Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00273)

Dear Pedro
Greetings after some years apart! Good to see your return to theos-
talk. From my perspective, limited though it is, you have much to 
offer us.

You wrote:
> 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".

Whilst this statement is intrinsically correct, should all those who 
disagree with another's point of view be termed idealogues and 
thereby divisive?
The mindset which decides that a differing viewpoint from another's 
teachings is divisive, is for me a very limited way of proceeding in 
the search for truth. If used unscrupulously, this mindset can be 
used as a technique to curb or even eliminate legitimate debate.
How can one challenge legitimately with indisputable evidence and not 
be accused of divisiveness and unbrotherliness?
If someone proves that another has lied, how can this be divisive? To 
lie is separative and to expose this would surely be unitive? Surely 
the researcher should be commended for attempting to preserve Unity 
and Brotherhood in the face of separative deceipt?
And yet this so often is not the case from those who prefer one or 
two particular teachers over another. Instead they separatively 
villify and pillory, or worse ignore, those who seem to be genuinely 
concerned with truth.
In your opinion, if the above is accurate, why is this so?

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.

These are fine words if not more than a little difficult to uphold!
However, how can one who continually lies, misrepresents and deceives 
be truly altruistic? What might be his or her motivation for this?
Can this person/s be trusted? Surely it is separative arrogance which 
permits them to believe that they know what is best. Separativeness 
is selfishness is it not? And surely selfishness is not altruistic?

In our search for Unity, are we accepting false values for fear of 
being divisive and separative. Is this not relativism at its worst? 
Is it fear which avoids and/or rejects challenge to sacred cows, 
calling this challenge unbrotherly and against Unity?
Even HPB whom you qote, vehemently challenged the Christian church 
for its dogmas and dominance of believers. Was she being divisive or 
altruistic.

What would be your position on these matters?

Best wishes
Nigel



> 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".

It is certainly true that some consider their favourites as 
possessing "the only true, original Theosophy". But does this mean 
that all those who vehemently disagree with one or two authors are 
thereby stating that theirs is the only true one? Can they support 
thirty or forty other authors, to the exclusion of the said one or 
two, and still be called separative or believers in theirs alone?
For me, this is polarised thinking, an either/or mentality ie:if 
you're not with us, you're against us. Very separative. 


> 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