Theos-Talk Archives (February 2008 Message tt00310)

Yes. We somehow seem to disagree about a number of things.
Yet, I am sure we agree upon, the essence of the theosophical teachings.


Frank wrote:
"Everyone, who has studied a little bit the history of the Theosophical 
Movement, knows that the development in the 20th century was quite different 
from that picture HPB here gives."


Perhaps. I would say, that it is true only if you take her literally.
There is theosophy and there is theosophy. Sometimes other names are used.


Frank wrote:
"The reason is that the future is not determinated, there are always at least 
two ways."

Honestly you will have to admit, that you do not at all know whether what you say here is true or not.
I, on the other hand, claim I know, that you are in error. Yet I cannot prove this to you.

The future is truely known by the wise one.
Time sprang from ParaBrahman.

- - - - - - -
The unbroken link.
Frank, I must assume that the "link" is unbroken and always will be one way or the other. To me this is obvious. Some politicians have contact. Some spiritual leaders have contact. Actually prove it I cannot. And I will not pin point who I think have contact, because I find that would be immoral of me. I say this, because I myself have contact in part.

No, I have not passed the latest test. I have failed utterly, and that is why I suffer every day.

- - - - - - 
Spirituality and numbers.
Yes. Sometimes it is better to save an old stubborn would-be-theosophist than it is a hundred ignorant Christian's.
The greater the level of initiation the greater the impact.



M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Frank Reitemeyer 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 8:27 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World - Fools rush in


  Morten,
  I think we can only agree that we not agree.
  I wonder whether my English is too bad or yours.
  Perhaps you are not much experienced in getting the content of a text?

  You now quote HPB about the POSSIBLY situation of the TS in the last quarter 
  of the 20th century.
  So what?
  Everyone, who has studied a little bit the history of the Theosophical 
  Movement, knows that the development in the 20th century was quite different 
  from that picture HPB here gives.
  The reason is that the future is not determinated, there are always at least 
  two ways.
  The majority of theosophists decided by "free will" (so to speak), not to 
  support the Masters.

  The result was the withdrawal back of Masters work from the public (only 
  some Mahatma articles here and there in The Theosophical Forum during the 
  1920'ies and 1930'ies), the withdrawal of the Headquarters, the withdrawal 
  of the higher degrees, the withdrawal of the messengers - end of 1942 five 
  messengers of the White Lodge were withdrawn by return because of the 
  development in the outer world. Fake messengers appear and try the lay 
  chelas. They fail, and the withdrawal continues.

  Purucker appealed to his pupils that they take care that the link must be 
  unbroken, and if it is ever broken, they must all to recover the link.
  Do you think the theosophist from 1945 onwards until today have stood the 
  test?
  Have you personally stood the test?
  I fear, most of the theosophists are too proud to think about failure and 
  Masters plan.
  Most do not even understand, what a messenger is and how the Masters work in 
  the outer world, otherwise would be not so much poppycock and cant around 
  about Masters and Mahatmas as a replacement church-Christ.

  You intermix several things in the varoius quotes of HPB.
  The 1975 messenger is not the messenger, which had to bring irrefutable 
  proof of the gupta vidya.

  You would not intermix different things if you would get the idea of Masters 
  work in the West.
  That you claim not to stick on forms, alters not the fact that you seem not 
  to understand this work, even when one tries to explain it to you.

  >But of course if you are right a spiritual outpouring coming from the 
  >Masters will only affect a very few persons.

  The problem of the great ones is, to find enough co-workers, which are ready 
  by heart, that means who can think for themselves and whose word and deed is 
  the same thing.
  Theosophy is for the masses, quite clear.

  But in the beginning of the discussion we were talking about the 20th 
  century messenger, who brought the proofs of the gupta-vidya.
  It's not the masses, who are able to bring this proofs, because they have no 
  knowledge, no training and no experience.

  Did you know that one TS (and another non-theosophical organization in 
  Germany) had a working group, which traveled around the world to old places?

  Spirituality has also nothing to do with numbers. A strange idea. Does Sai 
  Baba say so?
  BTW, what would be Sai Baba's proofs?
  It's certainly not a theosophical idea and has obviously no rational basis.
  Frank

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Morten Nymann Olesen
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:07 AM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World - Fools rush in

  To all readers

  My views are:

  There is - one more - quote from HPB about what will happen in the years 
  after 1975.
  I think with an organisation awaiting his arrival as HPB puts it in the 
  below, - one will have to stop believeing it to be the fact, that the number 
  of persons involved in this are more than a few science intellectuals:

  "...that during the last quarter of every hundred years an attempt is made 
  by those "Masters," of whom I have spoken, to help on the spiritual progress 
  of Humanity in a marked and definite way. Towards the close of each century 
  you will invariably find that an outpouring or upheaval of spirituality -- 
  or call it mysticism if you prefer -- has taken place. Some one or more 
  persons have appeared in the world as their agents, and a greater or less 
  amount of occult knowledge and teaching has been given out. If you care to 
  do so, you can trace these movements back, century by century, as far as our 
  detailed historical records extend...If the present attempt, in the form of 
  our Society, succeeds better than its predecessors have done, then it will 
  be in existence as an organized, living and healthy body when the time 307 
  comes for the effort of the XXth century. The general condition of men's 
  minds and hearts will have been improved and purified by the spread of its 
  teachings, and, as I have said, their prejudices and dogmatic illusions will 
  have been, to some extent at least, removed. Not only so, but besides a 
  large and accessible literature ready to men's hands, the next impulse will 
  find a numerous and united body of people ready to welcome the new 
  torch-bearer of Truth. He will find the minds of men prepared for his 
  message, a language ready for him in which to clothe the new truths he 
  brings, an organization awaiting his arrival, which will remove the merely 
  mechanical, material obstacles and difficulties from his path. Think how 
  much one, to whom such an opportunity is given, could accomplish. Measure it 
  by comparison with what the Theosophical Society actually has achieved in 
  the last fourteen years, without any of these advantages and surrounded by 
  hosts of hindrances which would not hamper the new leader. Consider all 
  this, and then tell me whether I am too sanguine when I say that if the 
  Theosophical Society survives and lives true to its mission, to its original 
  impulses through the next hundred years? Tell me, I say, if I go too far in 
  asserting that earth will be a heaven in the twenty-first century in 
  comparison with what it is now!
  (H. P. Blavatsky's book "Key to Theosophy", s. 306-7. English edition, 
  Italics added.)

