Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00113)

Aug 22 2003

Dear Larry:

Theosophy is not a doctrine for a CHURCH or for the literal
following by any group.

IT IS NOT A LABEL nor is it a RELIGION, unless you wish to take
as true the statement that THEOSOPHY is the basis and foundations
of all religions ancient and modern.

It is a statement of facts and rules and laws of evolution in
NATURE (the UNIVERSE is the ONE AND ONLY DEITY ) and that’s it.

HENCE WE ARE INTIMATELY AND ALWAYS A PART OF IT.

No one is a “heretic” or a “renegade” or a “critic” == nor can
they be “defrocked” or “excluded” from the vast sweep of
evolutionary law (or KARMA ).

On that basis of universality and impersonality all divisive
labeling and opinions vanish.

History is at best a record of the struggle of Monads using
personalities as they seek to progress to the spiritual plane of
impersonal and universal service to others -- ALL SELFISHNESS is
to be ELIMINATED completely and utterly.

Yes those are “ultimates” and do not permit argument or
speculation.

If a student thinks deeply of those ideas he will see them to be
innate in himself. HE IS a RAY of the ONE SPIRIT. And also he is
living in a vehicle of matter and substance.

HE IS A MIND. As such he can apprehend those two “opposites:”
SPIRIT and MATTER. This makes him a metaphysician when he seeks
to understand the cause and nature of his being and of the
surrounding universe (world). For this reason MIND S THE
universal thinking medium is ALWAYS PRESENT wherever SPIRIT and
MATTER are.

The “Grand Lodge” (see ISIS UNVEILED II 98-103) has for
Teachers adepts who are deathless and impersonal embodiments of
the Great Law: KARMA

Nature is universally sensitive and acts swiftly to adjust
disturbance ( breakage of law ) anywhere.

We have an impediment. We were all educated in school and youth
to think otherwise and to think there is a personal GOD who will
respond to prayer, but who really does as HE PLEASES. And cannot
be logically explained.

Belonging to an organization, (or a church) or saying “I believe”
do not constitute any safe road to security and ease.

Theosophy is a hard task mistress. She demands honesty, logic,
self-discipline and scholarship. THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS. We
have no “hidey holes” any where. No priest has the power to
intercede. No ‘GOD’ can pour unearned benefits on us and treat
others wrongfully. Once this is clear we can make progress in
handling our own affairs and helping others to handle theirs, by
showing the accuracy of this doctrine and method.

Best wishes,

Dallas

And that’s why H P B in the KEY says that Theosophy is only form
those who want it. All other fall away at some point or other.
So we have to beware. Reminds me of the story of the chela who
came to a guru in ancient India and asked to be taken as such.
The guru asked him how
strongly he desired to do that. He said t “t any limit.” The
Guru did not answer,. But, later at a nearby river, the guru
placed the chela’s head under water and held it there. When he
released him finally, the chela sputtered up, thought a moment,
and then asked “Why?” The guru replied “ You have to desire to
be a chela even stronger than you desired for air and
life -- now are you truly ready ?”

Are we truly ready to be Theosophists ? Or do we presently all
aspire to be good students of Theosophy ? There can be
reservations. One is dealing here with a matter of ones own
desire for salvations - through wisdom and spiritual knowledge.
Are we willing to do that, now or later or never ? Are we firm
or wishy-washy?


========================



-----Original Message-----
From: Larry kolts
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:42 PM
To:
Subject: [bn-study] Theosophical History, etc.

Dear Mauri, Dallas, David, et al,

We have written of Theosophical history numerous times previous,
yet questions continue to arise.

My take is that history is at best the weighted opinion of the
historian who is writing, since few there are who are mere
recorders but rather start with some thesis or other and then set
out to prove it. I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that one
should read multiple sources, compare the various "slants" or
"spins" and use intuitive reasoning to determines ones own take
on the matter-or, reserve judgment altogether.

History purports to tell the facts, but facts themselves can be
misleading or distorted by the teller. The classic example is the
following:

The Russian papers report: Russian team takes second place in
world sports event while the American team places a dismal second
to last.

Left out of the report is the fact that the Russians and the USA
teams were the only two playing!

In the History Dallas cites, Robert Crosbie is reported to have
withdrawn from the TS in A while another history states that he
was expelled by that organization. Is someone telling a mistruth
or could both be correct from their particular point of view?

When I left the Mormons, I wrote a letter requesting my name be
taken of the rolls and asking for no further contact. Instead,
local leaders held a court at which I was disfellowshipped and at
a later date a higher court excomunicated me. My story: I quit.
Their story: I was kicked out. Could something similar have
happen in the Crosbie case?

So the various histories tell their tales.

I agree with Dallas that this is just the history of people in
the movement, not the history of Theosophy per se.

I agree with David that some history has not been flattering to
certain parties.

My own concern is with the work we are engaged in here and now.
We have associates from all the Theosophical organizations
participating on this list as well as many who are unaffiliated.
Shouldn't we stay focused on the matter of Theosophy itself
rather than delve into all the controversies?

Now, Mauri and others have a right to know and decide on these
things for themselves, but can access that material for
themselves. I still hold to the vision I have for BN as a sort of
"Grand Lodge" and would not like to see feelings hurt by
disparaging remarks regarding any particular organization on this
forum. There are other sites which devote themselves to such
matters.

So much for my humble opinion.

Larry
_____




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