Re: theos-talk Re: Sufilight with an Important Question
Feb 07, 2012 09:01 AM
by M. Sufilight
Dear Jacques and friends
My views are:
Interesting that you have visited the place...Smile.
First, I think it woud be helpful if you would provide some references to your views and claims.
If you read other archaeologists, and the references given by me alone in this thread - and - reread my previous posts on Autun, you will discover that it is hotly disputed whether Autun did not exist before 15 BCE and whether there for instance was a Celtic temple - beneath the Janus Temple in Autun. Try to recheck it. The Archaeologists are not all of them in agreement on this. So you are only talking on behalf of one gorup of archaeologist with regard to this view.
Jacques wrote:
"- Size : Mount Beuvray is around 1,000,000 sq meters, and Bibracte was at max 200,000 sq meters, then 135,000 sq meters. It could not have reached the site of Autun.
- Bibracte population was betwen 5,000 and 10,000 inhabitants"
M. Sufilight says:
Yes. I anticipated that someone would respond with these numbers. But if you read more carefully what the archaeologists are saying you will see, that this is only with regard to the town-walls - not the surrounding houses and suburbs in the region. (Well as far as I understand what I read.) And Autun was a town with a theatre of 17-20.000 seats is most likely at least having 100.000 inhabitants - and more likely 300.000-500.000. (Just compare it to present day standards. But I have not seen the estimate from arhcaeologist on this when the included theÂhouses found outside the - inner - town wall.)
And one does not build a town with a theatre of 17-20.000 seats - if the population is only 10.000 in the area and connected suburbs as well - and then say that migration happended within 25 years.
Ancient Towns was build in a different manner in the old days - you see. There were not seldom a lot of wooden houses or primitive buildings outside the town wall, and they were included as a part of the town as well.
And then we have not touched upon the difficulties of dating the whole thing through the use of the ordinary scientific methods.
The site of Mont Beuvray is considered to be the ancient Bibracte by a number of Archaeologists. But the surrounding houses and ruins are often omitted when considering population. And the same goes with Autun before it was named Autun in the year 15 BCE. And then we also have the below problems to consider for the ordinary scientists.......
We have the following words on page 166:
"Tis said, there are many other Ruins of Amphitheatres about Atun; which shows how considerable a Citty it has formerly been: But that appears also from other old Monuments and Edifices, seen both in this City and about it."
("Antiquity explained, and represented in sculptures, Bind 3â4" Af Bernard de Montfaucon --- an old book, but not unlikely close to the truth. See http://books.google.com )
Also "Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul"
by Greg Woolf
"severe problems of chronology"..."uncertainty surrounds the nature and chronolgy of the earliest structures on the site of the gallo-Roman temple." etc., etc.
(See http://books.google.com page 9 + 10 --- and other books says the same.)
And the theory about migration offered by you is only one version given by some archaeologists.
__________________
>>>Yes. But the question I forwarded seem to remain unanswered.<<<
I asked:
"The only question I have to what you write is whether Autun actually was called Bibracte before its named was changed in 15 BCE?"
Are you or other persons able to provide more info about the supposed Celtic temple beneath the Janus Temple in Autun?
And its possible age?
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: Jacques M
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 10:09 PM
Subject: theos-talk Re: Sufilight with an Important Question
Since this question is on the air for more than a year, I decided to visit the Mount Beuvray site last summer (and it is a wonderful, magic place...). Here are some facts from current archeologists which, I hope, can bring some answers to the last questions below :
- Autun did not exist prior to 15 BC. The founding traces are the door of the town which are dated 15 BC
- Size : Mount Beuvray is around 1,000,000 sq meters, and Bibracte was at max 200,000 sq meters, then 135,000 sq meters. It could not have reached the site of Autun.
- Bibracte population was betwen 5,000 and 10,000 inhabitants
- The migration from Bibracte to Autun was initiated by the Eduens, not the Romans, because they needed a better place to build a roman-like urbanised town to suite their rank in the then current roman society. The migration took 25 years.
There has been a lot of confusion since the XVIIth century where the founding in Autun of the plate dedicated to the Bibracte goddess had convinced the community that Bibracte should be lying below Autun.
Jean-Gabriel Bulliot and his nephew Joseph Dechelette have been digging starting in 1864 until 1907. Discoveries (thousand of objects) where authentified as dated 27 BC thru 14 AC. Then the researches stopped until 1984 where they retarted full scale and have attracted archeologists worldwide. The Gaule civilisation gained a lot of understanding since.
Hope it helps.
Jacques
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> A few views...
>
> All right Fair enough.
> I will let it rest.
>
> The only question I have to what you write is whether Autun actually was called Bibracte before its named was changed in 15 BCE?
> I find it to be a possibility. Also because of the size of the original Bibracte, which outer town limits - including suburbs must have been several kilomters from the centre and quite near Autun. The origianl Bibractes with suburbs had likely somewhere between 100.000 to 500.000 inhabitants - all in all - if not more, judging from excavations, - well if I am not mistaken. And also when considering the later size of Autun with the slow relocation of the inhabitants from the original Bibracte and Mont Beuvray - and the huge theatre in Autun with 17-20.000 seats - although the dating of it is uncertain.
> So, yes Bibcrates became Autun, as Blavatasky said - not by change of name - but rather by relocation of the inhabitates by only a few kilometres - due to the Romans. So yes a bit imprecise sentence by Blavatsky (and perhaps more so by Ragon) - but written in an unpublished article.
>
>
>
> M. Sufilight
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Govert Schuller
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 7:45 AM
> Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
>
>
> Dear Morten,
>
> Thank you for digging deeper into this issue. ItÃââs always fun to get a challenge to get more educated.
>
> So, after looking at your sources, I have to remark the following:
>
> In my article I stated that ÃâÅIt looks like, and he [Ragon] is not the only one, that he confused Bibracte with the nearby town of Autun.ÃâÂ
>
> The little insertion ÃâÅand he is not the only oneÃâ actually refers to the fact that, before the excavations done in the late 19th century at Mont Beuvray, the exact location of Bibracte was not yet settled. There were three hypotheses about the location of that Celtic town and it was initially Autun which was the preferred one. The other candidates were Beaune and Mont Beuvray, with the last one confirmed to be the correct location.
>
> Therefore older sources like, StuartÃââs Cyclopedia (published 1854) and de MontfauconÃââs Antiquity explained (published in 1719) might incorporate the erroneous hypothesis and will have to be read very carefully in what they have to say about both Bibracte and Autun. ItÃââs my contention that RagonÃââs Orthodoxie maÃÂonnique (published in 1853) did proceed based on the erroneous Autun-hypothesis and that HPB duplicated the error.
>
> Your third source, the very expensive The Roman Remains of Northern and Eastern France: A Guidebook by James Stephen Bromwich, expectedly respects the archeological record as it was published in 2003. On page 217, in the chapter ÃâÅThe Development of BibracteÃâ it is clear that he knows that Bibracte is on Mont Beuvray and that the Celts had moved from the hilltop Bibracte to their new city Autun in the valley after their defeat by Caesar.
>
> So, we donÃâât only have RagonÃââs error of placing grand Roman feats of architecture in Bibracte, but also the error of misplacing Bibracte itself in Autun (which probably was the source of the first error). HPB stepped into these errors by declaring with unmistaken aplomb ÃâÅSuch was the last city in Gaul wherein died for Europe the secrets of the Initiations of the Great Mysteries.Ãâ And you have followed her faithfully.
>
> Meanwhile I added some items to the original article. 1) I added that the HPB article was published posthumously and 2), to clarify a little more the source of misunderstanding, I added:
>
> ÃâÅMany historians and archeologists in Ragon's days thought that the correct location of Bibracte was to be found in Autun. But this was only a hypothesis. The other candidates were Beaune and Mont Beuvray. Only the excavations by the French archeologist Jacques Gabriel Bulliot in the late 19th century confirmed the location to have been on Mont Beuvray.ÃâÂ
>
> So, Morten, I hope you will leave Autun alone and start digging at Mont Beuvray, the correct location of Bibracte.
>
> Best
>
> Govert
>
> From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of M. Sufilight
> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 4:30 PM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> Dear Govert and friends
>
> My views are:
>
> All right I will seek to be more precise...
>
> Govert you have the following on your website today:
> "From what I read so far RagonÃââs claims made about Bibracte are quite erroneous or, in H.P.B.Ãââs words, ÃâÅutterly incorrectÃâÂ, as she qualified an other of his claims. Bibracte was a fortified hill-town and none of the grand structures, which Ragon writes about, were ever erected there. It looks like, and he is not the only one, that he confused Bibracte with the nearby town of Autun, which does have a big Roman amphitheatre, though it ÃâËonlyÃââ seats 17.000, and has a temple dedicated to Janus."
> "The problem here is that Autun did not exist before CaesarÃââs time as it was founded in AugustusÃââ reign replacing Bibracte as the capital of the Aedui. The other problem is that Ragon ascribes to the Celts feats of architecture and pastimes which are distinctly Roman and were quite out of reach for the more simple Celts."
