Theos-Talk Archives (April 2007 Message tt00098)

Hi mkr & Nigel,
I found this quote here which I think sums it up :
C.W. IV, p. 470
"Now our society, as was explained even to the outside public 
repeatedly, has one general, and several - if not minor, at least 
less prominent aims. The earnest pursuit of one of the latter - 
occult science in this case - far from being regarded as the common 
duty and the work of all, is limited for the reasons given above to a 
very small faction of the Society, its pursuit resting with the 
personal tastes and aspirations of the members.

 As to the former - the chief aims of the Theosophical Fraternity - 
it is hardly necessary to remind any Fellow of what it is. Our 
fundamental object is Universal Brotherhood, kind feelings and moral 
help proffered to all and every Brother, whatever his creed and 
views. 

Based upon the conviction that a Brotherhood of all faiths and 
denominations, composed of Theists and Atheists, Christians and 
Gentiles throughout the world, might without anyone surrendering his 
particular opinion be united into one strong Society or Fraternity 
for mutual help, and having one and the same purpose in view, i.e., 
the relentless, though at the same time calm and judicious pursuit of 
Truth wherever found, especially in Religion and Science - it is the 
first duty of our Society as a united body to extirpate every weed 
that overgrows and stifles that truth which only can be one and 
entire. 

The best recognized way to make both the psychological and physical 
sciences, as all sectarian and dogmatic religions, yield their 
respective verities, is, in construing them, to take the middle path 
between the extremes of opinion."

I found this quote here along with some other good ones.
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/theosoph.htm

