Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

57467Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

Expand Messages
  • M. Sufilight
    Feb 4, 2012
      Dear Govert and friends

      My views are:

      All right I will seek to be more precise...


      Govert you have the following on your website today:
      "From what I read so far Ragon’s claims made about Bibracte are quite erroneous or, in H.P.B.’s words, “utterly incorrect”, as she qualified an other of his claims. Bibracte was a fortified hill-town and none of the grand structures, which Ragon writes about, were ever erected there. It looks like, and he is not the only one, that he confused Bibracte with the nearby town of Autun, which does have a big Roman amphitheatre, though it ‘only’ seats 17.000, and has a temple dedicated to Janus."
      "The problem here is that Autun did not exist before Caesar’s time as it was founded in Augustus’ reign replacing Bibracte as the capital of the Aedui. The other problem is that Ragon ascribes to the Celts feats of architecture and pastimes which are distinctly Roman and were quite out of reach for the more simple Celts."
      "It looks like H.P.B. was a little careless in taking over wholesale these claims by Ragon about Bibracte, even while she was aware of Ragon’s shortcomings as a historian as she warned her readers that “[h]owever learned and erudite, some of the chronological mistakes of that author are very great.”"
      http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/Bibracte.htm


      The above is not a solid argument because as I have stated before:

      1) The Article by Blavatsky was published posthumously and she never made it public herself. The article might therefore have been unfinished and written in haste without having checked the site of Atun properly by clairvoyance etc. etc. This alone should dismiss your argument in the above Govert.
      2) Blavatsky writes in her unpublished article in mention:
      "The once majestic city, Bibractis, has now become Autun, Ragon explains." (It is a big question how one aught to read this sentence and words related to it. Using dead-letter or using a figure of speech?)
      a) That is: Says Ragon - Blavatsky did not say so herself. - Although her unpublished article - gives the impression that she endorsed Ragon's view - Blavatsky is not exactly clearly supporting Ragon's view either.
      If this was the case I think she would have written it differently.
      b) And ---- That is, Bibcrates - so to speak - became Autun - when the City moved south and the old Bibcrates was slowly abandoned. So what was Bibcrates now became Autun - but only - in a manner of speaking of course.
      And since Bibcrates more over was such a huge city in those days - the place were Autun was in those days - was almost within the City limits of the old Bibcrates - if one follow the logic based on the size of it. Just the size of the theatre (17-20.000 seats) alone should make this claim quite valid - and also the many discoveries found by the archaeologist - in the nearby areas. (I might be wrong, but have a look at my references later on in this post.)
      Yet even if this sentence by Blavatsky in a non-published article - should be taken as an endorsment by Blavatsky - one has to consider what other Scholars write - namely - that Bibractis (ie. Bibcrates) - likely - was removed to the place were Autun later was named to be, when Caesar in year 52 BCE or so had his battle just south thereof. Bibcrates was moved to the place where Autun was - before it was named Autun in 15 BCE. And that the city in those decades after Caesars battle was a half-roman + half-celt city and a huge one. If true, it is not unimportant (!) - when we read Ragon's and Blavatsky's words - and the words about the theatre. --- That is my point, and I guess also Blavatsky's point. Let scholars prove the opposite if they are able to do that.

      References available online:
      --- "The Roman remains of Northern and Eastern France: a guidebook" by James Stephen Bromwich
      --- "Cyclopedia of architecture: historical, descriptive, typographical ..." by Robert Stuart
      --- "Antiquity explained, and represented in sculptures, Bind 3–4" by Bernard de Montfaucon
      (I will provided the online links - if the above are difficult to trace.)

      ___
      Summeries from the references:
      >>> ("The Roman remains of Northern and Eastern France: a guidebook" by James Stephen Bromwich - around page 143 and onward - is telling a bit about the theatre in Autun. He says: "Of Autun's many temples, whether dedicated to Roman or local gods"..."none has been certainly identified." (!!) About the theatre he says: "It is recognized as first century, probably Flavian, but even the 1984-5 excavations were unable to come up with a satisfying stratigraphy; it could be a modified earlier building." (!) - And mentions that the stone-work is Gallo-Roman. So one might be able to call the theatre partly roman-partly celtic in its early days. (The theatre is through excavations known to have been used for fighting between animals and man/animals. But only with little evidence it seems, and also with regard to the dating thereof.) - And the Temple of Janus (date of construction given as unknown by the author - some say 1th century, but it is still hotly disputed) - probably replaced a wooden temple to a Gallic deity that already stood on the site, according to several authors. Near this temple was a theatre - an extra theatre it seems. - Now the question is whether the theatre attached to the Temple of Janus had a Gallic origin - and not merely a Roman one?) "Cyclopedia of architecture: historical, descriptive, typographical ..." by Robert Stuart says: "Vestiges of another building, also supposed ot be an amphitheatre, are at Autun." (Both books are at googlebooks.com) - And other authors mention that there are more than two Theatres in the region of Autun and more. (One of them is "Antiquity explained, and represented in sculptures, Bind 3–4" by Bernard de Montfaucon) - One problem ordinary scientists has today is that it is known that various buildings and statues has been removed to other locations or simply destroyed - or through the decades used to repair other buildings with, and mixed up. This complicates the whole thing to them about dating the excavations and knowing about whether the earliest building was a roman one or a celtic one etc., etc. It is also mentioned that Constantin the Great - re-build - the City of Autun in 296 A.D. (And this is important to consider.) And the Saracens also burnt it to ashes about 730 AD. So ordinary science do not known half of the story because of these events, and others. There was still some kinds of pagan worship in the area in the 4th century according to scholars - and likely even later on.

