Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: theos-talk Re: Non-Sectarianism??

Expand Messages
  • Cass Silva
    Altruism engendered by the lower mind and energized by the lower devotion is not true altruism. The mind free from attacks of kama is energized by the
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 18, 2012
      Altruism engendered by the lower mind and energized by the lower devotion is not true altruism.

      The mind free from attacks of kama is energized by the compassionate reason or Buddhi, and thus wedded is ensouled by the Self of Creative-Power, which is the true doer of deeds. Then comes into manifestation the higher altruism in which charity is just and not merely kind, altruism which enables man to discard the crutch of dependence and to stand on his own feet in self-trust. HPB

      Cass



      >________________________________
      > From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@...>
      >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      >Sent: Thursday, 19 January 2012 3:58 AM
      >Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: Non-Sectarianism??
      >
      >

      >Dear Mark Jaqua and friends
      >
      >My views are:
      >
      >You wrote:
      >"Well, Morten, Just more of your multi-page BS, and the "same ol', same ol'" fog screen and dissimuilation (which is a psychological term also, I see, as well as referring to arguement-style), and avoiding main points."
      >
      >M. Sufilight says:
      >Lets keep a civil tone of voice.
      >I am open-minded on the idea that you might be able to learn me something - provided that you are able to forward some examples that will make your view solid. And not only assertions.
      >
      >You wrote:
      >"I forgot to add, among the other ignored points, that your ersatz "non-sectarian" stance is anti-Discrimination - Discrimination being perhaps the greatest developed attribute for the spiritual path - and productive of the same type of paralysis of the reason, discrimination, that I've seen in the Alice Bailey writing style and books."
      >
      >M. Sufilight says:
      >I am not sure I understand what you are actually saying here. I am open-minded on the idea that you might be able to learn me something - provided that you are able to forward some examples that will make your view solid. And not only assertions.
      >
      >You wrote:
      >"I identify with Blavatsky Theosophy, and consider you an enemy of this view, or rather Know it."
      >
      >M. Sufilight says:
      >I am open-minded on the idea that you might be able to learn me something - provided that you are able to forward some examples that will make your view solid. And not only assertions.
      >
      >You wrote:
      >Oh.... I am not your "friend."
      >
      >M. Sufilight says:
      >And you seek to promote altruism?
      >
      >I hold it to be true, that an open-minded, well-intentioned and well-meaning person with regard to Blavatsky's theosophy - hardly - can be called a direct enemy of Blavatsky theosophy. Try to ask other members of Theos-talk forum who has been here for 10 years or more whether I am in opposition to Blavatsky or whether I seek to promulgate her teachings. I think they will agree that I in fact seek to promote Blavatsky's teachings - above and before - many other teachings; - to the best of my ability of course. - As I see it: One thing is my personal views - another is my organisational views.
      >
      >Here is my private website - with my own personal views (not the organisational views):
      >(I have, for instance, on it the first full translation of the Key to Theosophy, 2. ed. 1890, - in the Danish Language - frrely available.)
      >http://www.global-theosophy.net/
      >Here is the forum I have created - based on the Original Programe for the Theosophical Society given in 1875-1891.
      >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk-heart/
      >
      >Maybe we just will have to agree on disagreeing, well perhaps even it only is - apparently.
      >
      >M. Sufilight
      >
      >----- Original Message -----
      >From: Mark Jaqua
      >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      >Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:14 PM
      >Subject: theos-talk Re: Non-Sectarianism??
      >
      >Well, Morten, Just more of your multi-page BS, and the "same ol', same ol'" fog screen and dissimuilation (which is a psychological term also, I see, as well as referring to arguement-style), and avoiding main points.
      >I forgot to add, among the other ignored points, that your ersatz "non-sectarian" stance is anti-Discrimination - Discrimination being perhaps the greatest developed attribute for the spiritual path - and productive of the same type of paralysis of the reason, discrimination, that I've seen in the Alice Bailey writing style and books.
      >I identify with Blavatsky Theosophy, and consider you an enemy of this view, or rather Know it.
      >You disagree with all my viewpoints, or ignore them, and I hope I have nothing else to add.
      >Oh.... I am not your "friend."
      >
      >- jake j.
      >
      >---------------------
      >>1c. Re: Non-Sectarianism??
      >Posted by: "M. Sufilight" global-theosophy@... kidhr7
      >Date: Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:44 am ((PST))
      >
      >>Dear Mark and friends
      >
      >>My views are:
      >
      >>Aah come on Mark Jaqua....lighten up...
