Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00215)

JRC:

I have no objection to a theosophical group that would
act like John Mead's theos-l and allow a free forum for
the participation by anyone with a shared interest in
Theosophy.

It's fine to have a place where beliefs are not imposed,
where the ugly side of politics does not arise and
power and control games take over, killing any possibility
of spiritual activities.

Within this organization, people can take their
individual approaches. Some can believe, for instance,
in the psychic, and talk about their experiences and
theories about it. Others can hold different views and
also be heard. It would be contrary to the openness of
this organization, though, if the organization would
take either side on this issue, saying, for instance,
only positive things about the psychic and calling
contrary views as coming from paranoid, fear-drenched,
condescending people who come screaming out of the woodwork.

If you were to say that T.I. has perfect freedom and
openness of inquiry, but with an unstated "but only if
you agree with me", it would be the same attitude that
you personally deplore in the leadership of theosophical
organizations.

While the overall organization would be an umbrella for
any belief and approach to self-genesis, it would not
therefore identify what is Theosophy nor have a stated
understanding of the theosophical doctrines. These doctrines
would continue to be passed on in their hopefully pristine
form by other theosophical groups, seeking to serve that
purpose, as well as by specialized projects within the T.I.

These ideas do need to be passed on as a living tradition,
from students with some understanding and background in
them, and not merely as the dead-letter of the books.

I don't think it would be fair to call those of us with
an interest in these core ideas, nor with their study,
to be characterized as puffed up, passive-aggressive,
condescending Mahatma wannabees spouting hints of
connections with the Masters. Some of the theosophical
groups' leadership may appear that way at times, but do
we really know them as people and understand their motives?
They may be working within the framework of a difficult
political situation, and their hands may be tied against
acting as their hearts might dictate at times.

There are two ways of being inclusive. One is with a
lowest common denominator and an uneasy, perhaps unspoken
negotiation of what is ok to talk about. A series of
compromises is made as to what can be talked about, and
the rest of the materials remain undiscussed. This is what
we have on 'theos-l'.

On 'theos-l', psychics feel uncomfortable writing about
their experiences, for fear of being blasted as sinners.
Others like Bee may fee uncomfortable discussing the
basic theosophical ideas, feeling unsafe in quoting anything
and getting put down for not using her own words. Coherence
may feel uncomfortable quoting HPB to demonstrate a certain
idea is in accord with the theosophical Teachings nor not;
someone else may feel uncomfortable expressing an idea
because they don't particularly agree with Theosophy and don't
want to be silenced with the words "that's not theosophical!"

The other way of being inclusive is to allow multiple
lists, groups, lodges, projects to specialize in different
ways, where everyone finds a forum for their particular
interests. This would be like having a house where rock
music is played in one room, new age in another, country
and western in a third room. The music may not go well together
in the same room, and may not suit the tastes of everyone, but
everyone tolerates the tastes of others and coexist in the
same house of music.

One last idea which you mention with regard to T.I., which
I disagree with as a universal principle, but would accord
to your "music room", is that having definite doctrines to
Theosophy leads to ideas crystallizing (in the negative
sense of this word), forming a group into another
spiritual/religious organization with its own hierarchy
of power, inner circle, required reading, etc.

First, I would not use "crystalize" in a negative sense,
although it most often a put-down term. A positive aspect
of it is to give concrete expression, beautiful and perfect
in its own way, to something. This is like the act of
writing a poem, which crystallizes one's feelings of the
moment, allowing them to be recaptured to an extent, but
not a permanent enclosure for them.

I would find with Theosophy as a living body of mystery
teachings, which are "crystalized" when expressed beautifully
in words, both spoken and written. The expressions need to
be redone, again and again, but there are, I think, a definite
body of ideas being preserved and passed down, from one
generation to the next, that are as real as the law of
gravity, although they are also something that can be
a matter of belief or disbelief.

 From this, I would say that T.I. should *not* take a
stand for or against there being a definite body of
theosophical doctrines, of mystery teachings. To do so
either way would be to make it just like all the other
groups, with "these ideas" as the canon of belief, or
"no such ideas" as the canon.

-- Eldon