Theos-Talk Archives (January 2009 Message tt00019)

Dear friends and Joseph

My views are:

On #1:
So that is why they sell books by W. C. Leadbeater and not by Alice A. Bailey or other claimed theosophical teachers? Or are there something in those guidelines, that have a bad smell of deliberate narrowminededness towards, what is going on in various theosophical and theosophically related circles?

On #2:

"The TS won't be able to handle any Bailey issues 
effectively (if they want to stay as they are) until there is some way 
to differentiate among them. Read the books "Theosophy vs. Neo-
Theosophy by Mark Jaqua, then "The Psuedo Occultism of Alice Bailey" 
by Alice Cleather. Going between those volumes are as close as you'll 
get to a comparative analysis of Bailey vs. Leadbeater."

Yes. But that does not explain why W. C. Leadbeaters, J. Kirshnamurti's books are sold, and not Alice A. Bailey's does it?

--------


H.P. Blavatsky said:
"...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at their right value; and unless a judge compares notes and hears 
both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision."     H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 218.



No real contrast?


M. Sufilight



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joseph P. Fulton 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 1:54 AM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?


  This is the reply to Questions 1 & 2.

  On question #1, I can't honestly give you a "why". From what I recall 
  from days long ago many of the issues were financial, such as 
  royalties, etc. The focus at TPH has always been towards the "general 
  audience" with no real observed preference outside the guidelines.

  On question #2, most lodges I've been involved with, and visited, 
  including the HQ at Wheaton actually have books by Alice Bailey in 
  their public collections. I've never seen a group who would actively 
  exclude them, except, perhaps one who has had an incursion of "Bailey 
  people" trying to take them over. I've been through one of those, and 
  my experience is that they're quite predatory.

  The real problem with Bailey, for the TS, is that her doctrines are 
  very close to being identical with Besant/Leadbeater. That's too hard 
  for many to swallow. The TS won't be able to handle any Bailey issues 
  effectively (if they want to stay as they are) until there is some way 
  to differentiate among them. Read the books "Theosophy vs. Neo-
  Theosophy by Mark Jaqua, then "The Psuedo Occultism of Alice Bailey" 
  by Alice Cleather. Going between those volumes are as close as you'll 
  get to a comparative analysis of Bailey vs. Leadbeater.

  Joe

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
  theosophy@...> wrote:
  >
  > Dear Joseph and friends
  > 
  > My views are:
  > 
  > 1) Thanks. Yes. But that does not at all explain why they do, what 
  they do, and who "they" actually are in person. And not why "their" 
  policy is like it is.
  > 
  > 2)
  > I was rather reffering to the fact that the Alice A. Bailey books 
  are not allowed within any TS branch as far as I know. Whereas C. W. 
  Leadbeaters are more than welcomed. Weird is it not?
  > 
  > And compartive study between them and H. P. Blavatsky's teachings? 
  Have it ever occured?
  > When people start thinkin in terms like: You choose your path, we 
  soon will end up with another version of the Spiritists and a pseudo 
  Esoteric version og the Latter Days Saints or similar. Well, that is, 
  if you get my view.
  > 
  > 2 + 3)
  > 
  > 
  > 4)
  > Joseph wrote:
  > Krishnamuti: "People choose their leaders out of confusion, 
  therefore
  > the leaders are also confused."
  > 
  > My answer:
  > Sure, that will imediately rule all others out except Kirshnamurti 
  himself - as a braging Messiah. 
  > Sneaky fellow that Krishnamurti, .....sneaky, very very sneaky.
  > 
  > So no one have ever compared J. Krishnamurti with any other TS 
  teacher?
  > I am amazed.
  > 
  > 
  > Yes. The Theosophical Movement by Cooper is worth an effort.
  > 
  > What is this: "Theosophical materials" (presumably
  > from the Adyar organization) - you are reffering to?
  > 
  > Joseph wrote:
  > "Morten, I agree very strongly with your view of the TS as an
  > "investigatory" organization. A major portion of the issues we deal
  > with now date back to the post-Coulomb period when HPB was in Europe
  > and the ES was formed. As soon as this direct line to a "higher
  > authority" was established with the Europeans, free-thought, and the
  > investigatory nature of the TS diminished greatly. It's a funny
  > phenomenon, slightly alluded to in the Mahatma Letters (3rd Ed. 
  Letter
  > 16 "Devachan" Pg. 24) regarding the existence of a pair of 
  undisclosed
  > Skandhas. These two are associated, according to the letter, with
  > "the efficacy of vain rights and ceremonies, in prayers and
  > intercession". Perhaps it is the action of this attribute of mind
  > which is mostly responsible for the current state of affairs."
  > 
  > My answer:
  > Thanks. I found your words very interesting.
  > 
  > One aught to ask various TS leaders and leaders from other 
  theosophical branches about this issue. I wonder what they would say, 
  if they at all dared to answer?
  > ----
  > 
  > Joseph wrote:
  > "I have one other question. Who are the finest scholars in the
  > movement today? David Riegle, Daniel Caldwell, Paul Johnson, Joy
  > Mills? Where is the output from these individuals, presumably 
  experts
  > in Theosophical writing? Who are they challenging in the world of
  > science, religion and philosophy?"
  > 
  > 
  > My answer:
  > Spot on. That was the major point with this e-mail.
  > 
  > The question will be: When and who will do an effort - together - so 
  that the truth about the Wisdoms teachings will be forwarded, so that 
  the untruth might be shown clearly to the interested reader. - Who has 
  or have the capacity to write a major comprehensive in deept volume - 
  comparing H. P. Blavatsky with Annie Besant, C. W. Leadbeater, J. 
  Krishnamurti , W. Q. Judge - as well as quite important the major 
  player today: Alice A. Bailey, while forwarding the - theosophical 
  message to our present day audiences - with todays, nuclears, DNA-
  engineeering, cloning, Disclosure Project, Alien/UFO/Cropcircle 
  situation, psychology today, brain washing in the new age movements 
  and religion, etc. etc. Such a book could easily be running past 500 
  pages. A book for instance also drawing from the ancient mythologies 
  and words of wise vibration.
  > 
  > If this is what Master orders, we will have to write it. I could 
  imagine, that this is what Master would find one of important tasks to 
  do today.
  > ---
  > 
  > 
  > We shall know the various authors on their fruits and not only their 
  books.
  > Are there at all any sages on this polluted and scarred Planet? Who?
  > 
  > 
  > M. Sufilight
  > 
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: Joseph P. Fulton 
  > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 11:56 PM
  > Subject: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?
  > 
  > 
  > Very good question. I have to admit that sometimes I am quite 
  amazed
  > at the lack of comparative studies. There appear to be a number of
  > things involved, some are philosophical, and some are quite, how
  > should we say, prosaic? I'll answer the questions in order.
