Re: [?? Probable Spam] theos-talk More on the New World Order
Oct 18, 2011 06:28 AM
by M. Sufilight
Dear John and friends
My views are:
John wrote:
"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, and as such it was her distinct unique personal 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 of Olcutt or Blavatsky who were the guiding stars and appointed Agents of the Mahatma's."
M. Sufilight says:
Let me seek to clarify the affair a bit more. Yes, but this is not the whole picture and in a sense only a half-truth.
I would rather say, that the Theosophical Society from 1875-1891 was a non-sectarian body. This was definitely changed in 1907 when Annie Besant arrived as a President of the Theosophical Society. From then on the Theosophical Society became involved with politics and a messiah-craze - and - became clearly much more sectarian in nature. And its contrast to Churches disappeared, and a Church - Christian-like one in origin - was build on the TS Adyar compund (!!!). Allowing male-chauvanism - which it only abandoned recently.
Let me seek to clarify it more deeply.
Blavatsky was not a "pope" together with Olcott - something the above words by you might mislead people to believe. She was responsible to the elected counsil of the Society and the Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society. If she violated them, she would have had to face opposition. Just like Olcott did in his day. See for instance the following article (âORIGINAL PROGRAMMEâ MANUSCRIPT) where Olcott's tendencies of "popery" are being exchanged upon, and where Blavatsky feel the need to defend Olcott. Was Blavatsky wrong or was she right in stating that no "popery" existed back then in 1886?
(Remember this was written in the year 1886 or so --- and at that time the ordinary science of Psychology was in its infancy. And that the psychological branch on subtle Mind Control and Anti-cult psychology was not really terms known about but by the Initates, if such persons in truth exists - as some of us do confirm and claim to know. And let us remember that the existence of the Masters was never made an article of faith within the Theosophical Society in 1875-1891 - although it clearly was so later when Annie Besant became President of the Theosophical Society.)
[âORIGINAL PROGRAMMEâ MANUSCRIPT]
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v7/yxxxx_019.htm
See also
CONSTITUTION AND RULES OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY (1890)
"The Theosophical Society is absolutely unsectarian"
.......
"Offences
1. Any Fellow who shall in any way attempt to involve the Society In political disputes shall be immediately expelled.
2. No Fellow, Officer, or Council of the Theosophical Society, or of any Section or Branch thereof, shall promulgate or maintain any doctrines being that advanced, or advocated by the Society."
http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm
John wrote:
"The function is not to proliferate 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."
M. Sufilight says:
Indeed. And the function was clearly primarily that of the Theosophical Society's. Namely - like its main object states - to promote Altruism. And therefore to avoid dogmatism from the very start. There can be no altruism when dogmatism is involved. Therefore any attempts to for instance Christianize the non-sectarian Theosophical Society aught to be avoided at all costs. So it was at least in the years 1875-1891.
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)
Because the Theosophical Society was founded to promote - ALTRUISM - as its main object. And therefore the non-sectarian stance. And no aim what so ever on promoting dogmatism and neither all kinds of sinister religious activities although they might be seemingly wellmeaning on the outside. Just like the instance with Hiram Butler and Co., which Blavatsky warned about - however only in her esoteric section papers.
Daniel Caldwell wrote some words about Hiram Butler and Co and other issues here at Theos-talk:
SUBJECT: "nothing is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth
than the garbled and distorted versions disfigured to
suit the prejudices and tastes of men in general. . .
. " . . ."
In E.S.T.S. Instruction No. I., H.P. Blavatsky warned
her esoteric students as folows:
"Before entering upon the first installment of the
Instructions to be given to the Esoteric Section, it
is necessary to call the special attention of its
members to a new and rapidly growing danger which is
threatening the Theosophical Society and the spread of
the pure Esoteric Philosophy and knowledge in the
U.S.A."
"I allude to those charlatanesque imitations of
Occultism and Theosophy of which the âCall to the
Awakened,â lately published in the Boston Esoteric, is
the most glaring example."
"The danger in this particular case is the greater
because some men of real scientific attainments and
knowledge seem to have been drawn into it, and thus
give to it an appearance of real knowledge which may
easily deceive the unwary."
"By pandering to the prejudices of people, and
especially by adopting the false ideas of a personal
God and a personal, carnalized Saviour, as the
groundwork of their teaching, the leaders of this
âswindleâ (for such it is) are endeavoring to draw men
to them and in particular to turn Theosophists from
the true path. The H. B. of L., of shameful memory in
England, has now found a worthy substitute in the
Esoteric College in Boston founded by a âBrahmin of
Irish descent, thousands of years old,â (Vide âA Call
from the Unseen,â etc.). . . ."
"A close examination will assuredly reveal the whole
scheme as a mere device for money getting and selfish
gratification, in which materials largely stolen, as
said, from Theosophical writings are distorted and
falsified so as to be palmed off on the unwary as
revelations of new and undreamed of truths. But many
will neither have the time nor the opportunity for
such a thorough investigation; and before they become
aware of the imposture they may be led far from the
Truth, as well as be despoiled of their property and,
worse than that, of their health."
"Under these circumstances, it is the duty of all
members of the E. S. in America to do their utmost to
unmask such movements, for nothing is more dangerous
to Esoteric Truth than the garbled and distorted
versions disfigured to suit the prejudices and tastes
of men in general. . . . "
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/4495
The question is whether there can be any altruism promoted to those who do not have sympathy for it?
I think not. Not until sympathy arrives, that is.
John wrote:
"I suggest Theosophy teach Patanjali if we wish to improve what Blavatsky found lac king."
M. Sufilight says:
But, again "Theosophy" is only what some members of the Theosophical Society followed in the old days . when it was non-sectarian.
Today "Theosophy" is taken for granted as THE DOCTRINE given by a few leaders to all members of the various Theosophical Societies and off-shoot branches on behalf of their organisational bodies. But, not doctrines are to be given on behalf of any members of the Constitution and Rules as they were given in the Original Theosophical Society in 1875-1891. "Theosophy" is in fact the - truth - each individual forwards about the meaning of life and what it contains of truth. The Wisdom of the Gods. And all and everything can be called a God or Divine. That is my view.
All the above are just my views. And, I do not claim to be infallible.
I do hope that the above will enable some of the readers to do more work in the name of compassion and altruism.
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: Augoeides-222@yb4hPkh084rEf739q_VFoYYW6r0AlqFS5QXZt2gvhmeSqF0jYbdKL6AZ2-7G4z_w9feITq82qhWFbCjGDwgaFzBe7oU.yahoo.invalid
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [?? Probable Spam] theos-talk More on the New World Order
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, and as such it was her distinct unique personal 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 of Olcutt 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 of the Theosophical Society. The function is not to proliferate 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 " 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,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@sjTb7Iks0PMhNY-j6Fuypg853X_dPK2ZTwMMnZu5TLdIiid9n1ToQ4ZAQLShSirIJOdBm7ASqx9-HeRcTmyOUxS8.yahoo.invalid>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 12:28:34 PM
Subject: Re: [?? Probable Spam] theos-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]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
