Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00087)

Here again, we see the power of Internet in dissemination of information
which in the past is exteremely difficult and expensive to broadcast. Hail
to Internet!

mkr

On 11/1/06, carlosaveline <carlosaveline@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> Carl,
>
>
> An interesting, well-documented text of yours, thanks.
>
> Perhaps in the future we can establish an open, respectful dialogue among
> people from all sectors of the movement, so that facts can be once more
> accepted regardless of their political/institutional use.
>
> Of course that might be difficult for LCC/Masonry/E.R.  people.
>
> Among the first steps in that road, though, I must mention that having a
> poor dialogue is better than having no dialogue at all!
>
> Even  if ignored by Pedro/Linda, your text is useful.
>
> Regards,   Carlos.
>
>
>
>
>
> De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>
> Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>
> Cópia:
>
> Data:Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:24:11 -0000
>
> Assunto:[Spam] Theos-World On Pedro Oliviera's article, and my criticism
>
> > This article was not published in "Theosophy in Australia", nor on
> > its web-page, after a decision made by Mrs. Linda Oliveira, the
> > editor and wife of Pedro Oliviera. Strange, isn't it!?
> > /Carl
> > ______________________________
> >
> > Some comments concerning the article "Which Theosophy?" by Pedro
> > Oliveira
> >
> > by
> >
> > Carl Ek
> >
> > In Theosophy in Australia, No 1 - March 2006, I was caught by an
> > article by Pedro Oliveira titled "Which Theosophy?" My first
> > thought was, after I read the title: "What does he mean?"
> > What "which theosophy"? From my point of view, as a student of
> > Theosophy, who is trying to live Theosophy, in the meaning of being
> > a true Theosophist. I couldn't at first really understand what the
> > sentence of the article was about. But after I had observed the
> > picture collage with H.P. Blavatsky, William Q. Judge, C.W.
> > Leadbeater and Annie Besant, it stood perfectly clear for me. These
> > four people are well known names in the history of the modern
> > Theosophical Movement. To directly say that they are representing
> > two or more "camps" would be from several points of view wrong. But
> > one thing is clear, that Blavatsky and Judge stand for one. This is
> > because there is not a single word from either of them that goes
> > against what the other has said either concerning teachings, or
> > their view on the Theosophical Society or the modern Theosophical
> > Movement. Blavatsky made a clear statement when she was
> > saying: "There Judge is, there also I am". Internal ranking between
> > them doesn't exist, because they were/are both highly accepted
> > chelas, and advanced occultists. They were/are both the principal
> > Teachers of the modern Theosophical Movement, and in that - true
> > Colleagues. Everyone with any knowledge of what those two stood for
> > and taught, know and understand that this was the case. That
> > Leadbeater then stood for something different is undoubtedly clear
> > too. He was representing another "camp", consciously or not
> > consciously, I do not dare to say. This I state with the basis that
> > he was presenting teachings, that stood in clear contrast with what
> > the Masters, and what their Messengers taught and represented. Annie
> > Besant as a disciple and close co-worker with Blavatsky (and
> > personal friend of Mr. Judge) didn't deviate from this so long as
> > Blavatsky was incarnated. But after that something happened, and all
> > of you that have read Colonel Olcott's Old Diary Leaves, know this
> > very well. The old Colonel knew very well what was going on. Several
> > times he asked William Q. Judge to take over as the President of the
> > Society. Then Judge did not do this and you know very well what
> > Olcott did. Indeed he was still holding the title of Founding-
> > President, but the main part of his time and energy he laid on
> > Buddhism and this was the case until he passed away in 1907.
> >
> > In Mr. Oliveira's article there are several mistakes and errors, and
> > some of these are because important historical facts in these
> > matters are jumped over, and these are important to show to get a
> > correct picture of the development of the modern Theosophical
> > Movement. My comments are based on the fact that there is only one
> > Theosophy, and one Theosophical teaching (with roots among the
> > Masters, and the Tradition and the School they are representing),
> > and everything else then is not Theosophy (for why should the
> > Masters of Wisdom contradict themselves!?). The parts and quotations
> > I comment on follow the order as they appear in Oliveira's article.
> > I wish to make it clear that this should not be seen as a
> > personal "attack" on Mr. Oliveira, but only to bring attention to
> > where he has become a victim of errors. I have chosen only to
> > comment the first part of the article in detail because it is more
> > important for the understanding of the source, the purpose and the
> > teaching of the Theosophical Movement. The rest I will comment in
> > short words. Some errors I have chosen not to discuss because the
> > teachings behind them are far too complicated and advanced for this
> > forum.
> > First of all, it's important to make clear what is the fountain-
> > source and origin of Theosophy (according to Theosophy). Is it
> > private statements made by one or several individuals (Blavatsky,
> > Judge, Mahatmas, Buddhas, Chelas etcetera)? Revelations from
> > beings, that are more or less human and/or gods? Or is it the
> > result of experiences made by humans that have searched and
> > researched unbounded since the Manasputras in the middle of the
> > present rounds third root race (c. 18 million years ago) incarnated
> > in humanity to "wake" it to full self consciousness? Theosophy
> > teaches that it is the last thing, and nothing else. The most
> > talented of these "awakened" humans was/are the so
> > called "researches", whom later organised themselves into a unity, a
> > body, which we (in The West) are calling The Brotherhood (this is
> > the name the Masters themselves prefer that we use) or The Master
> > Lodge (the expression The White Lodge, has been so misused by pseudo-
> > theosophical groups that I prefer no to use it).
