Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00119)

Oct 4 2002

Dear Friends:

The Rules of true Occultism are given as follows
 
RULES IN OCCULTISM

Student. - Are there any rules, binding on all, in white magic or good
occultism? I mean rules similar to the ten commandments of the Christians,
or the rules for the protection of life, liberty, and property recognized by
human law.

Sage. - There are such rules of the most stringent character, the breaking
of which is never wiped out save by expiation. Those rules are not made up
by some brain or mind, but flow from the laws of nature, of mind, and of
soul. Hence they are impossible of nullification. One may break them and
seem to escape for a whole life or for more than a life; but the very
breaking of them sets in motion at once other causes which begin to make
effects, and most unerringly those effects at last react on the violator.
Karma here acts as it does elsewhere, and becomes a Nemesis who, though
sometimes slow, is fate itself in its certainty.


Student. - It is not, then, the case that when an occultist violates a rule
some other adept or agent starts out like a detective or policeman and
brings the culprit to justice at a bar or tribunal such as we sometimes read
of in the imaginative works of mystical writers or novelists?

Sage. - No, there is no such pursuit. On the contrary, all the fellow-adepts
or students are but too willing to aid the offender, not in escaping
punishment, but in sincerely trying to set counteracting causes in motion
for the good of all. For the sin of one reacts on the whole human family.
If, however, the culprit does not wish to do the amount of counteracting
good, he is merely left alone to the law of nature, which is in fact that of
his own inner life from which there can be no escape. In Lytton's novel,
Zanoni, you will notice the grave Master, Mejnour, trying to aid Zanoni,
even at the time when the latter was falling slowly but surely into the
meshes twisted by himself that ended in his destruction. Mejnour knew the
law and so did Zanoni. The latter was suffering from some former error which
he had to work out; the former, if himself too stern and unkind, would later
on come to the appropriate grief for such a mistake. But meanwhile he was
bound to help his friend, as are all those who really believe in
brotherhood.


Student. - What one of those rules in any way corresponds to "Thou shalt not
steal"?

Sage. - That one which was long ago expressed by the ancient sage in the
words, "Do not covet the wealth of any creature." This is better than "Thou
shalt not steal," for you cannot steal unless you covet. If you steal for
hunger you may be forgiven, but you coveted the food for a purpose, just as
another covets merely for the sake of possession. The wealth of others
includes all their possessions, and does not mean mere money alone. Their
ideas, their private thoughts, their mental forces, powers, and faculties,
their psychic powers - all, indeed, on all planes that they own or have.
While they in that realm are willing to give it all away, it must not be
coveted by another.
You have no right, therefore, to enter into the mind of another who has not
given the permission and take from him what is not yours. You become a
burglar on the mental and psychic plane when you break this rule. You are
forbidden taking anything for personal gain, profit, advantage, or use. But
you may take what is for general good, if you are far enough advanced and
good enough to be able to extricate the personal element from it. This rule
would, you can see, cut off all those who are well known to every observer,
who want psychic powers for themselves and their own uses. If such persons
had those powers of inner sight and hearing that they so much want, no power
could prevent them from committing theft on the unseen planes wherever they
met a nature that was not protected. And as most of us are very far from
perfect, so far, indeed, that we must work for many lives, yet the Masters
of Wisdom do not aid our defective natures in the getting of weapons that
would cut our own hands. For the law acts implacably, and the breaches made
would find their end and result in long after years. The Black Lodge,
however, is very willing to let any poor, weak, or sinful mortal get such
power, because that would swell the number of victims they so much require.


Student. - Is there any rule corresponding to "Thou shalt not bear false
witness"?

Sage. - Yes; the one which requires you never to inject into the brain of
another a false or untrue thought. As we can project our thoughts to
another's mind, we must not throw untrue ones to another. It comes before
him, and he, overcome by its strength perhaps, finds it echoing in him, and
it is a false witness speaking falsely within, confusing and confounding the
inner spectator who lives on thought.


Student. - How can one prevent the natural action of the mind when pictures
of the private lives of others rise before one?

Sage. - That is difficult for the run of men. Hence the mass have not the
power in general; it is kept back as much as possible. But when the trained
soul looks about in the realm of soul it is also able to direct its sight,
and when it finds rising up a picture of what it should not voluntarily
take, it turns its face away. A warning comes with all such pictures which
must be obeyed. This is not a rare rule or piece of information, for there
are many natural clairvoyants who know it very well, though many of them do
not think that others have the same knowledge.


Student. - What do you mean by a warning coming with the picture?

