Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00034)

Hi Wry and all of you,

My views are only views:






The following is a more enhanced presentation of the subject. I runs some pages - because I thought it to be nescesary so to present the case more fully.
Now I quote Blavatsky even if some might dislike that. But it will be nescessary for me to do so - to make me able to present my case.

I do care as much as I am able...





Theosophy:

My view is something like the following. Theosophy is today called a Movement by scholars. And a number of socalled Theosophist agree on this definition, and sometimes not without a certain feeling of pride or awe. Theosophy today has since the beginning in 1875 been divived into various branches. Some of them clinging to the core teachings made by Blavatsky and a few contemporary writers using the physical letter. Others have chosen a successor to Blavatskys and others core teachings from the early days of Theosophy. Most of them agree on that Altruism is important. Their level of knowledge about it differs.



W. Q. Judge writes shortly after Blavatskys physical death, and I quote Judge:
"In the Key to Theosophy, in the "Conclusion," H.P.B. again refers to this subject and expresses the hope that the Society might not, after her death, become dogmatic or crystallize on some phase of thought or philosophy, but that it might remain free and open, with its members wise and unselfish. And in all her writings and remarks, privately or publicly, she constantly reiterated this idea. Of this the writer has direct evidence as to her statements in private."
("Dogmatism in Theosophy" by W. Q. Judge, Path, January, 1892).
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/Dogmatism.htm 

This is to me a KEY statement.






Theosophical crystallizing tendencies:

I think a number of socalled Theosophist have forgotten, that - real -Theosophy is NOT a at all Movment as such. Theosophy is age old and has always been present, and that at least since the three-four lower levels of the seven planes manifested.



Part of my article (at http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/BLAVATSK.HTM ; chapter 1) seeks to show, that Theosophy is not only a movement or just a religion, but it is RELIGION at the core as HPB said in her article "IS THEOSOPHY A RELIGION?" (http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/IsTheosophyAReligion.htm ).



I here quote an excerpt from the above mentioned article by Blavatsky:
"Theosophy, we say, is not a Religion. "
(Lucifer, November, 1888)




A large quote to make a point:

I here quote the important part of my article the mentioned from Chapter 1. Here I - in a general manner - for instance seek to discuss what happened after Blavatskys death from the physical level. And I try here to show, what Theosophy should be aware of when promoting Theosophy today after the death of the teacher(s). The various branches which formulated themselves after the death of Blavatsky - are marked by the below facts. And some branches of whitin Theosophy has had a their own sort of primary Successor(s), which now also are physically dead:



"...After the disappearance from the field of a teacher of Wisdom, the followers will divide themselves into groups, in accordance with their strength and weaknesses. Some will assume control of others. They may be good or bad, and this will be shown by their reaction to - the second teacher - when he/she arrives.
If they realise he/she is their teacher, then they have merely been developing themselves and can mature. But if they have become atrophied, they will be too blind to recognize the Spirituality of the very teacher, for which appearance they have been prepared. They may attach themselves, in default, to a different group. (And this groups existence is maybe no coincidence.) Again well and good : providing they return to the mainstream of teaching when it is offered to them again. This is the test of whether they have overcome the lower self. They will realise, if they are sufficiently developed, that the person who appears to be 'second' teacher is in reality - the first in importance. 
Life is reversed for the undeveloped man (the newcomer), and he/she will behave in accordance with this. The first teacher does not make life easier, in most cases, for the generality of disciples. He/She will teach them things, which are only of use when the second teacher arrives and reality falls into place. The object of this is twofold. In the first place, certain valuable thoughts have been given to the disciples. In the second, they are tested by the means of these ideas. Just as our western psychologists give odd-shaped pieces of wood to people, to see how they put them together, teachers of Wisdom will give odd-pieces of material of - mental kind - to his/her followers. - If they try to fit these together however, and to make a pattern in his/hers - absences, - they are becoming 'fossilised'. Because, the Wisdom tradition has to show that the object of mankind is not to construct idols, but to follow a supreme pattern, which is learnt piece by piece.

Quite obviously the semi-blind among the people, during their 'waiting-period', will try to work out their own interpretation. They may, as have been done in the past, write books to explain what they have learned. This is the danger-point, because when a man/woman is accepted as, say, a philosopher (of wisdom) because she/he has written a book explaining a philosophy, he/she will not readily accept, that she/he only have been 'fumbling'. He/She has quite possibly become a prisoner of his/hers lower self. The self-conceit of the man/woman is now bound up with his/hers 'creation', the book or the method, which he/she has used to organise the fragments, which he/she has. He/she is probably or possibly lost - for the cause.
In order to break through this shell of accretions and fossilisations, the - second teacher - will tend to act in a different, perhaps in a certain dramatically different manner, from the original one. This could happen, to break the 'idols', which have been formed out of the thoughts, which were originally given.
So very important: The use of ideas is to shape a man or woman, not to support a system - which is viewed in a limited manner. This is one way in which the Wisdom Tradition is 'living', and not just the perpetuations of ideas and movements. This seems important to understand and know about.

When a system of teaching of wisdom is in a period of fallowness, because the one who propagated it is dead, then there comes a period of stagnation. This period can last between 10 years, 15 years or more. In the time, which passes, the group of people who is affected by the system are sieved by natural means. Some wander away. Others carry on automatically not really knowing, what they are doing. They are now 'frozen', though they do not know they are.
The blind may try to lead the blinder. This takes the form of assumption of authority by those who were given some sort of authority in the original mandate. These are the people in the most dangerous position, because the longer they remain 'orphaned' the more strongly their lower self (or the three lower bodies) asserts it self.
Others may modify the teachings in a learned and personal way. Some certainly fall a prey to cults, which have come into being in order to serve them. The people who joins these are at great pains to explain why they consider, that they represent the same kind of teaching - and this is important. It is important, because it shows the Theosophist or the real spiritually minded, very clearly, that the people who try to explain - are in fact troubled by conscience. Somewhere inside them, they know, that they are identifying themselves with an imitation, or a second-best. But they are supported by their lower bodies or lower personality, - and this is too strong for them.
Those can be helped by being lead to think in new thinking-patterns and systems. It is via the conscience, that one finds the path forward, - thereby will be able to remove the limitations of the lower personality.

Imagine a group of people shipwrecked. They think there is no hope of rescue. They find a raft, and are glad. After a time more people come along in a big boat. But the first people will not leave the raft, because they have become used to it. They may have convinced themselves, that it is actually a boat. (So it is to some philosophical or religious people today.)
The points at which the mystical traditions, which are still alive, are in contact with each other cannot really be explained by the means of books. And yet people continue to write books showing how they have found this and that point of resemblance.
The truth can only be found by actual experience, - and easier by awareness on such aspect as I have touch upon.

To sink ecstasy in Wisdom is better than to sink Wisdom in ecstasy. The Wisdom Tradition teaches by several different systems, and not only by one, - one book or teen books, BUT also by thousands and thousands of books - and the dogmatic ones doesn't want to listen."



So very important it is to understand Theosophy as not only a Movement because:

"The use of ideas is to shape a man or woman, not to support a system - which is viewed in a limited manner. This is one way in which the Wisdom Tradition is 'living', and not just the perpetuations of ideas and movements. This seems important to understand and know about..."

***Quote ended***





Conclusions:

Theosophy today with all its branches and hidden initiates should therefore not only be viewed as a Movement, but as more than that. Blavatsky moreover said, that quite a number of the initates were not members of the Theosophical Society at all. (Maybe someone knows where to find the quote on that.)


Theosophy as such is concerned with design, - and with designs, that do not cling to the dead-letter word "theosophy" or "Theosophy" and books using that word. 
But, Theosophy as such, (using the dead-letter word Theosophy), is a possible place to start for the beginner-Seeker, who searches for some deeper meaning in life than the various Orthodox and political churches and around the globe have been able to deliver.



