Theos-Talk Archives (September 1997 Message tt00030)

Dallas:

> Perhaps, to me the question of personality and impersonality 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?

I absolutely agree that unity around the philosophy is the
paramount issue. But I am also suggesting that even if we
Theosophists experience disagreement it is not a catastrophe. I
think that often Theosophical students (especially ULT folks) are
not used to the true DEBATE that goes on in politics,
universities, etc. This is both good and bad. But I for one
needn't fear the give and take of different ideas and approaches,
as long as things stay "on topic" and are not aimed at
individuals, trying to tear people up or elevate oneself. So far
this list has been remarkably good at this !

> 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-reliance as one develops a ... fearless
> approach to reconsideration of the actual merit of that data.
> ...

And this holds true in the Theosophical world as well . After a
time, the alert Theosophist begins to become a Thinker for him or
herself. I don't mean in the sense of "cockiness" or
argumentative, but in the sense of self-reliance. Did HPB really
write the truth? How do I know? How can I find out? What about
the vehicles that exist for Theosophy today, the publications and
associations? How are they to be evaluated? One begins to
question "the party line" and think independently -- sometimes
coming back to the "party" and sometimes striking out on one's
own. This all seems a natural and even healthy part of
Theosophical "adolesence" and "adulthood" -- if carried out with
respect for others who may be at different stages.

> 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.

This seems a key concept: Can we really present Theosophy in a
completely neutral and impersonal way? I am skeptical. One is
certainly duty-bound to point to the *original sources* as
containing the PRINCIPLES and TEACHINGS of Theosophy. If an
inquirer asks, "What does Theosophy teach," I find it essential
to immediately direct the inquirer to the SOURCES of Theosophy in
our era. I don't think those sources are LIMITED to Blavatsky
and Judge, but I find those two teachers the best place to START.
Soon inquirers will want to explore the Gita, the Buddhist
sutras, the Upanishads, the Tao Te Ching, and other classics.
HPB has no monopoly on truth. But I uphold this ULT tradition of
"keeping to the lines laid down."

This does not however mean that such a presentation of Theosophy
is neutral or impersonal !! We are personal beings. When
students ask questions, we as human beings answer them with the
best resources we have. This is interpretation. Even when we
say, "let's look at what HPB said about that point" we are
interpreting -- we are teaching -- we are showing the student a
method of approaching Theosophy. And what we point to in HPB is
not without personal influence or interpretation either. I
choose to direct people to the S.D. as soon as possible. Other
students are horrified at this. I highlight certain things HPB
says (human principles, karma, reincarnation, cycles) before
others (giants in Atlantis, rounds and races, life on other
planets). In this way I am "interpreting" the teachings based on
my understanding of effective teaching and the needs of a
newcomer. I am not interposing myself BETWEEN Theosophy and its
teachers, but I admit that my approach is only one among many.
There are other ways to teach Theosophy, other INTERPRETATIONS.

The trouble in ULT students is that often we are caught up in the
idea that we are not INFLUENCING the very tradition we are
carrying on. We seem to imagine that our efforts are
interpretation-free, dogma-free, clear as water, impersonal, that
we leave the original materials untouched. This is a falsehood.
Our approach is as much an "interpretation" of what Theosophy is
as someone who immediately hands a newcomer one of Leadbeater's
potboilers.

I think it's important to ADMIT OUR HUMAN ROLE in this movement
and not continue to deceive ourselves that our approach is
impersonal and completely free of interpretation. In ULT we have
developed a "culture" as much as any other association of
Theosophists, we have our peculiar ways and means, and these are
not to be ignored. Under examination, they may not even prove to
be the best !

Rich

And while the past of each of us is "different in detail," the
similarity