhaps theosophy, as it was originally presented, is no longer
time-appropriate. Things have moved very fast in the last hundred plus
years. This is worthy of enquiry. I believe if Madame Blavatsky were
alive,
she would redesign her whole teaching.

There is not enough real enquiry on here, though I have seen some. In
any
case, learning needs to be set up so that it is a constant discovery.
In
this way there is joy and not authority and dullness. With joyful
learning,
there is the rapture of a constant opening and a constant dying. We
will not
have time to worry about immortality. In my opinion this kind of talk
of
immortality that some have been doing is not only a belief, but it is
an
oxymoron, as it serves no function. In love, there is a constant dying
to
the old. When everything is always new, it will be clean again, and
many
people can be helped. This is my genuine opinion, and I am even afraid
to
speak this on here, which is sad.

This message is not about you and your behavior, necessarily, but I
use it
to link to, as it has brought again to my mind an interesting
question,
which I have pondered many, many hours: the time-appropriateness of
this
particular teaching in the form it is now being presented. Sincerely,
Wry
----- Original Message -----
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: "AA-B-Study" <study@blavatsky.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 5:01 PM
Subject: Theos-World RE: HPB and after her -- some T S history


> Dec 28 2002
>
> Dear T:
>
> As I understand it these lists and "chat-groups" are formed to
discuss
> the philosophy of theosophy. Occasionally matters of event and
> history arise. They are best resolved on documents and the
statements
> made originally by those concerned. Unfortunately, some
correspondents
> rely too much on memory, and not on facts that can be checked by any
> one concerned. This causes confusion and debate that it quite
> unnecessary.
>
> Much as I dislike going into the "history of the T S," some things
are
> in plain sight. And while they have nothing to do with the validity
> of THEOSOPHY, they are snags that draw attention away from the
> PHILOSOPHY. As such they ought to be laid to rest and there let
lie.
>
> We have at least two very good histories that concern H P B (apart
> from her own letters), and accounts made by others who lived around
> her and were witnesses to various events, the first which I have
> personally verified from documentary, primary sources is
>
> The THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1875-1950) (300+ pages) & 6.00
>
> Sylvia Cranston's biography THE EXTRAORDINARY LIFE AND INFLUENCE OF
> HELENA BLAVATSKY -- Tarcher/Putnam, New York, 1993 & 30.00 [
> Recently the 9th printing in paper back has been issued, price
about
> $ 12.00.]
>
> But, however interesting, they do not seem to teach anything except
to
> those who already know of the philosophy and of the inner planes of
> being and of will force, that are active and visible at times. They
> are distractions and obstructions for the average student or
> researcher.
>
> The horse riding accident I recall mention of, as H P B speaks of it
> (see p. 30 of Sylvia Cranston's biography THE EXTRAORDINARY LIFE AND
> INFLUENCE OF HELENA BLAVATSKY -- Tarcher/Putnam, New York, 1993.)
By
> some "miracle" (Masters' help) she went through it unharmed. The
> nature of any wounds then received, I never have seen mentioned or
> described. I find that many people try to trivialize important
things
> by referring to events in the personal life of a teacher or
messenger.
> And they derive their own fanciful conclusions -- to the future
> distraction of readers like you and me, who wonder, and then seek to
> verify the facts.
>
> You will find that sceptics accumulate around every great reformer
> AFTER their death, and begin speculating about physical reasons for
> their (the reader or pupil's) lack of understanding -- as though
such
> a deficiency (in their eyes only) was good reason to doubt anything
> offered or taught. The two things are not congruent.
>
> Some, truly inimical, depending on the prevailing like for "gossip,"
> emphasize, or magnify such events and criticism, as though the dust,
> thus blown, will be made to becloud and surround the subject -- and
> these imaginings and theories project themselves into the mental
> processes of others. Researchers like you and me, desire a clear
view
> of what was originally done or said. They call attention to small
> details, and to "errors" which they say they have found, and set
> themselves up as editors and authorities. Are we to believe them
> without any checking ? Do they provide adequate references for
their
> views?
>
> You will find that most of the "splits" and sectarianism in
religious
> "belief" (NOT KNOWLEDGE) arises because certain individuals (WHO DO
> NOT STUDY THOROUGHLY) accept those authorities; and having done so,
