Theosophy

[Spotless]

William Q Judge on "Practical Theosophy"

 

I'm glad I never read Judge - quite an incorrect and Christian view of Karma - he never caught my interest and I can see why.

 

On another note, some of the finest dissertations on questioning the very existence of Jesus are found in Theosophical writings.

 

The entire subject of the unfortunate Christian/western notion of good vs evil is one I am not sure Theosophy tackled - it would be something to investigate. Nothing divides us more agaist ourselves than this perverted and narrow minded viewpoint.

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

I'm glad I never read Judge - quite an incorrect and Christian view of Karma - he never caught my interest and I can see why.

 

On another note, some of the finest dissertations on questioning the very existence of Jesus are found in Theosophical writings.

 

The entire subject of the unfortunate Christian/western notion of good vs evil is one I am not sure Theosophy tackled - it would be something to investigate. Nothing divides us more agaist ourselves than this perverted and narrow minded viewpoint.

 

I was going to say something similar, but you beat me to it.

[Michael Sternbach]

What is so amazing is that in the quote above from Practical Theosophy, we read: "The civilized man cannot be guided by fear or superstition, but reason may take hold of him. Theosophy being not only practicable but also reasonable as well as just, its doctrines are destined to be those of the civilized man. They will gradually drive out the time-worn shibboleths of the theologian and the scientist, giving the people of coming centuries a wisdom-religion deeply-based and all-embracing", whereupon the text goes on itself supporting fear and superstition as guiding forces!

 

That not all the Theosophist writers joined in with this outlook is evident from Alice A, Bailey's 1953 book Esoteric Healing, pp. 19 ff., where "the Tibetan" talks about this limited and distorted view of karma:

 

The responsibility of a child for his living conditions is practically nil, unless you admit karma as a predisposing factor, and its power to produce those re-adjustments which emerge out of the past and affect the present.  I shall deal with this more fully under our third point, dealing with our karmic liabilities.  I would only suggest here that the whole subject of disease could be treated from the angle of karma and be definite and conclusive in its value had there been right teaching on this abstruse subject from the time that it was given out in the West.  But the truth as it has come to us from the East has been as much distorted by the Eastern theologian as the doctrines of the Atonement and of the Virgin Birth have been misinterpreted and taught by the Western theologian.  The real truth bears little resemblance to our modern formulations.  I am, therefore, seriously handicapped when dealing with the subject of disease from the angle of karma.  It is difficult for me to convey to you anything of the truth as it really exists, owing to the pre-conceived ideas as to the ancient Law of Cause and Effect which are necessarily in your mind.  When I say to you that the doctrine of Emergent Evolution and the modern theories of the work of a catalyst upon two substances which—when brought into relation with each other under the effect of the catalyst produce a third and different substance—carry in them much of the truth anent karma, will you understand?  I question it.  When I say to you that the emphasis given to the Law of Karma as it explains apparent injustices and stresses always the appearance of pain, disease, and suffering gives only partial presentation of the basic cosmic truth, is your mind in any way clarified?  When I point out that the Law of Karma, rightly understood and rightly wielded, can bring that which produces happiness, good, and freedom from pain more easily than it brings pain, with its chain of consequences, do you feel able to grasp the significance of what I am saying?

 

The world of glamour is at this time so strong and the sense of illusion so potent and vital that we fail to see these basic laws in their true significance.

 

The Law of Karma is not the Law of Retribution, as one would surmise as one reads the current books upon the subject; that is but one aspect of the working of the Law of Karma.  The Law of Cause and Effect is not to be understood as we now interpret it.  There is, to illustrate, a law called the Law of Gravitation, which has long imposed itself upon the minds of men; such a law exists, but it is only an aspect of a greater law, and its power can be, as we know, relatively offset, for each time that we see an aeroplane soaring overhead, we see a demonstration of the offsetting of this law by mechanical means, symbolising the ease with which it can be surmounted by human beings.  If they could but realise it, they are learning the ancient technique of which the power to levitate is one of the easiest and simplest initial exercises.

 

The Law of Consequences is not the inevitable and set affair which modern thought surmises, but is related to the Laws of Thought far more closely than has been believed; towards an understanding of this, mental science has been groping.  Its orientation and purposes are right and good and hopeful of results; its conclusions and modes of work are at present woefully at fault, and most misleading.

[Nungali]

I thought the whole thing was a Victorian Christian misinterpreted mess !

