Theos-Talk Archives (September 1993 Message tl00052)

pointing out the formatting problems. I do hate wasting time trying
to clean up badly formatted messages.  I hope mine are correctly
done.

To Michael R. Meyer:

     After reading your comments concerning Rudhyar, I went back to
re-read mine, and feel that there is no real contradiction between
our evaluations, but rather comments coming from different
paradigms--therefore, one comment doesn't appear any more or less
"twisted" than the other.  I agree that Rudhyar's interest were
theosophical, but I also believe, as I tried to state before, that:
unlike Judge and Olcott, Rudhyar's interest in Theosophy (i.e. the
source teachings given out by H.P.B. and her teacher) was
incidental to his other interests.
     Regarding the "family trees," I'm afraid that you are
understandably under a bit of a misapprehension.  First of all, I
had "fleshed out" Eldon's tree in response to his request by phone
that I do so.  He had e-mailed the tree to me for that purpose,
otherwise, I never could have seen it.  So my purpose was not to
create another tree, or even to create a complete one, but to color
in some details that would clarify his points. In looking over
Eldon's tree, I perceived that he was trying  (among other things)
to show how the various theosophical organizations and schools of
thought had branched off from Blavatsky, so I just added details to
help support his thesis.
     Yes, the tree is incomplete--much more could have been added.
For instance the Theosophical Society (Boston) founded about 1908
by Celeste Root Lang, or the Pansophy Society (Los Angeles), a
short lived attempt in the 1950's by Joseph Ramsperger, or H.N.
Stokes Oriental Esoteric Society. Also, we can't forget the
theosophical connections with the Golden Dawn and its later
splinter groups. And the list goes on.  I also neglected to expand
upon Eldon's list of independent workers.  Besides Geoffrey
Barborka and Boris de Zirkoff, we could mention F.T. Foot, G.R.S.
Mead (after 1908), Victor Endersby, Elsie Benjamin, and Lina
Psaltis. Among the living, we could add Dara Ekland, John Cooper,
Michael Gomes, Richard Robb, Gregory Tillett, John Drais, and no
doubt you can add lots more, but I wonder how many of the above
names have much meaning to others on this board.  Of the six names
you said I failed to mention, I had mentioned two: E.T. Hargrove
and Harold Percival.  Of the others: Archibald and Julia Keightly
went with the Hargrove Society in 1897.  Bertrum Keightley (whom
neither of us mentioned) stayed with the Adyar Society after the
1895 slit, but withdrew from active participation in 1908 when C.W.
Leadbeater was re-admitted into the Adyar Society.  Shankar--I
would put under Eldon's list of independents.
     Regarding Santa Barbara Lodge--I'm very aware of the recent
changes there, and that they are in many ways unique, but the point
I was making is that the Santa Barbara Lodge is and always was a
branch of U.L.T., and not an independent organization as some
people believe.  The reason I didn't go into the "misfortune" was
because I didn't feel it appropriate or productive, especially
since it appears that I am the sole associate of U.L.T. on this
bulletin board.
     Perhaps you should create your own "theosophical tree" based
upon your own paradigm. I for one would be interested in seeing it.

To Jerry Schuler:
     I enjoyed your sharing of your experiences and views
concerning G. de P. vs C.W.L.\A.B., and I share your observation
that the writings are very different content wise.
     As for my own experience (which I will try to keep as short as
possible): I joined a Lodge of the Adyar Society in 1963 (I was 16
years old).  In the seventies, I took my daughter to U.L.T.'s
theosophy school, and eventually became an associate and was active
in leading classes there.  Sometime after the 1984 Networking
conference that my wife and I and two close friends organized, I
became so impressed with the positive response and efforts of the
Theosophical Society (Pasadena), that I also applied for membership
there, and try to support them as much as I can.
     Around 1970, I was aware of the "bones of contention"
concerning the alleged differences in teachings between the various
theosophical traditions, I decided to research it out for myself.
I was hoping to find others on this network who also might have
done some research, so that we could compare notes.
     This kind of research is difficult, because it requires one to
read and be very familiar with both writers that are being
compared.  I have found many people who have claimed to do this,
but when I question them, I find that they are really very familiar
with at best only one writer.  In my case, my theosophical studies
were under unusual circumstances, as I simultaneously studied,
without realizing it at the time, the three main theosophical
traditions.
     My research has led me to conclude that there are differences,
and they are deeper than content. I find that there are also
differences in what ideas are stressed, and more importantly,
differences in how the same terms are used and defined.

To John Mead
     Thank you for your feed-back, and I'm glad that we are in
accord. I feel that the problems you pointed out concerning
Doctrine and Dogma are connected to the policies devised by the
Adyar Theosophical Society, with the apparent intention of
underlining the freedom of the members to have their own beliefs (a
freedom they always had).  But I say apparent intention, because
these policies were first raised in response to a significant and
vocal number of members objecting to the shift in the direction of
the Society with the introduction of Krishnamurti.  But the
policies in the end, had the effect of, creating this
Dogma/Doctrine dilemma, with the result of, to coin a term, "de-
defining" the word "theosophy"  to where it means everything and
therefore nothing.  As I said, the Dogma/Doctrine dilemma is unique
in the Adyar Society.  Perhaps these policies need closer
examination.