Re: Alexis Dolgorukii on "THE DAY THAT THE T.S. DIED"
Jul 05, 1996 03:04 PM
by Maxim Osinovsky
On Fri, 5 Jul 1996, blafoun wrote:
> This posting from alt.theosophy is one of the most
> detailed postings by Mr. D. that I have read of his
> many postings. Food for thought. Does anyone
> see any historical fallacies, mistakes, etc.?
> > From ">alexis dolgorukii <email@example.com>:
> > Newsgroups: alt.theosophy,
> > Subject: THE DAY THAT THE T.S. DIED.
> > Date: Thu, 04 Jul 1996 19:21:46 -0700
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most people studying theosophy now do it not because of powerful personal
magnetism of H.P.B., her unusual integrity or character, or her
rebellious spirit--they do it because they are being attracted by ideas
published under her name. (One may name lots of people of
questionable character who nevertheless have contributed heavily
into civilization and culture. It is so obvious that it does not deserve
any further consideration.) So what's the fuss about?
Yes, the theosophical movement... OK, personal qualities of the movement
founders and leaders are essential. But then again, many ordinary
theosophists known to me are quietly working--studying original works or
core theosophy, trying to implement the idea of brotherhood (e.g.
Theosophical Order of Service), or exploring unknown forces of nature and
hidden powers of the human being. And they do not care about
theosophical politics. This movement is built around ideas, not
persons (H.P.B acknowledged that her early emphasis on the personae of the
Masters has been a grave mistake), and until it remains relatively
decentralized and has a loose hierarchical structure, it will be
what it is now--a free coalition of people striving for the Light and
helping each other as best as they can. Of course, they are not perfect, and
their organization is not perfect, too, but its defects do not seem to be
an evidence of sickness unto death, or the death itself.
I am even ready to agree with Alex that CWL has been a child molester
(although I doubt it); I acknowledge that George Arundale has been a
terrible type and possibly a crook (see Lady Emily Lutyens' "Candles in
the sun"); etc. So what? My main preoccupation is knowing myself (my
Self), not knowing history of the theosophical movement, and H.P.B's
writings help me to do so. I do not have any time for TS's dirty linen.
Now, back to HPB's books. Of course, they--at least SD--have been heavily
edited and corrected. But the most authoritative editions of SD and
IU published up to date--those considered a part of Collected Writings
(CW)--have been purged of all posthumous changes. Also, the so called 3rd
vol. of SD has been disassembled for CW and published as a series of
separate essays and esoteric instructions. So it looks like justice is
served, isn't it?
Unfortunately, Alex, your critique is not constructive, except maybe the
last sentence, "Is there anyone besides me who'd like to return to the
original programme?" If you mean that you are going to organize a new,
better spiritual society along the theosophical lines, whatever its
name--I would be among the first to join. If you are going to form a new
spiritual party--well, maybe I would keep doing my business of knowing my
Self. All of us are the same--cells in the body of a planetary entity, or
fingers of the same hand, so we need to somehow find ways to reach
mutual understanding and even to learn to love each other. THIS is a top
priority for everybody who calls himself/herself a atudent of
spirituality, and not that damn and dirty old theosophical stuff.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application