Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00195)

Hi,

In theory (in the mandate) everything is fine. It's in the execution
of that mandate that the trouble comes in. I do know personally how
difficult it is to balance trying for a certain atmosphere (in an
e-maillist for instance) and holding on to an open forum. If in the
Australian section an anti-blavatskyan attitude prevails it isn't to 
be aplauded that they publish articles critical of her - they are just
catering to their own prejudices then. What would be great would be if
critical articles about any writer were published. But the opposite
happens in the Adyar and wheaton publications - nothing critical is
published. This is at least impartial in that it treats everybody
equally. 

Unfortunately, as Paul said, the disease of lack of criticism isn't
limited to the TS-Adyar, it is universal to the Theosophical Movement
(defined for the moment as organisations that call themselves
theosophical). In fact it is quite common for religious organisations
to lack criticism of their own. Always easier to keep the sheep
ignorant... in order to 'not disturb them' or something. 

In all kinds of ways risk is avoided. When is the last time a
theosophical magazine discussed sex, for instance, or homosexuality,
or the crimes of the Church, or the troubles in translations of the
Bible/the Quran/the Upanishads whatever? Many interesting subjects are
ignored out of the simple wish not to rock the boat. 

Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> wrote:
> It's a great concern to me that a policy of "ignorance is bliss" 
> or "ignore it and it will all go away" seeming to be a part of a the 
> society's way of dealing with the CWL/NeoTheosophy issues.
> A state of co-dependence has developed in the society imho and lack 
> of support for the freedom of speech of those who point out the 
> difference between the CWL and HPB/Mahatma's this is outrages beyond 
> belief.
> (Unless I am mistaken and can be given some positive assurance that 
> this is not the case)
> Does freedom of thought and freedom to compare different traditions 
> in the societies publications exist in the Societies mandate? 
> The hypocrisy of this state of "organizational culture" should be 
> unacceptable for any theosophical student no matter how you feel 
> about CWL.
> I hope one day the society can not be so tied to a dogma and guru 
> worship that it will be able to become that which it was meant to be 
> with open Socratic dialogue in all its publications.
> The irony is that the Theosophy in Australia magazine has just 
> published an article that criticizes the Secret Doctrine quite 
> strongly and to that I say GREAT!!! that's the true theosophical 
> spirit.
> But why oh why not CWL ??? 
> Perry