Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00422)

Dear Jerry
Thank you for your response. 

You wrote: "Yes, defining theosophy is indeed a thorny question. I 
suggest that the criteria for such a definition might also differ 
depending upon the context--for instance, whether the definition is 
in context of a philosophical discussion, spiritual practice, 
organizing a library etc."

Interesting that you distinguish differences. Would you care to (have 
time to!) elaborate?

>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.

You responded: "I share your views on this. Notice Blavatsky's 
description of a Theosophical Library in the Key:

"To collect for the library of our headquarters of Adyar, Madras, (and
by Fellows of their Branches for their local libraries,) all the good
works upon the world's religions that we can. To put into written form
correct information upon the various ancient philosophies, traditions
and legends, and disseminate the same in such practicable ways as the
translation and publication of original works of value, and extracts
from and commentaries upon the same, or the oral instructions of 
persons
learned in their respective departments." p. 47 (from an actual 1st
edition).

No where does she say that such a library is supposed
to be a collection of her's or other Theosophist's writings. Yet, my
experience has been that Theosophical libraries typically have books 
of the Theosophical leaders as central to their collection. 
Translations of works on the world's religions, are secondary, if 
represented at all. It should be the other way around. Theosophical 
commentaries should be secondary to the source works."

Fully concur.

>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.

You responded: "Yes, this appears to be the case. Further, the 
Theosophical Organizations have enforced this authority establishing. 
The evidence of this I point to is the numerous editions of 
Theosophical books which have been re-edited, not by the authors, but 
by the publishers. An examination of what has been re-edited, clearly 
shows (to me at least)that the editing has been done to cover over 
Theosophical history and to remove information which is now perceived 
as silly. For instance, CWL's description of Martian civilizations 
has been removed from The Inner Life."

This has been another sad episode of TS history. Whatever happened to 
truth in reporting? Why defend the indefensible when your broader 
credibility is at risk? In time, the deception will be uncovered. 
If this occurred in the academic arena, there'd be hell to pay!

>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.

You responded: "That is where, in my mind, the dis-honesty has come 
in. An author ought to be allowed to stand or fall upon his/her own 
merits."

Agreed.

You wrote: "For this reason, I advocate that Theosophical works which 
are put in a Theosophical library, be the editions which the authors 
were responsible."

Absolutely.

You wrote: "If a library has room, and wants to also include later
editions, altered by the publishers, after the author's death, then,
those works should only be added only after the originals are 
accessed."

And these works should be clearly identified by the publisher as 
modified, with reference to the earlier edition

Best wishes
Nigel


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
wrote:
> Dear Nigel,
> 
> Yes, defining theosophy is indeed a thorny question. I suggest 
that the 
> criteria for such a definition might also differ depending upon the 
> context--for instance, whether the definition is in context of a 
> philosophical discussion, spiritual practice, organizing a library 
etc. 
> 
> >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. 
> >
> I share your views on this. Notice Blavatsky's description of a 
> Theosophical Library in the Key:
> 
> "To collect for the library of our headquarters of Adyar, Madras, 
(and 
> by Fellows of their Branches for their local libraries,) all the 
good 
> works upon the world's religions that we can. To put into written 
form 
> correct information upon the various ancient philosophies, 
traditions 
> and legends, and disseminate the same in such practicable ways as 
the 
> translation and publication of original works of value, and 
extracts 
> from and commentaries upon the same, or the oral instructions of 
persons 
> learned in their respective departments." p. 47 (from an actual 
1st 
> edition). 
> 
> Notice that she doesn't say that a Lodge or National library is 
first of 
> all, a collection of works on the world's religions, their 
translations 
> and commentaries. No where does she say that such a library is 
supposed 
> to be a collection of her's or other Theosophist's writings. Yet, 
my 
> experience has been that Theosophical libraries typically have 
books of 
> the Theosophical leaders as central to their collection. 
Translations 
> of works on the world's religions, are secondary, if represented at 
> all. It should be the other way around. Theosophical commentaries 
> should be secondary to the source works. 
> 
> 
> >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.
> >
> Yes, this appears to be the case. Further, the Theosophical 
> Organizations have enforced this authority establishing. The 
evidence 
> of this I point to is the numerous editions of Theosophical books 
which 
> have been re-edited, not by the authors, but by the publishers. An 
> examination of what has been re-edited, clearly shows (to me at 
least) 
> that the editing has been done to cover over Theosophical history 
and to 
> remove information which is now perceived as silly. For instance, 
CWL's 
> description of Martian civilizations has been removed from The 
Inner Life. 
> 
> >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. 
> >
> And it is now the responsibility of the reader to discern the 
> differences between the writings. Later re-editing has obscured 
these 
> differences. That is where, in my mind, the dis-honesty has come 
in. 
> An author ought to be allowed to stand or fall upon his/her own 
merits. 
> For this reason, I advocate that Theosophical works which are put 
in a 
> Theosophical library, be the editions which the authors were 
> responsible. If a library has room, and wants to also include 
later 
> editions, altered by the publishers, after the author's death, 
then, 
> those works should only be added only after the originals are 
accessed. 
> 
> 
> These are the guidelines we have have evolved for Alexandria West. 
Of 
> course, the number of Theosophical books and periodicals are so 
> numerous, they constantly push for attention. And, frankly, 
researchers 
> who have made use of this library has been primarily interested in 
the 
> rare journals and special collections of unpublished material 
here. 
> But, researchers have a different agenda than general inquirers. 
So, in 
> addition to the Theosophical Books and journals from all of the 
> Theosophical Organizations and spin offs, we have a section on 
> mythology, comprising some 1500 volumes alone. That is more books 
than 
> one would find in a typical Lodge library. We also have separate 
> categories for each of the world's religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, 
> Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. The priority is alway first to 
obtain 
> the source works--the sacred scriptures. Then, the commentaries. 
We 
> also have special sections for subjects concerning Eastern and 
Western 
> Esoteric Traditions: Hermeticism, Alchemy, Astrology etc.; Secret 
> Societies: Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Golden Dawn etc.; Western 
> Philosophy; Sciences: Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, 
> Oceanography, Archeology, Anthropology, Psychology etc.; History 
etc. 
> 
> Needless to say, we are out of room and looking for a larger 
place. 
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nhcareyta wrote:
> 
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >