Re: Theos-World Inaugural Address
Feb 04, 2009 04:34 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen
But, that quote is about, when you have - already chosen the teacher and how you relate to that teacher.
The quote by you have more to it...Let me present the quote you gave again and expand it a bit.
"It is, however, right that each member, once he believes in the existence of such Masters, should try to understand what their nature and powers are, to reverence Them in his heart, to draw near to Them, as much as in him lies, and to open up for himself conscious communication with the guru to whose bidding he has devoted his life. THIS CAN ONLY BE DONE BY RISING TO THE SPIRITUAL PLANE WHERE THE MASTERS ARE, AND NOT BY ATTEMPTING TO DRAW THEM DOWN TO OURS.
Inasmuch as growth in spiritual life comes from within, members must not expect to receive any other communications than those through H.P.B. The additional help, instruction, and enlightenment, will come from the inner planes of being, and will, as said, always be given when deserved.
To achieve this, the attitude of mind in which the teachings given are to be received is that which shall tend to develop the faculty of intuition. The duty of members in this respect is to refrain from arguing that the statements made are not in accordance with what other people have said or written, or with their own ideas upon the subject, or that, again, they are apparently contrary to any accepted system of thought or philosophy. Practical esoteric science is altogether sui generis. It requires all the mental and psychic powers of the student to be used in examining what is given, to the end that the real meaning of the Teacher may be discovered, as far as the student can understand it."
These above words was given by H. P. Blavatsky in her Esoteric papers to the Esoteric Section members - all of them beginners on the Path - ("Beginners" as mentioned by HPB in the Key to Theosophy, p. 263 - http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm )
H. P. Blavatsky clearly says in the above quote, that one is allowed to examine the issues before accepting them.
- - -
Try "IS DENUNCIATION A DUTY?"
"He who objects to having his views controverted and criticized must not write for Lucifer. " ..."Moreover, we have given good proofs of our impartiality. We published articles and letters criticizing not alone our personal theosophical and philosophical views, but discussing on subjects directly concerned with our personal honour and reputation; reviving the infamous calumnies in which not simple doubts, but distinctly formulated charges of dishonesty were cast into our teeth and our private character was torn to shreds (Vide "A Glance at Theosophy from the Outside", Lucifer for October, 1888). And if the editor will never shrink from what she considers her duty to her readers, and that she is prepared to throw every possible light upon mooted questions in order that truth should shine bright and hideous lies and superstitions be shown under their true colours - why should our contributors prove themselves so thin-skinned?"
( IS DENUNCIATION A DUTY? by H. P. Blavatsky - Lucifer Magazine 1888)
Can we agree upon that the above is allright and that Radha Burnier and other TS member today - are clearly refusing to deal with the facts about what duty is in the TS magaxines?
To me, they clearly omit dealing with a number of obvious and quite important questions concerned the role CWL and Besant had together with J. krishnamurti upon the either twisting or not-twisting H. P. Blavatsky and Masters teachings.
May I ask politely.
- What good there is - today - in promoting the books by CWL towards children - while hiding a phaedophile knife on your back?
- And books by J. Krishnamurti giving the children a blurred view upon whether he was the messiah he himself said he was, on the Star Camp pahmplets?
Something he clearly allowed others to say about him without any protest. And the fact that he - in his socalled wisdom - was letting CWL discovering him as a World Teacher and Messiah singlehandedly only 3 years after CWL was thrown out of TS on grounds of phaedophile behaviour? And why so very many prominent members resigned as members in 1908 when CWL came back and later on when J. Krishnamurti was promoted by CWL?
All this mess needs and begs to be answered for. Yet TS Adyar remaind silent and do not set the example HPB requires of the Leadership of TS.
And the leadership in TS are perfectly well aware of this mess, but they keep silent, appearntly hoping that it all will go away like a fog in a Jesuits nightmare.
I am a willing to listen, if TS Adyar finally once and for all will tell us all the truth.
But we always keep hearing the ecco of silence, when asking about the TRUTH.
The theosophical motto is: There is no Religion Higher than Truth.
Appearntly TS Adyar have no room for it anymore?
----- Original Message -----
From: Pedro Oliveira
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Inaugural Address
--- In email@example.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
> An excerpt:
> "Madame Blavatsky pointed out that truth is not realized by disputing
> over that other people have said or written, or in arguing in favour
> of one's own ideas or any accepted systems of philosophy. "
> And where did H. P. Blavatsky say that?
> Did H. P. Blavatsky not do the quite opposite, when she was -
debating - with various persons?
"The duty of members in this respect is to refrain from arguing that
the statements made are not in accordance with what other people have
said or written, or with their own ideas upon the subject, or that,
again, they are apparently contrary to any accepted system of thought
Source: The Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society - Preliminary
Memorandum, 1888 (H. P. Blavatsky Collected Writings, vol. XII, p. 492)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application