Theos-Talk Archives (January 2009 Message tt00042)

Morten and all,
   Well my perspective is none of the dialog seems to predicate discussion on how all the Human Variations of originations and concepts, ideas, considerations, agreements, fancy, relative to the Seven Fold Constitution innate to all Humans incarnate that can account for the mass of objectionable propositions as well as the well received propositions. And what is the agency of objection that gives rise? What dependent origin is the owner, and where is it found as it's habitation? What wants to be the "winner"? And who does it want to be the loser? Recognizing that almost all of humankinds originations are dramatizing the "Conditioned Mind" - ( the  universal solitary agency of error in manifestation of the dramatizations of mankind intrinsic and innate to incarnate personalization in our world of reality on earth) referenced by  Patanjali would it make a difference if some Theosophical Group also in it's discussions inspected the issues from a view of the Dynamic scales of the Seven
 Fold Constitution and how it presents to perceptions that drive our engagements? Just a suggestion from my personal POV. I think maybe if new people coming to a group read theosophists actually relating to both everyday and world scale  events and how the Five Lower Constituency's engage, interact, stimulate, monitor, mediate, our common responses in everyday life it would present them with a unique dialog they don't really get exposed too in but a few places and they would say "Wow!" this is new and very interesting and stay around for a while instead of saying "more of the same found elsewhere" and depart. If Theosophy advocates Patanjali so strongly for all these decades understanding that "Transformation" is individual and what is transformed is the conditioned mind that must become aligned to the Principles of Patanjali's Yoga Sutra ultimately for mankinds ability to change the "dramatizations" that are the root of "suffering" and error that can be observed by "mindfull aware
ness" then it would contribute a unigue revealing of the ubiquitous nature of our basis for dissent and approvals.

Also in humor, using the above character here is more about the Catholics lol!

The Popes Telescope

>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7808878.stm<<<

Regards,
John

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@stofanet.dk> 
I am interested.
Good idea to form a new group!

But we will certainly have to dicuss whther Dawkins and other belong to the work.

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Cass Silva 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?

Joseph, I think your idea is excellent
Cass

________________________________
From: Joseph P. Fulton <jpfulton314@cox.net>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 3 January, 2009 11:51:44 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@yahoogro ups.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/Cropcircl e 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@yahoogro ups.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.questboo ks.net/aboutques t.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@yahoogro ups.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]
>

Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox

[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]