Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00711)

>> TPH
>>has published a lot of fine books by creative authors-- but
>>they haven't been Theosophists and haven't written about
>>Theosophy.  
>
LFD
>Sorry, I don't agree. I take the 3rd object to mean that we
>study anything at the forefront of knowledge. That's what many
>of these books are doing, describing the forefront of knowledge.
>To me, that's studying 20th century Theosophy & 21st cent. HPB
>et al is history. Repeated 20 million times over, it grows
>stale. If you don't take what they wrote and build on it, you
>might as well be dead.
>
>Liesel

JHE
I have a third point of view on this.  While agreeing with the
first comment, I also agree with Liesel that we need to build
upon HPB wrote.  I think HPB was clear that she did not want her
writings canonized as holy writ, rather, she hoped that later
generations of Theosophists would study her works and follow up
on its leads.  Her writings are so rich with hints and suggestive
statements begging to be researched.  I think this kind of work,
if it had been pursued could have led to thousands of volumes of
fresh and interesting material, that would have led to
innovations of practical application for all of humanity.  But
alas, the Adyar TS never did this kind of follow up.  Instead, it
became preoccupied with Krishnamurti as the returned Christ.  

In contrast, the Point Loma TS did some research that was spun
off of HPB's writings.  They produced some very interesting
research papers on anthropology, physics, Geology, meso-American
and Biblical history.  But much more could have been done if the
Point Loma TS remained stable, and that research continued after
1951.  The Anthroposophical Society also took HPB's que and
developed theories and applications in education and agriculture. 
Most of their agricultural applications were appropriated by
Rodale and are widely practiced under the label "organic
gardening," but much of this came from the Anthroposophical
"Biodynamic Gardening."  I think there is much more to do, but it
is now mostly being done in academic and scientific circles which
would never associate itself with Theosophy.  How often I find
academic or independently written works which shamelessly draw
from HPB's writings without any acknowledgment whatsoever.  

HPB made a prediction in the S.D. that by the end of this century
her secret doctrine teachings would be vindicated.  I think that
to a small extent her prediction is coming to fruition.  But what
would have happened if the program was followed--if Theosophy had
not been discredited by the failed Krishnamurti movement?  What
would have happened, if instead, generations of Theosophical
scholars had been working ceaselessly for the last hundred years
researching HPB's leads and publishing the results?  
HPB's hints are already being pursued in physics, anthropology,
astronomy, Biblical studies etc.  Likely, most of these
researchers know nothing about HPB or her writings, but it is
interesting that they are pursuing the very questions that HPB
raised and they are moving in the direction that she pointed. 
For instance, HPB's then absurd statement concerning the
divisibility of the atom when pursued by Rutherford and Millikin
yielded the atomic age.  Her hints and dating of the age of
physical humanity is far closer to current science than in her
time.  But there is still far more to be done.  For instance, her
writings are full of hints concerning medicine that have not been
followed up.  

Though the Quest book line occasionally publishes an interesting
book (interesting to me), they are drawing from independent
authors most of whom are involved in very different traditions. 
I believe that if the TS had followed up on the original
writings, they would have been the ones to publish books like THE
TAO OF PHYSICS.  The quest book line would be full of cutting
edge books on subjects like naturopathy, astrophysics, biblical
archeology, chaos theory, etc.  The TPH would also be vested in
publishing and keeping in print good translations of the world
scriptures.  Adyar began such a program under the impetus of HPB
and Olcott, but was abandoned when Krishnamurti became the
primary occupation.  

Today, I think the problem with the Adyar society is that with
the advent of Krishnamurti, they cut their lines to the original
impulse begun by HPB, Judge and Olcott.  When Krishnamurti baled
out in 1930, Adyar was left with nothing.  Arundale took the
Presidency, ignored Krishnamurti, but was so influenced by
Besant's memory, he was unable to reestablish a connection to the
founders.  When Arundale died in 1945, the membership of the TS
was at an all time low.  I think the Adyar TS continues to
flounder without direction.  The inner group still holds ties to
Arundale's "Theosophy is everything" philosophy, while clinging
to the writings of the second generation Theosophists (Besant,
CWL, Jinarajadasa, Rogers etc.).  Those who advocate the return
to the original program have, without exception (as far as I have
observed), been driven out of the TS or marginalized.  Perhaps
someday, the Adyar TS may turn around and reestablish a
connection to its roots, but as time passes, this seems to become
more and more unlikely. 


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