Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00250)

Chuck:

>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.

I'd see it as generational too -- between one generation of
Theosophists and the next, in passing on the theosophical work
and ensuring that it continues to do good in the world.

>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.

A century ago the original leaders were dead or soon to die, and
their successors, like Annie Besant and Katherine Tingley, were
taking over. (The "split" was the first of many expulsions done
by the Adyar T.S., where Olcott expelled the American Section for
declaring itself autonomous.)

>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.

What happened here depends upon one's view of what Theosophy and
the Theosophical Movement consists of. If it's all a matter of
personalities and hero worship, then the first generation of
charismatic leaders have departed. After them came Crosbie in
the ULT, Kristnamurti (outside of) the Adyar T.S., and Purucker
in the Point Loma Societies. All three could be considered
significant in their own way.

The appearance of people being "non-entities" is not necessarily
a bad thing. For those of us that consider there being a
significant message and a treasury of occult knowledge in the
*content* of Theosophy, the personalities aren't that important.
A good exponent of the philosophy would impart it without
drawing attention to themselves, they would try to be
non-charismatic, and from surface appearances they might seem
insignificant.

>Now that group has almost all died off and their replacements
>are continuing the deterioration.

Deterioration? From my personal experience of studying Theosophy,
I find significant advances being made in the 1920's and 1930's
and Purucker presented it in a much more organized manner than
earlier writers.

I think you're thinking more of the general nature of organizations,
where once the initial impulse of the founding members is lost,
the organizations become fossils, losing their actual life, and
run by people with no idea about what things were originally
about.

This is possible of any organization, including the theosophical
ones, but only *when the initial impulse is lost*. I would say
that the initial impulse is not the charisma of the founding
members, but the living knowledge of the Mysteries that might
be carried in the hearts and minds of some of the members. That
knowledge is not rote memorization of passages from some holy
book, but is a combination of trained thought and inner awakening.
In a sense, it is an enhanced awakening of the fire of mind.

>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.

People of "great ability" may or may not take political office
in the theosophical groups. But can you say they are not there?
What has politics to do with keeping the flame alive?

>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.

Rot sets in when the life has departed and there is decomposition.
I'm not sure that this has happened in theosophical groups.
Even if all knowledge of the philosophy departs the society,
and there are no members left with a living understanding of
it, it can still exist as a book club and a fraternal organization.
There is no harm in this; it is not evil or amoral.

>Consider if you will the very real possibility that John Algeo's
>successor may be Betty Bland and you see what I mean.

I don't know her. How is she an example of spiritual rot?
If she's devoted a good portion of her energies to working
for Theosophy, and is willing to get involved in something
as distasteful as politics, shouldn't we wish her well?
Granted, you may have a profound knowledge of Theosophy,
and wish to train her, to improve her meager grasp of the
philosophy. Or perhaps you are far more advanced than her
in moral and spiritual qualities? If so, you might want to
share with her and the T.S. what you have to offer.

For myself, I'd be reluctant to pass judgement on others,
especially if they are willing to do a certain work that
I don't particularly care to do myself.

>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.

As a person, I don't see Radha as part of the rotten core.
What I may be concerned about is her grasp of Theosophy.
The policy of expelling members, lodges, and national
sections may be objectionable. But what was it trying to
accomplish and what other methods may be less harmful?

I see the theosophical groups existing to promote the
original philosophy, to keep it adapted to our ever-changing
society, and to allow it to benefit as many people as possible.
The problem is a balance between honoring this trust and
allowing the widest freedom of belief in members.

Consider the following. Say a group of neo-nazi racist
skinheads from Montana wanted to form a theosophical lodge.
They wanted to teach the "superiority" of the Aryan race
(e.g. themselves). They were involved in violent protests
at local universities, and may be involved in bomb-making.

In this case, were I in a position of power, I would
be reluctant but I would expel them. Why? Because I would
have to weigh and balance the individuals' rights of free
belief with the importance of preserving and promoting the
philosophy, and in this case the damage to that effort
far outweighs the individuals' rights to "do what thou wilt".

Because of this, I can understand where Radha may be
coming from. On the other hand, if she does not have a
firm grounding in *original* Theosophy, she may sense as
threatening certain expressions of bona fide Theosophy.

>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 foreseeable
>future.

These were different than Theosophy and HPB. In one case you
have an Avatara working to give a spiritual impulse to a
particular society. That impulse takes the shape of a religion
in order to sustain itself for a period of time. Eventually
it loses energy and becomes fossilized, unless additional
spiritual giants participate in it and give it additional pushes.

