Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00315)

Hi Eldon,

If a theosophical magazine represents merely a certain version of
theosophy it is partial and therefore not really a theosophical
magazine at all. Fortunately I don't see the magazines as partial in
that sense. History is indeed simply ignored. Controversy is
unanimously ignored as well (this is impartial in a sense, boring
too). On the other hand, the present discussion isn't really
historical so much as it is based on the question: which theosophical
teachings are relevant? Theosophical History is nicely covered by the
magazine 'Theosophical History'. 

As an aside - even when John Algeo was the general secretary (read
president) of the TS-Adyar in the US he was complaining that Quest
wasn't the kind of magazine he felt it should be. In short: even the
'president' isn't the one who calls all the shots. Partly a magazine
gets its taste from the feel people get from it. Depending on what
kind of articles are published, certain articles won't even be sent
in, let alone published. So it is very difficult for a magazine to
change course. That being said I still feel that for a theosophical
magazine to mean something in this world, they need to become more
'contemporary' or something. More alive to what happens in the world
outside the theosophical window. And indeed: less ignoring
controversy. How else are we going to find the truth, if not by facing
up to problems and giving both sides of the story? How the work of
Paul Johnson was dealt with is in this case a good example. The
Theosophist didn't even report on it (I've been told). It could have
just given both sides of the story and told the theosophists: hey,
there is a new theory on HPB out there. This is what we think is wrong
with it, this is what the author says. Judge for yourselves. The
Theosophist contains a lot of interesting material, so does Quest and
every other theosophical publication. But the link to the outside
world is missing. Has anatta been discussed in a theosophical
publication? Or do the articles on buddhism in theosophical
publications just ignore this tiny problem? The same for every other
philosophical and practical controversy. I can't think of one such
controversy that IS discussed in theosophical magazines. Fohat is the
one exception. It does create and report on controversy. But of
course: that is a private enterprise. Why can't an official magazine
take a risk every now and again? That would be so much more interesting.

The controversies that do get discussed are usually explained away
without letting the person who started the controversy speak for
themselves. (Krishnamurti comes to mind - this is the one controversy
that Radha Burnier can't ignore totally)

Case in point: though Geoffrey Farthing's death was reported in the
Theosophist and he got a nice obituary and in the next (=last)
theosophist an article of his was republished - no mention at all was
made of the issue that was close to his heart: the place of HPB in the
TS. In short: controversy is ignored again, pushed under the carpet.
Do ordinary members even know of that controversy? (see the last two
issues of Lucifer7 for details)

Just ranting,
Katinka
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Eldon B Tucker <eldon@t...> wrote:
> At 02:40 AM 8/17/2004, you wrote:
> 
> >Hi Norm,
> >
> >Thanks for that. Most theosophists I've met are also wonderfull people
> >(and most don't presently study Leadbeater). Still, like many on this
> >list, I share a certain impatience with what we read or rather don't
> >read in the magazines. There is a lot of controversy around a lot of
> >subjects in spirituality-land. So why isn't it discussed in those
> >magazines? Isn't that partly what the second object of the TS is about?
> >
> >Katinka
> 
> Katinka:
> 
> Magazines have a particular focus. They are designed to consistently 
> provide a certain content. A magazine on new cars, for instance, would 
> include car reviews, but would not have articles on vegetarian
cooking or 
> computer programming. It's up to the publisher to decide what the
magazine 
> is about and the editor to gather and present materials consistent with 
> that direction.
> 
> A magazine published by a theosophical organization would follow the 
> guidelines of that group's current leadership, presenting materials 
> consistent with what that group thought of Theosophy and what was 
> considered proper by those people. Based upon their answer to the
question, 
> "What is Theosophy," the materials would differ between journals of the 
> United Lodge of Theosophists, Pasadena Theosophical Society, and Adyar 
> Theosophical Society.
> 
> Some magazines may be for the general public, and not mention the 
> theosophical doctrines much. Others may be technical, and be almost 
> unreadable to someone with prior training in the terminology and core 
> concepts. Yet others may deal with history, but still adhere to the 
> official view of history of the organization that publishes them.
> 
> Independent magazines are free of organizational constraints. They
don't 
> have to deal with theosophical politics and having to adhere to a 
> particular party line. Even so, they too are not free of bias. Each
such 
> magazine is put out by one-or-more people and those people operate from 
> their own ideas about Theosophy and what is good theosophical
material as 
> opposed to unacceptable nonsense.
> 
> I don't think that we can expect any particular theosophical
publication to 
> accept materials that are inconsistent with the magazine's editorial
policy 
> regarding content. That's not a bad thing. It just means that if a
certain 
> type of material isn't being covered in existing magazines, there's
a need 
> for something new. Sometimes a magazine may change its stated
purpose and 
> take in different materials even though it may lose a portion of its 
> current subscribers. More often, the solution is to start something
new, a 
> magazine dedicated to the neglected topic, in this case, to questioning 
> current beliefs in the doctrines and ideas about historic figures.
> 
> -- Eldon