Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00119)

Dear Paul, 


> Pardon my insertion of an extraneous letter in your name, twice now. 

No problem. It's a strange name to most.
> 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. 

Indeed she did. But maybe you will forgive me if I say that some of 
the things I have been reading on this list lately sound as if 
someone were trying to diminish or even discredit her and her work. 
What is the point of that? If it rings true to a person, it does. If it 
doesn't, it doesn't. Nobody can convince anyone else of either side. 
We all have to learn our own way. Isn't there some way to talk 
about history without questioning the validity of people and events 
that others find wholely satisfying and even inspiring? 
> 
> 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.

It seems to me that there is a difference between examining the 
statements made in the literature in the light of our own experience, 
validating them by this process, and accepting them if we find them 
to be true, and trying to prove that people and events in the past 
were or were not what they appeared to be or said they were. The 
former seems to me to be more than a life's work, and worth the 
effort. The latter, all due respect, seems somehow beside the point. 
My opinion only, here, but didn't theosophy come into the world, for 
the gazilionth time, to give humanity some badly needed 
information about how to cope with the cycle of evolution we are 
now experiencing? Doesn't it answer some very important questions 
about who we are and what we are doing here? Why not focus on 
the material? Maybe I just don't understand, not being much of an 
intellectual, but when the discussion gets nasty I always feel as if 
there might be some more effective way to proceed. 

> > > > 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...?

If it keeps itself in the realm of objective and scholarly, no. 
> 
> > 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. 

This is a very important point. Shall we concentrate on the fallibility 
inherent in the manifestation of the eternal reality? Or shall we 
direct our attention to the essential reality itself? In my experience, 
if we concentrate on the personal and ephemeral, in any phase of 
life, including conversation with each other, we quickly descend into 
name calling and worse. If we continue to look for the impersonal 
underlying principles in all phenomena, including our personal 
interactions, we may find some illumination. 

> > 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.

It's your choice, Paul, and as I said before, all I can do is respect it. 
Can you respect my approach? Or that of the someone I admire?
> 
> > 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. 

I guess this is about some exchange external to the present one. 
But I haven't seen any posts in my exposure to this list by anyone 
who espouses such doctrinaire philosophy. I see posts that seek to 
reveal the universality of the bit of ancient and eternal wisdom, 
truth, that came to the earth and is presently called theosophy. I 
see the attempt to show that this body of knowledge, given to 
humanity, is part of humanity, part of the whole universe, and that 
all philosophy, religion, and science, are also a part of this eternal 
universal truth. I don't see theosophy as a belief system at all, nor 
do I see others say that it is. It's only my view, of course, but what 
I do see is a serious and sincere attempt to shed some light on the 
darkness of fear confusion that presently ensnares a large part of 
humanity. Maybe that is your intent as well. If so, we all have a lot 
in common. 
> 
Adelasie