Theos-Talk Archives (July 1997 Message tl00022)

Gail and Dara:

.      There needs to be a genuine ability to forget old antipathies such
as the Leadbeater/Besant criticisms; the Krishnamurti dissensions; the
Judge/Besant hiatus;  the notion that Blavatsky was the only 'giver of
wisdom'--and so on.

Eldon Tucker:

There are some assumptions
implicit in it, though, assumptions that are not always aggreed to by
everyone joining our theosophical groups.

Some of the assumptions are:

* There are Mahatmas. They are genuinely more evolved than the typical
  seeker or person we might run across in our everyday lives.

* They have an occult hierarchy, with a lineage of teachings or knowledge 
  passed down from one generation of Adepts to the next.

* Blavatsky was a bona fide representative of them, and accurately 
  presented some of their knowledge.

* The material presented by Blavatsky was as least in part literally true.
  It did not consist completely of blinds, metaphor, and veils. 

* The materials presented were dealing with the timeless philosophy, and 
  not with now out-of-date references to the science of the 1800's.

* There is something special or precious about the doctrines, something 
  that makes it a public service for us to learn and share it with others.

Keith:

I am not going to make personal attacks on anyone living or dead anymore, 
except maybe a joke or two.  I am not trying to attack Theosophical 
fundamentalists or new age let's tolerate everyone's opinion whether it makes 
sense or not.   But I do think a new period of inclusiveness, a kind of 
rainbow coalition of theosophical organizations is in order.  Has anyone 
thought of a Parliment of Theosohpical Groups, now that will curl your hair or 

straighten things out?  I am not sure which, but I really can't believe that 
we can include the general public into the ANCIENT WISDOM if we INSIST that 
Blavatsky had a corner on the market!

Namaste
Keith Price

--LAA03131.867781673/upsmot01.msn.com--