> "It looks like H.P.B. was a little careless in taking over wholesale these claims by Ragon about Bibracte, even while she was aware of RagonÃââs shortcomings as a historian as she warned her readers that ÃâÅ[h]owever learned and erudite, some of the chronological mistakes of that author are very great.ÃâÂ"
> http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/Bibracte.htm
>
> The above is not a solid argument because as I have stated before:
>
> 1) The Article by Blavatsky was published posthumously and she never made it public herself. The article might therefore have been unfinished and written in haste without having checked the site of Atun properly by clairvoyance etc. etc. This alone should dismiss your argument in the above Govert.
> 2) Blavatsky writes in her unpublished article in mention:
> "The once majestic city, Bibractis, has now become Autun, Ragon explains." (It is a big question how one aught to read this sentence and words related to it. Using dead-letter or using a figure of speech?)
> a) That is: Says Ragon - Blavatsky did not say so herself. - Although her unpublished article - gives the impression that she endorsed Ragon's view - Blavatsky is not exactly clearly supporting Ragon's view either.
> If this was the case I think she would have written it differently.
> b) And ---- That is, Bibcrates - so to speak - became Autun - when the City moved south and the old Bibcrates was slowly abandoned. So what was Bibcrates now became Autun - but only - in a manner of speaking of course.
> And since Bibcrates more over was such a huge city in those days - the place were Autun was in those days - was almost within the City limits of the old Bibcrates - if one follow the logic based on the size of it. Just the size of the theatre (17-20.000 seats) alone should make this claim quite valid - and also the many discoveries found by the archaeologist - in the nearby areas. (I might be wrong, but have a look at my references later on in this post.)
> Yet even if this sentence by Blavatsky in a non-published article - should be taken as an endorsment by Blavatsky - one has to consider what other Scholars write - namely - that Bibractis (ie. Bibcrates) - likely - was removed to the place were Autun later was named to be, when Caesar in year 52 BCE or so had his battle just south thereof. Bibcrates was moved to the place where Autun was - before it was named Autun in 15 BCE. And that the city in those decades after Caesars battle was a half-roman + half-celt city and a huge one. If true, it is not unimportant (!) - when we read Ragon's and Blavatsky's words - and the words about the theatre. --- That is my point, and I guess also Blavatsky's point. Let scholars prove the opposite if they are able to do that.
>
> References available online:
> --- "The Roman remains of Northern and Eastern France: a guidebook" by James Stephen Bromwich
> --- "Cyclopedia of architecture: historical, descriptive, typographical ..." by Robert Stuart
> --- "Antiquity explained, and represented in sculptures, Bind 3Ãâ"4" by Bernard de Montfaucon
> (I will provided the online links - if the above are difficult to trace.)
>
> ___
> Summeries from the references:
> >>> ("The Roman remains of Northern and Eastern France: a guidebook" by James Stephen Bromwich - around page 143 and onward - is telling a bit about the theatre in Autun. He says: "Of Autun's many temples, whether dedicated to Roman or local gods"..."none has been certainly identified." (!!) About the theatre he says: "It is recognized as first century, probably Flavian, but even the 1984-5 excavations were unable to come up with a satisfying stratigraphy; it could be a modified earlier building." (!) - And mentions that the stone-work is Gallo-Roman. So one might be able to call the theatre partly roman-partly celtic in its early days. (The theatre is through excavations known to have been used for fighting between animals and man/animals. But only with little evidence it seems, and also with regard to the dating thereof.) - And the Temple of Janus (date of construction given as unknown by the author - some say 1th century, but it is still hotly disputed) - probably replaced a wooden temple to a Gallic deity that already stood on the site, according to several authors. Near this temple was a theatre - an extra theatre it seems. - Now the question is whether the theatre attached to the Temple of Janus had a Gallic origin - and not merely a Roman one?) "Cyclopedia of architecture: historical, descriptive, typographical ..." by Robert Stuart says: "Vestiges of another building, also supposed ot be an amphitheatre, are at Autun." (Both books are at googlebooks.com) - And other authors mention that there are more than two Theatres in the region of Autun and more. (One of them is "Antiquity explained, and represented in sculptures, Bind 3Ãâ"4" by Bernard de Montfaucon) - One problem ordinary scientists has today is that it is known that various buildings and statues has been removed to other locations or simply destroyed - or through the decades used to repair other buildings with, and mixed up. This complicates the whole thing to them about dating the excavations and knowing about whether the earliest building was a roman one or a celtic one etc., etc. It is also mentioned that Constantin the Great - re-build - the City of Autun in 296 A.D. (And this is important to consider.) And the Saracens also burnt it to ashes about 730 AD. So ordinary science do not known half of the story because of these events, and others. There was still some kinds of pagan worship in the area in the 4th century according to scholars - and likely even later on.
>
> Bibracte was where Autun is today before it was actually given its new name in the year 15 BCE. by the Roman leader Augustus and his friends. It seems reasonable to say this based on the size of Bibcrates alone - and also based on the seemingly fact that the city Bibcrates more or less slowly moved from from its original place to where Autun is before the city got its name in the year 15 BCE.
> - And whether there were Roman buildings in the same area were Autun was before Autun was named in 15 BCE? It seems likely. (If unlikely - please provided documentation...Govert?) Because Caesar treated the city mercifully in 52 BCE according to so-called exact modern science. And the Celtic culture was known still to be present in those decades. After 15 BCE the celtic culture gradually disappeared says the scholars - this fit with views which seems to be Blavatsky's - and which are mine. Some scholars mention that there was found more than one theatre in Autun and the nearby surroundings, - perhaps one at Bibcrates? What do you have on that?
> The huge main theatre is in fact undated. Most scholars say 1st century AD, but there are also signs on an earlier date. So the question remain open it seems. The Janus temple is also disputed with regard to dating - some say 1st century AD, and others add that there was a wooden celtic temple beneath the Janus Temple - and a theatre nearby it. (And scholars are known to be wrong when dating various events - and especially when there is - either reputation or a religious element at stake.)<<<
>
> Other references can be found in various libraries related to the site.
> I do not have access to them where I live. Others can dig the info out and seek the necessary verification on what I have written in the above. And what is hinted at in the online references given by me.
>
> I can only hope that the above is making it more easy for you and other readers to understand - my views and the present scholars.
> I do not think I need to repeat myself one more time. Just the fact that the article by Blavatsky was published posthumously, should be enough for you to rewrite your remarks Govert - if you are a sincere and honest person. But that is just my view. Others might disagree. The problem is in fact a minor one. And would not have mentioned it if I had known that it would require so much exchange of words to get my message across. The reason why, I respond again - is the obvious growing number of attempts on "character-assassinations" on Blavatsky given during the last two decades, (some of them generated by various Sects and also by Christian-related scholars). Many accusations of minor mistakes alleged to have been commited by Blavatsky are being accumulated and pandered of as valid or as important - and often - when taking dead-letter reading as the primary mode of reading. And I merely seek to keep the number of more or less wellmeant accusation where they belong - when they are incorrect. When they are correct and it can be proven - then you will have a willing listener. Your wellmeant attempt is just one single minor one, and written wellmeaningly seeking the truth, and we both know that. And I respect that. But I do simply not agree on your conclusion as you have put it on your website. And I think I rest safe in what I have written in the above - in saying that you are imprecise in your conclusion - or rather incorrect.
>
> I will not write more about this subject unless you can provide something more solid with regard to documentation on the issue in mention.
> I do hope that the above words settled this minor issue.
>
> All the above are of course just my views.
>
> M. Sufilight
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Govert Schuller
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 6:34 PM
> Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> Dear Morten,
>
> I have a hard time following your reasoning. And the snippets I do understand donÃâât seem to be relevant to the argument.
>
> Just as a reminder: the focus is on HBÃââs claims (by way of confirming Ragon) about Bibracte, not Autun.
>
> From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of M. Sufilight
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 3:49 PM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> A few views...
>
> On this you wrote in the below I will agree with you, almost entirely.
>
> And I will let the goddess rest with the scientists more or less ignorant views. Because not much is know about the transition between the Celtic period and the Roman one in Autun and Bibcrate according to themselves.
>
> I will however not over-estimate ordinary science too much - and then go underestimate occultism too much.
> But that is just me, who claim some knowledge about these things, although I do not know much about Autun, I am learning.
>
> Now I do not know all and everything...but try if the following is not following the truth...
> - And whether there were Roman buildings in the same area of Autun before Autun was named in 15 BCE? It seems likely. The Janus temple is one such to consider. And because Caesar treated the city mercifully in 52 BCE according to so-called exact modern science. And the Celtic culture was known still to be present in those decades. After 15 BCE the celtic culture gradually disappeared says the scholars - this fit with Blavatsky's views - and mine.
>
> - One problem ordinary scientists have today is that it is known that various buildings and statues has been removed to other locations or simply destroyed - or through the decades used to repair other buildings with. This complicates the whole thing for them about dating the excavated buildings and artifacts and knowing about whether the building actually was a roman one or a celtic one - or a mix - etc., etc.
> It is mentioned that Constantin the Great - re-build - the City of Autun in 290-300 A.D. And the Saracens about 730 AD. also burnt it to ashes. So ordinary science do not known half of the story because of these events, and others. There was still some kinds of pagan worships in the area in the 4th century and also later. The Theatre alone was able to support 17-20.000 people (!!!)
> The population must then at least be estimated to as much as 100.000 if not 500.000 people. And then one could take the local villages into account. But the last number is my estimate.
