Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by M. Sufilight on August 8, 2009 at 10:32am

Dear K. Paul Johnson

My views are:

Paul wrote:
"Same is true in my experience with Theosophy, but the big difference is how much arrogance, aggression, dogmatism Theosophists have demonstrated online over the years compared to ARE folks."

M. Sufilight says:
You know me Paul, because we have e-mailed with each other earliere on.

Is it not true, that such words coming from you, who are the author behind books in clear opposition to the theosophical teachings, are just one more unjustified attack on the theosophical teachings?

I would say, that the word "Theosophist" have at least two definitions to it. There are those who call themselves Theosophists, just because they are members of the Theosophical Society or one of its off-shoot branches. And there are those, who call themselves Theosophists, because they have learned the difference between prejudice, mere beliefs and actual knowledge and who shows high levels compassion.

It is very important to understand that there is a huge difference between the members of the Theosophical Society today - and the Society as such within its original founders Program in the years 1875-1891.

H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
"Too many already wear their faith, truly, as Shakespeare puts it, "but as the fashion of his hat," ever changing "with the next block." Moreover, the very raison d'être of the Theosophical Society was, from its beginning, to utter a loud protest and lead an open warfare against dogma or any belief based upon blind faith."
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/IsTheosophyAReligion.htm

Now I hold it to be true, that one cannot blame The Theosophical Society for attracting som many of its most staunch enemies.
I ask: Do you not agree on this?

So picturing The Theosophical Society or its offshoot branches as merely a society filled with "arrogance, aggression, dogmatism" can hardly be the true picture, when we consider the many esoterical and unofficial Esoteric Section groups attached to various Theosophical Societies.
I ask: Or are you claiming that they also are filled with "arrogance, aggression, dogmatism"?


These were my views and questions.
Silence is also an answer.

M. Sufilight

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M. Sufilight on August 8, 2009 at 2:49pm

Dear K. Paul Johnson

My views are:

Please do not overreact. I only stated my views, I might be wrong.

I protested and protest because, first you start of by labelling or attacking the Theosophists of today with: "much arrogance, aggression, dogmatism Theosophists have demonstrated online over the years compared to ARE folks."

Now you quite unjustly attacks me because I asked you some questions about your activities and your labelling the Theosophists (and thereby indirectly the Theosophical Society and all related branches) as being cults.

How can you except a theosophist like me to sit back without raising some kind of protest?


Paul wrote:
"that the books I'm most interested in spiritually are just as Theosophical as yours,"

M. Sufilight says:
And what books promulgate theosophy may I in all friendliness ask?
Certainly not those who smears the theosophical teachings of all ages!

A part of the theosophical teaching is to exchange different ideological views in a search for the TRUTH about life, and not only to present a one-sided view, which clearly simply constitutes and attack and smearing of Theosophists around the world.

If you want to communicate with Theosophists at a Theosophical forum you cannot expect to only hear your own voice and the sound of one hand clapping, as Zen Buddhists says. But, maybe I have misunderstood you. If so I will of course take it back.

I will in all friendliness ask you, Paul, to Please read my previous post carefully. And note the question marks in it, and the questions you left unanswered.

Please try to understand, that I am merely seeking to be of service to the theosophical cause.


M. Sufilight

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Katinka Hesselink on August 8, 2009 at 3:26pm

Morton: all views about what theosophy IS are acceptable in this forum. The search for truth is more important than any one definition or interpretation of it. Paul has a view on what theosophy is, just like you do, and just like you he has a right to call that view 'theosophy'.

Nothing that can be put into words can be the ultimate truth anyhow.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M. Sufilight on August 8, 2009 at 5:29pm

Katinka:

My views are:

Katinka wrote:
"Morton: all views about what theosophy IS are acceptable in this forum."

M. Sufilight says:
Dear Katinka, I did not say the opposite as far as I know. I take it then, that we are not allowed to disagree with other members?

