Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00338)

From: W. Dallas TenBroeck



Friday, July 27, 2001


Dear Dr. Tillett, and Dear Eldon:


I am unsure about the meaning of your phrase "A Received Truth
position."

Do you mean some declaration by a Prophet ? Do you expect
something unreal and extraordinary? Something illogical, or, by
contrast, something that might open the doors to a wider vista of
understanding concerning things already observed and recorded as
events?

Why not consider that THEOSOPHY, as a declaration of the facts
about Nature and her laws, as well as a History (however
unprovable) of our world and Universe, might be what you are
looking for?

Consider with me, if Mme. Blavatsky has drawn together in her
main books and articles enough evidence to demonstrate a
continuity of purpose to EXISTENCE, and the main stages of
evolution we are aware of, then there is good reason to
investigate the teachings of Theosophy In addition to this, she
shows how these are to be found integrated in a number of ways:
such as Ideals, practical applications, and results. She states
that one of the fundamental laws of the Universe is the
preservation of the rights and integrity of the smallest or
weakest of her creatures. This is universal ecology, based on
the concept of an eternal continuity of the individual FORCE
which has brought that form into being. Some call this
impersonal Justice and use the inclusive word Karma to designate
its existence and continual operation. Theosophy is an attempt
to offer us the parameters of Space that is unlimited, of Laws
that are immutable, and of a progression to individual evolution
that is cooperative, compassionate and which the word BROTHERHOOD
defines.

As I look at our academic achievements (experimental results and
discovered artifacts), and the flock of theories and hypotheses
that have arisen over the past 3 to 400 years of looking at our
discovered and then seeking for a cause in the Past. There is in
the development of hypothesis and theory the hope that as we look
backward at a dim and hazy past, reasonable causes and reasons
will emerge. I am stuck by the flimsy and paltry nature of the
evidence on which many such theories were/are based. And I am
also amazed at the tenacity with which some idea of past
development is deemed essential to our mental well-being and
present satisfaction -- something that says: "You are here,
because ----."

I have watched in my lifetime the theories and concepts that were
taught in schools and colleges change, as fresh evidence and new
theories arose based on refinements of scientific equipment and
the thinking of great savants in a number of departments of
learning. I have looked into the texts and expressions of many
old and current religions and philosophies, and I would agree
with Mme. Blavatsky's assessment -- that there is enough evidence
of similarity to make it plausible they are all derived from some
one single WISDOMISM.

If you would be so kind as to frame for me the parameters of your
inquiry, I will try to indicate where in the original literature
lf Theosophy some pertinent references might be located for
consideration.

Best wishes,

Dallas TenBroeck.

Please see at the end of Eldon's posting some comments I make.

DTB


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

-----Original Message-----
From: Eldon B Tucker [mailto:eldon@theosophy.com]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 1:05 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Received Truth positions

At 06:43 AM 7/27/01 +1100, you wrote:

>From: <gregory@zeta.org.au>
>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 01 06:43:13 +1100
>Subject: Theos-World Adepts and churches
>
> True Believers do not invite criticism (scholarly or
otherwise)
> of their Received Truth positions. The only aspect of the ULT
> that I find odd is its insistence that it does not constitute
a
> Received Truth position which, of necessity, excludes
alternative
> views. There is a ULT Received Truth position, just as there
is,
> in reality if not in theory, a body of "guardians" of that
Truth.
> Just why the ULT feels the need to deny this is something I do
> not understand. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
>
> Dr Gregory Tillett

-----------------------------------------------------------

ELDON

Regarding Received Truth positions, I can see the entire
Theosophical Movement fitting that category. That is, Blavatsky
as
the agent of the Masters presented a bit of previously esoteric
material from the Mystery Teachings to the public. She also tied
that knowledge to the modern thought of her day with extensive
commentary on religious, scientific, and philosophical views.

Those of us that might consider these doctrines of value, and
seek
to preserve and promote them, would be functioning in the role of
guardians. We would be keeping the ideas from being lost through
being forgotten, becoming a dead language, and from being lost
through being altered and mutated.

A Received Truth position does not have to exclude alternate
views. The supported position needs to be clear, distinct,
carried
on without being lost. But that does not mean that other
worldviews need be opposed and rejected. There can be tolerance
for diverse views as *coexisting* rather than *competing with*
the core teachings of Theosophy.

When we transfer our attention from the Movement to an individual
theosophical organization, the degree of tolerance and
flexibility
may be reduced. This is because groups tend to specialize, and
will act as filters keeping people with similar interests and
allowing people with other interests to pass through, moving on
to
other groups they may like better.

With each theosophical group, there is one-or-more
specializations
that have their own appeal. It's simple human nature where people
think of themselves and the groups they go to as being somehow
better than the rest.

