Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00390)

Dear Jerry,

Thanks for the explanation. It helps me to understand what I have 
stepped into. 

Certainly history is interesting and useful, and a responsible 
investigation of historical facts is a fine thing. But it is also possible 
to use the mantle of historical investigation to try to throw dust in 
everyone's eyes, to obscure the actual essential meaning of the 
thing so investigated. In the case of theosophy and HPB, 
opposition has tried to do this since the beginning. There is a force 
called the disintegrator which attempts to keep these teachings and 
all ancient wisdom from being spread among humanity, since these 
teachings lead us toward self-responsibility, and consciousness of 
Unity. Such ancient wisdom teachings give humanity the tools with 
which to participate effectively in its evolution, and the disintegrator 
seeks to retard that evolution. Whenever we see betrayal, 
treachery, self-aggrandizement, unkindness, attacks on 
personalities, cynicism, paranoia, trickery, or any of the well-known 
qualities of lower self-seeking ambition, we have reason to assume 
that the disintegrator is at work. Each student has to discover such 
agendas on his own, but we need not submit to the machinations of 
this force which seeks to confuse and destroy. We have all the 
information and inspiration we need in the teachings themselves, to 
show us the way to protect ourselves and our race of humanity, and 
to continue in our search for truth and wisdom. Our best protection 
is a pure heart, and compassion for any who have given 
themselves to the force of disintegration to be used and used up as 
its tools, for it does not care what happens to them. And it is 
always possible that even such as those will awaken one day and 
see a better way to proceed in their quest. We can stand ready to 
lend them a hand, when that day comes.

Adelasie

On 26 Jan 02, at 21:52, Gerald Schueler wrote:

> <<<Among theosophists, or people who study theosophy, I assumed I
> would find a dedication to the teaching and devotion to the founders.
> After some discussion, I find this is not the uniformly the case, and
> I confess to some surprise. I wonder then what is the motivation of
> those who prefer to question and doubt, but still participate in a
> list such as this one. It maybe my own limitation, that I don't see
> the point in such pursuits.>>>
> 
> Adelasie, I had exactly the same expectations when I first started
> many years ago (I was one of the original list members). I am a
> Theosophist at large, and have never been a member of a group or
> lodge. So, I was a bit isolated until computers came along. I was very
> surprised, even upset, to discover that other Theosophists had such
> weird (to me) interpretations of Blavatsky. Was it me? Was it they?
> How could they call themselves Theosophists and be so illogical and so
> silly (again, to me)? The result was a lot of name-calling and nasty
> postings, and countless flames. 
> 
> Gradually, over some years, I learned to adjust. I learned to accept
> that Theosophy is a very large umbrella that allows for a lot of
> different thought and levels of understanding and wide variety of
> practical application. And none of really right, or really wrong.
> Eldon and I agreed to accept the differences of others, and to try to
> use the lists (both theos-l and theos-world) as challenges to our
> patience and compassion. It works very well in that regard.
> 
> Anyway, Brigitte and Daniel and Paul and Steve are all historians, and
> Theosophical history is pretty much a lose cannon, and honest
> historians can draw very different conclusions and interpretations.
> This is primarily because the original Theosophical players all said
> or wrote conflicting things at times, and now it is impossble to know
> what really went on. Blavatsky herself admittrf to fibbing on
> occassion, but was an esoterist. Olcott was an honest soldier, but had
> no clue what esotericism was about. When Blavatsky mentions Buddhism,
> for example, she usually refers to Mahayana. Olcott on the other hand
> always refers to Hinayana, and so on.
> 
> Blavatsky claimed that her teaching, which she called Theosophy, is
> ancient, and has been around in one form or another for as long as
> humanity. Daniel pretty much sides, I think, with this view. Paul has
> shown in his books that she could have gleaned much of her information
> from other occultists of her day. Brigitte and Steve take the more
> opposite extreme position that all of her ideas were known by others
> during her day, and that she needed to come up with next to nothing of
> any originality, although they admit that she was able to put the
> various ideas and theories together in a tidy and useful fashion.
> 
> So, is Theosophy an ancient wisdom? Or is it a product of the 18th and
> 19th centuries? I doubt that either side will "prove" their thesis,
> and I suspect that, like most things, we Theosophists will have to
> have faith one way or the other. 
> 
> Anyway, it is an interesting discussion, and one that everyone of us
> should be concerned about, and get into. The possibility that
> Blavatsky is not as ancient as she claims is an important Theosophical
> issue, and it is, I think, an appropriate topic of discussion here on
> this list. Whether we can prove anything is not the issue - we need to
> think about what is being said on both sides, and to accept the
> possibilities and to see where those possibilities lead us. We are,
> after all, supposed to be seekers of Truth.
> 
> Jerry S.
>