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
Yahoo! Groups Links