With the Theosophical Movement, though, there was a dual intent.
One was a similar spiritual impulse, to stem the tide of rising
materialism in the west. The second was the imparting of
specific occult doctrines, to, I think, allow for the eventual
founding of a western Mystery School, if it takes root. The
first, the spiritual impulse, may result in one or more religions.
The second, the occult impulse, may or may not result in a
school being founded. The theosophical doctrines are not needed
for the spiritual impulse to work; they are very important for
another doorway to the Path to be set ajar in our western world.

>Both systems were able to adapt and survive in spite of our
>opinion of those systems.

Adaptation is necessary, as you say, for survival. But what is
it that it to survive, and what is its purpose?

>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,

This is the *important* problem, which we're all thinking about
in our own, different ways. A new vision is needed, not of
Theosophy itself, but of how it can apply itself in concrete
and useful ways in our current-day world.

It is not "controlled by" the past, but it is rooted in the
same eternal truths that are as valid 100 years ago as they
will be long past the time when our galaxy dies of old age.

>recognizing that the founders and their successors did some
>great things and some incredibly stupid things and maybe even
>a few vile things.

If you lump all the people in the history of the theosophical
groups together, you can include "vile", but I'm not sure if
this applies to the acts of the principle players.

I'm not sure about "stupid". There's a difference between stupid
and mistaken. Everyone is human, mortal, finite, and subject to
making mistakes as times. Stupid, though, is the opposite of
intelligent, and I don't consider the key players in the
theosophical past as lacking in that regard.

>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.

There's going to be some of this. Along with sudden inspirations
and insights. Sometimes things will seem to fall into place
as though by magic, as though they were orchestrated from afar.

>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.

People can benefit from Theosophy at any age, even in their
70's, 80's, and 90's. It has been fairly consistent that
people in their teens and 20's have not been drawn to
theosophical groups. It may be partly a manner of approach,
where Theosophy is presented in a way that does not appeal
to this age group. It may also be partly a matter of phase of
life, where younger people are not in a phase of life where
they find a study of Theosophy appealing; the need for years
of study may conflict with the desire for instant gratification
and immediate results, a desire than hopefully declines with
age in wisdom as people get older and mature.

>None of us are getting any younger and we can easily become
>old people with old ideas and not realize what is happening.

This is something that we need to watch out for: the
crystallization of our thoughts. We need to continually
rethink things and keep our ideas fresh, lest they become
so inflexible and rigid that they die and entomb our
thinking.

>Also, it is a fact that theosophists are not noted for
>breeding.

It depends upon their age. If someone joins in their 40's,
they may not be planning to have any more children.

>If we do not attract younger people theosophy will go the
>way of the Shakers, without even nice furniture to remember
>it by.

But even though people join in their 30's and 40's, and
then grow old, there is a continual stream of new members
joining from the same age group. In the 1960's, there were
people in their 30's and 40's joining; they are now in
their 60's and 70's. In the 1970's, there were people in
their 30's and 40's joining; they are now in their 50's and
60's. And so on ... There's a high turnover of members,
but a steady flow of new members. But I don't think that
the average age of membership is increasing.

>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.

Here I'd agree. Although we can study and benefit from
science and academia, our philosophy does not stand or
fall based upon its public acceptance by the scientific
community. We need to use what we have to help others,
not to win esteem.

>Meet their spiritual needs and abandon the attempt to
>try to get respectability.

Gaining respectability is fine, but a secondary goal,
not something of primary importance.

>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.

And sometimes the attempt to gain respectability and
tie in with modern scientific thought backfires, and
when that science is later disproved, we're left with
"guilt by association", and ourselves appear discredited.

This may be what happened, for instance, with Leadbeater.
At the turn of the century, science thought that waves
could not be carried except if there were some medium to
transmit them, and it was postulated that light was
carried via a material called "ether". This idea, I think,
was subsequently rejected by science, but Leadbeater picked
up on it and gave us an "etheric body" and "etheric plane",
both of which aren't in the original theosophical doctrines.
(HPB speaks of the astral double as the "model body", and
the astral and physical being really the same plane.)

>Third, realize that ideas change. They come and go in
>fashions and what made very good sense 150 years ago
>is nonsense now.

And this is the danger of using too many scientific
metaphors and analogies in our philosophical works,
as when the science is later discredited, we have to
rework the books to purge the no-long-workable comparisons.

-- Eldon