Theos-Talk Archives (March 2011 Message tt00190)

Dear Joaquim

My views are:

Now I ask a few questions in the below to Joaquim.
other readers are heartily welcome to give some answers, of their heart of compassion are eager enough for it. Especially those who claim that they value the promotion of altruism in the TS very very much. TS leaders included!


Joaquim, you wrote:
"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."

M. Sufilight says:
Well, that might be true.
But I wonder whether it is unimportant, if the present day TS operates a secterian body or not, when its original aim in 1875 until 1891 was most clearly to operate in a non-secterian manner?

And I also wonder whether it is unimportant, if the present day TS operates with the same view as Annie Besant when she as a leader of the TS and its Esoteric Section said the following in her very political book in the below excerpt. 

In the below Annie Besant made both H. P. Blavatsky and H. S. Olcott guilty of political pormotions - even on behalf - of the Theosophical Society. To this I must clealry protest, when one call it unimportant or of no freat importance, even if TS Adyar do it....

The Future of Indian Politics, 1922 (Printed at supposedly non-political Theosophical Publishing House)
"CHAPTER I 
STEP BY STEP 

We begin with the words with which we 
finished our " Bird's-Eye View " : " ultimate 
freedom under her rule was inevitable " ; and 
we must first note the great institution known 
as the Indian National Congress, which laid, 
well and truly, the foundations of Indian Free- 
dom from December, 1885, to August, 1918, 
both in Bombay. 

Some English critics, in the early days of 
the War, angrily declared that India had taken 
advantage of the War to press a new claim for 
Dominion status. That was not so. The new 
departure in 1913 resembled in one marked 
way the new departure when the National 


26 THE FUTURE OF INDIAN POLITICS 

Congress was planned in 1884. The seed of 
both was planted by the Theosophical Society. 
It was at the Theosophical Convention of that 
year that a small group of earnest Theo- 
sophists - deeply concerned for the political 
future of their country and aroused to a sense 
of her past powers and her then present 
impotence by the awakening crusades of 
H. P. Blavatsky and Henry Steele Olcott, 
stirring the educated to self-respect and res- 
pect for their Nation - meeting in Adyar, 
decided to make an effort for political 
redemption; feeble as they seemed, they 
felt strong in their belief that India's 
ancient Rshis still watched over Their ancient 
and ever well-loved land, and would aid their 
efforts to bring about her political resurrection ; 
so they gathered a small meeting in Madras 
- there were only seventeen of them - and it 
was there decided to begin " a National move- 
ment for the saving of the Motherland "(How 

STEP BY STEP 27 

India Wrought for Freedom, p. 2). A list of the 
seventeen is there given, quoted from the 
Indian Mirror, and they were mostly delegates 
to the Theosophical Convention from Calcutta, 
Bombay, Poena, Benares, Allahabad, Bengal,^ 
Oudh and the Northwest Province (now the 
United Provinces), and Madras. One of them, 
Norendranath Sen, Editor of the (Calcutta) 
Indian Mirror, says of them in his paper : 
" The delegates who attended the [Theo- 
sophical] Convention were most of them men 
who, socially and intellectually, are the leaders 
of the Society in which they move in different 
parts of the country." They resolved that on 
their return home, each would form a 
Committee in his own town or Province, and 
consult how to make their dream a reality. " In 
March, 1885, it was decided to hold a meeting 
of representatives from all parts of India at 
the then coming Christmas " (Proceedings of 
the First Indian National Congress) They 


28 THE FUTURE OF INDIAN POLITICS 

estimated that seventy delegates would be pre- 
sent, and seventy-two attended, strengthened 
by thirty friends. From that first meeting in 
1885 to that of Bombay in 1918 - with one 
break-down at Surat in 1907 - the Congress 
was truly National, and guided Indian Politics.
During all these years the National Congress 
had awakened large numbers of the English- 
educated classes to political self-consciousness, 
and had trained them in political knowledge. 
English names, Hume, Wedderburn, Cotton, 
and others are found co-operating with the 
Indian patriots. It met yearly and demanded 
definite improvements in the system of 
Government, definite changes in legislation, 
definite reforms of abuses, definite limitations 
of autocracy and enlargements of liberty."
http://www.archive.org/stream/futureofindianpo00besarich#page/n3/mode/2up

I repeat Annie Besant claim:
"The seed of 
both was planted by the Theosophical Society."...ie. the political aim for freedom of India, (to Besant this was freedom under the English Crown, the King)...etc. etc.


This is the past, which at present still looms over the Theosophical Society, who in truth have not washed away this stain from its main spiritual aim of altruism.

Those who find that turning the TS into a pseudo-arm and promoter of politics a good idea, they support Annie Besant. Those who do not, aught to change the Constitution and Rules of the present day TS, so they clearly rejects this stance - something the today very much distorted 1891 TS Constitutions and Rules in fact do.

But, please tell me why I am in error, when I - in the name of ALTRUSIM --- find the lack of emphasis on these to issues - non-political interference and non-secterian bahaviour to be lacking in TS Adyar and its present day Constitutions. Will you please do that?

All the above are as usual just my views.
And I might be in error.



M. Sufilight



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: jdmsoares 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 12:35 AM
  Subject: theos-talk Re: THE FUTURE OF ADYAR SOCIETY - An Article


    

  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]



  

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