 

 

 

he seems critical of " those systems which require a man to be good for virtue's sake alone."   and    "  since the desire for reward is inherent in humanity, and is a reflection of the evolutionary law which draws the universe ever upward to higher points of development "  

 

So, I ignore the Sufi prayer ( if i do not help the poor and unfortunate, let me be cast into hell, if I help the poor and unfortunate so I avoid hell or desire heaven , let me be cast into hell also  )   and 'be nice'  to get my reward this is how the Universe draws upward to higher points of development  .....    then latter he goes on about 'unselfish motive'   ? ? ?  what a load of codswallop !

 

 

The practical  occultists , where he     " extinguishes a hell that never could burn "    ( that's practical ? ! ?   )     but replaces that 'fear of action' with   "  he lights the lamp of truth and throws its beams upon the mortal's path so that not only the real danger, the real punishment, can be seen, but also the reward and compensation."

 

 

... and then follows that with this ;  " The civilized man cannot be guided by fear or superstition, but reason may take hold of him. "

 

and this is 'interesting' ;  "  its doctrines are destined to be those of the civilized man."

 

IMO ... its a load of trash . 

Edited February 24, 2016 by Nungali

[FraterUFA]

The world of glamour is at this time so strong and the sense of illusion so potent and vital that we fail to see these basic laws in their true significance.

 

Ah, memories: I spent many nights, two decades ago, studying these texts in front of a fire with a group of like-minded seekers nestled up in the Rocky Mountains. How holy we were, so wise to that world of glamour! Our three hour long Comasonic ceremonies fortunately protected us from all that. Ancient Tibetan masonry FTW.

 

UFA

[Bodhicitta]

Alice Bailey is baloney, based on Chuck Leadbeater's psychic ravings.

 

Consider the differences outlined in this article, between Blavatsky and pseudo-theosophy:

 

"In Theosophy's Shadow Vanity Whispers"

Edited February 26, 2016 by Bodhicitta

[Michael Sternbach]

Alice Bailey is baloney, based on Chuck Leadbeater's psychic ravings.

 

Consider the differences outlined in this article, between Blavatsky and pseudo-theosophy:

 

"In Theosophy's Shadow Vanity Whispers"

 

Link?

[Bodhicitta]

Just search by title, it is in several places.  The link to the Philaletheians version would not work.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Bodhicitta

[Bodhicitta]

As for the criticisms of Judge's "Practical Theosophy" piece; critics have gotten the wrong end of the stick.

 

Judge was pointing out the failure of Xtian civilization to live up to the Xtian ethical ideals.  Xtian's must 'be good' because  God said so or love of God or fear of God or pleasing Jesus or Moses or God with virtue.  But 98% do not and cannot do so.

 

Therefore, eventually, karma & reincarnation which are rational and do not require a 'God' to operate will be accepted and more importantly, people will begin to live closer to a merit-based life.

 

As for self-centerness being used as both reward & punishment - so what.  What Buddhist or Hindu can say that most followers practice skillful karma purely altruistically?  Even a real baby bodhisattva, will 'do good, do no evil and purify the mind' knowing the purifying effect of merit gathering on one, or the polluting effect of the opposite. 

[Nungali]

So what about 'self-centeredness ? Thats the whole  point !   - Jeeze !  

 

Judge is massaging away the Christian rigidity, with another type of rigidity .  It may have been needed back then for those types.

 

We have gone a long since then and such baby steps are far behind  and outdated.    Unless one still finds oneself in a Xtian post-Victorian mind set that one has to break out of slowly and securely

[Bodhicitta]

Pablum.  

 

Be specific: What avant-garde solution do you have in mind?

Edited February 26, 2016 by Bodhicitta

[Nungali]

You want specifics ?  Well, to be specific, you first ;   who are you asking ?

 

And why have you decided any solution must be 'avant-garde' before you have heard it ?

 

 

I assume you are not addressing me as previously, when I was specific you ;

 

Not able to follow your non sequitur-like posts, sorry.

 

... and dropped out of the dialogue   .... waited and returned with   'here come da judge ' .  

 

aside from what is in  other's  posts here ....  

 

here is a hint for you :   if you cant do good works or show compassion to those suffering,  and/or help alleviate it ... just for the sake of it itself, or that you simply perceive a course of action 'needs doing' , and you  do need hope/fear of heaven/hell or good/bad karma results   ( not much big diff IMO ) to stimulate you to do good... then  stick with heaven and hell and karma. 

 

Its better than not helping at all. 