Sage. - In this realm the slightest thought becomes a voice or a picture.
All thoughts make pictures. Every person has his private thoughts and
desires. Around these he makes also a picture of his wish for privacy, and
that to the clairvoyant becomes a voice or picture of warning which seems to
say it must be let alone. With some it may assume the form of a person who
says not to approach, with others it will be a voice, with still others a
simple but certain knowledge that the matter is sacred. All these varieties
depend on the psychological idiosyncrasies of the seer.


Student. - What kind of thought or knowledge is excepted from these rules?

Sage. - General, and philosophical, religious, and moral. That is to say,
there is no law of copyright or patent which is purely human in invention
and belongs to the competitive system. When a man thinks out truly a
philosophical problem it is not his under the laws of nature; it belongs to
all; he is not in this realm entitled to any glory, to any profit, to any
private use in it. Hence the seer may take as much of it as he pleases, but
must on his part not claim it or use it for himself. Similarly with other
generally beneficial matters. They are for all. If a Spencer thinks out a
long series of wise things good for all men, the seer can take them all.
Indeed, but few thinkers do any original thinking. They pride themselves on
doing so, but in fact their seeking minds go out all over the world of mind
and take from those of slower movement what is good and true, and then make
them their own, sometimes gaining glory, sometimes money, and in this age
claiming all as theirs and profiting by it.

W Q Judge PATH January 1895
 
======================================

In regard to criticism:

It would be best to provide quotations --let the authors speak.

Best wishes,


Dallas
 
================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Morten
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 5:26 PM
To: 
Subject: Theosophistory FOHAT



Then Blavatsky was guilty of doing something wrong
on many accounts - is this not true Anand?
(Do you need me to email some examples - before you are convinced?)

My theosophical view is:

If it is you experience, that someone is doing something wrong.
Should you then not seek to help that individual - even if others who
are filled with prejudice go and say that you are - criticizing, shame on
you???
Or similar.

Anand asked:
"Are discussion groups formed to discuss principles of Theosophy or
criticizing leaders of other organizations."

I would theosophically speaking say both - if the critic being
given are motivated by compassion to help that individual or other
individuals, who connected with the situation one way or the other.
Without a critical stance towards any teaching - and by just absorbing
anything being presented to one self, - one is most likely at risk of being
indorctrinated or as some would say - brainwashed into false glamourous
views.

My view is, that the promotion of author with a dubious reputation -
is not theosophical - unless the dubious repuation are refuted.

The problem as I see it is:

When is one making a critic out of ill will and when is it motivated
by compassion. Those who are not aware of the facts - but
only assumes that they are - should better hold their tounge where it
belongs.

May I ask a question:
What stance has TS Adyar today on masutbation practises
among the young theosophists and the leaders?
Try to read this link before answering:
Annie Besant - at the Court 1913
http://www.parascience.org/besant.htm



from
M. Sufilight with peace andlove...



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@AnandGholap.org>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Theosophistry in Fohat


>
>
> Criticizing respected author of other organization is as wrong as
> christion criticizing Buddha or buddhist criticizing Christ. Are
> discussion groups formed to discuss principles of Theosophy or
> criticizing leaders of other organizations.
> Anand Gholap
>
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten N. Olesen" <global-
> theosophy@a...> wrote:
> > My views are:
> >
> > Well...
> >
> > I will have to ask you politely and wellmeaning:
> > Is it not also a question about whether one
> > actually "see bad in authors out of proportion" or Not ?
> >
> > How much bad is allowed from any author of wellknown theosophical
> admiration
> > before - enough is enough?
> > Is there no limit?
> > And if there is a limit, where do you Anand think it is?
> > And who decides this?
> >
> > from
> > M. Sufilight
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@A...>
> > To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 9:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: Theos-World Theosophistry in Fohat
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's right. Especially when all so called Theosophical Societies
> > > have main object Universal Brotherhood and when members see bad in
> > > authors out of proportion, then something is wrong.
> > > Fraternally,
> > > Anand Gholap
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "clarity12.1@j..."
> > > <clarity12.1@j...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > What would it take to drop politics from the very word
> theosophy.
> > > it has so much baggage, that the word itself, detracts even more
> that
> > > it might attract. How much time do we take in addressing the very
> > > long file of ts players. Does this practice not keep us off the
> task
> > > of practicing the principles we seem to more or less agree that
> exist-
> > > -self existent.
> > > >
> > > > If we only concentrate on the pure principles, without the
> relative
> > > bias interference, then would we not be practicing a form of
> > > meditation, I call conscious communication? Language that
> divides,
> > > regardless of it's astute intelluectual power, is still a breach
> of
> > > the so called oneness that we essentially are.
> > > > Or is this view naive?
> > > >
> > > > Regina
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > > Get your name as your email address.
> > > > Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more
> > > > Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



 
Yahoo! Groups Links