Happy Birthday Theosophical Society

Thanks to bgruagach. I found some curious things there. For ex, "she herself chose to add in the Ann" - it's very much strange if we could choose names for ourselves! If I tell that I'd read above to my friends they'd never believe. To choose the middle name... But male person can only choose male name, right?

"This is why the present English version is practically unrecognizeable as being a copy of the original." I completely agree. Maybe you know, there can't exist word for word translation. Words of one language never accord to those of another verbatim. Very often, "sense square" of a word may differ very much. Even if you say "cat" in English and Russian, you can't be sure enough they mean completely the same!
As for Genesis, here we must add the Quaballistic aspect. Every letter in Senzar or in original scripture of Genesis had her "digital" analogue. I think you know it.

"Please post a link of it here."

I could, of cause, and I will, but what use for you from Russian-languaged articles?

"I keep track of Theosophical webpages in various languages."

A lot of articles in Russian you can find in "Library" (Библиотека - Biblioteka) of www.theosophy.ru.

"I am a member of the Adyar branch of Theosophy"

How was it organized, Nick? I'd love to, but I thought I had to go to Chennai to adjust (?) this International Society. If it is possible through post offices I'm always ready.

About O Lanoo I'll read "reviews and comments" on this weekend. Maybe that's useful book. Although it's very much ambitious things to be declared there. We usually say in these cases - "Мягко стелят, жёстко спать!" ([They] make bed comfortably, [but] it's hard to sleep, then!). My granny says so. It always better to check.

Nice weekend!
 
Dharmaatmaa,

The story of the beginning of our universe and our humanity was originally written in the language called Senzar, and now appears in Genesis in the Bible. There are several instances where the original story has been intentionally changed. Let me cite a few examples.

In the original story, God emerges from out of the Darkness. In Genesis, these two parts of the story have been intentionally reversed — darkness is now mistakenly seen as an aspect of God. Also, Genesis accurately states that the darkness taveled across the waters. However, this traveling occured before God emerged from the darkeness, not afterwards — the order of the traveling and God-emerging have been intentionally changed, to make God seem greater than the darkness, which is not true. (The darkness is actually 'greater' than God.)

In the original story, humanity was first created as what I can only describe as 'super-astral' beings, then as astral beings, and finally as physical beings. This is reflected in Genesis, where 'super-astral' and astral humans appear on 'Day Six of Creation,' and physical bodies are later created in the story of Adam and Eve. Genesis is authentic in portraying this chain of events, but it has been hopelessly edited to the point where the Genesis version just does not make any sense. Surprisingly, Genesis is accurate in trying to tell the story of the tumultuous events that occured as soon as humanity became capable of having sex. This is the real meaning of the story of snakes chasing fruits, an obvious sexual reference.

There is one part of Genesis that is actually matches the original story. As Genesis infers, humanity's physical bodies were created by a group of deities called the Kumara. Genesis says, "Let us make man in our image," correctly identifying a group of deities, not a single God, as the creators of humanity's physical bodies. (I can only think that the translators made a mistake in leaving this reference in Genesis in the original plural, instead of changing it into the singular. I guess this one slipped by them....)

You asked how the Adyar Theosophical Society is organized. The Society has branches all over the world. (A person does not need to travel all the way to India just to become a member.) Here is a contact in Russia.

Mrs. Nina Veligon
Pereulok Soviet House 4, Flat 56
455036 Magnitogorsk, Russia
e-mail: veligon_ts@hotbox.ru
Presidential Agency formed 1994

This address was taken from this webpage:

Theosophical Society (Adyar) International Contacts
 
I looked through those O Lanoo! pages. I know theosophy has to develop on and on, but there was a strange phrase there - "...and I believe that it is time to re-tell the story hidden in those ancient stanzas". "Re-tell" means "to tell again, in a new way". Frankly speaking, I'm against such re-tellings. If we start re-writing her (HPB's) books, re-telling her meanings, re-painting her pictures - what future generation will know of Blavatsky's movement - theosophy?! We shouldn't re-do anything. Once, I was already telling in a private talking that "theosophy must evolutionate, but must it re-volutionate?!" We'd better study what we have; we have no right to change even a word. I think so. We can't edit Blavatsky.

And in general, I think theosophy itself it's difficult to develop. We have no Initiates in our Movement yet. We have to wait for 'em.

