Theos-Talk Archives (August 2006 Message tt00159)

Friends, 

Any human organization will be object of psychological projections, idealizations,  and generalizations both positive and negative. 

It is the same with nations. Some people say the USA is the great problem and source of problems in the world today.Others hate the Jews as a nation.  It used to be the Communists up to 1989, and so on. 

Frustrations fabricate images for hate to concentrate upon. These are mechanisms for the externalization of inner anguish, fear and malcontent.  
People create an image,a "bad mirror".  They assume that such an "undesired otherness" is unconnected with themselves, and then they try to externalize their own negative feelings in  that direction. 

In the theosophical movement, for instance,  the Adyar Society is entirely bad for some people.  For others, it is entirely good.   The same can be said of the ULT, of  Pasadena TS,  etc.

My own view of this is that we have sincere people everywhere, and some are experienced souls, and some are not. 

The temptation to say that all of the Adyar Society is negative,  or all of the ULT is useless, or all of the Pasadena TS, etc. --   is, to me, but a sympton that one needs a simplistic view of things so that thinking and Viveka, discernment,  is not necessary.
Since the first split in the 1890s, there has always been several currents of thought in the Adyar TS.  One can look and see them at work.   I have limited knowledge about the Pasadena TS. But I see an enormous contribution made by Pasadena to the movement as a whole. The Edmonton Theosophical Society also has, to me, a significant presence. The United Lodge of Theosophists, ULT, has its own characteristics and its own contribution. 

One characteristic of the ULT I want to bring here is the independence of each of its associates. This is connected to the fact that it is not a corporation, it is not "incorporated".  It is but an informal network of students, and a very mystical one --  if compared to other theosophical groups.

When people see ideas exposed by Dallas Tenbroeck in Theos-talk, the first tendency is to say: "Oh, this is the ULT, a corporation, or sect, speaking".  It is not. It is Dallas Tenbroeck speaking, or writing. 

Another characteristic of the ULT which I believe leads many to misunderstand it is the fact that it is not quite "visible"; it is somewhere in between, it seems, the "third section" and the "second section" of the movement, so to say.  
And this factor perhaps explains the anonimity of many of its texts, in magazines like "The Theosophical Movement" (published by ULT-India) or "Theosophy", published in the USA. Or in the book "The Theosophical Movement".  It is part of a general and common policy of many ULT Associates of forgetting personal selves. (And this is part of Raja Yoga.)  
So different sections and sectors  of the movement have different characteristics.  
No group is the sole owner of Theosophy;  but each of them have some ability to SHARE the nature and the substance of Theosophy. 

When I criticize John Algeo and some of his policies, or discuss what I call the pseudo-Theosophy of Leadbeater, I am not trying to convince myself, or to convince anyone else,  that the Adyar Society is intrinsically bad, useless, or anything llike that.  Just the opposite.  I guess the theosophical movement is, at the occult and inner level, much more in unity than it appears from the outward viewpoint. 

In my view, many of the problems and limitations faced by Pasadena are the same (if one looks under the surface) as those faced by Adyar or ULT. Perhaps Bruce MacDonald,  of the Edmonton TS, will say that the ETS does not share any of the problems faced by other theosophical groups/institutions. I don't know. I would like to have his commentaries about that.  But my feeling is that many of the problems, as most of the Teaching, are common. 
Of course, right now I have much more in common with the Pasadena TS, the Edmonton TS  and the ULT, of which I am an associate since last year (a most  inspiring experience).  And I have much less in common, in matters of inner guidance, with Adyar.  Yet I have some confidence that the Adyar TS will evolve in a positive way. As I criticize it, I do that aiming at what I consider its mistakes, and not aiming at describing it as useless "en bloc", or harmful as a whole. The Adyar TS in England, for instance, has a magazine, "Insight", which recently published two articles by Barry Thompson defending HPB in the episode of the false letters.  
"Adyar", "ULT" and "ETS", or "Pasadena" are but generalizations.  People, that is, individuals,  are more significant than organizations. 

If we could create a climate in which corporate competition would no longer be the priority,  the discussions could make it much easier to keep "a constant eye to the ideal of human progress and perfection", regardless of outer organizations.  
Then the past and present mistakes of the ULT, of Pasadena, ETS and Adyar could be discussed in a more democratic and natural way. 

Now, when I question Adyar's policy of "denial" with regard to problems like Leadbeater's clairvoyant fancies, authoritarian power-structure with ritualisms using liberty of thought as an outer and charming  facade, or the "political silencing of W. Judge",  and so on -- I do NOT imply that the Adyar TS is the exclusive proprietor of mistakes in the movement, and that the ULT, or the Pasadena TS, or the Edmonton TS, are "above mistakes". 

One of the best moments, in the movement, I sense, was the "fraternization movement" attempt, led by G. de Purucker in the early 1930s.   The ULT and its 1909 Declaration is  very much in the same line.  The "Collected Writings of HPB" was one of the results of such a "fraternization".   C. Jinarajadasa supported it. 
It is natural that strong criticisms are interchanged from time to time. Yet in the long run the general tendency, I hope, is to preserve and enhance dialogue and understanding, having abstract Truth and objective truthfulness as the meeting point for discussions, criticisms, dialogue and mutual help.

If groups renounce having to play the role of being "above mistakes", it may be much easier than we think. 

Regards,  Carlos. 


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