Theos-Talk Archives (April 2010 Message tt00058)

Hello All,

Looking at this debate, it always strikes me the readiness by which fellow theosophists, are ready to doubt the motives of each other, thereby curtailing the only meaningful activity of a forum like this, the debate itself.

It would seem much more productive to assume the sincerity of the other person and respond assuming that sincerity.  That, to me, would seem to be what is meant by Brotherhood.  Brotherhood is not accepting whatever doctrine anyone else is espousing, it is trying to understand what it means to be on the Path, and working with others by exploring different ideas so that we all can advance along that Path together.

Let's face it, at the end of the 7th round, humanity is not going to look on either of these doctrines as being particularly deep, we will be far beyond anything that these two doctrines espouse.  Neither HPB nor the Masters ever looked for blind faith in these doctrines, they were looking for people to question anything and everything. I think it is fair to say that those who try to follow the original program of the Movement need to be tolerant of differing views and willing to debate those views.  How else is anyone going to learn?  We are our only Savior.  No one else can do the work for us.  It will profit no man to wed themselves to either of these doctrines for all time.

That being said, if we are not identified with the ideas of these doctrines, then what is the problem with exploring the pros and cons of any idea in particular?  To debate an idea is not an attack on anything but our own individual understanding of the idea itself. Why do theosophists find it so difficult to share with one another?  Is that not our duty?  Do we not affirm the Universal Brotherhood of Man?
I have a brother of whom I agree with on very little, but I do not doubt his sincerity, even if I presume he is a little thick-headed at times.

I don't think the Masters were ever overly concerned with how well we grasped esoteric doctrines like rounds and races.  They were more concerned with how we related to one another.  We always seem to be looking for evidence of Brotherhood in the other person, rather than just expressing Brotherhood in how we react to others who do not share the same doctrine.  This forum with its sometimes vigorous debate would seem to be a great venue for practicing the virtues of Brotherhood.  To a theosophist what could be more important?

Bruce

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Duane Carpenter <monad_monad_monad@...> wrote:
>
> Â 
> Dear Frank
> Â 
> Only those who have been to the â??Sourceâ?? know the validity of whose teachings came from what level or possibly the same place. Am I to believe Frank you have been to that source or fountainhead of Gudya Vidya and that is which prompts you to speak? Your idea of going into the details of this controversy is not convincing. Words as you have so aptly indicated further down in your letter shows how much you may distrust them.
> Â 
> You and Morten need to read the works of AAB and begin to understand the differences between Mysticism and Occultism. Small paradox here since neither of you believe the teachings of AAB to be worth reading so obviously you both donâ??t. Superficially skimming or taking someone else opinion and using it as the bases of your  argument does not count.
> Mysticism has for its objective the elevation into the spirit, Occultism in contradistinction attempts to ascend to that same heights but then to bring the spirit down so that all of humanity and not simply one person here or one there can share in this revelation. If you had even a cursory understanding of the Bailey material you would realize that the Great Invocation has two parts one going up and one coming back. The Great Invocation is used in closing a prior meditation where the ascent part has already taken place.
> These distinction may mean little to you but are the basis of a new approach to liberation the whole of humanity and not just oneself. HPB laid the foundation and AAB only expanded upon her great works. 
> 
> To claim someone elseâ??s teachings are â??evil mindedâ?? is a serious charge that has never been substantiated on this site. The Bailey material teaches Love and tolerance and goodwill. Unfortunately I find it singularly lacking in your comments as well as Mortems. If we lack the bases and foundation of brotherhood how will there even be any understanding of there different contributions? The world is full of ism attacking each other all the time. Are we to be just one more?
> I challenge you and Mortem to show me one passage from the works of AAB that says Christ is the Messiah in the flesh. To the contrary AABs picture of the Cosmic Christ is universal. 
> Is it possible an Avatar or Buddha or Christ like figure could come to help humanity out of its morass and actually take a body to help accomplish this work? HPB took a body and no one is foolish or drespetful  enough to refer to her as HPB, Messiah in the Flesh. This messiah in the flesh cliché of Mortimerâ??s is bizarre, unrealistic and does not exists  in the Bailey material.  It is a fabrication created by a mind that ha only superficially perused the works of AAB. 
> To compare the Great Invocation to the Salvation Army is pathetic and perverse humor that one day will be at your own expense karmically. Just because HPB blasts the Jesuits for there devious and unspiritual deeds 100 years ago does not mean all of Christianity  have the same  negativity. Gnostic Christianity reveals the same truths as does Raja Yoga. 
> Â 
> Respectfully DC
> Â 
> 
> 
> Â Please read the attached commentary on HPB and AAB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Frank Reitemeyer <ringding2010@...>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, April 18, 2010 1:34:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Morten vs Dogma
> 
> Â  
> Duane,
> 
> people, who have compared AAB with HPB only superficial spread the rumor, that both had the same source.
> But going deeper into the details you will see, that it is not so.
> 
> To make a long story short the best proof that AAB spreads pseudo theosophy and not pukka theosophy is AAB's Great Invocation where the student have to pull down the spirit, whereas in HPB's tenets af the ancient wisdom the student has to raise up to the spirit.
> In other words, the AAB system is a parody or original theosophy as the pseudo theosophy of Leadbeater, too.
> 
> To claim that both systems come from the same source or, even more evil minded, that the contradictions are but on the cover and have the same kernel, where in truth it is not so, is the same cant and lie as the Besant and Leadbeater aftermath lame excuses in The Theosophist about their twisting interpretations about the tenets on the planetary chains.
> 
> The crisis of the Adyar TS (as well as of the Pasadena TS and the ULT) is not their ignorance of AAB, but their ignorance of pukka theosophy. They suffer not from too much HPB, but from too less HPB and their cant about Masters (1900 letter), or in plain words: Their ignorance of the the co-workers of the great ones, which was replaced by the cant about masters.
> 
> Admiring of HPB is not a proof, that a lineage is true to HPB in spirit. Words are dead. I know of a group which has a promotion slogan on its publications, claiming to be on original lines of HPB. But they are in reality at least as far away from HPB as all other lineages, too.
> 
> But from all lineages the ULT has got off from HPB the most, as they twist her dead letter and claim that in the 20th century the occult machines has been stopped and no agents from Shambala have been there.
> 
> But comparing all these degenerations is as of you have to choice between pestilence and cholera.
> 
> Frank
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Duane Carpenter 
> To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 1:21 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Morten vs Dogma
> 
> Dear Morten
> If you had spent more time studying AABâ??s 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 :
> 
> â??One of the greatest stumbling blocks to many who have studied HPBâ??s 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.
> â??There 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 <global-theosophy@ stofanet. dk>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
> 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 Abbé 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].
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey
> 
> Now if any Alice A. Bailey leader or follower have any comments I am all ears.
> Anyone?
> 
> 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]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>