Theos-Talk Archives (June 2008 Message tt00148)

My views are:

1.
I asked:
"So you are saying that the Jesuit Loyola doctrine is not a teaching
on black magic?"

And your answer was "Bl".
Would you care to expand on this?


2.

Anand wrote:
"Blavatsky's attacks on Jesuit organization appear strange to me. Love
and service are main features of Christianity."


I wonder why you find this article strange?
Maybe it is you who have a strange attitude, when you seek altruism or to guide people towards liberation and Moksha?


Anand wrote:
"I did not see anything in Jesuits objectionable."

What you see is not what a theosophist are seeing.

False and ugly "altrusim" is also in existence when you keep people down in fear abot comitting sin, and scare them with an eteranl hell, excommunication and other dark performances.

When the doctrine of non-duality and wisdom is turned into a persoal dualistic God and wisdom rejected I find true altruism to be kept in a strait-jacket of Christian dogmatism.


4.
Anand wrote:
"So Blavatsky's opposition to Christianity seems to be not
proper. Perhaps her strong opposition was her temporary reaction to
problems created by some Jesuits. 
"

Blavatsky was not in opposition to the esoteric teachings of Jesus. But she was and is in opposition to The Catholic Church and its dogmas and false teachings about Jesus in their false gospels, which according to her ar filled with errors, mistranslations and which are using 3 false keys, which as she said "are not opening anything".

The temporary issue or theory is not valid, because the Catholic Doctrine doctrine have not changes radically since H. P. Blavatsky lived. It is all in all the same teaching. The Jesuits Loyola Doctrine is mainly the same as well. You tell me what the difference is else your assumptions are not valid.

Why should we believe you in the view that today Christianity and the Catholic Church is allright and doing very well? 






- - - - - - -

H. P. Blavatsky said:
"...OCCULTISM. This last word is certainly misleading, translated as it stands from the compound word Gupta-Vidya, "Secret Knowledge." But the knowledge of what? Some of the Sanskrit terms may help us.

There are four (out of the many other) names of the various kinds of Esoteric Knowledge or Sciences given, even in the esoteric Purânas. There is (1) Yajna-Vidya,1 knowledge of the occult powers awakened in Nature by the performance of certain religious ceremonies and rites. (2) Maha-vidya, the "great knowledge," the magic of the Kabalists and of the Tantrika worship, often Sorcery of the worst description. (3) Guhya-Vidya, knowledge of the mystic powers residing in Sound (Ether), hence in the Mantras (chanted prayers or incantations) and depending on the rhythm and melody used; in other words a magical performance based on Knowledge of the Forces of Nature and their correlation; and (4) ATMA-VIDYA, a term which is translated simply "knowledge of the Soul," true Wisdom by the Orientalists, but which means far more.

This last is the only kind of Occultism that any theosophist who admires Light on the Path, and who would be wise and unselfish, ought to strive after. All the rest is some branch of the "Occult Sciences," i.e., arts based on the knowledge of the ultimate essence of all things in the Kingdoms of Nature--such as minerals, plants and animals--hence of things pertaining to the realm of material nature, however invisible that essence may be, and howsoever much it has hitherto eluded the grasp of Science. Alchemy, Astrology, Occult Physiology, Chiromancy, exist in Nature and the exact Sciences--perhaps so called, because they are found in this age of paradoxical philosophies the reverse--have already discovered not a few of the secrets of the above arts. But clairvoyance, symbolised in India as the "Eye of Siva," called in Japan, "Infinite Vision," is not Hypnotism, the illegitimate son of Mesmerism, and is not to be acquired by such arts. All the others may be mastered and results obtained, whether good, bad or indifferent; but Atma-Vidya sets small value on them. It includes them all and may even use them occasionally, but it does so after purifying them of their dross, for beneficent purposes, and taking care to deprive them of every element of selfish motive. Let us explain: Any man or woman can set himself or herself to study one or all of the above specified "Occult Arts" without any great previous preparation, and even without adopting any too restraining mode of life. One could even dispense with any lofty standard of morality. In the last case, of course, ten to one the student would blossom into a very decent kind of sorcerer, and tumble down headlong into black magic. But what can this matter? The Voodoos and the Dugpas eat, drink and are merry over heca-tombs of victims of their infernal arts. And so do the amiable gentlemen vivisectionists and the diploma-ed "Hypnotizers" of the Faculties of Medicine; tube only difference between the two classes being that the Voodoos and Dugpas are conscious, and the Charcot-Richet crew unconscious, Sorcerers. Thus, since both have to reap the fruits of their labours and achievements in the black art, the Western practitioners should not have the punishment and reputation without the profits and enjoyments they may get therefrom. For we say it again, hypnotism and vivisection as practiced in such schools, are schools, are Sorcery pure and simple, minus a knowledge that the Voodoos and Dugpas enjoy, and which no Charcot-Richet can procure for himself in fifty years of hard study and experimental observation. Let then those who will dabble in magic, whether they understand its nature or not, but who find the rules imposed upon students too hard, and who, therefore lay Atma-Vidya or Occultism aside--go without it. Let them become magicians by all means, even though they do become Voodoos and Dugpas for the next ten incarnations. "



M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anand 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 10:56 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Love between J. Krishnamurti and beautiful Rosalind Rajagopal


  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
  <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
  >
  > To all readers
  > 
  > 
  > My views are:
  > 
  > 
  > Anyone can be mislead by anything. And what is leading one person
  towards liberation and Moksha - is misleading another into falsness
  and ignorance.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 1.
  > Anand wrote:
  > "I have good relations with many Jesuits."
  > 
  > Sure, I expected that.
  > :-)
  > 
  > Are you saying that there are no Christian's and in false sheeps
  clothes pretending to be humble, mild and meek?
  > 

  I did not say that. There is not one organization without some bad
  people. So I don't think the TS or the Society of Jesus are free from
  them.

  > So you are saying that the Jesuit Loyola doctrine is not a teaching
  on black magic?
  > 

  Bl 
  > 
  > 2.
  > Anand wrote:
  > "And because of her own shortcomings
  > she attracted opposition from many different people."
  > 
  > 
  > And you are saying that towards a high initiate who were able to
  materialise and dematerialise her physical body at will?
  > 

  People on left hand path also can make miracles.

  Blavatsky's attacks on Jesuit organization appear strange to me. Love
  and service are main features of Christianity. Blavatsky said
  Theosophy is altruism. But reality is 1800 years before Blavatsky's
  birth Jesus taught that loving others and serving others are most
  important. So Blavatsky's opposition to Christianity seems to be not
  proper. Perhaps her strong opposition was her temporary reaction to
  problems created by some Jesuits. 
  I did not see anything in Jesuits objectionable. Many of them have not
  read Theosophy, but not knowing is not a sin, as many of them are on
  the path of virtue anyway.
  Anand Gholap



   

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