Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt00689)

Hallo Daniel and all,

My views are:

I think Anand has a point.

If you carefully read the below link and the next, I think you will 
understand that
some of the writings og both Blavatsky and the Mahatmas was
done taking TIME, PLACE, PEOPLE and CIRCUMSTANCES into account.
They were talking on a level people could understand, and because of that
they had to generalise from time to time.
The link
- - - Is TS Adyar a Melon Monster - - -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/23533

What a Masters says is apprehended differently depending on the individual
The Masters knew and know that.
I have already mentioned the below article
- - - The Sufi Tradition - - - by Elizabeth Hall - 1975
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/sufi/sufi-shah.html

Try reading it between the lines - by changing the word Sufi with THeosophy 
and similar.
An exceprt:

"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.

Hall: You've also written a couple of books on magic: Oriental Magic and The 
Secret Lore of Magic, an investigation of Western magic. Today there's an 
upsurge of interest in astrology and witchcraft and magic. You must have 
speculated somewhat about magic in those books.


Shah: Very little. The main purpose of my books on magic was to make this 
material available to the general reader. For too long people believed that 
there were secret books, hidden places, and amazing things. They held onto 
this information as something to frighten themselves with. So the first 
purpose was information. This is the magic of East and West. That's all. 
There is no more. The second purpose of those books was to show that there 
do seem to be forces, some of which are either rationalized by this magic or 
may be developed from it, which do not come within customary physics or 
within the experience of ordinary people. I think this should be studied, 
that we should gather the data and analyze the phenomena. We need to 
separate the chemistry of magic from the alchemy, as it were.


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.


Hall: Most of the people who get interested in magic seem to be enthusiasts.


Shah: Yes, it's just as with ESP. There's no reason why they shouldn't be 
enthusiasts, but having encouraged them-which I couldn't help-I must now 
avoid them. They would only be disappointed in what I have to say.
You know, Rumi said that people counterfeit gold because there is such a 
thing as real gold, and I think that's the situation we are in with Sufi 
studies at the moment. It is much easier to write a book on Sufism than it 
is to study it. It is much easier to start a group and tell people what to 
do than it is to learn first. The problem is that the spurious, the unreal, 
the untrue is so much easier to find that it is in danger of becoming the 
norm. Until recently, for example, if you didn't use drugs in spiritual 
pursuits, you were not considered genuine. If you said, "look, drugs are 
irrelevant to spiritual matters," you were considered a square.


Their attitude is not at all a search for truth.


Hall: Many people seem to use drugs as an attempt to get instant 
enlightenment.


Shah: People want to be healed or cured or saved, but they want it now. It's 
astonishing. When people come here to see me, they want to get something, 
and if I can't give them higher consciousness, they will take my bedspreads 
or my ashtrays or whatever else they can pick up around the house.


Hall: They want something to carry away.


Shah: They are thinking in terms of lose property, almost physical. They are 
savages in the best sense of the word. They are not what they think they are 
at all. I am invited to believe that they take bedspreads and ashtrays by 
accident. But it never works the other way; they never leave their wallets 
behind by mistake. One thing I learned from my father very early: Don't take 
any notice of what people say, just watch what they do.


Hall: Let's get back to your main work. What is the best way of introducing 
the Sufi way of thinking to the West?


Shah: I am sure that the best way is not to start a cult, but to introduce a 
body of literary material that should interest people enough to establish 
the Sufi phenomenon as viable. We don't plan to form an organization with 
somebody at the top and others at the bottom collecting money or wearing 
funny clothes or converting people to Sufism. We view Sufism not as an 
ideology that molds people to the right way of belief or action, but as an 
art or science that can exert a beneficial influence on individuals or 
societies, in accordance with the needs of those individuals and societies."



from
M. Sufilight




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 12:41 AM
Subject: Theos-World To Krishtar: About Anand's Latest "Answers"


> Krishtar,
>
> Concerning what Anand writes which reads:
>
> "Khrishtar,
> I answered Daniel's questions long back. After lot of debate he
> accepts some part of answers. But problem is after eight or fifteen
> days he again asks same questions. So I can't waste time in
> explaining same thing every week.
> Apart from that these things are not as simple as Daniel and many
> members think. Why Masters say certain thing can not be understood
> unless one has great wisdom. Daniel and most other members take
> literal meaning of Masters' every sentence. Literal meaning and
> actual meaning are not always same. In case of Leadbeater and Besant,
> literal meaning and actual meaning are generally same. So they are
> more suitable for ordinary reader."
>
> As I'm sure you also know, Anand has not replied to these
> questions and issues. If by chance I am wrong, I would like
> to know where his answers are!
>
> As to his contention that things are not as "simple" as many of us
> think, this is as far as I can see simply a dodge on Anand's part.
>
> The Masters are pretty clear as to what they are writing and it
> appears that Anand simply wants to avoid the obvious meaning because
> it conflicts with what he wants to believe.
>
> The important thing is that interested readers now have the issues
> laid out before them at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/24448
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/24449
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/24451
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/24452
>
> and they can decide for themselves.
>
> It is interesting that Anand admits that "In case of Leadbeater and
> Besant, literal meaning and actual meaning are generally same."
>
> Therefore when Leadbeater states positive things about H.P.B., you
> would think Anand would accept them!
>
> I wonder what Anand REALLY thinks in the privacy of his own
> thoughts.....
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links