Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00468)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:



> ===============================================
> 
> The approach "only *this* is Theosophy, nothing 
> else" may therefore lead to an antinomy for it 
> would deny, for example, a universality that 
> Theosophy claims it embodies.
> 
> ===============================================
> 
> Would you please elaborate on this statement
> since I am unclear as to what you are trying 
> to convey?


I was referring to an orthodox approach to Theosophy. The etymology 
of the word is revealing: from Greek *orthodoxos*, which comes from 
the word *doxa*, 'opinion'. The dictionary meanings include "holding 
correct or currently accepted opinions, esp. on religious doctrine, 
morals, etc.; not independent-minded; unoriginal; unherectical".

HPB had something to say about this, in one of her letters to the 
American Conventions:

"Orthodoxy in Theosophy is a thing neither possible nor desirable. It
is diversity of opinion, within certain limits, that keeps the
Theosophical Society a living and a healthy body, its many other ugly
features notwithstanding. Were it not, also, for the existence of a
large amount of uncertainty in the minds of students of Theosophy,
such healthy divergencies would be impossible, and the Society would
degenerate into a sect, in which a narrow and stereotyped creed would
take the place of the living and breathing spirit of Truth and an
ever growing Knowledge."

K.H. also had something to comment on the same subject:

"You share with all beginners the tendency to draw too absolutely 
strong inferences from partly caught hints, and to dogmatize 
thereupon as though the last word had been spoken. You will correct 
this in due time. You may misunderstand us, are more than likely to 
do so, for our language must always be more or less that of parable 
and suggestion, when treading upon forbidden ground; we have our own 
peculiar modes of expression and what lies behind the fence of words 
is even more important than what you read. But still — TRY." (ML, 
111, chronological)

I believe the "Bowen Notes" also addressed the same issue:

"It is worse than useless going to those whom we imagine to be 
advanced students (she said) and asking them to give us 
an "interpretation" of the S.D. They cannot do it. If they try, all 
they give are cut and dried exoteric renderings which do not 
remotely resemble the Truth. To accept such interpretation means 
anchoring ourselves to fixed ideas, whereas Truth lies beyond any 
ideas we can formulate or express." (...) "Come to the S.D. (she 
says) without any hope of getting the final Truth of existence from 
it, or with any idea other than seeing how far it may lead TOWARDS 
the Truth. See in study a means of exercising and developing the 
mind never touched by other studies."


Pedro