|
|
| [MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX] |
| [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Dec 29, 2005 01:43 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Hallo Jerry and all,
My view is:
I agree a whole lot.
- - -
When we talk about the future of the so-called Theosophical groups - I think
one also will have to understand the following as a student of theosophy.
I emailed this one, about a year ago, here at Theos-talk.
The Seeker could sometimes with advantage read it five times or more.
"ROLES of TEACHER and STUDENT"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/19293
An excerpt or two:
1.
"The problem of the teacher is greater than the problem of the
student. One reason for this is that the student is anxious to learn
but seldom realises that he can learn ONLY UNDER THE
CONDITIONS WHICH MAKE THIS LEARNING POSSIBLE.
He cannot make real progress until he has undergone a preparation
for learning. When this preparation is complete, the student
may progress slowly, rapidly or instantly through a number of
phases in which he understands what he has called the meaning of
life, or to know himself."
2.
"The most important thing, therefore, is to get the student into
an alignment in which his progress can be effective and continuous.
This can only be directed by someone who knows the whole
picture, and who knows what is possible and what is not, with an
individual and a given group of people.
Because the student is likely to be imprisoned by attitudes
which have trained him, he will tend to approach the teacher,
and the teaching, in all kinds of ineffective and minor ways.
He will ask for 'peace of mind', progress in his worldly life,
money, knowledge, illumination, assurances - all things which may
be important in one way or another, but which are not necessarily
relevant to his situation. In other words, he asks to be taught,
or to be given, knowledge and things which HE HAPPENS TO BE WANTING
FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT HE HAS DECIDED THAT THESE ARE NECESSARY OR
URGENT."
3.
"The fact is that you can learn only what you can be taught. If
you impose or interpose conditions gained from speculation, emotion,
imagination, intellect and so on, you will still have to learn
how to learn. This means finding out how to collect knowledge,
stage by correct stage, without the foregoing limitations.
The human being, not knowing what he really is, not knowing
where he came from or where he can go, is hardly in a
position merely to assume that he should get his instruction in
this or that form; or that before he does anything else his warts
should be charmed or his house set in order in a way which he
happens capriciously, or even dedicatedly, to demand.
The first duty of the teacher is to make this plain and not to
compromise with the superficial sentiments which many people believe
are fundamentals."
*******
A few comments.
As I see it:
It happens more than one time, that two Theosophists or Seekers after Truth meet.
They for instance meet each other in a Theosophical group, - and there they are facing the above situation.
The situation of Teacher and Student.
One have to ask: who is the Teacher and who is the student? And how aught one to relate to the situation?
What was healthy teachings in Blavatsky's time or perhaps even in Krishnamurti's or van der Leeuw's early times
is maybe NOT that healthy today. Back then the word "Authority" had a different meaning. Well that is my view.
- - -
A few examples:
Take Blavasky's article "Chelas and Lay Chelas"
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/lay.htm
For instance: "We call to mind several sad failures within a twelvemonth."...and reading the rest.
or
Blavasky's excellent article named "Chelas".
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/Chelas.htm
An excerpt could help us:
"And having been accepted as a Chela, it is not true that he is merely the instrument of his Guru.
He speaks as ordinary men then as before, and it is only when the master sends by means of the
Chela's Magnetism an actual written letter, that the lookers-on can say that through him a
communication came."
...and...
"So it must follow that those who are only beginners have no more or greater power than an
ordinary man. Indeed the goal set before the Chela is not the acquisition of psychological power; his
chief task is to divest himself of that overmastering sense of personality which is the thick veil that hides
from sight our immortal part--the real man. So long as he allows this feeling to remain, just so long will he
be fixed at the very door of Occultism, unable to proceed further. "
A short comment:
Today Mahatma Letter's do not spell the same reaction as they did back in the good old Blavatsky days.
We and the Masters included have to face this. Time has changed it all.
So two of my questions are:
What is the spiritual Needs of the aspirants and what is being done about them?
What is the spiritual Wants of the aspirants and what is being done about them?
