theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World HPB's article entitled KARMIC VISIONS & Frank's relevant comments

Mar 27, 2005 07:31 AM
by M. Sufilight






Hallo Leon and all,



It is a bit long...but..that is how it is.





My views are:



A.

Leon wrote:

"As for Nasrudin, while his humorous stories are a fine way (for some) of
transmitting his wisdom, one would have to read them all a thousand times and
still would only gain a smidgen of the full extent of Gupta Vidya -- which, from
my point of view, includes both "Wisdom" AND "Knowledge" -- including that of
both cause and effect and the physical and metaphysical realities of both one
and many, emptiness and fullness (from the zero-point to infinity :-). In other
words, how the universe and everything within it really is and works."



My answer:

As HPB said in The Secret Doctrine:

"
The reader has to bear in mind that the Stanzas given treat only of the Cosmogony of our own planetary System and what is visible around it, after a Solar Pralaya. The secret teachings with regard to the Evolution of the Universal Kosmos cannot be given, since they could not be understood by the highest minds in this age, and there seem to be very few Initiates, even among the greatest, who are allowed to speculate upon this subject. Moreover the Teachers say openly that not even the highest Dhyani-Chohans have ever penetrated the mysteries beyond those boundaries that separate the milliards of Solar systems from the "Central Sun," as it is called. Therefore, that which is given, relates only to our visible Kosmos, after a "Night of Brahma."
"
(Vol. 1, Page 13 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.)

Idries Shah states something like, that - when reading is unimportant to the Seeker - then the Teacher arrives or has arrived.

One will easily realise that Idries Shah's teachings is not only concerned with his own books - and writings as such - but also with

teachings on higher levels and spiritual excercises - without the use of books.

He explains this issue at many places from different angles in his writings.

Gupta Vidya is NOT to merely have read methaphysical teachings.

Merely reading do not necessarily make you develop very far. It is the impact - of what you read, that is important.

And later it is the meeting with Teacher and the teaching given, that is important. Not physical books or writings.



And not all of Idries Shah's literary outlets are short stories. He actually also wrote what we call real books.

More so Idries Shah said, that some stories or spiritual allegories as such

are active for years and will sometimes only sprout after perhaps two or three years - or even later.

Because then suddenly in a flash you will understand the deeper impact they have.

The same can be said about the content of The Secret Doctrine.

The last I think be both will agree upon.

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/sufi/sufi-shah.html



We can agree upon that some needs the scientific approach to theosophy or the path of divine wisdom.

But I think we also can agree, that mere methaphysical intellectualism will - quite often - only lead you

to the doorstep of the esoteric teachings of the intuition - the buddhic level or higher.

That was also why Blavatsky in The Secret Doctrine forwarded the importance of allegorical teachings

as important to reveal higher teachings - also methaphysical teachings. That was why the Stanzas was and is allegorical.




When I refer to Idries Shah as an exponent who has enhanced the Theosophical teachings

as they are mostly known - I do so with regard to the area of "Spiritual Organisations and their mode of operating"

and especially also the differences between these groups and Theosophy - also known as the path to divine wisdom.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



B. The Theoosphical Society defines itself with its three or four objects as we known them.



The Original Programme of The Theosophical Society

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/origin.htm or

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/theos/th-origp.htm



In the above versions we find - following vital excerpt:

"In order to leave no room for equivocation, the members of the T. S. have to be reminded of the origin of the Society in 1875. Sent to the U.S. of America in 1873 for the purpose of organizing a group of workers on a psychic plane, two years later the writer received orders from her Master and Teacher to form the nucleus of a regular Society whose objects were broadly stated as follows:

1. Universal Brotherhood;

2. No distinction to be made by the member between races, creeds, or social positions, but every member had to be judged and dealt by on his personal merits;

3. To study the philosophies of the East -- those of India chiefly, presenting them gradually to the public in various works that would interpret exoteric religions in the light of esoteric teachings;

4. To oppose materialism and theological dogmatism in every possible way, by demonstrating the existence of occult forces unknown to science, in nature, and the presence of psychic and spiritual powers in man; trying, at the same time to enlarge the views of the Spiritualists by showing them that there are other, many other agencies at work in the production of phenomena besides the "Spirits" of the dead. Superstition had to be exposed and avoided; and occult forces, beneficent and maleficent -- ever surrounding us and manifesting their presence in various ways -- demonstrated to the best of our ability.

