Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00033)

There is yet another viewpoint. While each organization has its own
viewpoint on what happened in the past, for many newbees who do not know
much about the past, it is an opportunity to know the different viewpoints.
It is only out of such different info, that one can come to one's own
conclusions. With open mindedness, one can look to what each of the
individuals have sacrified and have achieved and thus be humbled as well as
motivated to help spread theosophy as best one can understand. Too often
many are in the dark about the historical facts and history cannot be
totally divested. What is going to be helpful is to keep our focus on the
three objects and work towards the betterment of our fellow beings. This is
where I think the long term future lies.

My 0.02.

mkr


At 02:21 PM 11/5/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>The recent "discussions" of theosophical history by Dallas, Paul, and Frank
>underscore the problems of trying to look at this subject in any kind of
>unbiased
>manner. The Adyar and ULT/Pasadena positions on Judge are virtually at
>opposite ends of an historical spectrum. This is, in fact, probably the main
>single-most reason that I abhor theosophical history (sorry Paul, I know you
>have tried, and you and Jerry HE are among the very few unbiased
>historians around, but you are up against two stone walls here).
>
>I personally couldn't care less who shot who or who defamed who and
>so on. I judge the early theosophical pioneers by their writings that they
>have
>left us, and not by what others claim they said or did. As to writing, HPB
>is
>by far the best and her writings show (to me) that she knew far more than
>anyone else. I like Judge better than Besant, but Judge is obsessive
>over the horrible dangers of psychism to the point that I gnash my teeth
>when I read him. I like Tingley simply because her writings are from a
>mystical
>perspective, and I tend toward that end of the spectrum myself. G de
>Purucker
>is also good, but even he gets a little wordy sometimes. And so on. By their
>fruits ye shall know them, etc, etc.
>
>I do hope that the historians among us will go whimpering to their corners
>for awhile and let us others talk about theosophy.  Historical wrangling
>single-handedly killed Theos-l (its still there, but its dying fast).  I
>hope that
>this doesn't happen here. How about if we all agree that Adyar and ULT/
>Pasadena see their history differently and try to go on from there? I like
>to think that Adyar's recent public acceptance of Judge is a good start
>toward our unification, for example. We will never get others to change
>their
>viewpoints of theosophical history, so why do we keep on trying which
>just inflames everyone?
>
>Jerry S.
>
>