Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00210)

Answering the Theos-Talk email:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/13401


Hi Leon and all of you,


My views are:

First a few remarks before my answers.

I have cut this answer short - just to be at least somewhat polite towards
other readers.
Just to tell some of the newer readers at Theos-Talk. I am not presently a
physical member of any Theosophical group or branch (using the dead-letter).

Well, Leon I am somewhat surprised, that you as a sort of loose ULT
associate are so concerned with what is going on at ULT.
One might wonder why it is so, right ?

I have to say, that you ask many question in your email. I counted at least
44 questions put by you in this one single email; --- it could almost run
for the Guinness Book of Records - at least as far as Theos-Talk are
concerned.

Let me clearly state, that I am not disagreeing on the intentions of the ULT
members. I think the ULT members mean well. I think they also do teach
wisdom and theosophy. But, my view is, that they are acting in a quite
selfcontradictionary manner when promoting theosophy or Theosophy. Their
website is one evidence of this. I think I agree with Leon and others when I
say, that Blavatsky was about the only one among the names Blavatsky, Annie
Besant, CW Leadbeater, Krishnamurti, Prophet/Summit Lighthouse, Alice A.
Bailey, Tingley and many later branch leaders - who steered clear of making
what could be called grave mistakes. - W. Q. Judge was just on the level of
assistent when compared with Blavatsky.
I mention this, because a number of Leon's question are circling around
these issues.

On my use of the word "militant theosophy". My use of the word "militant" is
NOT to be misunderstood in any untheosophical dead-letter sense.
I hope we all can agree on that.


I have one remark on definitions of the words - theosophy and Theosophy,
because I think we might confuse it all, if there is no clear understanding
among the readers.
The word - theosophy - are by me used with the thought of the - Wisdom
teachings of all ages past, present and future.
The word do not always follow the dead-letter use of this word. To me -
theosophy - is also the teachings by Vivekananda, Idries Shah, Hazrat Inyat
Khan, Shankararchya, Milarepa and others --- etc...
The word - Theosophy - are on the other hand by me most often referred to as
any branch of clearly by the dead-letter and use of name Blavatsky
originated teaching, which are using "Thesophical teaching".
Sometimes the word Theosophy are used to denote theosophical teachings in
general - both of the dead-letter users kind, were the teaching (almost as a
strange kind of necessity) contains the use of the word theosophy or
Theosophy, - and yet sometimes I use it as a general term similar to the
word - theosophy, so to put emphasis on the word importance.
This might help to understand my remarks soemwhat better.

ULT are often referred to in the below answers. But remember, that other
theosophical groups might also come into consideration, when I answer Leons
various questions.


Now my answers.

1.
Leon wrote:
"Nobody (leastwise ULT associates) expects anyone to keep the Secret
Doctrine
as their "Bible"... But simply, to use it as their unadulterated reference
source of pure theosophy and the basic teaching of what they should be
studying
and questioning... So as, when they thoroughly understand it with complete
conviction and trust in the Masters and Adepts who wrote it, they can
promulgate
it to any questioner who asks them what it means, or broadcast it widely to
anyone who will listen... Preferably, in their own words, and even along
with
funny stories and parables that might emphasize a fundamental principle or a
metaphysical concept.

Maybe it also would be good for us to understand that the Secret Doctrine is
not the Heart Doctrine -- but is the Eye Doctrine that teaches us the
metaphysics of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis that underlies and gives
credence to
the Heart Doctrine -- which is thoroughly explained and taught as a
practical
yoga in the Voice of the Silence."

My answer:
Then I am lead to the opinion, that the book The Seceret Doctrine is used by
ULT members as an Eye-doctrine Bible.
And that their sort of 'oblongly-disfigured' book The Voice of Silence are
used as the Heart-doctrine-Bible.
Can I view it differently, when you write it like you do in the above ???
Or is it just the few books mentioned on the ULT website -
http://www.ult.org/freelit.html ?
(Blavatsky and Judge are the only main teachings !)
>:-) The alien smiles and disagrees.

One may wonder how on earth you can put The Secret Doctrine forward as
"basic teaching".
Many newcomers don't understand this book, and many ULT associates doesn't
either.
You have my word on that, but I think it won't count much in your
dictionary.



