Theos-Talk Archives (October 2004 Message tt00384)

Oct 22 2004

Re: H P B's reputation and THEOSOPHY 

Dear Jerry:

Many thanks for your views. I think I understand your concerns and have
offered mine in response.

In my view THEOSOPHY is not simply a religion to be presented and rubbed in.
It is essentially HISTORY. It demands thought and not mere acceptance.
Apparently the book titled the SECRET DOCTRINE has as one of its functions
the revealing of those "secret" doctrines that hitherto have ben restricted
to the area of learning kept secret and sacred in the past in all religions.
It underlies them all because it is basic to all.

Additionally, I think, it is intended to waken the mind of those readers who
are ready to consider it, as it offers a series of philosophical and logical
points, as well as a great deal of information for review.

I believe inherent in that Book, and in the rest of the authentic writings
by HPB and the Masters that we have, is information concerning the link
between metaphysics and ethics -- and explains, for instance : The BHAGAVAD
GITA, and the DHAMMAPADA, and the "Sermon on the Mount."    

Religion (as we know it and see it largely practised) is generated when
people begin to "believe authorities they choose" (priests and priesthoods)
without adequate examination, study or understanding. This usually leads to
thoughtlessness, and eventually to prejudice and fanaticism, all divisive --
instead of creating a community of interest, dialog and mutual respect. 

Theosophy is essentially an expression of the Laws of brotherhood and of
infinite cooperation in action. It is based on a universal set of virtues
to which all who think independently can subscribe unhesitatingly. It
isolates, stigmatizes and attacks no one. It lets the evidence of
universal virtue stand forward as the only basis for all to re-discover for
themselves and endeavour to practise. 

Every Great Teacher, Reformer, or Prophet to which a religion has been
ascribed as its founder, will be found to offer as ideals the same general
verities and enjoin their practice. It is in the practice, that those who
aggregate around Him or her fail. The SECRET DOCTRINE offers (Vol 1, pp.
272-3) a survey of the efforts made for millennia by The Single Lodge of
Wise Adepts to keep wisdom, and its necessary derived ethics, available for
anyone who wanted to find it, in the world

For those who may have considered THEOSOPHY (as presented by HPB and the
Masters) to be the latest rallying point, the verities are now written, and
offered, supported by historical evidence and logical philosophical points.

These, the latter, are a series of essential points, few in number, but long
in explanation, made concerning the recurring origin, nature and
functioning of the Universe (and that includes us). By these, I mean the
"THREE FUNDAMENTALS" as found in the SECRET DOCTRINE Vol. I, pp 14 -19,
and then explained at length in that book as well as in articles written by
HPB, and others. Of course, you may or may not agree with me on this.

Our interest may be attracted to one, or any, or all of those. Or it may be
repelled, in which case it is interesting to explore the reason for such
revulsion. But apparently we are all drawn to some aspect of their study and
possible use. If we wish to work with others and take advantage of their
considerations the brotherly aspect of THEOSOPHY is apparent. 

To me, the problem has been to try to make sure they were accurate and
clearly related in their history, present logic, description, and probable
conclusion(s).

Further, I am deeply interested in the way the history of those ideas can be
found traced in the many sources still available to us, derived from
antiquity -- as myth, lore, literature, fable, history, scientific data,
ancient monuments, traces of religions, sciences and philosophies, etc. In
fact, an enormous amount of evidence of similarity and correspondence was
provided. Specialization was apparently a slow down, and always seems to
tend to individualized isolation. The capacity to generalize would seem to
be the more useful attribute, and be most helpful if kept reasonably
accurate, available and tolerant. 

More important to this are a few central ideas. Do they cohere? Are they
reasonable? Do they fill gaps in our present day concepts and thinking? I
find for myself that they do. Now, as I say, that is for me. They may not
all attract you, but perhaps some do, and those we can discuss. It is the
same with anyone willing to consider those. Are we on the road to TRUTH?
Are we practising "Brotherhood?" I would say that the more universal and
impersonal we are, the surer we will be in that regard.  

It is said that the process of universal evolution, which give all fractions
of life in NATURE an equal opportunity to progress, start from
"universality" and descend into those many "particulars" we know of. All
have an equal base, rooted in SPIRIT -- purity and truth -- and the 7-fold
concept of that evolutionary process illustrates that [ S D I 157; II
596].

I am of the opinion that there are Wise Men, Avatars, Rishis, Mahatmas,
Adepts, etc..., and that they have acquired their wisdom through great
personal effort and self-discipline in the past. They practise generosity,
and are divinely unselfish. While some have been named, the multitude are
not. Few have ever recorded their statements, but for many their disciples
have acted as more or less accurate scribes. We are told in history of the
many Buddhas, Zoroasters, Rishis, Avatars, Mahatmas, Adepts -- Krishna,
Gautama Buddha, Pythagoras, Sankaracharya, Lao Tse, Manco Capac, Confucius,
the Jain Tirthankaras, Plato, Jesus, etc... And in THEOSOPHY it is said
that those never "died" but continue, very much alive, as "teachers" and
"Elder Brothers" working continually for humanity. This idea has inspired
me. 

