Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00689)

Thanks, Bruce.  You help me to keep things in perspective. 
All this historical (hysterical) debate (gossip) about who said what, to 
whom, when, about whomever, only proves one thing conclusively:

1:  We make mistakes.  We made them then (beginning of this present 
pulsation of theosophical movement) and we make them now.  We either 
recognize, accept responsibility for, and learn from our mistakes, thus 
freeing ourselves to go forward, or we refuse to recognize our mistakes, 
blame others for the inconsistencies in our lives,  and consequently 
remain a prisoner, trapped in our own past.

2.  Constant bickering (bitching) about who said what, to whom, when, 
and for what purpose, can become a deep groove in our thinking  that 
keeps us on a certain track and hence distracted from what might be our 
more pressing and important responsibilities to do TODAY all that is 
within our capabilities to help each other gain and maintain freedom 
from the illusion of separateness. Only in this freedom can we 
experience the brotherhood of all humanity directly and without the 
shackles of  intercession.


peace within,


bill



robert_b_macd wrote:
> The debates concerning various theosophical personalities has caused
> much dissension.  It could be argued that there is a very good reason
> for this.  Consider the case of Besant.  What is important about her and
> her particular role in history.  The fact is she made certain
> statements, did certain things, and created a following.  Now, whether
> the things that she said were true or not are irrelevant, as far as the
> writing of history is concerned.  Naturally the historian may want to
> get as clear as possible on these matters before he goes ahead and
> writes a history of the time, but this is for his own understanding
> only.  The history is concerned with the movement as a whole and
> consequently it is concerned with those who followed Besant, empowered
> her, and why?  Whether she was a chela or not makes no real difference
> to history.  Her followers either followed her for the right reasons, or
> for the wrong reasons, and this is true whether Besant was a chela or
> not.
>
> It seems that people actually think that it is important to know who was
> closer to the Masters, Judge or Besant.  The fact is that both have
> claims and support for their claims.  The important matter is why did
> the followers of each follow their respective leaders.  Why do they
> continue to do so?  Is it for the right reasons or for the wrong
> reasons? We don't have to know the minds of Besant or Judge or Blavatsky
> to decide this.  We need only understand the principles of the Movement
> and how the behavior of these peoples reflected those principles.
>
> Morten is right in his analysis.  People either used a Jesuitical
> approach when following or a theosophical approach.  These approaches
> are alive in the world today and a Jesuitical approach to all things can
> only be countered by a strong Theosophical Movement.  The focus on
> personalities is divisive because once you criticize the character of
> one personality, then you are left with having to undermine the
> credibility of the one making the charges or accept the charges. 
> Unproven charges, of course, have no place in the Theosophical Movement.
> It is this ignorance that keeps theosophists divided.  There has to be
> more thought given to the differences in these two approaches and how
> they manifest themselves.
>
> There really is no place in the Theosophical Movement for books on
> personalities.  Our private opinions on the various personalities that
> founded the Movement are just that, private.  We cannot know what is in
> their head, what it is that motivates them.  We can guess.  Whatever we
> decide will tell us more about ourselves than the subject under
> consideration.  In this sense it may be a valuable exercise.  If we
> repeat the exercise in 20 years, we may come to have a completely
> different perspective, given the same set of information.  What does
> this mean?  It means the Movement should not focus on individuals.  What
> is important is identifying the reasons that different groups of people
> followed different leaders.  It is probable that those reasons are with
> us still today.  Understanding these reasons tells us something about
> ourselves and the Movement to which we belong.
>
> When HPB died, the Movement was tested.  How successful was it?  When
> Judge died, the Movement was tested again, how well did this sub-group
> do?  This is where our historical focus should be, not on the
> personality of the leaders.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>