Re: theos-talk Very important discussion at Mahatma C.W. Leadbeater group
May 13, 2012 02:37 AM
by M. Sufilight
Dear John
My views are:
I have as far as I am aware of never forwarded just one single charter as the most - authentic - and the only important one. Bit maybe my memory fail me.
I have forwarded a preliminary charter, adapted, to our present day. It is on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk-heart/ in the files section, only for members to see. And this is not final in any manner what so ever.
I have maintained that central aspects of the Constitutions of the TS in the peirod 1875-1891 has been deviated from through the years, at least since 1910.
Which of these Constitutions are you referring to? The 1875 one, the 1878 one?, the 1890 one? or Blavatsky's Original Programe Manuscript 1886? - To me the - central - one is the 1890 version, with regard to avoiding Sectarian promulgations (also on the TS Compound; see Article XIII, 2). (That is primarily with regard to avoid sectarian promulgations.)
Let TS Adyar tell us why it was important - in the name of altruism - to deviate and even delete Arcticle XIII in this 1890 version - and then go and promulgate - a strange Annie-Besant-hatched orthodox theosophy on the TS Adyar compound - today even for Children (! !)....No answers arrive - and this is to me tellingly cold... (The 1890 version. http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm - The 2007 version - http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_2007_E.htm )
But the others are, as I see it, also important to have in mind when seeking to formulate a present day version - on a changed planet. But calling any of them the most authentic, and in general - I will certainly hesitate doing.
In the old days, it was the President (or Co-founders) of the TS together with the Counsil of the Section involved, who decided, which Lodge was in operation or not. Well as far as I can read it in the 1890 version. (Not many versions are available online these days...in the secretive Society...which claim to be open-minded seekers after the truth.)
TS Constitution given 1890:*
Article III
"10. Each Section shall have the power of making its own Laws and Bye-laws and of fixing its own Entrance Fees, Dues and Subscriptions. Provided always that such Laws and Bye-laws do not conflict with the Objects and Rules of the Theosophical Society herein contained, and that no objection is made by the President within thirty days after his receipt of a copy of the same from the General Secretary of the Section. The General Secretary shall forward to the President, within seven days of their adoption, copies of the Constitution, Rules and Bye-laws of his Section and of any alterations thereof, under registered cover.
11. No Constitution, Rule, or Bye-Law of a Branch shall be valid until confirmed by the President, or by the General Secretary of the Section in which such Branch is situated, who shall be ex-officio the agent of the President."
....
Article VI
"7. The President shall be the Court of Final Appeal in disputed questions arising between Fellows, or in or between Branches or Sections. But all differences between Branches or Fellows must, in the first instance, be submitted for settlement to the Council of the Section, appeal being resorted to only in exceptional cases, or when the Council of the Section is unable to decide the case."
http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm
But when the HQ compound is questioned, it still rests on the same problem. As I see it. - Yet, the so-called rules for the TS today might have changed. And since they are un-official, I will have to wait for an answer....(http://www.ts-adyar.org/content/membership-0 "The Society welcomes as members those who are in sympathy with its Objects and who are willing to abide by its Rules")
Then we wonder why people are not becoming members of the TS, when they are not given info about what the Rules are.
Anyone?
What are the TS Rules for membership?
Why then complain that membership are in the decrease?
_______
A Shriner? Big laughs..Smile...
What is the actual message emanating from TS Adyar - about Altruism and the 1st object, when we look at the compound year 2012 compared to the Messiah years 1910-1929 or so - and then look at the years 1875-1891? Are they the same? Was the compound the same? I am saying: No definitely not (! ! !)
Are we living in a different century? I am saying: Yes indeed we are!
Is it then a wonder that people stay away from the Theosophical Society these days?
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: Augoeides-222@rplfOY2POzhpcKl_kOvw06Ymrlbbx51VHX4qpMNf6cJmuW03ma5ERWn4ywcykrrxOvo2HTq8E6tf8HCjfjVsSFs.yahoo.invalid
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Very important discussion at Mahatma C.W. Leadbeater group
Morten,
I refer to the Charter that you choose as the most authentic and posted here. It is ancient history because everyone concerned with the issue is long since departed for many decades and unless there is a current anomaly of same issue what redress can be made?
Just for the record I have never been a shriner lol! But look at the positive side making statues creates job for sculptures, stone masons, mill wrights, and sundry other occupations which makes many people happier than they were lol. Look at all those staues of lenin that are still hanging out in all the former soviet republics lol. It is a major industry making statues and they are non secular and will make any kind of statue.
