Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00138)

Sufilight, 
(Doesn't this appellation imply that you are "deep into Sufism"?) 

Question: What has the subject line of this letter have to do with its 
contents? (I almost put it in the trash can because I thought that subject was 
finished. :)

Since you used my comments to make statements that gives your side of the 
picture, I have nothing more to say ... Other than that you entirely 
misinterpret my position with respect to the Secret Doctrine and other teachings of 
fundamental theosophy by both Blavatsky and Judge. How you imagine they are 
considered as "bibles" my me or by any other theosophist that I know through my 
association with ULT -- is beyond my comprehension. Since most of your present 
and past comments and questions are based on such wrong assumptions, which I 
have no intention of wasting time arguing about again, all I can say is that I 
agree with all your statements about the universality of the original 
theosophical teachings, and will leave it at that. 

By the way, have you ever read my posts concerning my correlation's of the 
theosophical metaphysics in the SD with modern scientific thinking, and how it 
relates to changing the basis of thinking of all those (outside of my 
colleagues and associates who are also theosophists) who do not recognize the 
universality of the SD? If you haven't, then anything you say about my understanding 
of theosophy and the value of its fundamental writings, are still "off the 
wall." (I hope you understand that American idiomatic expression. :-)

Best wishes,

Leon

In a message dated 10/10/03 10:49:07 AM, global-theosophy@adslhome.dk writes:

Hi Leon and all of you,


My views are:


My answer are given in the below using ***.


Now let us agree - that these remarks by me in the below are only views.

These views are as a whole what we can call a kind of spiritual DESIGN.

The design will have an effect on the reader - and a certain penetration.

The readers reactions will show themselves on the monitor - spiritual or

physical.


I am doing my best to make a point.

But maybe without luck.

I may have made some mistakes.

And that is just that.





from

M. Sufilight with peace and love...




----- Original Message ----- 

From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>

To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 12:03 PM

Subject: Re: Theos-World Tony versus Reed on "The Voice of the Silence"



> Hello Sufi ...,

>

> What you say is all well and good as far as your personal opinions go ...

> Although, as facts, we certainly can take them with a grain of salt.


***

Why should I think this to be true ?

What is your spiritual fundament for saying this ?


Please Leon I will have to disagree very much with you if this remark goes

for the entire email

which you refer to.


The following excerpt from the below email of mine - is just one of the

bricks of wood which many students

still do not understand - the importanc eof making others aware of - on a

level higher than a superficial one -

you included it appearntly seems - that is - if I have to take your comment

as ernest:


"So very important: The use of ideas is to shape a man or woman, not to

support a system - which is viewed in a limited manner. This is one way in

which the Wisdom Tradition is 'living', and not just the perpetuations of

ideas and movements. This seems important to understand and know about."


ULT and other Theosophical groups seem to stand and fall with their Bible -

The Secret Doctrine.

And FALL they will if they continue to do that. Face the facts Leon !


Blavatsky never said that these books should be made into a new Bible !

(Please rethink your position and PR)


Theosophy existed before this book was written by Blavatsky.

Even before another sort of Bible - named Isis Unveiled !

(The pro-Baileys have their - similar - problems with their

Bailey-collection Bible - with its cultural

leanings. The books being created to a western audience and not a Middle

Eastern one.)


Please rethink your positions and PR on the matter !

Blavatsky said that The Secret Doctrine - maybe had faults !

Blavatsky said in The Secret Doctrine, that she didn't do much

writing on the Middle East and its mystics etc. - BECAUSE -

at her time of writing The Secret Doctrine - there wasn't many

books from The Middle east translated to EUROPEAN languages !


Today - the most popular Theosophical groups are the Alice A. Bailey ones -

who are heavily involved at the United Nations !

Please I urge you all to rethink your postions and your PR on Theosophy !

ULT is just one group, who are entangled in this spiders web of activities -

which governs the theosophical - evolution and its various offshoots and

grouings !

Please think or contemplate about it - and reconsider your views.


If this doesn't ring a BELL in your head and heart - I don't know what

to do.


This is the basis I am fighting for the Theosophical Seekers to grasp and

understand -

in these times of Middle Eastern unslaught and rough westernized cultural

imperialisms !


As for Judge and the book Voice Of Silence (VOS). This is just a small

issue - just like Erica Letzerich so

cleverly said in her email. On this small point I agree. And I also think

you are.

I just used the debate you and Daniel had going to make my own point, which

in its own manner has to do with the actions taken by Judge.


