Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00332)

Hello everyone.

> Not long after its formation, the Baha'i discussion group
> Talisman initiated a custom of self-introductions.  Everyone on
> board at the time gave a one-para description of background and
> interests, and newcomers were asked to do the same.  I wonder if
> this might be worthwhile here to help us get along.

Bazzer - a newcomer - did a brief resume in the first posting to
theos-l.  BTW personalities are utterly unimportant.

> Bazzer, are you an associate of the United Lodge of Theosophists?

No.  Had a tentative connection with the ULT many years ago, but
suspect any 'membership' lapsed long ago.  Unless it has changed
considerably, the ULT was doing excellent work.  Any opinions
expressed by Bazzer are absolutely *nothing* to do with the ULT.

> When you argue that anyone who believes HPB to have been a "fraud
> and a liar" should not be allowed to call him or herself a
> Theosophist

Defacto, they should not - out of respect for HPB and Masters.

> (and therefore, should not be accepted by other
>Theosophists as one of "us")

The above two lines were never said or implied.

> this has wide-ranging implications.  Because what you are really
> saying is that ONLY people who believe HPB never told a lie or
> did anything fraudulent should be welcomed as Theosophists.

Please be kind enough to quote what was said, sir.  The statement
"what you are really saying" is your opinion - which you are, of
course, entitled to.  No word was mentioned about anyone thinking
HPB a liar or fraud not welcomed as Theosophists.  All are
welcome, surely? What was said was that anyone who claimed *they*
were a theosophist while at the same time slandering HPB as a
fraud/liar should not describe themselves as a theosophist to
other's, out of respect to HPB.

>"  But I think it fair to ask "do you
>acknowledge Olcott to have been a real Theosophist?"

Absolutely.  Surely no question about it?

> Because he surely didn't believe HPB to have been the paragon you
> portray her as being.

What HSO believed and *knew* - here he has one up on us all! -
HPB to be was entirely a matter for himself.  HSO loved HPB, was
devoted to her and her Masters, gave his life and soul to the TS
and deserves our utmost respect.

>  And if your logic ends up rejecting Olcott as
>not being a real Theosophist, doesn't this relate to the ULT
>rejection of the entire TS as having been taken over by The
>Opposition?

Re HSO insinuation: see above
Re ULT: please ask them.  Not a clue.

>  Should the majority of readers here on theos-l,
>who belong to the Adyar TS, be told of your evaluation of that
>organization, so as to know better where you are coming from?

Eh?

>     Thus far the list has been spared the trauma of outright
>inter-organizational wrangling, with some Theosophists denying
>that others are "real" Theosophists.  And I don't think many of
>us welcome the initiation of such disparaging remarks.
>But if they are going to appear, then it would be helpful to
>have any hidden agendas unveiled so as to help us evaluate them.

Hidden agenda's? My dear friend, I can not speak for others, but
one has better things to do with one's time than play games on
this honorable list.  Do you seriously think anyone with even the
slightest, dimest, moral code would join a long-standing group
enquiring into theosophy (viz *theos*-l) for the purpose of
propogating "hidden agenda's"?

Ladies and Gentleman, are we here to discuss personalities, or
enquire into the nature of Theosophy? As a newcommer to the list
one is begining to get confused (please do not interpret this as
sarcasm:-))

Kindest regards,