Theos-Talk Archives (February 1997 Message tl00258)

Paul wrote
>Dear Christine and all,
>
>The egregore concept is an appealing one, but I'm not sure that
>it really offers more than an occultified version of
>sociology.  That is, groups develop patterns that persist over
>time, and that are more or less productive/destructive to
>individual members.  These patterns have a life of their own
>and are not readily modified.  People who derive a sense of
>identity from group affiliation take on the attributes of the
>group.

Agreed, but it implies that we can change things by working  on a mind as
well as exoteric level - that is, by fixing ourselves we can influence the
group without actually doing anything with or to the group apart from
staying "in" it.

>Whether or not the TS-Adyar is salvageable is a discussion that
>we can continue indefinitely.  I see more evidence against the
>proposition than for it, going back a long time.

Unfortunately so do I.  My inner child is beginning to cry - "please don't
do this to me any more".

>As for starting an alternate group myself (re: Alan) I cannot think
>of anyone less suitable for the job.  Being controversial in
>the way I am would be terribly counterproductive to launching
>an effort to offer an alternative.  But if the opportunity to
>join such an alternative presents itself, I'll support it.

I don't agree with you here.  Being a published author puts you in a unique
position, particularly as your book expressed a modern approach to matters
mystical which seems to appeal greatly to the younger generation and to the
educated.  My peer group here received your book, and The Theosophcial
Enlightenment, which came out at about the same time, with a sigh of relief
- "thank goodness for an intelligent approach at last" - and with some
excitement - "does this mean there is some future for this organisation".
Whatever a person thinks about the conclusions you reached (I found them
fun, but was not in a position to validate them one way or another), it is
the intelligent approach which can perhaps lay some  groundrules for
Theosophy into the future.  I for one am not interested in 19th century
methodologies, approaches and language which have long been superceded, or
in and Indian style servility.

I have suggested to Alan that we may use TI-l for some kind of brainstorm on
all of this.  What do you think?

On a slight tangent, does anyone know the real basis of the dispute between
Sinnet and Anna Kingsford in England. I have not been able to find out much
about it (from the Anna Kingsford side), but have speculated that what we
had was a little Hindu (used very loosely) vs Hermetic (used even more
loosely) war here, and that it might be the basis of most of the disputes
since then, with Adyar basically maintaining the Hindu approach and all
those of naturally Hermetic inclinations (oh my - please don't ask me to
explain what these are) being treated to the same as Anna Kingsford.  I have
not researched this though (my feminist tendencies preclude prolonged
reading of the Mahatma letters) - so I could be completely off-beam.

Christine



------------------------------