Theos-Talk Archives (February 2001 Message tt00172)

February 24, 2001


Dear Bart:


I am a partisan of no faction.

I have no special need for any faction, tradition, or anything
else. Those have nothing to do with THEOSOPHY, although they
assist in promulgating it and keeping it before the public for
their benefit. After all, Theosophy is for those who WANT IT.
No one can cram it down another's throat. No faction or
organization has ever been able to entirely stifle free-thought.
Democracy is the apotheosis of free-thought, and no individual
can frame a format to which all will be subject.

I say that a study of THEOSOPHY (and I mean what H.P.B. has
written), gives anyone a basis for considering and rating what
anyone else has written on or about the subject (INCLUDING
MYSELF, of course). I do not claim to write "theosophy" but only
to point to the common source from which we have all learned or
are able to learn. There is no reason why it is not possible to
point to a SOURCE and leave individuals to seek and research for
themselves. Let the GOAL, the SEARCH and the BASIS be the
stabilizers, and not some "name" given to any individual or
group.

I would say it is more valuable for each member to test that
ORIGINAL THEOSOPHY than to start off with someone of lesser
stature than H.P.B. Or, to spend much time studying one who is
saying that they could do better than H.P.B. has. That remains
to be proved.

How many have written anything as coherent and reasonable as ISIS
UNVEILED, the SECRET DOCTRINE, the KEY TO THEOSOPHY, the VOICE OF
THE SILENCE and the dozens of ARTICLES that H.P.B. has written?
When I see that, then I say we/I can applaud. I, personally, do
not pretend to anything like that, as I have not the knowledge to
do that. But I can and will say what I think of anything offered
in the name of "Theosophy." And of course, I should add, as I
understand it. We all have the vision of a GOAL called vaguely
PERFECTION. We all know we have along path of study and
self-purification ahead of us. We all know that there is in the
lore and science of mankind the kind of basis we may all contact
and trust. Try H.P.B.'s Theosophy -- without interpreters to
confuse us. That is what I would recommend now as in the past.

Individually, I have developed an appreciation for what H.P.B.
wrote and taught on behalf of the Masters, as she and they said
they had jointly contributed to that ORIGINAL LITERATURE. I
think I understand it, and write and speak accordingly. I don't
think any attempt to rewrite or to simplify it, or to put it in
modern language is anything but presumption. But there it is
again, my own opinion. When we have attained the Masters' and
H.P.B.'s experience we may be able to make "changes," but it is
dangerous (I think) to do so before that time.

I do not view myself as an authority. If I quote, it is because
THEOSOPHY has something to say. It is true that I am responsible
for the selection. Those who read may have other views. We are
not separate, but we are fractions of the same UNIT. We may see
differently. And the difference, when offered enables us all to
progress. I know in retrospect I saw differently when I was
younger than now, but then many hours of study and experience
have intervened. If I am offered something that tallies with
(what I know of) Theosophy I appreciate it and say so. If I
err, I am glad someone points it out and I also appreciate that.
Who is perfect ?

There is no use trying to say anyone (me included) is a
"follower" of this or that. We are all seeking TRUTH in our own
way. So who is to criticize or characterize another?

As I see it, the value of "H.P.B. THEOSOPHY" is that it is
ORIGINAL. I can say I have tested most of it by study and
thought. I find it useful. I do not have to ADD anything to it
to please myself. Does this make me dogmatic? Well, then each
one is dogmatic to the extent that he/she does not consider other
ideas. I have studied far and wide, independently. That makes
me nothing more than I am, a student seeking to offer others the
benefit (if any) of his search.

In writing I have compared Theosophical logic and history to the
accounts that true Scientists make. They observe and they report
on what they saw. [ The ADEPTS, MAHATMAS, etc... have the
advantage that they can consciously recall actual first hand
views, their own experiences and accounts of events which are so
far distant that our myths, theogonies and legends, do not
provide us any sure base.] (S.D. I 272-3 reports on this.)

