Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00454)

Dear Dallas,

What you say is true, all our choices are our own.

When I originally joined the Adyar Society I was under 
the `impression' it stood for freedom of thought ie. free 
intellectual and philosophical enquiry.

This `impression' was apparently misguided, as I've since
discovered, 
and have decided to remove my support from the Society for that 
reason.

It seems like the right choice especially now after having heard no 
logical or philosophically credible reason for the Society's
apparent 
censorship.

This seeming methodology of the Society by its leaders to 'act by not 
acting' will no doubt have its own karmic results as will my own 
decisions and actions.

As the Mahatmas say "motive is everything".

Perhaps the motivation of the Society is paternalistic protection but 
the question surely is; what is being protected? Illusion and 
falsity?!?

I can't support a rationale of `the end justifies the
means', "peace" 
at all costs.

If the principle of freedom has to be sacrificed at the altar of 
organization and saving face or hierarchical paternalism, for myself 
I want no part of it anymore.

It deeply concerns me if it is the case that the membership is 
DELIBERATELY kept in the dark about these issues. (By default in the 
non-publication of this information),

If this is a consciously made decision, it's reprehensible!

Surely these strike at the heart of basic Theosophical principles.

Still Dallas, these types of discussions may raise some debate and 
further discussion within the Society...I hope.

Regards

Perry

"Inaction in a deed of mercy becomes an action in a deadly sin"

Voice of the Silence.





--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W.Dallas TenBroeck" 
<dalval14@e...> wrote:
> Aug 23 2004
> 
> Dear Perry:
> 
> Consider that all choices we make are our own.
> 
> What is then, the basis for choosing?
> 
> That is important as Karma follows that.
> 
> If for instance one joins an organization that is done because we 
choose to
> do so.
> 
> If we are wise, we read and weigh all the aspects of the declared
> responsibilities of a "member" who "joins." 
> 
> If we find that we are expected to adopt a "leader's" directions 
without any
> questioning or probing, then I would say there is danger there, as 
no
> "Leader" can ever take the burden of individual choice and 
subsequent Kara
> away form anyone else.
> 
> Dallas
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Perry
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 6:32 PM
> To: 
> Subject: Re: different answers to "What is Theosophy?"
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links