II would like to make it very clear, these comments do not apply to any specific individuals. In fact, it is very safe to say that among the contributors on this site are some of the warmest, most thoughtful folk I have ever encountered in this movement. It's an honor to be able to discuss, chat with and even work together with all of you who take the time to come to this site. You could spend your time and effort elsewhere and hopefully we are meeting your needs.

What I am discussing here, in general are several troubling memes that seem to have been with, and continue to infect the Theosophical movement. We are not relevant for many reasons and I have tried very hard over the last several years to understand the causes. Here is a summary of those memes, and a thought at the end on a concept common with many leading companies, called a Value Proposition.

So far there seem to be several memes common to the Theosophical movement.

a) Everyone was (and still is) out to get HPB.

See Paul Johnson's fine graphic on Blavatsky Searches on Google. Long term, it tells a very disturbing story. Before long few will be talking about HPB, much less mounting attacks.

b) The Theosophical Movement is openly hostile to questioning. If you do, prepare to become a pariah and labeled a non-believer or at least treated like one. Authority trumps reason or logic.

c) Theosophy has secret knowledge which must be hidden from the profane.

d) Theosophy is not about making people happy. Is there any self-help literature in the Theosophical tradition? Especially anything that is very practical and not loaded with unpronounceable words?

e) Helping people understand everyday life is of no concern to Theosophy/Theosophists.

f) The emotional or material needs of people are automatically considered greed by Theosophists.

To someone just becoming acquainted with our movement, what reactions and feelings do you think these type of memes engender? The reaction of most people who are NOT "true believers" upon finding out that the ES exists is one of shock, horror and indignation. This is a natural reaction.

Are these feelings those you would want your parents, siblings, children and co-workers and friends to have towards you, knowing that you are involved with a movement which demonstrates the above stated values? This is, of course, keeping in mind that most Theosophists are deathly afraid of telling non-Theosophists about Theosophy because of fear of retribution or simply ridicule.

In the world of business, there is this concept of a "Value Proposition". A Value Proposition states what a company seeks to provide their customers in return for payment of goods and services. A Value Proposition goes beyond saying that "I will sell you something for a certain price". More than that, a Value Proposition promises a number of behaviors and benefits that a company agrees to provide to customers in addition to the product. Typically this covers such things as environmental activism, commitments to various causes, and details of how customers should expect to be treated.

What is our Value Proposition? What should we be providing to our users, and that includes you, if you're reading this.

Views: 545

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think a question has to arrise to counterpoint the basic ideas of this discussion: do we really need to "dumb down" the ideas of Theosophy for the masses? The Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled are not exactly easy reading, but they're no more imposing than, say, The Old Testament or anything Freud ever wrote. And Besant, Leadbetter, Powell, etc. are pretty easy going.
Spencer: popularizing implies clarity of language, which is not "dumbing down".
True, some difficult Sanskrit term may be left out of the equation, but perhaps some description in plain English (modern language) can be given. The most central point is about the approach taken:
open source, which to me means that ideas are discussed from different angles, different perspectives, etc.; shifts in meaning of terms/words/ideas during the ages and between movements/religions/etc may be researched. The background from which this venture happens is, for me at least, a gnostic (neo-platonic)/theosophic/sufi/kabbalistic basis.
One has to have a framework in which to develop ideas.
Martin, I don't want to keep on with the minor point and it seems we pretty much agree. I also concur with you on the "working hypothesis" approach. This will certainly encourage people to use their critical faculties, but at the same time be open minded.

It has already been discussed about what criteria is to be used to evaluate these various subjects. I personally think that it has to include the rational, but go beyond it. Reductionist/materialist science should be looked at, but not considered the final word.

“There comes a time when the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge but can never prove how it got there.” Albert Einstein

This is something to keep in mind as this Forum moves forward.
Yes, Michael, the rational faculty has to be included as well. Intuition is indispensible, but insights have to be elaborated by the rational faculty as commonly understood. This, BTW, is, or should be, the future direction of the TS movement. There have been many writers who have elaborated this point: Paul Brunton, Vitvan, to name only a few. The integral movement seems to be aware of this point, but I have to do more research on that. Mysticism involves feeling, a feeling that there is more to life than meets the senses. BUT, that is not enough. We have to develop ways to connect our feelings and insights to practical means and methods to transform the culture/social life/economics we take part in. Amplify the spiritual undercurrents, so to speak..
Martin, I went back and read some of the initial entries in this discussion and see that perhaps we are getting a little far afield here. Though, one thing on 'Mysticism" I disagree with you on. It is much more than a "feeling that there is more to life than meets the senses." That's only the very starting point. It is the direct experience of that "something" in all it's aspects and dimensions. But, that's for another Forum.

