Theos-Talk Archives (January 1995 Message tl00248)

Murray Stentiford,


JHE> It is precisely because of that lack of sophistication,
 > that I feel that it is important to write those theosophical
 > books at least every ten years in order to keep the language
 > current.

MS> I'd agree. All we need are more writers who are available,
 > willing and capable.

     There are "willing" writers.  I've had several people tell
me that they submitted mss for books on theosophy to TPH, and
they were turned down.  Then there is also the possibility of
publishing theosophical books from other traditions, to extend
their market.  For instance, some years ago Point Loma
Publications in the spirit of networking tried to enjoin TPH in
the publication of Purucker's ~Wind of the Spirit.~  The National
President at the time turned the book down explaining that it was
"too theosophical."  What I think what that President meant was
that TPH is more interested in books that sell, even though there
is very little theosophy in them,  then in books with a lot of
theosophy in them that don't sell as well.  The two types of
books are rarely the same.
     The rub is that a "capable" writer IMHO, would be one who is
thoroughly familiar with the older literature, who has
internalized it, and can express it in modern language and apply
it to current issues.  I'm coming from the idea that Theosophy is
a genuine philosophy with a tradition--not something that one
just "makes up."


MS> I'd like to see the means of communicating theosophy and its
> values extended more often, for instance to drama. I've done a
> little in this area and found that simple short readers'
> theatre pieces, for example, can make for a night of fun as
> well as of instruction, for a wider range of ages than the
> average theosophical lecture. The pieces can be interspersed
> with discussion. It makes for a nice alternation of modality
> and group dynamics that keeps interest at a very high level.

     Fascinating.  If you ever write about this one (and I hope
you do), we would like to see it for the possibility of
publication.  Back in the 60's there was a theosophical theatre
in Los Angeles.  I saw a several of their plays.  They used to
perform in Besant Lodge (the building was originally a theatre,
therefore perfect for this), until the Lodge President kicked
them out.  Even before that, Krotona, when it was in Hollywood
used to do plays.  Then there was the Point Loma Community, who
built an outdoor Greek style theatre and performed Greek and
Shakespearian plays for the first thirty years of this century.
They also had their own band.  The idea of doing occult plays has
held my fascination for years.  It has been a dream of mine that
an opportunity will come to revive this.  Currently I have been
working on Yeats, who wrote and produced several occult plays.
But that is another story.


JHE >                             The lack of awareness of most
 > students of this syncretism creates confusion and animosity
 > between the "Back to Blavatsky" and the "neo-Theosophy"
 > advocates.

MS> Yes, I think so too. A case where better knowledge would help
> healing.

     Of course we are back to the acknowledgement of the wound...
etc.  The labels people use against others sometimes say more
about the assailant.  For instance, I've had a ULT person call me
a "Puruckerite", an Adyar person call me a "Blavatskyite", and an
independent call me a "party line Adyar theosophist."  I noticed
that a lot of this labeling is a projection of their own bias.
Almost five years ago, we produced a video introducing theosophy
to inquirers.  We showed it around to people in different
Organizations.  We were careful to try to make the video non
biased and useful to all groups, and hoped that it would indeed
be used by all of them.  A ULT person who viewed it, but did not
like it because he thought it was biased towards Point Loma
theosophy.  A Point Loma Person who saw it told us that it was
biased to ULT theosophy.  An Adyar theosophist told us that it
was "too narrow" and biased to "Blavatsky."  However, people who
are not invested into a Theosophical tradition seem to like it.
Since the video was made for inquirers, we figured that we met
our goal.


MS >> So, we could give a thought or two to the collective
>> healing the TS
 >
JHE > I agree.  But to heal, we must expose the wound.  To expose
 > the wound, one must first convince the patient that the wound
 > exists and where it is located.  As you have observed from the
 > Leadbeater discussion, it is an uphill battle.

MS> Indeed. Sometimes, obviously, the wound is extremely painful
- ie threatening to a world view or a deeply-felt loyalty. We
need to have more than one way to open wounds, perhaps, and use
the one best suited to the case.

     For those who are willing to "take the cure," I propose
therapy through "talking it out."  For those who are in the pain
of denial--I haven't got a clue.  I think they just need a lot of
time to put themselves into a place where they can deal with it.
Any ideas?


 Re CWL:-
 >  -- thus they [the children] were put into a moral conflict.
MS> That is clearly so, at least in these cases.
> I keep wondering about CWL's motives, and feel that they were
> high-minded as in other areas of his life, but that he was
> somehow oblivious to the detrimental effects of what he did in
> these instances. I don't know.

