Theos-Talk Archives (March 2011 Message tt00145)

With regard to within the Society, I will generally agree with you when we talk about its manner of being promoted. With regard to without the Society, I will not agree just like that. There are groups, perhaps less known, and less physical present, and they have been around for some decades as far as I know.


M. Sufilight



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cass Silva 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 2:33 AM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Rebirth of Ethics


    
  Well by your account Morten, nothing has changed since 1951 so Birkhoff's spearheading didn't appear to work when it came to ethics and altruism either within or without the TS society.
   
  Cass

  --- On Mon, 21/3/11, M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@T1kJqVCx97HjKiBK-czynkeWsiyGiKRSkAtlpxKlS3OlF-ln7xD2Jx1GUwziyJfwKQfODZ-IFemZgc1vjvOmTKDaFA.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

  From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@T1kJqVCx97HjKiBK-czynkeWsiyGiKRSkAtlpxKlS3OlF-ln7xD2Jx1GUwziyJfwKQfODZ-IFemZgc1vjvOmTKDaFA.yahoo.invalid>
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Rebirth of Ethics
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
  Received: Monday, 21 March, 2011, 2:52 AM

    

  Thanks.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: jdmsoares 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 12:45 AM
  Subject: theos-talk Rebirth of Ethics

  Dear Sufilight, friends,

  Sufilight, thanks!

  I would like to mention here also two paragraphs of an article written
  by Boris de Zirkoff, that reminds us about the current limitations faced
  by the theosophical movement, but also of its immense potential to
  contribute to the process of planetary ethical regeneration.

  The article was entitled "Wanted: a Rebirth of Ethics" and was published
  in 1951 in "Theosophia" magazine.

  He wrote:

  "The ethical lethargy in this century has affected every facet of life
  and every school of thought, including the Theosophical Movement in its
  organized forms. The latter fact is perhaps of greater moment to
  students of Theosophy than anything else. In the ranks of the
  present-day Theosophical Organizations we see the same downfall of
  ethical conduct, the same intellectual confusion, the same questionable
  methods of procedure, and the same conflicting emotions which
  characterize the world at large. In spite of high-sounding words on the
  part of those in power, In spite of ponderous tomes replete with
  intellectual as well as ethical teachings sufficient to feed generations
  to come, the Theosophical Movement, as an organized body, while doing
  much good work in various parts of the world, has none of the qualities
  and earmarks of a living power bringing regeneration to human hearts and
  new vital impulses to human minds. It has settled itself long ago into
  comfortable grooves of thought, lofty in ideals, universal in character,
  thought-provoking in content, yet just as deadly in their crystallizing
  influence as any other mental or emotional rut. It is a far cry from the
  vital, dynamic, soul-stirring power it used to be before the spirit of
  its birth, and the original "daimon" of its inspiration, fled from the
  much abused form with feet of clay.

  (.)

  The Theosophical Movement, in its philosophical, ethical, and scientific
  foundations, has the innate power to spearhead such a movement of
  ethical regeneration. It has the latent potency to lead it. It possesses
  the virility of concepts and the depth of knowledge to be the
  cornerstone of such a revival of ethical and spiritual forces in the
  world of today. Whether it has the capacity of leadership and the
  spiritual freedom of action to initiate it, or even to uphold and
  promote it, remains a question which some have already answered in the
  negative. It depends primarily upon the depth of the mental and
  emotional ruts of its adherents, upon the degree to which they will be
  willing to sacrifice their preconceived ideas, their petty jealousies
  and narrow superstitions. It depends upon the character of the
  individuals who will come in the next generation or so within the
  influence of the ageless teachings. It depends also upon the extent to
  which the adherents of the Movement will be inspired by the original
  ideals of the Founders, their fundamental program of action, and their
  broad policies for the future."

  The complete text
  "Wanted: A Rebirth of Ethics", by Boris de Zirkoff,
  can be found at
  www.Esoteric-Philosophy.com <http://www.esoteric-philosophy.com/> .

