Theos-Talk Archives (July 2010 Message tt00059)

Dear MKR

My views are:
You are answering my e-mail without adressing who you write your letters to.

But I did not call Olcott a coward, did I?
Yes, one aught to be polite and at least document ones views before rushing in for a negative stance.


M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: MKR 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:15 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Theosophy World Congress - Live Streaming


    
  Calling Olcott a coward is going too far in any context.

  Such name calling is unfair to one of the founders responsible for
  establishing TS who sacrificed prime of his life for theosophy and TS.

  I hope, we do not see such name calling of anyone in this list.

  MKR

  On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:50 AM, M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@stofanet.dk
  > wrote:

  >
  >
  > Dear Frank
  >
  > Some views of mine on the issue:
  >
  > I have likely written something similar before.
  > I am however writing it, so to throw a few words about secterian behaviour
  > and whether the TS and perhaps other theosophical groups are covered by it.
  >
  > Let me say at first:
  > I think your words in the below e-mail er too blunt in certain respects.
  > Ordinarily we, as theosophists, do not accuse anyone before we have clear
  > documentation to provide.
  > And primarily we do if possible at first ask the one we accuse privately
  > about their views.
  >
  > Secondly:
  > I find that one aught to settle whether the TS is expresing a secterian
  > behaviour as the one mentioned by you.
  > If you by quotes and comparative study of definitions can show people at
  > Theos-talk this, you might get somewhere. Else I think, nobody will listen.
  > Try for instance to use Steve Hassan's book from year 2000: "Releasing the
  > Bonds - Empowering People to Think for Themselves." He is one of the more
  > wellknown Cult-psychologists and humanistic Exit-Counsellors today. There
  > are of course other options.
  >
  > Thirdly:
  > And then there is as I see it the issue whether the Original Programe given
  > by HPB and HSO (in part by the Masters) is followed when we read these
  > excerpts form it - and whether if deviated from, such a deviation promotes a
  > something amounting to secterian behaviour or something else:
  >
  > (A)
  > HPB on the ORIGINAL PROGRAME - 1886
  > "But if the two Founders were not told what they had to do, they were
  > distinctly instructed about what they should never do, what they had to
  > avoid, and what the Society should never become. Church organizations,
  > Christian and Spiritual sects were shown as the future contrasts to our
  > Society."
  > .......
  > (Try also page 147 - "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-do not seem to trouble you in the least. ")
  > .......
  > "* "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. 146)
  > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v7/yxxxx_019.htm
  >
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > It is the above words of the Original Programe, which today is omitted.
  > Are such an omission promoting a secterian behaviour? If not, why not?
  >
  > About the later Esoteric Section's role (a Section created in 1888 after
  > HSO received the famous SHANNON Mahatma letter) we find others words about
  > the same, which are omitted when compared to the above words...Look in the
  > below quotes...
  >
  > (B)
  > HPB on THE ORIGINAL LINES/PROGRAME and THE ESOTERIC SECTIONS ROLE - 1888
  > "When trouble arose, too many were quick to doubt and despair, and few
  > indeed were they who had worked for the Cause and not for themselves. The
  > attacks of the enemy have given the Society some discretion in the conduct
  > of its external progress, but its real internal condition has not improved,
  > and the members, in their efforts towards spiritual culture, still require
  > that help which solidarity in the ranks can alone give them the right to
  > ask. 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.
  > All know that this end was in view when the Society was established, and
  > even in its mere unpledged ranks there was a possibility for development and
  > knowledge, until it began to show want of real union; and now it must be
  > saved from future dangers by the united aim, brotherly feeling, and constant
  > exertions of the members of this Esoteric Section. Therefore, anyone who has
  > signed the pledge without realizing this is earnestly recommended to
  > reconsider his position, and to withdraw unless he is prepared to devote
  > himself to the carrying out of this purpose."
  > .......
  > "As to the relations of the Masters to this Section, it may be further
  > said, paradoxically, that with Them everything is possible and everything
  > impossible. They may or may not communicate personally on the outer plane
  > with a member, and those who are continually wishing to receive "orders" or
  > communications directly from Them on this plane, either phenomenally or
  > otherwise, will in all probability be disappointed. The Masters have no
  > desire to prove Their power or give "tests" to anyone whatever. And the fact
  > that a member has concluded that a crisis of some kind or other is at hand,
  > when, according to his wise opinion, the Master or Masters ought to speak
  > and interfere personally, is no sound reason for such an outward
  > interference.
  > It is, however, right that each member, once he believes in the existence
  > of such Masters, should try to understand what their nature and powers are,
  > to reverence Them in his heart, to draw near to Them, as much as in him
