Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00032)

Hallo Raghu and all,

My views are:

???
Who expects what ?


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Raghu K" <raghu_k@alfinance.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:47 AM
Subject: Theos-World expecting others to be perfect / right !


> is it ego to expect people to be perfect ?
>
> Anybody please clarify.
>
> Raghu Seshadri.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Morten Nymann Olesen [mailto:global-theosophy@adslhome.dk]
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:20 PM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Daniel's Comments on Blavatsky's Quote
>
>
> Hallo Daniel and all,
>
> My views are:
>
> Why do you NOT want to express your stance on this quote ?
> I just don't understand you.
>
> 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.)
>
>
> What are your views on this quote Daniel ?
> A simple YES or NO would be allright.
> But that would maybe be too time consuming for you ?
>
>
> A have given a few comments in the below using *******.
>
>
>
> from
> M. Sufilight with peace and love...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 5:13 AM
> Subject: Theos-World Morten's 3 Comments on Blavatsky's Quote
>
>
> > Morten,
> >
> > In your latest email, you respond [in different extracts
> > below] to the Blavatsky quote found at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/15668
> >
> > Your various comments I now give:
> >
> > COMMENT 1
> >
> > "I do not say that the quote by Blavatsky and K.H. are
> > wrong. I just say, that one aught to relate such a
> > quote to our present situation --- with about 300 sects of
> > theosophists all claiming that they know it all...."
> >
> > COMMENT 2
> >
> > "I say, it is not relevant today - just like that -
> > in a dead-letter sense."
> >
> > COMMENT 3
> >
> > "I said somthing like that it was not valid in the
> > manner you presented it in in your email in question.
> > I said also, that we aught to relate OLD written
> > theosophical material to the time we live in."
> >
> > Morten, you have NOT actually
> > told us HOW we should relate such a quote to our
> > present situation. No details are given.
> *******
> Yes I have. Read the previous email.
>
> It is not always possible to describe abstract issues in full detail.
> But it is often possible to tell people of their existence.
> And I have done that.
>
> *******
> >
> > You have NOT described HOW it would
> > be relevant today in some NON dead-letter sense.
> > No details given.
> *******
> I have talked about DESIGNs, the human reaction to written material and
> compared it to dead-letter reading with the head under the arm.
> Dead-letter reading to not relate the reading to the timespan between the
> time the material was written and the present day of reading it.
> I talked about the impact the written has upon the reader at a given time
in
> history. And why the impact problably would be different today.
> The human reaction to a given DESIGN is often giving it a long-term or
> short-term impact.
> It also has a certain itensity and importance to the person. It is also a
> fact, that Sometimes this intensity or importance level has to do with
when
> the material was written. Sometimes the authors original intentions with
the
> written were not relating to a much later time period, where a new
audience
> would read it.
>
> The fact that someone later twist the intentions with the written material
> so to make these intentions appear different, doesn't make such a view
more
> true, does it ?
> And didn't you, Daniel, do that with both Blavatsky's and K.H.'s
intentions
> in your presentation of the quotes in your email ?
> This was what originally started my answering emails.
>
> *******
> >
> > You have NOT given the manner
> > in which the quote would be valid. No details given.
> *******
> You must understand, that It is not always possible to describe abstract
> issues in full detail.
> *******
> >
> > I give the quote again from Blavatsky's pen:
> >
> > ". . . A new and rapidly growing danger. . . is
> > threatening . . . the spread of the pure Esoteric
> > Philosophy and knowledge. . . . I allude to
> > those charlatanesque imitations of Occultism and
> > Theosophy. . . . By pandering to the prejudices
> > of people, and especially by adopting the false
> > ideas of a personal God and a personal, carnalized
> > Saviour, as the groundwork of their teaching, the
> > leaders of this 'swindle' (for such it is) are
> > endeavoring to draw men to them and in particular
> > to turn Theosophists from the true path."
>
> *******
> She talked about issues belonging to her time of living.
> And yet she teaches, that dead-letter reading and writing is not really
what
> we support.
> When she wrote the above she was NOT talking about those more than 300
> theosophical sects, one less distorted than the other, which we today have
