Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00546)

11/28/2001 2:17 AM


Dear T---- H ----


In regard to History. I mean any "history," Theosophical, or
otherwise.

To me these are the general principles.

There is the one way which any one, or all, can use -- and that
is, to set up for themselves, in chronological sequence all the
documents relating to events and study them.

Then only, every one who has done this rather laborious work, has
the assurance that they have SEEN and KNOW what happened on the
surface.

You have to see and read everything. THEN YOU WILL KNOW. The
only drawback is that one is never quite sure one has secured ALL
the documents. So even such a conclusion may be altered by some
late document's discovery or arrival.

The second way is chancy.

You take up a book (or several books) and read the author's
opinion which is supposed to be fair and impartial, and is based
on his or her selection of the documents -- you don't know
exactly how impartial or correct the author's rendering is.

If you use the contrast of several books, one begins to frame a
personal view of the events being reviewed for accuracy. The
differences of authors' opinions are noted and one wonders why
they arose.

Also it is significant, for the carefully astute and demanding
reader, that there emerges from such comparative reading: the
significant points that some authors desire to hide, or try to
bend a reader's credulity in their favor. Your information, based
on such reading, is therefore, a matter of "belief" or of
"faith." But essentially it is the adoption of someone (or
several) else's views.

One might observe that this is the cause of the "various splits"
in the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT over the past 125 years.

Historically if one reviews that "reform" of Judaism that Jesus
came to do ( "I am come but to the lost sheep of Israel" -- He
did not come to the Gentiles. It was emperor Constantine, some 3
hundreds of years later who imposed CHRISTIANITY on the whole
Roman empire by edict, and had the "temples" of all local people
either destroyed or used as Churches thereafter. And of course
all monuments and Manuscripts of wisdom were also destroyed.)

We, "theosophists," will be found to be behaving as the Gnostic
sects did, who also adopted Jesus' reforms, each in their own
way. No doubt in a couple of hundred years it will be found that
there are well entrenched "Theosophical sects," and from their
opinions, there will be several branches of "THEOSOPHY" arising
(I hope not) as the basis for new religions.

When we will reincarnate in 1500 years or so, (according to that
general cycle) we'll no doubt find them in full flower. Then
we'll have to look for THE ORIGINAL TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY.

Shall we find the SECRET DOCTRINE, ISIS UNVEILED and the
Theosophical Literature of today? And, this leads me to say:
"Shall we not take advantage of our present opportunity to study
and apply it ?"

People espouse the opinions of those they consider to be
trustworthy, alive today, or, predecessors -- and also I would
observe, that is the way all "religions" are started -- on the
disunion of opinions.

Some of these views are sincere to their readers, and "loyal
followers."

But the Theosophical method is to view and consider ALL SIDES.
So each student who desires to discover the TRUTH does their own
research on such terms as they adopt for themselves. It is
better to have "no side." Always be as impartial as possible.

I will now stick my nose out, and will now offer you my
"opinion" -- which is based on a (for me) careful review of all
the documents I have so far been able to find and read. And I
have available to me almost a complete set of those documents
relating to Theosophy, and the original books and the old
magazines in which they were printed -- or, I can lay my hands on
them. I also try to be impartial and offer all points of view so
others can make up their own minds.

So, let me say: I am satisfied my reading and knowledge are (to
me) impartial. But that statement I cannot convey as "proof" to
any one. I can offer it only as TESTIMONY. Any one can, in
response, say to me: "You are wrong." And then I can choose to
enter the "fray" and offer a string of supporting references, or
I can remain quiet.

[Let me point out that I did this some years ago.] And, I will
summarise :

there is in print from The Theosophy Co. in LOS ANGELES a
documentary history titled

The THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (1875-1950)

and it is based on those documents I refer to. I have checked it
out for accuracy and impartiality. I think it is available
trough http://www.blavatsky.net -- they have a "bookshop." It
should cost around 7.00 a copy plus shipping. ]

Brigitte appears to have adopted a "hobby-horse." She rides it
for what it is worth. It is not entirely based ON ALL the
documents. She has either made her own selection of them, or has
adopted someone else's. She published those. Those opinions have
been strenuously objected to, and now she is defending her
"position." As I see it there are those who claim she has
plagiarized someone else's work, [ FRENCH ? ] and used it
without permission.

I have tried briefly to readjust this, but apparently the
readership enjoys gossip and bickering -- at least some do. The
rest find it annoying and inconsequential. They want to discover
THEOSOPHY. And they are not interested in slander or gossip.

Since Theosophy claims to be a search for TRUTH -- the only
impartial and truly exact TRUTH -- and since we live in a world
of many illusions and opinions, it is far more important to
devote one's time to a search for that TRUTH, than to gnaw again
at the dried bones, and desiccated remains of the past.

The Past cannot be altered by any one. It exists as EVENTS and
FACTS.

Opinions then have to be examined far their verity, if one
desires to spend time on that. I have done that because I find
THEOSOPHY to be most precious and valuable. And, I wish to be
able to defend it.

I also find that the reputation of H P B has been vilified. This
is extremely annoying as she is the TEACHER to all of us. -- We
owe her. -- and as she is not able to defend herself (or
Theosophy) I believe it is my duty to do that to the best on my
ability.

Let me say in parting. There is always a "touchstone" in such
matters. This touchstone is the STATEMENT OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF
THEOSOPHY and has nothing to do with what people have said about
it or opinionated. The actual merits of THEOSOPHY ought to be
determined by you, for yourself. I see you also are aware of
this.

Are they (Theosophical claims and facts) reasonable?

Do they supply the missing ethical and moral links ?

This last, is the most important thing of all.

I say this because KARMA or individual responsibility is the one
thing that most people try to avoid -- or they look for a
religion (or a philosophy) which tells them: "Don't worry.
Accept me. I will see that you get to Paradise after you die."

What does this imply? To me, it implies we all know the TRUTH in
our Hearts. But we allow our "Heads" to argue us out of strict
honesty. Our Conscience (the Voice from the Heart -- the
BUDDHI -- within) then pricks again and again (our Lower Mind),
and the worm of uncertainty drives us, either to undo our known
wrongs to others (which is the best way of mitigating or
off-setting "bad karma"), or, to HIDE THEM. If we hide them, we
add hypocrisy to lie and deceit.

As far as I know there are no "gentle" ways t say these things.
Theosophy teaches us to "face the music." And try to no repeat
any offenses. "Once bitten, twice shy !"

Best wishes, as always

Dallas

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


-----Original Message-----

From: t H
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 9:45 AM
To:
Subject: THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY == Some practical Quotes from
Theosophical Literature

Hi Dallas,

I hope this letter finds you well. I have been
enjoying reading ...........

Can I ask you a ... question - what's going on
theos-talk with the constant debate going on between
Brigitte and you/a few of you folks. It confuses me.
I imagine this friction has some history and I was
wondering what it was.

*****

You know what I think HPB (-err... et all) would
probably think/feel, say: "You mean I painted this
beautiful picture for you all to enjoy AND all you're
gonna focus on me clothes(?!)" -focusing on what an
artist was/was not wearing, their parents/lineage and
such related topic isn't the same as looking/enjoying,
exploring an artist's painting (instead of the
artist).

No right/no wrong, it's though interesting isn't it.


My regards,
T

__________________________________________________