Theos-Talk Archives (June 1997 Message tt00065)

Personally I find the idea of a Theosophical Encyclopaedia very exciting
indeed, and I would give what little time I have to support it.

To be honest, I am not thrilled by the idea that Annie Besant's ideas,
Leadbeater's ideas, Alice Bailey's ideas, all will be included -- but at the
same time HBP's teachings and William Q. Judge's teachings will not be
EXCLUDED.  As long as the sources for materials are CLEARLY LABELED (as
Lanoeth is suggesting) I think the chance for confusion will be minimized.
 It will (1) allow the public to easily access what I consider to be the
original and pure teachings, and (2) it will allow so-called
"neo-Theosophists" (in my opinion New Age butterflies) to see how the
original teachings differ markedly from those teachings later put forward as
"Theosophy."

While I think each student certainly has a right to determine how best to use
his or her time, I find the decision not to cooperate with such projects as
this encyclopaedia very short-sighted, erecting more barriers to the dissemina
tion of Theosophy where plenty already exist.

I feel that in the public eye Theosophy has a pretty bad, "airy-fairy"
reputation, largely because of the shananigans of Neo-Theosophy, but that is
no reason not to assist a broad-based effort, even if it includes material I
consider undesirable.  Indeed, some of the best students, including Eldon
Tucker, the moderator of this list, first came to Theosophy under the gentle
wings of Leadbeater, only later discovering that original Theosophy was
deeper, purer and more spiritually beneficial.  (Correct me if I'm wrong,
Eldon ...)

Just my two cents.

Rich Taylor