Theos-Talk Archives (January 2011 Message tt00009)

Dear Duane and friends

My views are:

Please, bear with me, because the below is a bit lenghty. 
And I wrote it so to carefully explain to you, why I refuse to accept any kind of Christianizing of the Original Programe of the Theosophical Scoiety.
I know, or at least I think I know, that you - kind hearted as you are - do not attempt to do such a thing - but by your continous promotions of the AAB teachings and groups, I find you to do the very thing you officially have denied earliere on. And that is the main problem I seek to explain to you in the below.


1.
Duane wrote:
"But this does not mean 
that any original works of Theosophy given in past centuries cannot be modified 
or expanded in the present century."

M. Sufilight says:
I can only agree upon this.
But, when people deviate or change the Original Programe, I find myself asking questions about whether those deviations, which by some are called EXPANSIONS or modifications,  really honestly are ethically healthy or not?

And that was the reason why I asked the questions in the first place.
If they can be proved healthy - I am all ears. If not, then I think you and others aught to listen with your heart of compassion to the words given by those who prove this to you.
If not, we will have to wonder - why not.


2.
Duane wrote about Alice A. Bailey:
"Here are several quotes by AAB that can be helpful. The last quote here on 
Christianity is particularly relevant to you since it clearly shows that AAB 
simply tried to infuse Christianity with some new depth since it was the 
dominate religion in the west. She was very much aware of its limitations in the 
form that she had to deal with. "

M. Sufilight asks:
Now, the question must be whether she was thatmuch aware of its limitations or not - especially when we deal with the secterian behaviour among the AAB followers as well as the AAB invocations of Messiah-dogmas or what AAB called the word made flesh?

I wonder why this emphasis on Christianity or emphsis on the use of Christianizing vocabulary - should be called an expansion of the Original Programe of the Theosophical Society - and why it always creps in among AAB followers, when it is known, that Blavatsky co-founder of the Theosophical Society always strongly opposed the religious dogmas of Christianity? 
Duane?


* * * * * * * 


3.

Duane wrote quoting Alice A. Bailey:
"Principles remain eternally the same. But 
techniques and methods of presentation alter with each cycle, because the 
receiving equipment of man steadily alters and improves." Alice A Bailey 
(DNA1:347) "

M. Sufilight says
An attempt to explain the above words by me and the AAB quote by you 
Duane will be given in the below.

Let us remember that Alice A. Bailey's books were clearly written for a western audience.
And as such are limited by this - and their fruits will, no doubt, show all kinds of karmic blisters because of it.
And I will claim that they also were written for the promotion of an Esoteric Section of her own formulation and structure, -
and not for the promotion of The Theosophical Society's Original Programe.
This AAB Esoteric Section - claimed until 1949 when AAB died to give teachings from AAB's Master D.K.
where she was a sort of moutpiece from - just like HPB had been it for an unnamed Master in her Esoteric Section 
in 1880-1891 or so. There was and still is a great difference between these to Esoteric Sections and how they pledged 
their members. No doubt can be raised about this.

But my main concern is The Original Programe of Theosophical Society (which was un-secterian body!) and not an Esoteric Section,
which operate like a sect. - Where is the official Constitution of Lucis Trust? Is it online?


Yes. Indeed there is a time and a place and several methods are used by the Initiated,
when promoting the esoteric eastern doctrines - on this UI agree entirely with AAB.
But is a Christianizing of the Original Programe really of such a great importance? Duane?
I think not.

Let me explain all the above views a bit further by throwing some quotes, 
so while seeking to show the readers and you - why the Originale Programe 
emphasized Eastern Doctrines!



*** A ***
The Original Programe of Theosophical Society as given by H. P. Blavatsky said:
"3. To study the philosophies of the Eastâthose of India chiefly, presenting them gradually to the public in various works that would interpret exoteric religions in the light of esoteric teachings;"..."Church organizations, Christian and Spiritual sects were shown as the future contrasts to our Society." (BCW, Vol. VII, p. 145)

*** B ***
H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"The reflex action of this work is seen in the popular demand for theosophical literature, and novels and magazine tales embodying Oriental ideas. Another important effect is the modification by Eastern Philosophy of the views of the Spiritualists, which has fairly begun, with respect to the source of some of the intelligence behind mediumistic phenomena. Still another is the adhesion of Mrs. Annie Besantâbrought about by the study of Esoteric Doctrineâfrom the Secularist party, an event fraught with most important consequences, both to our Society, to Secularism and the general public. Sanskrit names never previously heard in the West have become familiar to the reading public, and works like the Bhagavad-Gita are now to be found in the bookshops of Europe, America and Australasia."
 (BCW, Vol. XI, p. 397)

*** C ***
H. P. Blavatsky wrote about the Gospels:
""This theory of the seven keys, the Church, according to the Abbà Roca, has simplified âwithout disfiguring it,â reducing the keys to three; while, on the contrary, it has fabricated three false keys which do not open anything. "
(H. P. Blavatsly's Collected Writings, vol. 9, p. 225-6). 



*** D ***
Mahatma KH. Why do you think that Mahatma KH in his letter no. X clearly rejected to promotion of the word "God" among the theosophical teachings - saying that: 
"Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H."
.......
"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."......."Ignorance created Gods and cunning took advantage of the opportunity. Look at India and look at Christendom and Islam, at Judaism and Fetichism. It is priestly imposture that rendered these Gods so terrible to man; it is religion that makes of him the selfish bigot, the fanatic that hates all mankind out of his own sect without rendering him any better or more moral for it. It is belief in God and Gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false pretence of saving them. Is not man ever ready to commit any kind of evil if told that his God or Gods demand the crime?"
.......
" For two thousand years India groaned under the weight of caste, Brahmins alone feeding on the fat of the land, and to-day the followers of Christ and those of Mahomet are cutting each other's throats in the names of and for the greater glory of their respective myths. Remember the sum of human misery will never be diminished unto that day when the better portion of humanity destroys in the name of Truth, morality, and universal charity, the altars of their false gods. "
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/mahatma_letters.htm#No.%20X%201 
(Mahatma Letter no. X)


M. Sufilight says and asks:
And I agree with the above words.
Dear Duane does Blavatsky and Mahatma KH in the above quotes strike you as persons who are seeking to emphasise the Western Christian Doctrines and the Christian vocabulary?
Why then insist on such an emphasis in the 20th and even the 21th century? Yet AAB insists on a capital H and a God??? - Duane?

It seems that the tail of stubbern the Christian Donkey grows down-wards and that Mahatmas are growing upwards!

The thought, that there exists groups of fraudulent militant, black magic and power-thinking Christian's, who work together is not new. H. P. Blavatsky wrote about the subject several times. She also mentioned, that one as a theosophist aught to be on guard and look after any kind of infiltration inside theosophical circles from this group of individuals. That is, on the look out for any infiltration of the theosophical teachings and writings by this group. Today, it is without doubt true, that such groups seek and have sought infiltration of theosophical groups, theosophical literature and teachings. There are also today Christian Freemasons who has the Christian Bible at their Lodge-alter, and who not always find the - emphasis - on Eastern teachings given by H. P. Blavatsky and others to be something they fancy very much. 

The Original Programe said:
"Church organizations, Christian and Spiritual sects were shown as the future contrasts to our Society." 

I will stick to that when I seek to expand anything.


* * * * * * * 



An attempt to explain the issue further:
Let me explain all the above questions a bit further by throwing some quotes, 
so while seeking to show the readers and you - why the Originale Programe of the 
Theosophical Society opposes Christianity so much - and why any kind of their not seldom 
sought infiltration on their part of the Originale Programe of the 
Theosophical Society are rejected as far as possible --- well at least by some of us.



4.
*** A ***

THEOSOPHY OR JESUITISM?
"Therefore, the present opportunity is taken to state, once for all, the views which Theosophists and Occultists entertain with regard to the Society of Jesus. At the same time, all those who are pursuing in lifeâs 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 powersâthe Alpha and the Omega at the two opposite ends of the realm of giddy, idle existenceââTHEOSOPHY and JESUITISM.
For, in the field of religious and intellectual pursuits, these two are the only luminariesâa good and an evil star, trulyâglimmering once more from behind the mists of the Past, and ascending on the horizon of mental activities. They are the only two powers capable in the present day of extricating one thirsty for intellectual life from the clammy slush of the stagnant pool known as Modern Society, so crystallized in its cant, so dreary and monotonous in its squirrel-like motion around the wheel of fashion. Theosophy and Jesuitism are the two opposite poles, one far above, the other far below even that stagnant marsh. Both offer powerâone to the spiritual, the other to the psychic and intellectual Ego in man. The former is âthe wisdom that is from above. . . first pure, then peaceable, gentle . . . . . full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy,â while the latter is the âwisdom [that] descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, DEVILISH.â * One is the power of Light, the other that of Darkness. . . . .
A question will surely be asked: âWhy should anyone choose between the two? Cannot one remain in the world, a good Christian of whatever church, without gravitating to either of these poles?â Most undeniably, one can do so, for a few more years to come. But the cycle is rapidly approaching the last limit of its turning point. One out of the three great churches of Christendom is split into atomic sects, whose number increases yearly; and a house divided against itself, as is the Protestant ChurchâMUST FALL. The third, the Roman Catholic, the only one that has hitherto succeeded in appearing to retain all its integrity, is rapidly decaying from within. It is honeycombed throughout, and is being devoured by the ravenous microbes begotten by Loyola."
.......
" "It has been solemnly condemned, past all return, by the Oecumenical Council of the Vatican. ONE CANNOT NOW BE CATHOLIC WITHOUT BEING ULTRAMONTANEâAND JESUIT."4 
A plain statement; and as cool as it is plain."
.......
"Students of Occultism should know that, while the Jesuits have, by their devices, contrived to make the world in general, and Englishmen in particular, think there is no such thing as MAGIC, these astute and wily schemers themselves hold magnetic circles, and form magnetic chains by the concentration of their collective will when they have any special object to affect, or any particular and important person to influence. Again, they use their riches lavishly to help them in any project. Their wealth is enormous."
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v9/y1888_046.htm


*** B ***
H. P. Blavatsky wrote about the plot of the Jesuits
". . . . . 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."
(from THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY to A. P. SINNETT and OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
LETTERS TRANSCRIBED, COMPILED, AND WITH AN INTRODUCTION By A. T. BARKER. First
Published 1925)


M. Sufilight says:
So since we with out doubt have to be on our guard against the plots of the Jesuits, we will also have to be on our guard against any kind of infiltration of the Theosophical Society they might have in mind.
What scheme could be grander than the promotion of a fanatically believed esoteric Messiah in the Flesh with a capital H - so that they can accomplish their phallic attempts, as Blavatsky rightly says: "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."? Duane?

Now I am not accusing various AAB followers of having such intentions deliberately - but I just think that we aught to consider that some might have such aims - and that some AAB-followers, who openly are self-proclaimed mouthpieces of Master this or that, or even Logos - might be Jesuits in disguise.


* * * * * * *
Now a few quotes, which can be verified by going through ordinary historical research on the same subject. The quotes are made to prove, that the Christians - who are known to be the opponents of the esoteric theosoophical teachings - have through the centuries ever sought to distort the ancient wisdom teachings. It happened to the original esoteri Knight Templars in the 11th century and later to Masonry - if there ever was a true esoteric group among them within the ranks of modern Freemasonry since the death of Elias Ashmole in 1692.

5.

*** A ***
H. P. Blavatsky wrote in Isis Unveiled in 1877:
"Who was, in fact, the first operative Mason of any consequence? Elias Ashmole, the last of the Rosicrucians and alchemists. Admitted to the freedom of the Operative Masons' Company in London, in 1646, he died in 1692. At that time Masonry was not what it became later; it was neither a political nor a Christian institution, but a true secret organization, which admitted into the ties of fellowship all men anxious to obtain the priceless boon of liberty of conscience, and avoid clerical persecution.* Not until about thirty years after his death did what is now termed modern Freemasonry see the light. It was born on the 24th day of June, 1717, in the Apple-tree Tavern, Charles Street, Covent Garden, London."
.......
"   "The present Knight Templars of Paris will have it, that they are direct descendants from the ancient Knights, and endeavor to prove this by documents, interior regulations, and secret doctrines. Foraisse says the Fraternity of Freemasons was founded in Egypt, Moses communicating the secret teaching to the Israelites, Jesus to the Apostles, and thence it found its way to the Knight Templars. Such inventions are necessary . . . to the assertion that the Parisian Templars are the offspring of the ancient order. All these asseverations, unsupported by history, were fabricated in the High Chapter of Clermont (Jesuits), and preserved by the Parisian Templars as a legacy left them by those political revolutionists, the Stuarts and the Jesuits." "
(Isis Unveiled vol. II, p. 349, 381)
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/Isis_Unveiled.htm


*** B ***
And these Knight Templars was turned into a Christianized version by the Jesuit Chevalier Ramsay in 1735 or so. When he deliberately togehter with others connected the Knight Templars with the Christian Knights of Malta, and thereby crowned them with a leadership under "the sovereignty of the Pope" in Rome.
(HPB, Isis Unveiled, II, p. 385)

The same attempt has through the last centuries been sought with regard to modern Freemasonry, which already lost what it had of esotericism in it from the very beginning. This also happened through the aide of the Jesuit Chapter in Clermont - who formed the Scottish Rites, which Alice A. Bailey's hosband Foster Bailey was a 32nd degree member of  ("The Spirit of Masonry" by Foster Bailey) - and by the hand of Chavlier Ramsay and others more or less deliberately - like mentioned by Charles Sotheran and later agreed upon in the text by H. P. Blacvatsky. 

H. P. Blacvatsky quoted Charles Sotheran like this:
"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 â 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. "


M. Sufilight says:
Therefore I and other theosophist following the Original Programe aught always to be on guard towards anyone attempting to (what they call) - "expand" or modify - the Original Programe of the Theosophical Society - in the direction which lies in the direct opposite of what it aims at; ie. the opposite direction being the Christian one!

