Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00156)

Hi all of you,

Thanks for your posting.

You wrote this:
"Brothers, I must warn all of us to do everything in our power to refrain
from permitting the frail plant of sympathy and tolerance to get choked in
our hearts by the deadly nightshade of argument, quarrel and
unbrotherliness. Issues do not matter; but the tone we use in our
conversations with each other, very much so. I am all for free speech; I
cannot stand lists where politeness or a certain way of speaking is
prescribed; but let us remember the idea of the Brotherhood of Man, the
first goal of the old T.S."

I agree. (ie. Brothers and sisters)
Thanks !

Theosophy has since the beginning had this problem, that there has been
to much quarreling and intolerance.
To many splits and offshots has been unnecessarily been created.
This I think we aught to remember this in the future here at Theos-Talk.
We meet here and we are in fact friends.
Well, I think - at least most of the time. <:-) Smile.
But maybe I am just naive.

So let us talk with a honest heart. Let do our best to express the behaviour
of the Inititates and the Masters - while we remember - the concept of "keep
meditating up".

We can only do our best. And that is enough.



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pendragon" <pendragon@cqmail.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>; "New_light@yahoogroups.c"
<New_light@yahoogroups.com>; "agni yoga" <agni-yoga@yahoogroups.com>; "agni
yoga" <agni-yoga-owner@yahoogroups.com>; <theosophie-d@yahoogroups.com>;
"Young-Theosophists@yah" <Young-Theosophists@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: What Is Happening In America?


> >> Blavatsky said that you can't be a Communist and Theosophist at the
> >> same time; I'm not so sure of that, but it certainly seems that
> >> way.
>
> She did not. She never used the word "communist". She used the word
> "socialist". In Le Lotus, her magazine she published in Paris, she wrote
in
> the article "Fausses Conceptions" (translated in CW as "Misconceptions")
in
> September 1887, in which she said: "Seuls, les socialists intelligents
nous
> avaient compris; se tourneront-ils, eux aussi, contre nous?" (translated
in
> CW as "Alone, the intelligent socialists have understood us; will they
also
> turn against us?" (CW VIII/68[90]) There always was, or ought to have been
> had, sympathy for the socialist idea among Theosophist. Let us remember
that
> Annie Besant herself was a Fabian socialist (with George Bernard Shaw) who
> became a Theosophist after reading Isis Unveiled when its was published in
> 1877. Unfortunately, an antagonism was engendered in society in regard to
> every thing in the line of socialist endeavor; nothing could have been
> worse.
>
> Also, as WQJ demands, if any statement is claimed to have been made by
HPB,
> do bring forward for heaven's sake your exact quotation and source, page
> number. As long as this is missing, no alleged statement by HPB can, and
> must, be taken seriously, and certainly should not be discussed.
>
> The demand for such precision is not based in American formalisnm or
> legalism but simply in human nature which is desperate for proving its own
> images and agenda, and a foremost method of the lower self is the twisting
> and distorting of memories. No one can claim with absolute surety who said
> what in regard to anyting, without verifying by way of an exact quote.
Even
> that, however, is insufficient and often, the truth remains undiscovered,
> simply because human nature cannot accept images that are inimical to its
> filters of perception or scheme. Also, we need to be very careful before
we
> claim that HPB taught this or that; her teachings--everything that comes
> direct from the Lodge--cannot be easily crammed into one dogmatic
statement
> that would relegate her to the camp of any one brand of political
> fanaticism. She repeatedly warned e.g. in the Key to Theosophy and
elsewhere
> that any outer political reform, without first reforming the consciousness
> of the people, is doomed to fail miserably. (WQJ stressed that point also
> very often.) Coercion never works, no matter what the purpose; sooner or
> later people rebel against it, even the most abject slaves.
>
> Brothers, I must warn all of us to do everything in our power to refrain
> from permitting the frail plant of sympathy and tolerance to get choked in
> our hearts by the deadly nightshade of argument, quarrel and
> unbrotherliness. Issues do not matter; but the tone we use in our
> conversations with each other, very much so. I am all for free speech; I
> cannot stand lists where politeness or a certain way of speaking is
> prescribed; but let us remember the idea of the Brotherhood of Man, the
> first goal of the old T.S. What I mean is that at least we try, again and
> again (we will fail again and again, but that does not matter as long as
we
> keep trying), to put just a little of the very thing that was more vital
to
> HPB than any knowledge about things occult: that we love one another--not
> for reasons of phony sentimentalism but because we believe that we are one
> in the soul of Atman, that separation is Maya, limited to bodies, never
> extending to the soul of man.
>
> With best regards to us all,
>
> Pendragon
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Bart Lidofsky
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>