Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt00332)

Jerry,
After Krishnamurti left TS, if all policies and focus had kept as it 
was under leadership of Annie Besant then lost members would have 
been replaced by new members and TS would have remained vibrant 
organization. 
My opinion is Krishnamuti's leaving could have only temporary 
setback. Policies and focus should have been kept as they were 
earlier.
My lodge has very young membership of very qualified people, total 
110 members. This despite management's policy of not advertizing. 
Apart from that we have displayed Krishnamurti's photo in the Lodge. 
Most members respect both Theosophy and consider Krishnamurti as 
World-Teacher. They study mostly AB and CWL's books and like them 
very much. 
Fear that Krishnamurti's references in books and elsewhere cause 
problems for Theosophical movement is not right. There are lot of 
things to learn from how K was found, raised and how he later became 
a great teacher as predicted almost twenty years in advance by Mr. 
Leadbeater and Besant. 
In entire history of TS golden days for the Theosophical Society were 
when Annie Besant was President.AB and CWL wrote very high quality 
literature. That was received around the world very well. Result was 
membership was all time high of more than 45000. If we continue to 
focus on same literature it will again produce very positive results, 
this time on much greater scale because other conditions have become 
much more favorable.
Anand Gholap 


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
wrote:
> Anand,
> 
> Perhaps, the best way to, at least, partially answer your question 
is 
> from an historical perspective. When Krishnamurti closed the Order 
of 
> the Star and left the Theosophical Society (1930), the leadership 
was, 
> for a time left "flat footed" so to speak. Jinarajadasa's 
comments in 
> the ES material published at that time is quite revealing. CJ was 
quite 
> incredulous that after pretty much growing up with K. and with 
Nitya and 
> George Arundale forming sort of an inner group under CWL, 
Krishnamurti 
> was throwing all of that aside. K's early public talks after 
leaving 
> the TS were very discounting of the Teachings and of the Masters. 
> 
> When George Arundale became President in 1934, he took the tack of 
> ignoring Krishnamurti and tried to put the TS on a different 
tract. 
> Basically Arundale took the public stand that Theosophy is 
everything 
> and anything that the public wanted it to be. If the public was 
> interested in the arts, he made the arts Theosophy. If they were 
> interested in politics, he made politics Theosophy. It was a very 
busy 
> time of printing tens of thousands of pamphlets and flyers all 
devoid of 
> meningful content. It was also the beginning of the editing of 
> Theosophical texts so as to remove references to K. and others 
> embarrassments to the TS. While all of this reforming Theosophy 
for 
> the public was going on, the ES was still very strong and 
maintained 
> their own traditions. So, there became two Theosophies. One for 
the 
> public, and one for the insiders. In other words, for the public, 
> Theosophy was anything they wanted it to be. The problem is that 
when 
> Theosophy became everything, it did not escape the attention of 
most 
> enquirers that Theosophy is then--nothing. By the time Arundale 
died in 
> 1945, the membership of the TS had fallen to the lowest level, and 
has 
> never really recovered.
> 
> When I joined TSA in 1963, Theosophy was not a popular subject. 
The TS 
> members were all very elderly, and the Lodges were filled with 
Victorian 
> furniture. Most of the members who were the active workers 20s 
and 30s 
> were still alive and made up most of the membership. I remember 
> Catherine Mays, Dora and Fritz Kunz, the Layton's etc. Everyone 
was 
> excited when I joined because I was "fresh blood" as they said. 
But I 
> was also of a very different generation than theirs. I would knock 
them 
> off balance by asking probing questions, challenged the status 
quo. I 
> saw nothing wrong with modern music and modern culture, while on 
the 
> other hand, members believed that Jazz was created by Black 
Magicians. 
> You could imagine what they though of Rock n Roll. As the 60's 
> progressed into the psychedelic age, with hippies, Tim Leary, Alan 
> Watts, and the Beatles, more people closer to my age began to drift 
into 
> TS, but the TSA leadership did not know how to deal with them.
> 
> I remember those early Lodge lectures. Old timers would give talks 
> throwing out phrases like "the inner government of the world" 
and "the 
> path to the Masters" and "the Great White Brotherhood" but they 
were 
> singing to the choir. They did not bother to explain to newbys 
what 
> they were talking about. There was no viable educational program 
then. 
> By the late 60's Headquarters responded by devising a series of 
monthly 
> letters for new members. By that time, I already was well into my 
own 
> reading and consequently found their letters, like their pamphlets 
> rather devoid of meaningful content. 
