Theos-Talk Archives (August 2006 Message tt00334)

Dear Cass
A few thoughts:

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> Perry,
> I would like to pose a question to the group.
> 
> "Are we still holding on to old thinking in that we are 
emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually in need of a society to 
belong to?"
> 
> What is it about humans that they need to belong to "groups?".

My previous post to Perry addresses some answers to your above 
questions. Problems with groups are not the fault of the group as an 
entity. It will be evident that initially groups form as a means for 
improved chances of survival in all its forms. In survival based 
groups, whether they be tribes, countries or international alliances 
there are usually those individuals who are stronger and/or smarter 
to meet any physical threat. This reality usually transforms the 
group into leaders and followers which becomes accepted as 
the "natural" order of things.
Furthermore, in less threatening times, throughout our schooling we 
become accutely aware of how much we don't know, and how much the 
teacher does. This further prepares us well to be followers. 
It seems some problems arise when, despite our physical survival 
being relatively assured as in a theosophical organisation, humans 
still play the old game of "survival of the strongest" or smartest 
and people continue to manifest the leader/follower mindset. The 
followers are just as much complicit in this as the leaders. 
Followers defer "naturally" to the leaders for many reasons including 
the still perceived need for security, stability and predictability, 
thereby safety; feelings of inferiority from school and other 
conditioning; and simple laziness, including laziness to think for 
oneself.
I believe that, because of this often instinctual deferral, it is 
incumbent on leaders to encourage wherever and however possible the 
independent thinking of their sisters and brothers. This was a 
primary motivating factor of Blavatsky.
Sadly, this rarely occurs. For numerous reasons, some involving the 
demands of lower ego superiority as well as the need to be a 
rescuer/protector, leaders oftentimes see it as their natural right 
or even obligation to "care" for their flock, and the followers 
willingly comply.
     
In saying the above, in spite of the necessity for, and value of 
individual study, group learning can often generate far greater and 
more accelerated learning and awakening of awareness than individual 
effort alone. Where all participants are encouraged to think for 
themselves and share their perspectives openly, all in the group can 
benefit. This works well when there are no stated leaders or 
authorities. Of course, some will be more informed in certain areas 
than others, particularly in matters of a more technical or 
terminological nature. A person such as this can be invaluable in a 
group as long as she/he doesn't in any way convey a sense of 
authority requiring compliance.

> I realise the first question coming from this is, 'how will the 
ancient teachings be spread without a unified body".  
> 
> Perhaps the answer is a Hall of Knowlege that encompasses all 
truths, accessible to all through the internet, a central United 
Nations of seminal religious thought, co-relational but independant.  
A synthesis of all truths.

Whilst the internet has many advantages, with a broad range of 
contributors, it seems the natural, cautionary, interactive behaviour 
usually exercised by those attending physical theosophical groups is 
not so evident where cyberspace is concerned. The very nature of the 
verbal assaults of the past few of months on t/talk, however well 
intentioned, would immediately destroy most physical groups.
So, an internet based "United Nations of seminal religious thought, 
co-relational but independant.  A synthesis of all truths." is, to 
me, a wonderful idea and one would hope it would operate perhaps a 
little more respectfully in terms of openness, honesty and decorum 
than some of us have demonstrated here lately.

Regards
Nigel



 
> 
> Awaiting others comments.
> 
> Cass
> 
> plcoles1 <plcoles1@...> wrote:                                  
Hello Marie,
>  Thanks for your comments !
>  Since 2004 I have been posting here at theos-talk you can read my 
>  first posting below.
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/17453
>  
>  I actually had resigned from the TS (I resigned in 2001 I think) 
of 
>  my own accord and was trying to raise some issues I had with the 
>  Adyar TS and create dialogue on these here at theos talk.
>  
>  To cut a long story short I reached a point where I thought that 
>  perhaps I may rejoin the Society despite my issues with the TS and 
do 
>  what ever work I could within it.
>  
>  However earlier this year my application to re-applying for 
>  membership was rejected by National Section in Australia 
unanimously
>  
>  I was invited to re-apply for membership in twelve months  "if you 
>  find that you have a genuine compatibility with the ethos, 
official 
>  statements and broad scope of the teachings of the TS with its 
>  headquarters at Adyar".
>  
>  This implied that I didn't a `compatibility with the ethos, 
official 
>  statements and broad scope of the teachings of the TS with its 
>  headquarters at Adyar' and had to acquire one.
>  
>  I suppose you'd have to read my postings to see if you concur with 
>  the decission or not.
>  
>  Cheers
>  
>  Perry
>  
>  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, MarieMAJ41@ wrote:
>  >
>  > Perry, could you elaborate a bit about your "expulsion" from the 
>  Adyar TS?  
>  > When, why, etc. Of course, if you do not wish to dredge it up, I 
do 
>  understand. 
>  >  But if it was a matter of censorship, was it under Algeo's 
reign?
>  >  
>  > I can hardly believe that I am affiliated with a society that 
has 
>  so little  
>  > tolerance for freedom of thought and expression. But I should 
have 
>  know when I 
>  >  found that books in the Library were taken from the shelves, or 
>  not put on 
>  > at  all. All this was done under the guise of placing the books 
>  into "archives" 
>  > to  which almost noone had access without obtaining permission, 
>  from you 
>  > guessed it,  the power that be.
>  >  
>  > Marie
>  >  
>  > 
>  > 
>  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>  >
>  
>  
>      
>                        
> 
>  		
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
>  Next-gen email? Have it all with the  all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>