Theos-Talk Archives (May 2012 Message tt00078)

Morten and all, 

 Well I don't necessis arily want to see the conventional Male roles extinguished but there are science findings as to the Gender Genes of the Male species of Huma ns having fallen from over 20,000 Gender genes in each male to a new recent low of around 2000 male gender genes that is a 90% disappearance of the genes that maintain the actual birth of male gendered baby . It appears that ÂMen are on the way out on planet Earth in the not very distant future. Wh a t will remain are females, Transgenders, and others. Mayhaps this is how Mother Nature arranges to arrive at what Blavatsky says will be the cause at the later 6th root race? Return of Earth for a new body in the future and you won't be a historical male here on Earth because they will have ceased to be found here. Lots of apple carts are going to be over turned in that process, imagine what the world will be like then. Some I wonder what the Greys did in their spare time. 



John 


----- Original Message -----


From: "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@srvWQ02WwHfNZHdx1P3Frtj8bxgs6sB0MuGUEbIbKqKhi9DOP5xPud_IrsJJ1gUPRaC7L9etpHdVXcHOtso-wnEz.yahoo.invalid> 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 12:07:50 PM 
Subject: Re: theos-talk Very important discussion at Mahatma C.W. Leadbeater group 

 




Dear friends 

My views are: 

A few old messages might be helpful to learn, so to help relieve suffering on this planet and promote true altruism... 

*** 1 *** 

First quote about the (New Age religion named) Liberal Catholic Church on the TS Adyar compound and what it has represented for nearly 100 years.... 

Leadbeater and the ordination of women (by author Gregory Tillett) 
"The forces now arranged for the distribution through the priesthood would not work efficiently through 
a feminine body; but it is quite conceivable that the present arrangements may 
be altered by the Lord Himself." 

...... and more .... 

"[C.W. Leadbeater "The Sacraments. An abridged and revised Edition of his 
Book 'The Science of the Sacraments'" St Alban Press, Sydney, 1993:241-2 - 
edited and revised by Sten von Krustenstierna, former Presiding Bishop of the 
Liberal Catholic Church]" 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/26775 

A response to the above was given: 
"Thanks. I'm going to see if I can find this in the original, unrevised 
version. Of course, even if Leadbeater was correct in this (Dora Kunz 
thought so), the Liberal Catholic Church made a major error: giving 
temporal power to the priesthood, thereby excluding women from important 
roles for which there was no valid reason to exclude them. It is because 
of this that I have declared quite openly that anybody who's in the LCC 
clergy and is also in the Esoteric Section is a hypocrite, as they are 
part and party to a religion that is in violation of the 1st Object of 
the Theosophical Society. 

Bart" 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/26783 

A short comment by M. Sufilight: 
If I had the choice today....---- Then, I would flatten the LCC building on the TS Adyar compound - or - close the shop of that church - and that bell-ringing every year at the TS Adyar convents in the month of december. And all the Antropomorfic idols inside it. 

And I think some of the founders of the Theosophical Society who agreed on the 1st object of the Society would do the same... 
The first object today year 2012: 
"To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, S.E.X., caste or colour." 
http://www.ts-adyar.org/content/objects (Uppercase by M. Sufilight)' 

Any comments fram any TS Adyar members? Or just TS members as such from other parts of the globe? 

*** 2 *** 

Does the 1st object at all have any bearing on the theosophical members walking around on the TS Adyar compound while they greet new members with a smiling-welcome-inside the compound --- saying: Here we have the main building, and here another.... and here you may visit the LCC church in opening hours etc., etc......? 

******************************************************** 
******************************************************** 
The 1st object in 1890: 
"To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or colour." 
http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm 

CHANGES OF THE T. S. OBJECTS THROUGH THE YEARS 
http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Objects_Changes.htm 

The 1st object in 1875: 
"In considering the qualifications of applicants for membership, it knows neither race, sex, color, country nor creed." 
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/gfkforum/ourdir.htm#Preamble 

"Buddhism, Christianity And Phallicism" by Blavatsky 
(Here is a view of her own - although Posthumously published) 
"There is one thing really "original" and "new" in Phallicism, and it is this: while noticing and underlining the most filthy rites connected with phallic worship among every "heathen" nation, those of the Christians are idealized, and a veil of a most mystic fabric is thrown over them." 
....... 
" It is quite true that the origin of every religion is based on the dual powers, male and female, of abstract Nature, but these in their turn were the radiations or emanations of the sexless, infinite, absolute Principle, the only One to be worshipped in spirit and not with rites; whose immutable laws no words of prayer or propitiation can change, and whose sunny or shadowy, beneficent or maleficent influence, grace or curse, under the form of Karma, can be determined only by the actionsânot by the empty supplicationsâof the devotee." 
....... 
"Anthropomorphism in religion is the direct generator of and stimulus to the exercise of black, left-hand magic." 

http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/BuddhismChristianityAndPhallicism.htm 

The every ancient esoteric mysteries without a phallic element are only to be found in Asia in the esoteric doctrines from which Kwan Yin originates and one more place or two, - and not in the Kabalah of today or the Christian scriptures; (something also mentionded by Blavatsky). Or also named - Xi Wangmu - from the Kunlun mountains, who was visited by Emperor Yu (about 2207 B.C.) 

Any comments fram any TS Adyar members? Or just TS members as such from other parts of the globe? 

M. Sufilight 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: M. Sufilight 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 10:04 AM 
Subject: Re: theos-talk Very important discussion at Mahatma C.W. Leadbeater group 

Dear Cass 

A few views... 

