Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00448)

Hallo Daniel and all of you,

My views are:

Allright.
A long email to some difficult questions.

Part 1

1.
First we must agree upon, that it is easy to ask questions of a spiritual
nature -
but that it often is much more difficult to answer them by email or ordinary
letters.
It is in a certain sense vital the the students understand this, when we
email with each other.
Else we will misunderstand how difficult it from time to time is to explain
certain spiritual
or theosophical issues in a short and to all - a understandable manner.

2.
You asked a lot in your two previous emails.
I gave you two links to ponder. I didn't say much about what I saw in the
links, I agree.
I thought it would be better for the readers to learn by themselves. That is
if they were not already beyond this level
of understanding, which have presented and now will seek to explain further.
The two links:
Part 1: http://theos-talk.com/archives/200210/tt00046.html (About what
happened to Theosophical Society after HPB died.)
Part 2: http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/cults_1.htm (Different
teachings to a different audience with a different educational background.)


3. Sunday, March 21, 2004 1:27 AM in the below Daniel asks and says:

"But I fail to understand exactly WHY they are limited. In
comparison to what?? He fails to explain what he means by "frozen in time"
and fails in my opinion to convey what he is offering as an
alternative."

I gave Daniel this link
http://theos-talk.com/archives/200210/tt00046.html as an answer.
This link deals from a theosophical point of view with what quite possibly
happened to the
Theosophical Society after the death of HPB.


This link says among other things the following if one dare to read it:
a)
..."Those above mentioned Spiritual teachers work has not only been to give
people Spiritual guidance and education. *It has also been to prepare the
ground for further development of the living progress of the Path of
Wisdom.*
There are also minor emissaries who are sent out to teach and prepare the
ground for further development. These people has been known to set
themselves up as ultimate authorities, because part of their training is to
test their loyalty to the whole School of Wisdom, which is as generally
known consisting of one entity."...

---The M. Sufilight comment ---
I did take the liberty to insert the sign * two times to encircle the
important sentence
in that quote.
Let me explain. This tells us that HPB's work and teaching was and is a part
of what we can call
--- PREPARING THE GROUND FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE LIVING PROGRESS OF
THE PATH OF WISDOM ---

Can we agree so far about what happended ?

b)
If we agree upon that, then we can also - I hope - understand the following
quote from the link:

"But, if, a teacher of the Wisdom tradition dies, or there is a gap in the
teaching, what then? The interesting thing is, that the very gap is a part
of the training. You may explain certain things to a child : shall we say
teach her or him not to do certain things. Then you will pretend to go out
of the house - and observe her or him. According to how well he/she has
learned, so will he/she react. In this 'absence exercise', precisely the
same thing happens to the teacher of Wisdom, though many are not conscious
of it."

---The M. Sufilight comment ---
Can we agree it so far by relating it to what happended since the Death of
Blavatsky ?

c)
If we agree upon that, then we can also - I hope - understand the following
quote from the link:


"After the disappearance from the field of a teacher of Wisdom, the
followers
will divide themselves into groups, in accordance with their strength and
weaknesses. Some will assume control of others. They may be good or bad, and
this will be shown by their reaction to - the second teacher - when he/she
arrives.
If they realise he/she is their teacher, then they have merely been
developing themselves and can mature. But if they have become atrophied,
they will be too blind to recognize the Spirituality of the very teacher,
for which appearance they have been prepared. They may attach themselves, in
default, to a different group. (And this groups existence is maybe no
coincidence.) Again well and good : providing they return to the mainstream
of teaching when it is offered to them again. This is the test of whether
they have overcome the lower self. They will realise, if they are
sufficiently developed, that the person who appears to be 'second' teacher
is in reality - the first in importance."

---The M. Sufilight comment ---
The Bailey group comes into play in the above.
I could be either the "Second Teacher", which not always is good and honest
one
as the below also tells us. The reason that such a teacher is not always
good and honest
is sometimes due to Karma and fear.
It could also be the "different group" which existence is maybe no
coincidence.

Can we agree so far about what happended since the Death of Blavatsky ?


d)
I continue to explain the quote since it has importance to the questions you
asked.

"Life is reversed for the undeveloped man (the newcomer), and he/she will
behave in accordance with this. The first teacher does not make life easier,
in most cases, for the generality of disciples. He/She will teach them
things, which are only of use when the second teacher arrives and reality
falls into place. The object of this is twofold. In the first place, certain
valuable thoughts have been given to the disciples. In the second, they are
tested by the means of these ideas. Just as our western psychologists give
odd-shaped pieces of wood to people, to see how they put them together,
teachers of Wisdom will give odd-pieces of material of - mental kind - to
his/her followers. - If they try to fit these together however, and to make
a pattern in his/hers - absences, - they are becoming 'fossilised'. Because,
the Wisdom tradition has to show that the object of mankind is not to
construct idols, but to follow a supreme pattern, which is learnt piece by
piece."