      Bibracte was where Autun is today before it was actually given its new name in the year 15 BCE. by the Roman leader Augustus and his friends. It seems reasonable to say this based on the size of Bibcrates alone - and also based on the seemingly fact that the city Bibcrates more or less slowly moved from from its original place to where Autun is before the city got its name in the year 15 BCE.
      - And whether there were Roman buildings in the same area were Autun was before Autun was named in 15 BCE? It seems likely. (If unlikely - please provided documentation...Govert?) Because Caesar treated the city mercifully in 52 BCE according to so-called exact modern science. And the Celtic culture was known still to be present in those decades. After 15 BCE the celtic culture gradually disappeared says the scholars - this fit with views which seems to be Blavatsky's - and which are mine. Some scholars mention that there was found more than one theatre in Autun and the nearby surroundings, - perhaps one at Bibcrates? What do you have on that?
      The huge main theatre is in fact undated. Most scholars say 1st century AD, but there are also signs on an earlier date. So the question remain open it seems. The Janus temple is also disputed with regard to dating - some say 1st century AD, and others add that there was a wooden celtic temple beneath the Janus Temple - and a theatre nearby it. (And scholars are known to be wrong when dating various events - and especially when there is - either reputation or a religious element at stake.)<<<


      Other references can be found in various libraries related to the site.
      I do not have access to them where I live. Others can dig the info out and seek the necessary verification on what I have written in the above. And what is hinted at in the online references given by me.

      I can only hope that the above is making it more easy for you and other readers to understand - my views and the present scholars.
      I do not think I need to repeat myself one more time. Just the fact that the article by Blavatsky was published posthumously, should be enough for you to rewrite your remarks Govert - if you are a sincere and honest person. But that is just my view. Others might disagree. The problem is in fact a minor one. And would not have mentioned it if I had known that it would require so much exchange of words to get my message across. The reason why, I respond again - is the obvious growing number of attempts on "character-assassinations" on Blavatsky given during the last two decades, (some of them generated by various Sects and also by Christian-related scholars). Many accusations of minor mistakes alleged to have been commited by Blavatsky are being accumulated and pandered of as valid or as important - and often - when taking dead-letter reading as the primary mode of reading. And I merely seek to keep the number of more or less wellmeant accusation where they belong - when they are incorrect. When they are correct and it can be proven - then you will have a willing listener. Your wellmeant attempt is just one single minor one, and written wellmeaningly seeking the truth, and we both know that. And I respect that. But I do simply not agree on your conclusion as you have put it on your website. And I think I rest safe in what I have written in the above - in saying that you are imprecise in your conclusion - or rather incorrect.

      I will not write more about this subject unless you can provide something more solid with regard to documentation on the issue in mention.
      I do hope that the above words settled this minor issue.

      All the above are of course just my views.




      M. Sufilight




      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Govert Schuller
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 6:34 PM
      Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question



      Dear Morten,

      I have a hard time following your reasoning. And the snippets I do understand don’t seem to be relevant to the argument.

      Just as a reminder: the focus is on HB’s claims (by way of confirming Ragon) about Bibracte, not Autun.

      From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of M. Sufilight
      Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 3:49 PM
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

      A few views...

      On this you wrote in the below I will agree with you, almost entirely.

      And I will let the goddess rest with the scientists more or less ignorant views. Because not much is know about the transition between the Celtic period and the Roman one in Autun and Bibcrate according to themselves.

      I will however not over-estimate ordinary science too much - and then go underestimate occultism too much.
      But that is just me, who claim some knowledge about these things, although I do not know much about Autun, I am learning.

      Now I do not know all and everything...but try if the following is not following the truth...
      - And whether there were Roman buildings in the same area of Autun before Autun was named in 15 BCE? It seems likely. The Janus temple is one such to consider. And because Caesar treated the city mercifully in 52 BCE according to so-called exact modern science. And the Celtic culture was known still to be present in those decades. After 15 BCE the celtic culture gradually disappeared says the scholars - this fit with Blavatsky's views - and mine.

      - One problem ordinary scientists have today is that it is known that various buildings and statues has been removed to other locations or simply destroyed - or through the decades used to repair other buildings with. This complicates the whole thing for them about dating the excavated buildings and artifacts and knowing about whether the building actually was a roman one or a celtic one - or a mix - etc., etc.
      It is mentioned that Constantin the Great - re-build - the City of Autun in 290-300 A.D. And the Saracens about 730 AD. also burnt it to ashes. So ordinary science do not known half of the story because of these events, and others. There was still some kinds of pagan worships in the area in the 4th century and also later. The Theatre alone was able to support 17-20.000 people (!!!)
      The population must then at least be estimated to as much as 100.000 if not 500.000 people. And then one could take the local villages into account. But the last number is my estimate.

      Some scholars mention that there was found more than one theatre in Autun and the nearby surroundings, several in fact. What do you have on that?

      M. Sufilight

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Govert Schuller
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:16 PM
      Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

      Dear Morten,

      That archeologists found a statuette of the goddess Bibracte in Autun has no relevance to the topic. When the Celtic Aedui tribe had to abandon Bibracte as its capital and settle in Autun, they just brought along their goddess. That’s all it tells us.

      http://www.celtnet.org.uk/gods_b/bibracte.html

      Meanwhile occultism has not yet evolved into a viable research program. There are interesting attempts to give it a footing, like in the work of Sheldrake, but it has not yet taken off. Meanwhile naturalistic science is just steaming ahead with impressive results and most scientists can’t be bothered to look into paranormal phenomena which might be connected with their discipline. On the other side there is a body of works from the skeptical corner trying to refute the possibility of occultism. But they, like Sheldrake, seem to operate at a hypothetical level of research (Daniel’s step 2). And professional magicians and hypnotists can contribute to the venture by showing how certain phenomena could be faked.

      From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of M. Sufilight
      Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 2:09 PM
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

      A few views....

      As long as one considers a Posthumous article to constitute an evidence on the authors failure - I will have to disagree. And since you seem to disagre with me on this - what can I say?

      When people seek to turn black into white and white into black - I think that I know where I stand...

      And I have told this more than once. I think we then just will have to agree to disagree about whether one aught to read the words by Blavatsky litterally or not - and primarily by the use of scholarly knowledge or not - or instead primarily by the use of Akasa or not.

      And then there is the present - ordinary - scientific knowledge about the area Bibracte (even ordinary science have found a statue or statuette of the goddess of the same name - the goddess of Bibracte in Autun city - and this aught to tell us all something) - and - the knowledge of the Occultist.

      Let the ordinary scientist - reject Occultism - but as long as they have not researched and examined whether it exist or not - what kind of scientific advancement are they then promoting?

