Theos-Talk Archives (January 2012 Message tt00035)

Dear Jaqua adn friends

My views are:

Thank you for your wellmeaning reply.

Jaqua wrote:
"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!""

M. Sufilight says:
Why do you - then - from the start and also in the above use your time on telling me that what I wrote was "balderdash" and other similar views?
If you are not capable of explaining why your own views aught to be given some value - I think I rest my case safe and sound. 

Until now I have only heard you say the you disagree - almost shouting at me using words like "Balderdash" about what I write. - But you have not told me and others why it is important to disagree and that there was any wisdom in your shouting. Not in the name of altruism, that is.

I tend to view your comments like something similar to the famous fable The Fox and the Grapes, analogically speaking , and of course in the most friendly well-meaning manner. (Ie. where assumptions justifies the need for not being unhappy. And other interpretations.)

The Fox and the Grapes:
One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour."
(Aesop's Fables - English version. - Some of them are in fact very ancient Sufi teachings as well and seem in need to be read in Arab.)
http://www.aesops-fables.org.uk/index.htm

Jaqua wrote:
" Like I said, the real founders behind the _original_ TS were Buddhists and Theosophists, and that is good enough for me."

M. Sufilight says:
I find that view to be incorrect. And I will seek to help you to understand this, because it might be of use to you or to other readers.
You aught to have written ESOTERIC Buddhists - (the same as esoteric Neo-Platonist, esoteric Adwaita Vedantin, etc. etc.) - then I think they would agree with you. The aim was non-Sectarian. And that was and is more wise than present day orthodox Buddhism and orthodox Buddhism in the past in the 1870'ties. --- If you take your time to read the Mahatam Letters from Moyra and KH you will find out that I am right in my views - and also if you read some of Blavatsky's articles and letters. (The Key to Theosophy, p. 12-13 (!)  - And the article "Reincarnations in Tibet", BCW, Vol. III, p. 14-15)
When you realise that Buddhism as given by Buddha - in fact was a teaching taken from the old esoteric versions of the Upanishads, Puranas, and Vedic teachings - and also the Zoroastrian religions of the Mages in old Bactria etc. - then you will perhaps not use you seemingly and apparent sectarian Buddhist stance as being important.


Now Jesus ( or Joshua Pandira) was a high Initiate in a doctrine similar to Esoteric Buddhism (esoteric Neo-Platonism) - yet you do not seem to recommend that people join his - present day - organisation named the Roman Catholic Church? 
I do not know if you get my point. What I am saying is that because someone in the old days formulated a religious teaching - it does not from that imply that - the ORGANIZATION (in it self, it structure, and how it operates) you are looking at - whether it be Buddhism or Christian or even a Theosophical group - are in accordance with that very same teaching as originally forwarded - when we take time, place, people and circumstances into account. Will you not agree upon this?

ALTRUISM - THE CENTRAL AIM -COMPARATIVE STUDYING
The first central and overwhelmingly important aim of many branches Theosophical Societies are to promote altruism.

Real altruism is when the lamb lies beside the lion, - so it is said. Real altruism is therefore - When - those who claim that they promote altruism - the Christians, the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Pagans, the Alice A. Bailey's, the Guy Ballards, the ULT's, the Krishnamurtians, the Theosophists at Adyar, the Spiritualists, the New Agers in generel etc. etc. ---- are willing - to meet each other on what can be called a NEUTRAL ground (The TS Adyar compound is not neutral ground - any longer - as it stands today with its Shrines on the compound etc.  - Neither is Dharmashala - http://www.dalailama.com/) --- Meet and exchange and compare and do comparative studying - freely - based on the only central aim of altruism and that one is merely in sympathy with the idea of promoting altruism, - while they do their best seking out the Truth about Life and how to best promote altruism among each other.
Altruism will never be genereted behind - sectarian - more or less closed doors being overly secret - while the members of a given sect more or less silently wishpers for themselves - WE ARE THE REAL ONES - THE OTHERS OVER THERE ARE A GROUP OF --- OF --- BALDERDASH!!! - That will not help pomote altruism. Do you understand me so far?

Here at Theos-talk we meet and exchange - despite the members of this forum are Christians, Liberal Catholich's, Buddhists, TS Adyar theosophists, Pasadena theosophists, ULT theosophists, Alice A. Bailey followers, Guy Ballard theosophists, Krishnamurti followers, Spiritualists or Spiritists, or just another kind of New Agers etc. etc. - The Lamb is beside the lion here at this forum - at least more or less.
The question is when those who are behind the forum and who support it will go and create something - an Absolutely Non-sectarian organisation  in the physical - seeking to actually promote altruism - and not sectarianism, (ie. with some at the top and others at the bottom).



Those who already know how to walk on the water (or who are "better-knowing") - are of course in no need for being a member of such an Absolutly Non-Sectarian idea.





M. Sufilight




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Jaqua 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 12:12 AM
  Subject: theos-talk Re: Zoroaster and Non-Sectarianism


    
  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@9SyVgTkv0T07pSxSbiskHWdZTO77_1U1M0RkTGqS4n132850qVb4vvwqmInKe9lLQYt_euSovdiCOb2iXS02tt3KuSA.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]



  

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