Re: theos-talk politics and various questions
Oct 22, 2011 02:22 AM
by M. Sufilight
Dear Michael and friends
My views are:
As I see it Altruism is best promoted in a non-sectarian manner and certainly not by the use of Party-line-policies based in the idea of having Prison-guards, police with deadly weapons in their hands, hammer -happy Judges, and Politicians creating their own superficial Law of Karma on signed hand-written pieces of paper - which they readjust every second of the hour. I just do not see this as something good and neither as something in accordance with the idea of honest whole-hearted altruism.
H. P. Blavatsky said to the Christians, and many politicians are Christians even today:
"Will you revile and scoff at the "Sermon on the Mount" because your social, political and even religious laws have, so far, not only failed to carry out its precepts in their spirit, but even in their dead letter? Abolish the oath in Courts, Parliament, Army and everywhere, and do as the Quakers do, if you will call yourselves Christians. Abolish the Courts themselves, for if you would follow the Commandments of Christ, you have to give away your coat to him who deprives you of your cloak, and turn your left cheek to the bully who smites you on the right. "Resist not evil, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you," for "whosoever shall break one of the least of these Commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven," and "whosoever shall say 'Thou fool' shall be in danger of hell fire." And why should you judge, if you would not be judged in your turn? Insist that between Theosophy and the Theosophical Society there is no difference, and forthwith you lay the system of Christianity and its very essence open to the same charges, only in a more serious form."
What are your views about this Michael?
"Rather, advocate a policy show people how it is based upon altruism."
M. Sufilight says:
I find this a bit short in its formulation and in fact quite unclear. How would you do such a thing in a parliament or in what manner would you do it?
"By the way, if you start a movement for Altruism, I will seriously consider joining it."
M. Sufilight says:
I have already started a forum named "Theos-talk-Heart".
It is a forum very loosely affiliating it self with this forum named Theos-talk. It is independant of other organisations the Theosophical Society included. It is a Theosophical Society forum in the sense that it is based on the Original Programe given by H. P. Blavatsky, H. S. Olcott, and the other founders. The forum is based on the Original Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society as given in 1875-1891. It is a non-sectarian forum. In the files section there is an invitation to start up Theosophical centers on the planet according to the old non-sectarian Constitution and Rules - with minor changes in them sought created in mutual agreement among the members, who begin this noble and altruistic work. I am as you know living here in Denmark, Scandinavia. I am seeking to do the same here in Denmark. I just need a few more members, then I will be creating the first center in the physical. Five members living locally is all that is required to start a center in the physical as the rules are formulated right now.
The forum is "Theos-talk-Heart"
(The moderators on this forum get elected here in mutual agreement with the members. No self-elected moderation is aimed at. Later I will seek an agreement on a larger forum like the Theosophical Network.--- The aims of the forum is always open to be exchanged upon and if possibly improved. The forum is one the members create together in mutual friendship while they aim for altruism to be promoted on the globe. Why have hundreds of theosophical groups or theosophically and esoterical related groups standing on each their New Age corner shouting their sectarian versions - instead of having them realising that the Original Programe of the Theosophical Society was non-sectarian and gathered people where others scattered, --- and --- , but collected all religious groups and individual persons in to one single persuit -- the persuit of altruism and its promotion - as well as the persuit after the meaning of life and the truth it contain. This must be altruism at its core - and not stupid sectarian behaviour. Therefore all are invited provided they are in sympathy with the aim of altruism and its promulgation. All New Agers, Spiritualists, Spiritists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Huindus, Buddhists etc. etc. are welcomed as members - if they are in sympathy with the aim of altruism and its promulgation - and the main aims ot the Society or forum. This was the original aim of the Theosophical Society. And to secure a non-sectarian stance as far as possible - and to be in contrast to the Churches - those promoting dogmatism of any kind. To minimize the importance of administration within the Society and mazimize the free pursuit among members all learning altruism form each others different views - all aiming at altruism and its promulgation. --- Not all Sects know about altruism on the same level - some know more than others. A non-sectarian Society in honest pursuit of altruism will therefore easier help the promotion of real altruism.)
"*** There have many great political leaders in history whose actions expressed altruism at times. "
M. Sufilight says:
And was that not all in all just superficial Altruism, when you consider it? And consider the murders, the man-made laws - seeking to by-pass the law of Karma, the prisons the police and all the sectarian manouvres and spin?
I conclude like Blavatsky: A politician is a living Walking LIE.
The co-founder H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"I have never written, in all my life on politics, of which I know nothing. I take no interest in political intrigues, regarding them as the greatest nuisance and a bore, the falsest of all systems in the code of ethics. I feel the sincerest pity for those diplomats who, being honourable men, are nevertheless obliged to deceive all their lives, and to embody a living, walking LIE."
