Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00791)

At 02:11 PM 1/26/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 01:05 PM 1/26/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>----------
>>> From: m.k. ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
>>> > I agree that we want to keep our language clear, lucid, and not
>>> > unnecessarily buried in arcane terminology. On the other hand,
>>> > I wouldn't rope off the depths of the ocean and say that there
>>> > should only be wading in the shallow waters.
>>> > 
>>> > -- Eldon
>>> > 
>>> I see your point. Should we set up multiple theos-ls catering to 
>>> different fog levels. Just an idea.
>>
>>Theos-fog?  Theos-smart?  Theos-dumb?  Theos-101?
>>
>>> 
>>> There is yet another problem which needs to be addressed. I would preface 
>>> it to say I do not have a solution.
>>> 
>>> The problem is how to make Theosophy reach the masses, especially the 
>>> less intelligent, less educated person. It would be a very valuable 
>>> statistical information to find out the distribution of TS members by 
>>> various categories such as age, sex, ethnic background, religious 
>>> background, education, profession, etc. I know of no such study so far. 
>>> If this kind of information is available, then TS can think of how to 
>>> reach the various under represented segments of the population. May be 
>>> such an effort may be the salvation of TS in the 21st century.
>>> 
>>> Any one has any ideas?
>>> 
>>When I started out reading material that was beyond what was taught in my
>>Roman Catholic belief system, I took out Edgar Cayce books from the
>>library.  They were hardbacks that were donated by study groups.
>>I seriously doubt that I would have been interested in anything like
>>the intellectual level of the former Quest - I was only 21 and from
>>a limited educational background. 
>>
>>BTW, thanks again, Doss, for posting the article on TS in 1925.
>>I've been a member of the LCC since 1971 and never heard of
>>this history.  But, perhaps, they never really wanted most people
>>to hear about it.  It's pretty hairy stuff that reads like a fantasy
>>to me - yet I wonder what percentage of it may possibly be
>>true.
>>
>>-AEB
>>
>
>
>Dear Ann:
>
>   So far I have not seen anyone disputing what Wood had stated. He was a
>very honorable and credible person.
>
>   This issue of the three leg approach of TS - TS/ES, LCC, Co-Mason is an
>interesting stuff. George Arundale was made a Bishop and was addressed as
>Bishop Arundale and there was a very interesting episode involving K which
>ended Arundale calling himself with his LCC title. One of these days I will
>post it.
>
>   Another issue of current interest is, right now some lawyers and
>accountants are salivating and some are already lining their pockets with
>the on going litigation in Denver in which some of the well known members of
>TSA are involved as plaintiffs -- some names *all* would recognize. Money
>donated for charitable purposes being squandered to line the pockets of
>lawyers. Does is sound a familiar re-run?
>
>        ...MKR

   I forgot to mention that the above litigation is in Co-Masonry between
the Paris faction and the US Organization.

   BTW, Officially TSA/TS has no connection with Co-Masonry!

        ...MKR