>
> Some scholars mention that there was found more than one theatre in Autun and the nearby surroundings, several in fact. What do you have on that?
>
> M. Sufilight
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Govert Schuller
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:16 PM
> Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> Dear Morten,
>
> That archeologists found a statuette of the goddess Bibracte in Autun has no relevance to the topic. When the Celtic Aedui tribe had to abandon Bibracte as its capital and settle in Autun, they just brought along their goddess. ThatÃââs all it tells us.
>
> http://www.celtnet.org.uk/gods_b/bibracte.html
>
> Meanwhile occultism has not yet evolved into a viable research program. There are interesting attempts to give it a footing, like in the work of Sheldrake, but it has not yet taken off. Meanwhile naturalistic science is just steaming ahead with impressive results and most scientists canÃâât be bothered to look into paranormal phenomena which might be connected with their discipline. On the other side there is a body of works from the skeptical corner trying to refute the possibility of occultism. But they, like Sheldrake, seem to operate at a hypothetical level of research (DanielÃââs step 2). And professional magicians and hypnotists can contribute to the venture by showing how certain phenomena could be faked.
>
> From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of M. Sufilight
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 2:09 PM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> A few views....
>
> As long as one considers a Posthumous article to constitute an evidence on the authors failure - I will have to disagree. And since you seem to disagre with me on this - what can I say?
>
> When people seek to turn black into white and white into black - I think that I know where I stand...
>
> And I have told this more than once. I think we then just will have to agree to disagree about whether one aught to read the words by Blavatsky litterally or not - and primarily by the use of scholarly knowledge or not - or instead primarily by the use of Akasa or not.
>
> And then there is the present - ordinary - scientific knowledge about the area Bibracte (even ordinary science have found a statue or statuette of the goddess of the same name - the goddess of Bibracte in Autun city - and this aught to tell us all something) - and - the knowledge of the Occultist.
>
> Let the ordinary scientist - reject Occultism - but as long as they have not researched and examined whether it exist or not - what kind of scientific advancement are they then promoting?
>
> As written in the Secret Doctrine, Vol. I., p. 640:
> Men of science will say: We deny, because nothing of the kind has ever come within the scope of our experience. But, as argued by Charles Richet, the physiologist: "So be it, but have you at least demonstrated the contrary? . . . Do not, at any rate, deny a priori. Actual Science is not sufficiently advanced to give you such right." ("La suggestion mentale et le calcul des probabilites.")
> http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume_I.htm
>
> I think I rest my case safely when I say that Occultism and the Esoteric path of the Arhat is a real thing.
> Simply, because to me, I speak out of knowledge. And let others prove me wrong i they are able to.
>
> M. Sufilight
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Govert Schuller
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:30 PM
> Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> Dear Morten,
>
> The article in question is quite straightforward in its claims. There is not much careful considering of possibilities. It just posits its claims as true with the self-assured confidence of a highly trained expert who is intimately familiar with the subject matter. You might wish she would have been more careful, but she wasnÃâât.
>
> From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of M. Sufilight
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 5:52 PM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> A few views...
> I think we then just will have to agree to disagree about whether one aught to read the words by Blavatsky litterally or not - and primarily by the use of scholarly knowledge or not - or instead primarily by the use of Akasa or not - and - especially here how one aught to read the text in mention by Blavatsky - and whether an article being published Posthumously should be given as a valid as a proof on Blavatsky's lack of wisdom and knowledge. Maybe the article was written "looking" in Ragon's work - and with the aim of later more careful checking on the Geographical area through the use of the Clairvoyant faculties? But the article never got finished for various reasons. And similar issues.
>
> M. Sufilight
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Govert Schuller
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:38 AM
> Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> Dear Morten,
>
> In all humbleness, I really do not think there is much wiggle room here regarding Celtic architecture (they didnÃâât build amphitheatres); or about archeology (they didnÃâât find Roman structures in Bibracte); or about the location of Autun in relation to Bibracte (they are not at the same spot). There is more wiggle room of course in how to assess HPBÃââs taking over of RagonÃââs mythic claims about Bibracte. To me it looks like myth-making. Maybe there are other explanations, like misreading the Akashic record.
>
> From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of M. Sufilight
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:36 PM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> Dear Govert and friends
>
> My views are:
>
> Now that you return my post attempting to refute it - I find myself in need to respond to you - although It might have been more polite on a private email.
>
> I think you aught to read my previous post again, and then read the words by Blavatsky just after quite by Ragon.
>
> Govert you write on your website (Note: some excellent photos is omitted here on the forum):
> "From what I read so far RagonÃââs claims made about Bibracte are quite erroneous or, in H.P.B.Ãââs words, ÃâÅutterly incorrectÃâÂ, as she qualified an other of his claims. Bibracte was a fortified hill-town and none of the grand structures, which Ragon writes about, were ever erected there. It looks like, and he is not the only one, that he confused Bibracte with the nearby town of Autun, which does have a big Roman amphitheatre, though it ÃâËonlyÃââ seats 17.000, and has a temple dedicated to Janus."
> "The problem here is that Autun did not exist before CaesarÃââs time as it was founded in AugustusÃââ reign replacing Bibracte as the capital of the Aedui. The other problem is that Ragon ascribes to the Celts feats of architecture and pastimes which are distinctly Roman and were quite out of reach for the more simple Celts."
> "It looks like H.P.B. was a little careless in taking over wholesale these claims by Ragon about Bibracte, even while she was aware of RagonÃââs shortcomings as a historian as she warned her readers that ÃâÅ[h]owever learned and erudite, some of the chronological mistakes of that author are very great.ÃâÂ
>
> What has to be done is to sort out in more detail all the claims and think through the possible implications of the findings, especially addressing the question whether H.P.B. was unto something, but was incorrect in certain details, or if she was constructing her own mythic historiography by selectively appropriating RagonÃââs Masonic (mis-)construals of history.
>
> One way or another the gap of cognitive dissonance between the Blavatskyan, emic, esoteric perception of history and the etic, scientific perception of history has to be bridged.
>
> Govert Schuller
> Wheaton, July, 2009"
> http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/Bibracte.htm
>
> When you write that "The problem here is that Autun did not exist before CaesarÃââs time as it was founded in AugustusÃââ reign replacing Bibracte as the capital of the Aedui. ---- and compare this sentence with what Blavatsky said in the article in mention after the quote by Ragon - namely: "The once majestic city, Bibractis, has now become Autun" --- I think it is you who aught to listen to Blavatsky's words and not your own. - The problem about the Celts architecture forwarded by Ragon - might be true - it might not - it depends on who deep Archaeologist have excavated beneath various tons of soil - at the proper places - in the region of Bibracte (Autun). Because Bibracte was certainly inhabited farther back in time. That is at least logical to me. - So I suggest, that we do not draw too hasty - scholarly - ordinary scientific conclusion based on - a lack of reading the Akasa. Do you not think so?
>
> THE LAST OF THE MYSTERIES IN EUROPE by Blavatsky
> "While SacrovirÃâ"chief of the Gauls, who revolted against Roman despotism under Tiberius, and was defeated by Silius in the year 21 of our eraÃâ"was burning himself alive with his fellow conspirators on a funeral pyre before the gates of the city, as Ragon tells us, the latter was sacked and plundered, and all her treasures of literature on the Occult Sciences perished by fire. The once majestic city, Bibractis, has now become Autun, Ragon explains."
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v14/ph_065.htm
>
> Blavatsky said: "The once majestic city, Bibractis, has now become Autun"
> This cannot imply what you say is true - if you read what Blavatsky actually are saying.
> _____
>
> And besides this - the arcticle by Blavatsky was a POSTHUMOUSLY published article. So I suggest, that you consider this Govert - before you throw the Old Lady down with shcolarly conclusions and wishfukl thinking. I am saying this knowing very well, that you are well-intentioned in what you have written and in your research - just like most of the members on this forum are.
> So I would not draw such hasty - conclusions Govert. All right?
>
> But maybe I have overlooked something?
> I will gladly welcome another view telling me I am wrong - if it is able to document its case and not only forward assertions so to put Blavatsky down.
> After all --- We can only learn.
>
> Alle the above are of course only views. Written in the best friendliness of the word.
>
> M. Sufilight
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Govert Schuller
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 7:50 PM
> Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> Regarding the issue of Bibracte and Autun:
>
> Bibracte did not ÃâËbecomeÃââ Autun by merely a change of name. Bibracte was a relatively simple, fortified Celtic village on a hill-top. Autun was a Roman town later established, 40 miles away from Bibracte, by the Romans. Ragon and HPB quite erroneously conflated the two. I tried to extract her from this error by some ingenious constructs, but failed, and had to conclude that HPB in this case was just wrong. Sorry.
>
> The implications of this error are as follows:
>
> 1) HPB did not have in this case a superior understanding of history than 19th century historians or Ragon, though she claims to have the ÃâËdramatic goodsÃââ on the real story of Bibracte and its esoteric relevance for the deep history of the TS.
>
> 2) It is possible that the error might not just be an innocent slip, but a deliberate act of myth-making.
>
> 3) If it was an act of myth-making then the meme of the Centennial Effort becomes questionable.
>
> Bibracte: Last Center of Celtic Occultism?