Such was the programme in its broad features. The two chief Founders were not told what they had to do, how they had to bring about and quicken the growth of the Society and results desired; nor had they any definite ideas given them concerning its outward organization all this being left entirely with themselves. Thus, as the undersigned had no capacity for such work as the mechanical formation and administration of a Society, the management of the latter was left in the hands of Col. H. S. Olcott, then and there elected by the primitive founders and members --President for life. But if the two Founders were not told what they had to do, they were distinctly instructed about what they should never do, what they had to avoid, and what the Society should never become. Church organizations, Christian and Spiritual sects were shown as the future contrasts to our Society. "

And there is more... in that link.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



And Leon:
To - me - the programe as a whole is the fundament upon which The Theoosphical Society rests. Later revisions of this text/programe in the above are possibly a deviation from the true programe. What was good and helpful back in the old days - is most certainly not always that healthy these days. Let us remember that.

And it is - the THIRD object, which has occupied the mind of Idries Shah more than any other exponent of what we can call theosophical teachings - or similar teachings.
This I find to be of importance today 2005.


=> My problem is how does HPB or the founders define the word "sect" or "sects" in the above excerpt?
I think this is a central issue, because we today have so many secterian groups or organisations
all of them claiming to be theosophical - and many of them are wellmeaning in doing so - even if they are not theosophical. And to understand this fully - one will often have to read the above text and programe carefully a number of times.
That is why I point my fingers towards the writings of Idries Shah because there is the key if any to be found in writings of today - to solve the present states of affairs between the various theosophical groups and their organisational modes of operation.
That is - how one as a theosophical Seeker - can learn to distinguish between a theosophical sect and a genuine group of theosophical seekers.

In the above we also have "but every member had to be judged and dealt by on his personal merits".
=> The question is who is "dealing" with who and who is "judging" who?
Is it Only the founders? If not, why not? (Read footnote 1 by HPB)
And are those "dealers" and "judges" not gone now - since none can be said - officially - to be in contact with the Masters?
And where does that leave us all, the Society and the Mahatmas known as Morya and K.H. (or their replacements)?

=> What geographical area was back then covering the word "India"? And what area does it cover today?
(Do you see the need to reformulate the Theosophical teachings from back then in 1886? They are just too old now. But that does not imply, that various theoosphical sects of today - should have the right to claim, that they alone know it all - and have the new teaching with a true Messenger in their hands - M. Sufilight included. I hope you understand this.)

My views on Idries Shah is not forwarded with the claim that I Know that Idries Shah is the candidate whom Blavatsky talked about.

While referring to the above text by Blavatsky I would say:
The only manner in which one group can avoid becoming a sect - is to AVOID IT.
Do you not agree?
That is why I recommend Idries Shah's writings, so that we can sort out these problems - or call it what you like - we all as theosophists are facing.
Whether he is a candidate to be the 1975 Messenger is for those to decide who actually knows how to judge about it.

Idries Shah made it clear in his writings, that the real Theosophical Society is not a publicly known group or organisation -
and that it also at least in part is a non-physical one. They have meetings of a quite different kind, than the average TS center has any idea about.
Idries Shah state somthing similar to this:
Nearly all the publicly known groups and organisations of theosophy and new age are secterian in nature or excercises conditioning - (ie. thereby creating
a socalled karmic circle).


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C. Another excerpt from the already mentioned link - so to relate it with your own teachings
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/origin.htm :


"Hall: Sufis also seem to take extra-sensory perception as a matter of course and as not very interesting.


