Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00503)

> I wonder whether anyone would have heard of the Theosophical Society had she
> not been one of the founders. Research into science, philosophy and religion
> would have remained the passtime of a few. It is understandable that the TS
> feels unconsciously that returning to its pre-HPB origins would mean a
> further dwindling of  membership. Once the clamorous aspects of Masters,
> secret doctrines and all that are removed, little is left for those who
> hanker after a belief.
> Yet, it had its useful purpose to bring home a grand vision on life to the
> masses for whatever it is worth.

What do you mean by 'pre-HPB origins'? What are those? Do you in fact mean
'HPB origins'?

If this is what you mean then we cannot avoid any references to HPB. It's
premature to speak about it in past tense. I
believe HPB's legacy in its entirety (not just The Secret Doctrine that
has not been read by many theosophists) is the only thing that binds
(loosely)  all theosophists together. Everything else is questioned and
disputed, including Masters.

It's not clear if TS's sticking to the original HPB programme
would contribute into growth of the membership. But it is
certain, as has been shown by others on this list (esp. Jeryy HE), that
deviation from the original programme did contribute into its decline.

For some people preservation of the theosophical movement is not
important at all; what's important, is preservation of the pure spirit of
theosophy, that cannot perish as HPB gave so strong an impulse to it. As
to the formally declared three objectives, I have asserted earlier and
repeat it again that the movement failed to implement those, and is not
going in the foreseeable future to fix it (social workers,
scientists, and politicians are those who are REALLY working toward those
objectives while what theosophists are doing in this area is just
irresponsible and idle talk); if it's going to survive it needs to reinvent
itself,--which again brings us back to HPB.