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

Re: theos-talk Tantric Magic? - Correct Link for new book Theosophy: An Introduction

Expand Messages
  • M. Sufilight
    Okay. Thanks anyway. ... From: Cass Silva To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 4:40 AM Subject: Re: theos-talk Tantric Magic? - Correct
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 24, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Okay. Thanks anyway.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Cass Silva
      To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 4:40 AM
      Subject: Re: theos-talk Tantric Magic? - Correct Link for new book Theosophy: An Introduction



      The point is, what Theosophy is not.
      Cass

      >________________________________
      > From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@...>
      >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      >Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2012 2:00 AM
      >Subject: Re: theos-talk Tantric Magic? - Correct Link for new book Theosophy: An Introduction
      >
      >
      >
      >Dear Cass
      >
      >My views are:
      >
      >Interesting story there.
      >Is there any particular part of it, which you would like to elaborate on?
      >
      >________________
      >It all reminds me of Damodar seeing Blavatsky dematerializing, and aftarwards going to the Himalayas...etc.
      >
      >Try Case 10 - Damodar K. Mavalankar. September 1880. Bombay, India and Case 35 - Damodar K. Mavalankar, HPB and Morya
      >April 1883, Adyar, Madras, India (given in Theosophist (Adyar), May 1907)
      >http://blavatskyarchives.com/mastersencounterswith.htm
      >
      >So, yes indeed they are real.
      >
      >M. Sufilight
      >
      >----- Original Message -----
      >From: Cass Silva
      >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      >Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 3:46 AM
      >Subject: Re: theos-talk Tantric Magic? - Correct Link for new book Theosophy: An Introduction
      >
      >Dr. Corson records that the death of his only sister in July 1874 had been, to his father, a “very great” blow. “In the religion of the Churches he found no comfort, and he turned to spiritualism for some sign and assurance of the continued existence of his child. In the end he believed that this sign had come to him. . . . It was all a great comfort to him which grew. . . and culminated in the publication of his Spirit Messages,” posthumously in 1911. (17)
      >It is more than probable that Professor Corson hoped to gain through H.P.B.’s mastery of occult powers some direct verification of his daughter’s after-death state. But that was the kind of “communication” she invariably discouraged in her own person. Instead, she would prove the supernormal powers of the living, so that in this proof could be discerned the existence of extraphysical faculties which, since obviously transcending the confines and limitations of the physical body, must be taken logically as persisting beyond the dissolution of the body itself. But, as Dr. Corson relates, “H.P.B.’s phenomena with a few exceptions were not a feature of her visit. She showed the raps as produced by her will-power, sometimes through a stack of hands, and again on different parts of the room. My father was familiar with this phenomenon in the seance room through the ordinary medium, but was much more impressed when produced by
      >conscious will-power. On another occasion he had asked if she could place me and tell what I was doing, then a student of medicine in Philadelphia, and she gave him an accurate account of where I was and what was taking place. It happened to be that I was visiting my preceptor on Green Street. . . . On another occasion she caused a heavy table to rise up in the air without touching it, and she repeatedly said that this was due to her will-power, and was not to be classed with the ordinary mediumistic phenomena.” (18)
      >It was after Madame Blavatsky’s departure from Ithaca that there fell upon Professor Corson, the Spiritualist, the full weight of what his son calls The Theosophical Society’s “pronounced antagonism to spiritualism as it was at that time constituted in this country and in England.” The Professor received by mail his printed copy of Colonel Olcott’sInaugural Address. As Dr. Corson observes, “Olcott stressed this opposition in his inaugural address, and there was at once a great reaction, an uproar from the entire body of spiritualists, and from the Press generally a biting ridicule. . . . Now this was not all Olcott, of course; H.P.B. had much to do with it. Both in her spoken words and in her writings she continually stressed the point of the danger of the ordinary seance except under the most rigid conditions of the medium and the surroundings. We must admit that the modern critical attitude and methods of psychical research are
      >along the same lines of her caution and warnings.” (19)
      >But it was not merely that this Address should express the unwelcome truth about “imposture, tricky mediums, lying spirits, and revolting theories” or recognize that “many immoral people have fastened upon the cause. . . .” It also contained the provocative assertion that “Occultists. . . recognize in most of the physical phenomena called spiritual the agency of elementary spirits who often falsely personate persons not communicating with the circles, answer the thoughts which lie visible to them. . . and echo and respond to every fanciful vagary which agitates the questioner’s mind.”
