Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00719)

Hallo Daniel and all,

My views are:

You may have a point in your below remarks.
But you somewhat misunderstand me.
I have in the below again done my best, so that no misunderstandings should
occur.

Unless you agree with me in my conclusion in my latest email on this subject
we will possibly not come much further in this exchange.
The email was this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/15675

I will quote the last passages again.


Daniel, you asked in the below quote which I present here again.
And - I answered - and then asked you back. I got no answer.
That is where we are right now.
Don't you see it. Time has changed the situation. Even Blavatsky says this.

Daniel, you asked:

How would a student of H.P.B.'s writings distinguish
> BETWEEN the pure and distorted versions?

*******
The ordinary student cannot.
But Blavatsky writes the following, which I think some of us we aught to be
familiar with as theosophists.
--- ON PSEUDO-THEOSOPHY ---
" If the "false prophets of Theosophy" are to be left untouched, the true
prophets will be very soon--as they have already been--confused with the
false. It is nigh time to winnow our corn and cast away the chaff. The T.S.
is becoming enormous in its numbers, and if the false prophets, the
pretenders (e.g., the "H.B. of L.," exposed in Yorkshire by Theosophists two
years ago, and the "G.N.K.R." just exposed in America), or even the
weak-minded dupes, are left alone, then the Society threatens to become very
soon a fanatical body split into three hundred sects--like
Protestantism--each hating the other, and all bent on destroying the truth
by monstrous exaggerations and idiotic schemes and shams. We do not believe
in allowing the presence of sham elements in Theosophy, because of the fear,
forsooth, that if even "a false element in the faith" is ridiculed, the
latter "is apt to shake the confidence" in the whole."
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/OnPseudoTheosophy.htm

Since Blavatsky the sad and true thing is, that what she feared so very much
has indeed happened. Theosophical Society has been divided into several
branches
and theosophical sects has araisen.
That is why I several times has used the above link and quote from the same
link:

http://theos-talk.com/archives/200210/tt00046.html

I did this, so to try to make you the readers understand that the times of
Blavatsky is
in the above sense all over.
We are indeed in a different situation, than when Blavatsky lived.

Let us have the quote again while we refer to Blavatsky's writings and her
written material:

I quote from the above link again:
"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."

---
And let us reformulate this quote a bit, so that its meaning might become
even clearer:

"So very important: The use of FOR INSTANCE BOOKS and WRITTEN MATERIAL of
ALL sorts
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 - LIKE FOR INSTANCE THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.
This seems important to understand and know about."


The sooner the students of "PURE Esoteric Philosophy" learns this quote by
heart
the better.
What are your view my dear reader ?
What are your views on this Daniel ???

-------


So Daniel, you may have a point with your below views and questions.
But I have to say, unless we agree upon our stance on the above, we will not
really get any further on this issue.
My view is: Your below email do not take the above view into account. That
is why I raise my views again.

A narrowminded view upon the Theosophical Society, which is partly a
physical organization is no good.
Read my above quote again.

We have to face it.
The present theosophical organisations, groups and teachings have a
different meaning to people today.
People will as Blvatsky said - start quarreling with each other about what
is right and wrong.
Simply because there are already many sects, and the student don't know
which one is the right one anymore.
Do you not agree ?


On False Ideas and prejudice:

False ideas should be prevented. YES I AGREE.
And yes. It is allright to sound a protest. And you have
as I see it on many occasioins done that in emails and on yur website and
elsewhere.
--- But how can the students distinguish - properly - between FLASE IDEAS
and the TRUE IDEAS among the many theosophical groups
IF THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE quote AND link of mine ??? ---
Please answer Daniel ?

However Good intentions should be 'rewarded' as long as they serve a
purpose. That also goes for Bailey.
Good intentions has certainly to do with the Law of Karma.
However even good intentions - may be claimed as being "false ideas" by
non-Mahatmas or even Mahatmas. This is also true.
And now, I understand, that you come to me and say that Bailey's books
didn't serve a purpose when dealing with the Besant/CWL popery
and Maitreya cult tendencies ?
Tendencies which even TS Adyar today seems to addmit they have abandoned.
And Yes Bailey teaching is dangerous, but not just like that. Her teaching
namely served a spiritual purpose and even if that purpose has faded very
much today.
Do you agree or disagree ?


In the below you have taken smalle exceprts of emails content - and quoted
me out of context.
This distorts the idea behind my email.

