Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00423)

Hello Eldon and All,
Your points are definitely ways I tend to lean towards myself.

I have no problem with people studying neo-theosophy or any other
particular philosophy, the main point being its not done in a dogmatic
and closed fashion as you say the writings of HPB are simply giving us
some clues and I tend to think the nature of her writing style leads
you away from belief and following much the way Krishnamurti's
teachings do.
The same cannot be said of neo-theosophy which developed devotional
belief based mindset's imo.

So for me the issue of leaving the society was based not on having the
society become a HPB only society but rather a society that allowed
free and open debate and philosophical enquiry not only in the
lectures or study groups but also in its PUBLICATIONS this being the
main objection I have with the Adyar TS.

If the principal of freedom of opinion is one that is not only a
platitude in the society then why are articles critical of CWL and
neo-theosophy `not allowed' in its publications and yet it's perfectly
fine to criticise HPB in them?
Perhaps I got this wrong but theres been no reply from any Adyar
people as to the veracity of this suggestion.

As I said before if this principal was upheld by the leadership
without paternalistic censorship I would rejoin.

But I've heard no assurances so far .... I wish I could be proved
wrong on this but as far as I can see it seems to be the case.

Perry 



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Eldon B Tucker <eldon@t...> wrote:
> 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?