Theos-Talk Archives (June 2009 Message tt00613)

Hello All,

If we look at the ES program as originally set up by Blavatsky, we see that members of the ES pledged themselves to a set of rules, a code of conduct if you will, and they swore to their higher self to follow this code.  They never made themselves subservient to another human being, Master or otherwise.

There were very good reasons for this.  As Blavatsky pointed out, many joined the ES only to fail before it ever really began.  These well meaning theosophists were not made to pledge themselves to a Master because they lacked the qualities necessary to recognize a Master, and the strength to follow -- if they did somehow recognize a Master.  Pledging as they did limited the occult penalties they would have to pay if they failed.

Swearing obedience to another is fraught with occult dangers, not only to the follower, but to the master as well.  Anand is right in couselling TS members not to make such pledges.

Blavatsky was obviously setting up a body designed to quicken the development of its members and make them better and wiser members of the Theosophical Society.  If an ES member showed no more wisdom than any other member, he would have no greater influence on the TS.  This is because no one was to know who and who was not a member of the ES, including other ES members.  It was set up so that it could not have any political influence on the TS.  This does not appear to be the case today, and consequently the ES has become a source of distrust, whether rightly or wrongly.  Some would argue that there is no option but to disband the ES or radically reorganize it.  The moment an ES candidate has pledged obedience to the OH, he or she has compromised themself and made themself political.

Finally, many theosophists speak and write about revamping the TS to make it relevant to modern society, and I am not sure what they mean by this.  Any restructuring of the Society that does not return to the "Original Program" as set down by Blavatsky and the Masters is bound to fail. Who among us has more wisdom than the founders? Who can do better?



