Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00447)

Hi Paul,

As usual, you bring up some interesting perspectives:

But I see this as including assumptions,
> probably unexamined and possibly unconscious, that really distort the
> issue of what is problematic about CWL's legacy. When you refer (as
> in an earlier post) to "THIS tradition of THE Adepts" which people are
> completely free "to accept or reject" that very framing destroys the
> essence of intellectual freedom.

You know, I know perfectly nice people who find the solution to 
life's problems in sources that I privately consider to be highly 
suspect. But that doesn't negate the fact that these people revere 
them. Perhaps we need a wider view. From the point of view of karma, 
everyone has to learn everything. Maybe the path of one is different 
from the path of another, but they all lead to the same ultimate 
(unthinkably, ideally so) goal? How about you and me, Paul? I respect 
you and usually enjoy your comments, but we approach the subject of 
theosophy, or wisdom, from quite different points of view. However, 
we still can learn from each other. One of my favorite theosophical 
"maxims" is that two diametrically opposed points of view can both be 
true. 
> 
> As I see it what you are saying is that the doctrines in the 
> writings of HPB and the Mahatmas are univocal, and that Besant and
> Leadbeater are speaking in a different voice and pretending that it is
> the same. However, even a cursory examination of the early literature
> of the TS shows discourse at two levels: 1. There are MANY traditions
> and MANY different schools of adepts which HPB and the MLs refer to,
> argue about, promote, etc. The spiritual legacy of humanity is
> MULTIVOCAL and that is a fact openly acknowledged and clearly
> understood. 2. But at a deeper level there are common doctrinal and
> historical threads linking all these various traditions and schools, a
> perspective which subsequently was called Perennialism.
> 
> The problem comes IMO when the two levels are conflated. It is fine
> to acknowledge that HISTORICALLY we have all these diverse and
> conflicting voices contributing to "wisdom" while saying that
> METAHISTORICALLY there is something deeper uniting them. It is also
> fine to be AHISTORICAL in perspective and say it doesn't matter to you
> what the source is in time and space and context because the bottom
> line is how the doctrine affects your own spiritual growth and
> expanding awareness and compassion. What is not fine, IMO, and in
> fact is the fatal curse of the TM, is to take an ANTIHISTORICAL stance
> and to say "it doesn't matter what the evidence shows about all the
> diversity and conflicts within this broad range of human spirituality.
> It really all came from a single civilization in Atlantis (or
> Lemuria, or buried in caves in Tibet, etc.) Yes, HPB and MLs talking
> about cave libraries and Senzar as historical rather than
> metaphorical. But taking all that as factual puts one in the position
> of rejecting history.

Aren't you approaching the eternal dichotomy, the ideal and the real? 
This is so confusing for students. We almost have to agree which 
perspective we are using. In the ideal sense, there is only one 
source of all truth. In the real sense, there are infinite sources, 
or at least as many as anyone can come up with. History is only an 
approximation, since the cyclic nature of manifestation effectively 
erases information beyond a certain limit. But here again we find 
that we can both be right. It all depends on our point of view. 
> 
> If you closely examine the Theosophical literature in HPB's time it
> already can be seen to be highly multivocal. Lots of doctrinal
> changes and evolving perspectives in her own writings and in those of
> her alleged source. Whoever wrote the Mahatma letters, they fairly
> clearly are speaking in multiple voices.

One of the very attractive aspects of theosophy, for me anyway, is 
the fact that the student is exhorted to examine everything and make 
up his/her own mind as to its validity. In the course of a lifetime 
of study, one finds some things that were unacceptable at one stage 
become more possible later on. I personally haven't come across 
anything yet that is totally unacceptable, but the jury is out on 
some things. I attribute this to my own limitations, however, rather 
than to the ancient wisdom itself. I feel comfortable with this, but 
someone else may not. That's ok, as far as I can see. 
> 
> With CWL, on the other hand, he claims to be speaking on behalf of a
> bunch of different sources, BUT THEY ALL SOUND EXACTLY LIKE CWL. CWL
> imposed a univocality that was not present heretofore, making
> Theosophy an orthodoxy in violation of everything HPB stood for. But
> many other kinds of Theosophists have perpetrated the univocality myth
> and used it as a weapon to stifle diversity and intellectual freedom.

Well, Paul, it seems like they haven't managed to stifle you , at any 
rate. :-)
> 
> If there is a new paradigm relevant to all this, to me it is 
> MULTIVOCALITY. Think of how people for so long took "the Bible" to be
> one single message from one God with one plan for humanity etc. And
> how now only fundies buy that and everyone with any sense understands
> that it's many different books written from many different
> perspectives. Even the gospels are multivocal; the church tried to
> stifle that by excluding MOST of the diverse voices but even the
> canonical four are multivocal.

I just reread a great book, "Fool of Venus," by George Cronyn, a 
fully delightful account of the life of one of the troubadors of 
Provence during the 12th-13th Century, taken in large part from the 
text of his songs. The accounts of the religious persecutions 
perpetrated in the name of Christianity in that time are a good 
argumant for your multivocality. Tolerance is our only hope, if we 
are ever to move beyond such egregious betrayal of the message that 
comes from the ancient wisdom, whoever expresses it, of the Unity of 
all Life. 
> 
> Each of the Theosophical organizations tries to impose its own 
> version of univocality, in who speaks for Theosophy, who is a real
> Theosophist, what questions are and are not relevant to ask. But in
> the age of the Internet they cannot put the genie back in the bottle. 
> Anyone who does a google search on HPB or Theosophy will immediately
> become privy to ALL the diverse perspectives that the various
> organizations want to stifle. 

Isn't this great? Freedom of information, so that everyone can make 
up his own mind.
> 
> I will close by drawing a parallel to what is happening with the news
> media in the US, which are increasingly distrusted as propaganda tools
> of the government (say liberals) or the imaginary "liberal
> establishment" by rightwingers. The blogosphere is a cacaphony of
> conflicting voices, but out of this comes truths that the univocal
> "main stream media" would prefer to stifle. For example, it has been
> bloggers who have uncovered the presence of a male prostitute with
> zero journalistic credentials or background, working under a
> pseudonym, welcomed into White House press conferences and used as a
> ringer who can be relied on to ask "questions" that are ALWAYS attacks
> on the administration's critics. The main stream media folks have
> been trying to dismiss this discovery by framing it as "mean liberal
> bloggers persecuting a conservative journalist." But it doesn't look
> like they are going to get away with it, not with the guy turning out
> to have been employed by an outfit created by Texas Republicans and to
> have been involved in the felonious outing of a CIA agent who was
> pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Here's a link to a couple of
> articles on all this and what it says about the "news."
> 
> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
> az=view_all&address=102x1241377
> 
> http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/02/16_theories.html
> 
> Bottom line is univocality=authority is the OLD PARADIGM. 
> Multivocality=truthseeking is the NEW PARADIGM.

The idea of the new paradigm struck me, and still strikes me, as an 
intesting way to consider the times we live in. It is seldom that the 
contemporary participants in great social sea changes are aware of 
them in their time, as opposed to hindsight. But it seems possible 
that that is exactly what is happening right now to us. 

Best wishes,
Adelasie