Theos-Talk Archives (July 1997 Message tt00009)

Rich:

> For me tolerance means accepting that others think differently
> than I do.  I tolerate the fact that some people find Annie
> Besant's works more authoritative than Mr.  Judge's ...
>
> But for me tolerance does not mean dropping my faculty of
> discrimination and saying "yes, everything Annie Besant wrote is
> as useful and accurate as what Mr.  Judge wrote."
>
> So for unity, we cannot make an assumption that everyone accepts
> the same basic teachings, or teachers.

A few stray comments ...

We have a number of different variants of Theosophy.  Many
followers of each school will insist that theirs is the one true
philosophy.  As people continue to write, there will be further
schools and followings, a further fragmentation of the original
materials.  Can we stop this? Will any good come of it?

With a careful study of Blavatsky's writings, we can as
individuals see what ideas are consistent with what she said.  We
can find when new ideas amplify the philosophy, and when they
disagree.

This is not to say that Blavatsky's writings are infallible;
anyone can be wrong and make mistakes.  A math tutor, for
instance, may tell us what he's learned and we'd take in every
word as a treasure.  Even if he's had the best education and
teachers, though, he's human and can make mistakes and may not
know everything there's to know on the subject.

An organization is run by people according to what they think is
best.  It may be run democratically, serving the interests of the
changing demographics of its membership.  Or it may have
qualifications for office, in order to preserve a certain
philosophy, approach, or agenda that it has been founded to
fulfill.

I expect our various theosophical organizations to continue to
undergo change.  Some may decline and die.  Others may flourish.
I think that out of the growing chaos of beliefs there will arise
a few belief systems that will form future religious philosophies
for the west.  These belief systems will be beneficial to the
people that follow them.  We can play a role in taking from
Theosophy, Buddhism, western psychology, etc., to find a blend
that is a suitable prescription for the spiritual disarray and
darkness about us.

Apart form this work of helping Theosophy become the cornerstone
of future religions, we can also work on new ways to present the
original philosophy lucidly, reaching out and grabbing the minds
of the *few* that are drawn to something more.  This is with
regard to the second aspect of Theosophy in the west: as genuine
teachings from the Lesser Mysteries.  In this role, it's less
important to be concerned with science and precise literary
scholarship, since we're dealing with spiritual training and not
the transfer of factual knowledge.

Why isn't it important to treasure the tidbits of occult
knowledge found in the original literature? Because *we* are not
the care keepers of that treasury of knowledge; the Mahatmas are,
and they can recommunicate whatever is important when they
choose.

We can learn about them from the fragmentary information provided
in the literature, like in THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO AP SINNETT, but
that information is second-hand.  The only way to really know is
to engage the spiritual process, to awaken bodhichitta, to kindle
the inner fire (buddhi) to illumine the mind and heart.  To
participate in the work of the Lessor Mysteries, we have to
undertake inner work, changing ourselves.  As we open our minds
and hearts and grow in that direction, our efforts will not go
unnoticed.  We'll find suitable teachers in life for what we need
to learn, and we'll find plentiful opportunity to *share* and
bring light to the world in our own unique ways.  This is the
second kind of theosophical work that we can do.  What else is
there?