Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tt00056)

James S Yungkans wrote:

> Bee writes:
>
> "There is only 2 in our branch that I know of who have read SD
> and one of them is me and I don't think I would like to take on
> the karma of teaching something I don't quite understand myself."
>
> What comes to mind was a reply to CWL about how so many people
> wait for "Orders" and that so much good work foes undone.  If we
> always worry about the karma involved in the 'Work' (as the
> process of dissemenation is commonly called in non-theosophical
> circles) then there would never be any progress in the 'Work'.
> Case in point: In India, the advanced souls (as they call
> themselves, poor slobs) do not help 'our fellow man' because
> "Good Karma" is just as binding as "Bad Karma." This is why
> non-attachment is such an important doctorine in india, in some
> sects.  I would pose this question: If you were to teach as much
> as you can from your point of view, but note in every lesson that
> you are presenting the information from your viewpoint, wouldn't
> you in fact be repeating the process that A.P.Sinnett did when we
> wrote "Esoteric Buddhism?"
>
> And further, if you were to teach anything "Esoteric", what would
> be the harm IF YOU KNOW THAT THAT INFORMATION DOES NOT HARM
> YOURSELF OR OTHERS.  There's a good possibility that HPB had
> attempted pranayama and determined that, in her case, it was
> determental.  If not, perhaps some of her teachers taught this
> from their experience.  We don't know.  But, how does one add to
> knowedge if they never contribute.

Well put and I see what you mean.  'Nothing ventured, nothing
gained.' I have gained so much from these discussions and the
ideas you have all given so freely that I am about to take some
speech and drama lessons and in due course get lecturing.  I have
realised that I have much knowledge but have not really taken
myself for someone who could pass it on, but with all this
discussion, the idea has slowly surfaced that maybe I might just
be able to put it across in a way that people could understand.
So as the old saying goes,'there is more than one way up the
mountain'

> Bee Writes:
>
> "We need more than books.  We have a great little library of
> around 1200 books but it just doesn't seem to be enough."

Bee, we need people who are willing to WORK with the teachings,
not just READ them.  That's the problem.  How many people have
you met that are willing to dedicate their lives to Theosophy?
That is what is lacking today.  Think about this: if you were to
give up an exact amount of time to PROVE theosophy, the way Quan
Judge did, to the various new age groups, do you think you might
achieve any impact in your community by perhaps expanding
theosophical thinking within those circles? You won't make them
theosophists any more that HPB was able to make theosophists out
of the "Spiritists"(adjusting the word "Spiritualist" to fit
today's grammer.) but you Will have an impact.

I do believe that the first thing is to live the teachings in
every day life and then the rest should follow.  There are people
who know there is something to find but cannot find it so they
are the ones who need a spark lit to get them started on their
quest.  They are the ones I am thinking off.  It may not be
Theosophy that inspires them at that stage or any other stage,
for that matter, but to me that is not the important thing.
Giving them a helping hand to get started is what I feel for.
That has been my reason for asking about TS Yoga all along rather
than for the members who have elected to get as far as joining a
Lodge and then some seem to think that is all it takes to get
spirituality :-)

> Here's something to think about.  Everyone on Theos-L is talking
> about "Core Teachings" and "T.S.  Yoga." THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
> DOES NOT HAVE A SANCTIONED YOGA PRACTICE SINCE IT WAS NOT A PART
> OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, AND WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE! This does
> not say that individual groups could not be formed that work with
> Yoga, Psychic Developement, Etc.  It is simply not part of the
> "Party Platform." Example: There were several groups formed which
> did work with the third precept, one of them being the group at
> ADAYR who contributed to the material referenced in "MAN, Whence,
> How, and Whether" by Annie Besant.  But this was not officially
> Theosophical, no matter what anyone says.  The leader of a group
> sets the tone for the organization but does not change the
> official position of said organization.  why couldn't you gather
> a group of students and practice some development
> "Experementally" under the condition that everyone knew that it
> was not "Theosophy" but was going to be done under the pretense
> of the third precept.  You might get some flack, but didn't old
> HPB get enough of that during her lifetime?

Your point is well taken and I guess some 'steel in the backbone'
is the next requirement to progress.

Many thanks for your thoughtful post

Bee