Re: Universal Brotherhood
Feb 12, 1998 12:35 PM
by M K Ramadoss
All you have mentioned is true. But here we are having a situation which
goes to the root of the future of TSA.
My concern about putting Brotherhood/Sisterhood/Siblinghood first and
foremost is not out of my imagination. It came about as a result of some of
the messages that AP Sinnett got from Mahatma KH and which were reiterated
and reemphasized by HPB when Sinnett harped on putting emphasis on
mysteries and phenomenon as the best way to further Theosophy to the world.
In this context he was repeatedly told that Brotherhood is the key and even
if it is just a dream, at least a noble one. I will try to get some of the
material on this issue from the ML to APS later today when I have some time.
Also if there has been a policy change in de-emphasizing Brotherhood as a
matter of official policy, then membership and public should be told so
(instead of taking an elitist hierarchical view.)
When we see membership dwindling and lodges and centers on the decline, the
issue of the primary policies/objects of TS becomes very important and can
be decisive how far the decline can take place before the TSA itself is
shutdown (as a matter of fact in the by-laws, a provision has been made to
fold all the assets into the TIT Trust which does not have to answer anyone
-- Don't we all remember what happened in the Krishnamurti Trusts until the
California Attorney General had to sue the Trustees).
At 02:24 PM 2/12/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>>The mission of TS should be presented in very simple clear cut unambiguous
>>terms that even a child can understand. Theosophy is not meant to be for
>>the scholarly elite only, it was meant for everyone. Has it reached the
>>masses? What does the facts say in this regard?
>I understand your concern regarding theosophy reaching the masses. I also
>consider that to be important. Theos-l had a discussion regarding this a
>To me, the problem is not the order of the objectives. I don't think
>changing the order would make much difference. Even the layman would love
>to learn of the mysteries. I think the most effective action is making
>areas of communication accessible to the masses. This could be done by
>distributing books geared toward the layman, perhaps books with lots of
>pictures and easy to understand writing. A good example of that would be
>the series of books on the esoteric by Thames and Hudson. Their books are
>large, with writing that would not insult the intelligence, yet would not
>be tedious for the layman, and is 50% pictures. This, I think, would be
>appealing even to a child. Perhaps someone with a good knowledge of the
>important theosophical works would be willing to simplify them and portray
>the ideas pictorially. This someone would also have to have clear and
>friendly communication skills. This condensing will not insult the
>original works. Think of these books as a bridge to deeper knowledge.
>If communication is done via the internet, the discussions should also
>allow for simple and naive inquiries, and even crassness. The response
>should be tolerant, kind, helpful, and related to the tone of the writer.
>The layman could be uneducated or could be working on a doctorate. Respond
>in a way that the questioner would understand, but do not insult the
>intelligence of the writer. And, my personal preference, a few jokes and
>poetry makes the environment more pleasant.
>Doss, consider that the "scholarly elite" were laymen who have crossed the
>first bridge and wants to continue crossing more bridges. There are places
>for them, too. The only thing is that, as people further in their search,
>they should not forget to walk back to the first bridge once in a while and
>assist the new ones over.
>The best way to reach people is through communication and acceptance.
>Accept them where they are at, and work with them from their strength. If
>you want to push people away, then tell them that they are not good enough
>where they are, and that they should be ashamed of themselves. Why not
>give constructive ideas without pinpointing blames, or blanket categorizing
>people? You can influence friends, but you can't influence enemies.
>Actually, you can influence your enemies, but that would be the strategy of
>war. Doss, since you follow ahimsa, I don't think you want to do that. :o)
>Make friends first, see what they are about, let them know what you are
>about, let them see what you are passionate about, and positively glow
>about your passion. In that way, you can be persuasive and charismatic.
>Believe me, I know it works. When people like you, they are more than
>willing to do whatever they can for you. This is from my personal
>observation from former workplaces, and from extracurricular activities. I
>am not the type to take advantage of it, perhaps that is a part of it. I
>did notice that when I make a suggestion of change because I cared, people
>are quick to respond. And sometimes people goes above and beyond my
>request. All this surprised me.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application