Re: Theos-World Re: Anand's stand and the election
Jul 08, 2009 09:07 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen
My views are:
"Here, "all Theosophical matters" is in italics, which means members should particularly give attention that they obey commands of ES head in all Theosophical matters and it means those words are very important obedience in "all Theosophical matters". References from Key to Theosophy don't help here because if Blavatsky did not mean those words in pledge, and if they went there by mistake, she should have changed them in pledge. I don't think she changed those words."
M. Sufilight says:
I find myself disagreeing, and find the above interpretation non-theosophical. The term "all Theosophical matters" obviously refers to the promulgation of theosophy, and not the opposite. That aught to be clear also to members of Leadbeaters camp.
Obedience are of course NOT required in non-theosophical matters. That is quite obvious to me. If you find that the teacher (the Outer Head) fails in his or hers requirements of you (and your Higher Self), you simply will have to show them to be non-theosophical. If you are not able to do that, and still disagrees with the Outer Head, you will of course not stay as a member in any ordinary sense.
If the Outer Head fails, its Esoteric Section fails. Yet, today, this as I understand it also implies that TS fails. And this last issue was not like this back in H. P. Blavatsky's time, when the ES deliberately was created to be as independent of TS as possible, so not to "boss the TS". And that difference is very important today, and the one major obstacle facing TS Adyar. That is how I view it.
Reading through the papers from H. P. Blavatsky's Esoteric Section aught to tell you that obedience was not to be blind, and that occult traning was sought. ( Try http://esotericinstructions.net/ and http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v12/ - p. 478-713)
Lack of obedience did of course not automatically result in the member being thrown out. Theosophical matters does simply NOT operate like that. That is how I view it.
However. On a higher level of consciousness a Seeker will always be connected to one Teacher or the other due to what the individual - spiritually - needs to learn in this incarnation.
Such a connection might last for some years, especially if the Teacher (or Outer Head) is spiritually able enough. Advanced Chelas are bound to live like this, and can hardly avoid it through their periods of development. That is how I view it.
So the term "all Theosophical matters" obviously refers to "Theosophical matters" and not the opposite.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 3:42 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Anand's stand and the election
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "robert_b_macd" <robert.b.macdonald@...> wrote:
> We read the pledge differently. Your inherent distrust of HPB causes you to see in her writings subterfuge. Blavatsky stresses many times that "blind obedience does not help soul's growth." You need only read The Key to Theosophy to know this. So then you see contradiction. I can only say if you are not reading this with distrust in your heart for a fellow theosophist, you can read it to show that the only thing HPB was trying to do was to get theosophists up off their hands and doing active work - this is not contradiction.
I don't accept the idea that members should take one pledge when they did not mean it. If Blavatsky meant obedience to the Higher Self, then it should come in pledge. Rule 7 (a) says "Obedience to the Head of the Section in all Theosophical matters." Here, "all Theosophical matters" is in italics, which means members should particularly give attention that they obey commands of ES head in all Theosophical matters and it means those words are very important obedience in "all Theosophical matters". References from Key to Theosophy don't help here because if Blavatsky did not mean those words in pledge, and if they went there by mistake, she should have changed them in pledge. I don't think she changed those words.
> Chelas are given the most difficult challenges to follow. They are told to do certain tasks by their Masters, but it is how they go about doing it that shows their true nature. The fact that they are asked to do something is not problematic, it is how they go about doing it that is important, not the ends, but the means.
> However, if you distrust the Master, don't enter into the relationship to begin with, not that you would ever be asked.
> Robert Bruce
It is not a question of trusting or not trusting the Master. What I am showing is contradictions in Theosophical writing. Theosophy must be consistent in it's actions, writing and speech.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application