Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00034)

Hi Perry and all,

H.P.B. said that theosophy is not for mentally lazy people. So, we 
must have confidence that people will be capable to discern seeds 
from weed. After all this is preliminary condition for spiritual 
growth. 

I agree that we should search for and explore the facts for they 
broaden our perspective. Exploring facts often represents that 
necessary mental activity which can lead us towards the truth. But 
the truth is far beyond the facts and we can find it only in the 
depth of our own intimate experience as an insight. And when we try 
to communicate this insight to the others it only becomes another 
fact, a fact that X.Y. said that certain thing.

I agree that the organizations should allow that the facts could be 
explored, that the organizations should open their archives. But 
here we are dealing with the interest which evolved throughout last 
thirty, maybe some more years. Before, this was an interest of only 
few passionate researchers. Therefore organizations still consider 
this demand as a threat and not as their obligation. They evolved 
strong interest for safety, so they see this demand as the attempt 
to undermine their work.

And we can not say that organizations are the resultant of their 
members. They have a life of their own. We can often or quite 
usually see that a member as an official lessens his expectations, 
that he finds that stability is more important then a change. 
Therefore for the changes in the organizations there is often an 
extreme endeavor and some outside impulse needed. Accusations of 
inadequate attitude can represent such an impulse but I believe that 
an attempt to organize some work that the organizations should 
undertake but are not willing or capable to execute would be far 
more efficient impulse. And I see in internet the technology that 
allows that such work can be undertaken.

Kind regards,
Anton



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> Hello Anton, and all
> I agree with you and I do think that most people in this group 
would
> agree that diversity is the key to a truer understanding of
> theosophical teachings.
> The Ancient wisdom can be seen in the Upanishads, the Vedas, 
Kabbalah,
> Taoism, mystics of all traditions, and none, and all of these are
> worthy of study and comparison with those of the Mahatmas Esoteric 
Cis
> and Trans Himalayian Budhist tradition that HPB presented to the
> modern world for the first time.
> 
> However when some people say that everything is theosophy I think 
this
> is easily proven incorrect.
> The well known quote is "while Theosophy is everything not 
everything
> is theosophy."
> 
> For example the Hindu's and exoteric Buddhists believe and teach 
that
> a human can return in an animal form.
> The Mahatma's tradition refutes this idea.
> Can we then say that this teaching of humans returning in an animal
> form is theosophical?
> 
> Likewise the Christians believe in the vicarious atonement of 
Jesus on
> the cross.
> This is also not a theosophical teaching.
> On what authority can this statement be made?
> Theosophy teaches something completely different.
> This does not mean the theosophical teachings are right however.
> 
> They may not be, therefore these teachings should NEVER be 
presented
> as a truth that must be believed, infact we should never blindly
> `believe' these teachings but rather by the use of an ongoing 
process
> of investigation and experience the truth of it may or may not be
> revealed. It might be wrong, it might be right.
> 
> Many people find this difficult to discern for some reason.
> Perhaps we are to used to guru's and teachers who demand belief.
> The opposite is true of the Mahatma's.
> They do not seek follows but encourage independent thought.
> The teachings the Mahatmas themselves could only verify for 
themselves
> through their own processes and hard work.
> 
> CWL and his advocates clearly and demonstrably changed many of the
> teachings thus blurring what was originally presented by the 
Mahatma's
> tradition, that the TS is supposed to be the responsible custodian 
of.
> 
> So if a student feels it is their responsibility to present these
> differences to the membership (not in order to make dogmatic
> statements) but simply to clarify the differences to the 
membership at
> large through the societies publications they should be given
> opportunities to do this.
> 
> This is simple reason and logic and expression of facts, nothing to
> difficult, unless the societies leadership does not want this
> information presented and is suppressing from being printed in 
their
> publications.
> 
> What possible excuse can the society give for not allowing the 
critics
> of CWL to present there case, of course there is NONE from a truly
> theosophical perspective.
> However politics rule the roost or so it seems and genuine freedom
> must take the back seat and drum its fingers patiently waiting to 
get
> a word in.
> 
> To me Pedro's reasoning reflects a certain mindset in the Adyar TS
> that has a serious blind spot and I can see absolutely no rational
> justification for it.
> 
> To on the one hand be calling for freedom and wanting to call 
anything
> theosophy it then seems to want's to stifle any voice of desention 
to
> the standard CWL et.al. pronouncements.
> Strange double standard.
> 
> Would the TS allow born again Christians in the door and present 
that
> as being theosophy?
> How can the TS actually say it has no core teachings?! and keep a
> straight face.
> 
> And of course THEOSOPHY with the capital "T" is `beyond the range 
and
> reach of thought'.
> 
> Does that mean we dont comparatively study the Bible the Koran, the
> Upanishads and the Zohar?
> 
> Of course not, but we need to make a distinction between the 
teachings
> the Mahatmas and HPB presented and those of the latter day 
presenters
> made and those of the different exoteric traditions and let people
> make their own mind up and go through there own process of 
discovery.
> 
> If that makes me a dogmatist then so be it.
> 
> Perry
> 
> PS
> 
> Pedro, sorry to mention you in the 3rd person but I thought you may
> read this and it is related to your postings.
> Just as a throught perhaps we could say the Leadbeaterian 
tradition to
> make it distinct from theosophy to save confussion to members.
> I say suggest this sincerly