Theos-Talk Archives (February 1997 Message tl00425)

KPJ
>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.

JHE
Yes, I sensed this two levels of communication too, and felt that
they are creating disagreements that are only apparent.  Rather,
I think we are both saying much the same thing from different
view points.  Therefore I believe the apparent differences are
created by the differences in our approaches.  Mine is historical
and lexical, but my lexieology is from sources outside of the TS,
or interpreted as if I were an informed outsider.  I believe
Richard is looking at the TS from the point of view of an
informed member, and is responding to and giving a critical
interpretation to TS rhetoric as a member who is aware of its
propagandistic and hypocritical elements.  What Richard might see
as hypocrisy, I see as a new stamping from a very old and
distorted cast that should have been discarded long ago.  I think
our views are two designations for the same thing.

KPJ
>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?

JHE
Yes, I agree that there has been more rhetoric about Blavatsky,
but I think it has less to do with a new emphases upon Blavatsky,
and more with a de-emphases upon Leadbeater (thanks to Tillett's
exposure), and having no one else to fall back on.  But the
Blavatsky rhetoric concerns the neo-Theosophical and the mythical
Blavatsky, not the historical.  I think that if you go back and
look at the editorials from the Arundale years (1935-45), you
will find that Blavatsky's name was invoked and used in the same
way then.

KPJ
>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.

JHE
Yes, 1984 was a turning point with the Networking conference, and
I think it did much more to change policies in Pasadena and ULT
then it did for the Adyar TS.  However, I think there was a
significant change of consciousness among the Adyar membership.

There are two other events that I think are very relevant to the
fate of the Networking movement that I think also needs to be
considered: 1. The coming and going of 1975 without the
appearance of a new teacher; 2. the 1982 publication of Tillett's
book.  Expectations and spirits were high as 1975 approached, but
as the year came and whent, the mood slowly started turning to
cynicism among many.  Dora became President in a still optimistic
1975 and tried to give a lot of support to the Lodges and promote
the Quest book line.  The American Theosophist was probably at
its best during those years.  But it was all too little too late,
I think.  Also, after the publication of Tillett's book, the TS
quietly began to de-emphasize Leadbeater.  I think you told me
once that when you went to Adyar after Tillett had published his
book, you found that the policy was that "Leadbeater doesn't
exist, and if he did, there is nothing wrong with him."  I think
that was an excellent assessment of the times.

So, considering the unwanted (by Adyar) campaign for networking
with other Societies, the disappointment of 1975, and the
exposure of Leadbeater, I think the TS has responded by digging
in and getting tougher where they can get away with it.

KPJ
>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.
JHE
My assessment too.

KPJ
>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.

JHE
Yes, I think they are just digging in deeper.  But another factor
is that the old guard is dying off.  Last time I was at Krotona,
I think I might have walked by been more empty residences than
occupied ones on that hill.  In another ten years, everyone from
the old ruling class should be gone to their Theosophical
devachan, and they don't seem to be passing on the torch to the
younger members.  What will happen in ten years?

KPJ
>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.

JHE
There's mine.  I'll be in Monterey for the weekend, but will pick
up on this discussion when I return Monday.


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


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