Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00367)

<<<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.>>>

Agreed.


<<<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.>>>

By "keeping the ideas from being lost" don't we also, simultaneously, keep
them unchanged and fixed and thus, in a sense, maintain dead letter
exotericism? This TS objective has to walk a fine line between keeping the
letter without killing the spirit - because, won't the spirit always seek
new words of expression?


<<<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.>>>

Eldon, if you were close, I would give you a big hug. Why can't the TSs see
the obvious truth to what you say here?


<<<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.>>>

Same with transfering our attention from theosophy to Theosophy, I am sorry
to say. For the most part, each TS is structured differently, and so the
likihood of any real union between them is minute, but why should
organizational structure interfer with our sharing of ideas? The
organizational structures are such that we can go from almost complete
flexibility of thought in Adyar to confining ourselves only with the
"original teachings" of ULT - a pretty wide gap by anyone's standards. The
ULT sees Adyar as too flexible while Adyar sees ULT as too rigid. But again,
why should this stiffle friendly discussion and sharing of personal
interpretations?


<<<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.>>>

Other than organizational structure, and the restrictions of study topics, I
wonder what "specializations" you have in mind?
I don't think you mean "better than the rest" so much as maybe "closer to
what HPB had intended" which is a subjective call, but an appropriate one
under the historical circumstances.


<<<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.>>>

Well, there are such clairvoyants, and to stick with the "original
teachings" throws these babies out with the bathwater doesn't it?
Krishnamurti may, or may not, have been bathwater, but his teachings are
still being read, and he still has a following, and while I agree with his
teachings I am enough of a realist to stick with the TSs in spite of their
inherent human organizational limitations (of course, no one is foisting me
off as a guru, either).


<<<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.>>

He did, indeed, pull it back some. But apparently he must have had a
somewhat abrasive personality as he kindled, in some, exactly the opposite
spirit that he likely intended. People with "spiritual authority" tend to do
that, don't they? But all of these "personalities" are gone today, and are
just memories, and until we Theosophists can let those memories fade away
some emotional oppositions and antagonisms will remain, I'm afraid.


<<<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.>>>

I think that we can all agree that, if guarding the "original teachings" is
the primary goal of a TS, than ULT has done it better than any. Maybe we
should ask ourselves: Would HPB have preferred to (1) have her words
maintained exactly as written, and perhaps even enshined and worshipped just
a little, or (2) have her words instill a spirit in the hearts of people who
would add on to what she presented and make new interpretations?


<<<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.>>>

And they certainly have the right to do so.


<<<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?>>

In what way are its efforts "blunted?" The way Dallas talks, the ULT is
growing in leaps and bounds. Besides, doesn't maintaining a status quo
always produce rigidity? This is not rocket science. Surely Crosbie knew
that from the beginning.


<<<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>>

And so we get back to personalities again. I agree with ULT critics, that
Tingley was no scholar of HPB's writings. However, reading her few works, it
is apparent that she was filled full with the Theosophical Current, which
counts infinitely more, I think. Be what you say as it may, it is indeed
still a burden. On the plus side, the TM has lots of different
organizational structures for folks to chose from.

Jerry S.