Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00151)

>> Blavatsky said that you can't be a Communist and Theosophist at the
>> same time; I'm not so sure of that, but it certainly seems that
>> way.

She did not. She never used the word "communist". She used the word
"socialist". In Le Lotus, her magazine she published in Paris, she wrote in
the article "Fausses Conceptions" (translated in CW as "Misconceptions") in
September 1887, in which she said: "Seuls, les socialists intelligents nous
avaient compris; se tourneront-ils, eux aussi, contre nous?" (translated in
CW as "Alone, the intelligent socialists have understood us; will they also
turn against us?" (CW VIII/68[90]) There always was, or ought to have been
had, sympathy for the socialist idea among Theosophist. Let us remember that
Annie Besant herself was a Fabian socialist (with George Bernard Shaw) who
became a Theosophist after reading Isis Unveiled when its was published in
1877. Unfortunately, an antagonism was engendered in society in regard to
every thing in the line of socialist endeavor; nothing could have been
worse.

Also, as WQJ demands, if any statement is claimed to have been made by HPB,
do bring forward for heaven's sake your exact quotation and source, page
number. As long as this is missing, no alleged statement by HPB can, and
must, be taken seriously, and certainly should not be discussed.

The demand for such precision is not based in American formalisnm or
legalism but simply in human nature which is desperate for proving its own
images and agenda, and a foremost method of the lower self is the twisting
and distorting of memories. No one can claim with absolute surety who said
what in regard to anyting, without verifying by way of an exact quote. Even
that, however, is insufficient and often, the truth remains undiscovered,
simply because human nature cannot accept images that are inimical to its
filters of perception or scheme. Also, we need to be very careful before we
claim that HPB taught this or that; her teachings--everything that comes
direct from the Lodge--cannot be easily crammed into one dogmatic statement
that would relegate her to the camp of any one brand of political
fanaticism. She repeatedly warned e.g. in the Key to Theosophy and elsewhere
that any outer political reform, without first reforming the consciousness
of the people, is doomed to fail miserably. (WQJ stressed that point also
very often.) Coercion never works, no matter what the purpose; sooner or
later people rebel against it, even the most abject slaves.

Brothers, I must warn all of us to do everything in our power to refrain
from permitting the frail plant of sympathy and tolerance to get choked in
our hearts by the deadly nightshade of argument, quarrel and
unbrotherliness. Issues do not matter; but the tone we use in our
conversations with each other, very much so. I am all for free speech; I
cannot stand lists where politeness or a certain way of speaking is
prescribed; but let us remember the idea of the Brotherhood of Man, the
first goal of the old T.S. What I mean is that at least we try, again and
again (we will fail again and again, but that does not matter as long as we
keep trying), to put just a little of the very thing that was more vital to
HPB than any knowledge about things occult: that we love one another--not
for reasons of phony sentimentalism but because we believe that we are one
in the soul of Atman, that separation is Maya, limited to bodies, never
extending to the soul of man.

With best regards to us all,

Pendragon



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bart Lidofsky



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]