Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00075)

At 07:55 PM 4/8/96 -0500, you wrote:

Chuck:

That's really good stuff below! I agree with every word of it except that
it's my belief that Gautamas ideas didn't survive him for more that say 20
minutes and Christianity didn't survive it's actual founders past the
Council of Nicea. I also agree that except for you, we are all far too
concerned with respectability, and perhaps even far too concerned with
science. What the world needs now is good livable answers to peoples
existential questions. They don't get them, and right now, today, they don't
get them from Theosophy at all. And I may be wrong but I really think that's
what theosophy was really intended to do, answer people's existenial
questions and alleviate their pain and fear. And, as far as I see it, most
of what folks argue about here and elsewhere has nothing at all to do with
that. People are afraid they're going to die, and guess what? They are!
Theosophy could help with that, but it doesn't. Shamanism does actually help
with that,but it's far too obscure at present to help many people. Theosphy
is far too much like the Shakers. How to prevent the same thing from
happening? Theosophy as it is represented by the intellectual sterility that
regularly appears on this list and in theosophical publications, is not
going to do anything but drive young folk away! Discussions on "devachan"
and Manvantaras, and Nirmanakaya Buddhas, may be fun for elderly
Theosophists but the young say "So What?" and go their merry way. If they
all say "so What?" and go their merry way, theosophy is a very dead duck.

alexis


>I think what is going on in the TS is a generational struggle that is the
>sign of a spiritual organization going through its first aging pain.
> Consider this.  A hundred some odd years ago Blavatsky and Judge were dead
>and Olcott heading for the final roundup.  The first split had already
>occurred and it was inevitable that the immediate successors, who, whether we
>like them or not, were giants, would put their own often very peculiar stamp
>on the thought of the society.
>Then about a generation (33+) years later, they all kick over and in their
>place a succession of relative non-entities holds leadership positions in all
>the groups with the intention of following in the footsteps of their idols
>simply because they lacked the ability to do anything else.
>Now that group has almost all died off and their replacements are continuing
>the deterioration.  Combine this with the fact that the TS has been
>relatively safe from outside persecution (at least in most of Europe, the US,
>India and the antipodes) and you have no reason for people of great ability
>to need to take over.
>A rot has set in.  And when things rot, other things start eating at it from
>the inside, in this case, us, at least in the minds of those whose only goal
>for the society is to keep the outworn husk intact.  Consider if you will the
>very real possibility that John Algeo's successor may be Betty Bland and you
>see what I mean.  And the gods alone know what will come after Radha!
>As I see it, the only way to save the TS is to eat out the rotten center fast
>enough that it can be replaced with some new growth before all is lost.  But
>it is possible.  At the risk of shocking Alex, I might point to Buddhism
>after the death of the immediate followers and their successors and
>Christianity after it was pretty obvious that Jesus (whether or not he
>existed) was not likely to return in the forseeable future.  Both systems
>were able to adapt and survive in spite of our opinion of those systems.
>What is needed is a new vision of what Theosophy is and is to be, one that
>can build on the past but not be controlled by it, recognizing that the
>founders and their successors did some great things and some incredibly
>stupid things and maybe even a few vile things.  Just how we are going to do
>that is anyone's guess, but it is going to take a lot of thinking and arguing
>and even some--gasp!--work.
>But the first thing is to get some younger minds in the TS.  We have a few,
>but not nearly as many as we need.  None of us are getting any younger and we
>can easily become old people with old ideas and not realize what is
>happening.  Also, it is a fact that theosophists are not noted for breeding.
> If we do not attract younger people theosophy will go the way of the
>Shakers, without even nice furniture to remember it by.
>The second thing, in my nonhumble opinion, is to stop genuflecting before
>science and academia.  Forget them and get out to where the people are.  Meet
>their spiritual needs and abandon the attempt to try to get respectability.
> This isn't the nineteenth century.  Soon it will no longer be the twentieth
>and respectability is not worth it's weight in mad cow manure.
>Third, realize that ideas change.  They come and go in fashions and what made
>very good sense 150 years ago is nonsense now.  Do not expect what we do or
>say to be eternal.
>
>Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA
>Heretic
>Troublemaker
>
>
>