Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00208)

Dear Perry,

Here is some good news and some bad news related to two points you raise:

> 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.
> 
Actually one thing that should encourage HPB admirers is that her book
sales are very healthy, the SD in particular, in the general market. 
Have heard that CWL outsells HPB in Adyar/Wheaton publications, but
that doesn't take into account the far better-selling TUP titles by
HPB. At amazon.com, there are 1029 entries under Theosophy as a
subject. The TUP SD ranks #2 in sales, #25198 out of all titles sold
by amazon. The highest of AB or CWL titles is their joint production
Thought Forms, #9 among Theosophical books and #87502 of all titles. 
(BTW #1 is James Hillman's The Soul's Code, a Jungian book.)

snip

> 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.

The homophobia is an open secret in the Adyar TS, in that the Esoteric
Section refuses to admit active gay/lesbians as members while allowing
monogamous unmarried heterosexual couples. In the non-Adyar elements
of the movement, the equation of homosexuality with pedophilia (due to
CWL mostly I guess) is well established and creates a homophobic
atmosphere. Steve S. has mentioned to me that on another list a gay
ULT member was subjected to personal abuse from other ULT members,
making insinuations of black magic etc. Perhaps he can expand on that.

Paul 

> 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