Theos-Talk Archives (December 2009 Message tt00057)

Great reply, lets consider what the Buddha said according buddhists:
"I possess the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of Nirvana, the
true form of the formless, the subtle [D]harma [G]ate that does not
rest on words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the
scriptures. This I entrust to MahÄkÄÅyapa".
KH noted well that for the other half of Truth we need our Intuition; and to develope Intuition, we need experience, I add...





________________________________
From: Morten Nymann Olesen <global-theosophy@stofanet.dk>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, December 12, 2009 2:01:51 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: So does anyone else have an opinion about the Zuckerbrot documentary?

Dear Martin

My views are:

A. Isis Unveiled

Yes Isis Unveiled was trash - IN ITS formulation, mind you. But not due to Blavatsky's faulth in the main. That remained on Olcott's wellmeant ignorance, because he distorted it before publication.
And Blavatsky admitted this. (She said to one Theosophist: Now I did not say "trash" so far as I remember; but what I did say in substance was: "Leave it alone; Isis will not satisfy you. Of all the books I have put my name to, this particular one is, in literary arrangement, the worst and most confused." ..."The first enemies that my work brought to the front were Spiritualists, whose fundamental theories as to the spirits of the dead communicating in propria persona I upset.")
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v13/y1891_024.htm

I say: 
Theosophical books aught only to be read by those who are ready for them.
There is a time, and a place when you can learn. If you do not understand this you aught to prepare yourself so that you do.



B. About the Secret Doctrine:

Are you able to document your views about the Mahatmas calling the Secret Doctrine a pack of half truths? Do you think the Masters would spend their time dictating this work if it was going to be all trash? - Come on!

Let us not consider the Mahatma Letters a dead-letter reading. And not all letters was given by the Masters, some of them are fakes. And this they stated themselves.

The following might help the readers to put claimed Mahatma Letters and their content into a different frame than the one they oridinarily use:

1. Truth has no form.
2. The means through which people may perceive Truth have forms;
3. All forms are limited. Some of the limitations are time, place, culture, language;
4. Different forms are not necessarily antagonistic, for the above reasons;
5. Forms have changed through the centuries in obedience to the external world to which all forms belong;
6. When people believe that the form is more important than the Truth, they will not find Truth, but will stay with form;
7. Forms are vehicles and instruments, and vehicles and instruments cannot be called good or bad without context;
8. Forms outlive their usefulness, increase or diminish in usefulness.

These above statements are abundantly found in the writings of the wisdom teachers of all ages. They were written down in order to be read and remembered. They are seldom so strongly and clearly maintained elsewhere, which may account for the fact that they have not been sufficiently heeded by people who have not given the theosophical materials the study they deserve.

The outward form of things of the world, about which the theosophical teachers so often speak, include the forms of teachings, which must be understood in their INWARD meaning, as well as excercising an instrumental function.

- - -
C. The practical Scholar

Nasrudin sometimes took people for trips in his boat. One day a fussy pedagogue hired him to ferry him across a very wide river. As soon as they were afloat, the scholar asked whether it was going to be rough. "Don't ask me nothing about it," said Nasrudin. "Have you never studied grammar?" "No," said the Mulla. "In that case, half your life has been wasted." The Mulla said nothing. Soon a terrible storm blew up. The Mulla's crazy cockleshell was filling with water. He leaned over towards his companion. "Have you ever learnt to swim?" "No," said the pedant. "In that case, schoolmaster, ALL your life is lost, for we are sinking."
From: The Exploits of the Incomparable Mulla Nasrudin, by Idries Shah. London: Picador, 1973.

- - -

D. About Swimmers and Learning How to Swim:*

The ordinary man repents his sins:
The elect repent of their headlessness.
(Dhu'l-Nun Misri)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/13178




M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Martin 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 1:02 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: So does anyone else have an opinion about the Zuckerbrot documentary?


    
  Well, before calling eachother names...remember Blavatsky herself said her "Isis Unveiled" was trash, her follow up "The Secret Doctrine" was a pack of half truths as her masters said themselves in the Mahatma Letters...then I remember what my dad used to say: "half a truth is worse than whole a lie", and then I understand knowing is nothing but Understanding is the way of Life...

  ________________________________
  From: Morten Nymann Olesen <global-theosophy@stofanet.dk>
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sat, December 12, 2009 12:54:56 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: So does anyone else have an opinion about the Zuckerbrot documentary?

  Dear Daniel and friends

  My views are:

  I take this to be a response to my views about calling K. Paul Johnson a liar.

  Let me ask you: Are you seeking to follow the aims of the original Programe of The Theosophical Society?

  1.
  Daniel wrote:
  "I see of late that Paul has been called a "liar" here at Theos-Talk. This assessement I assume being based on what he said in the documentary. 

  Why a liar? One may see things differently than Paul but does that make him therefore a liar? He has definite opinions and one may not always agree with those opinions. In fact, I believe some of his assessments (as presented in his books) are definitely wrong but that doesn't mean that he is a liar. "

  M. Sufilight says:
  Allright you find him to be wrong, but not a lair. And that seems logical to all readers?
  You seem to ask why I, M. Sufilight, call him a liar. 
  I think I have clearly stated and documented this in this e-mail here at Theos-talk (Sat Dec 5, 2009): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/53401

  One question:
  - Now will you through honest documentation tell me where I am wrong in my views, so that you avoid calling me a lair? 