      As written in the Secret Doctrine, Vol. I., p. 640:
      Men of science will say: We deny, because nothing of the kind has ever come within the scope of our experience. But, as argued by Charles Richet, the physiologist: "So be it, but have you at least demonstrated the contrary? . . . Do not, at any rate, deny a priori. Actual Science is not sufficiently advanced to give you such right." ("La suggestion mentale et le calcul des probabilites.")
      http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume_I.htm

      I think I rest my case safely when I say that Occultism and the Esoteric path of the Arhat is a real thing.
      Simply, because to me, I speak out of knowledge. And let others prove me wrong i they are able to.

      M. Sufilight

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Govert Schuller
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:30 PM
      Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

      Dear Morten,

      The article in question is quite straightforward in its claims. There is not much careful considering of possibilities. It just posits its claims as true with the self-assured confidence of a highly trained expert who is intimately familiar with the subject matter. You might wish she would have been more careful, but she wasn’t.

      From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of M. Sufilight
      Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 5:52 PM
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

      A few views...
      I think we then just will have to agree to disagree about whether one aught to read the words by Blavatsky litterally or not - and primarily by the use of scholarly knowledge or not - or instead primarily by the use of Akasa or not - and - especially here how one aught to read the text in mention by Blavatsky - and whether an article being published Posthumously should be given as a valid as a proof on Blavatsky's lack of wisdom and knowledge. Maybe the article was written "looking" in Ragon's work - and with the aim of later more careful checking on the Geographical area through the use of the Clairvoyant faculties? But the article never got finished for various reasons. And similar issues.

      M. Sufilight

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Govert Schuller
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:38 AM
      Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

      Dear Morten,

      In all humbleness, I really do not think there is much wiggle room here regarding Celtic architecture (they didn’t build amphitheatres); or about archeology (they didn’t find Roman structures in Bibracte); or about the location of Autun in relation to Bibracte (they are not at the same spot). There is more wiggle room of course in how to assess HPB’s taking over of Ragon’s mythic claims about Bibracte. To me it looks like myth-making. Maybe there are other explanations, like misreading the Akashic record.

      From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of M. Sufilight
      Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:36 PM
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

      Dear Govert and friends

      My views are:

      Now that you return my post attempting to refute it - I find myself in need to respond to you - although It might have been more polite on a private email.

      I think you aught to read my previous post again, and then read the words by Blavatsky just after quite by Ragon.

      Govert you write on your website (Note: some excellent photos is omitted here on the forum):
      "From what I read so far Ragon’s claims made about Bibracte are quite erroneous or, in H.P.B.’s words, “utterly incorrect”, as she qualified an other of his claims. Bibracte was a fortified hill-town and none of the grand structures, which Ragon writes about, were ever erected there. It looks like, and he is not the only one, that he confused Bibracte with the nearby town of Autun, which does have a big Roman amphitheatre, though it ‘only’ seats 17.000, and has a temple dedicated to Janus."
      "The problem here is that Autun did not exist before Caesar’s time as it was founded in Augustus’ reign replacing Bibracte as the capital of the Aedui. The other problem is that Ragon ascribes to the Celts feats of architecture and pastimes which are distinctly Roman and were quite out of reach for the more simple Celts."
      "It looks like H.P.B. was a little careless in taking over wholesale these claims by Ragon about Bibracte, even while she was aware of Ragon’s shortcomings as a historian as she warned her readers that “[h]owever learned and erudite, some of the chronological mistakes of that author are very great.”

      What has to be done is to sort out in more detail all the claims and think through the possible implications of the findings, especially addressing the question whether H.P.B. was unto something, but was incorrect in certain details, or if she was constructing her own mythic historiography by selectively appropriating Ragon’s Masonic (mis-)construals of history.

      One way or another the gap of cognitive dissonance between the Blavatskyan, emic, esoteric perception of history and the etic, scientific perception of history has to be bridged.

      Govert Schuller
      Wheaton, July, 2009"
      http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/Bibracte.htm

      When you write that "The problem here is that Autun did not exist before Caesar’s time as it was founded in Augustus’ reign replacing Bibracte as the capital of the Aedui. ---- and compare this sentence with what Blavatsky said in the article in mention after the quote by Ragon - namely: "The once majestic city, Bibractis, has now become Autun" --- I think it is you who aught to listen to Blavatsky's words and not your own. - The problem about the Celts architecture forwarded by Ragon - might be true - it might not - it depends on who deep Archaeologist have excavated beneath various tons of soil - at the proper places - in the region of Bibracte (Autun). Because Bibracte was certainly inhabited farther back in time. That is at least logical to me. - So I suggest, that we do not draw too hasty - scholarly - ordinary scientific conclusion based on - a lack of reading the Akasa. Do you not think so?

      THE LAST OF THE MYSTERIES IN EUROPE by Blavatsky
      "While Sacrovir—chief of the Gauls, who revolted against Roman despotism under Tiberius, and was defeated by Silius in the year 21 of our era—was burning himself alive with his fellow conspirators on a funeral pyre before the gates of the city, as Ragon tells us, the latter was sacked and plundered, and all her treasures of literature on the Occult Sciences perished by fire. The once majestic city, Bibractis, has now become Autun, Ragon explains."
      http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v14/ph_065.htm

      Blavatsky said: "The once majestic city, Bibractis, has now become Autun"
      This cannot imply what you say is true - if you read what Blavatsky actually are saying.
      _____

      And besides this - the arcticle by Blavatsky was a POSTHUMOUSLY published article. So I suggest, that you consider this Govert - before you throw the Old Lady down with shcolarly conclusions and wishfukl thinking. I am saying this knowing very well, that you are well-intentioned in what you have written and in your research - just like most of the members on this forum are.
      So I would not draw such hasty - conclusions Govert. All right?

      But maybe I have overlooked something?
      I will gladly welcome another view telling me I am wrong - if it is able to document its case and not only forward assertions so to put Blavatsky down.
      After all --- We can only learn.

      Alle the above are of course only views. Written in the best friendliness of the word.

