Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00579)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@A...> 
wrote:

> > > ULT, Point Loma should criticize Blavatsky's writing in their 
> > > publications. They should condemn her smoking, non-veg, short 
> temper 
> > > and bad English.

> > Why should they? Have you read the following excerpts from letter 
> 19 
> > to HSO of "Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom" (first 
series)? 

> Very basic problem in your argument is you are quoting from some 
> other book when you ought to observe, examine conditions created by 
> Blavatskyan fundamentalists today. Instead of observing, judging, 
> carefully examining conditions as exist today, you quoted from 
letter 
> written 120 years back in very different circumstances. So first 
> thing to do is, I would suggest, try to see things as they are 
> without conditioned mind. If you want to know what it means to see 
> things as they are, you may read some books of Krishnamurti. 
> 
> 
> You told experience of fundamentalism in Sri Lanka and Jakarta. 
Then 
> it becomes even more important to see that dogma and fundamentalism 
> are not formed in the TS. 


Anand:

The quote I posted was to show that even knowing that Blavatsky 
smoked, ate meat and had a bad temper, the Mahatmas considered her 
the best instrument available at that time to re-present Theosophy to 
the world. BTW, not everything written 120 years ago becomes, 
automatically, irrelevant today.

Several posters on this list have very strong views pro-HPB's 
teachings and against CWL's and Besant's presentation of Theosophy. 
And I think they are entitled to their views, in the same way you are 
entitled to yours. Theos-talk is not affiliated to any existing 
theosophical organisation. It is just a space for discussion and, 
hopefully, dialogue. The idea of trying to "protect" the TS on this 
list is, imo, meaningless.

I have studied a number of CWL's and Besant's books, as well as read 
many of their articles and letters. I don't find anywhere in their 
writings known to me support for your belligerant attitude towards 
HPB's writings and contribution. Your discourse on this list is 
isolationist, provocative and counterproductive of dialogue. In that 
you come very close, in attitude, to those who try to nullify the 
contribution Besant and Leadbeater made to theosophical literature.

Let me draw your attention to what Annie Besant wrote in 1913 (Adyar 
Pamphlet 36):

"Some of our members echo the statements of one seer or another, and 
seem to consider that such a statement ought to preclude further 
discussion. But no one in the TS has any authority to lay down what 
people shall think, or not think, on any subject. We are not in the 
position of an orthodox Church, which has certain definite articles 
of faith, which imposes certain definite creeds in which all faithful 
members are bound to believe. The only point which we must accept is 
Universal Brotherhood, and even as to that we may differ in our 
definition of it. Outside that, we are at perfect liberty to form 
our own opinions on every subject; and the reason of that policy is 
clear and an exceedingly good one. No intellectual opinion is worth 
the holding unless it is obtained by the individual effort of the 
person who holds that opinion. It is far healthier to exercise our 
intelligence, even if we come to a wrong conclusion and form an 
inaccurate opinion, than simply, like parrots, the echo what other 
people say, and so put out of all possibility intellectual 
development."

You cannot prevent people from becoming dogmatic but it is possible, 
through dialogue, respect and understanding, to help them to see 
their own stance differently. I think there is scope for this on 
Theos-talk. And I would risk and say that perhaps even Leon would 
agree with this point of view. :)

Regards,
pedro