Theos-Talk Archives (May 2012 Message tt00027)

Dear Cass and friends

My views are:

Maybe Anand was talking about the exoteric section of the Theosophical Society?

__________

Here are a few words of my own seeking to explain the views exchanged upon....
They are merely my views...offered seeking to be of service to the cause of altruism...

As I see it....The exoteric section of the Theosophical Society was ever without any teaching of its own. Absolutely non-sectarian. Each member was left with each others own views in this absolutely non-sectarian section. 
(http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm and http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v7/yxxxx_019.htm - I ask about the latter link: What is the example of a Spiritual Sect to be in contrast with? - An Esoteric Section or a claimed "Esoteric" Section?)

The Esoteric Section and the Exoteric Section - were two Sections - quite apart from each other in various vital respects.
Yes, in the Esoteric Section there were a doctrine - however a doctrine each members would have to decide for himself and herself - a doctrine based on conscience and altruism, and not coerced. The reason for this is the logical conclusion - that there must be a meaning to life when it is agreed altruism aught to be promoted - and when psycholgical change therefore is possible. (But which doctrine results from this conclusion was ever open for each member.). BECAUSE the Esoteric Section was of course never meant to Boss the Exoteric section of the Theosophical Society - because the exoteric section was absolutely non-sectarian.  (See also BCW. Vil. XI, p. 379 - Lucifer Magazine 1889, p 506-509) And altruism was ever at the core of it. And you see there might have been more than one esoteric section or "esoteric" section - and Blavatsky's was not the only one in her time, and not infallible like a pope, something admitted by Blavatsky herself. But it was apperently the only one talked about until later after the year 1891. T. Subba Row taught some members in the 1880'ties. Was his little group not an esoteric section? What did Blavatsky actually mean when she used the phrase esoteric section? Was there a Christian-related or Messiah-related esoteric Section in the early days of the TS? I just ask speculatively.


See my recent post May 3rd 2012 here:
"H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"The members of the Theosophical Society at large are free to profess whatever
religion or philosophy they like, or none if they so prefer, provided they are
in sympathy with, and ready to carry out one or more of the three objects of the
Association. The Society is a philanthropic and scientific body for the
propagation of the idea of brotherhood on practical instead of theoretical
lines. The Fellows may be Christians or Mussulmen, Jews or Parsees, Buddhists or
Brahmins, Spiritualists or Materialists, it does not matter; but every member
must be either a philanthropist, or a scholar, a searcher into Aryan and other
old literature, or a psychic student. In short, he has to help, if he can, in
the carrying out of at least one of the objects of the programme. Otherwise he
has no reason for becoming a "Fellow." Such are the majority of the exoteric
Society, composed of "attached" and "unattached" members.* These may, or may
not, become Theosophists de facto." ---- The Key to Theosophy, 2nd ed. 1890, p.
19-20 ----

And I, M. Sufilight say:
And therefore the exoteric part of the Society was NOT a mere belief body. And
the Esoteric Section was something quite different, as mentioned by Blavatsky in
the quote given by Anand in his recent post in this thread."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/57868

A Scientific body - and NOT one for the promulgation of a religion called "Theosophy" or a mere faith-based exoteric section promulgating the Christian Te Deum at the Adyar Compound at Convent times.

But who decided who were members of the Esoteric Section? I think this clearly was left to the individuals to decide for themselves in the non-sectarian Exoteric Section of the Theosophical Society. And whether they trusted (or actually honestly knew) that the Esoteric Section was what it claimed to be. And which Esoteric Section are we talking about? Where there not more than one? (There is no Religion Higher than the Truth.)

Already in the year 1876 - the majority of the founders of the Theosophical Society changed the organizational structure, so it had three grades, based on ancient eastern Masonry; so says the papers form these days.
And it was claimed in the constitution of the TS, as early as 1878, that the chair (the non-sectarian ? - "President") Olcott was under the direction of a Master or two, - later this paragraph was deleted in 1885 or so - in the SPR and Coulomb scandal days. In 1886 Blavatsky wrote the article called the "Original Programe" Manuscript (http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v7/yxxxx_019.htm) - and in letters to A. P. Sinnett she talked about trechaerous behavior among members who gave the SPR guy R. Hodgson a false picture about what the Society was all about. And there she blamed even herself and also Damodar and others. And the Masters (and also Messiah's) names got desecrated and made an article of faith - because of it all.