Yes, perhaps you are right. It seem to depend on what one understand with Esotericism. 

_______ 

What do you think about the following?.... 
The Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society was never meant to Boss the Exoteric Section around - while intending to make it Esoteric - by changing its Absolutely Non-Sectarian Organizational Structure - turning it (the Exoteric Section) into a Sect called the "Esoteric Section" 
An "Esoteric Section" (where one leader or a group of leaders claim to be mouth-pieces of a Master - more or less) ---- an Esoteric Section which it then never will be - because the doctrine has become known and hence Exoteric and sectarian (ie., promoted on behalf of others - as an emphasized belief, with a biased preference (not like in the non-sectarian structure) --- and not to each other as a knowledge like in the Esoteric Section.). 

In the old days a lot of discussion seem to have been going on with regard to what the Esoteric Section actually was. 
Blavatsky had her views. T. Subba Row his five-fold views and not the same as Blavatsky's - and her Secret Doctrine. And The Gebhard's and also Mr. Oakley, claimed to see Masters, had their views. Sinnett had his views. And Olcott as well, who were diverging from Blavatsky's views from time to time. And each of them sought to promote an esoteric section of their own, but not by making the Exoteric Section into a claimed Esoteric Section of their choosing. But this was what later happened - more or less - when they build a Christian-like Church on the TS Adyar compound and promote their Messiah (even a Messiah to come! - precognition indeed...or rather Maya and promotions of mere non-scientific and non-philosophical belief) at the memorial Ban-Yan tree in 1910 at the TS Adyar Convent. I am saying this because not to humans are alike. In this world of duality they will always eb in disagreement on some question or another. (See for instance the letters from Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett. - 
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/Letters%20of%20HPB.htm ) 

_______ 

A few more words... 

The Sectarian or Non-sectarian Theosohical Society year 1910? 
First The Order of the Star in the East was claimed to be non-sectarian by Annie besant and others. 
Then Krishnamurti (The Messiah) dissolved it merely a few years later in 1929 and claimed it to be a sect (!) 
Is it then not important to consider whether, Annie Besant, Esoteric Section Leader, and, the President (meant ot be an administrative chair) of the the Originally claimed absolutely non-secatarin Theosophical Society (in one) almost ruined the absolutely non-secatarin Theosophical Society by promoting - a belief-based sect, - like The Order of the Star in the East 
clearly was to many of its members? 
Or aught we (easily - to be able to) merely to distinguish the two organizations as two separate agendas, even when they are so self-contradicting? 
http://www.canadianpoetry.ca/confederation/Bliss%20Carman/letters/2.htm 

"The Star: An International Magazine" - article by D. Rajagopal on the Order of the Star in the East: 
"The Order was founed upon belief,".... 

With regard to the Leadbeater group. One of the most astonishing facts - which occured in the past was to me, that 
the Liberal Catholic Church was placed on the TS Adyar Compound as a Shrine - where it is until this day - DESPITE it from 
its beginings was male-chauvinistic - with regard to who could become Bishop in it. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women and also e.g., http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/26768 ) 
- This on the Compound of the International Theosophical Society which main object was to promulgate altruism (! !) without regard for sex and religion etc., etc. 
Is it true that the Theosophical Society in Adyar for decades has owned or owned various Liberal Catholic Churches, including the one named Tekels Park, as well as the TS Adyar one? 

____ 

SECT = A religious organisation or group, which has a leader or a group of 
leaders who forwards a religious doctrine (or very narrow set of doctrines) 
ON BEHALF of its members or teaching ON BEHALF of its members. 
A religious organisation or group which avoids emphasis on the science of Subtle 
Mind Control. A religious organisation or group which refuse comparative 
studying or avoids it carefully or de-emphasizes it or does not mention it all. 
Or give comparative studying emphasis as a selective agenda - even if non-dogmatic 
A religious organisation or group where the religious organisation or group 
which most often disallows well meant criticism or does not respond to it. 
(This definition is based on the Constitution of the Theosophical Society year 1890-1891) 
There are so many definitions of this word "Sect" these days... 
This definition can be called Sectarian-ec - where ec = exit-counselling.) 

I sometimes wonder what definitions of the words "sect" and "unsectarian" and "non-sectarian" they - actually - used in the old theosophical days? 

M. Sufilight 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Cass Silva 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 1:34 AM 
Subject: Re: theos-talk Very important discussion at Mahatma C.W. Leadbeater group 

If one is ready for TS esotericism he/she would have already left behind any notion of dogmatic religions. 
Cass 

>________________________________ 
> From: M. Sufilight < global-theosophy@srvWQ02WwHfNZHdx1P3Frtj8bxgs6sB0MuGUEbIbKqKhi9DOP5xPud_IrsJJ1gUPRaC7L9etpHdVXcHOtso-wnEz.yahoo.invalid > 
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Saturday, 5 May 2012 4:14 PM 
>Subject: Re: theos-talk Very important discussion at Mahatma C.W. Leadbeater group 
> 
> 
> 
>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@srvWQ02WwHfNZHdx1P3Frtj8bxgs6sB0MuGUEbIbKqKhi9DOP5xPud_IrsJJ1gUPRaC7L9etpHdVXcHOtso-wnEz.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@OMfwho9wDsZ49NQCgcbPvAOeuVJJy-gtrb06j0XfU737onnfYKTCuLz8aI4SaiIieVKF86wKEwPbgv-TogI.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] 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

[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]