Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00741)

Dear Christina,

I must preface what I have to say with the fact that I have not quite
caught on to the rhythm of your english and may consequently have
misunderstood your points.  If that is so, I suspect that what I have to
say will apply to others who hold the beliefs that I may be unfairly
projecting onto you.

Theosophists will debate many things about the Ancient Wisdom Tradition.
For instance there is a big debate going on right now about Volume III
of the SD in the pages of theos-talk.  It is amusing and instructive as
to how the debate is being conducted.  Instead of detailed and laborious
investigation of content to see whether it is in the spirit and style of
the first two volumes, we see a debate that seems to hinge on whether
the volume can be more rightly attritbuted to HPB or to AB and Mead.  If
I understand you correctly, you would see this debate to be about
nothing because people should be able to read Volume III and decide for
themselves whether there is anything of worth in it or not, and what
that might be.  Theosophists can think for themselves so why all the
fighting over nothing?  In the strictest sense, of course, you are
correct.  However, I would argue that all those involved in the debate
understand this fact, therefore the debate must be about something else.

The something else that I suspect you and many at this site perceive is
that it is a simple fight between fundamentalist followers of this or
that school of theosophy and certain free-thinking scientifically
trained researchers who are expressing a certain freedom of thought that
we, as theosophists,  should not be afraid to entertain.  That being so,
theosophists should simply drop all this arguing about the past and
focus on the present, the fundamentalists need to grow up and not worry
about what other theosophists think.  This I would argue is where you
and many others are in error.

I quoted earlier the following from Judge:

>If she hoodwinked with one message, all may be the same -bogus-and
>the great force and strength derived from a firm belief in Masters
>will be swept away, because she, their first messenger to us, is made
>out a fraud. All this is precisely what Olcott et al wish to do. He
>cannot tolerate the idea that H.P.B. was greater than himself, so he
>throws around her memory the dirty cloak of tricky and irresponsible
>mediumship. That done, anything can be explained and anything
>accounted for.
>
>Well, for my part, I will not accept such nonsense; Col. Olcott being
>incompetent to decide on Mahatmic messages on occult lines, and being
>a disciple of H.P.B. is certainly much below her. His present
>utterance settles nothing about her character, about her mediumship
>or about the message; but it does serve to brand him as an ingrate
>and to place him plainly in view as one who calls that great teacher
>a fraud and medium.
>
>Now let the next and the next come on, so that we may have the lines
>clearly drawn and the hypocrisies unveiled.

see:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/33481

Judge is saying that logically, if HPB is a fraud and a medium, ANYTHING
AT ALL can be argued once you allow this possibility to be entertained. 
This is simple logic and is not at question.  It could easily be argued
that the fraud, HPB, was a Jesuit sent to undermine the esoteric
movement before it even began.  Why not?  Allegations will of course be
made against HPB by her many enemies, but it is important that
Thesophists defend her and not allow these allegations to be entertained
within the Society.

Judge then goes on to say that Olcott's words brand him "as an ingrate".
We have read again and again that the Masters cannot be accused of
ingratitude.  There is something about the esoteric philosophy that
makes ingratitude an anathema.  All theosophists owe HPB (and Judge) a
debt of gratitude.  To stand by and allow her name to be sullied by
unfounded accusations is wrong.  If the accusations are founded, then we
say nothing.  The fact that none of the awful accusations thrown at HPB
or Judge have ever been proven makes it doubtful that they ever will. 
So where are we?

We are at the point where Judge writes, "let the next and the next come
on, so that we may have the lines clearly drawn and the hypocrisies
unveiled."  It is sheer hypocrisy for theosophists to demonstrate
ingratitude towards another.  All theosophists are in a group that
encourage debate about religion, science, and philosophy.  There are no
creeds endorsed by theosophy.  As such there is no reason to question
the motivations of another.  We all have our motivations and yet we can
still be theosophists.  Why?  Because we stick to talking about topics. 
The hypocrisy that Judge alludes to is that some theosophists want to
make HPB, herself, a topic.  As soon as you do this you destroy the
Theosophical Movement.  Logically, anything can be argued.  Yet, if
there are no established creeds, what can the motivation be for making
HPB a topic?  Logically, only the destruction of the Society.  This is
why some theosophists are so passionate about this debate.  I think
other theosophists sense this fact and try to steer clear of this debate
as they cannot win it.

Theosophists have not created a Society that delves into the foibles of
others.  In fact, despite our foibles, we can still be theosophists. 
Our foibles play no part in the ongoing debate.  If anyone tries to
attack you through your own personal inadequacies, this is the one cause
for expulsion from the Society.  Attacks of this nature poison the
Society.  If you look at the Theosophical Motto and its Objectives, it
is clear that the Society was established as the one place where people
could debate free from personal attack.  As a brotherhood it was
expected that others would rush to your aid if you were attacked.  It is
this lesson that theosophists have not learned, and if we do not learn
it now it may be another 100 years and untold huamn suffering before we
get another chance.

Christina, Olcott made a mistake.  I believe that he came to understand
his mistake.  What is important for the future of the Theosophical
Movement, if there is to be one, is that the rest of us try to
understand the lessons our President-founder paid so dearly to learn. 
We all owe him a debt of gratitude.  If we learn and understand this,
then the internal fighting will stop immediately.

Bruce

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, christina leestemaker
<christinaleestemaker@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Eldon
>
>   For a lot of years i see the same actions in lodges, only in more
delicate way, but all the same.
>   Looks like they have not understand lectures and stay coloring all
in the personal fields.Also the overflow on messages of some kind of
persons, that looks like supporting and competition in the race for"
truth".
>
>   But everywhere the same.
>   More reason for take some rest in reading ,what looks like "
esoteric soap."
>
>   New millenium does not need to look back at old personal feuds of
any writer or teacher.
>
>   Everyone in this generation have enough brains to think for him or
herself.
>
>   Also to ignore or to find something behind that  less important 
messages.
>   Otherwise I don't understand the projections of people, but they are
doing and let them, that teach to see through it.
>
>   The only thing we need is the true insight and the essence of the
ancient wisdom.
>   What everyone integrate on his or her own level of consciousness.
>
>   For that are happely enough lectures published on the web and not to
forget the books we can read.
>
>
>   All groups are busy with enjoying themselves as a kind of
entertainment , as far as I can see.
>   Those who are calling names, that is more telling about the persons
self.
>
>   best regards, Christina
>
>
> Eldon B Tucker eldon_tucker@... wrote:
>   Since my message Saturday, there have been more problems with the
> list. For anyone that wishes to continue participating on the list,
> this has to stop.
>
> What I've noticed (not necessarily a complete list of incidents) is:
>
> Vince called Daniel evil. Vince called Carlos dumb. Frank mentions
> Carlos "works with suggestions, make believe and slander, ignores and
> twists facts." Frank later mentions to Carlos, "any sane theosophist
> cannot fail to come to the conclusion that you are NOT a fool."
> Another note says, "the Dugpas are behind you. They eat your soul."
> Vince then returns to say "Daniel is evil."
>
> Although some running battles have traumatized the list a few months
> ago causing some people to leave the list, they are in the past. If
> anything gets out of hand, the thread of discussion will be closed
> before such could happen again.
>
> The request that people stop the name-calling applies to everyone. It
> does not mean that some people behave themselves while others lash out
> seeking to satisfy any pent up anger, hostility, or ill will that they
> still carry. There are not any exceptions based upon the number of
> good or bad messages that anyone has written over the past few months.
>
> This is my last warning.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Ring'em or ping'em. Make  PC-to-phone calls as low as 1�/min with
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]