theos-talk.com

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

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

Re: Theos-World Re: Forget HPB & her writing, consider Besant as founder & move on

Jan 01, 2006 11:35 AM
by M. Sufilight


Hallo Anand and all,


I have been pondering your reply a bit.
I do not agree so much with you, this time. I think Cass earlier made a reply, which deserves attention.
But, let us see, what you can reply with.
This is my answer.


1.
Anand wrote:
I agree with this point. But question was who was/is second teacher.
Most probably second and real teacher was Annie Besant who was
appointed, proved by her calibre and work. However I think Masters
would send somebody time to time, some teacher to carry out work of
Theosophy. TS was never meant for dependence on one leader only. It
was always considered as society that would go on for hundreds of
years. Obviously it will need real teachers and I think it will get.


My Sufilight answer:
I agree, that the Masters from time to time send out emmisaries or direct agents.
That is my knowledge.
But, I find It to be somewhat fruitless to assume, with words like "Most probably",
about this issue. I say this in a friendly manner - even if it is true, that it could be guiding someone.
If one doesn't really have Knowledge about this issue one aught to prepare oneself for this Knowledge.
This is Learning how to Learn. Intellectual assumtions will
not help us much.

I will add, that it should not be ruled out, that more than one
person from different organisations could be said to the second Teacher or Teachers.
Each of them taking care of the various groups of Seekers and their needs
on more than one non-linear level.
Even if I know who the teachers are or was it would not help,
that much if I told just anyone about it. There is time, place and circumstances etc.
to talk about such knowledge. This is not the place and time etc. as I understand it.



2.
Anand wrote:
Immediately after Blavatsky's death, a sect or cult was formed. She
did not want it. But her writing is such that sect or cult
automatically forms among her students.
Annie Besant spoke and wrote against cult, sect. But in ULT,
Pasadena TS, there were always some individuals who tried to create
sect or cult. And some Blavatsyans in Adyar TS have also become very
dogmatic.


My Sufilight answer:
The use of the word "automatically" I find here to be problematic,
because it could be misunderstood. I would rather say, that ofshoot cults or
sects was created because global Karma made it necessary. If people want to create a cult, they do so.
And many of the cults followers does often not know, that it is a cult.:-)
Else I think we agree on that.

On Annie Besant being a second teacher, - I would compare for instance the content of Blavatsky's article
on "Chelas" with the total litterary outlet, which Besant allowed
to be created together with Leadbeater during her time of leadership.
The article by Blavatsky is here: http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/Chelas.htm

An excerpt from Blavatsky's article:
"Indeed the goal set before the Chela is not the acquisition of psychological power; his chief task is to
divest himself of that overmastering sense of personality which is the thick veil that hides from sight our
immortal part--the real man. So long as he allows this feeling to remain, just so long will he be fixed at the
very door of Occultism, unable to proceed further."

I hold it to be true, that Besant under her leadership allowed - perhaps through Leadbeater - litterary outlets,
with a content which quite unfortunately way too much drove many Seekers into a witchhunt on
exploration of ekstra sensory perception (ESP). While at the same time putting the methaphysical and
esoterical teachings on Gupta-Vidya too much into the background. Not to mention the emotionally
oriented ceremonials, which was connected to TS Adyar during the leadership of Annie Besant.
- And because of this TS Adyar ran into problems and secterian tendencies flourished within the society.
At the same time we must remember, that there was a greater reform in a number of western
european countries School-systems during the time of Besants leadership.
A far greater number could read and write during Besants leadership than during the Blavatsky
area. Even Annie Besant did herself an effort on this in India. In the Middle East and other parts of the globe
developments of TS nature were more slow.

This change of focus within the TS Adyar was in fact at least somewhat a deterioration of the
theosophical teachings as they were forwarded by Blavatsky.
Not that Besant and other lecturers during her time of leadership never taught
real and genuine theosophy, on their level of understanding. So they did, and that was good.

But, the deterioration happened. This deterioration however could be both a necessary and
somewhat fruitful plan. Because many aspirants would be easier attracted to Theosophy and spread
the news about theosophy around the globe. And Blavatsky teachings and other more genuine teachings
was still available to the Seeker from TS Adyar's book production and within the TS libraries.

However, empahsis has to be laid on the fact, that It is the spiritual quality among members
of TS, which is important. Not so much the number of followers.
Blavatsky once said something similar.
So to me Annie Besant was not the Second Teacher in the sense, that she did not
give irrefutable evidence on Gupta-Vidya. Certainly not.
But, maybe you have something else to offer Anand? I might have missed something?

