Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00445)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your observations Paul.
> It's my understanding that the Adepts that Blavatsky claimed to be 
in communication with did in fact say they belonged to a particular 
> tradition referred to as the Cis Trans Himalayan tradition that did 
> have particular teachings regarding the Kosmos and man.
> 
No, not "the" adepts, but SOME of the adepts. (I refuse 
capitalization here deliberately.) Other adepts before the ones you 
refer to were alleged to be "Oriental Rosicrucians" or described 
themselves as Hermeticists, etc. What Theosophists have done, and 
you are unwittingly (I think) accepting, is to collapse all the 
layers of different descriptions of HPB's teachers and take the last 
version as the only one. 

> If I have got this wrong then perhaps this is a line of enquiry 
worth 
> pursuing.

It is not wrong to say that the claim to which you refer is made. It 
is however wrong not to weigh that claim with other references to 
HPB's sources and their knowledge and traditions. Or to take a claim 
that is subject to historical examination, and simply accept it 
without concern that it does not stand up to such examination.

> We should be free to debate challenge and investigate this.
> 
> While they may (the Adepts in particular KH and M) quote from and 
> perhaps support many different points of view from numerous 
different sources does not therefore mean that they did not have a 
tradition within which they themselves belonged.
> 
But if said "tradition" is entirely implausible in light of history-- 
that is Indian-born Tibetan Buddhists of the late 19th century who 
are fully conversant with Greek philosophy, American Spiritualism, 
the Western magical tradition, etc. then to simply accept it is to 
adopt an anti-historical stance.

> Of course the Masters could have been a very elaborate concoction 
and blind by HPB.

That also conflates at least two levels and perhaps more. The two 
are:
1. The Masters as the people who were in fact HPB's teachers and 
sponsors. People cannot be concocted. Stories about them can.
2. "The Masters" as characters named and described in Theosophical 
literature.

To assume that 1 and 2 are identical is again anti-historical, 
cutting the Gordian knot to use one of HPB's favorite expressions. 


> We should be free to challenge and investigate this as well, as you 
> have done.
> 
> I don't quite understand your statement that my suggestion that the 
> Adept's actually belonged to a specific tradition "destroys the 
> essence of intellectual freedom".
> Can you elaborate on this I can't see how you come to this 
conclusion.
> 
No, it was that combined with the statement that "this" tradition 
could be "accepted" or "rejected." Even in the case of a provable 
historical tradition, e.g. the Bible, to present it in terms of a 
dichotomous choice of accept vs. reject is to destroy intellectual 
freedom. Accept vs. reject is what is called in philosophy a "false 
dichotomy." Kinda like-- "which are you, a Virgo or a Capricorn?" 
when there are ten other options that are being ignored. The notion 
of having to accept or reject a historical tradition whole, rather 
than scrutinize it and appraise the individual elements-- well, it's 
just not *theosophical* in any sense HPB would have meant. IMOYMMV! 
When the "tradition" is *not* historically observable-- e.g. adept 
wisdom that comes from Atlantis-- the idea of having to either accept 
or reject it whole is even more destructive of intellectual freedom.

> A univocal opinion or statement and a multi-vocal opinion or 
> statement may equally be incorrect.

Multi-vocal opinion or statement is a contradiction in terms.

> The freedom is in being able to choose for ourselves which one we 
may resonate with at any point in time (if any).
> 
No, the freedom is in being able to analyze all the *individual 
elements* and choose for ourselves which ones we resonate with. Then 
we can combine the elements from any different traditions that we 
resonate to. That's freedom, and it's the freedom HPB used in her 
life and writings-- perhaps more successfully than anyone in history.

> In the end Paul for me we should be free to challenge any point of 
> view historical or philosophical and should always remain open to 
new information and research.
> 
> CWL's teachings are out of bounds in the Adyar society to this sort 
> of investigation, this is my main point of contention with them.
> 
> Perry
Understood and agreed.

Cheers,

Paul