Re: theos-talk Re: WHO SPEAKS FOR THEOSOPHY?
Jan 02, 2011 04:54 AM
by M. Sufilight
Dear Duane and firends
My views are:
H.P. Blavatsky said:
"...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at their right value; and unless a judge compares notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision."
The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 2
1.
Duane wrote:
"AAB did not attempt to Christianize the original program of the Theosophical
society as you indicate but just the opposite. "
M. Sufilight says:
I did not claim that AAB - deliberately - attempted to Christianize the Original Programe of The Theosophical Society - but raised my voice to the need of examining the issue before we agree upon that AAB might have expanded on the Original Programe of The Theosophical Society. That is just the difference.
What are your views Duane?
Maybe AAB did not do such a Christianizing thing deliberately - by ignoring the Original Programe of The Theosophical Society and seeking to exchange it with her Esoteric Section or rather "Esoteric" sect --- but I think this thought aught to be examined becuse of the content of the Alice A. Bailey books. Books which contains a whole lot of Christianizing vocabulary of the wisdom teachings;- the books are however forwareded as hypothesises despite their heavy use of Christian vocabulary.
- Further, and more importantly The Lucis Trust officially promotes an Esoteric Section - and seem to ignore the Original Programe of The Theosophical Society and the emphasis on comparative studying - especially of Eastern Doctrines (ie. NOT Western Doctrines). Why it does so seems unclear unless the motive and aim is different. And we ask what are the fruits of this activity? Is it a Christianizing of the Original Programe of The Theosophical Society?
(No answer on this seems to be the stance in the AAB-camps)
The AAB Esoteric Section named Lucis Trust operates in many AAB quarters as a sect enrolling almost anyone - but it clearly seems, ONLY, when the individuals support the AAB books - and it does not operate like the Original Programe of The Theosophical Society, which it ignores. And it has because of its so-called Esoteric Section structure strong tendencies towards fanatical secterian behaviour - and with little or no teaching about the science of Mind Control (a science officially developed after 1949) - compared to the Original Programe of The Theosophical Society. Mary Bailey even warned about the problem in her book "A Learning Experience" in chapter 6 on Leadership.
In the book: "A LEARNING EXPERIENCE" - by Mary Bailey, she namely states, that the Bailey-followers ought not to turn the Bailey-books in to a Bible-collection. --- And yet I have to say, I have seen a great number of the Bailey-followers do exactly that! And this even if it is not the Bailey-followers intention to do this, the Lucis Trust and many of the various AAB ofshoots, certainly - badly needs changing, when we talk PR - i.e. Public Relations with regard to this issue.
Another comparison.
The AAB Esoteric Section named Lucis Trust operates in many AAB quarters in a quite different manner than H. P. Blavatsky's version of an Esoteric Section - without strong demands on members of pledging themselves - and are thereby promoting secterian tendencies - like mentioned by AAB's hosband Foster Bailey:
"This experience was the basis of her often-proclaimed but frequently little-understood assertion that all the teachings she was aiding in producing was in fact only the A B C of esoteric knowledge, and that in the future she would gladly abandon any pronouncement in the present teaching, when she found better and more deeply esoteric teaching available. Clear and profound as the teaching actually is in the books published in her name, the truths imparted are so partial and subject to later revelation and expansion that this fact, if constantly remembered, will give us a second much-needed safeguard against that quality of the concrete mind which constantly tends to produce sectarianism."
( A treatise on Cosmic Fire).
And I am here dealing with the Original Programe of The Theosophical Society. This was what I indicated.The above words by me can be misread and misunderstood or even reacted emotionally l towards. But this is not my intention with the above words. I am just seeking the truth. All the above are my views. I might be in error, but then please let me know.
* * * * * * * *
2.
Duane wrote:
"Your argument that one 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."
M. Sufilight says:
Nonsense Duane.
I suggest that you keep your eye on the ball - and - stop name-calling and stop shouting at me, especially when your very personal accusations are false.
I find that you are reading something in my sentences, which are not there.
I think you aught to face the fact, that there is something known as Good and something known as Evil. Some groups are avoiding secterian behaviour and others are not. That is the plain truth. Yet, the party goes on, and the Law of Karma will assert itself.
And that was why Master KH in his Mahatma Letter no. 10 said:
"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."