> > One purpose among others of the Brotherhood is to continuously
> > search and research the secrets of the Universe, and to guide (but
> > not lead) humanity in its spiritual development. They are who we,
> > (as us a part of the Theosophical Movement) are calling the Masters.
> >
> > What and who are the Masters?
> > Among some pseudo-theosophical groups they have been given a super
> > human, or even divine, status. And even some non-theosophical
> > elements operating inside the Theosophical Movement have gone so far
> > away from the original Theosophical Teaching that they are devoting
> > the Masters into nearly religious forms. Clear is that the Masters
> > do not answer any kind of prayers, neither do they communicate in
> > mediumistic or spiritistic ways. Several terrible examples are known
> > when this has been tried. H.P. Blavatsky in her excellent
> > article "How too take contact with the Masters" makes clear how
> > contacts could be taken, and all who are a member of the E.S. and
> > have paid attention in their studies know another way. It is clear
> > the Masters are humans, but not necessarily (for the moment) of
> > flesh and blood (with knowledge in the Theosophical teachings
> > concerning the seven human principles, and about the nature of the
> > Masters this is very clear).
> >
> > In a number of places in Oliveira's article, the Masters are
> > mentioned and referred to. For those who don't know who and what the
> > Masters are, or how they work, is it important to explain, otherwise
> > neither Oliveira's article, nor my comments will be understood
> > correctly. Misunderstandings concerning the nature of the Masters
> > outside the Theosophical Movement have created several strange
> > doctrines, and indeed strange organisations. Those with knowledge in
> > modern history and sociology of religion know, that during the 20th
> > century (mainly from the 1920's and forward) many sects and cults,
> > totally or partly got their "teaching" from people that operated
> > inside the Theosophical Movement who spread false and wrong
> > doctrines, or used Theosophy as a mask for their non-theosophical
> > activity.
> >
> > How many Masters there are is known only to the superior in the
> > Brotherhood. From the Theosophical literature we know of 17 Masters,
> > (plus many chelas, that are a direct disciple to a Master), who in
> > different ways, were more or less involved in the founding of the
> > modern Theosophical Movement and the Theosophical Society (the
> > Parent Society). Among these, three were considerably more active,
> > and took the growing modern Theosophy on their shoulders, and Karma.
> > These three Masters where M., K.H. and H.P.B. (not to be mixed-up
> > with the Chela Helena P. Blavatsky). What the initials stand for has
> > no interest, for none of them are standing for their real names.
> > They are using different names in different circumstances and in
> > different places. H.P. Blavatsky described how the two Masters M.
> > and K.H. are living in Ladakh precisely as all the other humans
> > there, and are well known in that society. If we should go there and
> > ask for M. or K.H., no one of the locals would understand of whom we
> > are talking about (and even if there are some people any of these
> > names, they would certainly not be any of the mentioned Masters),
> > hence they are using other names there. Therefore to give any
> > importance to their names, and definitely to mystify them, is with
> > out value. Everyone that has had connection with them, know that
> > they are humans, just like you and I, but with a much greater
> > knowledge than the main part of humanity. They eat less and have a
> > significantly less need of sleep. Their occult powers, like to
> > create, send away and use a Mayavi-rupa (a vehicle of mental matter,
> > also called a thought body, with origin, where it also will be
> > absorbed after its "duty" is fulfilled, often in Manas, and even
> > more rare in Buddhi), to read karma and to read in the Astral Light,
> > to change their physical material atoms in their sthula-sárira in to
> > astral-material and through this reach a higher age than is normal
> > for the common man, to reincarnate without a kama-loka and a
> > devachanic rest in total consciousness and a lot of other things
> > which make these humans to Masters, but they are still totally
> > human. The Evolution of Man has this in its plan, for all mankind,
> > on our way to higher life forms.
> > The Masters send their disciples (Chelas) "out in the world" on a
> > regular basis, and also on more unique and specific missions. One
> > of these is to found a Mystery School, and the Chela appears then as
> > a hierophant. We know several like this from the history, like
> > Plato, Pythagoras and Cagliostro. And a mission, just like that,
> > was one of Helena P. Blavatsky's. In this matter, she is not
> > unique, but never in a surveyable time has so large amount of
> > esoteric knowledge gone to be exoteric. The famous Hindu Theosophist
> > and writer T. Subba Row's (1856-1890) reaction on Helena P.
> > Blavatsky's publishing of the opus by the three Masters M., K.H. and
> > H.P.B., the Secret Doctrine was interesting. His opinion was that
> > this was absolutely too much (and this even since Master M. was his
> > one Master, but to Theosophy he was loyal in till death, and
> > probably still is, even if he resigned from his membership in the
> > T.S. the year before that he past away).
> > As the Master Lodge, the Mystery Schools are educational intuitions,
> > built up by Masters (which in their turn are Chelas to their own
> > Masters), and Chelas, which are the teachers and Students. They are
> > also researchers (hence no one is fully skilled in the Mysteries of
> > the Universe), and keepers of artefacts and scriptures from ancient
> > times. The above mentioned Mystery Schools, have in some cases
> > organised a "Temple", a religion, above its "crypt", for the common
> > man, which not are ready to take part in deeper studies. Here they
> > could take part of ethical messages, masked in an emotional and easy
> > obtainable form to be accessible for simple minds, with something
> > for all of the five senses. The Christian Church (which doesn't have
> > any "crypt" anymore) is a well known example of this, with its
> > priests in beautiful colourful dresses for the eyes, incense for the
> > nose, bread and wine for the mouth, holy water to put the fingers
> > in, then make the sign of the cross for the skin and have lovely
> > music for the ears. Rituals exists even in the Mystery Schools, in
> > their first three degree's, but then on a much higher level.
> > Reminiscences from these rituals could the observant Esotericist
> > find in the blue degrees of Freemasonry, to give a Western example.
> > The hope of the Master Lodge was that the Theosophical Society would
> > be a Mystery School in the West, the first and only one since the
> > ardent christen Emperor Justinian I of Byzans in the year 529,
> > closed the last one, namely Academos of Plato in Athens, and with
> > that opened a new era, the "Dark Middle-age". They hoped to found a
> > new Mystery School within T.S. which ended up to be a failure, by
> > reasons we soon will see.
> > Then it is clear, that Theosophy is science, which lives philosophy,
> > and (could) use religion, in that order.
> >
> > In the first part on page 7, we read the following about the
> > founding of T.S.:"... through the inspiration and guidance of her
> > Adept-Teachers ..." It is indeed right so say that H.P. Blavatsky
> > was inspired and guided by her Teachers, but three things that are
> > important in this matter are not mentioned. The first is that her
> > Teachers were also her Superiors in this work, so the founding of
> > T.S. was nothing but an order. She was their Messenger, primarily
> > for the West (but she has also other missions, of greater value),
> > for the 19th (and 20th) century. The second thing is that T.S., or
> > more correctly in this context the Theosophical Movement (because
> > far from all members of the different theosophical societies are
> > students of Theosophy, and far lesser Theosophists), has to be seen
> > as a part of the Great Lodge, as a branch, even if not to
> > satisfaction (as it was originally thought). The third is that it
> > was two that had this mission, namely Helena P. Blavatsky and
> > William Q. Judge.
> > This was not the first time these two occult giants were
> > working together, and definitely not the last. The trust H.P.B. and
> > Helena P. Blavatsky had and has for William Q. Judge (his/her "mate-
> > in-arm"), is showing the close relationship they had. These
> > quotations from different letters (gathered and published in The
> > Irish Theosophist in June, 1895) written by H.P.B. and Helena P.
> > Blavatsky are showing this very clearly:
> >
> > "Thanks for all, my dear old chum [W.Q.J.]; may the Masters protect
> > him. His ever and till and AFTER death."
> >
> > "My dear W.Q.J. . . . my only friend . . . Judge has done for me so
> > much lately, I owe him such gratitude, there is nothing I would do
> > for him . . . `Pon my word, I never knew I cared so much for him
> > personally. . . . I will never forget Judge's loyalty and devotion,
> > his unswerving friendship. . . ."
> >
> > The following quotation form the pencil of H.P.B. makes this far
> > clearer:
> >
> > London Oct. 23, 1889
> >
> > "The idea is absurd and preposterous . . . H.P.B. would give . . .
> > the whole esoteric bood in the U.S.A. for one W.Q.J. who is part of
> > herself since several aeons . . . .
> >
> > DIXI. H.P.B."
> >
> > In the next part we read:"HPB, as Madame Blavatsky was
> > affectionately known by her students and co-workers, . . . " . A
> > person who is claming this has only elementary knowledge in
> > Theosophy, and the Messenger (this fact even C.W. Leadbeater admit
> > even if he made some mistakes concerning it, see his Statement from
> > the June 14th 1885 which is quoted in the article The `Complex
> > Character' of Madame Blavatsky by M.T. (Light (London) March 2,
> > 1901, p. 103) which will be found under the link;
> > http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/anoncomplex.htm). The proofs are
> > many, that H.P.B. and Helena P. Blavatsky was/are not the same
> > person. For those who are not so well orientated in the Theosophical
> > literature these facts are not known. This is explained with the
> > following words: H.P.B. was one of the three Masters/High Occultists
> > which had taken Theosophy, and with that the whole Movement, on its
> > shoulders and Karma, he was also one of three co-writers of the
> > Secret Doctrine. Helena P. Blavatsky on the other hand, was a Chela
> > of Master M., which had from her Master been given the Mission to be
> > the new Mystery School, which the T.S. was considered to be,
> > Hierophant and Leader.
> >
> > The following quotation is showing this clearly:
> >
> > London Oct. 23, 1889
> >
> > "He or she, who believes that under any circumstances whatever,
> > provocations, gossips, slander or anything devised by the enemy
> > H.P.B. will ever dream even of going against W. Q. J. -- does not
> > know H P B -- even if he or she does know H. P. Blavatsky, or thinks
> > he knows her.
> >
> > DIXI. H.P.B. ?"
> >
> > Above he makes a distinction between "H.P.B." the high occultist
> > and "H. P. Blavatsky" the Russian woman, the outer personality with
> > its marked idiosyncrasies, of which the Masters speak very plainly
> > in their letters to A.P. Sinnett. She half-humorously indicated this
> > distinction, of which no one was more aware than herself, in the
> > words she wrote in her own copy of The Voice of the Silence: "H.P.B.
> > to H. P. Blavatsky with no kind regards."
> > (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-tm/hpbtm-17.htm)
> > In the middle of the same part Blavatsky's move from Adyar
> > back to Europe is mentioned. It would have been suitable to mention
> > the reasons of this move here. In Blavatsky's article Why I do not
> > return to India we find them:
> >
> > "There seems to have been something strange and uncanny going on at
> > Adyar, during these last years. No sooner does a European, most
> > Theosophically inclined, most devoted to the Cause, and the personal
> > friend of myself or the President, set his foot in Headquarters,
> > than he becomes forthwith a personal enemy to one or other of us,
> > and what is worse, ends by injuring and deserting the Cause.