 

If thats too 'avant-garde' or 'non-sequiter'  for you,  perhaps one of the others could explain ? 

[Bodhicitta]

Got it nungali, thanks for clarifying.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Bodhicitta

[Spotless]

Bodhicitta - it appears you "went for" the politics and the big plays within the Theosophical Society.

 

In your own words where do you stand in these things?

[Bodhicitta]

Speak plainly Spotless - what do you mean by 'these things'?

[Michael Sternbach]

Alice Bailey is baloney, based on Chuck Leadbeater's psychic ravings.

 

Consider the differences outlined in this article, between Blavatsky and pseudo-theosophy:

 

"In Theosophy's Shadow Vanity Whispers"

 

Alright, found the article, thanks.

 

Funnily enough, the author expresses that he does not intend to deprive Bailey's writings of any value, he only wants to show that they are not always in accordance with The Secret Doctrine and HPB's writings, respectively. Well, personally, all I can say: I hope they aren't! I really hate to break it to you, but some of The Secret Doctrine is baloney, at least from the perspective of someone who has been updated to the however slight evolution that without a doubt has taken place in science and spirituality since the Victorian age.

 

In direct reversal of this situation, you seem to be thinking of HPB's words as written in golden letters, valid for all times and eternity.

 

 

Note: This is not to say that there isn't a certain essence that could be distilled out of it.

 

Well, I truly sympathize with you, but believe me, you would be doing Madame Blavatsky a greater service if you do not hesitate to you relate all her teachings to, and compare them with, other sources of metaphysical and scientific insights (especially more contemporary ones). Challenge everything she said. What remains will be the gold nuggets sieved out of her legacy. You must rewrite your holy scriptures every once in a while, especially if you want to keep your following.

 

One thing that I commend Bailey for is that she (or alright, let's say "the Tibetan") stated clearly in the foreword of A Treatise on Cosmic Fire that this trashy book - although in certain terms an update on The Secret Doctrine - is still not the ultimate word on the matter but is meant to serve as a general guide and outline that would be of general validity perhaps until the year 2025. That's when we can expect a yet considerably more evolved version of both Blavatsky's and Bailey's work to emerge. It will have done away with untenable racial theories, and reconcile the seemingly contradictory concepts of the appearance of an avatar on the one hand, and the uplifting of the human individual on the other (just bear in mind AAB's Initiation Human and Solar here). Along with that it will reconcile many other spiritual teachings across all times and cultures.

 

Common,dude, even the Catholic Church is more trendy than your brand of Theosophy.

 

Peace,

Michael

[Bodhicitta]

Blavatsky in 'golden letters', no, not at all. Just that AA Bailey's letters are of cheap brass.

 

To clarify for those who have not read the article, it begins:

 

 

Her [bailey's] claim that her teachings came from the same Occult Brotherhood that taught HP Blavatsky (HPB), the founder of the modern Theosophical Movement, is not valid. This short piece is not about whether Bailey’s writings are inspiring, wonderful or contain any truth; but simply whether HPB and AAB had the same mentors, as claimed by Bailey. Bailey’s guide professed to be the same Djual Khool that was one of HPB’s teachers. Bailey also declared that her guru was the same Master Koot Hoomi that Blavatsky knew. This paper will propose that the so-called Tibetan and the Hierarchy of Masters portrayed in Bailey’s books, were not Djual Khool and the Adept Brotherhood known to HPB.

 

Alice Bailey & her inspiration CW Leadbeater claimed a common source, the same Brothers that taught Blavatsky.  The article says 'not true' - they taught pseudo-theosophy.

 

It has nothing to do with updating or being trendy, but whether AAB's 'Fibetan' was the same person that Blavatsky knew.  He was not - thus the differences in teachings.

[Michael Sternbach]

Blavatsky in 'golden letters', no, not at all. Just that AA Bailey's letters are of cheap brass.

 

To clarify for those who have not read the article, it begins:

 

 

 

 

Alice Bailey & her inspiration CW Leadbeater claimed a common source, the same Brothers that taught Blavatsky.  The article says 'not true' - they taught pseudo-theosophy.

 

It has nothing to do with updating or being trendy, but whether AAB's 'Fibetan' was the same person that Blavatsky knew.  He was not - thus the differences in teachings.

 

And why would it really matter? Aren't you possibly taking this transmission thing a little too literal?

[Bodhicitta]

Cogent point - after all Mormonism is just trendy Christianity.

