Theos-Talk Archives (March 2011 Message tt00186)

Well done.

Lives of most of have been affected by what we were exposed to, from
theosophy. Once we are committed to the first object, all other things old
and new should not affect how we put to use the theosophical principles in
our daily lives. Application of simple doctrines can go a long way to help
our fellow beings and this does not need deep and extensive scholarly
reading or research or even training.

Once anchored on some of the basic theosophical doctrines, organizational or
other differences should not affect our individual improvement and our
contribution to our fellow beings. Whether one belongs to an organization or
none, we all can meet and discuss like brothers and sisters.

My 0.02

MKR

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 4:35 PM, jdmsoares <jdmsoares@yyjwnSNoGeJFoDIR5CBOPflO9py1kamYjMNhqL_0APDaUdVFDyljnLWbeNT7w9ALlsZzjwDn2xSnBRL_VQI.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

>
>
>
> 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 ÂH.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 â of the well know text of HPB â 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<http://www.esoteric-philosophy.com/2010/10/1922-statement-to-all-theosophists-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]
>
>  
>


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