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

Re: theos-talk --- Subtle Psychology - Arya Samaj and The TS-6

Sep 07, 2012 06:48 AM
by Ramanujachary nallanchakravarti

Dear Mr. Sufilight,
TS Adyar will not make the answer. I will have to do it.
Allow some time. Let me go thro' the long post and understand that first.
Dr Ramanujachary

Literature is for Portrayal of Philosophic Ideas.

Dr N C Ramanujachary(Srivirinchi)

Besant Gardens, The Theosophical Society, Adyar, Chennai 600 020 

Phone: 044/24913584, Mobile: 9444963584

From: "M. Sufilight" <>
Sent: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:01:35 
To: <>
Subject: Re: theos-talk --- Subtle Psychology - Arya Samaj and The TS-6





      No answers are received from TS Adyar on this...I wonder why?

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 

  From: M. Sufilight 


  Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:09 PM

  Subject: Re: theos-talk --- Subtle Psychology - Arya Samaj and The TS-6

Dear Ramanujachary

My views are:

The following is a lenghty post...Please bear with me. I am merely seeking to be as precise as possible...

The question is about - pressure - with regard to "orthodox theosophy" is not new.

  And as we will see from the quotes I am givning in the below among others which could be was already a fact in the 1880'ties that the Theosophical Society was considered a mere SECT or a CULT in those days....and that Blavatsky, W. Q. Judge and others had to do great efforts in making the public and even the members of the Society understand that it was not so....

Today year 2012...We unfortunately do not see many precise and clear and non-blurred (especially the latter) efforts in this least not as far as I am aware of.

  In stead we see a number of websites given by The Theosophical Society Branches givning the impression that The Theosophical Society indeed is a Sect or even a Cult - or - else they, the websites, at least give a blurred inpression in this direction. Well as I see it.... 

First example:

  Take the TS Adyar HQ website as an examnple.....: --- The idea of 13 Prominent or Eminent Theosophists so-called on the TS Adyar Headquarters website is one such example. ( And the fact that some Shrines are allowed and emphazised on the TS Adyar Compound and others not. Emphasis given even to a New Age sect named the Liberal Catholic Church...where the original aim of the Theosophical Society with regard of avoiding the promotion of superstition clearly seem to be thrown down the drain. And when joining one is requested to abide by some Rules which is --- strangely missing friom the website --- --- I wonder why membership is falling --- and the Promulgation of the Theosophical teachings get hampered. Such a stance is clearly not constructive....

Other examples are ---

  1) the TS in England ( (references at the bottom and the Study Paper pages at the top) here --- --- although their intentions are right at --- the website in England fails clearly in giving the impression of not being a sect forwarding "orthodox" theosophy.)

2) the TS in Canada

  ( I will question whether these words in this link - are being read as a non-sectarian statement or a Sectarian or even a Cult statement by the public and newcomers to the Society and existing members. Any answer to this are welcomed. - I recommend that one seek to as objective as possible and seek to see it all from both sides of the fence...)

3) The Theosophical Society in Australia

  (This link clearly gives the impression that the Theosophical Society is a sect or even a cult...or ...else at least selfcontradicting - when taking the latest paragraphs into reason being the photos on the pages of various - persons - which through the representation seem to be turned into idols or theosophy guru's... or similar....And when the link in the below on Key Ideas is read: --- with words like: "The Key Ideas or basic principles circulating around the Theosophical Society since 1875â derived from Vedanta, Buddhism, Plato, the Kabbalah, Alchemy, the ancient Mysteries and various other sources and put together in a new synthesis by HP Blavatsky, her Teachers and her followers and treated as hypotheses, propositions and premises not binding on any member" --- Then I find the Self-contradiction is complete - compared to the Constitution and Rules of the TS from 1890. One does not forward such words as "unbinding"...unless one would like the given emphasis as a sectarian doctrine...Well as I see it --- After having said this. I do however find that this website is closer to the real Spirit of Non-Sectarianism - compared to the other three examples in the above...)

4) Another website from Theosophical Society - which apperently has Ashram's as well ? No sectarian tone of voice in that? I think so.

5) Blavatsky House -Netherlands

  (Here is an example of the word "Theosophy" redefined..Now it is a certain set of doctrines based on Knowledge, not Belief. But the Theosophical Society has no doctrines to forward of its to disseminate! Or has it?)

6) Theosophical Society - France - 

  (As I see it, a website badly in need for making sense - and - being given a helping work over. --- The Text simply stops short in the middle of a sentence...unless one discovers the triangles in the above on the page...And then we have what is an Occult image in the left of the page...clearly hinting at somthing sectarian...And the text find that the Law of Karma is elevated to a doctrine of the Theosophical Society and are beign forwarded on behalf of the Society it self ! ! ! --- Is this the honest sign of the tolerance preached in this same text towards fellow human beings?)

