Theos-Talk Archives (October 2011 Message tt00087)

Dear Michael and readers

My views are:

Thank you for a very open answer. I like that.
But I do not find your answer polite, when you are not documenting your somewhat negative views, by the use of references. 


***** 1 *****
Michael wrote:
"My views on a lot of the words of HPB regarding politics are that she writes from an enflamed pen. She is impassioned and a fire-brand, starting fires wherever her mind gazes, empowered from Above. 
I have seen several others of such an approach, and they can indeed move people. 
However, she rather departs sometimes from the middle way. 
She gives a seemingly universal statement that "prayer causes less self-initiative", and then refers to praying "Not my will but thine be done" to the Highest as valuable. 
She diatribes about politics casting a universal disgust upon them all, and then comments about how M works with politicians and Olcott advocated religious impulses be merged with politics. But then Christ ministered to the tax collectors and prosititutes and supped with them.

Basically we are dealing with taking things out of context, except the context in this case requires a very great reading of the works of HPB and all."

M. Sufilight says:
There is no middle-ground here, as I see it. Either you are seeking altruism or you are not seeking altruism. That is the central thing I get from the above answer from you. There was no "inflamed pen" thrown by Blavatsky. I understand however what you say in the below: "One feels the power in her words and the great spirit at work. But it is also easy to be swept away from a poised, altruistic heart centeredness from such writing." - But, no. Because you cannot have it both ways. Either you seek altruism and its promulgation or you do not. This is the view, when we consider that the Theosophical Society was founded with the aim of promulgating altruism.

And it must have been clear that The Original non-sectarian Programe of the Theosophical Society in 1875-1891 did not allow politics to be promulgated on behalf of its organisation - and neither to be discussed within the Society unless it was to show people the differences/similarities between the Society and politics, or why politics was not a path leading to altruism --- not as long as egotism was and is the foundation - politics as a name was build upon. If you are prepared to say the opposite, I think you have to show me and other readers that this is the case. So far I do not see that you have done that.

Blavatsky started "fires" so to root out egotism. That is the kind of "fire" I perceive, when she says that politics is based on egotism. Blaming her wrong for doing that I find to be non-compassionate. But, allright not all persons writings-styles suit everyones taste. And there might be various reasons for this. 

Those who like politics and what it stand for, will of course disagree with the Constitution of the Theosophical Society as given in 1875-1891. (The political Annie Besant later changed it with her friends). So Blavatsky did not depart from any middle-way since there cannot be one here, unless you seek to promote altruism half-heartedly.
The reason why the Theosophical Society came into existence - when it did - was that in the old days, a few decades earlier, members of such an organisation would most likely have been burned on the stake en-masse, hanged or similar; - at least with regard to the Christian parts of the planet, with its kings and churches, if not elsewhere.

I would find it important if you would much more clearly point out where Blavatsky and Olcott went wrong in the references I have been giving. 
Here are the references: H. P. Blavatsky in the Key to Theosophy, 2ed., 1890 - pages 56 and 231-232 (http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm). And Olcott in the "Supplement to The Theosophist for July 1883" (http://www.teosofia.com/Mumbai/7112politics.html)

About Prayer. What is not understood it seems is that the word "prayer" in those days the 1880'ties without hesitation meant Christian prayer in the Western countries?
And that the Eastern word for meditation could not be translated as "prayer", because it was and is not the same thing. Even present day dictionaries agree upon this, although they seek to down-water this in some of those written by those who like to introduce dogmatic Christian ideology. At least this is what I get from the whole affair.
And Blavatsky did not as you have it: "then refers to praying "Not my will but thine be done" to the Highest as valuable." Try to read the text again. It is a false accusation.
It would be more in accordance with altruism if you at least would throw a few precise references when you appear throw your slander and mud at Blavatsky.

What you assume as "disgust" from Blavatsky's pen - is altruism - seeking to make people aware of that egotism is bad, and altruism is good. Nothing else. Why tend to plaster Blavatsky with unethical motives, when she openly sought to promote altruism? - It is of course entirely up to you if you want to read something else into her words. I think there are clearly an altruistic aim in what she wrote about politicians and the dogmatic Christians - egoistic and nasty behaviors. But, maybe she was too outspoken and too truthful?

About your words: "comments about how M works with politicians and Olcott advocated religious impulses be merged with politics."
HPB said in 1883: "Neither the Tibetan nor the modern Hindu Mahatmas for the matter of that, ever meddle with politics, though they may bring their influence to bear upon more than one momentous question in the history of a nation-their mother country especially." (Blavatsky Collected Writings, Volume 6 Page 15)

As I sought to tell Jeremy, in a previous post - you cannot blame Master Morya for having done anything wrong, since there is nothing on print to satisfy such an attempt with regard to his eventual bad involvement with politics. We do not really in any officiall sense know in what manner he was in contact with politicians. And this is central. And as I said, the belief in the Masters was never made an article of faith in the Constitution of the Theosophical Society as given in 1875-1891, and I am not prepared to do that either in the present; - although I do claim like Blavatsky that they exist because I have experienced it and know it. Let others who do not know reject it or have it as a hypothesis if they like.
And you can neither blame Olcott for being involved in politics in a manner where you can say that he promoted politics, instead of pursuing the promulgation of altruism. If so I will be happy to hear about it. 
To have conversations with politicians is not the same at promoting politics. It could easily be the opposite. And this it important. Let the following quote explain more about the issue.

In A. L. Cleather's book "H. P. Blavatsky; A Great Betrayal" we find:
"Mrs. Besant's " Spiritual Viceroy " has certainly nothing to do with Those who were directing H. P. B. when she founded the Indian T. S. OR U. B. in 1879 ; for a special clause was included in the Constitution stating that " The Society repudiates all interference on its behalf with the Governmental relations of any nation or com-munity, confining its attention exclusively to the matters set forth in the present document. . ." H. P. B. also wrote in the Theosophist,  for October, 1879 " Unconcerned about politics ; hostile to the insane dreams of Socialism and Communism, which if abhors  -as both are but disguised conspirations of brutal force and sluggishness against honest labour: the Society cares but little about the outward human management of the material world. The whole of its aspira-tions are directed toward the occult truths of the visible and invisible worlds. Whether the physical man be under the rule of an empire or a republic, concerns only the man of matter. His body may be enslaved ; as to his Soul, he has the right to give to his rulers the proud answer of Socrates to his Judges. They have no sway over the inner man." There speaks the true Mystic whose " Kingdom is not of this world." Three years later H. P. B. and Colonel Olcott published a further disclaimer, in which they said " Before we came to India, the word Politics had never been pronounced in connection with our names ; for the idea was too absurd to be even entertained, much less expressed. . ." appeal both to the Government and the Indian people in this portentous announcement is not very happily conceived." (page 61...see also page 96 about the Liberal Catholic Church, LCC)
http://www.archive.org/stream/hpblavatskygreat00clearich#page/60/mode/2up/search/political

I do hope, you better understand the true aim with the Theosophical Society in 1875-1891? Yet, among all the TS members we find the old words to be true: "errare humanum est". We humans do commit mistakes.
The little play-ground here in the physical, etheric, astral and lower mental spheres, might be very vital to a great number of esteemed personalities, who have the dream of living out the experience that other persons find them to be brilliant in the religious or political arena - or - as esteemed personalities, who gives "spinning" answers to questions about earthly "laws" put by the pulitzer journalists of the day. But this is not really what the purpose of life - centrally speaking is about - is it? 

The following might be important to consider:
Politics aims to change systems for the benefit of people; Theosophy aims to change people themselves for the long-term benefit of humanity itself.

