Theos-Talk Archives (October 2011 Message tt00063)

I might make a short inset of my viewpoint about certain points posted. 



>>>H. P. Blavatsky wrote about the Theosophical Society: 
"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. "<<< 

One point I have wanted to say for the last 2 years is: Madame Blavatsky functioned formally as "The Recording Secretary" of the Theosophical Society at-large,Âand as such it was her distinct uniqueÂpersonal duty to reply to sundry and various public , media, religious, political, organizational comments that were received or caused to be made known to the Theosophical Society. This function was "reserved" to her mainly and did not obligate common members of the society to do so because they could not represent the High Officers of the Society or the "considered" formal position ofÂOlcutt or Blavatsky who were the guiding stars and appointed Agents of the Mahatma's. Many of the members in her day were Politicians in their private lifes, or Priests, Initiates, Leaders (in sundry various Organizations) while also particitating in good standing as a member ofÂthe Theosophical Society. The function is not toÂproliferate hatred of outside religions, governments, organizations, states, nations, or peoples. But rather to communicate the unity of beingness of all and the character of the conditioned mind of all mankind which mediates the unwanted, undesired, oppressive acts that unhinge the ability of the being to manisfest more ideally and in actuality and which directly underlys all the unwanted causes she eliterates throughout her Books, Articles, and Public originations. Religion per se is not the true target, Bhatki ( devotion) is proper for significant percentile of the population of our world(s) at any given time because their consciousness has limit and serves as an appropiate path until they can receive a higher teaching, the conditioned mind mediates throughout human existance and progression in every activity wherein mind itself is used. "The same selfish men at the head of affairs of old" continue in the "NOW" and in each and every moment of perception mediated by the Universal Common Singular Possession of each and every member of Mankind --- the "Conditioned Mind" which is the "dominant" consciousness producing the undesired actions Madame Blavatsky points out throughout history of mankind. The manisfest creation is the "secondary World" based upon Maya of the postuled reality as such which in and of itself is the "Postulated Lie" I am That (the secondary projection of the manisfest creation) I Am ( the adoption of a point of perception within the mayavic reality from which to have action and participation) 
. There are not true objects of perception in terms of being "Real "Â in the secondary projection of reality as we experience this creation so all perceptive reality in the projection is m ediated by the conditioned mind itself which is the operational ego that self mo nitors all percept iveness. I suggest Theosophy teach Patanjali if we wish to improve what Blavatsky found lac king. 



Best regards to all, 

ÂJohn 

----- Original Message -----


From: "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@oz_9nDGYd3PMTdBmtj4enTNbQvUU_kyCcsLxpsNQW0LuOHO8g6Wp-SxKlZNzJv-xRQ67bmzE0ykVTejkLckl2F29n9OqKgY.yahoo.invalid> 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 12:28:34 PM 
Subject: Re: [?? Probable Spam] Âtheos-talk More on the New World Order 

 




Dear Tom and all readers 

My views are: 

I will try again. The post did not appear easy to read. 

Yes.I have read the Alice A. Bailey books and been a member of one such AAB-related organisation once som years back.One reason was: We do not have any theosophical group following the original Programe for the Theosophical Society as given in 1875-1891 - here where I live in Denmark, Scandinavia. 

About the Great Invocation and the Lucis Teust and related "church-goers" of similar kind: 

People are always looking for leaders; that does not mean that 
this is the time for a leader. The problems that a leader would be 
able to resolve have not been identified. Nor does the clamor mean 
that those who cry out are suitable followers. Most of the people who 
demand a leader seem to have some baby's idea of what a leader 
should do. The idea that a leader will walk in and we will all 
recognize him and follow him and everybody will be happy strikes me 
as a strangely immature atavism. Most of these people, I believe, 
want not a leader but excitement. I doubt that those who cry the 
loudest would obey a leader if there was one. Talk and especially small-talk is cheap, and a 
lot of the talk comes from millions of people and even New Agers. 
(Maybe the leaders at various theosophical groups would consider the above section.) 

H. P. Blavatsky wrote about the Theosophical Society: 
"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. " 
("The Key to Theosophy", 2ed., 1890 - p. 231) 
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm 

So let us not be foolish. Do you not agree? 
(Maybe our friend Duane read this.) 

___________________ 

Did D.K. write the Secret Doctrine? 

***** 1 ***** 
Alice A. Bailey writes: 
"He occupies himself with various pupils of different Masters who can profit by 
his instruction, and within the last ten years has relieved both the Master M. 
and the Master K. H. of a good deal of their teaching work, taking over from 
them for certain stated times some of their pupils and disciples. He works 
largely, too, with certain groups of the devas of the ethers, who are the 
healing devas, and who thus collaborate with him in the work of healing some of 
the physical ills of humanity. He it was who dictated a large part of that 
momentous book The Secret Doctrine, and who showed to H. P. Blavatsky many of 
the pictures, and gave her much of the data that is to be found in that book." 
(Alice A. Bailey - in Initiation Human and Solar - Chapter 5, p. 58 - 
http://nimrodgroup.org/AAB )" 
(Theos-talk, march 10th, 2008) 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/43317 

***** 2 ***** 
I ASK all Alice A. Bailey followers: 
Why should we trust a man (the so-called D.K. or else Alice A. Bailey) who take most of the credit for dictating the Secret Doctrine to H. P. Blavatsky, when we find many letters opposing this view by Master KH, Master Morya, H. P. Blavatsky, Constance Watchmeister, Hubbe Schleiden and perhaps others? 