As Mahatma KH said:
"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 do not compromise - and - we will not let ourselvers be Christianized by the use of Christian vocabulary or doctrines on invocations of Messiah's in the Flesh. I and others do not see the purpose of writing a book using a Christianzing vocabulary when it has would-be theosophists as its target audience. Alice A. Bailey wrote almost contradicting herself: "The present Jewish coloring of Masonry is completely out of date and has been preserved far too long, for it is today either Jewish or Christian and should be neither." Rays and Initiations, p. 418. - So why did she herself (or her claimed Master D. K.) use such a Christianizing vocabulary in all her books?

Do you understand me, Blavatsky, Master KH other theosophists better now Duane?

All the above are of course just my views, and I might be in error.
If so, then please let me know.




M. Sufilight




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Duane Carpenter 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 12:20 PM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: WHO SPEAKS FOR THEOSOPHY?


    
  Dear Sufilight
  I understand your interest in keeping the study of Theosophy on high a level as 
  you can conceive or understand. This is a worthy ideal. But this does not mean 
  that any original works of Theosophy given in past centuries cannot be modified 
  or expanded in the present century.
   
   Man progresses and his comprehension grow and new and more expanded ways of 
  looking at the ancient wisdom teachings may need to be added or modified o 
  accommodate that growth. This is not cancelling out the fine work of the past 
  but an evolutionary upgrade. To say Theosophy should always remain in the form 
  given by early Theosophists to me is dogmatic and misses the heart of Theosophy 
  which is not just intellectual and academic  studies but the emergence of 
  something wider, bolder and more synthetic. The emergence of Spirit into the 
  human arena and the new forms it may need to take which can best express itself 
  with new vitality.
   
  Here are several quotes by AAB that can be helpful. The last quote here on 
  Christianity is particularly relevant to you since it clearly shows that AAB 
  simply tried to infuse Christianity with some new depth since it was the 
  dominate religion in the west. She was very much aware of its limitations in the 
  form that she had to deal with. Here she also clearly states there are other 
  presentations of the ancient wisdom tradition that may be of even more 
  significance that are attempting to emerge. To me one of the new presentations 
  will be dynamically influenced by the revelations coming from Quantum Physics 
  and modern discoveries in the scientific community.
   
  "The Path leading to omniscience is one of pitfalls and of difficulties. Has it 
  ever struck you what complexities the Great Ones face as They deal with a 
  constantly changing humanity? Principles remain eternally the same. But 
  techniques and methods of presentation alter with each cycle, because the 
  receiving equipment of man steadily alters and improves." Alice A Bailey 
  (DNA1:347) 

   
   
   
  "I have given you this teaching in terms of the Christian presentation as it may 
  be simpler for you to grasp, but there are many other formulations and 
  approaches to these truths and the newer they are the more difficult necessarily 
  are they to present. Only those who are on the immediate verge of initiation 
  will understand; the others will prefer to interpret these truths to themselves 
  in the easier and well-known formulas of the preparatory stage of the at-one-ing 
  of soul and personality." Alice A bailey (DNA2:260) 

  Best for the new year and the new century
  Duane

  ________________________________
  From: email2cal <email2cal@METO3pj_zMAMaypZ6yDAsXA096d0DDXuehSA9-j5qEoieARkm96vWMi5K95xESsz1LsuQrnrf4pGdukJgg.yahoo.invalid>
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Sat, January 1, 2011 5:09:54 AM
  Subject: theos-talk Re: WHO SPEAKS FOR THEOSOPHY?

    

  Dear Sufilight,

  I cannot understand why you are raising on this forum the issue of
  following the original TS programme. The forum's description reads:

  "Discussion on topics regarding Theosophy (or theosophy) and its 
  realization in the modern world. A forum completely independent of
  control by established theosophical organizations."

  It does not say that forum members should be theosophists, whatever
  it means, and does not claim this forum to be theosophical. So,
  what's your problem?

  Max

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
  >
  > Dear friends
  > 
  > My views are:
  > 
  > Yeah. Good points William.
  > 
  > To me the central issue is whether one follows the ORIGINAL Programe for The 
  >Theosophical Society (the Constitution given in 1875-1891) - or - not.
  > And if one does not follow this Original Programe of The Theosophical Society - 
  >if will continously have to ask: - WHY NOT?
  > 
  > The same question will be forwarded again and again on various forums claiming 
  >to be theosophical.
  > 
  > I wonder why silence seem to be the best answer most people have to offer on 
  >this issue - especially when they call themselves theosophist or seekers of 
  >Ancient Wisdom?
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > M. Sufilight

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



  

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