If we were to start the Theosophical Society from scratch, what would we do?
Just for fun - if we could start the Theosophical Society afresh today, what would we do differently? And what would we keep the same?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by M. Sufilight on
-
Dear Martin E. and friends
Thanks!
My views are:
There are a at least few problems creeping forward in my mind, when dealing with systems or holistic "models".
a) The issue of Brainwashing, Mind manipulation, Propaganda have to be considered at least to some extent, if one asks me.
b) The theosophical issue of the 7 keys to the Mystery language aught to be given due afterthought, when one attempts to present af holistic model. - Aught the model to be presented in a western systematized manner etc. or in an allegorical manner, or in another manner like H. P. Blavatsky's book The Secret Doctrine, where the use of the 7 keys are taken into account. The 7 keys are by memory: The literal key (very often the western key), The allegorical key, The Moral Key, The metaphysical key, The Geometrical Key, and two more. And according to Blavatsky the last three was in the possession of eastern initiates only in 1888.
c) "Systems" and what they really are, - are today as understood by ordinary humans not the same as those understood by present day average scholars, and not the same as understood by theosophists or various and similar initiates.
A "System" is as such a thought and therefore - theosophically speaking - of a limited influence on even higher levels of consciousness, where holistic ideas are inadequate.
d) There are also the questions of words used when promoting or writing about such a system. Words have vibrations, as well as each letter in a given language. The use of words and how they are combined are deeply related to our evolution in time, astrology, karma - time, place and people - etc. etc. And some languages are more esoterical and more non-phallic in nature etc. etc.
e) The following might be helpful to contemplate, when considering writing a holistic theory.
Theosophical thought, Experience and Teaching
"There is a vast accumulation of theosophical teachings, much of it in writings, which would-be students plough through, looking for theosophy (Wisdom of the Gods), and wondering why it seems, so often, self-contradictory. The simple answer is that this material is largely time-and-culture-based. Most of it was prescribed for specific audiences at certain times and under particular conditions. Choosing the relevant materials for any time is a specialised task. To try to make sense of all of it would be like taking a bundle of medical prescriptions, issued over the years to a variety of people, and working out one's own therapy from such largely irrelevant papers - and without a certain specialised knowledge. Theosophical Teaching is PRESCRIBED."
http://home1.stofanet.dk/theos-octagon/condition_en.HTM
- - -
"We cull the good we find in each system of thought" as HPB said.
M. Sufilight -
-
Permalink Reply by Martin Euser on
-
A short response:
a. This applies to all teachings. There's a danger also with theosophy being taken literally and out-of-context. Can make for a very scary philosophy (e.g. racial superiority!!! ideas as indeed has happened within a certain TS).
b. don't forget the astrological key and numerical key, also mentioned by H.P. Blavatsky.
As a real "encouragement" to her students she writes that the sixth and seven key will only be revealed in the sixth and seven rounds, respectively.
I have given all these things considerable thought and concluded that a true (deep) esoteric teaching is not for this age.
c. Enlighten me a bit about the differences for ordinary people, scientists and theosophists.
Why are holistic ideas inadequate?
d. Of course. But I do have nothing so esoteric in my mind. Good, practical philosophy will do. I proceed along the lines of Isis Unveiled, the totally ignored diagrams of cosmogony in Vol. 2., together with some sharp observations of thinkers I've already mentioned.
You have a strong tendency to a pure theoretical approach, I think. This misses the target, as I only look for some organizing paradigm for biology and psychology. Your disdain for "systems" and "holistic" looks a bit misplaced as far as I am concerned, namely, for a process philosophy of science (in the wide sense of the latter term).
e. "We cull the good we find in each system of thought" as HPB said.
Right, just as I like to do. Time for a more practical approach. -
-
-
Dear Martin
My views are:
Interesting answer you have there....
a. Yes, but I have so far not seen comprehensive theosophical teachings on this subject. Have you?
The only quality ones coming to my mind is books from Octagon Press and perhaps some fragmented Chinese or Tibetan Zen or similar.
b. I hold it to be better to say, that there in reality are 7 keys - or just One single Key. The other keys mentioned are sub-keys or Keys on another level analogically speaking. But that is only my view, and also in a sense only semantics, we are dealing with here.
c.
Martin wrote:
"Enlighten me a bit about the differences for ordinary people, scientists and theosophists."
M. Sufilight says:
There are various grades of knowledge and visdom, as well as ignorance. If you, yet, do not know how to distinguish these three categories in a loose context - viewed under x number of angles at the same time - you will have to study some more before you are able to do it. I am not really interested in using physical words which are not able to describe something like this specific enough. Physical words are not adequate as a tool in describing issues like this.