I'd never picture the story of so-called "creation" as short and "volume-able". Curtly and clear. But,

"The darkness is actually 'greater' than God"

- Maybe the darkness, being greater than God, is God itself? As I understand you mean allegorical "Brahma[h]" when saying "God" here. You prove it by saying "God emerged from the darkeness". Darkness existed before, so this "God" stands for our "second Logos".

"what I can only describe as 'super-astral' beings"

- Yes, it's difficult to find a better term, although "super-astral" is no good, too. Maybe better to say "arupa beings"?

"humanity's physical bodies were created by a group of deities called the Kumara."

- Exactly, but unfortunately so few understand what Kumara symbolizes.

"not a single God"

Exactly single God. Why not? In a lower plan, things to be sole in the higher one are always make plurality. Look, in our body there are thousands of cells. If to look from a little cell viewpoint, organism is just an abstraction. Every cell sees only cells around. But organism still exists, because it's on a higher plan. Abstraction of lower plan is reality of higher one. The same goes on with Kumara - it is One in nature, but plural from our [limited] viewpoint.

I'm about to write to Veligon Nina. Maybe she'll answer something.
 
Dharmaatmaa,

You quoted,

"...and I believe that it is time to re-tell the story hidden in those ancient stanzas".

You said,

"If we start re-writing her (HPB's) books, re-telling her meanings, re-painting her pictures - what future generation will know of Blavatsky's movement - theosophy?!"

--> The story is not Blavatsky's, it is the original story that was told thousands and thousands of years ago. The story is re-told every thousand years or so. Blavatsky is just one more person in a line of story-tellers who is telling the story. The story gets re-told every thousand years or so, then gets forgotten, so we need someone to tell it again every thousand years or so.

"Maybe the darkness, being greater than God, is God itself?"

--> No. The teachings are very specific that God (The Third Logos) is an emanation from the darkness.

"As I understand you mean allegorical "Brahma[h]" when saying "God" here."

--> I wonder if you are aware of he difference beween Brahma and Brahmâ. Brahma is the darkness, while Brahmâ ia the Third Logos or Son.

“The student must distinguish between Brahma the neuter, and Brahmâ, the male creator of the Indian Pantheon. The former, Brahma or Brahman, is the impersonal, supreme and uncognizable Principle of the Universe from the essence of which all emanates, and into which all returns, which is incorporeal, immaterial, unborn, eternal, beginningless and endless. It is all-pervading, animating the highest god as well as the smallest mineral atom. Brahmâ on the other hand, the male and the alleged Creator, exists periodically in his manifestation only, and then again goes into pralaya, i.e., disappears and is annihilated.” (Theosophical Glossary, p. 62)

Theosophical Glossary

"Darkness existed before, so this "God" stands for our "second Logos"."

--> Actually, the Second Logos is Mother, which Christians refers to as Mary.

"Yes, it's difficult to find a better term, although "super-astral" is no good, too. Maybe better to say "arupa beings"?"

--> When I said "super-astral" beings, I was referring to Atma-buddhi-manas, which I am sure you have herd of.

"not a single God" --> Exactly single God."

--> The teachings are very specifc that seven gods created our solar system, the Earth, and humanity. Even the Bible says humanity was created by a group of gods.

"In a lower plan, things to be sole in the higher one are always make plurality."

--> Well, the idea that your are separate from me is only an illusion, so we could say that you and I are ony temporary and illusionary emanations of the One. But the seven separate Kumara are just as separate as you and I are separate.

"I'm about to write to Veligon Nina. Maybe she'll answer something."

--> I am curious to hear what she says. Please let us know what she says.
 
"The story is not Blavatsky's, it is the original story that was told thousands and thousands of years ago. The story is re-told every thousand years or so. Blavatsky is just one more person in a line of story-tellers who is telling the story. The story gets re-told every thousand years or so, then gets forgotten, so we need someone to tell it again every thousand years or so."

Maybe you're right here. But I think a thousand years wasn't still gone since Blavatsky had lived. Then, re-tellers will be necessary, but not today.

"The teachings are very specific that God (The Third Logos) is an emanation from the darkness."

Of cause, an emanation. But it isn't the Absolute. The darkness is that Absolute God, I meant. Logic says that if God is just an emanation, darkness existed before him. It made him. So, the darkness is God, not even the First Logos, but his father.

"I wonder if you are aware of he difference beween Brahma and Brahmâ. Brahma is the darkness, while Brahmâ ia the Third Logos or Son."

I am. I just used more Sanskrit signs. Brahmah is male Brahma; Brahman is neuter. I wanted to say exactly what you quoted from Glossary.

"the Second Logos is Mother, which Christians refers to as Mary."

Do you mean the Second Logos is just phisical matter? It's strange.

I loaded a great deal of articles and so on from www.theosophical.org. Here's so many things that never've been heard in Russia. But why so little information is usually given on practical issues? For ex, such good books as Wood's Concentration, or Besant's Power of Thought - they all give practical components, not only philosophy. Do you know any good books or articles? I'm not a fan of practics but such books give not only theoretical ground - their theory is grounded on facts of phisiology or psychology.
 
Dharmaatmaa,

You said,

"But I think a thousand years wasn't still gone since Blavatsky had lived. Then, re-tellers will be necessary, but not today."

--> The story has been re-told many, many times over thousands and thousands of years. Blavatsky was only one person in a long line of such story-tellers.

"The darkness is that Absolute God...."

--> I think I'll go with Blavatsky's explanation that God emanated from the darkness, which makes it clear that God is not the darkness.

"Logic says that if God is just an emanation, darkness existed before him. It made him. So, the darkness is God, not even the First Logos, but his father."

--> You are saying that the 'causeless cause' (the Absolute) must be referred to by the word 'God.' (I think this is just part of everyone's Christian training.) What Blavatsky is saying is, no, we do not have to do that. God and the 'causeless cause' are two different things.

"Do you mean the Second Logos is just physical matter?"

--> No. Let me give a very simple answer to a very complicated question. In our universe, there is physical matter, astral matter, mental matter, etc., in a seemingly endless staircase of 'planes of existence.' At the very top of that 'staircase' is somethng called Mulaprakriti. Mulaprakriti is called "pre-cosmic pre-matter." It is not really matter, but a form of consciousness. As a side-note, the Christian Mary and Buddhist Kwan Yin symbolize Mulaprakriti (the Second Logos), and Jesus symbolizes our entire physical, astral, mental, etc., universe (the Third Logos.) Take a look at this Christian picture of Mary and Jesus.

blessed-virgin-mary.jpg


Now, take a look at this Buddhist picture of Kwan Yin.

kwan-yin.jpg


(Please note that Kwan Yin is pouring water from a small vase.)

Both Mary and Kwan Yin are anthropomorphizations of the Second Logos (Mulaprakriti). Both Jesus (an anthropomorphization) and the water symbolize the Third Logos (our universe). On both of these points, Christiantiy and Buddhism agree. (And Theosophy is the first philosophy in the world to point out such an agreement.)

"Do you know any good books or articles?"

--> I am not sure what you are asking for. What kinds of practical issues do you want information on? Thousands and thousands of books have been written on Theosophy. Perhaps we can find what you are looking for. By the way, here is an excellent list of Theosophical books that are online.

http://www.austheos.org.au/clibrary/bindex-0.html
 
I asked for practical books. I mean, for ex, Besant's Power of Thought. There, she gives some theoretical explanations and, then, exercises for everyone to develop his mental body (the lower manas). Ernest Wood advised how to develop one's concentration - no theory, just practice. That's what.
Although thanks for links. I'm sure I'll find there something interesting.

"God is not the darkness."

I think nothing exists but Absolute. Darkness - if it isn't God - is to be a part of God (Absolute). Right?

"You are saying that the 'causeless cause' (the Absolute) must be referred to by the word 'God.' (I think this is just part of everyone's Christian training.) "

I'm not a Christian during about 10 years, Nick. Why the causeless cause can't be named God? The latter has very wide amplitude of senses. From great people in Ancient Greece (they called God every so-called "hero", or superman) till Gods of spiritualists. And this term covers the causeless cause, certainly.

"Mulaprakriti is called "pre-cosmic pre-matter."

Now I see. Mulaprakriti is Pradhana - soul of matter, cause of matter and mother of matter.

"Both Mary and Kwan Yin are anthropomorphizations of the Second Logos (Mulaprakriti). Both Jesus (an anthropomorphization) and the water symbolize the Third Logos (our universe). On both of these points, Christiantiy and Buddhism agree."

Oh, I'm not sure Christianity "agrees" with this explanation. I'd be really astonished, if a Christian priest in a church said theosophy to me. I would become a Christian, then. But their dogma is far from logic, unfortunately.

And how you think why water pours out from her vase? Blavatsky says Kwan Yin is the "Voice of Silence" inside. How is it connected with water symbolizing matter?
 
