Theos-Talk Archives (July 1997 Message tl00030)

In message <01BC85C8.26D9E9A0@rvik-ppp-ps-9.ismennt.is>, "Anna S.
Bjornsdottir & E.A." <annasb@ismennt.is> writes
>
>
>>Eldon:
>The biggest source of conflict may be in the multitude of conflicting
>definitions of Theosophy and the battling over what it really is. 
>
>Einar: 
>Discussing "the multitude of conflicting definitions" is, as far as I see it, 
>the real issue of theosophical study, and should be the core subject of this 
>list IMHO, provided that we honor the "prime rule" of theosophical discussion - 
>THE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT!
>If we acknowledge, every and all of us, that everyone is entitled to his own 
>view on every THEOSOPHICAL subject, having different views should enrich the 
>discussion, and make us all more tolerant and more open-minded. If we all would 
>try to understand one another, instead of fighting each other, trying to win the 
>battle at all cost, I would think that this list could survive and even fulfil 
>its true goal, enhancing global theosophical work.

Alan:
While I agree that discussing conflicting definitions is necessary to
the undersanding of theosophical study, I do not see how it is the *core
subject* of this list, which is by its own definition intended for
general discussion of theosophical interest.

>
>>Eldon:
>Finding
>flaws in historic figures is something of a side issue, and may at times
>be used to discredit what they wrote and therefore their variant of
>Theosophy, or used to discredit some claimed lineage of sponsorship by
>the Mahatmas. The petty fighting and useless friction is a negative byproduct,
>caused by human failings, like the smoke that surrounds the fire. There's
>sill something real and valuable going on, but it's not always apparent
>at first glance.

Alan: It is hardly a *side* issue if some of the things they wrote were
untrue; it is hardly a *side* issue if the claims made by their
historical (!) successors concerning their seeming squeaky clean purity
and virtue are show by *historical fact* to be unreliable to say the
least.  Those who wish to call it "petty fighting" and a "negative
byproduct" when unfortunate historical *facts* are presented only serve
to fuel the suspicion that theosophists are not as interested in truth
as they claim.
>
>Einar:
>Jeah,,, Don't Judge so ye......  Folks, The past is gone - what remains is only 
>in our own heads. Let's not fill our mind with gossip and judgements of the 
>past. Let's keep to the subject, - theosphy - and how to live it NOW, and let go 
>of the pesonalities of the past from HPB onwards. It is simply no concern of 
>ours!

The Holocaust happened. It affected the history of the world, and the
"now" that we live in is better understood by knowledge of history.  HPB
and others began a theosophical "enlightenment" - and the same is true
of them and their work.  To say that such things are no concern of ours
is to bury our heads, ostrich-like, in the sand.
>
Alan