Happy Birthday Theosophical Society

[Nick the Pilot]

Dharmaatmaa,

You said,

"...Amida is form of Adi...."

--> I think we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

"I think Senzar is...."

--> Many people do not know about the Senzar language. Senzar is the language of the original book of the story of the beginning of our universe and of humanity. The Bible originally came from this book, written in Senzar.

"I think Blavatsky would disagree with your anthropomorphizing of the Absolute in that way. --> I don't think so."

--> I think we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

"She never criticized masons. I used masonic terms."

--> I find it fascinating to think that the Masons anthropomorphize the Absolute.

"...in America Alice Bailey is named theosophist?"

--> I have two answers.

(1) Theosophy is an international organzation, having groups in many countries around the world. Alice Bailey's status within Theosophy is well-known in all of these countries.

(2) Alice Bailey was originally a Theosophist, but she later branched off and started her own group. Many Theosophists (myself included) feel that some of her later, original writings do not reflect Theosophical ideas.

"She might have imagined her Masters."

--> She may have, I do not know. I have not read her writings. I can only hope that she taught the exact same ideas that Theosophy teaches (but I doubt it).

Alice Bailey had her original training in Theosophy. I am thrilled to know that people around the world are being influenced indirectly by Theosophy, via Alice Bailey's writings.

[Dharmaatmaa]

Good evening,

"Many people do not know about the Senzar language. Senzar is the language of the original book of the story of the beginning of our universe and of humanity. The Bible originally came from this book, written in Senzar."

Of cause, so. I hope more people will know about Senzar soon. I want to thank you for this Theosophy World, once more. Russian theosophical public seems to be unaware of the articles because they're in English. I'm going to translate some of them (about Senzar incuded) for Russian News of Theosophy (if I'm fast enough, for January number).
Do you help theosophical movement in USA, Nick? Or you're a free-theosophist, as I usually am?

"Alice Bailey had her original training in Theosophy. I am thrilled to know that people around the world are being influenced indirectly by Theosophy, via Alice Bailey's writings."

Her original viewpoint is much more than just "original". If you read her books (for ex, about Cosmic Fire) you'll be sure enough those things she had said don't look as theosophy at all. In Russia, many educated persons don't think she was a theosophist. She gave her own teaching I guess.

And I'd like to ask you about second names. Explain, what does Ann mean in her name? Her name's Alice Ann Bailey. What's that Ann for?
In here, second name means the father's name. For ex, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. This Petrovna is Petr-ovna: Petr (Peter) was her father's name, and -ovna is a female suffix for belonging to a certain father. But in English countries I see: Alice Ann Bailey, John Richard Smith etc. People wear both male and female "father's" names!? I don't understand.

Thank you.

[bgruagach]

Originally Posted by Dharmaatmaa

And I'd like to ask you about second names. Explain, what does Ann mean in her name? Her name's Alice Ann Bailey. What's that Ann for?
In here, second name means the father's name. For ex, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. This Petrovna is Petr-ovna: Petr (Peter) was her father's name, and -ovna is a female suffix for belonging to a certain father. But in English countries I see: Alice Ann Bailey, John Richard Smith etc. People wear both male and female "father's" names!? I don't understand.

Thank you.

I won't answer the Theosophical questions as I don't know enough to comment intelligently. I can, however, respond about how English names are given and what they tend to mean.

Traditionally in English cultures (the UK, Canada, the US, and I assume also in Australia) children usually take their father's family name as their last or surname. In the example of Alice Ann Bailey, we can assume that her father's family name was Bailey. When a woman marries though she often drops her surname and takes the surname of her husband. So Bailey might not have been her father's family name but rather the family name of her husband.

With the growth of feminism in the 1960s some women chose to keep their original surnames even when they married, so a wife might end up with a different last name than her husband. Some opted to add their husband's last name to their own, with a hyphen (i.e. a woman who was originally a Smith who gets married to a man named Brown might change her name to Smith-Brown.) Sometimes the wife doesn't change her name at all when she gets married, but they choose to use hyphenated names for their children -- for example a woman named Smith married to a man named Brown might give their children the surname of Smith-Brown.

Names other than the family or surname are really just given according to the whims of the parents. Often children are given names in honour of favourite family members. In my own case, one of my names, Thomas, was given to me in honour of my father's dad, my grandfather. One of my brothers was given a name after my mom's dad. In all these cases though it was a first or middle name, not a surname, that was passed on. My brothers and I, like many kids in English countries, carry only our father's surname.

So in the case of Alice Ann Bailey, the names Alice and Ann were given to her by her parents either because the parents just liked the sound of the names or because they wanted to honour a family member or friend who had one or both of those names.

According to the Wikipedia entry for Alice Ann Bailey, she was given the name Alice LaTrobe Bateman by her parents. (I don't know if LaTrobe was her mother's family name or not.) So presumably she herself chose to add in the Ann, likely at the same time when she assumed the name Bailey. I don't know where she got these names as the only husband I am aware of was a man named Walter Evans, who she divorced after spending eight years with him.

Alice and Ann are usually used as first names rather than as family names in English. And to make things even more confusing, sometimes people give their children first names that are based on family names (either family names they are biologically associated with, or just names that the parents thought sounded good.) For example, the current President Bush had a grandfather named Prescott Bush. Prescott is usually a surname rather than a first name, but it was used as a first name in the Bush family.

[Nick the Pilot]

Dharmaatmaa,

You said,

"I hope more people will know about Senzar soon."

--> I do too. The Book of Genesis was originally written in the Senzar language. It was then translated into another language, then another, then another, etc., over thousands and thousands of years, until it was finally translated into Hebrew and then into English. This is why the present English version is practically unrecognizeable as being a copy of the original.

For those of you who are interested in a 'fairly' direct translation from Senzar into English, you can find it in a book named O Lanoo! The author sells copies of his book via this website:

O Lanoo!

"I'm going to translate some of them (about Senzar incuded) for Russian News of Theosophy (if I'm fast enough, for January number).

--> Please post a link of it here. I keep track of Theosophical webpages in various languages.

"Do you help theosophical movement in USA, Nick? Or you're a free-theosophist, as I usually am?"

--> I assist people all over the world with their Theosophical studies. I am a member of the Adyar branch of Theosophy, but I am committed to helping all Theosophists.

"In Russia, many educated persons don't think she was a theosophist."

--> Many Theosophists here do not consider her to be a Theosophist either.

[Nick the Pilot]

bgruagach,

Thank you for assistance in helping with these points about names in English. We all need to be more sensitive to people who are posting and reading these posts, when their native language is a language other than English.

Thanks again.

[Dharmaatmaa]

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!

[Nick the Pilot]

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

[Dharmaatmaa]

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.

[Nick the Pilot]

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.

[Dharmaatmaa]

"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.

[~estrella~]

Originally Posted by Dharmaatmaa

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.

ehm, here's my favorite author on theosophy......
Theosophy Trust - Raghavan Iyer Articles
"The HERMES Writings of Raghavan N. Iyer "

[Nick the Pilot]

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.



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



(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

[Dharmaatmaa]

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?

[Nick the Pilot]

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

[Nick the Pilot]

Dharmaatmaa,

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



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.