Theos-Talk Archives (February 1997 Message tl00418)

Reading Richard's and JHE's characteristically insightful
commentary on (respectively) TS dogmatism and TS history, I see a point of
apparent conflict that suggests perhaps two different levels are being
addressed.  My own perception of this is murky, but maybe I can
get the message across enough so someone else can pick it up
and develop it.

Richard sees the TS becoming progressively more insistent on
the central role of Blavatskian Theosophy, and less sympathetic to
alternative perspectives.  More doctrinaire, if not more
dogmatic.  (Meaning perceiving the essence of theosophy as
doctrinal rather than practical or mystical or whatever.)
Jerry sees the TS as essentially not budging from the position
it adopted during the Arundale years.  Rather than seeing this
as an opposition, I'd say both are right.  Something has
clearly been changing in the direction Richard is pointing out;
something has clearly been locked in place in the way Jerry is
describing.  So which is which, and how do the two relate?

In the 1980s my own perspective was Blavatskian, in that I saw
HPB as normative for Theosophy and fervently wished that the
Adyar TS would see things more as the Pasadena TS did in that
regard.  So it was really heartening to see the networking
movement succeeding in encouraging the societies (ULT too) to
find common ground and make peace to some extent.  The SD
Centenary, the HPB Centenary, the Parliament, and several other
ventures showed Theosophists of various organizations breaking
down barriers of mistrust and finding in HPB a means of
agreeing on some foundation issues.  I thought that was
wonderful, and was delighted to play a small part in all that
happened along those lines.

But as the 1990s proceeded I saw the dark side of that
development.  The very HPB-focused quality that had looked so
healthy in the Adyar TS began to seem like just a new way for
the ES to say "We are the real Theosophists and you others
don't count."  Something had gone wrong.  One Wheaton staff
member told me he had mentioned the possibility of doing a
program to honor Annie Besant, and the then-president said "Oh,
once you really study Blavatsky you'll no longer be interested
in Besant" (the gist, not the exact quote).  We've definitely
been seeing more HPB focus in the Adyar TS in the last ten
years than I remember before, but it hasn't been a focus on the
*real* HPB.  (Who, as JHE says, was wide open to debating all
sides of any issue including her own doctrines, and who didn't
want the TS to become a society for true believers.)  The focus
has been on HPB as a link between the Masters and the TS, who
therefore is the raison d'etre for the current leadership to
keep on maintaining the status quo.  Or something like that.

What I'm suggesting is that the public stance has definitely
changed, and Richard is right in observing that.  The
Blavatskian content of TPH magazines, TSA-sponsored public
events, and such, is much greater in the 1990s than it was in
the 1970s.  On the other hand, the underlying consensus of
those who rule the TS-Adyar, their real values and beliefs,
appears not to have changed, as Jerry points out.  The outer
change seems to be just a way of adapting to prevent any inner
change.

Don't know what all this implies, or even if I'm right about
it, but there's definitely a paradox in all this and I welcome
anyone's thoughts on it.