Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00117)

I wonder why -- in these self defensive arguments by those who are more or 
less opponents of theosophy, and who read any vague comment about "bias" as 
a personal attack -- that the ensuing commentary almost invariably reverts to 
stressing the nature of the organizations and the personalities of its 
leaders, rather than focussing on the fundamental teachings of theosophy 
itself?  

As for the original teachers alleged biases... Didn't HPB say that all she 
was doing was passing on the ancient metaphysical teachings in the language 
of this age, acting solely as an amanuensis, and that she was not an 
authority and not personally responsible for any inadvertent errors in her 
writings? From my point of view, whatever errors there may be, e.g., in the 
Secret Doctrine, is either typographical or made by its readers in trying to 
interpret the incomplete and faulty material science of that åday (she 
quoted) as possible confirmation or as refutation of the metaphysical 
teachings -- even though HPB warned us of the limitations of such 
comparisons. However, it is a fact that she did predict that science would 
soon begin catching up with theosophy -- as Einstein did when he was able to 
mathematically prove E=mc^2, or that, "mass or substance is equivalent to 
energy and that time and space are integral parts of the substance-energy 
continuum" -- as well as clarifying the concept of "relativity"... All of 
which was (as any "intuitive student" of reasonable intelligence could 
readily determine) thoroughly explained in the SD -- even deeper than 
Einstein could interpret scientifically, limited as he was by the 
restrictions of the then current material science and mathematics he had to 
work with. (Multidimensional Superstring/M-brane theories as a synthesis of 
both relativity and quantum physics that Einstien is credited with birthing, 
along with fractal and multidimensional topological geometry, had not yet 
been discovered or fully worked out.)

However, judging by the great pains HPB took to explain every metaphysical 
concept from every conceivable angle or point of view -- while being limited 
to using a narrowly focused and materialistically oriented linear English 
language that required much multidimensional and non-linearly encoded syntax, 
along with subtle typographical and punctuation artifacts, which forced its 
readers to use their deepest intuition to comprehend its more or less hidden, 
although unambiguous meanings -- it is quite evident (to this serious student 
of occult metaphysical science and philosophy, at least) that she tried her 
best to objectively present the "Secret Doctrine of the East" without any 
personal bias.  

Remember, it is extremely difficult to "picture in words" what is essentially 
a multidimensional and metaphysical hyperspace geometry -- especially, using 
a language that can't describe anything deeper than a 3-dimensional physical 
reality. The problem with most critics of theosophy, is that they could never 
envision these subtleties -- since they are limited to the literal 
interpretation of everything they read or write. Of course, this is 
understandable for historians and other linear thinkers, or opinionated 
materialists who, without comprehensive study, can only judge the teachings 
by the recorded actions of the historical personages and organizations that 
surround it -- which, essentially, have nothing whatsoever to do with 
theosophy per se.  

As an example of this inability for some to see the forest for the trees... 
One only has to study HPB's explanations of the nature of metaphysical and, 
sometimes religious symbols, which, while they can only be drawn two 
dimensionally, are actually, all of them, reflections or suprpositions of 
2-dimensional shapes within the inner and on the outer surfaces of one 
transparent 3-dimensional object when viewed from the inside out and the 
outside in at different rotational angles. This object can be either 
expressed as a multidimensional straight linear (regular) geometrical form, 
or inflated to an analogous curvilinear multidimensional spherical form.  
And, both their fundamental shapes can be infinitely divided, enfolded, or 
multiplied numerically, geometrically, and cyclically -- both internally 
toward their gravitational centers, and externally from their outer 
circumferences -- without changing their fundamental form or internal 
dynamics. To visualize this fundamental geometry of the universe -- with the 
understanding that all action and effects can only take place on their linear 
internal or external surfaces -- is to fully comprehend the meaning of the 
term "As above so below" or "the microcosm is the mirror of the macrocosm"... 
Not to mention, the understanding (by direct experience) of how the universe 
can be both one thing and also an infinite multitude of things expanding and 
contracting both outward and inward from "no thing." (Since, this, more or 
less cryptic description stems from a conundrum or koan -- as HPB 
intentionally left it for "the intuitive reader" to decipher -- I'll leave it 
to the serious students of theosophy to figure the actual structure of the 
"one thing" for themselves and, hopefully, integrate it with the rest of the 
jigsaw puzzle of the theosophical teachings HPB was so kind as to disassemble 
and then reassemble for us to ponder over.)

It seems to me that the dialogue below which is being objected to (along with 
the usual negative innuendoes about theosophy) concerned only the teachings 
of theosophy itself, rather than the political "agenda" of its proponents in 
setting up, and determining the nature of the organization that would promote 
its practical applications in our modern age -- which, unfortunately, became 
a political tool of its physical "management" while HPB was distracted by her 
concentration on the metaphysical teachings themselves. It's interesting, 
that many of these managers distorted or twisted the theosophical teachings 
to suit their own political and religious purposes... Some of which were, 
after HPB died, in direct opposition to her own teachings and personal 
beliefs. Therefore, the use of such personality or organizationally oriented 
arguments to fortify one's objections to theosophy, is like comparing apples 
to oranges.

