Re: Theos-World Actual malice (libel on theos-talk)
Nov 12, 2004 09:56 AM
by Morten N. Olesen
Hallo Dallas and all,
My views are given in the below using ***.
In 13. I write that I think you have misunderstood me.
So I suggest that you relax a bit Dallas.
Perhaps you could Try a fewer number of quality questions.
----- Original Message -----
From: "W.Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@e...>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 1:40 PM
Subject: RE: Theos-World Actual malice (libel on theos-talk)
I am not sure that I understand what you are saying.
I ask :
If a Theosophical Organization recommends using the original texts whereby
THEOSOPHY was promulgated ( by HPB and WQJ, let us say ) How can they lead
seekers and inquirers astray as to what THEOSOPHY is?
They can do so by clinging too much to a certain kind of vocabulary.
They can do so by ignoring the present situation of theosophy (using a small
"t" to cover a definition
of theosophy, which is not being degraded by a narrow use of terminology and
terms of communication of way too ancient a kind. A kind which do not relate
to the present needs of the new Seekers.)
They can do so by ignoring, that Blavatsky - according to little me - with
fought the Jesuitic sorcerers in her day - because she perhaps knew, that
they would clamp down on the Middle eastern countries
and their spiritual esoterical culture.
They can do so by keep ignoring, that times have indeed changed since
Blavatsky and the Masters
began promoting theosophy - the ancient wisdom teachings on a global scale.
While ignoring different cultures place in the theosophical
pattern of teaching - in our present time. Cultures now explored by humanity
for decade, but not known of publicly back then in the years around 1891 -
or the years before the term "brainwashing" came to be know and accepted in
public for what it was. ("Brainwashing" containing the definition of "Being
manipulated" in to a non-comprehensive thinking-pattern.)
Every individual, member or non-member, has always the freedom to leave any
organization and seek elsewhere for "truth." That is a fundamental right
everyone has. In finality, everyone binds or limits themselves. Everyone
Yes. I agree.
But they are in some theosophical groups not free to reject a narrow-minded
and way too old formulation of the wisdom teachings.
Too old because it is overwhelmingly not relating its teachings to the
present day knowledge on brainwashing issue and the middle eastern
theachings on theosophy. This is what I call "Manipulation" - and the
creation of narrow-minded and non-comprehensive thought-patterns.
If such inquirers have little or no knowledge of what THEOSOPHY is, then
what basis have they (or anyone) for making any evaluation?
By studying a comprehensive teaching. Because such a comprehensive teaching
is what we call theosophical.
A non-comprehensive "looking at the past teaching while divulging in
reminiscences" - can only be called....(Well you can figure that one out
Since THEOSOPHY is said to be "eternal truth" by HPB, and if it can be found
in the SECRET DOCTRINE, then what are you asking? Are you asking for some
sure method of testing it? If so, what would you choose?
What is "eternal truth" to the new seeker, if the new seeker do not
understand these words?
Are you asking if there are changes and improvements to the basics, that is
since ISIS UNVEILED and the SECRET DOCTRINE were published? How can anyone
By using wisdom and recognize the truth when it is proven to you as a
promoter of theosophy.
This is not the task for the new seeker to determine this.
This is what the promoters of theosophy should deal with before they promote
any theosophical teaching
to new seekers in public.
Yes, I agree some of the language has changed and educational standards have
been lowered generally. But no one is compelled to accept such limits.
But why promoting theosophy in a "looking back - only" manner?
For example: Are we to abandon Shakespeare, Milton, Chaucer, Plato,
Tennyson, Emerson, Longfellow, Sir Edwin Arnold, Descartes, Byron,
Lavoisier, Bacon, Goethe, Laplace, Pythagoras, Hermes, Buddha, Lao Tse,
Confucius, Krishna, Kapila, Shankaracharya, etc... and a thousand other
great and venerable writers, because we (as the average man and woman of
today) don't exactly use their language now?
May be not and maybe yes.
Should we abandon all the new initiates teachings systems, which are
relating theosophy to the present day Seeker?
While promoting theosophy, one aught to relate ones acitivities to time,
place, people and circumstances.
That is why I am saying, that only using "looking back" theosophy is not
adequate enough today 2004.
But some theosophists like to promote what they have learned - even is that
is only a "Looking back"
version of theosophy - even if that is failing miserably to feed the new
Seekers with what they spiritually need
There is no question that as time passes, students do their own research and
test and work with both the Original writings and new ideas. They may and
do add to the record.
So why lead them (perhaps temporarily) astray by offering something less
The study of Nature demonstrates that IT underlies all things-- it has
established the rules and processes of Life, and it supports us all.
What else do you have in mind?
Look in all the above.
How are those student's additions, writings and views to be considered? I
would say they ought to be checked with the ORIGINALS, and, as is always
done with those ORIGINALS, they have to be checked with each individual's
common sense and intuition.
Sure one can check with the ORIGINALS.
Or one can check with common sense, one own spiritual knowledge on the
But what the originals haven't dealt with should not be left out of the
theosophical teaching, just because
no originals have dealt with it - even if it is a teaching which enhances
the ORIGINAL theosophical teachings.
Another question is whether they understand ORIGINAL theosophical teachings
today? And if not, aught they then not to be related
to our present time of vocabulary - within present day science, religion and
philosophy. (Psychology, Parapsychology, Physics etc.. to name a few.)