With Adyar, there may be the belief that many later theosophists
were genuine clairvoyants, and offered their powers to the
advancement of scientific knowledge. There is also the alternate
view aligned with Krishnamurti of metaphysical nihilism.

With Point Loma, there may be the belief that Purucker not only
explained the original teachings, but pulled back the veil of
Isis a bit more, and that their work is somehow more esoteric.

With ULT, there may be the belief that they have the best formula
for theosophical work, and that they are entrusted as the true
guardians of the philosophy.

The ULT may be inclined to deny any explicit or implicit
organizational structure because of some key ideas associated
with
the society. (Each theosophical group might be considered to have
a different keynote, which could be characterized by the key
ideas
that they propound.) That idea is "impersonality". It is
interpreted as always putting forth the ideas, the message, and
never letting the person show through.

The idea appears in many forms. Speakers at public talks may
refer
to themselves as "this student". Articles in official
publications
are not signed. The organization describes no explicit structure,
no officers with defined positions and roles. Because of the lack
of an explicit structure, things are run by people asserting
their
individual initiative, leading to an implicit structure operating
that is not always apparent to new students.

Because of the idea of "impersonality," the official position is
that there are no officers, no one running things. To admit to
having such a structure, even an implicit one, would be to go
against that idea. But if you ignore process, interpersonal
dynamics, and how things actually operate, then you allow for
things to proceed out-of-control, like a garden that is never
weeded, where the unexpected happens because you're not watching
what's going on.

In my thinking, the idea of "impersonality" is misunderstood or
misapplied in the ULT, leading to a blunting of its theosophical
efforts. Does its application lead to a greater freedom of
operation and individual initiative among associates, or does it
lead to a sense of rigidity, driving away many new possible
theosophists?

The idea may have arisen as a reaction to the overbearing
personality of Katherine Tingley, but that's ancient history. The
problems of the various groups back in the 1920's and their lack
of cooperation should not still be a burden for us in the year
2001!

-- Eldon

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

Dallas Comments:

I understand what Eldon is saying, but it still looks to me like
a group of inquirers looking from "without" within.

They are so accustomed to seeing the visible trappings of
politics and performers with "authority" that the fail to notice
the over-all failings of such structures that place "direction
and authority" in the hands of a single individual and to ensure
this is firm, prop it up with the legalisms of the locale in
which it is operable.

What the U.L.T. is trying to do is to perpetuate for future
students copies of the ORIGINAL texts upon which THEOSOPHY is
based.

It seeks to avoid "opinionatedness", which linked with
"authority," might lead to the distortion of those primary
texts.

So it exists as an amorphous and strange group of volunteers who
really do not care for vast numbers of "associates" or even none,
providing that the opportunity for future students (each of such
is self-constituted) may continue the work of proving the value
or otherwise of those original teachings.

It is annoying to find one's motives so subject to speculation
and distortion, and time is wasted from actual study to try and
get others to understand the basis and motives of such a curious
group as the U.L.T.

It has no special doctrines, no rituals, no disciplines to
advocate and no special or chosen "goal" that cannot be logically
deduced by unprejudiced minds. Hence it has no "leaders" in the
accepted sense.

Now is there an underlying structure? Do these scattered "atoms"
of humanity that have developed an interest in the philosophy of
Theosophy, draw together for support? The answer would be yes
and no.

The underlying structure lies in and upon the rules and laws of
Nature which interpenetrate all things and serve to regulate
them -- from the sub-atomic quark to the greatest of Galaxies,
including "black holes" and "Dark matter."

It notices that aggregations of forms (such as the minutiae of
atomic and sub-atomic "particles" require mathematical
definitions because they exhibit their phenomena and energies in
terms of what we call "force fields." This is however, not a
final cause. For what is it that establishes and maintains a
"force field?" This is still to be determined. Next. What
causes the peculiar aggregation of certain of these life-atoms
and also what rules their antipathies? Does intelligence and
consciousness extend to that level -- producing indeterminacy ?

Do Intelligence and Consciousness provide vital clues to the
understanding of evolution as for instance the curious and
convoluted nature of the human psyche?

It may be possible that the areas of limitation that Science in
her departments selects for itself, are responsible for the lack
of perception of the united and coherent character of the greater
areas of formal assemblies. I mean minerals, chemicals, plants,
animals, humans and the indefinable classification of the WISE --
those humans who seem to know far more in ancient times that we
have today at our finger tips in the way of information.

There has to be developed, in my esteem, a scope that is
inclusive -- generalism, perhaps -- which permits the academician
to include the observations made by other departments of
investigation and learning.

A survey of the "THREE FUNDAMENTALS as propositions given in The
SECRET DOCTRINE, Vol. 1, pp. 14 -19 might give rise to an
understanding of the reason why the U.L.T. exists.

I have tried to place before you the reasons that some students
find for the study of the "original teachings of theosophy, as
are to be found in the writings of H.P.Blavatsky and W. Q.
Judge."