Theos-Talk Archives (April 2009 Message tt00504)

Dear friends


My views are:

I am one of those who will look forward to a wise answer on that from Joe Fulton.
Yet, I will not call it hypocrisy, but rather ignorance about the theosophical teachings.

I recently wrote the following (item 1) to Anand, who appearntly himself deletes messages on his own forum.

1.
Blavatsky said:
"He who objects to having his views controverted and criticized 
  must not write for Lucifer. " ..."Moreover, we have given good proofs 
  of our impartiality. We published articles and letters criticizing 
  not alone our personal theosophical and philosophical views, but 
  discussing on subjects directly concerned with our personal honour 
  and reputation; reviving the infamous calumnies in which not simple 
  doubts, but distinctly formulated charges of dishonesty were cast 
  into our teeth and our private character was torn to shreds (Vide "A 
  Glance at Theosophy from the Outside", Lucifer for October, 1888). 
  And if the editor will never shrink from what she considers her duty 
  to her readers, and that she is prepared to throw every possible 
  light upon mooted questions in order that truth should shine bright 
  and hideous lies and superstitions be shown under their true colours -
  why should our contributors prove themselves so thin-skinned?"
  ( IS DENUNCIATION A DUTY? by H. P. Blavatsky - Lucifer Magazine 
  1888)
---

2.
I will add the TS Adyar view by Annie Besant in contrast.

"Writing in The Theosophist in February 1907 on âThe Basis of the Theosophical Societyâ, Annie Besant said:
Does the TS enforce on its members a moral code, the transgression of which is punishable with expulsion?  I do not consider that the TS has any moral code binding on its members.  That such a code does not exist in fact is clear, for no written nor printed copy thereof can be produced.  ...We have no code:  we hold up lofty ideals, inspiring examples, and we trust to these for the compelling power to lift our members to a high moral level, but we have no code with penalties for the infringement of its provisions.

The first, and perhaps we may find the only fitness and propriety necessary to membership is a recognition of the Truth of Brotherhood, the wish to help it to emerge from latency into activity.  The desire to help in bringing about the general realization of Universal Brotherhood is the primary fitness and propriety which are sought.  This makes a man a vehicle through which can work the forces that make for the realization of Brotherhood.  The Love-force in him makes him one through whom the Love-forces without him can play.  And I think that this desire to help, evidenced by work which does help others towards the realization of  Brotherhood, is the only fitness and propriety that our Society can rightly demand."
http://www.austheos.org.au/topics/po-livingtradition.htm


---
3.
Now contrast Annie Besants view with H. P. Blavatsky's in the below.

"ENQUIRER. What was the object of this system?

 THEOSOPHIST. First of all to inculcate certain great moral truths upon its disciples, and all those who were "lovers of the truth." Hence the motto adopted by the Theosophical Society: "There is no religion higher than truth." â The chief aim of the Founder of the Eclectic Theosophical School was one of the three objects of its modern successor, the Theosophical Society, namely, to reconcile all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities. "

"The Theosophical Society was organized for the purpose of promulgating the Theosophical doctrines, and for the promotion of the Theosophic life."



I think it is within these quotes in the above, someone somewhere changed the original programe given by the Masters through HPB with the aid of H. S. Olcott?



M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anand 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:47 AM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Individuals who did much damage to Theosophical movement





  Joe,
  You are one of the moderators of Theosophy.net. You started that discussion forum with announcements that you will be neutral to different ideas and organizations related to Theosophy. And what are you actually doing? When I send messages from the writings of Annie Besant and Leadbeater, you see that they don't appear on the front page. This way you are discouraging one significant group dedicated to Annie Besant and Leadbeater from discussing in that forum. What should be concluded from this difference between your announcements and your actions? In Texas English it is called hypocrisy.
  If you are giving equal freedom to all groups of Theosophists, I would suggest that you allow people to freely discuss writings of Annie Besant and Leadbeater, instead of using cheap tactics to discourage discussion on these.

  Best
  Anand Gholap

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph P. Fulton" <jpfulton314@...> wrote:
  >
  > Anand,
  > 
  > Your comments are quite disturbing on several fronts. 
  > 
  > a) What is your criteria for harming the movement? I would challenge that Leadbeater has succeeded in every benchmark you could provide. Worst of all he turned an organization of inquiry into one of blind faith and credulity. Somewhere it was said that "credulity breeds credulity and leads to hypocrisy."
  > 
  > b) From all appearances, based on your prior comments, harm seems to consist of contradicting CW Leadbeater. Does disagreeing with Leadbeater's teaching automatically render one untheosophical?
  > 
  > c) Your ad hominem attacks on Carson, Caldwell, and especially Katinka Hesselink are totally out of bounds. Reed and Daniel are well-respected students of Theosophy. Dan Caldwell has done a tremendous service to the movement by making many of the source writings available to all students, whatever their views. Katinka has done much the same in providing students with valuable documentation and thoughtful commentary. In addition, Katinka's voice in all matters has been one of sanity and reason. The effect on every discussion I've seen her take part in is to bring in an element of decency and common sense that is nothing short of admirable.
  > 
  > As to whether Krishnamurti's teaching is pernicious, well that depends on time, place and circumstance. Perhaps deeper reflection would reveal that it's more important how knowledge is applied than the words themselves.
  > 
  > Joe
  > 
  > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@> wrote:
  > >
  > > The failure of Theosophy in the West is more because of unwise actions of
  > > members of the TS, and individuals related to Theosophy. Officers can guide TS
  > > in right direction. But as they are democratically elected, they tend to fulfill
  > > wishes of people, to some extent, even if they would have done things
  > > differently, had they no pressure to fulfill wishes of people.
  > > Some of the online individuals who did much damage to Theosophical movement are
  > > these. Reed Carson, the owner of Blavatsky.net who made Theosophical movement
  > > extremely dogmatic around Blavatsky's writing. Another individual who did much
  > > damage to Theosophical movement is Katinka Hesselink, who spread wrong teaching
  > > of J. Krishnamurti in Theosophical Society and thereby misled members of TS into
  > > believing that J. Krishnamurti's teaching is Theosophy.
  > > Third individual who did much damage to Theosophical movement is Daniel
  > > Caldwell. He did damage by regularly attacking Adyar TS, it's leaders, past and
  > > present, and their teachings.
  > > These are some of the individuals who did much damage to Theosophical movement
  > > by their online activities.
  > > 
  > > Anand Gholap
  > >
  >



  

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