Dear friends

My views are:

Some of you know about me, and that I am interested in Idries Shah's teachings as well as its impact on society and theosophical groups as such.

Wikipedia on Idries Shah:
Idries Shah (16 June, 1924–23 November, 1996), also known as Idris Shah, né Sayed Idries el-Hashimi, was an author and teacher in the Sufi tradition who wrote over three dozen critically acclaimed books on topics ranging from psychology and spirituality to travelogues and culture studies.

Born in India, the descendant of a family of Afghan nobles, Shah grew up mainly in England. His early writings centred on magic and witchcraft. In 1960 he established a publishing house, Octagon Press, producing translations of Sufi classics as well as titles of his own. His most seminal work was The Sufis, which appeared in 1964 and was well received internationally. In 1965, Shah founded the Institute for Cultural Research, a London-based educational charity devoted to the study of human behaviour and culture. A similar organisation, the Institute for the Study of Human Knowledge (ISHK), exists in the United States, under the directorship of Stanford University psychology professor Robert Ornstein, whom Shah appointed as his deputy in the U.S.

In his writings, Shah presented Sufism as a universal form of wisdom that predated Islam. Emphasising that Sufism was not static but always adapted itself to the current time, place and people, he framed his teaching in Western psychological terms. Shah made extensive use of traditional teaching stories and parables, texts that contained multiple layers of meaning designed to trigger insight and self-reflection in the reader. He is perhaps best known for his collections of humorous Mulla Nasrudin stories.

Shah was at times criticised by orientalists who questioned his credentials and background. His role in the controversy surrounding a new translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, published by his friend Robert Graves and his older brother Omar Ali-Shah, came in for particular scrutiny. However, he also had many notable defenders, chief among them the novelist Doris Lessing. Shah came to be recognised as a spokesman for Sufism in the West and lectured as a visiting professor at a number of Western universities. His works have played a significant part in presenting Sufism as a secular, individualistic form of spiritual wisdom.

- - -

I will in this thread throw these five interviews about Idries Shah, Sufism and Conditioning so to make the theosophical Seekers after truth aware of what theosophy also might be all about.

Interview with Idries Shah, part 1
Interview with Idries Shah, part 2
Interview with Idries Shah, part 3
Interview with Idries Shah, part 4
Interview with Idries Shah, part 5

Interview with Idries Shah, part 1

- - -
Nobel Prize winner Doris Lessing on Sufism relating it to mysticism, buddhism, cults etc.
British author Doris Lessing reacts to Nobel win


I have the hope, that you might learn something from it.
I will seek to answer any comment on all the above.


Is Idries Shah a theosophist?
If so in what manner is or was he different than H. P. Blavatsky and other theosophists?


M. Sufilight

Views: 839

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Perhaps some theosophists are Sufis.....
Dear friends

My views are:

It is better to say that some Sufis are theosophists.

Idries Shah on the importance of Attention and Attention-desiring.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDdK7iDdgvY&feature=related

1. Idries Shah once said:
"False masters in Sufism, as everywhere else, have not been few. So the Sufis are left with the strange situation that whereas the false teacher may appear to be genuine (because he takes pains to appear what the disciple wants him to be), the true Sufi is often not like what the undiscriminating and untrained Seeker thinks a Sufi should be like.

... The false teacher will pay great attention to appearance, and will know how to make the Seeker think that he is a great man, that he understands him, that he has great secrets to reveal.
...
The false teacher will keep his followers around him all the time, will not tell them that they are being given a training which must end as soon as possible, [and will not give them the opportunity to] taste their development themselves and carry on as fulfilled people. "

- - -

2. Interview with Idries Shah - by Elizabeth Hall
"Suppose we get a group of 20 people past the stage where they no longer expect us to give them miracles and stimulation and attention. We sit them down in a room and give them 20 or 30 stories, asking them to tell us what they see in the stories, what they like, and what the don't like. The stories first operate as a sorting out process. They sort out both the very clever people who need psychotherapy and who have come only to put you down, and the people who have come to worship. "

. . . . .
"I am sure that the best way is not to start a cult, but to introduce a body of literary material that should interest people enough to establish the Sufi phenomenon as viable. We don't plan to form an organization with somebody at the top and others at the bottom collecting money or wearing funny clothes or converting people to Sufism. We view Sufism not as an ideology that molds people to the right way of belief or action, but as an art or science that can exert a beneficial influence on individuals or societies, in accordance with the needs of those individuals and societies."
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/sufi/sufi-shah.html

- - -

3. Let me ask:
And I am not only pointing at Idries Shah here, I am just using him as an example.

So is theosophy a belief today with its Krishnamurti and all its clairvoyant doctrines - OR - a science or art, which exert a beneficial influence on individuals or societies, in accordance with the needs of those individuals and societies???

Waht I am asking is, whether various theosophical Messiah's and more or less clairvoyant dogmas are real visible obstacles to --- exerting a beneficial influence on individuals or societies, in accordance with the needs of those individuals and societies???

Aught Seekers in the New Age consider prioritizing the promulgation of theosophy somewhere along the lines of philosophical psychoteraphy, instead of religious beliefs in Messiah's and more or less clairvoyant dogmas?

Are storytelling and other techniques on de-conditioning the Kama-Manas of much greater importance than what the ordinary - emphasized - TS beginner books has to offer today?


M. Sufilight
Dear Joe and friends

My views are:

Thanks you for your answer.

I have never heard of Richard Ihle and Dr. Himabind. I could near not find any info on the Internet.
Who are they and what are their theories?

Are they saying anything about Ernest Wood's and Maria Montessori's teaching ideas or about brainwashing and how to avoid it?


M. Sufilight
Dear Joe and friends

My views are:

Great!

Richard Ihle in fact wrote:
"Such Mindful practice is very useful, but it may sometimes seem a tad off-the-rack and unexciting. That is not good, but even worse, it may well be that Mindfulness is the least understood concept in all of the New Age."
( http://www.theosophy.net/profiles/blogs/when-the-spirit-doesnt-move )

Joe Fulton wrote:
"It seems that some consensus here may constitute the beginnings of a re-framing of Theosophical understanding in keeping with our culture."

A comment or two:
So comparative studies of Raja Yoga, esoteric Buddhism etc. - combined with the concept of Mindfullness or what I call "De-Conditioning" might be important to consider?

I remember that Paul Brunton wrote a few interesting books named "The Inner Reality" and "The Quest of the Overself ". In one or more of his books he is teaching a mixture of Raja Yoga and Mindfulness, which I find have supported what I have learned through the last three decades.

Paul Brunton for instance suggests, that we aught to remember the most positive experiences we have had in life. Those high peak experiences of beauty, wisdom or depth. There are always a purpose with such experiences, he says. And they are in fact very good a combatting all kinds of negative thinking-patterns.

In the above video Interviews on Idries Shah's views, I find it important to consider that various coorporations use psychological techniques in their emplyee policies. It is quite common today, that one in most countries on the globe use - a wide range -of psychological techniques - to educated the various employee's. There are today a variety of workshops, educations and lectures offered. There are survival trips for employee's. There are intuitive workshops. There are courses in fantasy-travelling, and coaching, team-coaching, leadership-coaching, lean-coaching, empathy leader courses etc. etc.

I seems to me, that we durign the last to decades or so have propelled the western part and other parts of the globe through a paradigme-shift, where it was NOT acceptable to - so to speak - psycho-analyze a newly elected politican or political leader, or a coorporate leader on televeision. This is acceptable today! In 1988 before the wall fell it was not!

I would really like to see a survey revealinig, what psychological techniques the various coorporations are using? - What psychological techniques are political parties using, when making spin and promoting leaders? And religious leaders? Theosophical leaders (smile.) ?

Are we in fact talking "semi-white" magic and "semi-black" magi here?


- - - - - - -

The Other Three Percent
Nasrudin ending up at the Psychology-Master (But, you can never leave...)
http://www.geocities.com/photo_photo3030/nasrudin-stories.html

A comment:
After reading this it reminded me of one night where I woke up from bed, I had had a the most terrible dream.

I had been to some of the three of the greatest theosophical centers in India, US and London with intervals in the dream - and after the last lecture I was as if in a mental flight shown a gigantic screen with a heading and a table of all the lecturers or teachers, their karmic patterns and their level of knowledge. The heading said: SO ARE THE DECREE OF ORLOG AND SKULD. - At the end of the tables second last column was a column named: "Psychological Profile". When reading it I realised that most theosophical lecturers or teachers needed psychoteraphy, well spiritually that is. Their main illness was that they - craved - to lecture a crowd, they did not do it merely because they wanted to help people.

