Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00052)

Dear Anton, Pedro, and all,
I think the points you make are quite accurate and indeed politics 
is the way power is used or misused according to your ideological 
perspective.
Some power bases believe that there should be leaders and follows 
and that the leaders can decide what information is given out and 
what is not. 
One effective method used is the side tracking of debate.

So far the prime issue I've raised regarding the Adyar society has 
not been directly answered by the `CWL supporters' or Adyar leaders.

Instead the usual diversionary tactic of saying in effect `how can 
we possibly define what theosophical teachings are anyway… Blavatsky 
supporters are being narrow minded about theosophy...'

Well these are valid and good questions however it is not the main 
issue I raised.
I've asked several times why is it legitimately researched criticism 
of CWLs teachings are not presented in Adyar publications? 

Why when it is `ok' to write critiques of HPB in the publications is 
CLW and AB off limits?
I am only asking for simple and clear clarification of 
policy,nothing more.

If it is true that CWL and AB are off limits to researchers and 
students in its publications then this should be clearly made known 
to anyone who becomes a member of the society.

Especially to scholars and researchers who should be made aware they 
will be censored in society publications if they wish to show the 
differences in the teachings and that the freedom of thought 
statement does not hold for articles that challenge CWL and AB.
Why can't the teachings simply be put side by side and compared?
Its incredible to be even asking this question.

If there is `organisational culture' that stops this research from 
appearing in its publications what will the societies leadership do 
in order to rectify it, or at least be open about it's practice?

I don't intend to drag this issue out any longer, I think I may be 
labouring the issue for this group so this is my last try to get a 
direct and clear answer fro the TS on this.
Plenty of more interesting things to talk about.

Regards

Perry
Voice of the Silence:
"VIRYA, the dauntless energy that fights its way to the supernal 
TRUTH, out of the mire of lies terrestrial." 



