Theos-Talk Archives (April 2007 Message tt00116)

Hello Nigel,
Thanks for your frank & honest response. For me at any rate I think 
the issues here discussed need to be worked out with compassion and 
the upmost care and consideration for other people's feelings.

Often people have invested much into certain writings and beliefs and 
in many cases have felt themselves to have benefited from them, who 
am I to say that they are not on their right path and that they 
haven't benefited from them?

Who can judge what is and what is not helpful for an individual?

I would suggest that this is an extremely personal process and each 
individual will come to completely different conclusions and for 
different reasons and in their own way and time.

I know this is not a completely satisfactory response, however it is 
something that I have wrestled with and can only go with what my 
heart tells me & what feels like the right way to proceed. 

Your approach is perhaps more direct and I think there is an 
important place for that however I can only approach things in my own 
way.

Best Wishes
Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Perry
> Thanks for your reply and I appreciate the openness and generosity 
of 
> spirit with which you have approached Pedro's article in spite of 
> your experience with him and his Theosophical Society. My 
> perspective, limited such as it is, is not quite so accommodating.
> 
> Compassion, respect and tolerance it would seem are fine ideals to 
be 
> practised wherever and however possible, given the constraints of 
> human nature. So too are truth, honour and integrity.
> 
> That said, when a genuine attempt to advance the cause of Truth in 
> all its forms through the release of Theosophy has in so many ways 
> been perverted, how far do we reasonably extend our respect to 
these 
> perversions?
> 
> Where a theosophical teacher/leader, such as but not exclusive to 
> Bishop Leadbeater, has demonstrably lied repeatedly leading to 
> insidious and prevailing dominance over others, how far do we 
> reasonably extend tolerance to his pronouncements? 
> 
> Bishop Leadbeater's untruthful words, his gross contradictions 
> of "original" Theosophy despite claiming to be in direct contact 
with 
> its original teachers and his large amount of romanticised, 
> authoritarian, disempowering pronouncements, have been absorbed by 
> many leading to the very mindset Madame Blavatsky and the Mahatmas 
> attempted to expose as counter-productive to a free understanding 
and 
> practice of some of the real truths of Theosophy.  
> 
> My apparent dharma, rightly or wrongly, arrogantly presumptious or 
> not, causes me feel a sense of responsibility towards those 
> interested in Theosophy. 
> 
> For me, this raises the question as to how much responsibility we 
> have as leaders/teachers/facilitators/members/associates in a 
> Theosophical organisation to our fellow members and to the broader 
> community to promote honesty and truth? How much responsibility 
> indeed to the occult energies of honesty and truth which 
> interpenetrate every dimension of space and which affects all 
> humanity through our hearts and minds?
> 
> In part from my understanding of your experience with the Adyar 
> Society, I find Pedro's words to be disingenuous in the extreme 
> despite the undoubted worthiness of the stated principles and 
ideals. 
> As a Bishop in Bishop Leadbeater's church it would perhaps be fair 
to 
> assume that Pedro would have more than a little vested interest in 
> diverting attention away from the real and demonstrable truth of 
> matters through the otherwise entirely reasonable and appropriate 
> appeals for tolerance and respect. Whether this is consciously or 
> unconsciously motivated we may never know, such I believe is the 
> insidious nature of Bishop Leadbeater's influence.
> 
> For me, tolerance and respect are ideals to be earned, not to be 
> blindly and unquestioningly granted. They should certainly not be 
ab-
> used for the sake of political or any other expediency.
> 
> For those educated in Theosophical history and its teachings and 
who 
> hold positions of responsibility in its organisations, it is 
> incumbent upon them to distance themselves from their vested 
> interests and to expose falsehood and fraud in the name of simple 
> truth, rather than covering them up with fine sounding words which 
> might cause some to feel guilty that they are being intolerant and 
> disrespectful by questioning and challenging obvious lies and 
> contradictions. This subtle, disempowering technique I have 
witnessed 
> too many times.
> 
> As genuine seekers after truth, Bishop Leadbeater's more educated 
> supporters should truthfully and accurately represent his life and 
> works, warts and all, as many of them are only too willing to do in 
> the case of Madame Blavatsky and her teachers. 
