Re: [!! SPAM] theos-talk Another episode of intolerance on theos.net
Nov 10, 2012 05:17 AM
by M. Sufilight
My views are:
The following are merely my views...I might be wrong I might be right...
I write the words so seeking to promote altruism.
Yes. I agree that there is a problem. And I will in the following seek to show where the at least one central difference between the forum in mention and the Original Non-sectarian Theosophical Society is.
Interestingly we find the following view on what Theosophy actually is...
WHAT IS THEOSOPHY?
"Theosophy is the exact science of psychology"
(The Theosophist, Vol. I, 1879).
And therefore also the exact Science of Anti-Cult Psychology. (A science, not a belief)
Since the Science of Psychology is relatively new, at least in Westernized countries, we also say the same about Anti-Cult Psychology.
Anti-Cult Psychology is for instance in part mentioned here, where the so-called "secular opposition" has my primary interest for the time being: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-cult_movement
There are many views on what Anti-Cult Psychology is, and I do of course not agree on all of them, and most people do neither.
More effort on telling people about these issues might be helpful. Well at least to some.
What definition of "Theosophy" has the forum in mention actually forwarded? A prejudiced one like mentioned by Blavatsky in the below quotes and article?
These are however just my views and questions...
Now a more enhanced version follows, which one might skip if one find it too long to read....smile...
--- THE ORIGINAL STANCE on what the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY with Freedom of Thought intended is given in central parts here --- :
PHILOSOPHERS AND PHILOSOPHICULES by Blavatsky, 1889:
"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."
"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! "
M. Sufilight says:
And since H. P. Blavatsky the Co-founder of the Theosophical Society almost gave up in dispair in the year 1889, because of prejudice against Theosophy, it seems that there was and still is - a wide gap - between those who understand the original intention with the ORIGINAL Theosophical Society as an unsectarian organization - and - as a Society DISALLOWING Members, Administrator and members of the Counsil to advance ANY doctrinas on behalf of the Society. (Add also this: "Church organizations, Christian and Spiritual sects were shown as the future contrasts to our Society." - by Co-Founder H. P. Blavatsky on the Original Programe for The Theosophical Society. BCW, Vol. VII, p. 146.)
The Original Programe of the Theosophical Society is given in january 1891 before H. P. Blavatsky died:
"CONSTITUTION AND RULES OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY""ARTICLE XIII
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 doctrinas being that advanced, or advocated by the Society. "
M. Sufilight says:
A man some call Jesus is given to have said something like:
What good do you do if you only do good to those who agree with you on all and everything?
(See also Luke chapter 6, v. 33)
So it centrally seem to boil down to the fact that some have difficulties in promoting and promulgating altruism - when being a Sect (Ie. with self-elected sensorship moderators who are intolerant and call it altruism). And also when seeking to be Non-Sectarian - because of prejudice or even ignorance about the Non-Sectarian concept - and - what it really entails.
When the Non-Sectarian concept is understood as something being IN CONTRAST to the normal Sectarian concept, then one might become member of a Non-Sectarian organization or forum. And, because the Non-Sectarian concept is not being understood easily - some seek to promote it in various different ways. But for them to succeed in their aim and object - they not unlikely will have to do a strong and clearly visible effort in forwarding the concept so it is being understood - and - not misunderstood by the before mentioned prevalent prejudice - as well as - the prevalent habit of considering all organizations to be sectarian one way or the other.
So we aught to avoid being intolerant - even if there of course are limits to what a forum or an organization aught to allow when seeking to prmulgate altruism.
H. P. Blavatsky wrote about the original intention of The Theosophical Society in the early years:
"(1) The Founders had to exercise all their influence to oppose selfishness of any kind, by insisting upon sincere, fraternal feelings among the Members-at least outwardly; working for it to bring about a spirit of unity and harmony, the great diversity of creeds notwithstanding; expecting and demanding from the Fellows, a great mutual toleration and charity for each other's shortcomings; mutual help in the research of truths in every domain-moral or physical-and even, in daily life. "
"(2) They had to oppose in the strongest manner possible anything approaching dogmatic faith and fanaticism-belief in the infallibility of the Masters, or even in the very existence of our invisible Teachers, having to be checked from the first. On the other hand, as a great respect for the private views and creeds of every member was demanded, any Fellow criticising the faith or belief of another Fellow, hurting his feelings, or showing a reprehensible self-assertion, unasked (mutual friendly advices were a duty unless declined)-such a member incurred expulsion. The greatest spirit of free research untrammelled by anyone or anything, had to be encouraged."
