Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00020)

DEAR M. Sufilight,

THANKYOU FOR YOUR LETTER AND SHANTI AND HAPPINESS TO YOU IN THE NEW 
YEAR.

MY RESPONSES BELOW ARE AT /// 


Message 10151 
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@a...> 
Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 11:02 pm
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Bhakti Ananda Goswami on the "Esoteric 
and Science News" website



Hi all of you,
Shanti,

Dear BHAKTI ANANDA GOSWAMI,

Here are my views:

Thanks for your enlightening email.
When emailing me, you are totally free to use caps and the like >:-)


B. A. GOSWAMI wrote:
"MR OLESON, WOULD YOU KINDLY EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOU HAVE MENTIONED
> ME IN THE CONTEXT OF DUGPA AS DEFINED ABOVE ?"

My Sufilight answer:
I will do my very best. But please remember, that I am NOT saying and 
have
NOT said that you are a Dugpa.

/// THANKYOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. I AM STILL NOT CLEAR WHAT YOU 
WERE SAYING, BUT I ACCEPT THE SINCERITY OF YOUR ABOVE DISCLAMER.


(Try eventually rereading my last email to you and Theos-Talk on the
matter).

/// I DID REREAD IT SEVERAL TIMES, AND YOUR MEANING WAS STILL UNCLEAR 
TO ME, WHICH IS WHY I ASKED YOU TO CLARIFY YOUR MEANING. 

But, I can only encourage you to keep your critisism of Theosophy 
away from
websites as the one referred to in the below. (i.e.
http://www.raphaelvishanu-world.at/invhindbuddh.html )

/// I DO NOT AGREE WITH EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING ON THIS WEB SITE 
EITHER, BUT I STILL POST HERE. I KNOW ZERO ABOUT ANY 
RAPHAELVISHANU, WHICH IS LESS THAN I KNOW ABOUT MR CALDWELL HERE 
(ONLY HIS THEOSOPHICAL LIBRARIAN STATUS). I AM NOT ON A 'WITCH HUNT' 
AGAINST ANYONE. I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN SERVING OTHERS THROUGH MY 
OWN HONEST EXCHANGE OF IDEAS WITH THEM. 


You wrote below: "I AM NOT THEM OR RELATED TO THEM IN ANY WAY. I AM 
MERELY
A PERSON
> WHO SENT SOME LETTERS TO THE SITE, IN RESPONSE TO A NUMBER OF THE
> POSTINGS THERE. "

And just to let you know: I don't care what people EAT, DRINK and even
INHALE. If they do Gods - Parabrahmans will, that is what matters for 
me.
But of course some 'intakings' ought to be avoided.

/// WELL WHAT THEN WAS THE POINT OF MENTIONING ME IN THE CONTEXT 
OF 'DUGPA' AS DEFINED BY LICENTIOUS, DRUNKEN, ANIMAL KILLING, BLACK 
MAGIC SORCERERS? I GUESS I AM STILL CONFUSED ABOUT YOUR POINT. 


B. A. GOSWAMI wrote:
"I WILL 'DEBATE' ANYONE ANYTIME IF
> THERE SEEMS TO BE ENOUGH VALUE IN IT. I HAVE ONLY POSTED MY
> CREDENTIALS HERE SO THAT "....

My Sufilight answer:
Okay, I was wrong. Your position is noted.

/// THANKYOU, MUCH APPRECIATED.

Allow me a question:
Dear B. A. Goswami, do you think, that serious Theosophists are 
Dugpas ?

/// OF COURSE NOT ! NOT AS I UNDERSTAND HPB'S THEOSOPHY OR THE REAL 
DUGPAS, OR THE 'DUGPAS' AS DEFINED IN THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY. 
THERE ARE SATTVIC, RAJARSHIC AND TAMASIC TRADITIONS, AND HPB CLEARLY 
ADVOCATED SATTVA GUNA, OR THE MODE OF GOODNESS / PIETY WITH REGARD TO 
THE FOUR VAISHNAVA AND VAISHNAVA-RELATED BUDDHIST VOWS OF AHIMSA 
(SILA, COMPASSION), DHIRA (SOBRIETY), BRAHMACARYA ( CHASTITY) AND 
SATYA (TRUTHFULNESS). WHAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT HER IS NOT WHAT SHE 
ADVOCATED, BUT THAT IN THE CASE OF HER PRESENTATION OF VEDIC AND 
PURANIC IDEAS, SHE DID ENGAGE IN DECEPTION. I AM NOT SPECULATING 
ABOUT THIS. I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE SANSKRIT TEXTS SHE USED, AND SHE 
PURPOSELY PRESENTED INFORMATION FROM THEISTIC TEXTS THAT SHE REMOVED 
FROM ITS THEISTIC CONTEXT AND THEN RE-INTERPRETED CHANGING ITS 
CONTENT. THIS WAS BIASED AND DECEPTIVE. IT WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT, 
BUT WAS THE PATTERN OF HER WRITINGS OVER YEARS. 