I think where we differ is:

1.
FALSE IDEAS today is not the same FALSE IDEAS when Blavatsky and K.H. wrote
their views.
Simply because as I said in the previous email:

-------
We have to remember the following words by Blavatsky:
"We must remember the handicap of language."
- S. D., I, 197, 318. (The Aksha Records + The Seven Keys and the Mystery
Language)

Dead-letter interpretation of words written - even years ago - should not be
placed beneath the feet of Lucifer - if it can be avoided.
-------

Who is to tell what FALSE IDEAS is today but all the persons from each sect,
with their own views ?
Who is to tell who is "pandering on prejudices" and who not ?

The word "AUTHORITY" do not has the same meaning as it had when Blavatsky
lived.
Although we still agree that only Masters can speak with spiritual
authority.
The Bailey verus Besant/CWL branching off took very much care of the blind
belief in AUTHORITHY within TS.
And today we have many theosophical sects.

I think I thereby have answred your questions.
Even if you didn't answer my previous questions.

2.
And Yes. We do not need any personal Canalised Savior.
We need an Esoterical Savior and not a dead letter one.
The Bhagavad Gita is still true. The Avatar still reincarnates when
rightousness disappears.

Do you disagree upon that ?

3. You present below is to me - quite dead-letter like interpretations -
take from OLD written material
which do not relate to our present situation on how the Ancient Wisdom
teachings are operating and the core Theosophical teachings aught to
operate.
Wisdom teachings operate by DESIGNs. That is why I urge you to learn the
following I wrote by heart:

"So very important: The use of FOR INSTANCE BOOKS and WRITTEN MATERIAL of
ALL sorts 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 - LIKE FOR INSTANCE THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.
This seems important to understand and know about."

Do you disagree upon the content of this quote ?


Let me know if I have forgotten to answer any of your questions.


These are just my views, which I offer you all.
You may agree or disagree.



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...










----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:22 PM
Subject: Theos-World Morten: "Baileys books...can be said to be
WELL-INTENTIONED."


> Morten,
>
> You write:
>
> "So the DANGEROUS ones in the quote given by Daniel
> are those who do not have --- the proper intentions --- 
> with what they theosophically do. That is what I read
> from all this. Not true ?"
>
> Again you write:
>
> "Baileys books as such are not necessarily DANGEROUS,
> because they can be said to be well-intentioned."
>
> Morten, it is interesting that in both paragraphs
> you wrote above, you place the emphasis on "the proper
> intentions" and "well-intentioned."
>
> But unless I am missing something here, the quotes
> from H.P.B. and K.H. are talking about FALSE ideas.
>
> Carefully notice H.P.B.'s words:
>
> "By pandering to the prejudices of people, and
> especially by adopting the false ideas...."
>
> FALSE IDEAS.
>
> Again pay attention to H.P.B.'s words:
>
> "Nothing is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth than the
> garbled and distorted versions disfigured to suit
> the prejudices and tastes of men in general."
>
> Again the emphasis is on ....
>
> garbled....distorted....disfigured......FALSE.
>
> What does "the proper intentions" or being
> "well-intentioned" have to do with it?
>
> Notice in the message at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/15669
> K.H. writes:
>
> "I cannot permit our sacred philosophy to be so
> disfigured."
>
> DISFIGURED....nothing here about "the proper intentions."
>
> And K.H. even admits the SINCERITY of Mrs. Holloway:
>
> "Her [Holloway's] surexcited fancy, putting a mask on
> every stray spook, created the 'Student' and made
> him serve her purpose and desire. She believed in
> it sincerely. . . . Try to save 'Man' [a Theosophical
> book finally published in 1885] by looking it over
> with Mohini, and by erasing from it the alleged
> inspirations and dictation by 'Student'."
>
> "She believed in it sincerely...."
>
> So Mrs. Holloway may have been "well-intentioned" but
> what of that?
>
> KH was concerned with the FALSE IDEAS that may have
> crept into the book.
>
> ERASE "from it the alleged inspirations and dictation...."
>
> So when you write that:
>
> "Baileys books as such are not necessarily DANGEROUS,
> because they can be said to be well-intentioned."
>
> I believe this is off the subject of what both HPB
> and KH write.
>
> Bailey's books are DANGEROUS because they contain
> disfigured.....garbled....distorted versions of the
> Esoteric Truths.
>
> Her books emphasize the FALSE IDEA of a "personal,
> carnalized Saviour...."
>
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>