But aught one as a theosophist not protest against, what can be called obvious lies and an attack on the theosophical teachings themselves by a member of such a forum?

On this forums front page we have its first object:
"1) To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color."

So the best path, which this forum accepts promoted for each member on this particular forum, is to throw mud toward the Theosophists around the globe, while one is selling books which clearly throws a pile of mud (larger than the Siachen glacier) on the co-founder H. P. Blavatsky's name and reputation???

Sorry, if I sound a bit lost.
But, I think one aught to recognise the truth when it is proven.

As far as i know, the original programe of the Theosophical Society was - and hopefully still is the following:
The Original Programme of The Theosophical Society
"It was never denied that the Organization of the Theosophical Society was very imperfect. Errare humanum est. But, if it can be shown that the President has done what he could under the circumstances and in the best way he knew how—no one, least of all a theosophist, can charge him with the sins of the whole community as now done. From the founders down to the humblest member the Society is composed of imperfect mortal men—not gods. This was always claimed by its leaders. “He who feels without sin, let him cast the first stone.”
.......
"Let us not forget that Theosophy does not grow in our midst by force and control, but by the sunshine of brotherliness and the dew of self-oblivion. If we do not believe in Brotherhood and Truth, let us put ashes on our head and weep in sackcloth and not rejoice in the purple of authority and in the festive garments of pride and worldliness. Better it is by far that the name of Theosophy should never be heard than that it should be used as the motto of a papal institution."
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v7/yxxxx_019.htm

H. P. Blavatsky wrote in The Key to Theosophy:
"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 at― as it is now by those who still do not understand its real purport ― 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 ― 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.

ENQUIRER. Do you mean to tell me that it is because a few have understood what Theosophy leads to, that they try to crush the movement? But if Theosophy leads only to good, surely you cannot be prepared to utter such a terrible accusation of perfidious heartlessness and treachery even against those few?

THEOSOPHIST. I am so prepared, on the contrary. I do not call the enemies we have had to battle with during the first nine or ten years of the Society's existence either powerful or "dangerous"; but only those who have arisen against us in the last three or four years. And these neither speak, write nor preach against Theosophy, but work in silence and behind the backs of the foolish puppets who act as their visible marionnettes. Yet, if invisible to most of the members of our Society, they are well known to the true "Founders" and the protectors of our Society. But they must remain for certain reasons unnamed at present. " (The Key to Theosophy, p. 271-272)
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm

"The chief aim of the Founder of the Eclectic Theosophical School was one of the three objects of its modern successor, the Theosophical Society, namely, to reconcile all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities. "
(The Key to Theosophy, p. 4) http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm

And if this forum find unjust attacks on Theosophists around the globe to be the hallmark of Altruism, just let me know? And not to talk about inviting its worst enemies to become members, without allowing anyone to communicate with them.

- - -
I am considering leaving this place.


M. Sufilight

Permalink Reply by Kathleen Silva on August 10, 2009 at 8:50pm

Based on the criteria of the Boyd survey, it would be apparent that all established religions fit the criteria, making them cults, albeit with larger numbers. Cults draw on cultivating their own particular ideas and for the most part are distorted versions of established religious practices. Many distort the original distorted ideas to suit their own desire for personal power and historical record preying on the willless.
Cass

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Cosimano on August 15, 2009 at 1:06pm

Actually that would not be unusual in a US Theosophical public gathering and no one would think anything of it. We're pretty used to such things here and it would just be considered part of the scenery as it were.

Of course you must also remember that it is illegal for any US government agency to refer to any religious group as a cult as the law in the US is very clear, all religious belief is created equal and the government may not distinguish between them in any way (and there always lawsuits over that, usually involving prison inmates who want to sacrifice their cellmates to the orishas or some such.)

One interesting sidelight to that is that there was major kerfuffle between the US State Department and Germany a few years back when the State Department listed Germany as a country that practiced religious discrimination over its objections to the Church of Scientology.

• ▶ Reply