> > But the loyalty and courage of the Adyar Authorities, and of the few
> > Europeans who had trusted in the Masters, were not equal to the
> > trial when it came. In spite of my protests, I was hurried away from
> > Headquarters. Ill as I was, almost dying in truth, as the physicians
> > said, yet I protested, and would have battled for Theosophy in India
> > to my last breath, had I found loyal support. But some feared legal
> > entanglements, some the Government, while my best friends believed
> > in the doctors' threats that I must die if I remained in India. So I
> > was sent to Europe to regain my strength, with a promise of speedy
> > return to my beloved Aryavarta.
> > Acting under the Master's orders I began a new movement in the West
> > on the original lines; I founded Lucifer, and the Lodge which bears
> > my name. Recognizing the splendid work done at Adyar by Colonel
> > Olcott and others to carry out the second of the three objects of
> > the T.S., viz., to promote the study of Oriental Literature, I was
> > determined to carry out here the two others. All know with what
> > success this had been attended. Twice Colonel Olcott was asked to
> > come over, and then I learned that I was once more wanted in India --
> > at any rate by some. But the invitation came too late; neither would
> > my doctor permit it, nor can I, if I would be true to my life-pledge
> > and vows, now live at the Headquarters from which the Masters and
> > Their spirit are virtually banished. The presence of Their portraits
> > will not help; They are a dead letter."
> >
> > (http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/WhyIDoNotReturnToIndia.htm)
> >
> > On page 8, in its first own part we read: "Soon after HPB
> > died, in May 1891, differences of approach to the teachings of
> > Theosophy became evident." Two errors appear in this sentence.
> > First; H.P.B. did not die in May, 1891. That Helena P. Blavatsky
> > died then has nothing directly to do with H.P.B. The second, and far
> > more important, is that there never were any changes in the
> > Theosophical Teachings, until today's day, and will never happen.
> > Some pseudo-theosophical teachings have been spread, but these are
> > not Theosophical, and will never be. If it is the spread of these
> > pseudo-theosophical teachings Oliveira is talking about, which it
> > probably is, this happened not before the true Manas of the Society
> > and the Movement was "gone". To it was 1891 was that Blavatsky,
> > after that until 1896, it was William Q. Judge.
> >
> > Later in the same part we find: "William Q. Judge, Vice-President of
> > the TS at that time, left the TS with Headquarters at Adyar and
> > formed The Theosophical Society in America in 1895". This is not
> > correct. Judge was also then Secretary General for the American
> > Section of T.S., and what happened during the Boston Convention 1895
> > was that the Section in total agreement with the Regulations and
> > Statutes of the Society declared it self as an independent part of
> > the International T.S. Just as Blavatsky did when she returned to
> > Europe and formed the European Federation as an independent part of
> > T.S., and with her self as President for life, and the Boston
> > Convention elected Judge as President for life. The sentence trying
> > to clam that Judge left T.S., in an alternative break of and founded
> > his own society is not correct. If Judge had the ambition to be the
> > International President of T.S., he could have been that. We must
> > keep in mind that during this period, the normal way of organisation
> > in the Movement was that every National society was an independent
> > Theosophical Society.
> > In chapter 22 of H. P. Blavatsky and the Theosophical Movement by
> > Charles J. Ryan we are finding:
> >
> > "Unfortunately, this desirable condition did not last long. Grossly
> > distorted reports and scurrilous articles about the recent
> > difficulties appeared in sensational newspapers, written by enemies
> > of theosophy, upon documentary information supplied by a suspended
> > member of the E.S., who said he found it "Intolerable" to be left in
> > the position of "having brought charges without proving them."
> > Within the Society sides were again taken. Mrs. Besant pressed her
> > charges still more strongly, and Mr. Judge's defenders supported him
> > with vigor. It soon became apparent that no satisfactory agreement
> > could be reached between the contending parties. A temporary
> > separation, at least, was the only way out of the difficulty. The
> > final outcome was the decision of the American Section, the largest
> > of the sections, to work henceforth as "The Theosophical Society in
> > America" with complete independence, under the presidency of W. Q.
> > Judge. This was effected with great enthusiasm at the Boston
> > Convention on April 28-9, 1895, by a majority of 191 votes against
> > 10."
> >
> > (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-tm/hpbtm-22.htm)
> >
> > H.P.B. and Helena P. Blavatsky trusted totally in Judge is there no
> > duet in.
> >
> > "Take my place in America now & after I am gone ? at Adyar."
> > H.P.B. to W.Q.J.
> > (http://blavatskyarchives.com/hpbwqj81287.htm)
> >
> > In a letter by H.P.B. from 1889 we read the following:
> >
> > "The Esoteric Section and its life in the U.S.A. depends on W.Q.J.
> > remaining its agent & what he is now. The day W.Q.J. resigns, H.P.B.
> > will be virtually dead for the Americans. W.Q.J. is the Antaskarana
> > between the two Manas (es), the American thought & the Indian ? or
> > rather the trans-Himalayan Esoteric Knowledge. DIXI.
> >
> > P.S. W.Q.J. had show, & impress this on the minds of all those whom
> > it may concern"
> >
> > H.P.B.
> >
> > H.P.B.'s last words make it far clearer how enormously important
> > William Q. Judge was for the Movement:
> >
> > "KEEP THE LINK (the Antaskarana) UNBROKEN! DO NOT LET MY LAST
> > INCARNATION BE A FAILURE."
