Theos-Talk Archives (June 2011 Message tt00123)

Dear Paulo and friends

My views are:

Thanks Paulo
I find that we agree very much with each other. And the science on psychology seem to be closely related to that os esoteric Astrology and the law of Karma. (Theories for some seekers, and claimed to be pure science by others. Here I merely forward them as hypothesises).

I have a tendency to call a rat by its name though, and yes, maybe I aught to keep my mouth shut. I think you have a point there.
Just like Blavatsky clearly said what she thought about the Jesuits and the Inquisition, I also think I will have to clearly state what I think about the relaxed views on Mind Control and secterian versus non-secterian behaviour among theosophical groups these days. I do not hope I demonize people, or Leadbeater or Besant etc. etc. But I do hope, that people will learn about the Psychological Key to Theosophy (and even to a certain extend the Secret Doctrine) by what I am writing on the subject.

I find it important that the theosophical Seekers are aware of the science of Psychology - both spiritually and non-spiritually in its Western version (for instance Freud, Jung and Pavlov, William Sargant - Tavistock Clinic etc.), and its Middle Eastern versions (for instance Avicenna, Rhazes, Rumi, Gahzali and Ibn Arabi alias Doctor Maximus etc. etc. - also the Dabistan-i Mazahib, the "School of Religions) and certainly also in the Eastern Version (for instance Buddha and Buddhism, Confucius, Vedic Medicine,  Padmasambhava and Patanjali etc. etc.). And I also find it important that theosophical seekers perform - careful - comparative studying on the differences between Mind Control, secterian and non-secterian, as well as dogmatic versus non-docmatic --- and the actual difference between those terms as given in various dictionaries, or wikipedia etc., and the ignorance about those terms and their actual differences among New Age seekers 


- - - - - - -

On Eastern Psychology and Philosophy in wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_philosophy_in_clinical_psychology

An example from the Internet on Mind Control:
"Subliminal mind control techniques are ways by which you can send subtle messages to a person's subconscious without them being fully aware of it." 


MIND CONTROL (the primary definition I use)
"Mind control (also known as"..... "coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual "systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated" "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control

MIND CONTROL IN THE CULTS
"A destructive sect is any group whose methods for winning over and/or indoctrinating a follower include coercive persuasion, designed to destroy (destructure) the follower's previous personality, or damage it severely."
http://www.cephas-library.com/mind_control.html


Wikipedia on Hypnosis in the Vatican
"Holy See

Objections had been raised by some theologians stating that, if not applied properly, hypnosis could deprive a person of their faculty of reason. Saint Thomas Aquinas specifically rebutted this, stating that "The loss of reason is not a sin in itself but only by reason of the act by which one is deprived of the use of reason. If the act that deprives one of his use of reason is licit in itself and is done for a just cause, there is no sin; if no just cause is present, it must be considered a venial sin."

On July 28, 1847, a decree from the Sacred Congregation of the Holy office (Roman Curia) declared that "Having removed all misconception, foretelling of the future, explicit or implicit invocation of the devil, the use of animal magnetism (Hypnosis) is indeed merely an act of making use of physical media that are otherwise licit and hence it is not morally forbidden, provided it does not tend toward an illicit end or toward anything depraved."
.......
"1956, Pope's approval of hypnosis
The Roman Catholic Church banned hypnotism until the mid-20th century when, in 1956, Pope Pius XII gave his approval of hypnosis. He stated that the use of hypnosis by health care professionals for diagnosis and treatment is permitted. In an address from the Vatican on hypnosis in childbirth, the Pope gave these guidelines:

Hypnotism is a serious matter, and not something to be dabbled in.
In its scientific use, the precautions dictated by both science and morality are to be followed.
Under the aspect of anaesthesia, it is governed by the same principles as other forms of anaesthesia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hypnosis





M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: paulobaptista_v 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 1:16 AM
  Subject: [?? Probable Spam] theos-talk Re: About the age of Aquarius


    


  Chan,

  Thank you for the information, I didn´t know that.

  I will continue my reply to Morten.

  M. Sufilight says:

  I am saying: that since the beginning of the 20th century we have witnessed that psychology and psychologist have become more and more important, and that dogmatic religions have become less and less important. Do you not think so?

