Theos-Talk Archives (October 2000 Message tt00269)

Art,

I think you are misrepresenting what Dallas wrote. The subject of his
discussion with Kym et al was: What does Theosophy teach?

He suggested, among many other things, that in order to answer this question
it would be valuable to have studied the writings already given to us by HPB
and the Mahatmas, the founders of the TS. He says if we don't know what
they have given us we are not really in a position to debate the fundamental
tenets found therein - either pro or con.

This makes sense, doesn't it. How could we discuss what Buddhism teaches,
the Upanishads, Sankara's commentaries on the latter, the teachings of
Jesus, Plato, Appolonius, Ammonius Saccas etc if we are not familiar with
material.

Dallas wrote:

> while there may be many personal opinions, there
> ought to be also some area of debate on WHAT THEOSOPHY
> TEACHES -- appealing to the record left to us to study.

I find this a reasonable suggestion which, again, could be applied to
Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity or any other focus of study.

You write:

> we cannot expect the rest of the world to beat our doors down
> waiting in baited breath for the last word of any of these past
> writers and authorities in Theosophy..

I don't believe any expectation was ever mentioned. What were mentioned
were suggestions for guidelines among fellow students of Theosophy.

You continue:

> ...in fact it is often quoted that we should not
> rely on past authority simply because ---- said it!

Well yes, but what has that got to do with what Dallas was saying. In fact
he wrote:

> Freedom and Brotherhood are the keys to the external
> Unity of Theosophy and its students and practitioners
> in the world. Openness is the only way in which we may
> all have even access to TRUTH. Science to be true has
> to consider all aspects and facts, so as to derive
> an accurate vision and concept of motive, action, result
> and what an ideal ought to be in such a case.

Art, to study the fundamental tenets of Theosophy as found in HPB and the
Mahatma's writings does not immediately equate with accepting something as
true says simply because they say it is. The same is the case when studying
the fundamental teachings of Buddhism, Hinduism & so on.

You seem to infer that to study HPB writings means one is caught up in the
past. Would you say the same is the case for any genuine study of the
worlds spiritual traditions and individuals, many of which lived before the
time of HPB? Or even of those individuals who lived after the time of HPB
but are now dead?

How does your eight month study of David Fiedeler's "Jesus Christ Sun of
God." fit into this notion of dwelling on past authorities?

Were you and your group members expecting "the rest of the world to beat
[y]our doors down waiting in baited breath for the last word.." that David
Fiedeler had to say on Jesus? If not then why use that statement in
reference to Dal's suggestion that we familiarise ourselves with what HPB
and the Mahatmas wrote?

You write:

> So if the most hallowed and revered among us is contradicted by
> a reality or truth, our duty is not to bury our heads further into
> the sand

Yes, I agree. And I think if we take Dal's advice and really familiarise
ourselves with the original writings of HPB and the Mahatma's we will have
an opportunity to discover the extent of some of these contradictions and
reflect on their importance or otherwise.

You suggest that we:

> appreciate truth as we can understand it and be
> guided by that understanding

That's a nice way of putting it.

...Peter




> -----Original Message-----
> From: arthra999@yahoo.com [mailto:arthra999@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 23 October 2000 03:13
> To: theos-talk@egroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World The matter of authority in seeking truth...
>
>
> I think the issue of "authority" in seeking truth applies to an
> issue raised by Dallas in his sixth point:
>
> 6. Obviously if one does not study the record of Theosophy,
> (I mean the literature left to us primarily by HPB and the
> Masters in Their articles and letters) one is not in a position
> to debate it either pro or con. Such discussion as has real and
> continuing value arises between students who have made
> themselves
> familiar with the records, and can discuss them accurately...
>
> While I respect the dedication of Dallas to the records of
> theosophy I doubt that this alone should be a criteria in an
> argument.
>
> It seems to me that a kind of mind set or thought form is not
> needed when confronting or dealing with truth, which is after all
> the motto of the TS..."there is no religion higher than truth" ...we
> cannot expect the rest of the world to beat our doors down
> waiting in baited breath for the last word of any of these past
> writers and authorities in Theosophy, in fact it is often quoted that
> we should not rely on past authority simply because ---- said it!
> So if the most hallowed and revered among us is contradicted by
> a reality or truth, our duty is not to bury our heads further into
> the
> sand, but to appreciate truth as we can understand it and be
> guided by that understanding.
>
>
> - Art