Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tt00025)

Thank you Eldon for your posting.  Nobody could disagree with
what you say.  Some of the things that you mention though are
beyond our control.  I can't control if somebody decides to see
'racism' behind the 'root races philosophy', even though we keep
repeating that a 'root race' has nothing to do with ethnic
divisions.  Or if somebody decides that the term 'brotherhood' is
not politically correct because its root comes from 'brother'
(male connotation).  I doesn't matter if the term is clearly
described: "To form a nucleus of Universal Brotherhood of
Humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or
color'; some people simply won't accept it.  I wouldn't waste my
time,the little time we have like you said, in trying to convince
those people by working with semantics.

The only thing that we can do, and nobody can stop us from doing
it, is to transform ourselves.  It is very difficult to write
about this because we would be touching things that are sacred,
but I can say that there is no more important subject for anyone
who wishes to serve mankind.  We need a place to meet.  A place
that we can communicate among ourselves, a common language, a
common goal.  How can we do that since we are fragmented? We need
to be able to establish a lodge where we can all touch each
other.

Do you understand what I mean?

Rudy

>When we look forward to the work necessary to help the
>theosphical movement be a power for good in the world, we often
>have a skillful balancing act to perform. Often, for each thing
>that we need to do, we almost paradoxically need to do the
>opposite as well.
>
>One problem before us, for instance, is the language,
>terminology, and manner of presentation of the theosophical
>philosophy. Consider some aspects of this (and related) problems:
>
>1.  Terms like "root races" bring some readers to quickly explode
>    in anger -- thinking "racism!" -- even though the doctrine
>    has nothing of the sort in it.
>
>2.  Books are written in language that is not politically
>    correct, using personal pronouns like "he" more often than
>    some readers would like.
>
>3.  There are comparisons to the science of the last century,
>    which is now outdated, and nothing said with regard to the
>    marvelous discoveries of the current century.
>
>4.  The approach in writing was directed toward people of the
>    Victorian Age, with a certain temperament. A different slant
>    would appeal to the more enlightened attitudes and new
>    prejudices and fears of our current age, including a new
>    individualism and distrust of authority and doctrine.
>
>5.  We need to clearly distinguishing between the *content* of
>    the literature and the *manner of expression*. Putting the
>    materials into new words is a *translation process* not a
>    *replacement process*, although we may stress a different
>    subset of them.
>
>6.  Lucid introductory (and perhaps intermediate) books can be a
>    useful study aid, but are not a replacement for the deeper
>    literature. It would take another HPB (with help from her
>    Masters) to rewrite THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
>
>7.  The purpose of the writings is not just to inform the reader,
>    but also to train the reader in how to discover the deeper
>    ideas on one's own. A book that does not come out and state
>    things plainly may be better than one than follows the style
>    of western textbooks.
>
>8.  Not everything that is stated in the literature is intended
>    for everyone. There are exoteric blinds to deeper truths.
>    Who should decide when to plainly state things that some of
>    our teachers have thought best to veil?
>
>9.  By staying with the source literature, like THE MAHATMA
>    LETTERS and Blavatsky's writings, we're protected against
>    confusion caused by "the revising of terminology and
>    suppression of ideas found in the original teachings".
>
>10. Certain ideas may not be possible to be more plainly stated
>    than they have been. The use of Sanskrit is fine. Every
>    discipline has its own technical terminology -- computers,
>    psychology, mathematics, etc. -- and a layman needs to learn
>    the language to tap into a particular line of thought.
>
>11. More discussion is needed of ethics, morals, unselfishness,
>    service, and other religious issues need to be raised,
>    independent of any association with modern religious dogma
>    and repressive modern religions. We need to *be religious*
>    without becoming a religion.
>
>12. For the benefit of new students, more information and
>    encouragement regarding the spiritual path should be
>    provided. This includes talk about how a study of Theosophy
>    *can* effect changes in one's life and be a form of treding
>    the Path.
>
>13. Professional organizations the the ACM (for computer
>    professionals) have two tiers of publications. One is for
>    the practioner, the other is popularized for the layman. We
>    need "for the layman" books, without compromising the
>    treasury in the deeper literature.
>
>I'm sure that with a few more minutes, I'd come up with some more
>items, but time is running out. (Time is also running out for
>Western Theosophy. What are we to do?)