As an experiment maybe we all try to imagine what if Madame Blavatsky never ever mentioned the Brothers, Mahatma's, Adepts what would have been the attraction of the group that founded the Theosophical Society after they all argued with each other for the first year? Wh at if there had never been a single Mahatma Letter to anyone? And what if Madame Bavatsky had never performed any paranormal feats at any time for anyone. what would be the membership tally back then and then today? I f there never was a carrot would any rabbits show up lol?
Well - out of shrine out of mind is my attitude, unless I stub my toe on one I don't perceive an effect, kunje nampar shespa, there are infinite streams of the consciousness with infinite differentiations exhibiting the infinite limitle ss permutations of the Play of Life wherein we are the observor and the other two parts also.
I will be the last man on earth to sanction blowing up the Buddhist Heritage site in Afganistan. Devotion is a necessary pa th for some signicant population of this planet. That doesn't mean I think the same applies to the grounds at Adyar.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@U5XQPJtbgN8jPEYx98_xDC_L-5xVk5wnQC8pBtwqAdA3GMFpPLQcLRrM1NSIsMZqsMnf-JvG74SvMt1ZkOC2wWOV4oBt.yahoo.invalid>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 12:44:37 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Very important discussion at Mahatma C.W. Leadbeater group
Dear John
My views are:
Despite the below words might sound very harsh...I am at the same time very much happy about that the TS Adyar exist at all,
and have not closed down entirely...despite the visible decrease in membership during the latest decades...
I love the place, and those who every day take their time to keep it going - even like it is now, despite I have my disagreements with its manner of promulgating altruism. I love you all, in my own ignorant way, of course,...also TS Adyar.
I just find it important to seek to explain the problems as I see them...And since nobody oppose the views I have, I find them to be solid.
John wrote:
"But also I read the Society Char ter you posted a while back and I also noticed that there was a provision that the Administrating Officiers could allow "recognition" formally from the Society of those organizati ons they desire to like the Arya Samaj or the Liberal Catholic Church. It seems to present a problem that may not be easely alter with changing provisions of the Charter."
M. Sufilight says:
What charter are you referring to?
(This one? And what Article? - http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm )
John wrote:
I do think the sexual issue is a bad influence and harms but it is pretty much now ancient history.
M. Sufilight says:
Ancient history? I what sense?
We find thousands of Shrines on our planet OUTSIDE the clearly sectarian TS Adyar compound - while it is being claimed that the Theosophical Society is Absolutely Non-Sectarian...!.
I find this to be a Very weird and strange promulgation of altruism.......!
Well...The LCC building is still there, as well as a handful of other Shrines...as if they are MORE important than ANY OTHER kind of Shrines on the planet in an Absolutley Non-Sectarian Theosophical Society...That is somehow not really fitting compared to the 1st object of the Society, - not even today. (And you may add Article XIII, 2 - from the above 1890 version - compared the present day version...)
The LCC Shrine on the TS Adyar compound.
(As if any kind of rites are appreciated on the TS Adyar Compound...?)
http://www.ts-adyar.org/node/97
And since there still is a strange "odeour" emanating from that building - the LCC - I find it hopeless to have it on compound - especially when we all know that it was build on a male-chauvinistic corner-stone - in direct opposition to the 1st object of the Theosophical Society - which are based on altruism and mutual respect, and without regard for sex, religion, caste etc., etc.
The present attitude is similar to: ---- It is the same as saying: - You are welcome no matter what caste you have and are regarded as equal ---- but, males are given a special preference on the TS Adyar compound (! !), because we somehow need the LCC Church to be there....Weird, is it not?
- This, for instance instead of the Intergalactic Alien (species) Church...or...another version...for instance the Christian Ebionites Gender Equality Church, instead of what ought to be called a New Age sect named LCC. - But we better throw all these Shrines out ---- so the Absolutely Non-Sectarian object are kept intact --- I am saying: There can be no honest and sincere attitude towards Altruism - without seeking an Absolutely Non-Sectarian Theosophical Society --- And therefore: There can be no honest and sincere attitude towards Altruism - without seeking an Absolutely Non-Sectarian - TS Adyar compound (! !)
Why is it that we always witness this strange manoeuvre, that after a few hundreds of years...sometimes only decades...some of the administrative officials get this strange idea...that creating a statue for some past teacher or claimed sage (merely claimed)...is a very good idea. And they spend time having a ceremony where their new statue is revealed - so to be adored (! !)...while the band plays a solemn tune...
What is this religion saying that it is so important to reveal statues from time to time? Is it the Wisdom-Religion of all ages past?
An example on Shrines at Adyar:
An example is when the gallant Colonel Olcott got something strange into his not too occult pumpkin (the skull)...Namely the idea that one indeed aught to build a Shrine for the two Mahatma Masters - Morya and KH on the TS Adyar Compound...He asked Blavatsky to tell Morya or KH for permission...Blavatsky told him to go to a HOT place...Now why did she do that? ---- What place should the present day Adyar Statue creating and preserving assembly...then be told to go to...the same HOT place?
