Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00389)

Hello Eldon,
I enjoyed your post it covers many of the points I've been tussling
with myself since my discovery of all these issues in the TS.
Do I stay or do I go was a big issue for me.
The initial emotion responce is you feel outraged and see an injustice
that you want to see it addressed. 
After all "there's no Religion higher than Truth".

Then you realise how much history is involved and the massive amount
of careful overhauling the society would have to go though in order to
address these issues.
This would take the pro-active co-operation of the leadership. 

We can't I feel ignore the influence of the LCC in this respect while
its influence is not really present prima facie in the Lodges I still
think quite a few people of influence within the TS are also involved
in the church even if on the periphery (anyone who knows differently
please correct me)
People involved in the LCC work very hard in the Church (I know I was
involved for a period myself) they are lovely people and very
committed, so if the info about CWL and AB was to come under serious
challenge in the TS by default this would inpact in the LCC and to a
lesser degree Co-Freemasonry, although there numbers are dwindling the
stalwarts may still have plenty of influence at higher levels in the
society.(interested to see what others think)

So all these considerations come in to play.
As Ive said before not an easy ask at all.

The so-called 'back to Blavatsky-ites' are seen as narrow minded
Blavatsky dogmatists which to me is a complete and utter red herring.

But back to what your post was saying is it 'better' for someone like
myself who has seen though the deception of CWL to defer and stand
aside and vote with my feet or do I take a pro-active stance within
the society? 

For me its been a real dilemma, I feel a certain sense of duty to not
so much the society but to the teachings to make sure that members are
aware that CWLs and ABs theosophy is not only different but infact
contradicts those originally given out.

Not in any kind of paternalistic or dogmatic way at all but simply to
offer and show the original from the alternitive versions and leave it
up to members to decide.

My decission to resign was really after feeling that the task is to
great without the support of the Leadership who seem to be completely
disinterested in these issues and you are only met with either silence
or denial.
When I resigned knowone asked me why or showed any concern and I was a
very active member.

So maybe moving on is the only way?

Perry

"You can't speak truth to power"
(Noam Chomsky)




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Eldon B Tucker <eldon@t...> wrote:
> Paul:
> 
> For a group to grow and evolve, it must allow new ideas to be heard.
This 
> is not just regarding the history of its earlier leadership, but
especially 
> about its fundamental assumptions and key ideas. People in a
current 
> leadership role with a vested interest in the status quo would
resist 
> change, unless they make an effort to keep flexible and open minded.
> 
> How an organization responds to new ideas depends upon its purpose,
as 
> perceived by its leadership. A theosophical group dedicated to
promoting 
> those ideas found in the writings of HPB and Judge would be less
likely to 
> consider historic or philosophical issues that question their
special 
> occult status or authoritative nature of their writings. A group
dedicated 
> to promoting one's personal spiritual quest, regardless of where it
may be 
> found, would be more likely to question everything and less
challenged by 
> any particular viewpoint.
> 
> It is perfectly fine, I think, that different theosophical and
spiritual 
> groups exist, each with its own approach and perspective. Each group
offers 
> something different to its members and society. If there are enough
various 
> groups, everyone should be able to find one to fit in with and feel
at home.
> 
> Some groups may focus on promoting a certain body of theosophical 
> doctrines, those with a particular focus, like Besant/Leadbeater, 
> Krishnamurti, Judge, MAHATMA LETTERS, or Purucker variants of the 
> doctrines. Each focus may have distinctive ideas, some traceable to 
> Blavatsky's writings and others that are first given voice in the
later 
> writers.
> 
> Despite questions of theosophical history, the Besant/Leadbeater
ideas are 
> popular. Consider the rapid growth of Anand Gholap's Yahoo Groups
list, 
> "theosophical," which in two months of existence has matched
theos-talk's 
> number of subscribers. (It just reached 263.)
> 
> What makes a group, magazine, or list popular is the consistence in
view, 
> content, and expected behavior of members. If someone wants to hang
out 
> with people of like mind, they'll seek out places where that belief
is 
> espoused, not where it is under attack and thought ill of.
> 
> A theosophical group that takes the approach that not only are a
certain 
> body of doctrines true, but the outlook of its current leadership
defines 
> the group's purpose, will take challenging views as a political
threat. If 
> you question Leadbeater's spiritual status, for instance, in a
group 
> dedicated to promoting his ideas, you may find yourself pushed to
the 
> sidelines. Regardless of issues of what may be true historically,
you'd be 
> seen as a threat to the group and treated accordingly.
> 
> In a different group, not dependent upon a particular belief in 
> theosophical history and having a leadership not making any claims
to 
> special status for themselves, your historic investigations would 
fit in 
> without making waves.
> 
> A basic question with a group is, "What is the purpose for which
this group 
> exists?" If it is to promote a certain belief system, any inquiry
that 
> undermines that belief, or is disruptive to people expressing ideas
in 
> terms of that belief, would be opposed. The questioning of the
belief would 
> be considered as not in accord with the group's stated purpose,
being "off 
> topic" and inappropriate.
> 
> If a group is to promote a certain open inquiry into the spiritual, 
> regardless of one's belief, there would be no belief system to be 
> undermined and the only disruptive behavior would be when someone
stifles 
> another's feeling of belonging and willingness to express and share
his or 
> her ideas. (That is, in terms of a mailing list, to treat other and
their 
> beliefs with respect, even as we may disagree and offer dissenting
views.)
> 
> Theosophists are free to form their own groups, magazines, web
sites, 
> mailing lists, study classes, etc. with or without official
sanction of 
> some major theosophical groups. We're free to explore life without
being 
> subject to organizational politics as perhaps we were in the past.
With the 
> advent of the Internet, we have the means to continue our studies of
deeper 
> materials and further our spiritual quest without having to do so
according 
> to someone else's rules, regulations, or decision to grant us a
membership 
> card or lodge charter.
> 
> With theos-talk, there's a experiment in progress. How well can we
coexist 
> with people with widely-different views without giving up or blowing
up in 
> anger? Can we all learn from each other, rather than simply harden
our 
> positions and become more dogmatic about what we previously believed
in? 
> And can we become more skillful in exploring issues of deep
philosophy, 
> uncovering new insights for both ourselves and others to learn by?
It's a 
> challenge.
> 
> -- Eldon