Theos-Talk Archives (December 2010 Message tt00181)

Dear friends

My views are:

Let me throw a few words here in what is known to some as the Kali Yuga...


MKR wrote:
"Let us NOT equate or compare the Masters not using their real names to those
who hide in Internet under pseudonyms, There were many who have met the
Masters in flesh and they can vouch for their existence and their motives
and long term objectives. "

M. Sufilight says:
I wonder whether this is the whole truth of the matter.
I would rather say, that there is a time and a place for using pseudonyms and not using pseudonyms.
Those who use pseudonyms, and who cannot teach will most often be shown not to be able to do so.
Those who can teach and use pseudonyms none seem to be barking at.
Those who use pseudonyms and who certain selfproclaimed theosophists disagree with are sometimes it seems not supported by these self same selfproclaimed theosophists. And it is about this time some of them seek to disclose the person behind the pseudonym, and mind you most often not, when they wholly agree with a person hiding behind a pseudonym. And this aught to be taken in to serious consideration - especially when we deal with the issue of being conditioned versus deconditioned.

Let me try to throw a few words by Idries Shah.
They might be helpful, when dealing with this issue.

Idries Shah worte something like the following:
"Man's delinquency is often masked by the most socially-acceptable behaviour. There are two forms of conscience: real conscience and conditioned conscience. The latter is necessary, but is not absolute. The purpose of the latter is to sustain us while we have a chance to find the former. Few people learn this. 
 You must improve yourself on a higher level if you are to be able to help people, and not just weep over them: 'Do not think that your magic ring will work if you are not yourself Solomon.'
 This is the higher philospophy and higher morality. Like all subtle things, it can be crushed in individual cases by a cruder thing. The cruder thing is to say: 'I believe that such-and-such is good, and your talk about anything else is disguised evil.' 
 There is so very little difference in kind between the various contending ideologies: what is 'good' to one is 'evil' to the other: 'A cat and a dog were once fighthing to decide which of them was a rat.'

 The only escape is through more knowledge: People talk about 'service, effort, love, knowledge.' But with knowledge you can serve, you can make efforts. Knowledge may not be superior to love, but it is the essential prerequisite. If you do not understand, you cannot love. You can only imagine that you love.
 If you cannot help others, you will not be able to do so in any permanent or really effective manner just by asking advice from another person. But you can equip yourself to help others. Another person can help you in this task.
 None of us can stop trying to help. But we can stop thinking that there must be a panacea somewhere and that we may be the ones to apply it. This is primitive thining. Unless we can realise that we have to learn what there is to know, not what we imagine we should learn, the knowledge will not be forth coming."
(Knowing How to Know, p. 118)

Idries Shah also wrote something similar to the following. 
I have rewritten it a bit:
"All over the world, at all times, people have been carrying out studies in philosophy, metaphysics, religion, without realising that the materials which they study, the way in which they study them, and the factors which influence individuals and groups must be understood in a certain manner. Here are some brief remarks on this subject:

1. People behave in certain ways due to their cultural, national and psychological background. This behvaiour colours their whole being. Not knowing this, they attribute naturally-araising reactions to the 'teaching.' See Silent Language by Edward Hall.

2. People organise themselves into groups without realising that group organisation can be fatal to learning. Certain types of groups exist only for the group, although the members do not know it. Groups can actually become 'religious' even though no religion is being studied. Study Human Groups, W.J.H. Sprott, for popularised material on this.

3. Random or systematised study of certain ideas is next to useless. It is one thing to have an open mind; it is another to think that one can choose the materials which one should study when one is not aware of the special circumstances of study needed and the special personnel of a group needed for special studies. See Shah: The Study of Sufism in the West

4. Many 'teachings' and ideas come to their students strongly influenced by local cultural modes of expression. Unless this is known, and steps are taken to combat this, the result tends to be indoctrination with superficial and worse characteristics of the vehicle of the teaching. See: Afghanistan, by Peter King.

5. People take 'ideas', which were intended ot be 'prescribed' for specific situations and groups to enable them to learn. These they imagine are 'laws' or perennial truths. The result is a mechanical system which is next to useless. See: The Teachers of Gurdjieff by Rafel Lefort.

6. People study a man and his work through doctrines and personality conceptions which do not apply to that man or that work. They get lost in this enterprise.
See: Rumi the Persian, Reza Arasteh."

And I tend to agree with Idries Shah in his above words...

