Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00279)

Dear Paul,

I think I am beginning to understand what is going on here. 
Somewhere else (I had a lot of emails to go through when I returned 
and so I'm not sure where) I think I read that you said, "I am not a 
theosophist." Am I correct in deducing that you view theosophy as 
a historical anomaly, something like the Spanish Inquisition or the 
Civil War, and therefore find it reasonable to apply traditional 
techniques of historical investigation to it as you would to any other 
past phenomenon? If so, then that is the basis of our apparent 
disagreement on some basic issues. Because that is not my 
orientation toward theosophy. I am a theosophist, and what I say 
comes from my understanding of theosophy, as I have internalized 
its principles and tried to make them a part of my daily life. Or, 
more correctly put, tried to discover how they are a part of my daily 
life. Theosophy speaks to me by revealing what I find I already 
know, and motivating me to put it into practice. If I find that I know 
without a doubt that all life is one, I discover in my study of 
theosophy that the next step is to behave according to that 
knowledge, to treat my fellow human beings like my brothers, to 
revere all life in its myriad forms, and to respect the laws of nature 
that keep the whole of manifestation evolving toward greater 
consciousness. But your approach may be more like that of viewing 
theosophy from the outside, and trying to investigate it from that 
point of view, without any personal involvement. For that reason, 
what I say seems silly to you, since it cannot be proven by any 
traditional method. It's true. I cannot prove what I say or think, and 
don't find it necessary to try. I just am not smart enough, when it 
comes right down to it, and sometimes I wish I had a bit more 
mental power, to provide some of the information and examples 
such as one can find in the writings of HPB. But that was her job, 
and I must be content with mine, whatever it is. 

As you probably know, theosophy does not seek to proseletyze. 
The idea behind this is that each individual has his own work to do 
in any given incarnation, and that he is guided by his own inner 
Knower, or Higher Self, to the extent that he can listen to its 
directions. I find that theosophy, as revealed by HPB under the 
direction of the Masters, illuminates my own work to my complete 
satisfaction, but I do not expect it to do the same for you or anyone 
else. I find that all my questions, from "what are we here for?" to 
"how can I deal with this situation?" are answered by the basic 
principles of theosophical teaching. That is what I find so valuable 
in theosophy. It appeals to my better nature, helps me discover 
how to do the right thing, and the results of this make life richer and 
more meaningful. But again, this may not be true for you, and that's 
ok. You have your way and I have mine. 

I am not interested in the foibles of any personality, past or present, 
or at least it does not serve my purposes to be so interested, since 
I understand that my work is to develop myself and let others do 
the same. None of us on earth is perfect. We are all in a state of 
evolution. I don't think that HPB was perfect either, nor did she ever 
say she was. But what I have learned of her life leads me to a very 
high regard for her and her work. She is an example to me of a 
selfless and devoted person who sacrificed a tremendous amount 
on the personal level to provide an important service to humanity. 
Her personal idiosyncracies do not affect the validity of theosophy 
in my view, since theosophy exists within and beyond any material 
phenomenon. To me, theosophy is the source of truth, as we can 
know it in this cycle. It is not exclusive in any way. It is not 
separate in any way. It is eternal and all-inclusive. If I come across 
something in my study that I don't understand, to date, I have 
always found it useful to hold it in abeyance, until some connection 
is made in my own understanding, through study and experience, 
that sheds light on its meaning. This process has never let me 
down yet. 

So it seems we are attempting to talk about something that we view 
in very different ways. This is not impossible, but it is not easy, 
since our very definitions are opposite from each other. I see 
theosphy as a representation in material form of eternal truth, which 
exists in everything, including myself, and you see it as a 
phenomenon external to yourself to be examined for validity. Is that 
a fair analysis?

Best wishes, 
Adelasie



On 8 Jan 02, at 17:11, kpauljohnson wrote:

> Dear Adelasie,
> 
> If you've already left, this will await your return. Will comment
> while thoughts are fresh and wish you a pleasant sojourn. You wrote:
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> Nothing to forgive! But I would suggest that such a perception is 1/3
> inaccurate, 1/3 self-fulfilling, and perhaps only a third accurate. 
> The inaccurate part of the perception is that it takes subjective
> implications and turns them into objective intentions. Now, I get in
> hot water when defending other people or when defending myself; in the
> former case tangled up in confusing exchanges, in the latter case
> accused of "nauseous [sic-- he meant nauseating] self- promotion." 
> But will choose the latter course and say firmly-- with even my
> antagonists Daniel Caldwell and John Algeo agreeing-- my books are
> FRIENDLY to HPB. They have a decided pro-Theosophy bias. Everyone
> who knew me when writing them-- including prominent figures in the
> Adyar and Pasadena TSes-- knows full well that they were written in a
> spirit of admiration and respect for HPB. Yet Dallas, and a few other
> fundamentalists, insist for years now that they are deliberate attacks
> on her reputation, that is that someone (me) was out to diminish or
> discredit her and her work. That is purely their imagination and has
> nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Why would they presume that
> their imagination of my intentions has more weight than my own
> testimony and that of everyone who knows me? Because THEY find the
> IMPLICATIONS of my work to diminish and discredit HPB FROM THEIR
> PERSPECTIVE, and assume that the IMPLICATIONS they perceive must be
> IDENTICAL to the INTENTIONS of the book.
> 
> Likewise, I'd say that in general neither Steve nor Brigitte intends
> to diminish or discredit HPB. They intend to get to the bottom of
> things and figure her out. That LEADS them into territory that LOOKS
> to certain doctrinaire followers as if they INTEND to attack her. 
> But then Christian fanatics accuse scholars of Christian history of
> attacking Jesus-- simply because their work leads to implications
> conflicting with the fanatics' beliefs.
> 
> Then there's the fact that Steve, Brigitte and I often find ourselves
> communicating with people who say the most nonsensical things in
> support of HPB's most unlikely claims, and convey lots of personal
> antagonism in the process. Then, because someone else has tried to
> "build up" HPB in an illogical and silly manner, the response to that
> LOOKS like an attempt to "tear her down" but in fact is determined
> mostly by the kind of argument that is being answered.
> 
> And then there might actually be some actual diminish/discredit 
> intentions going on-- but even then the target isn't HPB herself, whom
> Steve, Brigitte and I all like and admire-- but the little tin god
> that Theosophists have made of her.
> 
> > What is the point of that? If it rings true to a person, it does. 
> 
> Right. But the Protocols of the Elders of Zion ring true to certain
> persons. Does that mean others shouldn't examine them in the light of
> historical evidence and try to persuade them or others that they are
> wrong in taking them at face value?
> 
> If it 
> > doesn't, it doesn't. Nobody can convince anyone else of either 
> side. 
> 
> No one can convince Dallas or Daniel that HPB ever told a lie or made
> a mistake-- and maybe that's true of you. No one can convince Steve
> or Brigitte or me that she didn't, in light of abundant evidence. But
> we are only 5 out of 170 subscribers or so. All those silent lurkers
> are potentially open to arguments pro and con-- and it's really about
> them, not trying to convert true believers to a more sensible and sane
> appreciation. The true believers don't own HPB, don't own Theosophy,
> don't own this list. There are other readers out there who appreciate
> contributions like Brigitte's even if you and Dallas don't.
> 
> > 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? 
> > > 
> You mean, without asking whether or not stories people told about
> themselves and events were true or not? NO. But my question-- isn't
> there some way to talk about history without people perceiving this
> kind of question as a vicious attack on their belief system? 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Theosophical apologists are about "proving that HPB was what she
> appeared to be or said she was." Objective historical scholarship on
> HPB is about *trying to find out the truth* not about proving any
> preconceived belief system.
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Indeed so. But the effort to find out the truth about historical
> figures is-- well, maybe beside *your* point but it *is* my point. 
> Even now with my own ancestry. I'm not out to prove my great-great-
> grandparents were heroes or villains, just to *find out what their
> lives were really like.*
> 
> > about who we are and what we are doing here? Why not focus on 
> > the material?
> 
> Those who want to focus on the material from an emic POV would do
> better to stick to that than to abuse those who take an etic POV and
> tell them they have no right to do so.
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Sure. Theosophists should relax about HPB rather than be 
> hypervigilant, getting nasty whenever their doctrinaire version of her
> is questioned.
> 
> > 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? 
> 
> Shall we perceive those two options as mutually exclusive and 
> antagonistic, or accept that they are intricately, indeed 
> inextricably interwoven?
> 
> snip
> 
> > Can you respect my approach? Or that of the someone I admire?
> 
> Yours, yes. The someone you admire, no. Can one respect an approach
> that is fundamentally and deeply disrespectful of oneself personally? 
> Maybe in an abstract way, from a distance. Not when I see him doing
> the same thing to others regularly. > > snip
> 
> > I guess this is about some exchange external to the present one. 
> 
> About the whole history of certain Theosophists online.
> 
> > But I haven't seen any posts in my exposure to this list by anyone
> > who espouses such doctrinaire philosophy.
> 
> GASP!!
> 
> eternal 
> > universal truth. I don't see theosophy as a belief system at all, 
> nor do I see others say that it is. 
> 
> They don't call it that but they absolutely treat it as such.
> 
> 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. 
> > > 
> Yes, false beliefs about history held by religious fanatics have
> contributed tremendously to humanity's darkness, fear and confusion. 
> Anyone who works towards a clearer and more objective picture of our
> past is thereby laying a foundation for a brighter future.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
>