Theos-Talk Archives (March 2011 Message tt00202)

Dear Sufilight, friends,

Maybe you have not read carefully the article that MKR mentioned,
"The Future of Adyar Society
<http://www.esoteric-philosophy.com/2010/10/future-of-adyar-society_18.h\
tml> ".

Let me leave here the invitation to those who feel interested to visit
our websites and read our texts.

On the websites www.TheosophyOnline.com
<http://www.theosophyonline.com/>  and www.Esoteric-Philosophy.com
<http://www.esoteric-philosophy.com/>  you will find two specific
sections dealing in depth with the really important issues affecting the
Adyar Society, and the esoteric movement as a whole: "Truth and
Falsehood in the Theosophical Literature" and "Theosophical
Movement -- Its Past and Its Future".

You will find there, very clearly, that to really revive Adyar TS is
necessary to abandon the pseudo-theosophy of Annie Besant and
Leadbeater, is necessary to rescue the original theosophy of HPB; is
necessary to abandon the domain maintained by dogmatisms
bureaucratic-ritualistic.

Above all, is necessary to recognize past mistakes and fantasies so to
continue to persist in these same mistakes over and over again. They are
not personal mistakes, but pedagogical ones. They resulted, basically,
from the withdrawal of the genuine esoteric philosophy and from the well
intentioned adoption of a pseudo-theosophy placed at the service of
rituals, hierarchies of power, etc.



Best regards, Joaquim




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...>
wrote:
>
> 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/2u\
p
>
> 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]
>



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