Yes. "High-jacked" is perhaps to strong a word.

But, no doubt - the revision of another authors book - will also create

a certain atmosphere of mistrust among - the Seekers on the Path.

- It seems very hard to avoid.

And certainly this was what happened. But my view is - even if Judge - sort

of

took some of Blavatsky baraka away from the VOS - he added another kind of

baraka (spiritual emanation or fruit)

and attached it to the books and the new - transliteration.

This issue are according to me connected with his and others break away from

TS -

and also his early departure from the physical level,

- creating the as far as I know FIRST real offshot branch of Theosophy.

(This event was maybe not created by coincidence - I think it happened

deliberately with a plan in mind.)


This happened using the wisdom he and others had about what we call

Spiritual Organizational Development !

Judge and others created by this break away the - future course for the

spread of theosophical ideas.

The break away sounded the tromphet - that other groups might succed in

doing the same - and get away with it !

The transliteration of VOS just played a minor role in all this.


And then again as Daniel according to me rightly said. Blavatskys version is

more to the HEART of the matter.

But this view can easily end in an endless - lingvistic debate, which I am

trying to avoid.

That was why I tried to picture the overview of the matter as I have grasped

it.

I might be wrong - and others are welcome to correct me using their heart of

compassion and their wisdom.


***

>

> But, you forget that Judge was much different from all the other

"followers

> of HPB" that you speak about. Maybe it would help if you read the

following

> outline of who Judge is and what relationship he and HPB had, and then see

if

> what you call "Baraka" is missing from his writings or his work for

theosophy.

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/1941

>

***

Again Leon - "high-jacked" is maybe too strong a word.

Look at my views presented above.

***


> As for myself, I stand on everything I said in my original comments about

> Judge with respect to his transliterations of the works of other

"initiated"

> adepts.


***

Yes. Judge certainly created some good spiritual fruit. I do certainly not

disagree on that.

My view is just that Blavatsky - was of a special level and created more

Baraka (spiritual emanations) than Judge.

That is just that.


***


>

> In any event, the word "hijacked" is a pretty strong one to use with

> reference to Judge, and I don't think anything you said even comes close

to justifying

> it.


***

Allright again.

No hard feelings.


***

I never said Judge merely "translated some of the texts, so they were

> more readable" . Those are your words, and they are totally unfounded.

> Translating is one thing (which had to be done in the case of Panatela and

the

> Bhagavad Gita before interpreting or transliterating in another language

that had

> none of the nuances of the original) -- but "transliterating" is quite

another.

> In the cases of spiritual writings, only an "initiate" can have the

b'rucha

> and the chutzpah (if you know what that means:-) to handle that. And,

> according to HPB and the Masters, Judge was one of them (and they had more

chutzpah

> than any one of us can imagine:-). It takes a lot of that to stand up

publicly

> in the face of the whole secular and religious world with a teaching that

> tears their basic assumptions apart -- without them thinking you are as

crazy as a

> Loon, and throwing rocks at you.


***

Let us NOT forget that spiritual books - are created in the human process of

evolution. And some of them

are created with a certain audience in mind - and will only be beneficial to

a certain audience. Others are created as coded books, - others are only for

the beginners to read in a certain century of the human evolution, - and

some spiritual books are only created to those living in a certain culture.

Other books are written with other motivations in mind.

Let us NEVER forget that Leon.


Try rereading these links of mine - before we overvalue the books and

articles created or written by W. Q. Judge.

These links should show, where I think we are disagreeing or where you are

misunderstanding what I am getting at:


Books and beyond books

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/13257

Characteristics of Theosophical litterature

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12917


Do you now after reading these links understand at least something more

about how to evaluate the books written by Judge and those written by

Blavatsky ? (Of course I know you are wise Leon, but but - I ask anyway...)

Do all the students at ULT, or TS, Pasadena TS or other socalled Tehsophical

branches understand it all better ?


Are anyone offering the newcomers to be aware of these issues mentioned in

the above two links?


Sorry if you and others got the impression that I was only referring to ULT.


***




> Judging from all of your assumptions about theosophists in general , and

> pronouncements about the state of the theosop sophical movement that in

your

> view, apparently, doesn't hold a candle to Sufism ', I think you are all

wet, and

> haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about.


***

I may be wet, but I have only your balony version on - that it should be

true !

Please explain some further, cause the below - are failing miserably.

And I Need to get enlightened - right ?