I do however somehow understand those seekers after truth, who has difficulties in distinguishing politics from altruism and the aims of the Theosophical Society as given in 1875-1891 in the Original Programe.
In our times, a great number of persons on the globe are daily being bombarded with political views and news-flashes. And guess it takes a strong character not to yield and say: - allright - politics is important. People are almost brainwashed into believing that politics is the central thing - even when it is not. Because it must be clear that altruism is the central thing. At least it is so to a number of theosophical seekers - who seek out the meaning of life and the truth it might contain; - and do it in a non-sectarian manner.


***** 2 *****
Michael wrote:
One man says "politics" and refers to party-line power mongering, another hears "statesmanship".

To introduce altruism in political discourse is actually often done, it is just that people have different views on how it is applied. 

In abortion, many think they are being compassionate toward a woman to allow abortions. Others think that they are being altruistic toward the unborn to forbid it. 

Same with drug legalization. 

Same with welfare support programs. Is it altruistic to make a man stand on his own, or to give him money so he doesn't starve to death or go into crime? Does that make him weak?

Altruism could b fleshed out and made conscious as the central motivating factor and guide for decisions, instead of being a hidden motive.

"Mr. Minister of State, does it seem to the gentleman that the issue at hand exemplifies altruistic principles, or is it rather the unbridled lust of a faction among us that would drain the body politic of it resources in selfish pursuit of its own small visioned goals?

Those are some first thoughts. "

M. Sufilight says:
Try to read all the above comments by me and tell me clearly why the references I have given by Blavatsky and Olcott are not valid.
And I will again repeat the following...
"The following might be important to consider:
Politics aims to change systems for the benefit of people; Theosophy aims to change people themselves for the long-term benefit of humanity itself."

Blavatsky said:"To seek to achieve political reforms before we have effected a reform in human nature, is like putting new wine into old bottles."

This is the central sentence I find you do not understand the importance of.
Do you understand it better now? - You cannot legislate yourself out of the misery. Human reform has to take place in the heart of each individual - and - not be sought changed by condtitionizing human-made laws - without seek to promote ethical understanding and Wisdom in the heart of the individual. Change comes form within the heart of compassion in the human individual. And this only happen by understanding why altruism is important, and not by being told what to do and not to do - without any understanding - and by promoting superficial emotional admirations of political figures and pulitzer jouranlists - all of them more or less in bed with the dogmatic Christians and their eternal Hells. Can you not see, that this is the honest - altruistic - reason for not having anything as such to do with politics?
That was why I was referring to the scientific psychological term called "subtle Mind Control". I do hope you understand me better.

You do not put a small child into a small prison cell, and feed it, with bad language, spin, and half-baked cookies - or threaten it with such a prison cell and such things - when it is in need for psychological and ethical comfort and especially understanding of wisdom. Well, do you?
So I do not give much for your list of altruistic leaders, although some of them might have understood a bit about ethics. It is missing the central ethical point of view to think that politics is the main road forward for humanity - when holding altruism in high regard - when we agree upon the idea that the universe is not merely consisting of fortuitous concurrence of atoms. Do you not agree?

H. P. Blavatsky wrote about the Original Programe of the TS:
"Church organizations, Christian and Spiritual sects were shown as the future contrasts to our Society."
(Blavatsky Collected Writings, Volume 7 Page 146)

***** 3 *****
Michael wrote:
"I don't think you will win as many to the cause of altruism by continually emphasizing the negatives of history or what might seem so to present day minds." 

M. Sufilight says:
Yes. Perhaps. Because Egotism and political-crazes seems to be very prevalent on the globe.
If people refuse to learn from their bad and non-altruistic actions of the past, we can only wonder where they will pile up.


***** 4 *****

Michael wrote:
I pray for great blessing upon us and our world. And especially the blessing of increased self-initiative in Oneness, for all. 

M. Sufilight says:
Whom do you pray to for those blessings - if I may ask?


All the above are of course just my views. I do not claim myself infallible as a "pope" or similar
I do hope that at least some of it will be useful for something altruistic and good.


