Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00346)

According to Bazzer:
> BTW personalities are utterly unimportant.

In an ideal world, perhaps.  In this one (theos-l) we see
plenty of personality-heat as well as individuality-light.

> No.  Had a tentative connection with the ULT many years ago, but
> suspect any 'membership' lapsed long ago.

If you signed the membership card and never withdrew, you
should still be officially an associate.

> > 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 if they do, then what should be the proper response to this
lack of respect, by you and other Theosophists? Who gets to
define what qualifies as believing her a "fraud and liar"?
Presumably those who would wish to exclude others from fellowship
on the basis of heresy.  (It would bother me just as much to be
de facto excommunicated as de jure-- I speak from experience on
this one.)

> >"  But I think it fair to ask "do you
> >acknowledge Olcott to have been a real Theosophist?"
>
> Absolutely.  Surely no question about it?
Actually, there are many who would question this, I think.  And
precisely on the basis you brought up-- being insufficiently
wholehearted in his endorsement of HPB.

> 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.

Glad we agree on this.


> >  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?

As in "what's the Opposition and where do you see it now
vis-a-vis the TS that was once taken over by it?"  That's a
heavy accusation to bring up against an organization whose
members comprise 85% (?) of your audience.  Not that you don't
have a complete right to make such allegations-- you do.  But
having made them, why not explain just what you mean and where
you're coming from?

> Hidden agenda's?  My dear friend,

This kind of locution is what Alan called your sarcasm.  Your
tone is not that of a dear friend.  I'd call it just an
Anglicism, except that the first protest came from the UK.

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"?

You betcha.  It happens every day on a great variety of lists,
especially ones with religious topics.  People are out to
propagandize for their own views, and alas, to denigrate
those of others.  Some of your posts have that flavor, which
inspires me to ask about your agenda.

Sorry I missed your first post; it must have expired while I
was away.  But perhaps we should have an archive of brief
descriptions of background and interest by members, so new
members can become familiar with the online community somewhat
so as to gain a feel for the diversity of views and
orientations.  It might reduce the "rubbing the wrong way"
that goes on so much.

Namaste