[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Morten vs Dogma

Apr 18, 2010 07:04 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen

Dear Duane and other readers as well

My views are:

I say this out of compassion. Let us be calm.
The intentions with my e-mail was - comparative studying - and not a question about "My Guru is better then your Guru".
I never said that AAB was not a somewhat "important contributor to Theosophy", my quote just referred to some problematic facts the Seekers after Truth are facing when they seek out and study AAB's teachings. And I challenged anyone to forward their views on the teaching given by the persons, - not on the persons behind it and did not encourage anyone to forward any unfounded and undocumented views about me.

The central issue:
To me it is not a question about personalities, but a question about which teaching one aught to promote or not.
Let us go for debating the teaching and avoid throwing mud at wellmeaning individuals who e-mail at this forum, both of us included.

I know, that AAB emphasised the doctrine of a physical saviour, while she at the same time did not omit the doctrine of the Christ (understood as the Divine) within each humans Heart, although this latter doctrine was heavily veiled and down-watered in her writings due to her use of vocabulary and the Saviour in the flesh doctrine. 

Quality teaching is not the same as quantity teaching. It is very well that the AAB groups has such a large following, of excitement groups who sing the Great Invocation like the Salvations Army to get a personalized physical Saviour to come and help them - but we reject such a doctrine, because this is killing the spirit of the Eastern Doctrine about the Divine within each human.

- - -
In the following words, the persons quoted are never meant to be taken as infallible. Instead it is the teaching given by the words and sentences, which I am forwarding, and not personality discussions. I quote, because I will like to tell the readers, that others have the same view as I have, and because it saves time compared with taking the time to write almost the same thing by myself.

Duane wrote:
"Each contributes what they can and respects what others are doing even if we do not understand it. "

M. Sufilight says:
On this I agree. Wellmeaning activities are allright. But when they lead people astray, we might go and question whether it is allright.
Do you not think so?

Did you respect my e-mail answering like you did?

I wonder what are you insinuating with the following:
""Please read this short commentary since it was written for those who think their way is the only way and their thinking about things is the only truth."

Look here I gave the ball so that comparative studying could be promoted, not so the be plastered with the view, that I was no willing listner to what others might forward. But so that others might be able to teach me provided they have the needed insight between the AAB and HPB teachings, and those authors they quote.

Duane wrote or quoted (?):
"One of the greatest stumbling blocks to many who have studied HPBâs work is what they see as Alice Bailey personalizing the idea of Christ. If you take into account that DK himself stated that he deliberately gave the ancient wisdom teachings a Christianized emphases for a broader audience here in the west it will explain much."

M. Sufilight says:
I claim that a Master doing this is leading people astray, and is not a real Master at all. Try read the quotes in the below by Master KH and HPB.
And those words by you, does not support the view given by HPB, that the Torch-bearer send by the Masters, which AAB claims she was, would give irrefutable proofs on ATMA-VIDYA.

You are in fact forwarding the opposite doctrine in the above.

It is very well, that many AAB followers are wellmeaning and even quite compassionate persons.
But why on earth should anyone deceive them by not telling them the truth?

Why on Earth not tell the confused Seekers how damaging the Christian doctrine of the Divine in the Flesh really is, instead of lying about what the actual teachings given by H. P. Blavatsky was? Those same teachings by HPB which AAB claims she bases her own teaching on - and this while she in fact  seems to be lying about it it.

There are already enough world saviour organisations promoting Saviours in the flesh on this planet.
Do you want the AAB teaching to replant the Eastern Doctrines in India? If, so I disagree.
Do you find the promotion af the AAB teachings healthy in our Informations society with Internet, Satelite TV, E-mails, etc. etc.?
If so, I disagree.

When a given AAB group would officially put as a minimum EQUAL emphsis on the HPB teachings and the AAB teachings, then they might be helpful to the cause. Right now, they are dangerous. Yet, I would say, that those who are entangled with the Christian vocabulary and knows too little of the Eastern Doctrines, will problably disagree.

- - - - - - -
AAB Autobiography, 1951, p. 157 
"Towards the end of 1919 Mr. Bailey was made National Secretary of the Theosophical Society. Dr. Shepherd was made Publicity Director and I became editor of the sectional magazine, The Messenger, and chairman of the committee which was running Krotona. All phases of the work and all the different policies and principles governing the administration were, therefore, open to us. The General Secretary, Mr. A.P.Warrington, was a close friend, and all the senior workers were friends and there seemed to be great harmony and a truly cooperative spirit. Little by little, however, we discovered how superficial this harmony was. Little by little we entered upon a most difficult and distressing time. Our affection and personal loyalties were with our friends and co-executives, but our sense of justice and our adherence to the governing principles were constantly being outraged. The truth of the matter was that the management of the Theosophical Society in the United States, and still more so in Adyar (the international center), was at that time reactionary and old-fashioned whereas the new approach to life and truth, freedom of interpretation and impersonality were the characteristics which should have governed policies and methods but did not.

The society was founded for the establishing of universal brotherhood but it was degenerating into a sectarian group more interested in founding and sustaining lodges and increasing the membership than in reaching the general public with the truths of the Ageless Wisdom."
(AAB Autobiography - p. 157)

M. Sufilight says:
This does not fit, with the idea, that Master D.K. wanted to deceive people by forwarding a more Christianized doctrine.
The AAB groups are falling in the same trap as TS Adyar. Namely too much acceptance of Christianity and confused Guruism - or - allowing that the medias - with very good reason because of the content of the AAB teachings - plaster this opinion upon them.

Do you think that H. P. Blavatsky damaged the wisdom teachings by writing the article "THEOSOPHY OR JESUITISM?", June 1888?

An excerpt from THEOSOPHY OR JESUITISM? might be a good idea:
"At the same time, all those who are pursuing in life's great wilderness of vain evanescent pleasures and empty conventionalities an ideal worth living for, are offered the choice between the two now once more rising powers--the Alpha and the Omega at the two opposite ends of the realm of giddy, idle existence--THEOSOPHY and JESUITISM."
"Theosophy and Jesuitism are the two opposite poles, one far above, the other far below even that stagnant marsh. Both offer power--one to the spiritual, the other to the psychic and intellectual Ego in man. The former is "the wisdom that is from above . . . pure, peaceable, gentle . . . full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy," while the latter is "the wisdom that descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, DEVILISH."3  One is the power of Light, the other that of Darkness. . . ."

H. P. Blavatsky published:
"Like Christianity, Freemasonry is a corpse from which the spirit long ago fled. "
(ISIS UNVEILED, vol II, p. 387-388) 

M. Sufilight says:
I say this out of compassion. We have to oppose that, which leads astray. Yet, we find the world to be free under the Law of Karma. Do you understand me?
In the case of AAB teachings, parts of the writings are clearly recognized as being helpful to our very mutual friends - the seekers. No theosophist will deny this. But, the dangers those doctrines promotes should in the name of compassion never be ignored. Do you disagree on this?

What do you think happened in the past with all those groups of wisdom teachings which opposed the Orthodox Christians and the Jesuits?
All of them the Masons, the Pagans, the Templars - all have been either butchered by the inquisition, or by deception slowly absorbed by false Jesuit-Christian groups pretending to be esoteric, but who in reality was directed by the Jesuit general himself. Or else by the medias called Sects who brainwashes people, or who are in bed with the Nazis. I tell you: These wild schemers will stop at nothing.