>
> <http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/Bibracte.htm> http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/Bibracte.htm
>
> From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of M. Sufilight
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:08 PM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> Dear Govert and friends
>
> My views are:
>
> Thanks. Interesting reply.
>
> I am not sure why the authors you mentioned should be important. A number of the seem merely to be more or less ordinary scholars or almost.
> I have read info on some of the authors and also some of their books.
>
> Why not go for the sources mentioned by Blavatsky with regard to the 100 year cycle and cycles in general?
>
> You have a link to an article named "The Centennial Cycle" by David Reigle on your website about the 100 year cycle...What about it?-------
> I think by the way that Autun was called Bibicrate in the old days - so Blavatsky was not wrong at all, that is - in that sense. Bibicrate was also a Goddess bwfore the later name of the town called Autun. - Blavatsky said: "The once majestic city, Bibractis, has now become Autun" in the named article just after the quote from Ragon...So I do think your judgement is not quite fair in this regard? - I do not hope you mind me mentioning it....
>
> David Reigle wrote in "The Centennial Cycle" in his defence of the 100 year cycle mentioned by Blavatsky:
> "We may therefore consider again the idea that the coming
> of Tibetan Buddhism to the West was the ArhatÃââs attempt to
> enlighten the white barbarians for the twentieth century."
>
> M. Sufilight says:
> But where was the "Torch-bearer" giving irrefutable proof on the Science of Gupta-Vidya?
>
> No-where in David Reigles book - it seems. Unless he thinks that "that the coming
> of Tibetan Buddhism to the West" has given irrefutable proof on the Science of Gupta-Vidya.
> I think they have not. But I am open for info - if any one can show me the evidence on this.
>
> Maybe the programe was changed - or - no "Torch-bearer" of the mentioned kind arrived? - Or the torch-bearer was Alice A. Bailey - but she can hardly be accused of givning irrefutable proof on the Science of Gupta-Vidya either in the book A Treatise on Cosmic Fire (given to be written by the Torch-bearer Alice A. Bailey (and her later disclosed Master D.K.)...)
> Each Seeker has his or her belief or asserted knowledge....But what about actual and genuine knowledge and irrefutable proof on the Science of Gupta-Vidya?
>
> The gathering or outpouring of new spiritual activity mentioned to take place every 100 years or so - could it - bsides humanity's karma - have something to do with the Sun-spots - and Blavatsky's words......
>
> H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
> " This, Science will not deny, since Astronomy knows of the fixed cycle of eleven years when the number of solar spots increases, * which is due to the contraction of the Solar HEART"
> "* Not only does it not deny the occurrence, though attributing it to a wrong cause, as always, each theory contradicting every other, (see the theories of Secchi, of Faye, and of Young), the spots depending on the superficial accumulation of vapours cooler than the photosphere (?), etc., etc., but we have men of science who astrologize upon the spots. Professor Jevons attributes all the great periodical commercial crises to the influence of the Sun spots every eleventh cyclic year. (See his "Investigations into Currency and Finance.") This is worthy of praise and encouragement surely."
> http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume_I.htm
>
> All the above are however just my views. I just wrote them so to if possible to help you and other readers.
>
> M. Sufilight
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Govert Schuller
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:39 PM
> Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> From the pov of the history of ideas applied to HPBÃââs Theosophy there are many sources which can be consulted, some better than others. One of the great studies is GodwinÃââs ÃâÅThe Theosophical Enlightenment.Ãâ Then we have of course the work by K Paul Johnson, Deveney, Martin Brauen, Santucci, Olaf Hammer and others in the academic realm. Then youÃââll have to incorporate some findings by HPBÃââs skeptical biographers like Meade and Williams. And very carefully one will have to revaluate the use of the outright detractors like the Coulombs, Hodgson, Solofyoff, Coleman and plenty of others. Another source of HPB might have been the genre of Gothic literature with Bulwer-Lytton as the most important writer. Then you have to look at HPBÃââs precursors and contemporaries like Higgins, Kardec, A.J. Davis, and very importantly Emma Hardinge Britten.
>
> From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of M. Sufilight
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 7:09 PM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> Dear Govert
>
> My views are:
>
> Thanks.
> The below words is a different post and an extension of the post mentioned with the 11 still unfinished pages, where I compared the candidates with each other, in the name of comparative studying.
>
> Govert wrote:
> "IÃââm now more interested how that idea (and ideal) came
> historically into being, how it was disseminated and how HPB ran with it and
> presented her own version."
>
> M. Sufilight says:
> Interesting. Are there any info at all on this from other authors in the past?
>
> I found this one apparently written by you:
> http://www.theosophicalinstitute.org/medialibrary/pdf/5042ho.pdf
>
> A few words about the above PDF-file:
> About J. Krishnamurti I would say Successful in his world and among his followers. But he failed as Avatar (World Teacher) on a more global scale. As an ordinary "Torch-bearer", he did not give Irrefutable Proof on the science on Gupta-Vidya - more than many other contemporary teachers did. And I think this last sentence can be documented. But as I said - it depends on how people understand the term "Irrefutable Proof on the science on Gupta-Vidya". No doubt the term aught to be defined as Blavatsky did - as the science on Atma-Vidya (Gupta-Vidya or Greek Gnosis - and this is an esoteric and exoteric psychological doctrine and a philosophical one as well, also known as Occult teachings - and Secret Knowledge and more). And this implies - a proof on Atma-Vidya as a Science, not as a mere belief, as I see it, analogically on various levels of existence, - just like Blavatsky sought to give a proof on the fact that physical matter is not dead matter - and that all and everything is alive. The proof must therefore logically deal with the Science on Psychology within the Atma-Vidya science - through Altruism of the heart. Well as I see it. More documentation is sought by given the below quotes.
>
> THE SCIENCE ON GUPTA-VIDYA (ie. AMTA-VIDYA or GREEK GNOSIS)
> In the below I have "excavated" a number (not all of them) of the relevant quotes on how Blavatsky actually defined the term Gupta-Vidya (ie. Atma-Vidya and Greek Gnosis - as is shown in the below quotes.) There are more info on for instance the term "Gnosis" in Blavatsky's Collected Writings. There are other terms used by Blavatsky than these...She delibarately used several terms for the same idea? - so to make it more difficult for the readers to understand - but certainly also so to awaken the intuition - as she mentioned in the beginning of the Secret Doctrine...More ordinary systematic philosophical written teachings most often merely awaken the intellect.
>
> I am, after the quotes, making a conclusion on why the Science of Psychology necessarily one way or the other must play a Key role in all these things...with regard to the Science of Gupta-Vidya...well as I see it.
> __________________________________________________________
>
> H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
> "Atma-Vidya," or the true Spiritual and Divine wisdom" (SD. Vol. I. p. 169)
> .......
> "And how many are capable of bringing themselves to even a superficial comprehension of Atma-Vidya (Spirit-Knowledge), or what is called by the Sufis, Rohanee! " (SD. Vol. I. p. 199)
> .......
> " Hence Esoteric philosophy passes over the necessarianism of this purely metaphysical conception, and calls the first one, only, the Ever Existing. This is the view of every one of the six great schools of Indian philosophyÃâ"the six principles of that unit body of WISDOM of which the "gnosis," the hidden knowledge, is the seventh."
> (SD. Vol. I. p. 278 - Gnosis is Gupta-Vidya as later quotes will show the readers.)
>
> .......
> "Gupta Vidya (secret knowledge)" (SD. Vol. I. p. 498)
>
> OCCULTISM VERSUS THE OCCULT ARTS
> ........."and in true OCCULTISM."... "This last word is certainly misleading, translated as it stands from the compound word Gupta-Vidya, ÃâÅSecret Knowledge.Ãâ But the knowledge of what? Some of the Sanskrit terms may help us."
> .......
> "ATMA-VIDYA, a term which is translated simply ÃâÅknowledge of the Soul,Ãâ true Wisdom by the Orientalists, but which means far more.
> This last is the only kind of Occultism that any theosophist who admires Light on the Path, and who would be wise and unselfish, ought to strive after."
> .......
> "All the others may be mastered and results obtained, whether good, bad, or indifferent; but Atma-Vidya sets small value on them. It includes them all and may even use them occasionally, but it does so after purifying them of their dross, for beneficent purposes, and taking care to deprive them of every element of selfish motive. Let us explain: any man or woman can set himself or herself to study one or all of the above specified ÃâÅOccult ArtsÃâ without any great previous preparation, and even without adopting any too restraining mode of life. One could even dispense with any lofty standard of morality. In the last case, of course, ten to one the student would blossom into a very decent kind of sorcerer, and tumble down headlong into black magic."
> .......
> "For we say it again, hypnotism and vivisection as practised in such schools, are Sorcery pure and simple, minus a knowledge that the Voodoos and Dugpas enjoy, and which no Charcot-Richet can procure for himself in fifty years of hard study and experimental observation. Let then those who will dabble in magic, whether they understand its nature or not, but who find the rules imposed upon students too hard, and who, therefore, lay Atma-Vidya or Occultism asideÃâ"go without it."
> .......and directly leading to.......
