Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00108)

-

LETTER No. C

Sep. 21.

MY DEAR MR. SINNETT,

May be your intention and meaning was as you say. But there's Mme. 
G.d. who was the first to read it, to "feel shocked" as she said for 
this unnecessary slap on the face to the Hindu

 

??? 221    THE PURPOSE  OF  THE  MASTER'  SOCIETY   ???

nation whose philosophy is ours?and who understood your words as I 
have. And in India they will be understood the same. I have to learn 
yet that "the first of a series of subraces of which the present 
Europ. is the 7th?", means that those first races are lower thus than 
the last. In such case the Dhyan-Chohans from whom the first R. Race 
emanated are still lower as a race than we are, or rather yet lower 
than the 4th R. Race of Atlantean sorcerers was. That's a new way of 
looking at things. However, I have to talk of more serious things for 
the present.

Mme. G. is gone; I am alone, and I have profited by my isolation to 
think over a good deal. You are mistaken if you think me so short 
sighted as to have failed remarking that Mohini is drifting away with 
every day more from the original programme and doctrine?I know it. 
Nevertheless, as he is a real, genuine theosophist in his heart and 
aspirations, he must be left alone, provided he does not, in drifting 
away, pull to pieces the original Society. And this he would surely 
do, were you to put in practice what you contemplate. Such is the 
opinion of the Masters, for I saw Them and talked to and with Them, 
the whole evening and night yesterday. That which you have to do, if 
you would be active and work for the original Masters' Society, would 
be as follows. Explain to Olcott matters and claim from him and 
Council, that which you of the L.L. already virtually have: complete 
autonomy for the European Branches, as many, as there are groups of 
the same way of thinking. Theosophy was founded as a nucleus for 
Univ. Brotherhood. So was Christy. The latter was a complete failure 
and is a sham, only because the R. Latin Church claims infallibility, 
absolute authority, and will convert by fair or foul means the two 
other Churches to her way of thinking. So do the other two but in a 
weaker degree. Now Christianity is the same Theosophy, only in 
masquerade dresses, this cycle of ours being the carnival period of 
the greater cycle, that of our sub-race. Don't let us do as the 
Christians do. Our Society was established to bring together people 
as searchers after truth, independent thinkers, one having no right 
to force his opinion on the other: or meddle in his religious views. 
Therefore we cannot force Mohini and his party to follow "Olcott 
Blavatsky's" programme; or as a dissenter from it, to drive him out 
of the Society, since he is a real theosophist in one of the aspects 
of divine Wisdom "theo-sophia." Now Babaji is quite another thing. He 
is a liar, a traitor, a selfish ambitious wretch, who first sold us?
Olcott and myself, and is now selling his ex-Masters. Against him 
every true theosophist ought to rise; and those who do not are 
certainly dangerous and cannot remain in your Society, or any of 
those who remain true to Master and the original programme. This is 
Olcott's business

 

??? 222    THE LETTERS OF H. P. BLAVATSKY   ???

to expel him from the Society, and you may tell him that if he does 
not, then Babaji will ruin every Branch he approaches. What you have 
to do if you take OUR advice is this, leaving the management of 
details to your own sagacity. Call a Council meeting, private or 
public (the former, at first) and explain to them, that Mr. Babaji is 
to your best knowledge a liar, and a very malicious and disreputable 
one. Tell them he was a Chela and has failed. Was sent, to you (you 
have his letter), he, in all appearance, and told you so and so, and 
now denies it; says (ask Bergen to write to you all he said, and 
Arthur) -- that it was not he but a dugpa, semblance of himself, a 
sorcerer's delusion etc. etc. And yet, he insists he is still the 
chela of Mahatma K. H., who is a Mahatma and therefore cannot 
correspond with or interfere with any one?an impersonal shadow he 
makes of him, in fact?that all that he said, did, and about his 
Master and Masters?for four years and more was his Karma that made 
him labour under a delusion, illusion and what not. Now you have but 
to demand an explanation from him, and before a Council; to force him 
to explain things and show that it is not he who is lying but I?when 
I say that he, the present Babaji, has never seen the Master 10,000 
miles away or approached him or ever been to Tibet, as he insists. I 
bet you he will decline an explanation and either go away from London 
or leave the Society. Till now no one put him on the stand, and he 
has all the trumps for him. But insist as the President of the L.L. 
Society and you have a right to?that the situation should be cleared 
that either he or I, would be justified and?you will see the fun. Now 
if you do not do something of the sort you will have the Karma of 
allowing the L.L. to be ruined by that little dugpa. I tell you he is 
1000 times more dangerous than Mohini and is a tool in the hands of 
our enemies. And do not lose time.

