Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00583)

THANKYOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL REPLY MR. TUCKER. I MOVED UP CLOSE TO 
THE SCREEN AND READ EVERY WORD OF IT ! 

THEOSOPHY EXISTED BEFORE HPB AND THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. IN SOME 
WAYS I SEE MYSELF AS A DEFENDER OF THAT AGELESS, REAL THEOSOPHY. WITH 
MORE OPEN-MINDED PERSONS LIKE YOURSELF, THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT CAN 
ACTUALLY PROGRESS BEYOND DOGMATICALLY DEFENDING THE THEOSOPHICAL 
SOCIETY'S FOUNDERS (REAL OR IMAGINED) AS IF THEY WERE INFALLIBLE. IF 
WE ARE TRUTH SEEKERS, CAN WE NOT FACE THE TRUTH ABOUT HPB AND HER 
LIMITS, AND THE LIMITS OF THE MAHATMA LETTERS ETC ? THE REAL VALUE 
OF THE EARLY THEOSOPHISTS WORK IS ONLY OBSCURED BY HAGIOGRAPHIC 
EFFORTS AND INSISTANCE ON MYSTIFYING THEIR HUMANITY. IT IS ENOUGH TO 
BE A GREATLY GIFTED OR GREATLY MOTIVATED HUMAN BEING. IN FACT TO ME, 
IT IS ENOUGH TO BE JUST HUMAN. TO ME EVERY HUMAN IS INESTIMATELY 
PRECIOUS AND LOVABLE. I DON'T SEE RACES, I SEE SOULS TO LOVE AND BE 
LOVED. IT IS BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN HOW THOUGHTS OF RACISM ETC. GIVE 
RISE TO HARMFUL ACTIONS THAT CAUSE SUFFERING TO SOULS, THAT IS WHY I 
WORK TO ROOT-OUT AND EXPOSE UNTRUTHS AND DANGEROUS IDEAS THAT GIVE 
RISE TO DANGEROUS ATTITUDES AND ACTIONS. HPB WAS A CRUSADER, AND SO 
AM I. I DON'T THINK OF US AS BEING ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF 
ANYTHING. WE ARE BOTH SINCERE IN OUR OWN STRUGGLES FOR THE GREATER 
GOOD. BY DOING WHAT I AM DOING, I DO NOT THINK OF MYSELF AS HER 
ENEMY, BUT RATHER AS HER ADMIRER AND FRIEND. IF SHE WERE HERE IN MY 
ROOM RIGHT NOW, I WOULD BE MORE INCLINED TO GIVE HER A HUG AND 
DISCUSS THEOSOPHY WITH HER, THAN TO ARGUE WITH HER ABOUT ANYTHING. 

PAX AND PREMA !

NOT THE ENEMY)

