Re: theos-talk Re: David Reigle's latest attack on H. P. Blavatksy's integrity
Oct 03, 2011 01:13 AM
by M. Sufilight
My views are:
Well thanks for your words on the Annie Besant problems.
To all readers:
I will seek to throw a few more lines on the subject so to if possible help some of our more "esteemed" friends understand the seriousness of the situation. The following are just my views, and I might be in error. But if what I write are helpful to some, then I will have accomplished my goal a bit.
I will add, that according to my views, I find that the below words are not for the lazy in heart, who do not dare to think anything other than business as usual.
Yes. Besant did something for the social uplift of India in the beginning - at least in part.
But, soon she was directly involved with politics, it in fact began already from the start, in 1914
(See "War Articles and Notes" BY Annie Besant --- http://www.anandgholap.net/War_Articles-AB.htm)
But, do we as theosophists and altruistic teachers of wisdom promote politics, trade-deals, arms-deals, and other businesses primarily and before we have reached an ethical reform in each individual humans heart? A non-sectarian reform - in accordance with the main aim of the Theosophical Society? Was altruism not from the beginning the cornerstone of the Theosophical Society?
I am saying let each individual help with social uplift of the society - but let it not happen - at the expense of poorer countries, regions and citizens. Do you not agree? Do you see where it all leads to?
We will have - at first - to put dogmatism and the Catholic Church where it belongs. These are the true enemies of - any kind of real possible social uplift - and all non-sectarian activities and the free spirit of humanity. Blavatsky said it, and I do say the same. And by the use of the present day science on subtle Mind Control and spiritual psychology and psychology in general - it will happen. Dogmatism and the Christian Churches, the Catholic in particular will by these scientific advances and compassionate activities be clearly shown to be what it is: A Cult - and an ugly one it is. And ordinary egotism has to - if needed - be replaced by a sane non-sectarian system of education in human values. There can be no altruism promoted without an understanding head - and - a non-sectarian psychological compassion. This is a Psychological Key laying at the foot of the tree of Theosophy and the Wisdom Teachings.
But all this will not happen before the wolves in sheep-clothes are where they belong.
H. P. Blavatsky wrote in the Key to Theosophy:
"ENQUIRER. Do you take any part in politics?
THEOSOPHIST. As a Society, we carefully avoid them, for the reasons given below. To seek to achieve political reforms before we have effected a reform in human nature, is like putting new wine into old bottles. Make men feel and recognise in their innermost hearts what is their real, true duty to all men, and every old abuse of power, every iniquitous law in the national policy, based on human, social or political selfishness, will disappear of itself. Foolish is the gardener who seeks to weed his flower-bed of poisonous plants by cutting them off from the surface of the soil, instead of tearing them out by the roots. No lasting political reform can be ever achieved with the same selfish men at the head of affairs as of old. "
Theosophy and Politics
(Even Mumbai seem to understand the same)
"In the Supplement to The Theosophist for July 1883 can be found a very important pronouncement by Col. H. S. Olcott, the co-founder and President of the Theosophical Society, against mixing Theosophy and politics. This statement, which H.P.B. endorsed, reads:"
Therefore the aim of the Theosophical Society was from the beginning to be based on true altruism - and not on emotional spirituality masked by superficial altruism. If you change the society in a given country or given countries without a change of the human heart and non-sectarian understanding then you run into problems. Do you understand, or should I elaborate a bit more. It can be difficult to understand my views. Even so I might be mistaken, so I am all ears end eyes.
Please do not misunderstand me. I do like most others deeply appreciate the recent events that took place in Egypt.
But any change or social uplift in any country or region can only - in reality and in heart - happen in accordance within the given level of understanding of the population as a whole. Therefore it is so crucial that dogmatism especially the one breeding in the Catholic Church is kept where it belongs, namely the trashcan, AND, that a free thinking philosophical attitude based on altruism - and - thereby a non-sectarian one is promoted on the globe. So let us throw away dogmatism within Islam and Christianity, and of course also egotism. But non-religious egotism is the minor problem at present. A great percentage of non-religious people understand moral better than most dogmatic bigots these days. And this is a fact, which aught to raise eyebrows.
Annie Besant definitely used her position for political advancements and she definitely got side tracked.
Today most ordinary psychologists name the Theosophical Society as a sect - and - not as non-sectarian Society. And since the leaders in Theosophical Society in Adyar never stop to - deeply - consider why it is so, a Great Abyss of ignorance will continue.
I hold it to be true that the present day Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society and other theosophical groups as well lack a clear - line - of demarcation on the following:
It is important to understand that there on the one side - is - a great abyss - between the actual KNOWLEDGE about what ordinary Psychologists within present day Science (and esoteric Psychologists as well) - consider to be a Sect or a Cult, and, their KNOWLEDGE about sectarian and non-sectarian behaviour - and their KNOWLEDGE about the doctrines on Subtle Mind Control and Mind Control in general --- and --- on the other side the many New Age groups - The Theosophical Society in Adyar included - and THEIR totally outwardly visible LACK OF KNOWLEDGE about these same things - and their lack of taking this issue seriously in the name of Altruism. Outwardly that is.
* About Subtle Mind Control *
About Subtle Mind Control and Mind Control in general , I suggest you try to learn about Pavlov's Dogs - "Classical conditioning" in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning) Or read "Battle for the Mind" by William Sargant and a book like for instance Steve Hassan's "Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves" - And others as well like those by Robert Jay Lifton. I am currently not aware of any Theosophical CLASSICS on this subject called Sectarian versus non-sectarian societies, and the doctrine on how to avoid subtle Mind Control. But I am aware of that the Buddhistic tradition has something to offer on this subject.
"Classical conditioning" taken from the book "Battle for the Mind"
The Russian psychologist Pavlov performed psychological experiments on dogs in the 1920'ties and 1930'ties, and experienced a particular incident where it happened that a flooding took place in the basement where the experiments took place.
The flooding caught some of Pavlov's dogs in their cages, while the water was raising all the way op to their heads, before it disappeared again. Pavlov discovered as a consequence thereof that the intense fear experienced by the dogs "completely erased" the tricks he had taught them in advance, thereafter he could "re-program" several of them. The dogs which did not have the experience did not have this relation.
(The experiment is dated year 1927).
And we are conditioned, because we think the Theosophical Society almost has its head under water, and need to be saved?
Perhaps. But, I rather think, that we are compassionate.
--- That should make people in TS Adyar rethink their views no matter how wellmeaning and knowledgeful they are - and despite that lovely frontpage text which blossoms on the TS Adyar website. The outward stance on these issues - which from the beginning of the Theosophical Society's existence in 1875 formed the cornerstone (for the Wisdom Religion of the future to come) - so to promulgate altruism and a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity - while seeking human reform by remedying the glaring evils of Christianity (and Islam as well because it has become so dogmatic and huge) --- aught to be changed. Changed so that there is a clear definition on what the actual meaning of non-sectarian really is - as it was given in the original Constitutions and Rules of the Theosophical Society in 1875-1891, and because the word non-sectarian is not given today in the present day Rules and Regulations of The Theosophical Society.
The Theosophical Society Rules and Regulations - online, 2007 version.
(Today there is not a single word about the Society being a non-sectarian one.)
As I see it: The reason that there was and not even today is a clear definition what is behind the words sectarian and non-sectarian is that within the Theosophical Society in 1875-1891 there was no science on this issue available to the public. And when Annie Besant came along together with her friends, the word non-sectarian disappared from the Rules and Regulations of the Theosophical Society and have disappeared since.
Is the enemy not to be considered to be within the gates of TS rather than outside it?
Because without a free philosophical spirit and mind humanity will perish and decay in spiritual development. But it seems the the 2 billion Catholics and their Jesuits (and their accomplishes in India?) need to experience what they need to experience. Or do they?
H. P. Blavatsky said:
"The Society founded to remedy the glaring evils of Christianity, to shun bigotry and intolerance, cant and superstition and to cultivate real universal love extending even to the dumb brute".
(The Collected Writings of H. P. Blavatsky, vol. 7, p.246)
All the other theosophical groups and esoterical groups could consider all the above as well. It might do them something good to consider and reread the words.
What do you think?
* A SHORT INTRO ON THE PRESENT DAY PROBLEMS WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH *
The seriousness of the matter about the Catholic Church is shown here by the atheist Christopher Hitchens.
Christopher Hitchens is an author and journalist at Vanity Fair. He is sadly very ill today.
Remember that he is an atheist, so, "read" between the lines, when you hear his words.
But you can recheck what he says against the Catholic Church - and - find out that it is the truth.
The Intelligence² Debate - Christopher Hitchens (Unedited)(Part 1/2)
The Intelligence² Debate - Christopher Hitchens (Unedited)(Part 2/2)
*** The Constitution of the Jesuit Order - online ***
The Constituion of the Jesuit Order is not easy to find online even today.
But I have tracked it down at googlebooks. In the below link you will have to scroll quite a bit until you reach the English Section of the Constitution.
The beginning is the Lation version of the Constitution. When scrolling for the English version - I will recommend that you read - at least Page 63.
There are much more sinister in this paper, but this should be enough to give the readers an idea about the whole thing.
Constitutiones Societatis Iesu: Anno 1558. Romae, in aedibus societatis Iesu ...
Apologies by Pope John Paul II
Pope - Jospeh Ratzinger
"Brazil's Indians offended by Pope comments", year 2007
"In a speech to Latin American and Caribbean bishops at the end of a visit to Brazil, the Pope said the Church had not imposed itself on the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
They had welcomed the arrival of European priests at the time of the conquest as they were "silently longing" for Christianity, he said.
Millions of tribal Indians are believed to have died as a result of European colonization backed by the Church since Columbus landed in the Americas in 1492, through slaughter, disease or enslavement.
Many Indians today struggle for survival, stripped of their traditional ways of life and excluded from society.
"It's arrogant and disrespectful to consider our cultural heritage secondary to theirs," said Jecinaldo Satere Mawe, chief coordinator of the Amazon Indian group Coiab."
( Reuters - http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/14/us-pope-brazil-indians-idUSN1428799220070514 )
CONSTITUTION AND RULES OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, dated 1890
"The Theosophical Society is absolutely unsectarian, and no assent to any formula of belief, faith or creed shall be required as a qualification of membership; but every applicant and member must lie in sympathy with the effort to create the nucleus of an Universal Brotherhood of Humanity."
The word un-sectarian has been deleted in the present day constitution of the Theosophical Society as far as I can tell.
Why ruin the whole thing?
All the above are as always just my views.
I will gladly welcome ideas of improvement, suggestions and other thoughts.
I seek to keep the original idea of the Theosophical Society intact at the following forum:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:32 AM
Subject: theos-talk Re: David Reigle's latest attack on H. P. Blavatksy's integrity
I don´t know if you are referring to the topic "What did Blavatsky miss?" where some members of that forum are theorizing about M and KH being pseudonyms used by HPB...This is strange to me after reading the history of the first years of theosophical society from so many different sources...
Now they are trying to figure out how did HPB put so many references from other books in the SD... I wonder what new theory will arise?
I must say that I totally agree with your remarks about Besant. Adoration and theosophy do not relate.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
> Dear friends
> My views are:
> I just saw David Reigle's latest post at The Theosophical Network forum.
> Why not throw mr. David Reigle at The Theosophical Network http://theosnet.ning.com the following article by Daniel Caldwell.
> It seems that the learned scholar is a bit uncritcal in his latest remarks in the thread on Dzyan Stanzas.
> "Some Observations on the Claims Made by Boris de Zirkoff and Others"
> by Daniel H Caldwell
> - - - - - - - -
> The same on other of H. P. Blavatsky's writings.
> Let us not forget the following words by H. P. Blavatsky given in the Secret Doctrine. Words that might explain some of the critic launched by David Reigle.......
> The Secret Doctrine Vol. I, p. xxxviii-xlv:
> "Such a work as this has to be introduced with no simple Preface, but with a volume rather; one that would give facts, not mere disquisitions, since the SECRET DOCTRINE is not a treatise, or a series of vague theories, but contains all that can be given out to the world in this century.
> It would be worse than useless to publish in these pages even those portions of the esoteric teachings that have now escaped from confinement, unless the genuineness and authenticity-at any rate, the probability-of the existence of such teachings was first established. Such statements as will now be made, have to be shown warranted by various authorities: those of ancient philosophers, classics and even certain learned Church Fathers, some of whom knew these doctrines because they had studied them, had seen and read works written upon them; and some of whom had even been personally initiated into the ancient Mysteries, during the performance of which the arcane doctrines were allegorically enacted. The writer will have to give historical and trustworthy names, and to cite well-known authors, ancient and modern, of recognized ability, good judgment, and truthfulness, as also to name some of the famous proficients in the secret arts and science, along with the mysteries of the latter, as they are divulged, or, rather, partially presented before the public in their strange archaic form.
> How is this to be done? What is the best way for achieving such an object? was the ever-recurring question. To make our plan clearer, an illustration may be attempted. When a tourist coming from a well-explored country, suddenly reaches the borderland of a terra incognita, hedged in, and shut out from view by a formidable barrier of impassable rocks, he may still refuse to acknowledge himself baffled in his exploratory plans. Ingress beyond is forbidden. But, if he cannot visit the mysterious region personally, he may still find a means of examining it from as short a distance as can be arrived at. Helped by his knowledge of landscapes left behind him, he can get a general and pretty correct idea of the transmural view, if he will only climb to the loftiest summit of the altitudes in front of him. Once there, he can gaze at it, at his leisure, comparing that which he dimly perceives with that which he has just left below, now that he is, thanks to his efforts, beyond the line of the mists and the cloud-capped cliffs."
