Theos-Talk Archives (August 2006 Message tt00371)

Hi Nigel,
Before I respond, I notice that you hail from Oz.  I was wondering if you know of the whereabouts of a great theosophist, Joe Bzelke who was at the Melbourne Lodge.
Cass

nhcareyta <nhcareyta@yahoo.com.au> wrote:                                  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]
 >
 
 
     
                       

 		
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the  new Yahoo.com 

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