BHAKTI ANANDA GOSWAMI --- In theos-talk@y..., "Eldon B Tucker" 
<eldon@t...> wrote:
> Bhakti Ananda Goswami:
> 
> Your latest message was a good change of pace from the less serious 
and
> hastily written postings I've seen come flying by on the list. 
You've
> written a good description of what you think and how you see 
Theosophy
> -- at least Part I of that description.
> 
> You suggest that it's best to go to the source rather than speculate
> from the outside. Your statement refers to people going to original
> works of the great religions and philosophies of the world. Within
> Theosophy, that is frequently mentioned in another context. 
Theosophical
> students are encouraged to read the source writings of Theosophy,
> especially those of Blavatsky's. This is so they can learn exactly 
what
> she had said, rather than second-hand opinion of later writers that 
may
> not represent things the same way. Even if one decides to disagree 
with
> Blavatsky, at least one knows what she had actually said.
> 
> In a bigger sense, the effort with Theosophy is doing the same 
thing. It
> attempts to get to the source of Truth rather than speculate from 
the
> outside. It is an attempt at original insight into the way things 
are,
> drawing upon various religions and philosophies by way of 
illustration.
> It is an original attempt at a formulation of the basic reality of 
life
> that is not merely an official offshoot or branch of some particular
> already existing religion or belief system. It does not claim to be
> second hand truth, borrowed from Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity,
> Platonism, or anything already established belief system that we 
know
> of. Being a fresh formulation, it is direct to the source rather 
than a
> second-hand reformulation of something else. This is not "direct 
from
> God" in the form of a Prophet or Messiah, but rather from those 
having a
> good understanding of life and seeing a need for the effort.
> 
> The theosophical student does not approach the Mahatma Letters and
> Blavatsky's writings as "the highest authoritative teaching of the 
only
> true philosophy on earth." Perhaps some may. I hope not too many do 
so.
> It's not the intended approach. There is no claim to being an 
exclusive
> approach, a path that everyone must follow. The materials are 
useful as
> a springboard for deeper thought and may contain some brilliant 
gems of
> truth, but the highest value comes from reading between the lines, 
from
> the intuitive insights that arise from the study. These highest 
truths
> are not the precise ideas spelled out in black-and-white on the 
printed
> page, lofty as some of them may be.
> 
> Theosophy does not attempt to establish a church. There is not a
> religious hierarchy. There is no one to give orders and no spelled 
out
> spiritual practice that all must follow in order to be a 
Theosophist.
> There are some general principles that one can live one's life by, 
but
> there is not a formal sent of disciplines that one must follow in 
order
> to undertake this particular path. In the absence of established
> religious authority, it is easy for dabblers to set themselves up as
> experts and claim more knowledge than they have. The same is true 
with
> any popular writer selling books on religion, philosophy, mental 
health,
> politics, and other topics that may draw a following. Wherever 
there is
> freedom of thought, there will be people promoting ill-informed and
> worthless schemes alongside those of value. Experts can offer their
> opinions, but it's up to the intelligence and common sense of the 
reader
> to pick out the best materials.
> 
> A set of ideas can be used for the good or the bad. In order for
> Theosophy to be a force for good in the world, it needs to be a 
living
> tradition and not simply a set of ideas found on old books on 
library
> shelves. The living tradition is of people who understand it,
> communicate it, benefit from it, and are able to use it to noble
> purpose. That is, as long as there are people that continued to 
practice
> the theosophical dharma, it continues as a source of light in the 
world.
> It is these people who "interpret" it or explain what it says and 
means
> so that the doctrines are not misunderstood.
> 
> There may also be groups of individuals intend on harmful purposes. 
They
> may perpetuate what might be considered dark or possibly even evil
> dharmas. They may borrow ideas from different religions and
> philosophies, perhaps even theosophical books, and use them to 
their own
> purposes. They, obviously, give their own interpretations as to 
what the
> books mean. 
> 
> When someone is searching for the Path and looks into Theosophy, 
they
> are not abandoning authentic ancient religious and philosophical
> sources. The authority is not in the books or public doctrines of
> established religions. It is in the wisdom of advanced individuals 
who
> may have little if any recognition in their church or community,
> individuals sometimes obvious for their saintliness but other times
> obscure, unseen, blending in, and unnoticed. The wisdom of the ages 
is
> in the Mysteries, which may include individuals in any outer 
tradition.
> We might speculate as to who these people are, how they know each 
other,
> how they pass on their knowledge, and where they are. They 
represent the
> living tradition of humanity's inner knowledge.
> 
> You may find bits of different religions in Blavatsky's writings,
> perhaps not always expressed exactly as a religion would view them, 
and
> when you find errors, difficult to understand statements, or the
> appearance of a collage of ideas that isn't fully worked out.
> Considering what we're looking at, I'd expect this. If we are 
looking at
> the original giving birth to an entirely new religious philosophy,
> seeing it take shape at its point of inception, we'd see such 
things. If
> the basic truths of the universe were being freshly reformulated 
for a
> new era in the West, there would be a bit of effort to find words,
> terms, ideas to express it. There would be bugs to work out. The 
effort
> may not start as a finished product. Going from a primal 
understanding,
> perhaps out of deep insight as trained in the Mysteries, Blavatsky 
might
> not begin with a polished system of thought. It would take later
> generations, including our own, to continue perfecting it into 
something
> of genuine value in the world.
> 
> The esoteric tradition is found in an inner path that one takes. 
This
> may come from the support of an established religion, but religious
> authority is not required. The rules of conduct one follows are 
ethical,
> moral, and arise from an inner sense of rightness. They come from
> insight into life and not due to an external list of commandments 
from
> an established religion. One is good because one is awakened enough 
to
> realize that is part of the nature of life. One is not good because 
one
> is told to be good by someone with power over one.
> 
> Discipline comes from a genuine love of what one is doing and not 
from a
> bitterly-accepted punishing trial that is imposed upon one. There 
is not
> a notion of surrender to something outside one, some higher power in
> church or heaven ordering one to be a certain way or do a certain 
deed.
> There rather is self-forgetfulness as one becomes at-one with one's
> situation in life. As the notion of a separate self disappears, so 
does
> the notion of an external authority and notion of another than one 
is
> interacting with. There is just what one is doing and a sense of 
being
> creatively absorbed in it.
> 
> The first step in a study of Theosophy is to wonder what it is. 
What is
> Theosophy? For what purpose does the Theosophical Society exist? 
What is
> one studying and how is it useful in everyday life? What does it 
mean
> and how does one seek deeper knowledge of it? These basic questions,
> sincerely asked, are the first step on taking a genuine path 
towards the
> spiritual. It's possible and all too easy to become distracted and 
lose
> one's way on that path. But the path is there and one can tread it. 
And
> theosophical students often feel inclined to clear out some of the
> underbrush to make that path easier to tread by those that follow.
> 
> -- Eldon Tucker