Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00468)

(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?

JSY
Knowing nothing of the post-HPB ES, I thought the ES, as defined, was to be
a separate organization from the TS. to quote HPB in "Comments on the
theosophical society and HPB", Lucifer Feb. 1891:

"I gladly give room to the protect which follows...a member of the E.S. who
receives instructions emanating from the Masters of the Occult Philosophy,
and doubts at the same time the genuineness of the source, or the honesty of
the humble transmitter of the old esteric doctorines - lies to his own soul,
and is untrue to his pledge...From the very beginning it's [the
E.S.'s]second rule stated, that the "esoteric section has no official or
corporate connection with the Exoteric Society"

In comparision, quoting H.T. Patterson, in the same article:
"when it is said 'If there are no Masters, the Theosophical Society is an
absurdity, and there is no use in keeping it up', a misstatement is
made...The honest materialist, the honest agnostic, the honest spiritualist,
the honest christian-scientist, the honest dogmatic christian, may be an
honest disbeliever in HPB and the masters, and an honest member of the
Theosophical Society too, provided he is elisted in the cause of humanity."
HPB endorsed this position as "Expressing my [HPB's] feelings."

The above seems to state (A) that the ES was NOT meant to be a special
section of the T.S., but entirely separate from it, and (B) that
Theosophical doctorine (Dogma) was not to be an overriding emphasis of the
T.S.  This emphasis seems to have started with Besant, as implied within the
text of the article, and continued to the current T.S. Leadership (I.E.
Burnier and company), based upon prior evidence presented during Theos-L
discussions.

- - - - -

3 participants in discussion.  Next?