Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00262)

The word "ideology" admits several meanings, one of which is "the 
manner of thinking characteristic of a class or individual".  
Implied in the term is the sense of combativeness that individuals 
belonging to a particular ideology display in their relations to 
other individuals or ideological groups. Every ideology is, 
therefore, intrinsically divisive because at its heart is nourished 
an "us and them" world view, "us" meaning those who are "right", who 
are on the side of "truth".

The history of the theosophical movement provides ample evidence 
that, for some, Theosophy has indeed become an ideology as the 
dynamics "us and them" is very much present in their discourse and 
their practice. Examples of this include upholding the teachings of 
one or two particular individual authors as "the only true, original 
Theosophy", at the exclusion of all other contributions to the 
extensive theosophical literature; and maintaining that certain 
authors should be continually denounced as frauds for putting 
forward "false" teachings, by implying that only certain teachings 
are "true Theosophy".

A question could be asked: is there any theosophical organization 
with a flawless history? Were the Founders of the movement in 
themselves flawless? Did they ever claim that? Were their Masters' 
plans in relation to the original TS flawless? Consider what they 
themselves said:

"Verily many are the chelas offering themselves to us, and as many 
have failed this year as were accepted on probation. Chelaship 
unveils the inner man and draws forth the dormant vices as well as 
the dormant virtue. Latent vice begets active sins and is often 
followed by insanity. Out of 5 lay chelas chosen by the Society and 
accepted under protest by us, 3 have become criminals and 2 are 
insane." (LMW, I, 9)

As Eldon said here, more than once, Theos-talk represents a unique 
opportunity, perhaps an opportunity that ALL previous generations of 
students of Theosophy didn't have: a forum to explore the nature, 
depth, meaning and practical implications of Theosophy. The world 
seems to be being pulled apart daily by the forces of separation and 
hatred, some of them occupying elected public offices. There are so 
many problems and issues in the world today on which the light of 
Theosophy could be shed, like violence, hunger, the impact of 
science on society, the destruction of nature, mental illness, 
nationalism and racism, among many others. Can Theos-talk be a place 
in which this exercise takes place? Or are we going to continue to 
look back in anger, pointing a finger (or more than one) at those we 
think are responsible for the ruin of the theosophical movement? Can 
it really be ruined as long as there are students eager to explore 
the Wisdom teachings with an open mind and with a sense of love for 
humanity as a whole? HPB pointed out that the essence of Theosophy 
is Altruism, from the Latin "alter" - a life of dedication to the 
other: suffering humanity. This particular view of Theosophy seemed 
to have been relevant for Olcott also mentioned it, as well as 
Judge, Subba Row, Tingley, Mead, Keightley, Besant, Leadbeater, 
Jinarajadasa, Crosbie, Wadia, de Purucker, Long, Knoche, Sri Ram, 
Coats, Burnier and many, many others. The Masters referred to it 
as "philanthropy" and considered it to be the first object of the 
original TS.

Could the following two quotes from HPB help us in our work in Theos-
talk? 

"We are all fellow-students, more or less advanced; but no one 
belonging to the Theosophical Society ought to count himself as more 
than, at best, a pupil-teacher—one who has no right to dogmatize."
(Letter to the Second American Convention, 1888)

"Orthodoxy in Theosophy is a thing neither possible nor desirable. 
It is diversity of opinion, within certain limits, that keeps the 
Theosophical Society a living and a healthy body, its many other 
ugly features notwithstanding. Were it not, also, for the existence 
of a large amount of uncertainty in the minds of students of 
Theosophy, such healthy divergencies would be impossible, and the 
Society would degenerate into a sect, in which a narrow and 
stereotyped creed would take the place of the living and breathing 
spirit of Truth and an ever growing Knowledge." (same source as 
above)

Can Theos-talk thread the path of wise uncertainty?


pedro