M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: libertyson11 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 7:06 AM
  Subject: theos-talk RE; politics and various Quests of the ION


    

  SUFI-LIGHT and all Altruistic Hearts

  My views on a lot of the words of HPB regarding politics are that she writes from an enflamed pen. She is impassioned and a fire-brand, starting fires wherever her mind gazes, empowered from Above. 
  I have seen several others of such an approach, and they can indeed move people. 
  However, she rather departs sometimes from the middle way. 
  She gives a seemingly universal statement that "prayer causes less self-initiative", and then refers to praying "Not my will but thine be done" to the Highest as valuable. 
  She diatribes about politics casting a universal disgust upon them all, and then comments about how M works with politicians and Olcott advocated religious impulses be merged with politics. But then Christ ministered to the tax collectors and prosititutes and supped with them.

  Basically we are dealing with taking things out of context, except the context in this case requires a very great reading of the works of HPB and all. 

  One man says "politics" and refers to party-line power mongering, another hears "statesmanship".

  To introduce altruism in political discourse is actually often done, it is just that people have different views on how it is applied. 

  In abortion, many think they are being compassionate toward a woman to allow abortions. Others think that they are being altruistic toward the unborn to forbid it. 

  Same with drug legalization. 

  Same with welfare support programs. Is it altruistic to make a man stand on his own, or to give him money so he doesn't starve to death or go into crime? Does that make him weak?

  Altruism could b fleshed out and made conscious as the central motivating factor and guide for decisions, instead of being a hidden motive.

  "Mr. Minister of State, does it seem to the gentleman that the issue at hand exemplifies altruistic principles, or is it rather the unbridled lust of a faction among us that would drain the body politic of it resources in selfish pursuit of its own small visioned goals?

  Those are some first thoughts. 

  "*** There have many great political leaders in history whose actions expressed
  altruism at times. "

  M. Sufilight says:
  Who?

  **** Ah, but let us beware of the discussions of who has been altruisitically oriented, for the "facts" each of use bring to the table are often different, and we might fight over nothing. 

  But at my peril, let me list some. 

  John Adams, and John Quincy Adams 

  Andrew Jackson, for say what you will of various ruelties, he stood for the brothers and sisters of humanity against the Bank and the Banksters, the greatest enemy of Man. 

  It is easy to list the founding fathers of America. George Wythe unassailably. [Mentor of Jefferson and an exemplary spirit in law and statesmanship.]

  I would include Lincoln, Sam Houston, Simone Bolivar.

  If they were assassinated they were a good candidate for this list. 

  Read the Lives of Plutarch and a few stand out. 

  The five good Roman Emperors, including Hadrian.

  The Duke of Chou of ancient China. 

  M. Sufilight says:
  Who?
  And was that not all in all just superficial Altruism, when you consider it? And
  consider the murders, the man-made laws - seeking to by-pass the law of Karma,
  the prisons the police and all the sectarian manouvres and spin?

  *** It is quite easy to cast stones upon historical figures operating under great burdens. 

  I guess I would caution you to consider the value of not being quite so strongly opinioned about history. 
  It is fashionable to cast all of history, all church history, all the history of Western Civilization, in a disparaging light and view. I don't think you will win as many to the cause of altruism by continually emphasizing the negatives of history or what might seem so to present day minds. 

  People respond to the heroes of history, and great deeds and words. Casting all that doesn't correspond to perfect altruism as being unworthy of our veneration is not going to be very effective, methinks. 

  In short, there have been countless heroic deeds in history. 

  In looking at HPBs writings, it now seems to me that she was stating things over strongly, likely under the burden of her attempted smashing thru of the hypnotic veils of mediocrity upon the West, England, etc. 

  One feels the power in her words and the great spirit at work. But it is also easy to be swept away from a poised, altruistic heart centeredness from such writing. 

  I pray for great blessing upon us and our world. And especially the blessing of increased self-initiative in Oneness, for all. 



  

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