Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00288)

Hello Jerry,
you wrote :

"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."

Couldn't agree more, HPB was a great debater and I think would enjoy 
the challenge of being challenged.
This is why guru worship is so anathema to the theosophical process.
Gurus need more than anybody else to be challenged and they should 
expect it from there students if they are genuine.

Blindly followed pronouncements and dogmas that are just believed are 
what churches are about.
Theosophy is something else entirely.
Organizations that block debate are churches.

Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
wrote:
> 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]