Theos-Talk Archives (May 1997 Message tl00460)

K. Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> I wouldn't touch the question of who is or is not a good
> Theosophist, and indeed think that phrase has been abused so
> much that it should be retired from use.  But if we phrase the
> question "Is the ES good for the TS?" then I agree
> wholeheartedly with Ken that the answer is a resounding NO.

	There is another way of looking at it. The origins of the ES, in my
opinion, were a good idea. As has been mentioned here recently,
Theosophy is a largely theoretical pursuit. And there are always those
who want to put the theory into practice. When the anti-Christian vs.
Christian theosophists in London threatened to have a schism, those who
called themselves the Mahatmas wrote stating that one must reach the
truth through one's own religion. They suggested starting a special
section for those who wished to adopt their philosophy as a religion.
This was the origin of the E.S. It was corrupted by the overenthusiasm
over Krishnamurti, although attempts to fix it followed.

	The Mahatmas, however, made it absolutely clear that the ES was to be
separate from the TS, and that its purpose was to KEEP people who lived
by their philosophy from thinking that they had the right to control the
TS by giving them their own organization to control.

	Bart Lidofsky