Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00383)

If we start out with the position that there is a problem
needing attention, all too often the immediate reflex is to
assign blame. Many of us, myself included, have felt that the
Theosophical movement falls far short of the ideals of the
Founders and their teachers. Alas, this usually is combined
with the assignment of blame to various Theosophists. Having
tasted the ULT, Pasadena and Adyar porridges, I know something
of the various flavors of Theosophical blame. More recently
I've experienced that sort of blame quite directly, as seen in
this summer's periodicals. Some other examples past and present:

1. Judge is to blame for turning against Olcott and undermining
the movement's unity.
2. Olcott is to blame for failing to appreciate HPB
sufficiently, and for treating Judge unfairly.
3. Leadbeater is to blame for making many Theosophists more
interested in his psychic revelations than in HPB's teachings.
4. Conservative, doctrinaire Theosophists in all groups are to
blame for making the movement an intellectual backwater.

and so it goes...

What I tell myself when this mood of "Theosophy's been ruined
and it's THEIR fault" strikes, is that THEY are US. It may be
that a fair number of 19th century players on the TS scene are
back among the living. In any case I get the distinct
impression that the reactions aroused by my own work are karma
of the MOVEMENT and not just of myself or the particular
players reacting. Perhaps one of you knowledgable about
Buddhism could comment on dependent origination and how it
applies to the whole cycle of blame.

There's no harm that I can see, and much potential good, in
examining the question of "how did Theosophy get where it is,
and where should it go from here?" But the more we can do with
without resorting to blame, the more productive the process can
be.