And this one too:
Quoting from the site:

"BA G: The Masters as extra-"ordinary" beings is asserted here. One
could
reject the fictitious claims made for the Masters and still accept
that in
mortal human terms, HPB's human prototypes for the Masters WERE
extra-ordinary people. They were uniquely privileged and intelligent
persons
strategically located in time and place to create a unique synthesis
of some
Eastern and Western thought systems. The problem is not in
acknowledging the
giftedness of HPB and her Masters, it is in being required to accept
the
whole fictional package that they have been wrapped in.

/// IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM OF REQUIRING OTHERS TO ACCEPT THE 
WHOLE PACKAGE, OR OF HAVING BEEN REQUIRED BY OTHERS TO ACCEPT IT, 
THEN I AM VERY HAPPY FOR YOU. NOT ALL THEOSOPHISTS ARE ATTACHED TO 
DEFENDING THE MATERIALIZATIONS ETC. OF HPB. NOT ALL THEOSOPHISTS 
BASE THEIR STUDY OF THEOSOPHY ON FAITH IN THE WHOLE PACKAGE DELIVERED 
BY HPB AND FRIENDS. 

The problem
is the
basic lack of honesty and forth-rightness that pervades the entire
Theosophical enterprise. However this can be understood as a pathology
common to all secret societies and "occult" brotherhoods that normally
function under the cover of various forms of purposeful obscuration
and
deceit.

Internal discussion of falsified Mahatma Letters runs throughout the
early
Theosophical Society documents. A lot of expert sophistry and word-
jugglery
is used to euphemize the obvious lying, cheating and deception that
was
going on in the organization. "

/// THIS IS SIMPLY THE TRUTH, AND I DO NOT RETRACT IT. HOWEVER 
CONSIDERING HPB'S IDEAL OF SATTVA, I DO NOT CONSIDER HER SUBTERFUGE 
TO HAVE BEEN PARTICULARLY ILL MOTIVATED. SOMETIMES GOOD PEOPLE DO 
NOT-VERY-GOOD THINGS FOR WHAT SEEMS A GOOD REASON. DECEPTION IS A 
COMMON PART OF ESOTERIC TRADITIONS, AND SO HPB'S USE OF IT MUST BE 
UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF NORMATIVE BEHAVIORS FOUND IN THE CULTURE 
OF ESOTERIC / OCCULT SECRET SOCIETIES. 

http://www.raphaelvishanu-world.at/respbag.html

My Sufilight answer:
Is the above quote false ?

/// NO IT IS NOT FALSE. I SAID IT. 

What are your views on the below answer...?


None is required to accept anything as stated above. 

/// SOME PEOPLE APPARENTLY THINK THAT BELIEVING HPB'S AND THE 
MAHATMA'S MATERIALIZATIONS ETC. IS REQUIRED FOR ANYONE CLAIMING TO 
BE A THEOSOPHIST. 


But one is
certainly encouraged to THINK or something like that. The use of the
word "required" in the above is clearly false and NOT Theosophical 
teaching.
If the "wrapping of the package" is fictional or not, or partly so is
of less importance; 

/// I DO NOT BUY THE IDEA THAT THE DISHONESTY AND DECEPTION OF THE 
THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY'S WRAPPING / PRESENTATION WAS LESS IMPORTANT 
THAN ITS CONTENTS / TEACHINGS. TO ME THE DECEPTIVE WRAPPING CLEARLY 
REVEALED THE QUALITY, THE UNTRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE CONTENT ITSELF. 
BY THIS UNTRUSTWORTHINESS I MEAN THAT HPB, THE MAHATMAS AND OTHER 
THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY LEADERS PRESENTED THEMSELVES AS AUTHORITIES ON 
THINGS THAT THEY WERE CLEARLY NOT QUALIFIED AS AUTHORITIES TO TEACH 
ABOUT. IN DOING THIS, THEY MISREPRESENTED REAL TRADITIONS AND 
TEACHERS, AND ABUSED SCRIPTURAL TEACHINGS OUT OF CONTEXT. IF THEY 
SO BADLY ABUSED THE VEDIC-VAISHNAVA SOURCES, THEN WHAT ABOUT ALL 
THEIR OTHER SOURCES ? SPEAKING AS A REAL EXPERT ON THE VEDIC-
VAISHNAVA SANSKRIT TEXTS THAT WERE USED EXTENSIVELY BY HPB ETC., I 
CAN ONLY SAY THAT SHE / THEY CONSISTENTLY EDITED THESE SOURCES TO FIT 
THEIR OWN VERY BIASED AGENDA.

