Re: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in Lucist Trust and TS?
Oct 28, 2011 07:23 AM
Excellent writeup. I hope readers take time to read it. Think about it. Come
to your own conclusion.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:29 AM, M. Sufilight
> Dear friends
> My views are:
> It seem to me, that everyones suddenly got busy with a whole lot of other
> activities. And that might be very well.
> I do not hope that I have offended anyone by telling the truth as I see it
> about the Alice A. Bailey followers views and about what I perceived the
> view on politics was in the Theosophical Society in 1875-1891. Because, I do
> appreciate all who seek to promote altruism - also the Alice A. Bailey
> followers, even if they might think differently.
> In these times of so-called "depression" economically or psychologically
> the following might be helpful to consider and contemplate.
> I write this post so to be of service to us all and to humanity. You see my
> heart goes out to all of us, also the Alice A. Bailey followers, the
> Christians, and other ideologies.
> The following highlights some of the most well-known present day spiritual
> leaders and other leaders views on the science of Psychology and the
> promotion of compassion and peace on the planet, for the sake of all
> humanity. First I will quote J. Krishnamurti and then I throw two videos -
> which I only can highly recommend to present day seekers interested in
> comparative studying - and - seekers of altruism and wisdom.
> Please let me know what you think, so that this forum or other persons
> might benefit from this in the future or in the so-called Now.
> ##### 1 #####
> J. KRISHNAMURTI on the IMPORTANCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CHANGE
> I will throw these short views given by J. Krishnamurti. I find them to be
> very important to understand.
> Although I agree very much with him about these views, I also aught to say
> that I where I stand today find various parts of his overall teachings to be
> J. Krishnamurti said:
> "Organizations have not solved this problem. You can reorganize but war
> still goes on. So organizations, whether it is world organization or a
> particular kind of organization to bring about peace, such organizations
> will never succeed because human beings individually, collectively,
> nationally, are in conflict."
> "I wonder if you realize that the word 'scepticism', questioning,
> enquiring, is not advocated in the Christian world. Whereas in Buddhism, and
> Hinduism, that is one of the essential things, you must question everything,
> until you discover or come upon that truth, which is not yours, or any
> others, it is truth."
> "But to enquire gently, hesitantly, questioning, asking yourself, then out
> of that comes clarity. And there must be clarity to understand that which is
> "We have lived on this earth from the historical, as well as ancient
> enquiry, on this earth for fifty thousand years or more or less. And during
> that long period of evolution psychologically, inwardly, subjectively, we
> have remained more or less barbarous - hating each other, killing each
> other. And time is not going to solve that problem, which is evolution. And
> is it possible, we are asking, for each human being, who is the rest of the
> world, whether that psychological movement can stop and see something
> "Please do realize something tremendous: that you are the rest of mankind
> psychologically. You are mankind, whether you live in India, Russia, China
> or in America, or Europe, you are the rest of mankind, because you suffer,
> and everyone on this earth suffers in his own way. We share that suffering,
> it is not my suffering. So when you ask a question: what difference will it
> make if I or you change, if I may most humbly point out, it is a wrong
> question. You are avoiding the central issue. And we never seem to face the
> central issue, the central challenge that demands that we live totally
> differently, not as Americans, Russians, Indians, or Buddhists or
> "I wonder if you have realized Christians have been responsible for killing
> humans far more than any other religious group. Don't get angry please! Then
> Islam, the Muslim world, then the Hindus and
> the Buddhists come much later. So if the so-called Christians, the
> Catholics included, about eight hundred million people, if they said, "No
> more wars", you will have peace on this earth. But they won't say that. It
> is only Buddhism, Hinduism, said, "Don't kill. If you kill" - they believe
> in reincarnation - you will pay next life."
> " Now we are talking about choice in the psychological field. If you see
> things very clearly there is no choice. It is unfortunate that we don't see
> things clearly. We don't see clearly that nationalism is one of the causes
> of war. We don't clearly see that ideologies breed wars, whether it is the
> Marxist ideologies, or Lenin, or our own particular form of ideologies. So
> we choose from one ideology to another, one religion to another, one group
> to another, and we think we are free. On the contrary, it shows confusion.
> And when we are confused we act in confusion, therefore multiply confusion,
> as the politicians are doing - forgive me."
> (A few questions and answers seem to be missing from the original in the
> below link. Try also youtube.)
> M. Sufilight says:
> A few comments. I quote the above so to show, why politics are problematic,
> when we deal with the promotion of altruism. Because there cannot be any
> promotion af altruism without a - psychological change in the individual.
> And J. Krishnamurti said the same. So let us not try to fiddle around on the
> periphery, by supporting the United Nations, but seek the central issue
> here. Even the Alice A. Bailey follower Robert MÃller (Assistant
> Secretary-General for 40 years. He has become known as the "Philosopher" of
> the UN. He died sept. 2010, about 87 years old), who were present when J.
> Krishnamurti said the above agreed upon that the United Nations was
> problematic - although I question that he really did understand J.
> Krishnamurti's words. Although I am also in no doubt, that he understood
> them at least to some extend. (Robert MÃller was Assistant Secretary-General
> for 40 years at the United Nations. He has become known as the "Philosopher"
> of the UN. He died sept. 2010, about 87 years old. He used some of his years
> supporting the Alice A. Bailey teachings and ideas. This can be seen in his
> "World Core Curriculum" and other of his writings.).
> ##### 2 #####
> A CHRISTIAN VIEW AND FEAR of ALICE A. BAILEY and ROBERT MULLER
> A Christian view upon the Robet Muller's teachings in the "World Core
> Curriculum" and his involvement with Alice A. Bailey - in the first video.