A number of the Theosophical groups has - today - at best a narrowminded public relation or presentation of this. They often are attacheted to a certain groups of books - which just as often is treated as a Theosophical Bible - a replacement for the Orthodox churches different Bible's and Quran's and so on. 
To the beginner a Theosophical bible of some sort - is for certain obvious reasons quite often wanted. It induces a feeling af saftey, and makes the teaching more objective to the Seeker -who is attached to the Dead-letter mode of reading and learning. (Blavatsky on the use of "dead-letter": "The Secret Doctrine", vol. 1, p. 310-25; Pasadena Edition)



They seem to forget that Blavatsky had this view about books on Theosophy and spirituality:

"We cull the good we find in each."
Have a look at the following quote.



"The Key to Theosophy"; Section 2: "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."
("The Key to Theosophy" by Blavatsky; 1889)


My other link on Sufi-Schools, Theosophy-Schools and Esoteric-Schools (at http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/SUFI2.HTM ) is an attempt to stear clear of this narrowminded view, at least to a certain degree. To avoid the view, that Theosophy is ONLY a Movement or Organization. 
The real chela Theosophist does NOT belong to any physical organization as such. The educated chela or disciple is in the world, but not of the world.

Such a chela or disciple belong to an invisible organization - an organization without form. And such a one is rather difficult to describe in physical words.

Theosophy is to me not a Movement, a Religion, an Organization of any kind. It is "love-wisdom design" promoting the ParaBrahmanic absorbtion of Cosmos. Cosmos includes, the lifecycles of Andromeda, Pleiades and Ophiuchus...etc...



I have here interpreted and sought to evolve that theosophical aim of Blavatskys a little in a direction, which a high number of Theosophical groups should or aught to be concerned with - well as far as my humble views goes. But that is just my view, who is to tell if I am right. And let us remember that this view is only limited.
Her aim with Theosophy was in this link: It was created to "stem the current of materialism, and also that of spiritualistic phenomenalism and the worship of the Dead." (Blavatsky quoted). And there is more in that link.
(http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-am/hpb-am1.htm ) 

And the other link the article by Blavatsky written shortly after she had published The Secret Doctrine: http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/IsTheosophyAReligion.htm
("IS THEOSOPHY A RELIGION?" by Blavatsky 1888).


Blavatsky said the - aspirant must me given a global perspective.



The big problem as I see it today is - a certain lack of overview on Theosophy and the global perspective as a whole.
Because of that we today see - a Public Realtion or promotion of Theosophy on its various branches - which has not taken the above views on dogmatism and crystallized thinking into

account.



A suggestion to improvement:

The Theosophical groups should do MORE on telling the beginners, that they use a kind of core teaching of their own. (Their own "Bible-Collection"). But that this - core teaching - is NOT the only one - or - necessarily the BEST, that can be used to walk the Path so to speak. And that (both taught and/or free) comparative reading is of outmost importance whitin Theosophy to a certain number of beginners.

And they should do MORE to make at least some of the Seekers understand, that Theosophy is more than a Movement - just like I have mentioned it in the above text and quotes.



If the aspirants multicultural global perspective is NOT nutured in the present Information Society on our Planet, - the Seekers will waste their time. 
(I tend to talk about the Middle Eastern Sufis, because Blavatsky in The secret Doctrine admitted, that she did'nt do much on the area, because only few translations to european languages was made a her time of writing.)

There is a great relation between TV-news, Internet-newspapers etc. and the beginner Theosophists - and even teachers on Theosophy. One should take that into account.



There is the use assumptions, and the "I think i know", and "I believe it to be true", and other similar variations, which the TV-news and hot news of verious kinds - and event he education-system induces a number of beginner Theosophist to keep as a pet or habit.

Belief, assumption, "I think I know" and the like is NOT FACTS. The beginner Theosophist will quite often have to learn that.



I know that this email might change the color of some readers heads somewhat red for a while. If this be the case, well so what. If they get the point, then my porpose with reading this have come a cross.







Feel free to do something good...







from

M. Sufilight with peace and love...


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