Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00016)

08/02/2001 2:12 AM

Re: "Received Truth" and Theosophy -- does it fall into that
category ?

Dear Gregory:


Thanks for the definition. Likewise I agree that this kind of
exchange is stimulating, and, I hope reasonably useful.

Some exchange of meanings may be necessary as one's (my) usage of
words tends to acquire, perhaps some special meaning (to me) --
and I may not realise how strange they could sound to another --
so you will have to check me out if the answers or comments I
make are unclear. Please do not hesitate to take me to task if
anything I say appears unreasonable, etc... I am always anxious
to learn and grow in any direction that is valuable and
reasonable.

I try as far as possible to avoid "belief," "faith," and
assumptions as a basis for exposing my thinking. I have found
that those color any development. If one is focused on
discovering the impersonal and universal "truth" about something,
then one must make deep searching probes of the basis and the
development of ones concepts. Help me in this. I apologize in
advance if I tend to be verbose.

May I put in some comments/queries below in the text of your kind
letter ? It will help keep me in line and focused, as I tend to
be diffuse. Also I think I have the bad habit of trying to give
source references (familiar to me) and reasoning, logic, etc..
that I have thought out for myself, and this may be based on
those assumptions or reasoning.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: dalval14@earthlink.net [mailto:dalval14@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 6:01 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World RE Received Truth

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.

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

DTB	Understood.

Than "Received Truth" is a fact provable in Nature, or it is
something that cannot be proved.

I would say as a preliminary that if a "revelation" is made, it
is either 1. true, or , 2. only some partial version of truth
(possibly a opinion) , or, 3. it is a falsehood as a result of
misunderstanding or deliberate obfuscation. In which case it
misleads. But in this latter case, the fact that if it is
deliberate, it implies that its obverse exists and can be found.

To "reveal" implies that a "truth" is already in place and the
"revealer" shows his followers what this is, even though he may
not explain it. To "reveal" is not necessarily to "explain."

If an "explanation" is offered then it is assumed that
comparisons will be encouraged to independent thought, so that
individuals can ascertain for themselves the veracity or accuracy
of statements made. There will be a chain of logic, from a
premise all can agree to, and, then, there are links, facts,
pathways of communication and a coherence that serve to provide
an entire system with plausibility. It is also assumed that
there are uniform facts and laws that any one can discover and
test for accuracy. Logic, independent observation and facts are
then considered to be universals and present accurate conditions
that all would be able to verify and compare among themselves.

"Divine Authority" is in my esteem something that has to be
compared with other such pronouncements -- for coherence, and
reasonableness. A claim to this as basis ought to be made clear,
and it ought to be based on facts that any one can discover, test
and develop an understanding of. It seem s to exclude the
comparative and critical capacity of individual members of the
audience.

I may be reading too much into your words, but these ideas seem
to emerge as I consider them. I hope I am not diverging from
your simple statement.

Someone makes a statement and attributes this to an
unquestionable "divine authority." May it also be assumed that
inquiry and cross questioning is not very welcome? To which I
would say: "If so, why so?"

It there is a "teacher / disciple relationship the implication to
me is that the disciple can be raised to the level of
understanding and sight that the Prophet or the "Authority" says
they have -- or as in the case of Muhammed, he exclaims and
declares without explanation -- (as in certain Suras from the
Koran) In the BHAGAVAD Gita the nature of teaching by Krishna to
Arjuna, is by dialog and logic. Gautama the Buddha gave sermons
and taught his companions in the Sangha, but he always placed his
teachings in the forms of simple commons sense and logic,
inviting all to reason them out for themselves. Similarly, Jesus
in his mission and speeches made simple logical appeal to the
ethical side of Judaism. He was a learned Rabbi and knew the
Torah and the rest of the Jewish scriptures, but he essentially
worked with the poor and the laboring class. Is it not curious
that he declared he came to the "lost sheep of Israel," but, it
is the "gentiles" who have made of his life and work a
"religion." But, who, nowadays, actively practices the
injunctions he gave, say, in the Sermon On The Mount ?

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

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).

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

DTB	Understood and agreed.

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


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).


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

DTB In other words AUTHORITY speaks. Let there be silence
thereafter.

Questions discussion research, open and critical mental effort
are unwelcome.

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

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.

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

DTB	Rigidity in such cases can lead to absurdities, when
statements are placed in a more universal and logical context.
We have to decide exactly what will fit such a context. There
are many opinions about those criteria. But is it possible that
there are some impersonal, universal, and true, honest and fair
expressions on the basis of the things we deal with so casually
in our lives and which we accept without much probing. How do we
secure some grasp of "universals "metaphysics, " and "logic"
pertaining thereto ?