M. Sufilight says:
When we in the above experience a lack of this: "great respect for the private views and creeds of every member was demanded" - then we can safely conclude a deviation from the original programe has occurred.
This intolerance and lack of respect seem to be central to great many deviations and splits within the theosophical groups and organizations through the decades and also in this decade with forums etc., etc.
It is, it seems, the most thin-skinned members who not seldom are the most intolerant and less compassionate of the members in a given group.
IS DENUNCIATION A DUTY?
" We denounce indignantly systems and organisations, evils, social and religious-cant above all: we abstain from denouncing persons. The latter are the children of their century, the victims of their environment and of the Spirit of the Age. To condemn and dishonour a man instead of pitying and trying to help him, because, being born in a community of lepers he is a leper himself, is like cursing a room because it is dark, instead of quietly lighting a candle to disperse the gloom."
"Hence, we denounce these communities, not their units; we point out the rottenness of our boasted civilisation, indicate the pernicious systems of education which lead to it, and show the fatal effects of these on the masses. Nor are we more partial to ourselves. Ready to lay down our life any day for THEOSOPHY-that great cause of the Universal Brotherhood for which we live and breathe-and willing to shield, if need be, every true theosophist with our own body, we yet denounce as openly and as virulently the distortion of the original lines upon which the Theosophical Society was primarily built, and the gradual loosening and undermining of the original system by the sophistry of many of its highest officers. "
"No honest man, still less a theosophist, can disregard these lines of Horace:
"He that shall rail against his absent friends,
Or hears them scandalised, and not defends
Tells tales, and brings his friend in disesteem;
That man's a KNAVE-be sure beware of him." *
Yet, errare humanum est. (Humans fail.)
These are however just my views...
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 12:54 PM
Subject: [!! SPAM] theos-talk Another episode of intolerance on theos.net
I'm sure I'm not the first one to complain, but once again theos.net has proved that freedom of thought and speech is not something that its administrators appreciate.
One user accused them of not being fond of Blavatsky,
a remark which they didn´t like and in reply wrote:
"First of all, there is a very blatant misstatement at the beginning. Nobody on the board or on the moderating team have anything against HPB. In fact most of us have been students of hers for a very long time.
Read this carefully and understand it well. IT IS HER FOLLOWERS.
It is the followers who have bankrupt imaginations which are obsessed with the Secret Doctrine and other of Blavatsky's books, as if they are the only source of enlightenment. It is the inability to move out of the 19th Century and apply the wisdom not only to today's world, but tomorrow's too. It is the insistence on a complete and total belief in her unseen masters which poisons all creativity and productive effort in the present."
I found this to be completely off the mark and replied:
"To blame HPB "followers" is absolutely ridiculous.
Who accused Blavatsky of "magical thinking" or "of being a mixed bag"? Certainly not her "followers".
Who brought here half truths and innuendos about HPB? Certainly not her "followers".
Who suggested that some of her claims, like the existence of Masters, were nonsense? Certainly not her "followers"
etc, etc. (it's a bit long, but nothing of what I wrote can be considered impolite).
My reply was erased and my account was suspended.
Joe Fulton sent me a message but since I was banned I can´t read it in full!
It starts like this:
This is our site and we have a point of view. This is not an open forum for any person to post anything as they see fit. We have made our position extremely clear as to who we are an..."
I sure would like to finish that sentence.
So, having a point of view means not accepting other people's opinions.
Well, isn´t this the way that dictatorships work?
No wonder that almost everyone that studies modern Theosophy has already left theos.net.
It's a pity watching old folks behaving like elementary school bullies.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application