Dear Sufilight, Leon, Anand et al,
Sufilight, I am glad that you brought forward van der Leeuw's assessment
of the situation in 1930. It is historically important because the
presentation was given right on the heals of Krishnamurti's resignation
speech and the membership was still in quite a stir about it. Van der
Leeuw was simply trying to identify the errors the leadership made which
brought it to that crises, and I believe that he hit the nail on the
head. Arundale, however, ignored van der Leeuw and took another track.
He continued to praise K. for awhile in The Theosophist, then shifted
gears again and suddenly stopped mentioning him at all. Obviously, as
Anand comments, when Arundale became president in 1934, he had to take a
different track. He did, but it was not the track van der Leeuw
advocated. That van der Leeuw's talk was never reprinted by the TS is
(to me) suggestive of the three real problems: 1) the leadership's
continuing unspoken commitment to the tradition of revelation that began
with the Besant era; 2) their unwillingness to return to the focus of
realization which Blavatsky and her teachers originally tried to
establish; 3) The organization's reluctance to acknowledge mistakes.
Whether TSA and the TS continue to follow Arundale's lead, I am not in
the position to argue. I have had several people who were in leadership
positions in the TSA affirm this to be the case. But policies do slowly
shift over time, and who is to say exactly at what point they are still
following a certain line and when they are no longer doing so.
Van der Leeuw's point about brotherhood, as I understand it, is a subtle
one. There is a difference between an organization forming a nucleus of
brotherhood and one trying to be that nucleus. An organization which
tries to create a brotherhood of *Theosophists* around a set of
doctrines is shooting itself in the foot. In this case, there will
always be those on the inside and those on the outside. On the other
hand, an organization which promotes a brotherhood of *humanity*, if it
succeeds, will find the nucleus within the brotherhood itself--not the
organization. Blavatsky, her teachers, and Olcott all remarked upon the
TS's failure to bring about this first object. That did not change in
van der Leeuw's time, and I don't believe it has changed as yet.
Best wishes,
Jerry
M. Sufilight wrote:
Hallo Leon and all,
Perhaps...perhaps.
But where is the Dutch theosophist, J.J. van der Leeuw wrong when
in 1930 he was saying:
"If there is to be any future for the Theosophical Society, it will have
to
renounce utterly its claim of having solved the riddles of life and being
a
repository of truth; instead it will have to unite those who search for
truth and for reality whatever these may bring by way of suffering and
discomfort. The seeker after truth welcomes disturbance and doubt, the
very
things which were and are feared most by theosophists.
In yet another respect does the Theosophical Society breathe the
atmosphere
of last century. It is in the desire to unite in one brotherhood all who
think or feel alike. Thus the Theosophical Society aimed at forming a
nucleus of brotherhood. Such a nucleus however always defeats its own
ends.
It cannot escape becoming a brotherhood with the exclusion of less
desirable
brethren. The moment we unite a number of people in such a nucleus we have
created a sect, a separate group walled off from the rest of the world and
thereby from life."
Especially the last sentemces are very important, and shows me, that one
should not read the Mahatma Letters that litterally
(following the dead-letter key).
And again:
So very important: The use of ideas is to shape a man or woman, not to
support a
system - which is viewed in a limited manner. This is one way in which the
Wisdom Tradition is 'living', and not just the perpetuations of ideas and
movements. This seems important to understand and know about.
So when we remember this just like the Masters remember it,
we will know, what a sect is when we see one.
:-)
from
M. Sufilight
