Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00404)

-Hallo Morton,
You make a mistake in writing, maybe you mean it in a different way.
Theosophy is NOT a religion, it shows behind or above a religion.

Satyan na'sti paro dharmah= No religion higher then TRUTH.
It is the philosophy of the psychic and spiritual evolution


The religions keep the people poor and stupid.
As you know NO king without submisses, no pope without believers and 
no master without pupils.
Theosophy gives anyone who wants to understand the possibility to 
return to our true nature.To develope our Latent existant gifts.
It gives us the right to look human and not to act and be like an 
animal.
Pranatma

Christina




-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@a...> wrote:
> Hallo Ariel and all,
> 
> My views are:
> 
> 1. Esoteric PR or promotion of a teaching is not the same as 
egoistical PR
> or promotions.
> Esoteric PR is not only for sales-men and sales-women - it is an 
activity,
> which has a religious-related content.
> We all know, that Theosophy IS religion.
> There are many different kinds of PR or promotions of esoteric 
teachings.
> Some of them are the writing of books, articles and letters. 
Another is
> giving lectures of a special kind and level.
> Also Webpages, forums, TV movies, videos and the like should be 
included.
> And yet, Others has to do with social services.
> My use of the word PR is of course - not - of a commercial 
character.
> 
> 2. The teaching will be promoted by different channels because som 
disciples
> or chela's
> of various levels will as a part of their training have to learn 
how to
> present such a teaching in a certain manner,
> - and NOT only a by dead letter Theosophical one by only using 
Theosophical
> vocabulary ! - Please think this through.
> And because the chelas are different around the globe or at least 
has been
> so until now since 1875,
> there will clearly be more than on version on ancient wisdom 
teachings.
> This doesn't however change the fact, that Blavatsky was the lead 
agent of
> the Masters in the years 1875-1891.
> 
> Help me out someone:
> What is the real difference between Theosophy by Blavatsky and the 
writings
> of Geoffrey Higgins ?
> What is the difference between Blavatsky and Eliphas Levi's 
writings ?
> What is the difference between Blavatsky and Idries Shah's 
writings ?
> What is the difference between the writings of the Upanishads and 
the
> Theosophical ones ?
> Answer: Not much if any. Physical writings are physical.
> But in a dead-letter sense: Yes. Very much difference.
> 
> Of course Blavatsky's teachings has a high level, and perhaps the 
highest.
> But it is a fact, which should not be overlooked: She do not cover 
all
> aspects of the wisdom tradition.
> Others have enhanced upon her teaching. Some she are referring to 
herself.
> Others are later teacher or promoters of wisdom.
> And so on...
> 
> This is my view.
> 
> from
> M. Sufilight with peace and love...
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "arielaretziel" <arielaretziel@y...>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 7:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World why blavatsky?
> 
> 
> 
> My question is this, if the Wisdom is found everywhere, why 
propigate one
> version of it? I personally like The Secret Doctrine and someone 
else may l=
> ike
> the Necronomicon. We find people with the same interest and discuss 
our
> own things. The world can be saved without everyone learning the 
Secret
> Doctrine.
> 
> PR is for salesmen. I have nothing to sell and neither does HPB. 
This Wisdo=
> m
> comes for free.
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> theosophy@a...> wrote:
> > Hallo all of you,
> >
> > My views are:
> >
> > When KH in a letter is quoted saying that Blavatsky was their 
chosen
> > vehicle.
> > http://blavatskyarchives.com/latermessengers.htm
> > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-2.htm (Mahatma 
Letter 2,
> > edition 2 - at the bottom).
> >
> > He said this in the sense, that she was the vehicle for Theosophy 
in the
> > period she was living.
> > When she 'died' - another policy was chosen on the 'outer head' 
idea. But=
> 
> > some who calls themselves theosophists
> > thinks that she and/or her writings still is the chosen vehicle - 
on the
> > physical plane. And the only one.
> > I see no reason to think so.
> > - And I will welcome anyone to proove differently. I would rather 
that we=
> 
> > listen to what poeple are saying - than we closed
> > our eyes to future Teachers who without reasonable doubt could be 
said to=
> 
> > have importance. -
> >
> > Because after her dead - things was by nature changed.
> > The result was in part that the western populations was more 
aware of the=
> 
> > Wisdom Tradition than
> > before. And that certian cultural barrieres had been broken down. 
India
> > became more respected
> > for its historical background which was shown in a more true 
light - than=
> 
> > the then stupid scholars
> > in the years 1875-1891 did. (This was very good indeed !)
> > The books written by people in the period 1891-1933 was many and 
and
> some of
> > them helpful to
> > promote the importance of Blavatsky's work and make people aware 
of the
> > existence of the Wisdom Tradition.
> >
> > Theosophy in its most widest sense of the term called the Ancient 
Wisdom
> > Tradition
> > has never been promoting - dead letter thinking and Bible-study 
or simila=
> r
> > activities - and clingings to
> > physical organisations and - the use of physical namings and 
letters of s=
> uch
> > organisations.