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Warwick
> 
> My views are:
> 
> 
> From all of my heart: Thank you Warwick.
> 
> Warwick wrote:
> "There is no conspiracy that I am aware of."
> ....
> "There is a growing awareness that there is a need to introduce changes to the Rules and Regulations of TS International to allow for democratic practice and governance to take place now in the twenty-first century. "
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight says:
> Of course so to prevent "conspiracies" to happen and succeed. 
> :-)
> 
> But I agree about the growing "awareness" you talk about, and we aught to be happy about it. The question is whether this growing need is urgent enough to the leaders of the TS?
> 
> ___________________________
> 
> QUESTIONs TO BE ASKED the TS.
> 
> I would like to use your to me very important words in the above as an occassion to write the following lines on, what I think as a minimum aught to be a growing "awareness" among leaders and members in the TS.
> 
> I have been told, that if one does not ask questions, one will never learn.
> 
> *** 
> QUESTIONs TO BE ASKED SO TO IMPROVE 
> THE TS IN A CONSTRUCTIBE MANNER 
> ***
> 
> A few month back I asked Keith and Katinka about the structure of the TS in the past and present, and whether the TS had deviated from the ORIGINAL programe given by H. P. Blavatsky, Olcott and the Masters. There was a few replies exchanged, but I was left with the creepy feeling, that they did not understand the seriousness of the situation I was questioning them about.
> 
> 1.
> The importance of not deviating from the Original programe was given by H. P. Blavatsky in the following article: 
> 
> A PUZZLE FROM ADYAR by H. P. Blavatsky (august 1889)
> "1st. That the E.S. had never any pretensions to "boss the T.S.""
> .......
> "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, as are the States of America, and all under one Head-President, who, together with H. P. Blavatsky, will champion the CAUSE against the whole world. Such is the real state of things."
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v11/y1889_049.htm
> 
> - - -
> 2.
> Now the following questions begs to be answered when we look in the rear-mirror of the TS activities from  year 1875-2009.
> 
> 
> *** QUESTION 1 ***
> October 1888 related to year 2009.
> In october 1888, the ES was officially formed. There was at the same time and earliere on another more secret ES, which is shown in Blavatsky's Collected Writings and other papers.
> 
> The ES was formed so not to "boss" the TS, and that was clearly stated.
> 
> Do we today have a TS which is doing the opposite?
> If not, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> *** QUESTION 2 ***
> Year 1908 related to year 2009.
> H. P. Blavatsky was long gone in 1908 and H. S. Olcott died a year earliere, and W. Q. Judge was thrown out of the TS in 1895. When Annie Besant became the Leader of the TS, she was also the leader of the ES. It was Annie Besant who changed the idea of the ES not to "boss" the TS in to something which one easily will perceive as the opposite. I understand it, that she claimed that she returned the TS back to the original programe which it had deviated from (i.e. in 1888?). 
> 
> The question which we aught to ask ourselves is whether this claim by Annie Besant is valid at all?
> Did Annie Besant in fact chage the TS structrue in a manner, which effectively created a sect, where the leadership of the TS was effectively turned into a POPERY with apostolic succesion and all?
> 
> The disputed Mahatma Letter of 1900:
> "The E.S.T. must be reformed so as to be as unsectarian and creedless as the T.S.. The rules must be few and simple and acceptable to all. No one has a right to claim authority over a pupil or his conscience. Ask him not what he believes. All who are sincere and pure minded must have admittance. The crest wave of intellectual advancement must be taken hold of and guided into spirituality. It cannot be forced into beliefs and emotional worship. The essence of the higher thoughts of the members in their collectivity must guide all action in the T.S. and E.S.. We never try to subject to ourselves the will of another"
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/lastkh.htm
> 
> -  - -
> The E.S. aught to answer the question: Is the E.S. in fact operating as a sect not allowing all sincere Seekers entrance?
> 
> The fact, that there always had been more than one ES cannot be denied, when we consider that some Eesoteric Sections have been non-physical or unofficial in nature.
> 
> Is anyone aware of other ES sections or similar, excepting Masters Lodge?
> 
> The questions are relevant and begs to be answered, because any of our opponents will use this against the TS and the theosophical cause as long as they are not answered and properly related to. This confusion needs to be dealt with.
> 
> 
> 
> *** QUESTION 3 ***
> Years 1908-1912 related to year 2009.
> When Annie Besant came in to fullblown power of the TS a lot changed with it.
> Annie Besant sought to promote theosophical teachings by allowing the reinstating of C. W. Leadbeater in 1908 as member and prominent teacher. Annie Besant did this a very short time after she became leader of TS 1907. (C. W. Leadbeater was thrown out of the TS in 1906 on admitting wrong sexual conduct towards young boys, not girls. His activities was back then a clear voilation of the laws in a great number of countries. In the 1912 J. Krishnamurti trial he in fact lied under oath in Court about his sexual mis-conduct.) In 1909 C. W. Leadbeater and Annie Besant agreed upon, that the coming of the by H. P. Blavatsky possible Torchbearer of truth had arrived 50 years earlier than expected. This Torchbearer (J. Krishnamurti) was turned into a Maitreya and World Teacher of the age, and was said to be found by C. W. Leadbeater who was said to be very clairvoyant and appointed by the Masters to do so.
> 
> Near the years 1911 one was required to become a member of OSE (The Order of the Star in the East created to promote J. Krishanamurti as a Messiah), when having the wish to be member of the TS.
> 
> The question I ask is, whether this - requirement - was a deviation from the ORIGINAL programe as it was given by H. P. Blavatsky, Olcott and the Masters?
> 
> 
> 
> *** QUESTION 4 ***
> Years 1909-1911-1929 related to year 2009.
> Was the creation a the OSE to promote J. Krishnamurti as the Messiah of the Age at all in accordance with the ORIGINAL programe as it was given by H. P. Blavatsky, Olcott and the Masters?
> 
> And was J. Krishnamurti's dissolving the Order of the Star in the East also a dissolving of the Theosophical Society?
> If not why not?
> 
> Are the promotion of J. Krishnamurti's books more important to promote than the promotion of for instance Benjamin Creme's - Alice A. Bailey - Maitreya or Sathya Sai Baba's teachings simply because former leaders of TS allowed J. Krishnamurti to be promoted as a Maitreya and Messiah? Is there any difference, that makes such an activity important?
> 
> 
> *** QUESTION 5 ***
> Years 1906-2009 related to year 2009.
> Is it a fact, that the whole affair with C. W. Leadbeater and his wrong non-theosophical sexual teachings today aught to make C. W. Leadbeater one of the most recommended authors and personlities within the TS compared with others? 
