Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00235)

According to Keith Price:
> ------------------------------
> Keith Price: After reading Eldon's article on politics in the American
> Theosophist, I was struck more with what was unsaid than said. In my humble
> opinion it was written very well if the object was to offend no one and keep
> everybody happy and "in the fold". Like many articles and "exoteric" messages
> from the TSA, it gives the impression that theosophy offers an opporunity for
> personal growth, spritual seeking and light on the path and all
> that, but never any "stated" agenda or forced direction or guidance.
>
> THIS IS TRUE AND ALL TO THE GOOD. I am not really complaining
> but this seems to be a comfort for those new to the path, that
> is, that one can come in to the TS without there a being a cult
> like expectation of conforming to a dogma etc. One is always
> left slightly uplifted and slightly empty by this kind of
> thing. It isn't so much that conflict is resolved, but it is
> just left unspoken, hidden, concealed, "esoteric".

For quite some time, this has been a semi-official policy not
just in Adyar but throughout the movement. The most
fascinating element of it is the controversy surrounding
Krishnamurti. It's the biggest event in 20th century
Theosophical history (or series of events-- if you will) and
yet all the conflicts surrounding him are left "unspoken,
hidden, concealed, esoteric." I just heard, however, from Jim
Santucci, that the K. Foundation has published two pamphlets in
which they admit to K.'s affairs. He has not, however, seen
them and knows little about them. Anyone have any info on this?

> Theosophy is so open it almost presumes a previous religious training(IMHO), I
> mean one
> can not go beyond language (religion) if one does not have a mother tongue
> (Church). This is another topic really but theosophy seems not to be only the
> root, but probably more the fruit of each religion (the esoteric core, no pun
> intended).

In the early days of the TS, it was understood that members
were usually committed to various religious paths, and that
Theosophy was above and transcendent of these-- a UN of
spirituality so to speak. HSO and HPB were Buddhists,
Kingsford Christian, Subba Row a Hindu, plus Parsees, Sikhs,
Jains, all maintaining their religious identities but seeing
Theosophy as a universal solvent that connects them all.
Nowadays, most Theosophists (I think) DON'T have a primary
affiliation to a religion, so Theosophy BECOMES their
religion. Therefore this leads to fossilization IMHO.
Something of my motivation for rejoining ARE is the sense that
Theosophy "works" better for me in conjunction with something
more explicitly religious, than as a stand-alone system. Have
you considered this option?
>
> If one allows anything, one stands for nothing. It seems like a kind of
> anarchism, but with the unstated assumption that if you are really spiritual
> (whatever that is) you will get with the program and become a vegetarian, a
> believer in the Masters, and hold what are today the "proper" ideals (whatever
> they are).
Which equates to "the ES contains the REAL Theosophists" --an
attitude that leaves the rest of us in the cold.

Keith, this is a thought provoking post to which I hope others
may give more attention.

Cheers
PJ