---The M. Sufilight comment ---
So Bailey did perhaps - TEST - the Seekers after truth for a while.
Ie. those who lived during her time.

Is this not a possibility ?
Can we agree so far about what possibly happened since the Death of
Blavatsky ?

And also:
"Because, the Wisdom tradition has to show that the object of mankind is not
to
construct idols, but to follow a supreme pattern, which is learnt piece by
piece."

And we should remember this and not forget it.
What has importance:
It is not WHO said this and that in a book or at a lecture.
It is not WHO is an initiate and WHO is not
It is not WHO has a Ph.d. and WHO not.
It is not WHO is a writer and WHO not.
But - It is the CONTENT of the teachings and especially the FRUITS it
YIELDS --- REGARDLESS of WHO presents it !
Do you not agree Daniel ?

Can we agree so far about what possibly happened since the Death of
Blavatsky ?


e) I will continue quoting then to explain further:

"Quite obviously the semi-blind among the people, during their
'waiting-period', will try to work out their own interpretation. They may,
as have been done in the past, write books to explain what they have
learned. This is the danger-point, because when a man/woman is accepted as,
say, a philosopher (of wisdom) because she/he has written a book explaining
a philosophy, he/she will not readily accept, that she/he only have been
'fumbling'. He/She has quite possibly become a prisoner of his/hers lower
self. The self-conceit of the man/woman is now bound up with his/hers
'creation', the book or the method, which he/she has used to organise the
fragments, which he/she has. He/she is probably or possibly lost - for the
cause.
In order to break through this shell of accretions and fossilisations,
the - second teacher - will tend to act in a different, perhaps in a certain
dramatically different manner, from the original one. This could happen, to
break the 'idols', which have been formed out of the thoughts, which were
originally given.
So very important: The use of ideas is to shape a man or woman, not to
support a system - which is viewed in a limited manner. This is one way in
which the Wisdom Tradition is 'living', and not just the perpetuations of
ideas and movements. This seems important to understand and know about."

---The M. Sufilight comment ---
Just one more time:
---So very important: The use of ideas is to shape a man or woman, not to
support a system - which is viewed in a limited manner. This is one way in
which the Wisdom Tradition is 'living', and not just the perpetuations of
ideas and movements. This seems important to understand and know about. ---

Daniel if you thought less about the words Blavatsky or TS or movement in a
dead-letter sense.
And much more about the above, then I think that you would understand the
Bailey teachings in a different light.
The Bailey danger is real, yes. But it - to me - only relates to the present
time ( or last few years) with Internet and
the Middle Eastern tensions and so on.
And yes, to some Seekers after truth and wisdom Bailey and her Raja-Yoga and
Mantra Yoga is not good and not the right path to follow.
There are you know 7 paths (Secret Doctrine vol.2. p. 191). And I know that
there are 7 paths by expereince.
It is allright to take care of --- The need to (seek to) attract Newcomers
by a cleaver or rather Wise spiritual design - or thought system,
which then leads them towards the REAL theosophical path Atma-Vidya which be
both agree upon. This is the task.

Do you disagree on that Daniel ?

Your method are fruitless if we talk about certain individuals.
Theosophically speaking it is better to use several methods -
and then within - perhaps three-four incarnations reach at least somewhere -
instead of nowhere !

*******
Those who wants Raja-Yoga with a tinge of Christianity --- let them have it.
Those who wants old texts with Eastern allegories and Atma-Vidya and the
Upanishads and so on --- let them have it.
They will all learn to walk the Path.

Do you not agree Daniel ?
******

Can we agree so far about what possibly happended since the Death of
Blavatsky ?
And can we agree that this was what Bailey and some of her frinds did ?
(...And that this text, which I am explaining is perhaps a third Teacher?
...Only perhaps.)


f) I will continue quoting then to explain further:

"When a system of teaching of wisdom is in a period of fallowness, because
the one who propagated it is dead, then there comes a period of stagnation.
This period can last between 10 years, 15 years or more. In the time, which
passes, the group of people who is affected by the system are sieved by
natural means. Some wander away. Others carry on automatically not really
knowing, what they are doing. They are now 'frozen', though they do not know
they are.
The blind may try to lead the blinder. This takes the form of assumption of
authority by those who were given some sort of authority in the original
mandate. These are the people in the most dangerous position, because the
longer they remain 'orphaned' the more strongly their lower self (or the
three lower bodies) asserts it self.
Others may modify the teachings in a learned and personal way. Some
certainly fall a prey to cults, which have come into being in order to serve
them. The people who joins these are at great pains to explain why they
consider, that they represent the same kind of teaching - and this is
important. It is important, because it shows the Theosophist or the real
spiritually minded, very clearly, that the people who try to explain - are
in fact troubled by conscience. Somewhere inside them, they know, that they
are identifying themselves with an imitation, or a second-best. But they are
supported by their lower bodies or lower personality, - and this is too
strong for them.
Those can be helped by being lead to think in new thinking-patterns and
systems. It is via the conscience, that one finds the path forward, -
thereby will be able to remove the limitations of the lower personality."

---The M. Sufilight comment ---
By helping people to think in NEW thinking patterns, I can not see
that much harm in what has been done by either Blavatsky or Bailey
up until the latest years.
Some people were just not ready for Blavatsky back then in 1919-1949 when
Bailey wrote her books.
Today some of them are. And that is good !

Now I will not say that the authors Daniel Caldwell, K. Paul Johnson,
Michael Robbins, E. Claire Prophet, and other of our
contemporary so-called Theosophical authors have been doing what is written
in the above.
(The blind leading the blinder. Writing books and being attached to them.)
I would say that their writings is what can be called a "second-best".
People are thirsty and wants the Real spiritual Fountain and they will get
it in due time.
The Masters always knows when the time is ripe.


--- HERE COMES THE FROZEN part ---
The above words and the Cleather and Crump link
(http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/HPBvsAB.html)
tells me, that what Cleather and Crump was doing
at that time - 1929, was nothing less but --- "business as usual".
Also what we call a "second-best" even if they claimed to be in contact with
Tibet
their fruits - on the physical plane - followed them, and today they are
almost forgotten.
(And if you ask me: Not that their criticism of Bailey wasn't justified at
the time of writing.
Krishnamurti sort of dropped out - the same year !
I would have been bad to throw TS into the arms of Bailey.)

To me Cleather and Crump - They were "frozen" in time. The did not really
mature and expand upon the
teaching on any level which created public awareness and a needed
flux to attract newcomers. They conserved it, thinking, that this was the
solution.
They did only criticise a few of Bailey's books because the others wern't
written yet.
This is also a limitation on their part.

Today we live in a different time.
Psychology and Brainwashing is wellknwon by many - but not all Theosophical
students.
This puts the claims done by Cleather and Crump in a different light when we
read Bailey's below
words on Theosophy at that time (1915-23). - I think bailey joined in 1915,
but my memory might fail me.

I hold Bailey's reason for breaking with Adyar in high regard if what she
tells us is true.
I quote her autobiography:
" I remember at one of the first E.S. meetings I attended Miss Poutz, who
was the secretary of the E.S. at that time.,
made the astounding statement that no one in the world could be a disciple
of the Masters of the Wisdom unless they
had been so notified by Mrs. Besant. That remark broke a glamor in me,
although I did not speak of it at that time
except to Foster Bailey. I knew I was a disciple of the Master K.H. and had
been as long as I could remember.
Mrs. Besant had evidently overlooked me. I could not understand why the
Masters, Who were supposed to have a
universal consciousness, would only look for Their disciples in the ranks of
the T.S. I knew it could not be so. I knew
They could not be so limited in consciousness and later I met many people
who were disciples of the Masters and who
had never been in touch with the T.S. and had never even heard of it. Just
as I thought I had found a center of spiritual
light and understanding, I discovered I had wandered into another sect.
We discovered then that the E.S. completely dominated the T.S. Members were
good members if, and only if, they [159]
accepted the authority of the E.S. If they agreed with all the
pronouncements of the Outer Head and if they gave their loyalty
to the people that the heads of the E.S. in every country endorsed. Some of
their pronouncements seemed ridiculous. Many
of the people endorsed were mediocre to the nth degree. A number who were
looked up to as initiates were not particularly
intelligent or loving, and love and intelligence, in full measure, are the
hallmark of the initiate. Amongst the advanced membership
there was competition and claim making and, therefore, constant fighting
between personalities - fighting that was not confined
just to oral battles but which found its expression in magazine articles. I
shall never forget my horror one day when a man in
Los Angeles said to me, "If you want to know what brotherhood is not, go and
live at Krotona." He did not know I lived there."
http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/autobiography/auto1055.html