This said, I know also, that a Master from time to time hides behind
emotionally oriented ESP cults - and act as an more or less vissible guide to the cults future destiny.
Emotional ESP cults using the name Theosophy has a vital importance when compared to
the real Theosophical groups which a direct agent and clear continous contact with the Masters.
This simply because they are connected to each other. This should be underlined.
But an emotional ESP cult using the name Theosophy - is still just an emotional ESP cult.


3.
Anand wrote:
You can easily guess which groups are frozen. Adyar TS has taken
precaution by printing Freedom of Thought on every Theosophist
issue. But that alone is not sufficient. There are some more things
they should do to stop formation of dogma and cult.


My Sufilight answer:
Interesting answer you have there Anand. Could you
expand on what Adyar TS should do to "stop formation of dogma and cult"?
And please do also expand on why I should merely - guess - which groups are frozen?


I hope my answer was helpful.



from
M. Sufilight with a strange clairvoyant look...and a happy laughter...



----- Original Message ----- From: "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@AnandGholap.org>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 3:01 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Forget HPB & her writing, consider Besant as founder & move on


Hello Morten,
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-
theosophy@s...> wrote:
Hallo Anand,

Thanks.

About the second Teacher I will say this:

"The bitter truth is that before man can know his own inadequacy,
or the
competence of another man or institution, he must first learn
something
which will enable him to perceive both. Note well that his
perception itself
is a product of right study; not of instinct or emotional
attraction to the
individual, nor yet of desiring to 'go it alone'. This
is 'Learning How To
Learn."
(from 'Learning how to Learn' by Idries Shah)
I agree with this point. But question was who was/is second teacher.
Most probably second and real teacher was Annie Besant who was
appointed, proved by her calibre and work. However I think Masters
would send somebody time to time, some teacher to carry out work of
Theosophy. TS was never meant for dependence on one leader only. It
was always considered as society that would go on for hundreds of
years. Obviously it will need real teachers and I think it will get.


Then the next questions of mine comes forward again.
Here I take the three next of the 15-16 questions to ponder or
contemplate.
A.
Who are being or has been mistaken for being the "second teacher"
within
theosophical teachings, but are or was in fact only promoting a
theosophical
Cult, (emotional and what not) - with merely social and
psychological
teachings as the main objective?

B.
And who has been or are promoting The Theosophical Society merely
as an
emotional cult and was this creation of a cult in accordance with
the
original ideas or with the wisdom teachings?
Immediately after Blavatsky's death, a sect or cult was formed. She
did not want it. But her writing is such that sect or cult
automatically forms among her students.
Annie Besant spoke and wrote against cult, sect. But in ULT,
Pasadena TS, there were always some individuals who tried to create
sect or cult. And some Blavatsyans in Adyar TS have also become very
dogmatic.


C.
Who are merely frozen in the development of the furtherance of the
theosophical teachings (the doctrine of "business-as-usual") - and
not
knowing to be so?


Or I could ask which groups or organisations if any are involved
in this?

You can easily guess which groups are frozen. Adyar TS has taken
precaution by printing Freedom of Thought on every Theosophist
issue. But that alone is not sufficient. There are some more things
they should do to stop formation of dogma and cult.

Anand Gholap



from
M. Sufilight with the Seekers after Truth...


----- Original Message ----- From: "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@A...>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 1:29 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Forget HPB & her writing, consider Besant
as
founder & move on


