Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00136)

Hear, hear...

In a message dated 10/10/03 5:48:54 AM, eletzerich@yahoo.com writes:

>Hello,
>
>
>In the ironic pessimism of Erasmos of Rotterdam he
>gives no hope for the possibility of humanity ever
>change:
>“Once the human race insist to be completely crazy -
>since all the persons from the pope to the most simple
>village man – from the most rich to the most miserable
>of the beggars- from the honoured Lady between her
>silk and cetin to the most vulgar in her dress of
>third category, once all of them decided do not use
>the brain “God” gave to them, and they insist to be
>entirely guided to the ambition, vanity, ignorance,
>why on the name of a rational divinity would
>intelligent man to loose their time trying to change
>the human race, to transform them in something that
>they never aspire to be? Let them to live in their
>happy craziness. Let’s not deprive them from what give
>the most pleasure- their infinity power to turn into
>ridiculous.”
>
>Fortunatly we had many that have tried to awake
>humanity from it’s, superficial patterns. Dreamers,
>and martyrs, avatars and saints many have tried to
>bring humanity out of the egocentric world every human
>is rooted within. Around the messages such persons
>have left to humanity believe systems were built
>apparently with the aim to help the spiritual
>development of mankind. 
>
>But the painful truth is that nobody ever succeeded!
>No one religious, philosophical, political or
>scientific system were and are able to offer solutions
>for the major problems that affects humanity. 
>
>May be because every system created around a belief
>turn up into a crystallized body, were the structure
>itself becomes the main aim and the elevated ideas are
>taking second third and fourth places. They end up
>guided by their ambitions and greed and it becomes
>more important the structure itself than the aim for
>what the structure exists for. 
>
>That means that no one organized movement that
>believes to be holding a truth, is able to give a
>real contribution for a better world, once the
>mechanism that rules the own organization is
>too egocentric to think in something else them it’s
>own strength power and existence.
>
>So we find the Hindus criticizing the Buddhists that,
>criticizes the Hindus that criticize the muslins that
>criticize the Christians that criticize the muslins,
>everybody criticize the Jews. The Republicans 
>criticizes the democrats that criticize the socialists
> that criticizes everybody. These sane people are
>ruling the world. 
>
>T.S. fellows criticize the U.L.T., Alice Bailey,
>Rudolf Steiner, Gurdieff Society etc etc, and all of
>them criticize the Theosophical Society and each other
>also.
>
>What we see is the creation of ghettos, which every
>fellow within it thinks to be the best and to be into
>the only real path. But that it’s not the attitude of
>a real theosophist that unfortunately I haven’t had
>the luck to meet, at least within the Theosophical
>Society.
>
>We've strayed so far from reality that even the most
>elementary truths have become obscured. Everything is
>four or five degrees removed from its original form,
>and it's all conveniently forgotten before anyone has
>time to analyses it.
>
>It’s obvious that any serious student prefers the
>original writings of Blavatsky, without alterations. 
>What are you talking about few changes that the poor
>Judge may have made in the Voice of the Silence. What
>about the more than 10.000 changes that Annie Besant
>made on the Secret Doctrine?
>What Annie Besant did within the Theosophical Society,
>creating all those parallel movements, coming up with
>a new messiah, closing the esoteric section of the
>Theosophical Society and much more.
>
>About the ULT, I am not a member, but I don't know
>what happened that lately too many critics are
>formulated for them. What about critics for the
>Theosophical Society, that if someone starts can make
>an encyclopaedia out of it.
>
>But I have a question, I don’t know if will be
>answered. It was the aim of Blavatsky and the Mahatmas
>to create a dogma? Or to offer keys that would help
>students to fulfil the objectives of the Theosophical
>movement?
>
>It was the aim of Blavatsky and the Mahatmas to offer
>a body of knowledge for people to be repeating it like
>parrots or to offer a body of knowledge that would
>inspire them and help to bring light and new ideas
>related to the three main objectives of the
>Theosophical Society?
>
>May be I am wrong but, all these body of knowledge
>within the Secret Doctrine was given for a purpose. 
>What about the most important objective that I am sure
>nobody disagrees, Universal Brotherhoo?
>
>Why people makes groups to study H.P.B. or they spend
>their life studying about her, what she was eating,
>how was her character, the meetings she had with the
>Mahatmas, this line in the Secret Doctrine means this
>or that or the other. 
>
>Why between so precious students as I see, there is no
>interest and effort to work for the cause that
>Blavatsky gave her life for? And this are stated
>within the main aims of the Theosophical Movement, and
>in the Mahachohan Letter. 
>
>I haven’t seen in the cause that Blavatsky worked so
>much for and in the Mahachohan Letter an emphasises
>for the following objective:
>to study H.P.B. life and writings. I think this great
>woman left us a sample of love dedication for a cause,
>a cause that was greater than her life. 
>
>I am sure for real theosophists they are not going to
>be stuck “on the cherry over the cake” they will go
>deeper and try to give really a contribution for the
>cause Blavatsky died for. Unfortunately such persons
>are very few and certainly not within any Theosophical
>Movement.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Erica Letzerich
>
>--- "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> Dear Leon,
>> 
>> I have read your posting at:
>> 
>>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/13318
>> 
>> And my first reaction was:
>> 
>> Leon, are you serious or is this a joke?
>> 
>> Take this memorable passage from your posting:
>> 
>> "Now, after all your barrage of lawyerly responses
>> with its 
>> personalized pointed and leading questions -- I'm
>> more and more 
>> convinced that this whole brouhaha stems from a
>> personal pique, by 
>> you and a few other "disgruntled" TS
>> "organizationalists" against 
>> ULT, its active associates and their defense of the 
>> fundamental "undoctored" writings of HPB (as the
>> primary valid basis 
>> of theosophical study). . . ."
>> 
>> Are you trying to tell me and this forum that I am a
>> disgruntled TS 
>> organizationlist? If you are, then do you ever read
>> my postings and 
>> or ever read any of the material on my site?
>> 
>> First and foremost, I am a student of
>> H.P.Blavatsky's life, work, 
>> writings and teachings. But I am not really an
>> "organization" person 
>> although I can appreciate some of the work of the
>> different 
>> theosophical groups, organizations, associations
>> including the ULT.
>> 
>> The following webpage may give you some inkling of
>> what I do:
>> 
>> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/purpose.htm
>> 
>> Over many years I have tried to work with ULT, TS
>> Adyar, TS Pasadena, 
>> Point Loma Publications students as well as
>> independent students of 
>> Blavatsky. See the list of names of some of the
>> principal persons 
>> who have helped me in my Blavatsky research.
>> 
>> For example, for many years, Anita Atkins (I assume
>> you know who she 
>> is) and I exchanged rare Blavatsky material as we
>> each would find the 
>> material . Never once did either one of us inquire
>> as to what 
>> theosophical association we belonged to. It was
>> irrelevant.
>> 
>> If I am totally against the ULT, why in heavens name
>> would I have the 
>> following webpage on my site:
>> 
>> Recommended Blavatsky Books from the Theosophy
>> Company
>> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/theosohyco.htm
>> 
>> These are excellent reprints and collections of
>> HPB's writings.
>> 
>> And when you mention the ULT's "defense of the 
>> fundamental 'undoctored' writings of HPB", is the
>> implication that I 
>> am somehow against having unedited, undoctored
>> writings of HPB? How 
>> many times have I stated on Theos-Talk my own
>> preference for 
>> facsimiles of HPB's original writings. That is why
>> I have criticized 
>> MODERN PANARION reprinted by the Theosophy Company
>> since the articles 
>> in that volume have been multilated by someone
>> (probably G.R.S. 
>> Mead).  
>> 
>> For another example, see my criticism of the
>> COLLECTED WRITINGS 
>> edition of HPB's Esoteric Instructions:
>> 
>> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/hpbes1extract.htm
>> 
>> You write about certain publications and then add
>> "you and
>> the TS refuse to publish, sell, or acknowledge. . .
>> . "
>> 
>> I am NOT responsible for the TS. Which TS since
>> there is more than 
>> one?
>> 
>> Some of these publications are listed on my site. 
>> For example 
>> Cranston' bio of HPB and Wadia's studies of SD. 
>> These are excellent 
>> books. See for example:
>> 
>> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/introductory.htm
>> 
>> What is the first book listed????????
>> 
>> Why don't you and the ULT "publish, sell, or
>> acknowledge" the 
>> Blavatsky works by Barborka, Spierenburg, Farthing,
>> Warcup, etc.?
>> 
>> And you bring up again mention of "a few other
>> 'disgruntled' TS 
>> 'organizationalists'." Who pray tell are these
>> other peoople????
>> Are they Tony Maddock or Peter Merriott who I quoted
>> as criticizing 
>> the Theosophy Company's edition of the VOICE? 
>> 
>> In all seriousness, what you write in the posting
>> reminds me of some 
>> of the "stuff" written by Paul Johnson and Brigitte
>> Muehlegger. 
>> 
>> Enough of this. Maybe you SHOULD start a new thread
>> on the 
>> Theosophical teachings. 
>> 
>> Daniel H. Caldwell
>> BLAVATSKY STUDY CENTER/BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
>> http://blavatskyarchives.com/introduction.htm
>> 
>>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>> "...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate
>> things at 
>> their right value; and unless a judge compares notes
>> and 
>> hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct
>> decision."
>> H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 2
>>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>> You can always access our main site by
>> simply typing into the URL address
>> bar the following 6 characters:
>> 
>> hpb.cc