Theos-Talk Archives (October 2011 Message tt00126)

Finally Krishnamurti is getting some recognition for his work.
Cass



>________________________________
>From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@oepuu4iiwy8P8MVvw-R-wPGSy6jKZyuSOc6uSUPvk2j_HOzNy0tvx0yn72i3yS160C9IprYp-mpo6wDGhdskvQnosOU.yahoo.invalid>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011 10:29 PM
>Subject: Re: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
>
>
>Â 
>Dear friends
>
>My views are:
>
>It seem to me, that everyones suddenly got busy with a whole lot of other activities. And that might be very well.
>I do not hope that I have offended anyone by telling the truth as I see it about the Alice A. Bailey followers views and about what I perceived the view on politics was in the Theosophical Society in 1875-1891. Because, I do appreciate all who seek to promote altruism - also the Alice A. Bailey followers, even if they might think differently.
>
>In these times of so-called "depression" economically or psychologically the following might be helpful to consider and contemplate.
>I write this post so to be of service to us all and to humanity. You see my heart goes out to all of us, also the Alice A. Bailey followers, the Christians, and other ideologies.
>
>The following highlights some of the most well-known present day spiritual leaders and other leaders views on the science of Psychology and the promotion of compassion and peace on the planet, for the sake of all humanity. First I will quote J. Krishnamurti and then I throw two videos - which I only can highly recommend to present day seekers interested in comparative studying - and - seekers of altruism and wisdom.
>
>Please let me know what you think, so that this forum or other persons might benefit from this in the future or in the so-called Now.
>
>##### 1 #####
>J. KRISHNAMURTI on the IMPORTANCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CHANGE
>I will throw these short views given by J. Krishnamurti. I find them to be very important to understand.
>Although I agree very much with him about these views, I also aught to say that I where I stand today find various parts of his overall teachings to be problematic.
>
>J. Krishnamurti said:
>"Organizations have not solved this problem. You can reorganize but war still goes on. So organizations, whether it is world organization or a particular kind of organization to bring about peace, such organizations will never succeed because human beings individually, collectively, nationally, are in conflict."
>.......
>"I wonder if you realize that the word 'scepticism', questioning, enquiring, is not advocated in the Christian world. Whereas in Buddhism, and Hinduism, that is one of the essential things, you must question everything, until you discover or come upon that truth, which is not yours, or any others, it is truth."
>.......
>"But to enquire gently, hesitantly, questioning, asking yourself, then out of that comes clarity. And there must be clarity to understand that which is eternal."
>.......
>"We have lived on this earth from the historical, as well as ancient enquiry, on this earth for fifty thousand years or more or less. And during
>that long period of evolution psychologically, inwardly, subjectively, we have remained more or less barbarous - hating each other, killing each other. And time is not going to solve that problem, which is evolution. And is it possible, we are asking, for each human being, who is the rest of the world, whether that psychological movement can stop and see something afresh?"
>.......
>"Please do realize something tremendous: that you are the rest of mankind psychologically. You are mankind, whether you live in India, Russia, China or in America, or Europe, you are the rest of mankind, because you suffer, and everyone on this earth suffers in his own way. We share that suffering, it is not my suffering. So when you ask a question: what difference will it make if I or you change, if I may most humbly point out, it is a wrong question. You are avoiding the central issue. And we never seem to face the central issue, the central challenge that demands that we live totally differently, not as Americans, Russians, Indians, or Buddhists or Christians."
>.......
>"I wonder if you have realized Christians have been responsible for killing humans far more than any other religious group. Don't get angry please! Then Islam, the Muslim world, then the Hindus and
>the Buddhists come much later. So if the so-called Christians, the Catholics included, about eight hundred million people, if they said, "No more wars", you will have peace on this earth. But they won't say that. It is only Buddhism, Hinduism, said, "Don't kill. If you kill" - they believe in reincarnation - you will pay next life."
>.......
>" Now we are talking about choice in the psychological field. If you see things very clearly there is no choice. It is unfortunate that we don't see things clearly. We don't see clearly that nationalism is one of the causes of war. We don't clearly see that ideologies breed wars, whether it is the Marxist ideologies, or Lenin, or our own particular form of ideologies. So we choose from one ideology to another, one religion to another, one group to another, and we think we are free. On the contrary, it shows confusion. And when we are confused we act in confusion, therefore multiply confusion, as the politicians are doing - forgive me."
>(A few questions and answers seem to be missing from the original in the below link. Try also youtube.)
>http://www.krishnamurtiaustralia.org/articles/world_peace.htm
>
>M. Sufilight says:
>A few comments. I quote the above so to show, why politics are problematic, when we deal with the promotion of altruism. Because there cannot be any promotion af altruism without a - psychological change in the individual. And J. Krishnamurti said the same. So let us not try to fiddle around on the periphery, by supporting the United Nations, but seek the central issue here. Even the Alice A. Bailey follower Robert MÃller (Assistant Secretary-General for 40 years. He has become known as the "Philosopher" of the UN. He died sept. 2010, about 87 years old), who were present when J. Krishnamurti said the above agreed upon that the United Nations was problematic - although I question that he really did understand J. Krishnamurti's words. Although I am also in no doubt, that he understood them at least to some extend. (Robert MÃller was Assistant Secretary-General for 40 years at the United Nations. He has become known as the "Philosopher" of the UN. He
 died sept. 2010, about 87 years old. He used some of his years supporting the Alice A. Bailey teachings and ideas. This can be seen in his "World Core Curriculum" and other of his writings.).
>
>___________________
>
>##### 2 #####
>
>A CHRISTIAN VIEW AND FEAR of ALICE A. BAILEY and ROBERT MULLER
>A Christian view upon the Robet Muller's teachings in the "World Core Curriculum" and his involvement with Alice A. Bailey - in the first video.
>In the next video a Christian view upon Alice A. Bailey.
>
>Know Your Enemy (Part 65 - The World Core Curriculum) 
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqhf-BeADT4
>Know Your Enemy (Part 66 - Alice A Bailey) 
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDlDdIFgv4w&feature=related
>
>A part from the fact that I do not agree with the Christian conclusions, I neither agree with the model used by the mother-organisation Lucis Trust behind the Alice A. Bailey followers with regard to a non-sectarian focus. At least I find that they are doing a bad job in this regard. And the same with great many other of the Alice A. Bailey groups and offshoots from the mother-organisation around the globe. But these are just my views, and I gather a number of other persons views. And I will be happy to see them be proven wrong. And I guess others will as well. But when silence is the best answer given by the Alice A. Bailey followers, I think we will have to let it rest there.
>
>I find that Christians have a tendency to call the ideas on inquiring a kind of selfish and narcissistic activity. Yet the Christians most often also do emphasize dogmatic Mystics like Teresa Avila and John of the Cross (both admired by the well-known Catholic Healer named Caroline Myss, who also included Ignatius Loyola as a Mystic in one of her books).
>_________
>
>##### 3 #####
>
>THE SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGY CONSIDERED VERY IMPORTANT TO PRESENT DAY LEADING SPIRITUALS
>Now taking all the above into account I find it interesting to consider, that some of the most well-known spiritual teacher of our - present time - are all of them together with various well-known Nobel Prize Laureates and also known scientists in areas as education, physics, psychology, psychiatry and other scientific areas - agreeing upon that PSYCHOLOGICAL CHANGE is vital and central for the future betterment of mankind and even peace in the world.
>
>I will throw two links to other series of videos on Youtube.
>The first link is a meeting that took place two years ago in Canada. The other was a more recent event which took place in May 2011 in Newark, in USA.
>
>##### Canada - Vancouver - Peace Summit 2009 - three days #####
>Some of the world's prominent spiritual leaders and activists came to Vancouver to join the Dalai Lama at a peace summit in September 2009.
>Among them was of the Dalai Lama, Eckhart Tolle (the perhaps two most - influential - spiritual teacher today on our planet. They were seen walking hand in hand after the meeting a journalist wrote.)
>Murray Gell-Mann (one of the leading figures within Physics, claimed discoverer of the Quark, and Nobel Laureate), Dr. Daniel Siegel, (neuropsychiatrist and author, and behind Mindsight Institute, and teacher in Mindfulness, which is related to Buddhist and Hindu doctrines on the same), Sir Ken Robinson (World wide teacher and author, one of the leading voice on "education paradigms", and is interestingly admired a bit by the well-known actor John Cleese), Matt Goldman, (songwriter and founding member of the Blue Man Group) and one of his colleagues.
>More info about other later speakers can be found on the Internet or elsewhere.
>
>### Peace Summit 2009 - Educating the Heart and Mind ###
>(His Holiness the Dalai Lama along with four other Nobel Laureates and respected leaders in the fields of education, business and social transformation take part in four panel discussions as part of the Vancouver Peace Summit 2009 held in Vancouver Canada on September 27-29, 2009.)
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suojNzKZ8ew&feature=related
>http://www.tibetonline.tv/videos/410/peace-summit-2009-educating-the-heart-and-mind
>
>Do see it if you have not seen it already. It is quite powerful in content.
>
>IMPORTANT: I do not endorse the political views in the video.
>
>##### Newark Peace Education Summit  #####
>
>The following links are clearly showing this. The first is part three of three series of videos. This part is part 3 of 11.
>Robert Thurman the moderator, is a well-known author on Buddhist books. All the other speakers are presented in the videos, and more info can be found on the Internet or elsewhere.
>Let me say that Roshi Joan Halifax was once married with Stanislaw Grof in her young days and is today a Zen-Buddhist or similar. - The Summit was three days long. And other guest speakers was invited on the other days.
>
>### Dalai Lama - Peace Within Panel Part 3 of 11- Newark Peace Education Summit ###
>(Part three of the first panel of the Newark Peace Education Summit focuses on generating inner peace. Multiple perspectives are solicited from the panel which includes Nobel Laureates, His Holiness the XIVth Dalai Lama, Jody Williams and Shirin Ebadi as well as Deepak Chopra, Roshi Joan Halifax, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Tao Porchon-Lynch, Wilbert Rideau, and Youth Representative: Mahishan Gnanaseharan. Robert Thurman Moderates this lively and profound discussion.)
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj9_z-dJ7b0&feature=related
>
>To be completely honest I had to use a number of kitchen-roll papers to wipe tears away when I heard the young kid Mahishan Gnanaseharan speaking before all these well-known personalities.
>It went straight to my heart. Tears rolled down quite unstoppable literally for minutes.
>
>Do see all the 11 clips it if you have not seen them already. It is quite powerful in content.
>
>IMPORTANT: I do not endorse the political views in the video-clips.
>_____________
>
>M. Sufilight says:
>Now considering all the above, I find that all those interested in theosophy and esoteric teachings aught to consider the very very VITAL IMPORTANCE of the science of Psychology --- both spiritually, non-spiritually, esoterically and so on. And not seek to avoid the science of Subtle Mind Control in that regard. It seem that depression, fear and ignorance, and other issues, are the greatest obstacles in our times - with regard taking these psychological elements in science seriously and seriously enough. We are here talking about science, not in belief or faith. And this must be important.
>
>So are we getting closer to the Psychological Key to the Secret Doctrine of all ages past?
>What do you think about the above quotes and videos etc.??? 