      M. Sufilight

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Govert Schuller
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 7:50 PM
      Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

      Regarding the issue of Bibracte and Autun:

      Bibracte did not ‘become’ Autun by merely a change of name. Bibracte was a relatively simple, fortified Celtic village on a hill-top. Autun was a Roman town later established, 40 miles away from Bibracte, by the Romans. Ragon and HPB quite erroneously conflated the two. I tried to extract her from this error by some ingenious constructs, but failed, and had to conclude that HPB in this case was just wrong. Sorry.

      The implications of this error are as follows:

      1) HPB did not have in this case a superior understanding of history than 19th century historians or Ragon, though she claims to have the ‘dramatic goods’ on the real story of Bibracte and its esoteric relevance for the deep history of the TS.

      2) It is possible that the error might not just be an innocent slip, but a deliberate act of myth-making.

      3) If it was an act of myth-making then the meme of the Centennial Effort becomes questionable.

      Bibracte: Last Center of Celtic Occultism?

      <http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/Bibracte.htm> http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/Bibracte.htm

      From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of M. Sufilight
      Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:08 PM
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

      Dear Govert and friends

      My views are:

      Thanks. Interesting reply.

      I am not sure why the authors you mentioned should be important. A number of the seem merely to be more or less ordinary scholars or almost.
      I have read info on some of the authors and also some of their books.

      Why not go for the sources mentioned by Blavatsky with regard to the 100 year cycle and cycles in general?

      You have a link to an article named "The Centennial Cycle" by David Reigle on your website about the 100 year cycle...What about it?-------
      I think by the way that Autun was called Bibicrate in the old days - so Blavatsky was not wrong at all, that is - in that sense. Bibicrate was also a Goddess bwfore the later name of the town called Autun. - Blavatsky said: "The once majestic city, Bibractis, has now become Autun" in the named article just after the quote from Ragon...So I do think your judgement is not quite fair in this regard? - I do not hope you mind me mentioning it....

      David Reigle wrote in "The Centennial Cycle" in his defence of the 100 year cycle mentioned by Blavatsky:
      "We may therefore consider again the idea that the coming
      of Tibetan Buddhism to the West was the Arhat’s attempt to
      enlighten the white barbarians for the twentieth century."

      M. Sufilight says:
      But where was the "Torch-bearer" giving irrefutable proof on the Science of Gupta-Vidya?

      No-where in David Reigles book - it seems. Unless he thinks that "that the coming
      of Tibetan Buddhism to the West" has given irrefutable proof on the Science of Gupta-Vidya.
      I think they have not. But I am open for info - if any one can show me the evidence on this.

      Maybe the programe was changed - or - no "Torch-bearer" of the mentioned kind arrived? - Or the torch-bearer was Alice A. Bailey - but she can hardly be accused of givning irrefutable proof on the Science of Gupta-Vidya either in the book A Treatise on Cosmic Fire (given to be written by the Torch-bearer Alice A. Bailey (and her later disclosed Master D.K.)...)
      Each Seeker has his or her belief or asserted knowledge....But what about actual and genuine knowledge and irrefutable proof on the Science of Gupta-Vidya?

      The gathering or outpouring of new spiritual activity mentioned to take place every 100 years or so - could it - bsides humanity's karma - have something to do with the Sun-spots - and Blavatsky's words......

      H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
      " This, Science will not deny, since Astronomy knows of the fixed cycle of eleven years when the number of solar spots increases, * which is due to the contraction of the Solar HEART"
      "* Not only does it not deny the occurrence, though attributing it to a wrong cause, as always, each theory contradicting every other, (see the theories of Secchi, of Faye, and of Young), the spots depending on the superficial accumulation of vapours cooler than the photosphere (?), etc., etc., but we have men of science who astrologize upon the spots. Professor Jevons attributes all the great periodical commercial crises to the influence of the Sun spots every eleventh cyclic year. (See his "Investigations into Currency and Finance.") This is worthy of praise and encouragement surely."
      http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/SDVolume_I.htm

      All the above are however just my views. I just wrote them so to if possible to help you and other readers.

      M. Sufilight

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Govert Schuller
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:39 PM
      Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

      From the pov of the history of ideas applied to HPB’s Theosophy there are many sources which can be consulted, some better than others. One of the great studies is Godwin’s “The Theosophical Enlightenment.” Then we have of course the work by K Paul Johnson, Deveney, Martin Brauen, Santucci, Olaf Hammer and others in the academic realm. Then you’ll have to incorporate some findings by HPB’s skeptical biographers like Meade and Williams. And very carefully one will have to revaluate the use of the outright detractors like the Coulombs, Hodgson, Solofyoff, Coleman and plenty of others. Another source of HPB might have been the genre of Gothic literature with Bulwer-Lytton as the most important writer. Then you have to look at HPB’s precursors and contemporaries like Higgins, Kardec, A.J. Davis, and very importantly Emma Hardinge Britten.

      From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of M. Sufilight
      Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 7:09 PM
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

      Dear Govert

      My views are:

      Thanks.
      The below words is a different post and an extension of the post mentioned with the 11 still unfinished pages, where I compared the candidates with each other, in the name of comparative studying.

      Govert wrote:
      "I’m now more interested how that idea (and ideal) came
      historically into being, how it was disseminated and how HPB ran with it and
      presented her own version."

      M. Sufilight says:
      Interesting. Are there any info at all on this from other authors in the past?

      I found this one apparently written by you:
      http://www.theosophicalinstitute.org/medialibrary/pdf/5042ho.pdf

      A few words about the above PDF-file:
      About J. Krishnamurti I would say Successful in his world and among his followers. But he failed as Avatar (World Teacher) on a more global scale. As an ordinary "Torch-bearer", he did not give Irrefutable Proof on the science on Gupta-Vidya - more than many other contemporary teachers did. And I think this last sentence can be documented. But as I said - it depends on how people understand the term "Irrefutable Proof on the science on Gupta-Vidya". No doubt the term aught to be defined as Blavatsky did - as the science on Atma-Vidya (Gupta-Vidya or Greek Gnosis - and this is an esoteric and exoteric psychological doctrine and a philosophical one as well, also known as Occult teachings - and Secret Knowledge and more). And this implies - a proof on Atma-Vidya as a Science, not as a mere belief, as I see it, analogically on various levels of existence, - just like Blavatsky sought to give a proof on the fact that physical matter is not dead matter - and that all and everything is alive. The proof must therefore logically deal with the Science on Psychology within the Atma-Vidya science - through Altruism of the heart. Well as I see it. More documentation is sought by given the below quotes.

