Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00584)

In a message dated 03/23/05 4:09:56 PM, global-theosophy@stofanet.dk writes:

>You wrote:

>>"BTW, when Idries' teacher (I presume) Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan showed up in

>>New York for a lecture back in the early eighties, my collaborator (on the

>>theory of ABC) and I went over to talk with him. I can't say what we 
discussed,

>>but we both received a warm hug and a good wish blessing for what we told 
him 

>>we were doing. He told us that Idries Shah and many others were doing the 
same

>>work for those who could follow the Sufi way... And, that what we were

>>accomplishing was good in that it joined their spiritual "messages" with the

>>materialized Western way. Interestingly, for whatever it implies, Idries, 

>>my latescience collaborator (who passed on in '87) and myself are all of 
almost 

>>exactlythe same age, being born in the same year. "


>This is a false view as far as my knowledge goes. Either you are making a 

>spelling error or mister Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan's views about himself 

>being the teacher of Idries Shah is false.

>The following should explain why I think so.

I never said that Khan mentioned that he was a teacher of Shah... Only that I 
"presumed" him to be -- since he was somewhat older and appeared to be 
teaching a form of Sufi philosophy that was close to theosophy. Remember, I only 
heard him speak once about 20 years ago and knew nothing of Sufism or any of its 
modern teachers before that time. 

The private conversation we had with Khan (after his more or less 
enlightening lecture on modern Sufism to a highly eclectic spiritually oriented audience 
at the Universalist Church in New York City) was on the subjects of science 
and metaphysics -- which he seemed to be very knowledgeable about. Other than 
that, I have very little recollection of either his lecture or the metaphysical 
subjects we talked about.

Anyway, thank you for the valuable information with respect to the teachings 
of Idreas Shah, as well as clarifying his relationship to Khan and the 
comparison of their teachings. 

As for the role of "Messenger," in my view, it rests on the meaning of the 
words "Gupta Vidya" -- which I interpret as; The higher knowledge (Jnana Yoga) 
of the occult science (as fully explained in the Secret Doctrine) -- that 
pertains to the fundamental metaphysical basis of the laws of Karma and 
Reincarnation. These "truths" Blavatsky taught, was most essential, using the "language 
of this age," to imbue into the minds of ordinary people of every religion or 
culture -- so as to give them a sound scientifically comprehensible basis to 
recognize the essential universal and personal need to practice "Universal 
Brotherhood" (that encompasses both compassion and altruism) in their everyday 
lives. 

I don't think any other spiritual teaching that offers no demonstrable proof 
of such "Gupta Vidya" -- that everyone can unequivocally accept without 
"blind belief" -- can come closer to achieving such a purpose in the short time 
left to us in this century before the forces of greed and selfishness destroy 
this world and which, as HPB said in one of her *Messages to American 
Theosophists*, "could set back human evolution another million years." It's too bad 
that most modern theosophists have not taken that message as seriously as they 
should. 

*(I do not have the reference to this particular message, but perhaps Dallas 
or Daniel could provide it.) 

Best wishes,

Leon


-----Original Message-------



Hallo Leon and all,



My views are:


I will seek to keep this answer as short as possible and only refer to the 

main concern I have with your below posting.


You wrote:

"BTW, when Idries' teacher (I presume) Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan showed up in

New York for a lecture back in the early eighties, my collaborator (on the

theory of ABC) and I went over to talk with him. I can't say what we 

discussed,

but we both received a warm hug and a good wish blessing for what we told 

him we

were doing. He told us that Idries Shah and many others were doing the same

work for those who could follow the Sufi way... And, that what we were

accomplishing was good in that it joined their spiritual "messages" with the

materialized Western way. Interestingly, for whatever it implies, Idries, 

my late

science collaborator (who passed on in '87) and myself are all of almost 

exactly

the same age, being born in the same year. "


This is a false view as far as my knowledge goes. Either you are making a 

spelling error or mister Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan's views about himself 

being the teacher of Idries Shah is false.

The following should explain why I think so.


1. Primarily because of the following view about Hazrat Inyat Khan:

In addition to his Chisti background, Khan had also been trained in the 

three other major Sufi orders of northern India, the Naqshbandi, Qadiri, 

Suhrawardi. Perhaps because of his multiple lineages, Khan dispensed with 

the usual Sufi practice of identifying with one primary order and gave his 

expanding circle the generic designation "The Sufi Order in the West." After 

his death in 1927, his followers continued to spread his message of Sufism 

as the "religion of the heart."


