Theos-Talk Archives (August 1997 Message tt00000)

Comment on that given below: Harris Theos. Encyclop.

To be accurate and clear is not to be a "closed mind."

Opinions are by the million. A fact may be singular, or,
regarded from various aspects may seem to be altered. However,
if we agree on paramenters, then there will be agreement on
conclusions.

A study of the hostory of the theosohical Movement during the
past 122 years will revela that there are many deviations from
the presentation of the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS and the present
material given to inquirers.

It is important to recognize this difference.

It is equally important and a duty for students who desire to
"pass on the torch" to see that inquirers get the clearest view
of what THEOSOPHY offers, and NOT WHAT SOMEONE HAS GENERATED AS
AN OPINION.

Of course if one knows what THEOSOPHY teaches there is no
problem. If one desires to confuse people with many definitions
and opinions, it is easy. In such a case THEOSOPHY will suffer,
because it has been modified for whatever reason.

Is it the duty of an encylopedist to be accurate or not ?

Are views and opinions subsequent to those of the originators of
the TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY to be given equal space and listing ?

In my opinion, let us get back to the ORIGINALS, and let us
abandon parochialism, traditionalism, factionalism, and the
quoting of "atuhorities," or party-politics.

We all owe HPB our knowledge of THEOSOPHY. The rest is "student
work." and may reflect consciously or unconsciously opinions and
biases.

Let the encyclopedist, in making selection or in editing, provide
the honest, sincere and most accurate of definitions and
references.

Has Mr. harris ever read Margaret Thomas' THEOSOPHY OR
NE-THEOSOPHY ? If so he would be partially equipped to see the
difference between HPB Theosophy and that which diverged from
hers after her death, starting with the 40,000 alterations made
in the SECRET DOCTRINE by its being re-edited by Mead and Besant
in 1893. The subsequent addition of a spurious 3rd Volume in
1897 is additional evidence of the tampering with original
Theosophy and how it proceeded.

More data can be easily provided.

Bart Lidofsky wrote:
>
> There is, however, a difference between an open mind and a hole
> in the head. Some ideas are more likely to be correct than
> others. While humans may not be capable of purely objective
> knowledge, there are techniques to come arbitrarily close. And
> ideas which contradict this kind of knowledge require conclusive
> proof.