Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00611)

To Morton and others,

I agree. 

However, I prefer to believe that "Gupta Vidya" has the meaning as I see it 
-- as well as how you, IS, and as all those who read Nasrudin see it. 

As for the "Messenger"... Let each one recognize him/her when they hear and 
understand the message that they need to know that "proves" the Gupta Vidya 
they think they know... So as, hopefully, to be able to transmit it to others of 
a similar state of mind (in their language) who might be changed by such 
"proof" from their "sneering" and "worshipful" ways (as Shah puts it :-). 

To clarify my own view, I think that the highest wisdom is "knowing," by 
direct experience -- verifiable by both subjective and objective proof of its 
metaphysics -- that one is all and all is one. 

For those of my particular (more or less scientific) bent of mind, the 
easiest approach to this knowledge is through a thorough understanding of the 
metaphysical realities and scientific correlation's related to the genesis of all 
beings from the Cosmos on down to the smallest particle or field of 
consciousness -- as outlined in the Secret Doctrine... Although, I cannot speak for the 
way of others with different bends of mind. 

As Buddha said, there are many paths to enlightenment... He probably thought 
his was the fastest and best way, as I think mine is, and as Shah thinks his 
is -- (all of us knowing, of course, that our particular way is not for 
everyone, but only for those who need and are ready for it). 

As for Nasrudin, while his humorous stories are a fine way (for some) of 
transmitting his wisdom, one would have to read them all a thousand times and 
still would only gain a smidgen of the full extent of Gupta Vidya -- which, from 
my point of view, includes both "Wisdom" AND "Knowledge" -- including that of 
both cause and effect and the physical and metaphysical realities of both one 
and many, emptiness and fullness (from the zero-point to infinity :-). In other 
words, how the universe and everything within it really is and works.

So, I think the teachings of Idries Shah is exemplary for those of a 
particular bent of mind who are prepared for it. However, for the prospective Adept 
(who I try in my way, as HPB did in her way, to speak to and empower with 
fundamental metaphysical knowledge) it is only one step along that occult path 
(that goes far beyond mere individual self development).

Best wishes,
Leon...

P.S. Other notes are inserted below:

In a message dated 03/26/05 5:08:18 AM, global-theosophy@stofanet.dk writes:


Hallo Leon and all,


My views are:


Thanks for your answer.

I would like to expand a bit upon some of the ideas forwareded

on the possibility of Idries Shah being the 1975 candidate mentioned by 

Blavatsky.


The following quotes makes me wonder about how one actually aught to define 

the words Gupta Vidya?

Could it be, that it is a teaching, which can be taught using many different 

methods?

[LM] Of course. And, my method is different than Idries Shah's.

The only requirements being that the methods work so to make the Seeker 

aware of the core message "Gupta Vidya" - namely "Wisdom of the Divine also 

known as Atma".


1.

Blavatsky said in 1888:

"Orthodoxy in Theosophy is a thing neither possible nor desirable. It is 

diversity of opinion, within certain limits, that keeps the Theosophical 

Society a living and a healthy body, its many other ugly features 

notwithstanding. Were it not, also, for the existence of a large amount of 

uncertainty in the minds of students of Theosophy, such healthy divergencies 

would be impossible, and the Society would degenerate into a sect, in which 

a narrow and stereotyped creed would take the place of the living and 

breathing spirit of Truth and an ever growing Knowledge."

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-am/hpb-am1.htm


(I question if certain ULT's would understand and respect new teachings when 

they stumble upon them. Well I have my doubts.)

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

[LM] 
HPB was speaking solely of the Theosophical Society organization, and their 
possibility of accepting one or another "interpretation" of her original 
teachings as an orthodoxy. She did not in any way infer that those teachings, 
albeit, simply outlined, were not complete and sufficient in themselves, as the 
basis of further clarification in the light of future scientific breakthroughs 
that could further clarify her (and the Master's) metaphysical teachings. Her 
whole purpose in the above statement was to prevent turning theosophy, through 
the medium of its organized society, into a dogmatic religion. 

As for ULT, it is NOT an organization, nor does it have any dogma or prevent 
further clarification (not reinterpretation) of the "fundamental" teachings -- 
from any source. Apropos, all of my ABC clarifications of theosophical 
metaphysics from a scientific point of view are perfectly in line with the ends and 
purposes of ULT -- as a voluntary association of any and all true students of 
theosophy -- whose obligations are "what they, themselves, determine."


2.

The word "Sufism" in the following could with advantage be changed to 

"Theosophy" -- so we can rid ourselves a bit of the so prevalent theosophical 

Orthodoxy of today.

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

[LM]
I don't see the connection of Sufism, as an "experience of life" with the 
metaphysical teachings in the Secret Doctrine, that are the sole basis of real 
Theosophy -- purely as a "Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy." 

So, I question this inference that any "theosophical orthodoxy," such as the 
religious views posed by pseudo theosophical "leaders" of the TS after 
Blavatsky's death, is really "Theosophy" per se. 