This was the Sufism that most Westerners knew of - with the exception of 

some Sufi poetry translated by R. A. Nicholson and A. J. Arberry - until the 

arrival of Idries Shah in the sixties. Shah, whose father Ikbal Ali Shah, 

had immigrated to England from northern India in the twenties, first 

achieved some notoriety when he announced himself as a representative of 

"the People of the Tradition," a remote top echelon of Sufism supposedly 

located in the inaccessible Hindu Kush of Afghanistan.


Like Inayat Khan, Shah presented Sufism as a path transcending specific 

religions and adapted it to Western ways. In distinct contrast with Khan, 

however, he downplayed any religious or spiritual trappings and instead 

emphasized Sufism as a psychological technology leading to self-realization. 

This approach seemed especially pitched to followers of Gurdjieff, 

human-potential movement students, and intellectuals well versed in modern 

psychology. For instance, Shah wrote:


Sufism . . . states that man may become objective, and that objectivity 

enables the individual to grasp "higher" facts. Man is therefore invited to 

push his evolution ahead towards what is sometime called in Sufism "real 

intellect."


Shah dismissed other forms of Sufism in both the East and West as 

"watered-down, generalized or partial," including not only Khan's version 

but the overtly Muslim Sufism found in most Islamic countries. A prolific 

author, Shah popularized Sufi teachings stories and jokes as primary ways of 

imparting wisdom, and oversaw the publication of numerous reprints of 

translations of classic Sufi texts in English. His associates also produced 

a number of books that included passages implying that Shah was the "Grand 

Sheikh of the Sufis," an exalted position of authority that was undercut by 

the failure of any other Sufis to acknowledge its existence.


--- Leon. I know, that you in the above referred to Pir Vilayat Inayat 

Khan. ---

--- But this does not water down the problems your statement is facing if it 

should keep itself on the path of truth. --



2. According to Idries Shah we have the following - when we remember to read 

betweent he lines and that

Theosophy = Sufism:


"Sufism, considered as a nutrient for society, is not intend-ed to subsist 

within society in an unaltered form. That is to say, the Sufis do not erect 

systems as one builds an edifice, for succeed-ing generations to examine and 

learn from. Sufism is transmitted by means of the human exemplar, the 

teacher...

We find traces of Sufism in derelict organizations from which this element 

of human transmission of baraka has ceased; where the form alone remains. 

Since it is this outer shell which is most easily perceptible to the 

ordinary man, we have to use it to point to something deeper. Unlike him, we 

cannot say that such and such a ritual, such and such a book, incarnates 

Sufism...

A Sufi school comes into being, like any other natural factor, in order to 

flourish and disappear, not to leave traces in mechanical ritual, or 

anthropologically interesting survivals (The Sufis, quoted in R.Ornstein 

(ed), The Nature of Human Conscious-ness, San Francisco, 1973, p.276; I do 

not have the original reference)."



3. Shah says the Sufis utilized a secret language based on the numerical 

values of letters. He cites the Abjad scheme, a fairly simple substitution 

cipher, a basic system used in Arabic, which is often coupled with 

allegorization of the recipherment, and says this was widely used in 

literature, that many people read it, or at least look for it, almost as a 

matter of course, especially poets and writers.


According to Idries Shah the title of the book which is commonly referred to 

in the west as The Arabian Nights is just such an encoded title. Source of 

Records in Arabic is UMM EL QISSA. The sum of the numerical equivalent, 

utilizing the standard Abjad scheme, is 267. Next, a sufficiently 

descriptive, or poetic, title for the book was found, made up of letters 

which, when added, gave the same number 267. Rearrangement of these letters 

gave the phrase: ALF LAYLA WA LAYLA which means Thousand and One Nights.

By this practice the title of a book, or the author's name, would often give 

a most important indication of the emphasis which was to be placed upon the 

book, and what could be discovered from it.

Shah says that in Arabian Nights, the person who named the work intended to 

convey that it contained certain essential stories. According to Shah, a 

study of the stories, and their decoding in accordance with the rules of the 

secret language, demonstrates the intention, or concealed meaning of the 

stories. He says many are encoded Sufi teaching stories, descriptions of 

psychological processes, or enciphered lore of one kind or another.


According to Idries Shah - Shakespeare had a great influence in creating the 

present day used english language. And Shah says, that because of 

Shakespeare the relations between the English language and the Arab language 

has been strenghened, so that English now are much more closely related to 

the Arab language.


