Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00397)

Hallo all of you,

My views are:

When KH in a letter is quoted saying that Blavatsky was their chosen
vehicle.
http://blavatskyarchives.com/latermessengers.htm
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-2.htm (Mahatma Letter 2,
edition 2 - at the bottom).

He said this in the sense, that she was the vehicle for Theosophy in the
period she was living.
When she 'died' - another policy was chosen on the 'outer head' idea. But
some who calls themselves theosophists
thinks that she and/or her writings still is the chosen vehicle - on the
physical plane. And the only one.
I see no reason to think so.
- And I will welcome anyone to proove differently. I would rather that we
listen to what poeple are saying - than we closed
our eyes to future Teachers who without reasonable doubt could be said to
have importance. -

Because after her dead - things was by nature changed.
The result was in part that the western populations was more aware of the
Wisdom Tradition than
before. And that certian cultural barrieres had been broken down. India
became more respected
for its historical background which was shown in a more true light - than
the then stupid scholars
in the years 1875-1891 did. (This was very good indeed !)
The books written by people in the period 1891-1933 was many and and some of
them helpful to
promote the importance of Blavatsky's work and make people aware of the
existence of the Wisdom Tradition.

Theosophy in its most widest sense of the term called the Ancient Wisdom
Tradition
has never been promoting - dead letter thinking and Bible-study or similar
activities - and clingings to
physical organisations and - the use of physical namings and letters of such
organisations.
For instance the use of the word "Theosophy".

Back then in the years 1875-1891 people wanted - drama and emotional
arousels.
Even some who is called intellectuals fall for that. This happens also
today.
So Theosophy was flourishing because of this - attractive pull, which came
at the right time
and which was needed.

The same is true today - on drama and the like - although the level is more
intellectual and less emotional.

To do the exactly same kind of PR today would be no good or at least less
good.
True Theosophy always adapts its teachings and the presentation of its
realities
in different manners suited to time place and people.
(And true - there will nearly always be some who is not satisfied by the
chosen presentation.)
In the future it will be given a different name than "Theosophy" or any dead
letter view,
we can for sure rely on that. (But not Lucis Trust or similar. Because of
the Middle Eastern flaws this group has.)
Let us still remember, this is just my views.

***True Theosophy is NOT a physical organisation or branch !
Theosophy is in a certain sense non-physical more than it is physical. ***

Right now we are in a period of transition when we talk about the PR
of Theosophy as TS with its various offshoot branches, some good some bad,
some at least useful
as far as it goes.
- A new (synthesis) teacher is awaited -
This is also true when we talk about Rosicrucians and others...

Blavatsky and the Masters in fact didn't do anything wrong saying that
Blavatsky was an 'agent'.
They had to - in a certain sense lie - so to get the potential seekers
interested.
She was not what could be termed - a global 'outer head' or agent, but much
more a western-India related one.

What really happened then was, that other groups like some of the
Rosicrucians and Sufis and others
was also doing the job of the Masters, but on their own level and in their
own manner.
Blavatsky even says this in her book The Secret Doctrine. So she and KH did
not really lie,
they just didn't clearly tell people that they played upon their emotions,
so
to if possible help them get developed.
(They made the name "Theosophy" important - and downplayed other names of
other groups a little. The Masters in their Letters and Blavatsky
in her writings. other groups at that time did teach wisdom teachings - but
not in such an open and public manner - in the western countries. Perhaps
apart from The Golden Dawn. And Theosophy came in to play partly because of
the existence of The Golden Dawn with its misunderstandings of the Kabbalah
and other teachings.)

The fact was and is, that the western part of the world at that time - had a
more developed distribution of Newspapers and books,
was more rich, wealthy, and had the needed technology to travel between
countries. For instance was Egypt owned by Britain
in most of the period from 1875-1891, something which sometimes is
overlooked by the students.
The higher level of distribution of Newpapers and distribution of books and
the written word - and the larger public access to these things are
important,
when we talk about Theosophy and the period 1875-1891, the Blavatskian
period.

And the use of the word "Theosophy" has several meanings and layers,
when one quotes Blavatsky or the Mahtama Letters. And this we shouldn't
forget.

The Masters has many compassionate "schemes" going today.
Do any of you think that they only are concerned with "Theosophy" in the
dead letter sense of this word
and only this physical planet called Earth ?

Do you not think that they are involved in their own sweet manner in what is
going on at the United Nations
and also in Iraq and elsewhere ?

Do you not think, that they consider the importance or lack of the same for
each and every branch of Theosophy
and ist many offshoot branches ? An view it all in a more true light ?

And what about the many "occult groups" and mystical groups in Africa, Asia
and the Middle East, and the India groups
of various mystical relations ?
Do you think that the true value that each of these groups has escaped
their - sharp eyes of wisdom ?


Let us not underestimate this teaching called Theosophy - or much more
precisely THE WISDOM TRADITION of ALL AGES.
Labels are just labels. The compasionate Heart will reveal it all.