> In the next video a Christian view upon Alice A. Bailey.
> Know Your Enemy (Part 65 - The World Core Curriculum)
> Know Your Enemy (Part 66 - Alice A Bailey)
> A part from the fact that I do not agree with the Christian conclusions, I
> neither agree with the model used by the mother-organisation Lucis Trust
> behind the Alice A. Bailey followers with regard to a non-sectarian focus.
> At least I find that they are doing a bad job in this regard. And the same
> with great many other of the Alice A. Bailey groups and offshoots from the
> mother-organisation around the globe. But these are just my views, and I
> gather a number of other persons views. And I will be happy to see them be
> proven wrong. And I guess others will as well. But when silence is the best
> answer given by the Alice A. Bailey followers, I think we will have to let
> it rest there.
> I find that Christians have a tendency to call the ideas on inquiring a
> kind of selfish and narcissistic activity. Yet the Christians most often
> also do emphasize dogmatic Mystics like Teresa Avila and John of the Cross
> (both admired by the well-known Catholic Healer named Caroline Myss, who
> also included Ignatius Loyola as a Mystic in one of her books).
> ##### 3 #####
> THE SCIENCE OF PSYCHOLOGY CONSIDERED VERY IMPORTANT TO PRESENT DAY LEADING
> Now taking all the above into account I find it interesting to consider,
> that some of the most well-known spiritual teacher of our - present time -
> are all of them together with various well-known Nobel Prize Laureates and
> also known scientists in areas as education, physics, psychology, psychiatry
> and other scientific areas - agreeing upon that PSYCHOLOGICAL CHANGE is
> vital and central for the future betterment of mankind and even peace in the
> I will throw two links to other series of videos on Youtube.
> The first link is a meeting that took place two years ago in Canada. The
> other was a more recent event which took place in May 2011 in Newark, in
> ##### Canada - Vancouver - Peace Summit 2009 - three days #####
> Some of the world's prominent spiritual leaders and activists came to
> Vancouver to join the Dalai Lama at a peace summit in September 2009.
> Among them was of the Dalai Lama, Eckhart Tolle (the perhaps two most -
> influential - spiritual teacher today on our planet. They were seen walking
> hand in hand after the meeting a journalist wrote.)
> Murray Gell-Mann (one of the leading figures within Physics, claimed
> discoverer of the Quark, and Nobel Laureate), Dr. Daniel Siegel,
> (neuropsychiatrist and author, and behind Mindsight Institute, and teacher
> in Mindfulness, which is related to Buddhist and Hindu doctrines on the
> same), Sir Ken Robinson (World wide teacher and author, one of the leading
> voice on "education paradigms", and is interestingly admired a bit by the
> well-known actor John Cleese), Matt Goldman, (songwriter and founding member
> of the Blue Man Group) and one of his colleagues.
> More info about other later speakers can be found on the Internet or
> ### Peace Summit 2009 - Educating the Heart and Mind ###
> (His Holiness the Dalai Lama along with four other Nobel Laureates and
> respected leaders in the fields of education, business and social
> transformation take part in four panel discussions as part of the Vancouver
> Peace Summit 2009 held in Vancouver Canada on September 27-29, 2009.)
> Do see it if you have not seen it already. It is quite powerful in content.
> IMPORTANT: I do not endorse the political views in the video.
> ##### Newark Peace Education Summit #####
> The following links are clearly showing this. The first is part three of
> three series of videos. This part is part 3 of 11.
> Robert Thurman the moderator, is a well-known author on Buddhist books. All
> the other speakers are presented in the videos, and more info can be found
> on the Internet or elsewhere.
> Let me say that Roshi Joan Halifax was once married with Stanislaw Grof in
> her young days and is today a Zen-Buddhist or similar. - The Summit was
> three days long. And other guest speakers was invited on the other days.
> ### Dalai Lama - Peace Within Panel Part 3 of 11- Newark Peace Education
> Summit ###
> (Part three of the first panel of the Newark Peace Education Summit focuses
> on generating inner peace. Multiple perspectives are solicited from the
> panel which includes Nobel Laureates, His Holiness the XIVth Dalai Lama,
> Jody Williams and Shirin Ebadi as well as Deepak Chopra, Roshi Joan Halifax,
> Rabbi Michael Lerner, Tao Porchon-Lynch, Wilbert Rideau, and Youth
> Representative: Mahishan Gnanaseharan. Robert Thurman Moderates this lively
> and profound discussion.)
> To be completely honest I had to use a number of kitchen-roll papers to
> wipe tears away when I heard the young kid Mahishan Gnanaseharan speaking
> before all these well-known personalities.
> It went straight to my heart. Tears rolled down quite unstoppable literally
> for minutes.
> Do see all the 11 clips it if you have not seen them already. It is quite
> powerful in content.
> IMPORTANT: I do not endorse the political views in the video-clips.
> M. Sufilight says:
> Now considering all the above, I find that all those interested in
> theosophy and esoteric teachings aught to consider the very very VITAL
> IMPORTANCE of the science of Psychology --- both spiritually,
> non-spiritually, esoterically and so on. And not seek to avoid the science
> of Subtle Mind Control in that regard. It seem that depression, fear and
> ignorance, and other issues, are the greatest obstacles in our times - with
> regard taking these psychological elements in science seriously and
> seriously enough. We are here talking about science, not in belief or faith.
> And this must be important.
> So are we getting closer to the Psychological Key to the Secret Doctrine of
> all ages past?
> What do you think about the above quotes and videos etc.???
