Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt01019)

Daniel H. Caldwell wrote, in part (to 
Pedro):
> Pedro,
>
> I have collated BELOW several statements from some
> of your recent postings on Leadbeater.
>
> If what you say is correct then I think there is
> at least one VITAL difference or distinction between what
> Blavatsky claimed she was doing and what 
> Leadbeater claimed he was doing.
> What you write about Leadbeater appears to be a totally different
> kind of claim.
>
> Daniel
I think Daniel makes some relevant 
points in the sense that, as I see it, 
the study of Theosophy hinges on a kind 
of karmic readiness to understand or 
intuit wisdom in various 
statements/concepts that, being 
exoteric, could easily mislead those who 
are "not ready" to read between the 
lines. As a result, as I tend to see 
it, there are plenty of teachers or 
would-be-teachers who might or might not 
offer much in the way of wisdom, 
depending on how they're interpreted.
Not having read any of Leadbeater's 
books, I can't say much other than that 
I tend to get the impression that I 
might find myself having to do a lot of 
sifting and sprinkling of salt while 
reading his books (ie, in contrast to 
such as, eg, the Mahatma Letters, which 
have so far tended to come across to me 
kind of ... well, sort of as if certain 
kinds of sifting/salt wasn't required 
all that much---strangely enough, seeing 
as I seem to think of myself as a sort 
of "speculator extraodinaire," in a 
way---in comparison to so many other 
things I have read).

Here's something that might (or might 
not ...) be found to relate to this 
topic in some worthwhile-enough sense, 
maybe:

Quoting Ken Wilbur, page 57, THE 
ESSENTIAL KEN WILBUR:

<<Arthur Koestler coined the term holon 
to refer to that which, being a whole in 
one context, is simultaneously a part in 
another. With reference to the phrase 
"the bark of a dog," for example, the 
word bark is a whole with reference to 
its individual letters, but a part with 
reference to the phrase itself. And the 
whole (or the context) can determine the 
meaning and function of a part---the 
meanining of bark is different in the 
phrases "the bark of a dog" and "the 
bark of a tree." The whole, in other 
words, is more than the sum of its 
parts, and that whole can influence and 
determine, in many cases, the function 
of its parts (and that whole is, of 
course, simultaneously a part of some 
other whole).

Normal hierarchy, then, is simply an 
order of increasing holons, representing 
an increase in wholeness and 
intergrative capacity-atoms to molecules 
to cells, for example. This is why 
hierarchy is indeed so central to 
systems theory, the theory of wholeness 
or holism ("wholism"), To be a part of a 
larger whole means that the whole 
supplies a principle (or some sort of 
glue) not found in the isolated parts 
alone, and this principle allows the 
parts to join, to link together, to have 
something in common, to be connected, in 
ways that they simply could not be on 
their own.

Hierarchy, then, converts heaps into 
wholes, disjointed fragments into 
networks of mutual interaction. When is 
is said that "the whole is greater than 
the sum of its parts," the "greater" 
means "hierarchy." It doesn't mean 
fascist domination; it means a higher 
(or deeper) commonality that joins 
isolated strands into an actual web, 
that joins molecules into a cell, or 
cells into an organism.>>

=======end of quote===========

References to "brotherhood" in 
Theosophical lit come to mind, among 
other things. I wonder if Wilbur has 
used the word "brotherhood" in his 
writings in the same context/sense as 
used in the 19th century. Not that I 
can't imagine such a thing, in some 
sense. And maybe the word "commonality" 
is too dry or something for most people, 
anyway ...

Speculatively
Mauri