Why do you think H. P. Blavatsky promoted the following words about Masonry and the Templars?:
"Count Ramsay, a Jesuit, was the first to start the idea of the Templars being joined to the Knights of Malta."
"It is curious to note too that most of the bodies which work these, such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, the Rite of Avignon, the Order of the Temple, Fessler's Rite, the 'Grand Council of the Emperors of the East and West -- Sovereign Prince Masons,' etc., etc., are nearly all the offspring of the sons of Ignatius Loyola. The Baron Hundt, Chevalier Ramsay, Tschoudy, Zinnendorf, and numerous others who founded the grades in these rites, worked under instructions from the General of the Jesuits. The nest where these high degrees were hatched, and no Masonic rite is free from their baleful influence more or less, was the Jesuit College of Clermont at Paris. 
  "That bastard foundling of Freemasonry, the 'Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite,' which is unrecognized by the Blue Lodges was the enunciation, primarily, of the brain of the Jesuit Chevalier Ramsay. It was brought by him to England in 1736-38, to aid the cause of the Catholic Stuarts. The rite in its present form of thirty-three degrees was reorganized at the end of the eighteenth century by some half dozen Masonic adventurers at Charleston, South Carolina. "
  ""The modern Templars, whom you refer to in your letter, are but mere magpies in peacock's plumes. The aim of the Masonic Templars is the sectarianization, or rather the Christianizing of Masonry, a fraternity which is supposed to admit the Jew, Parsee, Mahometan, Buddhist, in fact every religionist within its portals who accepts the doctrine of a personal god, and spirit-immortality. According to the belief of a section, if not all the Israelites, belonging to the Craft in America -- Templarism is Jesuitism. "
  "The sectarian Christian spirit in Masonry must be put down."
  (Isis Unveiled, vol. II, p. 390)


  H. P. Blavatsky said:
  "Of a piece with the above is the ignorant rudeness of certain critics who pronounce Cagliostro an âimpostorâ and his desire of engrafting Eastern Philosophy upon Western Masonry âcharlatanism.â Without such a union Western Masonry is a corpse without a soul. "

  Master K. H. in Mahatma Letter no. 10:
  "Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H. Our philosophy falls under the definition of Hobbes. It is preeminently the science of effects by their causes and of causes by their effects, and since it is also the science of things deduced from first principle, as Bacon defines it, before we admit any such principle we must know it, and have no right to admit even its possibility."
  "Our doctrine knows no compromises. It either affirms or denies, for it never teaches but that which it knows to be the truth. Therefore, we deny God both as philosophers and as Buddhists. We know there are planetary and other spiritual lives, and we know there is in our system no such thing as God, either personal or impersonal. Parabrahm is not a God, but absolute immutable law, and Iswar is the effect of Avidya and Maya, ignorance based upon the great delusion. The word "God" was invented to designate the unknown cause of those effects which man has either admired or dreaded without understanding them, and since we claim and that we are able to prove what we claim -- i.e. the knowledge of that cause and causes we are in a position to maintain there is no God or Gods behind them."
  "The God of the Theologians is simply and imaginary power, un loup garou as d'Holbach expressed it -- a power which has never yet manifested itself. Our chief aim is to deliver humanity of this nightmare, to teach man virtue for its own sake, and to walk in life relying on himself instead of leaning on a theological crutch, that for countless ages was the direct cause of nearly all human misery. "
  "We are not Adwaitees, but our teaching respecting the one life is identical with that of the Adwaitee with regard to Parabrahm. And no true philosophically brained Adwaitee will ever call himself an agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahm and identical in every respect with the universal life and soul -- the macrocosm is the microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself, no creator as no being. Having found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs on it and become agnostics. "

  And Master K. H. in Mahatma Letter no. 54 about A. O. Hume or H.:
  "I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by Mr. H. I read his three essays or chapters on God (?) cosmogony and glimpses of the origin of things in general, and had to cross out nearly all. He makes of us Agnostics!! We do not believe in God because so far, we have no proof, etc. This is preposterously ridiculous: if he publishes what I read, I will have H.P.B. or Djual Khool deny the whole thing; as I cannot permit our sacred philosophy to be so disfigured. He says that people will not accept the whole truth; that unless we humour them with a hope that there may be a "loving Father and creator of all in heaven" our philosophy will be rejected a priori. In such a case the less such idiots hear of our doctrines the better for both. If they do not want the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they are welcome. But never will they find us -- (at any rate) -- compromising with, and pandering to public prejudices."

