Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00632)

Hello All,
Thanks Jerry for taking the time to do this post it was very 
interesting .
Sorry to hear about your family members illness.

It seems that these historical issues need to really discussed openly 
in the Society.
I believe that open historical dialogue is important as it can start 
to clear away a lot of the underlying grievances and issues in the 
society by simply bringing them to light.

If the society does not want to be partisan to any particular ism it 
seems to me open discussion of some of this historical material needs 
to be discussed in lodges and branches and through published articles 
allowing for different perspectives and points of view.

If the reason for being of the Adyar Society is solely the promotion 
of the first object it needs to be open to differing historical and 
philosophical opinions and points of view in its publications.

If the reason Bailey material is not promoted is in order to avoid 
takeovers I can understand that but I would say if a knowledge of the 
historical reasons was more widely known by the membership it is able 
to help lectern any animosity that may arise from this issue.

The same could be said of Leadbeater and Annie Besant if members are 
actively encouraged study the history and made aware that there are 
differences in the teachings given by Leadbeater and those of HPB and 
her Mahatma's it allows both sides of the picture to be aired and 
given voice so that members and students may make up their own minds 
and explore both points of view. 

Perhaps I am politically naïve about this but it seems to me some 
kind of 5 or 10 year plan could be implemented to enable an 
evolutionary path for the Society to head down.

Rules of protocol and procedure could surely be drawn up to enable a 
more open dialogue without it descending into just a mudslinging 
match, but that allow genuine intellectual rigor and investigation to 
be carried on in its journals and publication regarding these 
politically delicate issues.

Comparison of the various theosophical writers perspectives comes 
under the 2nd object of the society done in a manner that takes into 
account the 1st object.

This does not mean that it avoids conflicting opinions but rather 
that it allows a variety of commentaries to be voiced and heard done 
in the spirit of investigation into life's mysteries and truths. That 
is true Brotherhood - Unity in Diversity.

Aspects of historical truth may be a little distressing to some 
however this is unavoidable due to the nature of human relationships 
and behavior.

I think a mature human being should be able to handle debate 
difference of opinion with someone and still be able to shake hands 
and have a cup of tea with them afterwards.
This is an ideal I know but isn't that what theosophy is all about.
As the Mahatmas say "try"

Perry

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
wrote:
> Hello Perry, Paul, Kristar and all,
> 
> A family member is seriously ill, so I'm afraid that I can't afford 
to 
> put much time into this interesting conversation. I would however, 
> recommend Joseph Ross' "Krotona of Old Hollywood vol. II" which has 
the 
> best collection of documents concerning this issue. He also tells 
me 
> that more documents will be in the forth coming vol. III. In the 
mean 
> time, I can make a few remarks that might clarify things a little:
> 
> Regarding the hostility towards Alice Evans and Foster Bailey, 
there 
> seems to be several issues involved, but the one that directly led 
to 
> their ousting from Krotona, Hollywood, was their campaign for a 
more 
> democratic community. At the time, the ES authority overshadowed 
> everything at Krotona in those days. The strain between the ES and 
TS 
> interests, eventuated in their separation in 1926, when the TS 
moved its 
> headquarters to Wheaton IL. and the ES to Ojai CA. Alice and 
Foster 
> were not alone in their effort to democratize Krotona. I have here 
a 
> letter from the late Astrologer, Dame Rudhyar, who was also at 
Krotona 
> at the time, and was a student of B.P. Wadia. According to 
Rudhyar, 
> both he and Wadia were supportive of Alice and Foster's efforts. 
> However, Rudhyar also pointed out in the same letter that his 
support 
> for AAB's cause did not necessarily mean support for their 
particular 
> philosophical ideas. One of the fiercest opponents', and one of 
the 
> people responsible for Alice and Foster's dismissal was L.W. 
Rogers.  
> 
> In Alice Bailey's Autobiography she also mentions resistance to her 
> statements that she had also been in contact and was a disciple of 
KH, 
> one of HPB's Masters. This, I think is another, but closely related 
> issue. When she gave voice to this belief in the ES, a great deal 
of 
> animosity was aroused. Keep in mind that the word in those days 
was 
> that one became a disciple only through the ES--therefore AAB's 
remark 
> indicating that she was under KH's guidance outside of the ES 
circles 
> created the threat of a competitive situation. 
> 
> AAB also mentions receiving receiving ES papers but, the papers she 
> received and used came from a source outside of the E.S.; a Richard 
> Prater, who according to AAB, gave her a copy of the instructions 
to use 
> as she liked. She did. AAB also mentions that she joined the ES in 
1918, 
> so one could argue that she was under a pledge, concerning ES 
material, 
> regardless of where she received them. She also mentions in her 
> Autobiography that the instructions she received from Prater 
matched the 
> instructions which she had seen "elsewhere." This raises an 
ethical 
> issue which might be worth a discussion in itself.
> 
> Beyond this, AAB's writings include teachings that can be found in 
ES 
> material written between 1910 and 1920 (all of which would have 
been 
> available to her). Her obligations concerning this material also 
raises 
> interesting questions. On the other hand, if one believes AAB to be 
a 
> disciple of KH, and a channeler of DK, one can say that while she 
may 
> have seen the information first through ES sources, she also got it 
from 
> DK.  
> 
> Another interesting item is that I am aware of several former ES 
members 
> who were expelled because they were also involved with Meditation 
Mount, 
> an Alice Bailey type center also located at Ojai. As I understand 
it, 
> their crime was participating in Meditation Mount meditation 
practices, 
> not authorized by the ES. I would every much like to hear from 
anyone 
> who has any first hand information concerning these incidents or 
others 
> of a similar nature. These incidents do suggest to me that the ES 
still 
> has issues concerning Alice Bailey teachings. Perhaps some of you 
have 
> a different explanation.
> 
> --j
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      
> 
> kpauljohnson wrote:
> 
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Can anyone shine some light on this?
> >>
> >>Perry
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Hi Perry,
> >
> >Perhaps Jerry H-E can explain further, but I recall years ago that 
> >he explained the otherwise inexplicable hostility towards Bailey 
in 
> >the Adyar TS. Inexplicable, that is, because she seems to rile 
the 
> >powers that be more than Steiner, the Prophets, Purucker, etc. 
etc. 
> >whereas her teachings are actually more in line with Adyar/ES/CWL 
> >orthodoxy than all those other claimants to Mahatmic inspiration.
> >
> >That similarity is actually at the root of the hostility, because 
> >Bailey was an ES member and after leaving the TS incorporated 
secret 
> >Leadbeaterian doctrines into her writings. Thus she was regarded 
as 
> >a traitor to the ES and the Masters. Sounds very plausible, and 
> >since ES members are not going to tell us who's on their s--tlist 
> >and in what order, guesswork is all we have left.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]