Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00103)

Dallas,

Verily a paradox we have here now. A movement which is supposed to 
be creedless, and with the objects (VERY loosely stated) of a) 
Promoting Universal Brotherhood, b) encouraging study of religion, 
philosophy & science, c) investigation of unexplained laws of nature 
and psychical powers latent in man...and what we are faced with 
here...as anethema as it may sound, is that there is no requirement 
for theosophists to study "theosophy" in order to be members of any 
TS. The 1900 letter from KH to Besant exhorts her to make the ES as 
creedless as possible...and yet, if we read several of the postings 
put out here regularly for consideration, it ends up sounding like 
attempts to make a theosophical-based religion, complete with a set 
of canonical literature, much like what one would expect from a 
Claire-Prophet, Bailey, or Besant-Leadbeater, instead of the open and 
honest inquiry exhorted by HPB and the Mahatmas. 

Did someone here say that we shouldn't study astrology or occult 
sciences, or investigate nature, only mahatma's have the right, or 
the reason to do that...where did that come from? How can anyone who 
considers themselves a student of theosophy could come up with 
something like that! There is absolutely no precedent in the early 
literature to support such a statement! In fact, all evidence in the 
ML and other early literature would seem to be quite the contrary!

Of course such an attitude leads to someone without practical 
experience giving out advice on things they truly know nothing 
about...it's just all theoretical flapdoodle, and it shows!!! You 
can't talk about Voice of the Silence authoritatively unless you have 
a background in Raja Yoga. That is horribly sad, and unfortunate, 
because what is in the "Voice" is practical in the deepest, most 
important ways, and the dangers, likewise, are the same. THIS IS A 
WARNING!!!

For being concerned about not having an organization, it sounds an 
awful lot like creating a dogma...hmmmm.

I would like to think that all of the Theosophical organizations are 
in a complimentary relationship to each other, each fulfilling a much 
needed function within the movement as a whole. It is so encouraging 
to see a level of interest among ULT folk about the affairs of 
Adyar...as it should be. I hope that the brotherly spirit can build 
and find addtional ways of expressing itself. The generations of 
followers that animated previous divisions are dying off and there 
are psuedo-theosophical religions arising whose existence must be 
addressed. One of the best ways to address the challenges is for the 
various theosophical organizations to use the strengths that they 
have together to help create opportunities to promote Universal 
Brotherhood that individually are beyond the grasp of any one.

