Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00401)

Hallo Ariel and all,

My views are:

1. Esoteric PR or promotion of a teaching is not the same as egoistical PR
or promotions.
Esoteric PR is not only for sales-men and sales-women - it is an activity,
which has a religious-related content.
We all know, that Theosophy IS religion.
There are many different kinds of PR or promotions of esoteric teachings.
Some of them are the writing of books, articles and letters. Another is
giving lectures of a special kind and level.
Also Webpages, forums, TV movies, videos and the like should be included.
And yet, Others has to do with social services.
My use of the word PR is of course - not - of a commercial character.

2. The teaching will be promoted by different channels because som disciples
or chela's
of various levels will as a part of their training have to learn how to
present such a teaching in a certain manner,
- and NOT only a by dead letter Theosophical one by only using Theosophical
vocabulary ! - Please think this through.
And because the chelas are different around the globe or at least has been
so until now since 1875,
there will clearly be more than on version on ancient wisdom teachings.
This doesn't however change the fact, that Blavatsky was the lead agent of
the Masters in the years 1875-1891.

Help me out someone:
What is the real difference between Theosophy by Blavatsky and the writings
of Geoffrey Higgins ?
What is the difference between Blavatsky and Eliphas Levi's writings ?
What is the difference between Blavatsky and Idries Shah's writings ?
What is the difference between the writings of the Upanishads and the
Theosophical ones ?
Answer: Not much if any. Physical writings are physical.
But in a dead-letter sense: Yes. Very much difference.

Of course Blavatsky's teachings has a high level, and perhaps the highest.
But it is a fact, which should not be overlooked: She do not cover all
aspects of the wisdom tradition.
Others have enhanced upon her teaching. Some she are referring to herself.
Others are later teacher or promoters of wisdom.
And so on...

This is my view.

from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "arielaretziel" <arielaretziel@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World why blavatsky?



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/




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/