Sometimes it is difficult for some of us to actually distinguish the difference between a a learned Theosophical Teacher//Psychiartrist on the one hand and a Theosophical Seeker//Mental patient on the other. Who is who?

Is it so, that when most theosophical teachers stand on the platform throwing their best yearly lecture to a crowd of say 100 persons, - that they are ignoring the fact, that they are simply only doing something merely constituting to Psychoteraphy, social service and perhaps even entertainment?

And is it not a question whether the lecturer himself or herself needs psychoteraphy, because he or she find the event to be something else?

It is good to know that all readers at this forum are belonging to the "other three percent" in mention, or at least to cheat themselves self into believing it. :-)



M. Sufilight
“It is better to say that some Sufis are theosophists.” - SL

In what way do you see this as differing from the obverse?


"…I am sure that the best way is not to start a cult, but to introduce a body of literary material that should interest people enough to establish the Sufi phenomenon as viable…” – IS via SL

As I understand it, writing is only one of numerous methods of devotion.


“…So is theosophy a belief today with its Krishnamurti and all its clairvoyant doctrines - OR - a science or art, which exert a beneficial influence on individuals or societies, in accordance with the needs of those individuals and societies???” – SL

It appears to be more the former from my limited experience with theosophy. While a record of numerous methods has its value, this alone is neither an art nor a science.


“…Waht I am asking is, whether various theosophical Messiah's and more or less clairvoyant dogmas are real visible obstacles to --- exerting a beneficial influence on individuals or societies, in accordance with the needs of those individuals and societies???...” – SL

Since ‘it’ (theosophy) differs from sufiim in that the former is seldom presented in a personal way (needs) while the latter often is, sufiism is more apt to apply to the above mentioned ‘beneficial influence’.


“…Aught Seekers in the New Age consider prioritizing the promulgation of theosophy somewhere along the lines of philosophical psychoteraphy, instead of religious beliefs in Messiah's and more or less clairvoyant dogmas?...” – SL

The above rhetorical question includes the preferable response.


“…Are storytelling and other techniques on de-conditioning the Kama-Manas of much greater importance than what the ordinary - emphasized - TS beginner books has to offer today?...” – SL

Clearly I do not know because of my overall ignorance of theosophy. From the little I have found, I would guess it depends upon which techniques are involved. However, overall, the ‘result’ is pre determined…as is the case for the Sufi.
Dear Ornamentalmind? and friends

My views are:

Thank you for your answer.
Ornamentalmind do you have another name or are you called Ornamentalmind?

1.
Ornamentalmind wrote:
"As I understand it, writing is only one of numerous methods of devotion."

M. Sufilight says:
I am not sure I understood that. Would you care to expand on that view and define what you consider to be a Cult?
Is a cult to you the same as people reading books which seek to establish the Sufi phenomenon as viable?


2.
Ornamentalmind wrote:
It appears to be more the former from my limited experience with theosophy. While a record of numerous methods has its value, this alone is neither an art nor a science.

M. Sufilight says:
I agree.

As the The Theosophical Society is today it is by most scholars in the field termed (within their operational framework of definitions) to be more religious and even religiously devontional than scientifical and philosophical. And that aught to raise som eyebrow in Adyar and elsewhere! -And as far as I know most of the scholars of today would agree, that somewhere before 1905-1910 or so it was more of a philosophical nature than a religious one.

A number of other theosophical branches have similar problems although the date of departation from the philosophical line of thought are different. One of them who has similar problems is the Alice A. Bailey groups, who awaits a Messiah and an Externalization of the Hierarchy in the near future to come. They have a prophetic deadline called year 2025. (They had another deadline about the a Master breaking down the barriers between the Roman Church and the Greeck Church for around 1980, and which did not come true. So their prophecies obviously have to betaken with a grain of salt.)


3.
Ornamentalmind wrote:
Since ‘it’ (theosophy) differs from sufiim in that the former is seldom presented in a personal way (needs) while the latter often is, sufiism is more apt to apply to the above mentioned ‘beneficial influence’.

M. Sufilight says:
Now anyone can say this. Can you expand on it, so it becomes more true than the opposite?
Is theosophy by definition not having Sufism as a part or a whole of its teachings?

