Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00231)

Dear Peter,

> It must be about 4 weeks now since I have been 'listening in' to this
> discussion group.  In that time there has been a great deal of
> animosity and
> personal insults expressed between some members. Sarcasm and clever quips
> lace a number of responses.  Sometimes it appears that questions are asked
> not for information but merely to show up the 'other person'.  Quotes from
> Theosophy and other sources are mostly offered as a help.  But, at other
> times they appear to be used as missiles aimed at the 'other person' to
> devalue their point of view rather than to add to a shared understanding.
> Individual views and personal positions appear to becoming more and more
> polarised around the above subject-topic.  Fewer people are posting to the
> List.  These are my observations, which may of course be mistaken.

It is possible that some on the list may have little or no interest in the
personalities involved in the discussions/questions.  Maybe this comes
across as animosity etc.?  Maybe there is actual animosity?  We each need to
the ask the question to ourselves.

There are times when we agree/disagree; quietly or outspokenly; with fervour
or with gentleness.  Does it mean we are any the less Brothers?

It could be said that HPB used quips on ocassion (depending on what we mean
by the term).  Where necessary she would meet oposition head on, with little
or no deference to western etiquet (sometimes a subtle form of dishonesty)
or custom and practice.   Are there not some things that it is impossible to
take seriously?

> My sense of the different contributors to this emotive debate is that each
> has a wealth of experience and knowledge that is worthy of sharing and
> listening to on this List.

We are all learners and individual comments/statements are open to question.
Is this not a valuable learning tool?; to have the personality-ego shaken
*and* stirred, thus revealing its own ignorance? "Nature spews out the
lukewarm" (HPB).

> The repeated pointing to perceived omissions or mistakes on HPB's part may
> simply lead us away from the actual teachings of Theosophy and
> appear, even
> when not intended, as criticism of HPB's standing and integrity in the
> Occult World.  The unwillingness to acknowledge that HPB may have made
> mistakes or omissions in her presentation of the Teachings, and that these
> may be worth pondering, is likely to appear as intransigence, even when it
> not intended as such and where such a defence of HPB arises
> mainly out of a
> sense of loyalty to a great soul and teacher of humanity.
>
> It seems to me that one of the central difficulties in discussing what HPB
> may or may not have left out in her teachings, or mistakes she may or may
> not have made is that we cannot ask her, or her Teachers, to clarify these
> points.

True. Humility - not criticism - is the wisest course.  Evidence - if any -
for believed "mistakes" must be subject to strict reasoning, logic and fact.

>  Are they errors, deliberate omissions, deliberate inclusions,
> esoteric blinds, or attempts on HPB's part to draw something to our
> attention?  Each of us today can only have very limited opinions
> as to what
> was in HPB's (and the Masters') mind at the time.  However,
> individual views
> tentatively aired and shared with a view to advancing our understanding of
> Theosophy can only benefit the group as a whole.  But the latter can only
> happen if we trust each other and are willing to offer a respect for the
> motives and integrity of the person sharing that we would wish to receive
> for ourselves
>
> To question Theosophy and HPB doesn't necessarily make some one
> an enemy of
> Theosophy and HPB.  In fact, I would argue that the fiercist enemies of
> Theosophy, the Dugpas, are those that know the Theosophical teachings and
> Laws of Occultism are real and not those who doubt them.

Likewise, questioning/knowledge may not *necessarily* be of theosophical
motive.  We all know of entrenched personalities who will question,
question, question until the cows come home, not in an endeavour to
learn/discover/understand but simply as a means of attention seeking.

Could anyone who *knew* the Theosophical teaching become a D****?  Or does
such a one only seek sufficient (hence impartial) knowledge to indulge
selfish desires?

> Lastly, it seems to me that there is such a tremendous amount of the
> Teachings that HPB and the Masters *did* put clearly and definitely in
> writing that we, as enquirers or serious students of the Inner Life, have
> more than enough to explore for the next 7x7x7 plus 7 lives
> without worrying
> too much about what may or may not be mistakes.

Well said.  Let us presume that HPB/Masters put clearly all that *could* be
put clearly under the circumstances (including, for example, the inherent
limitation of the "hopelessly inadequate" English language).

>  Yet to acknowledge the
> possibility of these can have its rightful place and provide food for
> thought as it throws us back on our own inner resources.
>
> So, is it possible to acknowledge that there are differences of views and
> yet to *actively* draw upon the things we have in common?  Is it
> possible to
> develop a mutual respect and support for each other, even when
> views differ
> from our own, in our endeavour to better understand and live the life of
> Theosophy?  My sense is that individuals on both sides of this
> debate would
> like to do just that.

Question: what common ground is there between Truth and Error?

> It may be a long, long way off to reach the heights of someone
> such as HPB,
> let alone her Teachers.  Yet in the meantime each one of us may become in
> this very moment a Philaletheian, a Lover of Truth and encourage
> this 'love'
> in our fellows.  In this we will be following in Their most noble
> footsteps.
>
> With best wishes and respects to all,
>
> Peter
>
> ps:  I include the quote below as it is one that helps me to
> remember not to
> get too caught up in analysing the details, to always return to general
> principles and fundamentals of Theosophy, and to remember that perplexity
> has its place.
>
> "It is impossible, when the complicated facts of an entirely unfamiliar
> science are being presented to untrained minds for the first time, to put
> them forward with all their appropriate qualifications . . . and abnormal
> developments. . . . We must be content to take the broad rules first and
> deal with the exceptions afterwards, and especially is this the case with
> study, in connection with which the traditional methods of teaching,
> generally followed, aim at impressing every fresh idea on the memory by
> provoking the perplexity it at last relieves."
>
> From Secret Doctrine vol 1, p162

Maybe Peter's main theme here is less chatter and banter (of personalities)
and more study/enquiry of Theosophy?  What can be wrong with that?

Best wishes,
Paul.