Theos-Talk Archives (January 2012 Message tt00033)

Dear Sufi,
       Well, the lack of common-sense, and the _idee fixe_ still applies, and I see your chain of reasoning is of the type that cannot be intruded upon, would be fruitlessly exhausting to attempt, and reminds me of Spinks and his "Theosophists Unite!" of mid-last century, who wished Liberal Catholics and ULTers to be hugging each other in tears of lost brotherhood.  Like I said, the real founders behind the _original_ TS were Buddhists and Theosophists, and that is good enough for me.  True altruism is from a part of the mind and heart that is superior to doctrinal dispute, but the latter exists none-the-less, as does good and evil in their results, and they _do_ very much matter.
                         - jake j.

-------------------

>3b. Re: Zoroaster and Non-Sectarianism
    Posted by: "M. Sufilight" global-theosophy@twgaxofEugJPKOzCj6XTPuZlF1g1p-nk1RCeEIwVr-3RSbDAoE00XQexIK9TIls4BCWGEyaMi83hD-F3w-_tgvxs.yahoo.invalid kidhr7
    Date: Fri Jan 6, 2012 5:05 pm ((PST))

>Dear Jaqua and friends

>My views are:

>Jaqua wrote:
>"Sufilight's extreme ideas about _Total_ non-sectarianism are just so much balderdash, in my view, an _idee fixe_ and absurd in a "real world" - i.e. that a Theosophical organization can't at base show any predjudice for Theosophy, becauise this is being sectarian."

>M. Sufilight says:
>If I may.
>Now since you raise your voice in criticism against me. I find it to be polite of you - in the name of altruism - to show some more concrete evidence on why the idea of - an Absolute Non-Sectarian Theosophical Society is what you seem to call "balderdash" on my part.

>In the old days of the Theosophical Society the following was on record - as the aim of the Society.......

>CONSTITUTION AND RULES OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, 1890-1891 (The Theosophist, Jan. 1891)
>ARTICLE I
"4. The Theosophical Society is absolutely unsectarian"
.......
>ARTICLE XIII
"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."
http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm

>So was the original Theosophical Society. In the year 1907, the above had been deleted from the Constitution and the aim of the Theosophical Society - a so-called New Area began. Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater and others introduced a wide range of changes to The Theosophical Society. One of them being placing a building to the promulgation of the Liberal Catholic Church ( A New Age sect) on the compound at Theosophical Society's headquarters in Adyar. At that time the LIberal Catholic Church had rules discriminating the females with regard to its activities - a discrimination - which goes against the first and main aim of the original Theosohical Society. Only recently in year 2003 - these discriminating rules was lifted - and - then only in some branches of that strange New Age sect.
>( A recent version is here so to compare it all with --- CONSTITUTION AND RULES OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, 2007  -  http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_2007_E.htm  - later editions are not to be found easily on the Internet and certainly not on the websites of various Theosophical Scoieties - as far as I am aware of. I wonder why, because in the old days they were made public - even in the theosohical Magazine the Theosophist.)

>Later the Theosophical Society have signed various DECLARATIONS (dogmas? or Beliefs?) - in the name of compassion and the freedom of thought???
I wil question it.

>Here are the declarations:
>Declarations of the Theosophical Society
(Try to read for instance "The Basic Truths of Religion"... Declaring the Logos to be a "him".)
http://www.teozofija.info/Teozofsko_gibanje/Declarations.htm

--------------------


>How can there be freedom of thought if various basic truths are to be followed - and - how can it be compassionate to - slowly - tell people about this when they have been members of the Society for some years?
These are questions to consider.


>Old numbers of the Theosophist are here online in scanned copies - also the 1890 edition of the Theosophist:
http://api.ning.com/files/ZUU4ttiagBdEgYTaFfGdKC4fFSHec87gEgFpc5yMX10d0-54s-yNXPAqJ5PEKy0QKknlXZSdIisPEyYnMtr*mbaqN8nbXnZv/theosophist.html

____________

>My views are:
>If an organisation is sectarian - and - thereby by various leaders of it forward a teaching - they the leaders themselves decide - upon ordinary members --- such leaders will effectively condition the ordinary members.
In an absolutely non-sectarian organisation - there are no leaders - who are forwarding any teachings on bahalf of ordinary members - (freedom of thought)

>In an organisation promoting altruism -  in fact requires a certain kind of psychological change among the members. This can be said to be a scientific fact - and - not a belief, if we follow present day knowledge within the science of psychology. - Real - wholehearted and sincere Altruism cannot -  be conditioned. From this follows that an organisation which wholeheartedly and sincere promotes and promulgates altruism - cannot allow itself to - neglect its attitude towards its surroundings - and - it cannot be a sect in its constitutional manner of operating. If it si so, altruism will not be promoted wholeheartedly and sincere. It therefore follows that any organisations aiming at promoting altruism and thereby psychological change in the individual - must necessarily be an Absolutely Non-Sectarian organisation. Also when it calls it self the Theosophical Society or anything similar to that.
Any commments?

>All the above are just my views.
But maybe I am in error. If, so, please clearly tell me why - and document your case - instead of just putting me down.

>M. Sufilight
----------------




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Jaqua 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 10:08 PM
  Subject: theos-talk Zoroaster and Non-Sectarianism


    
  Zoroaster and Non-Sectarianism

  Sufilight's extreme ideas about _Total_ non-sectarianism are just so much balderdash, in my view, an _idee fixe_ and absurd in a "real world" - i.e. that a Theosophical organization can't at base show any predjudice for Theosophy, becauise this is being sectarian. For heaven's sake, the Adept KH even said that to follow them, that one has to ultimately become a Buddhist - a Nastika. The adepts are sectarian, That is good enough for me. Here's the quote: "There are 100 of thousands of Fakirs, Sannayasis and Saddhus leading the most pure lives, and yet being as they are, on the path of _error,_ ....Their forefathers have driven away the followers of the only true philosophy upon earth away from India and now, it is not for the latter to come to them but to them to come to us if they want us. Which of them is ready to become a Buddhist, a _Nastika_ as they call us?." (Mahatma Letters, p. 462, T.U.P. edition)

  Also the long Zorastrain quotes. I put online at scribd.com a few weeks ago "Zoroastrianism in Light of Theosophy," by Bilimoria, published by the Bombay Theosophical Society in about 1898. It is also on google, I think. It has some Besant and Leadbeater quotes in it, I didn't particularly care for, but couldn't ditch the book just because of that. The long Leadbeater quotes I think were plagiarized from a Mahatma Letter ledbetter had seen somehow before the MLs were published.

  - jake j.

  --------------------

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