Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00421)

Mar 20 2004

Dear M:

Thanks for the descriptions from Zanoni and Judge. Also for your
thoughts and questions on the approaching JUDGE DAY March 21st.

You ask::

"WHEN IS A THEOSOPHICAL GROUP INFECTED BY LACK OF SINCERITY."

WHAT AUGHT A THEOSOPHIST - CONSERVE - TODAY YEAR 2004. AND WHY ?



I would observe we ought to go deeper: 

All groups are made up of individuals. 

I would accuse no GROUP of insincerity, though individuals maybe
insincere. As for "groups," we ought to investigate their sources.
Errors will be found (if any) there.

The main problem lies in an individual. The main question, I think, is
to ask: Why does anyone accept others' views or opinions without doing
an adequate checking up by him, or her self.

It is not fair to blame others for anything else than their own
particular distortion of truth. They, as individuals, will have to pay
Karma for such insincerity and its influences -- or infecting of their
readers, and then also, -- the misleading of those others. 

If we wish to cast a speculative look to the future, say 100 or 1000, or
even 10,000 years ahead, then what will we find? The ripple of our
irresponsibility of today, may have deflected many hundreds or thousands
from the straight course of self-determination and self-development. Is
that what any one of us truly wants for themselves? Is that what TRUE
THEOSOPHY wants? 

And even then, I would say: no "group" ought to be blamed, as the sole
responsibility can be traced back to one or more individuals. What was
their "vested interest?" Why did they not speak or teach TRUTH ? If a
deluded "group" accumulates and snow-balls into a creed or a sect or
eventually into a religion, then who or what is helped? Is TRUTH
served? Who can take advantage of the credulity of others? For what
purpose? Is this not a vicious perversion of verity? And this can be
either deliberate (done with ill-will and malice) or thoughtless and
careless -- and laziness, will be added to the tab of Karma to be
paid.

I would say that laziness, a desire to use shortcuts and to "trust"
others -- "blind faith," "credulity," etc... are the faults to be
detected in our own inclinations and our own character -- and then the
individuals blamed, as well as those "groups" who "follow" -- may be
blamed for not acting independently. It is for this reason that wise
shepherds place a few "goats" in their flocks of sheep -- the goats have
a superior kind of "common-sense," of a dawning sense of danger and need
for security -- superior to the average reason to be found in the
"sheep." Also, they use dogs of great intelligence to help in herding
the "sheep." But it is not fair to compare hosts of human beings to
animals' intelligence, even though their use of their own independent
human reasoning, logic, and individual intelligence seems lacking at
times. Of course I ought to apply this criterion to myself equally. We
are all TRYING. 

Ask yourself if any formal religion (sect, creed, political party, or
government) that asks it adherents NOT TO THINK, but to RELY ON FAITH,
and, TRUST THE PRIEST or the LEADER --- is to be seen as faulty? Why
should anyone believe anything without first, referring to their own
common sense, intuition, and to their own judgment? THERE LIES ALL THE
DANGER. Also, the saviour from "blind faith" is active inquiry. 

It takes will and determination to do this. Yes, it takes time and
effort. But the reward is a freedom that is marvelous and incomparable.
It is the freedom that TRUTH in fact and application gives those who
seek for it, and find it. It also adds the burden of responsibility to
all we say and do. That is why accuracy and good-will are essentials in
all we do, all the time.

Truth is ONE for all and opinions are as many as there are selfish and
self-centred minds.

Look at THEOSOPHY -- in all casers the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS have demanded
of its students intense work in studying and testing the logic and
stability of the ideas, tenets, and verities it offers for
consideration. 

