Theos-Talk Archives (December 2011 Message tt00063)

Dear Michael and friends

My views are:

I am a bit late with a reply, because other issues came up. So please bear with me.

I will seek to answer and give my views on the matter. I find however, that there are many roads to follow with regard to organisational structures. And views will often differ on the matter.
I will myself in this have the primary aim of the Theosophical Society in mind when I write the following. The primary aim is the promulgation of unconditional Altruism. And therefore based on science as far as it is possible - and - not on beliefs, neither dogmatic or similar. Hypothesises will of course be welcomed.
My main focus is that any theosophical organisation aught to relate it self to avoid,  a sectarian organisational structure. The Theosophical Society was, as far as I know, from its beginning - non-sectarian. And it aught to have remained so - clearly and visibly. (Its many later off-shoots esoteric or otherwise as well.) And it was no doubt because this clear and visible fact - was not attended to in the past during the Besant and Judge, (also AAB's and Ballards) days after 1891 (others might disagree, but facts are facts) - that the original aim and idea ran into trouble of various kinds. And those troubles are still alive it seems. and they probably will be until this issue, sectarian versus non-sectarian, cult versus non-cult is addressed thoroughly and in the name of compassion and altruism. Therefore there is a reason for having a main focus on the SCIENCE (not belief) on Subtle Mind Control - with regard to the Theosophical Society and how much it is operating in a non-sectarian manner. The Christians and science - backed by various Professors and historians continously seek to picture the Theosophical Society and later off-shoot groups and organisations as CULTS or negative SECTS. And this aught to be taken seriously - at least in the name of compassion and wisdom. What do you think? Was the original aim of non-sectarian promulgations thrown into a too large sectarian-like og sectarian-tendency trashcan?
And also a main focus within such an organisation or group with regard to avoid - what Blavatsky called solitude thinking - "triply distilled SELFISHNESS," (some Krishnamurtians have, as I see it, no doubt a blurred view on that). See also the previous quote I gave in this thread where I quoted Blavatsky on her views on this (BCW., Vol. VII, p. 160-161). 

One does, as I see it not really (honestly) promulgate altruism - by a solitary path or by a small group of 10-25 persons - which are saying to themselves something similar to: "I " - or  -"we are good going - no need to help others, our non-sectarian - sect is the best thing that has happened for the planet". That was clearly not Blavatsky's intentions, and neither the Masters who send her - (remember: that it was Morya and Kuthumi's cheifs - and not themselves who asked Blavatsky to do something according to one letter from master KH. See A. T. Barker: Mahatma Letter 26.) Well unless this letter is false of course.

The organisationl structure of the TS was givning the Lodge or Centres very much autonomy - and that was why the TS in its early years grew into something very helpful.
Later this, it clearly seems, was changed by various persons - and later theosohical off-shoot groups most of them more or less seemed to forget about this organisational aspect and about the non-sectarian aspect and its importance to the promulagtion of altruism. Anyone with a certainintellect a bit above average can eastablish a large organisation with a gruru ("pope") at the top and devoted followers at the bottom here in the West. Doing the same in the East is more difficult, no doubt because of the differences in culture and peoples mental behavior.


Michael wrote:
"*** I don't know of this being true. Put any 7 people together and one will tend to emerge as a leader. The need for a leader is universal."

M. Sufilight says:
I will refer to my the above words just given in this post, and say the following:
The idea that the "need for a leader is universal" is as I see it false with compared to the aims of the Theosophical Society and the promotion of altruism. The main idea was a non-sectarian organisation so to avoid false Guruism ("Papacy") and to avoid what we today call - a negative version of - Subtle Mind Control or a kind of subtle Coercive Persuasion. So yes people might need a Guru or teacher - who in small groups (called "Circles" by the Sufis) teach those who are ready - on their level of spiritual need. - We aught here to distinguish between spiritual need - and what the pupils themselves think they need spiritually - or what they in fact crave or want, or desires. The pupil most often cannot really (clearly) see his or her spiritual need, even if he or she think so. That is why the teacher is necessary to some seekers. - But since the Theosophical Society was non-sectarian and very scientific about its acitivities - it avoided drawing any conclusions with regard to what Theosophy was on behalf of the Society - and allowed each member to have his or her own version of theosophy (and even non-thesoophy if altruism just was sought for) - so to avoid Subtle Mind Control. And that was also why comparative studying (mainly of Eastern literature) was given emphasis. Because Western literature liked sectarian and dogmatic activities in the 19th century - and still do so very much today (!) - These are my views. But maybe I have overlooked a thing or two.

