Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00221)

Dallas wrote,



<<There appears to be some confusion over the use of English.  You

as a student of many religious and ancient texts are familiar

with the way in which words confuse meanings.



So there is always an outer and an inner meaning and it is of

course difficult to distinguish clearly between the two if one

focuses solely on the exterior style and superficial meaning.



Personally I am not daunted by any change in style of writing as

the English, to me has not changed in meaning..



I would not worry much over whether others have to labor to

relearn English because our educational system  is faulty.  Those

who want to learn will learn.>>

Rich replies,

Of course you are right, Dallas.  Those who are highly motivated *will* seek
out the deeper meanings and not be dismayed by mere words.  I certainly don't
mean to imply that HPB is opaque and that the original texts should not be the
primary study of Theosophists who want to know the original teachings.

I have also reconsidered my post a few days ago where I suggested that you,
like others associated with ULT, hold too slavishly to the 19th century
material without really plumbing the references that HPB makes to her
predecessors in Hinduism and Buddhism.  I owe you an apology for being too
accusative, too rigid myself.

However, this is my great fear: that we can emphasize the original teachings
so much that we *overcompensate* for those students who have made a mockery of
Theosophy.  By being so narrow ourselves on the source material of Theosophy,
we actually appear to actively discourage anyone from investigating HPB's
teachings, and discourage people from going to Tibetan and Sanskrit documents,
which she points to again and again, as closely related to what she is
teaching.  In some cases, where she merely hints, they go deeper.  And
perfectly good translations of these Eastern classics exist, far  better than
Max Muller's SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST series.

Many students have chosen to limit themselves entirely to what ULT, or
Pasadena T.S., has published.  Some students suggest that there is no reason
to inquire into other sources besides the SD, Isis, The Ocean, The Key, the
Voice, the Glossary, the Gita, Patanjali, the Dhammapada, HPB's and Judge's
articles.  For some Theosophists, these are the *only* appropriate study
materials, and anyone wanting more is ungrateful, arrogant, un-Theosophical.

This extreme focus on *only* what HPB and Judge wrote is no less an
"interpretation" of what Theosophy is than those students who go off, change
all the terms, make up new doctrines, and incorporate personal preferences
helter-skelter.  Do you see what I mean?  Or does this fall on deaf ears?

I merely propose that HPB's way of presenting the teachings (i.e., the
Masters' way of doing it) last century, while having a timeless quality, is
also bound by cultural assumptions and limited language (for instance, the
constant use of the word "savages" toward people who now live in the U.S.
along with every other ethnic group).  So I tend to speak out (too strongly at
times) for other "original" source material for Theosophy.  For example, HPB
makes a point of emphasizing the Books of Kiu-Te in her Secret Doctrine.
These were unknown last century, and Theosophists have assumed they were
secret books in Masters' keeping.  As it turns out, these books are none other
than the Tibetan Canon of a few hundred volumes (correctly spelled in Tibetan,
brGyur-sDe).

So while I agree with you Dallas, that one should never let go of HPB's
presentation of Theosophy, there are other (and dare I say higher?) teachers
in history, in the persons of Shankaracharya, the Buddha, perhaps others, who
also have left a large body of "source" material.  To neglect these documents,
though HPB points to them time and time again, is to "interpret" what
Theosophy is and is not.  In short, there is *no* escape from interpretation,
we all are forced to do it, as surely as Krishna points out that the very
forces of nature *compel* us to act, so we may as well act wisely.

I guess my overall point, which I want to make more gently this time, without
slamming ULT (read: fever), is to suggest that while some Theosophists prefer
a very narrow focus of source material, it is not fair to insinuate to others
that going to Indian, Tibetan, and other spiritual texts is somehow "straying
from the path."  Especially if the very reason for going to these texts is to
investigate, validate, and amplify what HPB wrote.

I hope my point is clear, and well-taken.  It is not meant with any harshness
or personal vendetta.

Rich