Theos-Talk Archives (December 2003 Message tt00227)

Hallo Dallas and all of you,

My views are:

If you would permit me to mail a few words.

What is wrong with antiquity - is basically nothing - except it being
antique.
Because of that the old 1875-1891 blavatsky-related theosophical teachings
are not adequately formulated, so that a greater group of newcomers
would care to learn from such a teaching.
This is the truth. Let us face the facts Dallas.
Do you disagree in this - or just refuse to answer on this ?

This is the problem.
These old Blavatsky-related teachings contain a lot - in fact the whole
cosmos - I think we can agree on that.

There are theosophical sciences however, which are only dealt with on the
most superficial manner.

A. One of these are the theosophical science of "Spiritual organisations
and their mode of operating."
B. The theosophical science on "Brainwashing and conditioning" - (with the
subobjects kindness and cruelty). --- Let me add, that even Alice A. Baileys
five volumes called Esoteric Psychology are missing the mark here.
C. Another is "The Law of Karma". And also how it is related to
"Reincarnation". - And the dogmatic issues surrounding these two theories.
D. A third science is "Theosophical teachings year 2003 and its future
relation to Politics" in - a world of global information - where
paradigmatic shifts in religious-political structures are closing in at The
United Nations. Religion are increaingly getting mixed with politics !!! -
Think about this.
E. The science of Gupta-Vidya also called Atma-Vidya. Translated it is
actually the "Science about knowledge on Atma". Who has expanded on that in
the theosophical theachings ? - Subba T. Row ? Blavatsky ?
Who Dallas ?

If you Dallas would care to expand on where Blavatsky and the old
theosophical texts could - if possible be said - to be adequate enough on
these areas of spiritual science - then I will certainly listen. But so far
I have not seen anything, which would lead me to such a conclusion.

( Sometimes I even think some of the Bailey related groups are better at
addressing these issues than the old-timer theosophical groups. Well
sometimes - not often. - But the Bailey related groups has this - sad
problem, that they are considering the Muslims religion as being a hybrid
offshoot and not a REAL root religion like Christianity. As if such a view
would promote peaceful and non-violent relations in the world year 2003 on
onwards. - And they also have other problems.)

I am doing my best.
Let us be as objective as possible.

The question is still to be answered:
Who has since 1975 or 1991 expanded on Blavatsky's teachings on the science
of Gupta-Vidya ?

My view is:
1. So far the accused Sai Baba has been the most wellknown promoter of this
exact science. Of course not in any theosophical - dead-letter - manner. But
because he is accused for being a childmolester - it does not really make
him a valid teacher within theosophical circles. Those who claim to be
Avatars has almost always since the days of Krishnamurti been a sort of hot
pottato to talk about. (smile...)

2. The wellknown Guru Maharaj Jii who lives in USA has also expanded on
this - Gupta-Vidya - but of course not in any theosophical - dead-letter -
manner.


3. I would certainly not call the Alice A. Bailey books anyhing like that.
They are about Mantra Yoga and Raja Yoga, and not really about Gupta-Vidya
or Atma-Vidya.. (I know, that some readers might disagree with me on this.
But would suggest, that they at least would try to understand, what I am
talking about.)
- The Mr. and Mrs. Prophet - Summit Lighthouse Church... etc... has almost
the same problem.

4. There is also the sage known as - Amma - who attracts highly influential
politicians and as far as I know also the UN official Maurice Strongs wife
named Anna Strong hwo runs a multi-religious organisation somewhere in USA.

5. Other options are also present. Which ones ?
(Leons ABC theory ? Is that Atma-Vidya or Gupta-Vidya ?)


But these are just my views.

I suggest - that we all just do like Blavatsky suggested about which
teachings were valid or not: "We cull the good we find in each".
And if anything bad turns up - we just do like Blavatsky did - write about
it and tel people where they were wrong. And that is that.
If they are right they are right - and that should be appreciated - just
like Blavatsky did it in her writings. Mrs. Kingsford and Ralston Skinner
and Massey are just some of these persons who were dealt with in that
manner.

Why is it that Theosophy fails to do the same today ? Dallas ? Anyone ?
Is it because there too many books being written these days ?
Or are so-called theoosphical leaders just - very slow readers ?

I just ask, allright.

from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: "AA-BN--Study" <study@blavatsky.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 12:54 AM
Subject: Theos-World RE: Re: HPB outdated?


> Dec 5 2003
>
> Dear Friends:
>
> [sorry this got lost in the shuffle and ought to have been
> published a few days ago.]
>
>
> Here is how I might assemble an answer to your friends' question:
>
>
>
> What is the matter with antiquity?
>
>
> Have we not always learned from those more experienced and older than we
> are? Are we so arrogant, have we ceased to be humble before WISDOM ?
> Is it come to us at present that we need to believe we do not owe them
> a debt? There is not a thing around us which does not arise from
> ancient roots.
>
> Shall we say:
>
> Obliterate Shakespeare for instance?
>
> How about Kepler and Copernicus, and Galileo and da Vinci? Pythagoras,
> Plato, Jesus, Buddha and Krishna -- are they not with us still?
>
> Also, why not rid ourselves of all works of art, music, science, etc...
>
> Good bye: Tennyson, Milton, Donne, Marlowe, the Bible, the Quakers,
> etc., Pope, Burns, Wordsworth, Scott, Coleridge, Shelley, Byron, Lytton,
> Rider Haggard, Jules Verne, Keats, etc... ?
>
> Forget Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Pythagoras, Plato, Democritus, Ptolemy,
> Aristotle, Bach, Beethoven, Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Euclid,
> Fibonacci, Galileo, Goethe, Kant, Leonardo da Vinci, Bacon, Neitche,
> Mozart, Pacioli, Isaac Newton, Tycho Brahe, Vitruvius Pollio, etc..
>
> Well we have had illustrious predecessors all of us. I for one, respect
> and revere their wisdom and seek to prove its value again and again.
>
> When it comes to religion and philosophy we no longer are spectators but
> become engaged in proving again the worth of ancient views and
> teachings. Our civilizations as they rise and fall are continuous
> evidence of the waves of progress, or, am I wrong ?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> ( and excuse my bluntness, please.)
>
> Dallas
>
> =======
>
> There is more to living than science alone.
>
> Theosophy deals with Science, philosophy and theologies.
>
> It also stands for free will and free thought.
>
> Not passivity, but rational ACTIVITY.
>
> Dallas
>
> =================================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nisk98
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:30 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: HPB outdated?
>
> Dallas writes:>
>
> These questions have puzzled me for over 65 years, and In
> Enjoy observing the changes in science that have occurred during that
> time.
>
>
>
> Someone once , very sharply, pointed out to me that the Thou's and
> Thee's and
> similar language found in so-called "old" writings were inappropriate in
>
> today's world.
>
> What would one reply to such an individual?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>