Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00508)

Jerry:

Your summary is on target and is invaluable and very helpful. This is 
especially true about newbees on the list who may wonder what is going on; 
especially each comes from a different direction. May be it is a good idea 
to repost this message at periodical intervals so that newbees can feel 
that each can freely discuss theosophy from their viewpoint and interest.

mkr

Jerry 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.


----