Theos-Talk Archives (July 1997 Message tt00004)

Philip Harris wrote:

<<3.  There needs to be a genuine ability to forget old
antipathies such as the Leadbeater/Besant criticisms; the
Krishnamurti dissensions; the Judge/Besant hiatus; the notion
that Blavatsky was the only 'giver of wisdom'--and so on.>>

I am one who fervently desires unity among Theosophists.  I was
appalled 10 years ago when I joined the movement as a teenager to
see how various splits have torn apart the movement.

But I have to agree with Eldon, and disagree with Gail Stevenson
and Philip Harris, that the desiderata of unity are not so easy
or self-evident; nor are the forces pulling AGAINST unity to be
categorically labelled as ignorant and invalid.

ULT people too easily forget that theirs is ONE view (a view I
mostly agree with); but people outside ULT are somewhat
uncritical to see all teachers as equally valid.  Annie Besant is
NOT HPB, nor are their teachings the same.

Philip asking us to forget about old antipathies is deceptively
simple.

Sure, one can say that the feud between Besant and Judge is over
-- there is no longer any use for personal aggression between the
two camps, we can all be friends.  But their TEACHINGS are, in
fact, quite different, and any of us who have been studying
Theosophy for some time can attest to this fact.

Surely the compiler of a Theosophical encyclopedia is aware of
the vast differences in philosophies within the Theosophical
movement which are not even "complementary" differences; rather
they are in flat contradiction.

One of the most annoying things for me, truly something that
ruins the movement, is a willingness to accept anything and
everything as valid.  This is New Age namby-pambyism.  If Annie
Besant and William Q.  Judge teach two different things about
Devachan, both CANNOT be literally right (though it is logically
possible BOTH are wrong).

For me tolerance means accepting that others think differently
than I do.  I tolerate the fact that some people find Annie
Besant's works more authoritativ e than Mr.  Judge's, or perhaps
they are simply ignorant of Mr.  Judge, the T.S.  having nearly
successfully banished him from their history.

But for me tolerance does not mean dropping my faculty of
discrimination and saying "yes, everything Annie Besant wrote is
as useful and accurate as what Mr.  Judge wrote." I cannot, I
will not agree with such a position, though I tolerate the fact
that some do indeed hold to such a position.

So for unity, we cannot make an assumption that everyone accepts
the same basic teachings, or teachers.  Even what poor Mr.
Crosbie, the founder of ULT, wrote, "a similarity of aim, purpose
and teachings" as a basis for unity, is quite suspect.  What is
"similarity"? When Annie Besant teaches an "etheric body" and
HPB's teachings flatly deny it (see Geoffrey Fatherings article
"The History of a False Assumption" for an excellent proof of
this fact), is this flat contradiction to be considered
"similarity"?

On what basis may we work toward unity?