Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00288)

Dear Friends:

I keep on saying there is no orthodoxy in Theosophy.


Suppose you receive a modern text book on mathematics, physics, chemistry,
physiology, are you going to argue over the way in which its written or
presented?

No, but if that text book is about 100 years old you will take into account
the discoveries that have taken place.

Keeping that in mind you will then proceed if you are personally cautious
and careful to seek for the causes for any changes in development . Once
that you identify them and are satisfied with the progressive logic, then
the newer versions become acceptable.

But to skip around to what are called neo--theosophy without a foundation
knowledge of what H.P.Blavatsky taught gives you no FIRM RESULTS.

Them to claim that the older students who have done that work are
“fundamentalists” is tantamount to saying that you have no time to waste on
such things. In such a case, taking others’
”say-so” as “true” the problem amplifies rather than diminishes.

Those who claim that there are other interpretations say it correctly.
There are. But having said that, what effort is made towards verification?
Unless the checking out is done continuously, errors are not erased, but
rather, with the passage of time, they are enhanced.

Why not go over what H P B wrote and find out if it is or is not correct ?
By all means read what later writers who acquired standing wrote. Is in or
out of line with H P B’s Theosophy? If it says something different [ asin
Margaret Thomas’ book THEOSOPHY OR NEO-THEOSOPHY ] then try and develop the
changes in terms of then basic

Best wishes


Dallas


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



-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry S [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 8:46 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: RE: ULT/interpretation/Theosophy


Though esoteric aspects/experiences may often be generally seen as having a
basically limited interpretive (or "reactive"?) manasic reality, I suspect
that they might have a linking effect (or "Path" effect) without which that
comparatively greater reality might not be "entered," and so WHY NOT often
keep in mind how one might "address" esoterics when "studying Theosophy"
(even if that "addressing" is also acknowledged as being highly limited
manasic interpretation).
JERRY: OK. The real tricky part is to be aware that such a "linking effect"
actually exists.
That is, if in one's "Theosophical studies" one consciously CHOOSES to
ignore "esoteric relevance" (in whatever interpretive form) that one has
previously acknowledged as being "Path related," then isn't that kind of
study-approach comparatively inefficient, to say the least? Not that many
Theosophists necessarily ignore "heart related"/ "esoteric aspects" in their
"studies." But then does that "many Theosophists" also include ULTers (who
have lately been questioned about whether they have properly addressed
possible esoterically related interpretations of Theosophical "original
texts")?
JERRY: Yes. No. Yes.
In other words (?), have ULTers decided that there are various
"interpretations" by "neo-Theosophists" of the "original texts" (such as by
Alice A. Bailey?) that run counter to "original text" meaning? There is an
article by Weeks about Bailey in very critical terms, in effect concluding
that Bailey contradicts "original text" teachings. Are you familiar with
that article, Gerald? So is Weeks a ULTer? If I find that article, I'll
see about reinterpreting it.
JERRY: You don't have to be in the ULT to know that Bailey, Steiner,
Fortune, and others borrowed ideas from Theosophy and tweaked them to form
their own systems. I didn't even have to revert back to the "original"
writings to know this. But then again, these folks quit the TSs, didn't
they? It is the deviations within the Theosophical umbrella that I have
questioned, and am still waiting for an answer. What, exactly, is in
"neo-Theosophy" that "contradicts" Blavatsky's original writings? I am aware
that many folks (including Israel Regardie) didn't like the
Besant/Leadbeater terminology, but I have never come across any substantive
"revisions" of the "core teachings" from within the Theosophical community.
In other words, in my opinion, students of Theosophy might do well (in some
cases, possibly!) to keep in mind that interpretations other than theirs
MIGHT have some kind of significant Theosophic relevance, after all, in some
way (even if that way seems contradictory in its current APPARENT form).
JERRY: I would be happy if they would simply acknowledge the fact that we
each interpret the "core teachings" according to our own personal karma and
circumstances.
So it would seem as if ULTers might have "protectively" painted themselves
into a somewhat "too interpretive" "original-text corner," possibly, by
preferring not to consider, or not being able to properly consider,
interpretations (of the texts) other than theirs.
JERRY: I think so, Dallas's objections to the contrary not withstanding. The
downside of their stance/posture is that they cannot accept any "new" ideas.
That "interpretation hurdle" might represent a Theosophic challenge that,
if not crossed, might turn Theosophy, or what's left of it, into something
completely different since, as far as I can see (at any rate), the essence
of Theosophy is in the way that it's interpreted:
JERRY: The essence of any writing is in how it is interpreted, the Bible,
the Koran, whatever. These have to be interpretable on a wide variety of
levels in order to appeal to a wide variety of people, and all great
literature does this.
In other words, "essential Theosophy" ought to be recognized as an
involvement in interpretive/esoteric s/Self aspects, rather than as an
involvement in the kind of "original text" studies that, like mainstream
religions, lead to various forms of telling silences and/or certain
"original-text explanations" about various deeper questions that students
may intuitively form.
JERRY: Wow! Your term "essential Theosophy" evokes pictures that I don't
want to get into. What is essential to me is probably not so essential to
you, and so this is pretty subjective. But, yes, I agree with you here.
Worry over "original texts" is like missing the forest for the trees. Its OK
to do so up to a point, but I can't see maintaining an entire organization
on such a flimsy basis, but hey, this is a free country and the ULT folks
all seems happy enough. Its a shame that they miss out on G de Purucker
though, whom I still consider as a valid Messenger.
Jerry S.
---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-14759P@list.vnet.net


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]