PS: Thanks Paul for your comments


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anton Rozman" 
<anton_rozman@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Perry and all,
> 
> H.P.B. said that theosophy is not for mentally lazy people. So, we 
> must have confidence that people will be capable to discern seeds 
> from weed. After all this is preliminary condition for spiritual 
> growth. 
> 
> I agree that we should search for and explore the facts for they 
> broaden our perspective. Exploring facts often represents that 
> necessary mental activity which can lead us towards the truth. But 
> the truth is far beyond the facts and we can find it only in the 
> depth of our own intimate experience as an insight. And when we 
try 
> to communicate this insight to the others it only becomes another 
> fact, a fact that X.Y. said that certain thing.
> 
> I agree that the organizations should allow that the facts could 
be 
> explored, that the organizations should open their archives. But 
> here we are dealing with the interest which evolved throughout 
last 
> thirty, maybe some more years. Before, this was an interest of 
only 
> few passionate researchers. Therefore organizations still consider 
> this demand as a threat and not as their obligation. They evolved 
> strong interest for safety, so they see this demand as the attempt 
> to undermine their work.
> 
> And we can not say that organizations are the resultant of their 
> members. They have a life of their own. We can often or quite 
> usually see that a member as an official lessens his expectations, 
> that he finds that stability is more important then a change. 
> Therefore for the changes in the organizations there is often an 
> extreme endeavor and some outside impulse needed. Accusations of 
> inadequate attitude can represent such an impulse but I believe 
that 
> an attempt to organize some work that the organizations should 
> undertake but are not willing or capable to execute would be far 
> more efficient impulse. And I see in internet the technology that 
> allows that such work can be undertaken.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Anton
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Hello Anton, and all
> > I agree with you and I do think that most people in this group 
> would
> > agree that diversity is the key to a truer understanding of
> > theosophical teachings.
> > The Ancient wisdom can be seen in the Upanishads, the Vedas, 
> Kabbalah,
> > Taoism, mystics of all traditions, and none, and all of these are
> > worthy of study and comparison with those of the Mahatmas 
Esoteric 
> Cis
> > and Trans Himalayian Budhist tradition that HPB presented to the
> > modern world for the first time.
> > 
> > However when some people say that everything is theosophy I 
think 
> this
> > is easily proven incorrect.
> > The well known quote is "while Theosophy is everything not 
> everything
> > is theosophy."
> > 
> > For example the Hindu's and exoteric Buddhists believe and teach 
> that
> > a human can return in an animal form.
> > The Mahatma's tradition refutes this idea.
> > Can we then say that this teaching of humans returning in an 
animal
> > form is theosophical?
> > 
> > Likewise the Christians believe in the vicarious atonement of 
> Jesus on
> > the cross.
> > This is also not a theosophical teaching.
> > On what authority can this statement be made?
> > Theosophy teaches something completely different.
> > This does not mean the theosophical teachings are right however.
> > 
> > They may not be, therefore these teachings should NEVER be 
> presented
> > as a truth that must be believed, infact we should never blindly
> > `believe' these teachings but rather by the use of an ongoing 
> process
> > of investigation and experience the truth of it may or may not be
> > revealed. It might be wrong, it might be right.
> > 
> > Many people find this difficult to discern for some reason.
> > Perhaps we are to used to guru's and teachers who demand belief.
> > The opposite is true of the Mahatma's.
> > They do not seek follows but encourage independent thought.
> > The teachings the Mahatmas themselves could only verify for 
> themselves
> > through their own processes and hard work.
> > 
> > CWL and his advocates clearly and demonstrably changed many of 
the
> > teachings thus blurring what was originally presented by the 
> Mahatma's
> > tradition, that the TS is supposed to be the responsible 
custodian 
> of.
> > 
> > So if a student feels it is their responsibility to present these
> > differences to the membership (not in order to make dogmatic
> > statements) but simply to clarify the differences to the 
> membership at
> > large through the societies publications they should be given
> > opportunities to do this.
> > 
> > This is simple reason and logic and expression of facts, nothing 
to
> > difficult, unless the societies leadership does not want this
> > information presented and is suppressing from being printed in 
> their
> > publications.
> > 
> > What possible excuse can the society give for not allowing the 
> critics
> > of CWL to present there case, of course there is NONE from a 
truly
> > theosophical perspective.
> > However politics rule the roost or so it seems and genuine 
freedom
> > must take the back seat and drum its fingers patiently waiting 
to 
> get
> > a word in.
> > 
> > To me Pedro's reasoning reflects a certain mindset in the Adyar 
TS
> > that has a serious blind spot and I can see absolutely no 
rational
> > justification for it.
> > 
> > To on the one hand be calling for freedom and wanting to call 
> anything
> > theosophy it then seems to want's to stifle any voice of 
desention 
> to
> > the standard CWL et.al. pronouncements.
> > Strange double standard.
> > 
> > Would the TS allow born again Christians in the door and present 
> that
> > as being theosophy?
> > How can the TS actually say it has no core teachings?! and keep a
> > straight face.
> > 
> > And of course THEOSOPHY with the capital "T" is `beyond the 
range 
> and
> > reach of thought'.
> > 
> > Does that mean we dont comparatively study the Bible the Koran, 
the
> > Upanishads and the Zohar?
> > 
> > Of course not, but we need to make a distinction between the 
> teachings
> > the Mahatmas and HPB presented and those of the latter day 
> presenters
> > made and those of the different exoteric traditions and let 
people
> > make their own mind up and go through there own process of 
> discovery.
> > 
> > If that makes me a dogmatist then so be it.
> > 
> > Perry
> > 
> > PS
> > 
> > Pedro, sorry to mention you in the 3rd person but I thought you 
may
> > read this and it is related to your postings.
> > Just as a throught perhaps we could say the Leadbeaterian 
> tradition to
> > make it distinct from theosophy to save confussion to members.
> > I say suggest this sincerly