Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00246)

Hello Perry,

Your statement I quote below is particularly interesting to me: 

>Just wondering if perhaps its our understanding is what evolves ?
>None of us can say that the theosophical teachings presented by HPB 
>and the Mahatmas are absolutely correct.
>
I completely agree with you that (for most people?) our understanding of 
theosophical teachings evolves. On the other hand, whether or not the 
"theosophical teachings presented by HPB and the Mahatmas are absolutely 
correct", may not even be a relevant consideration. Allow me to 
explain: Keep in mind that aside from what might have come down to us 
orally, what we know about the theosophical teachings presented by HPB 
and the Mahatmas are in printed texts. This is problematical. Because 
of: typos, possible inadvertent editorial changes etc., anything that is 
written is subject to different interpretations by the reader. My 
favorite example of this was an put forth by a late student named Rex 
Dutta. Mr. Dutta pointed out that the original editions of the Secret 
Doctrine are all missing the page number on page sixty. He subsequently 
criticized the Theosophy Company, who claimed to have "A Photographic 
facsimile reproduction of the Original Edition" for restoring the "60" 
on the relevant page. He argued that the missing page 60 was not a 
printing error, but intentionally done by HPB as her way of telling her 
followers that she would die at the age of sixty. In reality, the 
missing page number has no meaning at all, outside of the meaning Mr. 
Dutta and others might attribute to it.

We can carry this same argument to the rest of the text. As a former 
writing teacher, I can show you student paper after student paper with 
statements in them which were completely unintended by the student. 
When I ask the students to read the sentence or paragraph aloud to me, 
they catch and (sometimes to their horror) realize that they had written 
something completely unintended by them. This is very common for writer 
to do, though I know of students who will suggest that HPB and the 
Masters were somehow divinely protected against making such errors. That 
argument, like any other profession of faith, can only be answered in 
silence. 

Even when the writer is satisfied that the sentence or paragraph carries 
its intended meaning, that is no guarantee that the sentence will not 
have a very different meaning to the reader. Those differences of 
interpretation may arise because of differences of culture, education, 
personal experiences, changes of meaning of words over time, being 
influenced by someone else's interpretation, unconscious associations 
etc. etc. These observations of what is sometimes called "the gap 
between the text and the meaning" have led an increasing number of 
people interested in these things to conclude that, in reality, a text 
carries no meaning at all, and is not even necessarily relevant to the 
intention of the writer. Rather, the meaning is entirely within the 
mind of the reader. I realize this idea is directly opposed to what 
most of us were led to believe all of our lives, but a careful 
consideration of this very different view-point leads to a lot of 
insights not previously evident.

To take a more familiar example: I understand that there are some 3,000 
distinct denominations of Christianity in the US, all of which use the 
Bible as their primary reference. Logically, at least 2,999 of these 
denominations must have fallen short of understanding the intended 
(assuming for the moment that the intended meaning in within the mind of 
God) meaning of the Bible as a text. It is the same with Theosophy. If 
a student of Theosophy becomes bound to a Theosophical text as the 
authority, the written word necessarily takes precedence over the 
reader's understanding. This opens the field of human relations to 
power issues, especially when there are Priests to interpret the text's 
meaning to the masses. Of course, Theosophical Organizations don't have 
"priests" per se. However, those who have had any amount of experience 
with the dynamics of Theosophical Organizations, might recognize the 
more subtle control issues which, invariably have their origins in the 
notion that those who are on the "inside" somehow have a superior 
understanding of the intentions of the founders. 

While it might be untidy, and perhaps "unbrotherly" for students to 
debate over the meaning HPB or a Mahatma intended in a text, I believe 
that it is death to the spirit of the Theosophical Movement if one is to 
merely point to the text as a statement of TRUTH and demean any attempts 
to discuss and bring relevant meanings to that text by calling it "mere 
opinion." 