> "To my judges, past and future, therefore-whether they are serious literary critics, or those howling dervishes in literature who judge a book according to the popularity or unpopularity of the author's name, who, hardly glancing at its contents, fasten like lethal bacilli on the weakest points of the body-I have nothing to say. Nor shall I condescend to notice those crack-brained slanderers-fortunately very few in number-who, hoping to attract public attention by throwing discredit on every writer whose name is better known than their own, foam and bark at their very shadows. These, having first maintained for years that the doctrines taught in the Theosophist, and which culminated in "Esoteric Buddhism," had been all invented by the present writer, have finally turned round, and denounced "Isis Unveiled" and the rest as a plagiarism from Eliphas Lévi (!), Paracelsus (!!), and, mirabile dictu, Buddhism and Brahmanism (!!!) As well charge Renan with having stolen his Vie de Jésus from the Gospels, and Max Müller his "Sacred Books of the East" or his "Chips" from the philosophies of the Brahmins and Gautama, the Buddha. But to the public in general and the readers of the "Secret Doctrine" I may repeat what I have stated all along, and which I now clothe in the words of Montaigne: Gentlemen, "I HAVE HERE MADE ONLY A NOSEGAY OF CULLED FLOWERS, AND HAVE BROUGHT NOTHING OF MY OWN BUT THE STRING THAT TIES THEM."
> Pull the "string" to pieces and cut it up in shreds, if you will. As for the nosegay of FACTS-you will never be able to make away with these. You can only ignore them, and no more."
> M. Sufilight says:
> And the fact that various sanskrit and tibetan words given in the Secret Doctrine follow western dictionaries in the time of Blavatasky, can without question be said to have a whole lot to do with the above words. And also with the fact, that in 1888, the times were different. If a nomadic female from Mongolia or Russia came and told various well-esteemed Professors, that all what they did was wrong, the book would not have reached far. Another aspect is, that some of the words given by Blavatsky, were deliberately given a bit incorrect, because they were not meant to be read litterally by scholars, but by the use of the 7 Keys to the Mystery language. This book the Secret Doctrine was and is not written primarily for scholars - but as it is clearly stated by Blavatsky to advanced theosophists and seekers after wisdom. Not beginners and therefore not scholars. - Another problem was that various sanskrit and tibetan words were at that time not easily translateable into western - script and use of Western letters. So Blavatsky chose to use what had been arrived at at the time of her writing. Because the book might have been declared invalid, then or later, if she did not. - Today we find that the age of the book the Secret Doctrine - in one sense - is showing up, and that some of the words in Sanskrit and Tibetan are not quite without error when compared to the present day dictionaries etc. But the few number of faults are tolerable to most - advanced - seekers. At least to those who do not cling to the dead letter - like some scholars do. - Another aspect is that Blavatsky said in a letter to A. P. Sinnett that she spoke more than 40 languages. - Further I find no reason, like David Reigle appearntly neither do, to think that the book named Dzyan Stanzas do not exist. Blavatksy clearly wrote that it was baed on an esoteric version of the Kalachakra Tantra and commentaries to it as well as a glossary or wordbook. (Se BCW, Vol. XIV, p. 422-424 - http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v14/mb_007.htm).
> If Blavatsky could fool mr. A. O. Hume to write that he believed that she possesed extra sensory perception - I think she was not as stupid as some might consider her to be. A O. Hume was´not a nobody intellectually speaking. And there are several of other evidences which can be documented on her capeabilities and skills, which cannot be brushed away just like that. So to claim that she merely plagiarised the Theosophical Glossary and the Secret Doctrine and so on - is as false a claim as it can be. - Then one could go and say that David Reigle also have plagiarized som parts and passges in his writings himself. Should we just imagine that Blavatsky invented it all and that the article THE SECRET BOOKS OF "LAM-RIM" AND DZYAN is false to the core. When we know that other articles is not, which can be documented.
> Also the following: Mr. Eglinton and "Koot Hoomi." - http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/eglinton2.htm --- and --- Mr. Eglinton By Eleanor Mildred Sidgwick. http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/sidgeglin.htm
> But I guess there will always be Eglinton's and SPR scholars on this planet. Some persons need to see it before they understand. Smile.
> Others just brush Dabid Reigle's words away with a minor sigh.
> I do not since I have met H. P. Blavatsky when materialized herself in my flat - and also because I have met her when astral travelling.
> But this does not imply, that she was without faults. But not in the sense pictures by the scholar David Reigle and his strange "Zhentong" Buddhistic leanings.
> I do as I have said not write at http://theosnet.ning.com - because I disagree with its manner of operating.
> Although I agree that some improvements have arrived lately.
> from the heart of the anti-scholar
> M. Sufilight
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application