Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01359)

...And all other friends of theosophy on these "Anand" threads,

If all those who think Blavatsky made serious mistakes or that she wrote 
about timeless theosophical metaphysics along with its philosophy and its ethics, 
for any particular "TIME, PLACE, PEOPLE and CIRCUMSTANCES" -- they are all 
sadly mistaken. 

All we have to do is follow her advice to her "intuitive students" and read 
"in, around, and between the words and lines," of the Secret Doctrine and Isis 
Unveiled -- and we'll see that ALL of the Sufi philosophy is contained therein 
-- as well as the previous parallel philosophies of all the great Masters of 
"theosophical" Occultism taught and practiced by the "Great White Brotherhood" 
of Bodhisattva Masters/Adepts, from Krishna/Hari, through Gautama/Sakyamuni, 
Mosher/Moses, to Yeshuah/Jesus, and perhaps even HPB... 

Most of whom have been so sadly misinterpreted and distorted by their later 
interpreters who sought to found organized religions (supposedly based on their 
teacher's teachings) designed to benefit themselves and their coteries at the 
expense of their ignorant followers and blind believers in their personal 
omniscience -- while posing as representatives of their personalized "God" and 
"His" hierarchies of selected popes, priests and kingly rulers. Careful 
scrutiny of what is going on today among certain distorted residual and other 
similarly disloyal (to HPB's "Masters") spinoff groups from the original TS, up to 
the Arcane Group of AAB, and their joint religio-political machinations in 
India, England and America, with the Middle East as their pawns -- can easily 
verify these observations. 

Therefore, judging from his works, I have no doubt that Idries Shah was 
carrying on in the same tradition of the Brotherhood and these Great Masters of 
Wisdom. 

However, I equally have no doubt that there are other self professed teachers 
of theosophy following the death of Blavatsky, who have betrayed this 
Brotherhood, and have distorted its fundamental teachings for their own nefarious 
purposes... That appear to be no different from those of the organized churches 
and pseudo "religions" which have contributed to much of the strife in the 
world, and that plays directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly in the hand 
of the philosophies and agendas of the "Brotherhood of the Shadow" and other 
so called "Masters of the Black Arts." 

All it takes is thorough study and comparison to "know them by their fruits." 

Just my view... Take it or leave it.

Leon Maurer

P.S. Anand has no point other than to proseletyze, using slick propaganda 
tricks, to gain brainwashed followers for the pseudo theosophists and their "New 
World Order" hierarchical and messianic religion. 

In a message dated 04/15/05 1:09:52 AM, global-theosophy@stofanet.dk writes:

>
>
>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

>