     Yes. Interesting point.  There is a lot in the Mahatma
Letters concerning "motive."  Apparently the Mahatmas can "read"
ones motives--which always seem to be very mixed.  The Mahatmas
put a lot of weight on motivation, as it seems to be an important
ingredient to determine the karmic outcome of the person doing
the action.  CWL claims to have been acting under those "high
minded" motivations you speak of--but isn't that what one would
expect him to say anyway?  On the other hand, he may have
actually believed that he was operating under those "high minded"
motives.  That belief could be an honest one, or it could have
been a rationalization (i.e. he was fooling himself).  Not being
Mahatmas we aren't privy to this kind of insight.  CWL's
motivation seems to be important for his karma, but I wonder if
it is so important for us to know what it was?  For instance
would it really matter if we were to learn that Hitler was
operating under "high minded" motivations?  Certainly it may
mitigate his karma, but the damage he caused was the same.

MS>> MS: The whole psychic aspect of sexuality needs to be
>> considered, too, but not here and now. I have in mind the
>> pathways that universal creative energy may be considered to
>> flow through the several planes or principles of a person, and
>> how those pathways can be formed or deformed in childhood
 >
JHE>  Yes this would be an interesting topic, but let us not
 > confuse CWL's moral violations with theoretical occultism.

MS> I offered this thought as the beginnings of a way to
> understand, on the basis that understanding is an important
> element in healing - especially as the TS offers very little to
> help in understanding our sexuality.

     I'm not sure that I completely get your drift here.  I agree
that the TS is pretty useless concerning any real insights into
the type of information on sexuality that people are seeking
today--though I've run into a surprise or two.  Usually the
accusation is that HPB's attitudes were Victorian, but I question
that.  My recent studies in the Modernist period of writing has
thrown a lot of light unto the style and values of Victorian lit.
HPB fits in some ways, but in others she, she was way ahead of
the times.
     As for what you have in mind concerning the "pathways of
universal creative energy..." I would need to hear more.  I'm
especially interested in learning how a discussion of sexuality
would be an element to healing.
     Regarding healing through the discussion of occult theories-
-this brings up another problem of communication that blocks
healing.  For instance, I've noticed that little serious
discussion of theoretical occultism is done on this net, and it
seem to be because everyone seems to be on their own planet
around here.  Jerry S. and Eldon T. talk about it the most.  Yet
they are are worlds apart when it comes to underlying
assumptions.  For instance, Jerry S., who mentioned recently that
he never read the classical theosophical texts, is indeed well
read in areas of magic, kundalini yoga, Crowley etc.  He has
created a very elaborate, yet personal system of occult
theory--and has even published books on it.  Eldon, on the other
hand, is very well read in Blavatsky and especially Purucker, and
tries to communicate as accurately as he can the occult teachings
of these two authors.  Yet Eldon is not well read in Magic,
kundalini yoga, Crowley etc.  Thus Eldon and Jerry have two very
different theoretical systems, build upon vastly different
assumptions--and communicate in very different styles, therefore
leaving very little room for agreement between them.  I rarely
discuss theory on the net, because few seem to be interested in
it--and even less in my own ideas.  However, A few months ago,
someone asked me a series of technical questions concerning the
relationship of principles to modern psychology and to our waking
states of consciousness.  She directed the question to me because
she was looking for an explanation based upon HPB--and she knew
that I have a good grasp of this area.  I answered her questions
very extensively--carefully drawing from HPB's writings--taking
care to put them into my own words, yet not to distort
them--which is an art that has taken me thirty years of study and
teaching to master.  The day after the post, someone posted an
extended criticism of my post.  Not a criticism of the
information--but a criticism pointing out that I didn't say
anything that could not have been found in HPB.  See how
communications are misunderstood?  After that, my questioner
and I moved to private e-mail to finish the discussion.
     The problem with these mis-communications as I see it,
concerns not only a difference in what people read, but in
personal experiences, and a vast difference in values among
people.  Our different value systems prompt some of us to respond
from our emotions; others from loyalty; others from a legalistic
stand point; others from a situational stand (what will get me
the most); others from principles; others are teleological etc.
People respond from different mixes of these and from very
different intellectual abilities.

 >> MS:                               ...  I've seen close at
 >> hand how people can or can not believe that somebody they
 >> know and love has done something they would consider
 >> impossible for that person to do.
 >
JHE >      How painfully true.  And that is why the motto of the
    > TS no longer has meaning for it.

MS> I'm not that pessimistic, actually. The threat is there, but
  > I see signs of hope!

     I hope that your "hope" is based upon something tangible,
like a sign of change.  If so, please share it.  I would like to
have some hope too.  Thirty-two years is too much time to invest.
That is why I gave up vesting myself so deeply into the
organizations and concentrate on the Movement.  We have
accomplished far more independently of the Organizations, then we
were ever able to accomplish within them.  We still do things for
the Organizations however--but only when we feel that it is in
the best interest of the Movement.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins

email to: JHE@KOKO.CSUSTAN.EDU