Theos-Talk Archives (January 2011 Message tt00159)

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

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

Re: theos-talk Re: A non-dogmatic and non-secterian Society

Jan 14, 2011 08:43 AM
by M. Sufilight

Allright.

----- Original Message -----
From: Cass Silva
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: A non-dogmatic and non-secterian Society

I guess it depends on those other authors and if they are simply
unpacking complicated ideas into a more easily understood
explanation,

Cass

--- On Fri, 14/1/11, M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@HUpLwIinc4PSweSFUyOiXv8UEzVMFgTUkyiJyU3Bn3ZE_alih8imTV5SXi6ZDHszvGSDxEMjxJbzCcE7VOlqdwROCEMqHUg.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@HUpLwIinc4PSweSFUyOiXv8UEzVMFgTUkyiJyU3Bn3ZE_alih8imTV5SXi6ZDHszvGSDxEMjxJbzCcE7VOlqdwROCEMqHUg.yahoo.invalid>
Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: A non-dogmatic and non-secterian Society
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Received: Friday, 14 January, 2011, 3:09 AM

Dear Cass

I was talking about - quoting - Blavatsky or another author.
And where have I introduced my own ideas in Wikipedia and which you in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/55628 are opposing?

What rule have I broken, but telling the truth, which can be documented?

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message -----
From: Cass Silva
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:39 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: A non-dogmatic and non-secterian Society

If what they wrote is in harmony with the original teachings
but is used more as an expose of those teachings then
I don't have a problem with it. However, to introduce, their
own specific and personal ideas is to distort the original.

TS teachings will eventually have as many versions as the
Bible does!

Cass

--- On Tue, 11/1/11, M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@HUpLwIinc4PSweSFUyOiXv8UEzVMFgTUkyiJyU3Bn3ZE_alih8imTV5SXi6ZDHszvGSDxEMjxJbzCcE7VOlqdwROCEMqHUg.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

So you oppose that we quote any author on what they wrote in the past?

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message -----
From: Cass Silva
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: A non-dogmatic and non-secterian Society

No, I don't have a problem with you Morten, I have a problem with
the actions you intend to take regarding the Wikipedia article and
the confusion I believe it will cause. Before any theosophist puts
their name to Blavatsky's works I believe that it should be first
validated and authorised, and as there is no way of doing this,
we should let the works stand on their own. Adyar has taken
advantage of this and have distorted the teachings by introducing
Leadbeater and Besant as true advocates despite the fact that
they in fact reduced this ancient wisdom to a christian take on
it. Their treatise on the structure of atoms caused a further
rift between Theosophy and Science which is only now being
somewhat bridged.

Cass

--- On Mon, 10/1/11, M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@HUpLwIinc4PSweSFUyOiXv8UEzVMFgTUkyiJyU3Bn3ZE_alih8imTV5SXi6ZDHszvGSDxEMjxJbzCcE7VOlqdwROCEMqHUg.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

Do you have a problem with me?
Please email me in private.

----- Original Message -----
From: Cass Silva
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:07 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: A non-dogmatic and non-secterian Society

You might think that you are being a good soldier Morten,
but my belief is that this is more about qudos than anything
else.

Cass

--- On Mon, 10/1/11, M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@HUpLwIinc4PSweSFUyOiXv8UEzVMFgTUkyiJyU3Bn3ZE_alih8imTV5SXi6ZDHszvGSDxEMjxJbzCcE7VOlqdwROCEMqHUg.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

Dear Konstantin and friends

My views are:

I guess you are referring to the following:
"Freedom of Thought

As the Theosophical Society has spread far and wide over the world, and as members of all religions have become members of it without surrendering the special dogmas, teachings and beliefs of their respective faiths, it is thought desirable to emphasize the fact that there is no doctrine, no opinion, by whomsoever taught or held, that is in any way binding on any member of the Society, none which any member is not free to accept or reject. Approval of its three Objects is the sole condition of membership. No teacher, or writer, from H.P. Blavatsky onwards, has any authority to impose his or her teachings or opinions on members. Every member has an equal right to follow any school of thought, but has no right to force the choice on any other. Neither a candidate for any office nor any voter can be rendered ineligible to stand or to vote, because of any opinion held, or because of membership in any school of thought. Opinions or beliefs neither bestow
privileges nor inflict penalties. The Members of the General Council earnestly request every member of the Theosophical Society to maintain, defend and act upon these fundamental principles of the Society, and also fearlessly to exercise the right of liberty of thought and of expression thereof, within the limits of courtesy and consideration for others.

Resolution passed by the General Council of The Theosophical Society in 1924."
http://www.ts-adyar.org/content/about-ts

- - -

M. Sufilight commetns and asks:
Yes, this is important.

Dear Konstantin and fellow theosophical Seekers:
But why does the Adyar website reflect the view that some Theosophists of the past are to be deemed more prominent or eminent than others? What kind of promotion on - behalf of the Theosophical Society - are we talking about here?

(See Eminent Theosophists at http://www.ts-adyar.org/content/eminent-theosophists )

Why is W. Q. judge or the author Tukaram Tatya not just as prominent or eminent as for instance C. W. Leadbeater? Why have such a "hall of fame" on the Adyar website? Why not put Master Morya and KH, and DK into the bargin as well?

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message -----
From: Konstantin Zaitzev
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 5:26 PM
Subject: theos-talk Re: A non-dogmatic and non-secterian Society

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophical_Society:

> A non-dogmatic and non-secterian Society
...
> Maybe it needs som polishing?
> What do you readers think?

A reference to the resolution on Freedom of Thought (passed in 1924) should be added ( http://www.ts-adyar.org/content/about-ts ) which is now printed in every issue of The Theosophist.

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

[Back to Top]

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