  - - - 
  M. Sufilight says:
  And I support this as a Theosophist.
  The AAB followers can hardly support it if they are not made aware of the opposition Master KH and H. P. Blavatsky had to the AAB doctrines with regard to the promotion of a Saviour in the Flesh and a gigantic male version of it. 

  This "pander to public prejudices" is what you are saying that the D.K. of AAB supports and what you appearntly support yourself.
  And we do not. That is the simple difference. I will just freely let each reader of our e-mails choose what teaching they support.

  And such a "pandering to public prejudices" is exactly the same scheme the Jesuits are using, just in a much more false and sinister manner, than many a AAB group. But an accomplished Jesuit (i.e. false Christian with magical knowledge) could in fact reach very far in AAB circles by giving the impression of being a honest person, because  I tell you, deception is their game, while they so to speak "break the Jesus principle in".



AAB Autobiography, 1951, p. 252 :
"Instead of "my country, right or wrong," it was "humanity, right or wrong." When I wrote the pamphlet called The Present World Crisis and the succeeding papers on the world situation, I stated that the Hierarchy endorsed the attitude and aims of the United Nations, fighting for the freedom of the whole of humanity and for the release of the suffering people.

M. Sufilight says:
Instead of AAB teachings to the Christians "right or wrong", we instead say AAB teachings to the world, "right or wrong"?.
That is the difference. I find the AAB teachings to be problematic, because they affiliate themselves so much with the very political United Nations.
And at the same time, they promote - a deceiving - physical Saviour doctrine based on heavy Chrisitian vocabulary - instead of Atma-Vidya and the Divine within each human; and avoiding a deep-freeze attitude towards the Middle East, (the purpose for the creation of the Jesuits was to put down the Muslims - See wikipedia on that); and while forgetting to call politics what it is: Low-Ehics, and an attempt to bypass the Law of Karma, which cannot be accomplished.

Later AAB sort of regretted the above and rejected the UN Security Counsil as being healthy. I know, that AAB are formulating views on compassion and altruism, but the problematic tendencies in the teachings are pretty clear. Well as far as I am concerned.


M. Sufilight says:
I will now throw a number of quotes, so to make the readers aware of how much difference there is between the AAB teachings and the original theosophical doctrines........

HPB in a confidential letter to A. P. Sinnett:
" . . . . . . . It would be well perhaps, if the Jesuits contented themselves with making dupes of Freemasons and opposing the Theosophists and Occultists using for it the Protestant clergy as "cat's paw." But their plottings have a much wider scope, and embrace a minuteness of detail and care of which the world in general has no idea. Everything is done by them to bring the mass of mankind again to the state of passive ignorance which they well know is the only one which can help them to the consummation of their purpose of Universal Despotism." (Ostende, jan. 1886)

HPB wrote about her views on Masonry:
"My Masonic experienceâif you will so term membership in several Eastern Masonic Fraternities and Esoteric Brotherhoodsâis confined to the Orient. But, nevertheless, this neither prevents my knowing, in common with all Eastern "Masons," everything connected with Western Masonry (including the numberless humbugs that have been imposed upon the Craft during the last half century) nor, since the receipt of the diploma from the "Sovereign Grand Master," of which you publish the text, my being entitled to call myself a Mason. "

HPB wrote about her views on Masonry:
"As far as we are concerned, disciples of the Masters of the Orient as we are, we have nothing to do with modern Masonry."
("A SIGNAL OF DANGER" af H. P. Blavatsky, marts 1889)

HPB said to A. P. Sinnett, p. 97:
"Had phenomena and the Masters been sacredly preserved among and only for Theosophists, all this would not have happened. But it is my own fault as much as his. In my zeal and devotion to the Cause I have permitted publicity and as Subba Row truly says âcommitted the crime of divulging things most sacred and holy that had never been known to the profane beforeâ and now comes my Karma."