Perry

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M K Ramadoss" <mkr777@...> wrote:
>
> Let me interject. In ML, APS was repeatedly told that the first and 
foremost
> is the Brotherhood of Humanity; not any of the ancient wisdom, or 
any of the
> secrets of nature etc. Once we keep an eye on the ball, then 
everything else
> should fall into their proper place.
> 
> One other thing that I noticed -- why was Pedro referred to as 
Bishop
> Oliviera by Nigel?  Has his title got something to do with 
Theosophy?
> Wondering?
> 
> mkr
> 
> On 4/27/07, plcoles1 <plcoles1@...> wrote:
> >
> >   Hello Nigel,
> > Thanks for your comments. As I have found with most things there 
are
> > paradoxes and various shades of grey.
> >
> > The objects do indeed have a history and have changed over the 
years,
> > however I would argue that the society as it stands today has to
> > uphold the objects as they are today and that is what they are
> > constituently there to do.
> >
> > I have never heard HPB state anywhere that the Society was there 
to
> > only study her writings, if this was the case it should be clearly
> > pointed out to people when they join the society.
> >
> > When I first joined the society I joined not because of a 
particular
> > doctrine but because of an institutional ethos that encouraged
> > comparative study of philosophy, science and religion free of
> > dogmatism and I think this is the case for most people.
> >
> > If the society is constitutionally only there to study HPB 
writings
> > where is this stated?
> >
> > Sincerely
> >
> > Perry
> >
> >
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Perry and All
> > > Thank you Perry for bringing this interesting article by Bishop
> > > Oliviera to this forum and for your subsequent comments 
pertaining
> > to
> > > it and to Daniel's pertinent quotes. These can perhaps give 
rise to
> > > much consideration on a number of matters.
> > >
> > > It is to be hoped that most who have been contributing to this
> > forum
> > > for the past few years would agree by now that free, honest and
> > open
> > > discussion on all matters, in particular those of a theosophical
> > > nature, is paramount if we as individuals are to begin to 
negotiate
> > > and ultimately make sense of the labyrinth of spirito/religious
> > ideas
> > > extant in the world today.
> > > As mentioned many times by numerous correspondents, the required
> > open
> > > mind is also vital if we are to become aware of, and confront 
and
> > > control our biased perspectives, prejudices and predilections 
so as
> > > to begin the process of understanding and knowing matters as 
they
> > > really are, rather than simply how we might prefer them to be.
> > >
> > > A burning question which continually flares up in the Adyar 
Society
> > > to which Pedro belongs, and to which he has addressed his 
article,
> > > involves the definition of theosophy/Theosophy.
> > >
> > > What has been of great importance to me over many years concerns
> > > whether there are differing versions of theosophy/Theosophy and
> > > whether this really matters. From the perspective of what is
> > > euphemistically called "original" Theosophy, it clearly does.
> > >
> > > When we consider from indisputable history who it was who 
created
> > the
> > > powerful impetus for this "original" Theosophy to re-enter the
> > > western mindset in the 19th century, it begs the question as to
> > > whether their version might be what they wished to be 
promulgated,
> > as
> > > alluded to in the Mahachohan's quote.
> > >
> > > It also begs the question as to whether they wished the Society,
> > > which they asked Madame Blavatsky to establish via Colonel 
Olcott
> > and
> > > others, be a place to study and make extant their version of
> > > Theosophy. Clearly they did.
> > >
> > > From the original by-laws of 1875 clause 2 states; "The objects 
of
> > > the Society are, to collect and diffuse a knowledge of the laws
> > which
> > > govern the universe." Whilst to my knowledge there is no
> > indisputable
> > > account as to the discussion which led to the actual wording of
> > this
> > > object, it would be inconceivable that Madame Blavatsky, and
> > > therefore her teachers, had nothing to do with it and indeed,
> > knowing
> > > her character and respected reputation amongst those present, 
she
> > > most probably caused the wording to be as such. After all, it 
was
> > > solely because of her and her words and actions that people
> > initially
> > > became attracted to Theosophy and its ideas in the first place.
> > >
> > > The wording of this original object is important. "?to collect 
and
> > > diffuse a knowledge of the laws?" This was the cornerstone which
> > was
> > > to set the theme for the collection and release of a body of
> > > knowledge. From the wording, this particular body of knowledge 
was
> > > already in existence.
> > >
> > > Moreover, Colonel Olcott accounts in Old Diary Leaves in the 
very
> > > early years, "The Brotherhood plank in which the Society's 
future
> > > platform was...(was) not thought of;?"
> > >
> > > As the Society evolved it became clear that the aforementioned
> > biases
> > > and prejudices began to manifest within the membership
> > necessitating
> > > the "brotherhood" object.
> > >
> > > As this object was added later, so too were others.
> > > In 1890, a year before Madame Blavatsky's death there was a 
second
> > > object which read; "To promote the study of Aryan and other 
Eastern
> > > literatures, religions, philosophies and sciences, and to
> > demonstrate
> > > their importance to Humanity."
> > > Note that this object is in accord with the Adepts
> > statement, "After
> > > nearly a century of fruitless search, our chiefs had to avail
> > > themselves of the only opportunity to send out a European body 
upon
> > > European soil to serve as a connecting link between that country
> > and
> > > our own." And, "This state of hers (HPB's) is intimately 
connected
> > > with her occult training in Tibet, and due to her being sent out
> > > alone into the world to gradually prepare the way for others."
> > > The Mahatmas clearly had a specific body of occult knowledge to
> > > share, which was Aryan and Eastern in nature, whilst Madame
> > Blavatsky
> > > had a definite and specific role to release it.
> > >
> > > Pedro writes that when the Mahatmas and Madame Blavatsky were
> > > referring to their rejection of God they were writing from
> > > their "Buddhist perspective". As you point out, orthodox Tibetan
> > > Buddhism has numerous and major differences from the Theosophy 
of
> > > Madame Blavatsky and her teachers. So the Mahatmas were clearly 
not
> > > traditional Buddhists and were not in fact writing from that
> > dogmatic
> > > mindset.
> > > Moreover, Madame Blavatsky wrote copiously quoting Buddhism,
> > Hinduism
> > > and Vedanta texts to expound this knowledge.
> > >
> > > It was 5 years after her death in 1896, when certain western
> > > influences had begun watering down these "Aryan and Eastern" 
occult
> > > teachings that the second object was changed to read; "To 
encourage
> > > the study of comparative religion, philosophy and science." The
> > focus
> > > was now shifting to western style Christianity wherein the
> > > differences with "original" Theosophy were and are indeed stark.
> > This
> > > of course culminated in a theosophical church strongly 
associated
> > > with the Adyar Theosophical Society which remains as such to 
this
> > day.
> > >
> > > The "forlorn hope" of the Mahatmas included recognition of the
> > > probability that despite earnest warnings from them and Madame
> > > Blavatsky for their occult body of knowledge not to be 
dogmatised,
> > > dogma arose in the Adyar Society fuelled by Bishop Leadbeater 
and
> > Dr
> > > Annie Besant's Christianity and their "coming world teacher."
> > >
> > > This caused the production of the "Freedom of Thought" statement
> > from
> > > the General Council in the early 1920's which whilst necessary 
to
> > > promote tolerance and brotherliness, nevertheless further
> > contributed
> > > to the belief that Theosophy included anything and everything 
of an
> > > esoteric nature.
> > >
> > > Whilst this freedom is to be strongly encouraged it is to be 
hoped
> > > that the essence of "original" Theosophy is not lost.
> > >
> > > Whether or not Madame Blavatsky and her teachers' knowledge is
> > > accurate or not, they certainly wished for the Theosophical 
Society
> > > to be a vehicle for it.
> > > She and the Mahatmas certainly encouraged us not to turn their 
body
> > > of knowledge into yet another dogma. Madame Blavatsky wrote
> > > tangentially and referred to almost every spirito/religious
> > tradition
> > > in her writings to help guard against this occurring. But she 
and
> > the
> > > Mahatmas were earnestly hoping for the sake of humanity we would
> > not
> > > throw out their hard won knowledge and that we would use their
> > occult
> > > words with an ever open and expansive mindset to go beyond, into
> > the
> > > mystical states of consciousness, wherein definitions dissolve 
and
> > > Reality beckons.
> > >
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > > Nigel
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "plcoles1" <plcoles1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello All,
> > > > I have just read Pedro Oliveira's article "Which Theosophy" 
which
> > > was
> > > > published in the magazine "Theosophy in Australia" in March 
2006.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.austheos.org.au/magazine/pedro-which-theosophy.htm
> > > >
> > > > I have to say that I am by largely in agreement with Pedro's
> > > > statements and also with the spirit within which it seems to 
have
> > > > been written.
> > > >
> > > > The theosophical approach is not an ism and certainly is not a
> > > > prescribed pathway it is a journey that will be unique and
> > > different
> > > > for each individual.
> > > >
> > > > As students and individuals we will all naturally be drawn to 
one
> > > > school of thought more than another, the theosophic approach 
is
> > by
> > > > its very nature eclectic.
> > > >
> > > > The way to unity is by way of embracing diversity, yes we 
need to
> > > > debate and discuss points of difference but probably more
> > > importantly
> > > > we also need to underline the points of intersection and in 
our
> > > > hearts hold to that spirit of Brotherhood and Oneness which is
> > the
> > > > theosophical ideal.
> > > >
> > > > We need not become divided into Blavatsky barrackers or
> > Leadbeater
> > > > booers.
> > > >
> > > > The wheat from the chaff of both can only be sorted out for
> > > ourselves
> > > > through our own process and in our own way and time.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Pedro for the article it has given me some food for
> > thought.
> > > >
> > > > Perry
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>