Another issue is the Theosophical Society never made the belief in Masters an article of faith. A scientific approach was always recommended. Those who knew about them did so - or at least claimed they did so.

Whether Master Morya and other divide themselves along this or that ray - is in fact silly talk to most people on this planet, and Blavatsky also said so. (Please do not misunderstand me.) As long as the esoteric Seeker is not able to discern the difference between the Masters - through REAL knowledge (not through belief - nor instinctive hunches nor I believe I know, "ideas" - while turning beliefs into knowledge) - they do in fact not know which ray they are trained upon and by whom. (Let the story about Mrs. Holloway be a clear warning to any - better-knowing seeker on the path! - See it here in LETTER 17: http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/hollowayml.htm)
And whether chelas work individually or not - I will let each decide for themselves. I know that Chelas work in groups - and nearly always do. But that is my knowledge. There is the Law of Distributive Karma to consider in all group work as well as organisational work - and the organisational structure used - and also when more or less "cunningly" seeking a solitude path instead.

Michael wrote:
"Everywhere action is sought people form small units. 

There is power in larger groups, but they become unwieldly."

M. Sufilight says:
Again it depends - as I see it. And it is not always the truth. There are large multi-coorporations or religions on this planet. Do you expect that the Masters and chelas are not involved in with them one way or the other?
Another aspect is - it depends as I see it clearly on what kind of organisational structure you choose - when forming an organisation in the physical.

There are at least four main types of organisations I find that we are exchanging upon in this thread until now.
A) The Teacher - Pupil organisations for the Initiated - not the religious fanatics - who do not know at all what Subtle Mind Control is and how it can operate in small and larger groups.
B) The non-sectarian organisation like The Theosophical Society was - which was as said by Blavatsky open for all kinds of New Agers, Spiritualists, Spiritists, philosophers with an altruistic aim in life, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians and so on....The aim was the search for the Truth about the meaning to life, since sectarian behvaior is not real honest altruism, but something else. (Do you not think so?).  - And also of course: The main - requirements for membership - was as I see it - a willingness to aim and at least strive for the promulgation of altruism, the first object; - and as a consequence thereof a willingness to seek the aim of comparative studying (either by books or other means), the second object; -- and to some a study in extra sensory perceptions and the laws of nature, the third object. - The approach is scienctific and not belief based. The aim was and is to help all humanity and life by seeking out altruism - together - not in small groups. - And this can be done today with an understanding organisational steructures and the science on Subtle Mind Control, which clearly are related to this issue. In 1888 the science of psychology was barely known about, or even recognized. And even so it is barely mentioned today in several countries - except superficially and only very little, with surface thinking as a result.
C) Those (not seldom one of the numerous Mrs. Holloway's of various degrees and varieties)  who would like to form a group like A) ( and perhaps even call it something like B) ) - when they are not ready for it yet. They think they are more advanced than they really and truly are.
And there are many such groups these days. The members and their leaders nearly always fail in being able to clearly discern the various Masters attached to this globe. They nearly all of them fail to show any kind of knowedge or understanding of what the acutal difference is between sectarian and non-sectarian behavior, - what the Science on Subtle Mind Control is in this regard. - And the last issue seem to be the main stumbling-block right now on this planet. - Sometimes some Seekers due to prejudice class people in group C), when they belong in group A) and vice versa. Well all this as I see it.
D) The non-physical or semi non-physical organisations often similar to A) but without any meetings among the members in the physical - or only very very seldom.

So no. Formation of small units is a good idea to those, who do not understand the problems of sectarianism versus non-sectarian behvaior - the Science of Subtle Mind Control and the need for the promulgation of altruism - AND - it might be a good idea to various inititates and their teachers as well. 
The Theosophical Society in 1875-1891 had a quite different aim, and in a sense a more grand one, - a clear and visible non-sectarian aim and an organisational structure allowing the lodges and centres a whole lot of autonomy. Because: Handsome is as handsome does. - The objects of the Society had to be kept intact - as a necessary requirement, and that was all. And altruism are forbearing and therefore only few will ever be thrown out of such a Society. But of course there are limits - if the opposite to altruism clearly is aimed for repeatedly, - or if Guruism (Papacy) - or if Sectarain behavior is aimed for organisationally - in a repeated manner. And that it can be proven. - In such a Society like the Theosophical Society in 1875-1891 - a given centre might have had small units, where the initated got taught by a Chela or Master. So I see no need for small units stadning alone - and thereby effectively promoting sectarian behavoir (saying to others: We need as many sects as possible on the planet - BUT - they have to be similar to ours !!!) - and what Blavatsky called "triply distilled SELFISHNESS," - So Blavatsky's Esoteric Section was independant of the Theosophical Society in any sectarian aspect, but not really in a non-sectarian one. ("A PUZZLE FROM ADYAR", BCW, Vol. XI, p. 381...."There is no longer a âParent Societyâ; it is abolished and replaced by an aggregate body of Theosophical Societies, all autonomous"...Is there a parent Society today year 2011, and are the Lodges autonomous?....Well?) And this a number of persons seem to fail to understand these days. I will seek to explain this further if it is needed.
But these are of course just my views.

