Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00334)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "adelasie" <adelasie@s...> wrote:
> Yes Paul, that helps me understand your orientation to our subject 
> and makes your comments clearer to me.

Hi again. I'd hoped for understanding but your response still conveys moral judgment and spiritual superiority. Hope to clarify how that is the case, and why this approach tends to obscure key issues.

But I would ask you one 
> thing. Are you aware that according to occultism, or theosophy, as 
> you call it, that which tends toward unity is positive and generates 
> progress, and that which tends toward separation is negative and 
> retards progress?

No, I wouldn't accept that. Differentiation is a necessary part of progress. And that's how I understand HPB; that progress is *cyclical* and includes phases of expansion/ differentation and consolidation. Now as for the role of critical historical inquiry about HPB, it doesn't tend toward a certain kind of Theosophical groupthink unity about who she was and what she means. But is it negative, or retarding progress, to have plenty of competing interpretations in print for various historical figures? You could say that having dozens of biographies of Elizabeth I "tends toward separation" as opposed to having one officially approved version. But isn't most of the negativity and retarding of progress that goes on concerning historical books the reactions to them by people who don't like what they say? Rather than due to authors who "focus on personal foibles?"

In the light of this, what is your purpose in 
> concentrating on the differences you perceive between eternal truth, 
> represented by the term "theosophy," and the most recent 
> manifestation of some portion of eternal truth, which you 
> characterize as "Theosophy?"

I'd never characterize Theosophy in such a way; the most recent manifestation of eternal truth occurred a split second ago to someone. And every system of thought worthy of the name is "some portion of eternal truth." This distinction you say I'm concentrating on is one that I never have reason to think about except when someone starts making it clear that they don't respect it. That they don't see any difference between "HPB wrote it" and "it is divine wisdom." And you keep writing as if that is a distinction that eludes you, so I keep reminding you of it.

You allow for the fact that spiritual > reality is always disorted when represented on the material plane, 
> but do you imagine that you can do a better job of representing it 
> than, for instance, HPB,

What in the world makes you think that I am competing with HPB? Is someone who writes a historical book about Jesus competing with Jesus? S/he's focusing on history, not posing as a spokesman for spiritual truth.
Same here. Is the fact that a history book about HPB is a *different kind of book* than a devotional book *by HPB* justification for lecturing an author about the spiritual inferiority of his/her approach? Can't someone write a historical book about HPB without being accused of posing as superior to her?

who was a great adept and who had 
> access to sources which are not available to you or anyone else? 

I have access to sources that weren't available to her. All authors have access to some sources and not others. To use this to suggest that it's lese-majeste to write about HPB because her sources were more special is going pretty far in the direction of anti-intellectualism.

> What good does it do anyone to concentrate on the personal foibles 
> of anyone else? 

That's a prejudicial way of putting it, because you regard as "personal foibles" things that others regard as "crucial biographical information." My books do not, of course, focus on "personal foibles" of HPB; not much in there about Yuri and next to nothing about drugs, accusations of criminality, etc. But authors who do explore such issues do good to their readers to the extent that the "foibles" they concentrate on play a central role in the lives of their subjects.

Do we ever do more than reflect our own 
> weaknesses when we choose to concentrate on the weaknesses of 
> others? 

What leads you to accuse me of "concentrating on the weaknesses of others" when it is abundantly clear that I've done no such thing in my writings? Why are you concentrating, pretty relentlessly over a series of posts I might add, on my spiritual inferiority to Theosophists who don't ask improper questions about HPB? Or is this about the posts recently by Steve and Brigitte, in which case they'll have to reply for themselves.

Doesn't the material speak for itself, 

NO! NO!! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!!

That is the crucial conceit of fundamentalism. "Our body of revealed wisdom cannot be approached with the tools of the critical intellect." But no material speaks for itself to the extent that it is morally wrong to investigate it historically-- which seems to be what you're implying.

and suggest, even, 
> that we investigate it with our own faculties, not taking anyone 
> else's word for its validity? 

Taking everyone's words and weighing them against our own observations.

Paul

> 
> Adelasie
> 
> On 21 Jan 02, at 16:45, kpauljohnson wrote:
> 
> > --- In theos-talk@y..., "adelasie" <adelasie@s...> wrote:
> > > 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, 
> > 
> > No, I think you're getting that from the way I view Theosophy. 
> > Theosophy is a movement that originated in the 19th century; 
> > theosophy is a kind of knowing. I used to adhere to the former; the
> > latter is something one can't escape as long as one pursues spiritual
> > studies of any kind.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > Re Theosophy, that is, that is now the case.
> > 
> > > Her personal idiosyncracies do not affect the validity of theosophy
> > > in my view, since theosophy exists within and beyond any material
> > > phenomenon. 
> > 
> > Right, but they do affect the validity of Theosophy to some extent, as
> > they distorted her writings. And all writings are distorted by
> > personal idiosyncrasies in some way or other.
> > 
> > > 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, 
> > 
> > same here
> > 
> > and you see it as a phenomenon external to yourself to be examined for
> > validity. Is that > a fair analysis? > No; you seem to be equating
> > theosophy with Theosophy. I see the latter as a very 19th century
> > phenomenon whereas the former is timeless.
> > 
> > Hope that helps,
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >