Theos-Talk Archives (June 2003 Message tt00035)

Hi Daniel and others,

This article is decent, but a bit outdated, I think. I share with the 
writer some of his concerns about the E.S., but on the other hand 
some of his proposed changes sound too authoritarian to me. Also his 
judgement of Annie Besant is common, yet harsh and simplifying. I 
have recently put online some quotes from her work that foreshadow 
some of Krishnamurti's essential thoughts, as well as show that she 
had at that time still a mental touch with H.P. Blavatsky's work. See:

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/besant.html
(quotes from Adyar Pamphlet nr. 13)

One wise comment I would like to quote here is the following (from 
the above document):

>> Our one great danger, as H.P.B. recognized, is the danger of 
getting into a groove, and so becoming fossilized in the forms of 
belief that many hold today ......... The Society (1) is intended, 
always has been intended, to be a living body and not a fossil, and a 
living body grows and develops, adapting itself to new 
conditions ...........>>
(Adyar Pamphlet nr. 13)

Though some of the problems of the Theosophical Society in the past 
are well brought out in Farthing's article, his solutions are 
archaic, IMO. He seems to want the TS to copy the ULT-position, and 
limit the TS-work to HPB and comparing her work to science and 
religion. Now I'm not saying that this is something bad or anything. 
By all means, let those who want to do that, do so. But I think the 
current wealth of spiritual literature is not taken advantage of 
enough. Especially the wealth of (Tibetan) Buddhist literature. The 
TS is hardly the same as it was in the 1930īs. I am a subscriber of 
the Theosophist and its content refers to HPB far more often than it 
does to Leadbeater. In Quest the ratio is a bit different, but HPB 
does get refered to more often than Leadbeater, I think. In Quest it 
is hard to count, as neither are refered to very often. The writers 
focuss on other spiritual and religious traditions most. 
A good example of HPB inspired literature in the Theosophist is an 
article I published on my website recently, from the may 2003 issue.
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/meditation_hpb.html
It is about the HPBīs Meditation diagram, also mentioned in the below 
article. 

But we canīt go back to the days when HPB was almost the only 
valuable literature around. The last quarter of the 20th century has 
passed and whichever of the many claiments was the actual prophesied 
messenger mentioned by HPB isnīt clear, but whichever it is, 
theosophists of whatever ilk have not had enough watchfulness to 
welcome him her with open arms. I have been corresponding recently 
with somebody who thinks it was is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi 
(trancendental meditation). Another possibility is Ken Wilber. Then 
again perhaps one of the many (or all of them at once) Tibetan 
Buddhists who have spread over Western lands could be it. Or one of 
the Zen Buddhists. Or simply the Dalai Lama. Which of you knows 
enough of the theosophical tradition AND each of these claimants (and 
there are probably many more) to have confidence in one of them?

Then again, we can hardly go back and ignore Krishnamurti himself 
either. The writer calls his coming a failure, and it certainly was 
one as far as TS pr goes, but judging by the amount of visitors my 
Krishnamurti site gets, his words are certainly more apreciated by 
modern people than those of HPB. This is of course not reason to 
believe him a world teacher, though I personally think he was one. 

One way of explaining what happened is simply that his message was 
meant for the world, not just for theosophists. Another way is to 
know that what he said was not appreciated by theosophists at that 
time, unfortunately. But fortunately enough, current day theosophists 
do often appreciate his message enough to know that he did not miss 
HPB at all. His words show that what he learned, he did not need HPB 
to learn. And what he did not mention, he did not need to know or 
need to mention (whichever it is). Are we really stupid enough to 
think that all knowledge will look like Blavatskyan theosophy? Is a 
next messenger really going to have to know HPB by heart in order to 
convince us? Isnīt it more likely that they will have their own 
connection to the eternal verities and will simply go about 
correcting the mistakes or misinterpretations of what has come before?

Also, if we are going to stare ourselves blind at HPB, we are going 
to miss some great truths available elsewhere. Not just īinspiring 
wordsī for a lonely night, but metaphysical truths about the nature 
of reality. I am thinking particularly of the mystery of sunyata. 
There is good evidence that the Mahatmas were indeed simply well 
educated Tibetan Buddhists, so why arenīt we all out studying what we 
can of their tantras and philosophy? Why do we get stuck on 
irrelevant details on rounds and races and Atlantis and stuf? (yes I 
know, I am exagerating). Still the point is there: are rounds and 
races relevant to the resolution of suffering? The simple question of 
the Buddha in other form. Should a doctor mess with theories on how 
an arrow speeds through the sky, or heal the wound of the man dying 
from it? When we focuss too much on details we miss the simple truths 
that we need to focuss on to heal our own wounds. And only when those 
wounds are dealt with, can we hope to help others. Blavatsky hinted 
at this too when she suggested in the Bowen thing that we keep the 
central three truths always in mind and study only those as long as 
necessary. 

I think Iīve ranted enough for now. 
Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
> THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE
> 
> by Geoffrey A. Farthing