 

Is it possible you even read all the piece? (yes, but understand it - hmmm...)

Edited February 28, 2016 by Bodhicitta

[FraterUFA]

. 

Edited April 20, 2017 by FraterUFA

[Michael Sternbach]

Anyone who has undergone a transmission knows it is a very literal thing.

 

UFA

If you look more closely at the impressive transmission lines postulated by virtually all secret societies, commonly reaching back into time immemorial, you invariably find that they in fact had their beginnings in a much more recent time. That does not mean that they are not spiritually connected to strands of occult knowledge of great age, which "accidentally" came eventually to form new systems systems.

 

The emergence of Hellenistic Hermeticism out of the fusion of Babylonian, Egyptian and Greek elements, or the creation of Zen (Chan) from Indian Buddhism mingled with Daoism in China are just two examples.

 

Sorry, there is no evidence for very old, unbroken and unaltered initiating societies anywhere. Every extant "tradition" got revised and regenerated cyclically by way of individualistic out-of-the-box thinkers, inspired by the essence of a tradition rather than by its sooner or later obsolete external form.

 

And when the transmission involves channeling (as already in the case of HPB, than by Bailey and Leadbeater), things become even more opaque and intangible.

 

As I mentioned elsewhere, the nature of channeling is such that the receptive psyche of the medium attunes to fields of information that exist on a subtle/quantum level. Sometimes this kind is valuable information, depending much more on the individual channeller rather than on their supposed source. But even though it usually appears in the form of an ascended master, higher entity, alien, angel etc, it stands to question how personalized these information fields are, especially if we understand "personalized" in the way contemporary psychology looks at this.

[Nungali]

I thought Blavatsky originally got coached by Max Theon      (   maximum godlike     )     

 

That is  ;   Louis-Maximilian Bimstein    ?  

 

Who is this 'Fibetan' character ? 

 

I assume he was after Blavatsky left  The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor  ...  after Peter Davidson accused her of ' falling under the influence of  " a greatly inferior Order, belonging to the Buddhist Cult " )  ?   

Edited February 28, 2016 by Nungali

[Michael Sternbach]

"The Tibetan" is how Alice A, Bailey occasionally referred to Djwal Khul (a couple of variant spellings there), a fairly elusive adept said to be living in the Himalayas. Supposedly, he telepathically transmitted his teachings to both HPB and AAB who wrote them down and published them in their books.

[FraterUFA]

If you look more closely at the impressive transmission lines postulated by virtually all secret societies, commonly reaching back into time immemorial, you invariably find that they in fact had their beginnings in a much more recent time. That does not mean that they are not spiritually connected to strands of occult knowledge of great age, which "accidentally" came eventually to form new systems systems.

 

The emergence of Hellenistic Hermeticism out of the fusion of Babylonian, Egyptian and Greek elements, or the creation of Zen (Chan) from Indian Buddhism mingled with Daoism in China are just two examples.

 

Sorry, there is no evidence for very old, unbroken and unaltered initiating societies anywhere. Every extant "tradition" got revised and regenerated cyclically by way of individualistic out-of-the-box thinkers, inspired by the essence of a tradition rather than by its sooner or later obsolete external form.

 

And when the transmission involves channeling (as already in the case of HPB, than by Bailey and Leadbeater), things become even more opaque and intangible.

 

As I mentioned elsewhere, the nature of channeling is such that the receptive psyche of the medium attunes to fields of information that exist on a subtle/quantum level. Sometimes this kind is valuable information, depending much more on the individual channeller rather than on their supposed source. But even though it usually appears in the form of an ascended master, higher entity, alien, angel etc, it stands to question how personalized these information fields are, especially if we understand "personalized" in the way contemporary psychology looks at this.

 

I agree with everything you've written here. I don't mean transmission in a sense of lineage, but of a spiritual experience which can take place between adept and initiate. The experience itself provides proof of an unbroken chain of transmission which goes back as far as one can imagine.

 

As for titles, lineages, pedigrees... none of that matters (at least not to me).

 

UFA

[Bodhicitta]

"The Tibetan" is how Alice A, Bailey occasionally referred to Djwal Khul (a couple of variant spellings there), a fairly elusive adept said to be living in the Himalayas. Supposedly, he telepathically transmitted his teachings to both HPB and AAB who wrote them down and published them in their books.

 

'Supposedly' according to AAB; for Blavatsky he was just a disciple of KH and occasionally assisted in transmitting teachings.  Telepathy is only one method.