Dear Sufilight,
--- In theos-talk "M. Sufilight" wrote:
But if this is done with an emphasis on forgetting the impor-
tant 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.
I see that for some people Atma-vidya is just a set of slogans
like quoted above, which were alredy repeated throughout many letters
without any significant changhes. Then I'd prefer psychism
than SUCH Atma-vidya.
But the use of such labels are to be avoided when we talk about the
beginner Seekers.
It depends much on their background. Blavatsky taught good teaching
but she succeeded to repell from it as much people as possible.
Secondly, her teaching is very sophisticated and can be fully
understood only by people of high intellect. But that intellect
is very often selfishly oriented, so the second attempt which
came from followers was oriented to more simple-minded but
sincere people. Not only Leadbeater has done that, those
followers who regard themselves "pure" HPB followers, made
their own expositions, but it seems to me that these are very
one-sided and based on the superficial understanding. It's like
a catholic an protestant understanding of Bible, or like mahayana
and hinayana.
I do hope you have taken care of those "labels" of yours!
I alwas have to do something with them when translating.
HPB herself wasn't accurate with labels. She wrote about
nationalist movement, that it's good, but to for contemporary
reader it sounds like support of nazism! Probably she have
meant patriotic movement when an individual surrenders his own
interests for the common good of the nation.
So CWL said that.
I disagree if he was talking about Theosophical beginner Seekers.
But Blavatsky said something else didn't she?
The same thoughts about uparati could be found in her worksv too.
He emphasised too much teachings on ESP, Ceremonial magic and
Magical
sciences etc.
There are really few books about ceremonial written by him in
the last years of his life. I don't know why so many people
emphasize them.
Try CWL's book SOME GLIMPSES OF OCCULTISM
"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
I must protest. It is my duty to do so.
He simply borrowed them from the book by M. Collins written
long before. Subba Row wrote comments to that book and then
no one, including Blavatsky, was shocked by it. These are
precepts of western school of occultism having Egyptian
origins. Blavatsky belonged to himalayan school, while
Leadbeater and Subba Row to south Indian. Each of these
schools has its own manner of parlance, and a little knowledge
of theosophy is sufficient to understand them all.
Moreover, we can't rely on HPB writings exclusively, for sometimes
they contain the statements now proved as erroneous, as her statement
about the Easter Island in SD vol 2. So in respect of proofs they
stand much in the same position as CWL works and statements.
But that is a rather poor impact when compared to Blavatsky's
impacts.
We don't compare with Blavatsky, we compare her followers
between them. I mean that the hard-liners had lesser impact.
Their best achievements were exact reprints of some old books,
and thay have done a good job, but not more.
But Raja Yoga was used by Blavatsky towards beginner Seekers
and not towards members within The Theosophical Society in a
Leadbeater has also used "God" for a beginner seakers. :)
Yahoo! Groups Links
