Re: ES Discussion (Ref: TS Corrruption)
Dec 18, 1996 01:58 PM
by Jim Meier
>(Beginning of an ES discussion)
>In comparision, quoting H.T. Patterson, in the same article:
>"when it is said 'If there are no Masters, ...
>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
>3 participants in discussion. Next?
1) I don't follow your statement (A) above; how do you come to that
conclusion of "entirely separate" from the text listed?
2) "Theosophical doctrine (Dogma)" is one of the more contested phrases on
this list, so it's hard to know how you're using it. The idea of
"non-acceptance" in Theosophy is based upon HPB's quote of the Buddha not to
accept *anything* which is not Self-determined in SD Vol III p.401, and what
can be more "theosophically dogmatic" than the SD?
3) The Besant timeframe that you listed brings up the division of the ES,
which correlates roughly to pre-Krishnamurti and post-Krishnamurti, yes?
This is one of the key points in understanding the ES and its influence on
4) in earlier threads re: the ES on this list, others have pointed out the
necessity of separating things ABOUT the ES from things OF the ES. Since
the ES is both a "secret" organization and one that is blamed by many of the
frequent theos-l posters as the source of many-if-not-most of the present
TSA problems, it is not likely that anyone is going to admit on here to
being a long-time ES member. We should be careful to keep any discussion
about the ES as objective as possible.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application