Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00162)

Hallo Perry and all,

My views are:

The following aught to be stance of all theosophical organisations including
TS ADYAR.
I do certainly think, that TS Adyar supports this view at its core:

The answer could be what Blavatsky said when she wrote the book "The Key to
Theosophy" (Section 2):

" ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, besides
Buddhistic ethics?
THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no philosophy in
particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again, it must be
stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is divided into
Exoteric and Esoteric Sections.

ENQUIRER. What is the difference?

THEOSOPHIST. The members of the Theosophical Society at large are free to
profess whatever religion or philosophy they like, or none if they so
prefer, provided they are in sympathy with, and ready to carry out one or
more of the three objects of the Association. The Society is a philanthropic
and scientific body for the propagation of the idea of brotherhood on
practical instead of theoretical lines. The Fellows may be Christians or
Mussulmen, Jews or Parsees, Buddhists or Brahmins, Spiritualists or
Materialists, it does not matter; but every member must be either a
philanthropist, or a scholar, a searcher into Aryan and other old
literature, or a psychic student. In short, he has to help, if he can, in
the carrying out of at least one of the objects of the programme. Otherwise
he has no reason for becoming a "Fellow." Such are the majority of the
exoteric Society, composed of "attached" and "unattached" members. [An
"attached member" means one who has joined some particular branch of the T.
S. An "unattached," one who belongs to the Society at large, has his
diploma, from the Headquarters (Adyar, Madras), but is connected with no
branch or lodge.] These may, or may not, become Theosophists de facto.
Members they are, by virtue of their having joined the Society; but the
latter cannot make a Theosophist of one who has no sense for the divine
fitness of things, or of him who understands Theosophy in his own -- if the
expression may be used -- sectarian and egotistic way. "Handsome is, as
handsome does" could be paraphrased in this case and be made to run:
"Theosophist is, who Theosophy does."
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-2.htm

So let us "cull the good we find in each" - shall we ???



Also this one:
" I am confident that, when the real nature of Theosophy is understood, the
prejudice against it, now so unfortunately prevalent, will die out.
Theosophists are of necessity the friends of all movements in the world,
whether intellectual or simply practical, for the amelioration of the
condition of mankind. We are the friends of all those who fight against
drunkenness, against cruelty to animals, against injustice to women, against
corruption in society or in government, although we do not meddle in
politics. We are the friends of those who exercise practical charity, who
seek to lift a little of the tremendous weight of misery that is crushing
down the poor. But, in our quality of Theosophists, we cannot engage in any
one of these great works in particular. As individuals we may do so, but as
Theosophists we have a larger, more important, and much more difficult work
to do. People say that Theosophists should show what is in them, that "the
tree is known by its fruit." Let them build dwellings for the poor, it is
said, let them open "soup kitchens," etc., etc., and the world will believe
that there is something in Theosophy. These good people forget that
Theosophists, as such, are poor, and that the Founders themselves are poorer
than any, and that one of them, at any rate, the humble writer of these
lines, has no property of her own, and has to work hard for her daily bread
whenever she finds time from her Theosophical duties. The function of
Theosophists is to open men's hearts and understandings to charity, justice,
and generosity, attributes which belong specifically to the human kingdom
and are natural to man when he has developed the qualities of a human being.
Theosophy teaches the animal-man to be a human-man; and when people have
learnt to think and feel as truly human beings should feel and think, they
will act humanely, and works of charity, justice, and generosity will be
done spontaneously by all. "
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-am/hpb-am1.htm





I agree how ever, that one should have a clear or clearer stance on whether
one supports the promotion of authors with a bad or at least dubios
reputation.
And this is what I dislike about the TS Adyar's website and the promotion of
the organisation as a whole except for a few corners of it.
Well communication has never really been the latest TS leaders greatest cup
of tea.



from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...>
To: <ham>; <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:33 AM
Subject: ham,Theos-World Freedom of opinion in TS publications?


> It's a great concern to me that a policy of "ignorance is bliss"
> or "ignore it and it will all go away" seeming to be a part of a the
> society's way of dealing with the CWL/NeoTheosophy issues.
> A state of co-dependence has developed in the society imho and lack
> of support for the freedom of speech of those who point out the
> difference between the CWL and HPB/Mahatma's this is outrages beyond
> belief.
> (Unless I am mistaken and can be given some positive assurance that
> this is not the case)
> Does freedom of thought and freedom to compare different traditions
> in the societies publications exist in the Societies mandate?
> The hypocrisy of this state of "organizational culture" should be
> unacceptable for any theosophical student no matter how you feel
> about CWL.
> I hope one day the society can not be so tied to a dogma and guru
> worship that it will be able to become that which it was meant to be
> with open Socratic dialogue in all its publications.
> The irony is that the Theosophy in Australia magazine has just
> published an article that criticizes the Secret Doctrine quite
> strongly and to that I say GREAT!!! that's the true theosophical
> spirit.
> But why oh why not CWL ???
> Perry
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>