>
>Is it all unimportant???
>
>M. Sufilight
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: M. Sufilight 
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:19 PM
>Subject: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
>
>Dear friends
>
>My views are:
>
>Sorry about this lengthy relpy. But It seems from where I stand important to cover the subject as clearly as possible without writing a whole book about it.
>
>Now as a Seeker after Truth and Wisdom and seeking to promote altruism, I often seek comparative studying so to avoid a narrowminded or sectarian out-look upon life.
>And I am also in the below seeking to show some of the problems and issues so to speak which our present time year 2011 are facing compared with the past with regard to the non-sectarian Theosophical Society as it was given in 1875-1891, and before it changed and became more or less sectarian after the year 1910. My study will focus on whether the Theosophical Society as it was given in 1875-1891 was political or sectarian - and - on whether the very widespread esoteric mother-organisation Lucis Trust behind the Alice A. Bailey followers are sectarian or non-sectarian, as well as political or non-political in their activities.
>I do this because there seem to be a great deal of confusion with regard to how the word "sectarian" is defined and what it implies or can imply. Other definitions than the one given by me in the below might be useful. But I seek to stick to the present day scientists and their definition of the word "sectarian". And this I think cannot be unimportant. Further it is also well-known that the word "political" have many definitions attached to it. I do hope however that my words in the below are sufficient to cover the aspects involved in the presentation I have forwarded.
>
>### 1 ###
>IS LUCIST TRUST a NON-Sectarian and NON-Political ORGANISATION?*
>(With eye on comparing this to other Alice A. Bailey groups and other groups as well.)
>
>Various followers of Alice A. Bailey's books and Lucis Trust are claiming that it is allright to have a wholehearted support for the inter-governmental body the United Nations. This despite it is wellknown in public, that this many-headed construction the United Nations is said to be filled with reports about corruption, and that it is wellknown that some countries support it more than others - either economically or ethically, and despite it being political and no doubt heavily based on egotism, spin or deceit, or all of these things.
>
>Alice A. Bailey wrote:
>"The United Nations, through its Assembly and Committees, MUST be supported; there is as yet no other organization to which man can hopefully look. Therefore, he must support the United Nations but, at the same time, let this group of world leaders know what is needed."
>(See for instance Alice A. Bailey's "Problems of Humanity", p. 177). 
>
>And this was written in the old days, when the United Nations only had a few member countries, most of them of a Western kind and origin.
>
>Alice A. Bailey wrote:
>"Christianity is not a religion of the same order as the others; it is, as Schleiermacher said, the religion of religions."
>(See Alice A. Bailey's "Bethlehem to Calvary", p. 10). 
>http://www.light-weaver.com/links/kingsgarden.books.htm
>
>And Lucis Trust the mother-organisation behind the Alice A. Bailey followers are openly admitting the above quote, while it also openly is admitting that it has Consultative Status at the United Nations, and that its branch the World Goodwill organisation has a Roster NGO Status at the United Nations. And we witness that Lucis Trust is confirming that its main activities is the selling of the Alice A. Bailey books and lecturing from them - and - making propaganda for their prayer or mantra called "The Great Invocation" - which is encouraged to be sung every hour of the day - so to persuade the Masters and the Avatar of the Spiritual Hierarchy they call the Church of Christ to walking among men in bodily presence. And they do also sell and promote a book on Freemasonry written by Foster Bailey a 32/33 degree Scottish Rite Freemason - despite it is known by those who have studied the historical facts, that the structure of these spurious 33 degress within
 the Scottish Rite was originally derived from and hatched at the Jesuit chapter at Clermont in Paris. And since we know about the Jesuit order, and how it was and is constructed and its many evil deeds through the centuries, I find it very strange to call Lucis Trust non-sectarian, although its intentions might be very noble in this regard.
>
>All this is after all shown on Lucis Trust's own website or in the Alice A. Bailey books - and - can be concluded there from. - These facts there cannot be any disagreement about.
>- It think it must baffle any anti-cult Psychologist or Exit-Counsellor to learn that the Lucis Trust at the same time is presenting themselves as being non-sectarian and non-political on their website.
>
>### The ordinary definition on whether an organisation is sectarian or not is shortly based on the following ###
>If an organisation are having a leader or a group of leaders (often with its own leader as well) - who forwards a doctrine or teachings given by one single author or just a uniform doctrine - ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERS - of its organisation - then we are in truth talking about a sectarian organisation. Because such an organisation are using conditioning techniques. - And such an organisation like Lucis Trust, with its branch organisations World Goodwill and Triangles are termed sectarian no matter if their teachings are forwarded as hypothesises or not. 
>
>And it is especially sectarian if it is not relating its teachings directly so to inform its potential members as well as its present members on the science on subtle Mind Control. A science which is directly related to the psychological term Classical Conditioning (A term originating in modern times, among others examples, form the experiments by the psychologist Pavlov on his dogs).- So the definition used by Lucis Trust with regard to whether it is a sectarian body, must be a different one than the one used by anti-cult Psychologists and Exit-Counsellors as far as I know. When you operate with a doctrine that involve Conditioning of the Mind, and when you do not tell people that this is what is going on - you effectively operate in a sectarian manner. This must be the truth.
>
>### 2 ###
>
>### SUBTLE MIND CONTROL - LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR ###
>Try for instance the following video in subtle Mind Control and on how a sect is opreating or not seldom is operating:
>Cult Tactics & Mind Control - B.I.T.E. 
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3FO0pAj528 (Only 3:00 minutes)
>
>The whole model is presented more deeply on the Exit Counssellor Steve Hassans webiste.