> >
> > The Master was very clear upon His opinion then He
> > wrote: "Judge is right!" to Mrs. Besant. This was also hers, until
> > she ended up under the influence of Mr. Chakravarti. We continue to
> > read in chapter 22 in H. P. Blavatsky and the Theosophical Movement
> > by Charles J. Ryan:
> >
> > "Annie Besant was strongly impressed by the personality of the
> > Brahmanical representative, G. N. Chakravarti, and for many years
> > her opinions were colored by his point of view. W. Q. Judge watched
> > his growing ascendancy over her mind with anxiety, feeling that it
> > was not in harmony with H. P. Blavatsky's intense disapproval of the
> > methods of what she called "religions of pomp and gold." He became
> > more uneasy when, on Mrs. Besant's return to England with the party
> > that included Mr. Chakravarti, she prepared to go to India on a long
> > lecture-tour, and he warned her that it was not a propitious time to
> > go. Before leaving, she spent a short time in London during which
> > she saw a good deal of the Brahman, who left for India shortly
> > before she and the Countess Wachtmeister started for the Orient. A
> > vivid light is thrown upon this very critical time in the history of
> > the T.S. by Dr. Archibald Keightley, a most reliable student under
> > H.P.B. The following passage occurs in a long protest he made in
> > defense of Mr. Judge during the crisis of 1895. After giving
> > instances of Chakravarti's ability to throw glamour over individuals
> > or groups, he wrote:
> > I lived at Headquarters [London] during Mr. Chakravarti's visit
> > there and knew from Mrs. Besant, from him and from personal
> > observation, of his frequent magnetisation of Mrs. Besant. He said
> > that he did it to, "coordinate her bodies for work to be done." To a
> > physician and a student of occultism, the magnetisation of a woman
> > advanced to the critical age of mid-life, a vegetarian, an ascetic,
> > by a man, a meat-eater, one of full habit, large appetite and of
> > another and dark race, is not wise. The latter magnetism will
> > assuredly overcome the former, however excellent the intentions of
> > both persons. And I soon saw the mental effect of this in Mrs.
> > Besant's entire change of view, in other matters besides those of
> > H.P.B. and Mr. Judge. -- The Path, X, 99-100, June 1895. "
> > (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-tm/hpbtm-22.htm)
> >
> >
> > Further some quotation from letters (gathered and published in The
> > Irish Theosophist in June, 1895) written by H.P.B. and Helena P.
> > Blavatsky are making clear Judge's position in the Theosophical
> > Movement, and the personal trust H.P.B. and the Masters hade to him:
> >
> > " Judge . . . whom I trusted more perhaps than I did Olcott or
> > myself."
> >
> > "Master wants Judge to be elected for life, for reasons of His own ?
> > that's God's truth, . . .Less than you would I want to see X ______
> > or anyone (save Judge) elected for life . . . But if I do not like
> > the idea it is because I trust no one any longer, save Judge, and
> > Olcott perhaps. I have lost my last faith in mankind and see and
> > smell (rightly, if you please) Judases everywhere. But with Judge it
> > is different . . ."
> >
> > "I trust Judge more than anyone in the world."
> >
> > [To W.Q.Judge] "Well, sir and my only friend, the crisis is nearing.
> > I am ending my S.D. and you are going to replace me, or take my
> > place in America. . . . I rather lose the whole American lot to the
> > last man, X _______ included, than YOU."
> >
> > Mr. Judge was from the very beginning clear over the negative
> > influence Mr. Chakravarti hade over Mrs. Besant, and through her
> > even on T.S. and E.S.T. In a letter from 1894, Mr. Judge is writing
> > to Mr. Torsten Hedlund, then deputy leader under Dr. Gustaf Zander
> > for the E.S.T. in Sweden, and warning him of the new E.S.-
> > instructions, in which Besant had change after Chakravarti's
> > opinions. Dr. Franz Hartmann, then leader for the German
> > Theosophists, private disciple of Blavatsky and corresponder with
> > the Masters K.H. and S.B., described in a letter to his German
> > fellow-Theosophists after one of his visits in London HQ. How Besant
> > was when Chakravarti was present in the room in a state of hypnosis,
> > and that this ended when he (Chakravarti) left the room.
> > See further: William Q. Judge's 12-page E.S.T. circular dated the 3
> > of November 1894, The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950 Chapter XVI
> > and especially pp. 241-246 and Henry S. Olcott's Old Diary Leafs
> > Volume V, Chapter XIV, "Mr. Judge Denounces Mrs. Besant", especially
> > pp. 252-260.
> >
> > Further are we reading in the same part:" With him (Judge, my note)
> > begins a line of students that regard the writings of Madame
> > Blavatsky and her Adept-Teachers as the only authentic source of
> > modern Theosophy. They include Katherine Tingley, Gottfried de
> > Purucker and Robert Crosbie, among many others". This is absolutely
> > not true! To clear this out we most look on two tendencies in the
> > Theosophical Movement. Two persons are representing one of this,
> > namely Katherine Tingley (K.T.) and Gottfried de Purucker (G.deP.)
> > on one hand, and Robert Crosbie (R.C.), on the other. All three are
> > on the "Judge-side". If we first look at K.T. and G.deP., they are
> > representing that tendency which to day is the Theosophical Society
> > with Headquarters at Pasadena (formerly in Point Loma and Covina).
> > Oliveira is claming that they are saying, that it is only the
> > writings of Madame Blavatsky and The Masters that are the only
> > authentic source of modern Theosophy. This is absolutely not
> > correct. One could see the Pasadena-Theosophy as a logical
> > presentation in that that Blavatsky propound the basic overview,
> > Judge further developed the mystic, Tingley the ethics and Purucker
> > the philosophy. So the clam is totally wrong.