As for the original line of thought here and it ties in with what you just said, is the question: "What practical, day-day value does Theosophy offer?" My answer to that is "literally nothing." Some of the early responses here echoed that. Yes, I feel there are Metaphysical/Occult "Gold nuggets in Theosophy, but with anything worthwhile, one has to delve into it over time. It's an intellectual pursuit, supported by reflection and meditative reverie.

Theosophy does not offer any advice or path that would seemingly help a person bring a balance to their financial situation, a balanced emotional life, better relationships/romance, or in their working/career life. In fact, as Joe pointed out, if a person asks about improving these aspects of themselves, they are most likely to be told they are being "selfish."

In my opinion, the reason it has become irrelevant in the spiritual/metaphysical community, here in the U.S. at least, is that it is a Path without a Heart.

If I'm wrong here, perhaps others can come forward and present things I'm missing.
one is surprised to read that some find no practical day - day value in theosophy which is more than a mere intellectual pursuit, any "meditative reveries" had better cease if that is what they are but even the recognition of this is its own achievement, instead of expecting certain fulfilment, see what is really there and begin the self-examination with the heart as guide, certain aspects have been purposefully left (almost) unsaid because the way is one of effort, theosophy is full of signposts and there are no "traps" unlike much ""occult" literature"...
This "really good, practical stuff" was the reason why I posted the Great Invocation as a tool for service here. ;-)
Michael, I slightly polarized my view on Mysticism. (Paul Brunton takes a bit of an extreme view on it, but makes a good point). Of course feeling that there is more to life than the outer aspects is just the beginning. The question is what happens next in the life of the perplexed and/or seeking one? One looks for an answer to the many questions one has. Who, or which movement offers answers? Depending on the type of personality, temperament, phase of life, etc., one may find a belief-system that answers one's questions. So far, so good. The orginal Theosophical movement was about investigating philosophies, comparing one's own experiences with others, while much remained unsaid, private, since the Path is something very private in many aspects (the subtle forces idea, the Self working through self). It all has become dogmatized as we know.
Theosophy has been likened to Raja-yoga, and there is truth in that.

"It's an intellectual pursuit, supported by reflection and meditative reverie."

If you take intellect in its original sense, buddhi-manas, and reverie as contemplation, then, yes.

Previously, I said: insights have to be elaborated by the rational faculty as commonly understood. And here we come to the pluralistic basis of the whole enterprise.
There is no law saying that we have to believe in reincarnation, or whatever.
If theosophers develop insights that can be formulated into models of process, and be of help to others, excellent. Theosophy is about helping others help themselves.
We're not going to babysit people. We expect a good deal of action, work on self, in this movement. That's the nature of Raja-yoga.
Having said that, there is a central place for the heart in this system. Buddhi, besides discernment, also means compassion. So, if one sees a possibility for helping others, one will seize it.
Pluralistic also means that every theosopher can do what s/he sees as necessary.
If it is developing some self-help ideas, fine. If it is researching Sanskrit literature, fine. There are no set paths. Everyone has to discover and break ground for him- or herself.
In this era there is a lot of possibility for exchanging ideas and experiences. So, that could be the role for this forum, and like forums.
Everyone seemed to have good points in their comments. I kept my initial words short and left out something that was indicated in your replies, i.e., that no organization or group can be all things to all people. And that certainly goes for Theosophy.

I'm sure there are some "old timers" in Theosophy, whatever branch, that found a completeness in all important areas of their life through Theosophy. This was in a far more simpler and slower paced time. I think nowadays, most folks will get what they need from Theosophy and at the same time look elsewhere for other metaphysical and human needs.

Martin summed it up nicely about "intellectual" pursuits and that's what I meant.

I have Paul Johnson's "The Master's Revealed" on inter-branch Library loan here in Los Angeles. I'm next on the waiting list and look forward to reading it. From everything I've read and heard, those early years previous to TS, in the 1870's and afterwards into the 20th century were "heady times" in the Occult/Metaphysical fields in the West. The excitement must have been fever pitch most of the time!

I think that those looking back 50 years from now will see this time as a seething hot bed of spiritual/occult and metaphysical resurgence, reexamination and opportunity. People have access to so much info via the Internet that wasn't even dreamed of 10 - 20 years ago even. And new things are starting up all over, as for instance Joe Fulton's new(today) wiki site:

Dear friends

My views are:

H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"Theosophy, as already said, is the WISDOM-RELIGION. "
(The Key to Theosophy, p. 13)

H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, besides Buddhistic ethics?

THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no philosophy in particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again, it must be stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is divided into Exoteric and Esoteric Sections. "
"THEOSOPHIST. The members of the Theosophical Society at large are free to profess whatever religion or philosophy they like, or none if they so prefer, provided they are in sympathy with, and ready to carry out one or more of the three objects of the Association. The Society is a philanthropic and scientific body for the propagation of the idea of brotherhood on practical instead of theoretical lines. The Fellows may be Christians or Mussulmen, Jews or Parsees, Buddhists or Brahmins, Spiritualists or Materialists, it does not matter; but every member must be either a philanthropist, or a scholar, a searcher into Aryan and other old literature, or a psychic student. In short, he has to help, if he can, in the carrying out of at least one of the objects of the programme. Otherwise he has no reason for becoming a "Fellow." "
"ENQUIRER. Then what is the good of joining the so-called Theosophical Society in that case? Where is the incentive?

THEOSOPHIST. None, except the advantage of getting esoteric instructions, the genuine doctrines of the "Wisdom-Religion," and if the real programme is carried out, deriving much help from mutual aid and sympathy. Union is strength and harmony, and well-regulated simultaneous efforts produce wonders. This has been the secret of all associations and communities since mankind existed.

ENQUIRER. But why could not a man of well-balanced mind and singleness of purpose, one, say, of indomitable energy and perseverance, become an Occultist and even an Adept if he works alone?

THEOSOPHIST. He may; but there are ten thousand chances against one that he will fail. For one reason out of many others, no books on Occultism or Theurgy exist in our day which give out the secrets of alchemy or mediaeval Theosophy in plain language. All are symbolical or in parables; and as the key to these has been lost for ages in the West, how can a man learn the correct meaning of what he is reading and studying? Therein lies the greatest danger, one that leads to unconscious black magic or the most helpless mediumship. He who has not an Initiate for a master had better leave the dangerous study alone. Look around you and observe. While two-thirds of civilized society ridicule the mere notion that there is anything in Theosophy, Occultism, Spiritualism, or in the Kabala, the other third is composed of the most heterogeneous and opposite elements. Some believe in the mystical, and even in the supernatural (!), but each believes in his own way. Others will rush single-handed into the study of the Kabala, Psychism, Mesmerism, Spiritualism, or some form or another of Mysticism. Result: no two men think alike, no two are agreed upon any fundamental occult principles, though many are those who claim for themselves the ultima thule of knowledge, and would make outsiders believe that they are full-blown adepts. Not only is there no scientific and accurate knowledge of Occultism accessible in the West ―not even of true astrology, the only branch of Occultism which, in its exoteric teachings, has definite laws and a definite system―but no one has any idea of what real Occultism means. "
(The Key to Theosophy, p. 19 + 21-22)

Blavatsky wrote:
"The Theosophical Society of New York, founded in 1875, and later, according to the orders of its heads in India, entirely reconstructed, is established on the plan of every secret society. It is plain, then, that its doctrines cannot be common property."
(BCW, Vol. II, p. 14)

M. Sufilight asks:
One wonders what this appearent very wide reconstruction covered?
And whether the orders was issued by those who knew that altruism adapts it self to time, place, people and also circumstances? And whether such changes might also happen in year 2010 or later?

- - - - - - -
In this thread I find that the word "Theosophy" or "theosophy" is used in a very loose manner. I think it would be of service and altruism to all Seekers at this forum and elsewhere if this particular word was - much - more precisely defined.
I have in this post attempted to give a better definition, and others might consider the views, because this thread from the beginning seemed to be questioning which values the Theosophical Society (or Movement) has or had.

In the below I will throw a few links to show some of the many versions on how "Theosophy" or "theosophy" is or has been defined. I cannot help but finding myself to a certain extend in disagreement with Wikipedia's version, merely calling "theosophy" a belief or belief system - because theosophy was only forwarded as a theory given by each member of the TS and even outside the TS, and in the past before the TS. Each individual forwarding his or her own version of theosophy. Yet, Blavatsky's book "The Key to Theosophy", (especially p. 247-248 - THEOSOPHY FOR THE MASSES), appearently deviates a bit from the Constituions of the TS given in 1875-1891. And at other places the main founders are not deviating from the Constituions of the TS. The TS was originally given as an investigating body - and an open one. Later, if we follow the above quotes, it turned more secret around Jan. 1879, but was still an investigating body. - And later again, I will say, although some will call me prejudicial, that it somewhere after 1891 turned and became more or less politically involved and later branches followed an emotionally oriented Messiah-craze (See for instance TS Adyar and Alice A. Bailey groups).

