Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00266)

Hello Dallas,

You wrote:

>I think we all seek truth and are dissatisfied with our own ideas if they
>are inexact. There is always, for me, a glad welcoming of improvements.
>That is why I think consultation (like ours) is so valuable. 
>

I agree. Perhaps the most important benefit of this discussion board is 
what we have the opportunity to examine and express our ideas and read 
about other's through dialogue.

>I would say: Fortunately: THEOSOPHY and its vehicle the THEOSOPHICAL
>SOCIETY establish universality as a basis, and declare that the individual
>is always responsible (under Karma) for his decisions and choices. Nowhere
>is there established the vestige of a "belief system." In fact it is
>discouraged in view of the way sects and religions have historically emerged
>from reforms of older creeds. 
>

Indeed, the leaders of the Theosophical Society have over the years 
issued many official statements concerning freedom of thought. 
Unfortunately, neither the Organization nor most of its members have 
put this ideal into practice. Over the last forty years, I have seen 
independent thinking people come into the TS, decide to reject one or 
more core Theosophical notions, such as belief in the Masters, 
Reincarnation, Karma, etc., find themselves pushed into the margins, and 
eventually leave the organization. The truth is, Theosophists are bound 
together by a common core of beliefs, just as are members of any 
religion. While an Evangelical may say that you can't be a Christian if 
you don't believe that Jesus is your savior, it is unlikely that someone 
will say that you can't be a Theosophist if you don't believe in the 
Masters. However, the marginalization of the non-believer is the same 
in either case, thus making the point moot. My study of Theosophical 
history has led me to the conclusion that this sad situation goes all 
the way back to the days when HPB was alive. 

>The first tenet of extremely great importance (to me) is the concept that
>within the form I call "myself," there is ever resident a "ray" of the
>Universal Pure SELF -- the eternal Monad -- the true Ego -- It has been
>called an "immortal Pilgrim." [snip]. 
>

My experience has been that (speaking generally) the 70s and 80s 
generations--those who would otherwise be coming into Theosophy, are far 
more leery than our generations of any system of thought that is 
presented through "tenets." If you want to speak to those generations, 
you have to use their language--not the one you found in century old 
Theosophical books. Actually, most people are no longer able to read 
Blavatsky's writings. Not because her language is out of date, but 
because our educational system has so deteriorated. I read somewhere 
that the average literacy among Americans is down to about the 8th grade 
level and declining. 

>>In no way is its (the Monad's) thinking to be individually compromised by
>>another, or others, or any set of opinions or beliefs. If anyone adopts
>>such, then to that extent they cease being impersonally "universal," and
>>limit themselves to their present times, concepts, beliefs, and conditions.
>>
>>
>>Then, as you observe, "bigotry" arises, and excommunication becomes
>>possible. Then "brotherhood" disappears and the 3rd Object of the
>>THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY is violated: "To Establish The Nucleus Of A Universal
>>Brotherhood Of Humanity." 
>>

I have long ago concluded that the Theosophical Society, almost from the 
beginning, utterly failed in its object of "Universal Brotherhood." As 
soon as students began systematizing HPB's discourses into "tenets" as 
you call them, and began promulgating them as a system of thought, the 
Theosophical Society became in effect, no different than any other 
religion. My personal solution to this problem is not to speak in 
Theosophical jargon, i.e. "true Ego"; "Atma-Buddhi-Manas"; "higher and 
lower mind" etc. unless I am being spoken to in that way (and sometimes 
not even then). The trick is to respond to where the other person is 
at. The town I live in is probably pretty typical of middle 
America--very Christian. As my French Professor at our University once 
quipped to me: " I came here from Idaho in order to escape the Bible 
belt and found the buckle." Theosophical jargon doesn't work here. For 
the last five years or so, the same man from the Jehovah Witness 
organization has been coming to our door about once or twice a month 
with his magazines. I usually invite him in and we talk about ten 
minutes on the subject of his choosing--usually something featured in 
the current Watchtower. Somewhere in the conversation I always pose a 
question relevant to what he is saying. Not something he can look up in 
a book, but a question where he has to search his heart and examine his 
beliefs in order to answer. Often, on his next visit I find that he had 
pondered my question and poses an answer. It doesn't matter whether 
his answer is right or wrong or Theosophical or not. When is important 
is that he for a moment (or many moments) searched his heart, 
independently of his religious tenets and grew a little from the process.

Then again, sometimes people are too closed for this kind of dialogue, 
and it becomes necessary to become more behavioral. An incident comes 
to mind when a couple pulled into my driveway with a truckload of used 
books for me to buy for resale. The guy was cool but the woman in a 
confrontational tone of voice asked me if I was Christian. I at first 
ignored the question so she repeated it in a more strident tone. I 
answered: "I'm a bookseller, and were here to do business." She didn't 
get the hint, and rejoined with: "Have you read the Bible." To that I 
answered: "Yes, I have read the Bible, and as a matter of fact, I teach 
the Bible." She then remained quiet while I completed the exchange 
with her husband. 

