Theos-Talk Archives (September 1999 Message tt00150)

This is addressed to everyone who reads it, to whom the shoe might fit.  

In a message dated 9/4/99 12:27:30 PM, ramadoss@eden.com writes:

>> At 07:42 AM 9/4/1999 -0700, lgregory@discover.net wrote:
>>The concept of lodges is such a foreign one to me and yet it played a large
>>role in the early formation os the TS... Secrecy... the membership being
>>carefully selected and screened... the elitism involved... I think we have
>>a lot to be grateful for that it is less a factor today than it was in the
>>past. As a structure or institution a lodge would be male dominated and
>>hierarchical ...the very attributes most despised today.- Art
>
>I hope you are right.
>
>During the days of Besant, she had openly stated that all the members of
>the GC were members of the ES of which she was the head. 
>
>Any one wants to add?

I wonder if either of these pontificators (judging from all their 
correspondence on this and similar subjects) have ever been an "associated" 
with the United Lodge of Theosophists?  If not, then maybe they ought to find 
out how theosophists can study and work together, while being totally 
independent of any organizational affiliations, and without any prejudicial 
limitations.  Maybe they also ought to carefully read its Declaration and 
find out how such a Lodge works without any formal hierarchy, and carries out 
its business and its study classes, including "private" teachings (available 
to those who can find out for themselves who the knowledgeable teachers are) 
of correct meditational practices leading to enlightenment, along with the 
Siddhis, by the way, as well as the direct linkages of theosophy with the 
advanced, modern and "postmodern" physical sciences.  Such teachers do not 
advertise.  Such teachings, slso, must be tailored for the needs of each 
individual acolite. Remember the old Hermetic admonition to prospective 
Adepts and Masters when they begin their search for spiritual knowledge -- 
"to dare, to try, and to remain silent"?  

So, is it any wonder that most relatively ignorant, although self proclaimed 
theosophists, are weeping because they can't locate in the TS the really 
enlightened gurus who have no affiliations with ANY organized religion, keep 
their "secret" knowledge to themselves and their slected students?  (Or, when 
such "esoteric" knowledge is ready to be exposed, why they do so anonymously 
-- and only to the degree that their "auditors," who are never avowed to them 
personally, can understand and accept)?  The only Esoteric Section (not taken 
over by all the post HPB wannabes) that currently exists (and still has a 
"direct" connection with HPB and WQJ, and through them to their teachers, KH, 
M, and all the Chohans before them), can never be found by those who can't 
see the forest for the trees.  

Do we think the "real" members of this "esoteric" group have ever been 
foolish enough to allow themselves to become exoteric?  Or, captured by any 
spurious ES of an effete TS?  However, there are those who can "see" and 
"hear" who have found real "live" members of HPB's original ES -- whom we can 
know only by their fruits.  

To become their students, however, is quite another thing.  First, one has to 
be ready. Then, one has to find them. And, finally, one must know the right 
questions to ask.  A formidable problem -- that should face any prospective 
Chela who has really studied enough and thoroughly understands what HPB was 
talking about, don't you think?  For those who cannot make the grade and 
penetrate the 'inner sanctum' through their own self devised and self 
determined effort (and through an application of force, perhaps, using 
spiritual energy, that is, knock down the gate) -- they would be much better 
off continuing to study the writings of HPB and WQJ to find out what they 
need to know and do.  And, none of this can be had by accepting second best 
and latching on to a so called "Modern Master."  Not even a guru as high as 
the Dalai Lama, who can still only take one as far as the exoteric teachings 
and rituals of Buddhism allows... (Unless the prospective chela takes the 
robe, shaves the head, voices the vows, and spends the rest of the present 
life among the Sangha -- with never much hope of reaching the level of 
esoteric knowledge of the real Master guru [whoever that is] in this 
lifetime, or even the next.)  

Is it any wonder, then, (after reading the current wailings about how badly 
this work was done by the TS after HPB) -- that Robert Crosbie recognized the 
problem almost 90 years ago, broke from the "organized religion" (as well as 
the exoteric farce of the ES) that theosophy had become through the 
distortions of Besant, Leadbeater, Bailey, et al, and formed ULT with its 
marvelous consensual "Declaration" of its aims and purposes, and its devoted 
focus on the original theosophical teachers..  All, without the trappings of 
organizational hierarchies, or personal obligations other than voluntarily.  
Perhaps that is why Dallas, in his contributions and responses to these 
discussion seems to see theosophy in a far clearer light that also 
illuminates the ancient scriptures, as well as the modern gurus -- who are 
now being (self, or sycophantically) touted as "primary" sources of 
understanding of the fundamental principles.  

That's baloney.  In no way could this be a true course for theosophiist to 
follow in seeking esoteric knowledge, which requires one-on-one guidance -- 
as HPB gave WQJ, for instance.  Wouldn't you say that its the most ancient 
Masters (most now out-of-body, if not presently reincarnated and, as always, 
totally anonymous) who were closer to the source, and might have a better 
understanding than their modern self proclaimed counterparts (who can only 
base their understanding on the line of gurus under whose tutelage they have 
studied, and can rarely be fully enlightened masters of wisdom, themselves -- 
especially, if they say, or even imply, that they are)?  If this is the way 
it is, then Blavatsky's teachers had the whole story of theosophy's 
"philosophical science" and "scientific philosophy" tailored for us 
Westerners long before these so called "Modern Masters"... And, through its 
translation into English by Western educated (HPB, KH, M) as well as American 
born adepts (WQJ), they have brought it to us in a language, and with 
sufficient glossaries, so that we can understand its most subtle meanings and 
discuss them with others of like mind throughout the world. 

