[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

The ES and History

Apr 24, 2006 11:09 AM
by carlosaveline

Dear Friends, 

Again, see below, Daniel raises his recurrent question "on whose authority, etc."  ---  as if we were members of some Vatican-inspired  bureaucracy. 

Yet his questions are useful because they create an opportunity to think about things in a calm historical perspective.  I thank him for that. 

I have been explaining that the top-down and old tale of "on whose authority, etc. " was brought into the Theosophical Movement after 1891,  and especially after H. Olcott's death early 1907. 

According to Masters/HPB, one's heart is the only true "Authority". 

That's a basic pedagogical AXIOM unfortunately abandoned by Besant/Leadbeater.   

Now, another topic. 

Daniel Caldwell also asks: 

"....Why did the magazine 'Theosophy' in its series of articles
 later published as 'The Theosophical Movement' [that is, published
 1925 as a book] quote from documents [written by H.P.B. and] marked
 private and issued to E.S.T. members under pledge of secrecy?"

Well,  this is clearly an exception to the general rule according to which internal matters are internal.   (We know  that in Occultism rules have exceptions.) 

The 1920s  and especially 1925 were the years of the Adyar's "Festival of Initiations", the years of complete  loss of common sense in the Besant Society. In 1929, J. Krishnamurti, the would-be Christ and Messiah, simply left the Society. He could not stand that process any longer. 

ULT leaders may have felt, in the 1920s, that  it was necessary to open an exception,  and to demonstrate to the wider (theosophical) public  the lack of legitimacy in Besant's School as the source in all that huge confusion. For that, a few PARAGRAPHS were quoted, not whole texts from inner, esoteric section. 

That was a complex situation which should be analysed with calm and care. Both CW Leadbeater and James Wedgwood were causing repeated sex scandals. It was in those years that A. Besant announced that she was an ADEPT -- and soon lost her memory and her mind, as Adyar sources admit (which does not make me happy at all). Wedgwood also lost his mind, as Adyar-related  people (Mary Lutiens) openly report. 

After all that crazy process stopped, I had a long personal, practical and sincere experience within Adyar's inner studies, if you know what I mean. I 
can tell you that in my view even a  "watered down" E.S. may be useful and is useful to MANY earnest students, according to what goes on in their hearts and with their intentions. 

Not all that happens in the way of an aspirant to discipleship depends directly on having correct INTELLECTUAL ideas or correct levels of INSTITUTIONAL

Robert Crosbie wrote about that, but I only read him long after I discovered that by myself. 

Most things depend on one's heart and mind.  That's why many good lay chelas may have never heard of HPB or Masters.  Lay discipleship is not in words, in  labels or in "authority", although words are useful instruments.  

Therefore, while I openly criticize the confusion between Masonry and the Adyar Theosophical Movement, I have nothing,  or next to nothing,  to criticize in an open forum with regard to Adyar's E.S., especially from C. Jinarajadasa's time (starting 1934) through 2006. 

As as a practical student of the movement's  history (which includes some of its inner instances) I have the clear perception that the energy and climate during the crazy, stormy years 1920-1929 was completely different from the situation starting in 1934, and especially after Sri Ram's period started, by 1953. 


Because Sri Ram stopped with all initiation fancies.(1)   

So, if C. Jinarajadasa had established the trend towards recovering some degree of common sense (and he started cooperation with Boris de Zirkoff in the 1930s, etc.), from the 1950s on Sri Ram went one step further. 

The efforts led by I. K. Taimny, and from 1978 by Radha Burnier, also created a small progress towards common sense. R. Burnier most clearly distanced herself from CWL fancies.  From the 1990s, though, things started to decay again. I am not ready to discuss why, at this moment. 

But, in order to undertand at least in part that process, you may think on the Ethical implications of P. Johnson's texts about  Daniel Caldwell and John Algeo. You should also carefully think about  Gregory Tillett's recent Theos-talk posting on John Algeo, regarding his work with the HPB Letters. At the level of the heart of the movement, ETHICS is synonym to VITALITY. If  leading people have no Ethics, there is no Inner Vitality and decay establishes itself. 

As to Daniel Caldwell's perspective of the movement, it  does not seem that he has an actual experience with the inner instances of the theosophical movement. 

Yet  I still hope he can understand that these instances exist and are rather influential as to "the heart of the movement".  

Daniel may have something in common with John Algeo and Paul Johson. The three of them having no experience with the so-called "heart of the movement", they don't get an inner picture of its inner, less vivible but influential processes. 

Both P. Johnson  and D. Caldwell seem to want to discuss and understand all problems relative to the movement just from OUTER, PUBLIC AND PHYSICAL 
EVIDENCES, which are by definition peripherical.  

Yet there is no real problem with that. It is all part of the historical process, 
and History develops in the long run, with cycles subcycles. 

The movement is but a seedling by now. Our comon vitory is a FACT, even if it is not VISIBLE by now. 

It can be understood,  if we see things in the long run. The Secret Doctrine gives us that perspective. 

Best regards,   Carlos Cardoso Aveline 



(1) In one  of his books, half  "en passant",  Geoffrey Hodson calmly and respectfully accused Adyar leaders of Adyar TS of "having lost conscious contact with the Masters".  That's because G. Hodson, a pure and well-intentioned heart as far as I know, thought he had direct, verbal, "conscious" contact with the Masters!  What had really happened is that N. Sri Ram had stopped and un-authorized all such fancies. 



Data:Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:10:37 -0000

Assunto:Theos-World Circulating quotations from HPB's esoteric documents to the "wide public"

> Please note what Dr. H.N. Stokes, who was a severe critic of
> the teachings and policies of Besant and Leadbeater, wrote in his 
> O.E. Library Critic Magazine:
> "....why did the magazine 'Theosophy' in its series of articles
> later published as 'The Theosophical Movement' [that is, published
> 1925 as a book] quote from documents [written by H.P.B. and] marked
> private and issued to E.S.T. members under pledge of secrecy?
> Are we to suppose that . . . the editors of 'Theosophy' Magazine,
> are above all rules applying to lesser mortals?
> "No, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
> "If .... [HPB's esoteric documents] are [still] private documents
> today, no one without a diploma of sanctity and a special permit
> from the Mahatmas is more entitled to [quote from them or] read them
> than any others, or to discourage others from doing what he does
> himself when it suits his purpose...."
> Notice here in this instance the editors of Theosophy magazine
> circulated quotations from HPB's esoteric documents to the "wide
> public," (Carlos' phrase) not just in "private"! And on whose 
> authority did the editors of this PUBLIC magazine decide to quote 
> private and confidential esoteric writings of HPB?
> Daniel
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> E-mail classificado pelo Identificador de Spam Inteligente Terra.
> Para alterar a categoria classificada, visite
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: McAfee VirusScan / Atualizado em 21/04/2006 / Versão: 4.4.00/4746
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra:

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application