Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00655)

Daniel and Friends,


As I wrote earlier, the commitment and the vows are not dead letter. They are not mechanistical -- except in the case of very naive persons, or in Vatican-inspired circles.   

Soon after HPB's death, it was clear that her inner School did not exist any longer.  And in 1906 the Leadbeater Scandals started. 

But the ULT does not come from Adyar TS. It comes from the Pasadena TS.

In the 1890s, Judge had been persecuted. And he had been formal disciple for 13-14 years, as stated by HPB, while A. Besant was a newcomer to the movement. 

So Judge separated from Besant's school during his slander-persecution.  

The ULT comes more than a decade later, as a common sense action while both Pasadena TS and Adyar TS underwent severe crisis and turbulences. 

Splits are rather common in esoterical tradition,  precisely because vows are at higher levels than mere words,  and they are living, vulnerable processes which need conflicting and continuous revision and updating ( due to numberless  and multi-layered challenges/tests). 

One who looks at the history of masonry will see that. 

The so-called "Theosophical" masonry, for instance,  has experimented a major split in very recent years.  

Daniel should ask John Algeo about that.  ( I am sure Mr. J. Algeo might teach one or two things to  Daniel Caldwell about splitting.) 

Each time there is a split, necessarily some vows have to be apparently broken at the dead-letter or word-level... 

If you ask Mrs. Radha Burnier about that, she might confirm. 

The important thing is that one remains true to one's own heart and conscience, not to the dead letter. 

And we can always judge trees by their fruits... 

Peace to all beings,  and best regards,  Carlos Cardoso Aveline 




De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:37:12 -0000

Assunto:[Spam] Theos-World mistaking the public and the private?????

> Carlos,
> 
> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> Let me see if I understand your argument and if
> it will hold up when closely looked at and examined.
> 
> You say I am "mistaking the public and the private"?
> 
> Let us start by going back to the pledge HPB sent
> to all individuals who wanted to join her esoteric school.
> 
> See:
> 
> http://blavatskyarchives.com/espage3.htm
> 
> Notice #7:
> 
> "I pledge myself to preserve inviolable secresy as regards the signs
> and pass-words of the Section and all confidential documents.
> 
> "So help me, my Higher Self."
> 
> And focusing in:
> 
> "I pledge myself to preserve INVIOLABLE SECRESY as regards . . . all
> confidential documents." caps added
> 
> And on page 2 of the same document, it reads in part about
> preserving:
> 
> "The Secrecy of the documents of the Section . . . unless absolved
> from such secrecy by the Head of the Section."
> 
> So now let us take this argument by Carlos about, well, about
> circulating privately [to new people] the esoteric documents of HPB.
> 
> Let's say Carlos had lived back in 1888 and had taken this pledge
> and joined HPB's esoteric school.
> 
> And then let us suppose that Carlos gets the idea that he wants to
> share the E.S. documents with a few close friends. Mind you, Carlos
> isn't going to publish them publicly, that is, print copies and sell
> them through, let us say, a public bookstore, he is just going to
> circulate them privately to a few friends. He may only let them
> borrow his copy and read the instructions or he may write out
> portions of the whole instruction or even let the friend borrow it
> who then writes out either portions of or the whole instruction.
> 
> But the question is: Is Carlos actually preserving "inviolable
> secresy" regarding these documents when he does these things?
> Notice in the example I gave Carlos is NOT publicly circulating
> copies, but only privately circulating his copy or extracts or maybe
> even a complete handwritten copy of his printed copy to chosen
> individuals. But again is he actually preserving "inviolable
> secresy" by doing such things and furthermore was he "absolved from
> such secrecy by the Head of the Section"?
> 
> And in this example what if later HPB discovered that Carlos was
> doing the above, what would she say and do?
> 
> I give the above example because there are similar cases and
> historical material from 1888-1891 relating to this very issue.
> 
> As I read the pledge and related material, the pledge is binding for
> life. Even HPB says this in several documents.
> 
> See also the document titled "Book of Rules", reprinted on pp. 285-
> 286 of THE ESOTERIC PAPERS OF MADAME BLAVATSKY. See:
> http://esotericpapers.net/
> 
> Here we find that esoteric students were NOT to COMMUNICATE them
> [certain documents] to anyone not already in the esoteric school.
> 
> Furthermore, no member was to DISCUSS the teachings given in the
> E.S. or DISCUSS any of its confidential documents with outsiders.
> 
> So would Carlos have being abiding by his pledge [see above] by
> PRIVATELY circulating copies of these E.S. documents to NEW people
> who were not already members of the E.S.?
> 
> Food for thought.
> 
> I will write more on this later and give some more examples.
> 
> Daniel
> htpp://hpb.cc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> http://mail.terra.com.br/protected_email/imail/imail.cgi?+_u=carlosaveline&_l=1,1145911059.894757.18873.vacoas.hst.terra.com.br,6252,20031127114101,20031127114101
> 
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 24/04/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4747
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]