Theos-Talk Archives (January 2000 Message tt00029)

Jan 9th

Dallas offers for consideration the following thought on

	Label:  "THEOSOPHIST"


The term "neo-theosophist" is one that indicates only a time
structure that is imposed on the naming of students of THEOSOPHY.
There are apparently in some minds the concept of "old student"
and "new student."

None of Us, or "them," can accurately fall under any labels, as
we are all "old souls" and have reincarnated many times, and
perhaps we have contacted Theosophy in earlier times and under
different names.  A such our "position" is largely unknown, even
to ourselves.

New or old, we are all striving to improve.

Theosophy in reviewing the past and identifying the laws of true
growth in soul-wisdom serves to help us to advance, each in his
own way and at his own pace.  It pays no attention to "labels."

The designation of THEOSOPHIST ought to be reserved to the
Masters of Wisdom who actually PRACTICE IT.  We are "attempting"
to practice it and learn how to alter our lives and its
objectives.

All the rest of us are at best "students of Theosophy."  Some
attempt to practice it, hoping thereby to elevate their own moral
natures by using the ETHICS that Theosophy places before us, and
the REASONS that it gives for their use.

Regardless of designations, none of us can arrogate to ourselves
the designation "theosophist."  Unless we are indeed devotees and
have achieved some eminence in its practice.  Then, certainly,
such a person or persons would repudiate the designation if
attached to them personally.  The Buddhist Bhikshu, when
offering the teachings of the Buddha always said:  "Thus have I
heard...."

We live currently in a word of labels.  And labels have
unfortunately the capacity to blur the meaning of anything they
designate.  They lack accuracy in definition --  and each person
is an individual and any designation can only be applied to them
by those who truly understand the interior and REAL nature of
such a being.  We like to place people in "
pigeon holes" we have devised.  But that is entirely untrue.  By
using designations we think we are explaining, but in reality we
are using a kind of short-hand for our own convenience and hope
that others may also adopt it.  We may have even borrowed such
labels from others.

Let us all call ourselves "students of Theosophy."  None are yet
THEOSOPHISTS.

Fortunately THEOSOPHY is NOT  a religion, nor do its students
pretend to do more than try to understand the philosophy of the
"rational explanation of things."

I hope this may be of use.  There are "definite words for
definite things."

Dallas

dalval@nwc.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Davis, Fred [mailto:fdavis@texas.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2000 1:46 PM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-study] Re: "What are "neo-theosophists ?"
Importance: High


Carl and others on BN  -

I have some points of disagreement with what you have said,
but your request for the ability to indicate what you believe
without being regarded as intolerant of others should be honored.

HOWEVER
At the same time, if you must defend your position by using
labels of
"neo-theosophist" or "psuedo-theosophist" as others on this list
have, then
your point is not valid. You can not defend you position by
implying the
labels either ... ... . The teaching can be referenced for sure
but the
defense should be the message (your understanding of it) and we
must each
strive to argue from the message not from the authority that we
believe
stands behind our "own" words.  I trust the message if understood
from HPB
correctly will stand on its own without the "positioning".  It is
natural to
position in a discussion but there are several on the list (at
least in
their best times) that seek to make the message of HPB (in other
words, to
the best of their ability the teachings) the point of the
discussion and
what is really true in that message.  Honest students can have
different
positions on what the message was/is, but if the truth of what
the message
"is" is placed first ... then name calling is not resorted to.

Please look to WQJ article "DOGMATISM IN THEOSOPHY" reprinted in
Volume II
of "William Q. Judge Theosophical Articles" by Theosophy Company
page
221-222.

Let me cut a few words from the article:
----
"The Theosophical Society was founded to destroy dogmatism."
...
"... H.P.B. ... expresses the hope that the Society might not,
after her
death, become dogmatic or crystallize on some phase of thought or
philosophy, but that it might remain free and open, with its
members wise
and unselfish."
...
"If our effort is to succeed, we must avoid dogmatism in
theosophy as much
as in anything else, for the moment we dogmatise and insist on
our
construction of theosophy, that moment we lose sight of Universal
Brotherhood and sow the seeds of future trouble."
...
"... There is no orthodoxy in our Society ... "
...
"But at the same time it is obvious that to enter the Society and
then,
under our plea of tolerance, assert that theosophy shall not be
studied,
that the great body of thought and philosophy offered in our
literature
shall not be investigated, is untheosophical, unpractical, and
absurd, for
it were to nullify the very object of our organization; it is a
dogmatism
that flows from negation and indifference.  We must study the
philosophy and
the doctrines offered to us before we are in a position to pass
judgement
and say that they are not true or that they shall be rejected. To
judge or
reject before examination is the province of little minds or
prejudiced
dogmatists."
...
"So, then, a member of the Society, no matter how high or low his
or her
position in its ranks, has the right to promulgate all the
philosophical and
ethical ideas found in our literature to the best ability
possessed, and on
one else has the right to object, provided such promulgation is
accompanied
by a clear statement that it is not authorized or made orthodox
by any
declaration from the body corporate of the T.S. Our Society must
be kept
free and open, no matter if, because we refuse to formulate
beliefs as a
Society, we remain small in number, for we can always be strong
in
influence. Path, January, 1892 "

----
Let me submit my view that all of this talk about "neo-theosophy"
and
"psuedo-theosophy" verse what is obvious being presented as
"theosophy" is
close to a presentation of Orthodoxy and Dogmatism.  Margaret
Thomas has an
interesting book called "Theosophy Vs. Neo-Theosophy" printed by
ISIS BOOKS
that attempts to compare what is actually taught in the writings
about
different subjects.  This is a more constructive approach than
just labeling
and "taking one's ball and refusing to play". Let us try to
understand each
other not defeat each other. I submit that even though Margaret's
book makes
some strong view points about what many feel was wrong with the
theosophical
direction that C.W.L. and A.B. took the Theosophical Society ...
it presents
that view so that one can compare (some what) the difference
between what
HPB and ML and others taught and what C.W.L. and A.B. and other
taught.

If you can show the clear light you see in HPB teachings ... then
do so,
even if that is using a reference from a "psuedo-theosophist" or
"neo-theosophist".

Seems different groups use those two labels in different ways ...
and let me
remind you there is some division even in the HPB/WBJ follower
groups.

The theosophical groups, it would seem, have the same tendency to
fragment
like the protestants. And if you take out the teaching but just
look at the
group dynamics ... we theosophist have much more in common with
the
protestants with how/why their groups split and fight over
issues. None
protestants (that might think protestants are all wrong anyway)
can not see
anything but the same Dogmatic teachings (protestants split "in
their own
view" over dogma "teachings" but to the outsiders it appears the
minor
points since they basically are the same). Yes my fellow
theosophist ...
look in the mirror and see if you see yourself in your fellow
man.

My experience is that theosophy groups (even within Lodges of
certain
persuasions) many times disagree among themselves (unless the
group is
dominated by one or a few). To however not discuss the issues, to
resort to
"labeling" and "name calling" is simply childish and we need to
grow up.
There is a history in Theosophy that also shows a dark side in
the different
groups. Most of the darkness I have seen and read about, however,
has come
from the ignorance at different levels.  Some might better call
it maturity.
Please I beseech  each theosophist ... before you start calling
for stakes
to burn the "psuedo or neo" theosophist as heretics ... think in
larger
terms ... even if you can only grasp a larger view where some
orthodox
religious crusade comes along and labels us all "devils". Your
view of the
label "psuedo" or "neo" might not be so important when you will
find on the
pile of burning wood next to you that fellow theosophist.


If you call me a "neo-theosophist" or a "psuedo-theosophist" then
you had
better call HPB one too or you have a fight on your hands. If you
call me a
"Theosophist" then you had better correct your spelling, for to
me, I use
the "T" in spelling as I would between "self" and "Self" to mean
two
different things. Self is what I strive for, self is where I am
and to
reflect Self thru self is the "plan" ... yet what I know I have a
far path
to go, upward and onward, before that "Plan" will succeed.

- Fred Davis






---
Current topic is at
http://www.blavatsky.net/members/bnstudy/syllabus.htm

You are currently subscribed to bn-study as: [dalval@nwc.net]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-bn-study-2334861K@lists.lyris.net



-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.