> 
> When Dora Kunz became President in the late 70s she began to 
initiate a 
> policy to built up the Lodges and broke a long standing tradition 
by 
> inviting young members who were talented but not ES members to 
volunteer 
> to work at Olcott. The membership under her approached to nearly 
8,000 
> at one point. When she left in 1986, the new management began to 
> dismantle and undermine everything she accomplished. The new tactic 
was 
> centralization. There was a lot of in-fighting and some nasty 
> marginalization of some active members who did not agree with the 
new 
> program. A lot of people left the TS in disgust, and at the same 
time, 
> members from the Arundale days were passing away. When John Algeo 
> became President, TSA membership dropped to under 4,000 at one 
> point--about 1/2 of the maximum membership under Dora Kunz. 
> 
> So, what you have now in TSA is a general public, most of whom do 
not 
> belong to a Lodge and do not have the support of a study group for 
the 
> study of Theosophy. The classic texts are available, but they are 
in 
> an edited form. For those interested in history, there is a "party 
> line" history that is taught, but it is not very comprehensive--and 
very 
> misleading. While TSA is beginning to promote Study Courses, what 
they 
> teach is a very sanitized version of Theosophy. It is what they 
want 
> the members to know, and nothing more. 
> 
> This is not a complete answer, but I hope it gives you a 
direction. 
> Perhaps, in future discussions, we can develop some of the themes 
which 
> I only hinted at here.
> 
> Best
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> Anand Gholap wrote:
> 
> >Jerry,
> >What could be the reasons according to you for members not having 
> >much knowledge of Theosophy?
> >Anand Gholap
> >
> >--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
> >wrote:
> > 
> >
> >>Anand,
> >>
> >>He we agree. I also believed that books should be reprinted as 
> >> 
> >>
> >they 
> > 
> >
> >>were left by the authors. I would not even bother to change the 
> >> 
> >>
> >English 
> > 
> >
> >>spellings. However, I don't have any occult reasons for this 
> >> 
> >>
> >opinion. 
> > 
> >
> >>I simply believe that authors ought to be allowed to stand or 
fall 
> >> 
> >>
> >based 
> > 
> >
> >>upon what they actually wrote. I have to hand it to ULT for 
> >> 
> >>
> >being the 
> > 
> >
> >>only Theosophical organization which reprinted Blavatsky's and 
> >> 
> >>
> >Judge's 
> > 
> >
> >>writing in their original form, while other organizations were 
> >> 
> >>
> >changing 
> > 
> >
> >>them or allowing them to go out of print. Of course, ULT did not 
> >>reprint Besant and Leadbeater's writings, but that would have 
been 
> >>outside of their mission statement to have done so. 
> >>
> >>There was an excellent article done a few years ago by Gregory 
> >> 
> >>
> >Tillett 
> > 
> >
> >>for the Theosophical History journal which reviewed the changes 
the 
> >>Adyar TS had made in Besant's and Leadbeater's books over the 
> >> 
> >>
> >years. 
> > 
> >
> >>The article was reprinted in the ACT newsletter. It would be 
nice 
> >> 
> >>
> >if 
> > 
> >
> >>Drs Tillett and Santucci would permit this article to be put 
> >> 
> >>
> >online. I 
> > 
> >
> >>think it is a very important article, because, people who buy 
> >> 
> >>
> >current 
> > 
> >
> >>editions of their books are rarely aware that they have been 
edited 
> >> 
> >>
> >in 
> > 
> >
> >>any significant way. 
> >>
> >>Jerry
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Anand Gholap wrote:
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>>Jerry,
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>>As you see, I did not say that this material *contains* 
writings 
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >of AB 
> > 
> >
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>>and CWL, but is based upon their ideas and uses their 
terminology.
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>My opinion on this is books should be printed exactly as they 
> >>>originally appeared without abridgement. For printing largest 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >edition 
> > 
> >
> >>>of the book should be taken. e.g. Masters and the Path was 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >enlarged by 
> > 
> >
> >>>Mr. Leadbeater himself and so for printing this largest edition 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >should 
> > 
> >
> >>>be taken. Only spelling may be changed to suit current US 
English. 
> >>>e.g. realisation (old British) would become realization. I am 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >totally 
> > 
> >
> >>>against making more changes. 
> >>>For making study course also original books of Annie Besant and 
> >>>Leadbeater, written in their own language, should be 
recommended. 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >Not 
> > 
> >
> >>>only English of AB and CWL is among the best even by today's 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >standard 
> > 
> >
> >>>but there are occult reasons for recommending their original 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >writing. 
> > 
> >
> >>>Anand Gholap
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >