Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00648)

Hi Morton and all,

I appreciate your defense of the Sufi way of Idries Shah. I believe he is 
entirely right in his observations and his teachings. However you may have 
misinterpreted my views on the study and comprehension of the theosophical 
metaphysical truths by relating them to the seeking of psychic powers. I had no such 
intention, nor do I believe that such knowledge leads to such powers, nor 
prevents one from following the practical Sufi path of learning leading to self 
realization and spiritual living under the theosophical values of the Heart 
Doctrine. 

My only purposes in presenting further clarification of these metaphysical 
truths in the scientific terms of this age, ostendibly offering logical proof of 
the reality of karma and reincarnation, is for those of such a bent of mind 
that they need such knowledge in order to transform their current false 
materialistic beliefs so that they can accept the Heart Doctrine teachings as an 
essential necessity in the natural order of fundamental reality. 

There are certain points in your arguments below that I do not entirely agree 
with, and which puts down the need for these teachings for those who require 
them in order to accept the path of practical theosophical living as presented 
by Idreas Shah.

I'll try to keep my comments short, although you'll have to wade through your 
long letter to find them. 

In a message dated 03/27/05 11:32:19 AM, global-theosophy@stofanet.dk writes:


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.)
===================================

[LM] To interpret this properly (and not in its dead letter) one must 
realize that HPB also taught that "everything" in the Cosmos can be understood by 
"analogy and correspondence," that "the microcosm is the mirror of the 
macrocosm," and that "as above, so below." In the Stanzas, we see, in spite of HPB's 
focussing of them on the "visible Kosmos," that what is beyond them (the 
invisible Cosmos) can be speculated on under these premises. In addition, this 
doesn't apply to what I am clarifying in the Book of Dzyan by offering a 
consistent model of the "globular" Cosmos (and everything beyond it) in accordance 
with the fundamental formula "The three the one the four the one the five, This 
would apply to our 


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