Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00398)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> 
wrote:
> 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.

Dear Perry,

Is there the option of non-Adyar Theosophical affiliation? Pasadena 
and ULT are represented in Australia too-- ever encountered them?

> 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.

The above precisely describes the clerical sex abuse issue in the RC 
Church, doesn't it?

> This would take the pro-active co-operation of the leadership. 
> 
Ditto.

> 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)

What I think is that both major TSes have leaders of advanced age 
and will not alter their current paths until a new generation of 
leadership emerges. From my observation, Adyar members are much 
less satisfied than Pasadena members and therefore a new generation 
of leadership has more potential for changing direction.

Is CWL sacred to Indian Theosophists? If so he can never been 
gotten past, I fear, since they dominate the Adyar TS.

> 
> 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.>

Not to me.

> 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? 
> 
What's the potential for success? Don't waste time in a psychic 
sinkhole.

> 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.
> 
The majority of publications on the subject acknowledge that so 
people won't be fooled for long even if they start out reading CWL.

> 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 number 1 complaint about historical evasiveness in Adyar is the 
unavailability of The Durbar in Lahore, an original work by HPB that 
was my most crucial evidence for a particular nexus of Sikh and 
Hindu spiritual leaders with whom the Founders were involved. Why 
should a book by the chief founder be left unavailable? (Boris de Z 
translated it in the 60s in the Theosophist, but it's his 
translation from Russian, still under copyright at TPH.)

What set off that tangent was "alternative versions" is that HPB in 
Russian is quite a different author than HPB in English, and when 
they're writing about the same people and situations the question 
constantly arises of which one is more authentic. (Kudos though to 
whomever recently published a translation of People from The Blue 
Mountains which I have in French.)

> 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.

And if you persist in raising uncomfortable questions, displays of 
negative emotions they evoke.

> When I resigned knowone asked me why or showed any concern and I 
was a very active member.

You were in the wrong place then. Sorry it was so cold, but that 
says all that needs to be said about whether leaving was the right 
thing.

> So maybe moving on is the only way?
> 
> Perry 

Consider my option: you always have the possibility of rejoining the 
TS if conditions change. Thus being an ex- and possibly-future 
Theosophist. Pasadena Theosophists are not in denial about CWL-- 
and vastly more successful as publishers of HPB. So check out your 
local options. 


Paul
> "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