> they refuse to do the necessary individual study to verify (or not)
> the views divergent from those of the original teacher. "Belief" is
> the most dangerous of weapons used against the clear thinking of
> individuals. When they accept they become slaves.
>
> The Theosophical Society (not THEOSOPHY, as a philosophy), right
after
> H P B's death began to do this. Members began to drift into
seperative
> ranks of believers of this or that. The attempt at Unity was
> gradually destroyed. You can see its dire effects today among those
> who call themselves "theosophists." [ No one, except the Masters
of
> Wisdom, deserve that appellation.]
>
> Mr. Judge (for whom H P B spoke in the highest terms) was the first
> attacked. Thereafter a Man named Leadbeater (in England and at
Adyar)
> set himself up to make changes and develop Theosophy into several
> areas, where it would meet with some approval from those who did not
> study, but wanted a cozy nook of belief.
>
> I say that any one who is familiar with H P B Theosophy will
> immediately detect the divergences of Leadbeater "theosophy." But
> there were those who though much of it, starting with Annie Besant.
> She however, waited till Col. Olcott died in 1907 to bring this into
> prominence.
>
> Mr. Judge and the whole American THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY section was
> "excommunicated" by Col. Olcott ( First President T S for LIFE) in
> July 1995. Thus the T S in A. sailed its own ship and after Judge
> died in March 1996, under various Presidents it developed its own
> minor divergent views based on their perception of the original
> teachings.
>
> Emerging from this in 1909, was the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS --
it
> rejected all novelty or belief, and emphasized (and still does) a
> careful study of the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS of H P B. It pioneered the
> reprinting of the original texts books either by a photographic
> process, or by verbatim editions in carefully re-set type. It has a
> high regard for the Judge writings not just because of H P B's
> endorsement, but because of their inherent worth.
>
> As an association, it has no membership as such. It is sustained by
> "associates" -- volunteers who for the past 90 years have
supported
> it by donations of time, money and work. It places the direct
> relationship of the inquirer / student to the Original Teachings of
H
> P B as the most important part of their learning experience. Each
> such associate determines for themselves their own rate of progress.
> Each takes entire responsibility for their own decisions.
>
> In the final analysis, no opinion of any kind is worth the hot air,
or
> the printing used in publishing it.
>
> New students have, each, to go through the laborious job of proving
> for themselves the value of anything said or written. Only those
who
> desire, because of impatience (or laziness), a short-cut, and choose
> the "authority" of another to rely on, find themselves cornered when
> asked for the logic of their choices. They cannot defend
themselves.
> Reference to original sources strips them of any "hiding place," or
> individual on which they can place blame for their own shortcomings.
>
> Those who have studied, learned and satisfied themselves as to the
> real value of THEOSOPHY, point to the original teachings, and are
> able to show how Theosophy is a coherent and consecutive statement
of
> the actual observations made by a band of immortal SPIRITUALLY WISE
> SAGES who have participated in the evolution of our Earth and
Kosmos,
> and who have recorded their observations of the laws (KARMA -- as it
> operates everywhere). (S D I 272-3 )
>
> There is nothing that increases or diminishes statements except
their
> own inherent worth. And this has to be individually proved by each
> sincere and honest student for themselves.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dallas
>
> ===========================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: T
> Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002
> To: dalval14@earthlink.net
> Subject: HPB
>
> Dear Dallas,
>
> Wow! What an interesting conversation folks are
> having on Theos. HPB would probably get a good laugh
> out of this!
>
> I think if you check through the books you all can
> find some reference to her having a severe horseback
> riding accident when she was a young woman that left
> her in a position wherein (from there) intimate
> relations where sadly just too painful to participate
> in (as well as a couple of health concerns for which,
> from time to time she self medicated) AND wasn't it
> that high fever/illness that she had as a childe that
> resulted in her most probably being sterile through
> never truly finding out since the act of love making
> ripped her up a bit.
>
> Sincerely,
> T
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/