2. The "inadequacy" referred to are connected with this heading of the ULT
website frontpage:
"To spread broadcast the teachings of
Theosophy as recorded in the writings of
H.P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge"

This is according to me an extremely inadequate heading - and certainly NOT
something Blavatsky would have approved of
if she was around today !
Are you telling me, that you disagree on that ???

What you did in the below, was to chop up this part of my email and then
answer each part of my remark with a question.
That is also why I say: This is not Theosophy proper Leon !
The above quote is why I referred to the idolatry like - presentation of
both H. P. Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge.
It is a selfcontradiction, that ULT at the same time tells us, that they are
against any misleading idolatry. Ageed ?

Leon wrote this weak answer:
"And, what are they supposedly "idolizing"? As
for Blavatsky, all I remember her saying was that theosophy is the
"synthesis of
science, religion and philosophy," and that the Theosophical Movement was
the
action plan, using theosophy as its basis -- to spread this teaching
throughout the world in order to eventually bring it to a state of true
universal
brotherhood."

Let us agree, some newcomers need their (almost christian-like) substitutes
for what is called a Saint or a sort of 'Lost Teacher and Initiate'.
But, is this theosophy proper ? No way !
It would maybe be much better to put the Masters names there at the heading.
But even they made/make mistakes.
Do you understand ?

Do you want me to 'broadcast' it for you ?
To some the Masters (or the Wise) are real. To others they are an important
hypothesis !
And the Masters have always ADAPTED their teachings to - TIME, PLACE, PEOPLE
and CIRCUMSTANCES.

What to the now present upcoming generations are OLD outworn scriptures -
The Secret Doctrine included, won't help on that. Blavatsky herself stated
in this book, that a new teacher would most likely arrive, because this book
of hers wouldn't last for ever.
But to believe, that a few books are enough to all the Seekers - would be a
very wrong assumption. That is why the teaching aught to be represented in
another and more broad and true manner. This was also Blavatskys intention.
Just to mention it - if that could be of any help to the readers.
Try this - http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-am/hpb-am1.htm

3. On fundamental books.
I have this comment.
The student have the possibility to learn by every experience in life. -
Books are just a part of the patterns in the world of patterns.
Either there is a main set of books used in a theosophical group or
association - or there are not.
If there is not - then the Seeker are free to read and learn by any books -
and not limited by karmically-related Biblical thinking-patterns.
If there is a main set of books or a main book. The Seekers are often being
limited by their karmically-related Biblical thinking-patterns.
And either there is a - teacher present to interpret the teachings of these
books correctly or there isn't.
If there is a teacher present (year 2003) - everything might seem allright
to the Seeker.
But it is NOT allright - if the book or books and their teachings are not -
directed according to - TIME, PLACE and PEOPLE.
This is why I am putting my fingers at the ULT website and its frontpage.
This frontpage - TEACHING (not its intent, which I think highly about) are
not directed towards TIME, PLACE, and PEOPLE.
This is my view.

Let us not forget this about the "Characteristics of Theosophical
litterature"
"Theosophical litterature is a part of carefully worked out plan. Its abuse
lead to
nothing of permanent value.
Theosophical teachings, and sometimes keys to it, are sometimes embedded in
quite other material, not recognisable as theosophical at all to the
uninitiated."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12917
It is by making the newcomers and students aware of these issue, that they
are given a true oppotunity to at least learn theosophy.

Sometimes - I think the various theosophical groups are more interested in
collecting members, than in teaching theosophy properly.

Leon and interested readers - you could take this - which I emailed to
Theos-Talk a few weeks back - think it through, it might help :
- A Curriculum of a Theosophical School
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12810
The same on this one put by me:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12272 (Emailed in 3 parts).
A short excerpt:
"'Comprehensive' systems are those with world-view, or with an outlook which
causes their members to act as if they had a world-view. Such systems are
those which require (deliberately or in practise) their members to act with
regard to a comprehensive set of beliefs which will cover all, or most,
eventualities."
This is theosophy proper !