> "Let them know at once and remember always, that true Occultism or Theosophy is the ÃâÅGreat Renunciation of SELF,Ãâ unconditionally and absolutely, in thought as in action. It is ALTRUISM, and it throws him who practises it out of calculation of the ranks of the living altogether. ÃâÅNot for himself, but for the world, he lives,Ãâ as soon as he has pledged himself to the work. Much is forgiven during the first years of probation. But, no sooner is he ÃâÅacceptedÃâ than his personality must disappear, and he has to become a mere beneficent force in Nature."
> .......
> "This is the Gate of the Occult arts, practised for selfish motives and in the absence of the restraining and beneficent influence of ATMA-VIDYA. We are in the Kali Yuga and its fatal influence is a thousand-fold more powerful in the West than it is in the East; hence the easy preys made by the Powers of the Age of Darkness in this cyclic struggle, and the many delusions under which the world is now labouring. "
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v9/y1888_036.htm
>
> THE BEACON OF THE UNKNOWN
> "It is written in an old book of occult studies:
> ÃâÅGupta-Vidyà(Secret Science) is an attractive sea, but stormy and full of rocks. The navigator who risks himself thereon, if he be not wise and full of experience,* will be swallowed up, wrecked upon one of the thousand submerged reefs. "
> .......
> " The gnosis preceded that era, for it was the direct continuation of the Gupta-Vidyà(ÃâÅsecret knowledgeÃâ or ÃâÅknowledge of BrahmanÃâÂ) of ancient India, transmitted through Egypt; just as the theurgy of the Philaletheians was the continuation of the Egyptian mysteries. In any case, the point from which this diabolic magic starts, is the Supreme Divinity; its end and final goal, the union of the divine spark which animates man with the parent-flame which is the Divine All."
> .......
> "We are accused of mystery, and we are reproached with making a secret of the higher Theosophy. We confess that the doctrine which we call gupta-vidyÃÂ (secret science) is only for the few. But who were the masters in ancient times who did not keep their teachings secret, for fear they would be profaned?"
> .......
> "That Gnosis represents the aggregate of all the sciences, the accumulated knowledge [savoir] of all the gods and demi-gods incarnated in former times upon the earth. There are some who would like to see in these the fallen angels and the enemy of mankind; those sons of God who, seeing that the daughters of men were fair, took them for wives and imparted to them all the secrets of heaven and earth. Let them do so. We believe in AvatÃÂras and in divine dynasties, in an epoch when there were in fact ÃâÅgiants upon the earth,Ãâ but we emphatically repudiate the idea of ÃâÅfallen angelsÃâ and of Satan and his army.
> ÃâÅWhat then is your religion or your belief?Ãâ we are asked. ÃâÅWhat is your favourite study?ÃâÂ
>
> ÃâÅTRUTH,Ãâ we reply. Truth wherever we find it; for, like Ammonius Saccas, our great ambition would be to reconcile the different religious systems, to help each one to find the truth in his own religion, while obliging him to recognize it in that of his neighbour. What matters the name if the thing itself is essentially the same?"
> "Theosophy being the way that leads to Truth, in every religion as in every science, occultism is, so to say, the touchstone and universal solvent."
> "In the T.S. every Fellow is at liberty to study what he pleases, provided he does not venture into unknown paths which would of a certainty lead him to black magic, the sorcery against which Ãâliphas LÃÂvi so openly warned the public. The occult sciences are dangerous for him who understands them imperfectly. Anyone who gave himself to their practice ALONE would run the risk of becoming insane and those who study them would do well to unite in small groups of from three to seven. These groups ought to be of uneven numbers in order to have more power; a group, however little cohesion it may possess, forming a single united body, wherein the senses and perceptions of the single units complement and mutually help each other, one member supplying to another the quality in which he is wantingÃâ"such a group will always end by becoming a perfect and invincible body. ÃâÅUnion is strength.Ãâ " -------------- !!!!!!!!
> "* The meaning of the word VidyÃÂ can only be rendered by the Greek term gnosis, the knowledge of hidden and spiritual things; or again, the knowledge of Brahma, that is to say, of the God that contains all the gods. " (Uppercase added on the word "alone" in the above by M. Sufilight.)
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v11/y1889_033.htm
>
> NEO-BUDDHISM
> "But the Upanishads and the Kabbalah require for their complete understanding a key, and the latter can be found only in the hands of the ÃâÅinitiatedÃâ Adepts of the Gupta-VidyÃÂ, the secret science, i.e., the authors of the books on the VedÃÂnta.*"
> "* As a proof of the fact that it is precisely in the Upanishads that we have to look for the source of all the succeeding systems of philosophy of Asia Minor and Europe."......."The great teachers of this highest knowledge are not Brahmans but Kshatriyas, and Brahmans are continually represented as going to the great Kshatriya kings (especially Janaka of Videha), to become their pupils"
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v12/y1890_039.htm
> (Ie. Buddhism, Vedanta, Krishna-religions, etc. etc. all have their origin from the Upanishads one way or the other..:! Even so the Upanishads are not the oldest system and the present versions needs a key to be understood completely.)
>
> INTRODUCTORY NOTES TO H.P.B.Ãââs COMMENTARY ON THE PISTIS SOPHIA.*
> "As a name, Gnosticism is derived from the Greek gnosis (, ÃâÅknowledge,Ãâ more specifically spiritual knowledge or esoteric wisdom, a knowledge not attainable by ordinary intellectual processes, and only to be gained by mystical enlightenment or the awakening of the Buddhic elements in man."
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v13/ps_13.htm
> (---elsewhere by Blavatsky also: "True Christianity, died with the Gnosis.")
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> M. Sufilight says:
> Now the last quote in the below is very interesting - to me - and contain some of the main the views and aims I am constantly seeking to get across, ...with regard to any "Torch-bearer" teachings on the Science (not belief) on Gupta-Vidya (ie. Atma-Vidya or Greek Gnosis, see quotes in the above...) And I seek to do this from my heart, well-meaningly, seeking to help us all....although my use of words and choice of words might be problematic to some from time to time....perhaps mostly those who are intolerant in their altruism. Esoteric Psychology from the heart - also self-consciousness of the heart - in a sense a doctrine on Transpersonal Psychology of the heart, if I may use such an expression, and similar ones. As said in the below - prejudice - has to be removed.
>
> PSYCHIC AND NOETIC ACTION
> "Useless to say that we decline the compromise. It is quite possibleÃâ"Ãâ"nay, probable and almost unavoidableÃâ"Ãâ"that ÃâÅthe mistakes madeÃâ in the rendering of such abstruse metaphysical tenets as those contained in Eastern Occultism, should be ÃâÅfrequent and often important.Ãâ But then all such have to be traced back to the interpreters, not to the system itself. They have to be corrected on the authority of the same Doctrine, checked by the teachings grown on the rich and steady soil of Gupta Vidya, not by the speculations that blossom forth today, to die tomorrowÃâ"Ãâ"on the shifting sands of modern scientific guesswork, especially in all that relates to psychology and mental phenomena. Holding to our motto, ÃâÅThere is no religion higher than truth,Ãâ we refuse most decidedly to pander to physical science. Yet, we may say this: If the so-called exact sciences limited their activity only to the physical realm of nature; if they concerned themselves strictly with surgery, chemistryÃâ"Ãâ"up to its legitimate boundaries, and with physiology so far as the latter relates to the structure of our corporeal frame, then the Occultists would be the first to seek help in modern sciences, however many their blunders and mistakes. But once that overstepping material Nature the physiologists of the modern ÃâÅanimalisticÃâÂ* school pretend to meddle with, and deliver ex cathedra dicta on, the higher functions and phenomena of the mind, saying that a careful analysis brings them to a firm conviction that no more than the animal is man a free agent, far less a responsible oneÃâ"Ãâ"then the Occultist has a far greater right than the average modern ÃâÅIdealistÃâ to protest. And the Occultist asserts that no materialistÃâ"Ãâ"a prejudiced and one-sided witness at bestÃâ"Ãâ"can claim any authority in the question of mental physiology, or that which is now called by him the physiology of the soul. No such noun can be applied to the word ÃâÅsoul,Ãâ unless, indeed, by soul only the lower, psychic mind is meant, or that which develops in man (proportionally with the perfection of his brain) into intellect, and in the animal into a higher instinct. But since the great Charles Darwin taught that ÃâÅour ideas are animal motions of the organ of senseÃâ everything becomes possible to the modern physiologist.
> Thus, to the great distress of our scientifically inclined Fellows, it is once more LuciferÃââs duty to show how far we are at loggerheads with exact science, or shall we say, how far the conclusions of that science are drifting away from truth and fact. By ÃâÅscienceÃâ we mean, of course, the majority of the men of science; the best minority, we are happy to say, is on our side, at least as far as free will in man and the immateriality of the mind are concerned. The study of the ÃâÅPhysiologyÃâ of the Soul, of the Will in man and of his higher Consciousness from the standpoint of genius and its manifesting faculties, can never be summarized into a system of general ideas represented by brief formulae; no more than the psychology of material nature can have its manifold mysteries solved by the mere analysis of its physical phenomena. There is no special organ of will, any more than there is a physical basis for the activities of self-consciousness."