> > For instance the use of the word "Theosophy".
> >
> > Back then in the years 1875-1891 people wanted - drama and 
emotional
> > arousels.
> > Even some who is called intellectuals fall for that. This happens 
also
> > today.
> > So Theosophy was flourishing because of this - attractive pull, 
which cam=
> e
> > at the right time
> > and which was needed.
> >
> > The same is true today - on drama and the like - although the 
level is mo=
> re
> > intellectual and less emotional.
> >
> > To do the exactly same kind of PR today would be no good or at 
least less=
> 
> > good.
> > True Theosophy always adapts its teachings and the presentation 
of its
> > realities
> > in different manners suited to time place and people.
> > (And true - there will nearly always be some who is not satisfied 
by the
> > chosen presentation.)
> > In the future it will be given a different name than "Theosophy" 
or any d=
> ead
> > letter view,
> > we can for sure rely on that. (But not Lucis Trust or similar. 
Because of=
> 
> > the Middle Eastern flaws this group has.)
> > Let us still remember, this is just my views.
> >
> > ***True Theosophy is NOT a physical organisation or branch !
> > Theosophy is in a certain sense non-physical more than it is 
physical. **=
> *
> >
> > Right now we are in a period of transition when we talk about the 
PR
> > of Theosophy as TS with its various offshoot branches, some good 
some
> bad,
> > some at least useful
> > as far as it goes.
> > - A new (synthesis) teacher is awaited -
> > This is also true when we talk about Rosicrucians and others...
> >
> > Blavatsky and the Masters in fact didn't do anything wrong saying 
that
> > Blavatsky was an 'agent'.
> > They had to - in a certain sense lie - so to get the potential 
seekers
> > interested.
> > She was not what could be termed - a global 'outer head' or 
agent, but mu=
> ch
> > more a western-India related one.
> >
> > What really happened then was, that other groups like some of the
> > Rosicrucians and Sufis and others
> > was also doing the job of the Masters, but on their own level and 
in thei=
> r
> > own manner.
> > Blavatsky even says this in her book The Secret Doctrine. So she 
and KH
> did
> > not really lie,
> > they just didn't clearly tell people that they played upon their 
emotions=
> ,
> > so
> > to if possible help them get developed.
> > (They made the name "Theosophy" important - and downplayed other
> names of
> > other groups a little. The Masters in their Letters and Blavatsky
> > in her writings. other groups at that time did teach wisdom 
teachings - b=
> ut
> > not in such an open and public manner - in the western countries. 
Perhaps=
> 
> > apart from The Golden Dawn. And Theosophy came in to play partly
> because of
> > the existence of The Golden Dawn with its misunderstandings of the
> Kabbalah
> > and other teachings.)
> >
> > The fact was and is, that the western part of the world at that 
time - ha=
> d a
> > more developed distribution of Newspapers and books,
> > was more rich, wealthy, and had the needed technology to travel 
between
> > countries. For instance was Egypt owned by Britain
> > in most of the period from 1875-1891, something which sometimes is
> > overlooked by the students.
> > The higher level of distribution of Newpapers and distribution of 
books a=
> nd
> > the written word - and the larger public access to these things 
are
> > important,
> > when we talk about Theosophy and the period 1875-1891, the 
Blavatskian
> > period.
> >
> > And the use of the word "Theosophy" has several meanings and 
layers,
> > when one quotes Blavatsky or the Mahtama Letters. And this we 
shouldn't
> > forget.
> >
> > The Masters has many compassionate "schemes" going today.
> > Do any of you think that they only are concerned with "Theosophy" 
in the
> > dead letter sense of this word
> > and only this physical planet called Earth ?
> >
> > Do you not think that they are involved in their own sweet manner 
in what=
> is
> > going on at the United Nations
> > and also in Iraq and elsewhere ?
> >
> > Do you not think, that they consider the importance or lack of 
the same f=
> or
> > each and every branch of Theosophy
> > and ist many offshoot branches ? An view it all in a more true 
light ?
> >
> > And what about the many "occult groups" and mystical groups in 
Africa, As=
> ia
> > and the Middle East, and the India groups
> > of various mystical relations ?
> > Do you think that the true value that each of these groups has 
escaped
> > their - sharp eyes of wisdom ?
> >
> >
> > Let us not underestimate this teaching called Theosophy - or much 
more
> > precisely THE WISDOM TRADITION of ALL AGES.
> > Labels are just labels. The compasionate Heart will reveal it all.
> >
> > Theosophy as the organisation TS as we know it through Blavatsky 
was,
> and is
> > just ONE single branch of a great weaving of the Masters 
activities.
> > If Theosophy is only TS, then KH's remarks in his letter on 
the 'agent'
> > Blavatsky was not so good.
> > But if Theosophy is TS, Sufis, Rosicrucians, and a whole lot of 
other
> > acitvities through the ages especially including the last about 
129 years=
> of
> > human activities
> > on this physical plane - then KH is allright in what he is 
saying. Blavat=
> sky
> > was the primary head of the outer wisdom-movementS - so to speak -
when
> she
> > lived in the period 1875-1891. No real doubt in my mind about 
that. (Let =
> us
> > not forget the work done by Damodar and others.)
> > A certain sense of humor - are hidden in the Mahatma Letters if 
one reads=
> 
> > them - with a deeper understanding than the intellectual one.
