Theos-Talk Archives (November 1995 Message tl00444)

Alan B:

>> As it is described ..... TI is basically a T.S. without any
>> theosophical doctrines. Any belief goes. The agenda follows
>> that of the Adyar T.S.

>Any reason why it should not? It also updates it and at the
>same time remains in sympathy with the *original* unitary TS of
>1875 - Adyar does not need to come into it. Mind you if the
>International President wants to sign up :-

No particular reason not to do it except that it would
effectively be creating yet another T.S. since its stated
purpose is along the same lines.

>> The purpose of the Theosophical Network is to disseminate
>> information about Theosophy and theosophical activities and
>> to facilitate intercommunication between people who share a
>> common interest in Theosophy.

Disseminating information about theosophical activities and people
is I'd think one of our intentions.

>> The goals of the Theosophical Network are a to enhance
>> communication and encourage interrelating of ideas within
>> the Theosophical Movement and b to encourage initiative
>> and cooperation in similar projects and research.

This also matches what I've heard. We're encouraging initiative
and cooperation in various projects and research.

>> To further these goals the Theosophical Network will a
>> publish a quarterly newsletter b publish an annual
>> directory and c provide a computer information service.

But here we would be slightly different with a email and smail
newsletter a Web page and a mailing list for annoucements.

>> While working cooperatively within the Movement the
>> Theosophical Network is independent and unaffiliated
>> with any Theosophical or other organization.

And we want to maintain independence from existing theosophical
groups.

>> >As THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL does not have and does not
>> >need rules whether anyone participates in or supports any such
>> >activity is an entirely personal matter.
>>
>> If it doesn't need rules why the same three objects as the T.S.?
>> Why not take a broader approach like that taken by the Theosophical
>> Network?

>Not the same. Similar.
>
>Be logical: If it doesn't need rules and doesn't define
>objects it doesn't have any reason to exist.

Here's the distinction. The purpose of the Network was to
provide communication and make known the different groups
projects and individuals. It was not to encourage any
particular kind of work but just to put people in touch
with each other. Any objects in addition to that process
make the Network itself into a project itself.

>From what I have
>seen in "official" theosophical publications in recent times
>the same approach as the ~Network~ is now the regular approach.

If so it's a good sign.

>Is the Theosophical Network still networking? If so I have
>seen no sign of it. The broad-based "Adyar" and I am told
>ULT approach is still going but it could do with a booster
>shot or two.

The TN ended several years back.

>Quiting from the Autumn 1989 issue of the ~Theosophical
>Network~:

>"The Network is dedicated to Theosophy as outlined in the Mahatma
>Letters to A.P.Sinnett and the writings of H.P.Blavatsky."

>That's too narrow a prescription for me as it is for a number
>of other theosophically-minded folk.

The way that it was defined it would exclude many people.
It is too narrowly defined to suit theos-l which represents
a much-wider spectrum of belief and approaches to the spiritual.

>I thought we had all moved on from the "Back to Blavatsky"
>movement? TI can incorporate such a viewpoint however. The
>reverse clearly is not the case. I rest mine.

You're right that a broad definition can include more people
and still tolerate pro-HPB ULT Point Loma pro-CWL etc.
approaches. How broad we define the group and what we state are
its purposes determine what people would join and what they
would get out of it.

-- Eldon