Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00190)

Dear Tony:

You have a point in what you responded. The way I looked at the situation 
is slightly different. While every organization and its leaders are free to 
do what they want to do, the way I looked at the issue is slightly different.

My exposure to theosophy has made me feel that we are to be more open 
minded and more impersonal and I am more inclined to look at the 
Theosophical Movement as one entity with the same objectives.

Each of the theosophical organization has something or the other to offer 
and any eager student of Divine Wisdom whether belonging to any 
organization or none may find something of help from each one of them. With 
the advent of Internet, there is an opportunity to make it easier for the 
newbees and less internet experienced inquirers easy access to all 
available resources.

While a savvy internet user can use the various search engines to mine all 
the info available on Internet, the newbees take quite a bit of time to 
become proficient in use of the search engines to locate info. So linkages 
to other theosophical and somewhat related sites, to me appears to be 
natural. That's why I posted my msg.

As for the Boston TS, there is another interesting historical matter which 
was discussed at length in theosophical maillists some years ago.

TSB was one time a branch of TSA(Adyar) and was the defendant in a lawsuit, 
brought by I think a Boston group which was part of TSA(Adyar) and the law 
suit was finally settled with the property being split between the two 
groups and a huge sum of money went to line the pockets of the Boston 
attorneys. (someone else may be able to clarify if there is any needed 
clarification).

It appears that at the end of the lawsuit, Boston TS set itself up as an 
independent TS. With this back ground, when one looks at its website with 
link to all the theosophical organizations including TSA(Adyar) speaks for 
itself.

As for sites of Krishnamurti and others, it is upto the concerned 
organizations as to what they want to do.

For example in Krishnamurti's case, he declared that no organization or any 
organized approach is going to lead anyone to truth (Truth is a Pathless 
Land statement goes into detail.) In addition, he had left deliberate 
instructions that none of his books, videos, audios can be published by any 
organization with which any of the Trustees of Krishnamurti Foundation 
Trust (of which D Rajagopal was the President and was involved in a long 
drawn out lawsuit with Krishnamurti which was not resolved until after K 
passed away) were associated or in future is associated in any manner. One 
of the Trustees later was on the Board of Directors of TSA and later was 
appointed as first ever Emeritus Treasurer. With this background, no one 
can expect KFA to have any link to TS organizations.

So I feel that everyone of us have to come to our own conclusions based on 
the facts and how we see them.

In friendship

mkr

PS:

As an aside, from time to time we find newbees groping to find info on 
theosophy related matters. For example, I was in that situation several 
years ago when I was trying to locate the only maillist then was available. 
My inquiries to one of the TS organizations was not helpful to say the 
least even though I am sure it was aware of the existence of the maillist, 
and it was a helpful member who happened to fax me the instructions to join 
the maillist.


At 02:13 AM 8/19/01 +0100, you wrote:
Dear Doss
Is there anything so really wrong in Theosophical websites not advertising
Steiner, Bailey, Krishnamurti, etc.? Why do you find it so refreshing?
Most people that come to Theosophy find their way to many other religions,
leaders, and systems. That is the nature of theosophy. When going to a
Krishnamurti/Steiner/Bailey website, to what extent do they link into
Theosophical websites???
There was one Steiner book we were trying to obtain, and when obtaining a
recent reprint, every time the word Theosophy came up in the early edition,
it had been obliterated from the reprint and changed to anthroposophy, or
some similar kind of word. All mention of the word theosophy was removed?
This is not at all surprising.
I have just over the last few days been corresponding with a friend about
Steiner in response to some query, and it is easier just to copy it across:
<<<RE: STEINER...
The translation you make from Steiner is good and interesting. Can't find
a title by him "Anthropology - Science of Man," but will think further.
In Cranston's "H.P.B.", things like:
"In his autobiography, written two years before his death in 1925, he is
quite insistent (as have been his followers ever since) that before, during,
and after his association with the TS he has always pursued his own line of
teaching and was not in any way influenced by Theosophy"
BUT
"In a letter to Maria Sivers (August 20, 1902), Steiner wrote: "'The Secret
Doctrine' has duly arrived and lies on my desk; it is very useful in my
relevant studies, and I consult it continually." "..........
"As late as June 21, 1909, Steiner wrote:". . . the Stanzas of Dzyan and the
Mahatma letters have still not been understood fully by a long way, and they
should therefore be studied intensively, belonging as they do to the
greatest wisdom revealed during the evolution of mankind."...and so on.>>>
The subject arose from an interesting comment Steiner had made in one of his
books (and relates to mad cow disease):
""XYZ came across an interesting section in one of the above's (Steiner's)
writings in Italian - under sustenance and conscience - perhaps you already
know of it ?? Anyway, translation goes - "In the good operate determinate
energies; produced from the vegetation she becomes meat (transformed).
Imagine if this cow would eat meat - what would happen? The energy that she
tries to dispose of is not utilised and produces something that is quite
different from the transformation of vegetation into animal substance. This
provokes in the animal an accumulation of discarded substances of any type;
instead meat comes to be created negative substances; dangerous uric acid
and salts of uric acids ... which have a weakness for the nervous system and
brain ... and the cow becomes mad; the horse becomes furious.""
Even though the Steiner followers may find it necessary to erase the word
Theosophy from their translations, it doesn't mean that theosophists are too
prejudiced to read his books. Someone who goes to a Steiner website would
go because he wants to know about Steiner, and wouldn't expect or want to
find links to the Muslim religion or Marx.
Do the Krishnamurti websites point to the Mahatma Letters...the 7 principles
in man, etc.??? What are their views about Masters? Are they actually
anything like as broad as the Theosophical websites??? Do they point to the
Mahatmas and to the Secret Doctrine? Or do they point to Krishnamurti and
what he said, and to his philosophy. I have been to listen to Krishnamurti
on several occasions, he was beautiful to listen to, and a remarkable
person. Is there anything wrong in going to a Krishnamurti website and
finding only things about Krishnamurti?
HPB points to the ancient wisdom, and she never makes any claim to it being
hers. She points to Universal Brotherhood...to helping suffering mankind.
Tony