Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00161)

Hallo Konstantin Zaitzev and all,

My views are inserted in the below using ***.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Konstantin Zaitzev" <kay_ziatz@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 10:43 AM
Subject: Theos-World moralty, Re: Answer to Leadbeater


> Dear Sufilight,
>
> --- In theos-talk "M. Sufilight" wrote:
>
> > A totally non-critical or non-criticizing form? (I disagree on that.
> Not totally, but rather discriminately. For instance, I agree when
> Blavatsky criticizes the Church, just because the Church probably
> would never be friendly to theosophy, even if theosophists praised it.
> But spiritualists (and newagers now) could be our friends, if all
> their spirits weren't labeled as empty shells, elementals and decaying
> remnants of dead people.
***
I think you misunderstand me.
I am talking about how to promote Theosophy and not about who to support.
I know, that a number of CWL and Besant supporters like the idea of building 
bridges between
various New Age groups and theosophy. A sweet thought.
But if this is done with an emphasis on forgetting the important doctrine of 
Atma-Vidya
while clinging to almost promoting Spiritualistic psychic cravings, 
unjustified ceremonial magic, phallic teachings etc. etc. -
we would do a bad job.
That is why I say, that one aught to promote the teachings of Atma-Vidya 
MUCH more than
CWL and Annie Besant did in their literary outlets.
***

> > Later you will respect ethics and moral much more.
> > You could consider that I am right in saying this to you (and other
> > readers).
> As far I know, the return from rational approach to the blind belief
> is rather improbable. The moral changes from country to country, and
> people just believe that some things are good and some are bad. Very
> often it is symple a means of control of lower classes by ruling
> class.
>
> But the occult knowledge is a quite different thing. Suppose there's a
> city where is a very good police and every crime is punished. And the
> citizens, naturally, don't commit crimes. Can you call them "moral"?
> They just know the consequences. So we are, who know about karma.
>
> You may say, "you don't know, you just believe". Anyway my actions are
> logical, though they may come from erroneus supposition. If I think
> that there are money buried in the ground, and I dig, this act is
> logical, though I may not find the money. But if I dig because "The
> God sayeth you should dig", it's a morals.
>
> Dalai Lama said:
> "I often joke that if you really want to be selfish, you should
> be very altruistic! You should take good care of others, be concerned
> for their welfare, help them, serve them, make more friends, make more
> smiles. The result? When you yourself need help, you find plenty of
> helpers! If, on the other hand, you neglect the happiness of others,
> in the long term you will be the loser. And is friendship
> produced through quarrels and anger, jealousy and intense
> competitiveness? I do not think so. Only affection brings
> us genuine close friends."
> ("Compassion and the Individual",
> http://www.purifymind.com/CompassionIndiv.htm )
>
> My experience has shown that it works, so it isn't just belief but a
> bit of practice, but it has nothing common with morality.
***
I was talking about theosophical moral and ethics.
I think we can agree upon the view you have presented.
***

> > - Is it allright to use phallic teaching within Theosophy - by
> calling God a HE and similar activities?
>
> Many theosophical writers explained that it is a just figure of speach
> which comes from utter unsuitability of English language for any
> philosophical matters. Though those crazy with sex may see phallic in
> everything. In later theosophical literature "God" is just a label for
> logos, and Leadbeater often writes "Deity" to avoid masculine.
***
Yes. But the use of such labels are to be avoided when we talk about the 
beginner Seekers.
This was what Blavatsky taught. And I most certainly agree with her.
I will protest against anyone thinking that this is unimportant and that the 
use of phallic labels are allright.
Some of us are not blind to what kinds of sick male-chauvanisms there are 
prevalent in
various cultures and countries on this planet today.
Try Blavatsky's article:
"BUDDHISM, CHRISTIANITY AND PHALLICISM"
Here is an excerpt:
Anthropomorphism in religion is the direct generator of and stimulus to the 
exercise of black, left-hand magic. And it was again merely a feeling of 
selfish national exclusiveness--not even patriotism--of pride and 
self-glorification over all other nations, that could lead an Isaiah to see 
a difference between the one living God and the idols of the neighbouring 
nations. In the day of the great "change," Karma, whether called personal or 
impersonal Providence, will see no difference between those who set an altar 
(horizontal) to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar 
(vertical) at the border thereof (ls. xix. 19) and they "who seek to the 
idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to 
the wizards"--for all this is human, hence devilish black magic.
It is then the latter magic, coupled with anthropomorphic worship, that 
caused the "Great War" and was the reason for the "Great Flood" of Atlantis; 
for this reason also the Initiates--those who had remained true to primeval 
Revelation--formed themselves into separate communities, keeping their magic 
or religious rites in the profoundest secrecy. The caste of the Brâhmanas, 
the descendants of the "mind-born Rishis and Sons of Brahmâ" dates from 
those days, as also do the "Mysteries."
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/BuddhismChristianityAndPhallicism.htm