But, seeking to be helpful, I would try with a quite inadequate example:
The ordinary man repents his sins:
The elect repent of their headlessness.
(Dhu'l-Nun Misri)
And you will find the intellectual somewhere inbetween the two.
- - -
If I should expand more on the issue, you would perhaps find the following links useful to contemplate. The "Swimmers" in the story are of course the Spiritual Seeker after Truth and Visdom or...perhaps something else.
THE ISLANDERS Part 1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/13178
THE ISLANDERS Part 2
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/13179
THE ISLANDERS Part 3
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/13180
d.
So only a little bit esoteric?
How much - esoteric - do you find important?
Martin wrote:
"Good, practical philosophy will do."
In all friendliness: How do you know that?
And to be honest I also ask myself about this and the following...
And are you willing to do something, that you might regret even if the Master suggested, that you waited until you have studied some more, so that your formulations was more in line with what one as a theosophists would call "Prescribed", instead of not taking all your spiritual friends, the initiates into account?
If formulating a teaching is not done through occult methods, one can only wonder through which methods is happens through? Do you not agree?
---
You look for something holistic you say. But only something with biology and psychology, and not too esoteric....Hmmm...I find that one difficult to piece together...maybe someone else at this place have an idea or two.
- - -
e.
"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.' "
These were just my ramblings and views...
M. Sufilight -
-
-
Sufilight: you are starting to ramble indeed. You do not have the gift of a straight answer to a simple question of mine, it seems. Plus the more than slight arrogance so typical of certain TS members, who think they know it best. This is just the reason that, in all likelihood, TSs will go down the drain in the near future.
As I am very busy, I have to cut down on posting. People who get what I'm writing about can reach me through a personal message.
Goodbye. -
-
-
Dear Martin Euser and friends
My views are:
I find it to be true, that I just stated my views and nothing else. I wrote my answer out of compassion seeking to help you and others - in case my words possibly could benefit them and you.
If you find me to ramble too much and that I am not able to give you the answer you want, it is of course your view.
Calling me arrogant without telling me why, will probably not help me avoiding that trap you accuse me of having, will it?
So to be compassionate towards others, you could take your time to tell me and perhaps also others why you find me to be arrogant. But, since you some how have become very busy since I e-mailed with you yeasterday, you would probably find it to have a low priority.
I am not a TS member.
I saddens me, to experience your answer.
I have not ill wishes towards you.
M. Sufilight -
-
-
Dear Morten,
You come across (to me at least) as a dedicated theosopher, much like a ULT member or perhaps Pasadena/Point Loma fellow as I know some of them in my country. My point is that you have a very difficult style of communication, almost evasive, abstract, and not quite to the point, as I may say so. Your responses indicate to me that you have not really studied my work (which is becoming quite extensive), so how can you generalize so easily about what I should do or contemplate?
Impossible! First get to know me better, than only you can advise me what to do.
As to "arrogance": you come across as a bit (?) dogmatic, not unlike, e.g. many ULT members, who strictly stick to Blavatsky/Judge material, which comes across preposterous, being out-of-date and out-of-tune with later developments, both within the TSs as without. This can easily lead to rigidity of mind, a dogmatic attitude and at last also arrogance, because one dismisses anything outside of one's narrow circle of interest.
See?
That's all that there is to it as far as I can tell.
The idea of this forum is to break out of this cocoon of "pre-fabricated ideas" and letting the creative juices flow.
Friendly,
Martin Euser -
-
-
Dear Martin
My views are:
I have one question for you:
Why are you not debating about the content of my views instead of becoming personal without explaining clearly, what is wrong with my behaviour? - I find that I have every right to present a view about Holistic models - Seeking the truth - as well as you have. In all friendliness I suggest, that you explain, why you find my views wrong, instead of only telling me and others THAT you find them to be wrong. Is that okay with you? And remember, that you in fact asked about my opinion.
I only threw a few suggestions to you, and now you call me arrogant because of that - and becomes quite personal with me. I can only wonder why. And you project a view about me, which is as far as I am concerned based on not understanding the content of what I wrote to you out of compassion so to if possible to be of help to you and others.
I would rather like some solid documentation on such remarks about my personality. An ULT?, a Point Loma?, A difficult style of writing? - May I ask, what made you conclude this?
I was not telling you what to do, was I? I was just presenting some views and suggestions to you because you asked me.
---
Here is a short story...
Floodlights and science
There is this analogy about a man who had fleas in his bed.
He first put out the light, so that the insects could not see to bite. This man was making assumptions which were logical enough, but which did not work since he did not know how to structure his experience. When someone told him that fleas could bite in the dark, he still couldn't learn. He installed floodlights to blind the fleas. This seemed to work, wonder of wonders; but presently he found that he could feel them biting again.