I have felt further inspired by the concept that in essence, within me,
there is a "spark" of the One Spirit, and Buddhi-wisdom, surrounds it. This
provides me a "bridge" to understanding the nature and the work of beings
such as HPB and the Masters of Wisdom.

They have not used their acquired wisdom to isolate themselves, or to seek a
host of mindless converts, and lead them to a mental desolation, or a
selfish area of personal enjoyment -- at the expense of the rest of
humanity.

In fact the whole of their coherent philosophy shows me that wisdom is not
exclusive, but includes us all, and those who acquire it, remain at hand and
try to show the "path" that leads to its acquirement. [We are talking of the
UNIVERSE, of the ever-underlying magician of all: NATURE here, and not of
any personal concepts about it.] 

As I said, their "names" and "residences" are unimportant. But to make those
important as "personalities," and give them a limited presence, deflects the
time anyone might better spend on research for verity and truth. I object
to anything that diminishes their work and presence. 

Theosophy cannot be made to depend on personalities. THEOSOPHY is always
basic, impersonal and free of any of its exponents.

Nor can they be made dependent on the expressions colored by the popular
languages of the moment (or its dialects, and "levels of education") -- and
there are many others than English which ought to be considered -- as the
THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT and THEOSOPHY are worldwide movements. 

Now whether this may be characterized as globular, linear, or circular,
personal, individual or general thinking or, "whatever," has little meaning
for me. The main point is: IS IT COMPLETE? Is everyone free to discover,
test and use it? 

The next point is: How do we, students all, view the PROFESSORS (I mean the
Masters of Wisdom in this, our "University of Life") and the practitioners
of truth and law? Do we recognize and understand their sacrifice?

I perceive that underlying the "eye doctrine" lies a "heart doctrine." That
is what I seek and try to understand. And in doing this I present my ideas,
questions and discoveries in the area of logic and philosophy, to others --
as I am in search of confirmation -- and without assuming any "authority" at
all. 

Certain things connected with the personality of a "great leader" have to be
explained every now and again, even in among a group of students, or in a
Society whose effort is as much as possible to avoid the discussion of
personalities. 

Sometimes they are disagreeable, especially when, as in the present
instance, some other persons have to be brought in. And when the great
leader is H.P. Blavatsky, and the question of her Teachers, a great number
of principles, as to certain laws of the inner and divine nature in every
human being are found to cluster around her and Their names. 

She, as their "representative," is the one who brought to us, from those
wiser brothers of the human family, a consistent philosophy of the solar
system, and also in herself, illustrated and practically demonstrated
through her control, the existence of the supersensuous world, and of the
potentials or, powers of the inner, the divine, and astral man. 

Hence any theory or assertion touching on Their relations - which to us are
unseen -- and between her and the Masters she spoke for, opens up for
discussion some occult laws or principles. This of course would not be the
case if we were dealing with a mere ordinary person.

Lets consider an item in the history of the THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT. 

It relates to the question settled in the SECRET DOCTRINE by the Masters as
to the relations of Mars and Mercury to our Earth. The whole philosophy
hangs upon it. The disagreement came about because Mr. Sinnett held that his
view of one of the letters from the Master received in India -- through the
hand of H.P.B. -- was the correct view, whereas she said it was not. Then he
claimed she had been "deserted by the Masters." This pernicious theory and
others like it were brought forward to show she was wrong, did not have the
words from the Masters, and that Mr. Sinnett's narrow and materialistic
views of the Master's statement was the correct ones. He kept rigidly to his
position, and she asked the Master for further explanation. When this was
received by her and shown to Mr. Sinnett he denied its authenticity, and
then the theory that she was deserted by the Masters was republished by him.

He seemed to forget that she was the channel and he was not.

Although wide publicity was not given to the charge then, it was fully
discussed by the many visitors to both camps, and its effect remains to this
day among those who of late have turned in private against H.P.B. Among
themselves they explain away very easily, and in public they oppose those
who adhere firmly to her memory, her honor, and the truth of her statements
about the Masters and their communications to her. 

They think that by dragging her down to the mediocre level on which they
stand they may pretend to understand her, and look wise as they tell when
she was and when she was not obsessed. 

This effort will, of course, be unsuccessful; and some will think the matter
need not be brought forward. There are many reasons why it should be
discussed and left no longer as a secret poison: because it leads to a
negation of brotherhood; to an upholding of ingratitude, one of the blackest
crimes; and, if believed, will inevitably lead to the destruction of the
great philosophy broadly outlined by the Masters through H.P.B.

It strikes me forcefully that if critics and detractors cannot successfully
attack the philosophy of THEOSOPHY, then they can muddy the waters by
besmirching the reputation of its original and prime promulgators : Masters,
HPB, Judge, etc. An effort ought to be made by those who know the history
(I mean the sequence of events and documents) to clear their reputations
once and for all. All who can ought to participate in that. 

Well for the moment I will have to stop, but I do maintain my points as
already stated.

What is it that we know for sure from within?" What is an "intuition?"

I hope this may be of use in our conversation.

Best wishes to you as always,


Dallas
 
========================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins 
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 2:11 PM
To: 
Subject: RE: Cayce's relevance to Theosophy/theosophy


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 
statement can 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