Theos-Talk Archives (July 2010 Message tt00060)

You are right. I was not you who called the name.

It was Frank.


MKR

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:14 AM, M. Sufilight
<global-theosophy@stofanet.dk>wrote:

>
>
> 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 <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.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 <global-theosophy%40stofanet.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>
> <ringding2010%40t-online.de>>
> >
> > An: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.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]
>
>  
>


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