>
> "But if the question is further pressed as to the physical basis for the activities of self-consciousness, no answer can be given or even suggested. From its very nature, that marvelous verifying actus of mind in which it recognizes itself as the subject of its own states, and also recognizes the states as its own, can have no analogous or corresponding material substratum. It is impossible to specify any physiological process representing this unifying actus; it is even impossible to imagine how the description of any such process could be brought into intelligible relation with this unique mental power.*
>
> Thus, the whole conclave of psycho-physiologists may be challenged to correctly define Consciousness, and they are sure to fail because Self-consciousness belongs alone to man and proceeds from the SELF, the higher Manas. Only, whereas the psychic element (or Kama-manas)Ãâ is common to both the animal and the human beingÃâ"Ãâ"the far higher degree of its development in the latter resting merely on the great perfection and sensitiveness of his cerebral cellsÃâ"Ãâ"no physiologist, not even the cleverest, will ever be able to solve the mystery of the human mind, in its highest spiritual manifestation, or in its dual aspect of the psychic and the noÃÂtic (or the manasic),Ãâ or even to comprehend the intricacies of the former on the purely material planeÃâ"Ãâ"unless he knows something of, and is prepared to admit the presence of this dual element. This means that he would have to admit a lower (animal), and a higher (or divine) mind in man, or what is known in Occultism as the ÃâÅpersonalÃâ and the ÃâÅimpersonalÃâ Egos. For, between the psychic and the noÃÂtic, between the Personality and the Individuality, there exists the same abyss as between a ÃâÅJack the Ripper,Ãâ and a holy Buddha. Unless the physiologist accepts all this, we say, he will ever be led into a quagmire. We intend to prove it."
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v12/y1890_040.htm
>
> M. Sufilight says:
> The above was written in 1890, when the old lady probably knew she was not going to live many days more - This is among the strongest indications or clear presentations by Blavatsky on that the Science on Psychology - necessarily will have to be dealt with when learning about the Science of Gupta-Vidya !!! - Esoteric Psychology primarily of course. Not without understand basic exoteric psychological knowledge of today - how can one claim real Knowledge of Esoteric Psychology?)
>
> Therefore, as I see it, one could easily be lead to call the Science (not belief) of Atma-Vidya (Gupta-Vidya) - secret knowledge on Altruism - or - better the Science (not belief) on Heartflow-Psychology of the Self (Atma) to use a more down to earth expression, which perhaps i more easily understood. And this last term is based on all the above quotes.- The Science of Gupta-Vidya is as Blavatsky said "the awakening of the Buddhic elements in man". (Se quote in the above.) - And this is an important statement ! ---- Because as I understand it - and I am not alone in this - the awakening of the Buddhic element - and the proof of its existence - can only occur through a psychological change in individual - through the heart of compassion and altruism, and knowledge of the science of Psychology - esoterical and exoterical. And the Science of Psychology is the cornerstone in proving this --- primarily in the esoterical sense of course. (Also: "But as the Gnosis is the Science pertaining to our Higher Self, as blind faith is a matter of temperament and emotionalism" BCW. Vol. XIV, p. 304) ---- It has been proven in many instances - that among the use of written material - Zen Koans, fairytales, short stories, proverbs, fables, or as in Blavatsky Secret Doctrine - myths and legends - are far better instruments in provoking the theosophical exoerience in the Seeker - or what we call the awakening of the Buddhic Element in man - Atma-Vidya. Mere intellecutalizing of the whole affair is only a premilinary step - as well as psychological knowledge - self-consciousness. Yet, even so there are many varied methods - which can be used, and combinations of allegories and systematic teachings can also be helpful..
>
> I wrote it so that you, Govert and others might be able to find it useful - in giving an even better evaluating J. Krishnamurti's role with regard to Gupta-Vidya teachings. And perhaps one from the above quotes will understand that J. Krishnamurti's solitude path is not - quite adequate enough. But again all the above in this post - are of course just my humble views - and I will gladly welcome - something that can improve it - also while showing me wrong in my views.
> _______________
>
> All wrong-doing arises because of mind.
> If mind is transformed can wrong-doing remain?
> - The Buddha
>
> M. Sufilight
> (True love has no limits.And is always tolerant.)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Govert Schuller
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:08 PM
> Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> Dear Morten,
>
> Thanks for your relative short answer. 8^)
>
> Your thoughts are your own here and IÃââm not in the position, time-wise, to
> debate them.
>
> I did develop some criteria by which to recognize either the torch-bearer
> and/or the 20th century effort and evaluated different candidates according
> to the criteria. Will share that later.
>
> At this moment IÃââm not looking for any irrefutable proof for the, or a,
> Gupta-Vidya. IÃââm now more interested how that idea (and ideal) came
> historically into being, how it was disseminated and how HPB ran with it and
> presented her own version.
>
> Best
>
> Govert
>
> From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf Of M. Sufilight
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:32 AM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> Dear Govert anf friends
>
> My views are:
>
> I am a bit late with a reply...at least more than usual...
>
> I am contemplating an longer answer than this one as we speak. I have
> written 11 pages answering your a, b and c, but I have cut it short in the
> below. It takes some time to reach a clear conclusion - there are so many
> angles to consider you know - and also because I am in a learning proces.
> I think views differ on who fits the bill best with regard to the so-called
> "Torch-bearer" title mentioned by Blavatsky in her book the Secret Doctrine,
> vol. I, p. xxxviii.
>
> The likely candidates are among the most often mentioned the following:
> Whether it was J. Krishnamurti (d. 1986), Alice A. Bailey (d. 1949), S.
> Subramania Iyer (d. 1924) and his Avatar.
> Ananda Tara Shan (claimed to be Blavatsky re-incarnated...I doubt it.) (d.
> 2002), Sathya Sai Baba (d. 2011) or another possible candidate (just name
> one and I will add the person) ...will as a minimum have to be compared
> before we reach a more clear picture on this...Well as I see it.
>
> First. With regard to the "Torch-Bearer" idea - the main focus is, as I see
> it, to always keep in mind that Altruism is the core of the matter here, And
> that Altruism, as I see it for logical reasons, never will succeed in being
> promoted without a Psychological Change - ie. Psychological Knowledge - and
> therefore also awareness about the Science on Psychology (exoteric and
> esoteric) and the Science Subtle Mind Control - especially within religions
> - ie. taking into account whether one promotes a sectarian or non-sectarian
> doctrine - for instance a doctrine about a "Torch-bearer". Both are Sciences
> - not beliefs. And this is also important. --- So I am not about to seek to
> promote one or another Guru for the readers in this post - using ann
> approach which is not taking the Science of Subtle Mind Control into account
> - when answering your interesting post Govert. It think thÃÂs is important to
> centemplate.
>
> And because of this - the angle - used to approach the issue discussed -
> "Torch-bearer" or Maitreya or not - one aught therefore as I see it - to
> take the Science of Subtle Mind Control into account - and - avoid the risk
> of promoting one of the usual personality cults which - perhaps -could be
> emanating from such an exchange like the present one we have. Because it
> must also be true - that each individuals view about the issue - certainly
> might differ because of their own level of being Subtly Mind Controlled ---
> or not. And since it is subtle - each of us - might be victim of it without
> actually being aware of it. So I will keep these preliminary points into
> account when we I proceed. I will mentioned and name some of the Authors on
> the Science of Subtle Mind Control within ordinary science and spiritual
> science when asked about.
>
> My humble conclusion is - that all the above mentioned Candidates - did a
> poor job on the explaining the Science of Subtle Mind Control. But maybe
> that was not their task - karmically speaking - who actually knows?
> Almost none of the above candidates gave the Irrefutable proof on the
> science called Gupta-Vidya (ie. Atma-Vidya). Perhaps Sai Baba fits the bill
> better than any other candidate. But then again - either he was the greatest
> conman in the last century or else he was the greatest Occulist - with
> regard to be showing signs on Extra Sensory Preseption. Most people would
> oppose this. I would not say that J. Krishnamurti taught more than Sai Baba
> on the science of Atma-Vidya - and - others in the Alice A. Bailey camp
> would claim that Alice A. Bailey did so - despite some of us find this view
> silly.
>
> --- Union is Strength or Solitude is Strength - that is a vital question?
> ---
> And J. Krishnamurti was, as I see it, more or less clumsy in teaching the
> doctrine forwarded by Blavatsky on why the TS was founded: Union is Strength
> when one promote altruism (!!!) He seemed to have taught - Solitude is
> strength instead, (An odd doctrine to promote by an alleged World Teacher of
> the Age. - Any comments?). - The actual truth is - BOTH - extrovert and
> introvert is strength. Simple logic tells us this. One could say that the TS
> for various reasons - being non-sectarian and all - to a certain extend
> omitted that part of the equation called solitude. J. Krishnamurti omitted
> the idea that Union is strength. - Guru's are crutches and similar oneliners
> coming from his mouth. - But I give the Theosophical Society the upper hand
> here - because it was also said, that not all belong as members of the
> Society, and, that, altruism sometimes is best promoted in solitude. And on
> top of that this was only mentioned by some members of the Theosophical
> Society, which ORIGINALLY was an Absolutely Non-sectarian Society - with no
> Solitude Guru - who reject all other Guru's or crutches but his own voice -
> or at least was so clumsy as to give the expression that this was his
> message. And that all spiritual organisations in fact was more or less no
> good - mere sects and all. - And then afterwards he went and created hos -
> own - so to speak Sectarian - Childrens Schools with the other hand - just
> to in his last years of his life to end up in a trial with his best friend
> Rajagopal - on rather trivial matters - compared to a geuine Avatar -
> consciousness - or even that of a Master.