> Is it all unimportant???
> M. Sufilight
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: M. Sufilight
> To: email@example.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:19 PM
> Subject: theos-talk Subtle Psychological Keys - Sectarianism or Politics in
> Lucist Trust and TS?
> Dear friends
> My views are:
> Sorry about this lengthy relpy. But It seems from where I stand important
> to cover the subject as clearly as possible without writing a whole book
> about it.
> Now as a Seeker after Truth and Wisdom and seeking to promote altruism, I
> often seek comparative studying so to avoid a narrowminded or sectarian
> out-look upon life.
> And I am also in the below seeking to show some of the problems and issues
> so to speak which our present time year 2011 are facing compared with the
> past with regard to the non-sectarian Theosophical Society as it was given
> in 1875-1891, and before it changed and became more or less sectarian after
> the year 1910. My study will focus on whether the Theosophical Society as it
> was given in 1875-1891 was political or sectarian - and - on whether the
> very widespread esoteric mother-organisation Lucis Trust behind the Alice A.
> Bailey followers are sectarian or non-sectarian, as well as political or
> non-political in their activities.
> I do this because there seem to be a great deal of confusion with regard to
> how the word "sectarian" is defined and what it implies or can imply. Other
> definitions than the one given by me in the below might be useful. But I
> seek to stick to the present day scientists and their definition of the word
> "sectarian". And this I think cannot be unimportant. Further it is also
> well-known that the word "political" have many definitions attached to it. I
> do hope however that my words in the below are sufficient to cover the
> aspects involved in the presentation I have forwarded.
> ### 1 ###
> IS LUCIST TRUST a NON-Sectarian and NON-Political ORGANISATION?*
> (With eye on comparing this to other Alice A. Bailey groups and other
> groups as well.)
> Various followers of Alice A. Bailey's books and Lucis Trust are claiming
> that it is allright to have a wholehearted support for the
> inter-governmental body the United Nations. This despite it is wellknown in
> public, that this many-headed construction the United Nations is said to be
> filled with reports about corruption, and that it is wellknown that some
> countries support it more than others - either economically or ethically,
> and despite it being political and no doubt heavily based on egotism, spin
> or deceit, or all of these things.
> Alice A. Bailey wrote:
> "The United Nations, through its Assembly and Committees, MUST be
> supported; there is as yet no other organization to which man can hopefully
> look. Therefore, he must support the United Nations but, at the same time,
> let this group of world leaders know what is needed."
> (See for instance Alice A. Bailey's "Problems of Humanity", p. 177).
> And this was written in the old days, when the United Nations only had a
> few member countries, most of them of a Western kind and origin.
> Alice A. Bailey wrote:
> "Christianity is not a religion of the same order as the others; it is, as
> Schleiermacher said, the religion of religions."
> (See Alice A. Bailey's "Bethlehem to Calvary", p. 10).
> And Lucis Trust the mother-organisation behind the Alice A. Bailey
> followers are openly admitting the above quote, while it also openly is
> admitting that it has Consultative Status at the United Nations, and that
> its branch the World Goodwill organisation has a Roster NGO Status at the
> United Nations. And we witness that Lucis Trust is confirming that its main
> activities is the selling of the Alice A. Bailey books and lecturing from
> them - and - making propaganda for their prayer or mantra called "The Great
> Invocation" - which is encouraged to be sung every hour of the day - so to
> persuade the Masters and the Avatar of the Spiritual Hierarchy they call the
> Church of Christ to walking among men in bodily presence. And they do also
> sell and promote a book on Freemasonry written by Foster Bailey a 32/33
> degree Scottish Rite Freemason - despite it is known by those who have
> studied the historical facts, that the structure of these spurious 33
> degress within the Scottish Rite was originally derived from and hatched at
> the Jesuit chapter at Clermont in Paris. And since we know about the Jesuit
> order, and how it was and is constructed and its many evil deeds through the
> centuries, I find it very strange to call Lucis Trust non-sectarian,
> although its intentions might be very noble in this regard.
> All this is after all shown on Lucis Trust's own website or in the Alice A.
> Bailey books - and - can be concluded there from. - These facts there cannot
> be any disagreement about.
> - It think it must baffle any anti-cult Psychologist or Exit-Counsellor to
> learn that the Lucis Trust at the same time is presenting themselves as
> being non-sectarian and non-political on their website.
> ### The ordinary definition on whether an organisation is sectarian or not
> is shortly based on the following ###
> If an organisation are having a leader or a group of leaders (often with
> its own leader as well) - who forwards a doctrine or teachings given by one
> single author or just a uniform doctrine - ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERS - of its
> organisation - then we are in truth talking about a sectarian organisation.
> Because such an organisation are using conditioning techniques. - And such
> an organisation like Lucis Trust, with its branch organisations World
> Goodwill and Triangles are termed sectarian no matter if their teachings are
> forwarded as hypothesises or not.
> And it is especially sectarian if it is not relating its teachings directly
> so to inform its potential members as well as its present members on the
> science on subtle Mind Control. A science which is directly related to the
> psychological term Classical Conditioning (A term originating in modern
> times, among others examples, form the experiments by the psychologist
> Pavlov on his dogs).- So the definition used by Lucis Trust with regard to
> whether it is a sectarian body, must be a different one than the one used by
> anti-cult Psychologists and Exit-Counsellors as far as I know. When you
> operate with a doctrine that involve Conditioning of the Mind, and when you
> do not tell people that this is what is going on - you effectively operate
> in a sectarian manner. This must be the truth.
