Re: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?
Jan 03, 2009 07:59 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen
Dear friends and Chuck
My views are:
And all of them are - first editions - and also alvailable on the Internet or elsewhere for free?
So I take it, that Radha Burnier in secret are promoting the New World Order, the Externalization of the Hierarchy within UN, the Great Invocation, and the return of the Christ - and - similar in accordance with the Alice A. Bailey groups main focus?
- - -
H. P. Blavatsky about Prayer: "It kills in man self-reliance; "
A few words by H. P. Blavatsky for considereation about the AAB's loud mouth Great Invocation and LCC church songs, the the Messiah Schemes...
H. P. Blavatsky in The Key to Theosophy, chapter 1 , p. 10-
(http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm )
"Meditation is silent and unuttered prayer, or, as Plato expressed it, "the ardent turning of the soul toward the divine; not to ask any particular good (as in the common meaning of prayer), but for good itself âfor the universal Supreme Good" of which we are a part on earth, and out of the essence of which we have all emerged. Therefore, adds Plato, "remain silent in the presence of the divine ones, till they remove the clouds from thy eyes and enable thee to see by the light which issues from themselves, not what appears as good to thee, but what is intrinsically good."
H. P. Blavatsky in The Key to Theosophy, chapter 14 - p. 66-71:
(http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm )
"ENQUIRER. Do you believe in prayer, and do you ever pray?
THEOSOPHIST. We do not. We act, instead of talking. "
...............
"ENQUIRER. To whom, then, do you pray when you do so?
THEOSOPHIST. To "our Father in heaven" â in its esoteric meaning.
ENQUIRER. Is that different from the one given to it in theology?
THEOSOPHIST. Entirely so. An Occultist or a Theosophist addresses his prayer to his Father which is in secret (read, and try to understand, ch. vi. v. 6, Matthew), not to an extra-cosmic and therefore finite God; and that "Father" is in man himself.
ENQUIRER. Then you make of man a God?
THEOSOPHIST. Please say "God" and not a God. In our sense, the inner man is the only God we can have cognizance of. And how can this be otherwise? Grant us our postulate that God is a universally diffused, infinite principle, and how can man alone escape from being soaked through by, and in, the Deity? We call our "Father in heaven" that deific essence of which we are cognizant within us, in our heart and spiritual consciousness, and which has nothing to do with the anthropomorphic conception we may form of it in our physical brain or its fancy: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of (the absolute) God dwelleth in you? Yet,
let no man anthropomorphise that essence in us. Let no Theosophist, if he would hold to divine, not human truth, say that this "God in secret" listens to, or is distinct from, either finite man or the infinite essence â for all are one. Nor, as just remarked, that a prayer is a petition. It is a mystery rather; an occult process by which finite and conditioned thoughts and desires, unable to be assimilated by the absolute spirit which is unconditioned, are translated into spiritual wills and the will; such process being called "spiritual transmutation." The intensity of our ardent aspirations changes prayer into the "philosopher's stone," or that which transmutes lead into pure gold. The only homogeneous essence, our "will-prayer" becomes the active or creative force, producing effects according to our desire.
ENQUIRER. Do you mean to say that prayer is an occult process bringing about physical results?
THEOSOPHIST. I do. Will-Power becomes a living power. But woe unto those Occultists and Theosophists, who, instead of crushing out the desires of the lower personal ego or physical man, and saying, addressing their Higher Spiritual EGO immersed in Atma-Buddhic light, "Thy will be done, not mine," etc., send up waves of will-power for selfish or unholy purposes! For this is black magic, abomination, and spiritual sorcery. Unfortunately, all this is the favourite occupation of our Christian statesmen and generals, especially when the latter are sending two armies to murder each other. Both indulge before action in a bit of such sorcery, by offering respectively prayers to the same God of Hosts, each entreating his help to cut its enemies' throats. "
................
"ENQUIRER. But how do you explain the universal fact that all nations and peoples have prayed to, and worshipped a God or Gods? Some have adored and propitiated devils and harmful spirits, but this only proves the universality of the belief in the efficacy of prayer.
