[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

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.?
> Daniel
> > From ">alexis dolgorukii <>:
> > 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.

Your brother,


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application