Colonel H. S. Olcott wrote:
"The tenacious observance by the Founders of our Society of the principle of absolute neutrality, on its behalf, in all questions which lie outside the limits of its declared "objects," ought to have obviated the necessity to say that there is a natural and perpetual divorce between Theosophy and Politics. Upon a hundred platforms I have announced this fact, and every other practicable way, public and private, it has been affirmed and reiterated. Before we came to India, the word Politics had never been pronounced in connection with our names; for the idea was too absurd to be even entertained, much less expressed. But in this country, affairs are in such an exceptional state, that every foreigner, of whatsoever nationality, comes under Police surveillance more or less; and it was natural that we should be looked after until the real purpose of our Society's movements had been thoroughly well shown by the developments of time. That end was reached in due course; and in the year 1880, the Government of India, after an examination of our papers and other evidence, became convinced of our political neutrality, and issued all the necessary orders to relieve us from further annoying surveillance. Since then, we have gone our ways without troubling ourselves more than any other law-abiding persons, about the existence of policemen or detective bureaux. I would not have reverted to so stale a topic if I had not been forced to do so by recent events. I am informed that in Upper India, some unwise members of the Society have been talking about the political questions of the hour, as though authorized to speak for our organization itself, or at least to give to this or that view of current agitations the imprimatur of its approval or disapproval. Again, it was but a fortnight or so ago that one of the most respectable and able of our Hindu fellows strongly importuned me to allow the Theosophical Society's influence-such as it may be-to be thrown in favour of Bills to promote religious instruction for Hindu children, and other "non-political" measures. That our members, and others whom it interests, may make no mistake as to the Society's attitude as regards Politics, I take this occasion to say that our Rules, and traditional policy alike, prohibit every officer and fellow of the Society, AS SUCH, to meddle with political questions in the slightest degree, and to compromise the Society by saying that it has, AS SUCH, any opinion upon those or any other questions. The Presidents of Branches, in all countries, will be good enough to read this protest to their members, and in every instance when initiating a candidate to give him to understand-as I invariably do-the fact of our corporate neutrality. So convinced am I that the perpetuity of our Society depends upon our keeping closely to our legitimate province, and leaving Politics "severely alone," I shall use the full power permitted to me as President-Founder to suspend or expel every member, or even discipline or discharter any Branch which shall, by offending in this respect, imperil the work now so prosperously going on in various parts of the world."
Any comments on this?
"It is hard to see anything less expressive of altruism that leaving the governments of the nations to the corrupt and selfish."
M. Sufilight says:
I did no say that this would happen as a consequence of it. There are always those who has a conscience - even - among the corrupt and selfish. And there are always those who are not corrupt and not primarily selfish - who simply have not reached the theosophical idea of altruism yet. This might change. If the situation in a society with democracy is markedly changed for the better - the whole constitution of such an attempt I am talking about, (a Theosophical Society based on the Original Programe given in 1875-1891), might also be changed. Despite this I only see altruism as the only path forward - under the present circumstance on the whole planet. And I see no need to waver an inch on this. And the only path forward from a non-sectarian organisational stance - while avoiding acceptance of Messiah-crazes running amok - and avoiding Presidential crazes running amok.
About Gandhi I have nothing to say. It is politics.
The aim is keep the law and merely protest - individually - verbally, in writing and non-violently etc. And not on behalf of any sectarian Society while claming to be non-sectarian. Those who find verbal protests to be unimportant have not seldom a tendency to aggressions.
The above words are just my views. I do hope the readers find them useful.
I might be in error since I do not claim myself to be infallible like a "pope" or similar.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 10:45 PM
Subject: theos-talk politics and various questions
VARIOUS QUESTIONS RAISED
No, I have not read but a few of Mrs. Bailey''s works, and it has been many years.
"How would you promote altruism while opposing a tyranny like the one you mention?
Why not at first of all seek to make people understand that Altruism is first and foremost among all and everything?
*** I guess it is a matter of the term "first". Not first but simultaneously. Integrate themes of Altruism with political discourse. And integrate it with religious movements, education, music and every part of life.
It seems rather nebulous of how one is to simply "advocate altruism."
Rather, advocate a policy show people how it is based upon altruism.
Is this piece of art or music inspiring to altruism, or not?
Perhaps take a Bible and show the altruistic aspects expressed.
By the way, if you start a movement for Altruism, I will seriously consider joining it.
"Egotism or superficial Altruism or pretended Altruism is not Altruism, is it?
*** There have many great political leaders in history whose actions expressed altruism at times.
It is hard to see anything less expressive of altruism that leaving the governments of the nations to the corrupt and selfish.
"If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in the struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolute night of bitterness.
*** Sometimes. But Ghandiji admitted that if non-violence didn't work he would have gone to plan B, I have heard. One can't be too doctrinaire about this, eh?
The communists would have slaughtered the protesters and thanked them for being so passive as to not fight back. The British were not to inhumane and non-violence worked to bring out the good within them.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
- politics and various questions
- From: "libertyson11" <libertyson11@I05A1N7LK6NH624d3ecH_flOGjYi_VKGx4mHEbRUjJX_7kFLzypBKTAjuUMPKgS1qgrurKmUtnfOkqjxbLY85g.yahoo.invalid>
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application