Theos-Talk Archives (March 2010 Message tt00081)

Let me add a few brief comments.

1. The decline in membership is in countries other than India. In India, the
membership has shown a consistent and steady growth. In the USA, when lodge
charters are withdrawn (with no clear cut detailed transparent explanation
to members) from especially those which have valuable property, membership
is bound to decline.

2. It has been stated that the weaknesses of members in the TS is the same
as outside, which has been proven in many instances since the founding of
TS. So let us be beware of this when we deal with elected officials who may
be under delusion that they are wiser than many ordinary members.

3. It has also been commented that most of the problems of TS
originate/initiated by members of the ES.

4. The future does seem to be dependent on simple minded members who are
committed to the ideal of Universal Brotherhood.

5. As the saying goes, God helps those who help themselves, it is upto the
members to put in practice the ideal of Brotherhood. All other gimmicks,
song and dance are not going to cut it.

MKR

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Morten Nymann Olesen <
global-theosophy@stofanet.dk> wrote:

>
>
> Dear friends
>
> My views are:
>
> Some members of this forum have more than one time raise their voice about
> the fact that The Theosophical Society is going through a decline in
> membership.
>
> 1.
> This reminded me about an e-mail I poste in January 2010 here at
> Theos-talk.
>
> Theosophical Teaching is PRESCRIBED.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/53622
>
> 2.
> And another issue come to my mind.
> H. P. Blavatsky wrote an article in the Esoteric Section about the need to
> turn the Theosophical Society back towards the original lines.
>
> "The Masters can give but little assistance to a Body not thoroughly united
> in purpose and feeling, and which breaks its first fundamental
> rule--universal brotherly love, without distinction of race, creed or
> colour; nor to a Society, many members of which pass their lives in judging,
> condemning, and often reviling other members in a most untheosophical, not
> to say disgraceful, manner.
> For this reason it is now contemplated to gather the "elect" of the T.S.
> and to call them to action. It is only by a select group of brave souls, a
> handful of determined men and women hungry for genuine spiritual development
> and the acquirement of soul-wisdom, that the Theosophical Society at large
> can be brought back to its original lines. It is through an Esoteric Section
> alone--i.e., a group in which all the members, even if unacquainted with one
> another, work for each other, and by working for all work for
> themselves--that the great Exoteric Society may be redeemed and made to
> realize that in union and harmony alone lie its strength and power. The
> object of this Section, then, is to help the future growth of the
> Theosophical Society as a whole in the true direction, by promoting
> brotherly union at least among the few."
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v12/y1890_052.htm
>
> QUESTIONs STILL WAITING TO BE ANSWERED BY MEMBERAS OF THE TS:
> * Now what are these "original lines" named by H. P. Blavatsky, which is
> needed before the Masters would use time and give assistance to the TS?
> * Have they been achieved, and if so in what manner?
>
> * And has the political activities performed by Annie Besant and other
> highrank members in their time brought the Theosophical Society back towards
> the original lines?
> And if so, how can this be explained, when taking Annie Besant's party
> political involvements into account, when one of the fundamental rules of
> the Theosophical Society was to avoid any political involvement, because it
> could ruin the society?
> What are the AIMS of the present TS leadership, and how will the protect
> the aim of a Universal Brotherhood? Will they do it by ruining it?
>
> 3.
> About the above questions see H. P. Blavatsky - and please read these words
> carefully:
> (b) Rule XIV stating that the Society has "to deal only with scientific and
> philosophical subjects," hence, "it is quite evident [?] that the power and
> position claimed in the Rules for the Prest.-Founder, the General Council
> and the Convention are opposed to the spirit of the declared objects. . ."
> ...
> "It might have been as well perhaps to quote the entire paragraph in which
> these words appear,* once that hairs are split about the possibly faulty
> reaction of the Rules? Is it not self-evident, that the words brought
> forward "only with scientific and philosophical subjects" are inserted as a
> necessary caution to true theosophists, who by dealing with politics within
> any Branch Society might bring disgrace and ruin on the whole body,-in India
> to begin with? Has the Society or has it not over 140 Societies scattered
> through four parts of the World to take care of? As in the case of
> "Mahatmas" and the "Mahatmaship"-active work of the Theosophical Society is
> confused-willingly or otherwise it is not for the writer to decide-with
> Theosophy. No need of entering here upon the difference between the jar that
> contains a liquid and the nature of, or that liquid itself. "Theosophy
> teaches self-culture and not control," we are told. Theosophy teaches
> mutual-culture before self-culture to begin with. Union is strength. It is
> by gathering many theosophists of the same way of thinking into one or more
> groups, and making them closely united by the same magnetic bond of
> fraternal unity and sympathy that the objects of mutual development and
> progress in Theosophical thought may be best achieved. "Self-culture" is for
> isolated Hatha Yogis, independent of any Society and having to avoid
> association with human beings; and this is a triply distilled SELFISHNESS. "
> ...
> Footnote the rules in 1886:
> "* "XIV. The Society having to deal only with scientific and philosophical
> subjects, and having Branches in different parts of the world under various
> forms of Government, does not permit its members, as such, to interfere with
> politics, and repudiates any attempt on the part of anyone to commit it in
> favor or against any political party or measure. Violation of this rule will
> meet with expulsion."
> This rather alters the complexion put on the charge, which seems
> conveniently to forget that "scientific and philosophical subjects" are not
> the only declared objects of the Society. Let us not leave room for a doubt
> that there is more animus underlying the charges than would be strictly
> theosophical. "
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v7/yxxxx_019.htm
>
> COMMENTS by M. SUFILIGHT:
> This rule was written two years after A. O. Hume's creation of the National
> Congress of India.
>
> - Now, saying that the promotion of the Theosophical Society has nothing to
> do with the fact that theosohical teachings are PRESCIEBED, can clearly be
> rejected. Handsome is who handsome does.
> - And saying that the acceptance of Annie Besants and other highranking
> theosophists involvement with party politics has in no manner what so ever
> been a disgrace and ruin to the Society and the assistence of the Masters -
> must also until further notice clearly be rejected. Handsome is who handsome
> does. But how to help promoting the TS, when it keeps blurring its relations
> to party politics and its relation to the National Congress of India and
> Annie Besants political doings, as well as Saviour in the flesh doings?
> - Can SELF-culture in the TS be anything good today? The Culture of India
> is not the only one.
>
> 4.
> See also H. P. Blavatsky - from the same article as in above:
> "That which was generated through and founded by the "High Masters" and
> under their authority if not their instruction-MUST AND WILL LIVE. Each of
> us and all will receive his or her Karma in it, but the vehicle of Theosophy
> will stand indestructible and undestroyed by the hand of whether man or
> fiend. No; "truth does not depend on show of hands"; but in the case of the
> much-abused President-Founder it must depend on the show of facts. Thorny
> and full of pitfalls was the steep path he had to climb up alone and unaided
> for the first years. Terrible was the opposition outside the Society he had
> to build-sickening and disheartening the treachery he often encountered
> within the Head-Quarters. Enemies gnashing their teeth in his face around,
> those whom he regarded as his staunchest friends and co-workers betraying
> him and the Cause on the slightest provocation. Still, where hundreds in his
> place would have collapsed and given up the whole undertaking in despair,
> he, unmoved and unmovable, went on climbing up and toiling as before,
> unrelenting and undismayed, supported by that one thought and conviction
> that he was doing his duty. What other inducement has the Founder ever had,
> but his theosophical pledge and the sense of his duty toward THOSE he had
> promised to serve to the end of his life? There was but one beacon for
> him-the hand that had first pointed to him his way up: the hand of the
> MASTER he loves and reveres so well, and serves so devotedly though
> occasionally perhaps, unwisely. President elected for life, he has
> nevertheless offered more than once to resign in favour of any one found
> worthier than him, but was never permitted to do so by the majority-not of
> "show of hands" but show of hearts, literally,-as few are more beloved than
> he is even by most of those, who may criticise occasionally his actions. And
> this is only natural: for cleverer in administrative capacities, more
> learned in philosophy, subtler in casuistry, in metaphysics or daily life
> policy, there may be many around him; but the whole globe may be searched
> through and through and no one found stauncher to his friends, truer to his
> word, or more devoted to real, practical theosophy-than the
> President-Founder; and these are the chief requisites in a leader of such a
> movement-one that aims to become a Brotherhood of men. The Society needs no
> Loyolas; it has to shun anything approaching casuistry; nor ought we to
> tolerate too subtle casuists. "
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v7/yxxxx_019.htm
>
> A SHORT COMMENT BY M. SUFILIGHT:
> This can be compared with Radha Burniers role and past TS leaders merits
> and roles - and the fact that she is not together with mere puppets in the
> General Counsil. We are talking about living human beings, with heart and
> head.
>
> Yet, I dear say A leading group, who CLEARLY find the promotion of the
> Theosophical Society to be in accordance with Annie Besant, and not in
> accordance with H. P. Blavatsky's wishes about seeking back to the original
> lines of the Society. If not, I find they aught to explain themselves like
> H. P. Blavatsky did in 1886 in the above quoted article given in Lucifer in
> 1888? - Or we can say HPB at least gave this letter to the present day
> Society for consideration.
>
> For the humans live in the now, the Masters to a certian degree in both in
> the past, present, and future, the AvatÃra lives fully in both past, present
> and future. - The Divine is within you, said Blavatsky. And I do say the
> same, and can confirm it.
> (HPB: QUESTIONS ANSWERED ABOUT YOGA VIDYÃ -
> http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/QuestionsAnsweredAboutYogaVidya.htm
> )
>
> Another and far more important issue to deal with than several other
> trivialities is the fact, that the Theosophical Society as it stands today
> is merely being laughed at to the skies by several authors, religious
> sceptics, all around the Internet. People, science and religious leaders
> laugh at the "Coulomb-Hodgson HPB", the Annie Besant politician, the
> "non-healing" J. Krishnamurti saviour in the flesh, the sex-fumbling
> Leadbeater, and their attitude towards all the various offshoots and
> branches including the ULT, Pasadens TS, the Alice A. Bailey - "UN World
> Saviour", The Summit Lighthouse that went out, and many others. All this
> because the mother Society has not been true to its own teachings.
>
> >>> The TS has to come clean on the scandals and call them for what they
> are scandals or not! <<<
>
> The Exoteric Section need to be rejecting people seeking membership much
> more at the doorstep and thereby seek to protect the Original Lines of the
> Society's AIMS. And this without any "Coulomb-Hodgson" scandal, party
> politics, world saviours or "Asylum Messiah's" in the flesh, or sex-fumblers
> to hamper its cause.
>
> The TS has to come clean on the scandals and call them for what they are
> scandals or not!
> And the TS has to address the Wisdoms Teachings of all Ages in a mature
> manner relating them to our present time. - How can a good Christian, Hindu,
> Buddhist, and Mohammadan follow his religion without rejecting politics with
> human made laws as low-ethics? Mankinds ethics comes from within. This who
> are interested in a political-religious society aught to be rejected at the
> doorstep if they seek to be members of the TS. The members of the TS aught
> to concentrate on Methaphysical, philosophical, Scinece and religions
> teachings, and not political entanglements.
>
> Now you tell me, if I am in error.
> Because I might have overlooked something.
>
> M. Sufilight
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


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