THEOSOPHIST. It is explained by that other fact that prayer has several other meanings besides that given it by the Christians. It means not only a pleading or petition, but meant, in days of old, far more an invocation and incantation. The mantra, or the rhythmically chanted prayer of the Hindus, has precisely such a meaning, as the Brahmins hold themselves higher than the common devas or "Gods." A prayer may be an appeal or an incantation for malediction, and a curse (as in the case of two armies praying simultaneously for mutual destruction) as much as for blessing. And as the great majority of people are intensely selfish, and pray only for themselves, asking to be given their "daily bread" instead of working for it, and begging God not to lead them "into temptation" but to deliver them (the memorialists only) from evil, the result is, that prayer, as now understood, is doubly pernicious: (a) It kills in man self-reliance; (b) It develops in him a still more ferocious selfishness and egotism than he is already endowed with by nature. I repeat, that we believe in "communion" and simultaneous action in unison with our "Father in secret"; and in rare moments of ecstatic bliss, in the mingling of our higher soul with the universal essence, attracted as it is towards its origin and centre, a state, called during life Samadhi, and after death, Nirvana. We refuse to pray to created finite beingsâi. e., gods, saints, angels, etc., because we regard it as idolatry. We cannot pray to the ABSOLUTE for reasons explained before; therefore, we try to replace fruitless and useless prayer by meritorious and good-producing actions.
- - - - - - -
H. P. Blavatsky said:
LET NO THEOSOPHIST, IF HE WOULD HOLD TO DIVINE, NOT HUMAN TRUTH, SAY THAT THIS "GOD IN SECRET" LISTENS TO, OR IS distinct from, EITHER FINITE MAN OR THE FINITE ESSENCES - FOR ALL ARE ONE.
- - -
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: Drpsionic@aol.com
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?
Unless there has been a radical change, the Olcott Library carries all the
Alice Bailey material and the Chicago branches have always had Baileyites as
members and had Bailey material present.
Chuck the Heretic
In a message dated 1/2/2009 12:16:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,
global-theosophy@stofanet.dk writes:
Dear Joseph and friends
My views are:
1) Thanks. Yes. But that does not at all explain why they do, what they do,
and who "they" actually are in person. And not why "their" policy is like it
is.
2)
I was rather reffering to the fact that the Alice A. Bailey books are not
allowed within any TS branch as far as I know. Whereas C. W. Leadbeaters are
more than welcomed. Weird is it not?
And compartive study between them and H. P. Blavatsky's teachings? Have it
ever occured?
When people start thinkin in terms like: You choose your path, we soon will
end up with another version of the Spiritists and a pseudo Esoteric version
og the Latter Days Saints or similar. Well, that is, if you get my view.
2 + 3)
4)
Joseph wrote:
Krishnamuti: "People choose their leaders out of confusion, therefore
the leaders are also confused."
My answer:
Sure, that will imediately rule all others out except Kirshnamurti himself -
as a braging Messiah.
Sneaky fellow that Krishnamurti, .....sneaky, very very sneaky.
So no one have ever compared J. Krishnamurti with any other TS teacher?
I am amazed.
Yes. The Theosophical Movement by Cooper is worth an effort.
What is this: "Theosophical materials" (presumably
from the Adyar organization) - you are reffering to?
Joseph wrote:
"Morten, I agree very strongly with your view of the TS as an
"investigatory" organization. A major portion of the issues we deal
with now date back to the post-Coulomb period when HPB was in Europe
and the ES was formed. As soon as this direct line to a "higher
authority" was established with the Europeans, free-thought, and the
investigatory nature of the TS diminished greatly. It's a funny
phenomenon, slightly alluded to in the Mahatma Letters (3rd Ed. Letter
16 "Devachan" Pg. 24) regarding the existence of a pair of undisclosed
Skandhas. These two are associated, according to the letter, with
"the efficacy of vain rights and ceremonies, in prayers and
intercession"intercession"<WBR>. Perhaps it is the action of this att
which is mostly responsible for the current state of affairs."
My answer:
Thanks. I found your words very interesting.
One aught to ask various TS leaders and leaders from other theosophical
branches about this issue. I wonder what they would say, if they at all dared to
answer?
----
Joseph wrote:
"I have one other question. Who are the finest scholars in the
movement today? David Riegle, Daniel Caldwell, Paul Johnson, Joy
Mills? Where is the output from these individuals, presumably experts
in Theosophical writing? Who are they challenging in the world of
science, religion and philosophy?"
My answer:
Spot on. That was the major point with this e-mail.
