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

Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists

Mar 21, 2011 01:05 PM
by M. Sufilight

Dear Cass

My views are:

Allright I repeat it again:
Article XIII was at that time clearly removed from the Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society.
And other events by the new - administrative - leader Annie Besant marked a change in the Theosophical Society's connection with the Esoteric Section left behind by Blavatsky.

About the year 1908 - I find the below London Lectures given in 1907 very telling about what went on...
So I should maybe have said year 1907 instead. But in 1908 Leadbeater was back without officially having regretted his strange sexual christian-related activities, --- and GRS Mead and most of the members of the Esoteric Section had left Besant. And that happened at least in part as a consequence of Leadbeaters arrival and the change of the Esoteric Section's of Besant's with its clear intent, as I see it, to boss the TS. So maybe year 1908 is a more precise year to use. (And those who like to grant an officially speaking non-remorsing sinner against altruism back inside the TS, aught to remember W. Q. Judge and how they relate to his, aftermath). These are however just my views.

The Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the Theosophical Society as incorporated at Madras, India, 1905
(Article XIII is already gone as far as I read the above Memorandum. The words "politics" and "non-secterian" etc. are now gone).

Annie Besant - London Lectures - 1907:
"So let us pause now, after these high flights, in the 
little valley in which we live, and see whether in the 
Theosophical Society any such process of  events may be 
seen as has been played on the great world theatre, in 
the drama of evolving humanity. For mind!  we have 
no meaning unless we are related to that, and our Move- 
ment has no sense unless it retraces the steps of the 
great world drama, as every great spiritual movement 
does, from the time of its birth to the time of its passing 
away, and its incarnation in some other form, I do not 
claim it for our Society only, but for all great spiritual 
movements churches, religions, call them what you will. 
Now, we began our Movement as humanity began its 
education. There was no difference between spiritual 
and temporal. The whole Society was regarded as a 
spiritual movement ; and if you go back to those early 
days, and read the earliest statements, you will find it 
said that this Society existed in what then were called 
three Sections : First, Second, and Third. The First 
Section was the Brotherhood, the Elder Brothers of 

the Second, those who were striving to lead 
the higher, the more spiritual life, and were in training 
for the purpose ; and the Third Section made up the 
bulk of the Society. Those three Sections were the 
Theosophical Society. So that it began on a very lofty 
level ; and its First Section, the Elder Brothers, Those 
whom we speak of as Masters, They were regarded as 
forming the First Section of the Society, and as part of 
it; and the Society has linked closely the Second and 
Third Sections under the First, as in the days when the 
Gods walked with men, in the early story of humanity. 
And They came and went far more freely then than 
later, and mingled more with the Society, taking a more 
active part in this work ; and it is wonderful to read some 
of the old letters of the time, and the close and intimate 
knowledge shown by those great Teachers of the details 
of the work of the Society, even of what was written 
about it in an Indian newspaper, and what ought to be 
answered, and so on. And the Society grew, became 
more numerous, and spread in many lands ; and naturally 
as it spread, many of these ties somewhat weakened so 
far as the Society, as a whole, was concerned not 
weakened with individuals, but somewhat weakened with 
the Body at large. And so things went on and on, 
until the Society passed through the same stage through 
which humanity had passed when the Priest- Kings 
entirely disappeared, and when those words were spoken 
by one of the Great Ones : " The Society has liberated 
itself from our grasp and influence, and we have let it 
go ; we make no unwilling slaves. . . . Out of the three 
Objects the second alone is attended to ; it is no longer

either a Brotherhood, nor a body over the face of which 
broods the Spirit from beyond the Great Range." And 
when that time was well established a change was made 
in the organisation of the Society. It was no longer, so to 
speak, one and indivisible, but two parts were made- 
Exoteric and Esoteric ; and, as you know, for some time 
the Colonel fought against that, thinking it meant an 
unwise and dangerous division of authority in the Society, 
until, as he was coming over here with his mind in opposi- 
tion to the proposal that H.P.B. should form the Esoteric 
Section, he received, on board the steamer on which he 
travelled, a letter from his Master telling him to carry 
out what H.P.B. wished ; and, ever obedient as he was, 
for when his Master spoke he knew no hesitation, when 
he arrived here in England he did what he had been told, 
and authorised the formation of what was then called 
the Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society. You 
can read all this for yourselves ; it is all in print. Then 
came that distinct cleavage of Exoteric and Esoteric 
the two heads, H. S. Olcott and H.P.B., one wielding 
the temporal and the other the spiritual authority in 
the Society. It meant that the Society had ceased to 
be the spiritual vehicle it was in the earlier days. It 
meant, as was printed at that time, that some of the 
members wished to carry on the Society on its original 
lines, and so they formed themselves into this Section 
under her, on the original lines. So it went on, like that 
time in the history of humanity, in order that certain 
faculties might grow and become strong, and that the 
spiritual side for a time might seem apart, and the other 
might go its own way unruled. Many difficulties grew 