(We are knowing that Needs and Wants are not always the same.)
*******
Saying as van der Leeuw did:
"If there is to be any future for the Theosophical Society, it will have to
renounce utterly its claim of having solved the riddles of life and being a
repository of truth; instead it will have to unite those who search for
truth and for reality whatever these may bring by way of suffering and
discomfort. The seeker after truth welcomes disturbance and doubt, the very
things which were and are feared most by theosophists."
So I even think, that TSA and other groups are failing to adress the Needs of the Seekers properly.
Theos-Talk is a quite interesting place.
Members from a broad spectrum of theopsophical groups or related groups
haved joined this place - together with other Seekers.
Why not declare that Theos-Talk is at least partly the future of "Theosophy in the physical"!
:-)
from
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Hejka-Ekins" <jjhe@charter.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Don't Forget HPB & her writing, or consider Besant as founder & move on
Dear Sufilight, Leon, Anand et al, Sufilight, I am glad that you brought forward van der Leeuw's assessment of the situation in 1930. It is historically important because the presentation was given right on the heals of Krishnamurti's resignation speech and the membership was still in quite a stir about it. Van der Leeuw was simply trying to identify the errors the leadership made which brought it to that crises, and I believe that he hit the nail on the head. Arundale, however, ignored van der Leeuw and took another track. He continued to praise K. for awhile in The Theosophist, then shifted gears again and suddenly stopped mentioning him at all. Obviously, as Anand comments, when Arundale became president in 1934, he had to take a different track. He did, but it was not the track van der Leeuw advocated. That van der Leeuw's talk was never reprinted by the TS is (to me) suggestive of the three real problems: 1) the leadership's continuing unspoken commitment to the tradition of revelation that began with the Besant era; 2) their unwillingness to return to the focus of realization which Blavatsky and her teachers originally tried to establish; 3) The organization's reluctance to acknowledge mistakes. Whether TSA and the TS continue to follow Arundale's lead, I am not in the position to argue. I have had several people who were in leadership positions in the TSA affirm this to be the case. But policies do slowly shift over time, and who is to say exactly at what point they are still following a certain line and when they are no longer doing so. Van der Leeuw's point about brotherhood, as I understand it, is a subtle one. There is a difference between an organization forming a nucleus of brotherhood and one trying to be that nucleus. An organization which tries to create a brotherhood of *Theosophists* around a set of doctrines is shooting itself in the foot. In this case, there will always be those on the inside and those on the outside. On the other hand, an organization which promotes a brotherhood of *humanity*, if it succeeds, will find the nucleus within the brotherhood itself--not the organization. Blavatsky, her teachers, and Olcott all remarked upon the TS's failure to bring about this first object. That did not change in van der Leeuw's time, and I don't believe it has changed as yet. Best wishes, Jerry M. Sufilight wrote:Hallo Leon and all,
Perhaps...perhaps.
But where is the Dutch theosophist, J.J. van der Leeuw wrong when
in 1930 he was saying:
"If there is to be any future for the Theosophical Society, it will have to
renounce utterly its claim of having solved the riddles of life and being a
repository of truth; instead it will have to unite those who search for
truth and for reality whatever these may bring by way of suffering and
discomfort. The seeker after truth welcomes disturbance and doubt, the very
things which were and are feared most by theosophists.
In yet another respect does the Theosophical Society breathe the atmosphere
of last century. It is in the desire to unite in one brotherhood all who
think or feel alike. Thus the Theosophical Society aimed at forming a
nucleus of brotherhood. Such a nucleus however always defeats its own ends.
It cannot escape becoming a brotherhood with the exclusion of less desirable
brethren. The moment we unite a number of people in such a nucleus we have
created a sect, a separate group walled off from the rest of the world and
thereby from life."
Especially the last sentemces are very important, and shows me, that one
should not read the Mahatma Letters that litterally
(following the dead-letter key).
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.
So when we remember this just like the Masters remember it,
we will know, what a sect is when we see one.
:-)
from
M. Sufilight
Yahoo! Groups Links