Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00341)

Hi Dallas and all of you,

I minor correction.
The earliere version, went of by a mistake...
My remarks are given in the below email.



from
M. Sufilight with peace...




----- Original Message -----
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: "AA-BN--Study" <study@blavatsky.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 1:28 PM
Subject: Theos-World RE: Standard of Truth?


> Jan 15 2003
>
> Dear M. and Friends:
>
> You speak of the seemingly iron-clad restrictions of "fundamentals."
> And you desire Theosophy and our discussions to be free of those.
>
> There is all the space in the universe for that. But here, we are
> discussing the teachings of Theosophy. Elsewhere, other things are to
> be discussed with complete freedom.


***
My Sufilight answer:
Could you explain, what is behind such a remark as the above, because I am
not quite sure, what you are referring to. Are we not emailing on the
teachings of Theosophy ?
Do we always need avoid using the 7 keys mentioned by Blavatsky?
***


>
> So those who desire to travel here and there, do so.
>
> Fine:
>
> Then what standards for common understanding and discussion shall we
> adopt? I mean, we who desire to find out if Theosophy has any value?
>
> Shall we say: it is "old," throw it out," -- and whatever truth may
> be there, let it go too?"
>
> Try doing that with mathematics, science, engineering, physics,
> biology, chemistry, astronautics, economics, public relations, world
> affairs, local government, etc...
>
> My query is : why is it that we want the freedom to imagine and fancy
> solely in the region of philosophy ? Is it that the rigors of logic
> are too irritating? If so, why ? Why do we chafe under the apparent
> yoke of :
>
> 1. a united spiritual basis of excellence, tolerance, brotherhood and
> unity;
>
> 2. a united active body of Laws, and a LAW of justice and equity that
> intelligently binds all living beings to each other --- be they
> distant, or within us, to the ultimate degree we can imagine. The
> existence of these laws underlie all material forms and give the life.
> But we do not know them all.
>
> 3. That this vast mass and congeries of living beings progresses --
> each individually, and all together as a mass, towards a future that
> can only be called Universal Self-consciousness. Nothing is to be
> neglected or disposed of. All beings are Immortal Intelligences, and
> have the same rights, privileges and goals as all the rest. Thus the
> present "savage ignoramus" develops over time into the sage Buddha.
> The Atom eventually becomes a Sun and illuminates many others. Every
> human is half way along this marvelous, majestic Path to Perfection
> and a return to SPIRIT.
>
> Seems to me that Theosophy presents certain basic tenets that are age
> old. That they may not be popular is a sorry fact. But does that
> make them wrong or useless? It merely says we don't grasp them, and
> we are impatient with the time it might take us to grasp them.
> Nothing valuable is entirely free. Before learning, we may have a lot
> to un-learn.
>
> Doe it make those who proclaim their value to be misleaders of those
> who will not think about them ?
>
> That some have done a part of the job ought to encourage others to
> try. In this we share.
>
> What is there of any bias in this? All are considered equals because
> of the SPIRIT (the ONE ) that is resident in each of them. If
> suggested, then it ought to be defined. There is one, or there isn't,
> . which?
>
> Who has seriously studied Theosophy ? Who can write an OCEAN OF
> THEOSOPHY or a SECRET DOCTRINE ?
>
> But if we can't, then we can all try to learn? Why are we so
> impatient ? This is a terrible thing to say, but we are all ignorant
> of so many things, our own encouragement ought to be to fill those
> gaps and find out if we live in a Universe that has meaning. How do
> we secure meaning and purpose for our living?
>
> Something ought to be reviewed here. I say by our discussions we are
> making the future. We are churning the ocean of knowledge and
> hopefully we will emerge with an idea of the laws and rules that have
> been operating there far before our birth. But each of those needs
> our confirmation, and our proving them -- to ourselves.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dallas

***
Yes Dallas, I strangely enough agree a lot with you.
And Blavatsky says: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-am/hpb-am2.htm
"As regards our means of spreading knowledge, we have in the West "Lucifer,"
the "Path" and the T.P.S. pamphlets. All these have brought us into contact
with numerous persons of whose existence we should not otherwise have become
aware. Thus they are all of them necessary to the Cause, as is also the
attempting to influence the public mind by the aid of the general Press. I
regret to say that several co-workers on "Lucifer" have now left it and the
Society for precisely such personal differences as those alluded to above,
and have now become antagonistic, not only to me personally, but to the
system of thought which the Theosophical Society inculcates.

On account of a personal feeling against Col. Olcott, the "Lotus" -- the
French Journal -- has also seceded from Theosophy; but we have just founded
"La Revue Theosophique" to replace it in Paris. It is edited by myself and
managed or directed by Countess d'Adhemar, an American lady, loved and
respected by all who know her, and a friend of our Brother, Dr. Buck.

As many of you are aware, we have formed the "Esoteric Section." Its members
are pledged, among other things, to work for Theosophy under my direction.
By it, for one thing, we have endeavored to secure some solidarity in our
common work: to form a strong body of resistance against attempts to injure
us on the part of the outside world, against prejudice against the
Theosophical Society and against me personally. By its means much may be
done to nullify the damage to the work of the Society in the past and to
vastly further its work in the future.

Its name, however, I would willingly change. The Boston scandals have
entirely discredited the name "Esoteric"; but this is a matter for after
consideration.

Thus, as I have already said, our chief enemies are public prejudice and
crass obstinacy from a materialistic world; the strong "personality" of some
of our own members; the falsification of our aims and name by money-loving
charlatans; and, above all, the desertion of previously devoted friends who
have now become our bitterest enemies. "


So if our chief enemies are public prejudice and crass obstinacy from a
materialistic world ... etc...., - what to do about it ?
Business as usual ?
Or what ?
Come up with some ideas Dallas...
The wise talk differently to the animal than to the human.
Come with something new ! (That could be the same old tales, but in a new
version suited to the present day reader. And of course not suited to
nurture their prejudice, - something some theosophical-newagers do !)
That I urge you.
What are your answer to this ?

And I do not think, that because some books are old, that they are completly
useless. I didn't say that in my previous email, did I ?
I said, that some new presentation of theosophical teaching is neeeded,
because the old scriptures age - and content shows themselves, as being
somewhat outdated, and to some people outdated just because of their age.

Why should newcomers be welcomed with age old books, which they hardly can
understand to read ?

from
M. Sufilight with peace...
***


>
> ====================
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Morten
> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 11:27 AM
> To:
> Subject: Standard of Truth?
>
> 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. ....
> 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...
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]