Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00740)

...snip.....

>>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.

Thankyou for a thought provoking post. Would it not be better to say that
Theosophy studies all these things but the Theosophical Society has the core
teachings as it's rationale for being a Society. All these other groups are
a liberty to set up a Society of their own to have their teachings as the
basis for their existence. If we say that we have a Society set up because
of theosophy (small t) in which to study this and all other related subjects
and it is called Theosophy Society to differentiate it from e.g the Buddhist
Society so that people may know what is the guiding light of a Society even
if it both study buddhism and theosophy within their curicullum. They may
then go to which ever Society suits their interest and find subject matter
as the main feature in that Society along with other sidelines. I would be
confused if I went to the Buddhist Society and found them teaching Sufism as
a regular thing and their library full of books on it.

 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.

The way some children behave sure makes parents want to pretend they are not
their children. Even though I have come to Theosophy via the 'new age',
there are many groups that I would not encourage in our lodge as I find
their grasp on reality rather tenuous and their teachings bordering on the
dangerous. If anyone in our lodge wanted to be involved with them then it
would be up to them to go to the group rather than expose all of the rest of
us to them just for the sake of seeming liberal. I agree that these groups
owe much to Theosophy for their existence and if it was possible bring them
under our umbrella but, like all children, they want to do their own thing
without parental interference and that is where the problems occur.

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
>
It is a puzzlement indeed. The 'good' are also often the 'meek' and so the
'not so good' can win the small battle at lodge level even if it all comes
right in the end, it  can close a small lodge for a while and maybe even for
good as people loose confidence in a place that stands for 'spiritual'
things and yet bicker among itself.
>
Bee Brown
Member TSNZ,Wanganui Branch.
Theos Int & L