  So HPB said in the above: "Think how much one, to whom such an opportunity 
  is given, could accomplish. Measure it by comparison with what the 
  Theosophical Society actually has achieved in the last fourteen years, 
  without any of these advantages and surrounded by hosts of hindrances which 
  would not hamper the new leader."

  So I guess I will just have to disagree with you about the importance of the 
  numbers who receives the message Frank. I think it is not just me, who talk 
  about it. As we can see HPB also did it. A high initiate will exactly be 
  able to deliver a message about truth and theosophy, and will be able to 
  reach thousands and tens of thousands with the proper message.

  But of course if you are right a spiritual outpouring coming from the 
  Masters will only affect a very few persons.
  Some how I find my self disagreeing with this view.

  Frank wrote:
  "You stick to much in forms rather than ideas."

  I am afraid you misunderstand, what I am talking about.
  I am exactly sticking to "ideas" or rather what we call "spiritual impact".
  The level of "spiritual impact" are always related to the number of persons 
  affected by the impact.

  M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Frank Reitemeyer
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 10:28 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World - Fools rush in

  Morten,
  I will not disturb your comfort and your conviction that you are right, but
  to answer your additional question:
  We do not talk about for how many persons the ultimate proofs were given.
  It's just you. To me it's not important. HPB did not write about quantities.
  Important is that this proofs were given.
  I believe this predicted proofs are connected with the guruparampara, which
  was launched by HPB.
  You may consider the first aim of the TS: To form a nucleus, not to form a
  crowd as much as possible.

  As to the intellectual and spiritual level: This group of persons obviously
  cannot be very big, because most people were not fit.
  Not even in the broad Theosophical Movement many theosophists were (and so
  until today) ready.
  There are lineages within the TM which would even reject that there were
  other messengers than HPB.
  Most people - including theosophical circles - do not even understand the
  newspaper.

  So what would they gain when they would hear of a knowledge far advanced
  from their own point of view?
  So, logically, it could only be few. Even HPB's last book of the Golden
  rules is dedicated to the few.
  What then about teachings which go beyond that book?
  What does it matter, to how many people the proofs were given?
  I think you simply did not understand my opinion about the Masters plan.

  You stick to much in forms rather than ideas.

  Although only few theosophists may be ready, there may be probably some out
  there who think about 2075.
  Best
  Frank

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Morten Nymann Olesen
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 9:56 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World - Fools rush in

  I understand, that I was to be given such an answer to my questions.
  I will rest in comfort, that my views are most likely true.

  You could consider the following questions and then consider why I answered
  like I did:
  If one is to give others irrefutable proof of Gupta Vidya, who would they
  be?
  How many persons are we at least talking about? And what kind of proof would
  be required so we could call it irrefutable?

  M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Frank Reitemeyer
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 9:26 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World - Fools rush in

  1.
  Frank wrote:
  "So, from the logic point of view, HPB was refering to her occult successor
  in the Tibeto-Dzyan-transmission line."

  That is not logic. That was not what H. P. Blavatsky said.
  H. P. Blavatsky said: "In Century the Twentieth some disciple more informed,
  and far better fitted, may be sent by the Masters of Wisdom to give final
  and irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya"

  That is "irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya".
  This proof would be given by a disciple more informed and far better fitted,
  than who? Logically a person more informed and better fitted Than H. P.
  Blavatsky herself. And that is why such a person much likely would be known
  to the public, and not a person whom only a very few would learn about!
  This is a more likely view than the one you prefer to emphasise.
  What "irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya" are
  better than to show people it all through action and to be an example to
  tohers?

  -------------------------------

  Morten,
  yes, the disciple would be more informed and better fitted than Blavatsky,
  therefore she could have been meant the 1975 messenger, but rather a chela
  in the gurparampara.
  As you can see, you have missed be point, for I was refering to that logic
  before, the logic which you reject and at the same time you admit it.

  But HPB never said, that and how much this disciple which would be send to
  the West, would be known to the public. That is but your - unbased -
  interpretation, not HPB's meaning.

  She also says nothing about the quantity of people who could learn from it.
  That is your - unbased - interpretation, too.

  And I am sorry to say, that HPB does not say anything about the time frame
  she had in mind. It can be relatively few people from the time of getting
  started, but in the course of time - and Masters think in centuries, a
  mantra GdeP always used - after decades or centuries the quantity could grow
  much from such a nucleus. So, it's but your interpretation, too.

  HPB writes only that this proofs will be given, she gives no time line for
  publication. She hints rather to a time capsule.

  -------------------------------

  2.
  Frank wrote:
  "Sai Baba may be a fine teacher for some people, but he is certainly not
  trained in the Dzyan school and therefore no messenger of the Dzyan and
  Masters and Wisdom and Peace."

  You claim a lot here. Do you know who Sathya Sai Baba is?
  What are you basing your views in the above on?
  Why should your view be given any validity at all?
  -------------------------------

  I claim nothing. I just share my opinion with you.
  My view has only the validity someone gives.
  You are free to believe what you want.
  I do the same.

  Best
  Frank

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

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



   

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