> floating around us, and which she feared would come into existence.
> She talked about issues belonging to her time. She was problably also
> referring to some of those Occult groups, which in fact existed just about
> at her time of writing. Certain Freemasons was floating around at that
> time, problably with ties to some politicians. This seems to one of the
more
> obvious groups to refer to.
>
> She do not, in this quote, relate to my above quote on what have happened
> since Blavatsky died.
> And yet, she admit in her writings, that new teachings has araisen -
suited
> theosophically to the public - during the past centuries.
> And that this will happen in the future as well I see no reason not to
> accept this view as a fact. I think think Blavatsky would agree upon this.
> I think that some of her statements (also the quote in mention) was done
to
> secure the Theosophical Society and nurture it, so that the plan
intentioned
> with it could sprout as much as possible.
> Because, at her time of writing TS was still very small - and new.
> She also said, that many theosophists were not members of the Theosophical
> Society.
> Today - with more than 300 sects, - the question will always be, which
> teaching is theosophical ?
>
>
> *******
> >
> > ". . . A close examination will assuredly reveal. . .
> > materials largely stolen . . . from Theosophical
> > writings. . . [and] distorted and falsified so as
> > to be palmed off on the unwary as revelations of
> > new and undreamed of truths. But many will neither
> > have the time nor the opportunity for such a thorough
> > investigation; and before they become aware of the
> > imposture they may be led far from the Truth. . . .
> > Nothing is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth than the
> > garbled and distorted versions disfigured to suit
> > the prejudices and tastes of men in general."
> >
> > H. P. Blavatsky in "E.S. Instruction No. I.", 1889.
> > Quoted from: http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/ests1p2.htm
> >
> > I will now tell you my understanding of what Blavatsky wrote.
> >
> > I take it that Blavatsky when she refers to "a personal,
> > carnalized Saviour" is referring to certain teachings
> > concerning the Christ.
> >
> > And I believe that one can see what Blavatsky is actually getting out
> > by comparing the above quote with the following two extracts
> > from Blavatsky:
> >
> > ". . . 'the coming of Christ,' means the presence of CHRISTOS in a
> > regenerated world, and not at all the actual coming in body
> > of 'Christ' Jesus; . . . for Christ--the true esoteric SAVIOUR--
> > is no man, but the DIVINE PRINCIPLE in every human being."
> >
> > "Whether it be Krishna, Buddha, Sosiosh, Horus or Christos, it is a
> > universal PRINCIPLE....the Christians, by localizing and isolating
> > this great Principle, and denying it to any other man except Jesus of
> > Nazareth (or the Nazar), CARNALIZE the Christos of the Gnostics; that
> > alone prevents them having any point in common with the disciples of
> > the Archaic Wisdom. . . true Theosophists will never accept ...a
> > Christ made Flesh. . . ."
> >
> > Therefore I suggest that Theosophical writers who write as Bailey did
> > the following extracts are giving out (as HPB phrased it) "false
> > ideas".
>
> *******
> The is a false suggestion. You will have to make a better argumentation.
> Try reading the following page and the next few pages carefully:
> "The Reappearance of Christ" by Alice A. Bailey (Chapter 1).
> http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/reappearance/reap1001.html
>
> And also "The Reappearance of Christ" by Alice A. Bailey, page 144-145:
> "The Eastern faiths have ever emphasized God Immanent, deep within the
human
> heart, "nearer than hands and feet," the Self, the One, the Atma, smaller
> than the small, yet all-comprehensive. The Western faiths have presented
God
> Transcendent, outside His universe, an Onlooker. God transcendent, first
of
> all, conditioned men's concept of Deity, for the action of this
transcendent
> God appeared in the processes of nature; later, in the Jewish [145]
> dispensation, God appeared as the tribal Jehovah, as the soul (the rather
> unpleasant soul) of a nation. Next, God was seen as a perfected man, and
the
> divine God-man walked the Earth in the Person of Christ. Today we have a
> rapidly growing emphasis upon God immanent in every human being and in
every
> created form. Today, we should have the churches presenting a synthesis of
> these two ideas which have been summed up for us in the statement of Shri
> Krishna in The Bhagavad Gita: "Having pervaded this whole Universe with a
> fragment of Myself, I remain." God, greater than the created whole, yet
God
> present also in the part; God Transcendent guarantees the plan for our
world
> and is the Purpose, conditioning all lives from the minutest atom, up
> through all the kingdoms of nature, to man."
> http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/reappearance/reap1042.html
