Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00160)

Hallo Daniel and all,

My views are:

Now, it seems strange to some that you ask me, because I have not been
emailing about anything
at Theos-talk lately except on the Kabbalah issue.
I think one reason for asking is, that we have had certain disagreements in
the past about what stance on Theosophy
the Seeker after Truth and Wisdom could be suggested to have when we talk
year 2004.

A. Who to support and reject of the many theosophical authors or claimed
channels and initiates ??? Charlatans or non-charlatans ???
B. Which known branch or offshoot of theosophy are really doing their job
closest in accordance with the true Masters teachings - the wisdom teaching
???
C. Which branches are in fact in opposition to the Masters teachings ???
As I see it - These are basically the questions, which we are dealing with.

My answer to Daniel's questions in the below.

"Charlatanesque imitations":

1. If you ask me - I find it much more proper to ask:
Who has done something theosophically good ?
And: Are all the others that bad or dangerous ?

2. My view is, that There has certainly been "charlatanesque imitations" of
theosophy. And there still are.

(I use a small 't' in theosophy to indicate, that we here are talking about
the wisdom tradition
in general and not only what we dead letter will call The Theosophical
organisations).

3. To clearly state who they are or were will not happen without
understanding certain difficulties
araising from doing so.
a) If one states a view on this, - an opposition against ones own view will
for sure often come.
The question will then be, if such an opposition is wanted - and whether it
in fact will stop
certain individuals real potential and possibilities for spiritual progress
during these days of debate at Theos-talk ?
And is a somewhat 'disfigured' progress not better than no progress at all ?
b) One should problably not state who they were or are in any short manner
without being prepared to play the role as a Teacher.
As one who Knows.

*******

How to determine what is a charlatanesque
imitation of Theosophy as compared to the real thing:

1. The word used by Daniel on this question is "Theosophy" and is therefore
related to
the Theosophical organisations viewed in a dead letter manner. I would
prefer to use the word
'theosophy' with a small 't' instead, since it logically covers all branches
of the wisdom tradition.
Well, that is just my view.

2. I will have to distinguishe between
a) conscious "charlatanesque
imitations"
b) unconscious "charlatanesque
imitations"

And each of these will have more or less ignorant supporters and also an
opposition which will claim that they know, the right angle on how to do it
all.
The opposition will how ever have to face to them often difficult task of
being able to know when they themselves are prooven wrong.


***And to dicern who is who can NOT be done merely by readings of books,
papers and speeches in any orthodox dead-letter or litteral manner.***


3.
a) Such a determination could in the days if HPB - much more easily - be
done because the Masters and
especially HPB had an agenda.
This agenda being to "steem the tide" of spiritualism and knock under the
table seances and the like.
And there were no other branches of theosophical teachings (on a global
scale) in existence then.
They had the spiritual right to promote Theosophy or theosophy on a global
scale - the time was ripe.

b) Today the picture is different. The original promoters are not present.
And to use past books, articles and letters to justify what is
"charlatanesque
imitation" would be out of order. Or just to promote ones own Theosophical
teaching could sometimes be said to be quite untimely - karmically speaking.
Simply because we live in a different time and situation.
The theosophical idea as it was promoted by Blavatsky (HPB) has sprouted. It
has sprouted into litterally hundreds of
offshoot branches - and thereby it has established theosophy or Theoosphy
(Wisdom of the Gods) as the greatest threat to
IGNORANCE and BIGOTRY, which still are so prevalent among the orthodox
religions which are based on REASON alone, -
and also a threat to the culturally incaved religions.

We though have to admit, that many of the claimed TS origianls, or branches
or offshoot branches today are not really in accordance with the original
ideas as they were promoted by Blavatsky and the Masters in the early days
of the Theosophical Society before any real offshoot branches were created.
(At least when we talk about dead-letter teaching)

But being 80% or 90% or 95% or 99% in accordance with the original ideas
might not make a whole world of difference.
And yet it might.
And this is the problem we are facing. We will each of us have to do our
best to promote what we really should be calling
theosophy and not Theosophy (so to relate the theosophical teachings dead
letter to Theosophical organisations using the words 'theosophy' or
'Theosophy').
Theosophy understood as the Ageless Wisdom Teaching is what theosophy and
Theosophy should be all about.
*** And it can be promoted in manner different modes and ways. ***

To do this properly and to distinguish between what is "charlatanesque
imitations" and what is NOT requires as I see it a high initiation, working
together with the Masters, being able to contact the Masters if needed, the
right time and place in the human evolution. My view is: Many there are who
has failed on the issue of "right time and place".
We shall know them on their fruits. If their activities do not bear real
spiritual fruit, then their work has been in vain.
The trees only bear fruit certain days and under the right conditions.

Even so it will be most difficult to dicern who is right and wrong.
Only communication will solve the issues in the end. (And some of Daniels
emails at Theos-talk could be called such an attempt.)
And this is LIFE. The living communication between the Seekers after Truth
and Wisdom.
The Masters, the beginners, the intellectuals, the advanced Chelas or
students...and others... Heretics and the like...(smile)

c) What -TODAY - has to be termed "charlatanesque imitations" of
theosophical teachings aught not to be done so only with an eye to dead
letter teachings, readings and writings.
If one does so, one will run a great risk of doing the opposite of what the
original teachings presented by Blavatsky and the Masters was promoting.
(Try reading about Senzar, The Seven Keys, words like "dead-letter" and
other similar issues. Especially the book known as The Secret Doctrine is
filled with this.)

d) Could a Master never tell an untruth ? Are all the Letters and writings
without any white lies ?
Are many students taking themselves too serious and putting too much
litteral thinking in to it all ?

These questions are also important to answer when we should determine who is
a theosophical "charlatanesque imitation" and who Not.

e) To make a precise definition cannot be done. Because one will have to
experience who is foillowing the Path and who is not.
And this requires an open Heart and wisdom on a comparatively high level.
Not many are there, yet.
And even if one wer there. It is not at all clear if if that one was
prepared to teach us here at theos-talk anything before we became less
entangled with egotism and mass-emailing --- and perhaps bookworms.



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@y...>
To: <ham>; <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:19 AM
Subject: ham,Theos-World "Charlatanesque imitations of Occultism &
Theosophy"


> Madame Blavatsky believed there were "charlatanesque imitations
> of Occultism & Theosophy" during her lifetime.
>
> Surely HPB was, to say the least, suggesting that she was
> presenting the real version of Theosophy when compared with
> such imitations.
>
> Is Pedro or Anand or Morten contending that since 1891 there have
> been no other "charlatanesque imitations" of Theosophy?
>
> Furthermore, how would you determine what is a charlatanesque
> imitation of Theosophy as compared to the real thing?
>
> Daniel H. Caldwell
> BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
> http://hpb.cc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>