- i.e. misunderstandings can always occur on a
dualistic level. The core teachings of Theosophy is the key to it all.
Let us learn to use the "7 keys" as mentioned by Blavatsky - and seek 
avoid
oneway dead-letter thinking and reading.

//// HONESTY AND DISHONESTY, RIGHT AND WRONG, TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD, 
THESE ARE CERTAINLY OPPOSITES. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE 
FROM ADVAITA VEDANTISTS WHO, INSISTING THAT "ITS ALL ONE", SAY THERE 
IS NO RIGHT AND WRONG, ETC. THAT EVERY UNPLEASANTNESS IS 
A 'MISUNDERSTANDING'. THE RELATIVISM OF SOME SUCH MONIST PERSONS 
LEADS THEM INTO A STATE OF MORAL CONFUSION IN WHICH THEY CANNOT THINK 
OR ACT WITHOUT THE KIND OF DISHONESTY EXHIBITED BY HPB AND HER 
FRIENDS. THUS THE SATTVIC ADVAITIS, EVEN WITH THE HIGHEST INITIAL 
MORAL CODES, OFTEN DESCEND INTO DISHONESTY, BECAUSE THEY HAVE 
RELATIVISED EVERYTHING AND HAVE REDUCED EVERYTHING TO ONE IMPERSONAL 
ULTIMATE WHEREIN THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG, TRUTH OR FALSEHOOD 
ETC. THERE IS WRONG AND FALSEHOOD IN THIS WORLD, AND THIS WORLD IS 
QUITE REAL, JUST TEMPORARY, AND NOT REAL IN THE WAY THAT IT SEEMS. 
THE TRANSCENDENT ULTIMATE (GODHEAD) HOWEVER IS NOT CONTAMINATED BY 
THE WRONGS AND FALSEHOODS OF THIS WORLD. BECAUSE THE MONISTS DO NOT 
HAVE / KNOW OF ANY TRANSCENDENT REALM OR BEING, THEY ARE ATTACHED TO 
THE MAYAVIC COSMOS VERSION OF THIS WORLD, AND CONSEQUENTLY END UP 
MERGING EVERYTHING HERE TOGETHER. 

/// 'IT' IS NOT ALL ONE. TRUTH IS AND MATTERS. TRUTH IS SIGNIFICANT 
IN THE PRESENTATION / PACKAGING AND IN THE CONTENT OF THOUGHT / 
IDEAS. HPB HAD PROBLEMS WITH TRUTHFULNESS IN BOTH HER PRESENTATION 
AND THE CONTENT OF HER TEACHINGS. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT SHE WAS A 
BAD PERSON AND THAT HER EFFORTS WERE ENTIRELY WITHOUT MERIT. IT 
DOES MEAN THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE AWARE OF HER BIASES WHEN EXAMINING 
HER TEACHINGS FOR TRUTH. WHAT SHE DIDN'T TELL EVERYONE IS THAT SHE 
USED THEISTIC SOURCES BUT SYSTEMATICALLY EDITED OR EXPLAINED GOD OUT 
OF THEM.

/// SHE WAS NOT AN OBJECTIVE INQUIRER.

/// "YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH, AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE." 

/// BEST WISHES, 

/// BHAKTI ANANDA GOSWAMI 

As I see it: There are - at least two positions - when reading 
Blavatskys
scriptures. There are those who read the scriptures - and relate them 
to the
time they were written in, - and then understands their value.
Secondly there are those who read Blavatkys scriptures - and relate 
them to
the present time of ours year 2003, - and because of the difference 
in time
between writing and today, people often gets quite a distorted 
picture of
what Blavatasky really meant.
According to me - some skills are required, when evaluating spiritual
scriptures of the past and relating them properly to the present day 
of the
hour.
Of course there are other positions.


ParaBrahman has secrets, not known to the ignorant.


from
M. Sufilight with peace on Earth...