Even so, HPB said that her students should try to express these ideas to 
ordinary people in the "language of the age."  And, that's, of course, the 
real problem with the TS and other organizations -- that were really (in 
their original formation) designed to teach the "teachers" in order to teach 
the masses -- but, NOT, necessarily, to teach the masses directly.  So, why 
expect the masses to come to its meetings and have any interest in its "old" 
tried and true (for student teachers, that is) teachings methods (that 
necessarily requires them to learn a new language and read beyond college 
level textbooks as deep and erudite as the SD)?  And, wasn't that the reason 
why WQJ, wrote the Ocean of Theosophy as a condensation of the SD that could 
be understood by those ordinary people -- even those outside of the 
theosophical lodges?  

Doesn't anyone in this forum who takes a negative position about HPB and her 
teachings and tries to steer theosophist to Eastern religions in order to 
become "enlightened," ever THINK?  What has such personal enlightenment got 
to do with the original message and the meaning behind the message that HPB 
brought to the West?  It isn't the Eastern populations thinking or actions 
that will bring about the destruction of the Earth and the retardation of the 
plan of evolution that she was trying to prevent.  How many, out of the 
majority of ordinary materialistic people in this country or in any other 
part of the "first world" (who ARE the real "destroyers" in this age) could 
ever accept ANY teachings from any professed Buddhist or Hindu -- no matter 
how much they agree with the beneficent ideas, ethics, and ideals of the 
Dalai Lama, or the leaders of any "modern" religion?  Would any of these 
contemporary "Romans" sacrifice their material gains, based on selfishness 
and greed, for any of this goodie goodie, spiritual stuff that these "Modern 
Masters" promulgate with no underlying scientific or philosophical 
convictions (as can be found easily in the teachings of HPB)?  Not likely.  
Maybe we should take the example of Albert Einstein, Henry Ford, and Thomas 
Edison, who all found the basis of their scientific and technological 
breakthroughs, as well as their philanthropies, inspired by the SD.

In very few cases have we found any so called, "Modern Masters capable of 
giving out any real understanding of the deep scientific basis of the 
philosophy of theosophy (or its "Secret Doctrine") that is necessary to be 
transmitted in the present day language of the world (a form of technical and 
scientific English that has become ubiquitous throughout the world).  This 
means that all theosophists desiring to achieve chelaship as well as an 
eventually useful adeptship as a "teacher," must have a thorough, integrated 
and scientifically consistent understanding (cabable of being expressed in 
ordinary English) of the three fundamental principles, as well as the 
resultant evolutionary processes they engender.  (Didn't HPB advocate to her 
students that they should write their own "Secret Doctrines" in the language 
of THEIR age?)  All that these foreign gurus can teach anyone in the "new 
language of this age" is the moral and ethical aspects of the "Secret 
Science", and, thus, have to depend on requiring foolish vows to be made 
personally to the Guru, or to the Buddha, in order for students to partake in 
their sects' so called "secret" teachings (which isn't even a complete 
teaching within any one sect).  And, even then, these teachings cannot 
interrelate with the findings of modern and post modern Science (the real, 
respected "Guru" of the majority of "westernized" people in this age) which 
is only now approaching its full understanding of and integration with the 
fundamental principles of theosophy.   This insistence of the so called 
modern Gurus who teach Buddhist or Hindu practices to an exclusive group of 
personally avowed students, is the height of elitism, and directly 
contradictory of HPB and her teachers -- whose sole interest was to make the 
true and scientific "Secret Doctrine of the East" available to every Western 
student-teacher in their own language -- without discrimination (and without 
preventing anyone from disavowing their religons or their spiritual or 
religious teachers of choice)  As it says in the Declaration of the ULT, "A 
true theosophist is a member of no cult or sect but a member (or could we say 
"student") of each and all."  It's amazing that the only ones who say that a 
"living" guru is necessary to achieve enlightenment are the so called 
"Eastern" gurus who cloak themselves under their "organized religions" and 
their equally "organized," diverse sects and cults.  

HPB implied that everything needed by any intuitive chela to reach her state 
of enlightenment and knowledge was contained in her writings.  After more 
than 45 years of comparative study of all of those writings, as well as those 
of her closest students and collaborators, along with almost every major 
scripture from all the religions of the world, as well as talking with many 
of the well known, so called "Masters" of Buddhist, Jain, Sufi, kaballa, Zen, 
Chan, Tao, and Hindu philosophies -- I have found HPB to be so far ahead in 
her "'synthesis' of modern science, religion, and philosophy," that there 
hardly any comparison.  

Now, after listening to much of the baloney passed around on this forum for 
the past two years by some self labeled "theosophists" who are HPB 
detractors, or Buddhist, Hindu, or specifically, Tibetan promoters and 
apologists, along with some who are caught up in these "organized religion's" 
exoteric vows, rituals and practices -- I'm amazed at how many there are who 
haven't a clue as to what the real purpose of the Theosophical Movement, or 
the real roots of the theosophical teachings are all about... Or, how 
necessary it is to follow its "message," its "objects," and it's "scientific 
teachings (capable of reaching the minds of ordinary people of the WESTERN 
world) through the direct lineage of its deliverers -- in THIS as well as the 
LAST century.  All the rest that can be gotten from religious scriptures or 
so called "Modern Masters" (other than those like Krishnamurti, who are or 
were totally unaffiliated with any religion) is simply self-massage, and 
possibly misleading to anyone capable of being a true theosophist... That is, 
if they accept such teachings as their sole sources of what they think is 
esoteric knowledge.  

That's how I see it... But, we are all free to follow our own course and make 
our own decisions.  So, whenever any of you has found the "real" ES, or one 
of its independent associates willing to teach you its secrets, please 
remember, silence is golden.  

Respectfully

LHM

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.