> This most basic form of honesty and truth would perhaps encourage 
> others to take a more conciliatory view towards his contribution 
> which was after all, not all bad and was committed and far 
reaching. 
> It might also cause others to be more respectful and conciliatory 
> towards his followers instead of presently being pre-emptively wary 
> of the potential for utter hypocrisy between words and actions.
> 
> In saying all of the above, it would appear that in any event 
Bishop 
> Leadbeater's teachings and especially his insidiously influential 
> mindset are considered essential by karma. Determining the true 
> karmic reasons for anything is perhaps impossible due to the 
extreme 
> limitations of human insight and the arrogant presumptions of our 
> self-centred and self-deceiving minds. Given this, a limited mind 
> could perhaps be forgiven for considering the possibility that, if 
> for no other reason, Bishop Leadbeater and his followers' teachings 
> and mindset might be necessary, more for the purposes of comparison 
> than wholesale adoption.
> 
> Kind regards
> Nigel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Nigel,
> > 
> > My reason for posting Pedro's article originally was because I 
> think 
> > he makes some very good points and that whether we personally 
> > appreciate CWL's writings or not we need to realise that others 
do 
> > and so we need to take a compassionate and considerate approach.
> > 
> > I think this is why constitutionally the society has no books 
that 
> > are considered infallible holy writ.
> > 
> > The spirit of Pedro's article to me seems to express a tolerant 
and 
> > respectful approach as you know I have been a strong critic of 
CWL 
> > however this does not mean that I don't try and keep an open mind 
> > towards his writings.
> > 
> > As long as people want to study and explore his writings in the 
TS 
> > they are constitutionally free to do so without any interference.
> > (I am not here suggesting that you said that they shouldn't or 
> arn't)
> > The object sounds the keynote of the society.
> > Of course I would love to see HPB's writings more appreciated and 
> > used in the TS and also have more awareness of the history and 
> > differences, however it is peoples free choice to study what they 
> > find helps them realise Brotherhood.
> > 
> > This is my main point.
> > 
> > Perry
> > 
> > 
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Perry
> > > Thank you for both of your postings in reply.
> > > 
> > > You wrote:
> > >  
> > > The objects do indeed have a history and have changed over the 
> > years, 
> > > > however I would argue that the society as it stands today has 
> to 
> > > > uphold the objects as they are today and that is what they 
are 
> > > > constituently there to do.
> > > 
> > > As indeed legally it must.
> > > 
> > > You wrote:
> > >  
> > > > I have never heard HPB state anywhere that the Society was 
> there 
> > to 
> > > > only study her writings, if this was the case it should be 
> > clearly 
> > > > pointed out to people when they join the society.
> > > 
> > > and:
> > > 
> > > > If the society is constitutionally only there to study HPB 
> > writings 
> > > > where is this stated?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > In these passages it appears you are challenging something 
which 
> > > wasn't said? If you are referring to what I wrote, nowhere did 
I 
> > > state that the Society was established only for her writings.
> > > 
> > > From my perspective, Theosophy contains at least three 
> components; 
> > a 
> > > system of cosmogony and cosmology, a system of ethics and a 
> system 
> > of 
> > > thought. 
> > > With regards to the system of thought it demonstrates two 
> extremes; 
> > > one which entraps and enslaves and one which frees and 
liberates 
> > the 
> > > mind. That which enslaves the mind can rightly be termed non-
> > > Theosophical. Dogma, i.e. that which must be believed and 
> > > authoritarianism in all its forms, also constitutes to me that 
> > which 
> > > is not Theosophy. 
> > > 
> > > Moreover, in terms of mindset, perhaps we must ourselves be 
> careful 
> > > that our demand for freedom doesn't become a dogma. Dogma stems 
> > from 
> > > fear and perhaps we need to discern within ourselves our motive 
> for 
> > > demanding freedom.
> > > 
> > > Furthermore with regard to mindset, in Theosophical history we 
> have 
> > > prime examples of the aforementioned two extremes, and all 
stages 
> > in 
> > > between, with the contrast between the liberating mindset of 
> Madame 
> > > Blavatsky and the authoritarian mindsets of Dr Besant, Bishop 
> > > Leadbeater et al.