Then, when you have cleared the coast of that element?propose a 
reform. A group or branch, however small, cannot be a theosophical 
Society?unless all the members in it are magnetically bound to each 
other, by the same way of thinking at least in some one direction; 
therefore, as you will never agree with Mohini or he with you, 
propose two distinct Branches; I will be with yours and, if you 
succeed, the Master will begin writing again which He will not do not 
even through me, so long as the Society is instead of a Brotherhood a 
political Bulgaria. I have sent Vol. I of the S.D. to Adyar and am 
now on Vol. II?the Archaic. This alone with the new information in it 
will be more than you will be able to digest in 25 years with the 
explanations promised?if you succeed in forming a Society of your 
own, faithful to the original programme and doctrine and the Masters, 
or their teaching.

These are the only hints I am permitted to give. Action can

 

??? 223    THE T. S.  AND  MASTER'  PROTECTION   ???

save the Society; inaction on your part?will kill it; as showing 
animosity to Mohini and his group would. Consult with them in a 
friendly way. Let them form their own Branch within or outside the 
T.S. If they do the former, all right and good. If they do the latter 
and outside the Masters and their protection they will only prove 
that it was personal ambition and love of selfish ideas that made 
them drift away. It will perhaps be better. Answer this.
                                                                                                                                                      Yours 
ever,
                                                                                                                                                                  H. 
P. B.


















