Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00324)

Hi Eldon,

It's always a challenge reading your general remarks and figuring out
how personally they are intended. Having written books about two
movement founders that were about equally evenhanded in approach, I've
seen a huge difference in how my ideas were politicized (and not.) 
Even though I have been outspoken politically in ARE, no one to my
knowledge ever treated my book on Cayce as political or me as a
political enemy based on the ideas in it. The reason presumably is
that no one's buttons were pushed by those ideas, no one's position
threatened by their implications. This alas was not the case with the
TS-- Adyar. You wrote:
> 
> Should any of us challenge any key idea, seeking not only to have
>our view heard but additionally to sway others and change the course
>of the organization, politics would come into play and we could be
>attacked or shunned, with our active participation no longer welcome. 

To the extent that this is meant to characterize me and my books about
HPB, it's off the mark. Anyone who writes books about history intends
that their view be "heard" and influence readers' understanding. Does
that mean any historian with "unorthodox" views should be deservedly
attacked or shunned? The Baha'i organization leaders would certainly
say so and most members would follow like sheep, as I've seen happen
to several friends. But Theosophists do not willingly grant their
leaders the power to ostracize members based on their ideas about
history. 

Consider this. My ideas about the Masters had been widely available
in a self-published book since 1990, and I had been favorably
reviewed, well treated, and warmly welcomed by Adyar TS folks before
and after that time until 1995. The caca hit the fan not because I
was expressing any political opinions, nor seeking to influence any
organization, nor because a preponderance of Theosophical readers of
my books considered them a threat to the organization. Everything
went along just fine for years, I spoke to many lodges without a
moment of discord or criticism, and all was well. UNTIL I got
published by a large, respected university press and favorably
reviewed OUTSIDE the Theosophical movement at the same time that a
series of favorable reviews were appearing in national section
journals. THEN the axe fell. So it's pretty obvious that it wasn't
anything I was doing or trying to do that got me in hot water, but
rather something I neither tried to do nor was personally responsible
for: getting mainstream recognition and approval. (SUNY Press
appeared like a deus ex machina only after all the Theosophical
publishers had rejected my ms.)

It was the *potential implications* of my books for the organizations
once they got that kind of recognition, and not any political activism
on my part, that made me persona non grata. It was several years
later that I got involved in the ACT (against my better judgment about
the potential for TS reform) and that involvement was motivated by a
lot of other people's horror stories about John Algeo and their hope
that he could be defeated.

This is unless 
> our ideas win out and the organization changes direction.

The implication is that ideas must either win or lose, rather than
simply being allowed to flourish in an atmosphere of openminded
discussion. I don't think that my ideas on Cayce have either "won" or
"lost" but simply been accepted as one alternative interpretation. 
That certain Theosophists have reacted to my ideas on HPB as needing
to be "defeated," or as dangerous should they "win," says more about
Theosophical anxieties and insecurities than about those ideas in
themselves. IMHO in light of my very different experiences with a
different subject matter.

Cheers,

Paul