H. P. Blavatsky said:
" FOOTNOTE TO “A TREATISE ON SUFISM”

[The Theosophist, Vol. III, No. 11, August, 1882 p. 266]

[In this paper, written in 1811 and treating of Mohammedan mysticism, the statement is made that “the Sufi has no religion.” On this H. P. B. remarks:]

That is to say, no external, ritualistic, and dogmatic religion. The same may be said of every Mahatma, or any one who seriously strives to become one. He is a Theosophist and must strive after “divine,” not human, wisdom."
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v4/y1882_080.htm


4.
On deconditiong it must of course be the technique involved, which has importance.

Now storytelling is, as far asd I know, already a part of the TS teachings in various countries, when we look at educating children. Books like C. S. Lewis "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", and Tolkien, Alice in Wonderland, or the Ramayana etc. etc. - and ALL of them veiled in allegories.

But the theosophical groups emphasis on allegories and short stories regarding grown ups are according to me wrong. And their lack of emphasis on relating psychology to the theosophical teachings as well. (Something, the by some, expected Torchbearer of truth would take care of as far as I have heard).



Now why are grown ups throwing them away to hear "Learned" Ph.D.'s talking academic nonsense which they call theosophy from a piedestal? I theosophy not more important than merely repeating what everyone can read in a book, and even an online book?


But of course I might be in error. And if so I stand corrected.


M. Sufilight
[“Ornamentalmind do you have another name or are you called Ornamentalmind?”] – SL

For most online purposes I use the above screen name. Often people shorten it to things like orn, OM etc. If this is problematic for you and you wish to use a more common type of name, just use Bill, OK?

1.
[Ornamentalmind wrote:
"As I understand it, writing is only one of numerous methods of devotion."
M. Sufilight says:
I am not sure I understood that. Would you care to expand on that view and define what you consider to be a Cult?
Is a cult to you the same as people reading books which seek to establish the Sufi phenomenon as viable?]

As I understand it, different schools of Sufis use different methods of devotion. Some whirl, some sing, some are silent etc. To me, such apparent differences are more likely just sects that cater to the capabilities of different people.

Since the term cult was used in what I was responding to, I now can see why you ask about the term. I was jumping over it because to date I have found no satisfactory definition. And, I have been looking for decades at this phenomenon. IF pressed, I just say that a cult is ‘them’. This seems to fit the way the term is used most often.

So, in this context I am hard pressed to share a suitable response to your second question above. Sorry. However, I will say that “the Sufi phenomenon” as you call it is viable…always has been, always will be. This need not be established by reading nor writing…nor could it be.


….
3.
[Ornamentalmind wrote:
Since ‘it’ (theosophy) differs from sufiim in that the former is seldom presented in a personal way (needs) while the latter often is, sufiism is more apt to apply to the above mentioned ‘beneficial influence’.
M. Sufilight says:
Now anyone can say this. Can you expand on it, so it becomes more true than the opposite?
Is theosophy by definition not having Sufism as a part or a whole of its teachings?]


Well, while I stand by my first response to your question as being the more accurate, I will do my best to expand. As much as I appreciate and enjoy reading (here I will limit the topics of reading to things philosophical, mystical, theological, psychological, scientific etc. in contrast to mere mindless entertainment), I find an actual coherent praxis to be necessary for change. . . at least for deep and lasting change. One simple example would be the Zhikr, another example is meditation…also visualization. Here I do not mean to devalue reading and intellectual pursuits, on the contrary, it is just that such activities for me are not enough.

I do not know the definition of theosophy so hesitate to respond to your second question here. However, since you have provided TS text to aid in shedding light on the subject, I will again do my best to respond.

In general, I would agree with what you posted by HPB. While there does exist ritual and dogma within aspects of Sufism, in actual practice it is seldom if ever disassociated with praxis. If she says that a sufi is a theosophist, so be it. In an earlier post I suggested that some theosophists may be sufis. Here I was pointing to how I understand the sufi in that such qualities are more innate than learned. In this way, I would posit that sufis come to theosophy rather than the reverse. However, since no human being is devoid of this ability, I may be just pushing a view on the situation.


4.
[On deconditiong it must of course be the technique involved, which has importance.] – SL

Yes.


