Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00365)

Keith:
>Some one has pointed about rather strongly, that the First Objective states a
>NUCLEUS of universal brotherhood.  Thus an elitism may be inferred that many
are
>called, but few are chosen seem to apply.

Off your original topic, Keith, but worth following up I think.

This aspect of 1st Object has bothered me for some time, and it has also
transferred itself to the TI objectives.  The better approach, IMHO,
would have been to form *nuclei* rather than a single nucleus, in either
version.  Thus there could be any number of (say) TI "nuclear" families
all part of the larger whole, and all interconnected through TI (or TSA,
or whatever).

Then Lodges, branches, meetings, whatever they are called or however
constructed, would be independent in truth, and not only in name ...

This could be a topic for TI-L - anyone care to follow up there?  (cc.
to same).


Keith:
I am very concerned about my status as a card carrying theosophist, in the sense
that the big distintiction of theosophy from other types of "ancient wisdom"
including say shamanism, and perhaps the original attraction back in the late
19th century to many was a type of spiritual Darwinism, not unlike social
Darwinism in some ways if take to it conclusion of an elite core taking control
of world governments and scientific and social machinery for the benefit of
mankind and the planet, because the Neanderthal fundamentalists want to stagnate
and destroy the planet and exploit women, children and natural resources which
was in large part true during the 19th century perhaps.

Thus Theosophy seems to imply that there are spiritual Masters that are evolved
because of their sacrifices of their "animal natures" to the evolutionary goal
and thus are the way showers for a nucleus of humanity who can become more
evolved and enter politics sometimes obviously as in the case of Annie Bessant
in India and perhaps more covertly by Blavatsky as a supposed spy.

The whole idea is not presented directly in any one place.  The original hooks
to read the SD include a lot of the same ideas that we are all divine etc. and
can uncover and use it in some way.

In America, we feel a natural tendency toward non-elitism and hate the idea of
royalty or anyone that is too "stuck-up"  These prejudices are not shared and
other countries and cultures still cling to the idea of the elite as a necessary
step to keep the masses on the right track.


Is whole earth ecology an excuse for a communist type control and planning?

These are ideas that are brewing just below the surface for me. Has anyone ever
thought anything like this?  That the appeal of the Masters is in some way, the
appeal of (God forbid) a sports star who seems larger than life, and that I can
share in his or her glory by collecting trading cards the way some collect
tidbits of thesophical history?

The real danger which is again and again stated that the first thing must be the
destruction of the childish, ego centered selfish desires of the lower bodies.
This is a recurrent theme in texts like the VOS.  The danger, for me, I am
afraid, is that someone like Krishnamurti may come along and say these elitist
notions  about the "path" are all bosh and fliim flam.

Namaste
Keith Price