Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00072)

A cornerstone of the 'Theosophical Movement', particularly of the
'Adyar' T.S.  is freedom of belief.  Every month 'The
Theosophist' magazine published at Adyar includes a lengthy
statement of policy which begins, 'As the Theosophical Society
has spread far and wide over the world, and as members of all
religions have become members of it without surrendering the
special dogmas, teachings and beliefs of their respective faiths
it is thought desirable to emphasise the fact that THERE IS NO
DOCTRINE, NO OPINION, BY WHOMSOEVER TAUGHT OR HELD, THAT IS IN
ANYWAY BINDING ON ANY MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY, none which any
member is not free to accept or reject...' (my caps) I am
confident that adherents of other segments of the movement will,
in the main, endorse these sentiments.

The Esoteric Philosophy or, if you prefer, The Ancient Wisdom,
has been shared with humanity since the dawn of civilisation-
traces of it are found in the religions or systems of belief in
ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Druids, Sufis, etc.  I know it
is held in the custody of various gifted Sangomas of the Zulus
and other African peoples.  Down through the millenia this wisdom
has been communicated and interpreted according to the level of
comprehension of the recipients and the social mores of the time.
All methods of communication and all interpretations are fraught
with the risk of error.  Many of the great spiritual teachers of
the tradition have been at pains to warn against uncritical
acceptance of their teachings.  Indeed, it might be instructive
if some researcher were to categorise the various teachings of
the foremost originators into those who demanded uncritical
acceptance and those who, on the contrary, encouraged their
followers to think for themselves.  I will hazard a guess that
the teachings of the latter group will be close to the
theosophical philosophy and the former will diverge quite
markedly.

When I first came into the TS I read widely in the literature
and, discovering numerous wild 'flights of fancy' in the writings
of C.W.  Leadbeater, I tended to discount all he wrote and
taught.  Such statements as 'There are people and dwellings on
Mars and Venus' can only move one to mirth.  Later, as I learned
more of theosophy as it is found in other sources than the TS, I
came to the realisation that to discount any writer's submissions
because one identifies errors is to throw the baby out with the
bathwater! Blavatsky's writings include demonstrable errors (the
north polar continent for instance).  The Mahatma Letters have
errors; the statement that electricity heating a resistance does
so without loss is nonsense as is the statement that Jupiter
permanently occults a vast number of stars.  Surely no one would
advocate that we discard these writers from our list of
theosophical works! Leadbeater's work 'The Chakras' is highly
respected in quarters other than the TS and his work with Besant
'Occult Chemistry' has been taken seriously by Dr.  Stephen
Phillips who based a book on it- Phillips article for the
Theosophical Encyclopedia on 'Occult Chemistry' has been endorsed
by a Professor of Physics at the Atomic Research Station in
Bombay.

If one writer seems to contradict another then theosophists are
free to make their choice between them or reject both points of
view without attempting to persuade others that only one of them
is valid and the work of the other must be totally disregarded.

This then, is an appeal for more tolerance in our thinking about
'what is theosophy?' and whose work we endorse.  Every tree may
bear sound and rotten fruit- that is no reason to chop them down!