Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00176)

One of the salient features of Internet based discussion forums such as this
maillist comes into focus to deal with this specific issue. Here is a forum
where you find individuals interested in theosophy and associated with an
organization or not at all associated is able discuss items of interest,
without any geographical, organizational, philosophical any other
boundaries. Discussion go on 7/24. In addition, it also prevents individuals
whether consciously or no unconsciously drawn into other "related"
organizations as well.

Fortunately, my personal experience has been that while for years when I
visited branches, I was lucky that no one told me what to study or what not
to study and there was no intereference either directly or subtly in my
participation since I did not question or challenge either the political
matters or dogmas or beliefs held by the organization. Others experience my
be different when they get involved in organizations. And also in those
years there was no Internet.

mkr

On 7/16/07, Eldon B Tucker <eldon_tucker@yahoo.com> wrote:
If any of us take an organizational position within an existing theosophical
group, we're subject to that group's politics and we may find limits put on
the free expression of our views. That's why it's often better to work on
independent theosophical projects where we are subject to no external
controls and where we are free to study and share what we freely think
without having to agree with a particular viewpoint.


From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>] On
Behalf Of danielhcaldwell
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 3:28 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Theos-World Should an "ideal" Theosophical Society study &
"promote" these books?
>
>
>
> Should an "ideal", non-dogmatic, all-inclusive
> Theosophical Society study and "promote" all
> of the following books?
>
> Books by Blavatsky, Sinnett, Judge, Besant,
> Leadbeater, Tingley, G. de Purucker, Olcott,
> Bailey, La Due, Ballard, Roerich,
> Prophet, Chaney, Steiner, Hodson, King, Crosbie,
> Wadia, Scott, Heindel, Innocente, Shearer, and
> other "Theosophical" writers.
>
> As well as books by various yogis, lamas,
> metaphysicans, sufis, spirtualists, psychical reseachers,
> kabalists, religionists, etc. etc. etc. etc.
>
> I believe that almost all the named individuals
> (in the 2nd paragraph above) have claimed contact with
> the "Masters" and all their books could broadly be
> called "theosophical".
>
> Who is to say what and what is not Theosophy or
> Theosophical?
>
> And who is to say what or what is not to be studied
> and promoted in a Theosophical Society or group?
>
> It should be noted that the three major Theosophical organizations
> (TS Adyar, TS Pasadena and ULT) all feature, study and promote (i.e.,
> SELL) ONLY CERTAIN authors and writers.
>
> Therefore are these three groups being "dogmatic" or in fact
> promoting a "fundamentalistic" version of Theosophy by LIMITING
> which authors are promoted and/or studied???
>
> Hopefully some food for thought...
>
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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