Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00103)

Hello Sufi...,

What you say is all well and good as far as your personal opinions go... 
Although, as facts, we certainly can take them with a grain of salt. 

But, you forget that Judge was much different from all the other "followers 
of HPB" that you speak about. Maybe it would help if you read the following 
outline of who Judge is and what relationship he and HPB had, and then see if 
what you call "Baraka" is missing from his writings or his work for theosophy.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/1941

As for myself, I stand on everything I said in my original comments about 
Judge with respect to his transliterations of the works of other "initiated" 
adepts. 

In any event, the word "hijacked" is a pretty strong one to use with 
reference to Judge, and I don't think anything you said even comes close to justifying 
it. I never said Judge merely "translated some of the texts, so they were 
more readable". Those are your words, and they are totally unfounded. 
Translating is one thing (which had to be done in the case of Panatela and the 
Bhagavad Gita before interpreting or transliterating in another language that had 
none of the nuances of the original) -- but "transliterating" is quite another. 
In the cases of spiritual writings, only an "initiate" can have the b'rucha 
and the chutzpah (if you know what that means:-) to handle that. And, 
according to HPB and the Masters, Judge was one of them (and they had more chutzpah 
than any one of us can imagine:-). It takes a lot of that to stand up publicly 
in the face of the whole secular and religious world with a teaching that 
tears their basic assumptions apart -- without them thinking you are as crazy as a 
Loon, and throwing rocks at you. 

Judging from all of your assumptions about theosophists in general , and 
pronouncements about the state of the theosopsophical movement that in your 
view, apparently, doesn't hold a candle to Sufism', I think you are all wet, and 
haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about.

In my theosophical circles, all my associate student/teachers, are as deep 
into Sufism as you claim to be.  As far as fundamental theosophy is concerned 
there is no difference. Since, the true theosophist is "a member of no cult 
or sect but a member of each and all." How one teaches to anyone involved 
exoterically in such different sects to the exclusion of any other, is strictly up 
to the teacher. When teaching theosophy to Jews and some Christians one must 
use the methods of the Kabbalist and the Gnostic. When teaching most 
Christians, one must use the wisdom of the Christ. When teaching Muslims, one must use 
the wisdom and methods of the Sufi. When teaching Buddhists, one must use 
the wisdom and methods of the Buddha. To say one way is better than another is 
nothing more than chauvinistic hubris. 

The ball is in your court, now, to prove your allegations and innuendoes 
about theosophical leaders that followed after HPB -- with particular emphasis on 
Judge. So, either "put up or shut up" (meaning stop these unfounded and 
prejudicial opinions that you keep on flinging around without any knowledge behind 
them.)

Short story that says it all... 
Several years ago I met the Sufi Master, Dervish Mammo Goli when he arrived 
in New York from Teheran via Sweden and Miami, and I brought him to a 
theosophical lecture on reincarnation at the United Lodge of Theosophists. After 
that, over olives and tea, following a long philosophical discussion with me and 
some other friends from ULT about the quality of the lecture (which he thought 
was amazingly clear and enlightening) and then a further discussion about the 
esoteric meaning of Rumi's poems, he said, "you and your friends are truly 
Sufi." he then gave me the manuscript of his book, written in English about his 
travels through America as a wandering Dervish, to transcribe, edit, and help 
him find a US publisher (he had already published 14 books in Teheran, and two 
books in Sweden). The poetic stories in it cut through the American psyche 
with a sharp knife and with great theosophical (or Sufi, if you will) insight. 
(Unfortunately, I heard he was executed some years later when he returned to 
Iran, and found the new Ayatollah was not impressed by his newly acquired 
American sympathies -- although he is credited with coining the words "American 
Satan" in one of his books, used by the previous Ayatollah Komeini, who was his 
personal friend, since Goli was one of the fighters who overthrew the Shah.) 
As another short story... Some years earlier I met Hidayat Inayat-Khan at a 
lecture on Sufism in New York. After the lecture, we were entertained at a soiree 
and played some music together, discussed theosophy and Sufi philosophy, and 
did some Dervish dancing :-). When we parted he embraced me and said that we 
were brothers in eternity. So, I guess members of the ULT can also be Sufis. 
:-)

So, there's nothing more to be said about ULT, Judge, and innuendoes about 
theosophists who came after HPB, and in certain quarters (particularly among 
present and past associates of ULT and other "independent" theosophists) -- who 
are or were carrying on her work, and fitting it in with their times almost 
exactly the way she, Judge, and the Masters would have wished. In any event, 
I'm sure most of us don't pretend to be infallible or exclusive. 

Best wishes, 

Leon 


In a message dated 10/06/03 5:00:23 AM, global-theosophy@adslhome.dk writes:

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...