Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00161)

Hallo Daniel and all,

My views are:

1. Yes KH was in part doing that. Whether one believes it or not.
By seeking To establish physical The Theosophical Society the Master KH
was in part guilty of establishing a physical organisation with the dogmas
there necessarily must be related to such an organisation - no matter how
much the physical organisations teachings denies dogma as being of
importance.
One example is the TS logo. Another is the mere prescences of a physical
organisation
with 'leaders' (and not popes), which cannot themselves be said to be
completly pure and without any dogma in the aura.

KH not doubt was ware of this. But the spiritual fruits by doing so was
allright.

2. Yes.
But the situation back then was of much more importance.
They were about to make the Theosophical Society as a world wide
organisation.
It had not sprouted yet.
Sinnett's ideas could have crashed the whole attempt before it got of
ground.

I would rather, that one related what the spiritual difference between today
and back then is.
How should one promote theosophy or Theosophy toady ?
Should it be done in the same manner as at the time of Blavatsky or how ?

3. Yes. Based on my views in 2, I would say yes.

4. No seroius student can do so except if the student has reached a high
enough level to do so.
Today the situation is different.

Theosophical Society has sprouted into hundres of different offshoot
branches.
Most of them of an inferiior kind when compared to the original Blavatsky
one in the olden days.
And by saying this - I will have to remind you that what was good in the
past days - might not be so good
today - at least not in the same dead-letter form.

5. The physical level can be said to be committed to dualism.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@y...>
To: <ham>; <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:32 AM
Subject: ham,Theos-World K.H.: ". . . I cannot permit our sacred philosophy
to be so disfigured. . . . "


> In the quote below, was Master KH trying to
> establish some dogma, some infallible
> "sacred philosophy"?
>
> Is the Master telling Mr. Sinnett that
> an exposition of Theosophy could "disfigure"
> the true teachings of the Masters?
>
> Could such a disfigurement be truly
> called Pseudo-Theosophy?
>
> If there could be "disfigurements" of
> the Mahatmas' sacred philosophy in the
> 1880s, why could this not occur again
> in the 11 decades intervening between
> then and now?
>
> And how would the serious student of
> Theosophy determine whether a given
> exposition of Theosophy is genuine or
> "disfigured"?
>
> Surely what the Master wrote should
> spur the student to ask such questions
> and try to gain some insights as to the
> possible answers.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> "I dread the appearance in print of our
> philosophy as expounded by Mr. H[ume]. I
> read his three essays or chapters on God (?)
> cosmogony and glimpses of the origin of things
> in general, and had to cross out nearly all.
> He makes of us Agnostics!! We do not believe
> in God because so far, we have no proof, etc.
> This is preposterously ridiculous: if he
> publishes what I read, I will have H.P.B.
> or Djual Khool deny the whole thing; as I
> cannot permit our sacred philosophy to be
> so disfigured. He says that people will not
> accept the whole truth; that unless we humour
> them with a hope that there may be a 'loving
> Father and creator of all in heaven' our
> philosophy will be rejected a priori. In such
> a case the less such idiots hear of our doctrines
> the better for both. If they do not want the
> whole truth and nothing but the truth, they
> are welcome. But never will they find us --
> (at any rate) -- compromising with, and pandering
> to public prejudices."
> Master Koot Hoomi, The Mahatma Letters, 2nd ed.,
> Letter 54
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>