Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00446)

Hi Paul,
If I get the gist of what your saying its that we should be wary of 
not accepting pat explanations or presuming one particular 
historical perspective is correct.

I whole heartedly agree, I myself can't claim any great knowledge of 
theosophical history or any history for that matter, but I am 
struggling and trying to keep up with it.
For me I would rather know that there's a `fly in the ointment' 
rather than pretend its not there. 

I am well aware of the danger of thinking you've point of view is 
the right one.
I can only say at this point in time I have a certain understanding 
based on very limited knowledge that I am sure will continue to 
change and hopefully deepen to whatever capacity I am capable of.

I appreciate being challenged as it keeps me on my toes and helps 
learn and become more aware of any subtle form of self deception or 
ego avoidance. 

I am going to have to go over your post a few more times and think 
it though as I've been doing with your book as well.

Its an ongoing process !

Cheers
Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" 
<kpauljohnson@y...> wrote:
> 
> --- 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