      THE SCIENCE ON GUPTA-VIDYA (ie. AMTA-VIDYA or GREEK GNOSIS)
      In the below I have "excavated" a number (not all of them) of the relevant quotes on how Blavatsky actually defined the term Gupta-Vidya (ie. Atma-Vidya and Greek Gnosis - as is shown in the below quotes.) There are more info on for instance the term "Gnosis" in Blavatsky's Collected Writings. There are other terms used by Blavatsky than these...She delibarately used several terms for the same idea? - so to make it more difficult for the readers to understand - but certainly also so to awaken the intuition - as she mentioned in the beginning of the Secret Doctrine...More ordinary systematic philosophical written teachings most often merely awaken the intellect.

      I am, after the quotes, making a conclusion on why the Science of Psychology necessarily one way or the other must play a Key role in all these things...with regard to the Science of Gupta-Vidya...well as I see it.
      __________________________________________________________

      H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
      "Atma-Vidya," or the true Spiritual and Divine wisdom" (SD. Vol. I. p. 169)
      .......
      "And how many are capable of bringing themselves to even a superficial comprehension of Atma-Vidya (Spirit-Knowledge), or what is called by the Sufis, Rohanee! " (SD. Vol. I. p. 199)
      .......
      " Hence Esoteric philosophy passes over the necessarianism of this purely metaphysical conception, and calls the first one, only, the Ever Existing. This is the view of every one of the six great schools of Indian philosophy—the six principles of that unit body of WISDOM of which the "gnosis," the hidden knowledge, is the seventh."
      (SD. Vol. I. p. 278 - Gnosis is Gupta-Vidya as later quotes will show the readers.)

      .......
      "Gupta Vidya (secret knowledge)" (SD. Vol. I. p. 498)

      OCCULTISM VERSUS THE OCCULT ARTS
      ........."and in true OCCULTISM."... "This last word is certainly misleading, translated as it stands from the compound word Gupta-Vidya, “Secret Knowledge.” But the knowledge of what? Some of the Sanskrit terms may help us."
      .......
      "ATMA-VIDYA, a term which is translated simply “knowledge of the Soul,” true Wisdom by the Orientalists, but which means far more.
      This last is the only kind of Occultism that any theosophist who admires Light on the Path, and who would be wise and unselfish, ought to strive after."
      .......
      "All the others may be mastered and results obtained, whether good, bad, or indifferent; but Atma-Vidya sets small value on them. It includes them all and may even use them occasionally, but it does so after purifying them of their dross, for beneficent purposes, and taking care to deprive them of every element of selfish motive. Let us explain: any man or woman can set himself or herself to study one or all of the above specified “Occult Arts” without any great previous preparation, and even without adopting any too restraining mode of life. One could even dispense with any lofty standard of morality. In the last case, of course, ten to one the student would blossom into a very decent kind of sorcerer, and tumble down headlong into black magic."
      .......
      "For we say it again, hypnotism and vivisection as practised in such schools, are Sorcery pure and simple, minus a knowledge that the Voodoos and Dugpas enjoy, and which no Charcot-Richet can procure for himself in fifty years of hard study and experimental observation. Let then those who will dabble in magic, whether they understand its nature or not, but who find the rules imposed upon students too hard, and who, therefore, lay Atma-Vidya or Occultism aside—go without it."
      .......and directly leading to.......
      "Let them know at once and remember always, that true Occultism or Theosophy is the “Great Renunciation of SELF,” unconditionally and absolutely, in thought as in action. It is ALTRUISM, and it throws him who practises it out of calculation of the ranks of the living altogether. “Not for himself, but for the world, he lives,” as soon as he has pledged himself to the work. Much is forgiven during the first years of probation. But, no sooner is he “accepted” than his personality must disappear, and he has to become a mere beneficent force in Nature."
      .......
      "This is the Gate of the Occult arts, practised for selfish motives and in the absence of the restraining and beneficent influence of ATMA-VIDYA. We are in the Kali Yuga and its fatal influence is a thousand-fold more powerful in the West than it is in the East; hence the easy preys made by the Powers of the Age of Darkness in this cyclic struggle, and the many delusions under which the world is now labouring. "
      http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v9/y1888_036.htm

      THE BEACON OF THE UNKNOWN
      "It is written in an old book of occult studies:
      “Gupta-Vidyâ (Secret Science) is an attractive sea, but stormy and full of rocks. The navigator who risks himself thereon, if he be not wise and full of experience,* will be swallowed up, wrecked upon one of the thousand submerged reefs. "
      .......
      " The gnosis preceded that era, for it was the direct continuation of the Gupta-Vidyâ (“secret knowledge” or “knowledge of Brahman”) of ancient India, transmitted through Egypt; just as the theurgy of the Philaletheians was the continuation of the Egyptian mysteries. In any case, the point from which this diabolic magic starts, is the Supreme Divinity; its end and final goal, the union of the divine spark which animates man with the parent-flame which is the Divine All."
      .......
      "We are accused of mystery, and we are reproached with making a secret of the higher Theosophy. We confess that the doctrine which we call gupta-vidyâ (secret science) is only for the few. But who were the masters in ancient times who did not keep their teachings secret, for fear they would be profaned?"
      .......
      "That Gnosis represents the aggregate of all the sciences, the accumulated knowledge [savoir] of all the gods and demi-gods incarnated in former times upon the earth. There are some who would like to see in these the fallen angels and the enemy of mankind; those sons of God who, seeing that the daughters of men were fair, took them for wives and imparted to them all the secrets of heaven and earth. Let them do so. We believe in Avatâras and in divine dynasties, in an epoch when there were in fact “giants upon the earth,” but we emphatically repudiate the idea of “fallen angels” and of Satan and his army.
      “What then is your religion or your belief?” we are asked. “What is your favourite study?”

