Theos-Talk Archives (January 2011 Message tt00011)

Dear Sufilight
Â
AAB did notÂattempt to Christianize the original program of the Theosophical 
society as you indicate but just the opposite. It wasÂabout infusing 
Christianity with a deeper understanding and more esoteric side. Since you have 
only skimmed AAB's work superficiallyÂyou have come up with manyÂerroneous 
ideas. Your argumentÂthat Âone esoteric religious tradition is better then 
another is fraught with peril and shows to me you still cling to the word of 
theosophy but have not experienced its spirit.

ÂLook at the world today each religious group proclaiming they have the 
exclusive understanding of God and everyone else worships the devil and they 
will kill you to prove it.ÂIf you ever studied the works of AAB with an idea to 
learn something rather thenÂjust looking for flaws in her works you would 
understand the 6th ray energy and its blind fanaticism to its on little narrow 
truth. When the dogma's are taken away from all conventional religions there is 
a core of esoteric truth that pervades throughÂthem all. I regret you have not 
found that truth except in the religious or metaphysical doctrines you prefer, 
God does not play favorites and can be found wherever their are sincere seekers 
of truth. I regret this conversation is a repeat of earlier communications we 
have had. It just goes round and round with never any greater comprehension. You 
need to resign asÂchief administrator of what is theosophy and what is not 
theosophy and be more tolerant about what you may not yet understands.

Best Duane




________________________________
From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@EZQ4co7ftEowqo8Jycy8DJOXh6JbrukPHrH_vgCsfmdFtci5S-_6I7482d0U7S68muHaU2zah4JG53D3HZ1Kc5tQTi0-.yahoo.invalid>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 1, 2011 3:56:59 PM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: WHO SPEAKS FOR THEOSOPHY?

 
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@76OtMJRgt6GPolh4fEb9QSrEvHbScOCdH6DUMbdDbOnwqGGgSPTJOK3REvAv9nI1LA95D4pR1mvL.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]




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