Do they change, alter or supplement? Determine, each one for themselves, if
they are logical, fair, and true.
But a non-comprehensive teaching will always have a tendency to lead the
and create conditioning. Safeguards should be made against this present
conditioning tendency within the theosophical groups.
If these safeguards are missing - the new (potential) seekers will be lead
Such safeguards are not always to be found within the ORIGINAL theosophical
How should older students regard such things? I would say that depends on
their own grasp and knowledge of what has already been explained.
I would say, that If they promote theosophy, they aught to seek a
comprehensive manner of doing it.
Is anyone's freedom being abridged or truncated? That is an individual
matter to be determined. No one is "forced" to accept anything in
I didn't refer to this.
If an "organization" is wrong, then why have anything to do with it? There
are no final "authorities" in THEOSOPHY except each individual mind for
So why join such a group or 'organisation'?
As to "brainwashing" -- everyone is free to decide if that is taking place.
Not while being a member.
While being a member one is constantly being manioplated into narrow
which a giving the jesuitic sorcerers the upper hand on this planet - while
the middle eastern cultures
esoterical teachings are being trampled upon - and while present day
knowledge about brainwashing are not being related to
within theosophical circles.
As an example: Just look at the evangelist movement in USA.
No one is compelled to do anything, or read., or believe in anything, in our
all-supporting Universe, are they? If so, why?
But, they are being manipulated into using a certain kind of narrow
when they are being taught what is being called theosophical wisdom.
Is this not true Dallas ? Please answer?
Blavatsky said, that the new aspirant or seeker aught to be given a world
upon theosophy. To me that implies not ignoring the Middle Eastern region
and present day
knowledge within sceince - while one clings to the ORIGINAL scriptures as a
sort of Bible Collection
without using ones common sense. Do you not think so, Dallas?
If at all, fear and ignorance may compel for a while; but usually, if one
is active and not lazy, then one acquires wisdom and knowledge, and then
fear of the unknown is dissipated.
Yes. But, by should we waste our time?
I say that THEOSOPHY provides such knowledge.
No, not quite. There is a risk the potential newcomer or seeker will be lost
to the theosophical cause before they die
physically, because one clings to the ORIGINAL theosophical scriptures in an
Check out its basic premises
and doctrines for yourself. Are they true, or untrue? Do you "like" them
or "dislike" them? The choice is yours as a free person, and the same
freedom exists for everyone else. What else can be observed?
What else can be observed is: New teachings or differently formulated
teachings, which could be added to the ORIGINALS.
Is this not true?
I say: all individuals have the freedom to make up their own minds and take
the consequences. Karma will decide ultimately, will it not? In any case
everyone does this from second to second all life long.
Then I think Karma will note when one recognise truth when it is proven -
and if one relates to it and act upon it.
I am of the opinion that we owe a great debt to HPB and the Masters. I
react strongly when I detect some effort is being made to impugn their
integrity and the respect due to Them, for their generosity towards us, and
for their continued Work to enfranchise the many minds of our humanity.
I think you misunderstand me Dallas.
I am merely doing my best to let you and others know that these teachings
are not enough TODAY.
Other teachings aught to be added or related to and compared with what you
call the ORIGINAL theosophical teachings.
Do you not agree ?
So I ask again what did Blavatsky or any of the ORIGINAL teachings tell us
or Conditioning or "being manipulated into cultural-narrowmindedness within
the theosophical cause" ?
These are to me issues, which certain theosophical groups and promoters of
theosophy are not dealing with in
a comprehensive and adequate manner year 2004.
So I protest and ask for proof of what may be stated. No more. Sometimes,
an explanation or some proof is given, and it has been my experience over
the years that in most cases it has not been given.
I have done my best to be of help and service.
M. Sufilight with peace and love...
If no proof is advanced, then I assume none is available. In all cases I
compare what is said with other sources.
What fault is to be found with that?
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: Actual malice (libel on theos-talk)
Hallo Dallas and all,
My views are:
Is there no theosophical organisations who cling to certain theosophical
texts in a cult-like manner, while they attract new theosophical Seekers and
leads them astray by saying that only the old texts has any real value ?
And your answer came in the below.
Now I know, what the truth about the present day theosophists are.
A few more comments:
1. I find it to be very true, that both your overall presentation here at
theos-talk and others various activities are heavily influenced by age / or
shall we say "looking back" and also influenced by the heavy use of old
theosophical scriptures in a manner which to a certain degree leads the new
seekers astray or distorts what theosophy really is. -
This because their content are not relating to our present time
with the understanding that humanity in fact has evolved since 1875.
Let us face the facts. - New Age brainwashing organisations are not just
swallowed by the seekers without a prolonged digestion-phase these days.
I say this, because to many outsiders the various theosophical groups are
viewed as mere brainwashing organisations and nothing else.
2. Have Blavatsky ever written anything about "manipulation" or brainwashing
I will find any written statement by her on such an issue to be of the
3. Again Dallas I choose my own definition of the word "Brainwashing".
The definition of "brainwashing" is as far as I understand it covered by the
words "being manipulated".
4. Dallas, The question is whether one aught to promote THEOSOPHY or
Dallas I think you have chosen THEOSOPHY - while clinging heavily to
THEOSOPHICAL terminology and most often "looking back".
I prefer theosophy. Blavatsky preferred theosophy.
5. I do like it when you - as in the below -use your own words to explain
But, these were just my views.
M. Sufilight with peace and love...
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application