Hallo all,

My views are:

The following is problably worthwhile considering, when we deal with internal
theosophical controversies of different kind.


"After the disappearance from the field of a teacher of Wisdom, the followers
will divide themselves into groups, in accordance with their strength and
weaknesses. Some will assume control of others. They may be good or bad, and
this will be shown by their reaction to - the second teacher - when he/she
arrives.
If they realise he/she is their teacher, then they have merely been developing
themselves and can mature. But if they have become atrophied, they will be too
blind to recognize the Spirituality of the very teacher, for which appearance
they have been prepared. They may attach themselves, in default, to a different
group. (And this groups existence is maybe no coincidence.) Again well and good
: providing they return to the mainstream of teaching when it is offered to them
again. This is the test of whether they have overcome the lower self. They will
realise, if they are sufficiently developed, that the person who appears to be
'second' teacher is in reality - the first in importance.
Life is reversed for the undeveloped man (the newcomer), and he/she will behave
in accordance with this. The first teacher does not make life easier, in most
cases, for the generality of disciples. He/She will teach them things, which are
only of use when the second teacher arrives and reality falls into place. The
object of this is twofold. In the first place, certain valuable thoughts have
been given to the disciples. In the second, they are tested by the means of
these ideas. Just as our western psychologists give odd-shaped pieces of wood to
people, to see how they put them together, teachers of Wisdom will give
odd-pieces of material of - mental kind - to his/her followers. - If they try to
fit these together however, and to make a pattern in his/hers - absences, - they
are becoming 'fossilised'. Because, the Wisdom tradition has to show that the
object of mankind is not to construct idols, but to follow a supreme pattern,
which is learnt piece by piece.

Quite obviously the semi-blind among the people, during their 'waiting-period',
will try to work out their own interpretation. They may, as have been done in
the past, write books to explain what they have learned. This is the
danger-point, because when a man/woman is accepted as, say, a philosopher (of
wisdom) because she/he has written a book explaining a philosophy, he/she will
not readily accept, that she/he only have been 'fumbling'. He/She has quite
possibly become a prisoner of his/hers lower self. The self-conceit of the
man/woman is now bound up with his/hers 'creation', the book or the method,
which he/she has used to organise the fragments, which he/she has. He/she is
probably or possibly lost - for the cause.
In order to break through this shell of accretions and fossilisations, the -
second teacher - will tend to act in a different, perhaps in a certain
dramatically different manner, from the original one. This could happen, to
break the 'idols', which have been formed out of the thoughts, which were
originally given.
So very important: The use of ideas is to shape a man or woman, not to support a
system - which is viewed in a limited manner. This is one way in which the
Wisdom Tradition is 'living', and not just the perpetuations of ideas and
movements. This seems important to understand and know about.

When a system of teaching of wisdom is in a period of fallowness, because the
one who propagated it is dead, then there comes a period of stagnation. This
period can last between 10 years, 15 years or more. In the time, which passes,
the group of people who is affected by the system are sieved by natural means.
Some wander away. Others carry on automatically not really knowing, what they
are doing. They are now 'frozen', though they do not know they are.
The blind may try to lead the blinder. This takes the form of assumption of
authority by those who were given some sort of authority in the original
mandate. These are the people in the most dangerous position, because the longer
they remain 'orphaned' the more strongly their lower self (or the three lower
bodies) asserts it self.
Others may modify the teachings in a learned and personal way. Some certainly
fall a prey to cults, which have come into being in order to serve them. The
people who joins these are at great pains to explain why they consider, that
they represent the same kind of teaching - and this is important. It is
important, because it shows the Theosophist or the real spiritually minded, very
clearly, that the people who try to explain - are in fact troubled by
conscience. Somewhere inside them, they know, that they are identifying
themselves with an imitation, or a second-best. But they are supported by their
lower bodies or lower personality, - and this is too strong for them.
Those can be helped by being lead to think in new thinking-patterns and systems.
It is via the conscience, that one finds the path forward, - thereby will be
able to remove the limitations of the lower personality.

Imagine a group of people shipwrecked. They think there is no hope of rescue.
They find a raft, and are glad. After a time more people come along in a big
boat. But the first people will not leave the raft, because they have become
used to it. They may have convinced themselves, that it is actually a boat. (So
it is to some philosophical or religious people today.)
The points at which the mystical traditions, which are still alive, are in
contact with each other cannot really be explained by the means of books. And
yet people continue to write books showing how they have found this and that
point of resemblance.
The truth can only be found by actual experience, - and easier by awareness on
such aspect as I have touch upon.

To sink ecstasy in Wisdom is better than to sink Wisdom in ecstasy. The Wisdom
Tradition teaches by several different systems, and not only by one, - one book
or teen books, BUT also by thousands and thousands of books - and the dogmatic
ones doesn't want to listen."

So very important it is to understand theosophy as not only a Movement because:
"The use of ideas is to shape a man or woman, not to support a system like for
instance Theosophical Society or similar - which is viewed in a limited manner.
This is one way in which the Wisdom Tradition is 'living', and not just the
perpetuations of ideas and movements like Theosophical Society. This seems
important to understand and know about."

*******
To an ernest student of Thesophy, the question: "Who was or is the second
teacher?" keeps starring in the face begging for an answer.
Even Blavatsky mentioned in The Secret Doctrine, that there - problably - would
come one along. And it seems likely that she meant, that it would at the
earliest happen a hundred years later. Som maybe all later claimants up-til-know
have only been small wawes on the water. The BIG one is to arrive.

Some has tried to answer this, and claimed that the teacher has already arrived.
A. A. Bailey has been one of the answers, and I think the most controversial
one.
Idries Shah has been mentioned.
Others have been mentioned.
Who has the answer ?

*******


Characteristics of Theosophical Litterature


Here are a few characteristics of Theosophical litterature:

1. Some books, some passages, are intended to be read in a certain order.

2. Some books and passages have to be read under specific environmental
conditions.

3. Some have to be read aloud, some silently, some alone, some in company.

4. Some are only vehicles for illustrations or other content generally regarded
as extraneous or secondary to the text.

5. Some are of limited use or ephemeral function, being addressed to communities
in certain places, at certain stages of development, or for a limited time.

6. Some forms have concealed meanings which yield coherent but misleading
meanings, safety-devices to ward of tamperers.

7. Some are interlarded with material deliberately designed to confuse or
sidetrack those who are not properly instructed, for their own protection.

8. Some books contain a completely different potential, and they are
communicators through another means than the writing contained in them. They are
not designed primarily to be read at all.

9. Theosophical litterature is a part of carefully worked out plan. Its abuse
lead to nothing of permanent value.

Theosophical teachings, and sometimes keys to it, are sometimes embedded in
quite other material, not recognisable as theosophical at all to the
uninitiated. Many of these teachings are really meditation-themes. They have
deep function almost unknown to the pedestrian conventionalists, enthusiasts,
imitators or occultist." ...

And the text continues on. - It is especially the last four sentences, which we
aught to familiarze ourselves with. And anyways - all of the text seem to work
wonders in my mind. For instance is it so, that Blavatskys talks about that
allegories, dead-letter reading and the Seven Keys exists. These has to do with
the above text on Theosophical litterature. This is my knowledge. There are also
non-physical libraries.

*******
I mention this because. There are many modes of reading, writing and teaching
within the what we call the wisdom tradition. A tradiotion which the various
different Theosophical branches are only a minor part of.

*******


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]