Theos-Talk Archives (March 2011 Message tt00121)

Dear Konstantin and friends

My views are:

Konstantin wrote:
"You assert that in 1875-1891 the Theosophical Society was non-secterian, assuming that already under Olcott it became sectarian."

M. Sufilight says:
No, I am not. 
It is you who assume that because I write 1875-1891, that I thereby conclude that Theosophical Society was secterian after the year 1891.
I am not saying that the Theosophical Society was secterian after 1891 - not until we reach at least after the year 1908, then I will confirm that I find it to be quite secterian. Whether the Theosophical Society was non-secterian between 1891-1908 I will let you and others decide, because I have not reached a clear conclusion on this yet. 

The question I have is: When was Article XIII removed from the 1891 Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society? And why was it removed?


Konstantin wrote:
"Nowdays nothing in Constitution/Rules of the Society, as well as in its Resolution cannot be treated as sectarian."

M. Sufilight says:
Perhaps not, or perhaps. But the Theosophical Society Adyar's website can indeed be said to be an expression of the promotion of secterian behaviour. 
And why is it and other websites from some of the various branches of the TS formulated in such a secterian manner?

But the promotion of the Theosophical Society was what I was referring to.
And since the Theosophical Society are promoting it self with such a great lack of emphasis on avoiding a secterian smell and odeur, I find it all to be very problematic. That was what I wrote about in my earliere email, and which you responded to.

The question I have is: When was Article XIII removed from the 1891 Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society? And why was it removed?

Is it not true that the mentioned Article XIII was an important safeguard against secterian behaviour within the Theosophical Society and political entanglements? And that by removing this safeguard, we have seen the Theosophical Society be used in a secterian manner and for political entanglements?

At least I find Annie Besant to be the major hand in such political entanglments and secterian promotions. Proven me wrong nobody has so far. And despite these events by Annie Besant and her friends the present day Theosophical Society in Adyar call Annie Besant a great lead in theosophizing politics (whereas she in fact politicized the Theosophical Society as I have proven and made it secterian, since it had not - and aught not to have - any secterian or Theosophizing doctrine) and the website openly seem to praise the - clearly - secterian Krishnamurti Messiah scheme.

Konstantin wrote:
"If there is some serious flaw in the Rules, it is the lack of the paragraph which would prohibit any unwritten rules or bans."

M. Sufilight says:
And Article XIII is unimportant with regard to this?



 M. Sufilight



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Konstantin Zaitzev 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:57 PM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Update on GC Meeting Minutes


    

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

  > What is it I have misunderstood?

  You assert that in 1875-1891 the Theosophical Society was non-secterian, assuming that already under Olcott it became sectarian. Probably you are the first man ever accusing Olcott in sectarianism. Abandonment of the rule about politics has nothnig common with sectarianism. Moreover, in those times passwords and signs were abandoned.
  Nowdays nothing in Constitution/Rules of the Society, as well as in its Resolution cannot be treated as sectarian. It is true that some leaders behave sectarian way but it's not because of wrong rules but because they break them and also use many so called unwritten rules.
  If there is some serious flaw in the Rules, it is the lack of the paragraph which would prohibit any unwritten rules or bans.

  For example, I've heard that the women in short dresses were treated unfriendly on some international events. I think that for such unbrotherly behaviour the persons guilty in it should be strictly warned in the first time and expulsed in case of repetition. Also some require two recommendations and probatory term for members, while there's nothing alike in the rules. Some require not study certain books in lodges. The latter case is surely sectarian behaviour, but clearly it is not due to the rules framed by the President-founder.



  

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