Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00115)

Hi Katinka and all,

My views are:
Shortly: I don't know who you have talked to.
I have myself talked to the leaders of more than one of the Theosophical
groups, which have branched off since the mentioned break happened. I
include the leader at the time it happened. They all privately say, that
they - The Danish Section of Theosophical Society - were thrown out. But
they - the Bailey-groups - could of course have official reasons to say that
they themselves left. Just ask the leaders of Theosophical Society America
if you need more clairifcation. Dora van Gelder Kunz - threw - them out in a
sweet an caring manner. They were given the option to either leave or
clearly water down their exccessive use of Bailey teaching. They left. So it
is maybe a question about who you ask and how you view the matter.
My view: They left - because they were thrown out.


If I - fully - answer the other questions you put in the below - I might
create some problems to some of my theosophical friends here in Denmark.
That would not be good.

But allright. I will do my best - and at the same time seek to develop the
Heart of Compassion - at this and other theosophical related places. First
some short replys to your four questions.

a)
My view: Talking about Danish Bailey-oriented sections ?
- There is as far as I know freedom (which of course is limited by the
individual) to do whatever you want of a - spiritual kind - physical and
no-physical. You may always leave the place. And there are not many
restrictions at all of noteworthy importance. It also depends on the various
groups and how the individual are involved with others.
Nearly all the groups (except perhaps one) clearly promote the development
of the Heart of Compassion and Wisdom. And that is at least good as far as
it goes.

But it can be dicussed, if - the manner in which they teach - are by
promoting emotional and cultural tribalism. I think that the aspirant aught
to be given a global perspective (this - for instance Blavatsky also agrees
upon). I think, that this is - not - what they are doing.
To put it in as clearly as possible: The intentions are good - but the
practise are not so good.
Social tribalism promoted by teachers at the different groups - makes the
most read books to be those by the author Alice A. Bailey - and often
secondary the ones made by the main teacher himself or herself if the one is
an author.

There are the Guardians of Knowledge and Understanding - the high
initiates - and those who Renew the teachings of the Wisdom Tradition. There
those who just Interprets their work and make secondary litterature. There
are those who keep the teaching alive - and there are those who distorts the
teachings. They may all have different motives while doing these actions.



b)
My view: They have the right to study any kind of Theosophy as far as I
know in the Danish Bailey branches.
But, more important - the teachings of Alice A. Bailey are promoted as the
main books to read in most Theosophical oriented groups in Denmark - and in
some (or rather most) groups to an extreme degree. Especially the books
"The Externalization of the Hierarchy" and "Education in the New Age" by
Alice A. Bailey aught to be seen as important reasons for - the different
groups - to do so.
The - teachings - of Blavatsky and similar has in the later years been
watered down so much - that I - myself a now a former member - left one of
the groups because of that. They (most of them) use the teachings of Tom
Carney, Gordon Davidson and similar. They invite teachers from esp. USA and
UK who follow these thought-patterns. (Some of them consider these authors
to have enhanced the Bailey teachings).
Their esoteric schools promotes heavily the books of Alice A. Bailey. But
other Theosophical authors are also given importance, but that is only of a
secondary nature.


c) My view: It depends on what Danish Bailey-branches we talk about and in
what sense of study we talk about.
In all the different Danish branches where they have study groups, one are -
as far as I know - alloved to study Blavatskys book the Secret Doctrine as
the main subject of the group, if one for some reason - unknown - wants to
do that.
Let me put it like this: Blavatskys scriptures are for instance by most
Bailey-oriented teachers/groups considered to be (too) OLD - and not suited
to the present day audience. One reason for this are certain statements on
Blavatsky - made by Alice A. Bailey in her book "The Unfinished
Autobiography". So Blavatsky are often viewed as a historical relic. (Some
teachers - though - are aware of her scriptures value, but they - even so -
still insist on the importance of the Bailey teachings.)
This even while Bailey claims her books are based on an initiatie of level
5 - and Blavatsky claims that her teacher has the level of a Dhyan Chohan of
level 6. I find this to be a rather strange behaviour. When one ask the
Baileys-oriented teachers about this - they quite often don't have a good
answer to that.
But who knows REALLY honestly KNOWS - what level of teaching there is behind
any of these books and scriptures?
Let us remember, that the Bailey book "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire", ONLY was
an INTERPRETATION of The Secret Doctrine. Bailey writes this herself.
That is - this physical book is a Masters - interpretation of the work of
the Dhyan Chohan who wrote The Secret Doctrine together with Blavatsky - if
one should follow the Bailey groups line of thinking.
The Baileys-followers often forget that or don't even know about that.


d) Katinka I ask: Have the right ? Given to them by whom ?
Those who knows and not assumes says, that ParaBrahman and The Law of Karma
rules it all.

