Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00146)

Well - we might start having a conversation based on our own thoughts,
instead of one that's based on quotes from others (Blavatsky versus
Besant/Leadbeater). 

In that conversation we might focus on essentials instead of
superficial issues. 

Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
<global-theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Katinka wrote:
> "As long
> as we aren't Mahatmas ourselves, we have to live with uncertainty."
> 
> 
> So how can you avoid people and even those who call themselves
theosophists being as you say "head to head" ?
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Katinka Hesselink 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:23 PM
>   Subject: Theos-World theosophy as A Philosophy
> 
> 
>   Hi all,
> 
>   I've been following this conversation and I'm not to pleased seeing
>   another theosophist to theosophist head to head.
> 
>   But the post below is actually more than just a head to head. I don't
>   agree with it - but there is a point here that I want to address.
> 
>   Yes - philosophies are consistent. But theosophy isn't A
philosophy, but
>   Divine Philosophy in general. As Truth in general isn't always
>   consistent, similarly Religion in general isn't consistent - and
>   theosophy doesn't have to be consistent. Sorry folks: life isn't
>   consistent either - or at least our understanding of life isn't.
As long
>   as we aren't Mahatmas ourselves, we have to live with uncertainty. Not
>   because we have to live with black magicians screwing with our heads,
>   but because when we set up a system and refuse to look outside it,
it's
>   a sure sign we've stopped learning. And that's straight from the Bowen
>   material on the study of the Secret Doctrine
>   <http://www.katinkahesselink.net/metaphys/th-bowen.htm> . It's also
>   consistent with the philosophy of science. Any specific system of
truth
>   will be rough around the edges, because not every fact will fit
into the
>   theory equally well. It's actually a sign that something is true that
>   it's not finished yet.
> 
>   Now I'm as sorry that Leadbeater changed the terminology around as
>   anybody, but that does not change the fact that some of his teachings
>   can't be ignored by theosophists today. However we may feel about the
>   specifics of his books - are there any of you out there that don't
>   believe we have 'aura's'? or chakras? We owe Leadbeater some
respect for
>   bringing out those occult facts to the public, and creating a
>   terminology for them.
> 
>   Katinka Hesselink
> 
>   http://www.allconsidering.com/ <http://www.allconsidering.com/>
>   http://www.katinkahesselink.net/ <http://www.katinkahesselink.net/>
>   --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Theosophy is a philosophy not a religion and as a philosophy it must
>   be coherent and without ambiguity. Leadbeater brought ambiguity
>   into theosophy by preaching opposing dogma to what was stated by the
>   originators. Dugpas are Masters of Uncertainty!
>   >
>   > Cass
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > ----- Original Message ----
>   > From: Martin Mvandertak@
>   > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>   > Sent: Tuesday, 23 September, 2008 8:40:10 PM
>   > Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Daniel, why don't you warn readers
about
>   Blavatsky's mistakes ?
>   >
>   >
>   > Aren't we all believing in lies and half Truths?
>   > Theosophy is wisdom of the gods it is said; if we want to believe in
>   the Truth we need to go for Ethymo-sophia or the wisdom of the Real or
>   reality and not some poxy stuff about gods, philosophers and
scientists.
>   Reality is now and not in the past nor the future; we can use the now
>   springboarding into eternity.
>   > If there was so much truth in theosophy, why are people still
>   discussing it instead of launching new ideas coming from the same
source
>   and developing f.i. anthroposophy and alike science...
>   >
>   > --- On Tue, 9/23/08, Cass Silva silva_cass@yahoo. com> wrote:
>   >
>   > From: Cass Silva silva_cass@yahoo. com>
>   > Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Daniel, why don't you warn readers
about
>   Blavatsky's mistakes ?
>   > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
>   > Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 2:23 AM
>   >
>   > Daniel
>   > Anand will never admit that Leadbeater got it wrong because he would
>   then have to admit that he (Anand) has spent 40 years in believing in
>   lies.
>   >
>   > Cass
>   >
>   > ----- Original Message ----
>   > From: Anand <AnandGholap@ gmail.com>
>   > To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
>   > Sent: Monday, 22 September, 2008 7:05:53 PM
>   > Subject: Theos-World Re: Daniel, why don't you warn readers about
>   Blavatsky's mistakes ?
>   >
>   > Subject of Theosophy, as understood by world and students of
>   > Theosophy, is complex. When I read messages of students of Blavatsky
>   > and messages of students of CWL, I find that what they understand
>   > Theosophy and it's main concepts is very different. That means
>   > Theosophical understanding of students of Blavatsky is different
from
>   > understanding of students of Leadbeater. Differences are big and on
>   > important topics. It is possible that HPB and CWL had same
meaning in
>   > mind but expressed that in different words. But their impact is
>   > certainly different on people. If somebody is referring Theosophy, I
>   > might ask "are you talking about Theosophy of Blavatsky or are you
>   > talking about Theosophy of Besant-Leadbeater ?"
>   > Similarly reactions of westerners and Christians to Theosophy depend
>   > on what they consider as Theosophy. When they consider Blavatsky's
>   > writing as Theosophy, they ridicule, hate Theosophy. Such hatred is
>   > not expressed by those Christians who consider CWL's writing as
>   Theosophy.
>   > I have come to a point where it is necessary to make clear
distinction
>   > between Theosophy of Leadbeater-Besant and Theosophy of
Blavatsky. As
>   > these two are different and have different effects on people, I feel
>   > that such distinction is very necessary. It is because we often come
>   > in contact with students of Blavatsky not agreeing with students of
>   > Leadbeater and CWL-students ignoring Blavatsky's writing.
>   > I am also feeling a need of writing article making it clear which
>   > Theosophy I support and which Theosophy I reject. I agreed with CWL,
>   > but I did not agree with Krishnamurti. I felt Krishnamurti' s
teaching
>   > would do damage to humanity. So I rejected openly K's teaching, just
>   > as Catholic church openly rejects abortion and gay marriage.
>   > I feel that I should now write article on which Theosophical ideas I
>   > support and which Theosophical ideas I reject.
>   > Best
>   > Anand Gholap
>   >
>   > Make the switch to the world&#39;s best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail!
>   http://au.yahoo. com/y7mail
>   >
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > Make the switch to the world&#39;s best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail!
>   http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail
>   >
>   > [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]
>