> > > With this in mind I repeat that "Whilst?freedom is to be 
strongly 
> > > encouraged it is to be hoped that the essence of  "original" 
> > > Theosophy is not lost."
> > > Sadly, in my experience in the Adyar Society, only a small 
number 
> > of 
> > > members show interest in Madame Blavatsky's writings and 
mindset 
> > > preferring instead the "simpler", "easier" and authoritarian 
> > versions 
> > > of theosophy, much of which to me is not Theosophy. This form 
of 
> > > authority continues to this day where true freedom of thought 
and 
> > > expression are sometimes disallowed, as you are only too aware.
> > > The irony of your above challenge is that Madame Blavatsky 
would 
> > have 
> > > encouraged you to speak up as you do whilst those currently in 
> > > positions of authority disallow this.
> > > 
> > > In addition to the liberating mindset and with respect to the 
> > > cosmogonical and cosmological information, the fact that the 
> adepts 
> > > waited for almost a hundred years to find the most suitable 
> vehicle 
> > > with the most suitable mindset available to share what they 
> > obviously 
> > > thought was important information and ways of thinking for 
> > humanity, 
> > > surely counts for something in terms of determining what might 
be 
> > > their version of Theosophy and whether or not this should 
> be "preach
> > > (ed) and popularise(d)" in the Society they helped establish. 
> > > (Mahachohan's "letter", my brackets)
> > > 
> > > Whilst neither of the above two considerations should ever be 
> > > dogmatised or become the sole purpose of the International 
> > > Theosophical Societies, nonetheless the history and motivation 
> > behind 
> > > founding the original Society should perhaps not be so readily 
> > > dismissed simply because it might not have been the way we 
might 
> > have 
> > > wished it to be or because it had to modify its operation later 
> due 
> > > to prejudice, politics and power.
> > > 
> > > Kind regards
> > > Nigel
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi mkr & Nigel,
> > > > I found this quote here which I think sums it up :
> > > > C.W. IV, p. 470
> > > > "Now our society, as was explained even to the outside public 
> > > > repeatedly, has one general, and several - if not minor, at 
> least 
> > > > less prominent aims. The earnest pursuit of one of the 
latter - 
> > > > occult science in this case - far from being regarded as the 
> > common 
> > > > duty and the work of all, is limited for the reasons given 
> above 
> > to 
> > > a 
> > > > very small faction of the Society, its pursuit resting with 
the 
> > > > personal tastes and aspirations of the members.
> > > > 
> > > >  As to the former - the chief aims of the Theosophical 
> > Fraternity - 
> > > > it is hardly necessary to remind any Fellow of what it is. 
Our 
> > > > fundamental object is Universal Brotherhood, kind feelings 
and 
> > > moral 
> > > > help proffered to all and every Brother, whatever his creed 
and 
> > > > views. 
> > > > 
> > > > Based upon the conviction that a Brotherhood of all faiths 
and 
> > > > denominations, composed of Theists and Atheists, Christians 
and 
> > > > Gentiles throughout the world, might without anyone 
> surrendering 
> > > his 
> > > > particular opinion be united into one strong Society or 
> > Fraternity 
> > > > for mutual help, and having one and the same purpose in view, 
> > i.e., 
> > > > the relentless, though at the same time calm and judicious 
> > pursuit 
> > > of 
> > > > Truth wherever found, especially in Religion and Science - it 
> is 
> > > the 
> > > > first duty of our Society as a united body to extirpate every 
> > weed 
> > > > that overgrows and stifles that truth which only can be one 
and 
> > > > entire. 
> > > > 
> > > > The best recognized way to make both the psychological and 
> > physical 
> > > > sciences, as all sectarian and dogmatic religions, yield 
their 
> > > > respective verities, is, in construing them, to take the 
middle 
> > > path 
> > > > between the extremes of opinion."
> > > > 
> > > > I found this quote here along with some other good ones.
> > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/theosoph.htm
> > > > 
> > > > Perry
> > > > 
> > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M K Ramadoss" <mkr777@> 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me interject. In ML, APS was repeatedly told that the 
> first 
> > > and 
> > > > foremost
> > > > > is the Brotherhood of Humanity; not any of the ancient 
> wisdom, 
> > or 
> > > > any of the
> > > > > secrets of nature etc. Once we keep an eye on the ball, 
then 
> > > > everything else
> > > > > should fall into their proper place.
> > > > > 
> > > > > One other thing that I noticed -- why was Pedro referred to 
> as 
> > > > Bishop
> > > > > Oliviera by Nigel?  Has his title got something to do with 
> > > > Theosophy?
> > > > > Wondering?
> > > > > 
> > > > > mkr
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 4/27/07, plcoles1 <plcoles1@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   Hello Nigel,
> > > > > > Thanks for your comments. As I have found with most 
things 
> > > there 
> > > > are
> > > > > > paradoxes and various shades of grey.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The objects do indeed have a history and have changed 
over 
> > the 
> > > > years,
> > > > > > however I would argue that the society as it stands today 
> has 
> > to
> > > > > > uphold the objects as they are today and that is what 
they 
> are
> > > > > > constituently there to do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have never heard HPB state anywhere that the Society 
was 
> > > there 
> > > > to
> > > > > > only study her writings, if this was the case it should 
be 
> > > clearly
> > > > > > pointed out to people when they join the society.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I first joined the society I joined not because of a 
> > > > particular
> > > > > > doctrine but because of an institutional ethos that 
> encouraged
> > > > > > comparative study of philosophy, science and religion 
free 
> of
> > > > > > dogmatism and I think this is the case for most people.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the society is constitutionally only there to study 
HPB 
> > > > writings
> > > > > > where is this stated?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sincerely
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perry
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%
> > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Perry and All
> > > > > > > Thank you Perry for bringing this interesting article 
by 
> > > Bishop
> > > > > > > Oliviera to this forum and for your subsequent comments 
> > > > pertaining
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > it and to Daniel's pertinent quotes. These can perhaps 
> give 
> > > > rise to
> > > > > > > much consideration on a number of matters.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is to be hoped that most who have been contributing 
to 
> > this
> > > > > > forum
> > > > > > > for the past few years would agree by now that free, 
> honest 
> > > and
> > > > > > open
> > > > > > > discussion on all matters, in particular those of a 
> > > theosophical
> > > > > > > nature, is paramount if we as individuals are to begin 
to 
> > > > negotiate
> > > > > > > and ultimately make sense of the labyrinth of 
> > > spirito/religious
> > > > > > ideas
> > > > > > > extant in the world today.
> > > > > > > As mentioned many times by numerous correspondents, the 
> > > required
> > > > > > open
> > > > > > > mind is also vital if we are to become aware of, and 
> > confront 
> > > > and
> > > > > > > control our biased perspectives, prejudices and 
> > predilections 
> > > > so as
> > > > > > > to begin the process of understanding and knowing 
matters 
> > as 
> > > > they
> > > > > > > really are, rather than simply how we might prefer them 
> to 
> > be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A burning question which continually flares up in the 
> Adyar 
> > > > Society
> > > > > > > to which Pedro belongs, and to which he has addressed 
his 
> > > > article,
> > > > > > > involves the definition of theosophy/Theosophy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What has been of great importance to me over many years 
> > > concerns
> > > > > > > whether there are differing versions of 
> theosophy/Theosophy 
> > > and
> > > > > > > whether this really matters. From the perspective of 
what 
> is
> > > > > > > euphemistically called "original" Theosophy, it clearly 
> > does.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When we consider from indisputable history who it was 
who 
> > > > created
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > powerful impetus for this "original" Theosophy to re-
> enter 
> > the
> > > > > > > western mindset in the 19th century, it begs the 
question 
> > as 
> > > to
> > > > > > > whether their version might be what they wished to be 
> > > > promulgated,