HPB said to A. P. Sinnett, p. 122:
" I have learned so much at least now from himâthat his return to his Master depends upon the restoration of the T.S.âs previous status: unless the Society begins again to run smoothly, at least in appearance, he has to remain exiledâas he saysâfor it appears that his MasterâMahatma K. H. holds him, Damodar, and Subba Row responsible for the two thirds of Mr. Hodgsonâs âmayasââhe says. It is they, who, irritated and insulted at his appearance at Adyar, regarding his (Hodgsonâs) cross-examination and talk about the Mastersâdegrading to themselves and blasphemous with regard to Masters; instead of being frank with H. and telling him openly that there were many things they could not tell himâwent on to work to augment his perplexity, allowed him to suggest things without contradicting them, and threw him out of the saddle altogether."

HPB wrote about the Original Programe Manuscript:
"But if the two Founders were not told what they had to do, they were distinctly instructed about what they should never do, what they had to avoid, and what the Society should never become. Church organizations, Christian and Spiritual sects were shown as the future contrasts to our Society.*"
"They had to oppose in the strongest manner possible anything approaching dogmatic faith and fanaticismâbelief in the infallibility of the Masters, or even in the very existence of our invisible Teachers, having to be checked from the first. On the other hand, as a great respect for the private views and creeds of every member was demanded, any Fellow criticising the faith or belief of another Fellow, hurting his feelings, or showing a reprehensible self-assertion, unasked (mutual friendly advices were a duty unless declined)âsuch a member incurred expulsion. The greatest spirit of free research untrammelled by anyone or anything, had to be encouraged."

M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Duane Carpenter 
  Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 1:21 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Morten vs Dogma

  Dear Morten
  If you had spent more time studying AABâs works instead of criticizing and putting her down you might have realized that she is an important contributor to Theosophy.
  My Guru is better then your Guru is old Piscean stuff that we need to let go of as we move into the true age of Aquarius. Each contributes what they can and respects what others are doing even if we do not understand it. Please read this short commentary since it was written for those who think their way is the only way and their thinking about things is the only truth.
   A short except from this commentary comparing the wonderful works of HPB with AAB :
  âOne of the greatest stumbling blocks to many who have studied HPBâs work is what they see as Alice Bailey personalizing the idea of Christ. If you take into account that DK himself stated that he deliberately gave the ancient wisdom teachings a Christianized emphasesfor a broader audience here in the west it will explain much. Did AAB fuse Esoteric Christianity with Esoteric Buddhism? This audacious undertaking could only be done by a Master of the Wisdom who could bypass the dogmas and historical baggage both religions bring and see the  same esoteric truths that are be found in all  religious traditions and  emanating from the same One Source of spiritual life. For those theosophical students who have been told by erroneous sources that AAB has overly personified the principal of Love or Christ please read carefully the next passage and quote by AAB.
  âThere have always been those in every land who developed and expressed the Christ consciousness; this is loving understanding and intelligent, living service, no matter by what words or terminology they expressed the tremendous spiritual event of which they were aware. â 
  Today, as a result of a spiritual awakening which dates from 1625 A.D., and which laid the emphasis upon a wider, general education and upon a revolt from the imposition of clerical authority, the radiation from the world of souls has greatly intensified and the Kingdom of God is becoming a corporate part of the outer world expression, and this for the first time in the long, long history of humanity.
  The effect of this radiation or magnetic aura is now so extensive that we need no longer talk in terms of bringing in the kingdom or of its manifestation on Earth. It is already manifesting, and its aura is co-mingled with the mental, astral and etheric auras of mankind. Recognition only is required, but (and this is a factor to be noted) recognition is being withheld until the kingdom of souls can be safeguarded from the narrow claims of any church, religion or organization; many will claim (as they have ever done) that admittance into the Kingdom of God is to be found through their particular reparative group. The Kingdom of God is not Christian, or Buddhist, or to be found focused in any world religion or esoteric organization. It is simply and solely what it claims to be: a vast and integrated group of soul-infused persons, radiating [Page 408] love and spiritual intention, motivated by goodwill...â
   For all of the endless debates about Bailey vs. HPB, Bailey clearly puts the idea of the Bodhisattva or Cosmic Christ as an impersonal deity or power that expresses both intelligence and Love.
  The aspirant and probationers are baffled by the depth and profundity of both the works of AAB and HPB but have not developed the wisdom to remain silent until they know more. True disciples recognize the immense opportunity that the works of HPB and AAB offer and begin creating analogies, correspondences and links between the two
  Do these teachings of AAB's work well because they are the result of some cult like dynamic that is so often hinted at by the beginner in Theosophy who is baffled over their wide acceptance or is it because these teachings of AAB's are providing historically what may be the next step for many intelligent people who are seeking discipleship training.
  I find it somewhat ironical that the Bailey material speaks about HPB in glowing terms in dozens of places. Placing her high in the spiritual hierarchy of things and indicating the importance of her work. Many Theosophical students on the other hand who have not obviously studied the AAB material seem to go into a frenzy of delight to tear down and delegate her teachings to some dark and sinister plot.
  Most of the critics of AAB's works acknowledge that they have made a somewhat superficial study of her teachings before launching into what they see as a comparison between the two.
  The Theosophical society is in major crises brought on by its own ignorance, dogma and refusal to be open to all forms of Theosophical teachings regardless from which direction they come.  Theosophy lives on but more in the teachings that have spread around the world exponentially than in its disintegrating institutions that may have started themâ.    
                                            Duane Carpenter

