Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00303)

Oct 19 2004

Dear Jerry:

Many thanks for your careful considerations.

I can see that the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY as a historical body goes through
its perennial throes of adjusting lip-professions (called beliefs and belief
systems). But it seems to have lost touch with the Core and Source of its
origination. I suppose that could not be helped after 1884/5.

>From the outset (when as you will read in the first 150 pages of "Collected
Works: BLAVATSKY," Vol. I, about HPB starting it under Masters'
directions) the T S had no specific "beliefs," concerning the Masters, and
enforced none. The KEY covers that very well. Reading the MAHATMA LETTERS
adds to that. In a phrase, it is the essential difference between the
"Heart Doctrine" and "Head Learning."

Its 3 Objects [The KEY TO THEOSOPHY p. 39] provided enough leeway for all to
study and contribute their ideas. There never was nor should there by an
"orthodoxy" of any kind. No religion or religious rectitudes and rites,
ceremonies, etc..., were ever envisaged or encouraged. No rigidity of
language was enforced or envisaged.  

On the other hand every effort was made between 1875 and 1896 to make
THEOSOPHY easily understood in two main directions: (1)Technically and
logically, and (2) popularly as a moral description of human life and its
probable common objectives. HPB and Judge wrote for these two objectives.

The study of Nature and the Universe, independently, and without prejudice
was its [THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY] adopted method. The exchange of information
and the comparing of individual conclusions was its great advantage over
other bodies, where dogmatic religious and rigid credal beliefs had
engendered feuds that had crept in to stifle all investigation or creative
and cooperative work.

That unfortunate rigid measurements and censorious reviews developed in the
T S, caused in it the disorganization and rigidity we sense are there
inherent in its recent and present management. 

HPB's language is not that of every swing of the "buzz" phrases in popular
jargons. True. But then who desires to know what truth is ? Is it not our
duty to make sound philosophy comprehensible by others -- as you illustrate
in your notes to me? We are the ones who, today, serve as the "petromas" --
the interpreters [see ISIS II 91-4]

If we (or anyone) are lazy, we wont profit from that great work. We wont
make the effort to read it. [Parallels: Why study Shakespeare, or Latin,
Sanskrit, the Upanishads, the Tao Te King, Plato's dialogues, Greek or the
Bible, and Aramaic, or Pali, or Mandarin? Why study History, or any of the
departments of Science? Why verify anything for continuity, rules and laws
inherent in Nature? The alternative is a rule of individuals in chaos--
neither rhyme nor reason. Is that true Progress? ] Where can we place our
trust and basis? How d we verify anything?

So why worry about those who are so lazy as not to want to verify and study.
We open our doors -- and keep them open for those who desire to learn --
and we keep our attention and our minds open to ideas. We are the perennial
scholars always seeking to verify after testing for truth and
reasonableness.

We talk and discuss them.  

Is this dropping (in the case of THEOSOPHY) the one source we can trust?
What else links us to Divine Wisdom and the Masters? 

If they (the average) wish to join us in our work, then fine. If they wish
to fall away into some other more pleasing emotional stew -- we can't help
that. I find it is a great pity that many have closed their doors on HPB and
the Source writings. 

Who really looses? They or we?

I fully agree that using the terms of technical THEOSOPHY discourages some.
I also agree that it is our duty to present THEOSOPHY in terms that the
average inquirer understands. But the ability to do this truly lies in our
study and knowledge of the fundamentals of the great philosophy -- not in
our ignorance.

Those of us who are half-learned need to try to get at something more
definite they can rely on. It is natural for many (that is most of us) to
try to defend their positions, but of what ultimate use is that if those
positions are crumbly? Better to avow ignorance and start afresh. 

I know you are as aware of this as anyone. And really, I am, in writing
this, I am talking to myself.

If I present the quotes from the past, it is with a view to remind those who
are not ignorant of those facts, and also to show to newcomers that there is
a system and deep logic in all theosophical statements. 

Consider Mathematics: "The one True Science" -- it crumbles if the 4 basic
rules of arithmetic are forgotten, abused, distorted -- so they are
continually referred to. It is inescapable.  

THEOSOPHY has also 4 rules. Those cannot be forgotten or distorted without
damaging THEOSOPHY irretrievably. The Master wrote that IF IT WAS FALSE IN
ONE PARTICULAR IT WAS FALSE IN ALL. That is important.

In this manner the philosophy is kept alive. We will never have masses of
adherents -- how many are self energised enough to study? 

The T S, and other such bodies, are not money-making or adherent counting
efforts. Ideally they exist to keep doors open for those who want a sound
basic philosophy for living, and a goal that is reasonable for all.  

SUPREME PERFECTION is a tall order, but what else is valuable? 

There is no illogical, oxymoronish "Personal God." Karma rules justly and
truly. Self-evolution is for all. But we cannot force these concepts on
anyone. 

Speaking of TMR -- I ask of what value is it to anyone, student of THEOSOPHY
or not, to find a supposed expose of personalities said to conceal the
reality of the MASTERS.  

Yes, I asked you to look back through the MAHATMA LETTERS and see what They
said of themselves and their work and daily duties and affairs. Then
consider the --- but I have said enough. 

I have registered and re-registered my protest. I am personally disgusted
by the nonsense offered, and I can assure you that after many years
residence (39 since I was a small child) in India, and personal intimacy
with a great section of Hindu society, and intimate friends everywhere
there, there is no actuality to any of that bosh. I defy anyone to go back
there and retrace the steps of the one who wrote it, to verify them. 

I also said: find out from the Hindus (as I have) in India, in the T S or
elsewhere, what they have to say about the Mahatmas. They are not willing to
deal in such desecration. We in the West can only say: "Ah.... I don't
really know." We have no FIRST-HAND evidence or verification.  

Best wishes,

Dallas
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins [mailto:jjhe@c...] 
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 4:27 PM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: Cayce's relevance to Theosophy/theosophy


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

CUT