Theos-Talk Archives (May 1997 Message tl00043)

>Well, Emily Sellon and Fritz Kunz are both dead, now. I don't know if
>there is anyone out there who has the confidence of the benefactors and
>the knowledge and imagination to go forward.
>
>	Bart Lidofsky

I agree. Those 2 can't be replaced so easily. Also, Dora, who's still
working, is one of a kind. I think John Algeo has a good imagination, and a
lot of get up & go. I think he's made some changes for the better.

I just listened to a tape our Board made a while ago, I think while Dorothy
was still President, the subject being Theosophy in the 21st century. I was
singularly unimpressed. The subject of Brotherhood came up. John Algeo said
that he thought that language, which is his field, changes with the times. I
was glad to hear at least that much. It seems really that the hangup with
the brotherhood deal is Adyar. A few more subjects, which we also complain
about on theos-l came up, but no earth shaking solutions. And absolutely no
new ideas. I was really disappopinted.

There are some developments in Wheaton these days which give me hope. I
think the best, most recent, is that they're really making an effort to
attract young people. I think to do this well, we also need to produce
literature which puts Theosophy into language of the same vibrational
frequencies as the vibes of today's young people. I understand that the new
National Study Center is going just great. They're studying "The Voice...".
Enthusiasm there is encouraging.

I haven't heard too much anymore about the Theosophical Institute. I thought
maybe that would take off and create interest.

Yesterday, I also received the latest HCT. Dick Slusser & I have gotten to
be good friends over the years, but I sure don't agree with the long article
by Geoffrey Farthing he published this time. Geoffrey is of the opinion that
the only writings Theosophists should study are the writings of HPB and of
the Masters. While I agree that these should be studied, I think confining
oneself to just that literature is stultifying. I think that a belief system
which is incapable of growing and modifying over 100 some odd years may as
well be dead. It can only be a fossil, if it doesn't stimulate others to
express their own thoughts and views about it.

I still think that if, for instance, we take seriously studying unexplained
phenomena in nature and in "man" (as part of nature), we have to look past
HPB and the Masters ...use them as a frame of reference, but add whatever
new things human beings are poking into at the moment.

Liesel