T.S. Declarations

  ((( And then we have the T.S. Declarations as the final kknife in the back on the Absolutely Non-sectarian idea --- and --- a clear intention is given to promulagte "orthodox" Theosophy through and by these later deviations from the original Absolutely Non-Sectarian lines given in 1875-1891 or perhaps more precisely 1878-1891, where official available (and not hidden locked away in TS Adyar) documentation clearly gives the impression of it through these years:

  Try the Declaration named: Fundamentals of Theosophy, 1947:

  "Man can, by his own efforts and under the guidance of superhuman brothers, rise to transcendent levels of consciousness, thereby achieving, in himself, the purpose of the whole evolutionary scheme."....and then in the same breath... we read...."The Theosophical Society has no dogmas. The preceding statements are no more than an enumeration of some important points in its doctrines, the enumeration being indicative and not limitative."...............BUT, the Theosophical Society has no doctrines to forward of its OWN ! ! ! - Se Blavatksy's words later on....)))

More examples can be forwarded....


  The above issues clearly tell me that "orthodoxy" within the Theosophical Society do exist - or - else I find the various branches to be very clumsy inn forwarding a Clear Non-Sectarian stance ON BEHALF OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.

  And the fact that we do not find the Non-Sectarian Constituion Rules for the Theosophical Society available on the various websites is as stranges as it can be....

NOW...I find it important to state that the above critical view of the few examples given are not given so to put anyone down - and - certainly not the The Theosophical Society.

  But it is forwarded from the heart of compassion seeking to help the Sectons keep the Original Non-sectarian Spirit --- CLEARLY and VISIBLY and non-BLURRED --- alive in The Theosophical Society. And I do this - even - when I am not a member of the Society. Not yet, that is.


Try the following links...on clarifying the Absolutely Non-Sectarian objec of the Theosohical Society --- and --- 

  the heavy tendencies of regarding it as being Sectarian already in the 1880'ties.


  "New accusations are brought by captious censors against our Society in general

  and Theosophy, especially. We will summarize them as we proceed along, and

  notice the "freshest" denunciation.

  We are accused of being illogical in the Constitution and Rules of the

  Theosophical Society; and contradictory in the practical application thereof.

  The accusations are framed in this wise:-

  In the published Constitution and Rules great stress is laid upon the ABSOLUTELY

  NON-SECTARIAN character of the Society. It is constantly insisted upon that it

  has no creed, no philosophy, no religion, no dogmas, and even no special views

  of its own to advocate, still less to impose on its members. And yet-

  "Why, bless us! is it not as undeniable a fact that certain very definite views

  of a philosophic and, strictly speaking, of a religious character are held by

  the Founders and most prominent members of the Society?"

  "Verily so," we answer. "But where is the alleged contradiction in this? Neither

  the Founders, nor the 'most prominent members nor yet the majority thereof,

  constitute the Society, but only a certain portion of it, which, moreover,

  having no creed as a body, yet allows its members to believe as and what they

  please." In answer to this, we are told:-

  "Very true; yet these doctrines are collectively called 'Theosophy.' What is

  your explanation of this?"

  We reply:-"To call them so is a 'collective' mistake; one of those loose

  applications of terms to things that ought to be more carefully defined; and the

  neglect of members to do so is now bearing its fruits. In fact it is an

  oversight as harmful as that which followed the confusion of the two terms

  'buddhism' and 'budhism,' leading the Wisdom philosophy to be mistaken for the

  religion of Buddha."

  But it is still urged that when these doctrines are examined it becomes very

  clear that all the work which the Society as a body has done in the East and the

  West depended upon them. This is obviously true in the case of the doctrine of

  the underlying unity of all religions and the existence, as claimed by

  Theosophists, of a common source called the Wisdom-Religion of the secret

  teaching, from which, according to the same claims, all existing forms of

  religion are directly or indirectly derived. Admitting this, we are pressed to

  explain how can the T.S. as a body be said to have no special views or doctrines

  to inculcate, no creed and no dogmas, when these are "the back-bone of the

  Society, its very heart and soul"?

  To this we can only answer that it is still another error That these teachings

  are most undeniably the "backbone" of the Theosophical Societies in the West,

  but not at all in the East, where such Branch Societies number almost five to

  one in the West. Were these special doctrines the "heart and soul" of the whole

  body, then Theosophy and its T. S. would have died out in India and Ceylon since

  1885-and this is surely not the case. For, not only have they been virtually

  abandoned at Adyar since that year, as there was no one to teach them, but while

  some Brahmin Theosophists were very much opposed to that teaching being made

  public, others-the more orthodox-positively opposed them as being inimical to

  their exoteric systems.

These are self-evident facts. And yet if answered that it is not so; that the

  T.S. as a body teaches no special religion but tolerates and virtually accepts

  all religions by never interfering with, or even inquiring after the religious

  views of, its members, our cavillers and even friendly opponents, do not feel

  satisfied. On the contrary: ten to one they will non-plus you with the following

  extraordinary objection:-

  "How can this be, since belief in 'Esoteric Buddhism' is a sine qua non for

  acceptance as a Fellow of your Society?"

  It is vain to protest any longer; useless, to assure our opponents that belief

  in Buddhism, whether esoteric or exoteric, is no more expected by, nor

  obligatory in, our Society than reverence for the monkey-god Hanuman, him of the

  singed tail, or belief in Mohammed and his canonized mare. It is unprofitable to

  try and explain that since there are in the T.S. as many Brahmins, Mussulmans,

  Parsis, Jews and Christians as there are Buddhists, and more, all cannot be

  expected to become followers of Buddha, nor even of Buddhism, howsoever

  esoteric. Nor can they be made to realize that the Occult doctrines-a few

  fundamental teachings of which are broadly outlined in Mr. Sinnett's Esoteric

  Buddhism-are not the whole of Theosophy, nor even the whole of the secret

  doctrines of the East, but a very small portion of these: Occultism itself being

  but one of the Sciences of Theosophy, or the WISDOM-Religion, and by no means

  the whole of THEOSOPHY.

  So firmly rooted seem these ideas, however, in the mind of the average

  Britisher, that it is like telling him that there are Russians who are neither

  Nihilists nor Panslavists, and that every Frenchman does not make his daily meal

  of frogs; he will simply refuse to believe you. Prejudice against Theosophy

  seems to have become part of the national feeling. For almost three years the

  writer of the present-helped in this by a host of Theosophists-has tried in vain

  to sweep away from the public brain some of the most fantastic cobwebs with

  which it is garnished; and now she is on the eve of giving up the attempt in

  despair! While half of the English people will persist in confusing Theosophy

  with "esoteric bud-ism," the remainder will keep on pronouncing the

  world-honoured title of Buddha as they do-butter. It is they also who have

  started the proposition now generally adopted by the flippant press that

  "Theosophy is not a philosophy, but a religion," and "a new sect."..."

  (The words "BSOLUTELY NON-SECTARIAN" given uppercase by M. Sufilight)

H. P. Blavatsky wrote with regard to the avoidance of Orthodoxy:

  "This is why, when applying for admission into the Theosophical Society, no one is asked what

  religion he belongs to, nor what his deistic views may be. These views are his

  own personal property and have nought to do with the Society. Because Theosophy

  can be practised by Christian or Heathen, Jew or Gentile, by Agnostic or

  Materialist, or even an Atheist, provided that none of these is a bigoted

  fanatic, who refuses to recognise as his brother any man or woman outside his

  own special creed or belief. "

W.Q. Judge wrote about "othodoxy":

  "THE Theosophical Society was founded to destroy dogmatism. This is one of the

  meanings of its first object - Universal Brotherhood. And Col. H. S. Olcott in

  his inaugural address in 1875, at Mott Memorial Hall, New York, said that such

  was the object in view, citing the bad effect that intolerance had had in the



  "If our effort is to succeed, we must avoid dogmatism in theosophy as much as in

  anything else, for the moment we dogmatise and insist on our construction of

  theosophy, that moment we lose sight of Universal Brotherhood and sow the seeds

  of future trouble. "


  "There is a great likelihood that members of the Society will insist on a

  certain orthodoxy in our ranks. They are already doing it here and there, and

  this is a note of warning to draw their attention to the danger. There is no

  orthodoxy in our Society. Even though nine-tenths of the members believe in

  Reincarnation, Karma, the sevenfold constitution, and all the rest, and even

  though its prominent ones are engaged in promulgating these doctrines as well as

  others, the ranks of the Society must always be kept open, and no one should be

  told that he is not orthodox or not a good Theosophist because he does not

  believe in these doctrines. All that anyone is asked to subscribe to is

  Universal Brotherhood, and its practice in the search for truth. For the efforts

  of those who are thus promulgating specific ideas are made under the sanction of

  the second object of the Society, which any one is free to follow or to refuse

  to follow as he sees fit. One may deny - undogmatically - reincarnation and

  other doctrines, or may assert belief in a personal or impersonal God, and still

  be a good member of the Society, provided Universal Brotherhood is subscribed to

  and put into practice. " 