Joe

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, <dalval14@e...> wrote:
> Aug 19 2003
> 
> Dear Mauri:
> 
> E: Theosophical leadership
> 
> In my opinion, I would say: ( And I am very strong about this)
> 
> It is precisely the lack of any leadership or "authority" that
> makes Theosophy and not the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETIES, or Groups so
> important.
> 
> No CHURCH, or POLITICAL SET-UP is needed.
> 
> THEOSOPHY IS A STATEMENT OF LAWS IN THE UNIVERSE. Those can not
> be patented or boxed by any person or group. They are
> universally the basis for all LIFE, and all living -- they put
> every one and every being on the same footing and basis. No
> exceptions, and no special arrangements can be entertained.
> 
> It is impersonal. Ity resembles, in the realm of psychology, the
> laws of mathematics or physics in the physical world. No
> "leaders" are needed. Period.
> 
> It makes each person responsible for their own choices. No blame
> can be fixed on any one else. Of course there are those who have
> learned more than others. We know that schools and academies are
> supposed to provide centers for this basis of learning and
> knowledge. They are supposed to be unbiased -- unaffected by the
> superficialities of religions and politics. In practice they are
> not. To that extent they fail. Incidentally, "authorities"
> aways seek to hide any evidence of their own ignorance or
> inadequacies.
> 
> The "History of the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT" during the past 125
> years is not the history of THEOSOPHY. Theosophy transcend this
> brief period by an incredible magnitude of years. Read the 1st
> Vol. of The SECRET DOCTRINE if you wish to grasp the scope of
> this.
> 
> It is the history of how individuals have reacted to each other
> and the world at large, and within the context of Theosophical
> statements of fact, doctrines and laws. The two are quite
> separate. We have to separate them.
> 
> Apparently this is difficult to get across, because
> traditionally, we are taught to rely on "leadership." Yet it is
> always WE who make the decisions -- all the decisions.
> 
> Belonging to a church (or to some political party), when reviewed
> historically, reveals in every case, the horrors of letting
> others make decisions for us. Are we to patiently bear the curse
> of being treated as docile ignoramuses and emotional cripples?
> 
> Theosophy treats us as MINDS with roots in the eternal spiritual
> truths and encourages each of us to discover and use those. What
> could be plainer?
> 
> If any THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY adopts and practices this then we
> will have return to the early days of the original THEOSOPHICAL
> SOCIETY when H P B was at the helm. But this may be too much to
> hope for as those who have had leadership thrust at them accept
> and then abuse the privilege. In their ;ride and ambition they
> forget they live only a short while and the vast Life of NATURE
> far exceeds any of our petty personal, emotional, exciting,
> hoped for glories. We have in fact, only our small part to play.
> Are we going to neglect that ?
> 
> "And that power which the disciple shall covet is that which will
> make him appear as nothing in the eyes of men." LIGHT ON THE PATH
> p. 4 bottom. This is the rule to true spiritual success.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Dallas
> 
> --------------------------------------
> 
> This gives an idea of the range Theosophy COVERS
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Universal and World Periods SD II 69-70,
> OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY, p. 125
> _____________________________
> 
> 311,040,000,000,000 years = Maha Kalpa, Life of Brahma
> (100 of Brahma's years)
> [311 trillion, 40 billion] SD 
II 70
> 
> 3,110,400,000,000 years = 1 Year of Brahma SD II 70
> [ 3 trillion, 110 billion ]
> 
> 8,640,000,000 years = 1 Day + 1 Night of Brahma
> 
> 4,320,000,000 years = 1 Kalpa = l Day of Brahma or
> 1,000 Maha-Yugas SD II 69
> or 14 Manus SD II 59-60
> [see The Theosophist, Nov. 1885, p.115-6;]
> 
> 
> 1 Day of Brahma = 4,294,080,000 years = 994 Maha-Yugas
> or 14 Manus SD II 308fn
> 
> add 25,920,000 years = 1 Sandhi 
(twilight)
> _____________________
> 4,320,000,000 years = 1 Kalpa or 1
> 
> Day of Brahma (4 billion, 320 million) SD II 69-70
> 
> 1 Manvantara = 306,720,000 years = 71 Maha Yugas
> of 4,320,000 years
> 
> add 1,728,000 years = 1 Sandhi
> SD II 69
> ____________________
> 308,448,000 years = 1 Manvantara
> 
> 4 Yugas [ The 4 "Ages" ] .[Hindu Astronomy] SD II 69
> ML p. 121, IS 
I 32
> 
> 1,728,000 years = Krita (or Satya, or Golden Age-Yuga)
> 1,296,000 years = Treta (or Silver Age--Yuga )
> 864,000 years = Dwapara ( or Bronze Age--Yuga )
> 432,000 years - Kali ( or Black, Iron Age--Yuga )
> __________________
> 4,320,000 years = 1 Maha Yuga - 1/1000th Brahma's day
> SD II 69; HPB III 422; Lucif XIII, 183-4
> 
> ==============================================
> 
> This gives an idea of the range Theosophy COVERS
> 
> =======================
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mauri
> Sent:	Tuesday, August 19, 2003 3:47 PM
> To:
> Subject:	re -- Theosophical leadership
> 
> In terms of leadership, in general, within the
> Theosophical Movement, I suspect that "true spirituality" (if one
> understands, or relates to those words in applicable terms, or in
> terms of the Esoteric Tradition) has a key role, a role that any
> amount of intellectualism (in a "too exclusive" sense, at any
> rate?) cannot very well replace. Of course, on the other hand,
> the
> defining of "true spirituality" might throw a few tangents into
> the
> works, with which ----------, and all us, seem to be dealing with
> (among other, "intellectual" things).
> 
> Speculatively,
> Mauri
> 
> CUT