Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00619)

Hallo Leon and all,



It is a bit long...but..that is how it is.





My views are:



A.

Leon wrote:

"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."



My answer:

As HPB said in The Secret Doctrine:

"
The reader has to bear in mind that the Stanzas given treat only of the 
Cosmogony of our own planetary System and what is visible around it, after a 
Solar Pralaya. The secret teachings with regard to the Evolution of the 
Universal Kosmos cannot be given, since they could not be understood by the 
highest minds in this age, and there seem to be very few Initiates, even 
among the greatest, who are allowed to speculate upon this subject. Moreover 
the Teachers say openly that not even the highest Dhyani-Chohans have ever 
penetrated the mysteries beyond those boundaries that separate the milliards 
of Solar systems from the "Central Sun," as it is called. Therefore, that 
which is given, relates only to our visible Kosmos, after a "Night of 
Brahma."
"
(Vol. 1, Page 13 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.)

Idries Shah states something like, that - when reading is unimportant to the 
Seeker - then the Teacher arrives or has arrived.

One will easily realise that Idries Shah's teachings is not only concerned 
with his own books - and writings as such - but also with

teachings on higher levels and spiritual excercises - without the use of 
books.

He explains this issue at many places from different angles in his writings.

Gupta Vidya is NOT to merely have read methaphysical teachings.

Merely reading do not necessarily make you develop very far. It is the 
impact - of what you read, that is important.

And later it is the meeting with Teacher and the teaching given, that is 
important. Not physical books or writings.



And not all of Idries Shah's literary outlets are short stories. He actually 
also wrote what we call real books.

More so Idries Shah said, that some stories or spiritual allegories as such

are active for years and will sometimes only sprout after perhaps two or 
three years - or even later.

Because then suddenly in a flash you will understand the deeper impact they 
have.

The same can be said about the content of The Secret Doctrine.

The last I think be both will agree upon.

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



We can agree upon that some needs the scientific approach to theosophy or 
the path of divine wisdom.

But I think we also can agree, that mere methaphysical intellectualism 
will - quite often - only lead you

to the doorstep of the esoteric teachings of the intuition - the buddhic 
level or higher.

That was also why Blavatsky in The Secret Doctrine forwarded the importance 
of allegorical teachings

as important to reveal higher teachings - also methaphysical teachings. That 
was why the Stanzas was and is allegorical.




When I refer to Idries Shah as an exponent who has enhanced the Theosophical 
teachings

as they are mostly known - I do so with regard to the area of "Spiritual 
Organisations and their mode of operating"

and especially also the differences between these groups and Theosophy - 
also known as the path to divine wisdom.



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



B. The Theoosphical Society defines itself with its three or four objects 
as we known them.



The Original Programme of The Theosophical Society

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/origin.htm or

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/theos/th-origp.htm



In the above versions we find - following vital excerpt:

"In order to leave no room for equivocation, the members of the T. S. have 
to be reminded of the origin of the Society in 1875. Sent to the U.S. of 
America in 1873 for the purpose of organizing a group of workers on a 
psychic plane, two years later the writer received orders from her Master 
and Teacher to form the nucleus of a regular Society whose objects were 
broadly stated as follows:

1. Universal Brotherhood;

2. No distinction to be made by the member between races, creeds, or social 
positions, but every member had to be judged and dealt by on his personal 
merits;

3. To study the philosophies of the East -- those of India chiefly, 
presenting them gradually to the public in various works that would 
interpret exoteric religions in the light of esoteric teachings;

4. To oppose materialism and theological dogmatism in every possible way, by 
demonstrating the existence of occult forces unknown to science, in nature, 
and the presence of psychic and spiritual powers in man; trying, at the same 
time to enlarge the views of the Spiritualists by showing them that there 
are other, many other agencies at work in the production of phenomena 
besides the "Spirits" of the dead. Superstition had to be exposed and 
avoided; and occult forces, beneficent and maleficent -- ever surrounding us 
and manifesting their presence in various ways -- demonstrated to the best 
of our ability.

