Theos-Talk Archives (January 2009 Message tt00018)

Dear friends and Joseph

My views are:

Joseph wrote:
"In regards to the writing you propose, don't wait for any master to tell you 
to do something."

My answer:
I am certianly not planning to wait for anything.

Joseph wrote:
"What do we influence now?"

My answer:
Disclosure Project, Aliens, UFO's and cropcircles, X-files etc. etc. are high on the agenda.
They are the new Mahatmas (Ie. Aliens) and Mahatma Letters (ie. Cropcircles)

According to H. P. Blavatsky there are many different Devas (Aliens).

Also United Religious Initiative (URI).


Joseph wrote:
"When is everyone in this movement going to wake up and realize that no one 
outside really cares what we do? The way we behave makes us irrelevant. 
Get it?"


My answer:
No, Joseph. Ceraintly not.
People at this forum or TS branches learn and are taught. E-mails are capeable of creating a spiritual impact. For instance are Zen Koans also able to do this.

The theosophical groups are certainly not irrelevant.
The Catholic Church and Orthodox Islam - EVEN TODAY - consider us their among their greatest treaths because they claim we were the major factor behind the New Age Religious groups. Not that we intended to create most of these groups, but rightly so, because they are in opposition to theosophy.


Our greatest enemies are today the above as well as the groups who similar to the Spirtists of the Blavatsky days falsely claims to teach about Adepts similar to or more wise than the theosophical ones, ie. the new Messiah etc. Some of them even call themselves theosophical, and teach people to pray like a Christian and heavily waters down the truth baout the doctrine on Atma or Parabrahm within the human self, thereby killing out self-reliance and self-confidence.

As long as various Theosophical teacher are not able to keep their teachings within  the doctrine forwarded by H. P. Blavatsky in the beginner-book -"The Key to Theosophy", they can hardly with honest conscience call themselves REAL Theosophical teachers.

So Jospeh, if you would - carefully - read or re-read The Key to Theosophy, I think your views would change. According to HPB progress is slowly. Patience is a good idea to practice.


Here is one option...

H. P. Blavatsky in The Key to Theosophy, chapter 13 ,  p. 271- 273:
(http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm )


"WHY, THEN, IS THERE SO MUCH PREJUDICE AGAINST THE T. S.? 
ENQUIRER. If Theosophy is even half of what you say, why should there exist such a terrible ill-feeling against it? This is even more of a problem than anything else. 



THEOSOPHIST. It is; but you must bear in mind how many powerful adversaries we have aroused ever since the formation of our Society. As I just said, if the Theosophical movement were one of those numerous modern crazes, as harmless at the end as they are evanescent, it would be simply laughed atâ as it is now by those who still do not understand its real purport â and left severely alone. But it is nothing of the kind. Intrinsically, Theosophy is the most serious movement of this age; and one, moreover, which threatens the very life of most of the time-honoured humbugs, prejudices, and social evils of the day â those evils which fatten and make happy the upper ten and their imitators and sycophants, the wealthy dozens of the middle classes, while they positively crush and starve out of existence the millions of the poor. Think of this, and you will easily understand the reason of such a relentless persecution by those others who, more observant and perspicacious, do see the true nature of Theosophy, and therefore dread it. 



ENQUIRER. Do you mean to tell me that it is because a few have understood what Theosophy leads to, that they try to crush the movement? But if Theosophy leads only to good, surely you cannot be prepared to utter such a terrible accusation of perfidious heartlessness and treachery even against those few? 



THEOSOPHIST. I am so prepared, on the contrary. I do not call the enemies we have had to battle with during the first nine or ten years of the Society's existence either powerful or "dangerous"; but only those who have arisen against us in the last three or four years. And these neither speak, write nor preach against Theosophy, but work in silence and behind the backs of the foolish puppets who act as their visible marionnettes. Yet, if invisible to most of the members of our Society, they are well known to the true "Founders" and the protectors of our Society. But they must remain for certain reasons unnamed at present. 



ENQUIRER. And are they known to many of you, or to yourself alone? 



THEOSOPHIST. I never said I knew them. I may or may not know themâ but I know of them, and this is sufficient; and I defy them to do their worst. They may achieve great mischief and throw confusion into our ranks, especially among the faint-hearted, and those who can judge only by appearances. They will not crush the Society, do what they may. Apart from these truly dangerous enemies â "dangerous," however, only to those Theosophists who are unworthy of the name, and whose place is rather outside than within the T. S.â the number of our opponents is more than considerable. 



ENQUIRER. Can you name these, at least, if you will not speak of the others? 



THEOSOPHIST. Of course I can. We have to contend against (1) the hatred of the Spiritualists, American, English, and French; (2) the constant opposition of the clergy of all denominations; (3) especially the relentless hatred and persecution of the missionaries in India; (4) this led to the famous and infamous attack on our Theosophical Society by the Society for Psychical Research, an attack which was stirred up by a regular conspiracy organized by the missionaries in India. Lastly, we must count the defection of various prominent (?) members, for reasons I have already explained, all of whom have contributed their utmost to increase the prejudice against us. "



-------





So there are no enemies today?


What do theosophists publish in Newspapers these days and what not?





M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joseph P. Fulton 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 1:51 AM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?


  Thanks for replying. I'll address questions #1 & #2 in a separate reply

  In regards to the writing you propose, don't wait for any master to tell you 
  to do something. It'll be quite a while. From what I can tell from just 
  reading the Mahatma Letters, these guys were concerned primarily with a 
  nexus of cultural change. The TS, at the time was to be the vehicle to help 
  guide that change. What do we influence now?

  When is everyone in this movement going to wake up and realize that no one 
  outside really cares what we do? The way we behave makes us irrelevant. 
  Get it?

  Honestly, to have to "worry" about something like Alice Bailey (or 
  Krishnamurti) is just mind-bogglingly crazy!!! Her group is like any other 
  who believe that they HAVE THE TRUTH, just like any other dogmatic religion, 
  or Leadbeater for that matter. Because we are (by our Objects) an 
  investigatory body, we should be taking on Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins 
  and Ray Kurzweil.

  I have proposed several times that a group of Theosophists come together to 
  form a group whose express purpose is to address the scientific, cultural 
  and philosophical issues of today, by writing papers, books, and holding 
  conferences to address the issues that we face today. Our targets should be 
  the digerati of today, i.e. Ray Kurzweil, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, 
  etc. This group would behave quite differently than anything in the 
  Theosophical world today. No dogmas, no beliefs, just questions, and no fear 
  in skewering the sacred cows of this culture. The methodology inherent in 
  the Objects is the primary guide.

  Anyone interested?

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
  theosophy@...> wrote:
  >
  > 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". Perhaps it is the action of this attribute of mind
  > 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/Cropcircle situation, psychology today, brain washing in the new 
  age movements and religion, etc. etc. Such a book could easily be running 
  past 500 pages. A book for instance also drawing from the ancient 
  mythologies and words of wise vibration.
  > 
  > 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@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.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.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". Perhaps it is the action of this attribute of mind
  > 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@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
  > <global-theosophy@> 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]
  >



   

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