Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00419)

Perry:

You don't necessarily have to quit the Adyar Theosophical Society. 
Regardless of the official view of Theosophy held by its current 
leadership, there are others at the national and local level with other 
views. Some lodges may make you feel at home. In any group you may visit, 
even if you don't get invited to lecture, you may make friends and give 
people receptive to your ideas.

The key problem that the groups and many individuals face is how to define 
Theosophy. If you puzzle over the question, "What is Theosophy," and come 
up with a few answers, you may be inclined to consider the matter closed 
and start actively promoting your answers to others, battling to see that 
your definition wins out. This is what many do and is how the groups become 
entrenched in a particular outlook, to the exclusion of other ideas and 
approaches.

If, though, you let yourself become less attached to your current answer to 
the question, and look upon the search for its answer as a Zen Koan which 
each theosophical student has to approach and find individual answers to, 
you become less concerned if this or that person agrees with you. Instead, 
the concern is that they and you keep open the questioning, continuing the 
quest into discovering what life is about.

To the extent that Theosophy involves a dynamic quest for understanding 
life, the puzzling over its doctrines is only one aspect of the process. 
> From this standpoint, the books offer materials that keep us wondering 
about life without getting fixed into a rigid framework of dogmatic 
beliefs. Every time we think we're grasped some key doctrine, something 
comes along to throw our thinking into disarray, like a Zen Master hitting 
us with a stick and telling us that we're a total fool. Then we go back to 
the books and find some brilliant new insight that opens a new perspective 
on things.

This emphasis on an iterative approach to study, where things are 
repeatedly approached from different angles, each time going a little 
deeper, each time making us rethink things in a slightly different way, is 
a special method of teaching the Esoteric Philosophy. I've found it 
particularly well done by G. de Purucker in his FUNDAMENTALS OF THE 
ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY, which is based upon a class he held in THE SECRET 
DOCTRINE at Point Loma in the 1920's. This style of teaching runs contrary 
to our normal, western manner of education, where we want things in strict 
outline, everything to be covered in its own chapter, presented in logical, 
hierarchical order. It's something I realize I'll have to eventually learn, 
if I want to become more effective in my own writings.

A second important point that needs to be recognized and accepted for 
theosophical students to peacefully coexist is that there are distinct 
variants of the doctrines. There is the Besant/Leadbeater, Purucker, 
ULT/Blavatsky, Independent Blavatsky, and others. Each has distinctive 
ideas and manner of presentation. In the Besant/Leadbeater scheme, for 
instance, things are more like Spiritualism, with invisible worlds in 
regular interaction with the physical and where the seven principles are 
literalized as "bodies on different planes." The Point Loma approach more 
closely parallels THE MAHATMA LETTERS, and has spheres of causes and 
spheres of effects, with the fully conscious entity during life separating 
into its composite parts at death, and we are the human Ego part, asleep in 
Devachan (after a brief kamalokic purgatory) during those states. An 
introductory theosophical book would have to be very simple in nature for 
all the groups to agree on its content.

More complex aspects of answering, "What is Theosophy," involve who was 
Blavatsky and her Teachers, what is their role in life, how does this fit 
in with the metaphysics of the nature and structure of the world and how it 
may be overseen and directed by higher intelligences. It's possible to 
conceive of different explanations of the writings by HPB and in THE 
MAHATMA LETTERS. Each theosophical group tends to have a leadership that 
has come to some collective answer. (If there were two equally-balanced 
competing answers and an inflexible approach to the doctrines, the group 
would be rent with political civil war and one faction would be forced out, 
perhaps causing a split of the organization in two.)

But why does there need to be such battling? It only arises if people 
insist that their definition of "What is Theosophy" is true and must win 
out over that of everyone else. One implicitly then supports one variant of 
theosophical doctrines and does battle to see that the other variants are 
abandoned. But why cannot one simply teach what one thinks the highest 
truths, leaving others to believe as they choose? It is bad when people get 
too dogmatic about their own ideas, ending up saying, "This is MY 
theosophical society and YOUR ideas ARE NOT THEOSOPHY, so you HAVE TO GO."

