Theosophists And Jesuits
May 01, 2006 10:37 AM
I agree with much of what Sufilight wrote below.
I will comment only a small part of his posting.
"The split between W. Q. Judge and Annie Besant. It happened due to karma. The Masters could easily have intervened much more - and also intervened through Blavatsky before she died or by themselves have pointed much more clearly out who, their chosen successor and agent was. They did not do that. The reason was, that none was suitable or spiritually needed because
of the collective karma of the TS and the planet etc... The death of W. Q. Judge was part of the karmic situation, because he somehow - well somehow - lacked the needed understanding of the "Jesuits" and their dangerous activities to the society. (Please do not take the word Jesuits too litterally, when I use it. Yet they are also involved.)"
I believe, friends, that Judge was taken out of the physical scenario in 1896 for the same reasons HPB came out of it in 1891. The higher and pioneer level of work could not stay "here" any longer.
Yet surviving HPB for 5 years, Judge left the seeds of loyalty to Blavatsky/Masters. These seeds are now gradually developing in both Pasadena TS, the ULT, and other groups/students who appreciate Judge's work. (Some of them inside the Adyar TS.)
As to Sufilight's approach on the Jesuits problem, it does make a lot of sense, in my view.
Best regards, Carlos.
Data:Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:37:15 +0200
Assunto:[Spam] Re: Theos-World Theosophists Are No Jesuits, and the TS splits
> Hallo all,
> My views are:
> 1. Jesutis, the Vatican and The Christian Coalition
> There is no religion higher than the Truth.
> Not, that we need to disagree, but...
> Chuck wrote:
> " To the best of my knowledge Daniel is
> not now, nor ever has been an agent of either the Jesuits or Opus Dei."
> Sufilight answers:
> Allow me say this in a wellmeant and friendly manner:
> I sometimes wonder what group of "heretical agents" you are belonging to
> Chuck? :-)
> I find it to be true, that When one is getting influenced by The Christian
> then the "Jesuits" are not far behind. The question is just how much one is
> being influenced.
> Not only dead-letters in that.
> For instance:
> Merely speculating about what sort of group Daniel Caldwell belong to,
> will not help us much.
> I say, that Daniels website badly needs something to help the various
> heretical groups" social situation, when we consider the "jesutical"
> Right now I see that the situation is deterioration fast, and those beginner
> seekers, scholars,
> christian scholars figthing consciously or unconsciously against dead-letter
> insanity of the Bible,
> (a book filled with faults, mistranslations and mistakes), are really
> struggling when going through
> Daniel Caldwells website.
> I do not find myself speculating about this.
> (Even John De Saints has trouble, with his angle or angel of presentation,
> although a lot of info
> on the Jesutis are available there. But Daniel's angle on the jesuits
> really leaves
> the Seekers in the dark.
> - And permit me a few words of advice to the theosophical webmasters:
> Please seek to makes the text on each page less wide, only about
> half-screen-size would do
> much better. It helps the beginner seekers to read the text more easily.
> This is basic knowledge
> about web-usability. )
> So no worries about The Christian Coalition and related groups ???
> "When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians
> and Jews
> into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media
> challenged me.
> `You're not going to bring atheists into the government?
> How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values
> better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?'
> My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'"
> -from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.
> Blavatsky was quite right.
> How much did W. Q. Judge, K. Tingley, Purucker, Crosbie, Annie Besant and
> Leadbeater etc... write
> about the Jesuits when compared to H. P. Blavatsky.
> So Please, do not underestimate the old woman, named HPB!
> Not that any of you do, but just try absorb the point I am throwing at you.
> 2. Too much specualation and too much intuition bashing
> Bruce wrote in a recent email here at Theos-talk:
> "The enemies do not need to prove anything, they
> need only keep the allegations alive."
> I agree. We ever learn from our enemies.
> The enemies do often stimulate speculation on behalf of the stimulation of
> the intuition.
> Debates here at Theos-talk, which only seek to provoke speculation and not
> opening up of the intuition, are sometimes equal to keeping the Seekers down
> and away
> from spiritual development. The reader could ponder on this.
> Just try to count how many times Blavatsky mentioned the word Jesuit or
> Jesuits or jesuitical.
> 3. The Third Volume of the Secret Doctrine
> The third volume was printed by Annie Besant in the physical and NOT by
> Annie Besants level of wisdom in 1897 was not the same as Blavatsky's in
> Blavatsky would never use Esoteric Section material in The Secret Doctrine
> volume III
> to such a degree.
> The reason being, that this would certainly not be compassionate to publish
> the same or
> nearly the 100% same content to a totally different audience. Well, unless a
> higher purpose
> justified it. This purpose, I somehow havn't discovered yet.
> The volumes I and II of The Secret Doctrine were both edited and changed in
> their content
> up until even few weeks before their publication. Saying that volume III of
> The Secret Doctrine,
> didn't need at least the same wise and careful changes I hold to be a
> quesitonable and in fact
> a irresponsible view.
> And I think we should let it all rest there.
> 4. The split between W. Q. Judge and Annie Besant.
> It happened due to karma. The Masters could easily have intervened much
> more - and
> also intervened through Blavatsky before she died or by themselves have
> pointed much more clearly out who,
> their chosen successor and agent was.
> They did not do that. The reason was, that none was suitable or spiritually
> needed because
> of the collective karma of the TS and the planet etc...
> The death of W. Q. Judge was part of the karmic situation, because he
> - well somehow - lacked the needed
> understanding of the "Jesuits" and their dangerous activities to the
> society. (Please do
> not take the word Jesuits too litterally, when I use it. Yet they are also
> These were my views.
> M. Sufilight with peace and love...
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 4:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Theosophists Are No Jesuits
> > In a message dated 4/27/2006 3:10:10 PM Central Standard Time,
> > firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > Perhaps in the Vatican the system is different and some people get
> > nervous
> > to see diversity among sincere students.
> > I think it would be easier to take some of these arguments seriously if
> > you
> > would stop referring to the Vatican. To the best of my knowledge Daniel
> > is
> > not now, nor ever has been an agent of either the Jesuits or Opus Dei.
> > It is rather confusing the issue.
> > Chuck the Heretic
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 28/04/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4751
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://mail.terra.com.br/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application