Theos-Talk Archives (May 2012 Message tt00105)

In India, TS was incorporated as a religious, charitable etc organization
under Indian Laws on April 3, 1905 and on May 15, Adyar property was
transferred to it. In the USA, it was incorporated as a non  profit
corporation under the laws of Illinois.

MKR

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:46 PM, <Augoeides-222@4JpArBQLikLYHjDWn71HFFxJ8HkY7i_UR4a858ot4TREWB_3Mw4Rch9afT_sPpVqmk_4ToQyIGc2yYuv7rcdnoHm.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> Morten,
>
>    I read the links, it looks like Art. XV in the 1890 Charter, and Art.
> 27 in the 2007 Charter. The president shall have right to allow residence
> or occupation to individual or organizations. But you know India had rules
> under British Colonial extension, and Free India of today has it's rules (
> I don't have personal knowledge of them) and a wide gulf of time seperates
> 1890 and 2007. Also I recall there was a formal  "Incorpor ation" I think
> in the USA of the Theosophical Society. This changed the nature from a
> Non-profit unincorporated "Society" to a Incorporated Society
>
>  which is a different animal, corporations are eternal entitys unless they
> violate tax law, hu man participants become a secondary feature of
> corporations.
> John
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@vMFXd5vkYPC-qc4hbWn6VurMQFdwMavYm8n9bOQ69JcBbyyVZ6PZqB_g--wJGGM_9keIYtJzYIRLjWVXAwCRcL5QV3sVF8g.yahoo.invalid>
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 2:37:45 AM
> Subject: Re: theos-talk Very important discussion at Mahatma C.W.
> Leadbeater group
>
>
>
> 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@4JpArBQLikLYHjDWn71HFFxJ8HkY7i_UR4a858ot4TREWB_3Mw4Rch9afT_sPpVqmk_4ToQyIGc2yYuv7rcdnoHm.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@vMFXd5vkYPC-qc4hbWn6VurMQFdwMavYm8n9bOQ69JcBbyyVZ6PZqB_g--wJGGM_9keIYtJzYIRLjWVXAwCRcL5QV3sVF8g.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@4JpArBQLikLYHjDWn71HFFxJ8HkY7i_UR4a858ot4TREWB_3Mw4Rch9afT_sPpVqmk_4ToQyIGc2yYuv7rcdnoHm.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@vMFXd5vkYPC-qc4hbWn6VurMQFdwMavYm8n9bOQ69JcBbyyVZ6PZqB_g--wJGGM_9keIYtJzYIRLjWVXAwCRcL5QV3sVF8g.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@4JpArBQLikLYHjDWn71HFFxJ8HkY7i_UR4a858ot4TREWB_3Mw4Rch9afT_sPpVqmk_4ToQyIGc2yYuv7rcdnoHm.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@vMFXd5vkYPC-qc4hbWn6VurMQFdwMavYm8n9bOQ69JcBbyyVZ6PZqB_g--wJGGM_9keIYtJzYIRLjWVXAwCRcL5QV3sVF8g.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@vMFXd5vkYPC-qc4hbWn6VurMQFdwMavYm8n9bOQ69JcBbyyVZ6PZqB_g--wJGGM_9keIYtJzYIRLjWVXAwCRcL5QV3sVF8g.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@vMFXd5vkYPC-qc4hbWn6VurMQFdwMavYm8n9bOQ69JcBbyyVZ6PZqB_g--wJGGM_9keIYtJzYIRLjWVXAwCRcL5QV3sVF8g.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@NPatMkLp1QQ5GoygOiuYTR3T5pYdEmOYWCmUzOTLqDGa6AGQdnutxFRPz_P4HxAqMVDkaI-LZFh5JwAYbvM6.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]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


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