> ### 2 ###
> ### SUBTLE MIND CONTROL - LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR ###
> Try for instance the following video in subtle Mind Control and on how a
> sect is opreating or not seldom is operating:
> Cult Tactics & Mind Control - B.I.T.E.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3FO0pAj528 (Only 3:00 minutes)
> The whole model is presented more deeply on the Exit Counssellor Steve
> Hassans webiste.
> (Although I do forward this scientifically based version on subtle Mind
> Control, which in many respects has been proven to be true in various ways,
> I will at the same time suggest that one does not take all that is written
> in the paper to be dead-letter in accordance with the truth. There are
> several other aspects to consider and other angles to view the whole science
> of subtle Mind Control from. And this is a science and not a belief we here
> are dealing with. A science which is rather new in our modern times to many
> persons and in fact also to many Seekers after wisdom and the truth about
> the meaning of life. - Interestingly we do not find much info about this
> science among esoteric and theosophical groups or any religious groups or
> New Age group these days. And this might be a surprise to some readers. Yet
> it is not so to ordinary psychologists and those who have walked a bit
> further ahead scientifically speaking, as far as I know. These are however
> just my views, which I offer to the you as readers in these times of ours. -
> The model given by Steve Hassan can be compared with other well-known Exit
> Counsellors and authors on the subject. Such well-known Exit-counsellors and
> psychologists like Magareth Singer, Robert J. Lifton, Edgar Schein, Kurt
> Lewin and Willam Sargant, and even the sufi Idries Shah. And it will be
> found that there are many similarities between these authors and models, and
> their views about what some call subtle Mind Control.
> Here is my take on the term very shortly stated:
> Subtle Mind Control is shortly formulated - various techniques used more or
> less consciously by various leaders of religious groups or other groups so
> to condition a group of followers into a doctrine of THEIR choosing.
> A doctrine they forward on behalf of their very own sect or for instance as
> a sub-leader of the sect. Even sub-leaders are themselves from time to time
> victims of subtle Mind Control, and they do not know it.
> The process of subtle Mind Control is most often slow, but before the
> victim are aware of it, it has become a victim of it. Those who are saying
> that they are not going to be Mind Controlled by subtle Mind Control, aught
> to think again. Perhaps they already are victims of it. Because when you are
> a victim of it, you most often are not aware of it. And this is important to
> It is when the victim in a sect begins to cooperate with the Mind Control
> process - the sectarian doctrine - and slowly let it transform his or her
> thought-patterns, so that the victim become socialized within the sect, -
> that subtle Mind Control happen. It might be voluntarily, and it might be
> un-voluntarily, in the sense, that the victim is not told about the science
> on subtle Mind Control, and the actual difference between a sect and the
> opposite - a non-sectarian group or organisation. And it might happen in a
> manner where the victim is unaware of, that, the sectarian doctrine offered
> are playing on its emotions, fears, vulnerability, greed, or is inducing a
> narrow-minded thought-pattern to be followed.
> The use of subtle Mind Control, no matter whether it happens consciously or
> unconsciously more or less by the performer of it, is not seldom based on or
> playing on various kinds of fears among the followers, or on social
> conditioning, or the followers own greed, or induced need for comfort, or
> induced security, or hypnosis masked as healing, or other issues. Those who
> are in a vulnerable situation or crisis (its actual level sometimes
> undetected by themselves) in their lives are more easy targets. And other
> issues. Subtle Mind Control also implies leaders who disallow wellmeant
> criticism of their doctrines - or - that criticism is not welcomed or is
> looked down upon, for instance because the leader calls himself or herself
> an initiate. In such sectarian groups no comparative studying takes place at
> all - at least not officially or in reality. Most New Age sects avoid
> comparative studying among their aims, and, the idea is not forwarded among
> their primary aims. (Just have a look at most AAB groups.)
> It will surprise many to learn that those who are most easily conditioned
> are the intellectuals and people who are well-educated. This has been
> documented several times within the field of psychology with regard to
> sectarian behavior. There are many levels, grades and shades of sectarian
> conditioning. Some groups are more involved in these things than others.
> Some victims are voluntarily becoming members of a sectarian group. Some
> sectarian groups can all in all not be called harmful. But most of them are
> more or less psychologically speaking. However I also recognize that there
> can be sects which are helpful in spreading compassion - until a certain
> level. )
> So saying that Lucis Trust is neither political nor sectarian in its manner
> of operating I find a bit difficult to agree upon from where I am standing -
> and - when taking the all above words into account.
> Others might have other views. And I will heartily welcome them, so that
> altruism, which we all do cherish might shine forth in the heart of all
> And we wonder why the actual Constitution of the Lucis Trust is hidden away
> from the public eyes. Such kind of secrecy is not helpful, when one seek to
> give the impression of being non-sectarian and non-political.
> Of course I might be mistaken, and, will in that case gladly roll the above
> comments back - and - into a oversized trashcan. If not I think the Alice A.
> Bailey followers aught to be more realistic about themselves in this affair.
> After all I am certainly not the only one on the globe who are calling their
> activities sectarian - and especially when compared to the Theosophical
> Society as it was given in 1875-1891.
> I will of course let the readers decide for themselves, what they think
> about the whole affair.
> Any comments so to promote altruism better among us human beings?
> ### 3 ###
> Another issue has been forwarded recently on this forum named Theos-talk
> here on the Internet.
> Some Alice A. Bailey followers and also some theosophical seekers seem to
> have the view that the Theosophical Society, as it was given in 1875-1891,
> was political in various respects - despite the fact that its Constitution
> and Rules said the opposite.
