Theos-Talk Archives (March 2011 Message tt00033)

Dear Konstantin

My views are:

I find it a question about how to understand the aims - and - whether one has understood them at all.
And what the implications of the main aim called altruism - necessarily implies. Thos who do NOT will perhaps without hesitation delete the Article XIII given in the 1890 Constitution of the Theosophical Society. Those who do, will not delete it. These are my views and I will try to explain them a bit further in the below.


I will ask the following questions to you:
So why was Article XIII removed from the 1890 Constitution of the Theosophical Society?
And do not we see a great number of the later theoosphical groups, the main Society included at least since 1908, have a blurred stance on exactly the content of this article?

How can one say that the objects of the Theosophical Society have been upheld since the time that various theosophical groups disregarded this article XIII?

Is it not true that many of the various later theosophical groups at least since 1908 have operate with a positive view on the involvement with politics or a secterian stance? 

*** A ***
Take Annie Besant administrative leader of the Theosophical Soceity, (which she turned secterian with a Messiah Craze and also turned political with her outlets) and leader of an Esoteric Section, which never was meant to "boss" the Theosophical Society. Annie Besant whom the Theosophical Society - even today - claim to have taken a great lead in Theosophizing politics - ie. to apply the light of Theosophy to politics. But, the truth is that politics are politics a the lowest of ethics when compared to altruism. It is based on deceit and lies. And The Original Theosophical Society in 1875-1891 had no doctrinas on such a thing. - Therefore Article XIII was written. That is how I view it.

I ASK: But did Annie Besant as the administrative leader  of the Theosophical Society after 1908 and as a Messiah promoter in fact not politicise Theosophy?
The Theosophical Society in Adyar and the papers written by Annie Besant in her time seem to confirm this view and the above views.


*** B ***
And take Alice A. Bailey's - organisation, the Lucis Trust, which cannot be called an esoteric section in the sense of the word since it uses the Alice A. Bailey corpus as a main Bible or similar with its mundane political statements - and in fact operates as a sect with an Alice A. Bailey doctrine while it involves its Triangle Section scheme with mundane politics - and - are open for members who all of them are being taught the same secterian doctrine.
This was in opposition to the Constitution of the Theosophical Soceity given in 1890. Yet Alice A. Bailey's Lucis Trust has nothing to do with the Theosophical Society as it was during Annie Besants time --- and as far as I am concerned neither with The Theosophical Society as it mainly operated in 1875-1891.
The Lucis Trust website and the papers written by Alice A. Bailey in her time seem to confirm my views.
Secterian it is. And therefore it cannot followm the aims given in the Constitution of the Theosophical Society in 1890. So why this attempt to ignore the Constitution of the Theosophical Society given in in 1890 - if this organisation does not serve another aim? Namely to - more or less consciously -  avoid to reconcile all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities.

*** C ***
Not even some of the ULT groups understand the importance of Article XIII in the 1890 Constitution of the Theosophical Society - if we have a look at their websites. Their content seem to aim at a secterian promotion.


*** D ***
The Pasadena Theosophists are perhaps the ones who come closests to the original aims. But one will have to dig oneself through a maze of pages to find it hidden in various pages and articles, - and more than one of them you can find.  (Try for instance the constitution given in 1875 http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/gfkforum/ourdir.htm and also Franz Hartman, (who later went a bit astray if I am asked about it), on the three objects. He wrote: "Owing to the many misconceptions existing within and without the ranks of the Theosophical Society in regard to its nature and object, this non-dogmatic and unsectarian character of the Society can hardly be asserted and insisted on with sufficient emphasis. The idea of a society having no dogma and no creed is too grand to be grasped by the average mind accustomed to see itself surrounded by innumerable circles, each of which has a certain accepted thought, but no real self-knowledge for its centre." - THE THREE OBJECTS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IN AMERICA: I)

But I find the Pasadena Theosophical Society's avoidance of holding the content of Article XIII high as a lamp for everyone to see a bit disturbing. And its HQ website is not clearly stating the same thing and in fact has a tendency to secterian promotions instead. And this make me wonder about what its members and its organisations real aims are compared to the Constitution of the Theosophical Society given in 1890.

- - - - - -
I know, that I might provoke some readers emtions or intelluctual blockages. But, please bear in mind that I am just seeking the truth here. And I am prefectly aware that I might be in error. But if I am, I will gladly invite anyone to show me why.


Altruism is the corner-stone, and was the aim of the Theosophical Society given in 1875-1891.
One of the aims, the primary one was altruism, ie. to form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or colour. - And by this - to reconcile all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities. Mentioned in the theosophist in 1879 and also in The Key to Theosophy by its co-founder Blavatsky. 

This noble task cannot be achieved when a theosophical group allow itself to politicise Theosophy, as if the Theosophical Society had any political doctrinas being taught on behalf of the Society!
This noble task cannot be achieved when a theosophical group allow itself to turn a non-secterian Society into a secterian one!

This must be the truth.

Any comments?
Anyone?




M. Sufilight



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Konstantin Zaitzev 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 9:49 PM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Digital files of publications


    


  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:

  > But, which - objects - of the Theosophical Society are we talking
  > about?

  I mean those which are in use nowdays and which remain unchanged already for 100 years. But I would also agree with the objects given in the Rules of 1890, the last edition made during the life of H.P. Blavatsky. Generally, they don't contradict to the modern ones.



  

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