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > alluded to in the Mahachohan's quote.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It also begs the question as to whether they wished the 
> > > Society,
> > > > > > > which they asked Madame Blavatsky to establish via 
> Colonel 
> > > > Olcott
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > others, be a place to study and make extant their 
version 
> of
> > > > > > > Theosophy. Clearly they did.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From the original by-laws of 1875 clause 2 states; "The 
> > > objects 
> > > > of
> > > > > > > the Society are, to collect and diffuse a knowledge of 
> the 
> > > laws
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > govern the universe." Whilst to my knowledge there is no
> > > > > > indisputable
> > > > > > > account as to the discussion which led to the actual 
> > wording 
> > > of
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > object, it would be inconceivable that Madame 
Blavatsky, 
> and
> > > > > > > therefore her teachers, had nothing to do with it and 
> > indeed,
> > > > > > knowing
> > > > > > > her character and respected reputation amongst those 
> > present, 
> > > > she
> > > > > > > most probably caused the wording to be as such. After 
> all, 
> > it 
> > > > was
> > > > > > > solely because of her and her words and actions that 
> people
> > > > > > initially
> > > > > > > became attracted to Theosophy and its ideas in the 
first 
> > > place.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The wording of this original object is important. "?to 
> > > collect 
> > > > and
> > > > > > > diffuse a knowledge of the laws?" This was the 
> cornerstone 
> > > which
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > to set the theme for the collection and release of a 
body 
> of
> > > > > > > knowledge. From the wording, this particular body of 
> > > knowledge 
> > > > was
> > > > > > > already in existence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Moreover, Colonel Olcott accounts in Old Diary Leaves 
in 
> > the 
> > > > very
> > > > > > > early years, "The Brotherhood plank in which the 
> Society's 
> > > > future
> > > > > > > platform was...(was) not thought of;?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As the Society evolved it became clear that the 
> > aforementioned
> > > > > > biases
> > > > > > > and prejudices began to manifest within the membership
> > > > > > necessitating
> > > > > > > the "brotherhood" object.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As this object was added later, so too were others.
> > > > > > > In 1890, a year before Madame Blavatsky's death there 
was 
> a 
> > > > second
> > > > > > > object which read; "To promote the study of Aryan and 
> other 
> > > > Eastern
> > > > > > > literatures, religions, philosophies and sciences, and 
to
> > > > > > demonstrate
> > > > > > > their importance to Humanity."
> > > > > > > Note that this object is in accord with the Adepts
> > > > > > statement, "After
> > > > > > > nearly a century of fruitless search, our chiefs had to 
> > avail
> > > > > > > themselves of the only opportunity to send out a 
European 
> > > body 
> > > > upon
> > > > > > > European soil to serve as a connecting link between 
that 
> > > country
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > our own." And, "This state of hers (HPB's) is 
intimately 
> > > > connected
> > > > > > > with her occult training in Tibet, and due to her being 
> > sent 
> > > out
> > > > > > > alone into the world to gradually prepare the way for 
> > others."
> > > > > > > The Mahatmas clearly had a specific body of occult 
> > knowledge 
> > > to
> > > > > > > share, which was Aryan and Eastern in nature, whilst 
> Madame
> > > > > > Blavatsky
> > > > > > > had a definite and specific role to release it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pedro writes that when the Mahatmas and Madame 
Blavatsky 
> > were
> > > > > > > referring to their rejection of God they were writing 
from
> > > > > > > their "Buddhist perspective". As you point out, 
orthodox 
> > > Tibetan
> > > > > > > Buddhism has numerous and major differences from the 
> > > Theosophy 
> > > > of
> > > > > > > Madame Blavatsky and her teachers. So the Mahatmas were 
> > > clearly 
> > > > not
> > > > > > > traditional Buddhists and were not in fact writing from 
> that
> > > > > > dogmatic
> > > > > > > mindset.
> > > > > > > Moreover, Madame Blavatsky wrote copiously quoting 
> Buddhism,
> > > > > > Hinduism
> > > > > > > and Vedanta texts to expound this knowledge.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was 5 years after her death in 1896, when certain 
> western
> > > > > > > influences had begun watering down these "Aryan and 
> > Eastern" 
> > > > occult
> > > > > > > teachings that the second object was changed to 
read; "To 
> > > > encourage
> > > > > > > the study of comparative religion, philosophy and 
> science." 