For instance, historically, the invasions by the Catholic forces
of Spain and Portugal, (or the Muslim invasions of all their
neighboring lands from Morocco and Spain to India, Indonesia, and
Central Asia) and the subsequent enslavement of vast populations,
on the thesis that it was God's will that they be forced into
either Catholicism or Islam, leaves, to me, the implication that
for millennia "God" was satisfied with things as they were. And
it is the fanatics among men who justified horrors and
atrocities. Farther, that there has to be somewhere a more
reasonable, a more encouraging atmosphere than extermination, as
an alternative to forced conversions. My conclusion is that all
"belief systems" may have been, somewhere during the passage of
years, distorted and made inhumane and repressively tyrannical.
But this is not "god's" fiat, it is the decision of selfish and
wealth (and power) hungry men.

But this is of course not a study of "Received Truth" In fact I
would say that the use of "Truth" may be quite incorrect, and
provisionally one might say "the Authority of Might." Of course
the "right" is banished and is given no place at all -- hence no
questioning or investigation on a free basis.

Heretics were "questioners" I seem to remember. They questioned
"Authority."

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


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.

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


DTB	But those are not the original Theosophical teachings of H.
P. Blavatsky. Of course you know that. I merely mention it
because it gives a reason for the existence of the U.L.T. .

U.L.T. is based on the concept that those original words and
phrases may contain a value to which present and future students
deserve access. [ Witness the great efforts currently being put
forth to discover from fragments of old documents, a single basic
text for the BIBLE. ]

In the "original printing and words" of theosophical doctrine and
exposition, it is thought that there is a continuing value. We
seek it individually, and are careful not to impose our views on
any one. We discuss meanings together. And often they form the
base for articles that appear in THEOSOPHY magazine, (Los
Angeles ) or the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT magazine (Bombay). And,
we try to preserve this freedom of study, research and
consultation (through the U.L.T. ) so as to avoid the confusion
which developed (as an example) in the evolution of the numerous
Christian sects, each of which chose some version of that Bible
and declared it authentic and authoritative.

As I observed, the main method used for straight-jacketing
persons into a particular belief was aimed at the children. The
children were taught not to reason, but to HAVE FAITH. -- what
"faith" meant was never explained. And thus they were confined
by this preliminary "boxing," into some division or other of
Christianity (and other religions do a comparable job).

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


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.

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


DTB	What you say sounds reasonable. Crosbie himself wrote his
version and the Pt. Loma THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY has its own. About
1904 was the time when Mr. and Mrs. Crosbie left.

I think it does no particular good to try and insist on one
version or the other. No resolution can be achieved at this
stage. What criteria can be relied on? I would say that the
course of the two bodies, their philosophy of deportment, and
their work with Theosophy ought to be the only basis we can
presently use, to arrive at a probable approximation to the
truth, since the versions of the Primaries are opposed.

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

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) interpretations of it.

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

DTB	Agreed. This relates to events and personalities and the
present day proponents can say very little because of the time
gap.

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


Thus: Adyar, Pt Loma, ULT, et al as the "only true successors" to
the H. P. Blavatsky
tradition.

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

DTB	That is their responsibility. The faithfulness with which
they discharge it will be noted by historians in our future.

However this leaves the discovery and discussion about value
lagging. Has this significance? If so, how is it to be
considered and possibly identified?

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


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.

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

DTB	It has been an urge since I was a lad, to study and discover
if Theosophy is TRUE.

In my search I have discovered what appears to me to be a thread
of logic that wends its way through all aspects of its doctrines
and presentation of history and pre-history. For me there is
coherency and logic there and I sense a purpose, an end to the
evolutionary ladder that spells "perfection -- a perfection of
knowledge, which being all-inclusive, gives an understanding of
law. I must add farther to this and emphasize it, such knowledge
is and cannot be applied selfishly for dominance and personal
ease of enjoyment. It is a universal birthright ad hence ought
to be shared with all -- even if that proves to be a forlorn
hope. That would then address the qualities of generosity and
of brotherhood. It is the apotheosis of the Family of Man and is
probably always a matter of individual decision as well as
attainment.

I am left with the sense that there is possibly in it a valuable
clue to our presence here, and to the Natural laws that underlie
and support our living. I sense that this is important and ought
to be investigated thoroughly.

I can mentally appreciate the idea that "Space" is illimitable.
But this does not tell me why it is there or where it comes from.
And what will ultimately happen to it when the cycle of
progressive evolution winds down.

I can see in all departments of scientific investigation that the
basic life blocks of Nature (call them the subatomic entities,
the atoms, molecules, cells, crystals, unicellular beings and the
vast aggregates of cells that constitute our complex bodies, and
other living things) live under their own laws of
inter-relatedness.