out of it, but still they were not insuperable a certain 
clashing of authorities from time to time, and certain 
jealousy between the one and the other. These things 
were the inevitable concomitants of the separation, of 
the differences between the spiritual and temporal sides, 
the Spirit and the body, as it were. So things went 
on until the President passed away. When H.P.B. left 
us, she left me in charge of her work, as her colleague 
did in Adyar lately, thus uniting again the two powers, 
the two authorities, in a single person. 

Now, what does it mean to the Society ? That is the 
question for us. What is it to bring forth in our Move- 
ment ? Ill or well ? It is only possible, at this beginning 
of the road, to point out the two things that may happen. 
For the Society and its President together will have to 
settle which of the two shall come. It may be that They, 
who from behind look on, may foresee what is coming ; 
or it may be, as it often is, that They also are not able 
completely to say what shall come out of the clashing 
wills of men, differing views, possible antagonisms. Two 
possibilities there clearly are before us, either of which, 
I suggest, may come. For you and for me it is to decide 
which shall come. And I can only tell you how it seems 
to me, and you must judge and act as you think right. 
For at last our Society, like humanity, has reached the 
point when the individual must do his duty, and must no 
longer be a child guided entirely from without, but a man 
with the God within co-operating with the, God without. 
Hence it is not a question for any to decide for us : we 
have to decide it for ourselves. And as I say, I can only 
put to you what seem to me the two possibilities. Let 
me take the bad possibility first. It may be that I, in 
whose hands these two powers now are placed, shall 
prove too weak to bear that burden, too blind to walk 
along that difficult path. It may be that I shall err on 
the one side or on the other, either making the Society 
too exoteric and empty, a material thing, or, on the other 
hand, pressing too far the spiritual side, with all that that 
means. It may be that the task is too great, and that 
the time has not come. I recognise that as possible; 
for in all questions of peoples, persons, and times, experi- 
ments may be made which it is known will fail, in order 
that out of the failure fresh wisdom may be gathered, 
and it may be that this shall be a failure. And if so 
it matters not, for out of that failure some higher good 
will spring. That is the conviction of those who know 
that the Self is ever in us, and that the Self can never 
perish; so that it matters not what catastrophe may 
come, provided faith in the Self remains secure with 
His endless possibilities of recovery, and greater powers 
of manifestation. And it may quite well be that, in 
hands as weak and knowledge as limited as mine, failure 
will meet this great experiment which the Masters are 
making, and that we shall find that neither President 
nor Society is fit to take that step forward, are both still 
too childish, not sufficiently mature, and therefore notable 
to tread the path which is the path upwards to the spiritual 
life, when the organisation shall again become but the 
mere outside veiling of the spiritual life, carrying the 
message of regeneration to the world, and the birth of 
a new civilisation. That is one possibility that should 
be faced. And the other? 

The other is that we may permit the Great Ones to be 
sufficiently in touch with our little selves to send Their 
forces through us, and that Their life shall become the 
life of the Society; that out of this rejoining of spiritual 
and temporal a greater spirituality shall circulate in 
every vein and vessel of the Society, and it shall become 
again truly a vehicle of the Masters of the Wisdom. . It 
may be that it is preparing for a greater and a nobler 
life, making the place ready for some greater one to come, 
who shall worthily and strongly wield the power that I 
am bound to wield too weakly, but yet, perhaps, strongly 
enough to make that preparation possible. Perhaps you 
and I together are strong enough and wise enough to till 
the field, where another shall sow the seed that shall 
grow up into a greater civilisation and mark a step forward 
in the history of humanity. That is our great opportunity, 
that the possibility that I see opening before us in this 
policy now changed for the second time. It may be that 
we have learned enough in the last eighteen years to tread 
this path rightly, to tread it sufficiently to prepare a field 
for a greater one to come ; and that is the hope in which 
I live at the present time. I believe that it is possible, if 
only we can rise to the height of our great opportunity, 
that someone will come from the far-off land where 
greater than we are living, and take this instrument and 
make it fit to be a tool in a Master's hand some Disciple 
greater and mightier than I, someone belonging to the 
same company, but far wiser and far stronger than I. 
And that such a one will take this Movement and make 
it a little more what the heart of the Masters desires 
more truly a Brotherhood, more full of knowledge, more 
really linked to the higher worlds by a centre of wise 
Occultism that seems to me the great possibility which 
is opening before us. But, as I said, I know not if we 
are great enough to take it, or are still too small ; but it 
is to that great work that I would invite your co-opera- 
tion ; it is to that mighty task that I would ask you to 
address yourselves. At least believe in the possibility of 
it ; at least raise your eyes to that great stature to which 
it may be our Society shall attain."
"The Relation of the Masters to the 
Theosophical Society"

