Theos-Talk Archives (October 2011 Message tt00189)

This is a burning question for many Cass. However, contrary to whatever Blavatsky said elsewhere, she did say the following. Obviously she was referring to the next century from which she wrote or the twentieth century. She said "some disciple more informed, and far better fitted, may be sent by the Masters of Wisdom". AAB was sent by the Master KH and she dictated for Master DK. The prophesy was that that disciple or AAB, was according to Blavatsky more informed and far better fitted "to give final and irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya" A Treatise on Cosmic Fire was the second key to the wisdom of which HPB turned by her own account and admission the first key. AAb' treatise via DK was and expansion on the great entities of the cosmos and of cosmic fire or mind. It elaborated the three fires electric, soalr and frictional. Plus a whole lot more. The treaties on the seven rays were also part of the second psychological key which HPB predicted will come.
 
Theosophical students would do well to consider HPB' own words of prophesy. Those that deny them deny her predicted second key turn for no more was turned by DK. What possible point would there be to do that, ignore HPB' own words I mean. I appreciate your open mindedness of course. Constant attack on AAB is unnecessary and Morton is an example of a Theosophical student with a refusal to accept HPB' prediction. The point is, that by HPB' own words she predicted a higher turn or dissemination of the Secret Doctrine bringing much hitherto unrealised or imagined wisdom and knowledge. JPC.
 
"The same may be said of the whole Esoteric system. One turn of the key, and no more, was given in "Isis." Much more is explained in these volumes. In those days the writer hardly knew the language in which the work was written, and the disclosure of many things, freely spoken about now, was forbidden. In Century the Twentieth some disciple more informed, and far better fitted, may be sent by the Masters of Wisdom to give final and irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya; and that, like the once-mysterious sources of the Nile, the source of all religions and philosophies now known to the world has been for many ages forgotten and lost to men, but is at last found." SD1 xxxviii. HPB. 

 

> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> From: silva_cass@i-guQ9hl_aQDlXyKWiwDUFy6YYiFlP6M_rK8dAOQdUs22WKqF1gobPbiN7oDqrVF9QXWjaUluWZDK5BPyg.yahoo.invalid
> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:20:01 -0700
> Subject: Re: theos-talk My God is better then your God!
> 
> What is altruistic about going for Bailey's jugular?  HPB channelled Morya and Kuthumi, so we know that the process is acknowledged and confirmed by HPB.  Whether or not Bailey channelled DK is known only to herself.  The only evidence to the contrary is that Blavatsky said point blank that their would be no more contact from the Masters after her demise.  Now whether this includes pupils of the Masters is up for grabs.
> 
> Providing Bailey does not contradict the knowledge given by Morya and Kuthumi I have no problem with her assertions on how she received her information.  It will stand or fall as we evolve our own spiritual knowledge.
> 
> Cass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >________________________________
> >From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@MYTLGJrpdcSR_KX5snZEjk4KGsd5ZjtesQHgyEJMMgpNXWm_St8aVzmVhmPhgbEtMzmdicKPItwTI9gqGDvTWv72icGqsA.yahoo.invalid>
> >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Monday, 31 October 2011 12:43 AM
> >Subject: Re: theos-talk My God is better then your God!
> >
> >
> >  
> >Dear Duane and friends
> >
> >My views are:
> >
> >Duane wrote:
> >"The old spiritual approach in the past is my God is better than your God, my spiritual teachings broader and more profound than yours
> >The new Theosophy will emphasize what is in common and good about all the different theosophical approaches. Is this not what HPB said in the Secret Doctrine?"
> >
> >M. Sufilight says:
> >I find your view self-contradicting Duane. 
> >How can you plaster me with the view that I am forwarding a doctrine or a view - organisationally speaking - which aims are not seeking to promote altruism?
> >
> >Have I not for many days now promote as the main idea the non-sectarian and non-political Constitution and Rules of Theosophical Society as given in 1875-1891? What have I done to deserve to be told, that comparative studying as I promote it is done with the aim of saying by God is better thanyour God?
