Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00199)

The history of the Theosophical Society in Boston (TSB), which mkr described
below, is correct. The TSB originally received its charter as a
theosophical organization in 1922 directly from Annie Besant herself, and so
the TSB actually predated the formation of the TSA. The TSB was later
incorporated into the TSA, had a legal fight with them and became
independent.

Blavatsky formulated three objects to guide the original TS, the second of
which is "to encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy, and
science." The TSB takes this second object very seriously, and so we offer
many activities on a wide range of topics. For example, in our current
Sept-Oct program, we offer lectures or seminars on "the Temples and Pyramids
of Ancient Egypt," "Ho'oponopono" (which is a Hawaiian spiritual practice),
Buddhist meditation, and "Plato's Spirituality."

Some questions were raised about the TSB website. On this website, we
include links to Alice Bailey, Krishnamurti, and Rudolf Steiner sites,
because we think of them as part of the greater theosophical movement (since
they were all once active members of the original TS), and because we
sponsor regular weekly or monthly classes that study or practice their
teachings. So, the TSB is very inclusive.

In The Key to Theosophy (pp. 304-305), Blavatsky foresaw two possible
outcomes for the Theosophical Society. On the one hand, she described its
possible failure: "Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has
hitherto ended in failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into
a sect, set up hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible
degrees that vitality which living truth alone can impart. You must
remember that all our members have been bred and born in some creed or
religion, that all are more or less of their generation both physically and
mentally, and consequently that their judgment is but too likely to be
warped and unconsciously biassed by some or all of these influences. If,
then, they cannot be freed from such inherent bias, or at least taught to
recognise it instantly and so avoid being led away by it, the result can
only be that the Society will drift off on to some sandbank of thought or
another, and there remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die."

That is a very vivid image: "a stranded carcass to moulder and die." But
what if the aforementioned danger can be averted? In this case, Blavatsky
predicted: "Then the Society will live on into and through the twentieth
century. It will gradually leaven and permeate the great mass of thinking
and intelligent people with its large-minded and noble ideas of Religion,
Duty, and Philanthropy. Slowly but surely it will burst asunder the iron
fetters of creeds and dogmas, of social and caste prejudices; it will break
down racial and national antipathies and barriers, and will open the way to
the practical realisation of the Brotherhood of all men."

I think that the history of the Theosophical Society during the past 125
years can be an extraordinary teaching example. Blavatsky tried to
establish a society in which its members would overcome the fetters of
creeds and dogmas among themselves and would then help to burst those
fetters for everyone else. Yet past theosophists, in spite of Blavatsky's
intentions and clear warnings, have used her writings in a sectarian way;
that is, they have used Blavatsky's writings to create new creeds and dogmas
that separated themselves from other theosophists and from everyone else,
and so the theosophical movement has atrophied and splintered into all of
these smaller societies.

What should we do about ourselves? We are all studying some spiritual
teaching or another. But are we using those teachings to break down our own
mental barriers that separate us from other people, or are we using those
teachings to erect new mental barriers? For example, we might think that we
are more special or advanced than other people, because our doctrines are
somehow more mystical, occult, or esoteric than other doctrines. This is
the kind of mistake that theosophists made during the past century, and
perhaps we can learn from their example.

Zack Lansdowne
Theosophical Society in Boston


> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 21:56:30 -0500
> From: ramadoss@infohwy.com
> Subject: RE: Theosophical Society in Boston
>
.....
>
> As for the Boston TS, there is another interesting historical matter which
> was discussed at length in theosophical maillists some years ago.
>
> TSB was one time a branch of TSA(Adyar) and was the defendant in a
lawsuit,
> brought by I think a Boston group which was part of TSA(Adyar) and the law
> suit was finally settled with the property being split between the two
> groups and a huge sum of money went to line the pockets of the Boston
> attorneys. (someone else may be able to clarify if there is any needed
> clarification).
>
> It appears that at the end of the lawsuit, Boston TS set itself up as an
> independent TS. With this back ground, when one looks at its website with
> link to all the theosophical organizations including TSA(Adyar) speaks for
> itself.
>
> As for sites of Krishnamurti and others, it is upto the concerned
> organizations as to what they want to do.
>
> For example in Krishnamurti's case, he declared that no organization or
any
> organized approach is going to lead anyone to truth (Truth is a Pathless
> Land statement goes into detail.) In addition, he had left deliberate
> instructions that none of his books, videos, audios can be published by
any
> organization with which any of the Trustees of Krishnamurti Foundation
> Trust (of which D Rajagopal was the President and was involved in a long
> drawn out lawsuit with Krishnamurti which was not resolved until after K
> passed away) were associated or in future is associated in any manner. One
> of the Trustees later was on the Board of Directors of TSA and later was
> appointed as first ever Emeritus Treasurer. With this background, no one
> can expect KFA to have any link to TS organizations.
>
> So I feel that everyone of us have to come to our own conclusions based on
> the facts and how we see them.
>
> In friendship
>
> mkr
>