[ …Now why are grown ups throwing them away to hear "Learned" Ph.D.'s talking academic nonsense which they call theosophy from a piedestal? I theosophy not more important than merely repeating what everyone can read in a book, and even an online book?...] – SL

Again, perhaps this is rhetorical, and, continuing, it is easier to just be entertained by some sort of mental masturbation than to seriously delve into the issue.

As to your last question (rhetorical?), I will only comment that what is currently known as theosophy is and will be judged by this standard you point to. It is one reason that although I have always been attracted and curious as to what theosophy is, it has taken me more than three score year to start to delve into it. What I found in my early reading of HPB appeared to be more scattered, incoherent and non-sequiturs than much else so I put it aside while looking for gold.
Dear OM and friends

My views are:

Thank you for your answer.
I like that name OM. :-)


Yes you are quite right. I find, that some Sufi's are in fact more like religious villains than anything else, when the word "Sufi" is used in broad terms.

When I use the term "Sufi" I do it like Idries Shah and H. P. Blavatsky - as the same as Seekers after Truth, The near Ones, theosophists, Mutassawif, "The Builders", Seekers after Wisdom, the Lovers, i.e. as non-secterians etc. etc.

Let me throw you a short article of mine so to explain how I shortly have defined the word "cult" based on Idries Shah writings.

"Sufi-schools Esoterical-schools and Theosophy-schools


SUFI, ESOTERICAL and THEOSOPHICAL attitudes TOWARD RELIGIOUS and OTHER CULTS

1. True Sufis, Esoterists and Theosophists (in the following these three are mentioned as "Theosophists") - are opposed to fanaticism and closed minds, believing that these lead to oppression.


2. Many cults using the name "Sufi", "Theosophical" or "Esoterical" have arisen over the centuries.
They have caused harm to their followers, and have, at times, given the word "Sufi", "Theosophical" and "Esoterical" an undesirable flavour.


3. For the above two reasons, initial Theosophists activity has, for centuries, aimed at explaining the nature of real Theosophists aims and also at clarifying the undesirable effect of what today are called conditioning systems.


4. It has been observed by scholars and others that the Theosophists are almost alone in having assessed and described the two undesirable factors referred to above. In so doing, they may have paved the way for contemporary knowledge on mind-manipulation.

While others, for example, were still thinking in terms of "the Devil is behind cults," the Theosophists have pointed out the causes of cults as being purely psychological.


5. Among the characteristics of a "false or misguided path," the Theosophists have noted the following features which help to identify it:

i) The claim that the organisation is the sole repository of truth, or is the only "path";

ii) The mistaking of emotional for spiritual states;

iii) Separation of the followers of the group from the populace at large;

iv) Failure to do one's human duty to everyone, regardless of such people's confessional position;

v) The emphasis upon hope and fear, and upon reward and punishment;

vi) Material richness of the organisation, and especially of its leaders;

vii) The uniqueness of a leader, asserting superhuman or other qualities or responsibility;

viii) Secretiveness as of major importance;

ix) Inability to laugh at things which appear funny to people outside the "path";

x) Employment of stereotyped techniques and/or rituals and exercises, not adapted according to the principles of "time, place and people";

xi) "Idolatry": which includes investing people, animals or things with a special meaning;

xii) "Teachers" who are themselves ignorant.


6. Theosophists do not actually oppose such cults, since Theosophists are tolerant:
but they find it essential to describe them, in order to show the differences between cults and Theosophy, and to help to prevent people interested in Theosophy from forming or joining such organisations or groups.



INDICATIONS OF AN AUTHENTIC THEOSOPHY SCHOOL
First, elimination: the school, its teachers and students should be observed for signs of the features (item 5, above) which identify a spurious school. Second, it should be noted that the following are among the marks of an authentic Theosophy school:

1. It does not restrict attention to any specific literature or teachings, but expects its students to have a good knowledge of a wide range of literature, while at the same time specialising in appropriately measured studies.

2. It will be able to explain and interpret past formulations of the Theosophy Way, as contained in the whole range of Theosophy literature.

3. It will be able to explain the process of supersession of materials.

4. It will not be culture- or language-based. That is to say, it will not need to bring in, except at times for illustration or analogy, words or practices belonging to cultures and/or language other than those of the people among whome the Theosophists are working.