...Here is the letter by Blavatsky to A. P. Sinnett about Olcott's strange ideas...
LETTER No. LXV, page 163-164...:
"Well; Olcott came one day and said, âDo ask Master to permit me to have money (generally) subscribed for the Temple.â So I sent his temple and himself to a hot place and said I would not."
---- http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/Letters%20of%20HPB.htm )
Now the present day TS Adyar find that having building's of Jesus, Zoroaster...etc., etc. are a good idea on compound. Despite that the Masters never was made an article of faith, in the Absolutely Non-Sectarian Theosophical Society. Weird.... or is there a logic in ti all, that I am missing?
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.
--- What do you think my dear readers?
(Silence is taken as consent. And inactivity as contempt.)
About the magical aspect in LCC and elsewhere:
I ask:
To whom do they pray in the Liberal Catholic Church? And have they changed their male-inclined rites lately?
(See The Key to Theosophy, 2nd ed. 1890 - p. 70)
"ENQUIRER. Do you believe in prayer, and do you ever pray?
THEOSOPHIST. We do not. We act, instead of talking.
.......
"THEOSOPHIST. It is explained by that other fact that prayer has several other meanings besides that given it by the Christians. It means not only a pleading or petition, but meant, in days of old, far more an invocation and incantation. The mantra, or the rhythmically chanted prayer of the Hindus, has precisely such a meaning, as the Brahmins hold themselves higher than the common devas or "Gods." A prayer may be an appeal or an incantation for malediction, and a curse (as in the case of two armies praying simultaneously for mutual destruction) as much as for blessing. And as the great majority of people are intensely selfish, and pray only for themselves, asking to be given their "daily bread" instead of working for it, and begging God not to lead them "into temptation" but to deliver them (the memorialists only) from evil, the result is, that prayer, as now understood, is doubly pernicious: (a) It kills in man self-reliance; (b) It develops in him a still more ferocious selfishness and egotism than he is already endowed with by nature. I repeat, that we believe in "communion" and simultaneous action in unison with our "Father in secret"; and in rare moments of ecstatic bliss, in the mingling of our higher soul with the universal essence, attracted as it is towards its origin and centre, a state, called during life Samadhi, and after death, Nirvana. We refuse to pray to created finite beingsâi. e., gods, saints, angels, etc., because we regard it as idolatry. We cannot pray to the ABSOLUTE for reasons explained before; therefore, we try to replace fruitless and useless prayer by meritorious and good-producing actions."
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm
With other words we do not fancy - altars with statuettes of Jesus and angels - having western-european facial expressions, and pictures of angels, and pomp and circumstance, misplaced Christmas (they cannot even get the date right, and apparently think that Emperor Constantin could) and all.....and at the TS Adyar compound - while the members have Adyar Convent each year...The great majority of people arriving inside the LCC Church are still intensely selfish, (although they perhaps do not like to be told the truth about it). All logic tell you that.
This fact can hardly be denied. So go figure how they pray inside this Church...
We ACT instead of talking says Blavatsky.....And I add: And we like to remove Sectarian buildings on the TS Adyar Compound...on the compound of the HQ of the Absolutely Non-Sectarian Society...Smile.
I am saying:
If you are preserving something, without really knowing what you preserve...then you are not really helping humanity. Are you?
And if you are saying: Do not mind, do not matter. --- Then we ask: How will you promote altruism?
By being sectarian supporting only a few sects and Shrines - and - not others ------ or support none and all kinds - while we remove the false doctrines from each of them seeking the truth and nothing but the truth?
