Re: theos-talk Digital files of publications
Mar 11, 2011 07:53 AM
by M. Sufilight
Dear John
My views are:
Thank you very much for answering.
*** A ***
John wrote:
"And It seems to be a statement that is directly in opposition to the promotion of Theosophical Doctrine (I don't know where the word "doctrinas" evolved from. The construct reads to me is that no one shall hold Theosphical Doctrines as stated by Blavatsky, Olcutt or other 1st generation Theosophists.
It seems possible to me that the word "not" was omited here :
No Fellow, Officer, or Council of the Theosophical Society, or of any Section or Branch thereof, shall promulgate or maintain any doctrinas being that "not" advanced, or advocated by the Society.
At least that way the rule copy makes some sense to me. Is the word "doctrinas" in the original constitution?"
M. Sufilight says:
Okay. But, I have the view that the statement in mention is NOT in opposition to the main idea behind the Theosophical Society. Because the main idea was simply not to promote a secterian Society. And the statement or Rule avoid exactly such thing. This was in fact also stated in the constitution given in 1875 and by Blavatsky in 1886, that the Theosophical Society was formed to be non-secterian.
Try to read the content of the following links...
The Constitution for the Theosophical Society in october 1875:
"Whatever may be the private opinions of its members, the society has no dogmas to enforce, no creed to disseminate. It is formed neither as a Spiritualistic schism, nor to serve as the foe or friend of any sectarian or philosophic body."
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/gfkforum/ourdir.htm#Preamble%20of%20the%20T.S.
Blavatsky's words on The "ORIGINAL PROGRAMME" MANUSCRIPT in 1886:
"(1) The Founders had to exercise all their influence to oppose selfishness of any kind, by insisting upon sincere, fraternal feelings among the Membersâat least outwardly; working for it to bring about a spirit of unity and harmony, the great diversity of creeds notwithstanding;"
.......
"(2) They had to oppose in the strongest manner possible anything approaching dogmatic faith and fanaticismâbelief in the infallibility of the Masters, or even in the very existence of our invisible Teachers, having to be checked from the first. On the other hand, as a great respect for the private views and creeds of every member was demanded"
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v7/yxxxx_019.htm
The main idea was therefore, as I see it, to reject dogmatism and fanatical behaviour from the very start among new members and members as such. It was, as I see it, in modern terms seeking to promote altruism, and recognized from the beginning, that altruism cannot be promoted, with no understanding of the psychological term "Mind Control" (various kinds of coercive persuasion). - And that altruism cannot be promoted if secterian behaviour (ie. non-comphrehensive exchanges) was promoted.
Therefore we find that each member in reality has his or her own view - something quite obvious - since the members were both Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians etc. etc.
Mind Control (coercive persuasion) - psychologically speaking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control
And Theosophy was defined as "the exact science on psychology".
See The Theosophist, vol. I, 1879
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/theosoph/theos1a.htm#whatistheosophy
If you require the members to follow a certain doctrine within a given Society - which you here have chosen to call Theosophy - and which to others just are your kind of Theosophy, - you can be said to use a secterian coersive technique - and one cannot base altruism on such an agenda. Free and open exchanges based on altruism, with the rejection of dogmas, the rejection of a secterian doctrine, the rejection of fanatical behaviour, the rejection of mundane politics - and where each member voice his or her own hypotheical views on behalf of himself or herself - and not on behalf of the Society as a secterian doctrine - is more healthy than the opposite.
Therefore the only doctrine in use, is, the frame, which rejects secterian operations, namely Article XIII, Rule 2, given in the Constitution of the Theosophical Society, 1891.
The word "Altruism" was as far as I remember defined by the founders as:
Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others.
The main problem to me is that almost all later theosophical groups - in various ways - have deviated from this Rule mentioned in article XII in the 1891 Constitution of the Theosophical Society - and at least since 1908 the present Theosophical Society included.
So the question remains what online list aught to be created among old books and papers, and later ones?