5. It will not use outlandish clothes (robes) or words, etc., extraneous to the local culture.

6. It will not accept slogans or "sayings" from past teachers unless they have an illustrative function.

7. It does not use intonations, movement, music, etc., as a quasi-religious ceremony or as a spectacle, but has knowledge of such things as parts of a comprehensive system of applying stimuli.

8. It will neither claim to have a mission to teach everyone, nor will it enrol everyone. It will first make sure that the interested person has enough information and experience to come to a decision about Theosophists and Theosophy in an appropriate manner.

9. It will make clear the nature of the "instrumental function" of ideas, techniques, etc., rather than regarding them as immutable, sacrosanct, "traditional," and so on.

10. It will deal with everyone according to capacity and character, being neither benevolent nor the reverse: for kindness and cruelty, while effective and understood in ordinary relationships, operate as part of a conditioning system within a teaching or group situation."

- - -

A few other ramblings...

Sufis have their own method of deterring unsuitable people.
You may only know on or two ways. Try to pay attention to the techniques which, for instance, deter by compelling people to conclude, that they are worthless.
...
What one or you may take to be attractive, or even spread out by us to be attractive to you, may well not be intended in this manner at all. That which attracts you, or others, about us may be that which is laid down by us as a tool which enables us to regard you (or others) as unsuitable.
...
The role of the teacher is to provoke capacity in the student, to provide what there is when it will be useful, to guide him towards progress. It is not to impress, to give an impression of virtue, power, importance, general information, knowledge or anything else.
..
To learn something, you, may often have to be exposed to it many times, perhaps from different perspectives; and you also have to give it the kind of attention which will enable you to learn. In our experience, people fail to learn from our wise materials for the same reason that they do not learn other things - they read selectively. The things that touch them emotionally, or which they like or are thrilled by, they will remember or seek in greater quantity and deepth.

- - -

Allow me two questions about Buddhism:

Dear OM, since you seem to know something about Buddhism, you (or perhaps someone else) might be able to tell me if the Ri-me Movement was and is completely non-secterian?

The Rime movement was co-founded by Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo (d.1892) and Jamgon Kongtrul (d. 1899).

Jamgon Kongtrul was holder "The Golden Kagyu Garland" and a "Ganden Tripa" (Ganden Tripa is also as far as I understand it, the Esoteric "Panchen Lama", Esoteric "Teshu Lama" or "Panchen Rimboche" according to H. P. Blavatsky, TS Glossary) They were Mahamudra Masters (The "Mudra"'s are based on ancient Sanskrit according to H. P. Blavatsky, TS Glossary.) Now we know from H. P. Blavatsky, that Khuthumi was the bearer of the Golden Robe within Buddhism.

The question is:
Is it likely that Jamgon Kongtrul had anything to do with Master Kuthumi?


"Mudra (Sk.). Called the mystic seal. A system of occult signs made with the fingers. These signs imitate ancient Sanskrit characters of magic efficacy. First used in the Northern Buddhist Yogâcharya School, they were adopted later by the Hindu Tantrikas, but often misused by them for black magic purposes." (The TS Glossary, 1892, posthumous, H. P. Blavatsky)



M. Sufilight
Thank you for sharing some of how you use the term sufi. Sophia and the absolute are words that point to it for me too. While there are numerous sects, merely being affiliated with one does not make one sectarian, does it?

When it comes to your observations, I do appreciate the lists. Yet, one would guess that it is only general and numerous exceptions exist. Case in point, my memory says that back in the 1940s, on the back of comic books there existed an advertisement for theosophy. This ad included a mysterious looking cowel, tunic, book and little else. I thought for sure I could find a copy online…with absolutely no success.

Further, I doubt that you would reject out of hand aspects of theurgy, or would you?

Also, after a brief perusal of HPB’s definition of theosophy, I can see how you only appeared to appropriate all other true mystical schools as being theosophical. I guess, by definition, they are seen that way, correct?

Later, when you say: ”What one or you may take to be attractive, or even spread out by us to be attractive to you, may well not be intended in this manner at all. That which attracts you, or others, about us may be that which is laid down by us as a tool which enables us to regard you (or others) as unsuitable.” – SL

I must admit to not having given that a thought and further have never met a sufi who would ever overtly describe a method used for filtration unless it, sadly, had already been made public.

