Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00029)

Thursday, April 10, 2003

Dear Leonardo:

See if these answers suit:


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

1

Re: OBJECTS OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY (1875)


In 1875 apparently the 3 Objects were not formulated -- as
we know them. It they were formulated, they do not seem to
have been written out until 1878 in a circular dated May 3rd
1878.

The earliest formulation is to be found (to my knowledge) in

Blavatsky: COLLECTED WORKS (T P H ) Vol. 1, pp. 375-8

[Do you have access to a copy of this 15 Vol. set?]

A circular dated May 3, 1878 was drafted mainly by Olcott,
Some portions were attributed to H P B (p. 377). In this
volume it reads (below).

It is titled THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
[Its Origin, Plan and Aims]


On pp. 376-7, Section VI, speaks of its objects.

It seems, (fn p. 373) Olcott has attributed this to HPB.
It is a full page, and I append a portion of those mentioned :


" The objects of the Society are various. It influences its fellows
to acquire an intimate knowledge of natural law, especially its
occult manifestations.

As the highest development, physically and spiritually, on earth, of
the Creative Cause, man should aim to solve the mystery of his
being...study to develop his latent powers...to personally
exemplify the highest morality and religious aspiration, to oppose the
materialism of science, and every form of dogmatic theology,
especially the Christian...to make known among Western nations the
long-suppressed facts about Oriental religious philosophies, their
ethics, chronology,
esotericism, symbolism...to disseminate a knowledge of the sublime
teachings of that pure esoteric system of the archaic period, which
are mirrored in the oldest Vedas, and in the philosophy of Gautama
Buddha, Zoroaster and Confucius; finally and chiefly, to aid in the
institution of a Brotherhood of Humanity, wherein all good and pure
men, of every race, shall recognize each other as the equal effects
(upon this planet) of one Uncreate, Universal, Infinite, and
Everlasting Cause."
==========================

The formulation of the objects in a succinct way is in the

KEY TO THEOSOPHY (HPB) p. 39.

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

2	Any one can call themselves anything. The proof is:

"Theosophist is who Theosophy does."

A profession of "creed" or "belief," as in one's belief in the
accuracy and reasonableness of the "THREE FUNDAMENTALS," does not
prove that they have been understood or are being practised.

At least they may be in some instances quoted or epitomized to help
others to hear, find and study them.

"Thus have I heard...." was the preface to the statements made by
Buddhist monks when quoting from the Buddhist texts they learned by
heart. We ought to use that in quoting Theosophical texts and if
quotations are offered the specific page and book references ought to
be given.

No one ought to allow their unverified statements to stand as true
expositions of Theosophical verities.

Each one ought to be invited to do their own independent corroboratory
research. No one can prove anything to another. They can offer
proofs they are satisfied with, but any true proof is self originated.

One could well do good by learning the "THREE FUNDAMENTALS" [S D I
14 - 19] by heart -- at least it is something valuable and positive to
fall back on.

The best rule is to never judge others. Assume each is doing the best
they know how, if it is constructive, promulgational, or even
preservative.

If it is destructive in use, distorted, false or misleading on the
face of it, then inquire immediately and without delay, of the speaker
or writer, for the SOURCES for statements that can be shown to support
any statement said to be made in the literature of the Philosophy of
Theosophy. Hold the discussion to that limit alone and avoid all
personal opinions.

The reason why the UNITED LODGE OF THEOSOPHISTS was established was to
place the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY within the reach of
present-day students. It also was, and is, to provide for a free
forum, where those original teachings can be discussed. In this work
it also acts as a publisher. A list of original texts can be provided
to any who inquire.
Use:	http://www.ULT.org

Interpretations by later students are many. How valuable they are,
depends on the accuracy and impersonality of the knowledge shown. But
always those have to be checked with the originals.

The alternative implies accepting "authority" blindly -- which is
eventually fatal to expressed TRUTH.

No one ought to be fully trusted, not even the present writer.


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

3	The first principle in learning is to LISTEN --

This was a step in learning -- like the "Akoustikoi" of Pythagoras'
school, and Plato's Academy
This period of listening and learning was from 7 to 14 years.

Then only was the right to speak given to the disciple.
Who was then called an "Asketai."

A Master graduate was an "Epoptai."

Same in India "Shravaka" is a listener. "Sramana" is a speaker and a
doer.


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

4	Egotism -- Ambition -- Self-regard ( Lower self )

"Empty pots make the most noise."

"Those who know remain silent. Those who speak are often mistaken."


Humility, silence, good works done in secret, are the marks of true
discipleship.

Also note: It may become the duty and responsibility for some to
speak, and, or write. What they say, and whether they strictly adhere
to the Eternal Wisdom will determine their value.

Look to the future of work done now to preserve and spread a knowledge
of Theosophical teachings and principles.

The Karma that is ours to act in this regard of promulgations and
defense of Theosophy is great in terms of responsibility.

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

Dear Leonardo:

see if these meet with your approval,

Dal

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

-----Original Message-----

From: leonmaurer
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 3:20 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [bn-study] MAY THE "LIST" CONTINUE: lesson 1



Serious hypothetical questions for serious theosophists:
(I hope there are more than 300 students on this online loop. ;-)


1. What theosophist or group of theosophists ever claimed that it was
an
"object" of the Theosophical Movement to "form a Universal
Brotherhood"?



2. If someone doesn't accept the "Three Fundamental Principles" as
being
absolutely valid and immutable propositions, can he/she call
him/herself a
"theosophist"?



