Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00074)

On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote:

> Alan:
> >Do we not exist in the first place (as TI) *because* of a lack of
> >genuine freedom (as we have perceived and experienced it) in one or more
> >theosophical organizations?  And are we not determined that such
> >restrictions as we have experienced/observed shall not be allowed to
> >interfere in our own perception of the theosophical way of life?
> 
> We're free in the sense that there's an absence of specific program
> to follow or body of doctrines to consider. 
> 
> If you were in a diet program, you would hear about dieting. If you
> were taking a class in art, you may be painting. Doing the dieting
> in a diet program or doing art in an art class is certainly submitting
> to a certain structure. But that structure is *self-chosen*, based 
> upon what you may want to learn. You're free to not diet or not
> do paintings outside those classes. 
> 
> A theosophical group may decide to study a book. Meetings may be
> on that book. There is the lack of "freedom" in those meetings to
> study entirely different things. In an even broader sense, there are
> many theosophical groups with different focuses and many other spiritual
> groups that don't call themselves "theosophical". You and I have the
> freedom to seek out and participate in those groups that enhance our
> lives and our ability to do good in the world, and leave behind those
> that are unproductive to us. You've set an example in this respect,
> in producing T.I., as an alternate theosophical group with a different
> and unique focus of its own. I don't think that T.I. is better, but
> simply different, appealing to a different segment in the "theosophical
> market" for helping people set their feet on the path. I wish you
> the best of luck in this endeavor, but also hope that you likewise
> wish well everyone in the other groups and approaches.
> -- Eldon

Interesting attmept to catagorize, and in fact reduce TI to just another 
one of the many factions and perspectives Theosophy has split into. It is 
not simply an "other" group or approach ... or perhaps you've defined it 
that way in your mind, but there is a big difference in fact between TI and 
the "other" approaches. Your "approach" may be, for instance, to follow 
G.deP's own particular take on source literature, and to follow some kind 
of path that you evidently see defined somewhere in the vast range of 
Theosophical literature. Another group may form specifically to 
investigate what you label as "psychic" phenomena - and you would perhaps 
be right to say that the two groups would to some extent be pursuing 
contradictory ends (if, that is, one accepts your view of what "psychic" 
is) ... the psychics could not pursue their ends within your group, and 
you would not pursue yours within the group of psychic investigators. 
However, *both* could fully legitimately operate as groups, and pursue 
those seemingly contradictory ends, *within the organization called 
Theosophy International* ... all members of both groups could call 
themselves "Members, Theosophy International", and so long as they 
claimed membership, and agreed to the Three Objects, no "leadership" 
would try to tell them that what they were doing was *not* theosophy, nor 
try to have them removed, nor membership revoked, nor their property 
taken. You could, simply by desiring to put the effort into it, start the 
"Eldon" branch of TI, and teach whoever wished to join it whatever 
practices or disciplines you believe theosophy to be, and expound on 
whatever you believe to be the "doctrines" of Theosophy. Of course, many 
people do not believe there is a specific "path" taught by theosophy, and 
virtually every Theosophist has a different view of what, if *any*, the 
actual "doctrines" of theosophy are ... which is precisely the reason 
for TI - I think what has happened since the beginning of this list is 
that many here have been positively astounded by how *great* the 
diversity of belief and opinion exists within the ranks of those 
connected to theosophy ... what virtually every organization and offshoot 
up to now has done is essentially come down of some *side or sides* of 
particular issues ... and people can belong to them if they agree, and 
may even be expelled if they don't. 
	TI, especially in this discussion of freedom, is making it clear 
that the *only* thing required for membership is the acceptance of the 
Ôhree Objects, which is the only thing *HPB & the Masters* required. 
	Those who *do* wish to stay within a particular faction, who not 
only feel that their reading of theosophical writings and their 
interpretation of a path are *their* readings, but go a step further and 
wish to assert that they are the only "correct" readings, or that they 
are somehow "higher" than all other perspectives, probably will not be 
attracted to TI - but even in this choice, it is they who choose not to 
join ... neither themselves, nor whatever practices and beliefs they 
hold, would be cause them to be *refused* membership, or expelled.
	A house cannot hold a city, but a city can hold many houses. TI 
is not simply another house, it is the city ... which I believe the TS 
was supposed to be from the very beginning. 
	You may stand on the side and try to catagorize it as just 
another approach if you like ... but ... your approach *does* fit within 
it, and you've been invited to join, but apparently *it* does not fit 
within your "appraoch" ... as you've chosen not to. You've 
inadevertantly, I fear, catagorized not TI, but only yourself. 
							-JRC