It is by being aware of these issues - and by MAKING the newcomers and
Seekers AWARE of these issue, that your teachings becomes relevant.
Even - the to some theosophical darling - Blavatsky said more than one time,
that she didn't like the dead-letter reading and writings, - certainly not
the biblical one of the Christians -a and their Jesuitic sorcery manners.
Let peoples REASON be used, and let it not be put to rest.

If, - if main teachings are necessary to a group I will suggest the
following.
I suggest, that the groups - at least as main teaching only - use those
teachers teachings, which have lived a life where one can NOT say they have
made great or grave mistakes or who NOT understandably are under strong
suspicion for having made a grave mistake, AND who ALSO has presented a
teaching, which are or could be fitting to TIME (year 2003), PLACE and
PEOPLE. I suggest, that the groups - clearly - presents which teachers they
have in mind. I suggest also, that the groups do not limit their
presentation only to (sometimes even outdated) - westernized - litterature
or littrature which are only acceptable to a western audience ( and avoid -
what has happened extremely often - litterature which a Middle eastern
audience most likely won't find interesting). I suggest further, that the
litterature used as MAIN litterature by the physical groups or (this is
important) the teachers - do not have the NEED for containing the -
Dead-Letter use - of the words "Theosophy" or "theosophy". The teachers and
the groups aught to teach - the Seekers to read between the lines. - And the
sentence - "we cull the good we find in each" - i.e. each teaching, thought
systems and system of litterature - aught to be put much more HIGH on the
agenda in almost any theosophical branch - today.
I know, that many groups and branches have great libraries, and this is
good. But the teaching on avoiding cultural bias is OFTEN not taken
adequately into account.

Let us remember, that not only the Seekers of Wisdom reads true theosophy -
also its opposing fumblers.
Do you understand this ?


4. ULT and the word "movement".
On the ULT websites frontpage (http://www.ult.org/index.html) we find the
following sentence.
"It is loyal to the great Founders of the Theosophical movement, but does
not concern itself with dissensions or differences of individual opinion. "
This is not theosophy proper - Leon.

One should not only call the original Theosophical Society a "movement" -
because it is more than that and it is certainly not to be coinsided with
the word "movement".
Agreed, making a good theosophical website is not easy. That is my view.

If they at ULT are loyal to the Masters, why are they then not heading the
frontpage of the website ?
---

And who is engaged in "true service to humnaity" ?
Who decides that at ULT ? Just one other casual anonymous associate ?
Leon - you have almost already concluded, that the Alice A. Baileys and
Lucis Trust are not engaged in such a service. I this true ?
And what are then your views on the group of World Goodwill and Triangles at
The United Nations ?


5. Most certainly - we live in a very free world. And many countries makes
it possible to a great number of persons to distort the teachings of
theosophy to a degree of their choosing. And I am just making a sort of
verbal protest against, what I think is wrong. And that is that.


6. Wow !
Leon wrote:
"Speaking of the "new evolution stage of mankind"... I've already met (and
helped teach) a number of newly evolved 6th sub racers who are either
independent
theosophists or associates of ULT. "

My answer:
Really Leon. Did you make a study-class on The Secret Doctrine with them -
or did you use The Voice of Silence ?
Where is the proof of them belonging to the 6th subrace ?
(Did you measure their physical skull ?)


7. Maybe you won't get the point - but try reading this one between the
lines.
Leon wrote:
"In our view, the founding
fathers of America were associates of the ULT -- even before it existed as a
physical Lodge."

My answer:
The founding fathers of america, killed the indians !
The truth is, that USA was build on - blood and that is why it has such a
strong patriotic need, because it lives on an old betrayal and on guilt -
christianity militant and Jesuitic etc. Here I am talking real physical
militancy.
The same happened to Germany.
When USA at long last wakes up to understanding the importance of
international world order - they will realise that the Midlle East didn't
wanish - because some people needed a new scapegoat. Pointing one finger
won't make the other fingers point in another direction.

8.
Leon wrote:
"Incidentally,
the only books he carries around with him are those recommended as
fundamental
by both HPB and WQJ. "

My answer:
Which are those books - those two personalities have recommended as
"fundamental" ?
Are they "fundamental" today year 2003 - Leon ?