> > If we now look at Robert Crosbie, who also got the doubtful honour
> > of representing this "line", the third person in this "triad", we
> > must see who he was. Firstly he was for many years a corresponding
> > disciple of Blavatsky, and a personal friend, close co-worker and
> > indeed one of Judge's most trusted disciples. In the beginning he
> > followed Katherine Tingley. After Judges death, she "took" over the
> > Theosophical Society in America and united with that the societies
> > in Europe and other places which were "Judge-faithful" (some decided
> > however to stay independent, and probably the most known of these
> > was the German society Theosophische Gesellschaft in Deutschland
> > e.V., headed by Dr. Franz Hartmann (which still is working totally
> > independent after the original program) and E.T. Hargrove who was
> > then President of the Theosophical Society in Europe and America
> > (Judges administrative successor) left and founded a new society
> > (according to him, K.T. took over more or less "illegally") and
> > Julia W.L. Keightley (more known as Jasper Niemand, author of
> > Letters that have helped me, she was Judges closest disciple and
> > instructed many advanced occultists over the world) who later
> > followed him, and some other well known Theosophists), and founded
> > the new International Headquarters in Point Loma (also known as
> > Lomaland). R.C. was invited by K.T. to come and live in Lomaland,
> > and to take part of the inner work and to bear high offices in the
> > Society. But 1909 R.C. left the Theosophical Society Point Loma, and
> > settled down in Los Angeles. Around him, he joined a group of
> > Theosophists and Students of Theosophy and started a study group,
> > with Judge's The Ocean of Theosophy as material. The reason why he
> > left Point Loma and its society, and he wasn't alone (the Society
> > lost many members during K.T.'s leader-period), was because of
> > K.T.'s way of leading the Society and keeping up, for the majority
> > of the members, a far too high ethical level (which was close to
> > superhuman), and put the character fashioning and altruism, before
> > the main purpose and original way of working (G.deP. later, during
> > his leadership, went back to previous forms of organisation and way
> > working in the Society, but he was totally clear that K.T. was
> > right, had good purposes and was guided by the Masters, he
> > understood that if the members were not ready, then the common man
> > wasn't either). The study group R.C. had founded in L.A. soon
> > selected the name of the United Lodge of Theosophists (U.L.T.), and
> > this lodge is seen as the Mother-lodge for the U.L.T.-lodges all
> > over the world. The U.L.T.-lodges see them self as a group of
> > Theosophists and Students of Theosophy which decided to unite in a
> > lodge in a particular location and all lodges are considered to be
> > independent. What holds the U.L.T.-lodges together are two things.
> > First the Declaration:
> > "The policy of this Lodge is independent devotion to the cause of
> > Theosophy, without professing attachment to any Theosophical
> > organization. It is loyal to the great founders of the Theosophical
> > Movement, but does not concern itself with dissensions or
> > differences of individual opinion."
> >
> > "The work it has on hand and the end it keeps in view are too
> > absorbing and too lofty to leave it the time or inclination to take
> > part in side issues. That work and that end is the dissemination of
> > the Fundamental Principles of the philosophy of Theosophy, and the
> > exemplification in practice of those principles, through a truer
> > realization of the SELF; a profounder conviction of Universal
> > Brotherhood.
> >
> > "It holds that the unassailable Basis for Union among Theosophists,
> > wherever and however situated, is "similarity of aim, purpose and
> > teaching," and therefore has neither Constitution, By-Laws, nor
> > Officers, the sole bond between its Associates being that basis. And
> > it aims to disseminate this idea among Theosophists in the
> > furtherance of Unity.
> >
> > "It regards as Theosophists all are engaged in the true service of
> > Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, condition or
> > organization, and
> >
> > "It welcomes to its association all those who are in accord with its
> > declared purposes and who desire to fit themselves, by study and
> > otherwise, to be the better able to help and teach others.
> > The true Theosophist belongs to no cult or sect, yet belongs to each
> > and all."
> > The Declaration above is gathered together by R.C. mainly by the
> > most essential quotations from the writings of W.Q.J. The second
> > thing that is holding the U.L.T.-lodges together is that every lodge-
> > member is associated in the Parent Lodge in Los Angeles (which a
> > person could be without being a member in a particular lodge).
> > U.L.T. is very careful of the fact that Judge was
> > Blavatsky's "Colleague", and like her the Teacher of the modern
> > Theosophical Movement, but doesn't use the Mahatma Letters (to A.P.
> > Sinett, or others) and writings of other Theosophists. The U.L.T.
