Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00728)

At 01:46 AM 4/18/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>>>cut<<<<<<
>If I may butt in here, I would like to say a little about this in relation
>to NZ and the recent reminder by our own Nat Pres to be more Theosophical. I
>was able to talk to him over lunch when he came to Wanganui to give a talk
>the other day. I expressed my concern at what I perceived as a 'tightening
>of the belt'  and I was disturbed by it. He gave me some background of other
>lodges that did not have a basic Theosophical core in their membership so
>that the lodge was a forum for other than Theosophical knowledge. There is a
>danger that if a President of a lodge is not strong enough to counter the
>wild side of some 'new age' beliefs then the lodge doesn't represent
>Theosophy anymore. He said that if a lodge had Theosophy over its door, it
>should not mislead the public by 'doing' non-theosophy as its main feature
>and that is where the fine line comes into play. We have a lodge in recess
>here and a courtcase pending because a guy who tended to be disruptive and
>claimed a direct line to Jesus wanted to steer the lodge away from Theosophy
>and take up his teachings and follow him. The more theosophical members got
>upset and a split occurred that nesitated involvement of Head Office and
>much unpleasantness has ensued over the past year and has cost a lot of
>money. I get the impression that it isn't psychism as such that is the main
>problem but the fact that it is identified with the 'new age' nowadays and
>there are some weird and wonderful groups under that umbrella that try to
>use a lodge and a ready made membership to spread their message. Many of
>these people are very enthusiastic and get emotional if others so not
>immediately agree with them. Theosophists do not like to be told that they
>are following a dead path and that this new one that is being pushed will
>solve all their problems. I know of people who, as a group have shifted
>around and done some strange things because a channelled entity told them
>to. They arrived in a town and became interested in the local lodge and
>tried to convince the members that the 'end was nigh' etc. Fortunately they
>lost interest when noone took any notice of them but that doesn't always
>happen. Maybe as stories like that get around, Theosophy feels the need to
>protect what has been it's rationale for so many years and there are many
>varied attempts to do that which we see as fearful behaviour because we may
>not know what occurred to bring it about. Going to Exec meetings with other
>NZ presidents give insight into the diverse personalities that are more or
>less in charge of theosophy as some of them have very small memberships who
>tend to leave it to the one who will do the work and that is often the
>president. We have begun again the Sunday mornings where presidents can get
>together and help each other to solve any problems they have. These follow
>on from Exec meetings in Auckland on the Saturday and happen quarterly with
>the first one in end May. I personally know quite a few NZ members who are
>into psychism and noone give them a hard time. Not everybody embraces it
>either but it is a matter of live and let live over here.
>These are just some of my thoughts on it. I have just started reading the
>first of Olcotts Diary Leaves and was HPB a rascal, was she ever. She even
>got her nuisance elemental to hem the new towels that Olcott bought. I
>wonder if I could find one of them, would be very handy
>Peace and harmony to us all.
>>
>Bee Brown
>Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch.
>Theos Int & L
>
>Bee:
This is a really big problem. It's got most of us theosophists "in between a
rock and a hard place". If as I do, you believe that everything that humans
do and think is grist for theosophy's mill, then nothing is not
theosophical. On the other hand, the problem of theosophical lodges being
coopted by people who do not have the theosophical movement in their agenda,
is a valid and worrisome problem. The San FRancisco Lodge for instace has
long not really been anything but a personality cult centered around its
late President, and is entirely devoted to a combination of Zen Buddhism and
Sufism. Both Zen Buddhism and Sufism are excellent things, and are certainly
legitimate objects for study and comparison under the second object. But
here we have a case where theosophy and theosophists are denigrated by this
group as far ineferior to their own special interests. Now, theosophy does
bear a karmic burden as regards "New Age" groups as I personally believe,
after much experience, that without the theosophical movement and the ideas
it introduced, there would be no new age movement at all. Therefore for
theosophists to denigrate the "new agers" is like a parent denigrating a
child. It seems to me that far too much of the theosophical literature can
be considered to be the result of "channeling" and therefore it ill becomes
us to automatically denigrate all channeling but our own. To say "Theosophy
is The Secret Doctrine and ONLY the SEcret Doctrine and nought else", is, in
my mind, a mistaken approach. On the other hand permitting theosophical
groups to be coopted away from theosophy is also mistaken. As the King of
Siam said: "Is a puzzlement"...I certainly have no answers other than an
inbuilt bias in favour of individual liberty and a strongly held belief that
in this instance at least, "the good will drive out the not so good".

alexis dolgorukii