Theos-Talk Archives (March 2011 Message tt00184)

Dear Sufilight, Konstantin, friends,

I think the differences between Sufilight positions and those we defend
in our websites are, from our point of view, secondary and of no great
importance.

Konstantin is deeply concerned about those who left the Adyar TS, and
believes that these become the "most bitter enemies".

My dear brothers, I myself was for some years a member of Adyar Society
and like Sufilight and many others I also not hope to be considered an
enemy.

Theosophy is not confined to the Adyar TS.

It is good to remember that HPB herself wrote:

"It is pure nonsense to say ´H.P. Blavatsky . . . is loyal to the
Theosophical Society and to Adyar` (!?) H.P. Blavatsky is loyal to death
to the Theosophical Cause, and those great Teachers whose philosophy can
alone bind the whole of Humanity into one Brotherhood. Together with
Col. Olcott, she is the chief Founder and Builder of the Society which
was and is meant to represent the Cause. . . Therefore the degree of her
sympathies with the "Theosophical Society and Adyar" depends
upon the degree of the loyalty of that Society to the Cause. Let it
break away from the original lines and show disloyalty in its policy to
the Cause and the original programme of the Society, and H.P. Blavatsky
calling the Theosophical Society disloyal will shake it off like dust
from her feet."

I took this excerpt ? of the well know text of HPB ? from a most
interesting article entitled "A Key to the Future of Adyar
<http://www.esoteric-philosophy.com/2010/10/1922-statement-to-all-theoso\
phists-and.html> ", which I think it is worth reading carefully.

The theosophical movement itself as a whole needs a revived Adyar TS.



Best regards, Joaquim




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Konstantin and friends
>
> My views are:
>
> Your post got me to think about my own role in this affair:
> Well, then I do certainly not hope that I am considered an enemy and
Jesuit, at least not more than Leadbeater was when he was reinstated in
1908 - well if you understand me in a positive manner.
>
> Well, either one is in sympathy with the aims of the Society or one is
not.
> I am very much in sympathy with the Original Constitution and Rules as
they were given in 1891, but not the present day ones. That is the main
difference i experience.
>
> What I through the years has experienced as highly problematic is that
it is virtually impossible to exchange views with leading TS members
about central issues like why deviation from the Original Constitution
of the Theosophical Society has been necessary - and why exchanges on
this is kept from the TS magazines, while it as a fact must be of the
greatest importance to consider in a Society where the primary aim is
something as important as ALTRUISM! And when we on top of that talk
about the crisis that happened in the later years and the lacking of
interest or rather understanding of the TS and its aims among people in
all countries but India perhaps, - so we are told --- I find the
laziness og laissez-faire attutude publicly speaking to be lacking
compassion!
> Yet, there is a TS blog where some articles have been posted, and we
have to be thankful for this.
>
> Maybe as HPB said in the link on SPIRITUAL PROGRESS I recently posted,
--- we all would do well in much more scientific research in the field
of Mesmerism (known today by many as Heartflow and Healing, or
Therapeutic Touch etc.)?
>
> There is, as I see it, a clear and pressing need for an explanation of
the aims of the Society - and a clear explanation of why its
Constitution and Rules are like they are today - and - that compared
with the original one in 1875 and later versions, like the 1891 one. It
is important, if one really are taking this Society thing seriously. If
it is not, then the present day attitude are understood much better. But
calling it altruism I will not.
>
>
> TS has, as I see it, today not clearly defined its role towards New
Age groups - and the many later theosophical ofshoots - and that is a
great failure. The same with TS relation to whether it is secterian or
non-secterian. (The latter term, a term which has been thrown away from
the 1875 and 1891 Constitutions through the years). In the old days,
something like that would not have happened - because back then altruism
and building the Society on a rock was considered to be important - and
views based on facts and scientific research as well.
> And honesty was important as well - and an error commited, was
admitted when proven.
> And I find that this last sentence, perhaps is where the shoe pinches
mon Shaib (as Sinnett was told by Morya in the below).
>
> J. Krishnamurti's idea of abolishing all organisations is not really
what is helpful to the promotion of altruism, if you by this consider
dissolving the TS. And if it is a dissolving of the TS the present day
leadership aims at they seem very slow at promoting it.
>
>
> Mahatma Letter no. 47 by Morya to Sinnett:
> "Your last letter to me is less a "petition" than a protest, my
respected Sahib. It's voice is that of the war sankh of my Rajput
ancestors, rather than the cooing of a friend. And I like it all the
more I promise you. It has the right ring of honest frankness. So let us
talk -- for sharp as your voice may be, your heart is warm and you end
by saying "Whether you decree that what seems to me right be done or
not" you are ever ours faithfully etc. Europe is a large place but the
world is bigger yet. The sun of Theosophy must shine for all, not for a
part. There is more of this movement than you have yet had an inkling
of, and the work of the T.S. is linked in with similar work that is
secretly going on in all parts of the world. Even in the T.S. there is a
division, managed by a Greek Brother about which not a person in the
Society has a suspicion excepting the old woman and Olcott"
> .......
> "You know K.H. and me -- buss! know you anything of the whole
Brotherhood and its ramifications? The Old Woman is accused of
untruthfulness, inaccuracy in her statements. "Ask no questions and you
will receive no lies." She is forbidden to say what she knows. You may
cut her to pieces and she will not tell. Nay -- she is ordered in cases
of need to mislead people; and, were she more of a natural born liar --
she might be happier and won her day long since by this time. But that's
just where the shoe pinches, Sahib. She is too truthful, too outspoken,
too incapable of dissimulation: and now she is being daily crucified for
it. Try not to be hasty, respected Sir. The world was not made in a day;
nor has the tail of the yak developed in one year. Let evolution take
its course naturally -- lest we make it deviate and produce monsters by
presuming to guide it."
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-47.htm
>
>
> Now, you may crucify me for saying what I am saying, but I am saying
it for the sake of a Society I am not even a member of these days.
>
> All the above are as usual just my views.
> And I might be in error.
>
>
>
> M. Sufilight
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Konstantin Zaitzev
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 11:02 AM
>   Subject: theos-talk Re: THE FUTURE OF ADYAR SOCIETY - An Article
>
>
>
>   > Some months ago, an article on the topic of the Future of Adyar
>   > Society was published in a theosophical forum.
>
>   The author is very prejudiced. He persistently calls theosophical
society "Adyar society", ignoring the fact that other societies calling
themselves theosophical are decaying in much greater degree and hadn't
much prominence even in their best times.
>   Information on his site is filtered and censored. Several months ago
he proposed me to make an interview, ensuring me in his "professional
journalism", "professional ethics" and other bla-bla-bla like that.
>   It took much time to write detailed answers to all his questions,
but as some my answers proved to be not like he expected, he declined to
publish the interview.
>   I agree that for the last 30 years the Theosophical Society is
experiencing serious problems (probably more serious than the author
points out but of quite different nature), but it's not the best way to
solve them to resort to the help of the enemies of the Society. For many
years he was a member and later left it, and, as HPB pointed out, such
people form the most bitter enemies. The other materials of the site
illustarate that well.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



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