***


>

> In my theosophical circles, all my associate student/teachers, are as deep

> into Sufism as you claim to be.

***

How deep have I claimed to be into Sufism ?

***

As far as fundamental theosophy is concerned

> there is no differe nce. Since, the true theosophist is "a member of no

cult

> or sect but a member of each and all." How one teaches to anyone involved

> exoterically in such different sects to the exclusion of any other, is

strictly up

> to the teacher. When teaching theosophy to Jews and some Christians one

must

> use the methods of the Kabbalist and the Gnostic. When teaching most

> Christians, one must use the wisdom of the Christ. When teaching Muslims,

one must use

> the wisdom and methods of the Sufi. When teaching Buddhists, one must use

> the wisdom and methods of the Buddha. To say one way is better than

another is

> nothing more than chauvinistic hubris.


***

Rubbish Leon !

Yes - if you want to make a living and earn some money it is true !

But if you want to teach proper Blavatskian-Theosophy - it is not true !

Theosophy are not interested in either collection members or money.

Different branches have forgotten that today.


Theosophy is about giving the aspirant a world-view !

A world-view Leon.

(For example do - The Key to Theosophy also say that.)

We live in the year 2003 - in a more and more global information society -

and the aspirants should not be limited by old cronies and conservatives -

who hasn't seen the light of the future to come.


PLEASE - give the Seekers a fair chance - of a real world-view - instead of

teaching YOUR version of Theosophy.

This version not being the Blavatskian one.

Try rereading the Blavasky articles and writings !

See if this link won't help you to change your - according to me obvious -

culturally conditioned mind:


http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/cults_1.htm

An excerpt:

"'Comprehensive' systems are those with world-view, or with an outlook which

causes their members to act as if they had a world-view. Such systems are

those which require (deliberately or in practise) their members to act with

regard to a comprehensive set of beliefs which will cover all, or most,

eventualities."

- Do you agree on the above excerpts view - when we talk about Theosophy, -

Leon ?


***





>

> The ball is in your court, now, to prove your allegations and innuendoes

> about theosophical leaders that followed after HPB -- with particular

emphasis on

> Judge. So, either "put up or shut up" (meaning stop these unfounded and

> prejudicial opinions that you keep on flinging around without any

knowledge behind

> them.)


***

I don't need to prove anything.

I have presented my views. And THEY operate as designs - so that you and

others might

learn how to react spiritually to emails like mine !


My views are presented in the email your answer covers.

Try the quote in the below from the preiovus email after the words:

"Her we go:" ....and so on...


Each individual will have to decide on their various levels of

consciousness - who are the blind ones leading the blinded, - who the

"frozen" ones are. Who the "second teacher" or even "third teacher" are. And

so on.

I do not need to prove it. I can give you my view on the matter and try -

out of compassion -

to convince you. And I have done that.

The word Baraka ("spiritual emanation" or "spiritual fruit")

shows that Judge was a second best to Blavatsky. Blavatsky's fruits was

great ! (This is no joke.)


Did it help ?


***

>

> Short story that says it all...

> Several years ago I met the Sufi Master, Dervish Mammo Goli when he

arrived

> in New York from Teheran via Sweden and Miami, and I brought him to a

> theosophical lecture on reincarnation at the United Lodge of Theosophists.

After

> that, over olives and tea, following a long philosophical discussion with

me and

> some other friends from ULT about the quality of the lecture (which he

thought

> was amazingly clear and enlightening) and then a further discussion about

the

> esoteric meaning of Rumi's poems, he said, "you and your friends are truly

> Sufi." he then gave me the manuscript of his book, written in English

about his

> travels through America as a wandering Dervish, to transcribe, edit, and

help

> him find a US publisher (he had already published 14 books in Teheran, and

two

> books in Sweden). The poetic stories in it cut through the American psyche

> with a sharp knife and with great theosophical (or Sufi, if you will)

insight.

> (Unfortunately, I heard he was executed some years later when he returned

to

> Iran, and found the new Ayatollah was not impressed by his newly acquired

> American sympathies -- although he is credited with coining the words

"American

> Satan" in one of his books, used by the previous Ayatollah Komeini, who

was his

> personal friend, since Goli was one of the fighters who overthrew the

Shah.)

> As another short story... Some years earlier I met Hidayat Inayat-Khan at

a

> lecture on Sufism in New York. After the lecture, we were entertained at a

soiree

> and played some music together, discussed theosophy and Sufi philosophy,

and

> did some Dervish dancing :-). When we parted he embraced me and said that

we

> were brothers in eternity. So, I guess members of the ULT can also be

Sufis.

