Theos-Talk Archives (December 2010 Message tt00065)

Max,

You touch in a most significant point.

We could ask:

What is more harmful to theosophy than the fantasies and
pseudo-theosophical literature, for example, of CWL?

What is more harmful to the cause than to promote slanders about the
founders of the theosophical society? And what is more harmful than the
slanders are being perpetrated by theosophical leaders themselves?

What was more harmful to the objects of the theosophical movement that
the messianic delusions of Besant and Leadbeater?

What was more harmful to theosophy than the idea that Besant and CWL
have attain adepthood?

What is more harmful to theosophy than to insist that Krishnamurti
thought is somehow similar to the original theosophy (he who confesses
that never studied a line of theosophy)?

What is more harmful to the learning of viveka than the option of
politeness and "political correctness" instead of frankness and
impersonal criticism?

  What is more harmful to the theosophical society than the abandon of
the fourth object?

What is more harmful to world that a relativistic and sophistic approach
to knowledge and ethics?

What is more harmful to the world than to option for falsehoods instead
of truth?

These are just some examples of the so many questions that all sincere
student could ask.

My brother, is symptomatic that you suggest that you would like to
rename the Theosophical Society for "The Society of Seekers for
Truth and Brotherhood". That is what ST was during HPB years.
That's why the work of leading theosophist of ST like Farthing, and
some others, is still so important.

Best regards, Joaquim



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "email2cal" <email2cal@...> wrote:
>
>
> I share Farthing's concerns about theosophy being diluted by foreign
> elements, but the solutions he offers may actually harm theosophy. It
> seems that what he wants is to carve a niche for theosophy which would
> inevitably turn it into some kind of sect and prevent theosophy from
> being a synthesis of science, religion and philosophy. This is what
his
> language suggests: "eradication," "severance from the Society of all
> other organizations," "[a] thorough examination of all literature
> purporting to be 'theosophical'," "not necessarily  authentic,"
> "theosophical literature should be segregated from other material,"
his
> suggestion to stop "book selling or publication as such, without
> specific reference to the promotion of a knowledge of  Theosophy,"
etc.
> The end result would be a demarcation line between what is and what is
> not theosophy, rather that a continuum of books and teachings that
> approximate the truth in various degrees whether they refer to
theosophy
> and use theosohucal nomenclature or not and whatever that truth is.
The
> emblem of Theos. Society reads, "There is no religion higher than
> truth," and not "There is no religion higher than theosophy," and I
> believe Farthing badly misses this important point. I would rename Th.
> Society The Society of Seekers for Truth and Brotherhood.
>
> Max
>
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "jdmsoares" jdmsoares@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > Mr. Geoffrey Farthing was one of the main Adyar Theosophists in the
> > period after the second world war.
> >
> > He also was the most outspoken and best known voice in defense of
the
> > original theosophy in Adyar Society since the 1920s.
> >
> > He had much in common with Mr. B. P. Wadia. The difference being
that
> > Mr. Wadia left Adyar to help the growth of the United Lodge of
> > Theosophists in 1922, while Farthing remained within Adyar up to his
> > death in 2004.
> >
> > I reproduce below some of the most important parts of this 1996
> > Manifesto on the future of the Theosophical Society (Adyar).
> >
> > See below.
> >
> > Best regards, Joaquim.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



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