Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00171)

Hello all,

Just some further thoughts, i'd like to share.

We have a theosophical society it states its objects as :

To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, 
creed, sex, caste, or color.

To encourage the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy, and Science.

To investigate unexplained laws of Nature and the powers latent in Man.


Now as I see it this allows a very open policy and one that I personally fully support.
People are not specifically directed as to what to or not to read, how to study or not study.
Neither are they given a set of do's and don'ts but simply a need to be in sympathy with 
the idea of Universal Brotherhood.

The libraries in most lodges seem to be eclectic and comprehensive from what exposure 
I've had to them.
And so the study and research students do is largely up to them, as I think should be the 
case as this is an individual search and journey not a prescribed course. 

Exposure to as many different perspectives and points of view is necessary if we wish to 
expand our understanding as long as a discernment comes along with that , however 
discernment is something that can only come through our own experience and can't be 
imposed from without , so we are bound to go down a few blind alleys but at least they 
are ones we've chosen and hopefully gained valuable experience through them.

History and human nature has had its effect on the society and problems and 
controversies have played themselves out as is the case with most institutions.

My main concern as I've probably written here ad nauseum to some perhaps is that the 
publications of the society need to be more open in its columns to critical essays.

My attitude towards the TS is that with all its problems and issues I still feel it is a source 
of great good, and support its existence even if I have made criticisms of it.

A members support, non support or lukewarm attitude towards C W Leadbeater or Annie 
Besant should not be an issue, it should not stop them from being able to share and 
discuss theosophy with those who see things differently than other may as no member is 
bound to any kind of devotional adherence to any teacher or writer including Blavatsky. 

The apologist may simply and honestly be trying to maintain what they see as a peaceful 
loving atmosphere and the ardent critic trying to defend what they see as an injustice and 
falsehood being perpetuated.
Motive is everything says the Mahatma and I think if we are honest with ourselves we can 
see that motives are very often mixed.

If the `apologist' starts to gag the critic through passive agressive means or if the critic 
starts to dominate and shout down at anyone who does not support their position, both 
should properly should be called to order.
Free and honest presentation of points of view tempered with an ability to not let things 
descend into personal confrontation is important.

The issue of intellectual freedom is one of profound importance as it is the bedrock on 
which any open investigation can be honestly explored.
Institutions that censor certain information or disallow certain ideas to be challenge openly 
is no new thing it was the case in early colleges and universities.

Walter Metzger in his book `Academic freedom in the age of the University' writes
"The American college in the first half of the nineteenth century was centered in tradition.
It looked to antiquity for the tools of thought, to Christianity for the byelaws of living ; it 
supplied furniture and discipline for the mind, but constrained intellectual adventure.
Like most institutions anchored to tradition, the ante-bollum college (period between 
1800 & 1860) was also paternalistic and authoritarian.
In honoring the past and depreciating the present, it drew the doubtful conclusion that 
age best imparts its wisdom when youth surrenders its style.
Students took prescribed courses and recited their lessons by rote, professors acted like 
schoolmasters, drillmasters and prisonkeeps.
The dreary assumptions of American pedagogy in this period were hardly touched by the 
romantic mood of transcendentalism, or by the democratic faith of Jacksonianism."

Metzger also points out that the revolution against the `old regime' happened between 
1860 and 1890.

I found this interesting for one thing the Society was founded right in the middle of this 
period when dogmatic ideas and beliefs were starting to come under a real challenge.

The societies founders also held as a fundamental principle that while the precepts on 
which the theosophical worldview were founded was an ancient perennial nature they were 
never to be a dogma but rather offered for consideration for any individual interested in 
examining them.

This allows the individual to explore in their own way these universal principles thus 
allowing creative and free individual exploration without fear of authoritarian censor also 
in a way and method that is not prescribed or that demanded conformity in anyway.

Its easy to take for granted that this concept of freedom of speech and also academic 
freedom.
It's a very precious right that can be easily taken away by authoritarian power be that 
governments or institutions.

The last man jailed for blasphemy, Abner Kneeland was not that long ago relatively in the 
1830's.
http://home.utm.net/pan/abner.html
Worth keeping in mind.

The societies role was part of this movement that promotes freedom of exploration and 
expression.



Perry