Theos-Talk Archives (January 1998 Message tl00114)

Here is an interesting exchange of msgs.

First one is what I posted in response to
Bro. Bart's post. This was posted to theos-l.

Second one is a e-mail I received from
Bro. Bart and my response. I have told
him that I am posting it.

I leave it the subscribers to draw their
own conclusions on the whole correspondence.

MKR

PS: Bart should be commended for his response.
It is perhaps the best written response I
have seen among his posts on Internet

IMHO: It is an unusually scholarly, very well
structured and the diction, style, punctuation,
show an extra-ordinary command of and
facility with the English language. The ease
with which most appropriate vocabulary, phrases
and clauses have been used is also outstanding.
I am sure many will agree with me.

I am curious to find out if he received any help (small or big),
any discussion or contribution whatsoever in any
shape or form by way of tips, ideas, suggestions,
any drafting, editing help etc. from anyone
directly or indirectly connected or unconnected with TS (Adyar)
(member/officer or not). I would like a simple
response from him.

If anyone else is involved in any manner whatsoever
(whether described above or not), would he tell us
who they are and what they contributed (however
remote or indirect or insignificant) as it would
be of some interest to some here.

Again no one should be afraid of facts and truth.

M K Ramadoss

There is No Religion Higher Than Truth

>Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 23:39:33 -0500 (EST)
>From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
>Subject: Re: The Esoteric School

At 07:04 PM 1/20/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>In message <34C43967.853FF81F@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky
><bartl@sprynet.com> writes
>>There are far too many good and
>>honorable people in the E.S. to allow any conspiracy that violates the very
>>rules of the E.S. to remain a secret.
>
>For what do they need secrets in the first place, given the objects of the
>T.S.?  Are you a member?
>
>It is difficult not to wonder if there may not be bad and dishonorable
>people in the E.S. - how would anyone know?  Would the goodies tell
>on them?  Would the goodies even know there are baddies?  There is
>at least ONE - this I know from personal experience. Unfortunately,
>owing to the lack of documentary or other proof, I could only expose
>myself to further attack(s) from the same quarter.  I very much doubt if I
>am alone in this - anyone else had similar experience?
>
>Alan

There are strange people - I would not go so far to say dishonorable people
every where. And ES is no exception.

I had known a man who was a member of one of the lodges who was in TS, ES,
Co-Masonic org. He had perhaps reached top levels of these and had for
years lived at Adyar HQ, the heart of the TS.

Hoping some of the spirit of Brotherhood would have osmosed into him with
his long exposure to Theosophy (and ES, Co-Masonic), I wanted to visit with
him to discuss an issue in which I thought he may be of some help to me.
(Every time our then International President Mr. N. Sri Ram showed up for
lecture at the Lodge, he was always in the front row looking like a sage
and devoted member of TS.

When I called him told him that I would like to visit with him, he told me
in unmistakable terms that he did not want to see me. So much for the
professed Brotherhood and practical Brotherhood.   This goes to show that
with all the external opportunities, some don't get it. This took place
over two decades ago in India.

mkr
========================================
Bart's e-mail msg to M K Ramadoss

At 11:35 AM 1/22/1998 +0000, you wrote:
>> From:          M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
>>
>> When I called him told him that I would like to visit with him, he told me
>> in unmistakable terms that he did not want to see me. So much for the
>> professed Brotherhood and practical Brotherhood.   This goes to show that
>> with all the external opportunities, some don't get it. This took place
>> over two decades ago in India.
>
>	The so-called Golden Rule is in virtually all of the world's
>religions. It has been said that the Theosophical version of the
>Golden Rule is, "What you do to others, you are doing to yourself,
>and what you do to yourself, you are doing to others". I am keeping
>this very much in mind with what I am about to say to you, and I hope
>you take it in the spirit of Brotherhood in which I give it.
>
>	From my knowledge of you, you are an extremely dedicated
>Theosophist. You certainly appear to believe to have the good of
>humanity, and at least the good of the Society, as your primary
>intent. I also would rather have you as part of the Theosophical
>Society than not part.
>
>	There is, however, a type of selfishness that the Mahatmas warned
>against, which people who are well along the "path" are especially
>prone. It is when the person gains a belief that the person is the
>only one who can solve the world's problems, and therefore that
>person needs to have the information and authority necessary for the
>task. Although there are many paths to the same place (or even no
>paths at all, as Krishnamurti felt), someone afflicted with that type
>of selfishness has a tendency to believe that one's own path is
>somehow the best, or even the only one. When a person acts on that
>belief, even though they feel their motives are pure, they tend to
>become something of a pain in the ass. It becomes especially
>difficult to deal with someone like this, because one is looking for
>the same goal as they are, but one realizes that to help this person
>in their goal is act as an enabler, and blocks their growth, as well
>as the growth of humanity.
>
>	To all appearances, you are afflicted with that sort of selfishness.
>You frequently wish people to go through a great deal of trouble to
>furnish you with means to do something, without explaining what you
>plan to do with these means, and get upset when they are not willing
>to put out the effort, and act as if their refusal is a crime against
>humanity. The person who refused to see you may very well be
>practising Brotherhood; he may have hoped that you would ask yourself
>WHY he would not see you, rather than consider a personal affront to
>be an affront against humanity. If you can see this, it is my
>personal belief that your value to humanity will also be greatly
>increased.
>
>	Once again, I hope that you take this in the same spirit in which it
>was intended, and, should our positions be reversed, that you give me
>the same consideration I given you, and be straight with me even
>though it might hurt my feelings.
>
>Bart Lidofsky
>

MKR Response to Bart:
====================

Thanks for your response.
My response is very simple.
I call the issues as I see it, no matter how anyone else sees my call.

mkr
===============end of msg ==============================