Theos-Talk Archives (August 2007 Message tt00014)

May be you will find these points useful. So I am forwarding this
message to the group.
Anand
--- In theosophy_@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:

Dear Jerry,
This message is interesting. 

> I read Radha's comments. The relevant points I see her making are
that K 
> opposed the direction that the TS was going, and that Sri Ram tried to 
> integrate K's teachings into the TS literature. Another point she 
> understandably didn't directly mention, is that Sri Ram distanced 
> himself from the revelations that came out of the old ES material.

 There were number of spiritual organizations and philosophies
existing in the world when the TS was founded. TS was founded with
some special purpose. Mahatma Letters, Blavatsky's writing, writings
of Annie Besant, Leadbeater (who was accepted by Masters as disciple
according to their own letter), tell us the purpose, focus and
specialty of this new organization called the Theosophical Society.
Path of occultism, discipleship, existence of Masters, to give out
more information about Masters to the world, to let the world know
about Occult Hierarchy,  providing world information about
super-physical planes of nature, constitution of man with his subtle
bodies, explaining occult phenomena. These topics were at the core of
the TS literature. They formed most of the literature of Masters,
Blavatsky, A.P. Sinnett,  Besant, Leadbeater. 
Radha's argument is that Krishnamurti left TS and ditched those ideas
about discipleship etc., just because some people that time were not
doing right things. If some people did wrong things that time, that is
not a proper justification for Krishnamurti's actions and speeches. If
some people did wrong thing, should a leader dump all major ideas
given by the Masters, Blavatsky, Sinnett, Besant, Leadbeater ? No. 

So if Krishnamurti left for the reasons which Radha told in that
comments, then Krishnamurti made a mistake. 
If Krishnamurti left organization, and talked outside against the
major ideas of TS like Masters, discipleship, path of occultism,
reading books etc, should TS follow Krishnamurti and forget all the
purpose for which TS was founded ? No. It was a huge mistake done by
TS by following him, in my opinion.

> 
> You write that her comments tell us why the direction of the TS was 
> changed, and who changed it. Whether these changes were "right or 
> disastrous" is a matter of individual judgment.
There are various factors that can tell whether TS is progressing or
not. Some months back you had rightly said that members neither know
what Blavatsky wrote, nor they know what Leadbater wrote. I also found
that such miserable condition of TS is  a reality. Fact is many of
good students are being directed to Krishnamurti's teaching. When
Krishnamurti spoke most people did not understand what he was talking.
And today also I find many times speakers speak on Krishnamurti's
teaching and much of that does not make much sense. They are speaking
on Krishnamurti because they are encouraged to do so from top of the
organization.
In 1950 world's population was around 2.5 billion. Today it is over
6.6 billion. But the membership of the TS has remained almost the
same. So percentage-wise membership is actually decreased
significantly. This reduction is despite better conditions, literacy,
increased incomes which should have actually helped spread of
Theosophy, and should have resulted in increased membership. So in
reality TS declined and became ineffective. These facts and some more
will prove that TS actually took wrong direction by incorporation of
Krishnamurti's teaching in Theosophy.

> If the criteria for determining whether the changes were right or wrong 
> can be measured by the increase or decrease in the membership, as you 
> have previously suggested, then I must point out to you that the 
> membership dropped disastrously during the latter part of Bishop 
> Arundale's administration. 

Krishnamurti started his anti-Theosophy teaching few years before
Arundale became President. K's onslaught continued during Arundale's
presidentship. It is quite natural that membership kept on dropping in
those years. 

During that period, Arundale ignored K and 
> continued the previous practices of giving out initiations to members 
> and making revelations to the ES members. According to Arundale's own 
> statements, he regularly visited KH in Shamballa, where he was 
> occasionally given orders to carry out.

We need to remember that maximum membership and world-wide recognition
to TS came under the leadership of Annie Besant. Initiations,
discipleship, Occult Hirarchy and so called revelations were greeted
by world already. Arundale just continued those, but now, during his
presidentship, Krishnamurti was speaking outside against major ideas
of the TS, rejecting every major concept TS gave. That is the reason
why those old ES ideas which succeeded in attracting people during
Besant's time did not succeed during Arundale's time.

> 
> Jinarajadasa followed Arundale. The TS membership recovered a little, 
> but remained low during his time. Also, lodge attendance at lectures 
> started to suddenly drop during the 1950's. However, everyone I have 
> discussed this situation with agrees that the cause had nothing to do 
> with Jinarajadasa. Rather, it was the sudden popularity of television 
> sets. The culture was changing. Lodges quickly learned not to schedule 
> lectures on the evenings when the Milton Berle show was on television.

If TV was major cause of distraction, then in 60s, when TV spread
more, should have resulted  further drop in interest in Theosophy. But
according to your statement in 60s membership rose. And by the time of
Dora Kunj TV sets were shipped around the world, and still membership
increased when Dora was president of American Section. So I think TV
was not so important factor  influencing membership. 
I think TS was affected greatly by right and wrong policies and
decisions of various Presidents.

> It was during the sixties that the membership began to noticeably 
> increase in the European and American sections. Probably also in India, 
> Australia and South America. I don't know off hand. I joined the TS in 
> 1963, so I have first hand knowledge of this period in the American 
> Section. There was an influx of new members, most of whom were at least 
> thirty years younger than the youngest of the established members. The 
> older members were at first delighted until they found out that the 
> younger members had their own perspective on life and were not willing 
> to go along without asking critical questions, and did not appreciate 
> Victorian attitudes. We used to credit this kind of elder-younger 
> friction as the result of "a generation gap." Most of the new members 
> did not stay. A few did.

My experience is young members appreciate Theosophy, but Theosophical
lodges many times suffer from politic and many other problems, which
make new members stay away from lodges. 

> Sri Ram did not push the ES. My own Theosophy teacher once told me that 
> Sri Ram actually discouraged her from joining the ES. Rather, he was 
> apparently trying to instill K's spiritual teachings into the TS: as 
> Radha suggests. 

If somebody says that N. Sri Ram was right and his writing is right,
then how many takers are there, who would gladly accepts N.Sri Ram's
version of Theosophy ? Very few, almost negligible. Among all major
Theosophical leaders, N. Sri Ram's writing is least appreciated and
read, despite Radha's efforts to promote it. If N. Sri Ram's writing
is promoted as Theosophy, very few will join the TS. And if we accept
N. Sri Ram's version, should we dump Blavatsky's version of Theosophy
which concentrates on discipleship, occultims and Masters etc. ? 

> Since Sri Ram was also the Outer Head, the older ES establishment tried 
> to follow his lead. I would say that the biggest readers of Sri Ram's 
> books at the time, were ES members--who read them at their meetings.
All 
> of the revelations from the earlier ES material ended at this point.

If what you say is correct, then it is clear that N. Sri Ram
discouraged study of old ES material and promoted his own writing in
the ES.
If we see condition of TS today, it is ridiculous. If Krishnamurti was
world-teacher, then he can do his work through his organization-
Krishnamurti Foundation. Theosophical Society should not become crutch
for Krishnamurti Foundation. 

Anand

--- End forwarded message ---