Theos-Talk Archives (October 2001 Message tt00018)

I have read the articles from both Gregory Tillett and Dara Eklund with
great care and interest. Both are likewise right from a certain point of
view and I think there is some misunderstanding between them.

Dara writes.
> Nevertheless, there are means provided for a rational examination
> of Theosophy and a means to test its theories on their own merit.

That is quite right, but to my humble understanding that point wasn't
refused by Gregory.

> We do not need to accept them as either beliefs or dogmas. Dr.
> Tillett's argument that we accept HPB's teachings as "received
> Truth" falters when you take to heart her own words to accept
> nothing upon faith alone. In the preface to her SECRET DOCTRINE,
> she stated,

That is also right. But to my understanding Gregory did not question what
HPB said about Theosophy but rather what her followers make out of it. He
says that the Theosophists do not understand the founding-Adepts very well
when they establish received truths like the examples he gave. From an
academic point of view he is quite right, and I think also from a deeper
theosophical point of view. Today we have a very rigid and often twisted
form of Theosophy and it seems that no one of the three outer organizations
(Adyar, ULT, Pasadena) of today has the genuine Theosophy outlined by HPB.
Why have we Theosophists a problem with it to admit the reality?

For example I heard in a local lodge just during the last weeks: Do not read
the Mahatma letters, they deal only with quarrel and that prevents good
thoughts and harmony! Do not read The Secret Doctrine, it's an outmoded
book! Leadbeater saw in the astral light that Apollonius is the
reincarnation of Jesus Christ and was in order to that advanced from a
Master to an Adept! Also Apollonius took a woman for good sex, but it was
not the ordinary dirty human sex as there exists also holy sex between man
and woman!

OTOH, it should not be overlocked that all systems have the same problem,
including science. Also in our universities the students hear received
truths and they usually repeat them without question them. Take for example
the new theory of Rupert Sheldrake. His fellow Biologists demanded his books
to be burnt! And the mundane teachers claim often authority too.

We too often intermix Theosophy with the TS and the TS with the members.
Theosophy itself has its definite dogmas, but no TS has any dogmas and no
member should be forced to believe in any dogmas. They may as individual
members believe what they want. But there is another danger: Not all what
they believe is in turn Theosophy. Considering this clear distinctions both
authors are right, Dara points more to the ideal of Theosophy and Gregory
point more to the actual use of Theosophy. Both positions are helpful to
develop discrimination power which should be the first lesson on the occult
path. Theosophy blindly accepted is a received truth, but Theosophy implies
also a demand to test it and to live it - them it becomes our own and, only
then, we can speak about it with authority and authenticity.
If we just repeat parrotlike what we hear then we do not understand
Theosophy. That is what Krishnamurti tried to say. Ironically K seems to be
misused by some too when they believe that negation is the truth, but K
taught also the negation of the negation which can help misleaded
Theosophists to come back to the path HPB outlined to us. Of course it is
not Theosophy in itself but it is a good beginning for Theosophy.

Frank