Such was the programme in its broad features. The two chief Founders were 
not told what they had to do, how they had to bring about and quicken the 
growth of the Society and results desired; nor had they any definite ideas 
given them concerning its outward organization all this being left entirely 
with themselves. Thus, as the undersigned had no capacity for such work as 
the mechanical formation and administration of a Society, the management of 
the latter was left in the hands of Col. H. S. Olcott, then and there 
elected by the primitive founders and members --President for life. But if 
the two Founders were not told what they had to do, they were distinctly 
instructed about what they should never do, what they had to avoid, and what 
the Society should never become. Church organizations, Christian and 
Spiritual sects were shown as the future contrasts to our Society. "

And there is more... in that link.

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



And Leon:
To - me - the programe as a whole is the fundament upon which The 
Theoosphical Society rests. Later revisions of this text/programe in the 
above are possibly a deviation from the true programe. What was good and 
helpful back in the old days - is most certainly not always that healthy 
these days. Let us remember that.

And it is - the THIRD object, which has occupied the mind of Idries Shah 
more than any other exponent of what we can call theosophical teachings - or 
similar teachings.
This I find to be of importance today 2005.


=> My problem is how does HPB or the founders define the word "sect" or 
"sects" in the above excerpt?
I think this is a central issue, because we today have so many secterian 
groups or organisations
all of them claiming to be theosophical - and many of them are wellmeaning 
in doing so - even if they are not theosophical. And to understand this 
fully - one will often have to read the above text and programe carefully a 
number of times.
That is why I point my fingers towards the writings of Idries Shah because 
there is the key if any to be found in writings of today - to solve the 
present states of affairs between the various theosophical groups and their 
organisational modes of operation.
That is - how one as a theosophical Seeker - can learn to distinguish 
between a theosophical sect and a genuine group of theosophical seekers.

In the above we also have "but every member had to be judged and dealt by on 
his personal merits".
=> The question is who is "dealing" with who and who is "judging" who?
Is it Only the founders? If not, why not? (Read footnote 1 by HPB)
And are those "dealers" and "judges" not gone now - since none can be said - 
officially - to be in contact with the Masters?
And where does that leave us all, the Society and the Mahatmas known as 
Morya and K.H. (or their replacements)?

=> What geographical area was back then covering the word "India"? And what 
area does it cover today?
(Do you see the need to reformulate the Theosophical teachings from back 
then in 1886? They are just too old now. But that does not imply, that 
various theoosphical sects of today - should have the right to claim, that 
they alone know it all - and have the new teaching with a true Messenger in 
their hands - M. Sufilight included. I hope you understand this.)

My views on Idries Shah is not forwarded with the claim that I Know that 
Idries Shah is the candidate whom Blavatsky talked about.

While referring to the above text by Blavatsky I would say:
The only manner in which one group can avoid becoming a sect - is to AVOID 
IT.
Do you not agree?
That is why I recommend Idries Shah's writings, so that we can sort out 
these problems - or call it what you like - we all as theosophists are 
facing.
Whether he is a candidate to be the 1975 Messenger is for those to decide 
who actually knows how to judge about it.

Idries Shah made it clear in his writings, that the real Theosophical 
Society is not a publicly known group or organisation -
and that it also at least in part is a non-physical one. They have meetings 
of a quite different kind, than the average TS center has any idea about.
Idries Shah state somthing similar to this:
Nearly all the publicly known groups and organisations of theosophy and new 
age are secterian in nature or excercises conditioning - (ie. thereby 
creating
a socalled karmic circle).


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

C. Another excerpt from the already mentioned link - so to relate it with 
your own teachings
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/origin.htm :


"Hall: Sufis also seem to take extra-sensory perception as a matter of 
course and as not very interesting.