> >
> >How can one with a just a trifle amount of altruism promote an organisation like Lucis Trust with a doctrine or set of books, given PRIMARY importance, --- when this doctrine or set of books in its dead-letter nature show a complete lack of tact multi-culturally speaking when it is filled with a Christianizing and phallic tendencies in its vocabulary?
> >
> >You do not spend several years on teaching Christians an openly admitted (see DNA 2, p. 260) distorted and Christianized doctrine about visdom, which keep them effectively down and away from the truth. You seek primarily to de-condition them and de-christianize them psychologically speaking. 
> >Do you not? Duane?
> >
> >And you quoted Alice A. Bailey's book:
> >""I have given you this teaching in terms of the Christian presentation as it may be simpler for you to grasp,"
> >(DNA2:260) 
> >
> >M. Sufilight says:
> >And I and others wonder why a so-called Master D.K. would do such a thing when we know that altruism is not a mono-cultural issue?
> >
> >And later we have:
> >", but there are many other formulations and approaches to these truths and the newer they are the more difficult necessarily are they to present."
> >
> >M. Sufilight says:
> >The following is seen from the perspective that Lucis Trust is an Esoteric Organisation based on Blavatsky's own Esoteric Section - at least that is what we are told.....Now I am saying.......
> >- But then we are in agreement on that Blavatsky's teachings are more difficult to grasp accoridng to AAB's named Master D.K., because Blavatsky's teachings are multi-cultural in content.
> >And they are more difficult to grasp, not becasue the doctrine is not distorted and Christianize, but because they are more true. Right?
> >If we can agree upon this, I will be happy. It seem a logical conclusion to me.
> >And if so, I find it strange that Lucis Trust do not openly sell H. P. Blavatsky's books so to justify her work and the Secret Doctrine. Do you not?
> >
> >Alice A. Bailey wrote in the book A Treatise on Cosmic Fire:
> >"In the case of H. P. B. this is apparent. On the tide of the present endeavor, the Secret Doctrine will be vindicated and her work justified."
> >("A Treatise on Cosmic Fire", page 707-8, written 1925, by Alice A. Bailey, english edition.) 
> >
> >Please remember, that I write the above from the perspective that Lucis Trust is an Esoteric Organisation based on Blavatsky's own Esoteric Section - at least that is what we are told. And Blavatsky's own Esoteric Section was created so to protect the Theosophical Society from being turned astray - or - turned into something sectarian or political etc. etc.
> >
> >Yes, Lucis Trust claim to teach aspirant, and disciples on probation etc. etc. Blavatsky did then same but useing multi-cultural teaching.
> >So what is the use except to condition the Seekers by Christianizing and distorting the teachings given so that they might better grasp the teachings by being more conditioned instead of being de-conditioned?
> >To me it is like starting from the wrong end of the Yak tale. But maybe I am wrong.
> >
> >A few questions to consider there.
> >
> >All the above are of course just my views. I do not claim myself infallible as a "pope" or similar
> >I do hope that at least some of it will be useful for something altruistic and good.
> >
> >M. Sufilight
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- 
> >From: Duane Carpenter 
> >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
> >Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 1:39 PM
> >Subject: theos-talk My God is better then your God!
> >
> >Cass is right
> >The old spiritual approach in the past is my God is better than your God, my spiritual teachings broader and more profound than yours
> >The new Theosophy will emphasize what is in common and good about all the different theosophical approaches. Is this not what HPB said in the Secret Doctrine?
> >"Unequivocally that the teachings, however fragmentary and incomplete, contained in these volumes, belong neither to the Hindu, the Zoroastrian, the Chaldean, nor the Egyptian religion, neither to Buddhism, Islam, Judaism nor Christianity exclusively. The Secret Doctrine is the essence of all these. Sprung from it in their origins, the various religious schemes are now made to merge back into their original element, out of which every mystery and dogma has grown, developed, and become materialized. (HPD Secret Doctrine)
> >
> >"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." Quoted from DK (DNA2:260) 
> >Here is your quote Sufi light. This is your opportunity to see the common base of the works of HPB and DK via AAB or simply seize on this quote to justify your erroneous ideas that AAB is just a perversion of Theosophy.