M. Sufilight says:
There are limits. We do not compromise just because some leaders of a group - using a secterian structure - fancies luring people into invocating a Christianizing Messiah-dogma with a capital H. - And on top of that seek to drag the Masters down into the physical concrete quagmire of this planet - and this it seems without regard to whether it is a healthy activity or not.
The Original Programe of The Theosophical Society safeguards against such a dogma and operates without any political interference and without any doctrinas on behalf of the Society itself among its members - this part of the Constitution of the Original Programe of The Theosophical Society is as I understand it in clear opposition to the structure within which Lucis Trust and many of its various ofshoots operates these days.
Duane, are you saying that Lucis Trust have expanded on the Original Programe of The Theosophical Society with reagrd to this issue?
What are your views Duane?
The answer is a bit hampered by the fact that Lucis Trust operates as an Esotetric Section - or should I say an "Esoteric" Sect, or would-be Esoteric Section without any real strong pledges.
All the above are my views. I might be in error, but then please let me know.
* * * * * * * *
3.
Duane wrote:
"Look 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. "
M. Sufilight says:
On this we agree entirely.
Yet, why on earth claim that one expands on the Original Programe of The Theosophical Society by stepping back and start using such a Christianizing vocabulary 50 or 100 years later, while one on the top of it seek to turn the Original Programe of The Theosophical Society into an Esoteric Section or rather "Esoteric" sect where the Alice A. Bailey books are demanded to be followed within a given organisational structure?
That is the question.
* * * * * * *
4.
Duane wrote:
"If you ever studied the works of AAB with an idea to
learn something rather then just 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 through them 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."
M. Sufilight says:
I did that 10-20 years ago and found that the books and Lucis Trust creates a secterian behaviour among its many followers - because Lucis Trust and many of its various ofshoots demands that one shal be in sympathy with the Alice A. Bailey books or else no membership is allowed. Such a secterian behaviour was and is avoided within the Original Programe of The Theosophical Society. That is the main difference - and the topic I have been dealing with from the beginning of our exchange.
Let me offer you and the AAB followers something for free:
If the AAB groups would do something good - they could do a stronger effort in comparing the Original Programe of The Theosophical Society and its structure - with - their own structure and that of Lucis Trust - while they at the same time aquainted themselves with the books about the new science called Mind Control. They can begin with Steve Hassans: "Combatting Cult Mind Control" (1988) and William Sargant's "Battle for the Mind" (1957) and try to understand the issue much better. And since they are so involved with politics as they are, they aught to do a proper research on what is known as the The Tavistock Institute, known earliere on as Tavistock Clinic - and the help and especially the problems it has promoted through the years. In such teachings they might find a strionger kind of a Psychological Key to the Secret Doctrine, than they like to bargin for. Books on the issue can be found in most of the larger libraries in the western countries and there are info on the Internet as well.
Yet those who operate along the 6th ray (sometimes having what I call fanatical AAB-tendencies) have tendencies to avoid dealing with such an issue.
* * * * * * *
5.
Duane wrote:
"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 as chief administrator of what is theosophy and what is not
theosophy and be more tolerant about what you may not yet understands."
M. Sufilight says:
Why throw comparative studying away?
I regret that I find you not being able to keep your eye on the ball - and answer two simple questions:
Why can anyone honestly promote the view that Lucis Trust has expanded on the Original Programe of The Theosophical Society?
And why can anyone honestly promote the view that Lucis Trust has expanded on the Esoteric Section given by H. P. Blavatsky?
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: Duane Carpenter
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 2:56 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: WHO SPEAKS FOR THEOSOPHY?
Dear Sufilight
AAB did not attempt to Christianize the original program of the Theosophical
society as you indicate but just the opposite. It was about infusing
Christianity with a deeper understanding and more esoteric side. Since you have
only skimmed AAB's work superficially you have come up with many erroneous
ideas. Your argument that one 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.
Look 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. If you ever studied the works of AAB with an idea to
learn something rather then just 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 through them 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 as chief 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@nuKEjDea0znE4p94XL-dykXgJZlykWsIu-F-R7RV_hsa9DQiB4RyiRJiweTyvdbsY4oFH7E0haRaCGBy27Zhp0il.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@L8bmASGMCfG-mZdavr1C67hluiYNqGsdCIMVzQSD14FJB2rFyq4Zn8iTUa1VE__LMHFyRaALe2cr.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]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