  > 
  > 1) Please see the site: 
  > http://www.questbooks.net/aboutquest.cfm#staff for contact info 
  and
  > submission guidelines. 
  > 
  > 2) Have you ever done programming in a branch or study center? You
  > find out one thing real quick. You're on your own. The most common
  > reaction from a programming person doesn't have anything to do 
  with
  > what "Wheaton" or "Adyar" wants. Getting something, i.e. anything
  > together is the best many can hope for. The prevailing attitude in
  > most groups (having heard this enough times as a Federation Pres.) 
  is
  > if "Wheaton wants to tell us what to do, they can come do it 
  themselves".
  > 
  > 3) See #2. Headquarters offers study courses to groups, but I've
  > never, ever heard of word coming down from HQ saying that a group
  > "must" study something. I've even visited groups where I was 
  kindly
  > told to leave for asking if they read or studied the SD or ML. 
  > Running a local group is really a "by the seat of your pants" type 
  of
  > thing. I have some wonderful horror stories of times where 
  speakers
  > didn't show or someone in the audience tried to make a virtual
  > whipping post out of the speaker or their topic.
  > 
  > 4) Applying a style of logic normally ascribed to Nagarjuna, this
  > answer will apply to Questions #5, 6, 7, and 8. If a local group 
  is
  > fortunate enough to have someone with an Eastern philosophical
  > background, chances are this type of debate goes on quite a bit. 
  > However, in this organization, there seems to be much less 
  emphasis on
  > the tradition of inquiry and open examination. The prevailing
  > attitude that I observe in most groups is that of your typical
  > "believer", not much different than what you would find at a local
  > Methodist or Congregationalist church. And, to paraphrase
  > Krishnamuti: "People choose their leaders out of confusion, 
  therefore
  > the leaders are also confused."
  > 
  > So the answer to Questions 4 - 8 is "yes, all the above are 
  allowed".
  > The reality is, and mostly for the reasons given above, is that it
  > just doesn't happen.
  > 
  > 9) I guess it depends on who you call an "Adyar" writer or 
  teacher. 
  > Probably the most well-known piece from the "Adyar" camp is "There 
  is
  > No Religion Higher Than Truth" by E.L. Gardner
  > (http://hpb.narod.ru/NoReligion.htm). As a member of the British
  > Section, Gardner lays out a comparison between various teachings 
  of
  > HPB and CW Leadbeater. In regard to the teaching of later
  > "commentators" perhaps the issue is one of not having anything new 
  to
  > say vs. not saying anything. In the Adyar tradition, virtually
  > everything is an expansion on the writings of CWL. Now that being
  > said, there are some fine exceptions, such as "The Divine Plan" by
  > Geoffrey Barborka, and "The Reader's Guide to the Mahatma Letters" 
  by
  > Virginia Hanson. One other little known source, and perhaps one of
  > the most wonderfully objective pieces I've ever seen was a video 
  of
  > the history of the Theosophical Movement, by the late John Cooper. 
  He
  > did a brilliant exposition on the various traditions within the
  > Theosophical movement without being rude or condescending to any
  > particular viewpoint or organization. This is something (IMHO) 
  that
  > all of the various organizations within the Theosophical movement
  > should have in their libraries.
  > 
  > I would like to analyze the entire issue of what is taught in the
  > Theosophical Society from a different viewpoint. The autonomy of
  > local groups is pretty absolute. The only requirement that I am 
  aware
  > of for groups is that they use "Theosophical materials" 
  (presumably
  > from the Adyar organization) in "Theosophy" classes.
  > 
  > Morten, I agree very strongly with your view of the TS as an
  > "investigatory" organization. A major portion of the issues we 
  deal
  > with now date back to the post-Coulomb period when HPB was in 
  Europe
  > and the ES was formed. As soon as this direct line to a "higher
  > authority" was established with the Europeans, free-thought, and 
  the
  > investigatory nature of the TS diminished greatly. It's a funny
  > phenomenon, slightly alluded to in the Mahatma Letters (3rd Ed. 
  Letter
  > 16 "Devachan" Pg. 24) regarding the existence of a pair of 
  undisclosed
  > Skandhas. These two are associated, according to the letter, with
  > "the efficacy of vain rights and ceremonies, in prayers and
  > intercession". Perhaps it is the action of this attribute of mind
  > which is mostly responsible for the current state of affairs.
  > 
  > I have one other question. Who are the finest scholars in the