Shah: Not interesting at all. It is no more than a by-product. Let me give 
you a banal analogy. If I were training to be a runner and went out every 
day to run, I would get faster and faster and be able to run farther and 
farther with less fatigue. Now, I also find that I have a better complexion, 
my blood supply is better, and my digestion has improved. These things don't 
interest me; they are only by-products of my running. I have another 
objective. When people I am associated with become overwhelmed by ESP 
phenomena, I always insist that they stop it, because their objective is 
elsewhere.



Hall: They are supposed to be developing their potential; not attempting to 
read minds or move objects around. Do you think that researchers will one 
day explain the physical basis of ESP or do you think it will always elude 
them?



Shah: If I say it will elude the scientists, it will annoy the people who 
are able to get enormous grants for research into ESP. But I think, yes, a 
great deal more can be discovered providing the scientists are prepared to 
be good scientists. And by that I mean that they are prepared to structure 
their experiments successively in accordance with their discoveries. They 
must be ready to follow and not hew doggedly to their original working 
hypothesis. And they will certainly have to give up their concept of the 
observer being outside of the experiment, which has been their dearest pet 
for many years.



And another thing, as we find constantly in metaphysics, people who are 
likely to be able to understand and develop capacities for ESP are more 
likely to be found among people who are not interested in the subject.



Hall: Is that because disinterest is necessary to approach the subject 
properly?



Shah: Something like that. Being disinterested, you can approach ESP more 
coolly and calmly. The Sufis say: "You will be able to exercise these 
supernatural powers when you can put out your hand and get a wild dove to 
land on it." But the other reason why the people who are fascinated by ESP 
or metaphysics or magic are the last who should study it is that they are 
interested in it for the wrong reasons. It may be compensation. They are not 
equipped to study ESP.



They are equipped for something else: fear, greed, hate, or love of 
humanity.


Hall: Often they have a desperate wish to prove that ESP is either true or 
false.



Shah: Yes that's what I call heroism. But it's not professionalism and 
that's what the job calls for."







> > > > > > > > later in the same text <<<<<<<<<<<<<


"Hall: That's not exactly what the contemporary devotees of witchcraft and 
magic are up to.



Shah: No. My work has no relevance to the current interest whatever. Oh, it 
makes my books sell, but they were written for cool-headed people and there 
aren't many of those around."



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



Meaning, that Idries Shah's outlets were (mainly) written to true and honest 
Theosophical students and similar - and not to New Agers calling themselves 
theosophists,

and who likes to dive deep into the jungles of ESP and clairvoyant fumes, - 
while they fanatically seek world teachers, fuss and fancies a la tantra 
while they teach children.



As they say: If the shoe fits wear it.



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



D.

On ULT. I was only referring to - CERTAIN - ULT's not the group a such.

And I think that I agree with you - IF what you say about the ULT's in 
general is true.

Well only IF...





E.

Leon wrote:

" 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."

"



There is teaching - and there is the one being taught who is experiencing 
something - perhaps something formless.

There is study and the one who studies - and experiences something.

To say that the "metaphysical teachings in the Secret Doctrine, that are the 
sole basis of real
Theosophy" is a false statement - and I think you know that Leon.



The question is - what one defines as being the "metaphysical teachings" of 
theosophy?
And HPB also said that, the Secret Doctrine was not without faults. It only 
uses three or four out of the seven keys in the Mystery Language, (vol 2.- 
p. 797)
"Thus far have proceeded the rough outlines of the beliefs and tenets of the 
archaic, earliest Races contained in their hitherto secret Scriptural 
records. But our explanations are by no means complete, nor do they pretend 
to give out the full text, or to have been read by the help of more than 
three or four keys out of the sevenfold bunch of esoteric interpretation, 
and even this has only been partially accomplished. The work is too gigantic 
for any one person to undertake, far more to accomplish. Our main concern 
was simply to prepare the soil." (vol 2.- p. 797)




What is the "Psychological key" to The Secret Doctrine?




from

M. Sufilight with peace and love...






----- Original Message ----- 
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World HPB's article entitled KARMIC VISIONS & Frank's 
relevant comments