Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00563)

April 27th 1998

Dear Ringding:

May I attach some comments to what you write ?

>From: "Frank Reitemeyer" <ringding@csi.com>
>Date: Saturday, April 25, 1998 7:16 PM
>Subject: Re:Coherence

...................................SNIP

>I sense Dallas refers to the doctrines of theosophy itself,
>not to the explanation of its several teachings. Theosophy is
consistent when taken as a whole and not cut into pieces.
>


 That is exactly what I mean.

 In fact THEOSOPHY does not need to be defended or to
"defend itself"
 Its consistency does that for it. One need only to
carefully study
 and verify, seeking in it for the coherence and
continuity of its propositions.

 HPB in several places says that Theosophy offers, as
"history," the results
 of investigations by generations of students and
Adepts, whose individual
 research has always been fully recheked before
acceptance.

 Opinions are a "dime a dozen." They make for commotion.
They do not
 solve anything unless the basis they start from is
factual. But for some
 they make for excitement, uncertainty, doubt,
confusion, curiosity,
 suspicion, argument, and obstinacy. In other cases
where there is a
 sincere search for verity, for accuracy, they are
resolved in an atmos-
 here of good will and mutual help. It is precisely
for this kind of discussion
 and common assistance that the Theosophical Society
was started. It
 was never meant to be a platform for dogmatism, or
contention or the
 politics of office seekers who try to preserve their
"positons."

 The quckest way to solve any residual dissatsfaction
with any situation
 that has become untennable, is to resign and
register protest. One's
 reasons and principles may be clearly stated for
other's benefit.

Dal


.................................SNIP

>One should not confuse theosophy and their formulation of
>it.

=======================================

 Exactly. No one will offer anything but the best way in
which they hope
they will be understood. That is, if thier motive is
constructive.

 Anyone who really studies Theosophy, as put forward by
HPB and the Masters, will find there is far more of consistency,
than apparent surface inaccuracy. Further if one integrates
chronologically the flow of doctrine, questions, answers and
correspondence one can prove this satsfactorily.
Let me say that that is the way I employ. There are no "good"
shortcuts.

Dal.

==============================================
.
...........................SNIP
>
>Wrong. The doctrines as a whole where taught by her from
>the first time of her arrival in New York in the ES.
>Judge certifies i.e. that he was been taught about
>reincarnation in 1874. Judge continued to teach the
>esoteric doctrines when HPB installed him as leader of the
>E.S. in 1879, when she and Olcott were leaving for India.
>
===================================================
..................................SNIP

 Dallas writes:

The last part of this statement is inaccurate. Judge was
apparently initiated in 1874 as in 1888 HPB gives him the
certificate (dated Dec. 14, 1888, in the 14th year of the T S )
that you mention and states that he had been a "chela" for 13
years. She put him in charge, as he5r "agent" of the E S section
in America.
Apparently, Olcott was offered the same "positin" for Asia and
India, but was not interested. After HPB's death when the E S
was "reorganized," this offer was renewed to him, but he was
stilll uniterested. In the book LETTERS FROM THE MASTERS OF
WISDOM, Vol. 1, (1918 original edition, TPH, Adyar) starting on
p. 50 is an important letter from the Master sent to Olcott on
board of the S.S.Shannon which was still at sea. The date of
receipt was August 22, 1888. It made it amply clear to him that
their relations with HPB had not changed, and that she was
responsible to Them for the conduct of the Theosophical Movement
as they deisred it to be. [Portions of this letter were printed
in LUCIFER for October 1888, Vol. 3, p. 145-7 -- it has also been
reprinted elsewhere.]

In 1879 when HPB and Olcott left for India from New York, they
went as a "Delegation" of the TS, a "Committee." The intention
for the T S (which had been originated in New York in late 1875,
and inaugurated Nov. 17th; and which remained there, in charge
of Genl. Abner Doubleday as President pro tem, and Mr. W.Q.Judge
who acted as Secretary) was to join forces with Dayand Saraswati
and the ARYA SAMAJ (Society of the Nobles) which Dayanand has
originated in India to purify Brahmanism and Hinduism among the
masses and the classes there.

The story of the failure of this Arya Samaj mission is found
narrated in the first three volumes of THEOSOPHIST. Dayanand
turned authoritarian and dictatorial which is the opposite of the
practice of true Theosophy. Hence it became necessary for the TS
as represented by Olcott and HPB to work separately and to spread
the ideas and mission of the T S as quickly as possible in India,
Ceylon, Burma, etc...and in this they were highly successful as a
history of the Theos. Movement shows. Originally, and for some
years the T S patterned its policies, entrance, meetings, etc.
after some of the Masonic methods. One had to be a member in
good standing to attend meetings, etc... That was changed later
on and the meetings were increasingly opened to the public at
large, and the original rituals and secrecy were dropped.

It was not until 1887/8 that a demand for a closer practice of
Theosophy forced the origination of the E S -- again a matter of
history. The demand originated in the USA. In PRACTICAL
OCCULTISM (Letter from W.Q.Judge, dated May 18, (1887) published
by Theos. University Press, Pasadena in 1981 -- pp. 85-6) will be
found a copy of the original suggestion. In London (and
elsewhere, scattered students here and there across the world),
and some who had banded together in what what called then, the
"Inner Group," had expressed their desire to HPB for a more
intimate study of practial Theosophy, and, if found worthy,
access to some deeper aspects of the esoteric wisdom of the
Adepts, and perhaps, they hoped that they might become Their
pupils.

Dal.

===========================================

 [ At this point you give some detail about the claims that
CWL made which were
found false, inacurate, etc.

 Dallas writes:

 I believe it would carry a lot more weight if you could
actually give references to enable students to check for
themselves the points that you make. Most have no idea of the
exact state of affairs and of the historical events for which you
give a summary. I would like to have such cross references for
my own files.

Dal.
===============================================

........................................SNIP

. Yes, this all of CWL is truly a kind of consistency :-

>You have no more to think for yourself. All is good. All is
>easy. Just believe and trust. Make some left tantric
>practices and make some degenerated Greek worships and
>ceremonies and the astral world is open to you. You will
>soon become a Mahatma or a Bodhisattva or a Logos or an even
>higher being.
......
>
>Variations in giving teachings out deal rather more with the
>quality of the pupil and his ability to grasp it than with
>the knowledge of the teacher itself. When a school teacher
>has a first class to teach he teaches the ABC, when he
>teaches a higher class he perhaps is able to teach Algebra
>or Latin. It is a wrong conclusion to assume that the
>teacher knew nothing about Algebra or Latin when he taught
>the first class...

=========================================

.................................SNIP

I think the analogy is well drawn above in regard to the
consistency of HPB's
teachings. But there are no traceable serious gaps or
contradictions which can be juxtaposed. There are changes in
language, etc. but HPB has explained these in her last article:
"MY BOOKS," published in LUCIFER for April 1891 (p. 473, Vol.
1, of HPB Collected Articles, ULT ).

Dal.

===========================================
>
>Curiously, the Krishnamurti business sells dozens and dozens
>of books... Why? .... .... ....

>The teachings HPB delivered ARE consistent as much as the
>teachings of her successors because they are from the same
>source, the same school. They are definitely not from the
>psychic or astral world.

============================================

 Dallas offers:

If the teachings of HPB's (self-proclaimed) "successors" are
consistent with what HPB taught, then I would say that they are
useful, if they illustrate some point, or expand on some
teaching. The writings of Mr. W. Q. Judge from the magazine PATH
are a case in point and HPB herself praised them more than once.

It might be tedious to quote at length from HPB's several letters
on the theme of Mr. Judge's worth. If you happen to have a copy
of LETTERS THAT HAVE HELPED ME, the Centenary Dition, 1946,
published by the ULT ( Theosophy Company, Los Angeles ) you will
find from p. 276 on, several letters to this effect writtn by
HPB.

As far as I can see on reading, AB and CWL went off on their own
tangents and developed rather marvelous but also unfounded
claims, as far as I can trace, based on psychic experiences,
which seem tohave nothing to do with the ancient recrods that HPB
explains. They arouse curiosity and wonder, but do not explain.

I have also looked into several of G de P's books and find that
while he explains, his explanations seem to remain superficial,
treating the inquirers as though they, infants in theosophy,
could not plumb its depths (as he could, by implication, and by
actual statements he made), and therefore he would satisfy them
with his interpretation -- an interpretation which he tailored to
their supposed level of understanding.

I state this as a matter of the way in which I read and react.
In considering some of these interpretations, I have not felt
that they had the strength of the "original teachings." And, I
do not like information to be "wattered down." I am of the
opinion that all answers ought to be treated seriously, and that
the full weight of evidence which Theosophy offers ought to be
made available to an inquirer.

It is also to be recognized that some statements need to be
carefully investigated before acceptance. In fact no answer (and
especially those which I offer) ought to be accepted, and no
statement ought to be cnsidered valid, until the student or
inquirer has spent as much time as he can in verifying and
demonstrating to
himself, on a continuing basis, the truthfulness and worth of any
proposition offered, or any explanation given. But, that is my
own personal opinion in regard to these three writers. And I
believe that those interested in Theosophy, wherever they may be,
and whatever their affiliations are, ought to adopt these (if
they have notalready done so). The tolerance, amity, and clarity
of thought and exchange is an important aspect of our theos-talk
exchanges. I always welcome correction and variance of opinion if
it is well supported by commonly verifyable facts. Please excuse
this somewhat harsh or abrupt way of stating my attitude.

Dal

=========================================
................................... SNIP
/////////////////////////////////////////