I do hope you have taken care of those "labels" of yours!
***


> > - Is dogmatic ceremonial magic - what theosophy promotes before
> Atma-Vidya?
>
> CWL said that it's only for one type (ray) of people the ceremonial
> way is easiest. He wrote that one of the requirements on the Path is
> "Uparati (cessation) - explained as cessation from bigotry or from
> belief in the necessity of any act or ceremony prescribed by a
> particular religion - so leading the aspirant to independence of
> thought and to a wide and generous tolerance."
> (Invisible helpers, http://www.theosophy.ca/InvisibleHelpers.htm )
***
So CWL said that.
I disagree if he was talking about Theosophical beginner Seekers.
But Blavatsky said something else didn't she?

Try this one again:
OCCULTISM VERSUS THE OCCULT ARTS
"Let then those who will dabble in magic, whether they understand its nature 
or not, but who find the rules imposed upon students too hard, and who, 
therefore lay Atma-Vidya or Occultism aside--go without it. Let them become 
magicians by all means, even though they do become Voodoos and Dugpas for 
the next ten incarnations."
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/OccultismVersusTheOccultArts.htm
***



> > - Is it the development of any kind of ESP - what theosophy promotes
> CWL wrote that if you want to develop ESP, do exactly what I did -
> work for promotion of theosophy, and if the Masters decide that you
> need ESP, they explain you how to do it. He never considered ESP as an
> object and didn't desire it. He thought that it's impossible to the
> westerner to develop such powers.
***
Yes. That was what he said in a very few places.
But he did a poor job in telling about how to do it.
He emphasised too much teachings on ESP, Ceremonial magic and Magical 
sciences etc.
And his use of Phallic labels when talking about God were much too prevalent 
in his literary outlets.
And there was also the atmosphere of sex-scandals which somehow
followed him wherever he went. He forgot way too much to teach about 
Atma-Vidya.
The same cannot quite be said about Annie Besant when we talk about her 
literary outlet.
Though her activities do not quite coinside with the teachings in her own 
books.
We have to mention though, that she did a great job on helping the poor 
prostitutes and women in need in London.
Her important and quite good book "Wisdom of the Upanishads" shows also some 
lack of Knowledge
about this important science of the Upanishads and Atma-Vidya.
A science, which Blavatsky in one of her articles mentions as being almost 
identical to Theosophical teahcing.

Try CWL's book SOME GLIMPSES OF OCCULTISM
En exceprt:
"THE THREE GREAT TRUTHS.

The three great truths are:-

1. God exists, and He is good.

2. Man is immortal, and his future is one whose glory and splendour have no 
limit.

3. A divine law of absolute justice rules the world, so that each man is in 
truth his own judge, the dispenser of glory or gloom to himself, the decreer 
of his life, his reward, his punishment.

To each of these great truths are attached certain others, subsidiary and 
explanatory. From the first of them it follows:"
http://www.theosophical.ca/Glimpses.htm

I must protest. It is my duty to do so.
Especially when we consider the words by Blavatsky in the above article 
"BUDDHISM, CHRISTIANITY AND PHALLICISM"
***

> > Yes both groups followers (CWL and Alice A. Bailey) - are large in
> number.
>
> I don't mean groups but rather an impact. For example the book
> "Thoughtforms" inspired russian composer Skriabin to combine color an
> music (what we can see now in every discothek) and was a beginning of
> abstract art (Kandinsky las also seen that book).
***
But that is a rather poor impact when compared to Blavatsky's impacts.
I would still say that the large number of followers and supporters are a 
more vital spiritual impact.
And the misleading parts of their teachings (CWL's and Alice A. Bailey's) 
were and are just as vital - today.
***

> > The trilogy of books written by Cyril Scott named "The Initiated"
> I have read some of them, but he pictures Master very much in line
> with Bailey conception of them. I want to publish these books in
> Russia but not now for we have still to translate and publish more
> important works.
***
Interesting efforts.
That is your view and not necessarily mine.
Allright, it is your choice.
***
> > I think we can make a distinction:
> > a) There are Raja Yoga theosophists - a la "Spiritual Development"
> with an emotional tinge in the aura. (CWL and Alice A. Beiley)
> > b) There are Atma-Vidya theosophists ( Core HPB enthusiasts. )
> Raja yoga isn't bad at all, and it teaches self-control and
> self-realization. HPB speaks very good about it in "From Caves &
> Jungles".
***
I think we can agree upon this.
But Raja Yoga was used by Blavatsky towards beginner Seekers and not towards
members within The Theosophical Society in a manner filled
with the - by me previously mentioned errors promoted by CWL's literary 
outlet
***

The yoga with emotional tinge is called bhakti yoga.
***
Yes. Sometimes it is so.

from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...
***

> Yahoo! Groups Links