Theos-Talk Archives (March 2001 Message tt00008)

Dear friend:

I agree with you that rehashing the matter of what it THEOSOPHY
can be tiresome if one does not study what H.P.B. wrote -- those
who debate then know only their half of the subject and not
both -- and that makes comparison difficult I have participated
in many such fruitless debates.

If one is confronted with differences, one needs to find which of
the positions is correct. I see no problem in that if the work
is done.

In no way is it of any use saying anyone is WRONG. Each has to
find out for themselves.

The splits in understanding and the healing effort if desired can
easily be resolved by the study of H.P.B.'s system (taking that
it is also from the "Masters") and others evolved by or after it.
What are the differences? Why were they constructed Where do
they lead (this has to be done on both sides, I think). We
might be right or wrong. The real question is WHAT IS TRUE AND
FACTUAL? Can this be discovered with the clues made available to
us?

I thoroughly endorse your last para. I agree that any
differences will vanish if we seek to find out that which is
useful, universal, true, and of assistance to all beings. We are
all on the same great evolutionary path and our work or comments
ought to assist.

Best wishes as always, and thanks for the comments and views,
they are not misunderstood.

Dallas

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




-----Original Message-----
From: teos9@aol.com [mailto:teos9@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 1:58 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: Pseudo-Theosophy

Hello Dallas, I have inserted a few thoughts refarding your
comments below.
Louis.

In a message dated 2/28/2001 5:51:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dalval14@earthlink.net writes:

>
> Dallas observes:
>
> One wonders how the study of theosophy can ever be called
> "tiresome."

I did not say that the study of theosophy is tiresome. I said
that the
polarized personalities involved in this unending debate about
the correct or
incorrect forms of theosophy is tiresome to many of us who have
been
listening to it for the last forty years or more. The constant
rehashing of
this matter saps valuable time and energy from the more important
experience
of free study and discovery.

> If we seek truth, then we may use it as any other exposition
and
> do the tracing to true or false conclusions.
> Would it not be better to say that the "tiresome debates"
are
> really aspects of our own effort? If we seek within that of
> which we are a part (because it is universal) then some aspect
of
> our won nature is making up this attitude Is it useful? What
> causes such a reaction? Can we determine this?

This is just another way of saying there is a true theosophy and
a false
theosophy. H.P.B, Judge, etc., is proper theosophy and worth
studying.
Besant, Leadbeater, Bailey, etc., is wrong and not worth the
effort. I
suggest that any theosophy which can produce intuitional
resonance and
inspirational vision is proper and worth the study effort, pure
and simple.
>
> In the meantime, are not all students going to follow their
own
> "path?" Why should anyone expect a group of students /
members
> to be patent copies of one-another?
>
> Is the real "debate" about principles, bases, and logical
> conclusions, or is it about the "clash of opinions?"

It's about both Dallas. For the personalities that involve
themselves in
these affairs have a complex of traits, characteristics and
agenda's that
they bring to the table, some open and obvious others more subtle
and
indirect. It has appeared to me, for some time now, that the
"ongoingness of
the debate" is the really important thing. For I have never seen
an honest
attempt at resolution and release. The damage that was done
during the
Besant/Judge/Krishnamurti/Bailey etc. splits, remains unhealed
to this day.
Each camp has its adherents and defenders and no quarter seems to
be given.
>
> Saying one view or another concerning Theosophy by students
who
> followed HPB is only saying that they differ in their
> understanding. We still have as a core center the
presentation
> of THEOSOPHY in its original words as written by H.P.B
>
> Who is afraid of approaching that? In any case in this
> incarnation or some other one will come up against these basic
> ideas. If we use and develop them now we will probably save
> ourselves a lot of effort, and time. Karma presents us with
this
> opportunity. Do we seize it? Each decides for themselves.
>
There it is again. The inference is that if we explore other
Theosophical
writers and are illumined by them, the illumination will be
impaired somehow
because we did not get it from the correct source. Illumination,
inspiration
and Spiritual insight are conditions and experiences of our inner
being.
Their manifestation can occur without reading anything at all. or
by reading
everything there is. The incoming generations will have access to
spiritual
inspiration from a vast ocean of resources. How can we possibly
judge the
assimilative quality of another's life path?


> It is valuable and instructive to note that H.P.B. says that
the
> words used to covey Theosophical doctrines and metaphysics
> APPROXIMATE to the truth that lies in between the words, or
> behind them as seminal idea. I conceive that we develop our
> intuition as we seek to unravel the inner meaning that lies
> behind the words. Also I think that THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE
if
> regularly used and read, and thought over -- as the moral link
> between appearances and causes -- tends to develop in us this
> abilit
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Dallas
>

With all that said, Let me state for the record that my first and
enduring
love, ARE the writings of H.P.B. The wisdom that I have found in
her work has
inspired monumental transformations in my understanding of the
human journey.
But I have also read most of the other theosophical works,
adjacent to,
contemporary of, as well as currently emerging. I for one, am
able to find
true theosophy resonating in many different places. Let the lines
of division
decay and disappear. Let us embrace everyone whose karma has
brought them to
ANY study of theosophy because one day that study may inspire
them to do
great things. There is much work to be done. This perrenial
bickering between
ORIGINAL and PSEUDO theosophy keeps us from it, in one way or
another.

Louis


> ======================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bart Lidofsky [mailto:bartl@sprynet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 5:46 AM
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: Pseudo-Theosophy
>
> teos9@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Some observations regarding Wes Amerman's reply below:
> >
> > Again, we revisit this tired old debate. Ever since the
death
> of the founders
> > of the Theosophical Movement as we know it today, this
battle
> has raged on
> > between the various interested parties. Who has the correct
> interpretation of
> > Theosophy and who does not!
>
> Of course, if one follows Blavatsky and the Mahatmas,
> then one knows:
> NOBODY has the correct interpretation of Theosophy. Yet. And
for
> the
> foreseeable future.
>
> Bart Lidofsky
>




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