Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00368)

From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@...> 
Date: Tue May 10, 2005 11:40 pm 
Subject: Theosophical libraries jjhe@... 
Send Email 

>Jerry: you wrote:

>Dear Nigel, Perry and all

>Perry writes:

>Another question maybe is it anybodies role to disallow any
>information or writer from being in a theosophical library even if
>that information is known to be questionable?
>
>I think there are two questions implied here. 1) Whether or not an 
>item
>is appropriate for a Theosophical library 2) Whether it is practical 
>to
>include a certain item in a Theosophical library. The first question
>concerns one's view of what constitutes Theosophy. The second, is a
>matter of space.

>Personally, if you showed me a random issue of Penthouse magazine, I
>would probably find something in it which is (I believe) 
>Theosophically
>relevant. But, the reality of the matter is that every library has
>space limitations. Therefore, specialty library collections, as a
>matter of practicality, has to set limits and priorities based upon
>their overall understanding of what Theosophy is.

>Jerry

Dear Jerry
Thank you for your posting.
The issue of space is certainly of concern for a small organisation 
such as ours, although I would not wish to use this as an excuse for 
refusing certain books.

For me, your last sentence raises surely the most thorny of all 
questions for Theosophical students. 

There are many and varied perspectives as to "what is Theosophy" 
which includes "what is theosophy."
I spent no end of time with many others attempting to define these, 
in committee meetings,Lodge and National discussion groups over a 
period of eighteen years. I understand you have done the same, only 
for many more years.

>From my current perspective, and perhaps from mine alone, there are a 
number of matters which deserve consideration.

As understood by me, the general Theosophical, informational system 
of Madame Blavatsky and her Mahatmas was never intended to become 
belief based. If only, but not only, by virtue of the enormous 
number of references HPB used in Isis Unveiled and the Secret 
Doctrine alone, and her tangential writing style, it appears she 
often used a specific technique which was attempting to broaden and 
keep ever open our minds and hearts. It seems this was in part to 
avoid the creation of dogmas which might hopefully contribute towards 
an ever increasing depth of understanding of the truths and mysteries 
of existence. 
For me, their Theosophical information was never intended to contain 
the final word or words, to be learned, remembered and regurgitated 
in an authoritarian manner, thereby contributing to 
dominant, "knowledgeable" leaders and compliant followers. 
Unfortunately, numerous later writers and leaders wrote and acted in 
such a manner as to establish themselves as authorities and who 
additionally either subtly or not so subtly insisted on obedience and 
compliance.

Secondly, HPB and her Mahatmas' wrote about a system which 
demonstrated a vast, impersonal cosmogonical and cosmological scheme 
of infinite complexity, where Reality was considered "unthinkable and 
unspeakable" by our limited mind.
For me, this system and the approach of its exposure was part of an 
occult process which was often not accepted by certain later writers 
and students who apparently preferred a more simplified, absolutist 
approach with definitive, anthropomorphised cosmic and solar 
identities and, furthermore, who usually insisted that a + b always 
equalled c.

Finally, although not exhaustively, some of the later writers who 
claimed to be representing the Theosophical information of HPB and 
her Mahatmas were dramatically misrepresenting and contradicting it 
in many areas. This strikes me as being highly dishonourable. 
Disagreement and challenge were encouraged by HPB, but to dishonour 
her and her teachers' writings through wilful misrepresentation is 
disgraceful. 

These are some of the contributing factors which I consider when 
determining whether certain literature is the authentic Theosophical 
information of HPB and her Mahatmas or whether they might come under 
the much broader heading of theosophy.

Whether Theosophy is authentic theosophy is for each to decide for 
themselves.
Whether HPB and her teachers are accurate, or at least more accurate 
than not with their information, is also for each to decide.

>From my perspective HPB and her teachers have presented a system of 
occult knowledge and a systematised approach to its dissemination and 
verification as far as is possible, which satisfies my Freedom 
loving, ever inquiring heart and mind, my sense of justice and 
fairness and my "common" sense.
Up to now for me, certain others have not. 

Best wishes
Nigel