9.
Leon wrote:
..."you seem to be mixing
apples with oranges, and can't seem to get straight the difference between
ULT
and all other old theosophical and neo-theosophical organizations (i.e.,
some
of the various branches and offshoots of the TS, Bailey's Arcane Group,
Steiner's Anthroposophy, Prophet's Church Universal and Triumphant, etc. ).
The
difference between them and ULT -- is that they split apart from Theosophy
to
splatter it all over the walls -- while ULT simply turned back to the Wisdom
Teaching of the Ages, and started anew from the fundamental base at the
beginning
given out by HPB."

My answer:
My view is, that you "turned back" to the past teachings - and forgot to
look for the teachings,
which Blavatsky told would arrive.
My view is, that the present teachings used by ULT as the main ones are too
old.
Please remember - cull the good you find in each sytem of teaching,
thought-systemm and system of writing.
Feel free to disagree.


10.
Leon wrote:
"Have you heard any of the lectures at ULT? How do you know what they are
emphasizing? If you have, you would know that those lectures don't
emphasize and
rest on anything but the fundamental truths of theosophy. And where else
can
those truths be found than in the original teachings that first exposed
(published or "spread broadcasted") them to the world at large -- in the
words of
the Masters (including Krishna, Hermes, Thoth, Buddha, Christ, etc., and all
others that have followed in their footsteps)? Without those original books
by
HPB that consolidated all these teachings together -- how else might a
theosophical student confirm that what a lecturer says in his own words is
consistent
with the truths of fundamental theosophy? Certainly not in any theosophical
book that followed after HPB's and WQJ's... (Including all the books of
Besant, Leadbeater, Bailey, Prophet and other pseudo theosophists.) But
nothing is
stopping us from reading those others and finding out their discrepancies
and
distortions for ourselves -- and, then, telling others, both outside and
inside of theosophy who ask or need to know what is the real truth."

My answer:
I won't directly answer your - so to speak down to earth questions. I am
interested in the facts.
What I am against is the continous clinging to emphasis on dead-letter
theosophy.
And the same kind of teachings being presented in a manner not adequate to
TIME, PLACE and PEOPLE.
My view is, that ULT lives too much in the past and uses past books.
I am not against the true theosophical teachings, that is allright. Keep up
that part of the work.
Thoth, Buddha, Krishna etc - are good to a certain audience - but NOT to
other audiences.
But what about present day teachings - made by more modern teachers - not
being theosophists by the dead-letter ?

You cannot avoid - the fact, that the main books used by ULT are not
adequate to a Middle Eastern audience and the present day needs of proper
theosophical teaching similar to Blavatsky-level or above.
I suggest, that you familiarzie yourself with the teachings of Idries Shah
and other Middle Eastern ones etc. - and then make a lecture or workshop on
that !

If ULT wants to teach a global outlook upon the world - they will have to do
better than that - when choosing their main litterature !
Especially in these days when we withness an unslaught on Middle Eastern
culture.
What about making a certain kind of theosohical HQ in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Iran ?
Why won't it work using the ULT main teachings ?
Follow the Masters - don't follow the dead-letter of old books presented to
a past audience.


11.
Leon wrote. As an answer to whether ULT ever made lectures devoted only to
Alice A. Bailey and her
teachings, - extracting something of value from the Bailey books. - Leon
wrote:

"I Don't know, since all lodges are independent of each other (as is each
associate) and can do as they please. But, I doubt any of us would. And,
why
choose Bailey -- who twisted (similarly to Besant and Leadbeater)
fundamental
theosophy into a Christ based theology that, in many respects, contradicts
HPB
and the Masters? Wouldn't that cause great confusion among new theosophists
who
want to learn what's correct, not argue over the distortions made by
others?"

My answer:
What is distortions - and what is teaching wisdom ? - Is it by doing as
Blavatsky says in her book The Key to Theosophy: "We cull the good we find
in each" ?
That is we cull the good we find in EACH system of teachings, thought-system
and system of litterature.
That is if I should follow your views on what ULT are doing.
Try asking the Boston theosophists. Maybe Zack Landsdowne could tell
something different.

ULT maybe follows the view: You know what you have. But you don't know what
you will get when you change your teachings.