> :-)


***

No - Leon !

It says it all - you claim.

No ! It doesn't tell everything about Theosophy !

It tells us something about YOUR life.

It tells you something about what spiritual level of these socalled - Sages

or Initiates was/is on.

A lower level than the Masters - the Guardians of Renewal and Understanding.


Well, I am not about to prove that, but the previous links, references to

Blavatskys writings and

my quotes and the words in the above should at least tell you something.


***


>

> So, there's nothing more to be said about ULT, Judge, and innuendoes about

> theosophists who came after HPB, and in certain quarters (particularly

among

> present and past associates of ULT and other "independent"

theosophists) -- who

> are or were carrying on her work, and fitting it in with their times

almost

> exactly the way she, Judge, and the Masters would have wished. In any

event,

> I'm sure most of us don't pretend to be infallible or exclusive.


***

Leon you write in the above ..."and fitting it in with their times almost

exactly the way she, Judge, and the Masters would have wished."...


I so very much disagree Leon !

The word "almost" - most be a fake word.


Theosophy wasn't created to make a Popery !

And what have the Theosophists done ???

Please answer Leon ?

ULT ? (Blavatskian-Bible-teaching ?)

TS Adyar ? (- and their popery Ring ?)

Pasadena ? (with their Tingly's and Purucker etc. as main books)

The pro-Bailey's (and their Alice saint) ?


I know I am provoking a lot - but these issues are really smelling like

burnt bread in the bakery.

I am talking PR here - and badly created websites ! (But these are just my

humble views - so who cares.)

If the writings aren't created to the present day audiences - what good will

they do ?


I have asked it before.

When do the Theosophical groups (Baileys included) - "kill" the dead-letter

of Theosophy ?

When do the Theosophical groups (Baileys included) - "kill" the dead-letter

of cultural-bias ?

When will the teaching become more important than - money, pride, and

idolatry of past leaders,

and when will qunatity cease to go before quality in membership ?


It is only by critisizing the established system (which of course is a

limited one) - that it will change !

And it augth to be changed.

This can be done in manner different manners, modes and using many different

systems and designs.

I have used mine. What do you do ?


Try the ISLANDERS - and their "Great Swimming Madness" - a weird smile shows

up on my face...

The Islanders

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/13178

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/13179

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/13180


Do you understand that the ISLANDERS are both the present day society with

its leaders ?

But the ISLANDERS are Also - analogically speaking - the present day

Theosophists - and their various groups and leaders.

But they just won't understand it.

(smile...)


Keep up your good work.




from

M. Sufilight with peace and love...


***

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Leon

>

>

> In a message dated 10/06/03 5:00:23 AM, global-theosophy@adslhome.dk

writes:

>

> Hi Leon and all of you,

>

>

> Well, maybe.

>

>

> What I am thinking of - is a term called "Baraka" - the spiritual

emanation

>

> atmosphere or blessing of the initiated.

>

> I think, that Blavatsky was being - half-way hijacked by W. Q. Judge.

>

> And that is all.

>

> W. Q. Judge did, what you are sort of saying. He translated some of the

>

> texts, so they were more readable.

>

> That was good for several obvious reason.

>

> But it also had a downside. The downside being, that the books and texts

>

> lost some of their valuable "Baraka", which are attached to these books.

>

>

> A further downside are what I before have mentioned in an earliere email.

>

> I will forward the main part of it again - so to give other readers the

>

> possibility to understand.

>

> It is an example on what happens when a spiritual teacher and initiate

>

> disappears - or physically dies.

>

>

>

>

> Her we go:

>

>

>

> "After the disappearance from the field of a teacher of Wisdom, the

>

> followers will divide themselves into groups, in accordance with their

>

> strength and weaknesses. Some will assume control of others. They may be

>

> good or bad, and this will be shown by their reaction to - the second

>

> teacher - when he/she arrives.

>

> If they realise he/she is their teacher, then they have merely been

>

> developing themselves and can mature. But if they have become atrophied,

>

> they will be too blind to recognize the Spirituality of the very teacher,

>

> for which appearance they have been prepared. They may attach themselves,

in

>

> default, to a different group. (And this groups existence is maybe no

>

> coincidence.) Again well and good : providing they return to the

mainstream

>

> of teaching when it is offered to them again. This is the test of whether

>

> they have overcome the lower self. They will realise, if they are

>

> sufficiently developed, that the person who appears to be 'second' teacher

>

> is in reality - the first in importance.

>

> Life is reversed for the undeveloped man (the newcomer), and he/she will

>

> behave in accordance with this. The first teacher does not make life

easier,

>

> in most cases, for the generality of disciples. He/She will teach them

>

> things, which are only of use when the second teacher arrives and reality

>

> falls into place. The object of this is twofold. In the first place,

certain

>

> valuable thoughts have been given to the disciples. In the second, they

are

>

> tested by the means of these ideas. Just as our western psychologists give

>

> odd-shaped pieces of wood to people, to see how they put them together,

>

> teachers of Wisdom will give odd-pieces of material of - mental kind - to

>

> his/her followers. - If they try to fit these together however, and to

make

>

> a pattern in his/hers - absences, - they are becoming 'fossilised'.

Because,

>

> the Wisdom tradition has to show that the object of mankind is not to

>

> construct idols, but to follow a supreme pattern, which is learnt piece by

>

> piece.

>

>

> Quite obviously the semi-blind among the people, during their

>

> 'waiting-period', will try to work out their own interpretation. They may,

>

> as have been done in the past, write books to explain what they have

>

> learned. This is the danger-point, because when a man/woman is accepted

as,

>

> say, a philosopher (of wisdom) because she/he has written a book

explaining

>

> a philosophy, he/she will not readily accept, that she/he only have been

>

> 'fumbling'. He/She has quite possibly become a prisoner of his/hers lower

>

> self. The self-conceit of the man/woman is now bound up with his/hers

>

> 'creation', the book or the method, which he/she has used to organise the

>

> fragments, which he/she has. He/she is probably or possibly lost - for the

>

> cause.

>

> In order to break through this shell of accretions and fossilisations,

>

> the - second teacher - will tend to act in a different, perhaps in a

certain

>

> dramatically different manner, from the original one. This could happen,

to

>

> break the 'idols', which have been formed out of the thoughts, which were

>

> originally given.

>

> So very important: The use of ideas is to shape a man or woman, not to

>

> support a system - which is viewed in a limited manner. This is one way in

>

> which the Wisdom Tradition is 'living', and not just the perpetuations of

>

> ideas and movements. This seems important to understand and know about.

>

>

> When a system of teaching of wisdom is in a period of fallowness, because

>

> the one who propagated it is dead, then there comes a period of

stagnation.

>

> This period can last between 10 years, 15 years or more. In the time,

which

>

> passes, the group of people who is affected by the system are sieved by

>

> natural means. Some wander away. Others carry on automatically not really

>

> knowing, what they are doing. They are now 'frozen', though they do not

know

>

> they are.

>

> The blind may try to lead the blinder. This takes the form of assumption

of

>

> authority by those who were given some sort of authority in the original

>

> mandate. These are the people in the most dangerous position, because the

>

> longer they remain 'orphaned' the more strongly their lower self (or the

>

> three lower bodies) asserts it self.

>

> Others may modify the teachings in a learned and personal way. Some

>

> certainly fall a prey to cults, which have come into being in order to

serve

>

> them. The people who joins these are at great pains to explain why they

>

> consider, that they represent the same kind of teaching - and this is

>

> important. It is important, because it shows the Sufi or the real

>

> spiritually minded, very clearly, that the people who try to explain - are

>

> in fact troubled by conscience. Somewhere inside them, they know, that

they

>

> are identifying themselves with an imitation, or a second-best. But they

are

>

> supported by their lower bodies or lower personality, - and this is too

>

> strong for them.

>

> Those can be helped by being lead to think in new thinking-patterns and

>

> systems. It is via the conscience, that one finds the path forward, -

>

> thereby will be able to remove the limitations of the lower personality.

>

>

> Imagine a group of people shipwrecked. They think there is no hope of

>

> rescue. They find a raft, and are glad. After a time more people come

along

>

> in a big boat. But the first people will not leave the raft, because they

>

> have become used to it. They may have convinced themselves, that it is

>

> actually a boat. (So it is to some philosophical or religious people

today.)

>

> The points at which the mystical traditions, which are still alive, are in

>

> contact with each other cannot really be explained by the means of books.

>

> And yet people continue to write books showing how they have found this

and

>

> that point of resemblance.

>

> The truth can only be found by actual experience, - and easier by

awareness

>

> on such aspect as I have touch upon.