4. Just explore the teachings of Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan and compare them 

with Idries Shah's.

a) Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan at the following website: 

http://www.sufiorder.org/biographies.html

b) Idries Shah at the following websites:

Learning how to Learn

http://www.doyletics.com/art/learning.htm

Those interested in understand the problems surrounding "the true or false 

Teachers of the Theosophical arts"

could with advantage read the following:

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/sufi/sufi-shah.html

A short biography on Idries Shah:

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/sufi/suf-shah2.html

A few words more:

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/sufi/stretching.html


I think it speaks for it self when we know that Blavatsky herself neither 

wrote much on her own, but often quoted

other writings while only adding little of her own wisdom. Idries Shah did 

very much the same while being modest about it all.



5.

What Nasrudin Said


The Judge asked the defendant, "Mulla Nasrudin, do you understand that you 

have sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"

"I do," nodded the Mulla.

"Now what do you have to say to defend yourself?"

"Your Honour,' replied Nasrudin: 'under those limitations ... I have nothing 

to say."



6. My own offer as a renewal of the Theosophical teachings is to incorporate 

the

teachings of Idries Shah into the main theosophical teachings. Especially

the teachings by him on the issue - Spiritual Organizations and their

different levels of activity - are of importance. (If one of the readers of

this clearly disagrees, I will like to know, why.)


It is this enhancement of the theosophical teachings, that according to me

makes Idries Shah a likely candidate on being the Messenger, which Blavatsky 

referred

to would come after the year 1975 and give final proof on Gupta Vidya.

But, there are of course other candidates to take into consideration.


An example: Sathya Sai Baba has taught a lot about Gupta Vidya or Jnana 

Yoga.

We know that Senzar is a language related to Sanskrit. And Sathya Sai Baba 

uses the language Telegu,

which are related to the Dravidian languages, which again The Voice of 

Silence

written by Blavatsky also are related to. But Sai Baba is also romoured to 

be a sex-trickster so...hmmm...


(I have copied some of the texts from the Internet - so my writing took less 

time.

But the words could have been my own.)



Putting this answer together in fact helped me to understand something.

So thanks to Leon for helping me along.


from

M. Sufilight with peace and love...


----- Original Message ----- 

From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>

To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 7:31 AM

Subject: Re: Theos-World HPB's article entitled KARMIC VISIONS & Frank's 

relevant comments



>

>

> In a message dated 02/22/05 3:57:17 PM, global-theosophy@stofanet.dk 

> writes:

>

>>I will have to ask you: Who is the messenger Blavatsky professed to come

>

>>past the year 1975?

>

>>Was it Idries Shah ?

>

>>If not, why not ?

>

> How would anyone know -- (other than the ones who "directly" receive the

> message :-)?

>

> As I understand it, HPB referred to that "New Messenger" as one who would

> appear in this century (to her direct disciples) and bring them the final

> knowledge that would help them verify to the world -- in the "language of 

> this age"

> -- that there was such a thing as Gupta Vidya... Also, she said, that its

> final proof would answer all their questions about the true nature of 

> reality,

> as well as fully justify the system of metaphysics related to both

> Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis -- which starts from "Absolute abstract 

> motion," the

> basis of karma and reincarnation that she gave out in the Secret Doctrine. 

> (I

> assume in "outline form" only -- turning just four of the seven keys -- 

> Because

> she was limited by her vows at that time.) But, times have changed, 

> haven't

> they?

>

> So, it's a certainty, through necessity, that much occult truth was hidden 

> by

> the obscure and complex method of her writing for those "intuitive" and

> astute students (destined to become Adepts eventually) who could find the 

> higher

> "keys" through their own individual study and efforts (both within and 

> without

> the Secret Doctrine). I'm sure all the "keys" were given out and 

> scattered

> throughout the world's mystical literature (she pointed to), 

> metaphorically and

> otherwise, for many hundreds of years before she came along. What else 

> could

> be the purpose of the last two objects of the Theosophical Movement that 

> she

> "cut in stone" as the guiding purposes of the TS?

>

> BTW, who knows whether or not her so called "outspokenness" wasn't

> intentional -- so as, perhaps, to provoke some of the crises of this past 

> century that

> led to WW2 and the eventual exposure of the inner workings of the Black 

> Lodge?

> In my view, the realities of theosophical work and the promulgation of its

> occult truths are not what they appear to be on the surface. HPB advised 

> that

> to understand the true occult nature of reality, one must "read in an 

> around

> the words and between the lines" -- and let our intuition expose the real 

> truths

> of who and what we are, as well as the "powers" we have with relation to 

> the

> universe as a whole. It's obvious (to me at least, and to some others who

> have pointed it out to me:-) that all the secrets of magic and the 

> application of

> the will was given out in the SD and other writings of HPB. And, for good

> reason, I'm sure, so as to arm those who had to face the dark forces that 

> would

> become powerful during this and the past century (and who are now, 

> apparently,

> lurking behind some of the governments in both Europe and America).

>

> In this light, I don't think such a "new messenger" would have anything 

> new

> to say about the Heart Doctrine teachings (which could never be added 

> to) -- or

> about the practical yoga's which are the basis and practice of the ethics

> and morals that teachers such as Idries Shah focussed on.

>

> So, it quite obvious that she was speaking directly (and referred that

> Messenger) to the Jnana Yoga students and potential Adept occultists she 

> actually

> wrote the Secret Doctrine's metaphysical teachings for ... Those, self 

> chosen

> students of a highly motivated interest, and technical knowledge (Jnana) 

> who

> could eventually offer the scientific proofs that would convince those of 

> any

> religious or atheistic persuasions that karma and reincarnation were 

> fundamental

> laws of nature... Based on the verification that the seven fold "coadunate 

> but

> not consubstantial fields of consciousness," capable of carrying in their

> vibratory patterns infinite constructive and karmic information, was the 

> true

> reality of both Man's and the Cosmos' inherent nature as well as the 

> fundamental

> cause of their being.

>

> So, as far as I'm concerned -- since HPB spoke directly to her truly

> "intuitive students" capable of understanding the deepest metaphysical 

> concepts

> leading to a completely consistent picture of a scientifically valid

> multidimensional universe based on fundamental laws of nature inherent in 

> the abstract

> motion of Absolute Space that governed both Cosmogenesis and 

> Anthropogenesis -- I

> don't believe Idries Shah is the particular "Messenger" that HPB spoke 

> about

> as coming in this century to add to her teachings of metaphysics that she

> merely "outlined" in the Secret Doctrine...

>

> Although, he may be one of the wisest modern gurus around teaching the 

> Heart

> Doctrine and its practical application with respect to the conditions of 

> the

> present world. Therefore, we might consider him more of a "Guide" than a

> "Messenger" -- since his Sufi teachings have been around long before he 

> came on

> the scene and brought them into a modern form and application... And, we 

> can

> also read everything he teaches in the writings of Pir Vilayat Inayat 

> Khan, Rumi,

> Omar Khayyam, Kahlil Gibran, and even Lao Tse, Suzuki and many other 

> great

> teachers of practical "living " yoga's, that are both timely and 

> timeless...

>

> They each and all give us the means to find and connect with our true 

> self.

> That is, if we have the means and knowledge of how to learn through the

> awakening of our intuition through a direct inner visualization and 

> comprehension of

> the ever static, yet uniquitous zero-point, as the unchanging root of

> consciousness (awareness/will) -- and its abstract motion or "spinergy," 

> as the root

> of transformable matter (energy/mass and form in all its permutations, 

> from

> spirit/mind/soul, to brain/body).... And, through that path, comprehend 

> the true

> basis of karma and reincarnation.

>

> As an aid to this understanding, we might imagine -- "as above, so 

> below" -- 

> that the web-like threads of galaxies, stars and planets, along with the

> tendrils of the multidimensional Force that connects them, as being the 

> Cosmic

> equivalent of the neural networks and synapses of the human brain... And, 

> thus,

> see that "universal mind" and "individual mind" are entirely analogous and

> corresponding -- as theosophy teaches... One, an integral part of the 

> other, and

> the other an essential part of the One. Thus, reinforcing the ideal of

> universal brotherhood. Or, as Dumas put it, the practice of "One for all 

> and all for

> one."

>

> As I see it, the New Messenger HPB referred to, came just on time after

> 1975 (when the hi tech, electronic CGI and CAA tools were coming into 

> place to be

> able to picture the truths of fractal multidimensional reality in the

> graphical language of this age, that both the scientists and the ordinary 

> people

> could understand). His mission was to begin teaching me (and other 

> theosophists

> trained in the sciences and technologies of this age) who were capable of

> comprehending the exact process by which the Universe is created and 

> how its

> consciousness, reflected through the Dhyan Chohans who, governed by those 

> laws,

> build the manifest universe and serve as guides (through their direct

> connection with out higher natures) -- specifically for those who have 

> ears to hear,

> minds to think, and eyes to see and visualize its infinitudes of

> dimensionality's and potentialities, as well as its purely scientific 

> correlation's that

> interface the higher metaphysics with modern science and mathematics. 