3. How can anyone learn anything when they talk too much, prejudge
everything, waffle in the negatives, and say nothing positive?



4. For such persons -- what would be their intents and purposes in
haranguing
a group of serious theosophists (among other students listening in)
who are
discussing theosophy as the synthesis of science, religion, and
philosophy,
along with its practical applications in every field on all planes of
reality?



Leonardo

----------------------------------

In a message dated 04/09/03 9:38:22 AM, wry1111@earthlink.net writes:

>Hi.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "ult-blr" <ult_blr@vsnl.net>
>To: <study@blavatsky.net>
>Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 9:09 AM
>Subject: [bn-study] Re: MAY THE "LIST" CONTINUE:
>
>
>> Since there is no thoughtful response to my queries I suppose there
>> is no scope for any serious exercise in mutual understanding. Any
further
>> discussion appears useless.
>>
>> RP
>
>I have lovingly answered the questions you have asked me, with much
deep
>thought and to the best of my abilities, in the spirit of enquiry and
with
>an openness to being shown I am wrong, by further enquiry. The
questions
>I have not answered, I intend to cover in the near future, and have
told
>you so. t took a really long time to write that email, as I am a slow
writer,
>and something very time consuming and troubling is going on in my
life
>right now, which limits my time.

Stop complaining. If you were a theosophist, you would know. The
"near
future" is NOW! What has love to do with answering a question? Maybe
you
should learn the Socratic Method of inquiry. The only way to teach is
to ask
a question, and the only way to learn is to answer one. Chew on that!

>Enquiry is hard work, but this kind of back and forth questioning is
a
>wonderful way for people to learn. Your response is very problematic
and
>saddening to me. All I can think is that your original questions were
not
>sincere and it was a game, as you were not really interested in what
I would
>say and never had an intention to enquire. That's o.k., though sad,
but
>if you consider me to be a person who may have a view different from
your
>own, how do you except to establish a universal brotherhood by line
of
pursuit
>you are following? you may be angry because I am not falling into
line
>and accepting mechanically the three principles of theosophy, which,
for all
>you know, I may actually accept, as I have not said whether I do or
do not.
>The point I was making was not that these principles are or are not
valid,
>but something else.

What else? Blame him. Wipe the tears. Then get off the fence, and
learn
who you are talking to and what you are talking about.

Enquiry is the easiest work of all. All it takes is a question ...
Then --
seeing, hearing, and considering the answers. That's study, and
that's the
work. The word "enquiry" is not inquiry, no matter how many times you
say
it. It's real learning that's the hardest work. So, telling without
being
asked (and, especially, without any learning behind it) -- is the
quickest
way to end communications.

>Furthermore, by your response, you arbitrarily place yourself in the
>position of an authority, as I literally have no idea of what you are
>talking about when you said my response to your message was not
thoughtful,
>as I thought very deeply when I made my response (though to you my
thinking
>may not be very deep, it was deep to me), and made my response with
much
>love and happiness and was looking forward to further enquiry. Since
I have
>no idea what you objected to in my response, this is effectively
(maybe not
>so effectively, but whatever) objectifying me and putting me out in
the cold.

Poor baby. Daddy doesn't know how innocent she is.
How can thinking be thoughtful if it doesn't go as deep as the
question?

To answer an inquiry properly, one must know more about the subject of
the
question than the enquirer. If the subject is theosophical, then only
a more
advanced student can answer it. If the answer is valid and to the
point, the
enquirer will know it, and ask more questions. If not, he won't ask
that
student any more questions... And, in the spirit of brotherhood, he
will
simply speak out loud that the responder is no "authority" and, while
professing to be, doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
(Thanks, RP)

If you were a theosophist (a true seeker of truth) -- you would know
that
dialogues between two student's on near equal levels of wisdom, who
know what
they are talking about, can be a great teacher. So, sad lady, why
don't you
just stop talking and start listening?

>If you made several attempts to communicate with me and I repeatedl;y
did
>not answer questions etc., I could see you gettting frustrated and
quitting,
>but this is not the case, as it is the beginning of communication and
I have
>made a sincere attempt. I realize your approach is not typical of the
>average theosophist, though I have seen more of this kind of behavior
on
>theosophy lists than on other types of forums. Still, it is always a
shock
>to encounter it.

If you were a theosophist, It wouldn't be. No one who is one, at any
reasonable level of theosophical knowledge, can communicate with you.
That's
a fact.

I heard a theosopher say, "You shouldn't put the cart before the
horse."

>I will go over my message with my answers again and try to understand
how
>my sincere answers could have led to this radical a response. I will
be
>answering further, and also answering the questions I did not get to
yet.
>Feel free to respond at any time, but I would appreciate an
explanation of
>your above email, as I literally have no idea of how my message could
have
>elicited this kind of response from you, and because I do not know
what
>you are talking about, there is no way for me to learn. Sincerely,
Wry

If you were a theosophist, after reading any of your missives, you
would know
exactly what he's talking about.

I heard another theosopher say. "You should never put off for tomorrow
what
you should do today." (That makes sense. If you do -- tomorrow,
he'll
forget the question he asked yesterday. Good cop out...)

He also said, "Put yourself in the minds of the readers" and, "Reread
whatever you write at least three times before you send it."

He then said "There's no such thing as an 'impartial observer'" (Other
than
God, I said... sotto voce... shhhh :-)

Hope you learned something.

Best wishes,
</:-)>
(Disclaimer: As the author of the above comments, I am the sole
"authority"
as to their contents.) But, who am I? That is the question.



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/