>(Although I do forward this scientifically based version on subtle Mind Control, which in many respects has been proven to be true in various ways, I will at the same time suggest that one does not take all that is written in the paper to be dead-letter in accordance with the truth. There are several other aspects to consider and other angles to view the whole science of subtle Mind Control from. And this is a science and not a belief we here are dealing with. A science which is rather new in our modern times to many persons and in fact also to many Seekers after wisdom and the truth about the meaning of life. - Interestingly we do not find much info about this science among esoteric and theosophical groups or any religious groups or New Age group these days. And this might be a surprise to some readers. Yet it is not so to ordinary psychologists and those who have walked a bit further ahead scientifically speaking, as far as I know. These are however
 just my views, which I offer to the you as readers in these times of ours. - The model given by Steve Hassan can be compared with other well-known Exit Counsellors and authors on the subject. Such well-known Exit-counsellors and psychologists like Magareth Singer, Robert J. Lifton, Edgar Schein, Kurt Lewin and Willam Sargant, and even the sufi Idries Shah. And it will be found that there are many similarities between these authors and models, and their views about what some call subtle Mind Control. 
>
>Here is my take on the term very shortly stated: 
>Subtle Mind Control is shortly formulated - various techniques used more or less consciously by various leaders of religious groups or other groups so to condition a group of followers into a doctrine of THEIR choosing. 
>
>A doctrine they forward on behalf of their very own sect or for instance as a sub-leader of the sect. Even sub-leaders are themselves from time to time victims of subtle Mind Control, and they do not know it.
>The process of subtle Mind Control is most often slow, but before the victim are aware of it, it has become a victim of it. Those who are saying that they are not going to be Mind Controlled by subtle Mind Control, aught to think again. Perhaps they already are victims of it. Because when you are a victim of it, you most often are not aware of it. And this is important to understand.
>
>It is when the victim in a sect begins to cooperate with the Mind Control process - the sectarian doctrine - and slowly let it transform his or her thought-patterns, so that the victim become socialized within the sect, - that subtle Mind Control happen. It might be voluntarily, and it might be un-voluntarily, in the sense, that the victim is not told about the science on subtle Mind Control, and the actual difference between a sect and the opposite - a non-sectarian group or organisation. And it might happen in a manner where the victim is unaware of, that, the sectarian doctrine offered are playing on its emotions, fears, vulnerability, greed, or is inducing a narrow-minded thought-pattern to be followed.
>
>The use of subtle Mind Control, no matter whether it happens consciously or unconsciously more or less by the performer of it, is not seldom based on or playing on various kinds of fears among the followers, or on social conditioning, or the followers own greed, or induced need for comfort, or induced security, or hypnosis masked as healing, or other issues. Those who are in a vulnerable situation or crisis (its actual level sometimes undetected by themselves) in their lives are more easy targets. And other issues. Subtle Mind Control also implies leaders who disallow wellmeant criticism of their doctrines - or - that criticism is not welcomed or is looked down upon, for instance because the leader calls himself or herself an initiate. In such sectarian groups no comparative studying takes place at all - at least not officially or in reality. Most New Age sects avoid comparative studying among their aims, and, the idea is not forwarded among their
 primary aims. (Just have a look at most AAB groups.)
>
>It will surprise many to learn that those who are most easily conditioned are the intellectuals and people who are well-educated. This has been documented several times within the field of psychology with regard to sectarian behavior. There are many levels, grades and shades of sectarian conditioning. Some groups are more involved in these things than others. Some victims are voluntarily becoming members of a sectarian group. Some sectarian groups can all in all not be called harmful. But most of them are more or less psychologically speaking. However I also recognize that there can be sects which are helpful in spreading compassion - until a certain level. )
>http://freedomofmind.com/bite/
>
>So saying that Lucis Trust is neither political nor sectarian in its manner of operating I find a bit difficult to agree upon from where I am standing - and - when taking the all above words into account.
>Others might have other views. And I will heartily welcome them, so that altruism, which we all do cherish might shine forth in the heart of all humanity.
>And we wonder why the actual Constitution of the Lucis Trust is hidden away from the public eyes. Such kind of secrecy is not helpful, when one seek to give the impression of being non-sectarian and non-political.
>Of course I might be mistaken, and, will in that case gladly roll the above comments back - and - into a oversized trashcan. If not I think the Alice A. Bailey followers aught to be more realistic about themselves in this affair. After all I am certainly not the only one on the globe who are calling their activities sectarian - and especially when compared to the Theosophical Society as it was given in 1875-1891. 
>
>I will of course let the readers decide for themselves, what they think about the whole affair.
>
>Any comments so to promote altruism better among us human beings?
>
>### 3 ###
>Another issue has been forwarded recently on this forum named Theos-talk here on the Internet.
>
>Some Alice A. Bailey followers and also some theosophical seekers seem to have the view that the Theosophical Society, as it was given in 1875-1891, was political in various respects - despite the fact that its Constitution and Rules said the opposite.
>
>In this regard it might be very important to understand the human evolution was of a quite different kind in the period 1875-1891. In those days, we find that there was no real information society. Television, mobile phones, Internet etc. etc. No flying machines, although the first experiments with Zeppelin's was going on. It was a time where the science of psychology was something quite new in the Western part of the planet - where it was in its infancy. Today it is wellknown that Sufi's like El Gazahli (d. 1111) and Doctor Maximus (Ibn El Arabi, d. 1240) and others in the old days of the Middle East already had written extensively or at least a number of books on doctrines very similar to those of Freud and C. G. Jung. In in those days, 1875-1891, and great many persons were analphabets compared to our present day.
>And in the East there had been doctrines on psychology for ages, although people today tend to call them religious scriptures. Now I write this seeking to avoid various misunderstandings in the words given in the below.
