Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00593)

Dear Eldon and Bhakti Ananda Goswami,

Yours is the first exchange on this list in a long time that has 
moved me to want to resubscribe. I see issues that are much broader 
than the synthetic, composite nature of Blavatskian Theosophy, indeed 
that are universal in religious history, in your discussion.

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Bhakti Ananda Goswami" <bhakti.eohn@v...> 
wrote:
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.

Many Christians are outraged by the work of the Jesus Seminar and 
most others ignore it. They cannot face the truth that Jesus was a 
greatly gifted or greatly motivated human being, or that his 
teachings were specific to a time and place and must be understood in 
historical context. He has to be a universal cosmic truthgiver, to 
satisfy a deep need for absolute certainty in his disciples. Same 
with HPB, Gurdjieff, Cayce, etc. 
snip
> NOT THE ENEMY)

What I read between the lines-- and perhaps am misreading-- is an 
implicit juxtaposition between 1) ersatz, composite teachings and 2) 
authentic, pure teachings, with a further implication of "mine's 
better than yours." The problem with that, as I see it, is that 
*every* tradition is composite, synthetic, built up with layers of 
accretion over a long time or constructed by a single individual or 
group over a short time. Either way, we don't have a choice between 
synthetic and authentic-- every spiritual tradition is synthetic.

Where authenticity comes in, IMO, is in the frank acknowledgment of 
the synthetic nature of the teaching. Cayceites who insist that the 
Readings are direct transcriptions of the Akashic Record; Baha'is who 
insist that Baha'u'llah's writings are direct words of God; 
Christians who insist that Jesus is the one and only Son of God whose 
words are the absolute and ultimate truth; Theosophists who insist 
that HPB's Theosophy is the ancient wisdom tradition from which 
everything else devolved; ad nauseum are engaged in what David Lane 
calls genealogical dissociation. That is, denying the actual, always 
complex genealogy of the belief system and pretending that it is sui 
generis, direct truth straight from The Source. I don't think 
Hinduism or Buddhism are exempt from this behavior pattern, although 
they do tend to a bit more self-honesty about the history of ideas.

Currently I'm studying the Fourth Way teachings of Gurdjieff et al 
and finding a similar pattern. Gurdjieff, like HPB, gave a dual 
message: 1) this teaching is a composite of materials gathered in a 
lifetime of global travel and contacts in many different traditions
2) this teaching is truth itself, ancient spiritual science that 
trumps all modern science and history, and comes from sources 
infinitely superior to the sources of modern knowledge. In both 
cases, the majority of followers blithely ignore the frank honesty of 
message 1 and attach themselves passionately to the mythmaking of 
message 2. Are HPB and Gurdjieff to be blamed for the way people, 
given the choice between believing the truth and the lie, almost 
always prefer the lie? And furiously attack anyone who questions it?

Wondering,

Paul