Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00736)

Hallo Daniel and all,

My views are:

Again Daniel.

---- You do not answer any of my questions !!! ---

1. First try reading through the email or the emails again.
2. Let us agree on, that only a few days ago I made a link
to the following material.
http://www.teosofia.com/Docs/vol-2-5.pdf

There HPB says:
"3. We must be free from prejudice.
- S. D., III, 1.
We must also:
a. Be free from conceit.
b. Free from selfishness.
c. Ready to accept demonstrated truth.
d. We must find the highest meaning
possible.
- S. D., III, 487.
e. We must be also non-sectarian.
- S. D., III, 110.
f. We must remember the handicap of
language.
- S. D., I, 197, 290, 293.
g. We must aim to become a disciple.
- S. D., I, 188. II, 246. III,129.
h. We must eventually develop powers.
- S. D., I, 518. II, 85.
i. We must lead the life of Brotherhood.
- S. D., I, 190."


My view is, that we must be "Ready to accept demonstrated truth."

Another one is, the view, that one connot just like that make presentations
of just ANY Old texts
without relating them to the time we live in. If we do, we will have to
understand, that Their meaning sometimes gets heavily distorted.
But I will not agree upon that this is true, - All the Time, - when we use
old texts. It simply depends upon the text.

What I am talking about is that OLD material is not interesting to many
newcomers these days.
And OLD material has to be looked upon for what it is worth and related to
the time we live in.
When we present OLD material, we create a DESIGN and presents a DESIGN at
the same time.
And we have to relate to the possible audience or the audience in reality
who are receiving it.
Some OLD material are certainly useful to us today, I think we agree upon
that.
But not All OLD theosophical material is ready to be quoted without running
certain risk og great misunderstandings, and even misleading promotion of
what
we call Theosophy.
Did this help ?

3. Blavatsky said in her article --- 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."

Our situation today is so, that newcomers can not easily distinguish between
the false theosophical prophets and the true ones.
As I sort of said in the previous email: This is a different situation than
in 1880'ies when Blavatsky lived. Blavatsky was in contact with the Masters.
And others was as well. Today MANY are in contact with the Masters. But
there is no agreement among them.
Are you disagreeing on these views ?

We are indeed in a different situation.




4.
I have made some comments in the below using *******.




M. Sufilight


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 4:56 AM
Subject: Theos-World Morten on Different Meanings, Different Situations, Old
material, etc.


> Morten,
>
> Thanks for your latest answer to my email.
>
> You cover much material and I will have to break
> up my replies in several emails over several days.
>
> I see one theme in your email that you repeat over and over.
> I quote several examples.
>
> **"Time has changed the situation. Even Blavatsky says
> this."
>
> **"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."
>
> **"FALSE IDEAS today is not the same FALSE IDEAS when
> Blavatsky and K.H. wrote their views."
>
> **"The word 'AUTHORITY' do not has the same meaning
> as it had when Blavatsky lived."
>
> **"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."
>
> Morten, I am amazed by all of your assertions here.
>
> You say that:
>
> Times have changed, the situation is different.
*******
Yes. The situation is different. And that was also what Blavatsky said it
would be in her article "ON PSEUDO-THEOSOPHY"
as shown by me earlier up in the above.
*******


>
> The meaning of HPB's and KH's words have changed.
*******
I did not actually say that. Do read my previous email again, and get the
quote right.

*******


> The meaning is different now.
*******
Yes. It is. People view the teachings in a different manner, because they
live in a different - world and time.
*******


>
> YET YOU FAIL to tell us how the situation has actually
> changed.
*******
That will take a lot of time to tell you that.
And how much it has changed depends upon the individual.
Don't expect me to make a whole book on that wast subject.

At Blavatsky's time the TS was in fact the ONLY official theosophical body,
which actually was in contact with the Masters and where there happened
extraordinary events which were made publicly known. (Yes I know, that there
was an attempt or two to create some branches at her time. So to prevent the
growth of the Society.)

What I said was, that today we have - hundreds of - different sects all
claiming to be Theosophical.
(Ie. being in contact with the Masters, Or that their main books are based
upon such an individual.)
And they do as Blavatsky said - quarrel and even hate each other. And yet,
perhaps some of us, like you and me, just discuss the issues. (smile...)
Today we do not withness any Mahatma Letters with - blue pencil. Or any
extraordinary sensory perception activities and if so they are not
recorded and made publicly known in the same manner they were at the time of
Blavatsky.
And if this happens in any theosophical branch I would like to know about
it.
Our physical society and its use of technology as a whole has changed as
well, and that should not be overlooked either when we deal with these
issues.
You may do your own research on this subject, which in fact is quite
important.

The situation is different today.

Is that enough to get you going ?