When Blavatsky said that Theosophy is the WISDOM-RELIGION, it implied, as I see it, that each individual are entitled to his or her view on what that is - while seeking altruism and the truth. This was the main idea, as I understand the Original Programe Manuscript. (See BCW. Vol. VII, p. 145 and also The Key to Theosophy).

So from this follows that the word "theosophy" is perceived individually.
Even for instance whether one knows that the Law of Karma and Reincarnation are facts or not. And each Seeker perceive the Law of Karma and Reincarnation form different perspectives and level of thought.

And, what do we actually understand with the term "Theosophical movement." At the beginning of this thread? It seems a very loose term. What movements are covered by that term, and which ones are not?

All the above are just my views, other readers might think differently.

- - -

Some online Dictionaries definition of the word Theosophy:
Wikipedia on Theosophy:

Marriam Webster's Online Dictionary defines it as:
“1: teaching about God and the world based on mystical insight

2 often capitalized : the teachings of a modern movement originating in the United States in 1875 and following chiefly Buddhist and Brahmanic theories especially of pantheistic evolution and reincarnation "

Free Online Dictonary:
"1. Religious philosophy or speculation about the nature of the soul based on mystical insight into the nature of God.
2. often Theosophy The system of beliefs and teachings of the Theosophical Society, founded in New York City in 1875, incorporating aspects of Buddhism and Brahmanism, especially the belief in reincarnation and spiritual evolution."

- - -

The Dhyan Chohan (given by Master K.H.) says:
"It's time that Theosophy should enter the arena. The sons of Theosophists are more likely to become in their turn Theosophists than anything else. No messenger of truth, no prophet has ever achieved during his life time a complete triumph, not even Buddha; the Theosophical Society was chosen as the corner stone, the foundation of the future religion of humanity."
(View of the Chohan on the T.S., Mahatma Letters)

H. P. Blavatsky wrote in "What is Theosophy?":
"Vaughan offers a far better, more philosophical definition. “A Theosophist,” he says—“is one who gives you a theory of God or the works of God, which has not revelation, but an inspiration of his own for its basis.” In this view every great thinker and philosopher, especially every founder of a new religion, school of philosophy, or sect, is necessarily a Theosophist. Hence, Theosophy and Theosophists have existed ever since the first glimmering of nascent thought made man seek instinctively for the means of expressing his own independent opinions."

M. Sufilight says:
So from this follows, as I see it, that The Theosophical Society according to the Dhyan Chohan was the corner-stone of the Religion of the future to come; (and very important perhaps later even under a different name or skeleton). Yet, of course not a dogmatic one, which is the ordinary version assumed by many conditioned Westerners - who only read some of the badly informed or badly constructed websites these days - not informed about the original Constitution of the Theosophical Society (1875-1891) or later versions thereof. And not a Mind Control one, with leaders or popes at the top and others at the bottom, because it seek to be based on altruism. (See for instance BCW. Vol. VII, p. 145). And according to H. P. Blavatsky we find that Theosophy is what every theosophist (one who gives you his or her own non-dogmatic theory on "God" and life) forward to the world one way or the other by his or her activities. This happen within the TS and of course also outside it. So the Theosophical Society had no Doctrines as a Society because it was not dogmatic and not a Mind Control Society, and each member had individually his or her doctrines within the frame of the Constitution of the Theosophical Society. Yet, the Theosophical Society became more secret on membership after jan. 1879; (See BCW, Vol. II, p. 14).

The Theosophical Society was as Blavatsky said in the Key to Theosophy, among others, based on Ammonious Saccas and the Philaletheians — the lovers of the truth. Yet, was is not the same.

H. P. Blavatsky wrote about them and Ammonious Saccas:
"His object was to prove a primitive system of Theosophy, which at the beginning was essentially alike in all countries; to induce all men to lay aside their strives and quarrels, and unite in purpose and thought as the children of one common mother; to purify the ancient religions, by degrees corrupted and obscured, from all dross of human element, by uniting and expounding them upon pure philosophical principles. Hence, the Buddhistic, Vedantic and Magian, or Zoroastrian, systems were taught in the Eclectic Theosophical School along with all the philosophies of Greece."......."his chief object in order, as he believed, to achieve all others, was to extract from the various religious teachings, as from a many-chorded instrument, one full and harmonius melody, which would find response in every truth-loving heart."