And you Daniel seems to do the same as Cleather and Crump, and then go and
tell
people that this is the proper thing to do ?
It is better to expand on the Teaching we have received by Blavatsky and
others.
It is also better to relate such teaching to the present day with its
technology, bio-technology and others fuss and circumstance - than not to.
Even if it is a "second-best" because it lacks vision and the spiritual
emissions
which the high initiates have.



g) I will continue quoting then to explain further:

"Imagine a group of people shipwrecked. They think there is no hope of
rescue. They find a raft, and are glad. After a time more people come along
in a big boat. But the first people will not leave the raft, because they
have become used to it. They may have convinced themselves, that it is
actually a boat. (So it is to some philosophical or religious people today.)
The points at which the mystical traditions, which are still alive, are in
contact with each other cannot really be explained by the means of books.
And yet people continue to write books showing how they have found this and
that point of resemblance.
The truth can only be found by actual experience, - and easier by awareness
on such aspect as I have touch upon.

To sink ecstasy in Wisdom is better than to sink Wisdom in ecstasy. The
Wisdom Tradition teaches by several different systems, and not only by
one, - one book or teen books, BUT also by thousands and thousands of
books - and the dogmatic ones doesn't want to listen. "

---The M. Sufilight comment ---
I do hope we can agree upon the last one above.
The question is: Who is on a Boat and who is on a Raft ?
Expereince and spiritual experiences is what is important to the seekers
after Truth and Wisdom.


End of part 1.


I do hope you understand why I had to write so much to explain it all.


Did this help ?


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 3:56 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Morten on Views that are "limited", "frozen",
"miserable", "old"


> Morten,
>
> As far as I can tell, your web page does not shed
> any light on what I have asked you.
>
> I hope you will expand on it as you say:
>
> "I will if needed expand more on my views later on."
>
> Daniel
>
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> theosophy@a...> wrote:
> > Hallo Daniel and all,
> >
> > My views are:
> >
> > A short answer is the following.
> > http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/cults_1.htm
> > Read it carefully and try to understand, that
> > what we talk about relates to people of various levels of
> consciousness and
> > spiritual development of different natures.
> >
> > I will if needed expand more on my views later on.
> >
> >
> > from
> > M. Sufilight with peace and love...
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@y...>
> > To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 1:27 AM
> > Subject: Theos-World Morten on Views that are "limited", "frozen",
> > "miserable", "old"
> >
> >
> > > I believe the following two paragraphs are entirely
> > > written by Morten:
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > "I have the hope, that you will realise if you not already
> > > do so, that the Cleather and Crump views are allright as
> > > far as they goes. But they are limited - and as my answering
> > > email http://theos-talk.com/archives/200210/tt00046.html
> > > sort of says - that view is frozen in time.
> > > ---
> > > Today it is a misrable view, because it is so old, and do
> > > not deal with all of the Bailey books. More so we live in
> > > the year 2004, and things have indeed changed."
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I am still puzzled by what Morten has written above.
> > >
> > > He apparently believes that the Cleather and Crump views
> > > on Bailey "are limited"....that their views about the
> > > Bailey book are "frozen in time".
> > >
> > > But I fail to understand exactly WHY they are limited. In
> comparison
> > > to what?? He fails to explain what he means by "frozen in time"
> > > and fails in my opinion to convey what he is offering as an
> > > alternative.
> > >
> > > Morten apparently goes on to say that the Cleather/Crump
> > > views on Bailey are "miserable" because they are so OLD.
> > >
> > > Again I fail to understand what is Morten's reasoning behind
> > > his characterizations of MISERABLE and OLD. Pray tell, what is
> > > NEW in contrast to what he labels as OLD??
> > >
> > > Again Morten writes:
> > >
> > > "More so we live in the year 2004, and things have indeed
> > > changed."
> > >
> > > WHAT HAS CHANGED? And WHAT HAS CHANGED that would render
> > > the Cleather/Crump critique invalid in 2004.
> > >
> > > In 2004 one can just as easily compare Bailey's teachings
> > > with Blavatsky's original presentation as was done decades
> > > ago by Crump and Cleather.
> > >
> > > I fail to understand what would be different today in 2004.
> > > And Morten does not give us any insight into what he
> > > is actually contending.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that Cleather and Crump were simply comparing
> > > the teachings of Bailey with those of Blavatsky and noting
> > > that there were distinct DIFFERENCES. I see those same
> > > DIFFERENCES in 2004.
> > >
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>