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

Re: theos-talk Aurobindo's madman?

Oct 09, 2010 12:23 PM
by M. Sufilight

Dear Martin and friends

My views are:

Yes. but Mind Control is more than one thing.
Ordinarily Mind Control is something destructive performed by cults or cult leaders. Here is wikipedia on the issue:
I am talking about destructive Mind Control.

I do not hope that the White Brotherhood are performing somthing destructive like that. It is by definition only the brothers of the shadow who perform these activities.
The Law of Karma is always allright and it has nothing to do with the term Mind Control as anti-cult psychologist use this term these days.

Yet in other groups Mind Control is something the Yogi's and spiritual seekers perform, when they seek to control their own mind, (not others).

- - -
Martin wrote:
"What we need to do only is to stop fighting among eachother who is right or 
wrong but cooperate and be open minded and in doing so be open to others as 
well, without expelling people but appeal to their own judgement in clearly 
saying where they go or went wrong."

M. Sufilight says:
Yes. This is important. But just as Blavatsky and the Masters had their reason not to compromize with the Spiritualists and the dogmatic Churches, - I do not find myself in a situation where I need to throw the original program of The Theosophical Society on a political fire and a Messiah craze fire etc. of obcures doctrinas and promote what is called The Theosophical Society as a sect with a set of predefined "Spiritual Bibles" to chew from -  while down-watering an open-minded search and the open use of comparative studying. (And a Digital Society using computers, which consume electricity and thereby opereate in the Climate Change paradigm could also be a topic to consider while we look ahead - let us say - 30 years from now.)

These are my views.

M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Martin 
  Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 4:58 PM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Aurobindo's madman?

  Haha, well half way support is always better than no support. KH wrote to 
  A.P.Sinnett, they (the White Brotherhood) could only share half the Truth, the 
  rest was up to us to understand with our own intuition.
  We can put that down in the D.T.S. as well, although the problem arises, what is 
  intuitive and what is Mind control as you clearly noticed...
  In fact we are all Mind controlled by the White Brotherhood, since the Mental 
  Planes are their territory as KH also wrote in one of his letters...and they can 
  only be found there as he added.
  What we need to do only is to stop fighting among eachother who is right or 
  wrong but cooperate and be open minded and in doing so be open to others as 
  well, without expelling people but appeal to their own judgement in clearly 
  saying where they go or went wrong. This is very difficult however essential 
  will we survive Aquarius, Who has 2 buckets of water, one of deadly posion and 
  one with the water of Life...
  Aqurius will show Anarchy at Its best and at Its worst in which Respect and 
  uniqueness is the Key to cooperation...

  From: M. Sufilight <>
  Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 4:30:06 PM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Aurobindo's madman?

  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 

  - - -
  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]

  [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