Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00565)

At 11:20 PM 6/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, Blavatsky Foundation wrote:
>> I, too, would like to see these alternatives with arguments, evidence in
support
>> of them.  We hear so much talk against core theosophy yet I seldom see anyone
>> point out alternatives with the supporting arguments, etc.
>
>Daniel ...
>	Tried to do exactly that on several occaisions - beginning 8
>years ago with a 10,000 word article called "TS 2000" in the AT, and most
>recently with a long (for the NET) post ... on this list ... on the First
>Object.
>	On every occaision these attempts, save for a few stray comments,
>have been virtually universally ignored. It takes a serious expenditure
>of energy to go beyond critique and actually attempt to formulate and
>articulate the "alternatives". It is not only myself, but a number of
>other Theosophists I've met over the years, and spoken with privately and
>at great length, that have had similar experiences.
>	In my own perception, Theosophy has settled into comfortable,
>carved channels, and on the whole has very little interest in the *genuine*
>exploration of any alternatives - even if those alternatives are grounded
>in the foundational Objects of the original society, and readings of the
>intentions of the Adepts that are at least as valid as those currently
>popular among the leaderships.
>	There *are* organizations ... and many of them ... hard at work
>in the world today - organizations that are actively working (whether
>they state it explicitly or not) towards the accomplishment of the
>intentions in those objects. And many of them welcome the creative energy
>of people who are trying to formulate new ways of looking at the human
>kingdom and the relations within it. It is to these that most who try to
>frame alternative views of Theosophy go - when it becomes clear that
>their efforts simply amount to wasted energy within the theosophical
>current.
>	I fear my own (completely personal) sense is that having
>*accepted as good and correct* the injunction at the core of Theosophy -
>that the *service to humanity* is both the source and end of "personal"
>spiritual activity and growth - that it constitutes both the philosophy
>and day to day existance of the Adepts - yes, having *accepted*
>Theosophy, that theosophical circles are unfortunately not the place to
>actually *live* the philosophy ...
>	The current people that have "status" in the movement, those
>considered "wise", are for the most part those that (IMO) are simply
>*selfishly* pursuing their own studies, their personal growth, seeking
>their own development, and then wanting to "teach" what they know to
>"neophytes" - as though that is *service*. Theosophy has become a place
>to serve oneself - not a place to serve humanity.
>	Perhaps there are very few "alternatives" really formulated and
>supported is because it takes a great deal of a very particular kind of
>energy to do such a thing - but if one intends to commit that sort of
>energy, it needs to be done with a serious cost/benefit analysis ...
>i.e., the question must be asked, *where* will the expenditure of that
>energy achieve the greatest effects? For myself, most of the time I
>choose to put what little abilities I have into organizations other than
>Theosophy - because I know of many that are actually *accomplishing* the
>Objects for which Theosophy was begun far more effectively than modern
>Theosophy is.
>	
>							Regards, -JRC
>
>Three cheers for you John! That's a perfect statement of "how it is".
Pray tell, what are these other organizations who are actually "doing"
something. I'm getting discouraged and might like to do something other than
beat my head against a stone wall.

alexis