Alice A. Bailey's guide named D.K. forwards his claims several times in the AAB books. Here are the books and pages where Alice A. Bailey's guide named D.K (or AAB her self) claims that he was behind the Secret Doctrine: 
- Alice A. Bailey - "Initiation - Human and Solar", p. 58 
- Alice A. Bailey - "The Rays and Initiations", page 255 
- Alice A. Bailey - "The Externalisation of the Hierarchy", page 685 
- Alice A. Bailey - "Esoteric Healing", p. 521, 536(?), og 565 

And not a single word of credit to Morya and KH about their involvement wit= 
h the book! 
We can only wonder what agenda motivates such a promotion and why we aught = 
to take such an author seriously at all? 

HPB wrote: "For the true, the genuine "Masters", whose real names have, fortunately, never been given out, cannot be created and killed at the beck and call of the sweet will of any "opportunist," whether inside or outside of the T.S." (BCW, Vol. XI, p. 294 - year 1889) 

Some words documenting that it was Blavatsky, Morya and KH who was behind the Secret Doctrine: 
A. 
The below link and its mahatma letters show me and others that it was not Alice A. Bailey's guide named D. K. who as claimed wrote large parts of the Secret Doctrine. It was Master KH and Morya. Blavatsky even write more than one time about it to Olcott, why should she be lying about this? And why should the Masters be lying about it? And why should Constance Watchmeister = 
be telling an untruth about Blavatsky's words about her readings of the Aka sha and that her Master was guiding her? 

The Writing of The Secret Doctrine (Remember: read the footnotes as well - and - the Mahatma Letters showing that Alice A. Bailey are wrong.) 
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/invit-sd/invsd-4.htm 

B. 
Reminiscences of H. P. Blavatsky by Constance Wachtmeister - (Chapter 5) 
http://blavatskyarchives.com/wachtmeister/wachtmeisterrem32.htm " 
..........and much more...... 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/55046 
http://theosophy.com/theos-talk/201010/tt00088.html 

M. Sufilight 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Tom Robertson 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 3:01 PM 
Subject: [?? Probable Spam] theos-talk More on the New World Order 

The more I read of D. K.'s message to or through Alice Bailey about 
the new world order, the less I like it. 

I find it very partisan, if not Communist propaganda. He criticizes 
Germany for aggressively seeking living space, but he doesn't say 
anything about British colonialism and hardly says anything about the 
Soviet Union. If, out of principle, he was so opposed to 
totalitarianism and aggression that he thought the people of the 
United States should fight over it, why didn't he advocate conquering 
the Soviet Union? Germany didn't start a war with Great Britain or 
France any more than the Soviet Union did and the Soviet Union did the 
same thing that Germany did that Great Britain and France regarded as 
a reason to declare war on Germany. Stalin had already killed 
millions of his own citizens before most people had heard of Hitler. 

I disagree with his characterization of most people as being of good 
will. Most people are selfish scumbags. As my father told me and I 
then learned the long, hard way, bordering on 100%, people don't pay 
loans back. Case closed. If he wants me to issue a Great Invocation, 
it will have to include a prayer that people pay their debts. I hope 
he means it when he says he has no conception of time. It's going to 
take a LONG time before people of good will trust the multitudes 
enough to make the new world order possible. To get back to the 
subject of Communist propaganda, his economic plan makes no provision 
for individual incentive except to tell everyone to be unselfish. The 
ideal global economy may require equal opportunity, but equal outcomes 
is never going to work. 

What does he mean by the virtue of not criticizing? His message is 
full of criticism. 

If physical death is so meaningless to him, why does he advocate 
peace? Why fight and die to get something that is only material? Why 
does he describe the enemy as the forces of materialism and not of 
evil? 

He says: 

"the soul is persistent and deathless; the form is changing and doomed 
to die." 

Isn't the soul also evolving, and therefore "changing and doomed to 
die?" Isn't it only atma, which H. P. B. called the individual 
property of no one, which is eternal rather than evolving? 

Where would he draw the line in advocating violence? Would he support 
terrorists, since they're just trying to defend Palestinians against 
aggression? Would he want all people of good will to fight for Iran 
if the United States aggresses against it? 

After saying that the Allies used more moral means in fighting the 
war, including inhibiting their war effort for the sake of not 
targeting enemy civilians, was he then embarrassed by how many 
millions of civilians they killed, many of them deliberately? What 
would he say about the United States torturing people? 

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




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