Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00392)

Tuesday, July 31, 2001

Dear Dr. Tillett:

Thanks for the definition.

This is only an acknowledgment. I want to look over the
definition you have so kindly sent so that I might comment on it,
if I can

Best wishes,

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: gregory@zeta.org.au [mailto:gregory@zeta.org.au]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 12:57 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Received Truth

In response to Dallas' positing:

The concept of Received Truth is used by some scholars of
religion (like
me), plus some in the areas studying other ideological systems,
to
describe a system of belief which has been "given" (usually, but
not
always, on the basis of a claim of Divine Authority) by a teacher
to
disciples, and which the disciples are unable to question.
Multiple
examples are found in Christian history. For example, the claim
of Papal
Infallibility is a Received Truth which is not, within the Roman
Catholic
Church's theological system, a matter for open discussion,
challenge,
intellectual analysis or scholarly criticism - except by those
who will
find themselves penalized or excluded for doing so (for example,
Hans
Kung). Received Truth is given for acceptance, not as the
beginning of a
discussion. It can be argued for (which is what True Believers
do), but
not intellectually considered with an open and critical mind
(which is
what scholars are supposed to do). Jehovah's Witnesses cannot (if
they
wish to remain as such) approach the prohibition on blood
transfusions as
a topic for debate (or even discussion). Of course, Received
Truth is
found outside religion (as popularly defined). The "true Marxist"
or the
"true Freudian" (although I am not sure if either such still
exist)
cannot take their teachers doctrines as theories or claims for
consideration; they are statements of fact, unchanging,
unchangeable,
recognized as such by the True Believer and "attacked" (a word
used by
True Believers to refer to any questioning of the Received Truth)
by
unbelievers or (worse!) Heretics. Heresy is, essentially, a
challenge to
the Received Truth from within (and inevitably leads to the
Heretics
being forced out.... and often then establishing a new Received
Truth
position). Thus, the Adyar position has to be that Leadbeater's
claims
are true; they are Received Truth. ULT approaches Robert Crosbies
version
of history in the same way. He CANNOT have been expelled from Pt
Loma,
therefore discussion of the topic can only occur in a defence (by
them)
or attack (by unbelivers of heretics) paradigm. Pt Loma (I
presume) takes
the reverse position.
Almost inevitably, just what constitute any given tradition of
Received
Truth develops over time into competing rivalries about just the
Received
Truth is, or what are true (as opposed to false) intepretations
of it.
Thus: Adyar, Pt Loma, ULT, et al as the "only true successors" to
the HPB
tradition.
To suggest that Theosophy (assuming a single, monolithic version
of it
exists) as a description of "facts of nature" requires the
assumption of
a Received Truth position. Why not accept that (for example)
Roman
Catholicism, Marxism, Freudianism, Buddhism or Islam are simply a
description of the "facts of nature"? Even the acceptance of
HPB's
teachings (again, assuming that a single consensus could be
attained as
to what those teachings were) is a received Truth position. How
is it to
be tested? Why is it assumed to be more accurate as a description
than,
say, the teachings of Swedenborg or Steiner? All disciples of
Received
Truth can provide arguments and evidence to support their claims,
but all
ultimately begin with a Faith Position.
I am not arguing with the value of holding to a Received Truth
position
(it undoubtedly makes life much simpler, and more easily
understandable).
But it needs to be recognized for what it is.
I am sorry to have been somewhat wordy and (probably) incoherent!
Thank
you for your (as always) stimulating and provocative posting.
It's good
to be part of a discussion list that stimulates the mind!
Dr Gregory Tillett