Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00115)

In a message dated 11/11/98 4:31:03 PM, Dallas wrote:

<<>You (I, all of us) are at liberty to disagree and to study

>anything you/we please or employ any "bridge" or "filter" one

>chooses when thinking of, or trying to speak of Theosophical

>themes, but if you/we do not start from where THEOSOPHY starts,

>then there will be confusion and a great exchange of words.  And

>to me, that is quite wasteful.

>


And Jerry S. replied,


Well, like a broken record there you go again. Now please try

to listen to what I am saying just this one time. Please. I am not

talking about "filters" or "bridges" or whatever, but about HPB

and her original writings. You quote her original words to use

to show me exactly what you mean on some topic, and I in turn

agree completely with HPB's words but still don't agree with you.

Why is that, Dallas? Could it possibly be that we both interpret

her differently? Will accepting this confuse you and cause you

anguish? Is that why you don't want to accept the fact that even

HPB and the MLs can be interpreted different ways? I suppose

that in accepting this, one also has to accept that going back

to the "source" is not without its own problems, and so you

would have to rethink your whole approach on this list. Please

think about this, though. If I am wrong, I will kindly back off. >>

Rich Taylor responds,

Jerry, this is a problem that all long-time ULT students have.  Much as I
appreciate Dallas in his ability to go to the source (and like most ULT
students, he knows the source material very, very well), there is a *very*
deep-seated myth in ULT that if you can quote the original material, and speak
in the same words, you understand what HPB is saying with *No Interpretation.*
I can't stress this myth strongly enough.

Because the original books are kept in print, and the Key and the Ocean are
read over and over again in study classes (with absolutely nothing outside the
Theosophical canon allowed into group study at most lodges) ULTers imagine
that they are still doing HPB's work, and that they aren't changing the
movement one bit, unlike, say, all the naughty Adyar people, and even the
slightly less naughty Point Loma/Pasadena folks, who accepted new Leaders.

While I am technically a ULT student, I must respectfully disagree with this
rather, er, fundamentalist position.  There is a *tremendous* value in keeping
the original books in print, and turning to them for study tiem and again.  I
doubt a single person in this list would want to disagree with the fact that
HPB's material, and even that of her immediate pupils like Judge, is much
closer in fact and spirit to the actual Esoteric Philosophy than most of us
will ever get, via learning or via direct experience.

*HOWEVER*, as Jerry Schueler is showing time and time again, to read is not to
understand.  To use the same words is *not* to say the same thing.  Dallas,
well-intentioned and learned as he is, does not grasp this fact any more than
most well-meaning but entrenched ULT students (and I do mean "trenches" here,
in a pitched war against the "enemy" -- change).  Unfortunately,
interpretation is simply *unavoidable* when studying any difficult subject,
and using the same words as HPB does not obviate this fact.  It is a fact.
The very nature of the disagreement between Jerry and Dallas on basic points
of doctrine (with Jerry, in my opinion, holding more to a Buddhist Madhyamika-
Nagarjuna style interpretation) proves that this assertion is a fact.  We
*ALL* interpret.  Some may interpret better or worse, but that is largely a
matter of opinion, unless any of us has a Mahatma-like grasp on the *true
hidden* doctrine, and is in touch with the Higher Self almost constantly.

I do not wish to slander ULT, as I have gained a very, very great deal from
study in that fashion.  But I also realize that the world of philosophy and
esoteric understanding is bigger than slavish and sole adherence to HPB's
terms and writings will allow.  For example, if we never study Buddhist
classics, we will never have an idea what the heck HPB is talking about when
she refers to all these dead Sanskrit writers and their books.  But she
mentions them often enough that the astute will take a clue, and turn to these
sources to further eludicate Theosophical teachings.  And these, in turn, will
alter our *interpretations* of her works, even if people, like me, continue to
use the same vocabulary.

This is a critical issue that Jerry S. raises, and one whose misunderstanding
deeply inhibits greater Theosophical cooperation.