> In this regard it might be very important to understand the human evolution
> was of a quite different kind in the period 1875-1891. In those days, we
> find that there was no real information society. Television, mobile phones,
> Internet etc. etc. No flying machines, although the first experiments with
> Zeppelin's was going on. It was a time where the science of psychology was
> something quite new in the Western part of the planet - where it was in its
> infancy. Today it is wellknown that Sufi's like El Gazahli (d. 1111) and
> Doctor Maximus (Ibn El Arabi, d. 1240) and others in the old days of the
> Middle East already had written extensively or at least a number of books on
> doctrines very similar to those of Freud and C. G. Jung. In in those days,
> 1875-1891, and great many persons were analphabets compared to our present
> And in the East there had been doctrines on psychology for ages, although
> people today tend to call them religious scriptures. Now I write this
> seeking to avoid various misunderstandings in the words given in the below.
> ### A non-political Society and Prejudice against it ###
> CONSTITUTION AND RULES of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, 1890 says quite
> "The Theosophical Society is absolutely unsectarian"
> "Offences -
> - 1. Any Fellow who shall in any way attempt to involve the Society In
> political disputes shall be immediately expelled.
> - 2. No Fellow, Officer, or Council of the Theosophical Society, or of any
> Section or Branch thereof, shall promulgate or maintain any doctrines being
> that advanced, or advocated by the Society."
> (See also "The Theosophist", december 1890)
> Then it must be very clear, that when any articles appeared in the
> theosophical magazines like The Theosophist - they were only written in a
> non-sectarian manner and not on behalf of the Society. And this is no doubt
> something, which a number of readers of these articles are misunderstanding
> these days.
> Despite that this non-sectarian doctrine was given in 1890 - it was also
> given in earliere Constitutions of the Theosophical Society, although
> perhaps using a different formulation.
> H. P. Blavatsky wrote the following very interesting words about the
> Theosophical Society in her book The Key to Theosophy, first published July
> H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
> "WHY, THEN, IS THERE SO MUCH PREJUDICE AGAINST THE T. S.?
> ENQUIRER. If Theosophy is even half of what you say, why should there exist
> such a terrible ill-feeling against it? This is even more of a problem than
> anything else.
> THEOSOPHIST. It is; but you must bear in mind how many powerful adversaries
> we have aroused ever since the formation of our Society. 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."
> (The Key to Theosophy, 2nd. ed. 1890)
> I will here take a closer look at this view about Theosophical Society, as
> it was given in 1875-1891, on whether it was political, and seek to show,
> that It does not hold to the truth in many respects. But also seek to show,
> that there is a thin and yet thick line of demarcation between the aims and
> the Constitution of the non-sectarian Theosophical Society, as it was given
> in 1875-1891, and on the other hand its members, especially the
> administrative members - and - THEIR involvement with social uplift (and
> thereby leaning on being political) while promoting altruism, which was and
> is the main aim of this Society. Because it was not the non-sectarian
> Theosophical Society which was involved - although some and in fact for very
> good reasons if I may say so - might be mislead to think so. It was only its
> members. Because no administrative leader acted on behalf of the
> Theosophical Society with regard to politics; - (unless it seems, when
> seeking to avoid the Society from being injured and prevented from
> performing its activities and meetings in its centers etc.)
> And this is important to understand and know about.
> The following references might be important to be aware of when we exchange
> upon this matter.
> I will here present two quotes from the book "A Key to Theosophy" by H. P.
> Blavatsky. In it she clearly outlines her views as a co-founder of the
> Theosophical Society on how the Theosophical Society as an organisation
> related it self to politics in the years 1875-1891. The quotes in the below
> are with other words explanations given to the members of the Society as
> well as potential members. There was also a chapter in this book on how one
> aught to relate to at least a great number of so-called Charity
> organisations, and what the consequences are if one well-meaningly gives
> charity. All the views and below quotes were written with the aim in mind of
> - promoting altruism - since this was the very central aim with the
> existence of the Theosophical Society in 1875-1891.
> H. P. Blavatsky wrote about The Theosophical Society on politics:
> 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, 2ed, 1890, p. 231-232)
> H. P. Blavatsky wrote about The Theosophical Society on politics:
> "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. "
> (The Key to Theosophy, 2ed, 1890, p. 55-56)
> 2) A letter from Constance Wachtmeister to A. P. Sinnett, p. 266 (dated
> 1885 as far as I can tell)
> "Madame Blavatsky has read with astonishment in Vanity Fair the following,
> âthat carefully worded proclamations calling upon the people in India to
> rise and claim their political rights were being distributed (under her
> auspices) together with other documents of a less compromising nature.â
> Madame calls this a gross libel, and calls upon the Editor to prove it by
> sending to her one of these proclamations, and also she desires him to give
> to her the name of the person from whom he received such a slander. Madame
> says that the Editor must at once insert the following refutation, or she
> will have him taken up for libel.
> âMadame Blavatsky denies absolutely having in any way used her influence
> among the People of India to induce them to rise and proclaim their
> political rights; she denies absolutely having distributed any worded
> documents to that effect and she also denies having meddled with Politics in
> any way whatsoever during her sojourn in India. On her return to India in
> autumn, 1884, she was accompanied by one English lady and two English
> gentlemen, and as she was sick and ill the whole time they never left her
> side so that they are witnesses to the truth of what she says.â"
> "Cutting and Extract front the âTimes of India.â
> Vanity Fair publishes the following cock and bull story, which will
> doubtless amuse Mr. Hume, General Morgan, and other âamiable enthusiastsâ
> who dabble in Theosophy: -- Strange rumours of Russian intrigue and
> political propaganda under the guise of religious research reach me from
> India. The High Priestess of Esoteric Buddhism, who left England last autumn
> on a pilgrimage to the shrine of the new faith, was followed, so I hear, by
> a person charged to watch that ladyâs movements. The result has been a
> discovery that carefully worded proclamations, calling upon the people of
> India to rise and claim their political rights, were being distributed,
> together with other documents of a less compromising nature. There is, I
> believe, no direct evidence of any communication between Moscow and Tibet,
> but it was a matter of common notoriety that intimate relations subsisted
> between Madame Novikoff and Madame Blavatsky during their stay in London
> last year."
> Such was and is the slander against H. P. Blavatsky. And it seemed to
> continue later on.
> Now I would like the readers to contrast the first two quotes from
> Blavatsky's book the "Key to Theosophy", published july-august 1889 - in the
> above - with - the following two quotes and excerpts from an article
> Blavatsky wrote just a few days later the SAME year. The first is an article
> on the -Three Objects of the Society - by Blavatsky where she gives, what it
> seems her wholehearted support for what is named the National Congress,
> which she call a political body. The second was written a bit later, and is
> from the month of December the same year 1889, where H. S. Olcott gives his
> Theosophical Convent speech in writing.
> Volume 11, Blavatsky Collected Writings Page 394
> OUR THREE OBJECTS
> "The growth of this kindly feeling has been proven in a variety of ways:
> first, in the unprecedented gathering of races, castes and sects in the
> annual conventions of the Theosophical Society, second, in the rapid growth
> of a theosophical literature advocating our altruistic views, in the
> founding of various journals and magazines in several languages, and in the
> rapid cessation of sectarian controversies; third, in the sudden birth and
> phenomenally rapid growth of the patriotic movement which is centralized in
> the organisation called the Indian National Congress This remarkable
> political body was planned by certain of our Anglo-Indian and Hindu members
> after the model and on the lines of the Theosophical Society, and has from
> the first been directed by our own colleagues, men among the most
> influential in the Indian Empire. At the same time, there is no connection
> whatever, barring that through the personalities of individuals, between the
> Congress and its mother-body, our Society. It would never have come into
> existence, in all probability, if Col. Olcott had suffered himself to be
> tempted into the side paths of human brotherhood, politics, social reforms,
> etc., as many have wanted him to do. We aroused the dormant spirit and
> warmed the Aryan blood of the Hindus, and one vent the new life made for
> itself was this Congress. All this is simple history and passes
> THE THEOSOPHIST, CONVENT REPORT 1889
> The Report of the Convent of the Theosophical Society year 1889.
> H. S. Olcott wrote:
> "You will observe that an unusually small number of Delegates are here
> today and will share in my regret that there could not have been a full
> representation of the Branches when such important changes in the Rules are
> to be proposed. It is useless to deceive ourselves as to the main cause.
> This is the political upheaval in Indian society which has produced the
> National Congress, and drawn all Indian thought into the vortex of politics.
> The first effect of the theosophical movement was to arouse an intense
> interest in the ancient religions and philosophies, and a great curiosity to
> learn if the claims of the school of ancient occultists would stand the test
> of scientific inquiry. A tidal wave of patriotic emotion rushed over India,
> as it grew more and more clear that the sages of Aryavarta were sages in the
> best sense of the word, and that the probabilities were great that the
> Yogi knew, in fact, more about the laws of nature than the best modern
> professor. The Indian heart swelled with emotion as these long-smouldering
> fires of self-respect, patriotism, and spiritual conviction blazed up from
> the ashes. Wherever we foreigners went we were met with benedictions, with
> fervent expressions of love and joy. Sanskrit, and Hindu religious schools
> sprang into being, the roster of our local Branches rapidly extended itself,
> and Theosophy became a household and dear word in every Hindu home. The
> addresses presented to us teemed with expressions of the belief that the
> iron rule of Kali Yuga was broken and the dawn of the revived Golden age had
> come. All this was natural, but it was unhealthy and feverish. A re-action,
> was inevitable but how or when it was to come was not clear. We now perceive
> it, for it is upon us. The wreaths once woven for us are now being hung
> around the necks of political leaders
> who are thought to be laying the bases of the future Indian Empire, greater
> than Akhbar's or Chandragupta's , enduring as adamant! And the national
> emotion is flowing in the channel <italics>Inter armas silent
> leges</italics> Politics stifle Religion, as a toothache or a bankruptey
> makes one forget Nirvana! traced by the projectors of the Congress. Another
> reaction is inevitable, for we must not forget that the Hindu is the most
> deeply and absolutely religious nature in the world. When it comes, the old
> blood will assert itself and attention be again given to those master
> problems of human life and destiny beside which all temporal concerns are
> vulgar and insignificant Let us not try to hasten the day, for the present
> agitation is useful and healthy in being a force to arouse the Indian mind
> from its fatal habit of indolence and dormaney, the greatest curse and
> calamity which can befall a race. Let us only keep on in the line of our
> altruistic activity, free from discouragement, steadfast in purpose, true to
> the behests of conscience. Gentlemen, the Convention is now declared open
> for business."
> (See also here under The Theosophist:
> M. Sufilight says:
> The question is, were H. P. Blavatsky and Olcott political - on behalf of
> the Theosophical Society, or merely as free members on their own in an
> non-sectarian and non-political Society???
> This seem to be important to answer clearly and unequivocally !
> (I wonder what the view is in TS Adyar today, because they have access to
> more files, from the old archive than most people these days. And I cannot
> reach the from here, although I sense there is more to this issue - in
> certain direction - than meets the apparnt eye of a wellmeaning researcher.)