Theosophy as the organisation TS as we know it through Blavatsky was, and is
just ONE single branch of a great weaving of the Masters activities.
If Theosophy is only TS, then KH's remarks in his letter on the 'agent'
Blavatsky was not so good.
But if Theosophy is TS, Sufis, Rosicrucians, and a whole lot of other
acitvities through the ages especially including the last about 129 years of
human activities
on this physical plane - then KH is allright in what he is saying. Blavatsky
was the primary head of the outer wisdom-movementS - so to speak - when she
lived in the period 1875-1891. No real doubt in my mind about that. (Let us
not forget the work done by Damodar and others.)
A certain sense of humor - are hidden in the Mahatma Letters if one reads
them - with a deeper understanding than the intellectual one.

So when Caldwell says the following at
http://blavatskyarchives.com/latermessengers.htm , he is to my taste a
little bit too optimistic about the truth.

" H.P. Blavatsky (1831-1891) was the first person in modern times to claim
contact with the Theosophical Adepts, especially the Masters Morya and Koot
Hoomi. She affirmed that in her writings she was giving out the teachings of
the Adept Brotherhood. "

Blavatsky wasn't the first (or only) representative in modern times. But she
was the first - Publicly and with good use of PR - to succeed in doing so
or becoming such a representative. This is more true. (And what is the words
"modern times" used at Caldwells webpage covering ?)


Try the Khwaja (Sufi Masters from India - Afghanistan; - Kashmir and
southwest of it) - known at least since year 980.
and others...So Blavtsky did at least not tell some people living in that
local area anything new.
Blavtsky was on this issue talking mainly to a western audience. (Not true
?)
Remember, that the Bhagavad Gita was for the first time mass-distrubuted as
late as 1950 - about three years after the independece of India.
The Theosophical success back then came also about due to the use of written
materials and the clever distribution of them. Ie. Clever PR !
(This do not happen today. Well that is my view.)

Today - the new Teacher will talk not only - primarily to a western
audience.
The audience will be much larger - and much more multicultural.
My view is let us keep an eye on the United Nations and the religious
activities in and around this global body.

The time, place and poeple - and the PR - is different.
That is all.

The United Nations has 6 core languages they use in their publications.
And This is just an english based - forum.
English not being the best language of communication. (quote - Blavatsky on
that.)
Why the english alphabet ? To help us get rid of the poisonous Western
arrogance - the conquerors ? Or to help us get rid of ignorance ?
Arab, Chinese or even Sanskrit would be better to use - let us not forget
that.
Follow the...aeehm...flow. (smile...)

Do good. Be good. See good.
And on Wisdom ?


You may correct me if I have made a mistake or two.
Did this help ?

from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "adelasie" <adelasie@sbcglobal.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World why blavatsky?


Hi Krishtar,

Interesting question, and one we might all pose. So many times it
seems that the person who is chosen for some role of leadership is
inadequate. Perhaps it's a test of the doubter's nature, a test of
loyalty and devotion, of obedience. If we accept the hierarchical
geometry of the universe, and the principle of centralization, if we
accept karma as a fact of nature, then we can see that when causes
indicate, a new impulse is due to the consciousness of humanity, and
some instrument, some individual human being (i.e Jesus, Krishna,
Buddha, etc.) must be found to bring the new vibration through to the
material plane. It makes sense that the one who gets that (thankless)
job would be the one next in line, the one who had earned the
opportunity. Speculating about the position in the hierarchy of such
a one is rather self-defeating, since we don't even know our own
position, and can hardly expect to be able to estimate another's. But
if we consider the fact of the unity of all life, and apply this
overarching principle to the question, it becomes evident that there
is nothing strange about it at all. Humanity is evolving from
unconsciousness to total consciousness. We (humanity) move along the
evolution trail together. We each have a position in the whole
constantly changing mosaic. All we are asked to do is fulfill that
role to the best of our ability. If one falls out of line, from
weakness or unwillingness, the next in line, the next one who has
earned the opportunity, steps into place. None of us is
irreplaceable. It is not a matter of individual success, but of
cooperation for the benefit of the whole.

Best wishes,
Adelasie

On 25 Jan 2004 at 17:13, krishtar wrote:

> Dears
>
> Be the peace be with you all.
>
> Why did all those masters choose HPB as their " representatives" and
> channel for registering the secret doctrines? Why couldnīt they
> themselves do the job? See: Thery were in major number; They were
> males - which could be much easier to be heard than a russian female,
> in a machist world, with so much health problems and physical
> limitations? They had developed inner powers - they were oriental, so
> why would they need to take a western woman to serve as an amanuensis
> and still a woman who required to be taken to Tibbet to be iniciated,
> trained, pretending to be a male in some occasions? It is not a doubt
> of mine, but have you ever thought of it? What can you say?
>
>
> Krishtar
>




Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
theos-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/