Theos-Talk Archives (April 2012 Message tt00138)

She seems to be warning against tantric practises because of the sensuality involved? I do know this much, sensuality repressed can find expression in other manners...and she was a very large woman and obviously must have ate food in excess. Sensuality can be many different things to many different people. For some it could very well be purely carnal...and act of taking for pleasure and nothing more...while for others it could be purely about giving sharing and in sharing receiving...sensuality as pure love and joy combined in union, and a sweetened soul and higher love thereby achieved.



________________________________
 From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@44pm_nw4F-_TQLbuIaYQjqhH0WG6Ptj7P3bCRxumd7Wzn1U0KvcAG3c_u2QLY7rVg3t9VTQOZwbyCUIaktC8YH3liMo.yahoo.invalid>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Correct Link for new book Theosophy:  An Introduction
  

  
 
Dear Daniel

My views are:

You asked for comments...

Here are a few appetizers I came across...

*** 1 ***

I disliked this on page 25:
"[Note: The above material has been collated from the various writings
of Madame Blavatsky. The extracts have been transcribed from the
original sources but material not relevant to the subject has been
silently deleted. H.P.B.'s text has been somewhat edited; a number of
explanatory words, phrases and sentences have been added from time
to time to the original text to make the overall narrative more easily
read. The additions have not been placed in brackets.]"

This is just my view: The reason for me disliking it is - that it is edited by you, and without clear references on where the bits and pieces are taken from ---- and then on top of that it is signed as if Blavatsky wrote it. This is not acceptable in my book to give people the impression that Blavatsky wrote something like this. It is almost "Eusebius-like", said in the most gentle manner possible. You aught to put your very own name at the bottom of it and not Blavatsky's, and give the relevant references. This is how I see it. - That same with similar examples.
But this is just my view...

*** 2 ***

And on page 32 and 33 we find this:
"The best books conveying instruction in detail concerning
theosophic doctrine --- but a meager skeleton of which has
been offered in the foregoing --- are the following:"
.......
"Rama Prasad, Nature's Finer
Forces (1890)"
http://blavatskyarchives.com/theosophy_an_introduction.pdf

My first reaction to the above was: 
Says who? And based on what authority but his very own?

And the book by Rama Prasad, was quite clearly warned against by Blavatsky, but not his articles - which are different from his book.

Blavatsky wrote:
"* The references to "Nature's Finer Forces" which follow have respect to the eight articles which appeared in the pages of The Theosophist [Vol. IX, November, 1887; February, May, June, August, 1888; Vol. X, October, November, 1888; March, 1889], and not to the fifteen essays and the translation of a chapter of the SaivÃgama, which are contained in the book called Nature's Finer Forces. The SaivÃgama in its details is purely TÃntric, and nothing but harm can result from any practical following of its precepts. I would most strongly dissuade a member of the E.S. from attempting any of these Ha~ha-Yoga practices, for he will either ruin himself entirely, or throw himself so far back that it will be almost impossible to regain the lost ground in this incarnation. The translation referred to has been considerably expurgated, and even now is hardly fit for publication. It recommends Black Magic of the worst kind, and is the very antipodes of spiritual
 RÃja-Yoga. Beware, I say."
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v12/y1890_055.htm

I think this is sufficient enough to make me recommend that you take this book away from the references in your very well meant book - unless you belong to another kind of theosophical teaching of some sort.

And I will not say, like in the above quote, that the recommended references on what is Theosophy is quite proper. I would not give people the impression that Theosophy is something narrow and sectarian, in the sense that only few authors can be recommended. I would rather say that Theosophy is what each inidvidual makes of it......and primarily give emphasis to the following definition which was made official in 1879 in the Theosophical Society.

WHAT IS THEOSOPHY?
"Vaughan offers a far better, more philosophical definition. "A Theosophist," he
says - "is one who gives you a theory of God or the works of God, which has not
revelation, but an inspiration of his own for its basis." In this view every
great thinker and philosopher, especially every founder of a new religion,
school of philosophy, or sect, is necessarily a Theosophist. Hence, Theosophy
and Theosophists have existed ever since the first glimmering of nascent thought
made man seek instinctively for the means of expressing his own independent
opinions."
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/theosoph/theos1a.htm#whatistheosophy

If you would like futher comments. 
Just let me know. All right?

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Daniel 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2012 11:08 PM
Subject: theos-talk Correct Link for new book Theosophy: An Introduction

http://blavatskyarchives.com/theosophy_an_introduction.pdf

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

   
      

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