Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00026)

Hallo Paul and all,

My views are:

I am sorry Erica, but Paul just formulated in very exact words, what I was
thinking myself.

But, I will grant you this view.
We maybe aught to let the past be the past and look ahead - and find out
what we want to do with the present situation in the different theosophical
groups and organisations - TS Adyar included.

And I too hate disagreements and debates about various personlities
so-called past mistakes.

There is how ever this problem - that if one promotes an author like
Leadbeater - will it then go and make the so often very fearful new Seekers
afraid of Theosophy, make them fearful of ANY kind of spiritual development
and in fact lead them astray and away from the Path?
There is certainly a risk there, which should not be overlooked.
This question has to be asked.
It cannot be avoided.

The same question could be given when we talk about Krishnamurti - the
so-called World Teacher, which in fact was not a real World Teacher, (not
for long anyways), but instead a promoter of pseudo Adwaita Vedantin
teachings. Since all his teaching are contained in the old doctrine, it can
hardly be called new - although it can be called a westernized pseudo
version hereof.

And also to a minor degree Besant because of her being the TS leader having
given through several years an eager and overwhelmingly support for both
Leadbeater and Krishnamurti.

Blavatsky puts it quite nicely in - H. P. Blavatsky to the American
Conventions - Letter I -- 1888
Second Annual Convention -- April 22-23) :

"According as people are prepared to receive it, so will new Theosophical
teaching be given. But no more will be given than the world, on its present
level of spirituality, can profit by. It depends on the spread of
Theosophy -- the assimilation of what has been already given -- how much
more will be revealed, and how soon."
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-am/hpb-am1.htm



What I am forced to consider to be the main teachings TODAY are given on
this page -

*** Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society ***
-------
Preliminary Memorandum
[Strictly Private, Confidential, Personal, for Members only.]

"The Secret Doctrine."
"Patanjali's Yoga Philosophy"
"The Bhagavad Gita"
"The Theosophist" (magazine)
"Light on the Path" "Lucifer" (magazine, no longer in print)
"The Path" (magazine, no longer in print)
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/esinstr.htm

And we all know that The Bhagavad Gita is the essence of the Upanishads,
which Blavatsky in her article (WHAT SHALL WE DO FOR OUR FELLOW-MEN? )
mentions is almost identical with Theosophy.

Now we have to recognize, that we live in year 2004, and that the old
doctrines are old. And old books are old.
But old books of quality has an enormous force behind them. That force is
stored in the Akasha by all those who has learned from these books - and who
have profitted by them and walked the Path because of them.

One could suggest new theosophical books of a more introductory kind aught
to be written by Authors, which are helpful in peacefully promoting the
subject.
This would be a betterment of the present clearly problematic situation,
with untrustworthy authors and authors who have written books with
fundamental mistakes in them. (Small mistakes will nearly always be there as
long as the authors are not perfect Masters. I think we will have to live
with that situation for the time being.)

In one of the Mahatma Letters is Sinnett being asked to consider a
translation of Schopenhauer as something valuable. The view in another
Letter is, that Theosophy - is a Philosophical School more than any other
issues.:
" I have asked H. P. B. to send you a number of philosophical letters from a
Dutch Theosophist at Penang -- one in whom I take an interest: you ask for
more work and her -- one is some. They are translations, originals of those
portions of Schoppenhauer which are most in affinity with our Arhat
doctrines. The English is not idiomatic but the material is valuable. Should
you be disposed to utilise any portion of it, I would recommend your opening
a direct correspondence with Mr. Sanders, F.T.S. -- the translator.
Schoppenhauer's philosophical value is so well known in the western
countries that a comparison or connotation of his teachings upon will, etc.,
with those you have received from ourselves might be instructive. Yes I am
quite ready to look over your 50 or 60 pages and make notes on the margins:
have them set up by all means and send them to me either through little
"Deb" or Damodar and Djual Kul will transmit them. In a very few days,
perhaps to-morrow, your two questions will be amply answered by me. "
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-11.htm

So considering the above letter, we maybe aught to CAREFULLY consider, that
Theosophy as such adapts itself in a much higher degree to time, place,
people and circumstances when it promotes its various outlets and
teachings - THAN to a dead-letter attitude towards the promotion of
theosophy.
Do the readers not agree?

***
"Even an innocent quotation mark fallen from under my pencil and by you
objected to, would have a world of meaning for one, less beclouded than you
were in writing your last letter" (K.H.).
http://members.aol.com/theos357/TE10.htm


from
M. Sufilight


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 11:28 PM
Subject: Theos-World When the personal is political


> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Erica Letzerich" <eletzerich@y...>
> wrote:
> This is a hasty generalization a deductive fallacy.
> >
> Hi again Erica,
>
> My first experience of Theosophical cyberspace was more than ten years
> ago. Participants were criticizing CWL's doctrines and behavior on
> theos-l in 1993-94, and other participants (invariably Adyar members)
> were attacking them as spiritually wrong for doing so. The same thing
> has occurred regularly ever since. So when I see it today and say
> it's a typical reaction based on 10 years of observation of
> Theosophical cyberspace, that's "hasty" only if one takes the larger
> manvantaric picture. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
> >
> > You do not provide a good argument in your call for discussing the
> > founders, in your analogy of sexual abuse in the family.
>
> I wasn't calling for it but trying to explain why attempts are
> invariably made to shut down such discussions.
>
> > Nobody is discussing about hiding information, denying it or keeping
> it veiled.
> >
> That seems to be precisely what Perry, Steve, Daniel, Gregory, and I
> have been discussing.
>
> > My call was direct and simple a call to the ideals that the T.S.
> > represent in the world.
> >
> > Or when you, Dr. Tillet (or whoever else you mentioned in your
> > previous e-mail) joined the T.S. it was with the aim to study and
> > discuss the personal life of T.S. fellows?
> >
> No, but neither was it with the aim of belonging to a group that is
> pathologically avoidant of basic facts about its own history.
> I must take issue with your relegation of CWL's behavior to the realm
> of "personal life." What HPB did or didn't do in her youth does
> indeed fall into that category; while the parentage of Yuri is an
> interesting puzzle it's not relevant to her role as a Theosophical
> teacher. But CWL's sexual proclivities weren't simply "his private
> life;" he repeatedly used his role as a Theosophical leader to obtain
> access to victims and threw the TS into uproars caused by his
> behavior. Moreover, his long shadow still has a profound effect on
> the life of the TS. Any effort to understand why things are the way
> they are in the Adyar TS leads right back to CWL and his "personal
> life." Hence, it's a Theosophical issue.
>
> > The T.S. hold three very clear objects and in none is stated to
> > investigate the personal lives of theosophists or to confirm if
> > Blavatsky was wearing a pink or red underwear.
> >
> The Adyar TS may claim to the right to stifle allegedly inappropriate
> historical discussions among its members-- hence to declare certain
> topics off limits in its publications or any online discussion fora it
> controls. In a mixed group including non-Theosophists and non-Adyar
> Theosophists, the Adyar TS members cannot *control* historical
> discussion-- but sure can *disrupt* it with personal condemnation of
> those trying to carry on such discussion.
>
> I think it would be more effective to actually start new discussion
> threads on topics one considers preferable, as opposed to telling
> others their interests are inappropriate or unworthy of discussion.
> The latter course only adds fuel to the fire, because people don't
> like attempts to stifle them.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>