  Paulo says:

  I think that the remark HPB made about psychologists having an "extra work to do" fits perfectly in our present days. Almost everyday I hear of someone having a nervous breakdown or a severe depression. The improvement of material conditions did not bring happiness to this part of the world, and the sales of antidepressants are increasingly higher, while psychiatrists have their rooms full of patients 6 days a week. Dogmatic religions are less important, that´s a fact, but religion has been mainly replaced by consumerism.

  M. Sufilight says:

  What I however sense throughout H. P. Blavatsky's writings all in all, was that she, and perhaps even Master KH was more optimistic about the future, or the next hunred years or so from 1888 to 1988 than reality has shown us all. But not Master Morya it seems.

  Paulo says:

  Maybe you are right. But I think that she, in one of her articles wrote that the 20th century would bring unprecedent suffering (I don´t remember the exact words but I remember connecting that phrase
  with the World Wars). I think KH and M were not evolved to the point they could clearly see the future, although they mention that others could do that (like the Mahachohan).

  M. Sufilight says:

  Because with regard to the TS and its later off-shoots, I keep wondering where we find that TS corner-stone today? Is it alive and kicking, or barely, or very much? And in what shape or version do we find it? A psychological versions, using a psychological key? A non-secterian version? And what is the importance non-secterian promotions to you, if any at all, -- when you consider than main object of the TS, namely altruism and the attempt to promote altruism by reconciling all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities? How do you define the term non-secterian?

  Paulo says:

  As I said before I am an independent student, and at the present moment I am focused on grasping in best the way I can the theosophical concepts. I encountered theosophy 9 years ago and after reading Blavatsky, Besant, Leadbeater and even Alice Bailey and having found differences in their teachings I decided to investigate better the life of each of these "characters". I read Tillett´s biography of Leadbeater and also some texts that can be found in Daniel Caldwell's website and in the portuguese version of esotericphilosophy.com. Consequently I discarded the Besant-Leadbeater version and also the works of Alice Bailey. I stood with what some call the original theosophy. However I do not engage in "witch hunting", as one ULT member once referred to a certain type of language that it is used while expressing the differences between HPB and later theosophists. My oppinion is that these matters should be debated with respect and nobody should be acting like being behind trenches in a war. If theosophy can reconcile all religions, it has itself to be an example and also reconcile the divergences that exist between its different branches. 
  Members have to be free to express their ideas, though. But they have to let their pride aside when they are proven wrong. They must try to understand the deeds of those who have served the cause since the last quartel of the 19th century, before judging them severely. I also think that the TS should have followed a different direction after the death of HPB, but I don´t demonize Besant nor Leadbeater.

  I think that theosophical organizations will face serious problems in the future. Members are decreasing and I don´t know if there is a future generation of theosophists that can replace the present one. Most theosophists today are over their fifties. But maybe it was always like this, I don´t know, probably I am being too pessimistic. 

  The old cliché "Think global, act local" could be a guideline for spreading theosophy. We certainly have to more active in our communities, for instance, as you say, using the inter-religious meetings to promote theosophy. But people what everything very fast these days. And theosophy is not an easy thing to grasp...

  Regards,
  Paulo

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "chandrasekaryas" <chandrasekaryas@...> wrote:
  >
  > This version about Mary is in Contra-Celso too, a Origenes book (first century).
  > 
  > Chan
  > 
  > 
  > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "paulobaptista_v" <paulobaptista_v@> wrote:
  > >
  > > 
  > > 
  > > Dear Morten,
  > > 
  > > In 1865 Eliphas Levi published a book called La Science des Esprits (The Science of Spirits). In a section of it, he presents the story of Jesus according to the jewish tradition. In this version, Jesus was born during the kingdom of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE), and was the son of a woman named Mary and a roman soldier called Joseph Panter. He was victim of a conspiracy and stoned to death for revealing some of the secrets that the high-priests wanted to keep for themselves. There are much more interesting details in this story. Eliphas Levi was in a certain way, a precursor of the work of HPB. I am not sure, but I think that the jewish version is considered to be closer to the truth both by the Masters and HPB. I am now studying the Mahatma Letters to AP Sinnett, if I find that reference I'll put it here.
  > > 
  > > I am short on time, I hope tomorrow I can finish my comments about your post. 
  > > 
  > > Paulo
  > > 
  > > 
  > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@> wrote:
  > > >
  > > > Dear Paulo and friends
  > > > 
  > > > My views are:
  > > > 
  > > > Paulo wrote:
  > > > "If you take in account what Eliphas Levi wrote about Jesus (later reproduced by HPB and confirmed by the Masters), that connection makes even less sense."
  > > > 
  > > > M. Sufilight says:
  > > > Do you have a reference or two about it, so that we all might understand you better?
  > > > 
  > > > Paulo wrote:
  > > > "If it started in 1900 or not, I am not sure, what is clear to me is that some effects of the Aquarian Age can be spotted since that year.
  > > > But it is an open discussion."
  > > > 
  > > > M. Sufilight says:
  > > > Well, H. P. Blavatsky wrote the following about the equinox in the quote in mention: "When it enters, in a few years, the sign of Aquarius, psychologists will have some extra work to do, and the psychic idiosyncrasies of humanity will enter on a great change. " (BCW, Vol. VIII, p. 174 fn.)
  > > > 
  > > > I am saying: that since the beginning of the 20th century we have witnessed that psychology and psychologist have become more and more important, and that dogmatic religions have become less and less important. Do you not think so? 
  > > > And that various groups among the many versions of psychology slowly are releaseing the word "wisdom" with "psychology" or a similar phrase...psycho-parapsychology or esoteric psychology etc. etc.
  > > > And this is perhaps in the direction - the Theosophical Society in the future aught to reformulate itself - and perhaps a Master Psychologist or two already are doing it.
  > > > 
  > > > What I however sense throughout H. P. Blavatsky's writings all in all, was that she, and perhaps even Master KH was more optimistic about the future, or the next hunred years or so from 1888 to 1988 than reality has shown us all. But not Master Morya it seems.
  > > > But, this view is based on various letters and papers by these persons. Mahatma Letter no. 47 by Morya is one. And the famous Shannon letter, the Mahatma Letter by KH til Olcott.
  > > > And also "View of the Chohan on the T.S.", that "It's time that Theosophy should enter the arena. The sons of Theosophists are more likely to become in their turn Theosophists than anything else. No messenger of truth, no prophet has ever achieved during his life time a complete triumph, not even Buddha; the Theosophical Society was chosen as the corner stone, the foundation of the future religion of humanity. To achieve the proposed object a greater, wiser, and especially a more benevolent intermingling of the high and the low, of the alpha and the omega of society, was determined upon. The white race must be the first to stretch out the hand of fellowship to the dark nations, to call the poor despised "nigger" brothers. This prospect may not smile to all. He is no Theosophist who objects to this principle. . . . " ( http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-choh.htm ) 
  > > > ---- Yet, again one aught to be careful to read to much into such letters, and, not only use dead letter reading and all. - And a few questions araises to all readers of these words: Because with regard to the TS and its later off-shoots, I keep wondering where we find that TS corner-stone today? Is it alive and kicking, or barely, or very much? And in what shape or version do we find it? A psychological versions, using a psychological key? A non-secterian version? And what is the importance non-secterian promotions to you, if any at all, -- when you consider than main object of the TS, namely altruism and the attempt to promote altruism by reconciling all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities? How do you define the term non-secterian?
  > > > 
  > > > The above was written, so to evaluate whether the prediction for the Aquarian Age by Blavatsky given in the quote in mention (BCW, Vol. VIII, p. 174 fn.) was all in all true and accurate.
  > > > 
  > > > - - - 
  > > > To all readers:
  > > > 
  > > > Allow me to add the following sidenote, because I find that it could be very important to consider and even reconsider, what this fellow issaying in these videos...
  > > > I would myself however perhaps have used another kind of vocabulary myself.
  > > > 
  > > > Christopher Hitchens about the Catholic Church (1of2) from the Intelligence² debate 
  > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilfSlpENb2Y
  > > > Christopher Hitchens about the Catholic Church (2of2) from the Intelligence² debate 
  > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZnJr_2HbXc&feature=related
  > > > 
  > > > So there you are. 
  > > > And because of that, I find that there is aleast one reason to be seeking to promote altruism and to reconcile all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities. 
  > > > 
  > > > Those of you, who happen to be involved with inter-religious meetings - and who meet the Christian Priest and some of their leaders from time to time could very well show this video to them and then ask what they think. Where they agree or disagree, more or less, and why. And perhaps a reformulated video can be created. Somehow I keep returning to these videos from time to time - when I so to speak forget why I am here. There must be something to what he is saying, I have overlooked, or not emphasised enough in my life, either in support or not in support of the views.
  > > > Now I have emphasised his word on this forum, - and because you might find it useful and important - in the name of compassion that is.
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > M. Sufilight
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > > > From: paulobaptista_v 
  > > > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  > > > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 10:12 PM
  > > > Subject: Re: theos-talk About the age of Aquarius
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > Dear Morten,
  > > > 
  > > > I quoted the Wikipedia article just to show than even among astrologers there is a wide divergence on regard to the beginning of the Aquarian Age.
  > > > 
  > > > As you wrote, there is no logic in figuring out a specific date for the birth of Jesus, just to fit that date in the beginning of the Age of Pisces. If you take in account what Eliphas Levi wrote about Jesus (later reproduced by HPB and confirmed by the Masters), that connection makes even less sense.
  > > > 
  > > > I also think that is very important to look carefully at the text you quoted from the article "Astrology and Astrolatry" and from the SD.
  > > > 
  > > > If it started in 1900 or not, I am not sure, what is clear to me is that some effects of the Aquarian Age can be spotted since that year.
  > > > But it is an open discussion.
  > > > 
  > > > I just hope that Robert Zoller´s (one of the astrologers who contributed the most to the revival of the ancient astrological techniques) grim predictions don´t come true:
  > > > 
  > > > "(...)[Zoller] suggest[s] that the Pisces world where religion is the opiate of the masses will be replaced in the Aquarian Age by a world ruled by secretive power-hungry elites seeking absolute power over others. Families will dissolve completely, or family ties will be hidden. Zoller also believes that knowledge in the Aquarian Age will only be valued for its ability to win wars; scientists may even be able to precipitate earthquakes for military means, and the danger in the Aquarian Age is that knowledge and science will be abused, not industry and trade. Zoller sees the Aquarian Age as a Dark Age wherein religion will be seen as offensive."
  > > > 
  > > > Paulo 
  > > > 
  > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@> wrote:
  > > > >
  > > > > Dear Paulo and friends
  > > > > 
  > > > > My views are:
  > > > > 
  > > > > Why do you find my arguments compelling?
  > > > > 
  > > > > 
  > > > > M. Sufilight
  > > > > 
  > > > > 
  > > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > > > > From: paulobaptista_v 
  > > > > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  > > > > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 11:41 PM
  > > > > Subject: theos-talk About the age of Aquarius
  > > > > 
  > > > > 
  > > > > 
  > > > > As I mentioned before, I'm learning a lot from the discussion between John and Morten around the beginning of the age of Aquarius. I myself, as a student (though intermittent) of astrology should be able to give a better contribution than that I am about to. On Wikipedia (I know that is not the best of sources)I found a reference to a research made by Nicholas Campion (a respected astrologer who not long ago published two volumes on the history of western astrology). 
  > > > > 
  > > > > "The start date for the Aquarian age is somewhat contentious and there is little uniform agreement upon the date or process leading from the previous Piscean age to the Aquarian age (or between any two ages). Nicholas Campion in The Book of World Horoscopes lists various references from mainly astrological sources for the start of the Age of Aquarius. Based on the research by Nicholas Campion most published material on the subject state that the Age of Aquarius arrived in the 20th century (29 claims), with the 24th century in second place with twelve claimants. Eight researchers claim the Aquarian age will arrive in the 25th century while the 21st, 26th and 27th centuries have seven supporters for each century. Other centuries that have a number of supporters for the beginning of the Aquarian age include: 22nd and 23rd centuries (6 each); 19th century (5); and the 18th century (4).(...)Approximately every 2,160 years the sun's position at the time of the vernal equinox will have moved into a new zodiacal constellation. However zodiacal constellations are not uniform in size and so some astrologers believe that the corresponding ages should also vary in time - this however is a contentious issue amongst astrologers.
  > > > > 
  > > > > In 1929, the International Astronomical Union defined the edges of the 88 official constellations. The edge established between Pisces and Aquarius technically locates the beginning of the Aquarian Age around the year 2600. Many astrologers dispute this approach because of the varying sizes of the zodiacal constellations and overlap between the zodiacal constellations."
  > > > > 
  > > > > Maybe HPB was wrong; I accept that Reigle can be right about this issue, but I find Morten's arguments compelling.
  > > > > 
  > > > > 
  > > > > 
  > > > > 
  > > > > 
  > > > > [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]