Theos-Talk Archives (April 2009 Message tt00029)

Dear  sampsakuukasjarvi and friends

My views are:

In all friendliness in search the truth I write this answer...


1.
Sampsakuukasjarvi wrote:
"Morten, would you like it if some of your faults would be discussed endlessly for decades by many Theosophists around the world? I don't believe you would."

My answer:
Let me instead ask you: Would you if necessarily endlessly and if possible also wisely protest towards unethical behaviour?

I do hope you will do that.


2.
Sampsakuukasjarvi wrote:
"You Morten started to sing this same song even when Keith Fisher offers himself to talk about purely administrative matters of the TS Adyar."

My answer:
You say it is the "same song". Try to read my answer again, and you will find, that I am focussing on more than one single issue, while I relate those issues to the talks about administrative matters with which they of course are very much entangled. My questions and answers are not only focussing on CWL as you do in your answer. There were important changes in TS administrative affairs in 1888, and in 1908 when Annie Besant and CWL got leadership (or Power?), and in 1929 when J. Krishnamurti quitted the TS and OSE. And these changes relate to my questions. Saying the opposite would to me be an incorrect statement. But maybe you disagee on this?

Maybe you have your reasons for focussing on CWL in your reply to me?

Theosophical teachings are saying:
What people want to talk about or the manner the want to talk about it in - is often or sometimes not what they Spiritually Need to do!


3.
Sampsakuukasjarvi wrote:
"CWL surely had his faults, but I am assured that he wanted to help the humanity. Many of his teachings are inspiring. I also recommend his books to newbies, of course mentioning in the same time that Madame Blavatsky is more profound."

M. Sufilight answers:
On this I will clearly have to disagree about doing for the reasons I have stated in e-mails for the last few days.

I earliere asked: "Can TS leaders today imagine persons who have been victims of child abuse to feel themselves to be WELL-comed and happy  members of the TS? "

How you can answer with a "Yes" to that I find ethically speaking difficult to understand, when you appearntly accept selling books by CWL. - And also when you are suggesting people to read them without clearly adressing the problems by promoting such a behaviour as you seem to support.


4.
Sampsakuukasjarvi wrote:
"You Morten are right that we should know the theosophical history and also the faults of theosophical teachers. I appreciate your investigating attitude and your knowledge, but I really think we should remember also the good deeds of these people."

M. Sufilight answers:
On this I can entirely agree. And because of that I think you might have missed my point about the ethics, which I refer to in my answer in the above of this e-mail you are reading.


5.
Sampsakuukasjarvi wrote:
"I have read many of your previous posts here. You seem to have been Baileyan earlier. Now you are very Blavatskian, too orthodox, I think. We should remember that Theosophy is not a religion nor a cult. Geoffrey Farting used to say that "No, we should not go back to Blavatsky, but go forward with Blavatsky!""

My answer:
What seems to be the truth is not always so. Try to consider this.
I would however like to know in what manner you find me to be "too orthodox"?


6.
Sampsakuukasjarvi wrote:
"One obvious reason why CWL is pulished by the TS Adyar is that he belonged to the TS Adyar. Very simple. There doesn't have to be a hidden agenda. I think Katinka answered to your questions pretty well."

My answer:
Other authors belonged to the TS Adyar or TS, and their books are NOT on sale, even if the did not damage TS reputation by strange and even - officially admitted - very unethical behaviour.




M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: sampsakuukasjarvi 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 11:20 AM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World TS Adyar - The Truth Unveiled


  Morten, would you like it if some of your faults would be discussed endlessly for decades by many Theosophists around the world? I don't believe you would.

  I think it is not at all a theosophical attitude to talk always about Leadbeater's faults. I and many others on this forum are tired to hear this, may I dare say preaching all the time. You Morten started to sing this same song even when Keith Fisher offers himself to talk about purely administrative matters of the TS Adyar.

  CWL surely had his faults, but I am assured that he wanted to help the humanity. Many of his teachings are inspiring. I also recommend his books to newbies, of course mentioning in the same time that Madame Blavatsky is more profound.

  You Morten are right that we should know the theosophical history and also the faults of theosophical teachers. I appreciate your investigating attitude and your knowledge, but I really think we should remember also the good deeds of these people.

  I have read many of your previous posts here. You seem to have been Baileyan earlier. Now you are very Blavatskian, too orthodox, I think. We should remember that Theosophy is not a religion nor a cult. Geoffrey Farting used to say that "No, we should not go back to Blavatsky, but go forward with Blavatsky!"

  One obvious reason why CWL is pulished by the TS Adyar is that he belonged to the TS Adyar. Very simple. There doesn't have to be a hidden agenda. I think Katinka answered to your questions pretty well.


  

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