-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Sufilight" <global-
theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Dear Erica and all
> 
> My views are:
> 
> From the below quotes by H. P. Blavatsky it rest on the President of
> the TS. And the President should listen to its members! This is the
> duty of the President - else the President aught to reconsider his 
og
> her conscience, and whther he or she is fit for the job. But the
> President has the word. Each branch is autonomous in it self as long
> as it follows the objects.
> 
> But if you ask me the organisational structure of TS has to follow 
the
> ORIGINAL Programe. And it does not do that today as far as I know. 
And
> that is the problem as far as I am concerned.
> E.S. aught not to be connected with TS like it is today.
> The Counsil should be a bit more responsible and adress the problems
> in their Magazines like HPB did in the below in Lucifer.
> 
****************************This is not Letter C 
> LETTER No. C by HPB to Sinnett:
> "
> Now Christianity is the same Theosophy, only in masquerade dresses,
> this cycle of ours being the carnival period of the greater cycle,
> that of our sub-race. Don't let us do as the Christians do. Our
> Society was established to bring together people as searchers after
> truth, independent thinkers, one having no right to force his 
opinion
> on the other: or meddle in his religious views. Therefore we cannot
> force Mohini and his party to follow "Olcott Blavatsky's" programme;
> or as a dissenter from it, to drive him out of the Society, since he
> is a real theosophist in one of the aspects of divine Wisdom
> "theo-sophia." Now Babaji is quite another thing. He is a liar, a
> traitor, a selfish ambitious wretch, who first sold us?Olcott and
> myself, and is now selling his ex-Masters. Against him every true
> theosophist ought to rise; and those who do not are certainly
> dangerous and cannot remain in your Society, or any of those who
> remain true to Master and the original programme. This is Olcott's
> business to expel him from the Society, and you may tell him that if
> he does not, then Babaji will ruin every Branch he approaches."
> ......
> "A group or branch, however small, cannot be a theosophical
> Society?unless all the members in it are magnetically bound to each
> other, by the same way of thinking at least in some one direction;
> therefore, as you will never agree with Mohini or he with you, 
propose
> two distinct Branches; I will be with yours and, if you succeed, the
> Master will begin writing again which He will not do not even 
through
> me, so long as the Society is instead of a Brotherhood a political
> Bulgaria. I have sent Vol. I of the S.D. to Adyar and am now on Vol.
> II?the Archaic. This alone with the new information in it will be 
more
> than you will be able to digest in 25 years with the explanations
> promised?if you succeed in forming a Society of your own, faithful 
to
> the original programme and doctrine and the Masters, or their 
teaching."
> 
> "These are the only hints I am permitted to give. Action can save 
the
> Society; inaction on your part?will kill it; as showing animosity to
> Mohini and his group would. Consult with them in a friendly way. Let
> them form their own Branch within or outside the T.S. If they do the
> former, all right and good. If they do the latter and outside the
> Masters and their protection they will only prove that it was 
personal
> ambition and love of selfish ideas that made them drift away. It 
will
> perhaps be better."
> http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/Letters%20of%20HPB.htm
> 
> 
> These were the difficulties.
> A. P. Sinnett appearently partly failed and H. P. Blavatsky created
> the Blavatsky Lodge and E.S.
> 
> And if you ask me:
> When one is interested in the TRUTH, no two persons will agree, and 
we
> know this.
> So let each form their own branch. BUT, What binds the branches
> together - will have to be - in accordance with the original 
programe.
> When it is not possible, we need to get on the right track again and
> not the wrong one. Find the leaders capeable to keep the to the 
right
> track - i.e. the ORIGINAL programe. Form a branch and work to make 
the
> counsil follow it.
> 
> 
> The ORIGINAL programe was then one given by the Masters through H. 
P.
> Blavatsky in her time. H. S. Olcott agreed on that until he 
appearntly
> defected in 1888 or before. Look at the below words...
> 
> 
> - - - - - -
> 
> 
>    Blavatsky said - A PUZZLE FROM ADYAR
> [Lucifer, Vol. IV, No. 24, August, 1889, pp. 506-509]:
> 
> 
> "That the E.S. had never any pretensions to "boss the T.S." stands 
to
> reason: with the exception of Col. Olcott, the President, the 
Esoteric
> Section has nothing whatever to do with the Theosophical Society, 
its
> Council or officers. It is a Section entirely apart from the 
exoteric
> body, and independent of it, H.P.B. alone being responsible for its
> members, as shown in the official announcement over the signature of
> the President-Founder himself.* It follows, therefore, that the E. 
S.,
> as a body, owes no allegiance whatever to the Theosophical Society, 
as
> a society, least of all to Adyar.2nd. It is pure nonsense to say 
that
> "H.P.B. . . . is loyal to the Theosophical Society and to 
Adyar" (!?)
> . H.P.B. is loyal to death to the Theosophical CAUSE, and those 
great
> Teachers whose philosophy can alone bind the whole Humanity into one
> Brotherhood. Together with Col. Olcott, she is the chief Founder and
> Builder of the Society which was and is meant to represent that 
CAUSE;
> and if she is so loyal to H.S. Olcott, it is not at all because of 
his
> being its "President," but, firstly, because there is no man living
> who has worked harder for that Society, or been more devoted to it
> than the Colonel, and, secondly, because she regards him as a loyal
> friend and co-worker. Therefore the degree of her sympathies with 
the
> "Theosophical Society and Adyar" depends upon the degree of the
> loyalty of that Society to the CAUSE. Let it break away from the
> original lines and show disloyalty in its policy to the CAUSE and 
the
> original programme of the Society, and H.P.B. calling the T.S.
> disloyal, will shake it off like dust from her feet."........"There 
is
> no longer a "Parent Society"; it is abolished
> and replaced by an aggregate body of Theosophical Societies, all
> autonomous
> .." ........"H. P. Blavatsky will always bow before the decision of 
the 
> majority of a Section or even a simple Branch; but she will ever 
> protest against the decision of the General Council, were it 
composed 
> of Archangels and Dhyan Chohans themselves, if their decision seems 
> to her unjust, or untheosophical, or fails to meet with the approval
> of the 