> > > The
> > > > > > focus
> > > > > > > was now shifting to western style Christianity wherein 
the
> > > > > > > differences with "original" Theosophy were and are 
indeed 
> > > stark.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > of course culminated in a theosophical church strongly 
> > > > associated
> > > > > > > with the Adyar Theosophical Society which remains as 
such 
> > to 
> > > > this
> > > > > > day.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The "forlorn hope" of the Mahatmas included recognition 
> of 
> > the
> > > > > > > probability that despite earnest warnings from them and 
> > Madame
> > > > > > > Blavatsky for their occult body of knowledge not to be 
> > > > dogmatised,
> > > > > > > dogma arose in the Adyar Society fuelled by Bishop 
> > Leadbeater 
> > > > and
> > > > > > Dr
> > > > > > > Annie Besant's Christianity and their "coming world 
> > teacher."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This caused the production of the "Freedom of Thought" 
> > > statement
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > the General Council in the early 1920's which whilst 
> > > necessary 
> > > > to
> > > > > > > promote tolerance and brotherliness, nevertheless 
further
> > > > > > contributed
> > > > > > > to the belief that Theosophy included anything and 
> > everything 
> > > > of an
> > > > > > > esoteric nature.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Whilst this freedom is to be strongly encouraged it is 
to 
> > be 
> > > > hoped
> > > > > > > that the essence of "original" Theosophy is not lost.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Whether or not Madame Blavatsky and her teachers' 
> knowledge 
> > is
> > > > > > > accurate or not, they certainly wished for the 
> Theosophical 
> > > > Society
> > > > > > > to be a vehicle for it.
> > > > > > > She and the Mahatmas certainly encouraged us not to 
turn 
> > > their 
> > > > body
> > > > > > > of knowledge into yet another dogma. Madame Blavatsky 
> wrote
> > > > > > > tangentially and referred to almost every 
> spirito/religious
> > > > > > tradition
> > > > > > > in her writings to help guard against this occurring. 
But 
> > she 
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > Mahatmas were earnestly hoping for the sake of humanity 
> we 
> > > would
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > throw out their hard won knowledge and that we would 
use 
> > their
> > > > > > occult
> > > > > > > words with an ever open and expansive mindset to go 
> beyond, 
> > > into
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > mystical states of consciousness, wherein definitions 
> > > dissolve 
> > > > and
> > > > > > > Reality beckons.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kind regards
> > > > > > > Nigel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%
> > > > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > "plcoles1" <plcoles1@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello All,
> > > > > > > > I have just read Pedro Oliveira's article "Which 
> > Theosophy" 
> > > > which
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > published in the magazine "Theosophy in Australia" in 
> > March 
> > > > 2006.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.austheos.org.au/magazine/pedro-which-
> > > theosophy.htm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have to say that I am by largely in agreement with 
> > Pedro's
> > > > > > > > statements and also with the spirit within which it 
> seems 
> > > to 
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > been written.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The theosophical approach is not an ism and certainly 
> is 
> > > not a
> > > > > > > > prescribed pathway it is a journey that will be 
unique 
> and
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > for each individual.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As students and individuals we will all naturally be 
> > drawn 
> > > to 
> > > > one
> > > > > > > > school of thought more than another, the theosophic 
> > > approach 
> > > > is
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > its very nature eclectic.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The way to unity is by way of embracing diversity, 
yes 
> we 
> > > > need to
> > > > > > > > debate and discuss points of difference but probably 
> more
> > > > > > > importantly
> > > > > > > > we also need to underline the points of intersection 
> and 
> > in 
> > > > our
> > > > > > > > hearts hold to that spirit of Brotherhood and Oneness 
> > which 
> > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > theosophical ideal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We need not become divided into Blavatsky barrackers 
or
> > > > > > Leadbeater
> > > > > > > > booers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The wheat from the chaff of both can only be sorted 
out 
> > for
> > > > > > > ourselves
> > > > > > > > through our own process and in our own way and time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks Pedro for the article it has given me some 
food 
> for
> > > > > > thought.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Perry
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>