      >I am a bit sad to read your post.
      >When I read it I think there has occurred a huge misunderstanding with regard to absorb what I actually intend with what I am writing.
      >
      >>To me it is just Another directly personal attack on me here at Theos-talk.
      >We are almost getting to a time where I am beginning to ask you whether you can buy me a tree - so you can hang me on it like they did with another man a few thousand years ago?
      >
      >>But the indefatigable fool I am - I will seek to write you an answer - using time so to clearly avoid any confusions about where I stand in all this...
      >
      >>Mark Jaqua wrote:
      >"I find you just dishonest** in your arguements, and lacking in substance"
      >
      >>M. Sufilight says:
      >I beg you pardon?
      >In what sense am I dishonest? What do you know about my intentions with what I write? Nothing?
      >Please provide example in the name of compassion instead of merely barking at me.
      >
      >>1) I have thousands of times said - that the views I forward are merely my own views. I have written this in almost all my latest 100 posts and even for years at this forum - and do it especially so to avoid being attacked with being a fanatic - which I am not. I am a willing listener and Open-Minded. And I do hope others will respect that. And I do also ask questions.
      >>2) If I by accident ignore questions or ignore original points - then please tell me about it - clearly showing me what I have ignored. Else I cannot help any of you. And after all we are here to help each other. Are we not?
      >Calling this dishonest you may - but really Mark Jaqua - where did you get the idea from that I am not well-intentioned?
      >>3) I have many times clearly said I am seeking to promote Altruism - through a non-sectarian organisational frame - (without self-elected leaders dragging their doctrine down on other ordinary members) - where each member can have their own sectarian views - (all humans have in fact) - with freedom of thought - and where members can avoid being coerced into a more or less sectarian view of some - self-elected "Eminent" - leaders or group of leaders choices. And I have also said that I myself personally - both spiritually and scientifically - agree with a lot on what H. P. Blavatsky wrote - and especially the words in the Secret Doctrine. But these are merely my personal views - and - why should I not keep and Open Mind and promote a non-Sectarian exchange on how to promote Altruism.
      >>--- Of course one aught to see Blavatsky writings in context and relate it to our present day. The Nebular theory mentioned by Blavatsky - through more than 100 pages in the Secret Doctrine - is for instance not gone more than 120 years later. (Just see Wikipedia on this.) This despite Blavatsky's and some 19th century scientists effort on putting it where it belongs. But I am not only considering Blavatasky's teachings these days. I am interested in a number of authors within the science on Psychology - because I like the study of science. The synthesis of science, philosophy and religion - wisdom teaching - as I see it. - I certainly respect other teachers views and their intend to promote altruism - but when they fail seen from my perspective - I think it fair to tell others about it.
      >4)
      >>Mark Jaqua wrote:
      >"Your ghost-viewpoint of "total non-sectarianism" does not exist in the real world, and anyone truly trying to instigate it would be a _Monster_ without a soul, with no genuine viewpoints or principles of his own, but persuing some vague ego-born goal."
      >
      >>M. Sufilight says:
      >Can you prove it?
      >>-Since the Theosophical Society originally was Absolutely Non-Sectarian as mentioned in the Constitution and Rules of the Society in 1875-1891 - I see no problems with that. - You are in fact in the above saying that the Theosophical Society as it originally was created - is false and fake. Or else I misunderstand you.
      >
      >>The Non-sectarian issue - is as I see it not understood by you. If you understand the difference between an Absolutely Non-Sectarian organisation - and - an Sectarian one ---- I think you will agee that the non-sectarian one easily can have study groups dealing with a subject the members of the given group prefer to contemplate and learn about. ---- What In am saying is that a non-sectarian theosophical organisation - is something the Boston Theosophical organisation for some years sought to promote - and in fact had success in doing very much if I am not mistaken - well as far as I have learned about it. --- Some years ago I rejected their organisational view - but I have since then learned that I was wrong. And I regret my mistake. - Because to promote an Absolutely non-sectarian organisation - where various doctrines can be compared and exchanged upon - and learned about must be better than a Sectarian one - especially if you want to promote
      Altruism - wholeheartedly and sincere - and agree that psychological change will occur when promoting Altruism - and that Subtle Mind Control aught to be avoided. Do you understand the term "Subtle Mind Control"? (See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/57019 - Part 1 to 3, - 11th and 13th of November, 2011.)