  From: Morten Nymann Olesen <>
  Sent: Sun, April 18, 2010 3:05:37 AM
  Subject: Theos-World The Salvations Army versus Lucis Trust!?

  Dear friends

  My views are:

  I find that comparative studying between the very Successful Alice A. Bailey followers and Blavatskian Theosophist seldom occurs. It might be because the Alice A. Bailey followers have down-watered the importance of comparative studying and replaced it with a AAB Bible tendency?

  So, because of that I just added the following to Wikipedia:

  The Blavatskian theosophists.
  Some critics and often followers of the so-called Blavatskian theosophy on Atma-Vidya refer to the following quotes. The theosophical Master K.H. was given by H. P. Blavatsky to say: "the Salvation Army by hypnotizing people and making them psychically drunk with excitement, is Black Magic"[53]. And H. P. Blavatsky stated in contrast with Alice A. Bailey's promotion of a Great Invocation arrival of a Maitreya Saviour in the flesh that: "(a) "the coming of Christ," means the presence of CHRISTOS in a regenerated world, and not at all the actual coming in body of "Christ" Jesus; (b) this Christ is to be sought neither in the wilderness nor "in the inner chambers," nor in the sanctuary of any temple or church built by man; for Christ--the true esoteric SAVIOUR--is no man, but the DIVINE PRINCIPLE in every human being. " [54] This can be compared with Alice A. Bailey.s "The Externalization of the Hierarchy", p. 590.
  H. P. Blavatsky also said in a letter to the honourable Abbà Roca: "In carnalizing the central figure of the New Testament, in imposing the dogma of the Word made flesh, the Latin Church sets up a doctrine diametrically opposed to the tenets of Buddhist and Hindu Esotericism and the Greek Gnosis. Therefore, there will always be an abyss between the East and the West, as long as neither of these dogmas yields." And further on she said, that a "true Theosophists will never accept either a Christ made Flesh, according to the Roman dogma, or an anthropomorphic God, still less a "Shepherd" in the person of a Pope".[55].

  Now if any Alice A. Bailey leader or follower have any comments I am all ears.

  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]

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application