Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00069)

Hi. At different periods of history, knowledge needs to be released in
different ways to accomplish different effects, and this is not to imply
that the so called "knowledge" of Madame Blavatsky was or was not genuine.
It would be hard for someone like you (or me) to verify this. If a person
uses reasoning, such as. "the bible is the word of God," and I ask, "how do
you know this," and he answers, "because it says in the bible that the bible
is the work of God," this is called CIRCULAR reasoning. In some ways, I see
you doing this,

It is obvious to me that if theosophy is a dwindling movement and is losing
members, especially when there is a world-wide renewal of interest in the
kind of material that theosophy covers, there must be a reason. I know you
are sincere, but you make certain assumptions which are a little naive. If
real knowledge could be obtained from studying a book, we would all have it
by now, as such knowledge would come with its own payoff, which would be
very profound.

It is possible for a person to live in a fantasy land in which he dreams he
is immortal and possesses certain knowledge. I would not want to encourage
such a view, as this leads to great human suffering, but I believe that to a
certain extent, Madame Blavatsky's writing does encourage this. A few
theopsophists I have encountered are very well-balanced, but, in my opinion,
the kind of people who get hooked into only the emotional or only the
intellectual aspect of this material (which is many) will never develop the
cutting edge of genuine impartiality, the pure data of which, will lead to
the maturation of a genuine human soul. I am willing to go into this in much
greater detail, and in order to do so I will not need to, as an "authority,"
resort to the so-called "authority" of another person's words, as I am quite
able to articulately express any concepts I am dealing with in my own words,
and what I do not know or understand, I can express as a question.

One basic flaw of Madame Blavatsky's writing, is that her work is so
verbose, filled with minutia, and repetitive details that it encourage the
reader to lapse into a MESMERIZED state in which certain strong and very
pleasurable affects can easily be created (induced) in the reader. This is
actually very interesting, and it may be worthy to consider if this was done
deliberately. If so, ( and I am going to study this further, when I get a
chance and let you all know my conclusion), this could explain why certain
people are affected so strongly by certain material they have read, and this
would at least indicate that she had some very real knowledge about
hypnotism. If she did do this, I do not see it as necessarily bad or wrong,
but as problematic, and something we will eventually need to sort out in
order to get to genuine clarity.

I believe this human being to have had certain real knowledge which she
presented in such a way as to achieve a certain effect she was deliberately
attempting to accomplish. She really was extraordinary in a lot of ways.
This is in no way to suggest that the form this knowledge was presented in
and even her aim would be the same that it would be if she were alive today.
Since you do not seem to have even an inkling of the meaning of the concept
of "time-appropriate" in regard to spiritual teaching, I suggest that if you
ponder this idea further, you will easily be able to get a grasp of its
meaning and make some sense of it. It seems to me that this is an important
and even a key idea to understand for anyone who has a genuine motivation to
help relieve as many people as possible from their suffering..

I am not trying to disrupt your personal spiritual agenda or tear apart the
meaning of this group, but rather to participate in such a way that will
help produce a meaning that is richer as well as clearer.

I have said I am from a very unusual and select society of which Madame
Blavatsky was a member, and I am therefore qualified to speak for her, as
she spoke as a representative of this society, and she is no longer alive.
There is no way to know for a fact if what I say is true or not unless one
has the CRITERION (base of knowledge) which is required to evaluate this,
and it is actually a fact that most people will believe anything that has to
do with honey or candy and disbelieve anything that does not. But what if
suffering of a certain kind and quality has to do with honey of a certain
kind and quality? Here is some food for "think-feel" as one member of this
group might put it, and also something for the simple sensation of the "I
am," so that we can start to digest material more actively in such a way
that the end result is becomes harmonized. Sincerely, Wry

----- Original Message -----
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 4:19 AM
Subject: RE: Theos-World RE: HPB and after her -- some T S history


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