What kind of intertia is it that you who mention it perhaps are referring to with reagard to the Theosophical Society as given in 1875-1891?

Or do you fail to understand that the Theosophical Society in 1875-1891 did not promote any doctrine on behalf of the members, because it was totally non-sectarian, - ABSOLUETLY non-sectarian?
As I see it, a philosophical-scientific organisation with an approach on religion, instead of a new-religious sect. Theosophy was just something some of the members followed as a doctrine - and - with their very own version of it. Other members followed something else. This was the non-sectarian aspect, and not the a certain doctrine was the main one - which the members had to listen to as a hypothesis. Numerous doctrines were forwarded as can be seen in the magazine the Theosophist. Blavatsky as an editor was however - perhaps - a bit officious - with her many inserted remarks in the Magazine during the years 1875-1891, the magazine Lucifer included.

To those who know about the Law of Distributive Karma - we are all in the same boat.
The non-sectarian boat. The absolutely non-sectarian one. Therefore we aught to avoid - primarily - promoting sects and avoid promoting small groups, which are classed as sects.


H. P. Blavatsky wrote and I agree on it:
"As I just said, if the Theosophical movement were one of those numerous modern crazes, as harmless at the end as they are evanescent, it would be simply laughed atâ as it is now by those who still do not understand its real purport â and left severely alone. But it is nothing of the kind. Intrinsically, Theosophy is the most serious movement of this age; and one, moreover, which threatens the very life of most of the time-honoured humbugs, prejudices, and social evils of the day â those evils which fatten and make happy the upper ten and their imitators and sycophants, the wealthy dozens of the middle classes, while they positively crush and starve out of existence the millions of the poor. Think of this, and you will easily understand the reason of such a relentless persecution by those others who, more observant and perspicacious, do see the true nature of Theosophy, and therefore dread it."
.......
"I do not call the enemies we have had to battle with during the first nine or ten years of the Society's existence either powerful or "dangerous"; but only those who have arisen against us in the last three or four years. And these neither speak, write nor preach against Theosophy, but work in silence and behind the backs of the foolish puppets who act as their visible marionnettes. Yet, if invisible to most of the members of our Society, they are well known to the true "Founders" and the protectors of our Society. But they must remain for certain reasons unnamed at present. "
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm
(Now you are telling me and others, that this idea was a bad one - and that the Master was against the formation ot the Theosophical Society??? Or that the Masters made a mistake???)


All the above are of course just my views. Maybe others have something better to offer. I will be all ears and eyes on this.




M. Sufilight



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: libertyson11 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 4:32 PM
  Subject: theos-talk Re: SMALL GROUPS


    
  A small group with 20-25 members have a tendency of creating Guruism 

  *** I don't know of this being true. Put any 7 people together and one will tend to emerge as a leader. The need for a leader is universal. 

  Put more than that together and as soon as any course of action is decided upon the group immediately sets forth a smaller group to spear head and organize it. 

  "Do any of you who agree upon the existence of the Great Brotherhood of the Masters and the Chohans imagine that let us say 5.000 Masters and Chohans of the Solar System work only in small groups with 20-25 members in each of them? 

  The Masters are divide along Ray Service. Morya has 1st Ray chelas, SaintGermain has 7th Ray, etc. 

  Then chelas form mandalas, or work individually with the Mentor. 

  Everywhere action is sought people form small units. 

  There is power in larger groups, but they become unwieldly. 

  "If, not why not? And why should we do something else than the Masters and the Chohans?"

  Chohans operate on a much finer grade of matter, where telepathy rules, not cumbersome mortal communication, where thoughts are precipitated immediately if desired. Are we in the same boat?

  Judge and HPB succeeded because they had the Brotherhood's energy flowing thru them and people felt it. If people feel that vibe, many will be attracted. 



  

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