      >This was a startling explanation to be given to the public fifty years before the foremost European authorities in Psychical Research, Professor Enrico Morselli, Dr. Gustave Geley, and the Baron Dr. von Schrenck Notzing, through their pioneering, unprejudiced experiments in the psycho-kinetic and teleplasmic phenomena of the seance room, were to discover independently much of the same truth, each discarding the “spirit” theory though without fully comprehending the totality of the informing mechanism of these psychic simulations. Dr. Nandor Fodor in his standard work, Encyclopaedia of Psychic Science (1933, with Preface by Sir Oliver Lodge, O.M.), translates from the latter’s Physikalische Phenomene des Mediumismus as concluding: “The telekinetic and teleplasmic phenomena are only different degrees of the same animistic process, they depend in the end upon physical manifestations in the subconscious sphere of the medium.
      >The soi-distant occult intelligences which manifest and materialise themselves in the seance, never display any higher spiritual faculty than is owned by the medium and the sitters; they are wholly of oneiric type, dream personifications that correspond to detached memories, to beliefs, to all the miscellaneous things that lie dormant in the minds of the participants. It is not on a foundation of extra-corporeal beings one will find the secret of the psycho-dynamical phenomena of these subjects, but rather through consideration of hitherto unknown transformations of the bio-physical forces of the medium’s organism.”
      >“The bio-physical forces of the medium’s organism” are simply the “astral body” of the Occultists’ teachings, whether or not assisted by “elementary spirits” as part of itscomponents. Seeking to refine the common term, “elementary,” Madame Blavatsky in 1877 noted that it had been used by Eliphas Levi, the French Kabalist, “to cover” both“human spirits” that had “lost every connection with a purer immortal world” (“the disembodied souls of the depraved” who had “sometime prior to death separated themselves from their divine spirits”) and the “nature-spirits” (“evolved in the four kingdoms of earth, air, fire, and water and called by the Kabalists gnomes, sylphs, salamanders, and undines”). Reserving for the former the “special term” elementary, H.P.B. was the first to call the latter elementals (with a result that the term now has entered accepted usage. See Merriam-Webster’s Third New
      >International Dictionary, page 734: “Elemental. . . Spirit, spectre, wraith”). She described the elementals as “centers of force,” responsive to the human will, changeable and plastic in appearance, taking on varying forms modeled by human imagination, conscious or unconscious.
      >These “elementals” --- or what earlier, in Col. Olcott’s Inaugural Address, had been called “the elementary spirits” --- were regarded by Occultists, H.P.B. noted, as the “sole agents in all the meaningless physical phenomena at seances.” Such phenomena, she added, “will be produced unless they be dominated by wills more powerful than their own. Such a will may be that of a living adept, or as there are none such at Western spiritualist seances, these ready agents are at the disposal of every strong, vicious, earth-bound, human elementary who has been attracted to the place. By such they can be used in connection with the astral emanations of the circle and medium, as stuff out of which to make materialized spirits.” These “spirits, spectres, wraiths,” she called “portrait-statues” of the dead or living; and maintained that these “pictures in the Astral Light” were palpably objectified through the Linga Sharira,
      >the Astral Body, of the medium who “assimilat(es), unconsciously to himself, the pictures of the dead relatives and friends from the aura of the sitters.” Thus, “The unintellectual ‘elementals’ are drawn in unconsciously . . . as component parts of the grosser astral body. . . .” (20)
      >But in 1875, as Dr. Corson observes, “The idea of the elementals, of gnomes and spirits and cobalds --- the fairies of the mines and woods --- was not only not accepted by the great majority of people, but was unacceptable. These half-human or non-human spirits were considered simply as the hallucinations of a disordered mind, even if described in the ancient tongues or medieval Latin. Official science, and even psychical research societies, were still more defiant of this form of demonology." (21)
      >It was more than the good Professor could take! As his son recalls, “In the reaction following Olcott’s address he sided with the body of spiritualists and hastily accused H.P.B., even of imposture. He so wrote to the Banner of Light a sharp attack on the Theosophical Society. So much for running counter to one’s religious beliefs!” Further on Dr. Corson adds, “My father was quite too hasty in his revulsion of feeling; he later realized it and was quite willing to admit it. His sorrow and his state of mind at the time may well explain the error he had fallen into.” Madame Blavatsky, in her correspondence with Professor Corson had “repeatedly emphasized the fact, that while she was a spiritualist, it was not in the modern sense but in that of the occultist.” “My father,” concludes Dr. Corson, “should have kept this ever in mind.” He did, however, continue to buy H.P.B.’s books and he “followed the future
      >history of the Theosophical Society with great interest.” (22)
      >
      >>________________________________
      >> From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@...>
      >>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      >>Sent: Monday, 23 April 2012 2:24 AM
      >>Subject: Re: theos-talk Tantric Magic? - Correct Link for new book Theosophy: An Introduction
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>Dear Scott
      >>
      >>My views are:
      >>
      >>Smile Scott...
