Re: Theos-World RE: New to List
May 12, 2001 11:40 AM
Friday, May 11, 2001, you wrote replying to Dallas:
> So the question that comes to my mind is - "are organizations necessary"?
> In 1875 when TS was launched, the only way to spread theosophy effectively
> was to setup up branches where people could meet and discuss and
> communicate. Today with Internet and other modes of communication, is a new
> model needed for 2001 and the old model of 1875 with formal organization
> has served its purpose and need to be discarded? (Is Jiddu Krishnamurti
> right when he made his c statement?)
It is absolutely necessary, in my view, that like-minded folk not only
talk, via internet or any other way, but gather in groups. Because
part of the essence of our purpose is very much concerned with the
interrelatedness of everything. Like a picture is worth a thousand
words, a meeting is worth a thousand conversations at long range.
Though I have not had the opportunity or privilege yet to read Jiddu
Krishnamurti, I can't but help feel that "Truth is a Pathless Land"
possibly refers to something other than a comment on modes of
communication. Perhaps it refers to modes of approaching the one
> We have seen over the years, the different organizations, while professing
> the three objects, have rarely communicated between themselves -- not
> unlike the various sects of Christianity -- all looking to Jesus.
I cannot comment on the various Theo embodiments, having not had any
experience of them at anytime. However the comments on these things
suggest to me that an impulse provided in the late 19th Century has
reached a point: minds, virtuous in intent, seek to re-invigorate, or
introduce new momentum, into this movement. There is a possible
danger that, like minds before them, they will slightly alter the
intent, import and "flavour" of the message.
Better an outwardly spent mission than one invested with new impetus
based only on imperfect dissatisfaction with its influence on today!
The historical tradgedy of ecclesiastical Christianity, as HPB shows
with little dispute in IU, should ever be a lesson in that regard.
> What do we see here? All the "non-sheeps" from the various organizations,
> congregating on the Internet and communicating with each other crossing the
> organizational boundaries (may be to the disappointment of the leaders of
> organizations, who have, fortunately no power to control what is going on
> here) which has never happened in the non-Internet world. This may be order
> of the future and may be the salvation of theosophy.
Ramdass, far be it for me to claim to have faithfully adhered to even
one of Theosophy's conditions, yet nor should anyone claim to be
a theosophist and talk like a politician.
Organizations? Leaders? Boundaries? Worst of all, Control? Forgive me
if I grossly misunderstand you, or take you out of context, but in my
gross opinion, This is the talk of the harsh material world.
It is very possible many "organisations", through their deeds against
great obstacles, are more Theosophical in Spirit than many Theo
These organisations, whether NGOs or UN derivatives, have their
leaders and most affected, their field leaders, who altogether must
submit themselves to all kinds of "moral" gymnastics, bow and kowtow
no matter what indignity, embarassment etc (according to their
culture) they must assume. They put up with all kinds of unfairness,
bureaucratic terrorism and so on, just to maintain and continue their
mission to the "Great Orphan" humanity, (where they are allowed). The
public leaders must deal with the arch-bureacrats or even the
self-aggrandizing political leaders: they often have to sacrifice much
just to be allowed to continue their humanitarian work in disputed
conflict zones. Likewise and even moreso, their on-the-ground workers,
volunteers and the like, in those zones, not only defy officialdom,
but death itself and in worse combinations, only to do what they feel
is right: Serve their fellow man.
Think of all the conflict zones on Earth. There you will find the
helpers, those who show they rate the sick, the wounded, the
dispossed, the oppressed, the robbed etc above a good night's rest.
Indeed, above their own ambitions.
Are they less Theosophists because they might know nothing of
Theosophy's teachings? I think HPB was quite clear on this point: By
Deeds, Works--only by them--can one be a True Theosophist.
In that context, whether its arranged by organisation, osmosis, or the
internet becomes irrelevant. If I could do their work, and be
aheosophist, perhaps I can be a Theosophist yet.
Perhaps its true that one cannot take HPB's word as gospel. It must
first be tested. The proof, as HPB said again and again, is in the
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application