[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: theos-talk Aurobindo's madman?

Oct 09, 2010 07:30 AM
by M. Sufilight

Dear Martin

My views are:

I have a half-way kind of support to the Digital Theosophical Society and even also this forum.

The reason for this is due to the fact, that both forums are not having any clearly formulated Constitution and Rules made public. They aught to do this or stand in the face of the realities about dogma versus non-dogma. Mind Control versus non-Mind Control. The Theosophical Society 1875-1891, which Blavatsky mentions the Masters guided her to create with others was from the beginning based on altrusim - and a clear contrast to Christian Churches, dogma, Spiritualism, materialism - and avoided political entanglements.
If Digital Theosophical Society  and this forum will become much more ethical concerned about what they are doing in the eyes of the universe and all its life - my support will of course be more clear. Until then my support can only be half-way there.

Today we have numerous branches of would-be Theosophical groups or Esoterical semi-secret groups, who tells us that THEY among many are on the right track of tracks. When one question them why we aught to believe that they are on the right track, the answer is most often given with a face of surprise and words similar in content to the following ones: "But, we taught that if we did something similar to what the fournders or the theosophical teacher(s) did, that they would appreciate it, and come and help us?" - The answer might be: "Very, well, but why did you then change the original concept?" - And the leaders of the Would-Be groups often replies with a stunned and confused expression.

The is the problem. People only want to learn selectively or digest selectively and throw away the parts they do not understand or which do not amuse them. And the results will of course follow. To base a forum on anything but altruism and without the necessary contrast to dogmatism, Christian Churches, and Spiritualism - and a proper relation to theosophical psychological issues like Mind Control - and while avoiding political entanglements - will end in problems. It seems at least logical to me. The question is why the owners of the forums do not do anything about this - if they have the same views?

The conclusion could be that their ethics are different, but they cannot tell why.

- - -
Maybe some of the readers will understand this as a hint.
And so it is.

friendly greetings 
M. Sufilight

M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Martin 
  Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 11:43 AM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Aurobindo's madman?

  Ok, I thrw in a few as well...

  As MKR has already mentioned many times about the availability of the Internet, 
  the Theosophical Society should become a complete digital one. The Digital 
  Theosophical Society would not have the trouble of maintaining Staff nor 
  property and as such is much more in line with the being free of the Knowledge 
  the TS could share through this medium. 

  Adapting to reading from a screen instead of parts of a dead tree is easy. Glass 
  is made of sand and sand carries Akasha. Illuminated Akasha...ok,ok I go too 
  much off topic.
  I would support the idea of the founding of a Digital Theosophical Society and 
  include the Theosophical site of Joe Fulton, since I feel people there are much 
  more open to new developements than anywhere else online.
  Fulton''s site can be found here:
  Although I myself am banned overthere because of my mental temper, that doesn't 
  mean I do not support them...

  From: M. Sufilight <>
  Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 11:27:44 AM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Aurobindo's madman?

  May I throw a few words?

  1891 says the following in Article XIII:

  "2. No Fellow, Officer, or Council of the Theosophical Society, or of any 
  Section or Branch thereof, shall promulgate or maintain any doctrinas being that 
  advanced, or advocated by the Society."
  The Theosophist May 1891 to September 1891 (for instance the Kessinger version)

  So why should one follow the views given by Aurobindo if one keep this 
  Constitution in mind and Blavatsky words in [âORIGINAL PROGRAMMEâ MANUSCRIPT] 
  (BCW, Vol. VII, p. 145-173) ?

  M. Sufilight 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Duane Carpenter 
  Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 11:01 AM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Aurobindo's madman?

  Great Article Jim
  This extracted section of the article really gave important insights.

  Aurobindo: Claims of Theosophy

  "If Theosophy is to survive, it must first change itself. It must learn that 
  mental rectitude to which it is now a stranger and improve its moral basis. It 
  must become clear, straightforward, rigidly self-searching, sceptical in the 
  nobler sense of the word. It must keep the Mahatmas in the background and put 
  God and Truth in the front. Its Popes must dethrone themselves and enthrone the 
  intellectual conscience of mankind. If they wish to be mystic and secret like 
  our Yogins, then they must like our Yogins assert only to the initiate and the 
  trained; but if they come out into the world to proclaim their mystic truths 
  aloud and seek power, credit and influence on the strength of their assertions, 
  then they must prove. It need not and ought not to be suddenly or by miracles; 
  but there must be a scientific development, we must be able to lay hold on the 
  rationale and watch the process of the truths they proclaim." 

  Circa 1910/12

  From: jamesbergh <>
  Sent: Fri, October 8, 2010 7:12:33 PM
  Subject: theos-talk Aurobindo's madman?

  I was reading an article by Aurobindo, Claims of Theosophy at:

  He wrote in 1910/12: ...The only member of the Theosophical Society who could 
  give me any spiritual help I could not better by my unaided faculties, was one 
  excluded from the esoteric section because of his rare and potent experiences 
  were unintelligible to Theosophical guides... one who meddled not in 
  organizations and election cabals but lived like a madman, unmattavat."

  Could have been some other Chuck, but I wonder who this soul may have been.

  Any ideas?


  [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]

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application