theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: ham,Theos-World They will NEVER admit a mistake (reply to Perry re:CWL)

Aug 11, 2004 11:44 AM
by Morten N. Olesen


Hallo all,

May I insert a text so to give some food for inspiration
on what Theosophist are doing and have been doing...?

My views are:

The quote about THEOSOPHISTS are taken from the book
"The Initiate in the New World" written by Cyril Scott, 1927.
The person known as M.H. in the below is the Initiate also known as JMH
(Jerome Moreward Haig).
( The book is here: http://www.sanctusgermano.net/books/books.html )

Please read the following carefully...


CHAPTER X
THEOSOPHISTS

"WILL you come in for our meal?" M.H. asked when we arrived at his door. "I
shall
be busy for about half an hour with my secretary, or rather my chela who
acts as
secretary, but after that I'm free for a while. You can always find a book
to pass the
time."
I was of course glad to do as he suggested.
M.H. had two chelas living in the house with him: a young Singhalese and the
secretary - chela just mentioned, a man named Heddon. After the meal was
over (I
noticed M.H. hardly ate anything himself), and we were smoking excellent
cigars, I
asked, in the course of conversation, what his views were concerning the
future of the
Theosophical Society.
"That depends to a large extent on the behaviour of Theosophists," he
answered with
one of his graver smiles. "Though the Society does not exactly come under my
surveillance, I am interested in its career, and it has already done and may
continue to
do very good work. Unfortunately I see in some of the Theosophists
themselves faults
both serious and trifling, but the trifling ones occasionally have as far -
reaching
adverse results as the serious ones."
"What sort of faults?" Heddon enquired. He appeared to know very little
about the
Society and its doings.
"Well- for instance, I think it's sad to see members of a Society which
professes
Brotherhood engaged in civil warfare with words- which is only one degree
better than
waging it with blows. From the very beginning the Society has at fairly
close intervals
been preoccupied with quarrelling in one form of another, and what should
best be
ignored or tolerantly forgiven, becomes augmented into a scandal, so that
members
leave their Lodges in a body by way of protest, their chests expanded in an
exhibition
of what they take to be righteous indignation."
"The bellows of convection." Murmured the Singhalese drily.
M.H. nodded. "In an occult journal I've read acrimonious letters relating to
the
ordination of bishops and whether it was justified or not, and latterly
there has arisen a
movement which, on the assumption that Madame Blavatsky said the last word
on
occult wisdom, condemns all never teaching as a sign of disloyalty to her
memory."
"Why, I thought," was my comment, "that even while she was still alive the
Masters
pointed out that as yet they had only 'lifted a corner of the veil,' and
admitted that with
all her qualities she wasn't entirely reliable in some respects."
"So they did," replied M.H.

*** The Initiate in the New World by His Pupil 55 ***

"And what is the root - cause of all these - shall we say blemishes on the
Theosophical escutcheon?" in the calm soft voice of the Singhalese. "Lack of
control;
control of temper, control of emotion, and control of the tongue."
"And its effect," said M.H. taking him up, "the alienation of those who
might join the
Society and reap the benefits for which it was founded."
"Deaf people cannot hear loud noises," remarked the Singhalese in his
measured way,
"but they can often hear soft whispers."
M.H., seeing my puzzled expression, looked at me with a twinkle, then at his
chela.
"You mustn't expect two poor matter - of - fact Occidentals always to
understand your
profound similes without elucidation," he teased him.
The Singhalese smiled in a manner that endeared him to me at once- it was so
utterly
devoid of superiority. "Our Theosophical friends are deaf," he explained,
"because
although they can hear the sot whispers from the astral planes, they cannot
he ar the
loud voice of Reason telling them that intolerance can never be compatible
with the
spirit of Brotherhood."
"I now understand," said I, bowing.
"And those minor faults you spoke of ?" Heddon asked M.H.
"They are trifles, I admit, and I hope and think we Brothers are the last to
be
intolerant. But- to show you what I mean- when I sometimes focus my
consciousness
on a theosophical gathering, I see far too many peculiar, vague, sloppy,
absent -
minded and unpractical dreamers who perhaps ask: 'And what can I do for the
Masters.?' and who, when told, are unwilling to comply because the very
thing the
Masters want them to do isn't spectacular enough to appeal to them." He
smiled
indulgently. "I remember not so very long ago trying again and again to
impress upon
the consciousness of a certain woman that she must cease to deny her husband
his
conjugal rights, and thus cease to set in the selfish manner she was then
doing. But I
could make no headway whatever, because she was so obsessed by high -
falutin' ideas
of so - called purity that she was deaf to the promptings of my still, small
voice trying
to speak to her ego,. Neither Theosophy nor any other form of occultism," he
continued after a pause, "should be use as a pretext for conjugal
selfishness. It must
never render women (or men) neglectful of their duties, nor render them
vague and
unpractical. After all, the practical lesson which Theosophy has to teach is
that of
Control. Selfishness in any form, lack of common sense and all kindred
weaknesses
are symptoms of uncontrol. Whenever possible I like my chelas to teach
Theosophists
to be a credit to and an advertisements for their Society, not the reverse,
as some of
them are. Merely to believe in the doctrines of Karma and Reincarnation, for
instance,
may prove a consolation to them personally, but how will it benefit others
who as yet
do not believe in these doctrines? Besides, these two doctrines are not
absolute
essentials; they are but two of the many facets of the great Diamond of
Truth." M.H.
rose from his chair and began pacing up and down.
"Even what is true, when over - emphasised, may assume the proportions of a
dogma," I suggested.
"Certainly," he replied. "I find, for instance, that a lot of members of the
Theosophical Society lay far too much stress on Karma, as they understand
the word.


*** The Initiate in the New World by His Pupil 56 ***

In young and unevolved souls it is often productive of valetudinarianism.
The would -
be interesting man or woman- usually woman- says: 'I am ill- it is my Karma-
I must
bear it.' And she feels quite proud of the fact, or what she considers to be
the fact. But
if we probe into her subconsciousness we find it is not her 'Karma'- " he
again smiled
indulgently- "but her vanit y which lies at the root of the trouble, and
which prompts
the desire to draw attention to herself. As you know, in this circle here we
employ the
word Karma in its more literal sense- as the Law of Cause and Effect in
relation to all
actions, and not merely to those of past incarnations. We say, for example,
if a man gets
drunk one night that the splitting headache with which he wakes up next
morning is his
Karma!"
We had to laugh at this.
"And why?" continued M.H., ignoring our amusement, "because it is the effect
of a
cause- in other words, that man is paying up, not for the sins of a previous
night. If
Karma is merely understood in the restricted sense in which the more
narrow - minded
Theosophists understand it, those evils arise- valetudinarianism and others-
which we
try to avoid here. So you'll benefit them by teaching them by teaching them
that the
results of Karma are nothing whatever to be proud of, and that the sooner
they cease to
give the doctrine such undue prominence, the better." He stopped to re -
light his cigar.
"Altogether I am sorry to see an attitude of dogmatism among Theosophical
members
- some of them go so far as to think that they as Theosophists have the
exclusive right
to attention from the Masters. They'd doubtless get a shock if you told them
that there
is many an atheist and even a harlot more receptive to the teachings of the
Masters than
they are. This dogmatic type of Theosophist is the exact opposite to the
vague woolly -
minded type- which at least usually has a good deal of love in its make -
up- and is,
spiritually speaking, worse off because imbued with a quite unconscious
conventionalism. The mental bodies of such people are hard and unyielding;
because
they have embraced an unconventional religion, they think themselves
correspondingly unconventional. But they're mistaken; within the confines of
their
Theosophical outlook, they're nearly as narrow and sectarian as the most
bigoted of
Christians."
"They should beware of Theosophical Pharisaism," the Singhalese observed,
"for
although the Masters' love shines upon them as the great orb of day, the
windows of
their minds and hearts may be too small to give it entrance."
"Thank you, my son," said M.H. with quiet humour. Then, becoming more
serious:
"The Theosophical Society stands at a very critical moment of its career. It
may
continue to grow in membership, but unfortunately the size of a Society is
not
necessarily what counts, but the quality of it. If the Society is to remain
a great force
for good in the world, and I fervently hope it will do so, then for one
thing its members
must uproot cowardice. There have been cowards who have run away at the
moment of
danger, and instead of giving a had at the pumps, have deserted the ship. It
doesn't
matter whether the danger has appeared in the form of a scandal, having for
its basis
some kink in the ner vous system of one of its members, or whether
dissensions have
arisen around opinions and pronouncements about the World Teacher. If
Brotherhood
means anything at all, it means standing by one another not only in moments
of safety


