Theos-Talk Archives (May 2009 Message tt00399)

Daniel,
Because of the reasons I gave below, right now I am concerning myself more with what ideas are good for humanity and what ideas are bad for humanity. I know everybody has freedom of thought in TS. At present, I am not concerned so much about rules of TS. Just as I challenge other members' ideas, other people may feel free to challenge my ideas. If they want, they may criticize my ideas giving reasons. It won't be considered as "unbrotherly". 
My intention of current discussions is to find and explain what ideas and actions of TS and individuals are good for humanity and what ideas and actions of TS and individuals are bad for humanity.
Anand Gholap

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
>
> Daniel,
> It is true that TS constitution gives Freedom of Thought to all. So, if we refer TS constitution, John Algeo, Katinka Hesselink or any other members have equal right to promote ideas they like. Just as I can critically examine philosophical ideas promoted by others, other members have right to criticize my ideas and show good and bad points of it. I don't mind that.
> We should not consider critical analysis of ideas unbrotherly. This is not practically useful position. 
> I think it is more important to decide which ideas we promote. TS constitution gives freedom of ideas to all. But humanity is affected in good or bad way, depending upon quality of ideas that go out from the Theosophical Society. That means TS can not say "We have given freedom of thought to all members, if humanity is hurt by members' ideas, we are not responsible". TS is responsible for ideas it spreads in humanity. It does not matter much whether these ideas are chosen democratically or autocratically. What matters most is whether ideas going out of TS are useful to humanity or not.
> It is similar to what happens in the case of each human being. Man can generate good or evil thoughts and he gets reward or punishments according to his thoughts. Man can not say I have freedom of thought, I have right to think whatever I like. Nature does not accept this reasoning. Nature rewards or punishes man depending upon whether thoughts are helpful to the world or hurting the world.
> That is why I am saying that TS must decide after lot of analysis what ideas are going out from it. Freedom of thought is less important.
> Blavatsky wrote book The Key to Theosophy. In this book, questions are given which readers asked. While giving answers, Blavatsky wrote answers by THEOSOPHIST: Every answer is prefixed by THEOSOPHIST: That time except Blavatsky nobody was writing on Theosophy to any considerable extent. That means when she used word Theosophy, Blavatsky meant her own writing. She called herself as THEOSOPHIST and for all practical purposes she used word Theosophy to refer to her own writing. Later Besant, Leadbeater, Jinarajadasa added to Theosophy. But Theosophy was still a distinct body of knowledge.
> When many years passed, too many people wrote too many books, each calling his writing as Theosophy. And also TS constitution forbade distinguishing what Theosophy is and what it is not. This caused confusion because any idea written by anybody could be called as Theosophy, as TS constitution does not have provisions to define what Theosophy is and what it is not.
> However, when Blavatsky, Besant and Leadbeater mentioned Theosophy, for all practical purposes they meant writings of these three individuals and others whom they called disciples of Masters of Wisdom.
> 
> Anand Gholap
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" <danielhcaldwell@> wrote:
> >
> > Anand,
> > 
> > In one of your latest postings, you write:
> > 
> > "...TS could not stop K's influence because TS gave freedom of thought to all including K...."
> > 
> > But later in the same posting you go on to comment:
> > 
> > "Theosophical Society affects humanity, large number of intelligent people get attracted to Theosophy. If TS officers promote wrong ideas that Theosophy and K's teaching are same, then these influential people get misled. That means TS becomes a source that can mislead people outside TS and that affects world adversely..."
> > 
> > And later again you write:
> > 
> > "In order to bring peace in TS, TS should not promote K's wrong ideas that mislead humanity. Today influence of J. Krishnamurti in TS is at all time high level due to individuals like Katinka Hesselink and others. Even John Algeo is doing the same mistake."
> > 
> > Anand, on the one hand you seem to be saying that each member of the TS is free to believe or disbelieve any idea or teaching or philosophy.
> > 
> > But then you go on to say that Krishnamurti's ideas or teachings are "wrong" therefore the TS should not promote Krishnamurti's teachings.
> > 
> > But who are you to dictate to anyone else  what idea or teaching or philosophy is wrong, misleading or a mistake?
> > 
> > I would think that both Katinka Hesselink and John Algeo are as free as you to believe whatever they choose to believe and to "promote" their respective views.  I assume that they believe that their ideas are "right" and "positive" and maybe even beneficial to humanity.
> > 
> > Now maybe they are right!  
> > 
> > Or maybe you are right!
> > 
> > Or maybe all of you are wrong.  Or....
> > 
> > But I would submit that if the Theosophical Society has no beliefs or philosophy which members must accept when they join other than the ideals embodied in the 3 objects, then every one including Algeo, Hesselink and you are equally free to believe whatever you choose and to promote in various forums including all of your websites whatever ideas the three of you choose.
> > 
> > I should point out here that there are other members of the TS who believe that Leadbeater's ideas are "wrong" and "misleading."  I assume therefore that from some of THEIR perspectives you may be the one who is making the mistake and it is you that is misleading people outside the TS as well as some in the TS.
> > 
> > IF the TS holds no corporate teachings or beliefs and each member has the freedom to believe whatever, then who can say what is true or false, or wrong or right?  Certainly the TS as an organization must remain neutral in such matters.
> > 
> > Maybe I am missing something here.   If I am, Anand, please tell me what it is and explain it clearly and in detail so that all Theos-Talk readers can understanding your reasoning.
> > 
> > Daniel
> > http://hpb.cc
> >
>