> Where

> else could that final "objective" "proof" of theosopbhy come from to 

> convince the

> material minded (or "spiritual materialist") people of today?

>

> Thus, the real Messenger, who sparked that new knowledge in me and others

> who are currently working on the "new scientific paradigm" that will 

> eventually

> prove the truths of Karma and Reincarnation -- was here, went through 

> the

> long and arduous study and initiations in the physical and metaphysical 

> sciences

> to prepare himself to be able to reach those he needed to teach, and 

> finish

> his work before he had to leave the scene and go back to his Devachan.

> Incidentally, that messenger, in order not to become a Messiah to all the 

> foolish

> "New Agers" and "New Word Order" creeps waiting for one -- would 

> necessarily

> have to manifest to each of us "scientific interpreters" as a different

> personality who could teach us directly, mouth to ear.

>

> In what personal form he came to others I don't know... But in my

> experience, he was a former nuclear physicist and biochemist who became an 

> initiated

> Tibetan Lama with obvious (to me) demonstrable Adept powers. During a 

> period of

> over five years, on almost a daily basis, he taught me everything I needed 

> to

> know about physics, physiology and biology in order to correlate it with 

> the

> metaphysics explained in painful detail by HPB in the SD. (He also 

> pointed

> out to me how radically that teaching had became distorted by the later 

> pseudo

> theosophists -- some of whom, possibly to sidetrack us into making an 

> organized

> "religion" out of theosophy and set up a ruling hierarchy, could very well 

> be

> dupes, or "plants" of the black Lodge.) Incidentally, I have spotted 

> several

> such "plants" in various theosophical groups -- but that's another story.

>

> This separation of the Messenger into different persons, of course, would 

> be

> necessary so as to insure that -- when the "message" is finally "spread

> broadcast" and accepted in unequivocal terms and beyond a shadow of a 

> doubt by the

> world at large -- no cult will ever spring up around that "Messenger" who

> brought us the metaphysical basis of those "proofs" that could correlate 

> with the

> modern sciences and technologies that now have the world's understanding 

> and

> respect (even if currently misconstrued).

>

> However, I'm sure that such a comprehensive understanding will come about

> through the unequivocal proofs which Science, as a whole, will eventually 

> bring

> forth that could satisfy both the secular "evolutionists" and the 

> religious

> "creationists" as well as those of all religious persuasions -- while 

> giving

> them a God to respect but not worship, that can be both impersonal and 

> personal

> (since it resides in each and all of us). It is these proofs of the 

> "fields"

> of higher levels of consciousness, along with the reality of karma and

> reincarnation, that may eventually give credence to the practical and 

> right living

> yoga's (that embrace all religions and philosophies) as taught by such 

> wise

> guides as Idries Shah. (I think Idries would be very happy to hear that. 

> :-)

>

> BTW, when Idries' teacher (I presume) Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan showed up in

> New York for a lecture back in the early eighties, my collaborator (on the

> theory of ABC) and I went over to talk with him. I can't say what we 

> discussed,

> but we both received a warm hug and a good wish blessing for what we told 

> him we

> were doing. He told us that Idries Shah and many others were doing the 

> same

> work for those who could follow the Sufi way... And, that what we were

> accomplishing was good in that it joined their spiritual "messages" with 

> the

> materialized Western way. Interestingly, for whatever it implies, Idries, 

> my late

> science collaborator (who passed on in '87) and myself are all of almost 

> exactly

> the same age, being born in the same year.

>

> The only reason I can account for my still hanging around, is that my part 

> of

> the work of helping "spread broadcast" these new teachings through the 

> mass

> media -- without any connection to a particular living [or dead] 

> "messenger" -- 

> isn't finished yet... Although, much of the groundwork has been laid down

> (we're working on a few books and movies that may soon, hopefully, see the 

> light

> of day)... One of them, BTW, has a funny kid philosopher-jokester 

> character

> named "Nasty Rudin." :-) As they say. " When the materials are in place, 

> the

> magician(s) will appear"-- and the work will be done. Then, all the

> "messengers" will disappear [except, maybe, as characters in a film or 

> comic book]...

> Which is as it should be. :-)

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Leon...

>