Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00076)

Hi Katinka and all of you,


I agree a lot with you Katinka.

But, who says, that what Blavatsky predicted was 100% certain to come true ?
She could have made a mistake in her prediction about when new teaching
would be forwarded.
Some of the initiates was in fact of higher rank than her - even if Daniel
and others may have another - assumed - view.
And Morya in a mahatma letter has also stated something like, - that she
(Blavatsky) was allowed to - if necessary to not tell the truth, - if this
could avoid spiritual damaging events from happening.


Permit me to condem the latest event in Sweden - where Swedens foreign
minister was visiously killed this morning, 11th Setember 2003, exactly two
years after another voilent event.



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:23 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: "The Source Teachings of Theosophy" by Richard
Taylor


> Hi Daniel,
>
> OK, I'll pick up the stick/ take up the challenge. For me the only
> source-teaching is the teaching of the inner Voice of the Silence
> [not the book]. Everything else (including HPB, Buddha, Krishnamurti,
> Besant, Purucker, Judge etc.) is secondary. This isn't to say that I
> don't think HPB's work is very important. Personally I am quite
> inspired by her work and my own thoughts on many subjects are more
> based on what she wrote than on anything else.
>
> I think the disagreeement and the differences of opinion start
> because we confuse the TS (or the theosophical organisations) with
> theosophy.
> Blavatsky said all kinds of things about 'theosophy' and 'ancient
> wisdom' etc. And personally I take all that quite seriously. But that
> does not mean that I think every member of the TS is best served
> studying only that. In fact, the TS doesn't have its three objects
> for nothing. Those objects don't state: study only HPB. They don't
> state: study theosophy. They state (not verbatim): compare and study
> religion, philosophy and science and come up with your own
> understanding of truth.
>
> Still if our aim in life is wisdom, how can one ignore the fact that
> other writers than HPB have also written very inspiring things? How
> can one ignore the fact that HPB herself published stuff from widely
> varying perspectives? Why do some people think she wanted that
> eclecticism gone after her death?
>
> Theosophy is eternal wisdom. But the TS isn't a school of theosophy.
> The ES was that (what it is now, I don't know). The TS was a platform
> for people of widely different backgrounds and races to mingle, share
> thoughts, and grow in wisdom. As well as a place that showed the
> world that people from different religious and social backgrounds
> could get along and 'be merry'. Though of course they could fight
> very well also, but that was and is nothing new.
>
> One of the reasons at least why the TS was NOT a school of theosophy
> is that the masters were wise enough to realize that some
> preliminaries needed to be present in order for people to actually
> benefit from those teachings. One of those preliminaries was that one
> can't just teach people something, one has to deal with what they've
> already learnt. People learn wisdom best by facing up to what they
> are, including conditionings, including religious teachings
> previously received. And in order to do that well, there has to be a
> non-judgemental (=safe) place. The TS was meant to be that safe
> place. If the TS were to say: the doctrine of reincarnation is
> mandatory, in HPB's explanation of it, then it would no longer have
> that safe place.
>
> The ULT does something slightly more nuanced, IMO. It says on the one
> hand: find out for yourself. It says on the other hand: HPB and Judge
> is where you should start. But that is not a free search. A free
> search starts anywhere the researcher feels it's right to search.
> Whether that be a new translation of the Yoga Sutras, a new book on
> Dzog Chen (have you all noticed how many of those there are?), or
> studying the Voice of the Silence, for instance (the latter is one of
> my favourites).
>
> HPB DID say that what she wrote was 'theosophy'. What she adamantly
> refused to say was: this is the only thing you should study. Now
> there are some people who are talented enough to be able to study
> both HPB and various other traditions. For most of us though, this is
> just too hard. The ULT position would be: well, start with HPB and
> then see how that fits into other things. The TS-Adyar position is:
> start anywhere you want, just be sure to practice it, and learn from
> others along the way. Personally, I think the second position is
> better for mankind as a whole, because it means that there is
> actually a group where one is welcome, whatever one studies, as long
> as brotherhood is felt to be important.
>
> Just one more note, before I close. HPB said that what she gave out
> was all that could be given out IN THIS CENTURY, as Dallas rightly
> quotes her (I am not quoting verbatim here). (Un)fortunately, that
> century has ended. HPB died in 1891, which makes it logical to think
> that after 1991 there could be other teachings from the masters. So
> HPB doesn't say she has the last word forever. And we are left
> wondering who the heck came at the end of the previous century
> (20th). Who is (or was) giving out those teachings that will last us
> through this century? My guess is the Tibetan Buddhists or perhaps
> Ken Wilber. But that's another issue. My point is: even by HPB's own
> words we should be going beyond the Secret Doctrine by now.
>
> Katinka Hesselink
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell"
> <danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> > In researching a different subject, I stumbled across this
> > article which I had completely forgotten about.
> >
> > "The Source Teachings of Theosophy"
> > by Richard Taylor
> > http://theos-world.com/archives/html/tw199610.html#ARTICLE0185
> >
> > I thought students might find this article interesting.
> >
> > I wonder if Katinka or Tony (as well as others) might disagree with
> > one of Rich's contentions about what constitutes source teachings.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > Daniel H. Caldwell
> > BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER
> > http://hpb.cc
> >
> > THEOSOPHY STUDY CENTER
> > http://theosophy.info
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>