Theos-Talk Archives (February 2012 Message tt00123)

Hello Morten, Sorry I haven't had time to answer your question properly,  however I came across this in the Theosophical Glossary, I think it sums up my understanding of what theosophy is and the objectives of theosophical society , my opinion is that criticism is essential as long as it is given in the right spirit and motive, diversity of opinion and constructive debate are essential.

Cheers, Perry

Theosophical Glossary :
 
"Theosophia (Gr.). Wisdom-religion, or "Divine Wisdom". The substratum and basis of all the world-religions and philosophies, taught and practised by a few elect ever since man became a thinking being. In its practical bearing, Theosophy is purely divine ethics; the definitions in dictionaries are pure nonsense, based on religious prejudice and ignorance of the true spirit of the early Rosicrucians and mediæval philosophers who called themselves Theosophists.

 Theosophical Society, or "Universal Brotherhood". Founded in 1875 at New York, by Colonel H. S. Olcott and H. P. Blavatsky, helped by W. Q. Judge and several others. Its avowed object was at first the scientific investigation of psychic or so-called "spiritualistic" phenomena, after which its three chief objects were declared, namely (1) Brotherhood of man, without distinction of race, colour, religion, or social position; (2) the serious study of the ancient world-religions for purposes of comparison and the selection therefrom of universal ethics; (3) the study and development of the latent divine powers in man. At the present moment it has over 250 Branches scattered all over the world, most of which are in India, where also its chief Headquarters are established. It is composed of several large Sections?the Indian, the American, the Australian, and the European Sections.

 Theosophists. A name by which many mystics at various periods of history have called themselves. The Neo-Platonists of Alexandria were Theosophists; the Alchemists and Kabbalists during the mediæval ages were likewise so called, also the Martinists, the Quietists, and other kinds of mystics, whether acting independently or incorporated in a brotherhood or society. All real lovers of divine Wisdom and Truth had, and have, a right to the name, rather than those who, appropriating the qualification, live lives or perform actions opposed to the principles of Theosophy. As described by Brother Kenneth R. Mackenzie, the Theosophists of the past centuries?" entirely speculative, and founding no schools, have still exercised a silent influence upon philosophy; and, no doubt, when the time arrives, many ideas thus silently propounded may yet give new directions to human thought. One of the ways in which these doctrines have obtained not only authority, but power, has been among certain enthusiasts in the higher degrees of Masonry. This power has, however, to a great degree died with the founders, and modern Freemasonry contains few traces of theosophic influence. However accurate and beautiful some of the ideas of Swedenborg, Pernetty, Paschalis, Saint Martin, Marconis, Ragon, and Chastanier may have been, they have but little direct influence on society." This is true of the Theosophists of the last three centuries, but not of the later ones. For the Theosophists of the current century have already visibly impressed themselves on modern literature, and introduced the desire and craving for some philosophy in place of the blind dogmatic faith of yore, among the most intelligent portions of human-kind. Such is the difference between past and modern THEOSOPHY.

 


