Re: Theos-World Does HPB support scholars and Masters Revealed ?
Feb 18, 2006 07:12 AM
by M. Sufilight
My views are:
Bill are you saying that I should trust a Scholar who to me reveals without
the use of Wisdom?
Allright I give some info, which might help someone understand my view on
it.
1. Maybe this will help.
There was once a small boy who banged a drum all day and loved every moment
of it. He would not be quiet, no matter what anyone else said or did.
Various people who called themselves Sufis, and other well-wishers, were
called in by neighbors and asked to do something about the child.
The first so-called Sufi told the boy that he would, if he continued to make
so much noise, perforate his eardrums; this reasoning was too advanced for
the child, who was neither a scientist nor a scholar. The second told him
that drum beating was a sacred activity and should be carried out only on
special occasions. The third offered the neighbors plugs for their ears; the
fourth gave the boy a book; the fifth gave the neighbors books that
described a method of controlling anger through biofeedback; the sixth gave
the boy meditation exercises to make him placid and explained that all
reality was imagination. Like all placebos, each of these remedies worked
for a short while, but none worked for very long.
Eventually, a real Sufi came along. He looked at the situation, handed the
boy a hammer and chisel, and said, "I wonder what is INSIDE the drum?"
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/sufi/stories.html
2. The below also deserves attention.
Mahatma Letter no. 47 by Morya - 1882
"You know K.H. and me -- buss! know you anything of the whole Brotherhood
and its ramifications? The Old Woman is accused of untruthfulness,
inaccuracy in her statements. "Ask no questions and you will receive no
lies." She is forbidden to say what she knows. You may cut her to pieces and
she will not tell. Nay -- she is ordered in cases of need to mislead people;
and, were she more of a natural born liar -- she might be happier and won
her day long since by this time. But that's just where the shoe pinches,
Sahib. She is too truthful, too outspoken, too incapable of dissimulation:
and now she is being daily crucified for it. Try not to be hasty, respected
Sir. The world was not made in a day; nor has the tail of the yak developed
in one year. Let evolution take its course naturally -- lest we make it
deviate and produce monsters by presuming to guide it. "
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-47.htm
To mislead is to me the same as allowing a lie, since 'mislead' has
'deceive' as a synonym.
3.
This every scholar now knows. The able lectures of Mr. G. Massey alone are
sufficient in themselves to convince any fair-minded Christian that to
accept the dead-letter of the Bible is equivalent to falling into a grosser
error and superstition than any hitherto evolved by the brain of the savage
South Sea Islander."
(The Secret Doctrine vol 1., p. 305)
Ordinary scholars do not use the Seven Keys and wisdom.
4.
Certain Theosophical emotional emailers seems to forget the following
very important statements by Blavatsky in her article "LODGES OF MAGIC"
written october 1888.
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/LodgesOfMagic.htm
A few excerpts:
"The real names of Master Adepts and Occult Schools are never, under any
circumstances, revealed to the profane; and the names of the personages who
have been talked about in connection with modem Theosophy, are in the
possession only of the two chief founders of the Theosophical Society."
... and also ...
"The whole difficulty springs from the common tendency to draw conclusions
from insufficient premises, and play the oracle before ridding oneself of
that most stupefying of all psychic anæsthetics--IGNORANCE. "
Enjoy...
from
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Meredith" <meredith_bill@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Does HPB support scholars and Masters Revealed ?
2 entries found for scholar.
schol·ar Audio pronunciation of "scholar" ( P ) Pronunciation Key
(sklr)
n.
1.
1. A learned person.
2. A specialist in a given branch of knowledge: a classical
scholar.
2. One who attends school or studies with a teacher; a student.
3. A student who holds or has held a particular scholarship.
[Middle English scoler, from Old French escoler, and from Old English
scolere both from Medieval Latin scholris, from Late Latin, of a school,
from Latin scola, schola, school. See school1.]
