Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00433)

Hallo all,

My views are:

Blavatsky said:
"The many-sided facets of the mystery
language have led to the adoption of widely
varied dogmas and rites in the exotericism of
the Church rituals.
It is they, again, which are at the origin
of most of the dogmas of the Christian Church,
e.g., the seven Sacraments, the Trinity, the
Resurrection; the seven capital Sins and the
seven Virtues. The seven keys to the mystery
tongue, however, having always been in the
keeping of the highest among the initiated
Hierophants of Antiquity, it is only the partial
use of a few out of the seven which passed,
through the treason of some early Church
Fathers---ex-initiates of the Temples---into the
hands of the new sect of the Nazarenes. Some
of the early Popes were Initiates, but the last
fragments of their knowledge have now fallen
into the power of the Jesuits, who have turned
them into a system of sorcery."
Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky, vol. 1, page 310-11
http://www.teosofia.com/Docs/vol-2-5.pdf

Just another reason to drop LCC and CWL right on the spot.
I wonder why TS Adyar still accepts those strange rites and ties they have
to LCC

Blavatsky said that one shouold be:
"Ready to accept demonstrated truth"

Are you there Erica?
What are you saying?

from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@yahoo.com>
To: <ham>; <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 8:51 AM
Subject: ham,Theos-World Re: freedom of belief and how best to share our
ideas



Here Eldon is where I have really serious issues with the Society.

The TS was supposed to be an organization where Brotherhood &
philosophical freedom were to be its CORNERSTONES. If the later
leadership deems certain prominent teachers' writings to be
offlimits, or "inappropriate" to be criticized, then by default this
Society loses any credibility and becomes simply a Jesuitical type of
body. It should not be a matter of "their point of view". The
principles so clearly stated so many times by HPB were intended to
guard against censorship of this kind.

If some subject matter is "inappropriate" the reasons for this should
be clearly stated and reflected in the official policy of the Society.

With the way things seem to have been done and are still done, the
Adyar Society's official "freedom of thought" statement should
read "no teacher or writer (with the exception of CW Leadbeater and
Annie Besant), from H.P. Blavatsky onwards any has authority to
impose opinions on others."

It doesn't matter how fancy the excuses become, this simple principle
can't be denied.

We all keep talking about the `importance of change', well yes I
agree.

Is it simply that the "truth" is a bitter pill? Because no amount of
side stepping can avoid this.

Who is it that deems what is "appropriate" or not. What arrogance.

Sorry if this comes over strongly, but to me it's outrageous.

Perry



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Eldon B Tucker <eldon@t...> wrote:
> Perry:
>
> Many years ago, my first exposure to Theosophy came through reading
> Leadbeater's books. I later came across Ken Small at Far Horizons
> Theosophical Camp in Northern California, where he and Lina Psaltis
gave me
> some books by G. de Purucker. These books proved helpful in
broadening my
> thinking, and made Blavatsky's writings understandable to me. From
there, I
> read more of the core literature, and came across comparisons of
> Blavatsky's Theosophy with Leadbeater's. The most colorful
comparisons
> were in old issues of the O.E. Library Critic by Stokes. The term
> "Neo-Theosophy" was used to describe how Leadbeater's writings
diverged
> from the original.
>
> When I was first reading the comparisons, I would also use the term
> "Neo-Theosophy," but have since come to realize that it is a
derogatory
> term. It doesn't just say "this is something different," but seems
to imply
> "this is something extremely inferior." If when I was steeped in
> Leadbeater's writings and had been exposed to little else, I would
have
> responded unfavorable to the term and found it alienating. On the
other
> hand, simply begin given some of Purucker's works and exposed to
the depths
> that I later came to see in them, I found it ease to move on and
broaden my
> theosophical thinking. If it were not for Leadbeater's writings, I
would
> not have been initially drawn to Theosophy, but equally important
was the
> manner in which I was approached to share other ideas also of
value. And by
> the way, the best of his books, which I highly recommend to
theosophical
> students, is FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY, based upon a
class he
> gave at Point Loma on THE SECRET DOCTRINE in the 1920's when he was
a
> regular theosophical student, before he became international head
of the
> Theosophical Society. (This is the Point Loma Society, tracing its
history
> back through the Judge side of the Judge/Olcott split in the
1890's.)
>
> Official journals are the mouthpiece of an organization's
leadership, and
> would reflect their view on Theosophy and what is proper
theosophical
> discussion. This is from THEIR point of view, as people leading the
> organization with their own viewpoints. If something is not given
space in
> such a journal, it is because the editors deem it inappropriate,
off topic,
> or offensive from THEIR point of view.
>
> This does not preclude any number of independent journals
expressing other
> viewpoints. It's just that the other journals do not have access to
funds
> from donations and membership dues and do not have access to
mailing and
> email addresses of members. But independent journals can be created
and
> thrive nevertheless, crossing organizational boundaries and
reaching people
> of many backgrounds. Each journal can express a certain viewpoint
from its
> own perspective and collectively all the journals can cover the
full
> spectrum of viewpoints. It's in the mailing lists, thought, where
every
> possible view can meet face-to-face with others, as long as the
listowner
> doesn't moderate it, filtering things, enforcing his own slant to
how ideas
> should be aired.
>
> -- Eldon
>
> At 06:32 PM 8/22/2004, you wrote:
>
> >Hello Eldon and All,
> >Your points are definitely ways I tend to lean towards myself.
> >
> >I have no problem with people studying neo-theosophy or any other
> >particular philosophy, the main point being its not done in a
dogmatic
> >and closed fashion as you say the writings of HPB are simply
giving us
> >some clues and I tend to think the nature of her writing style
leads
> >you away from belief and following much the way Krishnamurti's
> >teachings do.
> >The same cannot be said of neo-theosophy which developed devotional
> >belief based mindset's imo.
> >
> >So for me the issue of leaving the society was based not on having
the
> >society become a HPB only society but rather a society that allowed
> >free and open debate and philosophical enquiry not only in the
> >lectures or study groups but also in its PUBLICATIONS this being
the
> >main objection I have with the Adyar TS.
> >
> >If the principal of freedom of opinion is one that is not only a
> >platitude in the society then why are articles critical of CWL and
> >neo-theosophy `not allowed' in its publications and yet it's
perfectly
> >fine to criticise HPB in them?
> >Perhaps I got this wrong but theres been no reply from any Adyar
> >people as to the veracity of this suggestion.
> >
> >As I said before if this principal was upheld by the leadership
> >without paternalistic censorship I would rejoin.
> >
> >But I've heard no assurances so far .... I wish I could be proved
> >wrong on this but as far as I can see it seems to be the case.
> >
> >Perry




Yahoo! Groups Links