In this light, Sufism being solely an "experiential tradition" has no 
relationship to the Theosophical metaphysical teachings -- as an unchanging ancient 
occult knowledge of such a synthesis -- that are the concerns of all true 
students of Theosophy. What has that to do with the "a method of dealing with 
life and human relations" -- which relates solely to one's individual development 
with respect to one's circumstances? 

Sufism, then, is simply a "personal" yoga, taught in one way or another, that 
is not comparable to the "impersonal" teachings of fundamental truths that 
justify and are the foundation of all forms of true yoga's (or true "religious 
practices" if you will). 

Other than that, I have no problem with the practical teachings or "methods" 
of learning presented by Idries Shah -- whom I compare with all other true 
teachers of practical yoga's that are consistent with theosophical truths. So, 
what he says below I am in perfect agreement with. (Although, while I have 
always been a Sufi at heart, my "yoga" practice is of a different sort 
altogether. :-) 

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


In the following - EH is Elizabeth Hall and IS is Idries Shah.

It is taken from the magazine Psychology Today", July 1975 -

"The Sufi Tradition" Interview with Idries Shah - by Elizabeth Hall:


- - - - - - -


"EH: Before we go any farther, we'd better get down to basics and ask the 

obvious question. What is Sufism?



IS: The most obvious question of all is for us the most difficult question. 

But I'll try to answer. Sufism is. This method is based on an 

understanding of man, which places at one's disposal the means to organize 

one's relationships and one's learning systems. So instead of saying that 

Sufism is a body of thought in which you believe certain things and don't 

believe other things, we say that the Sufi experience has to be provoked in 

a person. Once provoked, it becomes his own property, rather as a person 

masters an art.


EH: So ideally, for four million readers, you would have four million 

different explanations.


IS: In fact, it wouldn't work out like that. We progress by means of Nashr, 

an Arabic word than means scatter technique. For example, I've published 

quite a number of miscellaneous books, articles, tapes and so on, which 

scatter many forms of this Sufi material. These 2,000 different stories 

cover many different tendencies in many people, and they are able to attach 

themselves to some aspect of it.


EH: I noticed as I read that the same point would be made over and over 

again in a different way in a different story. In all my reading, I think 

the story that made the most profound impression on me was "The Water of 

Paradise." Afterward, I found the same point in other stories, but had I not 

read "The Water of Paradise" first, I might not have picked it up.


IS: That is the way the process tends to work. Suppose we get a group of 20 

people past the stage where they no longer expect us to give them miracles 

and stimulation and attention. We sit them down in a room and give them 20 

or 30 stories, asking them to tell us what they see in the stories, what 

they like, and what the don't like. The stories first operate as a sorting 

out process. They sort out both the very clever people who need 

psychotherapy and who have come only to put you down, and the people who 

have come to worship.

If a pot can multiply: One day Nasrudin lent his cooking pots to a 

neighbor, who was giving a feast. The neighbor returned them, together with 

one extra one - a very tiny pot. "What is this?" asked Nasrudin. "According 

to law, I have given you the offspring of your property which was born when 

the pots were in my care," said the joker. Shortly afterwards Nasrudin 

borrowed his neighbor's pots, but did not return them. The man came round to 

get them back. "Alas!" said Nasrudin, "they are dead. We have established, 

have we not, that pots are mortal?"

IS: In responsible Sufi circles, no one attempts to handle either the 

sneerers or the worshippers, and they are very politely detached from the 

others.

EH: They are not fertile ground?


IS: They have something else to do first. And what they need is offered 

abundantly elsewhere.

I know her best: People ran to tell the Mulla that his mother-in-law had 

fallen into the river. "She will be swept out to sea, for the torrent is 

very fast here," they cried. Without a moment's hesitation Nasrudin dived 

into the river and started to swim upstream. "No!" they cried, "DOWNSTREAM!

That is the only way a person can be carried away from here." "Listen!" 

panted the Mulla, "I know my wife's mother. If everyone else is swept 

downstream, the place to look for HER is upstream."

IS: There's no reason for them to bother us. Next we begin to work with 

people who are left. In order to do this, we must cool it. We must not have 

any spooky atmosphere, any strange robes or gongs or intonations. The new 

students generally react to the stories either as they think you would like 

them to react or as their background tells them they should react. Once they 

realize that no prizes are being given for correct answers, they begin to 

see that their previous conditioning determines the way they are seeing the 

material in the stories. "

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


- - - - - - -


Moment in Time

"What is Fate?" Nasrudin was asked by a Scholar.


"An endless succession of intertwined events, each influencing the other."


"That is hardly a satisfactory answer. I believe in cause and effect."


"Very well," said the Mulla, "look at that." He pointed to a procession 

passing in the street."


"That man is being taken to be hanged. Is that because someone gave him a 

silver piece and enabled him to buy the knife with which he committed the 

murder; or because someone saw him do it; or because nobody stopped him?"

(The Exploits of the Incomparable Mulla Nasrudin, Idries Shah, Simon and 

Schuster, 1966. New York, p. 110 )

Taken from

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



- - - - - - -

I do hope you (Leon and the reader) after reading the above understands the 

words "Gupta Vidya" in a different manner now.

Reading the above quotes more than one time - would perhaps to some readers 

be a good idea.



from

M. Sufilight