Shah: Not interesting at all. It is no more than a by-product. Let me give you a banal analogy. If I were training to be a runner and went out every day to run, I would get faster and faster and be able to run farther and farther with less fatigue. Now, I also find that I have a better complexion, my blood supply is better, and my digestion has improved. These things don't interest me; they are only by-products of my running. I have another objective. When people I am associated with become overwhelmed by ESP phenomena, I always insist that they stop it, because their objective is elsewhere.



Hall: They are supposed to be developing their potential; not attempting to read minds or move objects around. Do you think that researchers will one day explain the physical basis of ESP or do you think it will always elude them?



Shah: If I say it will elude the scientists, it will annoy the people who are able to get enormous grants for research into ESP. But I think, yes, a great deal more can be discovered providing the scientists are prepared to be good scientists. And by that I mean that they are prepared to structure their experiments successively in accordance with their discoveries. They must be ready to follow and not hew doggedly to their original working hypothesis. And they will certainly have to give up their concept of the observer being outside of the experiment, which has been their dearest pet for many years.



And another thing, as we find constantly in metaphysics, people who are likely to be able to understand and develop capacities for ESP are more likely to be found among people who are not interested in the subject.



Hall: Is that because disinterest is necessary to approach the subject properly?



Shah: Something like that. Being disinterested, you can approach ESP more coolly and calmly. The Sufis say: "You will be able to exercise these supernatural powers when you can put out your hand and get a wild dove to land on it." But the other reason why the people who are fascinated by ESP or metaphysics or magic are the last who should study it is that they are interested in it for the wrong reasons. It may be compensation. They are not equipped to study ESP.



They are equipped for something else: fear, greed, hate, or love of humanity.


Hall: Often they have a desperate wish to prove that ESP is either true or false.



Shah: Yes that's what I call heroism. But it's not professionalism and that's what the job calls for."







later in the same text <<<<<<<<<<<<<


"Hall: That's not exactly what the contemporary devotees of witchcraft and magic are up to.



Shah: No. My work has no relevance to the current interest whatever. Oh, it makes my books sell, but they were written for cool-headed people and there aren't many of those around."



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Meaning, that Idries Shah's outlets were (mainly) written to true and honest Theosophical students and similar - and not to New Agers calling themselves theosophists,

and who likes to dive deep into the jungles of ESP and clairvoyant fumes, - while they fanatically seek world teachers, fuss and fancies a la tantra while they teach children.



As they say: If the shoe fits wear it.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



D.

On ULT. I was only referring to - CERTAIN - ULT's not the group a such.

And I think that I agree with you - IF what you say about the ULT's in general is true.

Well only IF...





E.

Leon wrote:

" I don't see the connection of Sufism, as an "experience of life" with the
metaphysical teachings in the Secret Doctrine, that are the sole basis of real
Theosophy -- purely as a "Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy."

"



There is teaching - and there is the one being taught who is experiencing something - perhaps something formless.

There is study and the one who studies - and experiences something.

To say that the "metaphysical teachings in the Secret Doctrine, that are the sole basis of real
Theosophy" is a false statement - and I think you know that Leon.



The question is - what one defines as being the "metaphysical teachings" of theosophy?
And HPB also said that, the Secret Doctrine was not without faults. It only uses three or four out of the seven keys in the Mystery Language, (vol 2.- p. 797)
"Thus far have proceeded the rough outlines of the beliefs and tenets of the archaic, earliest Races contained in their hitherto secret Scriptural records. But our explanations are by no means complete, nor do they pretend to give out the full text, or to have been read by the help of more than three or four keys out of the sevenfold bunch of esoteric interpretation, and even this has only been partially accomplished. The work is too gigantic for any one person to undertake, far more to accomplish. Our main concern was simply to prepare the soil." (vol 2.- p. 797)




What is the "Psychological key" to The Secret Doctrine?




from

M. Sufilight with peace and love...






----- Original Message ----- From: <leonmaurer@aol.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World HPB's article entitled KARMIC VISIONS & Frank's relevant comments





[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application