Hello Morten,
Article is interesting. Indeed major problem for most is who is
second and real teacher mentioned here.
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-
theosophy@s...> wrote:
Hallo Anand and all,
My views are:
I think we have been talking about these issues before here at
Theos-talk.
Maybe Anand, other participants to this thread as well as various
theosophists could be helped
by reading a previous email of mine to this place:
http://theos-talk.com/archives/200409/tt00536.html
(And read also the links within the emails)
Especially this one:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17916
An major excerpt from the last link are given in the below
It is in part about what happened when Blavatsky died physically:
"After the disappearance from the field of a teacher of Wisdom,
the
followers
will divide themselves into groups, in accordance with their
strength and
weaknesses. Some will assume control of others. They may be good
or bad, and
this will be shown by their reaction to - the second teacher -
when he/she
arrives.
If they realise he/she is their teacher, then they have merely
been
developing
themselves and can mature. But if they have become atrophied, they
will be
too
blind to recognize the Spirituality of the very teacher, for which
appearance
they have been prepared. They may attach themselves, in default,
to a
different
group. (And this groups existence is maybe no coincidence.) Again
well and
good
: providing they return to the mainstream of teaching when it is
offered to
them
again. This is the test of whether they have overcome the lower
self. They
will
realise, if they are sufficiently developed, that the person who
appears to
be
'second' teacher is in reality - the first in importance.
Life is reversed for the undeveloped man (the newcomer), and
he/she will
behave
in accordance with this. The first teacher does not make life
easier, in
most
cases, for the generality of disciples. He/She will teach them
things, which
are
only of use when the second teacher arrives and reality falls into
place.
The
object of this is twofold. In the first place, certain valuable
thoughts
have
been given to the disciples. In the second, they are tested by the
means of
these ideas. Just as our western psychologists give odd-shaped
pieces of
wood to
people, to see how they put them together, teachers of Wisdom will
give
odd-pieces of material of - mental kind - to his/her followers. -
If they
try to
fit these together however, and to make a pattern in his/hers -
absences, -
they
are becoming 'fossilised'. Because, the Wisdom tradition has to
show that
the
object of mankind is not to construct idols, but to follow a
supreme
pattern,
which is learnt piece by piece.
When a system of teaching of wisdom is in a period of fallowness,
because
the
one who propagated it is dead, then there comes a period of
stagnation. This
period can last between 10 years, 15 years or more. In the time,
which
passes,
the group of people who is affected by the system are sieved by
natural
means.
Some wander away. Others carry on automatically not really
knowing, what
they
are doing. They are now 'frozen', though they do not know they are.
The blind may try to lead the blinder. This takes the form of
assumption of
authority by those who were given some sort of authority in the
original
mandate. These are the people in the most dangerous position,
because the
longer
they remain 'orphaned' the more strongly their lower self (or the
three
lower
bodies) asserts it self.
Others may modify the teachings in a learned and personal way.
Some
certainly
fall a prey to cults, which have come into being in order to serve
them. The
people who joins these are at great pains to explain why they
consider, that
they represent the same kind of teaching - and this is important.
It is
important, because it shows the Theosophist or the real
spiritually minded,
very
clearly, that the people who try to explain - are in fact troubled
by
conscience. Somewhere inside them, they know, that they are
identifying
themselves with an imitation, or a second-best. But they are
supported by
their
lower bodies or lower personality, - and this is too strong for
them.
Those can be helped by being lead to think in new thinking-
patterns and
systems.
It is via the conscience, that one finds the path forward, -
thereby will be
able to remove the limitations of the lower personality."
And again:
So very important: The use of ideas is to shape a man or woman,
not to
support a
system - which is viewed in a limited manner. This is one way in
which the
Wisdom Tradition is 'living', and not just the perpetuations of
ideas and
movements. This seems important to understand and know about.
My views is:
Dead-letter teachings has never been the hallmark of real
theosophy.
There is actually no need to use the very words "theosophy" or
"Theosophical"
when TODAY forwarding true and honest teachings (related to time,
place and
people mind you)
about the Path or Atma-Vidya etc...
