Theos-Talk Archives (April 2012 Message tt00140)

Dear Scott

My views are:

Smile Scott...
Are you seeking to promulgate something based on altruism?

Scott, you wrote:
"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. "

M. Sufilight says:
You ask. My answer is no, not primarily!
In the quote I gave, Blavatsky was clearly warning against Black Magic. That was the primary warning. 
There can be no doubt about this if one read the article the quote is taken from and the other articles related to this article.
I will in all friendliness suggest, that you read or re-read the quote again and the related articles which was given in the Theosophist magazine.

About Blavatsky's level of eating...?
About how much Blavatsky ate, I think you will find that Assumptions might fool anyone. Knowledge is not the same as assumptions.

Try this from Blavatsky's long time friend H. S. Olcott on Blavatsky's abilities:
"In fact I strongly advise anyone who wants to get at the mysteries of Count St-Germain, Cagliostro and other wonder-workers, to read in connection with them the various accounts of H.P.B's phenomena which have been published by credible witnesses. Take for example the quotation made by Mrs Cooper-Oakley from the "Souvenirs de Marie-Antoinette." by the Countess d' AdhÃmar, who had been an intimate friend of the Queen and who died in 1822. She is giving an interesting account of an interview between Her Majesty, the Count de Maurepas, herself and St-Germain. The last-named had paid Mme D'AdhÃmar a visit of momentous importance to the Royal family and to France, had departed and the minister, M. de. Maurepas, had come in and was slandering St-Germain outrageously, calling him a rogue and a charlatan. Just as he had said that he would send him to the Bastille, the door opened and St-Germain entered, to the consternation of M. de Maurepas and the great surprise of the Countess. Stepping majestically up to the Minister, St-Germain warned him that he was ruining both monarchy and kingdom by his incapacity and stubborn vanity, and ended with these words: "Expect no homage from posterity, frivolous and incapable Minister! You will be ranked among those who cause the ruin of empires." . . . "M. De Saint-Germain, having spoken thus without taking breath, turned towards the door again, shut it and disappeared. . . All efforts to find the Count failed," Compare this with the several disappearances of H.P.B. in and near Karli Caves and elsewhere, and see how the two agents of the Brotherhood employed identical means for making themselves invisible at the critical moment."
https://www.theosophical.org/component/content/article/65-olcott/1864

Or the Mahatma Letter no. 54, by Master KH in 1882:
"I do not believe I was ever so profoundly touched by anything I witnessed in all my life, as I was with the poor old creature's ecstatic rapture, when meeting us recently both in our natural bodies, one -- after three years, the other -- nearly two years absence and separation in flesh. Even our phlegmatic M. was thrown off his balance, by such an exhibition -- of which he was chief hero. He had to use his power, and plunge her into a profound sleep, otherwise she would have burst some blood-vessel including kidneys, liver and her "interiors" -- to use our friend Oxley's favourite expression -- in her delirious attempts to flatten her nose against his riding mantle besmeared with the Sikkim mud! We both laughed; yet could we feel otherwise but touched? Of course, she is utterly unfit for a true adept: her nature is too passionately affectionate and we have no right to indulge in personal attachments and feelings. You can never know her as we do, therefore -- none of you will ever be able to judge her impartially or correctly. You see the surface of things; and what you would term "virtue," holding but to appearances, we -- judge but after having fathomed the object to its profoundest depth, and generally leave the appearances to take care of themselves. In your opinion H.P.B. is, at best, for those who like her despite herself -- a quaint, strange woman, a psychological riddle: impulsive and kindhearted, yet not free from the vice of untruth. We, on the other hand, under the garb of eccentricity and folly -- we find a profounder wisdom in her inner Self than you will ever find yourselves able to perceive. In the superficial details of her homely, hard-working, common-place daily life and affairs, you discern but unpracticality, womanly impulses, often absurdity and folly; we, on the contrary, light daily upon traits of her inner nature the most delicate and refined, and which would cost an uninitiated psychologist years of constant and keen observation, and many an hour of close analysis and efforts to draw out of the depth of that most subtle of mysteries -- human mind -- and one of her most complicated machines, -- H.P.B.'s mind -- and thus learn to know her true inner Self. "
.......
"Take another case, that of Fern. His development, as occurring under your eye, affords you a useful study and a hint as to even more serious methods adopted in individual cases to thoroughly test the latent moral qualities of the man. Every human being contains within himself vast potentialities, and it is the duty of the adepts to surround the would-be chela with circumstances which shall enable him to take the "right-hand path," -- if he have the ability in him. We are no more at liberty to withhold the chance from a postulant than we are to guide and direct him into the proper course. At best, we can only show him after his probation period was successfully terminated -- that if he does this he will go right; if the other, wrong. But until he has passed that period, we leave him to fight out his battles as best he may; and have to do so occasionally with higher and initiated chelas such as H.P.B., once they are allowed to work in the world, that all of us more or less avoid."
http://blavatskyarchives.com/theosophypdfs/mahatma_letters_to_A_P_Sinnett.pdf (1st ed.;1923, p. 314)
http://theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-54.htm
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/mahatma_letters.htm

M. Sufilight says:
I do not know how much a person able to dematerialize oneself need to eat - in exact kilograms. The reason being, that it might depend on various circumstances...But I guess, the need is so and so, when one reach such a level of control with ones bladder and liver. Eating then becomes a matter of compassion, time, place and people, etc., and NOT an actual need as such, as we see it with the animal-human --- well as far as I have learned about these things. Or maybe you will enlighten me and others to a different view?

The fact is I have meet a figure looking exactly like her materialize in my own appartment here in Denmark year 2008, (I can add that I recently meet another one, which remain unnamed). And I have meet Blavatsky while astral travelling as well. Because of all this I simply have to disagree with your assumption about her being a person necessarily eating much. But, what can I say to you - but this: Trust your very own inner feelings or intuition, and claimed wisdom - seek and you will find the truth. But do not except that I will agree with you when you say something about persons I am aquainted with, which I find to be wrong. Especially, when your words seem to be based on pure assumptions.

What can I say. They, the Initiates, might show up at your place as well. Or other readers of this post. 
I will suggest, that we remain focussed on how we best can promulgate altruism.

All the above are of course just my views. I present them from my heart seeking to promote altruism.
I will gladly change them if someone are able to prove them wrong or irrelevant.





M. Sufilight




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Scott Wright 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 3:23 PM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Correct Link for new book Theosophy: An Introduction


    
  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@-Xmqrf5aa4_MIxq-JLVmSILHXyrw9P5P26djlIx6yDFY54eByDftZlHwYOUbjTttxP0-RBQ7WYbamHKLIXfhRiCOf3tqzA.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]



  

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