Theos-Talk Archives (September 1997 Message tt00022)

Perhaps, to me the question of personality and inpersonality is
not the matter at debate. Are we not striving at a unity around
the philosophy of Theosophy which we all know something of, and
this unity would be one where the most disparate elements would
be welcome ?

So leaving out points that antagonize (why antagonism ? -- What
rubs US the "wrong way ?") let us study what Theosophy has to
offer, regardless of the "source, or the name." Our part is to
inform and not to proselyte.

If Theosophy is found, on testing, to be a statement of the
workings of Nature, and to us many of these are as hidden as the
workings in our own bodies (of, for instance, the blood system or
the nervous system, taken as the two organs that pervade and
penetrate the whole body at every point in it; then what does it
matter to the unity of the whole if one job is done by the blood
and another is done by the neurons ? It is the health of the
Whole that matters and gives a "Physical Form" an opportunity to
live and work in our "world."

Each of us brings the train of memory, of their own experiences
with them. of situations and events we have experienced as a
pattern, (in general) is quite remarkable. So while we may not
always reach the same identity of conclusions in thought, we do
reach through conference a concensus to adopt or not to adopt
some particular way of saying or seeing things, or a point of
view. Each of us is like a comet or a planet, circling the fixed
central sun of a system of though in an ocean of spatial
thinking. We remain ourselves, while apprehending the positions
and movements of others. But on the whole, we do recognize those
relationships that make us both ourselves and describe our
dependence on others for our mutual positions and personal
existence.

The point at issue today as in the past, whether it be 88 or 107
years ago, is whether the IDEAS and the CONCEPTS offered by
Theosophy are useful and valuable. How they come to be presented
to us does not matter, really, unless we have a tendency to rely
on some name which we have found valuable in the past. It is the
idea or concept that is important, and not the means of
imporation or the name of its vehicle.

Some "theosophists" rely on HPB as their source for a stable and
reasonable base. And did she not show herself a true messenger
when she said: "Follow not me nor my path; follow the path I
show, the Masters who are behind." ?

Many in her days judged the teachings by what they could see (or
personally evaluate) of the teacher. They judged her by their
standards, and not by her adhesion to the Theosophy that she
taught. Some went so far, as we can trace from what they wrote,
as to try to "explain her away." They believed that they could
tell where she was right or wrong, and where she made "mistakes."

By broadcasting their opinions they made a claim to "authority"
which she never made (as anyone can see from the disclaimers to
authority she made in the Intrioductions and Prefaces of her
major works, and in many of her articles). In fact they
minimized that very Source, from which all of us and themselves
included, might place relaiance (but not "blind belief").

Be that as it may, the awakening of any mind to search from the
basis of their acquired knowledge into the origins and
development of it, for those verities on which knowledge depends,
and for the accuracy of its transmission to us, and, for the
"whys" of events and ideas, is a very important step. In effect
we step away (mentally) from our "mental furniture," and ask
ourselves: "Is this a fact, is this realy true?" Here we have our
"memories," our "record of facts," and ourselves--an independent
mind--able to take a position of independence, of impersonality
(?), and, independently inquire into its own functioning, and
into the nature and value of the material with which it has
hitherto surrounded itself. Interseting !

Anyone who has passed out of grade school into the University
environment finds that the nature of learning shifts from the
acquisition of mere data, into its evaluation. It changes into
the development of self-relaince as one develops a, more or less,
fearless approach to reconsideration of the actual merit of that
data. And, as the scholar-student proceeds, it develops an
independence of mind that can lead away from the accepted lines
of rote-research, into fields of consideration, based on data
that may have been omitted as "out-of-line," or "impossible"
because not within the norms of observation," etc.

This kind of pioneering research, especially when one gets into
post-graduate work, can eventually develop into the kind of
genius that is respected down the ages. The conformists, while
perhaps leading comfortable lives, leave virtually no impression
on the ages. For confirmation of this, one need only review a
score or so, of the "Great Lives" of history.

It makes no difference how others may look at the "manifestation
of impersonality," used as a bond and as a method of work by
those who adopt "ULT principles," to operate under. For them it
is apparently a useful thing and is employed in presenting
Theosophical ideas to others. It is no more "wrong," than is the
method of "labeling" each source with a "name." Just, different.

They. in ULT, claim they maintain this attitude because they do
not desire to stand between Theosophy and the inquirer or the
student. They endeavor to place HPB and WQJ, as honest and true
Messengers of the ever-existent THEOSOPHY, before those who
inquire. And this apparent depersonalizing of their
participation, is a discipline which seems unnecessary or
unpleasant to others. So be it.

We can all live together and remain correspondents, without
necessarily straight-jacketing each other into the patterns we
like. But the fact that there are different approaches is
interesting, and deserves further investigation as to cause and
usefulness, rather than anything else.

It was remarked that each of us is a mental being enveloped in a
psychic nature, and we can only function from that basis in our
present environment. Those familiar with the "Seven Principles"
as HPB describes them and their functioning in the KEY TO
THEOSOPHY, will grasp this concept. It demonstrates to each of
us the actual extent of our own in-depth knowledge of what
"Theosophy teaches" and, what we have understood of it. To be
honest with ourselves, we need from time to time to revitalize
our own thinking by going back to restudy those ideas as they
were originally presented.

The fact that others hold a different view ought to encourage all
participants to review the basis from which they speak, and try
and understand the "other side."

And that is ,of course, my opinion. Dallas