Theos-Talk Archives (March 1999 Message tt00000)

>The Donant article is biased and full of misconception and gives hardly a
>true view of history. I have been told by a Pasadena official that this
text
>is actually to be "updated". Do you really believe the fairy tale of an
>"elitist group"? It's quite upside down with the "serious internal esoteric
>troubles" (Fn. 10 in: GdeP: In the Temple, PLP, p. xv).

There are always at least two sides to history (which is why history
is so much fun for historians). Yes, I "really believe" Alan's article.


>The ES members were forced by the new leadership to break their pledges and
>violate the theosophical principles for which the Point Loma tradition
>stands for.

The only "principles" of any consequence is universal brotherhood,
which I seriously doubt was ever broken.  Pasadena officials tend
to smile at the phrase "Point Loma tradition" and insist that this
phrase itself shows why the break was necessary. This "tradition"
was created in only a few years by an elitist group of ES members.
The very phrase smacks of dogmatism, which is why Conger
and Long rejected it.


 >This crisis was foreseen by GdeP and he wanted his pupils and
>coworkers to remain true to the esoteric principles.

The esoteric principles had nothing at all to do with the Point
Loma tradition.  These principles pre-existed Point Loma
by centuries. I agree that GdeP forsaw the problem, but largely
because he could find no successor.  Conger became Leader
three years after GdeP.  It is unfortunate that GdeP was not able
to find/teach a qualified successor, and I think that Leaders
of his stature and understanding died with him and have yet
to be seen.  However, Long and Knoche both have served
well, IMHO, and both have the spiritual flame of truth in their
writings, which is all anyone can ask.


>But a strange thing happened: The old pupils and coworkers (in Germany and
>the Netherlands around the half of the membership) which could not follow
>the "new", false and selfish way

Your choice of words here clearly shows your own personal bias,
and I doubt that anything I can say will change your already made-up
mind. Suffice it to say that other opinions do exist quite the reverse
of yours.


>This serious esoteric crisis broke out in 1946 with the claim of Conger,
>three months after he took office as TS leader, to hold the same occult
>status as HPB and forced the members to accept him as new Outer Head of the
>ES.

The crisis was purely exoteric and historical addressing a human
organization. I would challenge you to find anything "esoteric" at
all in an outer organization changing its structure.


 When he closed the ES (with James Long as the real background force) in
>1951 the ES was in its 77th year of existence and it was the 53rd year
after
>the ES was reunited in a heroic task by Katherine Tingley with the TS.

Closing the ES was a necessity at that time. I honestly think that
such a move will occur with all TSs at some point in the future, unless
someone with the stature of HPB or GdeP comes along to head
it.  At the present time the ESs exist out of a sense of tradition,
but are all clearly elitist with an "I am better than you" undertone.
There is simply no real need today for any such organization, other
than to feed egos. I feel that this is also true for yoga, magic, and
all occult organizations across the board.


> Boris de Zirkoff declared in 1975 in an address to the Anniversary
>Convention in NY: If there would be no ES exist, then the whole TS would be
>nothing else as a lie.
>Frank
>

But this begs the question of why such a secret organization
is necessary.  If the TSs are training grounds for magic and
occultism, then yes an ES is necesary. If not, then I have to
ask why they are necessary today.  Clearly they are not.

We won't settle this here. The best we can do is agree to
disagree.

Jerry S.



-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.