Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00301)

Dear Nigel:

Thank you for your reply. In my post I was just trying to draw 
attention to the danger of ideologising the debate on this list. The 
quotes from HPB clearly point to that danger.

My experience in the university in Brazil taught me one or two 
things about the nefarious power of ideology over the human mind. In 
the 1970s, almost every department of philosophy in Latin-America 
was dominated by Marxist professors. Most of my teachers and 
colleagues were engaged Marxists and the non-Marxists, like me, were 
usually looked down and with contempt. The Marxist ideology seduced 
many western intellectuals in the western world for many decades.

As you know, one of the famous "sutras" of Karl Marx (the 11th 
Thesis Against Feuerbach) declared that "the philosophers interpret 
the world in different ways. The really important thing is to 
transform it." Perhaps many of us would agree with that. But the 
Marxist theory and ideology is based on the so-called "inexorable 
laws of History" and it concludes that the true agent of change is 
class-struggle and class-hatred. My Marxist colleagues at university 
didn't see anything wrong with this view. It has, they used to tell 
me, its intrinsic and internal logic.

The reason why I came back to Theos-talk discussions is because I 
was truly moved by Eldon's appeal of not wanting to see this list 
destroyed by a pattern of behaviour which prevents effective 
discussion. Personally, I find statements like "Besant was the real 
founder of the TS" or "everything that Leadbeater ever wrote is 
unadulterated cow dung" (forgive me the euphemism), going in that 
direction. People are, of course, free to post such things and some 
others may take them on, but I don't think this ideology-centred tug 
of war helps to advance the dialogue on this list. Needless to say, 
this is my tentative personal opinion.

In this context, I am reminded of something N. Sri Ram once wrote, 
which is perhaps useful for all of us who are involved in 
theosophical discourse: "Truth recedes into the background when the 
speaker about Truth is very much in the foreground."

To me Theosophy is not an ideology. I regard it as a way of seeing 
life, relationships, Nature and the Cosmos which is always growing, 
always expanding, which is never crystallised. To me books - all 
books - are like facilitators and midwives for that seeing, never a 
final authority.

The purpose of my post was not to criticize anyone but to pose a 
question for discussion: can Theos-talk also be an inquiry-based 
forum instead of just an opinion-based one, free as we are to 
present our opinions?

I still remember that Sunday afternoon in 1995, when we met for a 
cup of tea at the house in Adyar. Many things have happened since 
then and we end up meeting in a theosophical forum in cyber-space! 
Such are the strange ways of Theosophy (or theosophy).

Warm regards to you both,

pedro
   

> 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