Today we have much more knowledge about the science of psychology in the Western and also in the East than people had in the years 1875-1900. And this changes the picture - organizationally speaking; (well as far as my commen sense and logic is concerned). The Society was always considered an organic structure, which will have to change during the course of time - according to human evolution. A logical conclusion, as I see it.

Now the time for change - psychological change - is clearly - needed. The members are staying away in the so-called ordinary theosophical organizations (the later neo-sectarian off-shoots increase their memberships. The Ascended Masters, the Asthar Command groups, the Alice A. Bailey's etc., etc.) - And the original Programe --- ( the Absolutly non-sectarian programe with no teachings on behalf of the Society - by eminent theosophists - with some at the top and others at the bottom) --- is not followed - outwardly, on the organizational websites - and has not been followed since the year 1910 or so. But improvements in this direction has happened in the latest few decades - as far as 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


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cass Silva 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2012 4:04 AM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Very important discussion at Mahatma C.W. Leadbeater group


    
  So Blavatsky not only recognized importance of religious system, a philosophy (or beliefs regarding nature of cosmos and man), but it was considered as essential for more serious students of Theosophy who were in Esoteric School.

  >________________________________
  > From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@MOBOBWWqM210hW664MEb1LXWHs9rUyPm4OhRlWmFD-R7SEdOhXxRS1qIPtV297nJ8YUppbcOL2ADo4xQoCizAdcxWeA.yahoo.invalid>
  >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  >Sent: Friday, 4 May 2012 4:09 PM
  >Subject: Re: theos-talk Very important discussion at Mahatma C.W. Leadbeater group
  > 
  >
  >  
  >Which lies are you talking about here? Can you be more specific so that no readers a going to misunderstand you words of compassion and altruism?
  >
  >----- Original Message ----- 
  >From: Cass Silva 
  >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  >Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 4:41 AM
  >Subject: Re: theos-talk Very important discussion at Mahatma C.W. Leadbeater group
  >
  >lies, lies and more lies
  >Cass
  >
  >>________________________________
  >> From: Anand Gholap <AnandGholap@5hSRbr-F5js1L2rykhA4z9Hk4_wXMgpIPa758VqzhxFhsQ35r4nAd4GSUrefGnZz-wxAq1DgTxwqviqL.yahoo.invalid>
  >>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  >>Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2012 10:58 PM
  >>Subject: theos-talk Very important discussion at Mahatma C.W. Leadbeater group
  >> 
  >>
  >> 
  >>Below is my message sent to Mahatma Leadbeater group:
  >>Here are passages from Key to Theosophy 
  >>ENQUIRER. But surely those few who have felt the need of such truths
  >>must have made up their minds to believe in something definite? You tell me
  >>that, the Society having no doctrines of its own, every member may believe as he
  >>chooses and accept what he pleases. This looks as if the Theosophical Society
  >>was bent upon reviving the confusion of languages and beliefs of the Tower of
  >>Babel of old. Have you no beliefs in common?
  >>THEOSOPHIST. What is meant by the Society having no tenets or doctrines of its
  >>own is, that no special doctrines or beliefs are obligatory on its members; but,
  >>of course, this applies only to the body as a whole. The Society, as you were
  >>told, is divided into an outer and an inner body. Those who belong to the latter
  >>have, of course, a philosophy, or â if you so prefer it â a religious system of
  >>their own.
  >>There is fashion among many members of TS and followers of Blavatsky to ridicule religions, beliefs and creeds. Above passages from Blavatsky show that this attitude is not proper in TS. Inner body of TS or Esoteric School has always been considered as very important and as core of TS with more serious members becoming members of ES. Now notice Blavatsky's words "The Society, as you were told, is divided into an outer and an inner body. Those who belong to the latter (Esoteric School) have, of course, a philosophy, or â if you so prefer it â a religious system of their own."
  >>So Blavatsky not only recognized importance of religious system, a philosophy (or beliefs regarding nature of cosmos and man), but it was considered as essential for more serious students of Theosophy who were in Esoteric School.
  >>Anand Gholap
  >>
  >>
  >> 
  >>
  >>
  >
  >[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]