Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00202)

Hi Katinka and all
For me no amount of apologetics can escape the fundamental issue of 
freedom of speech in Society publications
HPB clearly wanted open and vigorous debate so this by default 
includes HPB's writings and the Mahatma's letters and H.H. Leadbeater 
(I don't care how strong the talisman in his Crosier was)

Something I've noticed in many CWL supporters is a kind of tokenism 
when it comes to HPB, and if CWL is criticized they quickly become 
critical of HPB in a sort defensive emotional reaction .

The publication of the M. letters exposed CWL's psuedo theosophy so 
clearly that some consider them `controversial' but really they say 
much the same as what HPB said all along like regarding God ect. but 
people generally don't read HPB as she's considered too difficult.
CWL and AB's books are big sellers and popular for all the reasons 
already discussed.

I think if members where actively encouraged to look into these 
controversies rather than hide in a fools paradise the society would 
start to attracted people capable of handling debate and serious 
questioning rather than those only looking for new age warm fuzzy 
feelings, group hugs and Reiki healings.

As regards issues like sexuality the first object could also include 
something like `without distinction of race, caste, creed, sex, or 
sexual preference' our gay community should feel welcome in the 
society without any discrimination if its anything other than that 
it's being separative.
I can't say I met many homophobes in my time with the society but 
that's just my experience.
Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@k...> 
wrote:
> 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