Theos-Talk Archives (January 2009 Message tt00024)

In reply:

Great!  I'm glad you're not planning to wait for anything, including 
Master, to tell you what to do.  It reminds me of the quote from the 
ML about "passivity being the utter paralysis of the soul".

Where are the Theosophists where it comes to the debates on AI, 
nanotech and genetic modification?  As I recall, HPB dedicated an 
entire book of the SD to what happened when we repeatedly screwed 
around with trying to create beings from the bottom 
(materially), "up".  Sorry, but I don't see us contributing a thing 
to that debate.  The silence is deafening!

The TS was founded, in large part, to influence the opinion makers of 
their day.  This message comes through in the Mahatma Letters as a 
recurring theme.  When I speak of influencing opinion, I'm talking 
specifically in the sense that the ML were trying to address.

Along the same lines, in an effort to find something current, and not 
some article from 5, 10, or 20 years ago, a quick search on Google, 
and Google News under the terms "Catholic Theosophy 2008", 
or "Catholicism Theosophy 2008" reveals any current documentation on 
the part of the Roman church (in the top 20 hits) and absolutely no 
news stories regarding relations between the TS and the Catholic 
church.  If we were a threat, of any type, you'd think that the 
Catholics would have at least put out some kind of press release.  In 
HPB's day, yes, the TS was a major threat to the Catholic church, and 
stories of their back and forth were quite common in the Theosophist 
and mentioned in the Mahatma Letters. 

I appreciate your concern that I may not be as familiar with the Key 
in the way that you feel I should.  Rest assured, I have read the Key 
to Theosophy, and most of the core (HPB) literature fairly well.

When I was president of the Akron Branch, after an interview in the 
local newspaper, we received copies of the article in the mail with a 
death threat from local fundamentalists, but that was in 1989, 20 
years ago.  We were a group that functioned quite publicly.  We did 
not hide our candle in fear.  So I have no illusion of the type of 
emnity that we can scare up when we make ourselves known.

At this point we have no true enemies, simply because we are no 
threat to anyone, other than ourselves.  It's as the Pogo comic strip 
said:  "We have met the enemy and they are us".

Joe





--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> 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]
>