Dharmaatmaa,

You asked for

"...exercises for everyone to develop his mental body (the lower manas)."

--> That is called meditation. You are looking for books on how to meditate.

"I think nothing exists but Absolute."

--> Correct.

"Darkness - if it isn't God - is to be a part of God (Absolute). Right?"

--> It is the other way around. God is only one part of the Darkness.

"Why the causeless cause can't be named God?"

--> Because God is only an emanation from the Darkness, one of many such emanations.

"...Mulaprakriti is Pradhana - soul of matter, cause of matter and mother of matter."

--> Yes.

"Both Mary and Kwan Yin are anthropomorphizations of the Second Logos... --> Oh, I'm not sure Christianity "agrees" with this explanation."

--> Christianity definitely disagrees with this explanation. Sometimes I think Christiantiy exists for no other reason than to anthropomorphize universal principles. Fortunately, Theosophy is here to tell everyone that such anthropomorphizing is a mistake.

"...if a Christian priest in a church said theosophy to me. I would become a Christian, then."

--> So would I.

"But their dogma is far from logic, unfortunately."

--> Sadly, I agree.

"...why water pours out from her vase?"

--> Water symbolizes our universe. Universes come and go. There have been many universes. (Mary has had many sons.) Kwan Yin's water pours forth, then stops, then pours forth again, then stops again, etc. This symbolizes a universe appearing, then disappearing, then reappearing, etc.

"Blavatsky says Kwan Yin is the "Voice of Silence" inside."

--> The true nature of the universe is not the physical universe that we see around us. The true nature of the universe is that it is a form of consciousness. (A solid object such as a brick wall is nothing more than 'solidified consciousness.') Each one of us is a concentrated point of that consciousness. We will find the center of that concentrated consciousness within us, if we only know how to look for it. That is the very purpose of practicing meditation.

"How is it connected with water symbolizing matter?"

--> Water is merely a symbol for Mulaprakriti — nothing more, nothing less
 
Dharmaatmaa,

You mentioned Lower Manas (the lower mental body), and how to develop it. Take a look at this chart from a Theosophical book.

fp-096.jpg


As I said before, the lower mental body can be developed by meditation. But the lower mental body also includes all forms of intellectual activity. One important way of developing the lower mental body is to develop all forms of intellectual activity — theorizing, debating, analyzing, seeing cause and effect, etc. The more we do these things, the more we are preparing ourselves for enlightenment.
 
"to develop all forms of intellectual activity — theorizing, debating, analyzing, seeing cause and effect, etc."

Maybe. But it's not so unanswerable as it seems to be prima facie.

On one hand, Mrs. Annie Besant, Blavatsky's pupil, was saying as you did. She said we must exercise to reach something as merit. She was right here.

But on other hand, this "preparing ourselves for enlightenment" should go another way. Look, one fine day Blavatsky told a story that she had known an Adept with very low intellectual development at the beginning of his Adept carrier. It shows very well that intellect is not necessary thing for "enlightment". And I know that Tibetian Buddhists living in South of Russia say other opinions. They insist on calming one's mind down as necessary level. Who's Buddha? - they ask. A calm mind - answer is. And for evolution of spirit inside us - you were talking about - we must practice something as shamatha or so, I think.

Although Besant's book about thought and mental body is also important, but for other purposes. And I have to say that Blavatsky was against practising of concentration without a teacher. We can't know everything necessary about these difficult problems of psychics. And it's very dangerously. For ex, I wanted to try myself in yoga of dream and sleep practice, about two years ago. One of points in it was to concentrate in a wheel of energy into our throat imagining red colour. That time I wasn't aware of danger - red colour being concentrated on makes this "lucky" agressive and sexually hyperactive. It happened because mental body was painted with red (i.e. with Kama). In manas it was too much kama. I was practising for two or more weeks.
What I am telling it for? To prove that it's dangerous to do without a teacher.

"this chart from a Theosophical book."

Interesting, why Buddhi's ignored in this table. Aspirations are coming usually from there.
 
Dharmaatmaa.

You said,

"...intellect is not necessary thing for 'enlightment' ".

--> There are two opinions on this question. I would think that intelligence is very necessary for enlightenment. I guess we'll find out when we finally achieve enlightenment.

"They insist on calming one's mind down as necessary level. Who's Buddha? - they ask. A calm mind...."

