Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00201)

Response to Netemara, Steve Stubbs, LHM, KPJ, Steven Levey, dalval.

Summary of this long post: 
1. Comparison of the TS to the RC church.
2. Re. Marginalization of "threats" to the establishment.
3. What is the "true theosophy?" 
4. How may one best serve the Movement? 


I wholly agree with you, Netemara, that sometimes there is no answer, if
you mean by "answer" justice or relief for the abused woman or children
in a situation where the enforcement agencies are not responsive to
these issues. Then again, as Steve Stubbs suggests, "great courage and
moral conviction is required" by the leaders at such times. Perhaps
that ought to apply to the victims also. In the case of the RC church,
the playing catch up seems to have come about more because of pressure
from enraged parents and children than from within the church. These
parents were not able to bring about change within the Church, until
they brought pressure upon it from our secular legal system. In the case
of CWL, the victimized Theosophical families, like the Catholic
families, chose first to try to find a resolution within the TS. Rather
than taking the issue to the police, they opted for an internal solution
and called for a committee to be held in London, headed by Olcott, to
adjudicate the matter. The hearing was called, CWL appeared, admitted
to the charges and tendered his resignation. Perhaps, that would have
been the end of it if Annie Besant had not re-admitted him in 1908. The
concerned parents responded to Besant's action by going public with the
issue. While hundreds of members resigned from the TS, most remained
loyal to the new President's (Besant) decision. 

Netemara also makes the point that both CWL and WB Yeats were "threats
to the TS." That "these things are threats from within and have NOTHING
to do with the TS itself." By "things," it appears that you are
referring to CWL's and WBY's behaviors. If so, I must ask, isn't an
organization in some way defined by the beliefs and behaviors of its
members and leadership? Isn't an organization, for better or worse,
asserting a position when it marginalizes or disposes of a member whom
it considers a threat? Yeats, before leaving the ES, warned his
associates that they "were turning a good philosophy into a bad
religion." Wouldn't it be fair to say that one characteristic of a bad
religion is that it seeks to marginalize ideas that challenge its own? 

Leon Mauer asserts that "the leaders and those who bought [brought?]
their system had culpability." Then asks: "But, is that any reason to
condemn the whole worldwide group of true theosophists or their
teachings itself for their actions?" Leon, I agree that guilt by
association ought not be condoned. However, I'm not sure what you mean
by "true theosophists or their teachings." Isn't it the job of the
leadership to promulgate and make available what they believe to be true
theosophy and true teachings? This question also raises another in my
mind: what is true theosophy and who is a true theosophist? Who is to
make that determination? 

Steve Stubbs suggests that if he were President of the TS, he would let
the Leadbeater, Besant, Jinarajadasa etc. writings "fall gradually out
of print and not reprint them. None of those characters would be
mentioned in TS publications and they would be gradually marginalized."
It seems to me, that marginalization is one of the tactics which created
the disharmony we presently have in the theosophical organizations. If
these above mentioned writer's works were successfully marginalized in
the Adyar TS, I submit that some members would take a leadership role,
found another theosophical organization that would put these same
writers back into the center, and claim their theosophy to be the true
one. 

K. Paul Johnson writes that at one time, and maybe presently,
"Leadbeater books still are the best sellers" in the Adyar TS. I
believe they still are, Paul. But whether this is still true or not,
Dr. Tillet, in The Elder Brother, points out that terms Blavatsky used,
such as, Astral, Master, etc. are today better understood among the new
age crowd by CWL's definitions rather than Blavatsky's. So, it would
appear that if put to a popular vote, more people would resonate to
Adyar theosophy as being the more true one. But the majority opinion is
not necessarily the most correct one--is it?

Dallas, as I understand him, would define true theosophy according to
the writings of the "original messengers." This is a good scholarly
approach. On the other hand, this argument does not resolve the problem
because, generally speaking, theosophists tend to have their own
understanding of those writings based upon the tradition that initially
attracted them. Further, the canon of original messengers and writings
varies from organization to organization, as well as their meaning, and
the degree and kind of authority ought to be given them. 

Steven Levey argues that we ought to let the past die. He writes: "let
us pay attention to the present theosophical out-pouring so that those
who are new to theosophy might enjoy it and quench the thirst they have
for relighting of their manas." What appeals to me about Levey's
argument is that once we let the past die, we will have more time and
energy to devote to the study of the teachings. What concerns me is
whether letting the past die also implies forgetting the past. George
Santana once wrote that those who forget the past are condemned to
relive it. Speaking from my personal experience, my study of
Theosophical history has illuminated my understanding of the teachings.
It has also helped me to recognize a reoccurring pattern of
unacknowledged behaviors that perpetuate discord and schisms that
continue to this day. I tried to learn from this lesson by avoiding
these pitfalls in our own study group. Also, in agreement with Stephen
Levey, I don't discuss history there, except when it is necessary to
clarify a teaching, or show how confusion occurred concerning teachings.
However, after several years of study, members of our group are
requesting that we do a formal presentation on the history of the
Theosophical organizations. It seems that the very thing that is
repressed is what most pushes for expression. 

Returning to my original question: Whether or not the leadership and/or
the involved members were culpable, your replies have reinforced my
opinion that their collective actions had a major negative impact upon
the course of the TM. Perhaps we need to find ways to make our actions
affect the TM in as positive manner as we are capable. 

jhe




-----Original Message-----
From: netemara888 [mailto:netemara888@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 4:25 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Re: Question to LHM

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Jerry Hejka-Ekins" <jjhe@c...> wrote:
> Of course, C.W. Leadbeater is ultimately responsible for his own
> actions. On the other hand, did the leadership (and those members 
who were involved) have some culpability (to the TS and its membership)
> regarding how they handled the situation CWL had created? 
> 
> jhe
>