> > only use Blavatsky's, Judge's and Crosbie's (plus in certain ways,
> > the writings of B.P. Wadia) works. R.C. is not seen as a Teacher,
> > but as a person who explains the writings of Judge. This authority
> > his owns as a personal friend, co-worker and disciple of Judge. We
> > have to be clear over what is the purpose of U.L.T. U.L.T. sees it
> > self as a School of Theosophy, with the purpose to spread the basics
> > in the Teachings of Theosophy. All other Theosophical studies, on a
> > more advanced level or esoteric Theosophy, are left outside the
> > U.L.T. Sometimes, in some places, it is arranged by leading
> > members "private study groups" for this types of studies. These
> > groups are not a part of U.L.T., are not advertised and its new
> > participants are recruited from and out side the lodges, when they
> > are thought to be mature and ready. The main purpose for this is as
> > the Declaration is saying: "It holds that the unassailable Basis for
> > Union among Theosophists, wherever and however situated,
> > is "similarity of aim, purpose and teaching," In other words, the
> > basic Theosophy, could all Students of Theosophy gather around. We
> > must to have it clear that the majority of the "U.L.T.-members",
> > during its period of increase in the 1920th and -30th mainly came
> > form the Adyar-society (which followed Bomanji Pestonji Wadia when
> > he left the T.S. (Adyar), because of that this society had left the
> > original Theosophical Doctrine and way of working. In his Statement
> > of Resignation from the Theosophical Society (Adyar), and as a
> > member of the General Council, from July 18, 1922 B.P. Wadia writ:
> > "I have come to the conclusion that the Theosophical Society has
> > strayed away from the "Original Programme" inspired by the "Original
> > Impulses" whereby the Masters brought it into existence through the
> > help of Their Messenger, H.P. Blavatsky. It is no more a Society of
> > seekers of the Wisdom, but an organization where many believe in the
> > few, and blind following has come to prevail; where shams pass for
> > realities, and the credulity of superstition gains encouragement;
> > and where the noble ideals of Theosophical Ethics are exploited and
> > dragged in the mire of psychism and immorality. Theosophy as a
> > system of thought put forward by the Masters through H.P. Blavatsky
> > has ceased to be a serious subject of persistent study, and that
> > which has taken its place has little resemblance to the original
> > virile, healthy, and profound teachings. The Theosophical Society as
> > it exists today is disloyal to Theosophy and its Holy Cause, and I
> > regard that those who remain loyal to Theosophy can not be loyal to
> > the Theosophical Society.
> > I have earnestly and honestly endeavored to bring the above fact to
> > the notice of the members by the only straight forward course of
> > preaching the Truth as H.P. Blavatsky taught it. Time, energy and
> > money spent in the Theosophical Society have brought the further
> > knowledge that the existing conditions in the Theosophical Society
> > are so deep rooted and so wide spread that the disease is incurable.
> > The Theosophical Society, as feared by H.P. Blavatsky, has drifted
> > on a sandbank and is, spiritually speaking, a dead body.
> >
> > Under these circumstances there is but one honest course to be
> > pursued, by the sincere Theosophist, and I have chosen it: to leave
> > the Society from which the Life of the Lodge has departed; and must
> > continue to work for Theosophy, loyal to the true Founders and to
> > their Message, co-operating with all those brother-Theosophists who
> > hold to the unassailable basis for union ? "similarity of aim,
> > purpose and teaching" in reference to that Message."
> > I am recommending every one to read and study this impotent
> > document, as a whole. It is to be found during this Internet link:
> > http://www.teosofiskakompaniet.net/BPWadia_StatementOfResignationTS_2
> > 003.htm
> > B.P. Wadia was the one who laid the foundations to every
> > U.L.T.-lodge (except the Mother-lodge), except those in Malmö
> > (Sweden), Jacmel (Haiti) and Douala (Cameroon), in the world. The
> > case that U.L.T. is doubted about "new teachings", but not denying,
> > has many reasons, which I here choose to leave out-side.
> > On page 8, in its third part it's said:" . . . a great Adept known
> > as the Maha-Chohan . . .". This is a title, gathered together by the
> > Sanskrit word maha for great or grand, and the Tibetan chohan for
> > lord. Which are given "Grand Lord", and describe one which is a
> > Master to a Master. This sentence could give the non experienced
> > Student the false idea that is a name (which is the opinion of
> > several pseudo-theosophical and non-theosophical groups).
> >
> >
> > Page 9:
> > ? The part that is quoted in the fourth part, and is said to
> > be from Maha-Chohan is a pure falsification, and produced in the
> > ring among Leadbeater. And with that have the whole thing no value.
> > ? In the last part is it spoken about T.S. (Adyar) in
> > statistic words. That fact, that the Indians never removed a closed
> > lodge from de scrolls, is not taken on consideration. Which the
> > following quotation is showing:
> > "H.S.O. threatens to resign, may be will resign, and he seeks to
> > throw the whole blame upon me! Last year when here, he boasted of
> > theosophy & its Branches going up higher than sky, in India. All was
> > flourishing then, all promising, the people's devotion as great as
> > ever, 150 Branches strong & happy: And what's the truth & what does
> > Bert find there? Out of the 150 Branches, only 40 alive. No one
> > approaching Adyar at 5 miles distance."
> > (http://blavatskyarchives.com/hpbwqj111990.htm)
> > Further is it talking about the numbers of members at the times of
> > Annie Besant's death. The fact that around 50% of the members of
> > T.S. (Adyar) left in connection with the abdication of Jiddu
> > Krishnamurti, and with that a drastic falling numbers of lodges is
> > not either taken into consideration.
> > In the third part is it spoken about "Buddhist". Has Oliveira not
> > read The Secret Doctrine, or even The Key to Theosophy? He seems to
> > have read from The Key to Theosophy at least, but not understood
> > what he was reading when he is seemed to believe that "Budhist" is a
> > person that belongs to the Buddhist religion/philosophy and with
> > that the same as a Buddhist. So the whole "talk" is with out value.
> > We most not forget that both M. and K.H. was/are Hindus, and not
> > belonging to Buddhism, but Budhists. In Encyclopedic Theosophical
> > Glossary we read:
> > "Budhaism or Budhism [from Sanskrit budha wisdom] The anglicized
> > form of the term for the teachings of divine philosophy, called in
> > India budha (esoteric wisdom). It is equivalent to the Greek term
> > theosophia. It must be distinguished from Buddhism, the philosophy
> > of Gautama Buddha, although this is a direct and pure derivative
> > from budhaism."
> > See further the Introductory to the Secret Doctrine Vol. I, pp. xxi,
> > xxvii-xviii.
