Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00431)

Here Eldon is where I have really serious issues with the Society.

The TS was supposed to be an organization where Brotherhood & 
philosophical freedom were to be its CORNERSTONES. If the later 
leadership deems certain prominent teachers' writings to be 
offlimits, or "inappropriate" to be criticized, then by default this 
Society loses any credibility and becomes simply a Jesuitical type of 
body. It should not be a matter of "their point of view". The 
principles so clearly stated so many times by HPB were intended to 
guard against censorship of this kind.

If some subject matter is "inappropriate" the reasons for this should 
be clearly stated and reflected in the official policy of the Society.

With the way things seem to have been done and are still done, the 
Adyar Society's official "freedom of thought" statement should 
read "no teacher or writer (with the exception of CW Leadbeater and 
Annie Besant), from H.P. Blavatsky onwards any has authority to 
impose opinions on others…"

It doesn't matter how fancy the excuses become, this simple principle 
can't be denied.

We all keep talking about the `importance of change', well yes I 
agree.

Is it simply that the "truth" is a bitter pill? Because no amount of 
side stepping can avoid this.

Who is it that deems what is "appropriate" or not. What arrogance. 

Sorry if this comes over strongly, but to me it's outrageous.

Perry



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Eldon B Tucker <eldon@t...> wrote:
> Perry:
> 
> Many years ago, my first exposure to Theosophy came through reading 
> Leadbeater's books. I later came across Ken Small at Far Horizons 
> Theosophical Camp in Northern California, where he and Lina Psaltis 
gave me 
> some books by G. de Purucker. These books proved helpful in 
broadening my 
> thinking, and made Blavatsky's writings understandable to me. From 
there, I 
> read more of the core literature, and came across comparisons of 
> Blavatsky's Theosophy with Leadbeater's. The most colorful 
comparisons 
> were in old issues of the O.E. Library Critic by Stokes. The term 
> "Neo-Theosophy" was used to describe how Leadbeater's writings 
diverged 
> from the original.
> 
> When I was first reading the comparisons, I would also use the term 
> "Neo-Theosophy," but have since come to realize that it is a 
derogatory 
> term. It doesn't just say "this is something different," but seems 
to imply 
> "this is something extremely inferior." If when I was steeped in 
> Leadbeater's writings and had been exposed to little else, I would 
have 
> responded unfavorable to the term and found it alienating. On the 
other 
> hand, simply begin given some of Purucker's works and exposed to 
the depths 
> that I later came to see in them, I found it ease to move on and 
broaden my 
> theosophical thinking. If it were not for Leadbeater's writings, I 
would 
> not have been initially drawn to Theosophy, but equally important 
was the 
> manner in which I was approached to share other ideas also of 
value. And by 
> the way, the best of his books, which I highly recommend to 
theosophical 
> students, is FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY, based upon a 
class he 
> gave at Point Loma on THE SECRET DOCTRINE in the 1920's when he was 
a 
> regular theosophical student, before he became international head 
of the 
> Theosophical Society. (This is the Point Loma Society, tracing its 
history 
> back through the Judge side of the Judge/Olcott split in the 
1890's.)
> 
> Official journals are the mouthpiece of an organization's 
leadership, and 
> would reflect their view on Theosophy and what is proper 
theosophical 
> discussion. This is from THEIR point of view, as people leading the 
> organization with their own viewpoints. If something is not given 
space in 
> such a journal, it is because the editors deem it inappropriate, 
off topic, 
> or offensive from THEIR point of view.
> 
> This does not preclude any number of independent journals 
expressing other 
> viewpoints. It's just that the other journals do not have access to 
funds 
> from donations and membership dues and do not have access to 
mailing and 
> email addresses of members. But independent journals can be created 
and 
> thrive nevertheless, crossing organizational boundaries and 
reaching people 
> of many backgrounds. Each journal can express a certain viewpoint 
from its 
> own perspective and collectively all the journals can cover the 
full 
> spectrum of viewpoints. It's in the mailing lists, thought, where 
every 
> possible view can meet face-to-face with others, as long as the 
listowner 
> doesn't moderate it, filtering things, enforcing his own slant to 
how ideas 
> should be aired.
> 
> -- Eldon
> 
> At 06:32 PM 8/22/2004, you wrote:
> 
> >Hello Eldon and All,
> >Your points are definitely ways I tend to lean towards myself.
> >
> >I have no problem with people studying neo-theosophy or any other
> >particular philosophy, the main point being its not done in a 
dogmatic
> >and closed fashion as you say the writings of HPB are simply 
giving us
> >some clues and I tend to think the nature of her writing style 
leads
> >you away from belief and following much the way Krishnamurti's
> >teachings do.
> >The same cannot be said of neo-theosophy which developed devotional
> >belief based mindset's imo.
> >
> >So for me the issue of leaving the society was based not on having 
the
> >society become a HPB only society but rather a society that allowed
> >free and open debate and philosophical enquiry not only in the
> >lectures or study groups but also in its PUBLICATIONS this being 
the
> >main objection I have with the Adyar TS.
> >
> >If the principal of freedom of opinion is one that is not only a
> >platitude in the society then why are articles critical of CWL and
> >neo-theosophy `not allowed' in its publications and yet it's 
perfectly
> >fine to criticise HPB in them?
> >Perhaps I got this wrong but theres been no reply from any Adyar
> >people as to the veracity of this suggestion.
> >
> >As I said before if this principal was upheld by the leadership
> >without paternalistic censorship I would rejoin.
> >
> >But I've heard no assurances so far .... I wish I could be proved
> >wrong on this but as far as I can see it seems to be the case.
> >
> >Perry