Question:
Are there ‘teachers’ in theosophy?

Responses to your questions:

“Dear OM, since you seem to know something about Buddhism, you (or perhaps someone else) might be able to tell me if the Ri-me Movement was and is completely non-secterian?” – SL

I have no overt experience with ‘the Ri-me Movement’. I have found that each school of Tibetan Buddhism I have practiced/studied says they are all just fine and there is no contradiction. The little direct experience I have had with the Bon-pa school did not quite produce such an egalitarian view, although what I have studied along with the full conflation of Bon & Buddhism show little/no contradiction.

Each monk I have studied with has been entirely open to practices/tantras from other schools and on occasion even pass them. Of course, there is something to be said for remaining pure when it comes to lineages too. When reading Tsongkhapa, I seldom think of a Karmapa…but this is of course only my thinking.

I hope to have time to study some of the leads you gave about specific personages and times in history. Yes, mudra can be seen as being Sanskrit…especially in say, the movie “Meetings With Remarkable Men” where a group from France shared their practice with their entire upper bodies. Even though I have studied a little classical Tibetan, and as a consequence have run across some Sanskrit, I do not know the veracity of this story. In fact, I find it to not be important even if it is true. This said, I use and have used mudra in practice along with having been passed some in tantra.

“Is it likely that Jamgon Kongtrul had anything to do with Master Kuthumi?” – SL

Again, I am almost entirely ignorant here even though I have practiced and studied emanationism to some extent. Sorry.

Thanks again for the interaction!

OM
Dear OM and friends

My views are:

OM wrote:
"While there are numerous sects, merely being affiliated with one does not make one sectarian, does it?"

No,


OM wrote:
"Further, I doubt that you would reject out of hand aspects of theurgy, or would you?"

I would really like, If you would care to expand on this. Then I might be able to provide you helpful and a qualified answer.

OM wrote:
"Also, after a brief perusal of HPB’s definition of theosophy, I can see how you only appeared to appropriate all other true mystical schools as being theosophical. I guess, by definition, they are seen that way, correct?"

Yes, if I understasnd you correctly. The Sufism given by Idries Shah and H. P. Blavatsky have the fact in common, that their teachers "are in the world and not of the world". Teachers in the world, are those who create cults. The Dugpas and the Jesuits are another kind of lot. They are the bad ones.

OM wrote:
"I must admit to not having given that a thought and further have never met a sufi who would ever overtly describe a method used for filtration unless it, sadly, had already been made public."

Oh, then you have missed a whole lot.
The Sufi and theosophists, the initiated most often write something using it to be of service to those in need, and at the same time that tells them, that they are not ready yet for even higher things. So their purposes are not only one-sided. - Do you understand this? - But sometimes a purpose is mainly one-sided. Private e-mails is one possibility I could come to think of. Or a telepathic message.

OM wrote:
"Question:
Are there ‘teachers’ in theosophy?"

Yes.

- - -

Allright maybe others know about this. Khoothumi issue. Anyone?

TS Glossary by HPB (posthumous - 1892):
"Panchen Rimboche (Tib.). Lit., “the great Ocean, or Teacher of Wisdom”. The title of the Teshu Lama at Tchigadze; an incarnation of Amitabha the celestial “father” of Chenresi, which means to say that he is an Avatar of Tson-kha-pa (See “Sonkhapa”). De jure the Teshu Lama is second after the Dalaї Lama; de facto, he is higher, since it is Dharma Richen, the successor of Tson-kha-pa at the golden monastery founded by the latter Reformer and established by the Gelukpa sect (yellow caps) who created the Dalaї Lamas at Llhassa, and was the first of the dynasty of the “ Panchen Rimboche”. While the former (Dalaї Lama are addressed as “ Jewel of Majesty”, the latter enjoy a far higher title, namely “Jewel of Wisdom”, as they are high Initiates."
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/LMNOPQRS.htm


Ganden Tripa
"The Ganden Tripa or Gaden Tripa (tib. dGa’-ldan Khri-pa) ("Holder of the Ganden Throne") is the title of the spiritual leader of the Gelug (Dge-lugs) school of Tibetan Buddhism"
"The Ganden Tripa is an appointed office, not a reincarnation lineage. It is awarded on the basis of competitive examination."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganden_Tripa



M. Sufilight

RSS

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2021   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service