Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00318)

Hallo all,

My views are:

Well...I would like to suggest, that one reads the following email I posted
here at Theos-Talk a few days ago
August 11th 2004 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17779

At the bottom of this email I conclude what aught to be considered as being
of importance
- today year 2004 - to the Theosophists and the Theosophical groups.
(The conclusion was based on a quote from Cyril Scott's book "The Initiate
in the New World", and done by the english Initiate - called JMH.)
These issues are some how related to the talk about how to promote a
Theosophical magazine.


A few words on the matter:
Let us all remember the original magazines which Blavatsky was behind.
Back then in the old days, Blavatsky ALWAYS wrote about major controversies,
no matter how difficult or strong in disagreement (among the members) they
were - OR what they possibly would spark
of disagreement because of her sharp articles in the magazine.

Blavatsky would Never let BIG pieces of controversy lay floating around in
TS back then. NEVER.
She would deal with them in her own precise, sharp and crisp manner. A
manner I still hold to be very efficient.

My view is, and you may correct me if I am wrong:
Today, most leaders and editors behind theosophical magazines tend to
be SOFT in behaviour and Not sharp like Blavatsky.
This is the new situation since Blavatsky's time as far as I see it.
The Theosophical leaders has gone SOFT - and inefficient. I think Blavatsky
would say so.
This is important.

This is not good, that one do not deal with important internal
controversies.
Just like one is being afraid of that the theosophical groups or
organizations would fall apart because of such an activity.
How stupid. No such thing can happen today. Theosophy is alive and will
continue its path.
It will only change its form or level of compassion and wisdom.
This is important.

Let us remember, that to create UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD, one will have to let
the forces of duality operate at will.
This will inevitably lead to internal controversies in some of todays
theosophical groups. But no need to create the major controversies by being
silent.
Do the leaders and readers not agree ?

Here at Theos-Talk we are known to say thing straight out.
In the different Theosophical groups - many of the leaders are known to say
"no comments" or come with weak stances and answers.
This is not good, when there is a spiritual need to be concerned with.

A few examples of importance are the following controversies:
a) Was Krishnamurti's teachings theosophical or was they way too different
when compared to Blavatsky's ???
http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/krishnamurti/onk.html
b) The Leadbeater controversy. Daniel Caldwell's website (for instance
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/thomas/index.htm ),
Gregory Tillett's book on Leadbeater, other authors books and other
contributions for instance at Theos-talk
has shown us that his teaching+activities - all in all - can NOT be said to
in agreement with Blavatsky's. And that he perhaps was more damaging to
Theosophy than helpful. Well was he ???
c) Should we only use a few main theosophical books as teaching on Theosophy
or theosophy. Or was this against the teaching put forward by Blavatsky ?
d) How to promote Theosophy today year 2004 ?
(Rules and regulations or not. Esoteric Section or not.)

I hold it true that Theosophists should show tolerance and compassion, and
that we should "cull the good we find in each teaching".
But I cannot and will not in many situations accept - (and neither should
you ) - what Blavatsky herself called dangerous - teachings being accepted
within Theosophy. I say this knowing, that we live in a different physical
world and time today on our little planet Earth, and that - the physical
form of - past teachings may not have the same value as they had back then.

Today, honest seekers and people ask the leaders questions and gets no
answers.
This will certainly not continue. The universal wisdom is efficient in its
activities. Bad moral or negligence of duty is never rewarded.


These were just my views.
Now, I did write this because I really do care about you all, well on my own
level.
Even if some of you might think different.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@k...>
To: <ham>; <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:59 AM
Subject: ham,Theos-World Re: what to do in magazines


> 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
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>