>
>### A non-political Society and Prejudice against it ###
>
>CONSTITUTION AND RULES of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, 1890 says quite importantly: 
>"The Theosophical Society is absolutely unsectarian"
>.......
>"Offences - 
>- 1. Any Fellow who shall in any way attempt to involve the Society In political disputes shall be immediately expelled.
>- 2. No Fellow, Officer, or Council of the Theosophical Society, or of any Section or Branch thereof, shall promulgate or maintain any doctrines being that advanced, or advocated by the Society."
>(See also "The Theosophist", december 1890)
>http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm
>
>Then it must be very clear, that when any articles appeared in the theosophical magazines like The Theosophist - they were only written in a non-sectarian manner and not on behalf of the Society. And this is no doubt something, which a number of readers of these articles are misunderstanding these days.
>Despite that this non-sectarian doctrine was given in 1890 - it was also given in earliere Constitutions of the Theosophical Society, although perhaps using a different formulation.
>
>H. P. Blavatsky wrote the following very interesting words about the Theosophical Society in her book The Key to Theosophy, first published July 1889.
>
>H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
>"WHY, THEN, IS THERE SO MUCH PREJUDICE AGAINST THE T. S.?
>
>ENQUIRER. If Theosophy is even half of what you say, why should there exist such a terrible ill-feeling against it? This is even more of a problem than anything else.
>
>THEOSOPHIST. It is; but you must bear in mind how many powerful adversaries we have aroused ever since the formation of our Society. As I just said, if the Theosophical movement were one of those numerous modern crazes, as harmless at the end as they are evanescent, it would be simply laughed atâ as it is now by those who still do not understand its real purport â and left severely alone. But it is nothing of the kind. 
>Intrinsically, Theosophy is the most serious movement of this age; and one, moreover, which threatens the very life of most of the time-honoured humbugs, prejudices, and social evils of the day â those evils which fatten and make happy the upper ten and their imitators and sycophants, the wealthy dozens of the middle classes, while they positively crush and starve out of existence the millions of the poor. Think of this, and you will easily understand the reason of such a relentless persecution by those others who, more observant and perspicacious, do see the true nature of Theosophy, and therefore dread it." 
>(The Key to Theosophy, 2nd. ed. 1890)
>http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm
>
>I will here take a closer look at this view about Theosophical Society, as it was given in 1875-1891, on whether it was political, and seek to show, that It does not hold to the truth in many respects. But also seek to show, that there is a thin and yet thick line of demarcation between the aims and the Constitution of the non-sectarian Theosophical Society, as it was given in 1875-1891, and on the other hand its members, especially the administrative members - and - THEIR involvement with social uplift (and thereby leaning on being political) while promoting altruism, which was and is the main aim of this Society. Because it was not the non-sectarian Theosophical Society which was involved - although some and in fact for very good reasons if I may say so - might be mislead to think so. It was only its members. Because no administrative leader acted on behalf of the Theosophical Society with regard to politics; - (unless it seems, when seeking to avoid
 the Society from being injured and prevented from performing its activities and meetings in its centers etc.) 
>
>And this is important to understand and know about.
>
>The following references might be important to be aware of when we exchange upon this matter.
>1) 
>I will here present two quotes from the book "A Key to Theosophy" by H. P. Blavatsky. In it she clearly outlines her views as a co-founder of the Theosophical Society on how the Theosophical Society as an organisation related it self to politics in the years 1875-1891. The quotes in the below are with other words explanations given to the members of the Society as well as potential members. There was also a chapter in this book on how one aught to relate to at least a great number of so-called Charity organisations, and what the consequences are if one well-meaningly gives charity. All the views and below quotes were written with the aim in mind of - promoting altruism - since this was the very central aim with the existence of the Theosophical Society in 1875-1891.
>
>H. P. Blavatsky wrote about The Theosophical Society on politics:
>ENQUIRER. Do you take any part in politics?
>
>THEOSOPHIST. As a Society, we carefully avoid them, for the reasons given below. To seek to achieve political reforms before we have effected a reform in human nature, is like putting new wine into old bottles. Make men feel and recognise in their innermost hearts what is their real, true duty to all men, and every old abuse of power, every iniquitous law in the national policy, based on human, social or political selfishness, will disappear of itself. Foolish is the gardener who seeks to weed his flower-bed of poisonous plants by cutting them off from the surface of the soil, instead of tearing them out by the roots. No lasting political reform can be ever achieved with the same selfish men at the head of affairs as of old. 
>(The Key to Theosophy, 2ed, 1890, p. 231-232)
>http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm
>
>H. P. Blavatsky wrote about The Theosophical Society on politics:
>"Abolish the oath in Courts, Parliament, Army and everywhere, and do as the Quakers do, if you will call yourselves Christians. Abolish the Courts themselves, for if you would follow the Commandments of Christ, you have to give away your coat to him who deprives you of your cloak, and turn your left cheek to the bully who smites you on the right. "Resist not evil, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you," for "whosoever shall break one of the least of these Commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven," and "whosoever shall say 'Thou fool' shall be in danger of hell fire." And why should you judge, if you would not be judged in your turn? Insist that between Theosophy and the Theosophical Society there is no difference, and forthwith you lay the system of Christianity and its very essence open to the same charges, only in a more serious form. "
>(The Key to Theosophy, 2ed, 1890, p. 55-56)
>http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm
>
>2) A letter from Constance Wachtmeister to A. P. Sinnett, p. 266 (dated 1885 as far as I can tell)
>"Madame Blavatsky has read with astonishment in Vanity Fair the following, âthat carefully worded proclamations calling upon the people in India to rise and claim their political rights were being distributed (under her auspices) together with other documents of a less compromising nature.â Madame calls this a gross libel, and calls upon the Editor to prove it by sending to her one of these proclamations, and also she desires him to give to her the name of the person from whom he received such a slander. Madame says that the Editor must at once insert the following refutation, or she will have him taken up for libel.
>
>âMadame Blavatsky denies absolutely having in any way used her influence among the People of India to induce them to rise and proclaim their political rights; she denies absolutely having distributed any worded documents to that effect and she also denies having meddled with Politics in any way whatsoever during her sojourn in India. On her return to India in autumn, 1884, she was accompanied by one English lady and two English gentlemen, and as she was sick and ill the whole time they never left her side so that they are witnesses to the truth of what she says.â"
>............................
>"Cutting and Extract front the âTimes of India.â
>
>Vanity Fair publishes the following cock and bull story, which will doubtless amuse Mr. Hume, General Morgan, and other âamiable enthusiastsâ who dabble in Theosophy: -- Strange rumours of Russian intrigue and political propaganda under the guise of religious research reach me from India. The High Priestess of Esoteric Buddhism, who left England last autumn on a pilgrimage to the shrine of the new faith, was followed, so I hear, by a person charged to watch that ladyâs movements. The result has been a discovery that carefully worded proclamations, calling upon the people of India to rise and claim their political rights, were being distributed, together with other documents of a less compromising nature. There is, I believe, no direct evidence of any communication between Moscow and Tibet, but it was a matter of common notoriety that intimate relations subsisted between Madame Novikoff and Madame Blavatsky during their stay in London last year."
>http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/Letters%20of%20HPB.htm
>
>Such was and is the slander against H. P. Blavatsky. And it seemed to continue later on.
>______
>Now I would like the readers to contrast the first two quotes from Blavatsky's book the "Key to Theosophy", published july-august 1889 - in the above - with - the following two quotes and excerpts from an article Blavatsky wrote just a few days later the SAME year. The first is an article on the -Three Objects of the Society - by Blavatsky where she gives, what it seems her wholehearted support for what is named the National Congress, which she call a political body. The second was written a bit later, and is from the month of December the same year 1889, where H. S. Olcott gives his Theosophical Convent speech in writing.
>______
>
>3)
>Volume 11, Blavatsky Collected Writings Page 394
>OUR THREE OBJECTS
>"The growth of this kindly feeling has been proven in a variety of ways: first, in the unprecedented gathering of races, castes and sects in the annual conventions of the Theosophical Society, second, in the rapid growth of a theosophical literature advocating our altruistic views, in the founding of various journals and magazines in several languages, and in the rapid cessation of sectarian controversies; third, in the sudden birth and phenomenally rapid growth of the patriotic movement which is centralized in the organisation called the Indian National Congress This remarkable political body was planned by certain of our Anglo-Indian and Hindu members after the model and on the lines of the Theosophical Society, and has from the first been directed by our own colleagues, men among the most influential in the Indian Empire. At the same time, there is no connection whatever, barring that through the personalities of individuals, between the Congress and
 its mother-body, our Society. It would never have come into existence, in all probability, if Col. Olcott had suffered himself to be tempted into the side paths of human brotherhood, politics, social reforms, etc., as many have wanted him to do. We aroused the dormant spirit and warmed the Aryan blood of the Hindus, and one vent the new life made for itself was this Congress. All this is simple history and passes unchallenged."
>http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v11/y1889_054.htm
>
>4)
>THE THEOSOPHIST, CONVENT REPORT 1889
>The Report of the Convent of the Theosophical Society year 1889.
>H. S. Olcott wrote:
>CONCLUSION.
>"You will observe that an unusually small number of Delegates are here today and will share in my regret that there could not have been a full representation of the Branches when such important changes in the Rules are to be proposed. It is useless to deceive ourselves as to the main cause. This is the political upheaval in Indian society which has produced the National Congress, and drawn all Indian thought into the vortex of politics. The first effect of the theosophical movement was to arouse an intense interest in the ancient religions and philosophies, and a great curiosity to learn if the claims of the school of ancient occultists would stand the test of scientific inquiry. A tidal wave of patriotic emotion rushed over India, as it grew more and more clear that the sages of Aryavarta were sages in the best sense of the word, and that the probabilities were great that the practical
>
>Yogi knew, in fact, more about the laws of nature than the best modern professor. The Indian heart swelled with emotion as these long-smouldering fires of self-respect, patriotism, and spiritual conviction blazed up from the ashes. Wherever we foreigners went we were met with benedictions, with fervent expressions of love and joy. Sanskrit, and Hindu religious schools sprang into being, the roster of our local Branches rapidly extended itself, and Theosophy became a household and dear word in every Hindu home. The addresses presented to us teemed with expressions of the belief that the iron rule of Kali Yuga was broken and the dawn of the revived Golden age had come. All this was natural, but it was unhealthy and feverish. A re-action, was inevitable but how or when it was to come was not clear. We now perceive it, for it is upon us. The wreaths once woven for us are now being hung around the necks of political leaders
>who are thought to be laying the bases of the future Indian Empire, greater than Akhbar's or Chandragupta's , enduring as adamant! And the national emotion is flowing in the channel <italics>Inter armas silent leges</italics> Politics stifle Religion, as a toothache or a bankruptey makes one forget Nirvana! traced by the projectors of the Congress. Another reaction is inevitable, for we must not forget that the Hindu is the most deeply and absolutely religious nature in the world. When it comes, the old blood will assert itself and attention be again given to those master problems of human life and destiny beside which all temporal concerns are vulgar and insignificant Let us not try to hasten the day, for the present agitation is useful and healthy in being a force to arouse the Indian mind from its fatal habit of indolence and dormaney, the greatest curse and calamity which can befall a race. Let us only keep on in the line of our altruistic activity,
 free from discouragement, steadfast in purpose, true to the behests of conscience. Gentlemen, the Convention is now declared open for business."
>http://www.theosopher.net/dzyan/theosophist/theosophist_vol_10_convention_report_1888.pdf
>(See also here under The Theosophist: http://blavatskyarchives.com/theosophypdfs/early_theosophical_publications.htm)
>
>M. Sufilight says:
>The question is, were H. P. Blavatsky and Olcott political - on behalf of the Theosophical Society, or merely as free members on their own in an non-sectarian and non-political Society???
>This seem to be important to answer clearly and unequivocally !
>(I wonder what the view is in TS Adyar today, because they have access to more files, from the old archive than most people these days. And I cannot reach the from here, although I sense there is more to this issue - in certain direction - than meets the apparnt eye of a wellmeaning researcher.)
>
>It is clear to me, when comparing the above two quotes with the two from the Key to Theosophy given further in the above, which all of them falls in the same year within a few months time apart from each other - that the Theosophical Society's two co-founders were seeking to interpret the Constitution and Rules of the Society (See the 1890 edition of the CONSTITUTION AND RULES of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY - http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm - Saying quite importantly: "The Theosophical Society is absolutely unsectarian"...."Offences - 1. Any Fellow who shall in any way attempt to involve the Society In political disputes shall be immediately expelled. - 2. No Fellow, Officer, or Council of the Theosophical Society, or of any Section or Branch thereof, shall promulgate or maintain any doctrines being that advanced, or advocated by the Society.") - in a manner where the very central object and aim of the Society, namely - the promulgation
 of altruism - was stretched to the line of becoming political and even sectarian in nature. - Yet the Constitutions and Rules of the non-sectarian and non-political Theosophical Society (in the period 1875-1891) were kept intact - despite these minor deviations. Minor deviations because we do in fact not find much official support anywhere in the theosophical magazines and books in support of politics or a sectarian stance. In fact we find the quite opposite. And we must also always have in mind, that whenever a member in the Theopsophical Society (in the period 1875-1891) was speaking or forwarding words on paper in articles and so on, they were never forwarded on behalf of the Society, but on behalf of the individual. And this is important (!) - Yet one cannot help having some doubt about whether it actually was the case all the time, when we hear H. S. Olcott's words in the above and Blavatsky's happy words about the new national Congress calling it
 a "political body" (although it was in fact a social body at that time of its existence, until it later became a quite different organisation.)
>
>There are however, various aspects to consider in the two last quotes in the above.
>It is, as I see it logically, never in accordance with altruism for anyone to seek any kind of social uplift in any given country or on any given planet, if the citizens of the area in question are not ready for such a thing. 
>
>Reform of the human heart is of necessity primary to the reform of the social situation in any given group of citizens.
>This seem to be logical to anyone who is a bit familiar with ethics. And it can neither be said that - any attempt to reform of the human heart (instead of dabbling with politics) before a given group of humans are ready for such a reform - is advisable. And Olcott clearly referred to this fact in the above quote. Because only those who are in sympathy with the idea of promulgating of altruism are in sympathy with it - each on their level or in their mode of being. Those who are not, are simply not - and will run for egotism more or less.
>
>--- With other words as the old proverb goes: "Love is like a fire, it can either warm your heart or burn your house down"
>--- Or another proverb of my own: "You do not expect a villainous human being to thank you if you out of what you perceive to be kindness put him or her out in the sun the whole day so to cock his or her skin." 
>--- Or "Too much sun will make your skin burn, and too little will make you feel cold." - There is a time, a place, and circumstances for everything - as said by various sages.
>--- A Master of wisdom is said to have said: "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 â lest we make it deviate and produce monsters by presuming to guide it"
>
>In this I find that there must be a thin or thick demarcation line, when seeking to promote social uplift like Blavatsky seemed to warmly welcome. Yet, Blavatsky pointed this problem out in her book "The Key to Theosophy". So maybe her remarks was a bit over-enthusiastic or hastily written. I do not consider her words to be the best formulated I have come across with regard to the passage about the National Congres in the above quote..
>Later we all know how it went. The National Congress changed into something quite different and in fact an unhealthy rebellious organisation and got so to speak involved with bloodsheeding. In the early days the National Congress was something quite different, and this is all history, although a number of historians would like to paint the picture in a different shade and color. The facts are there, even on the Internet to read about. Another factor is Blavatsky's use of the term "political body" about the National Congress. If we today should give such a body as it was in the early days a label, it would be to call it a "social organisation" instead of a political one. 
>
>History of the Indian National Congress
>"Founded upon the suggestion of British civil servant Allan Octavian Hume, the Congress was created to form a platform for civic and political dialogue of educated Indians with the British Raj."
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Indian_National_Congress
>
>We quote from the reprint in the "Theosophist," Supplement for March, 1894: 
>""My work in the sphere of politics is over, and I shall never resume it....
>
>"I say this in answer to your suggestion that I should be aroused to take interest in Indian 'affairs.' To be able to lay at the feet of India any service is to me full reward for the many sufferings of a stormy life through which the power of service has been won. But the India that I love and reverence, and would fain see living among the nations, is not an India westernized, rent with the struggles of political parties, heated with the fires of political passions, with a people ignorant and degraded, while those who might have raised them are fighting for the loaves and fishes of political triumph. I have seen too much of this among the 'progressed and civilized nations' of the West to have any desire to see such a civilization over-spreading what was Aryavarta. The India to which I belong in faith and heart is ... a civilization in which spiritual knowledge was accounted highest title to honour, and in which the whole people reverenced and sought
 after spiritual truth. To help in turning India into another Great Britain or another Germany, is an ambition that does not allure me; the India I would give my life to help in building, is an India learned in the ancient philosophy, pulsing with the ancient religion, -- an India to which all other lands should look for spiritual light, -- where the life of all should be materially simple, but intellectually noble and spiritually sublime.
