Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00473)

At 05:26 PM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>There is a saying, perportedly from HPB, the "Theosophy is who Theosophy
>does."  My feeling is that one who, in the words of Voltaire, "defends the
>poor and helps the oppressed," is far closer to the spirit of theosophy than
>one who can quote the SD right and left and knows several of the Mahatmas
>area codes.  I was not kidding when I said it would be interesting if
>theosophy ever really acquired a heart.

Oh you are quite definitely right, or should I say Voltaire is always right!
I think Theosophy had a heart, but it stopped on May 8th 1891. My question
for you is this: How can it acquire a heart if it never does anything but
quote the Secret Doctrine and yammer about "The Masters". It is my
impression that, by and large, most (not all but most) theosophists could
never, ever, in any circumstances, meet an Adept of whom they'd approve!
Most Adepts including the group that founded the theosophical movement would
never be seen as anything but "un theosophical" by the average
organizational theosophist.

>And the irony of all this is that Eldon is someone who should know that
>better than anyone else.  The problem is that the TS went into full reaction
>after the madness of Annie and the Bishop and retreated into an alley of
>blind intellectualism, relegating the idea of helping people to the TOS.

That was when the folks to whom the organization meant more than its mission
decided that any opinion at all was worse than no opinion at all, because
any opinion might just possible cause trouble, and the Krishnamurti Debacle
was more trouble than they ever wanted again.

  Now
>the Gullo's are wonderful people and this is not to reflect on them in any
>way, but the TOS has more than it's share of self-righteous baboons who turn
>off more people than all our merry gang combined.  I cannot read their
>comments on vegetarianism without having this craving for raw meat.

The Gullos are really nice folks, but the TOS has an extremely narrow and
limited idea of "service". And yes you are right about the "self-righteous",
The E.S., The TOS, The Co-Masons, and The LCC are full of self-righteous
folks, but then that is the normal manifestation of the religious
experience, it makes people self-righteous. With those people it seems to me
that Theosophy is no different than Presbyterian!
As to vegetarianism, as I see it that has to be a personal choice. There's
no real proof that it's at all more healthy than any other diet, and as you
know my multi-PHD'd Bro in Law say's it's less nutritional for creatures
that are normally omnivorous. But I do believe it's an ethical choice, and,
if it suits one, a good one. As I've told you if I had to kill it myself,
I'd be a vegetarian, but I don't so I'm not. That makes me a hypocrite, I
fully admit it. But then Hitler was a vegetarian for moral reasons...so what
does it prove? What I do object to strongly is when vegetarians attempt to
coerce others into it. I have an inate tendency to resist coercion most
fiercely. I think to say "I don't eat meat because..." is perfectly
fine...but to go on and say "and you mustn't either" is not fine.

But the
>situation is such that many people in the TS cannot even understand how to
>show compassion at the death of a loved one of a fellow member.  And if real
>disaster strikes, they say nonsense about Karma and let the person rot.
> That's how I acquired my housemate.  I was the only one who would take her
>in.

Chuck: I have to admit that this is a situation I have never noticed. A lot
of fellow Theosophists have died in my time and everyone I know has shown
compassion for their loved ones. Now as to the one who died, well, as
Theosophists we can miss them, we can love them, but after all everyone dies
and to a truly believing theosophist, so what? It's the people with the loss
that require compassion, for the "dead" person is hardly lost.

>I have great affection for HPB (which is why I have so much fun with her
>girth) and the Colonel not because of her writings, but because of their
>humanity.  Anyone who would go charging off to Ceylon on a bullock cart to
>toss out the damned missionaries is OK in my book.

It was a Goat Cart more frequently than a bullock cart. Don't you think they
both know and appreciate how you feel? Neither of them think of you as
either a heretic or a blasphemer or a "trouble maker" and they both know
very well what a really nice, compassionate, feeling man you are. You may
fool some people but you ain't fooling them! Far too many of their
contemporaries thought they were heretics, blasphemers, and trouble-makers
too! And remember she was accused of being a spy!

>The time has come for the TSers to become "doers of the word and not hearers
>only."

The time for TSers to become "doers" and not simply "hearers" was in
1875...we're still waiting.
>
>Chuck the Barbarian MTI, FTSA, M G of 5
>Heretic
>Troublemaker
>
Alexis d.>