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: Augoeides-222@rplfOY2POzhpcKl_kOvw06Ymrlbbx51VHX4qpMNf6cJmuW03ma5ERWn4ywcykrrxOvo2HTq8E6tf8HCjfjVsSFs.yahoo.invalid
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Very important discussion at Mahatma C.W. Leadbeater group
Morten,
As I read your post previously about the Liberal Catholic Church and mention of homosexual ity and other offending deportments, I contrasted to todays public issue(s) and so I gave a view in that as regards a long term situation. If my memo ry is correct it is the "Y" chromosone that distinguishes the male gender viz the female that is suffering from the gene depletion. Who knows why it is occuring. But also I read the Society Char ter you posted a while back and I also noticed that there was a provision that the Administrating Officiers could allow "recognition" formally from the Society of those organizati ons they desire to like the Arya Samaj or the Liberal Catholic Church. It seems to present a problem that may not be easely alter with changing provisions of the Charter. Personally, I have many books by Besant and Leadbeater but my inclination has always been loyal to Blavatsky as is known I thi nk. I do think the sexual issue is a bad influence and harms but it is pretty much now ancient history. However if I correctly recall Madame Blavatsky made certain associations to the Rosicrucians that also became part and parcel philosophically of Wedgewood and others when Dr. Tillit(?) posted about the engagement of Magic ritual and other efforts to communicate with higher spirits by those initiated in the Liberal Catholic Church? Is that why you are interested in the use of magic to evoke communication or is it some other reason? I mean by way of your post about Johannis T rithemius . I think the Trithemius topic is pretty interesting, especially about Wurzburg Germany, I used to frequent Wurzburg more than 50 years ago, Marionberg Fortress has very large tapestrys depicting the decapitation of the Ca tholic Cardinals that was performed there, the y entombed i n the f loors of castle. It is a lovely view from the open air wine cellar and one can view the Maine River and see from a long distance encompassing Wurzburg while enjoyi ng German White wine. Perhaps you may dig up some decision document made by the presiding Officers back then that administratively placed recognition and granted rights to the Liberal Catholic Church, that would be informative and point to the "Who dunnit" lol.
Regards,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Sufilight" < global-theosophy@U5XQPJtbgN8jPEYx98_xDC_L-5xVk5wnQC8pBtwqAdA3GMFpPLQcLRrM1NSIsMZqsMnf-JvG74SvMt1ZkOC2wWOV4oBt.yahoo.invalid >
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 7:21:15 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Very important discussion at Mahatma C.W. Leadbeater group
Dear John
My views are:
John wrote:
"Well I don't necessis arily want to see the conventional Male roles extinguished"
M. Sufilight says:
I do not think that I referred to anything like that - but rather to the equality of the sexes as given in the first object of the Theosophical Society in 1875 and until even today - despite some strange persons planted a Christian-like Church that promulgated something quite else on the International HQ compound of the Theosophical Society (in India, Adyar) - and did so for almost a century - as far as it has been officially known.
Strange...indeed...very strange...And then some are saying: That the Theosophical Society never have failed in its activities?
About DNA etc., etc. Each scientific view changes every odd year or decade. Let us see what is being said just five or ten years from now. About the Sixth Race...One thing is guessing, another is scientifically based knowledge...The Sixth Race will barely be visible for the thirthy years to come on this planet....well as far as I am aware of....But I do not claim to be infallible...We can keep on guessing....Using "maybe" and "it appears"....
About the (altruistic) Greys..: Perhaps it would be more compassionate to build a Inter-galactic UFO-shrine on the TS compound - so to be more open-minded about respect of sexes and races on this planet - instead of the present day closed-minded Liberal Catholic Church agenda....But I would rather theow all the Shrines out, because all the religious shrines needed in the name of fairness are not able to be present on the compound. Human ecolution is ever changing --- preserving something - not knowing why you perserve it - is - at best a hopeless agenda if Altruism is the core of your activities....Well as afar as I am concerned....But then again, no two persons think alike...it seems.
Another thing is the fact, that the first object of the Theosophical Society was trampled upon when that Liberal Cathlich Church was built on the TS Adyar compound. And the TS Adyar administration only keep silent ---- then are filled to the brim it seems with a psychological blockage with regard to altruism - which make them unable to admit failures of the past in any manner what so ever - even if they are clearly visible even to the average profane or scientist.
But, we do not make unwilling slaves, and nor has the tail of the yak developed in one year
Just my views....
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: Augoeides-222@rplfOY2POzhpcKl_kOvw06Ymrlbbx51VHX4qpMNf6cJmuW03ma5ERWn4ywcykrrxOvo2HTq8E6tf8HCjfjVsSFs.yahoo.invalid
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Very important discussion at Mahatma C.W. Leadbeater group
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 Men 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@U5XQPJtbgN8jPEYx98_xDC_L-5xVk5wnQC8pBtwqAdA3GMFpPLQcLRrM1NSIsMZqsMnf-JvG74SvMt1ZkOC2wWOV4oBt.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@U5XQPJtbgN8jPEYx98_xDC_L-5xVk5wnQC8pBtwqAdA3GMFpPLQcLRrM1NSIsMZqsMnf-JvG74SvMt1ZkOC2wWOV4oBt.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@U5XQPJtbgN8jPEYx98_xDC_L-5xVk5wnQC8pBtwqAdA3GMFpPLQcLRrM1NSIsMZqsMnf-JvG74SvMt1ZkOC2wWOV4oBt.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@5ifBj2ZKPvtzEE_Cn8UTGd9_sh6ITqy19DyrB4U9kdBWu2LPdNyAUBKKiGeRf4jbZvPqqmJ9CRMDO6tvGQ.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]
[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]
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