--> The achieving of Buddhic consciousness requires many things. One of the most important pre-requirements is the complete quieting of the astral and mental bodies. This is impossible for most people today. A person cannot achieve Buddhic consciousness, not even elightenment, until they calm their mind. Your Tibetan friends are absolutely correct.

"...Blavatsky was against practising of concentration without a teacher."

--> Blavasky was against this for several reasons, but I think the most important reason was to avoid opening up the Chakras prematurely. Opening up the Chakras prematurely is a very dangerous thing to do, and should only be done under the supervision of a teacher that you trust your life to -- because that is exactly what you are doing.

"...to concentrate in a wheel of energy into our throat imagining red colour."

--> This is a technique to awaken the throat Chakra. I advise everyone not to do this.

"To prove that it's dangerous to do without a teacher."

--> Yes!

"...this chart from a Theosophical book. --> Interesting, why Buddhi's ignored in this table. Aspirations are coming usually from there."

--> It is fascinating to consider where aspirations come from. I think we can have aspirations originate on both the Higher Mental Plane and on the Buddhic Plane. Please remember that conditions on the Buddhic Plane are much 'better' than conditions on the Higher Mental Plane.
 
Hermano Luis said:
The Theosophical Society is great not because anything that passes as Theosophical doctrines, but because it supports freedom of thought, it encourages each individual member to walk his/her own spiritual path, it promotes the study of philosophy, religion, art, and science, and above all because it promotes the dignity of all human beings.
Click to expand...

In what way does this perspective differ from the perspective of the school of Vedanta (which is far older)? Don't they also encourage the individual to go on a spiritual journey of their own and to study or science? Don't they, in fact, put emphasis on respect for ALL LIFE (not just human life, but animal life too !)

Hermano Luis said:
HPB was an incredible woman. Her writings even today are somewhat revolutionary, but we must remember they are the writings of one Theosophist. Her literary works are not binding on other Theosophists, nor do they constitute a "Theosophical Bible" to be followed blindly by all.
Click to expand...

IMO, Blavatsky deserves credit for making Eastern philosophy more accessible to Western society. Nevertheless, her movement was far from unique and in my opinion the Perennialist movement is far more interesting.

Hermano Luis said:
Ours is a society that promotes the inidividual search for Truth and respect for the findings of others.

That is why I am a Theosophist.
Click to expand...

I highly respect your position and my own position is quite similar, but I still don't understand why you're so drawn to Theosophy.
 
I disagree with the word of reincarnation. There is no consipiracy theory that supports the reincarnation of life. Mean to say that no one will take birth again after death.
 
readquran said:
I disagree with the word of reincarnation. There is no consipiracy theory that supports the reincarnation of life. Mean to say that no one will take birth again after death.
Click to expand...

When you know that the spirit exists then reincarnation makes sense. There are only a finite number of souls as well as spirits. They are recycled sometimes.
 
Misconceptions about The Theosophical Society
by H. P. Blavatsky, The Theosophist, January 1881

Many misconceptions prevail as to the nature and objects of the Theosophical Society. Some . . . fancy it is a religious sect; many believe it is composed of atheists; a third party are convinced that its sole object is the study of occult science and the initiation of green hands into the Sacred Mysteries. If we have had one we certainly have had an hundred intimations from strangers that they were ready to join at once if they could be sure that they would shortly be endowed with siddhis, or the power to work occult phenomena. The beginning of a new year is a suitable time to make one more attempt — we wish it could be the last — to set these errors right. So then, let us again say: — (1) The Theosophical Society teaches no new religion, aims to destroy no old one, promulgates no creed of its own, follows no religious leader, and, distinctly and emphatically, is not a sect, nor ever was one. It admits worthy people of any religion to membership, on the condition of mutual tolerance and mutual help to discover truth. The Founders have never consented to be taken as religious leaders, they repudiate any such idea, and they have not taken and will not take disciples. (2) The Society is not composed of atheists, nor is it any more conducted in the interests of atheism than in that of deism or polytheism. It has members of almost every religion, and is on equally fraternal terms with each and all. (3) Not a majority, nor even a respectable minority, numerically speaking, of its fellows are students of occult science or ever expect to become adepts. All who cared for the information have been told what sacrifices are necessary in order to gain the higher knowledge, and few are in a position to make one tenth of them. He who joins our Society gains no siddhis by that act, nor is there any certainty that he will even see the phenomena, let alone meet with an adept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top