The question will be: When and who will do an effort - together - so that
the truth about the Wisdoms teachings will be forwarded, so that the untruth
might be shown clearly to the interested reader. - Who has or have the capacity
to write a major comprehensive in deept volume - comparing H. P. Blavatsky
with Annie Besant, C. W. Leadbeater, J. Krishnamurti , W. Q. Judge - as well
as quite important the major player today: Alice A. Bailey, while forwarding
the - theosophical message to our present day audiences - with todays,
nuclears, DNA-engineeering, cloning, Disclosure Project, Alien/UFO/CropcirclThe
question will be: When and who will do an effort - together - so that the truth
about the Wisdoms teachings will be forwarded, so that the untruth might be
shown clearly to the interested reader. - Who has or have the capacity to wr
If this is what Master orders, we will have to write it. I could imagine,
that this is what Master would find one of important tasks to do today.
---
We shall know the various authors on their fruits and not only their books.
Are there at all any sages on this polluted and scarred Planet? Who?
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph P. Fulton
To: _theos-talk@yahoogrotheos-t_ (mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com)
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 11:56 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?
Very good question. I have to admit that sometimes I am quite amazed
at the lack of comparative studies. There appear to be a number of
things involved, some are philosophical, and some are quite, how
should we say, prosaic? I'll answer the questions in order.
1) Please see the site:
_http://www.questboohttp://www.questhttp://www._
(http://www.questbooks.net/aboutquest.cfm#staff) for contact info and
submission guidelines.
2) Have you ever done programming in a branch or study center? You
find out one thing real quick. You're on your own. The most common
reaction from a programming person doesn't have anything to do with
what "Wheaton" or "Adyar" wants. Getting something, i.e. anything
together is the best many can hope for. The prevailing attitude in
most groups (having heard this enough times as a Federation Pres.) is
if "Wheaton wants to tell us what to do, they can come do it themselves".
3) See #2. Headquarters offers study courses to groups, but I've
never, ever heard of word coming down from HQ saying that a group
"must" study something. I've even visited groups where I was kindly
told to leave for asking if they read or studied the SD or ML.
Running a local group is really a "by the seat of your pants" type of
thing. I have some wonderful horror stories of times where speakers
didn't show or someone in the audience tried to make a virtual
whipping post out of the speaker or their topic.
4) Applying a style of logic normally ascribed to Nagarjuna, this
answer will apply to Questions #5, 6, 7, and 8. If a local group is
fortunate enough to have someone with an Eastern philosophical
background, chances are this type of debate goes on quite a bit.
However, in this organization, there seems to be much less emphasis on
the tradition of inquiry and open examination. The prevailing
attitude that I observe in most groups is that of your typical
"believer", not much different than what you would find at a local
Methodist or Congregationalist church. And, to paraphrase
Krishnamuti: "People choose their leaders out of confusion, therefore
the leaders are also confused."
So the answer to Questions 4 - 8 is "yes, all the above are allowed".
The reality is, and mostly for the reasons given above, is that it
just doesn't happen.
9) I guess it depends on who you call an "Adyar" writer or teacher.
Probably the most well-known piece from the "Adyar" camp is "There is
No Religion Higher Than Truth" by E.L. Gardner
(_http://hpb.narod.http://hpb.narhtt_ (http://hpb.narod.ru/NoReligion.htm) ).
As a member of the British
Section, Gardner lays out a comparison between various teachings of
HPB and CW Leadbeater. In regard to the teaching of later
"commentators" perhaps the issue is one of not having anything new to
say vs. not saying anything. In the Adyar tradition, virtually
everything is an expansion on the writings of CWL. Now that being
said, there are some fine exceptions, such as "The Divine Plan" by
Geoffrey Barborka, and "The Reader's Guide to the Mahatma Letters" by
Virginia Hanson. One other little known source, and perhaps one of
the most wonderfully objective pieces I've ever seen was a video of
the history of the Theosophical Movement, by the late John Cooper. He
did a brilliant exposition on the various traditions within the
Theosophical movement without being rude or condescending to any
particular viewpoint or organization. This is something (IMHO) that
all of the various organizations within the Theosophical movement
should have in their libraries.
I would like to analyze the entire issue of what is taught in the
Theosophical Society from a different viewpoint. The autonomy of
local groups is pretty absolute. The only requirement that I am aware
of for groups is that they use "Theosophical materials" (presumably
from the Adyar organization) in "Theosophy" classes.
