Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00454)

BL
>Either John Sellon is still alive or my wife had lunch with a
>corpse a couple of weeks ago (and a still very sharp corpse, at
>that). Michael Sellon never lost his interest in the Society,
>and Peter Sellon is getting more involved.

JHE
I'm glad to hear that John is in good health and the kids are
still involved.  Actually it was Emily who I had in mind as being
deceased--or did I only imagine reading that obituary?


> JRC
> I'd be most interested in a discussion if you'd care to offer a
> couple of topics ... I'm not versed enough in TS history to
> start a discussion, but could you, for instance, mention some
> aspect of doctrine into which distortion was introduced ... and
> perhaps even trace the development of the distortion over time?
>
> JHE
> -not to mention the topic of the founding and historical
> development of the ES.
>

JRC
I would very much like to hear a bit more about this one, if
you've got the time ....

AEB
So would I.

JHE
I've been through this scenario several times before.  I would
post historical information on a subject; usually several people
become offended because the information challenges one or another
theosophical myth.  Sometimes it becomes a dialogue with one
other person and dead silence from the other 100 + subscribers.
Except of course the occasional personal message I would receive,
like: "love your historical material--keep on writing."

Actually, I don't have the time to compose those six page posts
and dig up supporting documents anymore, but even if I did, I
think there is a better way.  I would like to see a full
discussion with at least ten participants.  This way we will have
ten view points--not one.  I will be very happy to participate
and be an information resource when needed and when I can, but I
don't feel that much is accomplished by my being a solo voice.
Bart Lidofsky has already started the ball rolling:

...............
(Beginning of an ES discussion)

BL
>In my opinion, the ES should be exactly what it was supposed to
>be in the first place, according to the person writing as K.H.
>(who may have actually been K.H.): A special section of the TS
>for people who wanted to live exclusively by the tenets of the
>Mahatmas, as opposed to people who wished to reach the Truth
>through their own religion (as everybody must do, according to
>the same letter).

JHE
Which letter are you quoting Bart?  Do you believe that the ES is
"exactly what it is supposed to be in the first place"?  If not,
how is it different?


------------------------------------------
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |
               ------------------------------------------