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

Re: theos-talk the coming of the torch-bearer of truth.... Dogmatic?

Expand Messages
  • M. Sufilight
    Dear John and friends My views are: Allright. Yes. Masonry is ordinarily understood as Western Freemasonry by readers of it - with its ceremonial humbug etc.
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 16, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear John and friends

      My views are:

      Allright.
      Yes. Masonry is ordinarily understood as Western Freemasonry by readers of it - with its ceremonial humbug etc. and its lack of Non-Sectarian structures. Such Masonry - are not to be parallellized to the Theosophical Society, which was Absolutely Non-Sectarian in its structure in the early years. Eastern esoteric or occult Masonry - is something else.

      --- But no photo's of Blavatsky in regalia, I dear say.

      --- Blavatsky's masonic Diploma has been posted about before here on Theos-talk. And I have seen it.
      It is shown in Blavatsky Collected Writings, Vol. I - by a small photo - page 304-305.
      http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v1/y1878_007.htm


      --- Charles Sotheran was behind the Masonic Diploma:
      About Charles Sotheran requesting John Yarker to send the Diploma to Blavatsky - see again the following link I mentioned in the previous post....

      THE AUTHOR OF ISIS UNVEILED DEFENDS THE
      VALIDITY OF HER MASONIC PATENT
      (The well-known Freemason - John Yarker wrote:)
      "“However, at the request of Bro. Sotheran I sent Madame Blavatsky the certificate of the female branch of the Sat Bhai (Seven Brothers, or seven birds of a species, which always fly by sevens); it was a system organized at Benares in India by the Pundit of the 43rd Rifles, and brought to England by Major J. H. Lawrence-Archer, 32°-94°. This led to a letter from Col. H. S. Olcott, setting forth the very superior qualities of Madame to the certificate sent, and vouching that she was proficient in all masonic sciences."
      http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v1/y1878_009.htm

      And since Blavatsky never expressed value on ceremonials and fashion-clothing - one can hardly imagine that she requested the eager Mason Charles Sotheran (who 1-2 years later was thrown out of the TS because he instigated riots and promoted ideas about murder in public - this can be documented elsewhere from other sources) to ask for such a Diploma of a mere 32 degree's.
      Especially when Blavatsky quotes Charles Sotheran in Isis Unveiled published 29th September (BCW, Vol. I, p. 264) only few months before she received the Masonic Diploma - and herself says that the high-grades in Freemasonry was hatched by the Jesuits in the Clermont Chapter in Paris. (Also Weishaupt was educated as Jesuit when young.) Do you see the contradiction in it all?
      So it was certanly to throw it into her face, so to speak, (I use the expresion for lack of better word - so help my poor English - smile) - or let us then say - that it was given to her without her asking for it herself. Okay?
      Kind as she was she - took the whole farce very lightly - because Isis Unveiled covered the situation perfectly in many respects.
      This is at least the logical conclusion one arrive at, when contemplationg this affair. Or, do you think differently?

      Blavatsky said:
      "The nest where these high degrees were hatched, and no Masonic rite is free from their baleful influence more or less, was the Jesuit College of Clermont at Paris. "That bastard foundling of Freemasonry, the 'Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite,' which is unrecognized by the Blue Lodges was the enunciation, primarily, of the brain of the Jesuit Chevalier Ramsay. It was brought by him to England in 1736-38, to aid the cause of the Catholic Stuarts. The rite in its present form of thirty-three degrees was reorganized at the end of the eighteenth century by some half dozen Masonic adventurers at Charleston, South Carolina."
      (See Isis Unveiled, Vol. II, p.381-388 + p. 390)
      http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/Isis_Unveiled.htm

      The above are even today confirmed by various Freemasons or Masons, who has access to relevant documents. (See also Albert G. Mackey "Encyclopedia of Freemasonry", saying almost the same thing in 1879. See p. 759 - et seq., and p. 776. and other pages on Jesuit involvements. - And since a number of Masonry groups today seem to acknowledge this I see no reason to think opposite.)

      --- The Theosophical Society is not Western Masonry
      But the lines which the Non-sectarian - Theosophical Society was build upon has nothing what so ever to do with Freemasonry or Masonry as it is known today by people in general - of the Western kind with 33-degrees and similar spurious systems. But, there were tendencies in the early years - to use grib and signs - and various Masonic elements - for a short while, but that changed quickly it seems - especially when Charles Sotheran (the man with the many high degrees from a number of Masonry Orders) was gone form the Society. The relevant papers on these Masonry rules - I have never seen online, except a few pages by Blavatsky. Maybe Daniel Caldwell or another Masons know more about this than I do. - Or is this one of the hot-potatos, which we just do not talk about??? - I still wonder why the Constitution and Rules for the Theosophical Society year 1876, 1877, 1878, and 1879 and later on are not online - so we all can see the historical development of the Society and its organisational structure - and rules? What is being hidden and why? More secrecy?

      See also "A modern panarion : a collection of fugitive fragments" by H. P. Blavatsky
      ( --- See the last footnote in the bottom of page 131 - This speaks volumes on how little value Blavatsky and even John Yarker gave modern Masonry and Western Masonry- !).
      http://www.archive.org/stream/modernpanarionco00blav#page/130/mode/2up

      ________________

      John, you wrote:
      "If Theosophy were perceived as mad ranters against what other hold dear and true what can the result be? Simple observation of the real world is seen that people will defend their beliefs to the death."

