Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt00186)

Anand

Many of us here are curious to know why you participate so warmly in these ideologic and political discussions about Adyar and ULT/ST and ignores almost all the really important questions that everybody sends you about so relevant points on defences in the spiritual field...

K
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Anand Gholap 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 7:01 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Why Leadbeater is considered King of All Occultists




It is the bitter and cultish-like closed mindedness and 
> resentments from too many present day members in any of the 
Theosophical 
> Organizations (including Adyar) that continues to spew forth its 
poisons 
> of bigotry, arrogance and pretentiousness which ruins the 
Theosophical 
> cause. 


I agree with you on this point. I found that some members of even 
Adyar TS in America have created dogma and created atmosphere that 
HPB was right and all others are foolish. If Truth can be known by 
only one person then what was the point in giving so much information 
about Masters, on discipleship, on the path of occultism. Reason why 
so much information is given by the Masters about discipleship is it 
is possible for considerable number of people to know Truth directly. 
I know atmosphere in many coutries but I am disappointed with the 
situation of Theosophy in America. This sect, cult is created by Non-
Adyar TS organization but it infected American Section of Adyar TS in 
America.
Anand Gholap
> 
> 
> 
> Anand Gholap wrote:
> 
> >Jerry,
> >Real problem as I see is there are more than three so called 
> >Theosophical organizations. And members of them consider other 
> >organization as competitor. America is very unfortunate as far as 
> >Theosophy is concerned. Split did ruin Theosophical movement in 
> >America to much extent. If you are in management, then why don't 
you 
> >try to merge other small organizations in TSA.
> >Anand Gholap
> >
> >--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
> >wrote:
> > 
> >
> >>Anand,
> >>
> >>One works cooperatively by collaborating with others on projects 
> >> 
> >>
> >which 
> > 
> >
> >>all parties involved feel are for the general good. The manner 
> >> 
> >>
> >which 
> > 
> >
> >>the project is carried out would be according to the agreed upon 
> >>"policies or wisdom", as you put it, of each individual. 
> >>
> >>To give an example: When I was invited to participate in the 
> >> 
> >>
> >planning 
> > 
> >
> >>committee for the Pasadena TS's 1988 networking convention, I 
> >> 
> >>
> >learned 
> > 
> >
> >>that their system of planning was for everyone to participate in 
> >> 
> >>
> >each 
> > 
> >
> >>step of the planning process, including the wording of letters 
and 
> >>fliers. The Chairship was rotated at each meeting, so, sometimes 
> >>members of other Theosophical Organizations (such as Adyar and 
ULT) 
> >>chaired the meetings. Each chair had their own style of 
conducting 
> >> 
> >>
> >the 
> > 
> >
> >>meeting, and did so according to their own wisdom. The event was 
> >> 
> >>
> >very 
> > 
> >
> >>successful. 
> >>
> >>An example where TSA rejected a proposal of collaboration 
concerned 
> >>Point Loma Publications. Emmett Small, then President of Point 
> >> 
> >>
> >Loma 
> > 
> >
> >>Publications proposed to TSA that they co-publish a particular 
> >>Theosophical book. I believe the book he proposed was "Wind of 
the 
> >>Spirit." which is not about Theosophical doctrines, but 
> >> 
> >>
> >Theosophical 
> > 
> >
> >>wisdom. He received a reply from Dora Kunz who rejected the 
> >> 
> >>
> >proposal. 
> > 
> >
> >>The reason she gave was that the book is "too Theosophical." 
She 
> >> 
> >>
> >did 
> > 
> >
> >>not propose an alternative book for co-publication. 
> >>
> >>If policies are of such a nature that they prevent work to be 
done 
> >> 
> >>
> >for 
> > 
> >
> >>the general good of humanity and prevent solidarity between 
fellow 
> >> 
> >>
> >human 
> > 
> >
> >>beings, then I suggest that such policies need to be reviewed. 
TS 
> >>Pasadena's policy of involving everyone into the decision making 
> >> 
> >>
> >process 
> > 
> >
> >>and rotating the Chairperson ship in the meetings was a policy 
> >> 
> >>
> >which 
> > 
> >
> >>produced a very well run networking conference which everyone was 
> >> 
> >>
> >happy 
> > 
> >
> >>to have been a part of. TSA's policy of rejecting the co-
operative 
> >>publication of a Theosophical book on the grounds that it is "too 
> >>Theosophical" raises questions in my mind. What is your opinion?
> >>
> >>Jerry
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Anand Gholap wrote:
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>>Jerry,
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>>No, the networking we tried to promote does not mean adopting 
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>another 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>>organization's policies. It means respecting other's 
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >differences, 
> > 
> >
> >>>>extending a hand of fellowship, and working cooperatively with 
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>others 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>>who share the ideals of world solidarity. 
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>When actions are guided by wise policies or wisdom then only 
they 
> >>>become helpful to others. So when you say 'working cooperatively 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >with 
> > 
> >
> >>>others', what policies guide those actions is important. 
> >>>
> >>>Anand Gholap 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >






Yahoo! Groups Links









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]