But I continue: Why are they here? What is their purpose?
What is this sense of "I-ness" and egoity that I have? Is
Intelligence resident in nature's most minute entities? Does
time and space combine to frame school-rooms for our experience?
Is there some purpose to life other than amassing information
about the minutiae of Nature, and the fact that laws have been
laid down there by an Intelligence that evidently encompasses the
world, the solar-system and our Universe? Is there a primal
CAUSE ? Are we living in an intermediate state between ignorance
and wisdom? Are we as humans, using our minds to discover these
things? If there is no cause, then why this complexity and
curious sense of purpose, -- and what, what is curiosity itself?
Are we going anywhere? Does death of the body bring all this
work of a life-time to a screeching and apparently purposeless
halt? Is there possibly a perfection to be attained or aspired
to? If this is not too far outside your chosen parameters would
some discussion of this be valuable? All these questions arise
because of my study of theosophy.

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


Why not accept that (for example) Roman Catholicism, Marxism,
Freudianism, Buddhism or Islam are simply a description of the
"facts of nature"?

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

DTB	I would test them with relative comparables and work out the
logic that they imply and which they have developed. In my study
of ISIS UNVEILED and The SECRET DOCTRINE I find that
H.P.Blavatsky has done a good part of this work, and opened the
question to individual study, criticism. Farther, she has not
tried to impose any fixed view, although she does provide some
logical developments for consideration. She offers much, but
expects no following and certainly no faith or blind belief.

I find she starts with Nature as it is, and looks for causes.
She asks for the potential and logical future, can we envisage
any that is reasonable? Instead of belied and faith she offers
hard study and independent thought as a process that permeates
Nature and encourages man's independent development as a thinker.

She never asks any one to "accept" her views, but she offers a
great system in broad description and asks if we can find if it
fits the facts and situations in which we are currently engaged.
She encourages individual logic and repels any attempt at the
adoption of short-cuts that would encourage "blind belief."

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


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.

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


DTB	You are probably right about a "Faith Position" -- But I
have not found it. Perhaps I am blind to my own shortcomings. I
have tried to adopt a questioning attitude, while recognizing the
influence of my environment and my heredity as well as other
factors that I may not have been able to identify. Where is the
stability so needed that we may clearly measure change and watch
the effect of forces more accurately? Is there, for instance
"mental force?" is there a power behind "emotions?" Are they
the same or different. How does my "will" operate to raise my
hand or type you these words and ideas ?

I must admit that I enjoy the metaphysical logic and the
development that is applied to our Universe, world and ourselves.
I find freedom to think there and also having studied many
faiths, I have found that those developed AFTER the original
"Teacher" left the scene, and all that was left was the memory,
more or less accurate, of the "teachings." There is where
rigidity sprang up, and "Faiths" and "Beliefs" began.

So far in the study of the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY I have
failed to find such an imposition. Of course those who published
revised and edited editions of H.P.Blavatsky's works did
introduce the "faith" and "Authority" concept, or they would not
have altered them -- without at least honestly telling students
where and why they made those changes.

The effect of the U.L.T. publishing textual reprints of the
ORIGINAL TEACHINGS in the 1920/1930 nd using them for study and
reference has forces all the various Theosophical Publishing
Houses t reprint the ORIGINAL unedited books and articles.

The material that has gone out of print relative to the writings
of H.P.Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge has now been reproduced and made
available for the modern student.

Theosophy encourages investigation. Faith and authority and
Blind Belief discourage it. H.P.Blavatsky did not commence a
line of "successors" with apostolic powers, and a supposed
authority t declare what truth was. She published books that
displayed some of the inner workings and laws of the Universe,
nature and man and invited examination and research. There is a
vast defence in approach and attitude in this. Einstein and
others have used The SECRET DOCTRINE for study and to examine the
statements made there. So there has t be something useful.

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

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.

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

DT	I am in full agreement with you on that. The proof of the
pudding is in the eating.

The only objection that can be raised is that this kind of study
and inquiry tends to be too close to the lunatic fringe of half
baked "eastern mysticism," "yoga," "chakras," etc... But even
these, to us odd things, do have some basis in fact I have
discovered. But that does not make me a "believer," but only an
"observer" who is as attentive as possible in that work.

Yet I say, even those have to be considered if there is evidence
that they give some facts concerning an area that we tend to shy
away from.

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


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

Dear Gregory:

It is I who tend to be wordy,. You are coherent and far more
precise than I am. But we have only covered a fragment of what
ought to be explored. That is if we are interested.

The question of whether the doctrines of Theosophy have any
substance is important. They will be always considered in the
category of "Received Truths" so long as they are not looked into
to see if there is anything valuable there. Failing that effort,
the conclusions will be as you suggest. And, I am afraid not
much will be gained.

If you find typos in this excuse me. It is now 4.52a.m. and I
must catch some sleep.

Best wishes to you,

Dallas.






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