H. P. Blavatsky wrote with regard to Orthodoxy:

  "The present Theosophical movement has sometimes been declared to be an attempt to convert Christendom to Buddhism, which means simply that the word 'Heresy' has lost its terrors and relinquished its power. Individuals in every age have more or less clearly apprehended the Theosophical doctrines and wrought them into the fabric of their lives. These doctrines belong exclusively to no religion, and are confined to no society or time. They are the birthright of every human soul. Such a thing as orthodoxy must be wrought out by each individual according to his nature and his needs, and according to his varying experience. This may explain why those who have imagined Theosophy to be a new religion have hunted in vain for its creed and its ritual. Its creed is Loyalty to Truth, and its ritual 'To honour every truth by use.' 

"How little this principle of Universal Brotherhood is understood by the masses of mankind, how seldom its transcendent importance is recognised, may be seen in the diversity of opinion and fictitious interpretations regarding the Theosophical Society. This Society was organized on this one principle, the essential Brotherhood of Man, as herein briefly outlined and imperfectly set forth. It has been assailed as Buddhistic and anti-Christian, as though it could be both these together, when both Buddhism and Christianity, as set forth by their inspired founders, make brotherhood the one essential of doctrine and of life. Theosophy has been also regarded as something new under the sun, or at best as old mysticism masquerading under a new name. While it is true that many Societies founded upon, and united to support, the principles of altruism, or essential brotherhood, have borne various names, it is also true that many have also been called Theosophic, and with principles and aims as the present society bearing that name. With these societies, one and all, the essential doctrine has been the same, and all else has been incidental, though this does not obviate the fact that many persons are attracted to the incidentals who overlook or ignore the essentials."

No better or more explicit answerâby a man who is one of our most esteemed and earnest Theosophistsâcould be given to your questions. 

ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, besides Buddhistic ethics? 

THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no philosophy in particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again, it must be stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is divided into Exoteric and Esoteric Sections. "

  (The Key to Theosophy, p. 18-19, 2nd ed. 1890)

H. P. Blavatsky wrote :

  "THEOSOPHIST. They are not. But to these questions I cannot give you a better answer than by quoting from a paper read on "Theosophy" by Dr. J. D. Buck, F.T.S., before the last Theosophical Convention, at Chicago, America (April, 1889). No living theosophist has better expressed and understood the real essence of Theosophy than our honoured friend Dr. Buck:â

"The Theosophical Society was organized for the purpose of promulgating the Theosophical doctrines, and for the promotion of the Theosophic life. The present Theosophical Society is not the first of its kind."

  (The Key to Theosophy, p. 16, 2nd ed. 1890)

H. P. Blavatsky wrote: 

  "I add the sub ordinate finding that the society has no religious creed and practices no worship. "

  (The Key to Theosophy, p. 309, 2nd ed. 1890)

  (And therefore the idea of Shrines on the TS Adyar Compound is ridicoulous ! ! !)

H. P. Blavatsky wrote: 

  " Theosophy is the equivalent of Brahm-Vidya, divine knowledge."


  "He resolved to reconcile every system of religion, and by demonstrating their identical origin to establish one universal creed based on ethics. "

  (The Key to Theosophy, p. 2 + 3, 2nd ed. 1890)

H. P. Blavatsky wrote: 

  "This may explain why those who have imagined Theosophy to be a new religion have hunted in vain for its creed and its ritual. Its creed is Loyalty to Truth, and its ritual 'To honour every truth by use.' "

  (The Key to Theosophy, p. 18, 2nd ed. 1890)


  "In the published Constitution and Rules great stress is laid upon the absolutely non-sectarian character of the Society. It is constantly insisted upon that it has no creed, no philosophy, no religion, no dogmas, and even no special views of its own to advocate, still less to impose on its members. "

M. Sufilight says:

  Am I the only reader who at the first eyesight, is a bit confused after reading the above by Blavatsky?

  First she says that the TS was "organized for the purpose of promulgating the Theosophical doctrines, and for the promotion of the Theosophic life"...and then at other place clearly seem to oppose this view by saying for instance...that the Society "has no creed, no philosophy, no religion, no dogmas, and even no special views of its own to advocate, still less to impose on its members. "

So what does she actually mean by writing such seemingly selfcontradicting words ???

On the one hand no doctrinas are being forward by any leader or lecturer on behalf of the members of the Society (See in the above and also later in the below the Constitusion and Rules for the Theosophical Society, 1890, dec.) - on the other the promulgation of Theosophy is sought while it is called Brahma Vidya, Wisdom of the Gods, and the Philosophy of all the Philosophies, and ...then strangely she calls â Theosophy â a "search after Wisdom and Truth"....Meaning that the word "Theosophy" more precisely is --- THE SEAERCH AFTER WISDOM AND TRUTH â AND THEREFORE THE MEANING OF LIFE IT SELF IN A PHILOSOPHICAL MANNER â BASED ON THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE SOCIETY â CALLED ALTRUISM. The fact that nine out of ten follow what is called an "orthodox" teaching of Theosophy as W. Q. Judge says â belief in karma, reincarnation, and perhaps also Masters and extra senses --- does not remove the fact that the Theosophical Society originally and in his time was Absolutely Non-Sectarian and welcomed any person from any creed or belief â except those who refused to advocate Dogmatism and Altruism (the latter being main object of the Society - ie., "to form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or colour").

So Brahma-Vidya is Theosophy - and - is not a doctrine - intrepreted in one manner only - by various Guru's or leaders, recognized by other leaders, or themselves included. It is a "search after Wisdom and Truth" based on Altruism by each individual on their own efforts - not through pressurized "orthodox" theosophy. It is also as said by Blavatsky and Olcott in the magazine "`The Theosophist" from first number in october 1879....: "What is Theosophy?"... "This question has been so often asked, and misconception so widely prevails, that the editors of a journal devoted to an exposition of the world's Theosophy would be remiss were its first number issued without coming to a full understanding with their readers. " ....... "Vaughan offers a far better, more philosophical definition. "A Theosophist," he says â "is one who gives you a theory of God or the works of God, which has not revelation, but an inspiration of his own for its basis." In this view every great thinker and philosopher, especially every founder of a new religion, school of philosophy, or sect, is necessarily a Theosophist. "

>From this we have that a Theosophist is merely a philosopher - and - that this is the only qualification. A Theosophist is not the follower of "othodox" Theosophy - or - of doctrines like karma, reincarnation, Master of the Himalaya or Valley's in Iran or USA. Or various Prominent, so.called, Theosophists.


H. P. Blavatsky wrote:

  " And here, we must be allowed a last remark. No true theosophist, from the most ignorant up to the most learned, ought to claim infallibility for anything he may say or write upon occult matters."

  (The Secret Doctrine, Vol. II, p. 640)


  Let us not forget the following was a part of the original programe in the early days of the Theosophical Society...




  The Theosophical Society is absolutely unsectarian"




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.

Why did they write all these words into the Constitution of the Theosophical Society if they meant something else, with the objects of the Society and how to promulagte altruism, - and that, as much as 15 years after the beginning of the existence of the Society?

  And why did they get deleted from the TS Consitution later on in the years after the year 1910?

The above Constitution and Rules coinsided with H. P. Blavatsky's views...and was if I remember correctly forwarded in part by B. Keightley representing the Blavatsky branch of T.S. at the T.S. Convent in 1890. B. Keightley played quite an important role in that Convent as far as I recall...maybe some of you "insiders" have som words to add on this...

  See "Convention Report" 1890 

  (Where The CONSTITUTION AND RULES OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY for 1890 is given on page 65 (or 33 in the PDF) - and where it is stated on earlier pages that H. S. Olcott was about to resign as President that year, something a number of members begged him not to do at the he did not do that...)

M. Sufilight says:

  I do hope that you who have taken your time tom read all this --- and --- also consulted the various articles --- and given them the needed examination will allow me to express thatb I find there is a need for improvement of a numer of website of the Theosophical Society. --- Now I could do the same kind of examination of the websites of the Pasadena Theosophical Society and the ULT Theosophists, and also off-shoot branches or similar ones like Steiners Anthroposophy, Ascended Masters (Guy Bllanrd and later Claire Prophets version), Alice A. Bailey, Joshua Stones, the Galactic Federation (and the Tuella Ashtar Command groupings), and a number of other similar organizations. They as far as I can tell all fail in the presentation of what the Theosophical Society originally was about --- or --- else they are very good at BLURRING the fact about the Absolutly Non-Sectarian aspect of the 1890 Constitution and Rules of the Theosophical Society - by forwarding self-contradictions and doctrines in the face of it.

All the above are just my views. If I stand corrected on various views or thoughts given...please let me know. I will glady retract any word given out in ignorance and which is false.

  VERY IMPORTANT: I am fully aware of the many many good intentions among the many Theosophists and members of various theosophical organisations and related versions thereof. And I appreciate good intentions and compassion. But the above words aught, as I see it, to be taken into account - if Altruism and the Original Absolutly Non-Sectarian aspect matters to the Theosophical Society or anyone who claims to seek to follow the original intention of the Society. I am stating that TRUE ALTRUISM can never be honestly forward through a Sect or a Sectarian stance or a Sectarian Doctrine on this planet in these times.

  (My definition is as I read it: A Sect is a group or organization where a leader or some leaders teach a doctrine on behalf of the group or organization --- and not on behalf of themselves, and disallow all members to teach on behalf of themselves in stead of on behalf of the Society --- as in contrast with the above words given in the Constitution of the Theosophical Society form the year 1890).

Any comments?

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 

  From: Ramanujachary nallanchakravarti 


  Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 8:48 AM

  Subject: Re: theos-talk --- Subtle Psychology - Arya Samaj and The TS-6

Dear Friends,

  I'm sorry for the delay in answering the points made.

  The Theosophical Society, to my understanding, is an open forum for all thinkers. I do not see any instance where people were asked/pressurized to 'follow' the 'orthodox theosophy'. I fail to understand what 'orthodoxy' in your view stands for. There is no such thing; Theosophy is universally ancient wisdom-religion. Men and women of the world are provided certain postulates for their examination.

  Altruism is,first and foremost, theosophical characteristic attitude one is asked to understand and appreciate.

  Certain personal attributes or notions of individuals, as such, cannot be considered as aspects of theosophy.

  The subtle mind control, the science of which, being popularised by Mr M Sufilight is an interesting study to which every thinker must give attention.


  Dr Ramanujachary

Literature is for Portrayal of Philosophic Ideas.

Dr N C Ramanujachary(Srivirinchi)

Besant Gardens, The Theosophical Society, Adyar, Chennai 600 020 

Phone: 044/24913584, Mobile: 9444963584

From: "M. Sufilight" <>

  Sent: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:37:56 

  To: <>

  Subject: Re: theos-talk --- Subtle Psychology - Arya Samaj and The TS-6


Dear friends

My views are:

I thank you for your words again.

I have however failed to see any answer form you since July 6th. I might however have overlooked something.

Or maybe work has kept you away form the forum for a while.

If other readers would like to contribute to the questions I forwarded in the earlier post/mail in this thread, I will not hesitate to welcome them.


I repeat some of the words here:


I ask I the following conclusion true???

The conclusion about the Theosophical Society is that it welcomes all kinds a persons regardless of belief, if they at least seek to promote altruism. And nobody is being pressured to follow any dogma or religious system within the TS. 


However on the other hand it seems that one in fact are being pressurized to follow Orthodox Theosophy!

How can this be reconciled I wonder....?

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Ramanujachary nallanchakravarti 


Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 1:07 PM

Subject: Re: theos-talk --- Subtle Psychology - Arya Samaj and The TS-6

Dear Mr Sufilight,

Please let the total story be given out. Wait and see.

we will discuss the whole matter.

Fraternally, Dr N C R .

Literature is for Portrayal of Philosophic Ideas.

Dr N C Ramanujachary(Srivirinchi)

Besant Gardens, The Theosophical Society, Adyar, Chennai 600 020 

Phone: 044/24913584, Mobile: 9444963584

From: "M. Sufilight" <>

Sent: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:33:07 

To: <>

Subject: Re: theos-talk --- Subtle Psychology - Arya Samaj and The TS-6


Dear friends

My views are:

Interesting words about Arya Samaj (AS)...

I ask I the following conclusion true???

The conclusion about the Theosophical Society is that it welcomes all kinds a persons regardless of belief, if they at least seek to promote altruism. And nobody is being pressured to follow any dogma or religious system within the TS. 


However on the other hand it seems that one in fact are being pressurized to follow Orthodox Theosophy!

How can this be reconciled I wonder....?


Some extra additional words to use in contrast with the hey-day of the 1920'ties of the Theosophical Society.......and even to be used to promote altruism.

The german break-away theosophist Rudolf Steiner said really interestingly the following about the TS:


Dornach, June 6, 1920

"Why am I telling you these things, my dear friends? So that you may not take the matter too lightly. For in our anthroposophical spiritual science it is verily not a question of the sort of things which go on, for instance in the Theosophical Society. That the Theosophical Society is not to be taken seriously is clearly to be seen from the fact that one day it came to accept by a majority the whole farce of Krishnamurti as the reborn Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Such a comedy is only based on hypocrisy, even though this hypocrisy be taken seriously by many. But what should grow on the soil of Anthroposophy, of spiritual science, should be a search for truth, sincere through and through. It is therefore something which, as the Catholic Church is well aware, penetrates behind the scenes, to what must not be discovered if that church is to maintain the dominion in the world to which she lays claim."