Blavatsky and her writings are sometimes used as a basis for understanding 
between the different theosophical factions. The assumption is that 
everyone agrees that she was a representative of the Mahatmas, and that 
anything she said was true and that everything that later people wrote had 
to be consistent with it to be true. Some go as far as to say that if she 
didn't write something, it could not be considered theosophical, or that 
one could not write about Theosophy unless one literally included 
supporting Blavatsky quotes.

But people from other theosophical backgrounds might come to different 
conclusions. One might say that their later writer was also genuine, so if 
there is an apparent contradiction between that writer and HPB, one would 
need to suspend judgement until one knew the philosophy better. Another 
might say that the two were different, but the later person was obviously 
more informed. Yet others would avoid the problem altogether, simply saying 
that Blavatsky's writings are too hard to understand, and recommend to 
people to simply not read what she said.

Taking the writings of Blavatsky and those in THE MAHATMA LETTERS as a 
yardstick to measure Theosophy presumes one has already answered the "What 
is Theosophy" question a particular way, which not all people will have done.

There are two key points. One is that each person should be free to ponder 
the "What is Theosophy" like a Zen Koan, being allowed to come up with his 
or her own answer without external coercion to fit into a particular 
belief. We can share our ideas when invited to, but still let others learn 
to find truth for themselves. Our goal in a theosophical group is to set 
one genuinely searching, not simply to fill their heads with a particular 
set of metaphysical doctrines. The second key point is to recognize that 
there are distinct variants of Theosophy, and the waters are kept unmuddied 
not by our trying to destroy all books and interest in alternate variants, 
but simply to classify and keep distinct the different metaphysical frameworks.

In theosophical groups, we are tolerant of the beliefs of others -- be they 
Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Agnostic. We should likewise be 
tolerant of other the beliefs of other variants of Theosophy -- be they 
Leadbeater, Krishnamurti, Judge, Purucker, or Hartmann. Being tolerant of 
such beliefs, we yet make distinction, not taking this Muslim doctrine, 
that Hindu belief, and that Agnostic scientific hypothesis and saying they 
are particularly what Theosophy says. We distinguish the source of our 
ideas, sharing our own ideas when appropriate, but respecting the rights of 
others to struggle through their own search for understanding and truth.

-- Eldon

At 09:13 PM 8/20/2004, you wrote:
> Hello Eldon,
> I enjoyed your post it covers many of the points I've been tussling
> with myself since my discovery of all these issues in the TS.
> Do I stay or do I go was a big issue for me.
> The initial emotion responce is you feel outraged and see an injustice
> that you want to see it addressed.
> After all "there's no Religion higher than Truth".
>
> Then you realise how much history is involved and the massive amount
> of careful overhauling the society would have to go though in order to
> address these issues.
> This would take the pro-active co-operation of the leadership.
>
> We can't I feel ignore the influence of the LCC in this respect while
> its influence is not really present prima facie in the Lodges I still
> think quite a few people of influence within the TS are also involved
> in the church even if on the periphery (anyone who knows differently
> please correct me)
> People involved in the LCC work very hard in the Church (I know I was
> involved for a period myself) they are lovely people and very
> committed, so if the info about CWL and AB was to come under serious
> challenge in the TS by default this would inpact in the LCC and to a
> lesser degree Co-Freemasonry, although there numbers are dwindling the
> stalwarts may still have plenty of influence at higher levels in the
> society.(interested to see what others think)
>
> So all these considerations come in to play.
> As Ive said before not an easy ask at all.
>
> The so-called 'back to Blavatsky-ites' are seen as narrow minded
> Blavatsky dogmatists which to me is a complete and utter red herring.
>
> But back to what your post was saying is it 'better' for someone like
> myself who has seen though the deception of CWL to defer and stand
> aside and vote with my feet or do I take a pro-active stance within
> the society?
>
> For me its been a real dilemma, I feel a certain sense of duty to not
> so much the society but to the teachings to make sure that members are
> aware that CWLs and ABs theosophy is not only different but infact
> contradicts those originally given out.
>
> Not in any kind of paternalistic or dogmatic way at all but simply to
> offer and show the original from the alternitive versions and leave it
> up to members to decide.
>
> My decission to resign was really after feeling that the task is to
> great without the support of the Leadership who seem to be completely
> disinterested in these issues and you are only met with either silence
> or denial.
> When I resigned knowone asked me why or showed any concern and I was a
> very active member.
>
> So maybe moving on is the only way?