Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00105)

Dear Paul,

Thanks for taking so much time to respond to my comments. It is pretty obvious to me that you simply have a different way of approaching this material, and all I can say is that I respect your right to do as you see fit. 


> There are Theosophists and non-theosophists on this list, and while
> both groups are probably trying their best to study and comprehend
> HPB's writings, only the former approach them as "ancient wisdom
> teachings...revealed in this cycle by HPB." That is, only believers
> regard them *in the terms in which they present themselves* accepting
> all their assumptions and claims. So the non-theosophists aren't out
> to "manifest" the teachings of HPB, simply to study and comprehend
> them. But that doesn't make them enemies of Theosophists.
> 
> The distinction between those who try to study and comprehend a body
> of writings as believers, intending to practice them, and those whose
> effort at study and comprehension is more detached and objective, is
> called that between "emic" and "etic" approaches. More on that if you
> are interested.

I wonder how someone could study the material contained within 
the body of literature produced by HPB and not notice that an 
inherent part of it is the devotion to making it a conscious part of 
one's life. Isn't it ia bit like eating a sandwich and leaving the filling 
on the plate? 
> 
> 
> As with every other kind of religious writings, there will always be
> those who try to study them objectively without accepting the belief
> system they inculcate, and others who say that it is entirely
> inappropriate, indeed spiritually wrong, to do so. The Bible is the
> most obvious case in point.

I'm not so sure about the "always." I can imagine a time when 
mankind knows truth when he sees it and does not find it 
necessary to dissect it and manipulate it until it is unrecognizable. 
And if I can imagine it, it can come to pass.

> Of course, that is essential if one is an adherent of the 
> Theosophical belief system. But what sort of attitude should such
> adherents adopt toward those who question or reject their beliefs? 
> The same outraged antagonism of Christian fundamentalists who can't
> stand seeing the Bible questioned as history?

It is often difficult to discern another's motive. If someone seems to 
be outraged and antagonistic, most of us would react to defend 
ourselves. But maybe those who seem to reject the most perfectly 
reasonable explanation of the meaning of life are really asking for a 
way to see in too. So those who feel they have found something 
they want to share with others keep trying to do so, just in case 
they might say the right word that would be the open sesame for 
another seeker.
>
> Frankly, in my experience occultists are the least altruistic people
> in the world. The most arrogant too.

Your experience is very different from mine.
>
> That avoids the crucial question, what is it to be unjustly 
> attacked. Is someone who comes to a different conclusion than one's
> own about a particular historical person, and expresses it in writing,
> thereby guilty of an unjust attack? How do we distinguish between an
> unjust attack and an innocent difference of opinion? Doesn't this
> boil down to whether we approach HPB from a fundamentalist POV or not?

Maybe it boils down to whether one takes theosophy seriously and 
wants to make its teachings a part of his life or not. If one sincerely 
takes these teachings to heart, he will not wish to attack another 
person's beliefs. He may not be perfect in this, he may seem 
aggressive sometimes, but he will keep trying to behave with 
tolerance and acceptance of the rights of others. But if one does 
not find these teachings valuable as a guide to living, he may feel 
quite justified in using any method, including personal attack, to get 
his point accross, or defend his position, or whatever, and never 
feel that he has done anything wrong, and even be surprised and 
shocked when others take exception to his behavior.
> 
> 
> Steve has commented on the recurring theme here of "I'm superior to
> you because I take the heart approach and yours is purely
> materialistic and intellectual." Is it really impossible to imagine
> that someone could be spiritually and emotionally influenced by HPB,
> appreciative of her impact on his/her life, yet still *fully capable
> of approaching her historically like any other person whose claims are
> not to be taken on faith but subjected to rigorous doubt*? It really
> doesn't have to be oppositional or mutually exclusive. 

I do not wish to say that anyone is superior to anyone else. That is 
not my point. The intellectual approach is one way of approching 
theosophy and can apparently yield some understanding. But 
nobody can hope to fully develop his understanding of ancient 
wisdom to the extent of his potential with the intellect alone. A 
person could probably spend lifetimes concentrating on the 
intellectual aspect of the teachings for it is certainly there. It's just 
that that isn't all there is. But it is just a choice, not better not 
worse, just different.
> 
> 
> small t theosophy transcends the mind and words. Big T Theosophy is a
> specific modern movement started by specific people with a specific
> body of literature. Confusing the former with the latter, and
> treating the modern movement as if it is therefore somehow beyond
> historical criticism (indeed, beyond history period), has been
> disastrous for Theosophy in our lifetimes. HPB understood the
> difference; why can't her modern disciples? HPB tolerated and
> encouraged different approaches than her own; why can't her modern
> disciples?

HPB was a good example indeed of tolerance of others and their 
views, as well many other qualities of excellence in human nature. 
But I wonder about this separating one theosophy from another. I 
never see anything good come from concentrating on separateness.

> Maybe they have already.

Maybe so.
> 
>
> Two problems here. First, it is always dangerous to accuse others of
> willfully avoiding something because *we* think it's essential. Maybe
> they're just willfully focusing on what to *them* is essential. What
> about the Golden Rule here? Do you like having someone accuse you of
> willfully avoiding something?

Good point, Paul. It looks willful from my point of view, but my POV 
is necessarily limited. Point taken.
> 
> Second problem: what is the essential nature of the teaching, and who
> determines it? Who then has the right to dismiss others as avoiding
> it? Judge called Theosophy an ocean, but it modern discourse it has
> become a tiny stream with very sharply defined banks.

To me, the essential nature of the teaching is what taking it to heart 
and making it a part of one's life reveals.
>
> That's really the crucial issue, isn't it? That people who don't
> approach the material as *believers* are thereby assumed to be
> *soulless* in their approach to it. There is a lot of heart and soul
> that goes into the kind of work you dismiss as "intellect alone"-- and
> a lot of empty intellectualizing among those who fantasize that their
> wordspinning is spirituality.

I don't accuse anyone of soullessness. Not at all. I don't wish to 
find fault with anyone. I am only trying to represent a whole, rather 
than a part, of something that has great potential to help humanity 
in a very difficult cycle. 
>
> 
> The age that is closing is the Piscean, focused on mystical faith,
> submission to authority, the religious mindset. The new age is that
> of Aquarius and is all about objectivity, useful knowledge,
> intellectual freedom. So say the astrologers. Pisces might call
> Aquarius "materialistic" for being less oriented to blind faith;
> Aquarius would say that science is no less spiritual than religion and
> a lot more beneficial. 
> 
Interesting analysis, and certainly defensible. But I still see the 
beast of materialism thrashing mightily to try to stave off the 
inevitable end of its cycle, and its death throes causing havoc 
everywhere, especially among those who cannot allow themselves 
to accept simple things like self-responsibility, unity of all life, 
cyclic nature of all reality. But it's ok. It's just life. And we will all 
sink or swim together. 

Adelasie

> 
>