Theos-Talk Archives (April 2002 Message tt00113)

Hi all of you,

Just a view: 

I think that the below are important lines of thoughts.

I would like to add, that I think, that Theosophical groups or organizations should put much more emphasis on the issue - dead-letter reading (especially when we talk about - debates like this - with emails etc.) The same goes for the very important and (according to little me) overlooked "7 keys" mentioned more than one time by Blavatsky.

If done, it could help - putting down the tendencies of biblical behavoir , - in and at certain Theosophical groups and organizations and their manner of presenting themselves.

It often seems to be so, that a number of theosophists think, that the books written by Blavatsky should be treated like a sort of 'Bible-collection' - i.e. giving the answer to - every and each - spiritual question.
If not so - then it is the top 20 or top 50 ..etc. most interesting theosophically written books (written by the proper theosophists) which - apparently - is being given that view.
Well it just seems so to me.

And I have to say I disagree, with such an attitude. And I disagree a lot.

If just one - theosophist would try read the books on The Learning Organization - which is containing a new (and interesting) trend in international business, - then I think, that they will agree om, that Blavatskys' teachingand theosophy as such are missing important teachings - on leadership and organizational work - AND information and teaching on that issue. (Try for instance the book by Mike Pedler: "The Learning Organization").

Let us try to avoid dead-letter reading - AND teach people to avoid it.

The children of today are the leaders of tommorrow.

from
Sufilight 
with the rugrat-twins :-* and :-* ( It is not 'snow' coming out. I have heard it is a kiss.)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mauri" <mhart@idirect.ca>
To: "Theosophy Study List" <theos-l@list.vnet.net>; <UniversalSeekers@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "Theos-Talk" <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 6:35 PM
Subject: Theos-World "plagiarisms" . . . ?


> On the subject of quoting other's on these lists . . . 
> "I wonder . . . I wonder . . ." (to quote John Cleese's character from 
> "A Fish Called Wanda) how some of us might approach that topic . 
> . . 
> 
> Could it be that, on some lists, (such as those that might be 
> somewhat generally perceived as "t/Theosophical," or, say 
> "somewhat t/Theosophical," maybe . . . ?) could it be that on 
> THOSE kinds of lists there might be some sort of "generally 
> perceived" or "individually perceived" preference, (or some kind 
> of "tentative preference," here or there, possibly?) to the effect that, 
> in light of certain "kinds" of content in certain "kinds" of 
> Theosophical books (possibly to be found in such books as the 
> Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled?) . . . well, in light of what might 
> be a somewhat general perception (say?) that those books might (or 
> "do," possibly?) contain a number of passages that might be 
> described ("might be described," possibly . . . ?) . . . 
> 
> [Being a fairly new student of Theosophy, I, myself, am not, of 
> course, in any kind of position to offer anything more than "certain 
> kinds" of tentative, "speculative" comments!]
> 
> . . . and so, (to continue): . . . uh . . . oh, yes, I was saying
> (well, "speculating," actually, basically, I think) that, for whatever
> reason, there MAY be SOME "students of Theosophy" (and, in a sense,  
> who isn't, after all, "a student of Theosophy" in SOME sense, 
> basically . . . . ?). . . ?) who may TEND to feel, for whatever 
> reason, that, in light of certain "kinds" of content in certain "kinds" 
> of Theosophical books (possibly to be found in such books as the 
> Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled?---if I may kindly update the reader's
> memory re my general trend, here. . . ?) Well, it MAY be, (if just as
> per my tentative, speculative tendencies), that there MAY be those who,
> as a result of having discovered that the SD and the IU were, as it 
> were (apparently?), "co-authored," are therefore (as a possibly 
> "direct result" of that discovery, possibly?) are therefore, or 
> MIGHT be, therefore, "inclined," at times, in some 
> circumstances/cases (or "somewhat inclined," possibly, at times?) 
> to interpret such a "co-authoring/quoting technique" as a "significant 
> precedent," in some apparently "significantly relevant sense,"
> (possibly?) and an indication (possibly?) that one is, under certain
> "KINDS" of circumstances (as when, say, "infomally" offering email on
> certain kinds of discussion lists?) excempted from certain "more-formal
> requirements" re such as "regular considerations" about "plagiarism" . .
> . Not that I'm saying, or implying, that HPB was particularly
> plagiaristic, herself, per se, (apparently?), in as much as she did, I
> think, at some point point out something about her references to
> "VARIOUS" sources, many of which (or all of which?) were mentioned and
> "credited." Not being a scholar of the subject, I can offer no more 
> than my "speculative impressions."
> 
> Of is it that there is the "impression" among some that HPB did not 
> "credit enough," or "all" of her sources? If so, I wonder if such an 
> impression might have something to do with tending to lead some 
> people, in certain circumstances, on certain discussion lists, to 
> "similarly" "quote freely" from various sources without giving 
> "regular credit" to the original authors . . . Could it be that there
> are some list contributors who see themselves as removed from the 
> "ordinary rules" of the "regular world" (as per their interpretation 
> of HPB' ways and means, possibly?), and thereby might be inclined 
> to "follow suit" in keeping with their interpretive tendencies . . . ?
> 
> Speculatively,
> Mauri
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>