>That is the basis of my position and protest on behalf of HPB and the
>Masters, her Teachers, and ours. I was quite specific in my first letter of
>protest. I has not been answered, that I know of. If you read the MAHATMA
>LETTERS you will see exactly what I protested -- the inequity is plainly
>there.
> 
>

I have read the Mahatma Letters individually as well as have led several 
classes upon them. As a matter of fact, we just began a new Matatma 
Letters class last tuesday. Yet, I'm off handedly able to think of what 
in the Mahatma Letters you might have had in mind when you wrote the 
above. Perhaps you will clarify? Quite honestly, your explanations have 
so far led me to believe that your protest of TMR is actually based upon 
your observation that nothing of your notions of Theosophy are within 
that book. Rather, the book challenges notions that most students of 
Theosophy have long held. Is this the bases of your protest? If so, 
then there is nothing in your protest that is answerable. On the other 
hand, if you have specific points of criticism concerning the accuracy 
of Paul Johnson's data, or of his methodology, then, I would be quite 
interested in this information. 

Best to you and Val.
Jerry




W.Dallas TenBroeck wrote:

>Oct 13 2004
>
>Dear Jerry:
>
>I am well aware of the difference in the use of "fundamentalism." It
>frightens me not at all. I also know what stupid, mind limited "bigotry" is.
>I also realize quite well that we may confuse, as you say, our ideas with
>the Truth. Now, how is this to be avoided? How to avoid bigotry and the
>skewing of "history?" 
>
>I would say: Fortunately: THEOSOPHY and its vehicle the THEOSOPHICAL
>SOCIETY establish universality as a basis, and declare that the individual
>is always responsible (under Karma) for his decisions and choices. Nowhere
>is there established the vestige of a "belief system." In fact it is
>discouraged in view of the way sects and religions have historically emerged
>from reforms of older creeds. 
>
>Anyone of us can make errors of judgement, and when recognized, they need
>not form the basis for a defence. That is where creedalism and bigotry
>begin. I mean the defence of a false concept. I find it better for my self
>to adopt the view-point that I may be in error in anything I have so far
>concluded, and am anxious to be corrected in such cases. 
>
>I think we all seek truth and are dissatisfied with our own ideas if they
>are inexact. There is always, for me, a glad welcoming of improvements.
>That is why I think consultation (like ours) is so valuable. 
>
>The first tenet of extremely great importance (to me) is the concept that
>within the form I call "myself," there is ever resident a "ray" of the
>Universal Pure SELF -- the eternal Monad -- the true Ego -- It has been
>called an "immortal Pilgrim." It is said to be linked to the indefinable
>but always present ABSOLUTENESS . If this is reasonable, logical and true,
>then there is no justification for violence, war, terrorism, or any kind of
>retaliation. We cannot kill another Monad even if we destroy its present
>residence (and take the Karma for that).
>
>The second tent is universal justice: Karma in all things. It is Spirit
>acting in matter -- universally and impersonally. Yet it allows for the
>latitude of the individual mind since all "evolution" (3rd tenet) is
>directed towards the eventual development of full Universal
>Self-Consciousness in every Monad. [The Monad in evolution is
>Atma-Buddhi-Manas.]
>
>In no way is its (the Monad's) thinking to be individually compromised by
>another, or others, or any set of opinions or beliefs. If anyone adopts
>such, then to that extent they cease being impersonally "universal," and
>limit themselves to their present times, concepts, beliefs, and conditions.
>
>
>Then, as you observe, "bigotry" arises, and excommunication becomes
>possible. Then "brotherhood" disappears and the 3rd Object of the
>THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY is violated: "To Establish The Nucleus Of A Universal
>Brotherhood Of Humanity." 
>
>Fortunately THEOSOPHY (to me) enfranchises the mind and gives it the limits
>of the Universe in both space and time. It is but natural that each of us
>defines (with the Lower Mind) for themselves what his or her particular
>limits may be, for the time being. One does not need to "belong to a group
>or society" to be judged "theosophical." No such group has the sole key to
>the "Kingdom Of Heaven." 
>
>I try, (in considering THEOSOPHY and the SECRET DOCTRINE ) to use only the
>ideas of The VOICE OF THE SILENCE in regard to the two Paths: The "Doctrine
>of the Heart" (Wisdom), and the "Doctrine of the Eye" (head learning). You
>may of course say that is my opinion. Very true. But then what else can a
>plurality of individuals who study THEOSOPHY use as a commonly accepted
>reasonable basis? What is the reality that THEOSOPHY advocates?
>
>Are we able to (1) select; (2) set down, and record our views thereon; (3)
>disprove -- the "fundamentals" of THEOSOPHY ? Do we know what they are- I
>mean, make a table of them -- one that several of us may consider? -- So
>that we may all be working together on a common understanding -- a "level
>field?" 
>
>In using the word "fundamentals" you may see that I use the word in the
>sense I gave it: a knowledge of the basis of events, science, facts, etc.
>In other words I try to discount any personal views (especially my own) or
>opinions.
>
>I would add that to me the more universal and impersonal the ideas, the
>safer we may be individually in our comparisons. I found yours most
>helpful, thanks. 
>
>In other words, I apply it to my concept of "Truth" (the area of
>Buddhi-Manas) rather than all the twists that the lower mind (Kama-Manas)
>may give to it. Those are arguments, and if traced back, or extended, they
>end in futility because they have no prime impersonal basis.
>
>Theosophical history is (in my opinion) now only to be found in the
>documents available, since we (I at least) cannot use the records in the
>astral light. Opinions about them are of course many. In my opinion, if we
>stick to the documents there is no need for wandering and speculation. 
>
>That is the basis of my position and protest on behalf of HPB and the
>Masters, her Teachers, and ours. I was quite specific in my first letter of
>protest. I has not been answered, that I know of. If you read the MAHATMA
>LETTERS you will see exactly what I protested -- the inequity is plainly
>there.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Dallas
>
>==============================
> 
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]