Thanks
--j



Perry Coles wrote:

>Hello Jerry and Pedro,
>Just wondering if perhaps its our understanding is what evolves ?
>None of us can say that the theosophical teachings presented by HPB 
>and the Mahatmas are absolutely correct.
>
>We may have had some insights into them to greater or lesser degrees 
>but those may and probably will change over time.
>We may discover some of it is not correct and some seems to be but it 
>always needs to be open to re-examination.
>
>This is why I think it's the kind of mindset that is developing in us 
>that is important rather than what we claim to believe or not believe 
>to be true.
>
>A mind that is ever open to new information and understandings.
>The information the society is presenting is one set of ideas that 
>may or may not be correct.
>
>If someone is to present new propositions as being `theosophical' 
>which contradict those given out by the original writings they can 
>only stand on there own merit as determined by each individual 
>studying them.
>
>But should they be presented as being theosophy?
>
>Who decides what is theosophy and what isn't?
>
>If for example if I had an insight that survival of the fittest is 
>the prime law governing the Kosmos could/should that be called 
>theosophy and if not why not?
>
>How do we judge what is a theosophical proposition and what isn't?
>
>As Daniel is always pointing out comparison is the key factor, how do 
>the `new' ideas stand up from those originally given out.
>Constant reviewal perhaps is the key
>
>Just some thoughts
>
>Perry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "prmoliveira" <prmoliveira@y...> 
>wrote:
> 
>
>>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>>Because I'm only willing to speak from my personal 
>>> 
>>>
>understandings, 
> 
>
>>>experiences and intuitions, I'm not one to proclaim that 
>>> 
>>>
>Theosophy 
> 
>
>>>pre-existed in the mind of Parabrahm. You will have to ask 
>>> 
>>>
>>Parabrahm 
>> 
>>
>>>about these things :-)
>>> 
>>>
>>Hello Jerry:
>>
>>Thank you for your comments. I think the fragment of the beautiful 
>>hymn from the Rig-Veda, quoted by HPB before the Stanzas of the 
>>Cosmogenesis in the SD, seems to indicate that the essential 
>>unknowability of the mystery that surrounds us goes right up to the 
>>very top, perhaps to THAT itself:
>>
>>"Who knows the secret? who proclaimed it here?
>>Whence, whence this manifold creation sprang?
>>The Gods themselves came later into being--
>>Who knows from whence this great creation sprang?
>>That, whence all this great creation came,
>>Whether Its will created or was mute,
>>The Most High Seer that is in highest heaven,
>>He knows it--or perchance even He knows not."
>>
>> 
>> 
>>
>>>Since I don't have daily conversations with Parabraham, the 
>>> 
>>>
>>Masters, or 
>> 
>>
>>>even the late Madame Blavatsky, my understanding of Theosophy 
>>> 
>>>
>must 
> 
>
>>be 
>> 
>>
>>>much more humble. I see Theosophy as an expression of a kind of 
>>>perennialism which demonstrates the universality of ideas among 
>>>humankind's myths, religions, philosophies and sciences. I think 
>>> 
>>>
>>this 
>> 
>>
>>>definition is more useful, because Theosophy then becomes 
>>> 
>>>
>>something we 
>> 
>>
>>>can personally engage with and grow from--otherwise we are left 
>>> 
>>>
>to 
> 
>
>>>merely be wowed by and parrot writings from old books we believe 
>>> 
>>>
>>to have 
>> 
>>
>>>been inspired. In the SD, HPB writes that even the Dhyani 
>>> 
>>>
>Chohans 
> 
>
>>have 
>> 
>>
>>>limitations in what they are able to perceive and understand. If 
>>> 
>>>
>>we are 
>> 
>>
>>>to accept her statement here, then, I would ask: why should we 
>>> 
>>>
>>proclaim 
>> 
>>
>>>to be True things that even the gods she writes about do not even 
>>> 
>>>
>>know? 
>> 
>>
>>> To do so is just another form of self delusion, or self 
>>> 
>>>
>>aggrandizement, 
>> 
>>
>>>IMO.
>>> 
>>>
>>I also see it along similar lines. The word Brahman, for example, 
>>derives from the verbal root 'brih', "to grow, to expand". So 
>>perhaps growth, expansion, evolution - all three - belong to the 
>>very nature of the universe as a whole. 
>>
>>If a teaching is something which is shown to someone - a person, a 
>>group, a culture - all of which are also experiencing growth and 
>>evolution, such a teaching needs to be dynamic. Theosophy has also 
>>been called the Perennial Wisdom, and that which is perennial lasts 
>>for a long time, perhaps because its 'language' is one that 
>>acknowledges the changing environment and the growing perceptions 
>> 
>>
>of 
> 
>
>>humans in every age.
>>
>>Like you, Jerry, I also don't have any daily conversations with 
>>higher spiritual realities and in that respect I am very 
>>much "offline". But I like to think on these things and was very 
>>much heartened by what I read on a bookmark produced by TPH Wheaton 
>>many years ago:
>>
>>"THINK! It could be a new experience for you."
>>
>>
>>Pedro
>> 
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>



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