Theos-Talk Archives (April 2007 Message tt00117)

Hello Perry
Thank you too for sharing your honest and heartfelt thoughts. From my 
perspective they demonstrate integrity which I respect.
Thank you for the interesting dialogue.
Best wishes to you too.
Nigel

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@...> wrote:
>
> 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]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>