Questions and Comments
to an open letter to Radha Burnier.

First:

a) What is it all about?

For any value in all of this, this question must be clear.
All has come out of some passion for all violence, conflicts and sorrows to come to an end. Within ourselves. With warm and fresh relations between us all. In freedoms from the past and for dynamic relations to Life, itself.

     With any doubt that this is possible, that is if we are not confident of it, there can not be the energy, which is necessary for it. Some contact with the Original Teachings of Modern Theosophy, or with some inner quality of J. Krishnamurti, for an unconditioned quest for Truth, for its own sake, may disperse all such doubts.

b) There must be some degree of an unconditioned Passion for Truth.

Otherwise we can not come to look into how all kinds of aspects in Religion, Philosophy, Personalities and Beyond Personalities are in general so to say freely mixed, within groups, traditions, nations, teachings, politics, public authorities, sciences and so on. Sooner or later inner discriminations into qualities of minds in all in this are basic.

c) Each one must have his or her own particular way to go.

So negative remarks to other persons are worse than useless.
On ”that level”, the personal.
When there are ”transpersonal insights”, then negative remarks can be fruitfully given. Also to persons. But then primarily from and to inner levels in ourselves.

April 14th:

1) Remarks in a footnote seems to refer to the conflict in the Middle East. Could this be more explained?

From Immanuel Kant we have the Categorical Imperative: To live, think and behave in ways which one can regard would be the best for all of us, if everyone else would do it also. This must be with universal principles of morals. How I decide what belongs to me must be on a general level of norms, for what is right. If I refer to my religion, my people and our special history, for what now belongs to us, materially, then all others in the whole world must have the same right to similar claims for them. And when the word RELIGION means returning back to one's origin, and we all have the same origin, and each human being has the same value, and each one must basically have the same conditions for ”coming to Heaven”, then any form of religion which is separatistic, and justify separations between people, in their lands, homes and properties, can not be fully religious. If it also requires that I must have been born by a biological mother of the same blood, to be fully a part of it, would it not then also have to be regarded as racial? — All this however without any racial discriminations. Differencies between persons is far bigger and much more significant than between any groups of people.

2) Your letter imply difficulties for such as universal brotherhood, the main purpose for Theosophy in the world. Describe this as simple as possible.

Answers are conditioned by the questions, so first the question must be clear. THEOSOPHY stands for Wisdom, by Insights and Knowledge, beyond thoughts, beliefs, doubts, opinions, emotions, traditions and public authorities. And the TS came about for a change in the world, by an inner unity, regardless of all personal separations, and by that to bring about a nucleus of universal brotherhood. But soon there were a number of divisions, between ourselves, seriously limiting this possibility. To learn in this, to discover how all problems and conflicts have come – and otherwise we can not possibly solve them – we must look at Reality, what has really taken place, within and among ourselves, and for that we must have open eyes and a clear mind. Not limited by any personal attachments, nor by any images of ourselves.

The Reality is both Objective and Subjective.
In general this is always freely mixed.
Making any highest clarity hard to get.
So let us approach them one by one.

Some of the objective reality in short:

Five Adepts of seven were not behind to give out so much and to start an esoteric movement in the west and after some 10 years one of the two who were in favour of it wrote, that it seemed to him that the five could have been right.

     T Subba Row and HPB seriously disagreed about the Secret Doctrine and this when they were both Chelas to the same Master.

    Besant and Judge were strongly divided, causing the whole TS to be split, the Scandinavian section right through (with a public meeting in the Concert Hall of Stockholm, protesting to that the members of the Besant-society could be called Theosophists).

    A. P. Sinnett wrote in a book of having had much better communications with the Masters, after HPB had died, and this by CWL´s psychic activity. And this when we can read, that CWL himself wrote in his little book ”How Theosophy came to me” that the very first message from Masters to him started by rejecting psychic communications with them, and all this with a first controversy over Mars and Mercury and then all the lot of quite a different Theosophical System. Within ”the Parent Society” itself.

     A number of pros and cons with books by Alice Bailey. A teaching of ”Externalization of the Hierarchy” is irreconcilable with Esoteric principles.

[To be continued after 7th of May]

And a new leading man, first discovered, adopted and educated, to become an instrument for the Lord, then leaving all of that behind himself, openly and firmly dismissing any connection whatsoever with Theosophy (printed in a magazine, shown me by P. Krishna), and you Colin, saying in BBC London, that he stood for an inner reality of Divinity, a higher Ego, within each one of us, which he might have done until early 30-ies, but, since I started to intensely listen to him, from 1976, he regularly (!) ridiculed this idea!
And then it must be regarded how a new christian church, by this new set of teachings (Neo-Theosophy, 2nd generation), was what brought myself into Theosophy, mainly because of a driving universal love, thanks to that church, and since now many years ago with a one leading drive in practice: That we should somehow sort all these problems and confusions out, together with one another, so that we, shoulder to shoulder, could make a difference in the world.
Rather than having some nice spending time in just a nice company of friends, but for a change in the world, by expressing Firm Principles of Morals together, in Religion, Philosophy and General Relations. All this so to say over the whole. Poor and stupid me just did not get hold of the One First Condition: To be and do it. In and by myself. The idea of together became the best excuse for laziness.