  > movement today? David Riegle, Daniel Caldwell, Paul Johnson, Joy
  > Mills? Where is the output from these individuals, presumably 
  experts
  > in Theosophical writing? Who are they challenging in the world of
  > science, religion and philosophy?
  > 
  > Answer that question, and you'll have the answer to everything you
  > asked above. The sad truth is that the Theosophical movement as a
  > whole is quite a marginal movement, of little importance to anyone
  > today aside from its own participants. Nobody really cares about 
  the
  > arguments made on the forums or in the magazines because we just 
  talk
  > to ourselves. In a sense, I can get that by going downtown and
  > listening to the winos and drug addicts talk to the voices in 
  their
  > head. I guess, based on that, there are a number of hobbies one 
  could
  > engage in that are more likely to be of benefit to society or 
  cause
  > more damage.
  > 
  > Perhaps if we stopped pretending to have all of the answers and 
  got
  > back to asking questions, such mundane little issues as 
  membership,
  > who is President, and what do we teach may become meaningful 
  again.
  > 
  > Joe
  > 
  > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
  > <global-theosophy@> wrote:
  > >
  > > Dear friends
  > > 
  > > My views are:
  > > 
  > > A new year is beginning in peoples minds.
  > > 
  > > It is now more than 133 years since the founding of the moderne
  > visdom teachings - The Theosophical Society year 1875.
  > > 
  > > Status at Conventions occurs.
  > > It could be well for members at TS Adyar to consider the 
  following
  > questions and words and their value.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > H.P. Blavatsky said:
  > > "...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at their 
  right
  > value; and unless a judge compares notes and hears 
  > > both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision." H.P.
  > Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 218.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > *** THE QUESTIONS to CONSIDER ***
  > > 
  > > I would appreciate if anyone would care to answer the following
  > questions, so that we may be able to know about TS Adyar more 
  fully...
  > > 
  > > 1.
  > > Who decides what kind of books and what books at all are being 
  sold
  > at Quest Books?
  > > Who decides, what Bookshop and what books by what authors - TS 
  Adyar
  > promotes?
  > > What is the present day policy and why?
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 2.
  > > Who decides what kind of lectures are emphasised within TS 
  branches?
  > > What is the present day policy and why?
  > > 
  > > 3.
  > > Who decides what books one are allowed to lecture on?
  > > Are lectures on comparative study of various authors allowed 
  freely?
  > > What is the present day policy and why?
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 4.
  > > Are lectures on commparative studies beteween H. P. Blavatsky 
  vs. C.
  > W. Leadbeater allowed?
  > > 
  > > 5.
  > > Are lectures on commparative studies beteween H. P. Blavatsky 
  vs.
  > Annie Besant allowed?
  > > 
  > > 6.
  > > Are lectures on commparative studies beteween H. P. Blavatsky 
  vs.
  > Alice A. Bialey / Lucis Trust allowed?
  > > 
  > > 7.
  > > Are lectures on commparative studies beteween H. P. Blavatsky 
  vs.
  > Radha Burnier allowed?
  > > 
  > > 8.
  > > Are lectures on commparative studies beteween H. P. Blavatsky 
  vs. J.
  > Krishnamurti allowed?
  > > 
  > > 9.
  > > Have any TS Adyar Teacher ever done an effort in the direction 
  of
  > comparative study - large or small - between H. P. Blavatsky and 
  all
  > of the aboves techings? If not, why not?
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 10.
  > > In the old H. P. Blavatsky days - no false claims were permitted 
  to
  > go unchallanged for a longer time by H. P. Blavatsky herself. A 
  clear
  > stance on various new religious groups was - ALWAYS - given in the
  > Theosophist and Lucifer etc. when the situation demanded it. - Is 
  this
  > what is happening today?
  > > 
  > > Are false claims being allowed to flourish within TS today?
  > > 
  > > 
  > > - - -
  > > 
  > > If time permit me, I will in a study, and if no others will, 
  seek to
  > compare 
  > > H. P. Blavatsky with all the above - C. W. Leadbeater. Annie 
  Besant,
  > J. Krishnamurti, Radha Burnier, Alice A. Bailey. And I will 
  eventually
  > publish my study before this my phycial body reach its death.
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > M. Sufilight
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  > >
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



   

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