Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00479)

Hallo Anand and all,

My views are:

Yes - freedom of thought. But - with the Law of Karma blowing in the wind,
am I right?


1. About promotion of freedom of thought:
The TS bookshops are not selling Mein Kamp are they? (And for good reasons I
think.)
So what is the policy for promotion of theosophy?
So what kind of freedom are you actually talking about?

2. About "attack on personalities" versus "taking a critical stance towards
the teaching used".

I think we have seen this problem of what some calls "attack on
personlities" very often
be a misunderstanding on the so-called "defenders" part. They do not
understand the importance of a critical stance
towards various personalities. The compassion such a stance contains.
However it is quite right, that when the critical stance becomes -
UNCOMPASSIONATE in MOTIVE,
then there will be trouble comming.

Another issue is when the so-called "defenders" stance on "freedom of
thought" is being misused as a disguise
we also have a problem. Any TS bookshop are selling some books but not
others.
THIS is not really freedom of thought, but rather favorishing a certain kind
of teaching - geographically speaking.

AND If the stance "freedom of thought" is MOTIVATED by a wish of either "the
unwillingness to fact the facts of time and place in the bookshop",
"keeping up appearances", "gain and fame", power or worse we also have a
problem.
And this is the problem some of us are talking about. And we keep getting -
no answers to that.

So I will ask differently:
What policy does the TS bookshops have on which books to sell?
And why do they choose to promote certain new books - while others are keept
out?
And is the policy we only sell on demand the policy of theosophy proper?


3. About "impose authority"
No member can impose more authority than it is given.
Are we not agreeing on "freedom of thought" anymore then?
And what do you mean by the word "impose" compared to having a debate and
the exhcange of views?
And is it not the assumption about whether someone "imposes", which is the
most dangerous one?
Are we only talking about someone "imposing" when it doesn't fit our own
views?

These are clearly important questions to ask.
Maybe it is emailing at this place, which makes it dificult to get the views
and motives we have across?


from
M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@AnandGholap.org>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Creating authority under sweet name of original
teaching


> Hello Morten,
> In TS as you know there is complete freedom of thought. A member
> studies writings of various authors and then after using his
> intellect, intuition and logic he comes to a conclusion that this
> piece of writing sounds true and useful. If he wants to help others
> he recommends that writing to others. Upto this point it is fine.
> But when some member imposes authority by saying HPB or Masters said
> so and if you don't agree with them then you are foolish or if he
> attacks the personality which other member respects then that kind of
> attacking beliefs of others is wrong. One could simply say "I agree
> with this statement and I don't agree with that statement"
> So one can recommend others some books but should not impose it or
> say what he says is the only thing true. Person is totally free not
> to agree with even Mahatama Letters. He can say I don't agree on this
> point or I like this point without imposing opinion on others. Some
> members create authority of Mahatma letters and SD and Isis calling
> it "original writing". In most countries priests used this method by
> portraying somebody or some scriptures as authority and exploited
> others and restricted free enquiry.
> Regards.
> Anand Gholap
>
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten N. Olesen" <global-
> theosophy@a...> wrote:
> > Hallo Anand and all,
> >
> > My views are:
> >
> > Maybe you are right.
> > I would like to ask:
> > What criteria do you use when promoting theosophical teachings?
> > Which books are allowed to be promoted?
> > Are there any limits?
> > And if yes - would you then please describe these limits?
> >
> > I think these are important question to ask.
> > Blavatsky was herself concerned with these questions.
> > She was for instance herself very clearly against promoting orthodox
> > religion in any form.
> >
> >
> > from
> > M. Sufilight
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@A...>
> > To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 12:59 PM
> > Subject: Theos-World Creating authority under sweet name of original
> > teaching
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Masters and HPB never claimed infallibility or authority.
> According
> > > to them in TS everybody is free to accept or reject any writing
> > > including SD and Isis. So Daniel's efforts of creating authority
> > > under sweet name of 'original teaching' are ridiculous.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell"
> > > <danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > =====================================================
> > > > Question: Should we take H.P.B. as an
> > > > infallible authority?
> > > >
> > > > Answer: Absolutely not....
> > > >
> > > > But there is another side to the question.
> > > > We have to remember that the modern
> > > > Theosophical movement owes its very existence
> > > > to H.P.B. and the Masters, whose faithful
> > > > agent she claimed to be. It would be
> > > > extremely unwise to reject the teachings given
> > > > through her without understanding what those
> > > > teachings really were in the first place. And how
> > > > can we acquire this understanding if we do not
> > > > study her writings? We don't have to blindly
> > > > accept what she says or take her views as the last
> > > > word, but at least we should become familiar with
> > > > those views firsthand. Then we can reject or
> > > > accept intelligently. When the works of other
> > > > and later writers who claim to be continuing
> > > > the work begun by H.P.B. present viewpoints and
> > > > "revelations" which are at direct variance with
> > > > the original lines of teaching, we may feel
> > > > justified in questioning the source of the newer
> > > > pronouncements. A familiarity with the
> > > > original writings, therefore, provides a criterion
> > > > for intelligent judgment.
> > > > ==============================================
> > > >
> > > > Quoted from:
> > > > AN INTRODUCTION TO ESOTERIC PRINCIPLES: A STUDY COURSE, p. 37
> > > > by William Doss McDavid
> > > > http://www.questbooks.net/title.cfm?bookid=265
> > > >
> > > > Daniel
> > > > http://hpb.cc
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>