> 
> Does it not matter at all, that TS holds an admitted (former?) phaedophile forward as an grand example of theosophical teachings without clearly explaing what theosophical teachings says about sexuality?
> 
> Aught we to recommend C. W. Leadbeaters books to phaedophile victims, while we are telling them, that theosophical teachings has all and everything to do with occult activities and magic?
> 
> 
> 
> *** QUESTION 6 ***
> Years 1908-1929 related to year 2009.
> The Shrines at TS Adyar. 
> 
> The question is whether it was in accordance with the ORIGINAL programe as it was given by H. P. Blavatsky, Olcott and the Masters to build the TS Shrines so that various visitors could perform their Orthodox prayers on the TS Adyar Compund?
> 
> I find, that especially the LCC (Liberal Catholic Church) activities aught to be quesitoned, when we know, that it uses the New Testament as a main teaching.
> 
> 
> H.P. Blavatsky wrote: 
> "...I deny in toto the Christ invented by the Church, as well as all the doctrines, all the interpretations, and all the dogmas, ancient and modern, concerning that personage..." 
> (H.P. Blavatsky: REPLY TO THE MISTAKEN CONCEPTIONS OF THE ABBÉ ROCA CONCERNING MY OBSERVATIONS ON CHRISTIAN ESOTERICISM, in Collected Writings, Vol. IX, page 216). 
> 
> 
> And I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> *** QUESTION 7 ***
> Years 2009.
> Present day promulgation of theosophical teachings.
> 
> H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
> "The Theosophical Society was organized for the purpose of promulgating the Theosophical doctrines, and for the promotion of the Theosophic life. "
> 
> It is said, that the TS has no teachings, but the above ORIGINAL programe says something else. Has the present TS and leaders deviated from the above view given by H. P. Blavatsky?
> And if so, we ask: Why?
> 
> Taking the theosophical teachings on the Wisdom teachings of all Ages into account, I ask:
> Is the present day business as usual important, when we all know, that time, place, people and circumstances are important within the theosophical teachings?
> 
> 
> - - -
> 
> Maybe some of you have some more precise views as well as years and dates on the above, but I do hope that you as readers get the general idea behind the questions asked.
> 
> Is it the continous silence to all or some of the above questions, which are making TS look false in the eyes of the ordinary average Seeker or the public at large?
> 
> Is that the proper manner of promulgating the theosophical teachings on honest altruism and wisdom?
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Warwick Keys 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:33 AM
>   Subject: Theos-World Re: Anand's stand and the election
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Hello theos-talk members
> 
>   Yes MKR, as you observed recently, I do have an occasional look at theos-talk - as you say "lurking around." Most TS leaders, probably like myself, do not have the time to spend running around in circles chatting, there is work to do within their Sections.
> 
>   There has been a lot of talk about conspiracies, secret agendas and so on. There are "Reds under every bed it seems, waiting to be revealed by enthusiastic McArthy ites. There is no conspiracy that I am aware of. Some GC members do talk with each other. Such interactions are quite normal in any organization if it is to function properly. 
> 
>   There is a growing awareness that there is a need to introduce changes to the Rules and Regulations of TS International to allow for democratic practice and governance to take place now in the twenty-first century. A number of members are talking about this and no doubt some proposals will be put before the General Council for consideration in due course.
> 
>   If such proposals are allowed to follow due process (as in New Zealand) they may be accepted by the GC and then passed to Sections for consideration. This is the open and democratic thing to do. It is certainly what happens in New Zealand TS. 
> 
>   I have been surprised at the continual berating of GC members, particularly aimed for some odd reason at those who challenged proceedings at Adyar, to release information on what took place. This is odd - quite strange in fact. Why are such questions about releasing information not directed to Adyar and the top executive. It is not the role of ordinary GC members to issue such reports normally; that is the duty of the International President or delegated official. The only two GC members who did say something following the meeting, namely Betty Bland and myself, were immediately pilloried for our efforts at telling it as we saw it. Why are you not asking Adyar?
> 
>   Keith Fisher appeared as a hero for a while, but now his manipulation of the truth is catching up with him. He even called me names! I have been called worse by better! His use of the word "vicious" was odd, it was probably because he was upset that I challenged his attempted manipulations during the GC meeting and his doctored minutes produced after the meeting. It is sad, but the truth will eventually out. He could not give me clear reasons for his actions, so he did not reply to my last letter to him at all. His lengthy screeds on theos-talk were remarkable for the twist he placed on events. He would do well in a political party!
> 
>   The trampling on of democratic process and manipulated meeting procedure was evident at the GC meeting. I understand accepted meeting procedure well and I was deeply disturbed at some of the things that happened, particularly the allowing of the selected "observers" to actively participate in the meeting. This is unheard of, particularly when the observers are clearly carefully selected for their "politics." (incidentally most of them are included in the list Preethi recently listed as those who have the ear of the President). Others who applied were turned down. It was a "stacked" meeting.
> 
>   So, there are some thoughts for you to ponder on. I am sorry I really do not have the time to involve myself in continuing discussions as I am kept far too busy here in NZ, where I do not have enough time to spare to involve myself on our own theos-nz talk site, but I thought it was time to clear up one or two misunderstandings. 
> 
>   I am suggesting members aim in the right direction for answers. It will be interesting to see if you get any answers and if you do, what spin there will be on them. 
> 
>   a.. Have you thought about a more positive and constructive approach to seeking information rather than looking for Reds under the bed and around every corner? 
>   b.. Has anyone asked the International President for a report on the GC meeting? 
>   c.. Has anyone bothered to read the minutes of the GC meeting and the resulting correspondence from myself and from the South African General Secretary posted on the Theosophy Forward website? 
>   d.. Has anyone questioned the busy activities of certain highly placed TS members with strong links to the President on what they are up to, both at Adyar and touring through Europe trying to keep the lid on the rising unease? 
>   e.. And what of the growing influence of PU and its propagandists?
> 
> 
>   Just some thoughts
> 
>   Happy hunting
> 
>   Warwick Keys
> 
>   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>