Morten, I agree very strongly with your view of the TS as an
"investigatory" organization. A major portion of the issues we deal
with now date back to the post-Coulomb period when HPB was in Europe
and the ES was formed. As soon as this direct line to a "higher
authority" was established with the Europeans, free-thought, and the
investigatory nature of the TS diminished greatly. It's a funny
phenomenon, slightly alluded to in the Mahatma Letters (3rd Ed. Letter
16 "Devachan" Pg. 24) regarding the existence of a pair of undisclosed
Skandhas. These two are associated, according to the letter, with
"the efficacy of vain rights and ceremonies, in prayers and
intercession"intercession"<WBR>. Perhaps it is the action of this att
which is mostly responsible for the current state of affairs.
I have one other question. Who are the finest scholars in the
movement today? David Riegle, Daniel Caldwell, Paul Johnson, Joy
Mills? Where is the output from these individuals, presumably experts
in Theosophical writing? Who are they challenging in the world of
science, religion and philosophy?
Answer that question, and you'll have the answer to everything you
asked above. The sad truth is that the Theosophical movement as a
whole is quite a marginal movement, of little importance to anyone
today aside from its own participants. Nobody really cares about the
arguments made on the forums or in the magazines because we just talk
to ourselves. In a sense, I can get that by going downtown and
listening to the winos and drug addicts talk to the voices in their
head. I guess, based on that, there are a number of hobbies one could
engage in that are more likely to be of benefit to society or cause
more damage.
Perhaps if we stopped pretending to have all of the answers and got
back to asking questions, such mundane little issues as membership,
who is President, and what do we teach may become meaningful again.
Joe
--- In _theos-talk@yahoogrotheos-t_ (mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com) ,
"Morten Nymann Olesen"
<global-theosophy@glo> wrote:
>
> Dear friends
>
> My views are:
>
> A new year is beginning in peoples minds.
>
> It is now more than 133 years since the founding of the moderne
visdom teachings - The Theosophical Society year 1875.
>
> Status at Conventions occurs.
> It could be well for members at TS Adyar to consider the following
questions and words and their value.
>
>
> H.P. Blavatsky said:
> "...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at their right
value; and unless a judge compares notes and hears
> both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision." H.P.
Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 218.
>
>
>
>
> *** THE QUESTIONS to CONSIDER ***
>
> I would appreciate if anyone would care to answer the following
questions, so that we may be able to know about TS Adyar more fully...
>
> 1.
> Who decides what kind of books and what books at all are being sold
at Quest Books?
> Who decides, what Bookshop and what books by what authors - TS Adyar
promotes?
> What is the present day policy and why?
>
>
> 2.
> Who decides what kind of lectures are emphasised within TS branches?
> What is the present day policy and why?
>
> 3.
> Who decides what books one are allowed to lecture on?
> Are lectures on comparative study of various authors allowed freely?
> What is the present day policy and why?
>
>
> 4.
> Are lectures on commparative studies beteween H. P. Blavatsky vs. C.
W. Leadbeater allowed?
>
> 5.
> Are lectures on commparative studies beteween H. P. Blavatsky vs.
Annie Besant allowed?
>
> 6.
> Are lectures on commparative studies beteween H. P. Blavatsky vs.
Alice A. Bialey / Lucis Trust allowed?
>
> 7.
> Are lectures on commparative studies beteween H. P. Blavatsky vs.
Radha Burnier allowed?
>
> 8.
> Are lectures on commparative studies beteween H. P. Blavatsky vs. J.
Krishnamurti allowed?
>
> 9.
> Have any TS Adyar Teacher ever done an effort in the direction of
comparative study - large or small - between H. P. Blavatsky and all
of the aboves techings? If not, why not?
>
>
> 10.
> In the old H. P. Blavatsky days - no false claims were permitted to
go unchallanged for a longer time by H. P. Blavatsky herself. A clear
stance on various new religious groups was - ALWAYS - given in the
Theosophist and Lucifer etc. when the situation demanded it. - Is this
what is happening today?
>
> Are false claims being allowed to flourish within TS today?
>
>
> - - -
>
> If time permit me, I will in a study, and if no others will, seek to
compare
> H. P. Blavatsky with all the above - C. W. Leadbeater. Annie Besant,
J. Krishnamurti, Radha Burnier, Alice A. Bailey. And I will eventually
publish my study before this my phycial body reach its death.
>
>
>
>
>
> M. Sufilight
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