      M. Sufilight says:
      As I said in my previous post - what others perceive as mad ranters - is usually those - whom they find to be their opponents. You know, if a local person fall out of line and gets in the Local "News" doing something stupid or no good - it matters to the local ones. - But when people learn it is a "christian" or a "Theosophist of the proper branch" like themselves - it somehow matters much less. And so it is. And this is called normal behavior (!!!) I think it is not.

      Each human being is - near and dear to anyone seeking to promote altruism. It is said - very often that my worst enemy - also is my friend - because this enemy is a grand teacher. Even if the person is actually filled with faults or something like that. And sometimes it is in fact oneself who is filled with faults when the truth - is realised. Because - in a sense - we are each other. Other persons problems are somehow also our problems and faults.

      We are here to learn the difference between good and bad. As Blavatsky said: DEMON EST DEUS INVERSUS. --- What is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder. We always see our fellow-human beings through the front part of their Aura. What is good to some is bad to others. --- Only the wise ones knows exactly what to do. That is why people, our fellow-human beings, in general cannot agree on whether a given communication is compassionate enough in its formulation or not - in this world of duality. Views differ very often. And so to promote an agreement on it - this sometimes EVEN make them think the they are the Law of Karma themselves - and they establish codex and rules of communication - and all that. (And how can one tell whether such silly - man-made - rules and laws created by some "priests", sometimes self-elected "priests" - is the same as the Law of Karma or the arch of morale which bends towards justice?) - Altruism requires no doubt that one is tolerant - and avoid always seeking to perceive other persons words as negatively as possible, or as conveniently negative as possible, to suit ones own agendas - which may be more or less compassionate or cunning. Do you not agree?

      - Telling about the views of an opponents Insitution - a sectarian one - is something else than telling something directly personally to an opponent, because the opponent might not actualy follow the institutions more or less sectarian laws or rules --- The person often use what is called the Protean Self by some psychologist ( --- Shortly stated - "the weaved carpet of multiple roles of personalities and masks" - most people run around with in out times on this little planet. One personality when together with the colleagues, another personality with the wife or hosband, or ones kids - talking baby-talk with them, or another when meeting at the local - religious-tea-talk-and-gossip club or another when one get "serious" and meditate - "going deeply within" - saying AUM and invocate somthing more or less silly - sometimes so to make some persons arrive at ones feet --- etc. etc. - Smile. - With other words we humans seem to tende to put on a mask or garb of a religious kind so to adapt to the circumstances - out of what we perceive to be altruism - or necessities. And some persons like to make others adapt to their set of rules - and subtleties ---- not to mention subtle mind control....--- or to provoke altruism.)

      ---- Since we are Open-Minded people - we do not seek to control others - do we?
      And we are Open-Minded are we not - and - tolerant - and not thin-skinned so to suit our own agendas.

      Of course - if our tone of voice - is not what we can call - civil more or less - communication might come to a stand-still - and membership or similar decrase. - But is increase in membership always the best - or is quality and not to compromise the best?
      Wisdom is required no doubt to answer this clearly.

      Is - 1000 intolerant theosophical seekers who follow a set of Communication Laws made by a group of say self-elected "priests" - better - than 200 tolerant ones - who - is not so thin-skinned that they have difficulties in throwing of their pompous attitudes and their personality attitude or self-esteemed view about themselves because THEY happen to have what they deem a position in life compared to others who in their eyes are mere Ignorants - THEY themselves being for instance authors, even spiritual authors or PH.D's or similar or are "well-known" compared to others - and in THEIR own better-knowing eyes need to be respected more than others because of that etc. etc. - and similar pomp and circumstance.???

      What I sense is that - those - who seek to control communication the most - not seldom - are into the Mind-control business or Subtle Mind Control business.

      The Catholic Church are into it you know. They still have the - Abominable - "Index of Forbidden Books" (or Index Librorum Prohibitorum) - a left over from the old days with Witch-hunts.
      - ODAN (Opus Dei Awareness Network) who got created so to oppose Opus Dei - the latest "Jesuit" trick by the Catholic Church - mentions it here: http://www.odan.org/index_forbidden_books_new.htm - An example is that - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is on the list. That is telling enough, I guess. - This index was not lifted in 1966 as some people think. Because when the present Pope Ratzinger was a Cardinal of what in the old days was known as the Inquisition - (today softly renamed - "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith") he said in 1995 - that the paper was dissolved, but that the MORAL force and obligation still was in operation (!) - See Wikipedia on this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
      ---- So are we going to have a similar Index on forbidden words and communications? - Or what are you having in mind?
      My view is that we rather talk with each other - and let the conscience - find its proper place in all this. Let us be Open-Minded and patient with each other.
      A person who however - clearly - can be proven not to have any intentions on promotions of altruism - is as I see it another story within a non-Sectarian Organisation like the Original Theosophical Society.

      The question is were do we draw the demarcation-line so to speak?
      Wisdom about ethics is the key no doubt there. Communication is not an easy thing. And to satisfy anybody's taste is - it seems - quite impossible when we live in a world of duality.



      John wrote:
      ......"One needs to apply "mindful awareness" and see the speaker on the podium. "

      M. Sufilight says:
      On this I agree, of course. But, would you then sit and wait - and - say nothing and do nothing - when your heart of compassion goes out to all and everything?
      Should we remain silent as the Sphinx - because we are not fully transformed yet? - Or only talk for instance when you - or - a majority of personalities in a minor sect find it to be healthy? Who is to decide?
      (I asked almost the same in my previous post.)



      M. Sufilight

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Augoeides-222@...
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 3:41 PM
      Subject: Re: theos-talk the coming of the torch-bearer of truth.... Dogmatic?





      Morten

      My copy of Morals and Dogma is slightly astray at the moment but I will try to find and relate where in good time if possible. Yes there are photographs of both Besant and L eadbeater wearin their Masonic Rega lia meaning the over the shou lder sash and emblems. There are photo archives that have them. I don't recall just where as it has been years since the topic has been here on this forum. I have a copy of Madam Blavatskys Honorific Degree some where here if I find it I can be a deal more specific. My memory says it was in En gland where it wasconferred , it was as "Princess of Masonic" something or other as her Title Degree. I don't know why "Southern" got in the mix I guess you did some search on your DVD . I don't ha ve any comments to make about Southern as it isn't related in any way to what I intended to indicate.

      As far as masoinc "Humbug" , yes that pretty much characterizes my view of all the ceremonial costumes an such. It benefits the conditioned mind which intrinsicly demands form and conformance to it's existance thereby gratiating by rote memory idea's.I would suggest you meet a Mason or look up a copy of Morals and Dogma in your local library, or even better ask a Mason in person if what I posted is true. I have often wondered why no one on this forum has ever posted the same comments I did, to me it is pretty much general knowledge, nothing secret about it at all.

      I haven't a clue why you use the expression "Was thrown in her face" I rather think it indicates you personal internal point of view. You know in life when other esteem others it isn't unusual that they esteem some people so highly that they out of their own sentiment inculctea strong desire to recognize and honer them, it happens every day of the week all over the world. Try watching C-span and listen to the Host introducing the guests, many of them are possessors of Honary conferments that the Host feels obligated to describe.

      Well, the copy of Madame Blavatskys Honorific Degree is a factua l reality whether you can accept it or not that is about all I need to say your welcome to any view you desperately need to have.

      Yes, at time it is apparant you do have a minor problem of language but that is not the essential issue that I tried to indicate. if we, as we post in this forum think our words do not spread and become permanent nor effect the impressions of others sight unseen we would be remiss and unresponsible if our desire is to advance what the general public thinks Theosophists are about in a positive manner. If Theosophy were perceived as mad ranters against what other hold dear and true what can the result be? Simple observation of the real world is seen that people will defend their beliefs to the death. But what is doing the "defending"? The "conditioned mind" in spite of the best wishes and intentions is what does the defending. when other insult the conditioned mind one can always see immediate actions, like declining memnbership for example. People choose what they will "reach" for with their mind, money, and feet. Turn them off and an organization soon dies a slow or rapid end. I have often posted on this very topic. It is not the "Higher" mind that does most of the "reaching" in actual daily activity it is the conditioned mind as described by Patanjali and repeatably stated by Blavatsky and her mentors. No true change can happen until first the "Conditioned Mind of all Mankind" is in transformation and the author of all the unwanted, undesirable, effects visited upon man as consequence of conditioned mind become inverted and subsided, only then can the "Dawn of Lift of Mind" advance. what Madame Blavatsky railed about relentlessly was not the plainly seen effects but the "villian" itself responsible for the effects , the Conditioned Mind in my personal view. So when conditioned mind is the author of the arguments who and wha t are the responders? Does n't it indicate the futile activity? One can't overcome the conditioned mind th rough the use of conditioned min d. One needs to apply "mindful awareness" and see the speaker on the podium.

      I think Madame Blavatsky adequately made her personal and societal position known at that time, place and event to the proper people in context in regards to her views of masonry of her times, while distinguishing her high regard and respect of the ancient Brotherhood she knew of.

      I my view about all the hells and heavens you seem overly concerned of is "who was the "agency" that invented the reality of such postulations?" Guess who? None other than the same old agency "conditioned mind". Until such participant reality assumes Non-Dual exclusiveness no relief is anticipated. So to consider the heap one piles up and owns might be a good option. It takes a lot of energy to worry about the consequences of a secondary world of mayavic beingness with all those hells and awful thought forms and visionary pseudo quasi terror movies tailor made for conditioned minds. It is oxymoronic to even profess the cessation of a creation that depends on the conditioned mind whereby form,dimension, space, time, leela are played to cease as if it were to be we all would return home instantlyin the blink of the gap.

      Tertullian is drugery to read. But in any case he and theearly church did not invent the "Trinity" the Trinity came from India they just decided to utilize the thought form and clothe it in their own socially acceptable garment. And guess who the originator of that action is? Lol. The Anti-nicene Library is quite a read but most tedius, I respect G.R. S. Mead for his tenecity. BTW, iut wasn't only the Catholic Church which ordnanced the "confessionnal" you post about after all they got it from India. yes the people who M adame Blavatsky very much respected and refers to as the pre-buddhist Bodhists, none other than the Jains in their code of deportments the Kalpa Sutra are required to perform at least and not less than 2 "confessions" at hte appoint. time, place and events proper. The J ains geartly predate the are of Tertullian and the rest of the early Church fathers.

      Morten, the truth is the world would be a better place if conditioned mind were not the sole solitary universal possession of humankind which originates the entirety of the effects experienced, seen, felt and clothes our collective reality but don't hold your breath. I think timme is better more productively spen if one instructs mankind upon the Patangali Sutra and educates mankind to be self aware of it on conscious basis so the creation may uplift itself. This means to ceae describing it's effects with out telling the author of the effects.

      John



      ----- Original Message -----

      From: "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...>
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 7:47:14 PM
      Subject: Re: theos-talk the coming of the torch-bearer of truth.... Dogmatic?