      >Those who want their Sect or sectarian Guru - and find Sectarian altruism to be altruism - they have something - as I see it - else to do first - and - I am unable to help them with my view - at least until they become more Open-Minded. - A non-Sectarian organisation will of course be for everyone - because not all persons would like to promote Altruism Wholeheartedly. You may seek to prove me wrong, but this is my view on it.
      >
      >>Mark Jaqua wrote:
      >"For instance, in HPB's day Spiritualism was a large sect, with a large portion of its members believing astral shells and bhuts were "spirit guides" and inviting their presence and even obsession, and developing mediumship. In Blavatsky Theosophy this philosophy is regarded as extremely harmful and productive of assured future suffering in whatever individual adapts it. You would have in the name of "total non-sectarianism" the Theosophical Society and "The Theosophist" be a vehicle for the promotion of such views (which Blavatsky devoted a book-worth of material disputing) and thus a vehicle of producing suffering. Anyone knowing the truth of the matter would be a _Monster_ to promote such teachings in the name of an ersatz "non-sectarianism," if he is convinced he knows better. Are you such a monster? Other similarly harmful doctrines would apply today."
      >
      >>M. Sufilight says:
      >You misunderstand very much my intentions as far as I read your words in the above.
      >Blavatsky theosophy was only a part of the Original Programe of the Theosophical Society. And what I am at is a more open Society like in 1875-1891 - merely adding - that the times are different - and that the Science on Psychology today 120 years later is recognized in humanity - and that this science - actually - on Psychological Change need to be added to the organisational Objects.
      >The Theosophical Society in 1875-1891 - was as said in its Constitution and Rules Absoluetely Non-Sectarian (See here: http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm)
      >
      >>So the answer is of course No in various respects.
      >Spiritualism is not be a part of my own agenda - simply because of the Altruistic and non-sectarian aims I seek to promote. This is my just personal view. --- Now the organisational view: People might study Spiritualism within the Society I consider - and compare it with other ideologies. - But to promote Spiritualism as a take over idea - and as a consequence thereof - go and remove the Non-sectarian organisational frame - I will not agree upon myself - unless I can be proven wrong on this same frames value. And that is the difference: No leaders or teacher are allowed to promote a teaching on behalf of the members in such a Society as I am considering - and - something which in fact was stated in the Original rules for the Theosophical Society. - It is, as I se it, important to distinguish the difference between my personal view (and others) - and - organisational view with the aim of givning all their say about the meaning of life - so that we learn
      from each other - and promote altruism. - AND - if a teaching is clearly in opposition to Altruism - It can for good reasons not be accepted as given emphasis in a positive manner by members claiming they promote altruism while they with the other hand promote such a thing - within the version of a Theosophical Society I have in mind. - Spiritualism could be included - but this will have to be decided upon - within a such given non-sectarian Society. Altruism requires tolerance - if you are not tolerant - and - seek altruism Wholeheartedly - (and go and claim that you can walk on the water etc.) then a non-sectarian theosophical society is nothing for you. The Theosophical Society in Adyar in for instance selling the books by Alice A. Bailey - even when they promote political activities - and - a Savior Invocation Programe. - This is telling me that the TS is very much still a non-sectarian organisation. But as said before the TS's organisational frame
      lack - today year 2012 compared to 1875-1891 - something vital with respect to certain non-Sectarian issues mentioned earlier on by me. - But then again views differ. I am Open for suggestions.
      >
      >>THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM NON-SECTARIAN given in TS in 1890:
      >Yes. There are a lot of confusion about the term "non-sectarian" these days. It is in fact used as a buzz word by various religious groups and sects these days - so to avoid bad publicity or because they really do think that they are "Non-Sectarian" . The problem is that the term - has several different definitions - and the English language lack better words to use unless one invent new ones. And perhaps one aught to do this.
      >
      >>The term Non-Sectarian is defined in the Theosohical Society's Original Programe given in 1875-1891 - as I see it like this:
      >"The Theosophical Society is absolutely unsectarian, and no assent to any formula of belief, faith or creed shall be required as a qualification of membership; but every applicant and member must lie in sympathy with the effort to create the nucleus of an Universal Brotherhood of Humanity."
      >.......
      >>"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."
      >(The 1890 constitution and rules for TS --- http://www.teozofija.info/tsmembers/Rules_1890.htm)
      >
      >>I am saying:
      >>When you remove some of the above - you - remove the cornerstone of the Theosophical Society - and is main Object - namely - to promote Altruism (ie. the same is this phrase: To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or colour.) - These are my views - and I think with good reason - when you compare this with other more loose definitions - and - the view promoted by Exit-Counsellors - or what we call Anti-cult psychologists and their MUTUAL scientific theories on this subject. The latter today year 2012 are - interestingly - being very much in agreement with the above TS definition. At least among the most well-known and most respected within this sicentific (not belief) field.
      >
      >______________________
      >
      >>Here are my own definitions at present again - given Nov. 11th, 2011 here at Theos-talk:
      >SECT = A religious organisation or group, which has a leader or a group of
      >leaders who forwards a religious doctrine or teaching on behalf of its members.
      >A religious organisation or group which avoids emphasis on the science of Subtle
      >Mind Control. A religious organisation or group which refuse comparative
      >studying or avoids it carefully or de-emphasizes it or does not mention it all.
      >A religious organisation or group where the A religious organisation or group
      >which most often disallows criticism or do not respond to it.
      >
      >>CULT = A religious organisation or group, which has a leader or a group of
      >leaders who forwards a religious doctrine or teaching on behalf of its members.
      >A religious organisation or group which avoids emphasis on the science of Subtle
      >Mind Control. A religious organisation or group which refuse comparative
      >studying or avoids it carefully or de-emphasizes it or does not mention it all.
      >A religious organisation or group where the A religious organisation or group
      >which most often disallows criticism or do not respond to it. - The same as a
      >sect, but where the religious organisation or group much more clearly and
      >strongly destroys or hurts various individuals health and well-being
      >psychologically, mentally, or physically etc. etc.
      >
      >>DOGMA and DOGMATISM = Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a
      >religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to
      >be disputed, doubted, or diverged from. Those who forward such a teaching can be
      >called dogmatic. Condemnation or worse is a part of dogmatic teachings. Murder
      >might even be advocated to oppose those who by the leader or leaders of such a
      >religious organisation er considered enemies of it. Those who are open to other
      >views without ever using condemnation or worse, or similar even if they disagree
      >with the dogmatic views given by the religious organisation are not dogmatic.
      >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/57015
      >
      >>All the above are as said just my views. I do not claim my self infallible and are open for improvements and suggestions.
      >
      >>M. Sufilight
      >----- Original Message -----
      >> From: Mark Jaqua
      >To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
      >> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 3:59 PM
      >Subject: theos-talk Non-Sectarianism??
      >
      >> Morten,
      >> I find you just dishonest** in your arguements, and lacking in substance. You dissimulate, attack questions on minor points and ignore the original points and questions, pretend not to understand what the person states, refuse common-sense statements accepted by nearly all, and leave waves of confusion in your wake instead of answers. In responding to you, one is actually dealing with a basic psychological issue rather than a philosophic one. You have no practical viewpoints, and seem to argue against every other view.
      >> Your ghost-viewpoint of "total non-sectarianism" does not exist in the real world, and anyone truly trying to instigate it would be a _Monster_ without a soul, with no genuine viewpoints or principles of his own, but persuing some vague ego-born goal.
      >> For instance, in HPB's day Spiritualism was a large sect, with a large portion of its members believing astral shells and bhuts were "spirit guides" and inviting their presence and even obsession, and developing mediumship. In Blavatsky Theosophy this philosophy is regarded as extremely harmful and productive of assured future suffering in whatever individual adapts it. You would have in the name of "total non-sectarianism" the Theosophical Society and "The Theosophist" be a vehicle for the promotion of such views (which Blavatsky devoted a book-worth of material disputing) and thus a vehicle of producing suffering. Anyone knowing the truth of the matter would be a _Monster_ to promote such teachings in the name of an ersatz "non-sectarianism," if he is convinced he knows better. Are you such a monster? Other similarly harmful doctrines would apply today.
      >> I've noticed from time to time "Non-denominational" Churches, perhaps with a Cross on the front of them. They would call themselves "non-sectarian" among the thousand christian sects. Do they mean non-sectarian Buddhism, Hinduism, Sihkism, Jainism, Jewish ? No, they mean non-sectarian Christianity. 'Just as Blavatsky's "non-sectarianism" applied to non-sectarian theosophical field - i.e. a non-sectarian looking for the _truth_ wherever it may be found, not a non-sectarian inclusion of Everything, error included. This is the de facto non-sectarianism meant by Blavatsky, non-sectarian truth.
      >> - jake j.
      >
      >> ** dishonest - for instance, _knowing_ I am referring to "Blavatsky Theosophy," which is a specific school of thought, and refusing to acknowledge my obvious meaning, and diverting to the Vaughan universal and non-specific definition of the term.
      >
      >----------------
      >
      >[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]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.