Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00060)

Hi Leon and all of you,

Well, maybe.

What I am thinking of - is a term called "Baraka" - the spiritual emanation
atmosphere or blessing of the initiated.
I think, that Blavatsky was being - half-way hijacked by W. Q. Judge.
And that is all.
W. Q. Judge did, what you are sort of saying. He translated some of the
texts, so they were more readable.
That was good for several obvious reason.
But it also had a downside. The downside being, that the books and texts
lost some of their valuable "Baraka", which are attached to these books.

A further downside are what I before have mentioned in an earliere email.
I will forward the main part of it again - so to give other readers the
possibility to understand.
It is an example on what happens when a spiritual teacher and initiate
disappears - or physically dies.



Her we go:


"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 Sufi 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 Sufism 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."


*******

If W. Q. Judge made books which had the same level of spirituality and
Baraka as Blavatsky did - then you may be my guest and tell me
why you think so Leon - because I don't get it !
Books are connected with Baraka - Blavatsky had Baraka - whereas W. Q. Judge
left the physical plane so very fast - just a few years after he made his
books officially available. Bottomline W. Q. Judge sort of poured water on
the fire of spirituality, which Blavatsky made. The end result was in a
certain sense bad because he died before the fruits of his work culd sprout
properly.

I have a tendency to agree with D. Caldwell on the Voice of Silence
publication. But, I think it is not in the same manner we agree.

And if you tell me, that some of the Theosophical groups are not
crystallizing today, then you are according to me wrong.
W. Q. Judge also warned against this crystallization of Theosophy.
And what did his later admirers do ?
They continued with business as ususal. The saught to preserve the
teachings.
All right so far so good.
But they didn't develop anything knew. That is the problem.
Because of that they have a strong tendency to crystallize in their
teachings.
And if they developed anything knew - it wasn't much, and not enough to
unmask the truth of the matter about what they themselves are doing,
so that newcomers would understand it.

If they just want to preserve the scriptures it would be allright.
But they also want to teach, and there we have the crystallizing problem
coming in to the picture.
To me the books are today getting to old, unsuitable to the interested
audiences. There is need for renewal, but who has the Baraka to do it ?
What is the need of the Seekers and what is the Want of the Seekers, and
what is the difference between wanting certain teachings and needing certain
teachings ?
This is at least a part of what the leading theosophists should be concerned
with today. Well, that is just my view, so who cares.

The following might be helpful - to show the deceit, which some groups are
running with:
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/renewal.htm
The deceit may also be, that they are not making newcomers properly aware of
these issue mentioned in the link.

Also this one aught to reveal what is going on when the initiates are
emanating books:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12917
Here the same comes to my mind: The deceit may also be, that they are not
making newcomers properly aware of these issue mentioned in the link.

With the above link or above two links in mind I ask you members of the
different branches:

1. Why do you not make the students more aware of these issues ?
2. When are you going to do something about these issues raised in these
links ?
3. What are the views about whehter Theosophical groups are at risk to go
and crystallize.

Let us remember W. Q. Judge's words, because he certainly also said
something wise:
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.

This quote by W. Q. Judge was emailed earliere here at Theos-Talk.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12514


Let us be wise !



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Tony versus Reed on "The Voice of the Silence"


This is a lot of nit picking baloney. Nothing more than a "tempest in a
teapot" based on personal opinions. There is not one indication or statement
in
the essay by Merriott, or by anyone else, that shows that any substantial
change
in WQJ's rendition of the Voice of the Silence in any way has "taken the
HEART out of it."

In fact judge managed to keep the He Art in it. ("He" referring to the
"creative" aspect of theosophical teachings. :-) Didn't HPB say we each
have to
rewrite our own Secret Doctrine in the language of our own age? Doesn't that
also mean, in the case of Judge's transliterations, modern English as a
first
language? Besides, since when does a term used in the preface to a
teaching,
have anything to do with the teaching itself? Give us a break.

I defy anyone to fault judge's rendering of the actual teachings in the
Voice
of the Silence when compared to the original HPB manuscript. There is no
less
Heart in it now than there ever was, and no matter what version you read, in
whatever language, there is no difference in its fundamental yoga teachings.
When HPB said she had to remember the Voice by heart, she meant the original
Heart Doctrine teachings as given her by the Masters – which she had to
later
translate into her archaic version of English. It's to Judge's credit that
he
did nothing to change that when he transcribed and very slightly edited the
Voice of the Silence (mostly in the preface which has nothing to do with the
body of the book, other than to tell us where it came from) -- with great
respect
for his teacher, confidante, and collaborator.

This whole discussion does nothing but obscure the teachings of fundamental
theosophy, still sounds like a vendetta against ULT and WQJ by certain
disgruntled "organizationalists" -- and is a waste of all serious
theosophical
student's time and energy. (Although we might learn something we didn't know
before
in Peter's excellent articles on the etymology of the esoteric terms used by
mystics and occultists.)

Best wishes,

Leon


In a message dated 10/05/03 12:22:46 PM, danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com writes:

>Tony versus Reed on "The Voice of the Silence"
>
>Students of Mme. Blavatsky's writings and teachings
>who are NOT partial to any of the existing
>Theosophical groups might take note of the following
>two statements about one edition of HPB'S VOICE OF THE
>SILENCE:
>
>Reed Carson of BLAVATSKY NET writes as follows
>about the VOICE edition by the Theosophy Company:
>
>"The Voice of the Silence [was] translated from memory
>and annotated by Blavatsky - and later typographically
>improved by her colleague Judge. . . . Students of
>Blavatsky have great respect for this inspirational
>book and read and reread it."
>
>Compare and contrast the above with what Tony Maddock
>has recently written. Tony wrote:
>
>"Take a copy of the ORIGINAL 'The Voice of the
>Silence' and compare it to the edition edited by W Q
>Judge, and note a few of the differences in the
>two editions, and see what effect those alterations
>have on the meaning. Those changes take from the HEART
>of the voice of the silence. What was it that caused
>those changes to be made, and what are the resulting
>effects?"
>
>There appears to be "A GREAT DIVIDE" between Tony's
>and Reed's statements!!!
>
>I call the reader's attention to Reed's two words:
>
>TYPOGRAPHICALLY IMPROVED
>
>I find these words very misleading and unfair
>especially to INQUIRERS and NEW STUDENTS of HPB's
>writings.
>
>I have myself written before about the changes in the
>TC edition and many of these changes are MUCH MORE
>than typographical improvements.
>
>I refer readers to Peter Merriott's article on
>this same issue which can be found at:
>
>http://www.teosofia.com/Docs/vol-2-10.pdf
>
>A reading of this article will show the impartial
>student that we are dealing with more than
>typographical improvements. In fact this is tampering
>with HPB's meaning and, in effect, her teachings.
>Other examples could be given.
>
>One can start to understand why Tony wrote:
>
>"Those changes take from the HEART of the voice of the
>silence."
>
>Then consider Reed's other words:
>
>"Students of Blavatsky have great respect for this
>inspirational book and read and reread it."
>
>But unfortunately some students apparently don't have
>ENOUGH respect for HPB's VOICE to
>present "this inspirational book" as HPB's originally
>published this classic in 1889.
>
>Here in Reed's two words are telltale signs of a
>certain "mindset" that is serving as an obstacle to
>inquirers and new students who might want to actually
>read Blavatsky as she was originally published.
>
>It would appear that Reed is "pushing" this TC version
>over other versions. See his placement of this
>edition on his bookstore website. And I see that his
>link to a page listing other versions doesn't
>currently work.
>
>In summary, I find Reed's description
>["typographically improved"] to border on the
>misleading and the deceptive.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/