      “TRUTH,” we reply. Truth wherever we find it; for, like Ammonius Saccas, our great ambition would be to reconcile the different religious systems, to help each one to find the truth in his own religion, while obliging him to recognize it in that of his neighbour. What matters the name if the thing itself is essentially the same?"
      "Theosophy being the way that leads to Truth, in every religion as in every science, occultism is, so to say, the touchstone and universal solvent."
      "In the T.S. every Fellow is at liberty to study what he pleases, provided he does not venture into unknown paths which would of a certainty lead him to black magic, the sorcery against which Éliphas Lévi so openly warned the public. The occult sciences are dangerous for him who understands them imperfectly. Anyone who gave himself to their practice ALONE would run the risk of becoming insane and those who study them would do well to unite in small groups of from three to seven. These groups ought to be of uneven numbers in order to have more power; a group, however little cohesion it may possess, forming a single united body, wherein the senses and perceptions of the single units complement and mutually help each other, one member supplying to another the quality in which he is wanting—such a group will always end by becoming a perfect and invincible body. “Union is strength.” " -------------- !!!!!!!!
      "* The meaning of the word Vidyâ can only be rendered by the Greek term gnosis, the knowledge of hidden and spiritual things; or again, the knowledge of Brahma, that is to say, of the God that contains all the gods. " (Uppercase added on the word "alone" in the above by M. Sufilight.)
      http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v11/y1889_033.htm

      NEO-BUDDHISM
      "But the Upanishads and the Kabbalah require for their complete understanding a key, and the latter can be found only in the hands of the “initiated” Adepts of the Gupta-Vidyâ, the secret science, i.e., the authors of the books on the Vedânta.*"
      "* As a proof of the fact that it is precisely in the Upanishads that we have to look for the source of all the succeeding systems of philosophy of Asia Minor and Europe."......."The great teachers of this highest knowledge are not Brahmans but Kshatriyas, and Brahmans are continually represented as going to the great Kshatriya kings (especially Janaka of Videha), to become their pupils"
      http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v12/y1890_039.htm
      (Ie. Buddhism, Vedanta, Krishna-religions, etc. etc. all have their origin from the Upanishads one way or the other..:! Even so the Upanishads are not the oldest system and the present versions needs a key to be understood completely.)

      INTRODUCTORY NOTES TO H.P.B.’s COMMENTARY ON THE PISTIS SOPHIA.*
      "As a name, Gnosticism is derived from the Greek gnosis (, “knowledge,” more specifically spiritual knowledge or esoteric wisdom, a knowledge not attainable by ordinary intellectual processes, and only to be gained by mystical enlightenment or the awakening of the Buddhic elements in man."
      http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v13/ps_13.htm
      (---elsewhere by Blavatsky also: "True Christianity, died with the Gnosis.")

      __________________________________________________________

      M. Sufilight says:
      Now the last quote in the below is very interesting - to me - and contain some of the main the views and aims I am constantly seeking to get across, ...with regard to any "Torch-bearer" teachings on the Science (not belief) on Gupta-Vidya (ie. Atma-Vidya or Greek Gnosis, see quotes in the above...) And I seek to do this from my heart, well-meaningly, seeking to help us all....although my use of words and choice of words might be problematic to some from time to time....perhaps mostly those who are intolerant in their altruism. Esoteric Psychology from the heart - also self-consciousness of the heart - in a sense a doctrine on Transpersonal Psychology of the heart, if I may use such an expression, and similar ones. As said in the below - prejudice - has to be removed.

      PSYCHIC AND NOETIC ACTION
      "Useless to say that we decline the compromise. It is quite possible––nay, probable and almost unavoidable––that “the mistakes made” in the rendering of such abstruse metaphysical tenets as those contained in Eastern Occultism, should be “frequent and often important.” But then all such have to be traced back to the interpreters, not to the system itself. They have to be corrected on the authority of the same Doctrine, checked by the teachings grown on the rich and steady soil of Gupta Vidya, not by the speculations that blossom forth today, to die tomorrow––on the shifting sands of modern scientific guesswork, especially in all that relates to psychology and mental phenomena. Holding to our motto, “There is no religion higher than truth,” we refuse most decidedly to pander to physical science. Yet, we may say this: If the so-called exact sciences limited their activity only to the physical realm of nature; if they concerned themselves strictly with surgery, chemistry––up to its legitimate boundaries, and with physiology so far as the latter relates to the structure of our corporeal frame, then the Occultists would be the first to seek help in modern sciences, however many their blunders and mistakes. But once that overstepping material Nature the physiologists of the modern “animalistic”* school pretend to meddle with, and deliver ex cathedra dicta on, the higher functions and phenomena of the mind, saying that a careful analysis brings them to a firm conviction that no more than the animal is man a free agent, far less a responsible one––then the Occultist has a far greater right than the average modern “Idealist” to protest. And the Occultist asserts that no materialist––a prejudiced and one-sided witness at best––can claim any authority in the question of mental physiology, or that which is now called by him the physiology of the soul. No such noun can be applied to the word “soul,” unless, indeed, by soul only the lower, psychic mind is meant, or that which develops in man (proportionally with the perfection of his brain) into intellect, and in the animal into a higher instinct. But since the great Charles Darwin taught that “our ideas are animal motions of the organ of sense” everything becomes possible to the modern physiologist.
      Thus, to the great distress of our scientifically inclined Fellows, it is once more Lucifer’s duty to show how far we are at loggerheads with exact science, or shall we say, how far the conclusions of that science are drifting away from truth and fact. By “science” we mean, of course, the majority of the men of science; the best minority, we are happy to say, is on our side, at least as far as free will in man and the immateriality of the mind are concerned. The study of the “Physiology” of the Soul, of the Will in man and of his higher Consciousness from the standpoint of genius and its manifesting faculties, can never be summarized into a system of general ideas represented by brief formulae; no more than the psychology of material nature can have its manifold mysteries solved by the mere analysis of its physical phenomena. There is no special organ of will, any more than there is a physical basis for the activities of self-consciousness."