> > Page 10:
> > ? In the first part Oliveira is writing that several books
> > that was co-writed by Annie Besant (her own book The Seven
> > Principles of Man is as an excellent new beginners book, in its
> > original from 1892/1897) and C.W. Leadbeater, "are based on their
> > clairvoyant investigations". To not take into consideration what
> > Blavatsky said about this type of activity is frightening. My
> > question to Mr. Oliveira is: What interests have a student of
> > Theosophy in their truly private thought forms? There is nothing of
> > public interest in any of these books (except, maybe, for some parts
> > of their Occult Chemistry). It is referred to that H.P.B. her self
> > was using clairvoyance when "she" wrote the S.D. Every reader with
> > some knowledge in the clairvoyance knows that this was not this same
> > type of clairvoyance, and have nothing to do with this. To read in
> > the Akasha, and travel in a mayavi-rupa is not the same thing, so
> > when Oliveira is writing"..., bearing in mind the latter's effort
> > was to popularise Theosophy." could it not to be seen as any thing
> > else then a bad excuse for a none-theosophical way of acting.
> > ? In concerning on what is appearing on page 10 have I am
> > wondering if Mr. Oliveira considered there to be more then one
> > truth, and if is he gives some value to the Motto of the
> > Theosophical Movement, which is saying that there is no religion
> > higher then the Truth?
> > Page 11:
> > ? The fact that T.S. does not having an official creed is not
> > the same thing as that Theosophy is not representing certain
> > doctrines. To be a member of a Theosophical Society is further, not
> > the same as to be a Theosophist or a Student of Theosophy. And a
> > Theosophist or a Student of Theosophy does not have to be member of
> > a Theosophical Society, to be that. Probably are the majority of
> > them NOT members of any Society.
> > ? The quoted "letter" is not written by a Master, which its
> > contents are showing since it's not Theosophical, and therefore have
> > nothing to do in this matter.
> > ? Oliveira is claiming in the last part of the page that the
> > linga-sarira should be "the Double, the phantom body". This is not a
> > Theosophical Doctrine. Theosophy is teaching that it directly the
> > opposite, that it is the physical body that is the "the Double, the
> > phantom body", and the astral body that is the original. The reason
> > for this appears in early Theosophical writings because a large
> > number of the early members came from Spiritism, and to choose other
> > words would or could have be misunderstood by some. Another well
> > known example of this is when H.P. Blavatsky is "denying" the
> > doctrine of reincarnation in Isis Unveiled. When she does that she
> > is meaning the ideas as they where thought by Allan Cardec, and how
> > his fellow-Spiritists then believed it to be. She was speaking
> > instead about the "transmigration of the soul" and "metempsychosis"
> > (see H.P. Blavatsky "Theories about Reincarnation and Spirits", The
> > Path November 1886).
> > Page 12:
> > ? Concerning the so called translations from Sanskrit made by
> > Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater. Every student of Theosophy (and
> > Sanskritist) knows that these not are correct, since they are not
> > with Theosophy agreeing. An example of this that Manas is called
> > a "body", because it is easy to destroy. The Manas is not a body, in
> > the same way as the three bodies are in the lower part of the Human
> > Constitution, and it is not easy to destroy, in other words nearly
> > impossible.
> > ? In the second part is further a non-theosophical statement
> > about the Astral Body and to make it alone as bearer of Prana is not
> > correct. Theosophy is saying that hence everything is living;
> > therefore everything must be bearer of Prana.
> > ? In the fourth part is H. Tudor Edmond's foreword to Arthur
> > Powell's book The Etheric Double mentioned. How is it possible to
> > use non-theosophical material, in a stillborn attempt to make non-
> > theosophical ideas Theosophical? Named what ever! For a description
> > over the differences between the HPB/Masters Theosophical Teaching
> > concerning this, and the leadbeaterian, see The Etheric Double: The
> > Far-Reaching Effects of a false Assumptions by Geoffrey A. Farthing
> > (see link http://www.katinkahesselink.net/metaphys/etheric.htm).
> > ? In the fifth part are a number of ideas by Annie Besant and
> > C.W. Leadbeater, and their followers, menaced and incorrectly called
> > theosophical. Even with a minor knowledge in Theosophy is it clear
> > that these ideas not are Theosophical.
> > My opinion about what is honest saying that if someone create a new
> > doctrine (and I am talking about a totally new doctrine, and not
> > minor explanation and complements to a already existing one),
> > should, if they so wish, also give it a name of its own. Otherwise
> > it is to go with a false notation. Then Annie Besant (most probably,
> > not consciously and by her on will) and C.W. Leadbeater, and there
> > followers, created a new doctrine (for one speaking example. see A
> > Comparison of C.W. Leadbeater's The Chakras with the Writings of
> > H.P. Blavatsky, William Q. Judge and G. de Purucker by M. Jaqua
> > (http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/thomas/jaqua.htm), which is not
> > Theosophical, should they not call it Theosophy, and therefore give
> > it a name of its own.
> > It is seemed that some persons in the T.S. with Headquarters in
> > Adyar have come to have a creed which is saying; Do NOT believe as
> > H.P. Blavatsky and the Masters were teaching. Believe what you want
> > (and call it gladly theosophy), but absolutely not what the Pioneers
> > of the Movement believed in, for then you are a Fundamentalist, and
> > not welcome in the society. This even if someone truly and deep
> > believes and works for the Principe of Universal Brotherhood.
> > "Well I have raised a "Frankenstein" & he seeks to devour me."
> > Helena P. Blavatsky in a letter to William Q. Judge
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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=1,1162395226.51704.19714.balcomo.hst.terra.com.br,50816,20031127114101,20031127114101
> >
> > Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> > Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 31/10/2006 / Versão:
> 4.4.00/4885
> > Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>


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