> (Many readers could with great advantage substitute the word Christ with
the
> words Avatar while reading the above book. Dead-letter reading is not so
> good. And true, this is better: Do not just read Bailey's books and then
> forget about the Secret Doctrine and the estern doctrine on Atma=Brahman
or
> the not-I-not teachings.)
>
> --- The use of words in theosophical books are also related to the time of
> writing, the circumstances, the audience and the purpose with the
book. ---
>
>
> Bhagavad Gita chapter IV, 7-9:
> "When Righteousness
> Declines, O Bharata! when Wickedness
> Is strong, I rise, from age to age, and take
> Visible shape, and move a man with men,
> Succouring the good, thrusting the evil back,
> And setting Virtue on her seat again.
> Who knows the truth touching my births on earth
> And my divine work, when he quits the flesh
> Puts on its load no more, falls no more down
> To earthly birth: to Me he comes, dear Prince!"
> http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/gita/bg04.htm (The Sir Edwin Arnold -
> edition)
>
> The Secret Doctrine vol. 2, page 44:
> ---
> "With the Jews Adam Kadmon was the same as Athamaz, Tamaz, or the Adonis
of
> the Greeks -- "the One with, and of his father" -- the "Father" becoming
> during the later Races Helios, the Sun, as Apollo Karneios,*"...
> * Apollo Karneios is certainly a Greek transformation from the Hindu
Krishna
> Karna. "Karna" means radiant from "carne," "a ray," and Karneios, which
was
> a title of Apollo with the Celts as with the Greeks, meant "Sun born."
>
> ---
>
>
> Bailey's problem is mainly today, apart from her phallic use of words
about
> Christ and God, that her books attracts only a certain audience with a
> certain cultural background. Even Blavatsky's writings did that. But their
> purpose and audience was different then and also today, because it was
> a different time they were written in and with a different purpose in
mind.
> Try this one on "Characteristics of Theosophical Litterature":
> http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/char_lit.htm
> Do you find that link to be allright or do you disagree with it as well ?
>
> Something new is needed from time to time.
> (Also to open up the possibility, that more people would be interested in
> HPB's activities.)
>
> *******
> >
> > "They will prepare and work for conditions in the world in which
> > Christ can move freely among men, in bodily Presence; He need not
> > then remain in His present retreat in Central Asia."
>
> *******
> The word "Christ" used by Bailey should not be used in a dead-letter
sense.
> It has more than one meaning. Try reading the Bailey books more carefully.
> She uses the word in a sense, so to make the newcomers learn, that their
> more ordinary view of Christ is in fact not acceptable. The reappaerance
> will be a reappearance of an Avatar - a true Krishna.
> The sad fact, that some Bailey groups misuse her writings
> cannot be said to be Bailey's fault.
>
> (An inserted comment: We may wonder why Christ - the Avatar had to
incarnate
> in the area of Jerusalem and if this had anything to
> do with the evils done by Hitler and his hand in the creation of the state
> of Israel ? The problem is, as I see it, that almost anything Good has the
> sideeffect, that someone misunderstands it and some evils happen because
of
> it.)
>
> *******
> >
> > "His reappearance and His consequent work cannot be confined to one
> > small locality or domain, unheard of by the great majority, as was
> > the case when He was here before. The radio, the press, and the
> > dissemination of news, will make His coming different to that of any
> > previous Messenger; the swift modes of transportation will make Him
> > available to countless millions, and by boat, rail and plane they can
> > reach Him: through television, His face can be made familiar to all,
> > and verily 'every eye shall see Him."
> >
> > Let each student decide for himself.
> >
> > And Morten, feel free to characterize my understanding as
> > "dead letter" or whatever. But you should give in turn
> > your detailed explanation of how we should REALLY understand
> > what HPB wrote.
>
> *******
> Perhaps I should not.
> This was not quite what I emailed you about.
> I emailed about how - you - related OLD written material to our time
> in a manner, which was taken out of context.
>
> You have your view or your theosophical 'sect'.
> And I have my view or 'sect' if you like.
> And there we are again.
> Can the blind lead the blind ?
> Was Blavatsky not quite right when she in her article
> "PSEUDO-THEOSOPHY" feared that more than 300 theosophical sects would be
> created ?
> And again you tell me yours is the right one, without answering my
questions
> in the previous email ?
> I think, I know where you are now.
>
>
>
> from
> M. Sufilight with peace and love...
>
> *******
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>