A few comments my M. Sufilight:
So I do not mind people who use pseudonyms. But those who are unable to morally prove their case are a different lot. Forums like this are of course marked by the fact, that there is a tendency to randomly allow certain members to take part in exchanges in it. If it where different, and only some members were allowed, things would of course be different. Compassion will however always show its fruits within any group who claim to be based on promoting altruism and a brotherhood of humanity for all mankind; especially if it happens in a very loose manner. And we can question what manner this particular forum seek to promote something like this, if it at all has the intention. This forum have only this official purpose: "Description
Discussion on topics regarding Theosophy (or theosophy) and its realization in the modern world. A forum completely independent of control by established theosophical organizations." - Forums, (like this one without any clear Constitution), which openly avoid promoting any ethical foundation in a - clear and wellformulated manner - will of course have certain problems facing such facts which the lack of a clear and wellformulated Constituion can give.

Just a few views of mine.

M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: MKR 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 4:11 PM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: Theosophy, Blavatsky, and use of pseudonyms


    
  Let us NOT equate or compare the Masters not using their real names to those
  who hide in Internet under pseudonyms, There were many who have met the
  Masters in flesh and they can vouch for their existence and their motives
  and long term objectives. Those on Internet are simply ordinary people who
  do not have courage or guts to put their name where their mouth is.

  Since the circle of theosophists who are knowledgeable is very small, it is
  very hard to hide because most active theosophists know each other - at
  least in cyberspace if not in flesh and blood.

  Already in the theosophical grapevine many are speculating about the real
  identities. Most likely, even the targets may be aware of it.

  If anyone of those targets, want to get out of the hanging cloud, the most
  effective way is to post a public message that they are not the persons
  behind the pseudonyms.

  Till that happens, speculation will go on and on, till one day, accidentally
  the real identity is discovered and when that happens, all that has been
  written in the past will come to haunt them and destroy their credibility.
  Internet is like akashic records and what is recorded is going to be there
  for ever!

  It is up to the individual theosophists to decide what they want to do. If
  anyone wants to post a disclaimer here, they are indeed welcome to do so by
  signing up on theos-talk.

  Let us keep tuned...........

  MKR

  On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:20 AM, email2cal <email2cal@zTu3tFDhlUjP1QbxdXpVyS52fKWRxdK9eCW4ex-FlUy84xtRLpqn0wdW39LkScSr4rttlKUrcAKVsQ.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

  >
  >
  >
  > It is hard to uderstand why some people object against using pseudonyms.
  > In final count, what matter is ideas and not personalities.
  >
  > I find it a strange idea that Blavatsky "is the role model for
  > theosophists," but even if this is so let us keep in mind that she did
  > not shy away from using pen names (e.g., Radda Bai for her writings in
  > the Russian).
  >
  > It is well known that Masters routinely used pseudonyms to conceal their
  > real names and identities.
  >
  > Max
  >
  >
  > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>, MKR
  > <mkr777@...> wrote:
  > >
  > > Theosophy, Blavatsky, and use of pseudonyms
  > >
  > > Typically people involved in covert activities and also those involved
  > in
  > > questionable activities hide behind pseudonyms for their own personal
  > safety
  > > and protection. Intelligence agents and many of the intelligence
  > > interrogators as well as those who employ ÃâËharshÃââ
  > techniques against bad
  > > guys commonly use pseudonyms.
  > >
  > > When theosophists start using pseudonyms, one is wondering why? What
  > are
  > > they afraid of? Blavatsky is the role model for theosophists. When
  > someone
  > > wants to write about Blavatsky or theosophy in todayÃââs world,
  > and uses
  > > pseudonym, one wonders what is going on?
  > >
  > > Theosophists in cyberspace have come across couple of theosophists
  > using
  > > pseudonyms. Some years ago, one of them was identified with the help
  > of
  > > Internet theosophists.
  > >
  > > Still couple more are there using pseudonyms and write about theosophy
  > and
  > > Blavatsky on Internet Forum(s).
  > >
  > > Recently, I was told by three independent sources, about the identity
  > of one
  > > of the pseudonymers and it happens to be a theosophist all of us know
  > well.
  > >
  > > If anyone has any more information about anyone in the theosophical
  > circles
  > > using pseudonyms, feel free to email the information to me at
  > > mkr777_at_gmail.com. Let us all out these hiding theosophists.
  > >
  > >
  > > MKR
  > >
  > > Tags: theosophy, Blavatsky, pseudonyms
  > > .
  > >
  > >
  > > [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]