Theos-Talk Archives (August 2006 Message tt00297)

Friends,  

Thanks to Marie, see below. 

One can see, though,  that  the main comprehensive books on the history of the movement "The Theosophical Movement 1875-1925"; "The Theosophical Movement 1875-1950", "A Short History of the TS" (Josephine Ranson) and the latter's  sequel also by J. Ranson, have been published narrating History until the very moment of their publication.  The same with Joy Mills'  book on the History of the Movement in the USA (up to 1975). 

These are not perfect "Histories".  But they give the student a basic ground, a general portrait from which one can look for more in one's own preferred areas. 

Now, the question of the  historical gap I see is not limited to having books published which discuss  the period 1940 -- 2005. The issue is thinking and discussing this period and taking lessons from it, so that we can go through the rest of the century,  up to 2075. 

We should have more historical consciousness, which means taking lessons. 

We have a long winter in front of us,  but a winter harbours life anyway. It preserves life in an active way and it prepares the foundations for the next springtime. 

In the period 1906-2031 we had the highest expressions of fancies, mistakes and misunderstandings in more than one Theosophical Society. But we also had the "Back to Blavatsky" movement, the "Fraternization Movement (G. de Purucker), and the starting point for the "Collected Writings" work; the beginning of the  the editorial tendency to publish HPB Works verbatim and in facsimile editions (ULT), etc.  

The outer and inner lines of event development are paradoxical, so to say. They "contradict" one another, apparently. 

In part, and at first sight, such a historical "vacuum"  regarding the period 1940-2005 can be ascribed to the influence exerted by J. Krishnamurti's thinking.  According to Krishnamurti disciples,  "thinking about the past is useless".  You do not  have much to do about History, then.  

(Strangely enough, it is a Krishnamurtian, Mary Lutiens, who wrote some of the most important books involving  on the history of the Adyar TS in recent decades.) 

Other groups and sectors,  not Krishnamurtian, also failed to produce comprehensive works on the history of the movement since 1950, and did not  include this period in their horizons of critical analysis, save exceptions.     

Stimulating History, as you know, is an exercise of open-mindedness and, above all,  accountability. 

Who has been discussing  the 1975-2000 general Effort,  or its lessons for the longer period 2000-2075 ?  

This issue may be of very practical use. 

There is, I guess, a direct link between historical consciousness and the  inner vitality of the movement.  Of course, historical consciousness is not the same as having mere information of a personalistic kind. It is,instead,  an ability to evaluate the actual and cyclic strength of a long-time Effort for Mankind.  

Best regards,   Carlos. 


  


De:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Para:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com

Cópia:

Data:Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:16:49 EDT

Assunto:Re: Theos-World Pelletier, Cranston and History

> Carlos, regarding your text given below, I too would like to see a History 
> published. But I think the reason it has not been is because there are still 
> too many theosophists involved with the 1950-to-present period alive. There 
> would perhaps be too much disagreement among them as to what constitutes a true 
> historical perspective, or simply put, what is the TRUTH of it.
> 
> Each participant would want their involvement to be presented by them, and 
> therefore no real perspective could be possible.
> 
> But that does not mean that a compilation could not be made, by each of the 
> notables (and they know who they are) that could still be a valuable addition 
> to the lore already presented. And that does not mean that we would stop 
> disagreeing about the matter among ourselves, would it?
> 
> Marie
> *******************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends, 
> 
> In the posting below, I did not mention Ernest Pelletiers' "The Judge Case" 
> and other important books (like Cranston's etc.) because I was thinking of 
> the period post-1950, as a subject. 
> 
> My point is that the period 1950-2006, seen as a whole, has not been 
> properly dealt with. 
> 
> For instance, what about an evaluation of the last end-of-century effort, 
> 1975-2000? 
> 
> I have some material at the private personal level, but who wrote about it 
> in a comprehensive way so far? 
> 
> And what about the start-of-the-And what about t
> 
> Many historical questions open. 
> 
> Regards, Carlos. 
> 
> 
> 


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