Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00111)

Dear Adelasie,

Pardon my insertion of an extraneous letter in your name, twice now. 
And thanks for the effort to come to understanding across the chasm 
that divides this list. You wrote:
> 
> 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.

One couldn't fail to notice that, seems to me. But then one couldn't 
fail to notice that about the writings of Mary Baker Eddy or Joseph 
Smith or any other 19th century founder of a spiritual movement. So 
then, a crucial question becomes "is the only appropriate use of this 
material the use intended by its author?" But maybe that doesn't 
apply to HPB. Eddy and Smith wrote only for those who believed in 
their claims. HPB said, a hundred times if she said it once, that 
her writings weren't intended to be taken as holy writ but to inspire 
inquiry. So I'd say that HPB, by virtue of the range of subjects 
covered and the range of perspectives discussed, *intended* for her 
writings to be looked at from all kinds of angles. 

Isn't it ia bit like eating a sandwich and leaving the filling 
> on the plate? 
> > 

HPB insisted again and again that she was not to be taken as an 
authority, that her works were intended to stimulate inquiry, that 
each theosophist had an inspiration of his/her own and none was to 
pressure anyone else to accept any belief. Isn't *that* the filling 
of the sandwich, and the specific tenets the bread? 
What is *really* essential about HPB-- that she described rounds and 
races in detail, or that she critiqued the mutual hostility between 
science and religion and tried to show an alternative path? What I'm 
suggesting is that skeptical inquirers may be doing a better job at 
incorporating the spirit of HPB's teachings into their lives than 
dogmatic Theosophists are.
> > 
> 
> 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. 

Is objective, scholarly discourse about a body of spiritual 
literature the same thing as "dissecting and manipulating" etc...?

> And if I can imagine it, it can come to pass.
> 
Well, I can imagine a world in which historical truth about spiritual 
leaders is pursued and accepted by adherents of those leaders, not 
attacked and disdained by them.

snip

> HPB was a good example indeed of tolerance of others and their 
> views, 

*sometimes, sometimes not*

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.

If there is any point that I really wish to make, it is this: don't 
confuse eternal theosophia with modern Theosophy. It leads to all 
kinds of sad results. As HPB said, the latter is an earthly shadow 
of the former, which is a heavenly reality. If Theosophists regarded 
themselves as exponents and supporters of universal perennial 
theosophia (rather than specifically of HPB's teachings which are 
mistakenly equated with same), they'd have seen *much* more good come 
from their efforts IMO. It's the difference between building one's 
house on rock or sand. 
> 
> 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. 
> >
Cool, then you should have no problem (unlike someone you admire) 
with accepting as *part* of that *whole* the results of 
historical/critical inquiry about HPB. An approach to Theosophy that 
rejects historical scholarship is definitely partial, not holistic or 
impartial.

> 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. 

I don't personally know anyone who doesn't accept such simple things, 
and doubt that any such person is on this list.

Where you see a beast of materialism thrashing mightily, I see a 
beast of *spiritual materialism*-- the belief that universal truth 
can be contained within the doctrines of any one belief system. The 
mighty thrashing occurs whenever you tell such a beast "Your belief 
system is no more perfect than any other, no less subject to critical 
inquiry and doubt." They just can't stand the thought. 

Cheers,

Paul