> majority of the Fellows. No more than H. P. Blavatsky has the 
> President-Founder the right of exercising autocracy or papal 
powers, 
> and Col. Olcott would be the last man in the world to attempt to do 
so. 
> It is the two Founders and especially the President, who have 
virtually 
> sworn allegiance to the Fellows, whom they have to protect, and 
teach 
> those who want to be taught, and not to tyrannize and rule over 
them.
> And now I have said over my own signature what I had to say and 
that 
> which ought to have been said in so many plain words long ago. The 
> public is all agog with the silliest stories about our doings, and 
the 
> supposed and real dissensions in the Society. Let everyone know the 
> truth at last, in which there is nothing to make any one ashamed, 
and
> which alone can put an end to a most painful and strained feeling.
> This truth is as simple as can be.
> The acting editor of The Theosophist has taken it into his head that
> the Esoteric Section together with the British and American 
Sections,
> were either conspiring or preparing to conspire against what he most
> curiously calls "Adyar" and its authority. Now, being a most devoted
> fellow of the T.S. and attached to the President, his zeal in 
hunting
> up this mare's nest has led him to become more Catholic than the 
Pope.
> That is all, and I hope that such misunderstandings and 
hallucinations
> will come to an end with the return 
> of the President to India. "
> (H.P.B. C.W. Vol. Xl, p. 381).
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v11/y1889_049.htm
> 
> 
> If you ask me:
> The Parent Society will only be there, when one is following the
> Original Programe!
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Erica Letzerich <eletzerich@> 
wrote:
> >
> > Who shall be the one in our world to say this person is able to do
> this and this person is not able to do that? What will be their
> criteria? Will be this limited to the decision of a council that 
will
> act according to their own limited interest and views? Such 
structure
> is for the wise not for persons who lack good judgment  The latter
> will create closed groups within the council  representing their
> personal interests and will act accordingly. Such system is 
extremely
> dangerous in the hands "children". By "children" here I mean imature
> souls. 
> > 
> > Erica
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Sun, 10/5/08, Morten Nymann Olesen <global-theosophy@> 
wrote:
> > From: Morten Nymann Olesen <global-theosophy@>
> > Subject: Re: Theos-World Victorian?
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Sunday, October 5, 2008, 4:53 AM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >     
> >             My views are:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I say that as far as I know the Himalayan Lodge operates through
> another method than electing people through ordinary democratic 
processes.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Not everyone are enrolled, and not everyone should be.
> > 
> > Remember how strict A. P. Sinnett was when W. C. Leadbeater 
applied
> to be a member.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "How I Joined
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The Secretary was Mr. Kirby (not the Mr. Kirby so well known in
> later years in connection with the Society's work in Italy, but the
> Kirby of Kirby and Spence's Entomology, a book which I had studied 
in
> my boyhood). I promptly wrote to him, pointing out that I wished to
> join, but had not the pleasure of the acquaintance of any of the
> existing members; what was I to do? Again I had to wait a long time
> for an answer, for Mr. Kirby also was abroad-I think climbing peaks 
in
> Switzerland; but at length he replied austerely that the rules were
> inviolable, and that no exception could be made, but suggested as an
> afterthought that I might call upon either Mr. A. P. Sinnett or Mr. 
G.
> B. Finch.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I adopted this suggestion and wrote a note to Mr. Sinnett, hardly
> daring, however, to hope that he could really be the author of the
> book which had impressed me so deeply. His reply soon set that point
> at rest, and invited me to come up to London to see him. He had only
> recently returned from India, and was then staying temporarily at 
the
> house of his mother-in-law, Mrs. Edensor, in Royal Crescent, Notting
> Hill. He received me with the greatest kindness and cordiality, and 
of
> course we talked much of his books (for by that time I had found
> Esoteric Buddhism also) and the wonderful revelation which they
> contained. The more I heard of Theosophy the more anxious I became 
to
> learn all that could be told to me; but when I spoke of joining the
> Theosophical Society Mr. Sinnett became very grave and opined that
> that would hardly do, seeing that I was a clergyman!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I wondered rather why the Society should discriminate against
> members of the cloth; and at last I ventured timidly to put the
> question. Mr. Sinnett replied:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "Well, you see, we are in the habit of discussing every subject 
and
> every belief from the beginning, without any preconceptions 
whatever;
> and I am afraid that at our meetings you would be likely to hear a
> great deal that would shock you profoundly."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.singapor elodge.org/ htctm.htm
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > M. Sufilight
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > 
> >   From: Erica Letzerich 
> > 
> >   To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com 
> > 
> >   Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 10:31 AM
> > 
> >   Subject: Re: Theos-World Victorian?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Anand,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Exactly because the T.S. is a democratical organization that they
> were able to do it. In fact democracy is an enemy of itself! Some
> mentioned here the structure of the T.S. is victorian. Is it 
victorian
> members to chose their General Secretaries and their International
> President? Is it victorian the International Council be basic 
composed
> by General Secretaries who were elected by members? The 
International
> President be elected by the members? I can't see anything victorian 
on
> it. In fact I see a very fair structure.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Erica
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Sat, 10/4/08, Anand <AnandGholap@ gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >   From: Anand <AnandGholap@ gmail.com>
> > 
> >   Subject: Re: Theos-World Anand Gholap formula for General 
Council
> composition
> > 
