Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00653)

Dear Morten,

>Without the previous leaders in the TS. TS would not have been what 
it is today. And that is at least something worthwhile considering. 
It could have been much worse, could it not? All leaders in TS have 
their troubles, one of them being members of TS and their distrust in 
any leaders - also called crutches. :-)<

With those words N. Sri Ram certainly didn't want to invite us to 
begin to discredit other people but to try to find a solution and 
this is certainly also my aim. I deeply respect all who have worked 
for the cause and contributed that the movement has survived all 
these years.  

But what went wrong? Nevertheless all that good intentions present in 
each member of the theosophical movement what went wrong that there 
were divisions, exclusions, ostracism? Why were mutual attacks 
present between the members of various theosophical traditions? Are 
different views on the teachings good reason to attack each other? 
Why there is so much tension and dissatisfaction present in our own 
Society? Are there answers to these questions? Can we find a way out 
of this situation?

Irrelevant questions? I don't think so. But I will certainly not 
abuse this forum with my e-mails if there will not be interest for 
such discussion.

I still think that we will do most for the world if we will in first 
place solve the problems within the theosophical movement itself. 

Thanks for your thoughts and best wishes to you, HPB and M,
Anton


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> My views are:
> 
> 
> A few views, just to say something instead of nothing...
> 
> Yes Brottherhood is a good idea.
> Yet it seems to me, that a number of leading persons are hit by the 
arch-enemy of various theosophists called - mistrust or perhaps fear 
of dupas or similar persons within the TS groups.
> 
> TS Adyar looks more and more like a group without leadership, a 
raft believed being a boat.
> Or is it just me?
> 
> In the old days HPB would have responded in Lucifer or the 
Theosophist putting it all where it belongs.
> 
> - - - - - - -
> So if I should respond or at least seek to respond like a HPB, I 
would say: 
> 
> Stop talking irrelevantly about less important issues. 
> Meditate properly and wisely - and reach your own conclusion. Do 
not waste hours on emailing about this issue.
> 
> Remember: A tree is always known on its fruits. 
> 
> 
> - - - - - - - 
> Without the previous leaders in the TS. TS would not have been what 
it is today. And that is at least something worthwhile considering. 
It could have been much worse, could it not?
> All leaders in TS have their troubles, one of them being members of 
TS and their distrust in any leaders - also called crutches. 
> :-)
> 
> - - - - - - - 
> Listen. The Masters and HPB will guide you all so you reach a 
leadership, which will teach you the lessons you are in need of. And 
not necessarily what you want yourselves. Try to Rethink this view.
> 
> Just to let you know: 
> I was given a short telepathically imprint of HPB and Master Morya 
two days ago - by HPB. There are around for sure. Well if it is not 
Maya at play again. :-)
> 
> 
> I do hope these words was of help to you.
> 
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Anton Rozman 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 9:53 AM
>   Subject: Theos-World Rules and Principles 1
> 
> 
>   "Let us accept no creed, no practice, no institution which does 
not 
>   answer the test of brotherhood."* 
> 
>   But if we want to respect this proposal, we find ourselves in 
front of 
>   a difficult task, as we have to ask ourselves: are there any 
objective 
>   measures at all which can help us to verify if the creed, 
practice or 
>   functioning of a definite institution is fraternal. 
> 
>   Can we therefore find some objective measures to verify if the 
>   functioning of an institution is in fact fraternal? Maybe some 
will 
>   think that such task is not necessary and useful, but here is 
another 
>   thought: 
> 
>   "Each must lead himself, which implies intelligence, a clear 
purpose, a 
>   vision of his own, a willingness to determine his steps for 
himself, 
>   the acceptance of one's responsibility and the faculty of pure, 
>   individual and uninfluenced judgment."*
> 
>   * Nantiloka Shri Ram, Thoughts for Aspirants.
> 
> 
> 
>    
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>