Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01408)

Hallo Leon and all,

My views are:

Leon wrote:
"The only
liberation intended was liberating people from their ignorance of the true 
nature
of reality. "

I find that to be exactly what I was referring to.
Removal of ignorance is the same as Atma-Vidya.

About Karma - I will refer to the book The Key to Theosophy.

But Leon I do think that Blavatsky did very well. But what does the Master 
think about it?
Are you a Master? If not - how do you know?

Leon wrote:
"It did not intend to teach those practices.
Therefore, the book was purely intellectual in nature"

I think that is below your usual level of writing.
NO BOOK is only "purely intellectual in nature".
Everything and all life exists on the seven planes of manifestation.
And a book written by a Dhyan Chohan exists on higher levels as well.


Well just a few views of mine.
I might be wrong - but I have done my best to be helpful.

from
M. Sufilight



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: To Krishta, Morton, etc...: About Anand's 
Latest "Answers" (2)


> Only when you compare apples to oranges can you say that the Secret 
> Doctrine
> was written in any sense for the purpose of "liberating" anyone. The only
> liberation intended was liberating people from their ignorance of the true 
> nature
> of reality.
>
> There was no intent by HPB or the Masters to liberate people from their 
> own
> personal karma, nor was it their intention to form any religion or yogic 
> order
> through the teachings of the Secret Doctrine. It simply taught what its 
> sub
> tile said -- i.e., "The Synthesis of Science religion and philosophy." 
> Itdid
> hthis by giving us a true understanding of the fundamental metaphysics 
> behind
> every religion or yoga practice. It did not intend to teach those 
> practices.
> Therefore, the book was purely intellectual in nature and it furnished the
> background only for the self enlightening teaching of the Heart Doctrine 
> as a means
> to creating "a nucleus of universal brotherhood" -- the practice for which
> which was delegated to the Voice of the Silence and other yoga teachings, 
> from
> Patanjali's yoga aphorisms to Lao Tse's Tao Te Ching, etc., and on to 
> whatever
> means one could devise through their own self devised and self determined
> efforts-- even if that meant finding a teacher, such as Idries Shah, to 
> help them
> find their own self realizaition or enlightenment.
>
>
> In a message dated 04/21/05 1:27:04 PM, global-theosophy@stofanet.dk 
> writes:
>
> > Hallo Leon and all,
> >
> > My views are:
> >
> > Leon wrote:
> > > " 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. "
> > I do not think I have said that Blavatsky made serious mistakes. Although
> > everything is relative.
> >
> > My view is, that one should know people by their fruits. If their fruits
> > has been to create cults
> > of an emotional nature and the like - we can certainly question of they
> > have provided
> > some good and digestable fruits. Perhaps Blavatsky made some mistakes we
> > do
> > not know about,
> > but which the Masters know about.
> > What is relevant are whether her teachings liberates the individual 
> > Seekers.
> >
> > Some Seekers might not need
> > to seek out Blavatsky's teaching when viewed in a dead-letter manner using
> > mere theosophical terminology.
> > That would be a serious mistake for them, because they will go and waste
> > some time - before they actually can
> > benefit from her teachings.
> >
> > To say, that Blavatsky didn't write her teachings from any particular 
> > point
> > of view
> > related to "TIME, PLACE, PEOPLE and CIRCUMSTANCES"- when viewed in a
> > DEAD-LETTER manner -
> >
> > is a mistake or at least to in agreement with the truth. When the 
> > teachings
> > are viewed in a non-dead-letter manner
> > much of her teachings are timeless no doubt.
> >
> > I do hope this was helpful.
> > But, maybe not all of you can understand this.
> >
> > from
> >
> > M. Sufilight
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links