The Bailey groups (and not the books) have according to my view - a to
certain extent secterian view - which neglects present day importance of the
teachings of the Middle East. - The overall content of the books of Alice A.
Bailey, which they use as their main teaching - doesn't help to avoid this
heppening to the beginner-aspirants with its extreme use of Christian
vocabulary.
We know, that truth is without form - but many of the readers and even some
teachers of Alice A. Bailey doesn't quite grasp this.
So they are stock in the cultural bias which these books are promoting -
(although unwillingly). - But even so a some of the teachers are more than
eager to promote books like this. Maybe they get a ego boost by doing it -
who knows.
I have written about this subject before here at Theos-Talk, so the readers
can by searching find more material on this issue here at Theos-talk.

They have by the Law of Karma been allowed to do what they have been doing
so far. What happens tomorrow many Seekers are not aware of even if they -
believe that mere beliefs - are the same as knowledge on the issue.




My view on he subject on studying aspects of the Wisdom Tradition:
It is NOT good to promote any main books so, that the result of it - creates
cultural bias among the students, and by all means avoid developing a global
perspective in the aspirant. This is what is happening - if too many rather
than a few groups has a problematic or for instance cultural bias in their
teachings.
Specialised study is often in high regard among certain - types of students,
whereas others are more interested in the overall teaching or importantly
its fundament. All have to be given importance - and the needed priority in
the activities and studies of the Seekers.

Theosophy (viewed on a higher level) does not have a need to follow any
group of physical books and call them the main teaching. My view is, that
Blavatsky didn't support such a view or need.
Because then you avoid making a creed - which are exactly what the Masters
have in mind.
The initiated are in the world but not of the world.
What stand between the Seeker of Truth and the Almighy unthinkable - is
nothing else than the World.



So to say that: "So the insistence on lodges to be
> unsectarian actually causes the TS to be sectarian. Only those
> interested in so called theosophical literature can join. "
This must be wrong - when - the main teaching and the main results turn the
aspirants into a cultural biased and narrowminded - cultists, who seeks
emotional tribalism more than Wisdom. One has to be very careful about
specialised studying. One aught to rely on the following from Blavatsky,
which others also have been given importance: "OCCULTISM VERSUS THE OCCULT
ARTS - Article by H. P. Blavatsky; 1888 (
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/OccultismVersusTheOccultArts.htm ).

Atma-vidya has to be learned first !
Some Lodges doesn't deserve the name Theosophical or the like !

(Specialised studies in Tarot, Astrology, Hatha Yoga Tantrism and what some
believe or assume is a Theosophical version of Buddhism should not just like
that be granted access. One should have Beliefs replaced by Knowledge
first).

My next email on the characteristics of Theosophical litterature might help
some of the readers.

These were just my views among the many. I could be wrong.


from
M. Sufilight


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 11:17 AM
Subject: Theos-World freedom of individual sections of the TS


> Hi all,
>
> I spoke to some Danish theosophists this summer and the way I heard
> it, the Danish section left, not they were expelled.
>
> Still, one of the issues is how much freedom do individual sections
> have? Do they have the right to only study and discuss Alice Bailey
> for instance? Do they have the right to exclude people for wanting to
> study HPB? Do they have the right (in short) to be sectarian?
>
> It used to be the case, in the time of Olcott and Blavatsky that
> there were sections set up which were devoted to studying only one
> aspect of the wisdom tradition. The Buddhist Society started as a
> lodge in the TS, devoted to studying and spreading Buddhism. The same
> was true for the organisation which was started by Anna Kingsford and
> her coworker (I forget both the organisation that sprang from that
> and the name of the co-worker). In The Netherlands there used to be a
> lodge for artists only. Nobody used to mind that sort of specialism.
> But now each lodge is supposed to have the same broad outlook that
> the society as a whole has. Which is impossible, because it either
> means studying 'theosophical' literature only - or it means jumping
> from one subject to another and never being able to dive into
> something deeply. Now Buddhism for instance is a lifetime study, just
> like Blavatskyan Theosophy is. So the insistence on lodges to be
> unsectarian actually causes the TS to be sectarian. Only those
> interested in so called theosophical literature can join.
>
> And I think this started (in official policy that is) with Annie
> Besant getting rid of Steiner on the grounds that the German Section
> did not have the right to refuse members on religious grounds [that
> is: being a member of the Order of the Star]. I used to agree that
> Besant was right - freedom of thought was paramount in the TS. But he
> didn't refuse them membership of the TS, nor did he prevent them from
> setting up their own lodges and sections of the TS, in order to study
> say what Krishnamurti wrote in those days. To be sure this is a
> correct version of events, one would have to dive into the archives
> at Adyar - I hope somebody takes up that project and gets permission
> to do so.
>
> Katinka
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> theosophy@a...> wrote:
> > Hi Bart and all,
> >
> > My views are just my views:
> >
> > When we talkm about Denmark - I have to say that my knowledge tells
> me
> > different. I live in Denmark you know.
> > The reason why Denmark was excluded - was because of their heavy
> leaning on
> > the teachings of Alice A. Bailey. But as I understand it - The
> Theosophical
> > Society has changed its policies on the Alice A. Bailey issue
> through the
> > years depending on who was sitting at the driverseats in different
> sections.
> > True ?
> >
> >
> > from
> > M. Sufilight with peace...
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>