12. The lecturers at ULT might know what they are talking about - by making
references to the main ULT teachings.
But, that doesn't make them teachers on a high level.

13. I would not mention Crowley (also named The Great Beast - 666) as
someone great at this place.
I think he made some great mistakes, so he is certainly not part of the main
teachings in the future to come.
Wasn't he a male chauvinist - treating women badly ?
Those who learn by reversed methods - on the other hand might find his
teachings attractive - to read - so they can find the faults in them.
But because learning by reversed methods often are misunderstood - I will
not be promoting them, - and certainly not Crowleys own views as he
presented them in his books. Remember, that he and others in the Golden Dawn
used a bad latin version of the Kabbalah as their main teachings.
Should all of us then make our corner teeth more sharp as hee did ?
Get real Leon.

Think about the need for peace in this world - and spiritual development.

14. Leon wrote. An answer referring to the ULT website.
Leon wrote:
"What parts? And, what is "Militant-Blavatskian-Theosophy"? I thought that
theosophy was a philosophical and metaphysical teaching of fundamental truth
(or
at least a guide toward finding it for ourselves) -- not a call to arms.
Didn't Blavatsky say that its not our job to follow what she did, but to
find our
own way of expresssing theosophy -- after we have learned it thoroughly and
achieved self realization?

Besides, since when does ULT advocate "spreading books." All it says is
that
it's aim is to "spread broadcast the teachings of theosophy as RECORDED by
HPB and WQJ." Who else is there, and what other books are there that has
done
just that -- directly through and from the mouths of the Masters? All the
rest
of the neo- and pseudo-theosophical writers who came after her are just
Johnny come lately's -- each with their own personal interpretations of what
HPB
and WQJ originally wrote down -- right out of the horses mouth. Isn't that
all
there is -- up to the fourth turn of the key -- with the rest up to our own
inner understandings and interpretations, which we must, as HPB pointed out,
put
in "our own words" in the "language of this age"?

Haven't you caught on to that yet? Didn't Blavatsky say, "follow the lines
I've laid down, do not follow me"? "

My answer:
Militant-Blavatskian-Theosophy is to make a - stir in the world. To make a
renewal of the teachings, when needed.
It is to in a proper manner oppose the Alice A. Bailey groups - avoidance of
The Middle Eastrn theosophical sufi teachings.
It is to make theosophical litterature of a basic kind available to the
Seekers - so they are offered a possibility to at least learn something of
worth.
Try this link, where Blavatsky tells W. Q. Judge and others about the
promoting of Theosophy.
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-am/hpb-am1.htm
Here is an excerpt:
“Here in England Theosophy is waking into new life. The slanders and absurd
inventions of the Society for Psychical Research have almost paralysed it,
though only for a very short time, and the example of America has stirred
the English Theosophists into renewed activity. “LUCIFER” sounded the
reveille, and the first fruit has been the founding of the “Theosophical
Publication Society.” This Society is of great importance. It has undertaken
the very necessary work of breaking down the barrier of prejudice and
ignorance which has formed so great an impediment to the spread of
Theosophy. It will act as a recruiting agency for the Society by the wide
distribution of elementary literature on the subject, among those who in any
way are prepared to give ear to it.”…”I am confident that, when the real
nature of Theosophy is understood, the prejudice against it, now so
unfortunately prevalent, will die out. Theosophists are of necessity friends
of all movements in the world, whether intellectual or simply practical, for
the amelioration of the condition of mankind. We are the friends of all
those who fight against drunkenness, against cruelty to animals, against
injustice to women, against corruption in society or in government, although
we do not meddle in politics.” (Letter 1 –1888, Second Annual Convention –
April 22-23; - A letter to W.Q. Judge to read to the Convention summoned for
April 22d.)

Read this: "against corruption in society and government".
So theosophy do meddle somewhat with politics !

So what is the REAL difference between Blavatsky and other clairvoyants of
today year 2003 - who says they are on contact with the Masters from
Himalayan Mountains. Was it, that Blavatsky was the first who one to act
like this ?
Are ther others persons present today, who - with good reason - could be
said to be on the same level ?
Isn't that VERY important questions for ULT and other truth-seeking
theosophists to ask ?
And shouldn't those persons be taken seriously ?
I know there are many. But only few can be said to be remarkable, right?
Those who act like this are acting with Militant-Blavatskian-Theosophy - as
long as they truely are in accordance with the wisdom teachings.