I would say: Only those which reject the use of dogmas, reject the use of secterian behaviour, reject fanatical behaviour (Messiah craze and other fanatical operations), reject materialism as such, and reject mundane politics etc. can be used with altruism as their basis. And only those, which seek a scientific stance as far as possible when taking altruism into account. And having a keen eye on scientific quality will not be a bad idea.
Therefore I will recommend that the online list be limited in such a manner, - that is - if one would like to operate within the frame of the Original Theosophical Society - and if one would like to promote altruism.
I would really like to know, if I am the only one who has the above view.
Anyone?
So, no. The Rule is most certainly not an error if you ask me!
- - - - - - -
*** B ***
John wrote:
I have wondered why no one ever brought this up over al lthis time with repeated posting of it by you.
M. Sufilight says:
I have also wondered about whether that could be the reason.
And I have also considered other options.
I ASK:
I would really like to know, if I am the only one who has the above view about voiceing - NO doctrinas - on behalf of The Theosophical Society?
- - - Anyone?
- - - Anyone at the Theosophical Society in Adyar?
- - - Or other theosophical or esoterical groups?
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: Augoeides-222@hyKcZpHGuZfWfUQ8R0GisLyRr_bdExFlq6cDgRQeHyxrrply83w7cVVYjXs5h3SSdQ8NhgUPw_eTm7VCSSgeo6aR.yahoo.invalid
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Digital files of publications
Morten,
For a long time I have read:
>>>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 Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society given in 1891)
And It seems to be a statement that is directly in opposition to the promotion of Theosophical Doctrine (I don't know where the word "doctrinas" evolved from. The construct reads to me is that no one shall hold Theosphical Doctrines as stated by Blavatsky, Olcutt or other 1st generation Theosophists.
It seems possible to me that the word "not" was omited here :
No Fellow, Officer, or Council of the Theosophical Society, or of any Section or Branch thereof, shall promulgate or maintain any doctrinas being that "not" advanced, or advocated by the Society.
At least that way the rule copy makes some sense to me. Is the word "doctrinas" in the original constitution?
I have wondered why no one ever brought this up over al lthis time with repeated posting of it by you.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@E8AbAW7qyUEHnEq2Fw3m2d5cP27p0cocNK5xxI1S435fKuaQoHm6qgVrMI1xWKxsbxIGHyEkmq6WKhygmPm7FQuCwtxKqmk.yahoo.invalid>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:46:16 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Digital files of publications
Yes
But, which - objects - of the Theosophical Society are we talking about?
Those given in 1875, or those given by the co-founder Blavatsky in 1886, or those given Jan. 1891 in the Theosophist, or those given in 1908, or those given in 2010? And given by whom? And why choose one and not another?
I for one will oppose the following articles being thrown out in such an attempt - just - because of doctrinaire bias...
"ARTICLE XIII doctrinas" in the original constitution?
Offences
1. Any Fellow who shall in any way attempt to involve the Society In political disputes shall be immediately expelled.
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 Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society given in 1891)
http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm
- - -
About the list.
I was also referring to other papers/letters by Alice A. Bailey, and other papers and letters by Helena Roerich etc. etc. --- Not that I endorse promoting politics like a number of the Alice A. Bailey followers often seem to do.
What about those very old texts like the Upanishads or those by Shankara and Tsong Khapa, or later Panchen Lama's etc. etc.- Which versions are the proper ones to make available? Or none at all.
And what about Psychological texts?
- - -
I can see that this website seem to be expanding:
http://www.austheos.org.au/clibrary/bindex-0.html
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: Konstantin Zaitzev
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Digital files of publications
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com , "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
> 1) What is understood by the term "theosophical publications"?
I think that those publication are theosophical, which comply the objects of the Theosophical Society.
> what about online books by Alice A. Bailey, Helena Roerich,
> or perhaps Guy Ballard?
I don't know about the latter, while other two are online for a long time already.
[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
