Theos-Talk Archives (March 2011 Message tt00061)

Dear Konstantin and friends

My views are:

I thank you very much for taking your time answering my many questions.
I write the below, because I am not sure, that you understand what I am thinking about.


Konstantin wrote:
"The objects of the Theosophical Society are quite obvious by themselves and don't need any additional articles of rules."

M. Sufilight says and asks:
I disagree very much. Even the Mahatma KH in Blavatsky's days found that people did not understand the aim of the Theosophical Society - especially the aim of altruism.
I find the same to be the truth today.

My view is, that I think you aught to clairify why Article XIII (given in the Constitution of the original Theosophical Society given in 1891) is unimportant to what you call "our objects", when creating a digital list of what by some - more or less carelessly - is called theosophical books? Will you do that?

Was any of the promoted books which was named theosophical in 1875-1891 having political content? And was it not carefully avoided?


Konstantin wrote:
"I am quite agree with that article and think that its removal was wrong. But I don't see here any connection with digital literature and our Objects."

M. Sufilight says and asks:
Thanks for saying that you find the removal wrong. I appreciate that.

When you say "our objects", who are you then speaking on behalf of?
And what objects are you referring to - if not Article XIII on avoiding political interference etc. as well because of its altruistic content?

When the main aim with the Original Theosophical Society was altruism - is it then not equally important to consider the importance of how you make such a digital list - and what you promote - whether it be altruism - or politics merely disguised as altruism - just like A. O. Hume's scheme the Indian National Congress, which Annie Besant was a staunch member of?

- - -
I will emphasise the following written by the co-founder of the Theosophical Society in 1889...


H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"Abolish the oath in Courts, Parliament, Army and everywhere, and do as the Quakers do, if you will call yourselves Christians. Abolish the Courts themselves, for if you would follow the Commandments of Christ, you have to give away your coat to him who deprives you of your cloak, and turn your left cheek to the bully who smites you on the right. "Resist not evil, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you," for "whosoever shall break one of the least of these Commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven," "
(The Key to Theosophy, p. 55) 
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm


H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"ENQUIRER. Do you take any part in politics?

 THEOSOPHIST. As a Society, we carefully avoid them, for the reasons given below. To seek to achieve political reforms before we have effected a reform in human nature, is like putting new wine into old bottles. Make men feel and recognise in their innermost hearts what is their real, true duty to all men, and every old abuse of power, every iniquitous law in the national policy, based on human, social or political selfishness, will disappear of itself. Foolish is the gardener who seeks to weed his flower-bed of poisonous plants by cutting them off from the surface of the soil, instead of tearing them out by the roots. No lasting political reform can be ever achieved with the same selfish men at the head of affairs as of old."
(The Key to Theosophy, p. 231) 
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm


So my main question must be how can one create a digital list of theosophical books - without taking part in politics?

Is ignoring this question not to ignore the theosophical cause of altruism which any member who claim to promote theosophy aught to support?
Are the promotion of altruism not among what you call "our objects"? 
Or are your objects merely political?

This is what one aught to consider as far as I am concerned - and also if one support the Original Theosophical Society with its Article XIII and the above by Blavatsky.

I ask in all friendlyness because I find that you seem to pput emphasis on disregarding Article XIII given in the 1890 Constitution of the Theosophical Society, when you want to digitize - what some of you and not all of us - just like that call theosophical books.

In 1913-1934 the Theosophical Publishing House was used to print a number of books with political content. Some of the written by Annie Besant. Was this not a deviation from the Original aims of the Theosophical Society as they were given in 1875-1891? - Are those books not theosophical any longer?

If nothing is important and the original aims are unimportant, then you might as well include Annie Besant's political books, which were published using the Theosophical Publishing House printing press! Where are the limitations? And why choose the limitation you choose?

Sorry about the many questions.
But I ask, so to make the readers aware of the problem I find with the idea of just carelessly digitize a list of books and articles etc., where the items are called theosophical - appearntly - without any kind of hesitation.


But these are just my views.
And I might be in error.



M. Sufilight



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Konstantin Zaitzev 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 9:51 PM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Digital files of publications


    


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


  > I find it a question about how to understand the aims - and -
  > whether one has understood them at all.

  The objects of the Theosophical Society are quite obvious by themselves and don't need any additional articles of rules.

  > So why was Article XIII removed from the 1890 Constitution of the Theosophical Society?

  I am quite agree with that article and think that its removal was wrong. But I don't see here any connection with digital literature and our Objects.
  Here in Russia too there are members who meet any proposal of practical work by reducing everything into discussion about persons, politics and doctrines. The result usually is that the work doesn't move on, if the decision depends on any of such members.



  

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