  > lies, and to open up for himself conscious communication with the guru to
  > whose bidding he has devoted his life. THIS CAN ONLY BE DONE BY RISING TO
  > THE SPIRITUAL PLANE WHERE THE MASTERS ARE, AND NOT BY ATTEMPTING TO DRAW
  > THEM DOWN TO OURS.
  > Inasmuch as growth in spiritual life comes from within, members must not
  > expect to receive any other communications than those through H.P.B. The
  > additional help, instruction, and enlightenment, will come from the inner
  > planes of being, and will, as said, always be given when deserved."
  > (BCW, Vol. XII, p. 490)
  >
  > Dear Frank:
  > I have asked the TS Adyar about its political stance, and why the paragraph
  > XIV - as quoted in the above - (and found in The Constitution and Statutes
  > of the TS in the Theosophist, Jan. 1891) against political involvement of
  > the TS is missing today and has been missing since 1907 in The Constitution
  > and Statutes of the TS. So far no answer - for the last 4 months or more.
  > One of the leaders in TS America appearntly dared not write about his own
  > views on it - and said so - and referred me to the TS Adyar leadership to
  > get an answer. But they have not answered, - not yet. And that can hardly be
  > normal procedure. (Maybe TS Adyar aught to write on their website, when one
  > can expect an answer if one writes an e-mail to the receivers of it? - Any
  > comments from TS members on this? - Compassion and polite behaviour could be
  > something good.)
  >
  > So, no answers so far, and members who - feel that they themselves - are
  > not allowed to speak freely. And a loose stance on politics also on their
  > website, and, as far as I can tell, a clear lack of CONTRAST to any kinds of
  > Christianizings of the TS - spells in the secterian direction you mention.
  > Especially when taking the above quotes by HPB into account.
  > This is however my view, and I might have overlooked something.
  >
  > This you may e-mail or mail to others if your compassionate views allows
  > it.
  >
  > - - -
  > A few questions to the readers:
  > Any answers from members of the TS Adyar section on the above views or just
  > thundering silence?
  > How can we find ourselves becoming members of the TS, when we cannot figure
  > out whether the TS Adyar is a political organisation or a promoter of
  > Christianizing views - and when we are not told why the Constituion have
  > been changed since 1891, compared to 1907 and until today?
  >
  > M. Sufilight
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: Frank Reitemeyer
  > To: Verborgene_Empfaenger:
  > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:00 AM
  > Subject: Re: Theosophy World Congress - Live Streaming
  >
  > PRIVATE
  >
  > Hello all, as I have learned that my last ten or so emails to theos-talk
  > regarding the planetary chains and the World Congress do not appear for some
  > unknown reason, I send my humble comments privately to theos-talk readers
  > (see below), who are in my address book.
  >
  > Best wishes from Berlin,
  >
  > Frank
  >
  > Betreff: Re: Theos-World Theosophy World Congress - Live Streaming
  > Datum: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:26:39 +0200
  > Von: Frank Reitemeyer <ringding2010@t-online.de<ringding2010%40t-online.de>>
  >
  > An: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
  >
  > >Disappointed to hear that prayers were invoked.
  >
  > That was not the only shocking observation, dear Cass.
  > It seems they prefer psychology and analyze their mind.
  > To think seems not that what they want.
  >
  > The inflation of self-refering terms: brotherliness, harmony, peace,
  > understanding, open inquiry, freedom of thought etc.
  > Never heard so much cant, hypocrisy and lies in such a short time.
  > Why do they need to talk about that so bold?
  > Is it to assume themselves?
  > It reminds me of the communist rhetoric. They also talked around the
  > clock about brotherliness, peace, progess - all things they never proofed.
  >
  > The highlight were Betty Bland's three statements:
  >
  > 1. brotherhood is absent, when talking is "negatively" (Orwell new
  > speak), in Scientology phraselogy: unethical
  > Any criticism of misuse of power or teachings with this Besant and
  > Leadbeater ideology is tried to neutralization
  > Positive is only the lies.
  > Important is no more the truth, but that it sounds positively.
  >
  > 2. The TS is no "normal Society".
  > Obviously. They are not normal.
  > Compare it with von Purucker's statemtent:
  > "The theosophist is the most normal person in the world."
  >
  > In the Besant and Leadbeater ideology theosophy is misused as a miracle,
  > top secretism, extraordinary, sensational.
  >
  > 3. The TS is still guided by the Masters.
  >
  > The coward Olcott feared a legal case in 1885 on the bona fide of
  > Blavatsky, intrigued against her, kicked her unbrotherly out of Adyar.
  > HPB in return declared that the spirit of the Masters is there, were she
  > is, not at Adyar at that she never will return to Adyar until they
  > return to the original lines.
  > In 1905 Annie Besant chartered the TS, which is spiritual totally
  > different from the parent society of 1875 and the exoteric Adyar HQ of
  > 1881-1885.
  > Until 1885 the spirit of HPB and Masters has NOT returned to Adyar and
  > probably never will.
  > At least they have given not a single proof of it that it is otherwise.
  >
  > All that we get so far is the old trick: psychological brainwashing,
  > false claims, empty promises, vain self-approval.
  >
  > Not a single proof that they are capable of receiving divine powers, in
  > other words: the dark minds of B&L are still alive.
  >
  > Frank
  >
  > [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]