Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00750)

Hallo all,

My views are:

May I drop a few words...?

The following always comes to my mind, when someone almost says, that one
shouldn't read certain books.
The Key to theosophy, section 2:
"We cull the good we find in each". Ie. each teaching system or thought
system.

A vital issue is the present day teachers within the various theosophical
groups.
The only thing I will say is: You shall know them on their fruits.
Do they support theosophical teaching or do they just say, that they do so?
Do they enhance the teaching or is it just old business as usual teaching?
Do they promote a main teaching which is misleading - theosophically
speaking?
Is their teaching something you just as well could have read in a book
yourselves?
Do they teach each person in a group individually? If not what are the
concequences of this?

-------

Let us remember, that the theosophical teachings always adapts themselves to
time, place, people and circumstances.
It is not the dead-letter of the teacher which are important, but the fruits
the teacher creates by the teaching.
The seekers suffers often from problems related to egotism. This the
teachers has to relate to.

An example from Idries Shah's writings:

"The soup
A farmer came to town as a guest of the Mullah. The farmer brought a goose
as a gift for the Mullah. That night Mullah Nasrudin's wife cooked the goose
and served it in a feast with many other delicacies to the Mullah and others
with the farmer siting in the place of honor among the guests.

The farmer returned home the next day and a week later a stranger knocked on
the Mullah's door saying, "I am the friend of the guy who brought you the
goose." The Mullah welcomed him and asked his wife to cook a big meal and
invited the stranger to dinner. Hardly a week had gone by when another
stranger came claiming to be the friend of the friend of the guy who had
brought the goose. Once again the stranger was fed a big meal and so was the
next stranger who was the friend of the friend of the friend of the guy who
had brought the goose.

By this time the Mullah and his wife had become pretty fed up of feeding all
the countryside. Nasrudin's wife told him that they had only one chicken
left. Mullah said not to worry since he had a plan.

When the next friend of the friend of the friend of the friend of the guy
who had brought the goose arrived the Mullah told his wife to boil some
water and serve it in a soup bowl. The guest tasted the water and asked what
kind of a soup was this. The Mullah replied, "Sir you have before you the
soup of the soup of the soup of the soup of the goose that the friend of
your friend of your friend of your friend brought." No more stranger's
visited Mullah after that. "

-------



On the other hand I do hope, that you will a gree with me in the below
views:

We do not promote a main teaching, which
is not in accordance with theosophy.
We aught to seek to promote theosophical teachings and altrusim as a main
teaching.
Theosophical teachings are not mainly dead-letter teachings or literally
formulated teachings.

Those who makes mistakes and who later clearly regrets them we of course
forgive.
But, those who do not do so we cannot promote if promoting them is damaging
to the theosophical cause.
In fact theosophy do not seek to promote any teaching, which damages the
theosophical cause.
The theosophical cause being - wisdom teaching, the teaching of the God(s).

The theosophical teachings was intended - as Blavatsky said - to "stem the
current of materialism, and also that of spiritualistic phenomenalism and
the worship of the Dead. It had to guide the spiritual awakening that has
now begun, and not to pander to psychic cravings which are but another form
of materialism. For by "materialism" is meant not only an anti-philosophical
negation of pure spirit, and, even more, materialism in conduct and
action -- brutality, hypocrisy, and, above all, selfishness -- but also the
fruits of a disbelief in all but material things, a disbelief which has
increased enormously during the last century, and which has led many, after
a denial of all existence other than that in matter, into a blind belief in
the materialization of Spirit."

And the content of this link from where the above excerpt come is quite
good, no harm done there by Blavatsky."
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-am/hpb-am1.htm

-------
To by misleading teaching hindering the possibility there is - as Blavatsky
says - to "guide the spiritual awakening that has now begun" is not good.
One should "not to pander to psychic cravings which are but another form of
materialism."
Such teaching should not be promoted.
Those who have changed the theosophical organisational structure into a
popery or a structure of misleading promotion of theosophy are not
theosophists.

And maybe it is the very existence of the various theosophical groups and
branches, which creates a good and sound theosophical structure.
A structure, with which the beginner can be lead to take one step at the
time up the spiritual ladder. Well, as long as they do follow the view
mentioned by Blavatsky in the above quoted link, well that is if they
carefully remember not "pander to psychic cravings which are but another
form of materialism."

My view is, that Leadbeater is definitely a problem when we talk about this
view today in our growing information society with rapid exchanges of
information. Krishnamurti is possibly also a problem, when we talk about
this. Besant is possibly also a problem when we talk about this.
I say this no matter what good they may have done. Handsome is who handsome
does.
Those who have supported and nurtured a false teaching are not those, who
should be promoted as the main theosophical teachers.
But, what they have done which are good, should and aught to be taken to
heart.

These books can how ever be read and accepted, if it is clearly stated, that
the theosophical group or organisation accepts the view, that in fact NO
theosophical books or teachers can be said to be without faults seen from
the beginner Seekers point of view. And that no theosophical book should be
viewed as a Bible.
Not even some theosophical Seekers "bible" The Secret Doctrine.

-------

from
M. Sufilight



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "prmoliveira" <prmoliveira@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:21 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Pedro again on "ORIGINAL TEACHINGS"


> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell"
> <danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
>
>
> > But as far as I can tell, you have chosen to
> > ignore the serious issues to be found in what both
> > Madame Blavatsky and the Mahatma Koot Hoomi
> > wrote about:
> >
> > "wild and fanciful speculation" about Theosophy
> >
> > "erroneous notions" about Theosophy
> >
> > "garbled and distorted versions" of Theosophy
> >
> > "false ideas" grafted onto Theosophy
> >
> > "disfigured" expositions of Theosophy
> >
> > "imitations of Occultism and Theosophy"
> >
> > I again invite your atttention to what they
> > wrote which has been posted at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/18249
>
>
> An independent observer might see that your attitude to Theosophy and
> its 'original teachings' is becoming increasingly theological,
> sectarian and crystallized. It seems to replicate, for example, the
> Church's attitude to the different Gnostics groups in the early
> Christian era by establishing a definitive and granite-like Theology
> that must be accepted as the only true and real benchmark of the
> Christian tradition.
>
> In one of her letters to the American Conventions (April 1888),
> Madame Blavstky wrote:
>
> "Orthodoxy in Theosophy is a thing neither possible nor desirable. It
> is diversity of opinion, within certain limits, that keeps the
> Theosophical Society a living and a healthy body, its many other ugly
> features notwithstanding. Were it not, also, for the existence of a
> large amount of uncertainty in the minds of students of Theosophy,
> such healthy divergencies would be impossible, and the Society would
> degenerate into a sect, in which a narrow and stereotyped creed would
> take the place of the living and breathing spirit of Truth and an
> ever growing Knowledge."
>
> You may go on with your campaign to denounce the writings of Annie
> Besant and C. W. Leadbeater as "garbled and distorted versions" of
> Theosophy, but please don't expect me to be a part of it.
>
> Personally, I find useful as a guideline in my studies the advice
> given by St. Paul (and quoted by Madame Blavatsky in "Isis Unveiled",
> vol. II, p. 84):
>
> "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thess. 5.21)
>
>
> Pedro
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>