      "But if the question is further pressed as to the physical basis for the activities of self-consciousness, no answer can be given or even suggested. From its very nature, that marvelous verifying actus of mind in which it recognizes itself as the subject of its own states, and also recognizes the states as its own, can have no analogous or corresponding material substratum. It is impossible to specify any physiological process representing this unifying actus; it is even impossible to imagine how the description of any such process could be brought into intelligible relation with this unique mental power.*

      Thus, the whole conclave of psycho-physiologists may be challenged to correctly define Consciousness, and they are sure to fail because Self-consciousness belongs alone to man and proceeds from the SELF, the higher Manas. Only, whereas the psychic element (or Kama-manas)† is common to both the animal and the human being––the far higher degree of its development in the latter resting merely on the great perfection and sensitiveness of his cerebral cells––no physiologist, not even the cleverest, will ever be able to solve the mystery of the human mind, in its highest spiritual manifestation, or in its dual aspect of the psychic and the noëtic (or the manasic),‡ or even to comprehend the intricacies of the former on the purely material plane––unless he knows something of, and is prepared to admit the presence of this dual element. This means that he would have to admit a lower (animal), and a higher (or divine) mind in man, or what is known in Occultism as the “personal” and the “impersonal” Egos. For, between the psychic and the noëtic, between the Personality and the Individuality, there exists the same abyss as between a “Jack the Ripper,” and a holy Buddha. Unless the physiologist accepts all this, we say, he will ever be led into a quagmire. We intend to prove it."
      http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v12/y1890_040.htm

      M. Sufilight says:
      The above was written in 1890, when the old lady probably knew she was not going to live many days more - This is among the strongest indications or clear presentations by Blavatsky on that the Science on Psychology - necessarily will have to be dealt with when learning about the Science of Gupta-Vidya !!! - Esoteric Psychology primarily of course. Not without understand basic exoteric psychological knowledge of today - how can one claim real Knowledge of Esoteric Psychology?)

      Therefore, as I see it, one could easily be lead to call the Science (not belief) of Atma-Vidya (Gupta-Vidya) - secret knowledge on Altruism - or - better the Science (not belief) on Heartflow-Psychology of the Self (Atma) to use a more down to earth expression, which perhaps i more easily understood. And this last term is based on all the above quotes.- The Science of Gupta-Vidya is as Blavatsky said "the awakening of the Buddhic elements in man". (Se quote in the above.) - And this is an important statement ! ---- Because as I understand it - and I am not alone in this - the awakening of the Buddhic element - and the proof of its existence - can only occur through a psychological change in individual - through the heart of compassion and altruism, and knowledge of the science of Psychology - esoterical and exoterical. And the Science of Psychology is the cornerstone in proving this --- primarily in the esoterical sense of course. (Also: "But as the Gnosis is the Science pertaining to our Higher Self, as blind faith is a matter of temperament and emotionalism" BCW. Vol. XIV, p. 304) ---- It has been proven in many instances - that among the use of written material - Zen Koans, fairytales, short stories, proverbs, fables, or as in Blavatsky Secret Doctrine - myths and legends - are far better instruments in provoking the theosophical exoerience in the Seeker - or what we call the awakening of the Buddhic Element in man - Atma-Vidya. Mere intellecutalizing of the whole affair is only a premilinary step - as well as psychological knowledge - self-consciousness. Yet, even so there are many varied methods - which can be used, and combinations of allegories and systematic teachings can also be helpful..

      I wrote it so that you, Govert and others might be able to find it useful - in giving an even better evaluating J. Krishnamurti's role with regard to Gupta-Vidya teachings. And perhaps one from the above quotes will understand that J. Krishnamurti's solitude path is not - quite adequate enough. But again all the above in this post - are of course just my humble views - and I will gladly welcome - something that can improve it - also while showing me wrong in my views.
      _______________

      All wrong-doing arises because of mind.
      If mind is transformed can wrong-doing remain?
      - The Buddha

      M. Sufilight
      (True love has no limits.And is always tolerant.)

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Govert Schuller
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:08 PM
      Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

      Dear Morten,

      Thanks for your relative short answer. 8^)

      Your thoughts are your own here and I’m not in the position, time-wise, to
      debate them.

      I did develop some criteria by which to recognize either the torch-bearer
      and/or the 20th century effort and evaluated different candidates according
      to the criteria. Will share that later.

      At this moment I’m not looking for any irrefutable proof for the, or a,
      Gupta-Vidya. I’m now more interested how that idea (and ideal) came
      historically into being, how it was disseminated and how HPB ran with it and
      presented her own version.

      Best

      Govert

      From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
      Behalf Of M. Sufilight
      Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:32 AM
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

      Dear Govert anf friends

      My views are:

      I am a bit late with a reply...at least more than usual...

      I am contemplating an longer answer than this one as we speak. I have
      written 11 pages answering your a, b and c, but I have cut it short in the
      below. It takes some time to reach a clear conclusion - there are so many
      angles to consider you know - and also because I am in a learning proces.
      I think views differ on who fits the bill best with regard to the so-called
      "Torch-bearer" title mentioned by Blavatsky in her book the Secret Doctrine,
      vol. I, p. xxxviii.

      The likely candidates are among the most often mentioned the following:
      Whether it was J. Krishnamurti (d. 1986), Alice A. Bailey (d. 1949), S.
      Subramania Iyer (d. 1924) and his Avatar.
      Ananda Tara Shan (claimed to be Blavatsky re-incarnated...I doubt it.) (d.
      2002), Sathya Sai Baba (d. 2011) or another possible candidate (just name
      one and I will add the person) ...will as a minimum have to be compared
      before we reach a more clear picture on this...Well as I see it.

      First. With regard to the "Torch-Bearer" idea - the main focus is, as I see
      it, to always keep in mind that Altruism is the core of the matter here, And
      that Altruism, as I see it for logical reasons, never will succeed in being
      promoted without a Psychological Change - ie. Psychological Knowledge - and
      therefore also awareness about the Science on Psychology (exoteric and
      esoteric) and the Science Subtle Mind Control - especially within religions
      - ie. taking into account whether one promotes a sectarian or non-sectarian
      doctrine - for instance a doctrine about a "Torch-bearer". Both are Sciences
      - not beliefs. And this is also important. --- So I am not about to seek to
      promote one or another Guru for the readers in this post - using ann
      approach which is not taking the Science of Subtle Mind Control into account
      - when answering your interesting post Govert. It think thís is important to
      centemplate.

