Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00405)

Saturday, January 26, 2002


Dear Jerry:

I enjoyed reading what you had to say herebelow.

Although I have been an Associate of the U L T for many years, I
have always found there the eclecticism and freedom which their
DECLARATION offers So that makes me also, a free-thinker and a
"theosophist at large" and, I think, all U L Ters would agree.

If there is any difference" with the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, it is
that apparently with a few exceptions, the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
as an organized body, has made changes to its constitution and
order of business after the death of H P B which seem hardly
consistent with her intentions. [ see for instance her
declarations of independence in A PUZZLE FROM ADYAR, (Lucifer
Vol. 4, p. 506, August 1884) and, WHY I DO NOT RETURN TO INDIA
(written in April 1890, and taken by Bertram Keightley to Olcott
in India but not published in THEOSOPHIST until Oct. 1898, pp
23-4. January 1922 and July 1929); BLAVATSKY: Collected Works
(TPH) Vol. 12, p 156) ]

In regard to H P B and her "standing" I would like to quote from
an article :
H P B WAS NOT DESERTED BY THE MASTERS -- [PATH, April 1896; U L
T -- Q JUDGE Articles II p, 13]

"Master K.H. emphatically wrote him [Mr. Sinnett] that
"ingratitude is not among our vices," asking him if he would
consider it just, "supposing you were thus to come," as H.P.B.
did, and were to "abandon all for the truth; to toil wearily for
years up the hard, steep road, not daunted by obstacles, firm
under every temptation; were to faithfully keep within your heart
the secrets entrusted to you as a trial; had worked with all your
energies, and unselfishly to spread the truth and provoke men to
correct thinking and a correct life ..." [And]

"And as to H.P.B. personally, these words might possibly be
remembered with advantage: "Masters say that Nature's laws have
set apart woe for those who spit back in the face of their
teacher, for those who try to belittle her work and make her out
to be part good and part fraud; those who have started on the
path through her must not try to belittle her work and aim. They
do not ask for slavish idolatry of a person, but loyalty is
required. They say that the Ego of that body she uses was and is
a great and brave servant of the Lodge, sent to the West for a
mission with full knowledge of the insult and obloquy to be
surely heaped upon that devoted head; and they add; 'Those who
cannot understand her had best not try to explain her; those who
do not find themselves strong enough for the task she outlined
from the very first had best not attempt it'."



Best wishes,

Dallas

=====================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:gschueler@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 5:53 AM
To:
Subject: Why This List?

<<<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.

-