Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00090)

Jerry,

As far as "THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT" series in THEOSOPHY magazine goes, what
you call things like "venom", "unfounded" and "vindictive" throughout the
articles, I only thought of as the writers calling a spade a spade, if they are
accurate. About the best I can offer, regarding accuracy, proofs, evidence, and
so on, was a few moments ago posted both here and on Theos-talk to Dr. Tillett.
So go see that one if you haven't already.

Anyway, I hope our worldwide Theosophical Movement can slowly come together and
rise to the occasion with a skillful "United Team" effort. For the sake of
humanity, I sure hope you are eventually proven to be wrong in thinking that it
can't be done -- and who is needed to come together, at all times in the
future, but only the "wise and knowledgable" from within the Movement, so that
they can always work TOGETHER, in COLLABORATIVE authoring of all articles? You
wouldn't want a dummy like me to be part of the "Team" effort that would
constantly have a dialogue with the scholars and experts in the worlds of
science, religion, philosophy, education, and social problems, as well as every
other important subject under the sun, would you? :-) ;-)

Fraternally,

John DeSantis
(Compiler)
-------

You may find a great deal of the Truth that you are searching for here:

Wisdom World web site (Main Page):
http://www.wisdomworld.org/index.html

The Index page of the Introductory, "Setting the Stage" book:
http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting.html

The page where "Additional" articles are steadily being added:
http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/index.html

-------

Jerry S wrote:

> <<<Compiler's note: The articles presented in this section are offered so
> that all present-day Theosophists, from all organizations, and from none,
> can understand, along with all of humanity, some of this history -- so as to
> learn from it and then put it aside from a practical working-together point
> of view. >>>
>
> John, the problem with this kind of thing, well intended as it may be, is
> that history is many-sided, and what is presented in the pages of ULT's
> THEOSOPHY is a very one-sided view. I did take the time to scan through the
> voluminous articles (great job!), and found it more of a psychological
> interest than a historical one. I am also familiar, more or less, with the
> "histories" of Adyar and Pasadena, and so this view was new to me (now I can
> understand why Dallas won't read Purucker! more's the pity). What I found
> repulsive, from a Theosophical perspective, was the venom throughout the
> articles used against virtually all past leaders of Adyar and Pasadena, most
> of which I feel is unfounded and vindictive (there is doubtless some small
> measure of truth to it which initially inflamed the retoric of the author(s)
> but I have to wonder what ever happened to forgiveness and brotherhood?).
>
> <<<Why? So that the wisest and most knowledgeable members from within all of
> the groups can now come together and present a "United" front of pure,
> undistorted, and undiluted Theosophy to humanity that can always hold its
> own under the welcomed and tough scrutiny and investigation of all
> scientists, scholars, teachers, philosophers, thinkers, religionists, and
> historians
> of this world. >>>
>
> I see this (rightly or wrongly) as a call to my ego. It suggests a "Gee, I
> am knowlegable and I am wise, so I gotta join" response, which I just don't
> share. There will NEVER be a united front, because we don't even have a
> consensus on what Theosophy is. Members within each TS differ greatly, let
> alone among the different TSs. How can we "unite" with so much diversity?
> And also (and even more important) which of the "wise and knowledgable" will
> lead us? Just look at the bantering back and forth between Dallas and
> myself, both long-term Theosophists who are intimately familiar with the
> "teachings." It alone is enough to suggest (as I have tried to point out)
> that Theosophy is interpretative. The ULT idea that one can only find
> "truth" only in Blavatsky and Judge is self-limiting, at best.
>
> <<<How? For starters, as proposed in the right-hand column
> of the "Main Page" and in the continuing "Introductory Brochure" link (which
> was extensively edited and re-written on June 14, 2001). Both links are
> found at the bottom of every page on this web site.>>>
>
> Good luck, John.
>
> Jerry S.
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: compiler@wisdomworld.org
> List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-14546P@list.vnet.net