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Perry
> 
> My views are:
> 
> Thanks. I am always glad to be able to help a little.
> 
> What do you think about the idea of avoidinging sectarian behavior, which I referred to in the below post of mine?
> Do you not wonder like I do, why the Non-Sectarian aspect is not emphasized much more in various theosophical groups and organisation?
> 
> 
> 
> CONSTITUTION AND RULES OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY 
> "ARTICLE I"...
> "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 
> (See also Preamble from 1875 - or "The Key to Theosophy", p. 3-4 and p. 19-20 - 2nd ed. 1890 - remember to use the proper edition - http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm ) 
> 
> "Theosophy" was a loose term for any hypothesis about the meaning of life and its truth - with altruism at its core. Later it has - in some groups and organisations - become a sectarian doctrine promoted on behalf of members of theosophical groups. And where each group and organisation have their own version of what "Theosophy" is. 
> 
> 
> 
> I find the above to be important, when we seek to avoid sectarian behavior. 
> Those members of various Theosophical groups and organisations who find the above quote aught to be omitted from the Constitution and Rules in their own Theosophical group or organisation - are wholeheartedly welcome to tell me and others why this is important to do? 
> Why has almost all later theosophical groups or organisations deleted the above passages in the Constitution and Rules for their own Theosophical group or organisation? Are they unimportant? 
> I think not. 
> 
> I suggest: 
> Let us promote an Absolutely Non-sectarian activity whether it be a therosophical group or organisation - or - a theosophical or theosophically related forum etc. etc. 
> If you my dear reader oppose this idea - I would wholeheartedly welcome you to tell me and other readers why? 
> 
> _________________
> 
> Lack of Self-critcism among members and administrative leaders of theosophical groups and organizations cannot be the apex of altruism. At least not in groups and organisations which openly claim that their main object is to ptomote altruism.
> This is how I see it. - Am I mistaken?
> 
> What do you think?
> (I find it a bit strange how silent people and wellknown theosophists always get on this forum and elsewhere, when I ask the above questions on Sectarian versus Non-Sectarian - Constitutions and Rules.)
> 
> And I ask these questions from the heart - so that we all might improve our altruistic actitivies.
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: plcoles1 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 4:51 AM
>   Subject: theos-talk Re: Mahatmas and Buddhism
> 
> 
>     
>   Hello Morton, just finished reading the article from the v.14 of the collected writings "A few more misconceptions corrected" that you gave the link for, it is an excellent article and very helpful, thanks! Perry
> 
>   --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Your are welcome.
>   > Well...It is perhaps all a Karmic web of a sort.
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > ----- Original Message ----- 
>   > From: Augoeides-222@ 
>   > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:42 PM
>   > Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: Mahatmas and Buddhism
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > Morten, 
>   > 
>   > Thanks for the Advaita Url you proviided I much enjoyed reading the informative contents, isn't the web a cornucopia? 
>   > 
>   > John 
>   > 
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > 
>   > From: "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@> 
>   > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 5:29:03 AM 
>   > Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: Mahatmas and Buddhism 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > Dear Jake and friends 
>   > 
>   > My views are: 
>   > 
>   > I do not disagree that much in what you wrote Jake. 
>   > But I hesitate with regard to the following view... 
>   > 
>   > Jake you wrote: 
>   > "Sankara and Theosophy says there is a Real Self behind it all." 
>   > 
>   > M. Sufilight says: 
>   > I think this is a mistaken opinion. 
>   > Do you have a quote or two showing this. There are several quotes showing the opposite. The Secret Doctrine is one of the books - when we talk about "theosophy" as a loose term. 
>   > 
>   > Sankaras doctrines on Adwaita Vedanta says: Atma = Brahman, and that Brahman or Nirguna Brahman is Neti, Neti (not this, not that). (Try the Adwaita Vedanta Home Page - http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad-phil.html ) 
>   > 
>   > And the Theosophical Society was in 1875-1891 absolutely non-sectarian, - and did therefore not promote any doctrines on behalf of the members. (See http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm or the Preamble from 1875 - http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/gfkforum/ourdir.htm#Preamble - or "The Key to Theosophy", p. 3-4 and p. 19-20 - 2nd ed. 1890 - remember to use the proper edition - http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm ) 