M. Sufilight says:
The above words by Annie Besant are very important indeed, especially because they marked, as I see it, the beginning of a - new - structure within the TS and also with its relation to the Esoteric Section. New becasue of what Bhagavan Das and Dharmapala in the below observed, and also because of what many others similarily observed. Include also former inner group member of the Esoteric Section - A. L. Cleather and also G.R.S. Mead and others. And I ask: Were they all wrong in their views?

The following chapter about the Masters I have omitted in the above, but in it we now find that the Masters are forwarded as a doctrina to be believed in appearntly on mere faith within the Society. This was not the aim of Blavatsky in 1889, and not the original aim of the Society since its foundation. - And it was neither the aim of the Society to connect the Esoteric Section with the Theosophical Society so to make it boss the Society - by having the same leaders of the Society as the ones in the Esoteric Section - as a fullblown secterian leadership of it - with a Master dogma and doctrine, and a lawsuit-adopted Messiah one in to the bargin. Such was Besant's wellmeaning but secterian and therefore false doctrine - well as I view it - and it was not in accordance with the original idea about a non-secterian Theosophical Society. (See the Constitution given in 1875, Blavatsky words on it in 1886, and the Constitution and Rules in 1891 - and I think you will understand my views.)
These are however just my views.

Sri Bhagavan Das wrote in 1913:
"In the summer of 1911, side by side with this public activity, there was started by Mrs. Besant within the E.S.T. (Eastern School, or Esoteric Section, of Theosophy, an 'inner' organization recruited from the members of the T.S.), a written pledge of absolute obedience to herself without cavil or delay. This fact, 'private and confidential' at the time, is now public property since the Madras lawsuits. "

(by Ernest Pelletier)
"Annie Besant was convinced that her purpose in life was to educate people and to sway them according to whatever she considered the correct course of moral conduct. This kind of philosophy is contrary to what the Masters taught and unacceptable especially for the Theosophical Society. Dogmatism, religious or personal, had never been part of the original theosophical teachings. H.S. Olcott made that point very clear to the participants who represented the Theosophical Society at the 1893 World Parliament of Religions.[61] In addition, some years later she then demanded complete obedience from her followers, as evidenced in 1911 after Mrs. Besant was elected President of the TS and appointed herself as Outer Head [OH]. Whereas the original Pledge stipulated allegiance to one's Higher Self, she re-wrote the pledge taken by members of the Esoteric Section to then read:

    I pledge myself to support before the world the Theosophical Society, and in particular to obey, without cavil or delay, the orders of the Head of the Esoteric Section in all that concerns my relation with the Theosophical movement; to work with her, on the lines she shall lay down, in preparation for the coming of the World-Teacher, and to give what support I can to the Society in money and work.[62]"
"One of Mme. Blavatsky's dearest friends, the Anagarika Dharmapala, who joined the Theosophical Society in January 1884, described what happened to the Theosophical Movement. The Dharmapala traveled with Mr. Chakravarti from India to England, then to America where he participated in the World Parliament of Religions. He lived and traveled throughout India and Ceylon. In 1888 the Theosophical Society started The Buddhist, a new journal at Colombo with C.W. Leadbeater as Editor and the Dharmapala as Manager. In letters he wrote: "Theosophy of C.W.L. and Besant is a travesty of the doctrine taught by H.P.B. . . . [Besant] is clever and managed to do what she willed."[74] Also, he wrote the "T.S. has become a political organization and Mrs. Besant engaged in legal disputes spending thousands of rupees in defending immoral persons. . . . She is now absorbed in Indian politics. The T.S. has deteriorated much."[75] Again he writes: "Mrs. A.B. I am afraid will eventually destroy the work of H.P.B. and the Masters. The T.S. will become under her management a Christian sect, and bishops, deacons etc. will rule the T.S. Brotherhood will disappear."[76] Disgusted with what had happened the Dharmapala left the Theosophical Society in 1905."