How did the floodlights 'work'? The fact is, of course, that
the light so dazzled - him, that his attention was drawn from the fleas, giving him the impression that they were not biting him any longer. When he got used to the brightness, he began to feel the fleas again.
He still feels, we are told, that the success lies somewhere along the road of floodlights. And he prizes his few brief hours of freedom from bites.
- - -
I mean well. I do care.
M. Sufilight -
-
Permalink Reply by Brenda Tucker on
-
You ask, "Why are holistic ideas inadequate?"
I would answer, "All ideas are inadequate because we don't have the instruments to cognize the girasas kingdom in their entirety." Any attempt at holistic must fall short. We will have to feign satisfaction with elements of their being which we can attempt to make use of and to expand on. -
-
-
Who else is working? I am.
-
-
-
You two: Martin and Morten are trying to communicate in ways that could be helpful to the readers here and not just to each other. It is a huge burden to use good protocol when determining what ends to further when the massive amounts of writings (and readings) for students of theosophy is considered.
I do not want to take too much of your time, but I would like to invite you to consider the problem from my viewpoint. I view a higher kingdom which I name the girasas kingdom as a kingdom descending into the human kingdom and if you think the problems of communication are immense now, think for a moment about what is yet to come.
My own thinking is sometimes completely off base and out of bounds. The game is not a human one. The game is not for humans making decisions in teams or with friends. The game to me has changed so totally after the years of study I have put in.
If this higher kingdom puts pressure on the humans, we are considerably less qualified than they are in all ways. What will be or could be the result? We need tactics to deal with their approach and descent. We want to continue in our own human consciousness and yet if they use our minds and brains, what chance do we have of keeping them at bay for a moment for us to complete a thought?
I do must of my musing on facebook and recently posted the question about "how we can manage to get this girasas kingdom "docked" into our ports?"
The reason I am writing this to you is that you seem to concerned about personalities within a movement and I am, too, but in a slightly different way. I don't want to see the personalities excluded. In all their pettiness and little mindedness, I want them to continue. I want to see them for what they are: human. I want to experience who the human is as well as who the girasas is and I don't want one to obliterate the other.
I'm hoping that perhaps in seeing the problem we can invent new ways to discuss the problem. Do you have any new approaches (don't even try to find it in the literature: how could it be there?)
Brenda -
-
-
Dear Brenda and friends
My views are:
Brenda wrote:
"The reason I am writing this to you is that you seem to concerned about personalities within a movement and I am, too, but in a slightly different way. I don't want to see the personalities excluded."
M. Sufilight asks:
May I ask, which one will you call "personalities", and which not, and why?
May I ask, which "personalities" in all the world do you want to include and why?
Maybe you misunderstand me. I am not interested in excluding any personalities in the whole universe. The universe is ours and everybody's, through all time. But I am rather giving emphasis to, which ones aught to be the primary authors recommended to read by a given theosophical branch. I will therefore not accept selling just any book even if I accept a great number of books being available at a given theosophical library. Books are easily scanned and copied these days. But promoting books, which one aught not to promote, I will not.
And a bookshop being promoted as the answer to all theosophical branches in an organization, might easily fail in its duty towards a fearful humanity. We need to show more heartflow officially and not so much unofficially alone, - and less promotion of fear in people through what teaching we consider acceptable.
- - -
Just to let you know. I have just published a 32 pages on my website here in Denmark on H. P. Blavatsky where I am showing, that she was and is wrongly accused by many even today. (And why? - See The Key to theosophy, p. 271-272). And I have rejected about 12 most used accusations against her. a) Her phenomena, b) That she had a child of her own, c) That she smoked Hashish, d) That the Coulomb's was right, e) That Hodgson was right, f) That V. S. Solovioff was right even when he admitted he saw Morya, g) That HPB did not hate Christianity, h) That HPB's doctrines were not brainwashing, i) That HPB was not a racist, j) That HPB was not behind Nazism, k) That HPB's behaviour and temper was due to Chela and Sufi behaviour, l) That HPB was not a Buddhist in the ordinary sense. - I omitted the Russian Spy issue though, because I found it way too silly. :-)
M. Sufilight with a...From Russia with love smile... -
-
-
Katinka,
I want to keep people the same and start to accumulate information on the girasas kingdom. Then when we have a fair amount of vision into their natures, we can begin the process of splitting them up among our fellows in all branches of knowledge, and in making other choices that may be required.
Anyone who leaps into "combinations" with this kingdom is missing on the calculated expertise of experts who can best help us to place ourselves in positions that will be lasting and further our gains in promoting consciousness and existence in a world that provides for our evolution.
Brenda -
© 2024 Created by Theosophy Network.
Powered by
