Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00463)

Another point is - I noticed this in the material online at Blavatsky
Archives - that HPB is made reified. For instance if you compare
Besant's sevenfold scheme in A Study in Consciousness with HPB's
scheme in the Secret Doctrine - you do come up with differences. But
if you look deeper, you will find that HPB uses different schemes,
especially in the Esoteric Writings and these could be as easily
compared to her exoteric work and found lacking (indeed - how they fit
together is quite a puzzle). So the schematics are not the essence of
the writings. In the case of Besant's book - I tend to agree the
sevenfold scheme she uses is not very usefull (to me) - but there is a
lot of simple wisdom in that book. And don't tell me simple wisdom is
easily found...

Katinka
--- 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?