Consequently, in any discussion about theosophy on this forum, wouldn't it be 
wise to separate the teachings of theosophy from the theosophical 
organizations that grew around it and from the "leaders" who were attracted 
to it for their own political and/or self serving reasons?

LHM
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/evolution2.html



In a message dated 12/31/02 10:02:52 AM, kpauljohnson@yahoo.com writes:

>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Tony" 
>Good morning,
>
>The post quoted below uses some tactics that I've seen repeatedly on various
>fora, used by Baha'is, Cayceites, Theosophists, Fourth Way disciples. 
>Sometimes I've been the target, more often the observer of its use on others.
>In every case the dynamic is this: one person is a true believer, the other
>a dissident or skeptic. The former expresses disdain for the latter, not
>by saying outright "you, X, are beneath me so I look down on you and denounce
>you" but rather by making sneering, dismissive comments to others *about*
>the skeptic or dissident without naming him or her. Such comments offer
>a tiny fig leaf of plausible deniability-- if the target objects, their
>authors can turn around and say "I wasn't referring to you and the fact
>that you imagine I was just proves you're paranoid." I will never forget
>one Baha'i who made a point by point attack on a post I made and then 
furiously
>insisted that he had never read it or anything else I ever wrote!
>(And never would lower himself to do so.)
>
>Having seen "the treatment" from several folks here, I would guess that
>the message is "I'm so disdainful of you that I refuse to address you or
>refer to you by name, yet my disdain requires expression via indirect 
sneering
>comments." But hereby welcome and invite explanations from anyone about
>why people do that. Seems like passive aggressive stuff to me; throw a
>rock, hide your hand.
>
>Tony (whom I know only from this post) wrote:
> 
><alpha@d...> wrote:
>
>> Hi Terrie
>> 
>> Your e-mails! Rather like the sun peeping out from behind they dark
>black
>> clouds. 
>
>What dark clouds?
>
>> You initially wrote:
>> <<<I think/feel that HPB's materials are
>> a worldly, enlightening and unbias resourse AND that what she has
>> written is in fact a tremendous accumulation of reason and wisdom AND
>> quite a respectable gift to have accomplished/offered on up - it's an
>> inspiration, even today.>>>
>> 
>> Alas, what seemed a reasonable statement, 
>
>"Seemed" is not absolute but relative. So it seemed to *you*, Tony, but
>not to me.
>
>has turned into a rather tacky
>> conversation about bias. 
>
>Tacky meaning in poor taste? Why is it tacky to discuss bias? Rather
>than sneering at the conversation, perhaps you might enlighten us with
>non-tacky comments about bias?
>
> Like you, biased is not something I would use
>> about or attribute to H.P.B. 
>
>Why not? She was a vigorous polemicist with a very definite agenda. Not
>that there is anything wrong with that, but let's not pretend it's not
>the case.
>
> We do know she had tremendous powers of
>> discrimination:), and where you might well use discrimination, another
>might
>> use bias. The books you read may be to do with your discriminatory
>powers,
>> rather than with bias. The sun view is different to the black clouds
>view.
>
>That sort of comment is summarized by a very simple phrase, "holier than
>thou." Why not get down off your high horse and engage the topic as an
>equal among equals? The Theosophical movement is very poorly served IMO
>by the tactics its adherents use, congratulating one another with their
>superiority to benighted skeptics. I'd advise saving that for private
>email because it makes a bad appearance for your "side."
>
>
>> Bias is below the belt, discrimination above the head. Roget is not
>law.
>
>Descriptive, not prescriptive. Terrie doesn't have to use the word the
>way it is generally used, but will be better understood if she does so.
>
>> I have read some Olcott, and been to several talks given by Krishnamurti.
>> It is nice to dip into lots of different things, but there is no particular
>> reason why anyone should feel the need to read Krishnamurti from the
>> Theosophical point of view.  
>
>No particular reason? That's rather sweeping. How about the fact that
>the maximum membership of the TS was during its promotion of him as the
>World Teacher? And that his profile is now much higher than the Society
>that nurtured him and which he then rejected?
>
>
> Olcott did a wonderful job as an
>> administrator, and also did mesmeric healing and other great things.
>> But H.P.B. was the Occultist, was of the inner side, so to put it. Here
>in
>> London it is warm, and the happy waitress serving the coffees to us outside
>> in Soho was from Mauritius, and was demanding to see some snow. It is
>always
>> supposed to snow at Christmas here, but rarely does. There is something
>> magical about snow. Is it something to do with the fact that every
>> snowflake is a geometrical shape. It is very like H.P.B's writings.
> They
>> are full of symbols and geometrical shapes, sounds and colours, pictures,
>> and so on. As snow flakes are so beautiful, think by how much more so
>are
>> the thought flakes in "The Secret Doctrine" and "The Voice of the Silence,"
>> and All works of That occult or hidden Nature.
>> 
>> Keep shining
>> Tony
>>
>Shiny New Year to you!
>
>Paul, no dark cloud 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: thalprin <thalprin@y...> [mailto:thalprin@y...]
>> Sent: 30 December 2002 11:13 pm
>> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Theos-World Re: Unbiased
>> 
>> 
>> Hi again
>