> >
> > So when Caldwell says the following at
> > http://blavatskyarchives.com/latermessengers.htm , he is to my 
taste a
> > little bit too optimistic about the truth.
> >
> > " H.P. Blavatsky (1831-1891) was the first person in modern times 
to clai=
> m
> > contact with the Theosophical Adepts, especially the Masters 
Morya and
> Koot
> > Hoomi. She affirmed that in her writings she was giving out the 
teachings=
> of
> > the Adept Brotherhood. "
> >
> > Blavatsky wasn't the first (or only) representative in modern 
times. But =
> she
> > was the first - Publicly and with good use of PR - to succeed in 
doing so=
> 
> > or becoming such a representative. This is more true. (And what 
is the
> words
> > "modern times" used at Caldwells webpage covering ?)
> >
> >
> > Try the Khwaja (Sufi Masters from India - Afghanistan; - Kashmir 
and
> > southwest of it) - known at least since year 980.
> > and others...So Blavtsky did at least not tell some people living 
in that=
> 
> > local area anything new.
> > Blavtsky was on this issue talking mainly to a western audience. 
(Not tru=
> e
> > ?)
> > Remember, that the Bhagavad Gita was for the first time mass-
distrubuted =
> 
> as
> > late as 1950 - about three years after the independece of India.
> > The Theosophical success back then came also about due to the use 
of
> written
> > materials and the clever distribution of them. Ie. Clever PR !
> > (This do not happen today. Well that is my view.)
> >
> > Today - the new Teacher will talk not only - primarily to a 
western
> > audience.
> > The audience will be much larger - and much more multicultural.
> > My view is let us keep an eye on the United Nations and the 
religious
> > activities in and around this global body.
> >
> > The time, place and poeple - and the PR - is different.
> > That is all.
> >
> > The United Nations has 6 core languages they use in their 
publications.
> > And This is just an english based - forum.
> > English not being the best language of communication. (quote - 
Blavatsky =
> 
> on
> > that.)
> > Why the english alphabet ? To help us get rid of the poisonous 
Western
> > arrogance - the conquerors ? Or to help us get rid of ignorance ?
> > Arab, Chinese or even Sanskrit would be better to use - let us 
not forget=
> 
> > that.
> > Follow the...aeehm...flow. (smile...)
> >
> > Do good. Be good. See good.
> > And on Wisdom ?
> >
> >
> > You may correct me if I have made a mistake or two.
> > Did this help ?
> >
> > from
> > M. Sufilight with peace and love...
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "adelasie" <adelasie@s...>
> > To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 3:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: Theos-World why blavatsky?
> >
> >
> > Hi Krishtar,
> >
> > Interesting question, and one we might all pose. So many times it
> > seems that the person who is chosen for some role of leadership is
> > inadequate. Perhaps it's a test of the doubter's nature, a test of
> > loyalty and devotion, of obedience. If we accept the hierarchical
> > geometry of the universe, and the principle of centralization, if 
we
> > accept karma as a fact of nature, then we can see that when causes
> > indicate, a new impulse is due to the consciousness of humanity, 
and
> > some instrument, some individual human being (i.e Jesus, Krishna,
> > Buddha, etc.) must be found to bring the new vibration through to 
the
> > material plane. It makes sense that the one who gets that 
(thankless)
> > job would be the one next in line, the one who had earned the
> > opportunity. Speculating about the position in the hierarchy of 
such
> > a one is rather self-defeating, since we don't even know our own
> > position, and can hardly expect to be able to estimate another's. 
But
> > if we consider the fact of the unity of all life, and apply this
> > overarching principle to the question, it becomes evident that 
there
> > is nothing strange about it at all. Humanity is evolving from
> > unconsciousness to total consciousness. We (humanity) move along 
the
> > evolution trail together. We each have a position in the whole
> > constantly changing mosaic. All we are asked to do is fulfill that
> > role to the best of our ability. If one falls out of line, from
> > weakness or unwillingness, the next in line, the next one who has
> > earned the opportunity, steps into place. None of us is
> > irreplaceable. It is not a matter of individual success, but of
> > cooperation for the benefit of the whole.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Adelasie
> >
> > On 25 Jan 2004 at 17:13, krishtar wrote:
> >
> > > Dears
> > >
> > > Be the peace be with you all.
> > >
> > > Why did all those masters choose HPB as their " 
representatives" and
> > > channel for registering the secret doctrines? Why couldnīt they
> > > themselves do the job? See: Thery were in major number; They 
were
> > > males - which could be much easier to be heard than a russian 
female,
> > > in a machist world, with so much health problems and physical
> > > limitations? They had developed inner powers - they were 
oriental, so
> > > why would they need to take a western woman to serve as an
> amanuensis
> > > and still a woman who required to be taken to Tibbet to be 
iniciated,
> > > trained, pretending to be a male in some occasions? It is not a 
doubt
> > > of mine, but have you ever thought of it? What can you say?
> > >
> > >
> > > Krishtar
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > theos-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> theos-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/