*******


>
> And again you do not specify exactly how the meaning of
> of HPB's and KH's words have changed.
*******
The meaning has changed because. What Blavatsky and K. H. said at that time
was said with relation to the audience, time
and world in which, their views was presented back then.
Today we have a different audience which will interpret the words
differently if someone would put them forward today without
telling about the past.
It is the quoted words in your email we talk about:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/15668

When we view it like this.
It is clear to me, that today such views was DESIGNS created to offer the
audience at that time
a possibility to understand the importance of - true spiritual teaching
compared to FALSE IDEAS and misleading views.
Today the situation is as mentioned in the above - quite different.

Because of that the teaching aught to be viewed much more as a DESIGN.
Such spiritual DESIGNs operates upon the Seekers mind and thought-patterns
and removes the prejudice
and narrowminded views on time-space related issues and the thought-pattern
in general.
But all DESIGNs are at risk of being misunderstood, I think we can agree
upon that.

Some DESIGNS (ie. including words on paper, words spoken, communication of
all sorts) operates within a short timeframe.
Others operate within a much longer timeframe.
The teaching about the Law of Karma is one example.

But to say that Blavatsky's or a Mahatma's words are the only true words
would be to go too far, do you not agree ?
Try to read this. And remember: My view is, that we must be "Ready to accept
demonstrated truth."
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/char_lit.htm

We have to distinguish between the adoption of "the false
ideas of a personal God and a personal, carnalized
Saviour, as the groundwork of their teaching"

in Blavatsky's time of living and Bailey's acitivities in her time, where
she in fact counteracted TS in developing into something quite false and
misleading.
Namely a popery or a Maitreya cult.
The fact that Bailey herself - later - wrote a great deal on the
Reappaerence of the Christ in "the flesh", do not make her teaching
more valid - unless we understand it as a teaching created as a DESIGN - to
attract - newcomers of a certain kind (ie. those with a Christian cultural
background
or brokenhearted Krishnamurti followers).
--- And have a look at my final quote in this email on the esoterical view
upon the promotion of theosophical ideas and movements. ---

If my words offered as a help are not understood, what can I then do ?
*******



>
> Your assertions do not help me to understand exactly
> what you are trying to convey to us. It is all quite
> vague.
>
> Again you emphasize that Blavatsky's writings are
> "OLD written material".
>
> Yet you recommend a REALLY OLD text!!!!
>
> "The Bhagavad Gita is still true."
>
> The implication when you write "OLD written material"
> is that the NEW is preferred. But you fail to tell
> us why. And what NEW written material should we
> be reading?? You fail to say.
*******
I think I have covered this in the above.

*******


>
> Again you mention your favorite theme about "quite
> dead-letter like interpretations".
>
> But as far as I can see, you fail to tell us exactly
> HOW we should interpret the material. And furthermore
> you "put down" interpretations that apparently you
> don't like with the phrase "quite dead-letter
> like" and imply you have a better, more esoteric
> interpretation. But I fail to see exactly what your
> interpretation is or why it is THE correct or preferred
> one.
*******
Each individual interprets the texts (or perhaps Akasha) using their own
level of understanding.
And so do you.
We simply exchange views.
Either we learn or we do not learn.

Don't expect me to think for you.
I only pointed out, that I experienced a view, that is - the email by you,
which as far as I am concerned was misleading.

This was the email:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/15668

You wrote:
"I would suggest that the following extract from
H.P. Blavatsky is as relevant today as it was
when first written. In fact, every sentence of
this extract is full of meaning and students
would do well to ponder on the implications found
in H.P.B.'s words."

Well I did ponder, and reached the conclusion that
these words by Blavatsky and K. H. you quote in your email was created with
a SHORTer timeframe in mind
and NOT a longer timeframe, so that they just could be used today as a valid
presentation.
And I disagree upon that they could be interpreted as saying:
Everything else than what Blavatsky or the Mahatma's have written are NOT
valid theosophical teaching,
unless THEY have said different.

Let us at least admit, that there was reason to reach the conclusion,
that such was the motive with your email, that you expected the longer
timeframe to be allright.
I just disagree with you. And I have tried to explain why.

And you did not answer my questions in the previous email either.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Let us have the quote again (changed a bit) while we refer to Blavatsky's
writings and her
written material:

"So very important: The use of ideas, 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."
http://theos-talk.com/archives/200210/tt00046.html (On what happened to
The Theosophical Society when Blavatsky died.)


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

-------
If all what Blavatsky wrote in her time was written with this quote in mind.
What conclusions do we then reach?
-------




from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...
*******



>
> If you really believe Blavatsky's and KH's writings are
> actually "OLD written material" and the meanings of their
> words are all changed, why even refer to what they wrote?
>
> More in my next email.
>
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>