The FUNDAMENTALS of THEOSOPHY, if known, used and applied shield us all
from deceptions. [ see S D I pp. 14-19 ]

If someone claims to be a "theosophist" (or an "authority," such as a
"master," or a "leader") and does not offer or suggest this kind of
freedom, then be sure that it is not ORIGINAL and TRUE THEOSOPHY that is
offered. [ see S D I 272-3 ]

The only "path" for the true student of THEOSOPHY, esotericism,
occultism, etc... is this path of self-determination. Consult the The
VOICE OF THE SILENCE -- you will find this advice embedded in every
page. If you desire to know THEOSOPHY then become a student of the
SECRET DOCTRINE.

Need more be said? 

Best wishes for a life of devotion and work. May you "walk with Karma."


Dallas

==========================================
-----Original Message-----
From: M] 
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 6:42 AM
To: 
Subject: Re JUDGE DAY -- March 21st 2004



To Dallas:

In before me I see an old almost senile owner of a book shop dusting one
book off after the other. Always doing it gently. His eyes watching
nervous the entrance door to the shop, as if he was afraid someone might
arrive and steal away his valuable and prcieless books.

We have the shop-owner in the famous book named Zanoni: ...cut ....

(It is quite interesting what then happened in the book, which is online
at
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=2664 )



The question is: 


WHEN IS A THEOSOPHICAL GROUP INFECTED BY LACK OF SINCERITY ?


One answer might be this one...

Just as I said a few days ago:

"To revert to the behaviour of the infected group:

These individuals and their followers choose thoughts and actions which
themselves smother most of the hope of success in human fulfilment. They
may
try to form a permanent organization to aim for enlightenment. They
probably
subject everyone to the same exercises and observances forgetting the
original intention, they turn practises and illustrative tales into a
sort
of history, which they try to teach. If they posses litterature and
contemporary memoires of teachers ('masters'), they use them to bolster
a
belief in their own rightness and the correctness of their procedures.
They
frequently use but a single method of interpretation of litterature and
tradition, training people and not enabling them to become illuminated.
The Centre has by this stage effectively disappeared. The work has
instead
become a kind of kingdom, intent upon conserving but not knowing what to
conserve. The leaders and their adherents remain frozenly attached to
its
body, making it a place of imitation which concerves minor or irrelevant
outward forms. They generally esteem, under other names, raw
emotionality.
Concurrently, there comes into being over-veneration of men, of groups
and
legend, and hosility towards others, and sometimes impatience. What was
originally a unity splits into groups of varying interpretation or
concentration, generally useless, and observations which are inaccurate.
By
this point almost all reality and potentiality have been departed. The
community has been effectively invaded and possessed without this
development having been registered by its members. The truth may be
obscured
by the continued use, by the 'lame' community, of words and outward
aspects,
biographical reminiscenes, and other facets of the original knowledge.
Certainly its members will believe that by these tokens they are
continuing
on the right path.

Their only hope of retrival is in the exercise of concentrated efforts
towards sincerity."


W. Q. Judge writes shortly after Blavatskys physical death, and I quote
Judge:

"In the Key to Theosophy, in the "Conclusion," H.P.B. again refers to
this
subject and expresses the hope that the Society might not, after her
death,
become dogmatic or crystallize on some phase of thought or philosophy,
but
that it might remain free and open, with its members wise and unselfish.
And in
all her writings and remarks, privately or publicly, she constantly
reiterated
this idea. Of this the writer has direct evidence as to her statements
in
private." ("Dogmatism in Theosophy" by W. Q. Judge, Path, January,
1892).

This is to me a KEY statement.


So Dallas I ask 


WHAT AUGHT A THEOSOPHIST - CONSERVE - TODAY YEAR 2004. AND WHY ?

Bulwer - Lytton in his Zanoni lets the Gentleman in the old book shop
say:

"Yet their knottiest problems have never yet been published."
(--- Problably because fools would misuse such knowledge. ---)


I know, that this email is quite assymmertric and do not really relate
to W.
Q. Judge that much using Pomp and Circumstance and any kind of Brithday
tradition or whatever. But the words just came and had to be emailed.

Judge day or Judgement Day...

Please do not Crystallize... cut .....