Re: The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett (Reading Group)
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:30 pm
On commenting the content of the letter (II) in general, I'd like to make a few points, even though I agree with much already said by fra obnoxion and others.
From what I'd gathered from KH's words was that, in addition to the ethical question that fra obnoxion already pointed out, another key figure behind the motive of the aspirant is intention. This has been emphasized over and over again in the philosophy of the SoA as well. If intention is unclean, or selfish as presented here, the outcome can not become ethically acceptable, so to speak.
It seems to have been forgotten here, as is so often in our everyday life that:
In this light I'd find the highlighted parts particularly important.
As of a general opinion towards Sinnett, and this is, once again, part of my personal ravings, I have found him slightly suspicious. For some reason I thought that he had in mind to form a "new" theosophical society, which was only open to Westeners or atleast those with "higher moral standing", which in his view would mean higher middle class. I see this clashing with the idea of universal brotherhood quite badly.
However, there is a possibility that I'm mixing him up with another person, perhaps Anna Kingsford, who, I believe, was in competition with Sinnett about the presidental position of the TS London office and would later form the Hermetic society from the remnants of the Hermetic Lodge of the TS.
From what I'd gathered from KH's words was that, in addition to the ethical question that fra obnoxion already pointed out, another key figure behind the motive of the aspirant is intention. This has been emphasized over and over again in the philosophy of the SoA as well. If intention is unclean, or selfish as presented here, the outcome can not become ethically acceptable, so to speak.
The quote above would, from my point of view, prove that the intention of the author (Sinnett) is not of such nature as previously mentioned, i.e. clean. This is also related to the faith issue fra obnoxion pointed out. I do not personally see a reason why everything would have to be proven physically to be able to be plausible? Moral issues, for example, cannot be physically shown by, or to, anyone, but I doubt very few people question their integrity. By faith I also do not mean the so-called blind faith, in which one would take things for granted just because they are given out by a figure of authority.Mahatma Letters wrote: "..to finally learn...the whole truth about our Lodges and ourselves; to get...the positive assurance that the "Brothers"...are real entities"
It seems to have been forgotten here, as is so often in our everyday life that:
AndMahatma Letters wrote:"..chief object of the T.S. is..to serve our fellow men"
The SoA also ratifies the three objectives of the TS, one of which include:"To form a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or colour."Mahatma Letters wrote:"..in our view the highest aspirations for the welfare of humanity become tainted with selfishness if, in the mind of the philanthropist there lurks the shadow of desire for self benefit or a tendency to do injustice, even when these exist unconsciously to himself."
In this light I'd find the highlighted parts particularly important.
I find this an important question to present here, as it brings forth the matter of self-sacrifice. This needs to be, however, executed in the light of the aforementioned matters without the aspiration for personal benefit or gain. These will be delivered, obviously, but as a result of an altruistic wish (need would be the wrong word here) for higher purpose. The goal is self-sustained.Mahatma Letters wrote:"And supposing you were thus to come..supposing you were to abandon all for the truth..would you consider it just, if,..we were to grant to Mad. B. or Mr. O...the terms you now ask for yourselves?"
To this, and other affairs alike, we will return in the following letters, so I will leave it be, for now.Mahatma Letters wrote:"By itself the "brooch" affair is — in the eyes of the world — completely useless,"
As of a general opinion towards Sinnett, and this is, once again, part of my personal ravings, I have found him slightly suspicious. For some reason I thought that he had in mind to form a "new" theosophical society, which was only open to Westeners or atleast those with "higher moral standing", which in his view would mean higher middle class. I see this clashing with the idea of universal brotherhood quite badly.
However, there is a possibility that I'm mixing him up with another person, perhaps Anna Kingsford, who, I believe, was in competition with Sinnett about the presidental position of the TS London office and would later form the Hermetic society from the remnants of the Hermetic Lodge of the TS.