>
> But what is it to give Irrefutable proof on Gupta-Vidya (ie. Atma-Vidya)???
> I think when this is agreed upon - some of the above mentioned candidates
> will vanish - if not all of them. And your questions a, b, and c - will be
> more easy to answer.
> And Blavatsky did not say that the "Torch-bearer" inevitably would arrive,
> (See Sd. Vol. I, p. xxxviii).
> So what is the answer among the readers - and - you Govert on Gupta-Vidya
> and what is "Irrefutable proof", in what sense is it to be understood?
>
> M. Sufilight
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Govert Schuller
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 7:49 PM
> Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> Dear Morton,
>
> Thanks for your long reply. I'll try to be brief. Keep in mind that the big
> questions in this matter are a) whether the project/program with K was
> genuine or not, b) whether it was successful or not (with the chance of it
> being not genuine but still successful), and I'll add c) whether HPB's
> Torch-bearer prophecy/program was genuine or not (with the possibility that
> the program was one of HPB's concoctions but found a surprising fulfillment
> in K).
>
> For starters, the following statements would be in support of the idea that
> HPB's program was genuine, that it was implemented with K and somehow
> succeeded.
>
> 1) The words "World Teacher" or "Messiah" to designate the expected
> "Torch-bearer of Truth" are not mine but were used by CWL and AB. One
> Theosophist (Jean Overton Fuller) argued that the project with K was genuine
> but that the CWL/AB accretions were unnecessary and were legitimately tossed
> out by K.
>
> 2) You posit that the Torch-bearer, to be genuine and acceptable in
> your conceptualization, should have taught a psychological key promoting
> psychological change, non-sectarianism and altruism. One could argue that
> Krishnamurti's mature teachings fits the bill quite nicely and is quite free
> from "any more or less emotional-wave related Savior sectarian doctrine."
>
> 3) K himself, being arguably the ultimate insider of the whole saga,
> claimed in a somewhat puzzling and indirect manner the status of being the
> expected Torch-bearer of Truth. He said: "Mrs. Besant intended the land at
> Adyar [the T.S. international headquarters] to be meant for the teaching.
> The Theosophical Society has failed, the original purpose is destroyed." I
> argue in my paper on K that this statement is structurally congruent with
> HPB's Torch-bearer program for the TS.
>
> 4) Nobody else has come as close as K to fulfill HPB's Torch-bearer
> prophecy/program.
>
> There are other sets of statements to be made from different positions. I
> have argued for a long time that the project with K was genuine but had
> failed and that Cyril Scott, David Anrias, Geoffrey Hodson and Elizabeth
> Clare Prophet had the correct evaluation of what had gone wrong. The
> skeptical position in regards to HPB would put the whole narrative into
> question as a series of concoctions, delusions and manipulations, a
> perspective I'm seriously exploring.
>
> Best
>
> Govert
>
> From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On
> Behalf Of M. Sufilight
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 4:19 PM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> Dear Govert and friends
>
> My views are:
>
> I will here in the below seek to help you in understanding my view on the
> matter by writing at least a few pages on it all.
> I also write so that other Seekers might benefit from it all. (I can only
> recommend a research in the references given.)
>
> I understand that you forward this as a proof on you assertion.
> But, I think that you misjudge the old lady - Blavatsky - a bit when you go
> and interpret this as if such a "torch-bearer" should be a Messiah or World
> Teacher - let alone named Maitreya or Christ. Because this was not the words
> - chosen by Blavatsky, but the words chosen by you it seems. And I am sure
> that Blavatsky would have chosen at different kind of formulation if she
> meant what you clearly seem to imply.
> And the below quotes from her hand - should settle this question clearly and
> strongly enough.(Annie Besant's views are merely her own - I am not aware of
> any documentation supporting her claim that Blavatsky had such a view as her
> own - as stated in the footnote - and nothing is - clearly - mentioned by
> Blavatsky and others about that the MAIN reason for founding the
> Theosophical Society was to prepare for a Messiah --- The Original Objects
> given in 1875 is here:
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/gfkforum/ourdir.htm#Preamble --- "no
> creed to disseminate"...etc. etc.)
>
> The "torch-bearer" in mention - would therefore as I see it simply be a
> Bodhisattva or one of the initiated Chelas, who would be chosen for such a
> task. A role she claimed for Cagliostro and the Count St. Germain in the
> 18th century. (See primarily "Chelas And Lay Chelas" by Blavatsky) And her
> self no doubt in the 19th century. The one claimed to have --- possibly ---
> arrived in the 20th century - I have not discovered yet, although I have my
> ideas. But the teachings must have dealt with the science on psychology - in
> a very profound manner, and seven-fold too. More in the below on this.
>
> We aught to bear in mind - that such a one only would arrive according to
> Blavatsky --- "If the present attempt, in the form of our Society, succeeds
> better than
> its predecessors have done" ---- We can easily question whether is has
> succeeded better or not. And aught perhaps to do so.
>
> (((----- Other reference related to all the above are the following: ---
> BCW, Vol. 1 p. 141 --- and --- BCW, Vol. 12. p. 81, "Kenneth MacKenzie has
> well proven that Cagliostro had never mixed himself up with political
> intrigue-the very soul of the activities of the Jesuits." ----this one was
> for the Alice A. Bailey camp --- See Mahatma LETTER No. LXV --- See also
> "Theosophical Glossary", 1892 at "St. Germain" - the second world war
> predicted by Blavatsky and John King's portrait did it as well -
> http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/images/johnking.jpg - with the Swastica and
> Jew Star and all. The Law of Karma will not bend, and the negative magicians
> have their fall. But these are my views, and somebody will say that I
> interpret too much in alle this. -----)))
>
> The teaching forwarded by such a "Torch-bearer" (not a Messiah mind you) in
> mention, would no doubt give emphasis on the Psychological Key to the Secret
> Doctrine of all ages - also as a natural result a doctrine giving emphasis
> on Atma-Vidya (Gupta-Vidya, the same). Also called the "mystical" or moral
> key - the first key that need to be turned - Because there cannot be any
> real Altruism promoted without a PSYCHOLOGICAL CHANGE in the Individual.
> This must be clear. And since 1888 - the Science of Psychology (therefore
> both esoteric and exoteric !!!) has made its - slowly and almost invisible -
> almost "french" entree - in the Western Hemisphere and the Eastern as well,
> and North and South, - and the percentage of human beings being able to read
> and write on globe as such has increased quite visibly. Taking this into
> account aught to give the readers an idea about what such a Torch-bearer
> necessarily must teach - IF - he or she should arrive and karma will permit
> such an arrival - or has arrived. - And the science on Subtle Mind Control -
> would no doubt be - carefully and efficiently - taken into account - when
> such a doctrine was or would be forwarded. - Just like the scientific
> doctrine on "matter" and "substance" was dealt very much with by Blavatsky
> in her book the Secret Doctrine. This seem pretty logical.
> ---- Others disagree on the above. And those who disagree most often - do
> not know a trifle about the psychological science or the psychological
> science on Subtle Mind Control. A science - not a belief. And this science
> in our times - is the Psychological Key - and - A Key to the esoteric
> Psychology. (The reason why the Psychological Key is important is also seen
> here: "Esoteric Character Of The Gospels" by Blavatsky, CBW, VII, p. 182 .
> "The first key that one has to use to unravel the dark secrets" .......et
> seq. - and the rest.... --- and from this article and other papers -
> historical evidence about the Mysteries through the centuries - and - by
> analogical contemplations - one will see that the "new" science of
> psychology (both esoterical and exoterical) is the next important step on
> this planet for humanity. Today we have psychology creeping in all and
> everywhere. - At work in nearly all the profit scheming companies, in nearly
> all the alternative treatments of all sorts (hundred years ago - the
> soothsayers and "quacks" operated differently - smile), coaching workshops,
> spin among politicians and civil servants, Even the dogmatic religions had
> to take psychology seriously, although unwillingly as usual. - And it
> arrived really visibly as officially mentioned in the 1879 or 1880 or so -
> on a wave running parallel with the formation of the Theosophical Society.
> So you see - there is more than one thing going on on this our little planet
> - while cycle of evolution goes on - with little sweet babies getting born,
> grow up and begin to walk, become adults, get old and die - all the many
> lifes that constantly arrive and depart on this planet or world - and the
> lokas - with the eleusian fields, hades, "walhalla", devachan and all that.)
>
> All the above ---- still does not remove the fact - I questioned you about
> Govert - that the Theosophical Society was PRIMARILY founded so to promote
> altruism. Not not primarily so to prepare the arrival of a Messiah. So the
> founding of The Theosophical Society aught certainly not to be connected
> with any more or less emotional-wave related Savior sectarian doctrine in
> any manner what so ever. This is there I disagreed with you.
> This you not see this?