> >   To: theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com
> > 
> >   Date: Saturday, October 4, 2008, 8:05 PM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Theosophical Society gives much freedom to National Sections. If 
John
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Algeo, Kim Dieu wanted to do something good, they could have done 
in
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > their sections. Nobody was stopping them.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > But facts show that their record of work in their own sections is 
not
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > impressive, membership there is declined. TS there is on oxygen. 
Now
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > after failing in their own sections, they want to control the TS 
and
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > fail international TS also. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Protests, rallies, strikes, fasts, these are some more ways to 
show
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > members' disagreement with unethical disenfranchisement proposal
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > brought by those four individuals.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Anand Gholap 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, MKR <mkr777@> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > As they say, the cat is out of the bag. The whole move, it 
appears
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > to me,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > has been in the works behind the scenes for quite some time. It 
does
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > not take much intelligence to see thru what is going on.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > TS was organized in the most autonomous manner and I recall 
there
> was a
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > statement somewhere that the role of the international is to 
step
> in and
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > resolve any disputes between sections.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > I would like to know who came up with the idea to "run" it like 
a
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > corporation or a business to direct and control what goes on at
> various
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > levels comes from. The real strength of TS comes from the fact 
that
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > no one
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > tells anyone what they should or could do so long as the 
activities
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > are to
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > further the interests of three objects without violating the
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > international
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > rules.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > It is time to proponents to step up to the plate publicly and
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > convince us
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > that disenfranchisement and radical changes are for the good of
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > humanity.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > mkr
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > On 10/3/08, Anand <AnandGholap@ ...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > Efforts are being made by few individuals in present General 
Council
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > to hijack the TS. They also want to remove members' right to 
vote in
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > the election of President. I am totally against such a 
change. I
> want
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > members to elect the President directly as they did earlier.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > Right now the present constitution is such that it might 
enable some
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > officers in the GC to unethically remove voting rights of 
people. I
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > want to ensure that such attempts don't succeed now and in 
future.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > Amendments in the General Council were suggested by me for two
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > reasons.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > 1) To make constitution just. Each country should have
> representatives
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > only in proportion to the membership that country has. In GC 
if one
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > vote is given to a country with 13000 members and one vote is
> given to
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > country with 90 members, then that is unjust. If we are to 
preach
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > justice in the world, our own TS constitution must be just. 
That is
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > why voting rights to each country according to proportion of 
members
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > in that country are necessary.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > 2) Another reason why I suggested proportional representation 
is
> this
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > new system will stop any future attempts by few individuals to
> remove
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > voting rights of people and hijack the TS. You can see that
> there are
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > few General Secretaries elected by just a few hundred 
members. And
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > these few General Secretaries venture to hijack TS because 
they are
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > given too much rights as compared to membership they 
represent.
> So by
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > proportional representation and by increasing the size of the
> General
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > Council we want to ensure that such attempts by few officers 
to
> hijack
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > TS won't succeed in future.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > Best
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > Anand Gholap
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >       
> > 
> >     
> >     
> > 	
> > 	 
> > 	
> > 	
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 	
> > 
> > 
> > 	
> > 	
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>