      >>Are you seeking to promulgate something based on altruism?
      >>
      >>Scott, you wrote:
      >>"She seems to be warning against tantric practises because of the sensuality involved? I do know this much, sensuality repressed can find expression in other manners...and she was a very large woman and obviously must have ate food in excess. "
      >>
      >>M. Sufilight says:
      >>You ask. My answer is no, not primarily!
      >>In the quote I gave, Blavatsky was clearly warning against Black Magic. That was the primary warning.
      >>There can be no doubt about this if one read the article the quote is taken from and the other articles related to this article.
      >>I will in all friendliness suggest, that you read or re-read the quote again and the related articles which was given in the Theosophist magazine.
      >>
      >>About Blavatsky's level of eating...?
      >>About how much Blavatsky ate, I think you will find that Assumptions might fool anyone. Knowledge is not the same as assumptions.
      >>
      >>Try this from Blavatsky's long time friend H. S. Olcott on Blavatsky's abilities:
      >>"In fact I strongly advise anyone who wants to get at the mysteries of Count St-Germain, Cagliostro and other wonder-workers, to read in connection with them the various accounts of H.P.B's phenomena which have been published by credible witnesses. Take for example the quotation made by Mrs Cooper-Oakley from the "Souvenirs de Marie-Antoinette." by the Countess d' Adhémar, who had been an intimate friend of the Queen and who died in 1822. She is giving an interesting account of an interview between Her Majesty, the Count de Maurepas, herself and St-Germain. The last-named had paid Mme D'Adhémar a visit of momentous importance to the Royal family and to France, had departed and the minister, M. de. Maurepas, had come in and was slandering St-Germain outrageously, calling him a rogue and a charlatan. Just as he had said that he would send him to the Bastille, the door opened and St-Germain entered, to the consternation of M. de Maurepas and the great
      >surprise of the Countess. Stepping majestically up to the Minister, St-Germain warned him that he was ruining both monarchy and kingdom by his incapacity and stubborn vanity, and ended with these words: "Expect no homage from posterity, frivolous and incapable Minister! You will be ranked among those who cause the ruin of empires." . . . "M. De Saint-Germain, having spoken thus without taking breath, turned towards the door again, shut it and disappeared. . . All efforts to find the Count failed," Compare this with the several disappearances of H.P.B. in and near Karli Caves and elsewhere, and see how the two agents of the Brotherhood employed identical means for making themselves invisible at the critical moment."
      >>https://www.theosophical.org/component/content/article/65-olcott/1864
      >>
      >>Or the Mahatma Letter no. 54, by Master KH in 1882:
      >>"I do not believe I was ever so profoundly touched by anything I witnessed in all my life, as I was with the poor old creature's ecstatic rapture, when meeting us recently both in our natural bodies, one -- after three years, the other -- nearly two years absence and separation in flesh. Even our phlegmatic M. was thrown off his balance, by such an exhibition -- of which he was chief hero. He had to use his power, and plunge her into a profound sleep, otherwise she would have burst some blood-vessel including kidneys, liver and her "interiors" -- to use our friend Oxley's favourite expression -- in her delirious attempts to flatten her nose against his riding mantle besmeared with the Sikkim mud! We both laughed; yet could we feel otherwise but touched? Of course, she is utterly unfit for a true adept: her nature is too passionately affectionate and we have no right to indulge in personal attachments and feelings. You can never know her as we do,
      >therefore -- none of you will ever be able to judge her impartially or correctly. You see the surface of things; and what you would term "virtue," holding but to appearances, we -- judge but after having fathomed the object to its profoundest depth, and generally leave the appearances to take care of themselves. In your opinion H.P.B. is, at best, for those who like her despite herself -- a quaint, strange woman, a psychological riddle: impulsive and kindhearted, yet not free from the vice of untruth. We, on the other hand, under the garb of eccentricity and folly -- we find a profounder wisdom in her inner Self than you will ever find yourselves able to perceive. In the superficial details of her homely, hard-working, common-place daily life and affairs, you discern but unpracticality, womanly impulses, often absurdity and folly; we, on the contrary, light daily upon traits of her inner nature the most delicate and refined, and which would cost an
      >uninitiated psychologist years of constant and keen observation, and many an hour of close analysis and efforts to draw out of the depth of that most subtle of mysteries -- human mind -- and one of her most complicated machines, -- H.P.B.'s mind -- and thus learn to know her true inner Self. "
      >>.......
      >>"Take another case, that of Fern. His development, as occurring under your eye, affords you a useful study and a hint as to even more serious methods adopted in individual cases to thoroughly test the latent moral qualities of the man. Every human being contains within himself vast potentialities, and it is the duty of the adepts to surround the would-be chela with circumstances which shall enable him to take the "right-hand path," -- if he have the ability in him. We are no more at liberty to withhold the chance from a postulant than we are to guide and direct him into the proper course. At best, we can only show him after his probation period was successfully terminated -- that if he does this he will go right; if the other, wrong. But until he has passed that period, we leave him to fight out his battles as best he may; and have to do so occasionally with higher and initiated chelas such as H.P.B., once they are allowed to work in the world, that all
      >of us more or less avoid."
      >>http://blavatskyarchives.com/theosophypdfs/mahatma_letters_to_A_P_Sinnett.pdf (1st ed.;1923, p. 314)
      >>http://theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-54.htm
      >>http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/mahatma_letters.htm
      >>
      >>M. Sufilight says:
      >>I do not know how much a person able to dematerialize oneself need to eat - in exact kilograms. The reason being, that it might depend on various circumstances...But I guess, the need is so and so, when one reach such a level of control with ones bladder and liver. Eating then becomes a matter of compassion, time, place and people, etc., and NOT an actual need as such, as we see it with the animal-human --- well as far as I have learned about these things. Or maybe you will enlighten me and others to a different view?
      >>
      >>The fact is I have meet a figure looking exactly like her materialize in my own appartment here in Denmark year 2008, (I can add that I recently meet another one, which remain unnamed). And I have meet Blavatsky while astral travelling as well. Because of all this I simply have to disagree with your assumption about her being a person necessarily eating much. But, what can I say to you - but this: Trust your very own inner feelings or intuition, and claimed wisdom - seek and you will find the truth. But do not except that I will agree with you when you say something about persons I am aquainted with, which I find to be wrong. Especially, when your words seem to be based on pure assumptions.
      >>
      >>What can I say. They, the Initiates, might show up at your place as well. Or other readers of this post.
      >>I will suggest, that we remain focussed on how we best can promulgate altruism.
      >>
      >>All the above are of course just my views. I present them from my heart seeking to promote altruism.
      >>I will gladly change them if someone are able to prove them wrong or irrelevant.
      >>
      >>M. Sufilight
      >>
      >>----- Original Message -----
      >>From: Scott Wright
      >>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      >>Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 3:23 PM
      >>Subject: Re: theos-talk Correct Link for new book Theosophy: An Introduction
      >>
      >>She seems to be warning against tantric practises because of the sensuality involved? I do know this much, sensuality repressed can find expression in other manners...and she was a very large woman and obviously must have ate food in excess. Sensuality can be many different things to many different people. For some it could very well be purely carnal...and act of taking for pleasure and nothing more...while for others it could be purely about giving sharing and in sharing receiving...sensuality as pure love and joy combined in union, and a sweetened soul and higher love thereby achieved.
      >>
      >>________________________________
      >>From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@...>
      >>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      >>Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 1:51 AM
      >>Subject: Re: theos-talk Correct Link for new book Theosophy: An Introduction
      >>
      >>Dear Daniel
      >>
      >>My views are:
      >>
      >>You asked for comments...