> It is clear to me, when comparing the above two quotes with the two from
> the Key to Theosophy given further in the above, which all of them falls in
> the same year within a few months time apart from each other - that the
> Theosophical Society's two co-founders were seeking to interpret the
> Constitution and Rules of the Society (See the 1890 edition of the
> CONSTITUTION AND RULES of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY -
> http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm - Saying quite
> importantly: "The Theosophical Society is absolutely
> unsectarian"...."Offences - 1. Any Fellow who shall in any way attempt to
> involve the Society In political disputes shall be immediately expelled. -
> 2. No Fellow, Officer, or Council of the Theosophical Society, or of any
> Section or Branch thereof, shall promulgate or maintain any doctrines being
> that advanced, or advocated by the Society.") - in a manner where the very
> central object and aim of the Society, namely - the promulgation of altruism
> - was stretched to the line of becoming political and even sectarian in
> nature. - Yet the Constitutions and Rules of the non-sectarian and
> non-political Theosophical Society (in the period 1875-1891) were kept
> intact - despite these minor deviations. Minor deviations because we do in
> fact not find much official support anywhere in the theosophical magazines
> and books in support of politics or a sectarian stance. In fact we find the
> quite opposite. And we must also always have in mind, that whenever a member
> in the Theopsophical Society (in the period 1875-1891) was speaking or
> forwarding words on paper in articles and so on, they were never forwarded
> on behalf of the Society, but on behalf of the individual. And this is
> important (!) - Yet one cannot help having some doubt about whether it
> actually was the case all the time, when we hear H. S. Olcott's words in the
> above and Blavatsky's happy words about the new national Congress calling it
> a "political body" (although it was in fact a social body at that time of
> its existence, until it later became a quite different organisation.)
> There are however, various aspects to consider in the two last quotes in
> the above.
> It is, as I see it logically, never in accordance with altruism for anyone
> to seek any kind of social uplift in any given country or on any given
> planet, if the citizens of the area in question are not ready for such a
> Reform of the human heart is of necessity primary to the reform of the
> social situation in any given group of citizens.
> This seem to be logical to anyone who is a bit familiar with ethics. And it
> can neither be said that - any attempt to reform of the human heart (instead
> of dabbling with politics) before a given group of humans are ready for such
> a reform - is advisable. And Olcott clearly referred to this fact in the
> above quote. Because only those who are in sympathy with the idea of
> promulgating of altruism are in sympathy with it - each on their level or in
> their mode of being. Those who are not, are simply not - and will run for
> egotism more or less.
> --- With other words as the old proverb goes: "Love is like a fire, it can
> either warm your heart or burn your house down"
> --- Or another proverb of my own: "You do not expect a villainous human
> being to thank you if you out of what you perceive to be kindness put him or
> her out in the sun the whole day so to cock his or her skin."
> --- Or "Too much sun will make your skin burn, and too little will make you
> feel cold." - There is a time, a place, and circumstances for everything -
> as said by various sages.
> --- A Master of wisdom is said to have said: "Try not to be hasty,
> respected Sir. The world was not made in a day; nor has the tail of the yak
> developed in one year. Let evolution take its course naturally â lest we
> make it deviate and produce monsters by presuming to guide it"
> In this I find that there must be a thin or thick demarcation line, when
> seeking to promote social uplift like Blavatsky seemed to warmly welcome.
> Yet, Blavatsky pointed this problem out in her book "The Key to Theosophy".
> So maybe her remarks was a bit over-enthusiastic or hastily written. I do
> not consider her words to be the best formulated I have come across with
> regard to the passage about the National Congres in the above quote..
> Later we all know how it went. The National Congress changed into something
> quite different and in fact an unhealthy rebellious organisation and got so
> to speak involved with bloodsheeding. In the early days the National
> Congress was something quite different, and this is all history, although a
> number of historians would like to paint the picture in a different shade
> and color. The facts are there, even on the Internet to read about. Another
> factor is Blavatsky's use of the term "political body" about the National
> Congress. If we today should give such a body as it was in the early days a
> label, it would be to call it a "social organisation" instead of a political
> History of the Indian National Congress
> "Founded upon the suggestion of British civil servant Allan Octavian Hume,
> the Congress was created to form a platform for civic and political dialogue
> of educated Indians with the British Raj."
> We quote from the reprint in the "Theosophist," Supplement for March, 1894:
> ""My work in the sphere of politics is over, and I shall never resume
> "I say this in answer to your suggestion that I should be aroused to take
> interest in Indian 'affairs.' To be able to lay at the feet of India any
> service is to me full reward for the many sufferings of a stormy life
> through which the power of service has been won. But the India that I love
> and reverence, and would fain see living among the nations, is not an India
> westernized, rent with the struggles of political parties, heated with the
> fires of political passions, with a people ignorant and degraded, while
> those who might have raised them are fighting for the loaves and fishes of
> political triumph. I have seen too much of this among the 'progressed and
> civilized nations' of the West to have any desire to see such a civilization
> over-spreading what was Aryavarta. The India to which I belong in faith and
> heart is ... a civilization in which spiritual knowledge was accounted
> highest title to honour, and in which the whole people reverenced and sought
> after spiritual truth. To help in turning India into another Great Britain
> or another Germany, is an ambition that does not allure me; the India I
> would give my life to help in building, is an India learned in the ancient
> philosophy, pulsing with the ancient religion, -- an India to which all
> other lands should look for spiritual light, -- where the life of all should
> be materially simple, but intellectually noble and spiritually sublime.
