Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00399)

My question is this, if the Wisdom is found everywhere, why propigate one 
version of it? I personally like The Secret Doctrine and someone else may l=
ike 
the Necronomicon. We find people with the same interest and discuss our 
own things. The world can be saved without everyone learning the Secret 
Doctrine. 

PR is for salesmen. I have nothing to sell and neither does HPB. This Wisdo=
m 
comes for free. 

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@a...> wrote:
> 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 simila=
r
> activities - and clingings to
> physical organisations and - the use of physical namings and letters of s=
uch
> 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 cam=
e
> at the right time
> and which was needed.
> 
> The same is true today - on drama and the like - although the level is mo=
re
> 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 d=
ead
> 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 mu=
ch
> 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 thei=
r
> 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 - b=
ut
> 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 - ha=
d 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 a=
nd
> 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 f=
or
> 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, As=
ia
> 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. Blavat=
sky
> 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 clai=
m
> 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 tru=
e
> ?)
> 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@s...>
> 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/