As for books made by the mouth of the Masters. Try Hildegard of Bingen or
Alice A. Bailey. There are more of them all claiming to be true.

Yes Leon. I hear you. But - Leon didn't Blavatsky say, that one shouldn't
follow the Dead-letter teachings ?

15.
Leon wrote:
"So, in this overall picture, what's the use of any other books that say the
same things she said -- only twisted or watered down and directed toward the
limited group of students, sanghas, or religious followers they are
teaching?
Theosophy, in its original presentation by HPB and the Masters, is far
greater
both intellectually and spiritually, and far more all encompassing and all
unifying than that."

Remember Leon, that The Secret Doctrine was only written using 2 of the 7
keys, (The Secret Doctrine, vol 2., p. 797).
Let us be on the look out for a book using more than 2 of the 7 keys - right
?


In the following email - I am talking about avoiding crystallization of the
Theosophical teachings.
W. Q. Judge mentioned - that Blavatksy emphasised that.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12514

An excerpt:
"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."

So Leon, you are telling me, that ULT are deeply involved in avoiding such a
crystallisation from taking place.
If the newcomers should follow your views - what the fundamental teachings
are - wouldn't they be crystallising by the use of old and outworn books,
which are not adequate to the present day auience of Seekers of wisdom ?

16. You Leon asked in a previous email the following:
"How can ULT whisper in the wind -- since it never has anything to say,
except in its Declaration? Have you ever read it? If, so, where do you
get the information you have about ULT? "

My answer was in the below:
">c)
>Suppose I get my information about ULT from various source - not all of
>them are to be revealed - because that could be spiritually unhealthy, what
>will that mean to you ?"

Leon wrote in his last answer the following to my above question:
"I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about? ULT has only one
written Declaration. And, that says it all." ...

My Sufilight answer:
I am confused. Didn't you remember your own question ?


17. >Theosophy militant - has to me more to do with - changing the no
ongiong
>"business as ususal" and "head under the arm" Theosophy - and making -
>a true Blavatskyan opposition to the Alice A. bailey groups, who Needs it.

Leon wrote:
"That, to me, is a waste of time and energy. It's far better to be for
something, than against anything. Isn't it a basic principle of theosophy
to be
"equalminded" and not for or against anything? If so, then theosophists
shouldn't be proselytizers and converters -- like the Catholics and other
enforced
belief religious organizations. Socrates never argued with anyone or tried
to
convince anyone of anything. All he did was ask the right questions that
made
those he disagreed with eventually contradict themselves. (Unfortunately,
that got him to eat the Hemlock -- but that's another story.) "...

My answer:
I am against the enemies of Theosophy or theosophy. Take or leave it.
One could oppose the Alice A. Bailey teachings and the Jesuitic and similar
schemes of the New World Order -
by teaching qualified Theosophy or theosophy - by remembering, that all
cultures have a wisdom tradition - the Middle Eastern one included !
The need for hybrid offshoots a la Alice A. Bailey are not to be promoted in
any manner by lazy theosophists in any branch (Read "Esoteric Psychology"
vol. 1, p. 167-8 --- http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/netnews )

My use of the word "militant" is NOT to be misunderstood in any
untheosophical dead-letter sense.
I hope we all can agree on that.

There is as some of the readers will know, a great and widespread disease
among the beginner Seekers of Wisdom.
They have a tendency to think - that they KNOW, that they spiritually NEED
to be thought - and they often forget, that what they WANT to be thought
is not what they indeed NEED to be taught.
Also they have a tendnecy to think, that there is only ONE SINGLE mode or
method of learning theosophy by. At they quite often demand, that it is
THIER mode or method of teaching which the Teacher should use.

The experiences of either good OR bad - can work as an conditioning factor.

I have in the above done my best to cover the many question - posed by the
ULT associate named Leon Maurer.
If Leon or others have any need (not to be confused with a Want) for
clairification they are welcome.



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...