Rudolf Steiner himself - can, however, without much doubt be said to have ended with doing the same - replacing J. Krishnamurti's name with his own. The big central difference, as I see it, being that the Constitution of the Athroposophical Society was Sectarian biased in its content and directly turned R. Steiner into THE Guru among Guru's. Just read the present day Constitution of the Athroposophical Society:

The Statutes of the Anthoposophical Society

Principles of the Anthroposophical Society

The End of the Farces:

How to end tha Farce or Farces?

Now I claim that to end this farce or these farces - one will have to realise that in these decades and years of 1878 to 1934 (for instance - or perhaps even the years 1875-2012) the Science of Psychology was in its infancy in the Western countries and in many other illitterate countries as well.

AND, - one will then, after that, have to realise that the Psychological Science - known as the Science on Subtle Mind Control - is central to the problems which has occurred in the past decades of the existence of the Theosophical Society. 

Is this not true and very central even today year 2012....?

Science is not belief.


"A short definition of the science on Subtle Mind Control.

The science on Subtle Mind Control is shortly formulated the science on the

aspect of the use of Subtle Mind Control in religious organisations, and other

organisations by a leader or a group of leaders, and its damaging results and

how to avoid them. The science on Subtle Mind Control is about when Subtle Mind

Control is used by a leader or a group of leaders in organisations, especially

here a religious organisations on behalf of members in such an organisation. And

with regard to religious organisations when such a leader or leaders use it

while they in more or less subtle manner install fear, phobia or phobias,

psychological blockages or condition various members of their organisation

through the promotion of a religious doctrine. The science on Subtle Mind

Control is also called Coercive Persuasion, Thought Reform, and other names or

terms. The last two terms can also be used when one like to expand the

definition to cover the science about Brain-Washing and the use of violence, not

only with regard to religious organisations but all kinds of interactions

between human beings and life. This is the central formulation and definition of

the science on Subtle Mind Control, although there are other aspects to it. Here

my focus is on the religious organisations and New Age organisations and groups.

More detailed info follows later in the below." (From Part 2) (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3)


Sometimes I wonder what the MAIN key obstacle to Christianity is?

And is this MAIN key obstacle to Christianity - the MAIN Karmic problem on this planet? If so, the it must be very important!

Is it the authoritarian use of Christian Dogma and what I call "Subtle Mind Control" ?

(See for instance books by Steve Hassan, William Sargant, Kurt Lewin anf even Maragareth Singer and of course others) 

Or is it the fact that people - as in many kinds of religions - simply - perhaps often out of fear and ignorance - do what the poster by Fox Mulder in the X-Files so very much distinguish it self with: "I WANT TO BELIEVE!" (In contrast to I WANT TO KNOW!)

Here we have to poster I Want to believe - A central symbol on the X-Files series and in fact a Symbol on all the UFO-hullabaloo and noice:

Or is it simply a lack of a philosophical mind - or - just psychological problems?

M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Ramanujachary nallanchakravarti 

To: Theos-talk 

Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 6:38 AM

Subject: theos-talk Arya Samaj and The TS-6

Arya Samaj -6It is a

misconception that we accept as members Muslims, Jains and others who have not

yet got rid of hatred and contempt. We

never accepted those who do not clearly declare that they will allow all men to

worship according to their convictions and will treat them as brothers just as

they do their co-religionists. It is true that very few Muslims and Christians

have joined the TS, just as few people have joined the AS.

My personal

religious or, as you may say, irreligious views have nothing to do with the TS,

for I never ask anyone to accept my views. As I have said above, our Society is

neither a religious or a communal body.

We have proved

our devotion to you by affiliating the branches of our society to the AS and

made you the Supreme Head of it. The AS has done nothing in return, but you now

openly preach against the TS and say it is a hostile body, which it is not. I

fully believe that I have answered all your objections and express my sincere

desire that friendly relations may subsist between you and us. 

If you so desire

we will, beginning with this year, remove your name from our papers and rules

as the Supreme Head of the TS of the As, and notify to our friends in England

and America that you do not wish to remain such Supreme Head. But I shall not

do that till you tell this to me in writing.

Swamiji made a reply to this

letter in his one dated 17 March 1881 wherein he says:

If you have not

changed your opinion, then you must have concealed it. I know it as a fact that

when you talked to Mulji Thakersay, you did believe in God, but you did in Meerut shows that the fact

is quite the contrary. 

The AS believes

in the Vedas. There is no change in its aims. Brotherhood, which is your chief

ideal, can not be achieved in practice, so long as religious prejudice and

hatred do not completely disappear.