  I claim, that my views, which are based on knowledge and not belief like some others are make me say: 
  - Master Morya and Master KH aught not to be called imaginary beings. And Blavatsky aught not to be accused for calling them imaginary beings, when she in fact never did so.
  Some of us still claim we know, and not only believe what we say, i.e. that the Masters are real. It seems that this have become taboo within theosophical groups and even here at Theos-talk since the adwent of K. Paul Johnson and his clealry false accusations on H. P. Blavatsky and - some of those who through the use of evidence disagree's with his undocumented views. (Of course I do not want people to consider the Masters existence in a dogmatic manner. Yet, the fact is that some persons are more wise than others. This fact will not go away even if it is repeatedly denied by so-called theosophical scholars. The question to them is to prove to us if there is a limit to the level of wisdom a given person can have? - And we also know, that silence on their behalf is an answer.)

  2.
  K. Paul Johnson claims:
  "I have no problem with this additional "confession," since in fact HPB seems to me quite remarkable in having been a great impostor yet also having punctured her own self-created myth repeatedly. "
  http://www.katinkahesselink.net/his/kp_john1.htm

  M. Sufilight asks:
  Has he changed his views lately?
  I ask because I do not know. And he repeatedly refuse to communication with me.

  3.
  K. Paul Johnson said in the mentioned video no. 5:
  "And the theosophys fate is now build on a house of sand."
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mndIUKee4aM&feature=related

  M. Sufilight asks:
  Yes true, the words was written or said by Blavatsky, or at least something similar. But they are taken completely out of context in a dead-letter manner, from a private letter or two, and if K. Paul Johnson is not aware of this then we just might as well go and say that monkeys are the most common members of the theosophical groups these days. And we all know that this is not true and not something "imaginary". :-)

  4.
  K. Paul Johnson said in the mentioned video no. 5:
  "When you are speaking of the imaginary Mahatmas, you are right" (Time:
  2:27-2:30)
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mndIUKee4aM&feature=related

  M. Sufilight asks:
  Is this statement not a major lie?
  Especially when we know that H. P. Blavatsky and others several times testified that they were real beings and not just spiritualistic mirages like the movie(s) would like us to think?

  A few references: 
  - The Key to Theosophy, p. 295, 
  - HPB's Letters to A. P. Sinnett: http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/Letters%20of%20HPB.htm - page, 7, 9, 13, 19, 27, 37, 39 and many more, and also 
  - http://mahatmaletters.net/

  In the movie we also witness K. Paul Johnson runs a commercial about himself as being the "author of The Masters Revealed" and not merely an "author". Such commercials are really telling to some of us.

  When you on top of this add to you brains, that I openly will dare to claim that these Masters are real, because I have experienced it, then to me, the lie of the accuser(s) gets even thicker here at Theos-talk. Please, do not just like that imagine that Blavatsky and Morya are gone. And if Morya is not nearby, his replacement will be. Blavatsky is near the globe allright, and Damodar too if you would listen to knowledge. And when these facts are truely known by the readers, it changes things a bit about how one will look at the accusations or false portrayals brought against a person who fought and is STILL fighting with all she has to help humanity.

  M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Daniel 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:49 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: So does anyone else have an opinion about the Zuckerbrot documentary?

  I must say that I find the documentary quite interesting and not too bad of an introduction to HPB.

  I certainly disagree with some of the statements made but overall the documentary provides alot of food for thought.

  I do wish that a little more time could have been spent outlining some of her major teachings. Also some of the photographs and film footage were less than what I would have chosen.

  And believe it or not (lol), I thought Paul Johnson made some insightful statements. I especially liked what he said about "global Theosophy".

  I see of late that Paul has been called a "liar" here at Theos-Talk. This assessement I assume being based on what he said in the documentary. 

  Why a liar? One may see things differently than Paul but does that make him therefore a liar? He has definite opinions and one may not always agree with those opinions. In fact, I believe some of his assessments (as presented in his books) are definitely wrong but that doesn't mean that he is a liar. I find him to be in my estimate a sincere person and I think he does have a abiding and serious interest in Theosophy.

  Daniel
  Blavatsky Study Center
  http://blavatskyarchives.com

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@...> wrote:
  >
  > I liked how the documentary turned out, and am not surprised that Morten did not. But would like to know if anyone else has any opinion to share, or if his outpouring of righteous indignation and personal hatred will be the one and only opinion expressed in this forum. The kind of overt aggression we see here can silence others who are intimidated and don't wish to become themselves targets of fanatical hostility. I particularly protest the use of the word "crucifixion" to apply to the documentary's treatment of HPB, which is violent rhetoric that both expresses and encourages sectarian hatred of all involved in it.
  >

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

  ------------------------------------

  Yahoo! Groups Links

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



  

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



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links




      

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