      And because of this - the angle - used to approach the issue discussed -
      "Torch-bearer" or Maitreya or not - one aught therefore as I see it - to
      take the Science of Subtle Mind Control into account - and - avoid the risk
      of promoting one of the usual personality cults which - perhaps -could be
      emanating from such an exchange like the present one we have. Because it
      must also be true - that each individuals view about the issue - certainly
      might differ because of their own level of being Subtly Mind Controlled ---
      or not. And since it is subtle - each of us - might be victim of it without
      actually being aware of it. So I will keep these preliminary points into
      account when we I proceed. I will mentioned and name some of the Authors on
      the Science of Subtle Mind Control within ordinary science and spiritual
      science when asked about.

      My humble conclusion is - that all the above mentioned Candidates - did a
      poor job on the explaining the Science of Subtle Mind Control. But maybe
      that was not their task - karmically speaking - who actually knows?
      Almost none of the above candidates gave the Irrefutable proof on the
      science called Gupta-Vidya (ie. Atma-Vidya). Perhaps Sai Baba fits the bill
      better than any other candidate. But then again - either he was the greatest
      conman in the last century or else he was the greatest Occulist - with
      regard to be showing signs on Extra Sensory Preseption. Most people would
      oppose this. I would not say that J. Krishnamurti taught more than Sai Baba
      on the science of Atma-Vidya - and - others in the Alice A. Bailey camp
      would claim that Alice A. Bailey did so - despite some of us find this view
      silly.

      --- Union is Strength or Solitude is Strength - that is a vital question?
      ---
      And J. Krishnamurti was, as I see it, more or less clumsy in teaching the
      doctrine forwarded by Blavatsky on why the TS was founded: Union is Strength
      when one promote altruism (!!!) He seemed to have taught - Solitude is
      strength instead, (An odd doctrine to promote by an alleged World Teacher of
      the Age. - Any comments?). - The actual truth is - BOTH - extrovert and
      introvert is strength. Simple logic tells us this. One could say that the TS
      for various reasons - being non-sectarian and all - to a certain extend
      omitted that part of the equation called solitude. J. Krishnamurti omitted
      the idea that Union is strength. - Guru's are crutches and similar oneliners
      coming from his mouth. - But I give the Theosophical Society the upper hand
      here - because it was also said, that not all belong as members of the
      Society, and, that, altruism sometimes is best promoted in solitude. And on
      top of that this was only mentioned by some members of the Theosophical
      Society, which ORIGINALLY was an Absolutely Non-sectarian Society - with no
      Solitude Guru - who reject all other Guru's or crutches but his own voice -
      or at least was so clumsy as to give the expression that this was his
      message. And that all spiritual organisations in fact was more or less no
      good - mere sects and all. - And then afterwards he went and created hos -
      own - so to speak Sectarian - Childrens Schools with the other hand - just
      to in his last years of his life to end up in a trial with his best friend
      Rajagopal - on rather trivial matters - compared to a geuine Avatar -
      consciousness - or even that of a Master.

      But what is it to give Irrefutable proof on Gupta-Vidya (ie. Atma-Vidya)???
      I think when this is agreed upon - some of the above mentioned candidates
      will vanish - if not all of them. And your questions a, b, and c - will be
      more easy to answer.
      And Blavatsky did not say that the "Torch-bearer" inevitably would arrive,
      (See Sd. Vol. I, p. xxxviii).
      So what is the answer among the readers - and - you Govert on Gupta-Vidya
      and what is "Irrefutable proof", in what sense is it to be understood?

      M. Sufilight

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Govert Schuller
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 7:49 PM
      Subject: RE: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

      Dear Morton,

      Thanks for your long reply. I'll try to be brief. Keep in mind that the big
      questions in this matter are a) whether the project/program with K was
      genuine or not, b) whether it was successful or not (with the chance of it
      being not genuine but still successful), and I'll add c) whether HPB's
      Torch-bearer prophecy/program was genuine or not (with the possibility that
      the program was one of HPB's concoctions but found a surprising fulfillment
      in K).

      For starters, the following statements would be in support of the idea that
      HPB's program was genuine, that it was implemented with K and somehow
      succeeded.

      1) The words "World Teacher" or "Messiah" to designate the expected
      "Torch-bearer of Truth" are not mine but were used by CWL and AB. One
      Theosophist (Jean Overton Fuller) argued that the project with K was genuine
      but that the CWL/AB accretions were unnecessary and were legitimately tossed
      out by K.

      2) You posit that the Torch-bearer, to be genuine and acceptable in
      your conceptualization, should have taught a psychological key promoting
      psychological change, non-sectarianism and altruism. One could argue that
      Krishnamurti's mature teachings fits the bill quite nicely and is quite free
      from "any more or less emotional-wave related Savior sectarian doctrine."

      3) K himself, being arguably the ultimate insider of the whole saga,
      claimed in a somewhat puzzling and indirect manner the status of being the
      expected Torch-bearer of Truth. He said: "Mrs. Besant intended the land at
      Adyar [the T.S. international headquarters] to be meant for the teaching.
      The Theosophical Society has failed, the original purpose is destroyed." I
      argue in my paper on K that this statement is structurally congruent with
      HPB's Torch-bearer program for the TS.

      4) Nobody else has come as close as K to fulfill HPB's Torch-bearer
      prophecy/program.

      There are other sets of statements to be made from different positions. I
      have argued for a long time that the project with K was genuine but had
      failed and that Cyril Scott, David Anrias, Geoffrey Hodson and Elizabeth
      Clare Prophet had the correct evaluation of what had gone wrong. The
      skeptical position in regards to HPB would put the whole narrative into
      question as a series of concoctions, delusions and manipulations, a
      perspective I'm seriously exploring.

      Best

      Govert

      From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ]
      On
      Behalf Of M. Sufilight
      Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 4:19 PM
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: theos-talk Sufilight with an Important Question

      Dear Govert and friends

      My views are:

      I will here in the below seek to help you in understanding my view on the
      matter by writing at least a few pages on it all.
      I also write so that other Seekers might benefit from it all. (I can only
      recommend a research in the references given.)

      I understand that you forward this as a proof on you assertion.
      But, I think that you misjudge the old lady - Blavatsky - a bit when you <br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    • Show all 76 messages in this topic