Theos-Talk Archives (April 2010 Message tt00121)

Dear Jeremy and friends

My views are:

Yes.
I thank you for providing these extra quotes.
I do however not find that your quotes change the views I forwarded.

Let us understand, that the Lucis Trust use of words in the quoted Newsletters (no.2 espeically) was stating that:  "We did not rush blindly into war;" etc. - Using the word "We" as if the Lucis Trust was behind the invasion of Iraq. 

- And later the revealing words of failure by Lucis Trust: "But in the frenzy of the rush to war they were given scant attention and we all lost in the process." - Words which are very telling about Lucis Trust attitude towards Iraq and the invasion of that country; especially by the use of the word "we".  And asking about what Lucis Trust find was "lost", one could read it as the Western countries lost their near and dear ones - or one could read it in the sense that Lucis Trust failed morally. What kind of loss are they talking about if neither of these remain unanswered. The words sound in the Newsletter no. 2 sounds very much like a support for a crusade, than the opposite.

- And an invasion, which was clearly called illegal by a great number of leaders at the United Nations - the UN General Secretary included - as well by a huge number of Law-experts, the European Association of Lawyers and also the International Commision of Jurists. 

- And let us not forget, that the Original Programe of the TS given by H. P. Blasvatsky (BCW Vol. VII, p. 145-146) clearly stated, that the TS was not formed to involve itself with political disputes and issues. Not that I am involving myself with them, because I just trying to forward the point, that Lucis Trust have deviated from the Original Programe as given by HPB and the Masters, which Olcott endorsed initially.

An example from HPBs Original Program for the TS:
"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."
(BCW Vol. VII, p. 145-146)
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v7/yxxxx_019.htm


An example is Wikipedia on - 2003 invasion of Iraq:
"The legality of the invasion of Iraq has been challenged since its inception on a number of fronts, and several prominent supporters of the invasion in all the invading nations have publicly and privately cast doubt on its legality. It is claimed that the invasion was fully legal because authorization was implied by the United Nations Security Council.[85][86]  International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, a group of 31 leading Canadian law professors, and the U.S.-based Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, have denounced both of these rationales.[87][88][89]"

Also International Commision of Jurists - Legal Resource Center:
20th March 2003 
"The ICJ condemns the illegal invasion of Iraq in the clear absence of Security Council authority -this constitutes a great leap backward in the international rule of law."
...
"The ICJ recalls the absolute prohibition of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity. Such crimes entail the individual responsibility of all involved persons, from the political masters to the foot soldier. "
http://icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2774&lang=en


H. P. Blavatsky wrote in 1886 - and I find it still to be so very true:
"We look in the midst of your Christian civilization and see the same sad signs of old: the realities of your daily lives are diametrically opposed to your religious ideal, but you feel it not; the thought that the very laws that govern your being whether in the domain of politics or social economy clash painfully with the origins of your religion"
(BCW Vol. VII, p. 145-146)
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v7/yxxxx_019.htm

Let me repeat, that my point is only to clearly show how much Lucis Trust have involved itself with political disputes - and thereby deviated from the Original Programe of the TS as it was given. I am not here judging about whether killing thousands of human beings were justified by either group involved in supporting the recent Invasion and War in Iraq. But since the TS Original Programe clearly seek to create a Universal Bortherhood of Humanity, we can only question the motives behind such an acitivity; and ask whether altruism governed Lucis Trust, when they posted their Newsletters, which have been quote in this thread at this forum.

So I find it difficult to understand that any Master would support Lucis Trusts activities and calim to be in accordance with the Original Programe given by H. P. Blavatsky and the Masters.
If any followers of Lucis Trust find the opposite to be true - please let me (and others) know, so I and others might be able to follow the Path more easily.

What are your views about this Jeremey? Others?


M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeremy 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:45 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Did the AAB and Besant - T.S. and E.S. deviate from the Original Lines?


    

  JC: For corresponding secretaries this is true. The Lucis Trust comment
  on world politics in the World Goodwill newsletter, and the two are
  distinct and therefore different as is obvious. Below we will see
  further comment not picked up by Morten in the same document.

  > Further we have from Alice A. Bailey's "Autobiography of Alice A.
  Bailey":
  > "Our secretaries are not permitted to enter into political or
  religious arguments with the students they supervise. We seek only to
  indicate the common goal, the universal field of service and the ancient
  methods whereby human beings can pass from the unreal to the Real." (p.
  198)
  >
  > A comment:
  > Yet in recent years we find the Lucis Trust to formulate itself in
  more or less political tone of voice.
  >
  > Try the following newsletter from Lucis Trust, nr. 2, 2003:
  > *** The War in Iraq ***
  > "We did not rush blindly into war; instead it was considered
  deliberately and passionately by all the many members of the world
  community demonstrating a noble attempt to solve this problem in a more
  enlightened way. And although we seemingly failed, nonetheless a process
  was initiated."

  > "That is not to say that force is never justified for, as we well
  know, the transition period through which we are manoeuvring is fraught
  with tremendous difficulties of which we are all too vividly aware. The
  terrorist threat does not yield to facile or immediate solutions. And as
  much as we might long for the cessation of warfare, due to the dangerous
  world in which we live there are times when it is justified. "
  >
  http://www.lucistrust.org/en/media/files/wg_newsletters_pdf_files/2003_2
  <http://www.lucistrust.org/en/media/files/wg_newsletters_pdf_files/2003_\
  2>

  The same referance also states the following, for contrast...

  "During times of crisis the world's leaders become the recipients of
  much animosity and criticism. And whether or not we, as individuals,
  agree or disagree with their policies we should hold in mind that our
  leaders are merely the embodiments of the national life, the focal
  points through which events work out. Our problems are the collective
  responsibility of humanity as a whole and it is, therefore, right that
  humanity resolve them collectively."

  "Perhaps our failure to resolve the Iraqi crisis without the use of
  force was largely a refl ection of our inability to give serious
  consideration to new ideas. There are quite a number of forward-looking
  approaches to conflict mediation that would have been open to us had we
  taken the time to seriously consider them. But in the frenzy of the rush
  to war they were given scant attention and we all lost in the process."

  "Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at their
  rightvalue; and unless a judge compares notes and hears both sides he
  can hardly come to a correct decision." H.P. Blavatsky. The
  Theosophist,July, 1881, p. 218.

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



  

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