> Hello Morten,
> Article is interesting. Indeed major problem for most is who is
> second and real teacher mentioned here.
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-
> theosophy@s...> wrote:
>>
>> Hallo Anand and all,
>>
>> My views are:
>>
>> I think we have been talking about these issues before here at
> Theos-talk.
>>
>> Maybe Anand, other participants to this thread as well as
various
>> theosophists could be helped
>> by reading a previous email of mine to this place:
>> http://www.theos-talk.com/archives/200409/tt00536.html
>> (And read also the links within the emails)
>> Especially this one:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17916
>>
>> An major excerpt from the last link are given in the below
>> It is in part about what happened when Blavatsky died
physically:
>>
>> "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.
>>
>> 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 Theosophist 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."
>>
>> And again:
>> 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.
>>
>> My views is:
>> Dead-letter teachings has never been the hallmark of real
> theosophy.
>> There is actually no need to use the very words "theosophy" or
>> "Theosophical"
>> when TODAY forwarding true and honest teachings (related to
time,
> place and
>> people mind you)
>> about the Path or Atma-Vidya etc...
>> Today a number of wellmeaning Theosophists forget too much to
> CLEARLY point
>> this out to Seekers they themselves teach or guide.
>>
>> What we don't need is the create yet a new set of branches each
of
> them
>> being sort of
>> "Bible-collection"-studying sects accepting only dead-letter
> teachings (as
>> main teachings)
>> containing the words "Theosophical" or "theosophy" as a
NECESSITY.
>> And with each sect using their own Bible-collection.
>>
>> Another excerpt trying to some how escape business as usual:
>> "So how is the development of The Theosophical Soceity and
various
>> theosophical groups going to be in the future - IF - we as a
> minimum base
>> our views on my above email - while keeping the link to J.J. van
> der Leeuw
>> pamphlet in the first link in the above in mind?
>>
>> We could with some adavantage ponder on the following questions:
>> 1. Who is (or was) the "second teacher(s)" - if any - within
> Theosophy? -
>> And will there be or has there been a third, fourth or fifth
> teacher?
>> 2. Who are being or has been mistaken for being the "second
> teacher" within
>> theosophical teachings, but are or was in fact only promoting a
> theosophical
>> Cult, (emotional and what not) - with merely social and
> psychological
>> teachings as the main objective?
>> 3. And who has been or are promoting The Theosophical Society
> merely as an
>> emotional cult and was this creation of a cult in accordance
with
> the
>> original ideas or with the wisdom teachings?
>> 4. Who are merely frozen in the development of the furtherance
of
> the
>> theosophical teachings (the doctrine of "business-as-usual") -
and
> not
>> knowing to be so?
>> 5. Who have merely been writing interpretations on the
> theosophical
>> teachings in a learned manner since HPB died - and had success
in
> building
>> an marked increase in support to the theosophical cause?
>> 6. - And who have merely been writing interpretations on the
> theosophical
>> teachings in a learned manner since HPB died - but failed to
build
> an marked
>> increase in support to the theosophical cause?
>> 7. Is your conscience not telling you that a teaching which are
> labelled as
>> "secondary" is not as good as a teaching named "primary" -
>> with a "primary" and up-to-date Teacher guiding you? (A Teacher
> who is
>> alive - and - not living in the past guiding you with "past"
> teachings.)
>> 8. Have you actually matured visibly as a Seeker beyond the
> average
>> fellow-human-beings level of consciuosness just by reading a few
>> theosophical books or even one hundred of them? And do all
Seekers
> who do
>> that mature beyond that level?
>> 9. Can real theosophical teaching happen in randomly collected
> groups -
>> where the listeners are not in harmony with each other, the
> teacher, time,
>> place and circumstances? (Are it just not merely information
> stimulating the
>> intellect which are being exchanged?)
>> 9. Can the blind lead the blinder? (Maybe it is good to be
honest
> about how
>> blind one is.)
>> 10. Do you not need a - real - teacher first?
>> 11. Can Universal Brotherhood be created or is it just merely a
> dream with
>> all those theosophical sects (and Sisterhoods >:-)...) around in
> the world?
>> Sects because they do not openly tell the Seekers how they
relate
> to other
>> theosophical groups year 2004.
>> 12. Will the Theosophical Societies and other theosophical
groups
> create a
>> good furtherance of its teachings through promotion of so-
> called "spritiaul
>> Master Revelations" presented or treated by various Theosophical
> leaders as
>> an authority? (What was good in the good old days - is maybe not
> good
>> today.)
>> 13. Is the furtherance of the theosophical teachings based on
> giving more
>> emphasis to the opening of the spiritual Heart, love and
unselfsh
> healing
>> more than what can be termed "business-as-usual" or the
spiritual
> support of
>> emotional get-to-gethers?
>> 14. How aught one to promote oneself as a Teacher of theosophy?
> And how not?
>> 15. How do I promote Theosophy at work? Through social-get-
> togethers?
>>
>>
>> My views are:
>> Answering these questions will provide material enough to write
> several
>> volumes of text.
>> At this place we call Theos-Talk, we dare challenge leadership
and
> how it
>> aught to be used theosophically speaking.
>> At various theosophical groups leadership are not allowed to be
> challenged.
>> Some of the reasons for this I think J.J. van der Leeuw has
> presented in his
>> still important pamphlet. Blavatsky was challenged and allowed
it
> to happen
>> to a very great extend."
>>
>>
>> And again:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> from
>> M. Sufilight with a smile...
>>
>>
>>







Yahoo! Groups Links










[Back to Top]


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