*** The Initiate in the New World by His Pupil 57 ***

but also in danger. To my mind the future of the Theosophic al Society
depends before
all else on the moral heroism of its members."


----------------------------------------

Now my view is very much in agreement with the above quote on THEOSOPHISTS
when we think about when it was written.

a) I agree that today Theosophists - or some of them - needs more
"tolerance" and less "intolerance".
b) They need some of them less "dogmatism" even if they think they are
without it.
c) They need some of them to understand that the Masters are not only living
in caves in the Himalayas.
d) They need some of them to understand that Blavatsky made mistakes and
that the Mahatmas even said so in their letters.
e) They some of them need to be aware of "Theosophical Pharisaism". There
are more than one view on how an Elephant look like. And the Theosophist
quite often do not know much more about love and compassion than the local
villain or prostitute. Reading a few books does often not enlighten the
Seeker
beyond the local citizens level of knowledge and compassion.
f) They some of them need to understand that a Theosophist do not need to
wear strange robes. Need not always to isolate oneself from friends or
people
by adopting strange behaviour or talking about things which other - more
ordinary - people do not care to hear about.
g) The different branches of Theosophy aught to spend much more time on
spiritual development, which they ALL fundamentally agree upon, than on
fighting over interpretations of Mahatma letters or which version was edited
in a wrong manner.
Universal Brotherhood is not an endless discussion about small differences
in behaviour. Hansome is who handsome does.
Show others what to do - by doing GOOD and Constructive deeds. Then others
might change their bad behaviour.
h) Critisize other Theosophists if you may. But do not continue or create a
vendetta if the message was not understood by the receiver. Make spiritual
devleopment a higher priority than a local showdown among different
Theosophical branches in our Solar System.


Well these were just my views...


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
To: <ham>; <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 7:24 PM
Subject: ham,Theos-World They will NEVER admit a mistake (reply to Perry
re:CWL)


> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> wrote:
> > It's a great concern to me that a policy of "ignorance is bliss"
> > or "ignore it and it will all go away" seeming to be a part of a the
> > society's way of dealing with the CWL/NeoTheosophy issues.
>
> Hi,
>
> You can broaden that concern, because as a general rule spiritual
> organizations adopt an unwritten policy of "never admit a mistake."
> Radha would not make an outright claim of infallibility for herself or
> any previous TS presidents. But as long as it is taboo to acknowledge
> in print that any of them ever made a mistake there is an implicit
> denial that they did. Surely to encourage and promote CWL the way
> Annie Besant did was mistaken on several levels, and you are right to
> say that:
>
> > A state of co-dependence has developed in the society imho and lack
> > of support for the freedom of speech of those who point out the
> > difference between the CWL and HPB/Mahatma's this is outrages beyond
> > belief.
>
> They can speak freely, just not in TS publications or in its programs
> (and this doesn't apply to local lodges necessarily.) But how much
> support for freedom of speech to criticize actions by earlier leaders
> is found in ULT or TS-Pasadena? In the latter case, no one would ever
> claim infallibility for Tingley, Purucker, Conger, or Long. But
> neither will any criticism of them be found in the publications or
> programs of the Society. (In my opinion, Tingley's pathological fear
> of masturbation which led to putting children in quasi-straitjackets
> was just as unhealthy as CWL's opposite position on the subject.)
> Neither will ever be admitted to have had any flaws. Nor will ULT
> publications or programs ever allow any criticism of Robert Crosbie or
> his successors, or the secret esoteric section within ULT, or
> especially of Judge and the circumstances surrounding his alienation
> from Olcott and Besant. And none of the organizations will accept the
> idea that HPB or her Masters ever made a mistake. She herself
> predicted and deplored this state of affairs at the close of The Key
> to Theosophy.
>
> You wrote:
>
> > (Unless I am mistaken and can be given some positive assurance that
> > this is not the case)
> > Does freedom of thought and freedom to compare different traditions
> > in the societies publications exist in the Societies mandate?
>
> As well as freedom to question or deny the Masters' existence, or
> propose alternative belief systems as superior to that found in HPB's
> writings. Yet the original TS allowed and encouraged that kind of
> freedom, e.g. in the cases of Hume and Kingsford respectively.
>
> > The hypocrisy of this state of "organizational culture" should be
> > unacceptable for any theosophical student no matter how you feel
> > about CWL.
>
> As should the refusal to admit (in other than a vague hypothetical
> way) the possibility that any leader ever made any mistake be
> unacceptable within any Theosophical organization no matter how you
> feel about HPB, Olcott, Judge, the Masters, etc.
>
> > I hope one day the society can not be so tied to a dogma and guru
> > worship that it will be able to become that which it was meant to be
> > with open Socratic dialogue in all its publications.
>
> If there had been any forward movement in intellectual freedom in the
> Theosophical movement in recent years I'd share that hope. But it
> seems a vain one from all I've seen.
>
> > The irony is that the Theosophy in Australia magazine has just
> > published an article that criticizes the Secret Doctrine quite
> > strongly and to that I say GREAT!!! that's the true theosophical
> > spirit.
>
> Not likely to be found in Adyar or Wheaton publications. Some of the
> national section journals are quite a bit more independent.
>
> > But why oh why not CWL ???
>
> When you know that logic and evidence are against your position, you
> suppress discussion of the subject.
>
> On a final note, I'll mention my experience with ARE in which I let my
> membership lapse a couple of years ago. Not because of any
> disagreement with the association's activities or emphases which I
> generally support, nor due to any disagreement with its philosophy.
> The governing board made a disastrous decision in 1998 to Christianize
> the organization, fire the executives and replace them with more
> fundamentalist-leaning types, and other ill-advised moves. After a
> couple of years of declining membership, financial crises, and
> vigorous member protests, the board fired those executives and
> returned the organization more to its original universalist
> perspective. While I was happy with this, there was never ANY public
> acknowledgment that anything whatsoever had gone wrong. No
> transparency about the process, no accountability by the board, no
> addressing of past mistakes. As someone who has spent a career
> working with nonprofit boards, and actively served as a board member
> of several other nonprofits, I could not countenance this lack of
> accountability and transparency. All the boards I ever served on or
> under *had* to be transparent and accountable, invite the press and
> members/citizens to meetings, and such. ARE, like the TS and other
> spiritual groups, is run by a board that neither practices nor even
> hypothetically endorses transparency and accountability. That's an
> insurmountable objection for me.
>
> But at least in the case of ARE, secrecy is an ad hoc organizational
> principle. With all the Theosophical organizations, it's a
> fundamental element of the belief system that secrecy is appropriate
> and inevitable for a spiritual elite. That invites anyone who gets
> any position of authority to imagine him/herself part of a spiritual
> elite and therefore entitled to secrecy and immune from accountability.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>




[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application