|[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]|
|[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
Sep 26, 1993 01:11 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
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.