>   > "Theosophy" was a loose term for any hypothesis about the meaning of life and its truth - with altruism at its core. Later it has - in some groups and organisations - become a sectarian doctrine promoted on behalf of members of theosophical groups. And where each group and organisation have their own version of what "Theosophy" is. 
>   > 
>   > CONSTITUTION AND RULES OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY 
>   > "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 
>   > 
>   > I find the above to be important, when we seek to avoid sectarian behavior. 
>   > Those members of various Theosophical groups and organisations who find the above quote aught to be omitted from the Constitution and Rules in their own Theosophical group or organisation - are wholeheartedly welcome to tell me and others why this is important to do? 
>   > Why has almost all later theosophical groups or organisations deleted the above passages in the Constitution and Rules for their own Theosophical group or organisation? Are they unimportant? 
>   > I think not. 
>   > 
>   > I suggest: 
>   > Let us promote an Absolutely Non-sectarian activity whether it be a therosophical group or organisation - or - a theosophical or theosophically related forum etc. etc. 
>   > If you my dear reader oppose this idea - I would wholeheartedly welcome you to tell me and other readers why? 
>   > 
>   > M. Sufilight 
>   > 
>   > ----- Original Message ----- 
>   > From: Mark Jaqua 
>   > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 4:12 PM 
>   > Subject: theos-talk Re: Mahatmas and Buddhism 
>   > 
>   > Perry writes: >The Mahatmas claim to be Buddhist and yet they speak of Atma or Monad as fundamental in their teachings and yet these are anathema to Buddhism.< 
>   > 
>   > I don't know Buddhist philosophy, but the original Theosophical idea is that Theosophy comes from a superior and the same source that Buddhism originally did, and that Buddhism as it now is, is exoteric and corrupted to a degree - but the Least corrupted of the major religions. 
>   > Blavatsky says that Sankara _was_ the same individuality as Buddha [1] (in a rather complex new incarnation - References below) and according to Sinnett in "Esoteric Buddhism" Buddha came again as Sankara 50 years later in order to correct some mistakes or misconceptions left behind. [2] I don't know of anywhere that Blavatsky later corrected this statement. The exoteric Buddhists say there is "no self", while Sankara and Theosophy says there is a Real Self behind it all. [3] The Mahatmas say that the "heresy of Individuality" has reference only to the shell [4], or lower personality, with an relatively immortal Real Self, or reincarnating Ego, or monad behind it. Ultimately and philosophically though, in the face of the great All, nothing is immortal - but practically we have a permanent part of ourself to rely upon in our existence. 
>   > 
>   > [1] BCW, v 14, pp. 389-90; [2] "Esoteric Buddhism," Sinnett, 5th ed., pp. 175-6, also "The Buddhism of H.P. Blavatsky," H.J. Spierenburg, Pt. Loma Publications, 1991, pp. 78-79; [3] See Shankara's "Essence of the Teaching," "Vakya Sudha," or "Bala Bodhani," Johnston's translation of the English title on scribd.com, or "Theosophy" mag, July, 1897 at theosociety.org ; [4] MLs, T.U.P. p. 175 
>   > - jake j. 
>   > 
>   > -------------------------- 
>   > >From: "plcoles1" < plcoles1@ > 
>   > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:15:57 PM 
>   > Subject: theos-talk Mahatmas and Buddhism 
>   > 
>   > >Hi Everyone, well it's been a while since posting here,I hope you are all doing well! 
>   > >My reason for posting is that I have been doing a lot of head scratching over the following issue and would be interested to hear other theosophists opinions. 
>   > >It is regarding the relationship between the Universal Wisdom Religion (Theosophy) taught in theosophical writings and Exoteric Buddhism and the Mahatmas relationship to Buddhism. 
>   > >I realise David Reigle has written about this subject and I am slowly going through his book "Blavatsky's Secret Books" at the moment, trying to piece things together with my very limited brain and knowledge. 
>   > >The Mahatmas claim to be Buddhist and yet they speak of Atma or Monad as fundamental in their teachings and yet these are anathema to Buddhism. 
>   > >My question is to what extent can they claim to be truly Buddhists of the Yellow Cap or Gelukpa order and yet teach the doctrine of Atma and Svabhava, obviously there would have been a serious conflict here for them being members of that order while at the same time holding to the doctrines of Svabavah and Atma, also the teachings on after death states and reincarnation are quite different i.e. rebirth into literal hells for long,long periods and rebirth into insect and animal forms. 
>   > >Also while it is mentioned in the writings of HPB that there are chelas from different schools of philosophy under these same teachers i.e KH and M , is there any mention of Adepts who are not Buddhist ? 
>   > >I am interested to hear what other students may think on this point. 
>   > >Cheers, 
>   > >Perry 
>   > 
>   > ----------------------- 
>   > 
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 
>   > 
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 
>   > 
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>