Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00313)

Hi Nigel and all,
The points you raise are very valid ones in my opinion and of course 
depending on which way the balance leans in our own assessment of 
things.

Working in a library myself, it is not my responsibility or role to 
censor what goes into a library.

Although faculty staff decide what books are needed for a particular 
unit.
Our Education subject area contains books that would contain 
information no longer appropriate to be used in schools however they 
still have historical value.

How people use and process information is their own responsibility 
and work.

In the University library I work at we have a small selection of 
theosophical works.
These include the Secret doctrine, Isis unveiled, key to theosophy 
and also some other theosophical writers like CW Leadbeater, A 
Beasnt , I.K Taimni Shirley Nicholson, I.S Cooper, Robert 
Ellwood..... as well as some critical works like 'Madame Blavatsky's 
baboon'.

For me the principle holds the same for a theosophical library.

Another question maybe is it anybodies role to disallow any 
information or writer from being in a theosophical library even if 
that information is known to be questionable?

I would say no, as the information has at very least historical value.
If it is questionable and people still choose to believe it, that is 
their choice.

A protestant Christian may say a catholic catechism is not true 
Christianity for example.

In the end it's up to the reader to decide for themselves.
In democracies we can debate and critique any writer, opinion or 
claim made.
And this to me is the key to maintaining that dogma, superstition or 
claimed authority are kept in check.
This is my main issue.

I am sure our discussions on this will continue for years to come, it 
is a shame that these types of discussions are seen as being negative 
by some but as I am sure you'd agree they are essential in 
maintaining free and open enquiry and strike to the core of what 
freedom of thought really is.

Regards

Perry



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@y...> wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> 
> wrote:
> > Hi Nigel,
> > It's a difficult question and as you know one that can be viewed 
in 
> > different ways.
> > 
> > For me at this stage in my reasoning the Society is going to 
> attract 
> > people into its doors who are on a search for knowledge of a more 
> > expansive and hopefully mind opening kind.
> > 
> > The TS libraries and book shops tend to cover the A - Z of occult 
> and 
> > esoteric material, from the most perhaps naïve and even 
fraudulent 
> > channeled information to the other end of the spectrum with very 
> deep 
> > and profound writings from various different traditions.
> > 
> > TS lodges hold lectures on various esoteric subjects some of 
which 
> to 
> > me is not suitable or relevant to a theosophical lodge, none the 
> less 
> > most of the subjects are related to the 3 objects in some way.
> > 
> > Most of the members I've come across in the TS seem to me to be 
> > genuine truth seekers and support freedom of speech and the 
concept 
> > of brotherhood.
> > 
> > While I do not support Leadbeater or his pronouncements, I do 
> support 
> > members rights to study these works in a TS branch if they so 
> choose 
> > to do so.
> > 
> > I personally believe Leadbeater teachings needs to be seriously 
> > compared, challenged and critiqued by students and hope this 
> happens 
> > more and more as time goes by and I hope that this will happen at 
> > some point in the official publications.( this maybe a "forlorn 
> hope")
> > 
> > These are some reasons why I have now come to think the Society 
is 
> > still worth supporting even with all its problems.
> > 
> > Best wishes 
> > 
> > Perry
> 
> Dear Perry
> "Difficult question" indeed, as we have ourselves discovered over 
the 
> last few years of discussion.
> It raises issues of relativism, absolutism and pragmatism, to say 
> nothing of dogmatism!
> When you write "of a more expansive and hopefully mind opening 
kind" 
> does this mean expanding and opening up to anything and everything 
as 
> actually occurs? Were Theosophical centres really intended to be 
> clearing houses for all manner of subjects? Were they to be places 
> where "perhaps naïve and even fraudulent channeled information" 
were 
> to be promoted through libraries and lectures? And were they to be 
> places merely of relativism and political pragmatism?
> Given the Mahatmas', Chohan's and HPB's oft repeated statements 
this 
> was certainly not the intention behind their efforts. Not that they 
> were necessarily the final and absolute word on Truth but they were 
> the real founders of the "modern" Theosophical movement and they 
did 
> adopt the motto as their desired and directional ethic.
> For me Theosophy is a body of profound teachings intended to help 
> explain a moral imperative which might hopefully assist humanity as 
a 
> whole towards a more considerate, selfless and harmonious way of 
life 
> in an atmosphere of complete freedom of thought.
> Too often for me this ideal of "freedom" has been misinterpreted 
and 
> has been used as an excuse to turn Theosophical centres into 
> playgrounds for the current new age flavour of the month, 
stimulating 
> kama/manas in its innumerable self-gratifying guises. 
> Moreover, from my perspective, it has been used to permit 
> circumstances and "teachings" to go unchallenged to the extent that 
> the Adyar TS now finds itself in a political minefield, forced to 
> defend the indefensible and unable to extricate itself, even if it 
so 
> chose, for fear of offending and losing thousands of "true 
believers."
>  
> From my perspective, were the Adyar TS to rename itself as "The 
> Eclectic Spiritual Development Society" it would fulfil that 
mandate 
> to perfection. There are many well intentioned and compassionate 
> members in the various Lodges and Branches throughout the world who 
> work tirelessly for the good of all beings. But there are many 
other 
> organisations whose role it is to do just this. 
> 
> For me the TS was entrusted with a different dharma which might 
> indeed one day lead its members and all humanity towards supporting 
> these other organisations, without losing its original raison 
d'etre, 
> that of building "a new continent of thought" based in mindful, 
> conscious awareness of the great mysteries of life.
> Very best wishes
> Nigel