Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00342)

Hi Paul,
Thanks for your comments, 
My own discovery of the underbelly of TS history was not really such a
shock in the sense that to use the biblical expression `nothing is
corrupt - except where a man is concerned' but really in the way it
has been and is being treated.

The overt nature of the dogmatism and control of groups like the JWs
Mormons and Bahai's as well from what you've said, is it's there its
`in your face' so to speak you can't miss it.
I had this thought myself before deciding to resign from the TS.
The thing with the TS is the subtle and slippery nature of the censor
and I believe disempowerment on active members when it gets to the
stage of the written word.

Disempowerment comes in many forms some sublte some blatant.

Which is worse?

Is the TS in its publications anti dogmatic and anti authoritarian ?

If that is true then why this discussion?

Most members I think are genuinly committed to freedom but the
organisational "policies" are quite a different thing as already
discussed.
The general commitment of members to freedom is not the issue and I ve
never questioned that but rather organisational policy on freedom of
thought in its publications and sometimes things can slip though there.
I managed to get a letter to the editor published in the local
"Theosophical Link" magazine as a response to a members article in the
previous issue that mentioned CWLs little pamphlet "letters from the
unseen" in which I challenged CWL quite strongly.

My goodness if Geoffrey Farthings critiques of CWL wont get published
who's will.

I would love to see the TS become what it should be and what it can be
if only it would face the issues we are discussing here.

I would rejoin if the TS started to actively show a commitment to
freedom of opinion in its publications and address these issues.

If it doesn't and won't is it really any better than the JWs ?

I personally don't think it is, in this sense.

I did not mean to give the impression TS members are blind believers
like JWs
I think general membership would like to know these issues and discuss
them.
Its the gagging the leadership seems to use in its publications.
How do you even start without a dialogue in publications?! 
The proof is in the pudding as they say.

Regards

Perry



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...>
wrote:
> Dear Perry,
> 
> Thanks for your story and congratulations for escaping the Watchtower
> folks. My point of comparison is the Baha'is, with whom I was
> affiliated from age 15 to 20. Many years later I participated in
> Internet discussions with Baha'i scholars, and witnessed the
> repercussions from their extremely theocratic organization. The JWs
> outdo even the Baha'is in terms of denying intellectual freedom for
> their members.
> 
> Despite some unpleasant experiences I've had with the TS, I'd answer
> your question with a resounding yes. There is a huge difference
> between the TS and the JWs or the Baha'is. JWs, Mormons, Baha'is, and
> many other groups are overtly dogmatic and authoritarian and make no
> effort to deny it. The Adyar TS is explicitly and overtly
> anti-dogmatic and anti-authoritarian. Its dogmatism and
> authoritarianism are implicit, sneaking in through the back door of
> the ES and hidden control mechanisms. But local lodges and study
> centers have a lot of autonomy and in years of regular speaking
> engagements I never picked up any clues that Adyar or Wheaton were
> trying to control members' thinking at the local level. It's only
> where the levers of national and international power are concerned
> that dogmatic and authoritarian tendencies are observable. (This is
> only one man's opinion and others' mileage may vary.)
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> > I told my father about the Ray Franz book and asked if he'd read 
> > it ,he said something to me that burned into my memory and that 
> > was `Perry your mother and I have been in this religion for the past 
> > 40 years and your telling us its all been wasted".
> 
> People are amazingly frank about their cognitive dissonance. "This
> evidence has implications that are challenging to my comfort level,
> therefore I won't look at it." I fail to see what kind of
> psychological security people can derive from that stance.
> 
> > Its not an easy call to make all those years all those friends that 
> > reputation of being a "strong witness" 
> > What do you say? How do you respond?
> > The lesson has been a huge one for me, a life's work and association 
> > and you find out much of it, if not all of it was fantasy!
> > 
> > You can imagine my amazement to find the TS no different to the JWs 
> > once the rubber hit the road.
> > Platitudes are great but if they are not backed up by action….
> > There's no dharma higher than truth ….what an ask !
> > 
> I'll end with what for me was a startling discovery. Amazon.com has
> in recent months introduced an indexing feature, so now you can search
> a name and find out where the person is mentioned in books that have
> been indexed in the database. I've learned of many books in which my
> own are cited or mentioned-- which total more than 50 at last count. 
> These vary tremendously, from very serious scholarship (most recently
> Mark Sedgwick's Against the Modern World, a study of the
> Traditionalists just out from Oxford University Press) to really flaky
> New Age books (most recently one about a guy who claims to be the
> reincarnation of Cayce.) What is completely missing is any citation
> in Theosophical publications save a brief mention in Sanat's
> Krishnamurti book. When I delved deeper I found no other original
> work in Theosophical history published since 1995 by any Theosophical
> publisher (or by any Theosophist author as best I can tell) in
> English. There have been compilations, reprints, and one study of the
> Hodgson report, but no histories or biographies. Compared to the
> previous decade, this is a huge change.
> 
> I suspect that Theosophical history itself, and not any particular
> work of history, has become anathema to the powers that be. The
> controversy about the handling of the HPB letters (see Deveney's
> interesting review in the latest TH) publication is very interesting
> as a symptom of the historyphobia of Adyar/Wheaton. More on that later.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul