Theos-Talk Archives (May 2001 Message tt00163)

Tuesday, May 22, 2001

Re: "Party-Line" Is it needed ?


Dear Doss:

Lets set any "party lines" aside. They are opinions. The Facts,
or Truths are singular.

If one goes direct to the "original teaching" as first issued,
one has a chance of getting at the original meaning intended to
be conveyed by the original Teacher. We may call the "original
teachings" primary sources -- as recorded in some particular
language. [ Translations will all, unfortunately, be altered by
the mental "filter" of the converter. They are thus only
versions of the original and the true meaning has to be looked
for "inside the words and between the lines." ]

All opinions are in effect "filters" which emphasize or conceal
some aspects of the Original. If the original is allowed to be
accessed, then each student has a right to frame their own
opinions and needs no "guidance" other than to be pointed in the
direction of those "originals."

In the case of Theosophy this is H.P.B. and the Masters of
Wisdom -- the "Brothers" It may be agued that more ancient world
teachers, such as Pythagoras, Jesus, Lao-Tse, Gautama the Buddha,
Krishna, etc... supplied a basis for that which later sometimes
dozens or hundreds of years after their "death," became organized
into a religion. But if one sets the essential teachings of all
these opposite one-another for comparison, the remarkable
similarity of their precepts on ethics and practical living is
revealed. This implies a continuous system -- Natural Laws -- a
universal, a world-wide WISDOM in which these great Men lived,
learned and from which they rained their instructions on those
around them. [ As to the value of Translations -- see above. ]

If at any subsequent time, variations are introduced into the
"ORIGINALS"-- without adequate provision for warning students and
readers of such CHANGES -- the potential danger is:

1.	The editor and the one who makes changes deems himself to be
superior to the original writer. This is pride and presumption.
It is a filter that changes and detracts from the purity of the
original.

2.	Such "Editor" may introduce their "filter" (in the shape of
opinion or scholarly revision) and thus obscure the freedom of
contact assured to a student, reader by access to the ORIGINAL as
WRITTEN. This does not mean that scholarly assistance ought to
be rejected. It only means that it ought to be identified if it
is DIFFERENT from that ORIGINAL.

3.	Any explanatory matter which could help the student may be
inserted as "Notes," or "Foot-notes," and duly marked as such in
all cases. This includes all corrections.

4.	Explanatory articles by students ought to be cross referenced
to the originals, so that a reader is given the freedom of
checking out the accuracy of the commentator. If this writer is
speculating, he would assist the reader by indicating how and why
he offers his "opinion." If at any time any "authority" is
assumed, then there is a "pride of authorship" that will
interfere with the bond between the "student" and the "Original
Teacher." No one has a right to make such an interruption,
unless it is carefully identified, and explained.

If you review the sources of all "party-lines" you will find they
rest on those who claimed to explain THEOSOPHY in a simpler way
from the original Teachers. Usually the reasons are not
carefully referenced. Authority is claimed, and those who do not
do independent and careful research follow the "New Leader," and,
these, when challenged, have to fall back on these SECONDARY
SOURCES.

Theosophy is presented to us as the WISDOM (in summary) of the
operations of the Universe. Its origins are discussed; its Laws
are outlined; its benevolence to all beings is show to be
universal and impersonal; its continued existence is sketched;
the participation of free intelligences (such as man's Mind) is
accounted for. It is a living sentient WHOLE and not a lump of
chaotic matter vaguely assembled for no specific purpose.

If one is able to do away with any "party-line" and rely on the
ORIGINALS then the need for a "party line" entirely disappears.
In fact there is no indication made in the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS of
the need for a "party line."

All student of Theosophy (once the obstacles of "party-lines" are
erased) belong to one school: that of the students of the
operations of the Universe and our Earth -- and since we have
minds that are able to cover these, the study of Man (Mind) and
his powers is implied.

The study of Theosophy is the study of our Universe, visible and
invisible. The Universe CONTAINS EVERYTHING and KEEPS IT
ORGANIZED so that every being has its RIGHTS and POSITION duly
preserved for it. "Party-lines" are inessentials. Take any of
the "party-lines" and develop it forward. What is the aim and
objective? Is it part of the shackles of the past, or does it
help open our eyes to the common vistas of the future yet to come
?

The processes of evolution are universal, impersonal, ever-active
and directed at the unfolding of the spiritual core of every
being (man included) so that a full flowering of the potentials
enshrined in those apparently separate beings may be seen to be a
UNITY IN FACT -- and this unity is one which entirely purifies
the desire nature of the selfish and personal opinions of every
being in existence, physical or non-physical, including humanity
as individuals and as a whole.

It is in fact a HISTORICAL RECORD of the investigative work of
uncounted past scientists and wise men. To the extent that Their
records are presented accurately, so Theosophy is accurate.

It is said that THEOSOPHY has no two answers to any question.
Can we demonstrate this as a fact ? What are the basics,
essentials, fundamentals of Nature expressed as THEOSOPHY ? Do
we know them or have we decided to sit on a selected plateau of
knowledge and rest ? As I see it, we are eternally learning and
testing every aspect and relationship of knowledge so that we may
transform information and "faith," into the Memory of personal
experience, be that mental or physical proof. We can never
"prove" anything to anyone else. We can however "bare our souls"
and show how we achieved some answers we consider valid, and
then, ask our friends to check them and advise us of errors we
may have made.

So what base remains or set for a "party-line ?" All such
distinctions send to separate a vast body of students who
cooperate with each other into arguing conflicts -- and all the
valuable time of possible advance and construction is lost.

This is not said to detract from any honor that ought to be paid
to students who followed H.P.B. and have lent their minds to
clarifying and emphasizing certain aspects of the Universal
Wisdom. But those honored and grateful ones need not have their
memories pitted against each other, nor need their "successors"
battle over reputations which cannot be altered by any except
those who erected them -- and they are gone. Their opinions and
expressions can only be compared with the original presentation
of Theosophy -- by the original teachers. And we are fortunate
in this day and age to have the means of securing copies of those
originals -- and differences (if any) will no longer be a
subject of debate, as the conflict if any can only be resolved by
them, and not by us.

I would say that if we review the evidence presented by the many
exchanges, over the many days that this group consideration has
been in existence, shows more agreement than divergence.

Best wishes, as always,

Dallas


-PS

Whether, at present, one is a "member" or an "associate" of any
organization, Society, Association, or "Lodge," the individual
student is a true student of Theosophy so long as he / she
retains their INDEPENDENCE and does not adopt any particular
"party line." The study of Theosophy is always an individual
mater. The "party" is quite incidental. It is superficial, and
mere "lip service" does not prove true loyalty -- loyalty is
always a matter of WISDOM and of one's heart quality -- and that
ought to be directed to the SUPREME SELF-- a portion of which is
in all of us. In THAT we are truly BROTHERS.

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


-----Original Message-----

From: ramadoss
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 12:30 PM
Subject: Consensus Makers & Search Makers

G-----S------- wrote:
>: I agree that such labels are deceptive (because one-sided).
Most
>Theosophists are a bit of both. Most would doubtless agree that
Theosophy
>has doctrinal "core teachings" and also agree that it provides a
Path (of
>sorts). My point with the use of such labels is that some few go
to one
>extreme or the other, and then such labeling becomes all-too
obvious.
>
>Each TS publishes doctrinal literature, which tends, over time,
to become
>(rightly or wrongly) an established view, or what is
respectfully referred
>to on theos-l as the party line. The party line of Adyar varies
slightly
>from that of Pasadena, the ULT, and so on. Part of each party
line is
>shared, but part is personal and it is that personal part, an
individualized
>organizational aura, which allows continuance of separateness.
>
>Now, there are all sorts of TS members, as well as non-member
well-wishers.
>Those who tend (mainly) to accept and stay within the party line
of any one
>TS are consensus makers because such members create (and
maintain) (and
>perhaps protect (?)) the consensus view of that TS. Those who
tend to see
>outside the box, so to speak, who seek after and find their own
personal
>interpretations (and quite possibly who recognize even the
possibility of
>interpretation, let alone its need) are labeled search makers.

-----------------------------
Doss

Thanks for a logical and concise summary of the situation.

This is important and I think would be of benefit to everyone if
only one
takes time to consider these facts. One of the problems one sees
in the
party-line situation is this. When you are very much engrossed
into it,
party line is overwhelming and overpowering without being
conscious of it
and it is extremely difficult to step outside and look at the
party-line
objectively and independently. This is in spite of all the talk
about
freedom of thought etc. The party-line is not unlike the
situation that
exists in most organized religions with all their beliefs and
superstitions.

One awakes and becomes aware of the existence of the party line
situation
when a conflict makes one break out of it. Ernest Wood makes a
comment
which may be relevant. He says there comes a stage when one
realizes that
one has reached a state of stagnation and does not see any
progress.
According to him, this status can be ended only if one puts into
practice
some of the things one has read or heard and this self effort
results in a
better understanding and consequently movement forward out of the
stagnation. At some point in time, such self discovered
understanding may
not be in line with the party line and may even be seen as heresy
by the
party liners since they cannot understand or appreciate it due to
their own
limitations and . If one has to move ahead of the crowd, one
should be
prepared for the consequences of disapproval and even boycott of
the curve.
Such is the price one may have to pay.

___MKR___