H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"Moreover, the very raison d'être of the Theosophical Society was, from its beginning, to utter a loud protest and lead an open warfare against dogma or any belief based upon blind faith."

H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"The Society founded to remedy the glaring evils of Christianity, to shun bigotry and intolerance, cant and superstition and to cultivate real universal love extending even to the dumb brute"*
(Blavatsky's Collected Writings, vol. VII, p. 246)

H. P. Blavatsky wrote:

ENQUIRER. If Theosophy is even half of what you say, why should there exist such a terrible ill-feeling against it? This is even more of a problem than anything else.

THEOSOPHIST. It is; but you must bear in mind how many powerful adversaries we have aroused ever since the formation of our Society. As I just said, if the Theosophical movement were one of those numerous modern crazes, as harmless at the end as they are evanescent, it would be simply laughed at― as it is now by those who still do not understand its real purport ― and left severely alone. But it is nothing of the kind. Intrinsically, Theosophy is the most serious movement of this age; and one, moreover, which threatens the very life of most of the time-honoured humbugs, prejudices, and social evils of the day ― those evils which fatten and make happy the upper ten and their imitators and sycophants, the wealthy dozens of the middle classes, while they positively crush and starve out of existence the millions of the poor. Think of this, and you will easily understand the reason of such a relentless persecution by those others who, more observant and perspicacious, do see the true nature of Theosophy, and therefore dread it. "
(The Key to Theosophy, p. 271-272)

"On October 3rd, a letter was received by the Colonel from Master Serapis, which apparently was the “first word from him in some time,” as Col. Olcott says. That letter instructs the Colonel on certain points in connection with The Theosophist. It says, among other things:
“Assert your rights to the paper—it was established for you, none but you two have a right over it as directed by—*
. . . . Whenever convenient explain that the paper is neither your nor H.P.B.’s but belongs to and is under the control of certain persons no one knows anything about except your two selves. . . ”†
By the end of October, there were 381 registered subscribers to the magazine, and it was decided to print 750 copies for the second issue.
It is interesting to note that it was during this period, namely on August 2nd, 1879, that Dâmodar was admitted to membership by the Founders.]
* [Here appears a symbol often used by Master Serapis.]
† [Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom, Second Series, Letter No. 29.] "
(From Blavatsky's Collected Writings, Vol. II, p. 83)

There is a time, a place, the people and the circumstances to be taken into account, when a Seeker wants to learn something about life or about higher learning. Learning does not necessarily take place, when a given Seeker craves it or wants it, but when the time is ripe - and when the needed preparation has been accomplished. Some teachers of Higher learning have said, that the Seekers have to study first and prepare themselves intelligently, before Real actual Learning can take place.

- - -
A sidenote or two:
It seems, that in Blavatsky's Letters to A. P. Sinnett we find Blavatsky stating that she knew 40 languages. (See p. 210).

Yet, I still wonder what Constitution so to speak this present forum The Theosophical Network belong to. Whether it more precisely be dogmatic or non-dogmatic, scholary or non-scholary, political or non-political, messiah-craze or no Messiah-craze etc. etc.

All the above are just my views, which some of you might find to be helpful.

M. Sufilight
(One who experienced H. P. Blavatsky's body materialize in his appartment year 2008 here in Denmark.)
I agree with the above statement.
Nevertheless, I 'm curious as to what she told you.
Anything we should know?
This is too good an opportunity to miss.
Dear friends, Joe, Martin, Richard

My views are:

I will answer your questions to the best of my abilities.
Let my however add: I cannot help but finding it very interesting, that you are more interested in little me meeting Blavatsky (ie. in phenomena), than you are in this thread and its aim, and what we have exchanged views upon the last few days.

Joe wrote:
"Sorry, visitations by beings, divine or otherwise does not add to the credibility of a statement. The truth needs to stand on its own."

M. Sufilight says:
I was not referring to credibility. Anyone can be claimed to be without credibility and even shouted at. We aught to know people on their fruits, and I think we can agree on that.

The main idea with the note, was to make those, who could benefit from it aware of this particular event. Those who cannot benefit, may bark at this sentence of mine all they want. If they are wise and clairvoyant enough they will be able to verify the truth in what I am saying. In the old days such events or astral trips was written about in the Theosophist, if my memory serves me right. (The Theosophist Part Five 1883 to 1884
Af H. P. Blavatsky, p. 85 - Try for instance http://books.google.com/) And we were told in The Theosophist in 1880, that the Adepts or Masters was to be found near Badrinath in northern India. (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/theosoph/theos4a.htm#badrinath) However, they will of course not show themselves to anyone - and especially not to those who are not ready to be taught.