>
> And if an Avatar arrives - the doctrine - will no doubt be about Altruism
> and Compassion - AND ESPECIALLY ABOUT HOW TO AVOID SECTARIAN THINKING with
> regard to any human (because we are all temples of the divine - according to
> the ancient Wisdom traditions of all ages and cultures) and organisation -
> ie. the psychological key - and - must be to promote altruism through an
> Absolutely Non-Sectarian organisational aim - and - even non-organisational
> - aim, because humans live like ebb and flood, extrovert and introvert, in
> various phases of life. And any teaching by an Avatar seeking to promote a
> sectarian doctrine - will quite obviously fail in these days - as it has
> done in the past decades - although quite a number of the past Initiated
> teachers - have been plastered with being sectarian - by the same sectarian
> persons - who still are scheming sectarianism and even dogmatism. However,
> these are merely my humble views - But I challenge any one to - disprove
> them. If they are able - they will find a willing listener. This is written
> from the heart seeking to promote altruism for us all.
>
> The below is a contrast to the idea that Blavatsky meant a Messiah - when
> she mentioned the POSSIBLE - arrival of a Torch-Bearer in the 20th century.
>
> H. P. Blavatsky said:
> MODERN APOSTLES AND PSEUDO-MESSIAHS
> "With the spread of the spiritualistic cult, the Messiah craze has vastly
> increased, and men and women alike have been involved in its whirlpools.
> Given, a strong desire to reform somehow the religious or social aspect of
> the world, a personal hatred of certain of its aspects, and a belief in
> visions and messages, and the result was sure; the "Messiah" arose with a
> universal panacea for the ills of mankind. If he (very often she) did not
> make the claim, it was made for him. Carried away by the magnetic force, the
> eloquence, the courage, the single idea of the apostle pro tem, numbers, for
> very varied reasons, accepted him or her as the revelator of the hour and of
> all time. "
> .......
> "With the advent of Theosophy, the Messiah-craze surely has had its day, and
> sees its doom."
> http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/ModernApostlesAndPseudoMessiahs.htm
>
> H. B. Blavatsky wrote:
> "It is, however, right that each member, once he believes in the existence
> of such Masters, should try to understand what their nature and powers are,
> to reverence Them in his heart, to draw near to Them, as much as in him
> lies, and to open up for himself conscious communication with the guru to
> whose bidding he has devoted his life. THIS CAN ONLY BE DONE BY RISING TO
> THE SPIRITUAL PLANE WHERE THE MASTERS ARE, AND NOT BY ATTEMPTING TO DRAW
> THEM DOWN TO OURS."
> (BCW; Vol. XII, p. 492)
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v12/y1890_052.htm
>
> M. Sufilight says:
> My own view are the following.......
> People are always looking for an Avatar or a Saviour; that does not mean
> that
> this is the time for an Avatar or a Christ Saviour. The problems that an
> Avatar or a Saviour 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 an Avatar or a Christ Saviour seem to have some baby's idea of what
> an Avatar or a Saviour
> should do. The idea that an Avatar or a Christ Saviour will walk in and we
> will all
> recognize him, her or it and follow this being and everybody will be happy
> strikes me
> as a strangely IMMATURE ATAVISM. Most of these people, I believe,
> want not an Avatar or a Christ Saviour but excitement. I doubt that those
> who cry the
> loudest would obey an Avatar or a Christ Saviour if there was one. Talk is
> cheap, and a
> lot of the talk comes from millions of beginner seekers after truth and
> wisdom.
> (Maybe the leaders at various esoteric groups would be kind to consider the
> above words. Okay?)
>
> ______________
> A few extra views of my own....
> There is no so-called "dead" matter. Atoms vibrate and rotate. From where is
> the force that makes them rotate, and make the electrons spin? From
> life-force, no doubt.
> Even your computerscreen and table is alive and livning. Alle the planets
> are living. The Sun-spots in the Sun seen by the astronomers are related to
> the expression of the heart of the Sun and occur every 10-11 years. And the
> Sun is very much related to the karmic cycles on our planet. It determines
> the humans our harvests of vegetables, corn, fruits and berries, and the
> food of animals - and photosynthesis is central here. The Sun is alive and
> breathes. All planets breathe. Science can still not find out why certain
> comets are not following ordinary physical laws of science. They can neither
> understand what force determines the spin of each planet. And the
> astronomers still talk about "dark matter" outside our Solar System - but
> they seem to forget to notify the chemist about that this "dark matter"
> might be very near to matter on earth as well. And we call it Ether or
> similar.
> So where ever you look in the future, please realise that - all - this our
> universe is a living organism. Let us together respect each other as living
> breathing creatures - all divine in our inner nature. For each human is a
> Dhyan Chohan (with an esoterical Christian word an Archangel) which in its
> cycle of necessity had to make it self incarnate as a human - so to absorb
> the necessary exchange of energy or Akasic recording in the Universe. So in
> a sense we are here because some Dhyan Chohans need to learn what other
> Dhyan Chohans already have learned.
>
> ______________
> All the above are of course only my humble views.
> But maybe some of the long time theosophists or other members on this forum
> would tell me something - I have overlooked - or could improve upon. I would
> gladly welcome something like that.
> Altruism is important, is it not?
> I do not claim my self infallible. - I just have the hope that you as
> members find the above useful.
>
> M. Sufilight
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Govert Schuller
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:34 PM
> Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> Well, gentlemen, if you've read "The Masters and Their Emissaries: From HPB
> to Guru Ma and Beyond" at
> <http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/story.html>
> http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/story.html you might
> have found the following documentation in footnote 2:
>
> [The timing of this project is addressed in footnote 3 with a quote from
> Annie Besant]
>
> Blavatsky wrote in 1889:
>
> "If the present attempt, in the form of our Society, succeeds better than
> its predecessors have done, then it will be in existence as an organized,
> living and healthy body when the time comes for the effort of the XXth
> century. The general condition of men's minds and hearts will have been
> improved and purified by the spread of its teachings, and, as I have said,
> their prejudices and dogmatic illusions will have been, to some extent at
> least, removed. Not only so, but besides a large and accessible literature
> ready to men's hands, the next impulse will find a numerous and united body
> of people ready to welcome the new torch-bearer of Truth. He will find the
> minds of men prepared for his message, a language ready for him in which to
> clothe the new truths he brings, an organization awaiting his arrival, which
> will remove the merely mechanical, material obstacles and difficulties from
> his path. Think how much one, to whom such an opportunity is given, could
> accomplish. Measure it by comparison with what the Theosophical Society
> actually has achieved in the last fourteen years, with out any of these
> advantages and surrounded by hosts of hindrances which would not hamper the
> new leader. Consider all this, and then tell me whether I am too sanguine
> when I say that if the Theosophical Society survives and lives true to its
> mission, to its original impulses through the next hundred years--tell me, I
> say, if I go too far in asserting that earth will be a heaven in the
> twenty-first century in comparison with what it is now!"
>
> H.P. Blavatsky, The Key to Theosophy (London: Theosophical Publishing Co.,
> 1889), pp. 306-307.
>
> From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On
> Behalf Of Daniel
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 12:45 PM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question
>
> Good question. I will be looking forward for the documentation, too.
>
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Daniel and friends
> >
> > My views are:
> >
> > I se not that many problems with most of what Govert are saying.
> > The books by the Ballards could easily be at the library at TS Adyar.
> > (Of course if there were a demand for them. Or donations of books were
> given.)
> >
> > Well, when I reached the following I hesitated immediately...
> >
> > Govert wrote:
> > The Theosophical
> > Society was founded, not only to re-introduce to the west the idea of an
> Ancient
> > Wisdom, but also to prepare the world for the coming of a great teacher.
> >
> > M. Sufilight says:
> > That was a new one to me. Govert?
> > Where are the documentation on this claim that the Theosophical Society
> was founded in 1875 for this reason?
> > I tend to disagree.
> > The Society was as I understand it founded so to promote altruism - since
> this was and still is the main object of the Theosophical Society.
> > All other ideas - cannot - be important or central in any manner. Since
> this Society was non-sectarian from its very beginning.
> > Else we can go and say that the Theosophical Society was founded so that
> you and I could become Avatars or clairvoyant etc. And anything else of a
> sectarian choosing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > M. Sufilight
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Daniel
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 6:36 PM
> > Subject: theos-talk Mahatmas versus Ascended Masters
> >
> >
> >
> > Govert S. has written the following:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alpheus_updates/message/98
> >
> > Readers may also want to read what HPB said:
> >
> > On Pseudo-Theosophy and Pseudo-Adepts
> >
> > http://blavatskyarchives.com/onpseudotheosophy.htm
> >
> > Also see:
> >
> > http://blavatskyarchives.com/latermessengers.htm
> >
> > http://blavatskyarchives.com/psychicversusinitiate.htm
> >
> > http://blavatskyarchives.com/theosophicaltraditions.htm
> >
> > http://blavatskyarchives.com/moderntheosophy.htm
> >
> > Some food for thoughtful reflection....
> >
> > Daniel
> > Blavatsky Archives
> > http://hpb.cc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4739 - Release Date: 01/12/12
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4740 - Release Date: 01/13/12
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4748 - Release Date: 01/17/12
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4748 - Release Date: 01/17/12
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4751 - Release Date: 01/18/12
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4753 - Release Date: 01/19/12
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4754 - Release Date: 01/19/12
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4772 - Release Date: 01/28/12
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4775 - Release Date: 01/29/12
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4790 - Release Date: 02/05/12
>
> [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
