Theos-Talk Archives (February 1997 Message tl00454)

Jerry Schueler writes-->
I agree with most of what you say, but my own experiences in the Pasadena TS
are different.  They have never limited Theosophy to HPB, but also have been
willing to include the MLs, Judge, Tingley, G de Purucker, and Long as well.


Richard Ihle writes-->
For most of the years of my membership, the American Section may have even
been better than that.  Joy, Dorothy, and all the editors of the AT have
encouraged my “meta-HPB” theosophical contributions (I probably have had more
space in the AT than anyone on this list).  I have spoken at summer
conventions, and, as late as last year, I had an "open invitation" to speak
at Wheaton's (monthly?) meeting should my schedule ever permit.  No, I cannot
complain about most of my past personal history with the Society.

My complaint is simply with what seems to me a definite change in the
previously prevailing pattern of "co-existence" between the "epistemological
theosophists" and "Doctrinal Theosophists" over the last few years.
 Unfortunately, I probably don't have the strongest leg to stand on in this
regard:  not only did I vote for John Algeo the first time (I thought he did
some wonderful writing in the old days--he’s “not a bad man, just a bad
wizard”), but I also must have been asleep when things like the "World View,"
"The Theosophical Academy" (or whatever it is called), the changes in
election rules etc. started coming down the line.  It was not until an issue
of the MESSENGER that it started to be clear to me what the new developments
might mean for the Society’s future.

Whoever is responsible for the semi-official "Theosophy in a New Key" in the
April, 1996, MESSENGER, said it best:  ". . .Theosophy is the particular
variety of theosophical thought put forth by H.P. Blavatsky, her teachers,
and her followers in the generations following her.  The distinction is
between ~theosophy~ as a generic and ~Theosophy~ as a body of concepts."
 [and then later]  "Theosophy is not mentioned in the Objects, but the name
of the organization is after all the 'Theosophical Society,' and that implies
it has something to do with Theosophy."

My sense is that the pace has been accelerated to have Doctrinal Theosophy do
~a lot~ more with the organization in coming years--and this includes
predicating everything on the most-non-KPJ view of the Mahatmas.  The
succeeding MESSENGER with its material on "The Three Aims," (hidden behind
The Three Objects), our service in behalf of Them, etc. only confirmed my
suspicion about the new direction.  Since I had lost interest in holding any
more offices in the Society after having been a Federation president, I had
previously been really quite content to let the Doctrinal people run
things--why not? for the most part they seemed to have had, at least since
the 70’s, an admirable record for letting the “growing edge” of the Movement
have its say as well as themselves.

This, in my opinion, is what is changing--and faster than many may think.

JS-->
I have to agree with J H-E that Theosophy has always had  teachings--this is
exactly the problem outlined by HPB herself when she said as soon as esoteric
ideas are written down, they become esoteric doctrines.

RI-->
Speaking “psychogenetically” for a moment, I really do not care what the
often-sad cast of Fifth-Degree (or less) souls have done throughout the
Society’s history.  Many have simply been people who have not been able to
keep a Once-Removed Vantage upon the “teachings” involved; thus, being
ineluctably egoically incorporate with ideas they were attracted to, they
were simply in the business of trying to confirm their own desire-mental
ego-formations by forcing the rest of the Society to go along with them.

I have never liked Krishnamurti all that much; however, in one respect at
least, he was probably the John the Baptist for all the budding Sixth-Degree
souls within the Society.

JS-->
An organization needs to stand for something that can be communicated in
words to others.

RI-->
On some days I think that the real need is for one organization out of the
myriad which stands for something which CANNOT ultimately be communicated in
words--in short, an organization which keeps all “teachings” subordinate to
individuals’ personal development toward Seeing.

But I will do some more thinking about your statement.  Right now, it does
not seem so clear to me.  Did the earliest people have more “to stand for”
than their general agreement with the Objects?  Theos-l has 100+ individuals;
is there some common thing which we all stand for which can be “communicated
in words”?

But yes, I agree there will always be teachings which will be communicated by
means of the Society.  HPB has teachings; the two Jerry’s have teachings;
even I have teachings.  I don’t know about you, but I take serious exception
to the circumstance that my teachings may start to be even more
“filtered-out” because I do not see THE SECRET DOCTRINE (and related) in
entirely the same literal way as the entrenched powers within the Society.

For example, the last article I submitted (a couple years’ ago) was the only
one which the AT has ever rejected (if my memory serves me).  My intention
with “The Next Messenger” was to somewhat amusingly start introducing what I
believe to be the most important component of HPB’s Cosmogenesis and
Anthropogenesis:  that embedded within their “possibly semi-figurative”
content is a very startlingly practical ~Theosophcal Magical System~ which,
in my opinion, is clearly in advance of the time-honored visualization etc.
approaches.

Now, I could be right about this, or I could be wrong.  Nevertheless, I have
some things to say about “THE INVISIBLE SUN” which HPB talked about which
would interest more than a few, I believe.  Rejection of “The Next Messenger”
stopped me in my tracks, however, for it even further confirmed my suspicion
that the TS may now just as soon prefer ~not~ to have a growing edge--even if
it is possibly HPB’s edge.

So, what is my next move?  Try to start my own organization called IS
(Invisible Sun)?  Present the material in little disappearing-upon-reading,
unpolished cyber-snippets on theos-l?

Well, maybe . . . but before I do, I am CLAIMING MY RIGHT to the official
Theosophical Context.  I am CLAIMING MY RIGHT to have my contributions judged
for their own theosophical interest/literary quality and not because they
fail to meet the capital-T Test.

Thus, I remain, CLAIMING and COMPLAINING,

and GODSPEEDING as well,

Richard Ihle


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