> >DC
> >
> >From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@MYTLGJrpdcSR_KX5snZEjk4KGsd5ZjtesQHgyEJMMgpNXWm_St8aVzmVhmPhgbEtMzmdicKPItwTI9gqGDvTWv72icGqsA.yahoo.invalid>
> >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 8:12 AM
> >Subject: Re: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
> >
> >Dear Cass
> >
> >My views are:
> >
> >You mentioned my name.
> >
> >Let me seek to explain...so that your imprecise remark might be understood better.
> >
> >J. Krishnamurti said:
> >" I wonder if you realize that the word 'scepticism', questioning, enquiring, is not advocated in the Christian world. Whereas in Buddhism, and Hinduism, that is one of the essential things, you must question everything, until you discover or come upon that truth, which is not yours, or any others, it is truth."
> >
> >But vital difference between groups is of course unimportant, when social get-to-gethers and agreements masked as deeply spiritual are viewed as of primary importance --- instead of understanding the emotional level it operates on and its hopeless lack of being adequate when seen from a more holistic or all-inclusive perspective. The latter option seem much better.
> >I do hope that this will help to understand, that it is not really as such a question about promoting what you call "disparity" Cass.
> >It is much more precisely a question about 'scepticism', questioning, enquiring, --- something not used much in the Western countries and not among Christians. COMPARATIVE STUDYING was and is after all one of the main aims of the Theosophical Society. An aim which the Alice A. Bailey group seek to throw away by promoting Lucis Trust and their other groups.
> >And it is also a question about whether any Theosophical groups or Esoteric groups or sects use Subtle Mind Control.
> >
> >Blavatsky already warned about one sect using Subtle Mind Control in her time.......
> >
> >H.P. Blavatsky warned her esoteric students in 1889:
> >
> >". . . A new and rapidly growing DANGER ... is
> >threatening ... the spread of the PURE Esoteric
> >Philosophy and knowledge. . . . I allude to those
> >charlatanesque imitations of Occultism and Theosophy.
> >. . . "
> >
> >"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
> >"swindle"; (for such it is) are endeavoring to draw
> >men to them and in particular to turn Theosophists
> >from THE TRUE PATH."
> >
> >". . . A close examination will assuredly reveal. . .
> >materials largely stolen . . . from Theosophical
> >writings. . . [and] 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. . . . "
> >
> >"Nothing is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth than the
> >GARBLED AND DISTORTED versions disfigured to suit the
> >prejudices and tastes of men in general." H. P.
> >Blavatsky, E.S. Instruction No. I., 1889. Caps added.
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy/message/185
> >
> >But of course I am wrong and Blavatsky is wrong --- or are we?
> >
> >M. Sufilight
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- 
> >From: Cass Silva 
> >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
> >Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 2:34 AM
> >Subject: Re: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
> >
> >All this, twoing and frowing between various paths must leave a noviate thinking that theosophy is as inconsistent as religion is.
> >Morten has been encouraging the disparity for years.
> >Cass
> >
> >>________________________________
> >>From: Jeremy Condick <jpcondick2011@TjvrFuW64mScwBJt0NZmrS3hdc3goVDo2wHNy9V-S0jQcODl35cDr0U_RZRUhhwFok1zAwk-MwSi4ClKpyKL.yahoo.invalid>
> >>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >>Sent: Sunday, 30 October 2011 7:20 AM
> >>Subject: RE: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>Thanks, Cass.
> >>
> >>Well the letter addressed a certain point and made it very clearly. I agree on your point of stepping stones and there are various occult schools that offer a study and meditation curriculum. I have stressed on occasion the path of 'Brotherhood' have I not? JPC.