>

>

> To sink ecstasy in Wisdom is better than to sink Wisdom in ecstasy. The

>

> Wisdom Tradition teaches by several different systems, and not only by

>

> one, - one book or teen books, BUT also by thousands and thousands of

>

> books - and the dogmatic ones doesn't want to listen."

>

>

> So very important it is to understand Sufism as not only a Movement

because:

>

> "The use of ideas is to shape a man or woman, not to support a system -

>

> which is viewed in a limited manner. This is one way in which the Wisdom

>

> Tradition is 'living', and not just the perpetuations of ideas and

>

> movements. This seems important to understand and know about."

>

>

>

> *******

>

>

> If W. Q. Judge made books which had the same level of spirituality and

>

> Baraka as Blavatsky did - then you may be my guest and tell me

>

> why you think so Leon - because I don't get it !

>

> Books are connected with Baraka - Blavatsky had Baraka - whereas W. Q.

Judge

>

> left the physical plane so very fast - just a few years after he made his

>

> books officially available. Bottomline W. Q. Judge sort of poured water on

>

> the fire of spirituality, which Blavatsky made. The end result was in a

>

> certain sense bad because he died before the fruits of his work culd

sprout

>

> properly.

>

>

> I have a tendency to agree with D. Caldwell on the Voice of Silence

>

> publication. But, I think it is not in the same manner we agree.

>

>

> And if you tell me, that some of the Theosophical groups are not

>

> crystallizing today, then you are according to me wrong.

>

> W. Q. Judge also warned against this crystallization of Theosophy.

>

> And what did his later admirers do ?

>

> They continued with business as ususal. The saught to preserve the

>

> teachings.

>

> All right so far so good.

>

> But they didn't develop anything knew. That is the problem.

>

> Because of that they have a strong tendency to crystallize in their

>

> teachings.

>

> And if they developed anything knew - it wasn't much, and not enough to

>

> unmask the truth of the matter about what they themselves are doing,

>

> so that newcomers would understand it.

>

>

> If they just want to preserve the scriptures it would be allright.

>

> But they also want to teach, and there we have the crystallizing problem

>

> coming in to the picture.

>

> To me the books are today getting to old, unsuitable to the interested

>

> audiences. There is need for renewal, but who has the Baraka to do it ?

>

> What is the need of the Seekers and what is the Want of the Seekers, and

>

> what is the difference between wanting certain teachings and needing

certain

>

> teachings ?

>

> This is at least a part of what the leading theosophists should be

concerned

>

> with today. Well, that is just my view, so who cares.

>

>

> The following might be helpful - to show the deceit, which some groups are

>

> running with:

>

> http://home19.inet.tele.dk/global-theosophy/renewal.htm

>

> The deceit may also be, that they are not making newcomers properly aware

of

>

> these issue mentioned in the link.

>

>

> Also this one aught to reveal what is going on when the initiates are

>

> emanating books:

>

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12917

>

> Here the same comes to my mind: The deceit may also be, that they are not

>

> making newcomers properly aware of these issue mentioned in the link.

>

>

> With the above link or above two links in mind I ask you members of the

>

> different branches:

>

>

> 1. Why do you not make the students more aware of these issues ?

>

> 2. When are you going to do something about these issues raised in these

>

> links ?

>

> 3. What are the views about whehter Theosophical groups are at risk to go

>

> and crystallize.

>

>

> Let us remember W. Q. Judge's words, because he certainly also said

>

> something wise:

>

> W. Q. Judge writes shortly after Blavatskys physical death, and I quote

>

> Judge:

>

> "In the Key to Theosophy, in the "Conclusion," H.P.B. again refers to this

>

> subject and expresses the hope that the Society might not, after her

death,

>

> become dogmatic or crystallize on some phase of thought or philosophy, but

>

> that

>

> it might remain free and open, with its members wise and unselfish. And in

>

> all

>

> her writings and remarks, privately or publicly, she constantly reiterated

>

> this

>

> idea. Of this the writer has direct evidence as to her statements in

>

> private."

>

> ("Dogmatism in Theosophy" by W. Q. Judge, Path, January, 1892).

>

> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/Dogmatism.htm

>

>

> This is to me a KEY statement.

>

>

> This quote by W. Q. Judge was emailed earliere here at Theos-Talk.

>

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12514

>

>

>

> Let us be wise !

>

>

>

>

> from

>

> M. Sufilight with peace and love...