      Dear John and friends

      My views are:

      I am happy to learn that you disregard all the humbug Masonry.
      Sorry if I sound a bit confused.

      1.
      But, did you not write the following in your previous earlier post:
      "The three objects that Morten assigns exclusively to Theosophy actually were pick me ups from the Masonic Dogma and can be forund in Morals and dogma, I oten wondered why none have pointed that out for over 11 yars that I have been sitting here reading lol."

      M. Sufilight says:
      Let, me reformulate and ask you: Are you able to document the above words by you with regard to the term - "Masonic Dogma"?
      Because I find myself disagreeing on this formulation.

      2.
      John, In your latest post you wrote:
      "These are the same in my point of view both in Theosophy and Masonic Lodges."

      M. Sufilight says:
      I ask again are you able to document that with regard to Masonry in general?
      I think not.

      ____________
      3.
      An entirely different matter occurs in your latest post...which I feel in need to give a response to...so that Blavatsky's name should risk being classed among the modern Masonic organisations of our present time, year 2012.

      John, In your latest post you wrote:
      "Madame Blavatsky held a Honorific Masonic Title given from a Masonic Order. "

      M. Sufilight says:
      I would like to respond to this. This is, as I see it, not really a correct view - that is - in the manner it is formulated. Well, unless you consider a certain Eastern-related Order to have given her such a Title - which she did not ask for herself? Your formulation is however giving the impression that we are talking about a Western Title within Western Masonry, which Blavatsky laboriously had earned the right to get....Therefore this response in this present post here in the below.

      H. P. Blavatsky said with regard to the Diploma, which the eager Charles Sotheran threw in her face - without her asking for it:
      "If you will kindly refer to my Isis Unveiled (Vol. II, p. 394), you will find me saying: "We are under neither promise, obligation, nor oath, and therefore violate no confidence"-reference being made to Western Masonry, to the criticism of which the chapter is devoted; and full assurance is given that I have never taken "the regular degrees" in any Western Masonic Lodge. Of course, therefore, having taken no such degree, I am not a thirty-third degree Mason. In a private note, also in your most recent editorial, you state that you find yourself taken to task by various Masons, among them one who has taken thirty-three degrees-which include the "Ineffable"-for what you said about me. My Masonic experience-if you will so term membership in several Eastern Masonic Fraternities and Esoteric Brotherhoods-is confined to the Orient. But, nevertheless, this neither prevents my knowing, in common with all Eastern "Masons," everything connected with Western Masonry (including the numberless humbugs that have been imposed upon the Craft during the last half century) nor, since the receipt of the diploma from the "Sovereign Grand Master," of which you publish the text, my being entitled to call myself a Mason."
      .......et seq........
      "That an American Rite, thus spuriously organized, declines to acknowledge the Patent of an English Sovereign Sanctuary, duly recognized by the Grand Orient of France, does not at all invalidate my claim to Masonic honours. As well might Protestants refuse to call the Dominicans Christians, because they—the Protestants—broke away from the Catholic Church and set up for themselves, as for A. and A. Masons of America to deny the validity of a Patent from an English A. and P. Rite body. Though I have nothing to do with American modern Masonry, and do not expect to have, yet, feeling highly honoured by the distinction conferred upon me by Brother Yarker, I mean to stand for my chartered rights, and to recognize no other authority than that of the high Masons of England, who have pleased to send me this unsolicited and unexpected testimonial of their approval of my humble labours."
      http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v1/y1878_009.htm

      H. P. Blavatsky said in a respones to the deviltry by Charles Sotheran:
      "[In H.P.B.’s Scrapbook, Vol. IV, pp. 164-65, there is a cutting from the Banner of Light of February 2, 1878, being an article by Charles Sotheran entitled “Honours to Madame Blavatsky.” The writer defends H.P.B., her work Isis Unveiled, and the Masonic Diploma which she received from John Yarker. To this H.P.B. appended the following remark in pen and ink:]

      Mr. C. Sotheran who so abused me and the Society has now returned to it again confessing his mistake and making Puja to me again—Oh humanity!!
      H.P.B. "

      C. Sotherans resignation from the Theosophical Society - before his deviltry in the above:
      [In H.P.B.’s Scrapbook, Vol. I, p. 112, there is pasted a cutting from the Banner of Light, of January 15, 1876, which is a Letter of Charles Sotheran to the Editor, in which he explains the reasons for his resignation from the Theosophical Society and indulges in some very uncomplimentary remarks about H.P.B. On the left margin of this article, H.P.B. wrote in pen and ink:]

      This did not prevent Mr. Sotheran to come 6 months after that and beg my pardon, and beg on his knees to be taken into the Society again as will be proved further.
      http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v1/y1876_004.htm

      Later Charles Sotheran was, according to Blavatsky, again, thrown out of the Theosophical Society - because he became political - and promote murder in the public.
      ( http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v1/y1878_034.htm ---- This is documented elsewhere in various libraries in other papers by other persons as true.)

      HPB wrote about her views on Masonry:
      "As far as we are concerned, disciples of the Masters of the Orient as we are, we have nothing to do with modern Masonry."
      ("A SIGNAL OF DANGER" af H. P. Blavatsky, marts 1889)

      So I would not actually say that she - held - it. I would rather say that it was thrown into her face. It was as said in the above link - send to her by John Yarker on the request of Charles Sotheran, and not herself.

      That was however not why the original response was made by me.
      My response was made with regard to the Theosophical Society and not an individual member among the 15 or so founders of the Society. And all that was of course not your intention. And the Theosophical Society was created before the Masonic Diploma was thrown into Blavatsky's face - a Diploma she obviously did not ask for herself. ...I merely seek that we avoid deflecting the whole matter. So please do not misunderstand me.
      _______

      4.
      John you wrote:
      "Annie Besant and Leadbeater both are shown in photographs wearing their Masonic regalia as well as Madame Blavatsky and there were many others also . That doesn't necessarily mean to me that Theosophy is in fact a Masonic child."

      M. Sufilight says:
      I was not aware of that Blavatsky wore Masonic regalia. Is there a photo on this somewhere?
      If there is I will be greatly surprised !!!

      ________

      Dear John you write a lot in your post....about other issues...not really related to the main line of the beginning this exchange.But I sense, that you need to confront me with - some of the shortcmoings you perceive I have. I will however answer you - kindly - and as always merely present my views - and nothing else than my views. And they might of course be wrong, since I never claimed myself infallible.

      5.
      John you wrote:
      "For many years you seem to indulge in a hate campaign against Christianity, the Jesuits, the Pope, the Catholics which you seem to think is a proper continuation of your interpretation of Madame Blavatskys message in the 1875-91 period. I never found any affinity for that view or purpose line and always find better things to do with my mind and time. I don't see any gain for Theosophy to be made by alienating, insulting, offending, devalueing, smearing, a very large percentile of the worlds people, most of Europe. Noirth America, South America, Australia etc. Rather I think that action would only promote the shrinkage of the already miniscual Theosophical world population."

      M. Sufilight says:
      One thing is what - it "seems" to be - another is the actual INTENTIONS behind what is being written by me. Do you not agree?
      Since I am no native to the English language - my formulations might not always be - as cordinal or polite as I could have hoped for, so it seems. I do beg pardon for this, and I do hope it will be accepted..?
      That said. The dogmatic religions in our times - will as I see it ever be the opponents (in the compassionate sense of course).... to anyone who wholeheartedly and sincere aim at the promotion of ALTRUISM - in the true sense of that word. I question you to prove me wrong on this. But are you able to do that?

      --- Opponents, are the Institutions and their leaders. But certainly Not enemies to be hated - for what I call their leaders ignorance or lack of compassion. I beg you to understand this vital difference - but are you willing to do that?
      And - opponents - whose victims more or less is sought helped out of their nightmares - of eternal hells with brimstone lakes and all that - and their "daily" subtle mind control confessions to the "Superior-s". And also those few (I hope) among them who are - so to speak without a honest heart of compassion - who like to formulate themselves for instance like Tertullian or worse (Tertulllian --- the Churchfather - who in fact was one of the earliest promoters of the spurious Christian Trinity - which really is nowhere to be found in the official original texts of the so-called Infallible Bible of the Christians Dogmatics - at least in their major groupings) ---- who said that what he looked forward to the most, when he entered the Glorious Heaven with its paved streets of Gold (See Revalation, 21:21) and came through the Perly-gate --- was to see the Sinners in the Eternal Hell with Brimstone and fire - suffer in eternal torments and sufferings under the careful brutal guidance of the Devil himself. This story is also what we are told by the recently deceased Christopher Hitchins. - (This Tertullian story - strangely enough here just after Christmas reminds me of Uncle Scrooge not to confuse with "Uncle Sam", although the thought could be contemplated....Smile.)

      Nay...there might not be any profit in doing what you say ..."alienating, insulting, offending, devalueing, smearing, a very large percentile of the worlds people" - IF the intentions were negative....I respond: Anything may insult a Christian if your are against his or her nightmares of dogmas, - especially a Jesuitic Priest or similar militant personality. Do you not agree on this? I do not hope that one should go and join the dogmatic church so to be polite towards the Christians.
      --- But the profit might be gained in telling the truth - the TRUTH mind you. And because of that receive mud in ones face as a reward. And there I see a huge difference.
      --- And if you can cite some of MY MANY- so-called - bad deeds with regard to dogmatic Christianity (not the ordinary poor Christian - but those institution and the leaders of it) you here accuse me of on a public forum - I would like to know if I did not tell the actual truth about the matter in each of the many cases - and with the best of intentions? (It is you who here are accusing me - very strongly indeed, if I respectfully may say so. - You who attack me.)

      And, if I may ask, who in the name of Altruism - true and proper - insults who - when they - the dogmatics - seek to drag the nightmare of an Eternal Hell with their dogmas on condemnations and excommunications and what not - down on the whole human race?

      Are we not allowed to speak out against such ugly activities - any longer - so to help alleviate sufferings on the planet?

      6.
      John you wrote:
      "When I look at the world of the now I see hundreds of hundreds of all types of organizations attempting to alieve the human suffering and starvation and misery many are Catholic, Christian, Governmental, State, City, County ,of all nationalities and types of outreach groups some only exist foe a few days other for longer periods, other permanent. People are basically good, reflective of the self nature of beingness. I don't think the world of today is the world of the of the past there has been much reformation and maturation and felicity of our humanity. iconsider it silly to evne entertain a world without religion based on the current consciousness of th general population on planet Earth, if it were stripped en toto today by morning the world would be in chaos. The admixtures of the 7-fold economy of being is not consistent, homogeneus, or uniform. There must be some modulation of the horses of the chariot lest they all run amuck."

      M. Sufilight says:
      Yes - on the surface I also see the same as you - well...except that I tend to say, that the planet with be a better place without dogmatic religions, even if released by humanistic Atheism. And my fingers are pointing at the institution of dogmatic Christianity and other dogmatic religions, and the leaders of it - not the ordinary poor members as such - and you will see that when you go through what I have written in many past posts or in articles on this subject. About the ordinary Christian and humans as such suffering under dogmatic religions: - But I do know of just as many and even more than that - who daily run around with a Christian phobia -mindset about an Eternal Hell - with Brimstone fire and lake in their well-developed intelligent brains, --- our fellow-human beings. Oh dear, oh dear....And on top of that some of them become either half-insane or become wholehearted atheist - and alcholics or narcotic - or medicined because of it. - Have you seen the statistics about the percentage of alcholics and murders in the Western Christian dogmatic Countries - and Middle Eastern ones as well --- compared to All of Asia with China and India included? --- I think the picture you paint will change a bit when you consider this. And then we have Africa - still poor - while the FAT ones have their cakes - while the fattest of them pollute their own country and others as well. --- Therefore - I will say like others have said it - you cannot promote sincere and true Altruism without Psychological Change - and when --- people are willing to listen and stop their dogmatic - psychological nightmares. - Dogmatic religions will never solve the equation - even if the no doubt very humble Désiré-Joseph Mercier invented (!) it in the 19th century - as a sudden supplement¨- to a Christian Bible - which never before that time taught anything about Psychology as a science - let alone - what the still forget about --- namley, the evils of Subtle Mind Control - but phobia indoctrination (ie. --- their Eternal Hells with their dogmas on condemnations and excommunications, limbo dogmas, being an fallen sinner you whole eathly life, just wars, demonizing dogmas, and male-chauvinisms and what not).

      It might be allright that one give charity to the poor and needy with ones one hand (But charity is not always altruism - and - this can be proven by simple logical thinking --- Try the "Key to Theosophy" on this). But when one with the other hand - promote fobia indoctrination (ie. --- their Eternal Hells with their dogmas on condemnations and excommunications, limbo dogmas, just wars, demonizing dogmas, and male-chauvinisms and what not) - and - build dogmatic Churches - and "either you are with us or against us" dogmas in some circles --- not philosophies - and drag an Infallible Pope (in expensive "gucci"-robes) down on humanity - I will NOT remain silent. And why should I?

      All kinds of economy - are subjected to the Law of Karma. If the golden Rule mentioned in all the major religions was followed - economy with be history - we would not need it any longer. Others might of course see it differently.

      __________
      Despite all the above - there is some hope and consolation to be found in watching humanity - our fellow-human beings - despite the last century perhaps was the bloodiest in the last millenia according to a number of historians.

      Declaration Toward a Global Ethic - 1993 (Parliament of the World's Religions)
      "We affirm that a common set of core values is found in the teachings of the religions, and
      that these form the basis of a global ethic."
      .......
      "We must treat others as we wish others to treat us." (ie. The Golden Rule)
      ......
      "Our different religious and cultural traditions must not prevent our common
      involvement in opposing all forms of inhumanity and working for
      greater humaneness."
      (Not all participants signed it. But it is online the website of the Counsil for the Parliament of the World Religions.)
      http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/_includes/FCKcontent/File/TowardsAGlobalEthic.pdf

      As Vivekananda said in 1893 af the first Parliament of the World Religions:
      "I am a Hindu. I am sitting in my own little well and thinking that the whole world is my little well. The Christian sits in his little well and thinks the whole world is his well. The Mohammedan sits in his little well and thinks that is the whole world." ---- That has been the difficulty all the while....Especially when each of the are saying that their Well is the biggest well of the all - forgetting that there might be a Sea.
      http://www.theuniversalwisdom.org/hinduism/why-we-disagree-vivekananda/

      So If I was promoting Phobia indoctrination by being a member of a dogmatic religions and therefore deliberately neglected to counteract it - would you not tell me that I did something wrong?
      Or shall we for ever remain silent as the Sphinx - because it is an insult or a smear to the Dogmatic - merely - alone, to be a member of this forum or a theosophical organisation? Where are the limits in all this? And who decides? To me it is the Law of Karma. To others...?

      Alle the above are of course just my views. But I am maybe telling an untruth in the above according to you?

      M. Sufilight

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Augoeides-222@...
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 1:01 AM
      Subject: Re: theos-talk the coming of the torch-bearer of truth.....

      Morten,

      I f you read what I posted you must see that I didn't say Theosophy was a Masonic Organization only that the ideal of, Brotherhood
      , and the study of comparitive religion, research into Psychic Phoenomena, and the dictum that a Brother of the Lodge of Masons not accuse another Brother. These are the same in my point of view both in Theosophy and Masonic Lodges. and that doesn't mean I agree to all that either lol. The Masons in order to gain certification for each of th degree's must study and master certain materials cogent to what that degree inculcates and in doing so they gain a certain knowledge of the metaphysical universe, the psychic reality, the virtues, character, and spiritual grounding, BTW, the 33 partition robe of a Tripitaka Master is called the "Host Robe" I gues i try to see a ggod occur in people even if somewhere in the past their karma had a bad result. Solve et Coagula.

      Madame Blavatsky held a Honorific Masonic Title given from a Masonic Order. Annie Besant and Leadbeater both are shown in photographs wearing their Masonic regalia as well as Madame Blavatsky and there were many others also . That doesn't necessarily mean to me that Theosophy is in fact a Masonic child.

      Madame Blavatsky in her writtings made mention that there were 3 very ancient Masonic "Invisible" Lodges unknown to the outer world. One in Britian, one in france and the oldest in India. She alluded that even the regular order of Masonic Lodges were ignorant of thier existance. So due to her words I don't feel any compulsion to view the Masons as a recent phoenomena and I trust Blavatsky.

      For many years you seem to indulge in a hate campaign against Christianity, the Jesuits, the Pope, the Catholics which you seem to think is a proper continuation of your interpretation of Madame Blavatskys message in the 1875-91 period. I never found any affinity for that view or purpose line and always find better things to do with my mind and time. I don't see any gain for Theosophy to be made by alienating, insulting, offending, devalueing, smearing, a very large percentile of the worlds people, most of Europe. Noirth America, South America, Australia etc. Rather I think that action would only promote the shrinkage of the already miniscual Theosophical world population.

      I when first becoming aware of the Theosophical Society was very much impressed by the fact that is was sectarian and had the porpose of universal suffrage of all comers without regards to their beliefs or religions and saw that it was one of the hallmarks of the then Theosophical Society to be shown photographs of crowds of diverse Hindu Fakirs, Yogin, Jains, Brahmans, Saivites, and many other types if differentiations all together with the hated English and Europeans with happiness and smiles upon their faces which seemd to indicate a progress towards Brotherhood rather than away from it.

      When I look at the world of the now I see hundreds of hundreds of all types of organizations attempting to alieve the human suffering and starvation and misery many are Catholic, Christian, Governmental, State, City, County ,of all nationalities and types of outreach groups some only exist foe a few days other for longer periods, other permanent. People are basically good, reflective of the self nature of beingness. I don't think the world of today is the world of the of the past there has been much reformation and maturation and felicity of our humanity. iconsider it silly to evne entertain a world without religion based on the current consciousness of th general population on planet Earth, if it were stripped en toto today by morning the world would be in chaos. The admixtures of the 7-fold economy of being is not consistent, homogeneus, or uniform. There must be some modulation of the horses of the chariot lest they all run amuck.

      John

      ----- Original Message -----

      From: "M. Sufilight" < global-theosophy@... >
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 11:22:03 AM
      Subject: Re: theos-talk the coming of the torch-bearer of truth.....

      Dear John and friends

      My views are:

      I see.
      We obvoiusly disagree about various things. I do not mind that. We might learn from each other despite this....Do you not think so?

      But let us seek to keep the focus...
      I think we can agree upon that the Theosophical Society was not a Masonry organisation - from the begining in 1875 - not in any - ordinary - known sense of the word - when we compare it to modern Fremasonry or any kind of Western Masonry. Or do you think something else?
      That was my main point with my previous post or email.

      If you disagree on this, it is of course your choice. I will then eagerly like to know where - precisely - the documentation are for such a claim?
      I think I have shown it to be something else in my previous post.

      I have seen your links - but do not have time to read them all at the moment.

      M. Sufilight

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Augoeides-222@...
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 5:36 PM
      Subject: Re: theos-talk the coming of the torch-bearer of truth.....

      Morten,

      I posted information you can accept or reject as you preferr. Morten I don't accept the position about hte Jesuits as the original culprits behind the "33" degree's of the Masons which you regard as origin of the "33". The Buddhists have 33 Heavens. The Tripitaka Masters of the Mahayana Ch'an wear the 33 partitioned robe which indictated the attainment level of the Trip[ataka Masters. The entry level Monk wear a robe having 1 partition. There are other ancient "33" correlates found in comparitive studies ;ilke the 33 Aeons of Valentinus and early Gnostic/Christian Bishop whose break away Gnoctic Sect threatened to overwhelm by membership the early Catholic Church. Read G. R. S. Mead's Fragments of a Faith Forgotten. John Dee who served the Crown of Britain also had his own version of 33 Aeons he used associated with invocations of denizens of the universe. I also reject your assumption about Jo shua ben Pandera being factual, Mead reads it otherwise in his "Did Jesus live 100 B.C.?". you use the viscious story used by both the Roma ns and Jews as a me ans to devalue and mock and ridicule the Jesus legend for thei r own purposes of self preservation. You use it for mean reasons of your own. My personal view is radical to many of the views. My view places a good deal more importance to the ancient M andaeans of Iraq, John th e Baptist (Brother of J esus) was the E lder of the Mandaeans, The T ita l of the M andaean Elder was "Nazi". The Mandaeans were the "Nazareans", Jesus was a Nazarean ie, a M andaean. Why? Becau se no city named Nazareth existed then at the time of the life time of Jesus in the place the biblical story pla ces it so he could not have lived there or be born there becau se it didn't exist at the time he lived. But the Templars told of the mysterious "Prester John" whom they received their secret doctrine from, it was the secret teaching of the M andaean. Jesus was bap tised at the Jordan River by John the Baptist. The mandaeans in the cold winter of iraq traveled to the Jordan for warmer temperatures, Jesus went to his Bother John , the E lder of the M andaeans to receive Initiation of the baptism of W ater, there being 4 spiritual viscosity or densities which also align to the acient traditions everywhere. W ater, Wine , Blood and Oil, so J esus in the biblical construct changes W ater into Wine, sh eds his Blood and is the Anointed One as initiate. Also there is an ancie nt connection thread going back to before the 1st Dynastys of Egypt focusing about Adams son Seth that travels into the Mandaeans also.

      The 33 heavens of the Gods - Trayastrimsas

      >>> http://www.tientai.net/teachings/dharma/6realms/33gods.htm <<<

      The Realm of Heaven Map

      >>> http://www.tientai.net/teachings/dharma/6realms/heavenmap.htm <<<

      Vedic Gods and Goddesses

      >>> http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/vedicgods.asp <<<

      Mandaean History --- In the name of the Great Life

      >>> http://mandaean_canadians.webs.com/mandaeanhistory.htm <<<

      The Heavenly Twin in the mandaean Gnosis

      >>> http://weblog.bergersen.net/terje/archives/001127.html <<<

      The Man of Light in the Iranian Sufism

      >>> http://books.google.com/books?id=JE89AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=mshunia+kushta&source=web&ots=cPMtYL4mn7&sig=KcI-02RdVWIGnR8MSWKjjxkYP3w&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result

      The Secret Adam -- A study of Nazoraean Gnosis

      >>> http://weblog.bergersen.net/terje/archives/001053.html <<<

      Lady Ethel Stefana Drower The Principal Author on the Mandaeans (who was very much like H. P. B. in many ways)

      >>> http://books.google.com/books?q=Lady+Ethel+Stefana+Drower&btnG=Search+Books <<<

      On the Jain - The Kalpa Sutra and Nava Tattva (the Pre-buddhist Bodhists)

      >>> http://books.google.com/books?id=yaJtAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=kalpa+sutra&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T4IQT-njA6KkiQK-3-XPDQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=kalpa%20sutra&f=false <<<

      Regards,

      John

      ----- Original Message -----

      From: "M. Sufilight" < global-theosophy@... >
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 2:55:42 AM
      Subject: Re: theos-talk the coming of the torch-bearer of truth.....

      Dear John and friends

      My views are:

      Yes. I also appreciate the effort by Daniel and others on his website, although I sometimes question myself where the aim with that website actually is compared to what Blavatsky herself taught - with regard to altruism and all that....smile.

      A few questions araise in my mind.
      If I may...?

      John wrote:
      "The three objects that Morten assigns exclusively to Theosophy actually were pick me ups from the Masonic Dogma and can be forund in Morals and dogma, I oten wondered why none have pointed that out for over 11 yars that I have been sitting here reading lol."

      M. Sufilight says:
      May I ask, what objects are you referring to? If, it is the Objects of the Consitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society - then I ask from what year do they originate in the TS?
      And what Masonic dogma are you referring to - there are many branches of Masonry, you know - on what page in "Morals and dogma", I did not find anything about comparative studying with emphasis on Eastern Literature there?

      The Theosophical Society was clearly not founded as a Masonry organisation with 33 grades hatched from the Jesuit College at Clermont in Paris and incorporated by Chevalier Ramsey and others - this must be a fact which aught to be stated, when you write what you do in your post, John. I mean in all fairness...All right?

      M. Sufilight

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Augoeides-222@...
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 5:23 AM
      Subject: Re: theos-talk the coming of the torch-bearer of truth.....

      Daniel,"

      Thx, for all you do and your organized compilations. Just an aside, in your listings of later day personages you mention a "Brother Phillip" author of "Secret of the Andes". Brother Phillip was the nome de plume of Geo rge H unt Williamson ( also wnet by the name Micheal de Obronevic of the Romanoffs) who made expeditions to south America and the Marca Hausi Plateau. He also wrote :

      Secret Places of the Lion

      The Saucers Speak

      Other Tongues --- Other Flesh

      UFO's Confidental

      He disappeared for many years and later turned up in Santa Barbara Ca. Associated with The Pacific Holistic Institute and was engaged in research upon the Glastonbury Zodiac, he passed away in the later 1980's. He was accussed of being member to the Silver Shirts Sect.

      Also Morten made mention of the swastica and jewish seal on the John King portrait. The swastica antedates hitler by a few thousands of years particular to the Buddhists and the pre-Buddhists Jina Bodhists. The Jewish seal was also long recognized as the Seal of the Hindu Vishnu. L Ron Hubbard reorganized it by inverting the lower triad so that both triangles pointed upward indicating ascent by re-intregation of Affinity, Reality, Communication and Be(ing) ,Do(ing), Have(ing) ,thereby morphing an ancient symbol into a new modern statement of achievement possible for mankind.

      The three objects that Morten assigns exclusively to Theosophy actually were pick me ups from the Masonic Dogma and can be forund in Morals and dogma, I oten wondered why none have pointed that out for over 11 yars that I have been sitting here reading lol.

      beat regards to all, happy new year.

      PS: my old 8th grade science teacher told to always remember this "I will never become overwrought about conditions which are beyond my control".

      John

      ----- Original Message -----

      From: "Daniel" < danielhcaldwell@... >
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 6:16:23 PM
      Subject: theos-talk the coming of the torch-bearer of truth.....

      If HPB can be considered a teacher, the messenger of the masters, the torch-bearer of the truth for the 19th century, then surely one can be open to the idea expressed in 3 different statements given by HPB. In the following link in the section on Alice Bailey, the reader will find those 3 quotes by HPB:

      http://blavatskyarchives.com/latermessengers.htm#five

      I would suggest that all three of these have to be carefully read and then one can ask how is all of this to be considered in light of the morass of claims and counter claims given out by all the individuals listed at the following link:

      http://blavatskyarchives.com/moderntheosophy.htm#Endnote

      and also what was the occult status of HPB?

      see the 4 quotes from the Mahatmas given in the 1st section of the following paper:

      http://blavatskyarchives.com/latermessengers.htm#1

      Daniel
      http://hpb.cc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.