> >>
> >>
> >>> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >>> From: silva_cass@i-guQ9hl_aQDlXyKWiwDUFy6YYiFlP6M_rK8dAOQdUs22WKqF1gobPbiN7oDqrVF9QXWjaUluWZDK5BPyg.yahoo.invalid
> >>> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:47:46 -0700
> >>> Subject: Re: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
> >>> 
> >>> What difference does it matter which path one takes as they are only stepping stones to discovering the truth for ourselves.
> >>> Cass
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> >________________________________
> >>> >From: Jeremy Condick <jpcondick2011@TjvrFuW64mScwBJt0NZmrS3hdc3goVDo2wHNy9V-S0jQcODl35cDr0U_RZRUhhwFok1zAwk-MwSi4ClKpyKL.yahoo.invalid>
> >>> >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >>> >Sent: Saturday, 29 October 2011 10:33 AM
> >>> >Subject: RE: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > 
> >>> >
> >>> >"If an organisation are having a leader or a group of leaders (often with its own leader as well) - who forwards a doctrine or teachings given by one single author or just a uniform doctrine - ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERS - of its organisation - then we are in truth talking about a sectarian organisation." 
> >>> >
> >>> >JPC: The Lucis Trust offers study of a number of books. Namely, The Alice Bailey books, The Secret Doctrine, Isis Unveiled and other theosophical material, and the books of Helena Roerich' Agni Yoga. There is an extensive lending library of miscellaneous old and hard to find books by numerous authors, and also a continuous study of other authors works more contempary relating to science, philosophy and other subjects. The scope is very extensive indeed and does not adhere to one single author. 
> >>> >
> >>> >It is non Political insofar as it does not promote one party over another or take part in contempary party politics. It is working for right human relations and the spreading of goodwill and cooperates with those who also work for the same in so far as they are able, no matter what party political persuasion they may or may not personally have. Students are not accepted according to political leanings and personal politics are not entered into. 
> >>> >
> >>> >The UN is seen as the best chance humanity has of discussing or resolving international problems. Whether it works or has corruption has no bearing on the overall objective of seeking world harmony. This is a ideal to work towards and may as yet be imperfect as so much in life is today or ever has been. Right human relations are worked towards and this is the philosophy of the teachings. 
> >>> >
> >>> >> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> >>> >> From: global-theosophy@MYTLGJrpdcSR_KX5snZEjk4KGsd5ZjtesQHgyEJMMgpNXWm_St8aVzmVhmPhgbEtMzmdicKPItwTI9gqGDvTWv72icGqsA.yahoo.invalid
> >>> >> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:19:22 +0200
> >>> >> Subject: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> Dear friends
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> My views are:
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> Sorry about this lengthy relpy. But It seems from where I stand important to cover the subject as clearly as possible without writing a whole book about it.
> >>> >> 
> >>> >> Now as a Seeker after Truth and Wisdom and seeking to promote altruism, I often seek comparative studying so to avoid a narrowminded or sectarian out-look upon life.
> >>> >> And I am also in the below seeking to show some of the problems and issues so to speak which our present time year 2011 are facing compared with the past with regard to the non-sectarian Theosophical Society as it was given in 1875-1891, and before it changed and became more or less sectarian after the year 1910. My study will focus on whether the Theosophical Society as it was given in 1875-1891 was political or sectarian - and - on whether the very widespread esoteric mother-organisation Lucis Trust behind the Alice A. Bailey followers are sectarian or non-sectarian, as well as political or non-political in their activities.
> >>> >> I do this because there seem to be a great deal of confusion with regard to how the word "sectarian" is defined and what it implies or can imply. Other definitions than the one given by me in the below might be useful. But I seek to stick to the present day scientists and their definition of the word "sectarian". And this I think cannot be unimportant. Further it is also well-known that the word "political" have many definitions attached to it. I do hope however that my words in the below are sufficient to cover the aspects involved in the presentation I have forwarded.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > 
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> 
> >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>> 
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>
> >>
> >>[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]
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
 		 	   		  

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