The object of

the diploma was only that the TS wished to become a branch of AS. As that thing is no longer so, what is the

use of talking about it? Moreover, I

simply acknowledged receipt of the diploma but I did not accept your


I do not wish to

found a new religion. I only preach the eternal Vedic Faith. -- I do not care

for any position except that of a preacher. You mention me sometimes as a

member, sometimes as something else. I do not want any credit or praise. What I

want is itself is a great thing and I hope my work may be successful by God's


" One of the Hindu

Founders of the Parent Theosophical Society " in his observations on the

contradictions found in the articles published in The Arya, Pandit Dayanand's

organ in April and May 1882, comments thus, after bringing out the

inconsistencies made therein:

This very same

Wisdom-Religion, and none other, they (TS) are professing now, in 1882.

Certainly the friends of the TS are indebted to the Swami for proving by the

publication of the President-Founder's and other letters to him of the year

1878, how identical are the Founders' views at that period with those they are

confessing today. And, if one chose to go back even of the Society's

foundation, the exposition of the Esoteric Doctrine, or "Wisdom-Religion"

of antiquity, which is made in Isis

Unveiled -began prior to that foundation- will be found to differ, in no

substantial respect, from the exposition that Colonel Olcott has made in all

his addresses throughout the annual tour from which he has not yet returned to

head-quarters. When it is PROVED to them

that (a) Swami Dayanad Saraswati's

interpretations of the Vedas contain that very "Wisdom-Religion"; (b)

that from the time of his publication of his first work on the religion of the

Vedas, and his exegesis of its secret meanings, he has never contradicted

himself upon any point; and (c) that from the first pages of his Sathyartha Prakasika - his Yajurveda Bhashya, &c., down to the

last page of the latest issue of his Veda

Bhashya - he teaches an identical

doctrine, then will it be time to expect the Theosophists, to be his disciples

- as upon original misconceptions they were ready to be - and accept their

teachings from no other "Maha Muni." --- During the last year(1881) from April to December, Colonel Olcott was

at Ceylon, and therefore, could not have been at Meerut. It was in September

1880, - more than 20 months ago - that the Pandit Dayanand Saraswati was told

plainly the truth (as he had been told before, and even written to, from America,

when the Society had at last learnt what kind of God was the Iswar preached by him) - to wit; that

the Founders neither then believed, nor ever had believed, in a personal God. the Swami, though himself denying most

emphatically his belief in a personal deity, (the witnesses of the Founders are

two English theosophists who talked with him at Benares),

nevertheless endows his "Iswar" with all the finite attributes of the

Jewish Jehovah. But why should the

learned Swami have waited for over twenty

months before protesting?- - - The Founders - as the whole public have

known for seven years - firmly believe in Karma,

which is but another name for that mysterious law of Absolute Justice which

punishes sin and rewards virtue. But

they refuse belief in a personal God,

whose sole occupation seems to be to keep himself 'happy' and 'joyous'. With

"Karma" as an active principle, and the term 'evolution' instead of

'creation' used, the "Eternal Divine Essence," which Colonel Olcott

speaks of, in his letter of June 5, 1878, when he commits the error of

mistaking Swamiji's "Iswar" - as depicted to him by Swami's followers

- for that "Essence" or PARABRAHM - becomes necessarily an impersonal Deity. The Founders maintain that they do believe in the very Divine PRINCIPLE

taught in the Vedas; in that Principle

which is described at the outset in the Rigveda Samhita - which is

"neither entity nor non-entity," but an ABSTRACT ENTITY, which is no

entity, liable to be described by either words or attributes. And as they entirely fail to recognize this

eternal, All-Pervading Principle in the "Iswar" of the arya Samajists

- they run away from it. The Swami knew their profession of faith since January

1878. Again, I ask, why did he wait to

protest for over three years, and never said anything at that time?---- 

I assert that

the PARABRAHM of the Vedanthins and the "Adi_Buddha" of the northern

Buddhists are identical. Both are Abstract Principles, or non-entities;

Makita and Nirvana being their immutable states; hence the re-absorption of the

human spark of Parabrahm or

Adi-Buddha - called the vulgar "soul" - into the Parent Flame whence

it proceeded - an end so eagerly sought for, under the synonymous terms of

"Moksha" and "Nirvana".- --- I close. The various and many accusations

against the Founders contained in the Arya will be contradicted officially, and upon documentary

evidence, and proven utterly false, in the July number of this journal, should

the President-Founder reach Bombay

in time. Otherwise in the following number."

Literature is for Portrayal of Philosophic Ideas.

Dr N C Ramanujachary(Srivirinchi)

Besant Gardens, The Theosophical Society, Adyar, Chennai 600 020 

Phone: 044/24913584, Mobile: 9444963584

[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