Theos-Talk Archives (April 2012 Message tt00192)

I don't have a problem with her/his conclusion, being
Conclusions and Recommendations
So to conclude, let us take a leaf out of Paul Bruntonôs book, so to say. Several of his students asked him to form a Brunton Society based on his teachings. But he always resisted with the quiet injunction: ôYou have to find the real PB [Paul Brunton] within yourselfô.IW We echo
Vol. 131.1
The Theosophistthese sentiments resorting to HPBôs very words by requesting students of only- Blavatsky to find the true HPB (and the SD) within themselves, and not to at- tempt to convert the freedom-loving Theosophical Society into a Blavatsky Society which would be a sure way for the former to ôdegenerate into a sect underpinned by hard and fast dogmas and so lose that vitality which living truth alone can impartô.PH A disciple of HPB (or other spiritual teacher or sage for that matter) would certainly qualify for being a theosophist; but a puritanical devotee of HPB would not so qualify because of an attitude veering towards that funda- mentalism which is so inimical to our Society. We are all drawn towards par- ticular teachings that resonate with our nature and meet the needs of our personal spiritual quest. This is the natural human condition. Moreover, we are entitled to, in fact we must share our enthusiasm with others regarding those
 who have inspired us on our journey. But we may not impose upon or try to convert others to our mode of thinking or cause schisms when others disagree with us. There is no overriding spiritual authority in the TS. Anyone who sets up another as the ultimate authority and clones himself on such a person is merely projecting his own ego onto the imagined authority figure. What further proof do we need than this statement again in our Principal Founderôs own words:
Notes
ôIn its capacity of an abstract body, the Society does not believe in anything, does not accept anything, and does not teach anything.ôPI Surely this implies that if the TS were to establish any one teach- ing as exclusive and authoritative, the individual search for truth necessarily demanding freedom and liberty of mem- bers to do so, would be stifled.
Do we then want to adopt an ethos of ôback to Blavatskyô? If so, we must rest content with future generations of theo- sophists merely brain-rehashingPP her words. We would have a museum of circumscribed esoteric fossils ô guarded by a cult of fossilized esotericists. But moving forwards with Blavatsky and other seers would generate that practical, Truth- based regenerating brotherhood for which our principal Founder devoted her whole life and every ounce of her energies. This means that we enrich the legacy of our FoundersPQ by harmonizing the pioneer- ing, classical literature with added insights and practical means drawn from the teachings of sages, enlightened scientists and inspired artists from other spiritual realms than just the traditional theo- sophical, and from contemporary as well as ancient times. An unquenchable, but selfless passion for truth at all costs and from all sources is therefore obligatory. To restore a feeling for
 divinity in Nature and Man in a currently materialistic world view would be our noblest achievement.