M. Sufilight says:
I know that some of the members in TS Adyar disagree with me about the above views and words.
Maybe because they have a fashion-hat to wear, or have gotten used to operating in a certain manner, and dislikes the truth in what I am saying, or something else - I do not quite know it. One thing is certianly true: They do not seek comparative studying any longer! Not much that is. 

And their lack of open emphasis on the Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society, and its changes through time - and - the fact that one never questions whether some of the changes made were wrong - seem to me to look something like when the Pope speak Ex Cathedra - and make himself infallible.

They seem to claim to have found the TRUTH, in their own secterian manner where Annie Besant is one who on their present day website is being said to have given "a great lead in making Theosophy practical, urging members to apply the light of Theosophy to the various fields of human activity: religious, social, economic, political, etc." - But they clearly tend to forget, that secterian behaviour and political involvements will never promote altruism - and help achieving the ORIGINAL aim given by The Theosophical Society and co-founder Blavatsky which is a natural consequence of altruism, namely: "to reconcile all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities." (The Key to Theosophy, p. 2-3 by Blavatsky).
These are however just my views.

Blavatsky wrote:
"ENQUIRER. Do you take any part in politics?

THEOSOPHIST. As a Society, we carefully avoid them, for the reasons given below. To seek to achieve political reforms before we have effected a reform in human nature, is like putting new wine into old bottles. Make men feel and recognise in their innermost hearts what is their real, true duty to all men, and every old abuse of power, every iniquitous law in the national policy, based on human, social or political selfishness, will disappear of itself. Foolish is the gardener who seeks to weed his flower-bed of poisonous plants by cutting them off from the surface of the soil, instead of tearing them out by the roots. No lasting political reform can be ever achieved with the same selfish men at the head of affairs as of old."
 (The Key to Theosophy, p. 231 by Blavatsky).

When Besant in her London Lectures write:
"and if you go back to those early 
days, and read the earliest statements, you will find it 
said that this Society existed in what then were called 
three Sections : First, Second, and Third. The First 
Section was the Brotherhood, the Elder Brothers of 
Humanity; the Second, those who were striving to lead 
the higher, the more spiritual life, and were in training 
for the purpose ; and the Third Section made up the 
bulk of the Society. Those three Sections were the 
Theosophical Society."

M. Sufilight says:
Perhaps. The three levels existed, no doubt about it. But, they were never turned into anything secterian, in any manner what so ever in the old days! - And after Annie Besant came along in 1908
and after a while sought and achieved the assimilation of the Esoteric Section with the Theosophical Society and vice versa, - the whole non-secterian picture given in 1871 until 1891, and perhaps until 1907 - was gone. And even today we witness this shadow hanging over the Theosophical Society in India -
this secterian Messiah scheme and craze - an emotional thing it is, and the tragic political involvement as well, if I may say so in a polite manner. The idea of the Masters was never turned into a secterian doctrine or dogma in the beginning in 1875. And the intention of forwarding the existence of the Masters as a fact was never a part of the original intent with the Theosophical Society. Blavatsky said this more than once.

The first object of the TS was forgotten as mentioned by the Masters - in the quote given by Besant in her London Lectures in 1907 in the above. The reason was, as I see it, -  not the lack of the triple structure of membership within the TS, but because of secterian behaviour and lack of tolerance within the TS, (and appearntly it is still lacking ont he TS Adyar website today year 2011 - See the section "EMINENT THEOSOPHISTS - ). (See also The Key to Theosophy, by Blavatsky, p. 60 "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.") - Article XIII was there to safeguard against such a secterian behaviour within the TS - Exoteric body - in the Constitution and Rules for the TS given in 1891. Later this article was removed. I still do not now why and when it exactly happened, since nobody who have access to the relevant papers are telling me about it.

All the above are however just my views.
Others might view it differently.

But let those who disagree speak up, and show us that the Theossophical Society is not a secterian body as it stand today. But, will they in the name of honesty and decency do that - as long as the Counsil of the Theosophical Society all of them are members coming from an appearntly secterian body - although it might call itself Esoteric etc.?

The Constitution of the Esoteric Section was openly printed in the Theosophical magazines in 1888.
Today we hear nothing.

