Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00329)

Hi Jerry and All,
I agree, as a general rule in a library you need to have a good cross 
section of perspectives as much as space and budget permit.

While in a specialist library like a theosophical one, 
esoteric/mystical material, science, religion and philosophy are the 
main areas of focus, in my opinion if possible it would be good to 
represent subject areas such as sociology, psychology, art, general 
history and maybe a good set of encyclopedia as well.

As a principle a library offers free availability and access to 
information related to the institutions area of interest or study.
The 3 objects make that subject area very broad.

If you have a small study group your library may only need to have a 
small selection of core theosophical texts that your group may be 
focusing on for people to borrow or buy.

In regard to the issue of appropriateness for me if we are to engage 
in a comparison of religion, science and philosophy anything that 
comes under that broad heading would be appropriate.

Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
wrote:
> Dear Nigel, Perry and all
> 
> Perry writes:
> 
> >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 think there are two questions implied here. 1) Whether or not an 
item 
> is appropriate for a Theosophical library 2) Whether it is 
practical to 
> include a certain item in a Theosophical library. The first 
question 
> concerns one's view of what constitutes Theosophy. The second, is 
a 
> matter of space. 
> 
> Personally, if you showed me a random issue of Penthouse magazine, 
I 
> would probably find something in it which is (I believe) 
Theosophically 
> relevant. But, the reality of the matter is that every library has 
> space limitations. Therefore, specialty library collections, as a 
> matter of practicality, has to set limits and priorities based upon 
> their overall understanding of what Theosophy is. 
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry Coles wrote:
> 
> >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
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >