Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00301)

Hi Zack and all of you,

Thanks for your email.
I agree a lot with your below views as they seems to be presented.

But, but. Maybe this below quote and comment could change the views
somewhat:

In "The Key to Theosophy", published in 1889, H. P. Blavatsky she also in -
Section 2 - of that book
mentiones the very important issue of thought systems:

"ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, besides
Buddhistic ethics?

THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no philosophy in
particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again, it must be
stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is divided into
Exoteric and Esoteric Sections.

ENQUIRER. What is the difference?

THEOSOPHIST. The members of the Theosophical Society at large are free to
profess whatever religion or philosophy they like, or none if they so
prefer, provided they are in sympathy with, and ready to carry out one or
more of the three objects of the Association. The Society is a philanthropic
and scientific body for the propagation of the idea of brotherhood on
practical instead of theoretical lines. The Fellows may be Christians or
Mussulmen, Jews or Parsees, Buddhists or Brahmins, Spiritualists or
Materialists, it does not matter; but every member must be either a
philanthropist, or a scholar, a searcher into Aryan and other old
literature, or a psychic student. In short, he has to help, if he can, in
the carrying out of at least one of the objects of the programme. Otherwise
he has no reason for becoming a "Fellow." Such are the majority of the
exoteric Society, composed of "attached" and "unattached" members. [An
"attached member" means one who has joined some particular branch of the T.
S. An "unattached," one who belongs to the Society at large, has his
diploma, from the Headquarters (Adyar, Madras), but is connected with no
branch or lodge.] These may, or may not, become Theosophists de facto.
Members they are, by virtue of their having joined the Society; but the
latter cannot make a Theosophist of one who has no sense for the divine
fitness of things, or of him who understands Theosophy in his own -- if the
expression may be used -- sectarian and egotistic way. "Handsome is, as
handsome does" could be paraphrased in this case and be made to run:
"Theosophist is, who Theosophy does." ..."


My view:
Some belongs in the Esoteric Section. And some not.
So maybe some of us needs to rethink these statements coming from
Blavatsky - and - rethink their values in the light of the present situation
on this Planet.
Time also changes the manner in which wisdom teachings are presented. Only
dogmatic thinkers cling to "dead-letter" presentation. Or what we tend to
call "Business as usual".

Martin Luther King Jr. made the following statement.
("I have a dream"; Delivered on the steps at the Lincoln Memorial in
Washington D.C. on August 28, 1963):

"It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and
to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of
the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an
invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an
end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam
and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to
business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America
until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt
will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of
justice emerges." http://web66.coled.umn.edu/new/MLK/MLK.html
(Please do not read the above - using the dead-letter. Try to relate it to
the present situation on the globe and maybe also its future.)

(So maybe, just maybe some western countries - and also some so very much
westernized "spiritualists" - should rethink their positions in light if
the present - cultural clashes between The Middle East and The West.)

So why overlook the urgency of the moment ?
But I do agree. Books are not everything. And a number of the - newer -
theosophist wheather they be pro-Baileys or not have a tendency to replace
their own present Bible (Christian, Hindu, Islamic etc.) with a NEW one.
Sometimes it is "The Secret Doctrine" by Blavatsky - and sometimes it is the
books or the book-collection delivered by Alice A. Bailey, and sometimes
another choice...

My view is, that vital questions to ask are the following:
The question is, which teaching will lift the humanity through the NEXT
century ?
Which teaching will give the aspirant the NEEDED global perspective. A
global perspective, which both Blavatsky and I supports developed in the
aspirants "kosas" (or minds).
Does the present situation allow the teaching to be presented in a
culturally biased manner?
Is it a need ? Or is not ?
How does one avoid cultural bias on this Planet?
Can an Information Society as the present one with fast transportation and
communication around the globe afford, a wisdom teaching ( a true
theosophical teaching) which creates cultural bias, and which won't address
it with wisdom?
How do you really want to present your teaching, and how do you present it ?
Is it not so that the teachings of Alice A. Bailey by many pro-Bailey
teachers - TODAY - are presented in a culturally biased manner ? Are the
books delivered by Alice A. Bailey culturally biased as well ?


I am open for any idea.
Feel free to comment or do your best...


from
M. Sufilight with peace on earth...and som rugrats looking like angels...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Zack Lansdowne" <zackl@sprynet.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:47 PM
Subject: Theos-World Standard of Truth?


> There has been much debate in recent days about whose doctrine is true:
HPB
> versus AAB; ancient Hindu scriptures versus HPB; HPB versus Besant and
> Leadbeater. Members on this list have pointed out that there are clear
> differences between the writings or doctrines of these various
authorities.
>
> Here, I would like to emphasize an area of AGREEMENT among different
> writers.
>
> In "The Key to Theosophy", published in 1889, H. P. Blavatsky saw two
> possible futures for the TS. On the one hand, she described its possible
> failure: "Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has hitherto
ended
> in failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into a sect, set
up
> hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible degrees that
> vitality which living truth alone can impart. You must remember that all
> our members have been bred and born in some creed or religion, that all
are
> more or less of their generation both physically and mentally, and
> consequently that their judgment is but too likely to be warped and
> unconsciously biassed by some or all of these influences. If, then, they
> cannot be freed from such inherent bias, or at least taught to recognise
it
> instantly and so avoid being led away by it, the result can only be that
the
> Society will drift off on to some sandbank of thought or another, and
there
> remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die."
>
> That is a very vivid image: "a stranded carcass to moulder and die." But
> what if the aforementioned danger can be averted? In this case, HPB
> predicted: "Then the Society will live on into and through the twentieth
> century. It will gradually leaven and permeate the great mass of thinking
> and intelligent people with its large-minded and noble ideas of Religion,
> Duty, and Philanthropy. Slowly but surely it will burst asunder the iron
> fetters of creeds and dogmas, of social and caste prejudices; it will
break
> down racial and national antipathies and barriers, and will open the way
to
> the practical realisation of the Brotherhood of all men."
>
> So, Blavatsky, in 1889, made two quite different predictions for the
> Theosophical Society in the 20th Century: she says that it might set up
> "hard-and-fast dogmas of its own" and then become "a stranded carcass to
> moulder and die"; or it might "burst asunder iron fetters of creeds and
> dogmas" leading to "the practical realisation of the Brotherhood of all
> men." Which outcome has occurred?
>
> Next, let us turn to Alice A. Bailey. In "A Treatise on White Magic",
first
> published in 1934, AAB wrote:
>
> "All that is possible for me is to grope for those feeble words which will
> somewhat clothe the thought. As they clothe it they limit it and I am
guilty
> of creating new prisoners who must ultimately be released. All books are
> prison houses of ideas."
>
> Here AAB is pointing out that even her own books are "prison houses of
> ideas." The purpose of her books was to free her readers from past dogmas
> that had become barriers to their spiritual progress. But if her readers
> turn her own books into hard-and-fast dogmas, as many of her readers have
> done, then they have become prisoners of those books who must be freed by
> future writers.
>
> One of the most popular contemporary teachings on spirituality is A Course
> in Miracles (ACIM). As many of you might know, ACIM was channelled
> allegedly from the Master Jesus, was first published in 1975, and has sold
> several million copies. Today, more students are probably studying ACIM
> than the books of HPB and AAB combined. I, myself, led a ACIM study group
> for many years at the Theosophical Society in Boston. Here, is what ACIM
> says: "Words are but symbols of symbols. They are thus twice removed
from
> reality." And yet several ACIM organizations are now fighting each other
> over the proper interpretation of the ACIM words, with bitter lawsuits and
> legal attempts to destroy or prevent opposing interpretations from even
> being published.
>
> I think that HPB, AAB, and ACIM are telling us the same thing: namely, it
> is a mistake to turn any written doctrine into a hard-and-fast dogma, or
> standard of truth. This message was especially emphasized by Krishnamurti
> who wrote in "Krishnamurti's Journal":
> "One has to be a light to oneself ... To be a light to oneself is not to
> follow the light of another, however reasonable, logical, historical, and
> however convincing."
>
> Zack Lansdowne
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>