>
>"The whole of my life and of my energies are given to the Theosophical Society, because the Society is intended to work in all nations for the realisation of this spiritual ideal; for the sake of this it deliberately eschews all politics, embraces men of parties, welcomes men of all faiths, declines to ostracise any man, any party or any faiths. I may not mingle in a political fray which would make one temporary party regard me with enmity; for the message of spiritual life belongs equally to both and may not be rendered unacceptable by its bearer wearing a political garment which is a defiance of those clad in other political robes. The politician must ever be at war; my mission is one of peace. Therefore I enter not the political field; and in the religious field I seek to show men of every faith that they share a common spiritual heritage and should look through the forms that divide them to the spirit that makes them one. It is the recognition of
 this which makes Hinduism ever a non-proselyting religion....
>
>"I write this lengthy explanation of my absolute refusal to have anything to do with politics because any expression of love and confidence from Indians goes straight to my heart, ... because I honestly believe that the future of India, the greatness of India and the happiness of her people, can never be secured by political methods, but only by the revival of her philosophy and religion. To this, therefore, I must give all my energies, and I must refuse to spread them over other fields."
>
>ANNIE BESANT."
>http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/TheTheosophicalMovement-Series/Chapter-27.html
>
>I have quoted Annie Besant to it will become visible to the readers what a difference, there arrived later on in the Theosophical Society because of her activities. And this can be compared with H. P. Blavatsky's and H. S. Olcott's words in the above - as well as with the present day activities of the Theosophical Society - and of course also the visible and more unofficial activities of the mother-organisation Lucis Trust behind the Alice A. Bailey followers. By this I will conclude, that the political cloud hanging over the whole affair needs clarification to all Seekers after Truth and Wisdom - and honest wholehearted promoters of Altruism. 
>Do you my readers not think so?
>
>The question is however, was the Theosophical Society turning political in 1875-1891 - or - was it merely seeking to uphold its primary aim - the promulgation og altruism?
>This must be a question, as I see it, the readers must decide for themselves.
>It is however clear that the non-sectarian Theopsophical Society (in the period 1875-1891) never endorsed that the National Congress should become a political party with legislations, courts, judges, and well-paid lawyers etc. This there can seem to be no doubt about. At least there is no reason to think so.
>It was therefore only supported by - some - of the members of the non-sectarian Theopsophical Society (in the period 1875-1891). However, I do find Olcott's speech in the quote in the above to be a bit to sectarian in nature. But that is maybe just me.
>
>All the above is, as I see it, setting the non-sectarian and non-political Theopsophical Society (in the period 1875-1891) totally apart from the Alice A. Bailey followers Mother-organisations Lucis Trust's present day activities - where it is clearly seen, as shown in the first part of this text, that Lucis Trust are directly encouraging support for the United Nations, and, opposition to Communism 
>
>See Alice A. Bailey's - "The Externalisation of the Hiercarchy", p. 700-701:
>"The material goal which all who love their fellowmen and serve the Hierarchy must ever have in mind and at [701] heart is the defeat of totalitarianism. I do not say the defeat of Communism, but the defeat of that evil process which involves the imposition of ideas, and which can be the method of the democratic nations and of the churches everywhere, just as much as it is the method of the U.S.S.R. This we call totalitarianism. I would ask you to have this distinction clearly in your minds. Your material goal is the defeat of all that infringes human free will and which keeps humanity in ignorance; it applies equally to any established system Catholic or Protestant - which imposes its concepts and its will upon its adherents. Totalitarianism is the basis of evil today; it is found in all systems of government, of education; it is found in the home and in the community. I refer not here to the laws which make group relations sound, possible and right;
 such laws are essential to community and national well-being and are not totalitarian in nature. I refer to the imposition of the will of the few upon the total mass of the people. The defeat of this undesirable tendency everywhere is your definite material goal."
>http://www.light-weaver.com/externalisation/exte1302.html
>
>In the above quote we might be able to agree upon at least with regard to the bad in Totalitarianism. But it is political in content - and - it forgets that totalitarianism is not only something to be found in USSR (of the past), among Catholic churches, and Protestant churches. It is also - more or less disguised and therefore in a certain sense more sinister - to be found in various New Age groups and sects - as well as in western so-called Democracies (with the Christian religion looming over the leaders as a Superior-General) where spin, lies, deciet, inducing of fear and propaganda control of the news medias are efficient tools to curb peoples minds and hold them down into fear.
>That is why the new teachings on altruism being forwarded - based on scientific knowledge and a free search after the truth about the meaning of life and how to promulgate altruism - in our time - necessarily must take clear steps in addressing the science of Psychology much more clearly and its branch the science on subtle Mind Control.
>
>Any comments?
>
>Well...perhaps it all boils down to the - psychological - fact so to speak which also is mentioned like this in the famous scripture named the Bhagavad Gita.
>
>Bhagavad Gita says:
>"Parabrahm wells in the hearts of all beings, 
>O Arjuna, whirling by Maya all beings 
>(as if) mounted on a machine."
>(Chapter 18:61, - taken from "The Bhagavad Gita with the Commentaries of Sri Sankaracharya" by A. M. Sastry - a book undertaken because of the insistance by the theosophist Bertram Keightley)
>
>I have in the above sought to be of service to all readers - and - all parties involved. 
>My aim is the promulgation of altruism.
>
>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
>
>[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]