  Best regards, Joaquim

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...>
  wrote:
  >
  > Dear friends
  >
  > My views are:
  >
  > The following article by W. Q. Judge was written in 1892 to the
  theosphical magazine named the Path...
  > I find it interesting in content since it touches some issues, which,
  to me, still seem to be neglected in various theosophical groups.
  >
  >
  > DOGMATISM IN THEOSOPHY
  > THE Theosophical Society was founded to destroy dogmatism. This
  is one of the meanings of its first object - Universal Brotherhood. And
  Col. H. S. Olcott in his inaugural address in 1875, at Mott Memorial
  Hall, New York, said that such was the object in view, citing the bad
  effect that intolerance had had in the past. That address was read by
  Mme. H. P. Blavatsky before its delivery, or its contents were
  communicated to her, so that it had her assent, for she was present when
  it was delivered.
  >
  > In the Key to Theosophy, in the "Conclusion," H.P.B. again
  refers to this subject and expresses the hope that the Society might
  not, after her death, become dogmatic or crystallize on some phase of
  thought or philosophy, but that it might remain free and open, with its
  members wise and unselfish. And in all her writings and remarks,
  privately or publicly, she constantly reiterated this idea. Of this the
  writer has direct evidence as to her statements in private.
  >
  > If our effort is to succeed, we must avoid dogmatism in
  theosophy as much as in anything else, for the moment we dogmatise and
  insist on our construction of theosophy, that moment we lose sight of
  Universal Brotherhood and sow the seeds of future trouble.
  >
  > There is a great likelihood that members of the Society will
  insist on a certain orthodoxy in our ranks. They are already doing it
  here and there, and this is a note of warning to draw their attention to
  the danger. There is no orthodoxy in our Society. Even though
  nine-tenths of the members believe in Reincarnation, Karma, the
  sevenfold constitution, and all the rest, and even though its prominent
  ones are engaged in promulgating these doctrines as well as others, the
  ranks of the Society must always be kept open, and no one should be told
  that he is not orthodox or not a good Theosophist because he does not
  believe in these doctrines. All that anyone is asked to subscribe to is
  Universal Brotherhood, and its practice in the search for truth. For the
  efforts of those who are thus promulgating specific ideas are made under
  the sanction of the second object of the Society, which any one is free
  to follow or to refuse to follow as he sees fit. One may deny -
  undogmatically - reincarnation and other doctrines, or may assert belief
  in a personal or impersonal God, and still be a good member of the
  Society, provided Universal Brotherhood is subscribed to and put into
  practice.
  >
  > If a member says he must formulate a God, or cannot believe in
  Reincarnation, none other should condemn or draw comparisons, or point
  to the writings of H.P.B. or any one else to show that such a member is
  untheosophical. The greatest minds on earth are puzzled by great ideas
  such as these, and yet, holding them, can still search for truth with
  others in a perfect spirit of toleration.
  >
  > But at the same time it is obvious that to enter the Society and
  then, under our plea of tolerance, assert that theosophy shall not be
  studied, that the great body of thought and philosophy offered in our
  literature shall not be investigated, is untheosophical, unpractical,
  and absurd, for it were to nullify the very object of our organization;
  it is a dogmatism that flows from negation and indifference. We must
  study the philosophy and the doctrines offered to us before we are in a
  position to pass judgment and say that they are not true or that they
  shall be rejected. To judge or reject before examination is the province
  of little minds or prejudiced dogmatists.
  >
  > And as the great body of philosophy, science, and ethics offered
  by H. P. Blavatsky and her teachers has upon it the seal of research, of
  reasonableness, of antiquity, and of wisdom, it demands our first and
  best consideration in order that we may with fitness conclude upon its
  acceptation or rejection.
  >
  > So, then, a member of the Society, no matter how high or how low
  his or her position in its ranks, has the right to promulgate all the
  philosophical and ethical ideas found in our literature to the best
  ability possessed, and no one else has the right to object, provided
  such promulgation is accompanied by a clear statement that it is not
  authorized or made orthodox by any declaration from the body corporate
  of the T.S. Our Society must be kept free and open, no matter if,
  because we refuse to formulate beliefs as a Society, we remain small in
  number, for we can always be strong in influence.
  >
  > Path, January, 1892
  >
  >
  >
  http://www.blavatsky.net/theosophy/judge/articles/dogmatism-in-theosophy\
  .htm
  >
  >
  > Now I ask:
  > What about avoiding crystallizing the TS and avoiding dogmas, and
  secterian doctrines?
  >
  > - - - - - - -
  > A few words about the upcoming psychological science named Mind
  Control...so that the readers might consider its possible relation to
  the above article and question:
  >
  > Charismatic authority
  > "Weber's model of charismatic leadership giving way to
  institutionalization is endorsed by several academic sociologists, such
  as Eileen Barker. In a book written for the general public Barker
  discusses the tendency for new religious movements to have founders or
  leaders who wield considerable charismatic authority and are believed to
  have special powers or knowledge. Charismatic leaders are unpredictable,
  Barker says, for they are not bound by tradition or rules and they may
  be accorded by their followers the right to pronounce on all aspects of
  their lives. Barker warns that in these cases the leader may lack any
  accountability, require unquestioning obedience, and encourage a
  dependency upon the movement for material, spiritual and social
  resources.[9] George D. Chryssides asserts that not all new religious
  movements have charismatic leaders, and that there are differences in
  the hegemonic styles among those movements that do.[10]"
  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority
  >
  >
  >
  > from the heart
  > M. Sufilight
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > [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]

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



  

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