Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00148)

Hello Pedro,

You wrote:
"A question naturally arises: if hers are the one true
authoritative teachings on Theosophy, is any study and
investigation of Theosophy possible outside her works
and her Teachers' letters?"


This is the key issue in the TS imo.

To present to the public and members/students the original teachings 
of HPB and the Mahatma's as being the "authoritative teachings on 
theosophy" to me does not therefore mean we only study these works.

But rather a comparative study type of approach can be used as HPB 
does though most of her writings comparing different traditions 
(religion, philosophy, science) with those of the Mahatma's 
tradition.

This is in keeping with the comparative study encouraged in the 
second object.

Students are of course allowed to challenge, and pursue any path or 
point of view they feel a leaning towards as long as it is not 
imposed on any other student.

To present the original teachings as be the closest representation 
of the Ancient Wisdom teachings we have to date, does not therefore 
and should never mean dogmatic blind belief and acceptance.

People blindly following and believing HPB and the Mahatma's is 
still just another blind belief mindset.

Theosophy in my experience tries to get us out of that mindset and 
into a free and open mind.

To point out the differences between theosophy and neo theosophy is 
to me just a simple educational responsibility.

People are still at liberty to study any philosophy or tradition 
they choose.

However the Mahatma's teachings need to be represented accurately 
and not confused with other traditions or other teachers points of 
view.


Perry 




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Pedro Oliveira <prmoliveira@y...> 
wrote:
> In a crucial letter to Olcott (1888), K.H. wrote:
> 
> 
> "To help you in your present perplexity: H.P.B. has
> next to no concern with administrative details, and
> should be kept clear of them, so far as her strong
> nature can be controlled. But *this you must tell to
> all:—With occult matters she has everything to do*. We
> have not abandoned her; she is not `given over to
> chelas'. She is *our direct agent*."
>  
> 
> In another letter to Dr Hubbe Schleiden (1885), the
> same Adept wrote:
> 
> 
> "The present is simply to satisfy the Dr. that — "the
> more proof given the less believed". Let him take my
> advice and not make these two documents public. It is
> for his own satisfaction that the undersigned is happy
> to assure him that *The Secret Doctrine* when ready,
> will be the triple production of M..., Upasika and the
> Doctor's most humble servant [K.H.]."
> 
> 
> Such passages clearly establish the solid authority of
> HPB's writings, more particularly THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
> 
> 
> If one considers, for example, the exchange between T.
> Subba Row and HPB in "The Theosophist", in the early
> 1880s, on their different approaches to the
> clasification of principles in the human constitution,
> and the fact that the septenary division was the one
> adopted both in THE SECRET DOCTRINE and THE KEY TO
> THEOSOPHY, the same consolidation of authority can be
> seen.
> 
> 
> A question naturally arises: if hers are the one true
> authoritative teachings on Theosophy, is any study and
> investigation of Theosophy possible outside her works
> and her Teachers' letters?
> 
> 
> Pedro  
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail