Theos-Talk Archives (December 2003 Message tt00253)

Hallo Leon and all of you,

My views are:

Youw wrote:
"> Therefore, isn't it also quite obvious that the "teaching" of theosophy
and
> the "proof" of theosophical science are two different things, although
> interrelated? And, that the "New Messenger" and the "New Message" has
nothing to do
> with adding to or changing the Science of Gupta-Vidya itself? "

My answer:
I do not think I have said anything to contradict this fact.
If I have then let me know.
I am in total agreement with this view.


My disagreement is on
a) How different groups and especially groups in general adapts the
theosophical teachings to time, place and people year 2003.
How they promote on speech, writing and other communications the
theosophical timeless wisdom. To promote TRUTH which is without form
by the use of form - requires that one adapts the teachings to time, place
and people. To use the english language on an arab newcomer will not always
proove healthy ! (Do you not agree ?)
b) One shouldn't only relate the theosophical teachings with - present day
science when fitting. Or present day science with the further developments
of science presentations by various quality theosophical writers.
Spiritual Designs - a la Idries Shah and other authors could or should also
be taken into account. Also spiritual authors on issues like Brainwashing.
These issue could then if possible be compared with science. But spiritual
designs like the ones Idries Shah has made in his books is in fact a
science which is not understood in the Western countries and if so then only
on superficial level in many circles.
Also Sai Baba's teachings on the Heart Doctrine of Gupta Vidya is for sure
an expansion on the teaching which so far has been forwarded by any
theosophist since Blavatsky's days. (But of course the romours - whether
true or not - surrounding Sai Baba makes his teachings look unimportant to
many - even if he truely has helped many people.)
c) Also the use of drugs - sicence relation to that - and also theosophical
teachings on this issue seems important. "Smoking" is one option !
But of course some theosophist don't like to talk about what they themselves
find to be - hot issues.
Then we see the use of the the words "smokescreening" and "clouding" the
issue take their installment in the various "business as usual" theosophical
groups - and a karmic circle are revealed to all of us who doesn't "smoke".


Do mind. Do matter.
Pull yourselves together and face the facts. Business as ussual are not an
healthy option year 2003.

But to keep Blavatsky's writings intact and use them as a vital core
teaching - would not be stupid to at least some groups. - I think we can
agree on that.
As she said about thought-systems: "We cull the good we find in each."



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 9:21 PM
Subject: Theos-World Theosophical Teachings vs. Theosophical Movement


> In a message dated 12/07/03 2:12:07 PM, global-theosophy@adslhome.dk
writes:
>
> >b) Quoteing --- The Secret Doctrine vol1. page xxxviii INTRODUCTORY.:
> >"...The same may be said of the whole Esoteric system. One turn of the
key,
> >and no more, was given in "Isis." Much more is explained in these
volumes.
> >In those days the writer hardly knew the language in which the work was
> >written, and the disclosure of many things, freely spoken about now, was
> >forbidden. In Century the Twentieth some disciple more informed, and far
> >better fitted, may be sent by the Masters of Wisdom to give final and
> >irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya; and
that,
> >like the once-mysterious sources of the Nile, the source of all religions
> >and philosophies now known to the world has been for many ages forgotten
> >and lost to men, but is at last found..."
> >http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-0-in.htm (or try ULT's online
> >edition).
> >
> >Who has since 1975 taught Gupta-Vidya on a high and compassionate level ?
>
> Dear Sufi,
>
> Perhaps you should read more carefully what HPB said about the Masters of
> Wisdom "sending some disciple more informed, and far better fitted to give
FINAL
> AND IRREFUTABLE PROOFS that there exists a SCIENCE called Gupta-Vidya."
>
> That statement does NOT say sending more of the Gupta-Vidya -- which has
> already been given out on the highest and compassionate level since time
> immemorial, and can never be added to or subtracted from.
>
> A PROOF of the science of Gupta-Vidya is not the same as changing or
adding
> to the Theosophical teachings -- but is simply a verification of them.
>
> "Irrefutable proof," means exactly what it says. And such a proof, which,
as
> HPB pointed out, means a demonstration that the SCIENCE of GUPTA-VIDYA
> --already completely given out as thoroughly as it could be in the Secret
Doctrine,
> as well as in all the references to all the ancient scriptures within
it -- is
> the final TRUTH of the way the Universe really is and actually works.
>
> So, who is it that must bring such a proof?
>
> Why, a knowledgeable scientist (who may also be a theosophist) of course.
>
> Who else can devise a new scientific concept of reality that synthesizes
all
> the modern sciences of today into a "Grand Unified Field Theory of
Everything"
> (including consciousness and mind) -- that completely confirms the
> theosophical metaphysics of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis? Wouldn't
that, in its
> final analysis, be the complete Science of Gupta-Vidya, as stated
unequivocally
> in the Book of the Golden Precepts -- which includes both the Book of
Dzyan and
> the Voice of the Silence? And, what more could anyone add to that
totality?
>
> Isn't it obvious that, once such a new scientific paradigm merging and
> synthesizing all the modern sciences of relativity, quantum physics,
biology,
> psychology, evolution, anthropology, physiology, chemistry, etc., and
linking them
> to the epistemology and ontology of mind and consciousness, can be proven
> beyond a shadow of a doubt -- and such a new paradigm becomes accepted as
the true b
> asis of reality by all scientific disciplines -- it will also be accepted
by
> all of mankind?... And, with it, all the truths of reincarnation and
karma,
> as well as all the moral and ethical precepts they imply -- compassion
included?
>
> Therefore, isn't it also quite obvious that the "teaching" of theosophy
and
> the "proof" of theosophical science are two different things, although
> interrelated? And, that the "New Messenger" and the "New Message" has
nothing to do
> with adding to or changing the Science of Gupta-Vidya itself?
>
> All that will be accomplished by such a Messenger and Message, is to
finalize
> the Three Objects of the Theosophical Movement -- of which the Science of
> Gupta-Vidya is simply the rock upon which they stand.
>
> Any additions brought to us with respect to the fundamental teachings
> themselves, would simply be applicable to that understanding of the means
whereby
> each individual can attain enlightenment and self-realization -- "so as to
be
> better able to help and teach others" -- which each of us must find for
ourselves
> through "our own individual self devised and self determined efforts"...
The
> final answers for which can only come through direct contact with one's
> Master within (with or without guidance from both living and dead Masters
or
> Adepts). "Self-realization" belongs to each of us, as indivdual "nuclii"
of
> universal brotherhood -- and not to our groups, the world, or Mankind and
its
> evolution -- which is what the Theosophical Movement is concerned with.
(Although,
> if we all were self-realized, the world would also be.)
>
> As an added thought, perhaps the Messenger who came in 1975 was one of the
> known or unknown scientists who first suggested multidimensional "string
theory"
> that could soon lead to the final experiment that proves the universe is
and
> works exactly the way it was explained in the Secret Doctrine.
>
> Incidentally, the final step that marries consciousness and mind to the
> physical multidimensional hyperspace theory of Superstrings and M-branes
(today's
> contender as the final Theory of Everything) was first conceived by me in
1975
> as the "theory of ABC" (based on the teachings I received from a now
deceased
> nuclear physicist, Dr. Philip Sebastian Percheron, who was, besides a
> theosophist, an ordained Lama of the Nyingmapa, a nephew of Gurdjieff, a
personal
> friend of the late Panchen Lama, and the designer of the trigger mechanism
on the
> Hiroshima A-bomb).
>
> Could "Doc Perch" be the New Messenger HPB was talking about? Could his
> "message" to and through me, be his final restitution for the karma he
created
> back in 1945? And, am I, as well as those theosophists and scientists who
read
> my stuff and might act on it, just one of the many "agents" or
"companions"
> that the Masters would have to place around any such Messenger -- who,
like HPB,
> couldn't expect to be here when such a message would be fulfilled?
>
> I'll leave it to you (along with the rest of us) to mull over all this and
> decide whether or not you agree that we have been talking, all along,
about two
> different things. That is, the Theosophical Teachings vs. the Theosophical
> Movement -- which like consciousness and matter are ever to be separated,
but
> always dependent on each other -- as above, so below.
>
> With that, I will continue to do my work toward helping prove the Science
of
> Gupta-Vidya -- with the hope that you (and others of like mind) will
continue
> to do your best in reinterpreting and "spread broadcasting" the teachings
in
> "the language of this age" so that it may be understandable to all those
of
> differing ethnic and cultural backgrounds as well as karma. Some of them,
could
> be among those who assist in helping prove the Science of Gupta-Vidya, as
well
> as carry on the further development of the Theosophical Movement toward
> achieving the final Universal Brotherhood of all Humanity -- long after
both you
> and I have left this short scene in the vast history of the TM.
>
> Thank you for your input and questions -- that allowed me to further
clarify
> these matters.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> LHM
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>