Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00014)

Hallo Dallas and all,

My views are:

1.
So you also think, that we should listen to Blavatsky when she says the
following about distribution of new elementary literature?:

H. P. Blavatsky to the American Conventions - Letter I -- 1888 - Second
Annual Convention -- April 22-23
" Here in England Theosophy is waking into new life. The slanders and absurd
inventions of the Society for Psychical Research have almost paralyzed it,
though only for a very short time, and the example of America has stirred
the English Theosophists into renewed activity. "LUCIFER" sounded the
reveille, and the first fruit has been the founding of the "Theosophical
Publication Society." This Society is of great importance. It has undertaken
the very necessary work of breaking down the barrier of prejudice and
ignorance which has formed so great an impediment to the spread of
Theosophy. It will act as a recruiting agency for the Society by the wide
distribution of elementary literature on the subject, among those who are in
any way prepared to give ear to it. The correspondence already received
shows that it is creating an interest in the subject, and proves that in
every large town in England there exist quite enough isolated Theosophists
to form groups or Lodges under charter from the Society. But, at present,
these students do not even know of each other's existence, and many of them
have never heard of the Theosophical Society until now. I am thoroughly
satisfied of the great utility of this new Society, composed as it is to a
large extent of members of the Theosophical Society, and being under the
control of prominent Theosophists, such as you, my dear Brother W. Q. Judge,
Mabel Collins, and the Countess Wachtmeister. "
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-am/hpb-am1.htm

2.
Dallas wrote:
"I ask myself: in what -- is it true or incorrect and false information ?
"

And I ask myself, what is helpful information?
Is it so that only very OLD literature from the period around the
years1875-1891 is
helpful information to distribute?
And what kind of accuracy are we talking about?
I hope for sure not only a dead-letter one without the use of the seven
keys,
which were mentioned by Blavatsky on several occasions.
Do you also have that hope Dallas?

3. Are there other sources/persons with their physical writings than the
dead-letter theosophical ones,
which are not know to theosophists because they cling to
much to a dead-letter view on the teachings of Gupta-Vidya?

4. Dallas wrote:
"If we fail to learn from her, then our efforts in regard to the
THEOSOPHICAL
MOVEMENT may go easily astray."

Do we not fail to learn from her of we are not capeable to recognise
the truth when it is proven to us - in new non-dead-letter additions to the
theosophical literature?
For instance by not recognising the parts of the content in the books
written by authors like
Idries Shah, Robert Ornstein, Assagioli, Almass, Sri Ramana Maharshi and
others...

I think it is possible to go back to the source (Blavatsky etc.)
while giving credit to those present day sources which deserves
attention and credit because of their enhancement of the
teachings of Gupta-Vidya in a non-dead-letter basis.
It seems to me, that you are disagreeing on that Dallas. Is that really
true?

I know, that Blavatsky gave credit to contemporary authors in her time.
Should we fail to do the same Dallas?

5. Looking at your email. I think you failed completely
to address my question.

So I will forward it again.
Are you then saying that we should look at the past
instead of looking at the present time we live in
and avoid relating our articles the theosophical magazines
to the present circumstances - and what happens á la Jesuitic
sorcery today?

Are you not planning to say something against
the present day Jesuits?
While only talk about Jesuits of the past?


My questions are wellmeant.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "W.Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: "'Theosophy Study List'" <theos-l@list.vnet.net>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 8:31 PM
Subject: Theos-World RE: Jesuitism and Theosophy -- HPB contrasts



Nov 1 2004

Re: Jesuitism and Theosophy -- HPB contrasts

Dear M:

Dear friend -- your interpretation is (I think) inaccurate, and I think you
exaggerate that which I said.

I said: we could LEARN from the past, study HPB's writings as the original
source for all present day Theosophical basics, and avoid repeating the
errors of many opinionated persons, who seem to be studious and learned.

I ask myself: in what -- is it true or incorrect and false information ?

Of course the answer will have to be obtained by every interested student
who does their own research. The basic documents are all available, and
everyone who is desirous of consistency, can trace the progress,
chronologically of every one of the series of events themselves. There are
no short-cuts. "Opinions" remain as they always do: opinions. But, most
people are in a hurry and prefer those "short-cuts" at the expense of
complete accuracy. Thereafter, they have no basis for complaining if they
made a mistake in their choice of some "authority" or another.

If you, or anyone, wants to know what THEOSOPHY teaches, then please consult
HPB's writings.

This is the very real value of history -- I mean TRUE HISTORY.

She, acting as the "messenger" for the Great Mahatmas, was the real
inspirer of the modern THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT.

Without her there would not be any THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY or any modern
THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT -- If you wish to check these statements that I make,
then, consult the 1st Vol. of Blavatsky: COLLECTED WORKS if you wish to
familiarize yourself with that aspect of our Theosophical commencing, and
thereafter, of our more recent history.

If we fail to learn from her, then our efforts in regard to the THEOSOPHICAL
MOVEMENT may go easily astray.

Witness the way in which today the various religions (Christianity, Judaism,
Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Brahmanism, the religions of China,
etc...,) and sects (which have all originated in their prime from the same
singular and original THEOSOPHY) have diverged into the present day display
of so many sectarian particulars -- of rites, rituals and beliefs. Look at
the present range (in the last 125 years) of "Theosophical menus" and
"organizations" -- you will see the same thing already at work.

Why is there such a reluctance by so many well intentioned persons to go
back to the source?

All I can see is that some have adopted only partial views of what THEOSOPHY
offers, and when they are confronted with the full philosophy (and HPB in
her writings, always does this) they find they have to modify their
opinions. That is not always pleasant. But for the true and honest student
it is an essential.

As a recent and present example consider what "Anand Gholap" writes and
says. To me, it is quite evident that he has not studied HPB's writings and
his opinions are therefore partial. Many have spent an inordinate amount of
time on this. Has it proved of any worth?

As to Jesuitry: it is has always been prevalent, and, perhaps under other
names, it will be found to run parallel with every true exposition of
THEOSOPHY. It is not the name that is important, but the rules and
organization of that kind of opposition. Now, one ought task why is this
so?

If you have a copy of ISIS UNVEILED see Vol. 2, pp 348 et seq.

Best wishes,

Dallas

==========================

-----Original Message-----
From: Morten
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 1:10 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Jesuitism and Theosophy -- HPB contrasts

Dear Dallas,

Are you then saying that we should look at the past
instead of looking at the present time we live in
and avoid relating our articles the theosophical magazines
to the present circumstances - and what happens á la Jesuitic
sorcery today?

I personally think that HPB would have stroke
if she read the various magazines which today bolsters
themselves as being theosophical.

from
M. S






Yahoo! Groups Links