      >>
      >>Here are a few appetizers I came across...
      >>
      >>*** 1 ***
      >>
      >>I disliked this on page 25:
      >>"[Note: The above material has been collated from the various writings
      >>of Madame Blavatsky. The extracts have been transcribed from the
      >>original sources but material not relevant to the subject has been
      >>silently deleted. H.P.B.'s text has been somewhat edited; a number of
      >>explanatory words, phrases and sentences have been added from time
      >>to time to the original text to make the overall narrative more easily
      >>read. The additions have not been placed in brackets.]"
      >>
      >>This is just my view: The reason for me disliking it is - that it is edited by you, and without clear references on where the bits and pieces are taken from ---- and then on top of that it is signed as if Blavatsky wrote it. This is not acceptable in my book to give people the impression that Blavatsky wrote something like this. It is almost "Eusebius-like", said in the most gentle manner possible. You aught to put your very own name at the bottom of it and not Blavatsky's, and give the relevant references. This is how I see it. - That same with similar examples.
      >>But this is just my view...
      >>
      >>*** 2 ***
      >>
      >>And on page 32 and 33 we find this:
      >>"The best books conveying instruction in detail concerning
      >>theosophic doctrine --- but a meager skeleton of which has
      >>been offered in the foregoing --- are the following:"
      >>.......
      >>"Rama Prasad, Nature's Finer
      >>Forces (1890)"
      >>http://blavatskyarchives.com/theosophy_an_introduction.pdf
      >>
      >>My first reaction to the above was:
      >>Says who? And based on what authority but his very own?
      >>
      >>And the book by Rama Prasad, was quite clearly warned against by Blavatsky, but not his articles - which are different from his book.
      >>
      >>Blavatsky wrote:
      >>"* The references to "Nature's Finer Forces" which follow have respect to the eight articles which appeared in the pages of The Theosophist [Vol. IX, November, 1887; February, May, June, August, 1888; Vol. X, October, November, 1888; March, 1889], and not to the fifteen essays and the translation of a chapter of the Saivâgama, which are contained in the book called Nature's Finer Forces. The Saivâgama in its details is purely Tântric, and nothing but harm can result from any practical following of its precepts. I would most strongly dissuade a member of the E.S. from attempting any of these Ha~ha-Yoga practices, for he will either ruin himself entirely, or throw himself so far back that it will be almost impossible to regain the lost ground in this incarnation. The translation referred to has been considerably expurgated, and even now is hardly fit for publication. It recommends Black Magic of the worst kind, and is the very antipodes of spiritual
      >>Râja-Yoga. Beware, I say."
      >>http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v12/y1890_055.htm
      >>
      >>I think this is sufficient enough to make me recommend that you take this book away from the references in your very well meant book - unless you belong to another kind of theosophical teaching of some sort.
      >>
      >>And I will not say, like in the above quote, that the recommended references on what is Theosophy is quite proper. I would not give people the impression that Theosophy is something narrow and sectarian, in the sense that only few authors can be recommended. I would rather say that Theosophy is what each inidvidual makes of it......and primarily give emphasis to the following definition which was made official in 1879 in the Theosophical Society.
      >>
      >>WHAT IS THEOSOPHY?
      >>"Vaughan offers a far better, more philosophical definition. "A Theosophist," he
      >>says - "is one who gives you a theory of God or the works of God, which has not
      >>revelation, but an inspiration of his own for its basis." In this view every
      >>great thinker and philosopher, especially every founder of a new religion,
      >>school of philosophy, or sect, is necessarily a Theosophist. Hence, Theosophy
      >>and Theosophists have existed ever since the first glimmering of nascent thought
      >>made man seek instinctively for the means of expressing his own independent
      >>opinions."
      >>http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/theosoph/theos1a.htm#whatistheosophy
      >>
      >>If you would like futher comments.
      >>Just let me know. All right?
      >>
      >>M. Sufilight
      >>
      >>----- Original Message -----
      >>From: Daniel
      >>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      >>Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2012 11:08 PM
      >>Subject: theos-talk Correct Link for new book Theosophy: An Introduction
      >>
      >>http://blavatskyarchives.com/theosophy_an_introduction.pdf
      >>
      >>[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.