Theos-Talk Archives (April 2005 Message tt01797)

Amand, 

But, where did all these theosophical ideas about "freedom of thought and how 
to live it" comes from in this modern age -- except from Blavatsky, and the 
Masters themselves? 

So, why claim that Adyar is telling us anything new? ... Or. that "Adyar TS" 
publications are the "only place" to get such advice? 

Not to say (other than through my own personal opinion based on deep study of 
ALL the theosophical literature) that they are wrong about their 
interpretations of theosophy, and acceptance of CWL as their all knowing guru. ;-)

Get with it, man, you are not talking to (unthinking for themselves) fools.

Leon Maurer
(A "free thinking" theosophist who has no teacher except theosophy itself.) 


-- And, as they say in America, "If you don't like it you can lump it." </:-)>


In a message dated 04/19/05 7:52:01 AM, AnandGholap@AnandGholap.org writes:

>Eldon,
>
>Adyar TS is very particular about it and they constantly make this 
>policy clear. It is better if you remind members of this most 
>important policy. Each issue of Adyar magazine 'Theosophist' prints 
>it on cover with heading 'Freedom of Thought' and how to live it. 
>Brotherhood depends on freedom of thought. When X says to Y "You are 
>a fool because you don't follow Blavatsky" then it is difficult to 
>keep brotherhood. You sould find some such way by which policy of 
>brotherhood and freedom of thought will always be visible to all. Or 
>make arrangement by which this mail would be sent every month to the 
>group. 
>Anand Gholap 
>
>
>
>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Eldon B Tucker" <eldon@t...> 
>
>wrote:
>
>> Here's something I wrote to the list back in September that I think 
>
>is
>
>> important for all of us to keep in mind.
>
>> 
>
>> -- Eldon Tucker
>
>> 
>
>> ----
>
>> 
>
>> People may come to Theosophy from many different approaches. Some 
>
>may have 
>
>> started with books by Leadbeater and Besant, others with books by 
>
>Barkorka 
>
>> and Purucker, others with Judge and Blavatsky books. I would expect 
>
>that if 
>
>> they can engage each other in friendly discussion, they can broaden 
>
>their 
>
>> knowledge and grow to greater insight.
>
>> 
>
>> I don't think it's necessary to tell people to only read certain 
>
>authors 
>
>> and avoid others as being tainted. I will say what I prefer, but 
>
>leave it 
>
>> to other people to decide what appeals to them best. In a free 
>
>exchange of 
>
>> ideas over an extended period of time, I think people will 
>
>gravitate to the 
>
>> highest approach they are ready for. Each person sets their own 
>
>limit and 
>
>> is better able to seek it out when exposed to a friendly, diverse 
>
>> environment that encourages thoughtful study.
>
>> 
>
>> Although I'd consider my studies as being advanced, I recognize 
>
>that it is 
>
>> just from my point of view and others would see things differently, 
>
>often 
>
>> with wherever they are at being highest, for now, in their 
>
>estimation. And 
>
>> it does not serve a useful purpose to rank and order different 
>
>approaches, 
>
>> with one's own on top, of course, in order to add to one's self-
>
>importance 
>
>> and putting others in their place.
>
>> 
>
>> If someone wants to study Leadbeater's life from a historic 
>
>standpoint -- 
>
>> or Blavatsky's, Judge's, or Krishnamurti's -- that's fine as long 
>
>as they 
>
>> don't use their appraisal as a hammer to hit people on the head 
>
>when they 
>
>> say that they read and like the books any of these people may have 
>
>written.
>
>> 
>
>> A metaphysical and spiritual thread of discussion is as valid as 
>
>any 
>
>> historic one, and everyone should be free to share their ideas, 
>
>regardless 
>
>> of the author or any historic threads of discussion going on at the 
>
>same
>
>> time.
>
>> 
>
>> Regardless of what we might discuss, it's important that we respect 
>
>the 
>
>> others among us of different backgrounds and beliefs, and not put 
>
>things in 
>
>> a way that sounds like a personal insult, like "You like that idea 
>
>from a 
>
>> Crowley book? You must be an evil dugpa!" Or "You say you like that 
>
>idea 
>
>> from a Bailey book, yet we have just proven in our historic 
>
>discussions 
>
>> that Bailey was a fraud. Only an idiot would believe something she 
>
>wrote. 
>
>> Do you recant any belief in her works or do you confess to being an 
>
>idiot?" 
>
>> Or "Do you profess a belief in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior 
>
>and 
>
>> profess a belief in the One True God, or do you admit to being a 
>
>devil 
>
>> worshiper destined to burn it hell?" -- Note that there are all 
>
>leading 
>
>> questions that require people to either submit to one's belief or 
>
>confess 
>
>> their stupidity.
>
>> 
>
>> It's possible from any particular slant of discussion to find ways 
>
>to put 
>
>> people down, even if one is not doing so intentionally. A 
>
>discussion of the 
>
>> actual history and spiritual credentials of someone's favorite 
>
>theosophical 
>
>> figure could have a chilling effect upon people reading his or her 
>
>books 
>
>> and wanting to discuss the ideas presented. Yet were they free to 
>
>discuss 
>
>> the ideas, perhaps we'd learn something from them and they're be 
>
>exposed to 
>
>> better ideas from us as well.
>
>> 
>
>> A discussion of metaphysics might lead to suggestions that people 
>
>not 
>
>> versed in that particular set of philosophical ideas is "not ready 
>
>yet" and 
>
>> should simply be dismissed as spiritual wannabes. That, of course, 
>
>has a 
>
>> chilling effect on the skeptic or believer in something different, 
>
>making 
>
>> him or her to want to brand people a bunch of religious kooks and 
>
>leave for 
>
>> a better group of people.
>
>> 
>
>> It all comes down to a matter of respect. We can explore new ideas, 
>
>> challenge existing assumptions, and seek a greater understanding of 
>
>things. 
>
>> But we should maintain sufficient objectivity to know that our 
>
>personal 
>
>> viewpoint isn't the prime perspective of the universe. Everything 
>
>only 
>
>> seems that way *to our eyes*. If we can believe what we will and 
>
>yet 
>
>> happily allow others to coexist with different beliefs and 
>
>assumptions, 
>
>> respecting their individual and likely different seeking of truth, 
>
>we are 
>
>> actually practicing universal brotherhood rather than merely 
>
>mouthing the 
>
>> concept.