Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00479)

In answer to Jim Meier
JM
>1) I don't follow your statement (A) above; how do you come to that
>conclusion of "entirely separate" from the text listed?

JSY (quoting HPB)
"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"  I see no difficulty here.

JM
>2) "Theosophical doctrine (Dogma)...how you're using it"

JSY
  I was referring to the Sum Total of the works based upon HPB's material
(i.e. Globes, rounds, races, and the related presentations) as presented by
the T.S. et all, including Blavatsky, Judge, Besant, Leadbeater, Bailey, and
Heindel, from among others, which is not presented by other philosophies in
this manner.

JM
>3) The Besant timeframe that you listed brings up the division of the ES,
>which correlates roughly to pre-Krishnamurti and post-Krishnamurti, yes?

JSY
  No.  The article I quoted was a response to an article, written by Annie
Besant, that dated to an 1890 issue of Lucifer.  In fact, to quote HPB again
from the Febuary 1890 article "Needless to say that Mrs. Besant's article
would not have appeared had I seen it before publication...Mrs. Besant would
have done more wisely to have called her article "comments on the E.S. of
the Theosophical Society and HPB"  The concluding paragraph of the article
shows the seriousness of the concerns regarding this issue in 1891:

  "All this is said earnestly and sincerely, but with some trepidation, the
higher plane of carelessness not having been attained, and indifference to
other's opinions not having been aquired.  But when so prominent a member of
our society [Annie Besant] as the author of "The Theosophical Society and
H.P.B." propounds what appears to some of us dangerous doctorine, we have no
right to be silent" (H.T. Patterson, F.T.S.)

>4) ...others have pointed out the necessity of separating things ABOUT the
ES > from things OF the ES.

I would agree, except for the fact that the 'Thread' of this discussion
appears to deal with the positions and dogma of the E.S. influencing both
the actual albeit unpublished and unofficial position of the T.S., as well
as influencing the operation of the T.S. at both National and International
levels, with the associated charges of coruption, censorship, etc.

To re-present the position of the article quoted:
 "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."

If the T.S. administration is controlling what is taught/not taught in the
lodges and study groups it stands in the way of the Second Object of the
Society, as well as the position stated above.  The discussions regarding
the actions of the T.S. regarding dismissals due to the Bailey material
would also be along this line, as this material is supposidly based,
initially at least, on the ADAYR E.S. material of the 1920's (or so I've heard).

Please do not forget that my post was in response to the statment made
earlier that "according to the person writing as K.H.(who may have actually
been K.H.): A special section of the TS"  To this extent the E.S. should be
no more than a lodge of the T.S.

Bart, I also haven't been able to locate that letter.  If it's in the
'Letters from the masters', could you provide a reference?