Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00357)

At 08:41 AM 4/12/96 -0500, you wrote:
>As I understand your post in response to my Third Refuge post,
>you are saying that anyone who expects anything from TS
>affiliation is responsible for any disappointments that ensue.

I think what Doss is saying is that anyone who has any "expectations" of
anything is bound to disappointment. My own take on that is if you expect
nothing, you cannot be disappointed. You probably would have been
disappointed had you joined in 1875. Nothing is ever what we expect. We get
out of affiliations only what we put in. You've contributed a lot to
theosophy, but you knew it was controversial, and you knew the kind of
people you'd be dealing with. Shouldn't have been any surpises.

>At some level that may be true.  But you certainly err in
>assuming that I "expected" to get publisheby a Theosophical
>publisher, etc.

I'd be very surprised if you were hoping for that, from what I understand
from people who have been published by Theosophical Houses they are
affronted if you don't donate the royalites and they're cheap with what they
do pay.


The bottom line of what I expected is the
>Three Objects.
>1) If an organization proclaims the goal of being a nucleus of
>universal brotherhood, why can't one expect the most prominent
>members and leaders of such organization to *at least try* to
>behave in a fraternal manner toward one another?

Paul: All the real "brothers" whom I have known in the last 60 years have
fought like "cats and dogs" and so do the sisters! From my experience,
"Fraternal Manner" means to "beat up" on one another.

>2) If an organization proclaims the goal of studying
>comparative religion, science and philosophy, why can't one
>expect an open-minded investigation of all subjects related to
>those objects, rather than proclamations that some subjects are
>off-limits?  Particularly, that the Masters are both perfected
>men and something beyond that, that it is blasphemous to
>discuss their human qualities, etc. etc.

Paul: Know what water does on a duck's back? Well if you're going to write
on subjects having the slightest connection with religion, and unfortunately
THEOSOPHY is almost, if not entirely become a religion, then you've got to
be like that "Duck" and just let the contumely run off! To you what you've
written isn't blasphemous, nor is it to me or amny others, while I may not
agree with all of your "slants" or "takes" I agree over-all and so do many
others. As to those who find it "blasphemous", well that's their problem, it
shouldn't be yours.

>3) If an organization proclaims the goal of investigating
>hidden powers etc., why doesn't one have the right to expect a
>sincere inquiry into such matters rather than a dogmatic
>assertiothat they are dang etc.?

I think it's clear that the people to whom you refer are terrified by what
they totally don't understand. As to the thrid object, it's up to each
Theosophist to investigate or not. All the prohibitions in the world cannot
stop you. These folks only have the authority you give them.

alexis
>
>