- - -
But, I recognize that I do not know all and everything, and therefore I might have overlooked one aspect or another of the whole thing.
But please enlighten us all, if any of you have an honest Truth-seeking Heart of altruism my dear readers.
Will you do that?

M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cass Silva 
  Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 2:31 AM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists

  What has changed since 1908??

  --- On Mon, 21/3/11, M. Sufilight <> wrote:

  From: M. Sufilight <>
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists
  Received: Monday, 21 March, 2011, 2:49 AM


  Dear Cass and friends

  My views are:

  Cass wrote:
  "Morten, with respect, you know you have been monopolising by raising issues that are of concern to you, the political and administrative side of the TS society, the electronic media, etc. "

  M. Sufilight says:
  With respect Cass, in what manner can my emails be called monopolising more than any other email raising the opposite views or other views?

  And real theosophical concepts is one thing, offered by each individual on their own, not as a secterian doctrine but as each individuals interpretation or view about the meaning of life, another, - is the frame which the Theosophical Society was build on, and its importance in promoting altruism - and by this aiming at reconciling "all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities." (The Key to Theosophy) - And throwing the latter issue out, I will not and cannot since altruism - cannot be promted through secterian activities - and that was also why the Theosohical Society from its very beginning was against the even today very common tendencies of secterianizing of the Theosophical Society and its aims. 

  These are my views. And since they are promoted by the H. P. Blavatsky as a co-founder of the Theosophical Society - and - as I have shown also by words given by W. Q. Judge (and it can be shown in Olcott's words also), I find that I at least am in agreement with the Theosophical Society as it was given in 1875-1891 and perhaps later; but not since 1908. Because since 1908 we find that the Article XIII had been removed from the Contitution and Rules of the Society - and - that the Esoteric Section was turned into a tool for the promotion of secterian doctrine within the Theosophical Society. 

  All the above are just my views.
  And I might be in error, since I do not claim myself infallible like a Pope or similar.

  Cass wrote:
  "In the early days there were many many new people that joined in and asked relevant questions concerning theosophy, they have all disappeared now, and my opinion, is that they saw only a barren wasteland of mediocrity and political opinion."

  M. Sufilight asks:
  But, how can this view of yours be important with regard to the promotion of altruism - and the problems araising by removal of the Article XIII, and the ORIGINAL aims of the Theosophical Society as they were given in 1875-1891, and not as they were given after 1908?

  M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cass Silva 
  Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 2:36 AM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists

  Morten, with respect, you know you have been monopolising by raising issues that are of concern to you, the political and administrative side of the TS society, the electronic media, etc. Blavatsky spent one percent of her time on these issues and 99 percent of her time on real theosophical concepts. If you truly want to see the TS progress then I suggest that the discussions centre around TS concepts and not the affiliations of certain members or their agendas. 

  In the early days there were many many new people that joined in and asked relevant questions concerning theosophy, they have all disappeared now, and my opinion, is that they saw only a barren wasteland of mediocrity and political opinion.

  --- On Fri, 18/3/11, M. Sufilight <> wrote:

  From: M. Sufilight <>
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists
  Received: Friday, 18 March, 2011, 5:23 AM

  Dear Cass and friends

  My views are:

  I was merely stating my views.
  I do not intend to monopolise in any manner what so ever.

  If you disagee with my views you could have the decency tell me and others why.
  But, your focus is somewhere else, I guess.

  M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cass Silva 
  Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 1:03 AM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists

  My concern is with those monopolising the posts.

  --- On Thu, 17/3/11, M. Sufilight <> wrote:

  From: M. Sufilight <>
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists
  Received: Thursday, 17 March, 2011, 2:53 AM

  Compassion is there among many a theosophical Seeker, - in various grades.
  Not all theosophical seekers at theos-talk email here all the time.
  And something is happening - people - are now much more rejecting nuclear energy production as it is at present.

  M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cass Silva 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 4:52 AM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists

  I wasn't thinking of the victims, I was thinking of the so called altruistic theosophists.

  --- On Wed, 16/3/11, Konstantin Zaitzev <> wrote:

  From: Konstantin Zaitzev <>
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Charity among the theosophists
  Received: Wednesday, 16 March, 2011, 3:43 AM

  --- In, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:

  > I have not read one word of compassion fromà theos talkà who have
  > not beenà effected by recent events in the world

  It would be just a pose or, in the best case, a foolish emotion, for no one of the sufferers reads theos-talk. Even if they had spare time and an access to internet, probably it would be the last thing they would do.

  [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]

[Back to Top]

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