Let me add: I did not encourage anyone on this list to merely believe me and what I wrote. And I did neither encourage anyone to without verification to disbelieve my words. I think both views aught to be taken into account. And I think this is common sense, when the Theosophical Society was dead against dogmas, but exchanged views on hypothesises. (Or we at least aught to know that this was how the Original Constitution given in 1875 was formulated. And I recently wrote about it in this thread.) - The words was directed at those readers who might be able to use their intuitive skills, and understand the truth about the event. Those of you, who cannot, can use my words as possibly being in accordance with the truth, and which perhaps later can be verified or not verified.

If you want to call me a liar, I think you will have to prove that I am. I will dare say I am telling you the truth about this event - and this because I do care about you and all humans.

I did not claim that it actually was Blavatsky I saw, because I will not claim that I am in a position where I know whether it was another being materialising a copy of her body. There is an important difference there in the assumptions about the event.

What happened was the following:
I was translating the Key to Theosophy, (the first full official translation from English into Danish) in 2008, and was about halfway through translating it. For a certain reason, I went from my livingroom to go and fetch a book related to a passage I was translating - and which had caught my interest. I went into the corridor leading in the opposite end into the bedroom in my appartment. When I was about 1-2 meters from the open door to the bedroom and looking in, there, - suddenly, and really without warning, a figure slowly materialised itself. The first reaction was to be was surprised. My breath came to a standstill and the heart jumped somewhat faster, the atmosphere changed, something out of the "normal" happened. Within 1-2 seconds the figure had materialised completely and I saw the side of the full figure of the person we know as H. P. Blavatsky. She turned her head in a friendly manner and looked at me. She looked exactly like the photo given in Isis Unveiled, but the clothes was those from a later photo of her - this one: CBW. Vol. 6 - front cover (http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v6/)

I went into the bedroom, because Blavatsky smiled at me and invited me (telephatically) to come closer as if she would share some words with me. I circled (90 degrees) around her half-solid body, which was semi-transparent. - I circled so to get past her becasue she was a bit close to the door of the bedroom. - I circled until I stood in front of her with about 50 centimeters between us. She told me something, which I have forgotten today; stupid as I am (smile). But she said, that I should not worry and that she was there. (So there you have it. This is my Karma, and I will have to live with it. - But I thought I better share it with you.)

After a while she slowly disappeared and I went to bed to meditate as I often do while laying down resting on by bag. I was however looking at the spot where she disappeared for a while. You see: The nervous-system had experienced a minor chock.
And that is funny, because I had already had my share of inner experiences and astral trips beginning many years ago before this event.

I meet her later on an astral trip on the Chinese Wall, there she told me more, but I cannot disclose that which is private and not for everyone to know about. We departed at the Jiayuguan pass, and at a place which is somewhere near the Jade-gate (Yumen Pass). There she turned north or in a northern direction - perhaps - towards Shamballah - and I went towards Shigatse seeking the two Masters, but karma disallowed me and I was forced into another place and after a short while I woke up. But that is another story.

And no, Richard she did not mention you in particular. (smile.)
But we talked about humanity and karmic circumstances, that much I will tell you and all our theosophical friends.

And again, since I am not claiming to be a Master, all the above could be some Dugpa-Master seeking to throw some bad tricks and spells upon me, and this I of course have to take into account.

Now I have told you about it as truthfull as I have been able to.
I have not told you all about my experiences with her, but not all can be told, and some of it is in fact not in my head at the moment. Something have to remain private for now; at least to some of us at this forum.

I hope, that my was to your satisfaction?
But, I suggest that we return to the subject this thread is concerned about.

I have an idea about starting up a "new" version of the Theosophical Society.
There will be no fee's and anyone in sympathy with the Constitution and its aims can become members of it. It will be based on the original Constitutions given in 1875-1891 - and it will seek to adapt it self to the present stage of knowledge among scientists and humanity in general about the science of psychology (seeking a Psychological Key so to speak). - Some might call it back to the Psychological Key movement; and so be it. But handsome is who handsome does.
Unity is often better than going it alone at all costs.

All the above are just my views.

M. Sufilight


Search Theosophy.Net!


What to do...

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

A New View of Theosophy


Theosophy References

Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2024   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service