Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00347)

Hello Dallas,

I suspect that we are not fully connecting in our dialogue concerning 
circular thinking and fundamentalism. Perhaps I can best explain by 
relating an experience I once had:

About forty years ago a man from the Jehovah Witness religion came to my 
door. I invited him in and I questioned him with a great deal of 
curiosity about his beliefs. He particularly caught my attention when he 
said that the Bible was the "word of God." I questioned him further 
and he said that Adam himself wrote part of the Bible, and so did Moses 
and others, all through God's guidance. I asked him how he knew that. 
He replied that "it says so in the Bible." His reply is an example of 
what I mean by "circular reasoning." That is, the argument always 
circles back to the original assertion. Another example is St. Thomas 
Aquinas' "Unmoved Mover" argument for the existence of God. When 
Aristotle proposed that idea as a philosophical argument, it worked. 
When St. Tommy appropriated it as a religious argument, it become 
circular because the argument was made to simply lead one back to the 
original assumption i.e. the existence of God. The truth of any 
statementcan only be verified outside of the statement itself. We have 
the same problem in Theosophy. 

The Masters exist because the "Theosophical Bible," i.e. the canonized 
collection of texts which we call "Theosophical" (e.g. writings of 
Blavatsky, Judge, Olcott, Mahatmas) attest to this. To my ears, I see no 
difference between the Jehovah Witness and the believing Theosophist. 
Like those who witness for Jesus, we have witnesses for the Mahatmas. 
Your mention of the Hindu Theosophists in India who believe in the 
Mahatmas, is a good example. Why do they believe in the Mahatmas? 
Because belief in them is a long standing part of their religious 
tradition, and the "Theosophical Bible" confirms that belief. Perhaps, 
like many Christian mystics, some of these Indian Theosophists have also 
had visions. 

How does this relate to Paul Johnson's The Masters Revealed? Paul 
attempted to discover more about the alleged masters by going outside of 
the Theosophical cannon. It has been years since I read his book, but 
to my memory, he did conclude that the Masters were (to put it into my 
own words) legendary. That is, the reality of the Masters are very much 
like what the scholars of higher Biblical criticism concluded about 
Jesus: that someone or some ones once lived who became the prototype(s) 
for the Jesus we know in the Bible. In other words, that Biblical Jesus 
we know has little connection to the actual person or persons in history 
who became that Jesus we think we know about. What Paul accomplished 
was that he moved the controversy concerning the existence of the 
Masters into the realms of an open inquiry--as opposed to circular 
arguments used by Christians to promote Jesus and by Theosophists who 
promote the Masters. 

I submit that what Paul did, will in the long run is good for the 
Theosophical Movement, because he attempted to take belief in the 
Masters out of the religious mileu, where it has become entangled. Does 
this mean that Paul's conclusions were correct? Future scholarship will 
answer that. Dan Caldwell has raised lots of good questions, and the 
dialogue goes on.

Concerning my remarks that most people can no longer read Blavatsky 
because the literacy rate has fallen to the 8th grade level, and that we 
need to communicate to others on their level, you replied: 

>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.
>

Yes, I agree that if one is to teach a subject, one must first have a 
sufficient understanding of it. I will also add that how the subject is 
taught is just as important. As you suggest above, Theosophy is a 
philosophy. Or, at least HPB presented it as such. So, it must be 
presented as a philosophy. However, in philosophy, words and how they 
are used is very important. For instance, to introduce the axioms and 
key points in The Secret Doctrine as the "fundamentals of Theosophy" is 
in effect presenting Theosophical tenets in the same way that one is 
introduced to religious tenets in a Bible school. As I wrote earlier, 
The Secret Doctrine is not an exposition of the Secret Doctrine. If 
that were so, then the Secret Doctrine would not be secret. Rather, The 
Secret Doctrine is a very lengthy philosophical discourse pointing to 
and arguing for the existence of a Secret Doctrine. Notice also that 
the word "Theosophy" is rarely used in this text. HPB's example is a 
good lesson for students of Theosophy, and when presented as she did, 
speaks more clearly to this generation then it did to our own pre and 
post WW II generations. This is because HPB was in a sense, a post 
modernist in a Victorian era, thirty years before the modernist and 
seventy years before post-modernism. Perhaps her approach has something 
to do with her prediction that the SD will be better understood in the 
next century. Well, that next century came and went, and I submit that 
only those who were able to kick the Victorian and Modernist binds of 
thought were able to better understand her message. 

So, what I'm trying to say is: if Theosophy is not a religion, then it 
ought not be promulgated as if it were a religion. 


Best wishes,
Jerry 





W.Dallas TenBroeck wrote:

>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
> 
>
> 
>



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