[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
scholar
n 1: a learned person (especially in the humanities); someone who by
long study has gained mastery in one or more disciplines [syn: scholarly
person, student] 2: someone (especially a child) who learns (as from a
teacher) or takes up knowledge or beliefs [syn: learner, assimilator] 3:
a student who holds a scholarship
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
M. Sufilight wrote:
Hallo all,
My views are:
I will politely say, that
If Theosophy in general supports scholars, then I have to say, that I
disagree with Theosophy.
from
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: "Desmontes" <desmontes@gmail.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Salience, valence, HPB, and scholars
From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
"Here von Egmond is implying, correctly in my view that the previous
attitude toward HPB among scholars had generally been that the
Masters were figments of fantasy and that therefore HPB herself did
not deserve serious attention in terms of studying her sources. Why
would Adyar not welcome this? It undermines the unassailable CWL,
for one thing. If HPB's Masters are acknowledged by scholars to have
been real, then the contrast with CWL's imaginary ones becomes all
too glaring."
Thank you for your comments. It is nice to see an author entering into
dialogue with his community of readers. Personally, with regard to study
and
research, I tend to take the impartial position of Francis Bacon who
states
in his essay on Studies, "Read not to contradict and confute; nor to
believe
and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and
consider." Not only do to I apply this wise aphorism to your book "The
Masters Revealed", which gives one much to weigh and consider, but also
to
Theosophical literature in general. Your book provides an excellent
service
to the Theosophical Community by setting forth intelligently a viewpoint
unsanctioned by the official organization. I am of the opinion that an
intellegent reader will not give much credence to the extravagent claims
of
C.W. Leadbeater. Blavatsky on other hand is a force to be reckoned with.
Her
claims to the supranormal abilities of the Masters are explained in a
manner
that is rational and to a degree believable. While it is impossible for
the
discriminating reader to accept uncritically the claims of such
abilities,
her explanations enable one to retain an open mind with regard to the
possilibility while personal experience is lacking.
In "The Masters Revealed" you set forth the thesis that "most of these
characters were authorities in one or more spiritual traditions; others
were
accomplished writers. They helped prepare HPB for her mission as a
spiritual
teacher and/or sponsored the Theosophical Society from behind the
scenes.
Although their teachings and example affected HPB's development, the
extent
of their influence was usually secret. In a few cases the argument for
their
acquaintence with HPB is speculative, but usually the fact of a
relationship
is well established and the real question is its meaning. Because their
'spiritual status' and psychic powers are inaccessible to historical
research, these alleged criteria of 'Mahatmaship' are treated with
agnosticism." (p. 14-15) Personally, I see in these few words not only a
lack of personal bias but also an abundance of integrity. I also see no
conflict between this perspective and HPB's most sober descriptions of
the
Masters in the Key To Theosophy. To paraphrase (combining the questions
and
answers), she wrote in substance:
"The Masters are neither supernatural beings, nor "myths". If you listen
to
what people say, you will never have a true conception of them. In the
first
place, they are living men, born as we are born, and doomed to die like
every other mortal. Many miraculous claims are put forth on their behalf
and
the more we try to set people right, the more absurd do the inventions
become. The word "Mahatma" simply means a "great soul." If the title of
great is given to a drunken soldier like Alexander, why should we not
call
those "Great" who have achieved far greater conquests in Nature's
secrets,
than Alexander ever did on the field of battle? Besides, the term is an
Indian and a very old word. We call them "Masters" because they are our
teachers; and because from them we have derived all the Theosophical
truths,
however inadequately some of us may have expressed, and others
understood,
them. They are men of great learning, whom we term Initiates, and still
greater holiness of life. They are not ascetics in the ordinary sense,
though they certainly remain apart from the turmoil and strife of your
western world." (Sec. 14)
Don't lose heart. You may have detractors in various Theosophical
Organizations, but if Madame Blavatsky were alive today, we can expect
that
she would give you her thanks, both for the honesty of your inquiry and
also
for rescuing the Mahatmas from the fantastic delusions which are
perpetuated
in their name, something which she sought time and again to accomplish
but
to little avail as is evident from our modern situation.
-Desmond
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