and it was Leadbeater and Besant that attempted to dogmatise theosophy
Cass



>________________________________
> From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@0HLEQAb2MOChY6rhAwY5ZsfBlEYNj2mzCgP_8uDtytzvuhmn7AYsECFefYtcE-HwAYa9AgNW49B6pMkn1HNb0HQYdA.yahoo.invalid>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Saturday, 28 April 2012 6:46 PM
>Subject: theos-talk Edi D. Bilimoria - 2009 - Back to Blavatsky will Fossilize Theosophy
> 
>May I?
>Very interesting thoughts....in the recent article by the Bilimoria...
>
>Here is another recent one by Edi D. Bilimoria (not the old N.F. Bilimoria) form the TS Adyar, magazine "The Theosophist", October 2009.
>http://www.ts-adyar.org/node/353
>
>BACK TO BLAVATSKY WILL FOSSILIZE THEOSOPHY
>(by Edi D. Bilimoria --- The Thesophist, 2009)
>
>"A disciple of HPB (or 
>other spiritual teacher or sage for that
>matter) would certainly qualify for being
>a theosophist; but a puritanical devotee
>of HPB would not so qualify because of
>an attitude veering towards that funda-
>mentalism which is so imimical to our
>Society. We are alle drawn towards par-
>ticular teachings that resonate with our
>nature and meet the needs of our personal
>spiritual quest. This is the natural human
>condition. Moreover, we are entitled to,
>in fact we must share our enthusiasm with
>others regarding those who have inspired
>us on our journey. But we may not impose 
>upon or try to convert others to our mode
>of thinking or cause schisms when others
>disagree with us. There is no overridning
>apiritual authority in the TS."
>.......
>"What further 
>proof do we need than this statement again 
>in our Principal Founder's own words:
>'In its capacity of an abstract body, the Society [the TS] does not
>believe in anything, does not accept anything, and does not teach
>anything..' 21 Surely this implies that if TS were to establish any 
>one teaching as exclusive and autoritative, the individual search for truth necessarily
>demanding freedom and liberty of members to do so, would be stifled."
>.......
>Â  "Do we then want to adopt en ethos of 
>'back to Blavatsky'? If so, we must rest 
>conent with future generations of theosophists 
>merely brain-rehashing22 her
>words. We would have a museum of 
>circumscribed esotreric fossils â guarded
>by a cult of fossilized esotericists. But
>moving forwards with Blavatsky and other
>seers would generate that practical, Truth-
>based regenerating brotherhood for which
>our principal Founder devoted her whole
>life and every ounce of her energies. This
>means that we enrich the legacy of our
>Founders23 by harmonizing the pioneering,
>classical literature with added insights
>and practical means drawn from the 
>teachings of sages, enlightened scientists
>and inspired artists from other spiritual
>realms than just the traditional theosophical,
>and from contemporary as well
>as ancient times. An unquenchable, but 
>selfless passion for truth at alle coists and
>from all sources is therefore obligatory.
>http://www.ts-adyar.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Theosophist/Theosophist%202009/October%202009/10%20Edi%20Bilimoria.pdf
>
>By Pedro Olivera in year 2005:
>Madame Blavatsky on Dogma and Orthodoxy
>"In its capacity of an abstract body, the Society [the TS] does not
>believe in anything, does not accept anything, and does not teach
>anything." (BCW, XI, 124)...etc., etc.
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/28184
>
>
>M. sufilight says:
>But is it not so, that when one merely expand one - single teacher - to merely embrace, say, the thirteen
>"Eminent Theosophists" so-called, given on the International TS Adyar website today (http://www.ts-adyar.org/content/eminent-theosophists)
>we are still stifling and fossilizing the original object of the Theosophical Society - by givning the impression, that Orthodoxy within The Theosophical Society
>is something desireable and something given emphasis? Is it not so?
>I just ask...
>
>And when we learn that the International Theosophical Society has some special Declarations - appearently on theosophical teachings - as given here:"Fundamentals of Theosophy" and more of the same - http://www.teozofija.info/Teozofsko_gibanje/Declarations.htm
>When considering this I do honestly and sincerely think we all find ourselves caught up in theosophical Orthodoxy one way or the other - and any escape from it seem difficult to promulgate - when Altruism is made central with the other hand, - that is - the right hand.
>
>So International Theosophical Society Adyar does not teach anything or believe anything???
>
>I wonder whether Edi D. Bilimoira and Pedro Olivera and other TS members have read the Declarations given in the above link( http://www.teozofija.info/Teozofsko_gibanje/Declarations.htm ) very carefully - and - whether they are aware of that the International Theosophical Society Adyar website is promoting a narrow set of "Eminent Theosophists" as the scope of the Theosophical Society? And not to talk about - the Theosophical Orthodoxy - we witness continously on quite a number of other TS website around the globe in other countries as well? (Try good old England for a much better version - well as far as I am concerned - http://www.theosophical-society.org.uk/html/about_ts.htm - But then again - the website seem to get lost in "Theosophy Orthodoxy" its section called "Introductory Study 1-8" - here, where it forwards its very own teaching on something called - Theosophy: http://www.theosophical-society.org.uk/html/study.htm )
>
>The Theosophical Society was never a Wisdom School so to create a supply of Occultists and Adepts. Something like this has always been reserved for Esoteric Sections and Occult closed gorups.
>The Theosophical Society was originally merely the opening spot for a free search after the truth about the meaning of life, and nothing but the truth - and - not somehting that should be made into a tool for a Messiah Craze or any other schemes, prioritized holy shrines, and false doctrines on "muslin and bladder", etc., etc.... And this can be documented from the original papers of the early days of the Theosophical Society. This is how I see it.
>
>All the above are of course just my views. I present them from my heart seeking to promote altruism.
>I will gladly change them if someone are able to prove them wrong or irrelevant.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>M. Sufilight
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

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