Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00331)

Hallo Paul and all,

My views are:

You wrote:
"I don't think that my ideas on Cayce have either "won" or
"lost" but simply been accepted as one alternative interpretation."

To me this is the key.
The knowledge level or level of wisdom in these organizations must be
different. Higher in one of them and lower in the other.
Now who is who the wise ones knows.

But is talking about good stuff - like compassion and all - not more
important?
I think most theosphists would agree that your book(s)
also contain som valuable additions to the theosophical
historical background and its possible relations.
They are still selling are they not ?
(smile...)


from
M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...>
To: <ham>; <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:10 AM
Subject: ham,Theos-World How do ideas become politicized?


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