When however they (modern scientists, within the basis of their
observations over the past 3 or 400 years, claim to explain
events and causes that are millions of years in the past, or are
yet to be discovered by them in NATURE) advance theories that
cannot be verified, and are speculative, those TRUE SCIENTISTS
say so. They do not pretend to have unveiled NATURE (ISIS). In
their search for THE SECRET DOCTRINE, they may have discovered
the VOICE OF THE SILENCE to be the HEART DOCTRINE they
intuitively seek.

I would think that the desire to find TRUTH includes humility.
We all, individually, are so limited in what we can say. Look
back at H.P.B. and her times -- how many were skeptical? Even
the famous phenomena in Simla of the extra cup and saucer.
Persons who witnessed the event remained skeptics. Why ? What
causes that in human nature?

If anything divides it is the personal approach. If one is said
to "follow" someone else slavishly, without independent thought,
then why look at me? Look rather to H.P.B. and the Masters and
what can be done by all of us for HUMANITY. The practice of
BROTHERHOOD, the 1st OBJECT of the T.S. is our real aim, and we
cannot do that without knowing something of the theory that is
offered to us to study and verify.

THEOSOPHY is not what anyone today says it is, nor is it the
result of a consensus that says it is so and so. Theosophy is a
HISTORICAL report millions of years old on the advance of
intelligence in the human race and its endeavor to understand
NATURE -- the UNIVERSE and its LAWS -- all of which are far older
than our present brief lives. The Adepts have stated that they
spent thousands of years testing and verifying the traditions of
old to make sure they were accurate and still applied to the
present cycle. Can we assist?

Each individual, then, decides what they will study, and apply.
And that does not relate to the way in which others react. Nor
has it anything to do with organizations.

However if one asks who or what is the best exponent of
THEOSOPHY, then, why wander at the foot of the mountain when it
is plain to all that the best view is from the top?

To me H.P.B. and her pioneering works represent the best and
surest approach to THEOSOPHY And so I proclaim them. And
further I invite all concerned to do their own work, and not
adopt the work of others (or anything I may say) unless they, by
their own investigation find it is true and useful -- let each
"find out for himself." I do not need to either defend myself,
nor to induce others to emulate my views and methods. In final
case, everyone has to make up their own minds (self-induced and
self-devised ways and means). So we might as well draw a wide
circle in which we all include one another, and get on with the
work of finding out how to become better human beings.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak clearly, as I always try to
do, quite mindful that anything I say may be in error and wrong,
and I always value the help offered by others in trying to find a
better expression of it.

Best wishes,

Dallas

================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Bart Lidofsky [mailto:bartl@sprynet.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 7:12 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World Pseudosophy

sanctius@mail.com wrote:
>
> Dallas:
> >Yes there are differences between ORIGINAL THEOSOPHY and
> >Pseudo-theosophy which has arisen AFTER THE DEATH OF H.P.B.
> >The problem is to distinguish between the two.
>
> That is something new to me, and I'm definetly interested!
> Why not give a try to distinguish those two? So you say
> there are TWO factions, a) Original Theosophy or True
> Theosophy and b) Pseudo Theosophy or False Theosophy?
> Each theosophic author therefore falls in one category.
> Not both, just one. Just fill in the blanks with a or b.
> Remember to include yourself. Please feel free to add as
> many theosophical authors as you like:

Getting serious now, there IS some merit to Dallas'
contention.
Theosophy is not supposed to be a religion; it is more taking
religion,
and paying attention instead to the "man behind the curtain", to
use a
phrase from a prominent Theosophical author. The problem is that
everybody wanted to be a successor to Blavatsky and nobody wanted
to be
a successor to Olcott. In doing so, many of these leaders tried
to take
their personal religious views, and make them the official
Theosophical
Society "party line". Unfortunately, one reaction to this was to
turn
the "Primary Literature" into religious tracts themselves; in
other
words, turning Theosophy into a dogma to prevent it from becoming
a
religion. Those who follow that path have been known to call
their
dogmatic viewpoint "True Theosophy", and the dogmatic viewpoints
of
others "Pseudo Theosophy".

One of the things which keeps me in the TS-Adyar is that,
although
there are many religious elements that have crept in, TS-Adyar is
the
only Theosophical organization which is democratically
controlled, and,
although it is slow, it CAN be changed.

Bart Lidofsky



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/