Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00023)

Nov 2 2004

Dear Morton:

Please see my notes made hereunder.

The study of THEOSOPHY in my view is not confined to any specific words.
That is, it tries to offer TRUTH. So we need to determine if we can what
are those things which are true, and such truths as are universal and
impersonal may be spoken or written by any one, including all you have
mentioned.

SEE NOTES MADE BELOW please.

However if you and I wish to know what H P B and the Masters said we have to
study them. See this, for instance:

------------------------------------------------------
 
 
WHAT THE MASTERS HAVE SAID

In 1888, speaking of Col. Olcott, an article in this magazine quoted from
letters from the Adepts sent to Mr. Sinnett at a time some objections were
made to the work of the Society on the ground that enough attention was not
paid to men of science and to science itself. Since the year in which those
letters were written many persons have joined the Theosophical Society and
its sphere of work has greatly extended. 

And now no less than then, the workers have begun to pay too much attention
to the intellectual side of Theosophy and too little to that phase on which
the Masters who are behind insist and which is called by H.P.B. in The Voice
of the Silence the "heart doctrine." Others also have said that they do not
want any of the heart doctrine, but wish us to be highly respectable and
scientific. Let us consult the Masters, those of us who believe in them.

When the letters to the Simla Lodge were written it was said by objecting
Theosophists that it was time now to take a different tack and to work for
men of science, and there was a slight suspicion of a repulsion between the
Hindus, who are black, and the Europeans, as well as an openly expressed
condemnation of the methods of Col. Olcott and H. P. Blavatsky. 

The reply from the Adepts, made after consultation with others very much
higher still, runs in part:

"No messenger of truth, no prophet, has ever achieved during his lifetime a
complete triumph - not even Buddha. The Theosophical Society was chosen as
the corner-stone, the foundation of the future religion of humanity. To
achieve the proposed object a greater, wider, and especially a more
benevolent intermingling of the high and the low, of the alpha and omega of
society was determined on."

Who determined this? The Adepts and those who are yet still behind them,
that is to say, for the Theosophist, the Dhyan Chohans who have control of
such matters. 

Why was it decided? 

Because the world is sunk in sorrow and in selfishness which keeps the one
side of society from helping the other. The letter goes on:

"The white race must be the first to stretch out the hand of fellowship to
the dark nations. This prospect may not smile to all alike. He is no
Theosophist who objects to the principle... and it is we, the humble
disciples of the perfect Lamas, who are expected to allow the Theosophical
Society to drop its noblest title, The Brotherhood of Humanity, to become a
simple school of philosophy. Let us understand each other. He who does not
feel competent enough to grasp the noble idea sufficiently to work for it
need not undertake a task too heavy for him."

The depth of the sarcasm here cannot be measured, and at the same time it is
almost impossible to fully understand the opportunity pointed out in those
words and the loss of progress one may suffer by not heeding them. They
apply to all, and not merely to the persons they were written to, for the
Masters always say what applies universally. The letter continues:

"But there is hardly a Theosophist in the whole Society unable to
effectually help it by correcting the erroneous impression of outsiders, if
not by actually himself propagating this idea."

Later on, near the time when H.P.B. was in Germany, others came and asked
what they might do, how they might work, and what "sphere of influence" they
might find. The Master known as K. H. then wrote a letter to one, and at the
same time sent copies with fuller notes on the communication to others. A
part of that letter has lately been published in the German magazine, the
Sphinx. In it the Master said among other things:

"Spheres of influence can be found everywhere. The first object of the
Theosophical Society is philanthropy. The true Theosophist is a
philanthropist, who "Not for himself but for the world he lives." This, and
philosophy, the right comprehension of life and its mysteries, will give the
"necessary basis" and show the right path to pursue. Yet the best "sphere of
influence" for the applicant is now in [his own land]."

The reference to a basis and a sphere of influence is to the idea of those
who held that a scientific or at least a very long preparation to get a
basis and a sphere for work was needed first. But the answer shows the Adept
as not agreeing, and as pointing out the way to work along the line of the
heart doctrine. And some of the fuller notes annexed to the copy of this
letter sent at the same time to others read:

"My reference to "philanthropy" was meant in its broadest sense, and to draw
attention to the absolute need of the "doctrine of the heart" as opposed to
that which is merely "of the eye." And before, I have written that our
society is not a mere intellectual school for occultism, and those greater
than we have said that he who thinks the task of working for others too hard
had better not undertake it. The moral and spiritual sufferings of the world
are more important and need help and cure more than science needs aid from
us in any field of discovery. "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." -
K.H.

After seventeen years of work it is now time that the whole Society should
pay a little more attention to the words of those Masters of wisdom who have
thus indicated the road, and these are the "original lines" traced out and
meant to be followed. All those who do not follow them are those who feel
dissatisfied with our work, and those who try to go upon these lines are
those who feel and know that help is always given to the sincere Theosophist
who ever tries not only to understand the philosophy but also to make it
forceful for the proving and the exemplifying of the doctrine and object of
Universal Brotherhood.

ONE OF THE RECIPIENTS	Path, February, 1893

---------------------------------


Best wishes,

Dallas

SEE NOTES MADE BELOW please.

=================================
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Morten 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 12:52 PM
To: 
Subject: RE: Jesuitism and Theosophy -- HPB contrasts


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 1888.

" 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
years 1875-1891 is helpful information to distribute?

And what kind of accuracy are we talking about?

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

DTB	"old" is not always gold. We have to discriminate. Decide how a
modern application of the good suggestion on 1888 ought to be made.

I think that is our present duty.

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

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?

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

DTB	I hope to discover them. I have been seeking them.

I do not believe in the "dead letter," or the 'Eye Doctrine." 

Each one has to discover the "Heart Doctrine" for themselves.

In The VOICE OF THE SILENCE much is given. 

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

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 capable 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...

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

DTB	I do not stigmatize any author, living or dead. I ask my self if
they are specking the truth. To ask that is every one's right.

Gupta Vidya means "secret wisdom." 

When we discover it, it is no longer a secret for us.

Consider:

1	The Universe is alive as a whole.

2	It is composed of immortal beings (monads) of many kinds and many
levels of intelligence, and all are cooperative and inter-active. 

3	Each human is such an immortal. We have lived before and will live
hereafter, on Earth and under Karma.

4	The path of virtue and the path of progress are identical.

5	Brotherhood is a personal expression of our understanding of these
truths.


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

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?

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

DTB	"Enhancement" is always a matter of discrimination, exercised by
each individual for themselves. 

No one can tell another or force anyone to follow one set only. The freedom
of the individual has to be respected always.

Truth has to be recognized wherever it is. No one owns truth -- it is
common property, and its recognition results in common sense use. 

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


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

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

DTB	It is for you and for each of us to determine what is true and
useful.

We can recommend that to others to consider. We cannot enforce it. 

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

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?

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

DTB	I say we can all learn from the past.

In regard to Jesuitry, read their own rules and decide if those are
reasonable.

Has there been any change?

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

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


My questions are well meant.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "W.Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@e...>
To: "'Theosophy Study List'" <theos-l@l...>
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