> "The whole of my life and of my energies are given to the Theosophical
> Society, because the Society is intended to work in all nations for the
> realisation of this spiritual ideal; for the sake of this it deliberately
> eschews all politics, embraces men of parties, welcomes men of all faiths,
> declines to ostracise any man, any party or any faiths. I may not mingle in
> a political fray which would make one temporary party regard me with enmity;
> for the message of spiritual life belongs equally to both and may not be
> rendered unacceptable by its bearer wearing a political garment which is a
> defiance of those clad in other political robes. The politician must ever be
> at war; my mission is one of peace. Therefore I enter not the political
> field; and in the religious field I seek to show men of every faith that
> they share a common spiritual heritage and should look through the forms
> that divide them to the spirit that makes them one. It is the recognition of
> this which makes Hinduism ever a non-proselyting religion....
> "I write this lengthy explanation of my absolute refusal to have anything
> to do with politics because any expression of love and confidence from
> Indians goes straight to my heart, ... because I honestly believe that the
> future of India, the greatness of India and the happiness of her people, can
> never be secured by political methods, but only by the revival of her
> philosophy and religion. To this, therefore, I must give all my energies,
> and I must refuse to spread them over other fields."
> ANNIE BESANT."
> I have quoted Annie Besant to it will become visible to the readers what a
> difference, there arrived later on in the Theosophical Society because of
> her activities. And this can be compared with H. P. Blavatsky's and H. S.
> Olcott's words in the above - as well as with the present day activities of
> the Theosophical Society - and of course also the visible and more
> unofficial activities of the mother-organisation Lucis Trust behind the
> Alice A. Bailey followers. By this I will conclude, that the political cloud
> hanging over the whole affair needs clarification to all Seekers after Truth
> and Wisdom - and honest wholehearted promoters of Altruism.
> Do you my readers not think so?
> The question is however, was the Theosophical Society turning political in
> 1875-1891 - or - was it merely seeking to uphold its primary aim - the
> promulgation og altruism?
> This must be a question, as I see it, the readers must decide for
> It is however clear that the non-sectarian Theopsophical Society (in the
> period 1875-1891) never endorsed that the National Congress should become a
> political party with legislations, courts, judges, and well-paid lawyers
> etc. This there can seem to be no doubt about. At least there is no reason
> to think so.
> It was therefore only supported by - some - of the members of the
> non-sectarian Theopsophical Society (in the period 1875-1891). However, I do
> find Olcott's speech in the quote in the above to be a bit to sectarian in
> nature. But that is maybe just me.
> All the above is, as I see it, setting the non-sectarian and non-political
> Theopsophical Society (in the period 1875-1891) totally apart from the Alice
> A. Bailey followers Mother-organisations Lucis Trust's present day
> activities - where it is clearly seen, as shown in the first part of this
> text, that Lucis Trust are directly encouraging support for the United
> Nations, and, opposition to Communism
> See Alice A. Bailey's - "The Externalisation of the Hiercarchy", p.
> "The material goal which all who love their fellowmen and serve the
> Hierarchy must ever have in mind and at  heart is the defeat of
> totalitarianism. I do not say the defeat of Communism, but the defeat of
> that evil process which involves the imposition of ideas, and which can be
> the method of the democratic nations and of the churches everywhere, just as
> much as it is the method of the U.S.S.R. This we call totalitarianism. I
> would ask you to have this distinction clearly in your minds. Your material
> goal is the defeat of all that infringes human free will and which keeps
> humanity in ignorance; it applies equally to any established system Catholic
> or Protestant - which imposes its concepts and its will upon its adherents.
> Totalitarianism is the basis of evil today; it is found in all systems of
> government, of education; it is found in the home and in the community. I
> refer not here to the laws which make group relations sound, possible and
> right; such laws are essential to community and national well-being and are
> not totalitarian in nature. I refer to the imposition of the will of the few
> upon the total mass of the people. The defeat of this undesirable tendency
> everywhere is your definite material goal."
> In the above quote we might be able to agree upon at least with regard to
> the bad in Totalitarianism. But it is political in content - and - it
> forgets that totalitarianism is not only something to be found in USSR (of
> the past), among Catholic churches, and Protestant churches. It is also -
> more or less disguised and therefore in a certain sense more sinister - to
> be found in various New Age groups and sects - as well as in western
> so-called Democracies (with the Christian religion looming over the leaders
> as a Superior-General) where spin, lies, deciet, inducing of fear and
> propaganda control of the news medias are efficient tools to curb peoples
> minds and hold them down into fear.
> That is why the new teachings on altruism being forwarded - based on
> scientific knowledge and a free search after the truth about the meaning of
> life and how to promulgate altruism - in our time - necessarily must take
> clear steps in addressing the science of Psychology much more clearly and
> its branch the science on subtle Mind Control.
> Any comments?
> Well...perhaps it all boils down to the - psychological - fact so to speak
> which also is mentioned like this in the famous scripture named the Bhagavad
> Bhagavad Gita says:
> "Parabrahm wells in the hearts of all beings,
> O Arjuna, whirling by Maya all beings
> (as if) mounted on a machine."
> (Chapter 18:61, - taken from "The Bhagavad Gita with the Commentaries of
> Sri Sankaracharya" by A. M. Sastry - a book undertaken because of the
> insistance by the theosophist Bertram Keightley)
> I have in the above sought to be of service to all readers - and - all
> parties involved.
> My aim is the promulgation of altruism.
> All the above are of course just my views. I do not claim myself infallible
> as a "pope" or similar
> I do hope that at least some of it will be useful for something altruistic
> and good.
> M. Sufilight
> [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]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application