Today a number of wellmeaning Theosophists forget too much to
CLEARLY point
this out to Seekers they themselves teach or guide.
What we don't need is the create yet a new set of branches each of
them
being sort of
"Bible-collection"-studying sects accepting only dead-letter
teachings (as
main teachings)
containing the words "Theosophical" or "theosophy" as a NECESSITY.
And with each sect using their own Bible-collection.
Another excerpt trying to some how escape business as usual:
"So how is the development of The Theosophical Soceity and various
theosophical groups going to be in the future - IF - we as a
minimum base
our views on my above email - while keeping the link to J.J. van
der Leeuw
pamphlet in the first link in the above in mind?
We could with some adavantage ponder on the following questions:
1. Who is (or was) the "second teacher(s)" - if any - within
Theosophy? -
And will there be or has there been a third, fourth or fifth
teacher?
2. Who are being or has been mistaken for being the "second
teacher" within
theosophical teachings, but are or was in fact only promoting a
theosophical
Cult, (emotional and what not) - with merely social and
psychological
teachings as the main objective?
3. And who has been or are promoting The Theosophical Society
merely as an
emotional cult and was this creation of a cult in accordance with
the
original ideas or with the wisdom teachings?
4. Who are merely frozen in the development of the furtherance of
the
theosophical teachings (the doctrine of "business-as-usual") - and
not
knowing to be so?
5. Who have merely been writing interpretations on the
theosophical
teachings in a learned manner since HPB died - and had success in
building
an marked increase in support to the theosophical cause?
6. - And who have merely been writing interpretations on the
theosophical
teachings in a learned manner since HPB died - but failed to build
an marked
increase in support to the theosophical cause?
7. Is your conscience not telling you that a teaching which are
labelled as
"secondary" is not as good as a teaching named "primary" -
with a "primary" and up-to-date Teacher guiding you? (A Teacher
who is
alive - and - not living in the past guiding you with "past"
teachings.)
8. Have you actually matured visibly as a Seeker beyond the
average
fellow-human-beings level of consciuosness just by reading a few
theosophical books or even one hundred of them? And do all Seekers
who do
that mature beyond that level?
9. Can real theosophical teaching happen in randomly collected
groups -
where the listeners are not in harmony with each other, the
teacher, time,
place and circumstances? (Are it just not merely information
stimulating the
intellect which are being exchanged?)
9. Can the blind lead the blinder? (Maybe it is good to be honest
about how
blind one is.)
10. Do you not need a - real - teacher first?
11. Can Universal Brotherhood be created or is it just merely a
dream with
all those theosophical sects (and Sisterhoods >:-)...) around in
the world?
Sects because they do not openly tell the Seekers how they relate
to other
theosophical groups year 2004.
12. Will the Theosophical Societies and other theosophical groups
create a
good furtherance of its teachings through promotion of so-
called "spritiaul
Master Revelations" presented or treated by various Theosophical
leaders as
an authority? (What was good in the good old days - is maybe not
good
today.)
13. Is the furtherance of the theosophical teachings based on
giving more
emphasis to the opening of the spiritual Heart, love and unselfsh
healing
more than what can be termed "business-as-usual" or the spiritual
support of
emotional get-to-gethers?
14. How aught one to promote oneself as a Teacher of theosophy?
And how not?
15. How do I promote Theosophy at work? Through social-get-
togethers?
My views are:
Answering these questions will provide material enough to write
several
volumes of text.
At this place we call Theos-Talk, we dare challenge leadership and
how it
aught to be used theosophically speaking.
At various theosophical groups leadership are not allowed to be
challenged.
Some of the reasons for this I think J.J. van der Leeuw has
presented in his
still important pamphlet. Blavatsky was challenged and allowed it
to happen
to a very great extend."
And again:
So very important: The use of ideas is to shape a man or woman,
not to
support a
system - which is viewed in a limited manner. This is one way in
which the
Wisdom Tradition is 'living', and not just the perpetuations of
ideas and
movements. This seems important to understand and know about.
from
M. Sufilight with a smile...
