Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00184)

The exchange between Daniel and Andrew recalls some fundamental
questions that go way beyond the Theosophical movement, and touch
all religions and philosophies.  I'd like others to share
thoughts on this problem.  The main distinction between
fundamentalists and moderates or liberals in Christianity is a
chasm that also divides most or all other spiritual movements.
On one side are those who say that everything in the scriptures
is literally true and the source of authority is inerrant;
moreover if you don't accept this you're not a true believer.  On
the other side are those who regard much of the scriptures as
less than literally true in all respects, but find their value to
rest mainly in areas other than accurate description of external
reality.  And then of course there are many who reject
Christianity entirely because they don't accept the Bible
literally and therefore "the whole thing is a lie." As a liberal
Christian I'd call this throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Now, in the case of Bailey, I agree with Daniel's implication
which is that her whole D.K.  story just doesn't seem to hold
water.  I wonder, in the Arcane School, how freely one can be an
accepted participant while saying that the material is inspiring,
informative, useful etc.  but one doesn't buy the historical
claims about its source.  In Theosophy, there is a wide range of
opinion about the literal truth of HPB's writings in a historical
or scientific sense and even wider variations in opinion about
Leadbeater.  What binds us together, apart from these issues, is
a feeling of inspiration from and a recognition of value in the
material; what divides us is different perspectives on its
inerrancy and authority.  I find ARE to be the most comfortable
spiritual movement I know because this chasm hardly exists;
although there are those who are more literalist than others,
everyone agrees that the important thing is the usefulness of the
material, and that not all of it is true.

Edgar would say "Our ideals unite us, our ideas separate us." So
my question for myself and you all is how, in such a forum as
this, or the wider movement, how can we freely disagree about our
ideas while remaining united in our ideals? What distinguishes
constructive from destructive discourse among people who accept
and reject the claims of HPB or CWL or AAB or Steiner? I hate to
think that all the points of divergence have to be swept under
the rug to preserve peace.  But that would be better than putting
people down personally for holding different ideas than our own.

PS-- Having made up in the past two days for two years of
lurking, I'm willing to try Mark's suggestion of one post per
day.  Eldon-- a digest option would help in this regard as people
could use one post to reply to a whole day's worth of posts from
others, rather than replying individually to things that interest
us one at a time.  Any chance of offering a digest?