Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00722)

Dear Anand, friends,

While I see little value in simply quoting from essays and declaring the 
statements to be right or wrong, a close analysis on an essay is 
important in order to correctly understand it. Therefore, I do believe 
that there is much value in analyzing, and criticizing Theosophical 
articles and books. In our study groups, we teach and encourage such a 
critical analysis. Such exercises are basic to accurately interpreting 
and evaluating what the writer is actually trying to communicate. 
I have posted below a model (but not the last word) of how this kind of 
analysis can be done. This is sometimes called "a close reading" of the 
text, and is a necessary precursor to an intelligently done criticism of 
it. I chose "A Reply to our Critics," in order to contrast the previous 
criticism which was not done with a close reading in order to show how 
such a close reading reveals a tightly reasoned complex of inter-related 
ideas, the understanding of which brings a much more comprehensive 
presentation of ideas than could a mere selected quote, taken out of 
it's own context. 
I recommend that you read the article for yourself before reading my 
rendering of it. That way, you will get more out of it. I welcome 
responses and invite you to compose close readings for yourself. It is 
a valuable exercise. Enjoy.


The article in question: "A Reply to Our Critics (Our final answer to 
several objections)" (BCW III:221-26) is one of HPB's many 
editorial-like articles where she is trying to defend Theosophy and the 
Theosophical Society from the criticism of the popular press, which 
writes mostly from misconceptions anyway. Such articles are different 
from those where she is trying to impart some deeper occult idea. 
Rather, in these editorial-like articles, she typically is busy 
simultaneously correcting mis-information and pointing to the faulty 
thinking which led to the errors in the first place.

The article thus begins by posing HPB's "final answer" to several 
repeated criticisms she and Olcott had received concerning The Theosophist:
1) That the use of the word "spiritualism" in the sub-heading of The 
Theosophist is intended to attract subscribers from the Spiritualists. 
2) That The Theosophist neglects the use of scientific induction (222); 
3) That the editors do not sufficiently exercise their "editorial right 
of selection." (225). 
The first criticism (regarding spiritualism), HPB uses to distinguish 
the difference between spiritual perception and communicating with the 
"dearly departed." 
The second criticism (scientific induction) leads into a discussion on 
discerning truth. This is the section upon where Anand posted his 
objection.

The third criticism (editorial right of selection) leads into a 
discussion on the editorial policy of The Theosophist. 

1) The use of the word "spiritualism" in the sub-heading.

The phrase HPB is alluding to in this article but not quoting was on the 
title page of every issue of The Theosophist:

"THE THEOSOPHIST A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO ORIENTAL PHILOSOPHY, ART, 
LITERATURE AND OCCULTISM: EMBRACING MESMERISM, SPIRITUALISM AND OTHER 
SECRET SCIENCES."

Now, in this article, HPB refers to the practitioners and/or believers 
in the popular notion of spiritualism, i.e. communication with the dead, 
as "Spiritualists" (BCW III: 222) and those who follow her definition 
as "orthodox Spiritualists." Students of Theosophy are aware that HPB 
held a special definition of the word "spiritualism" (as she did of the 
word "occultism") i.e. "the state or condition of mind opposed to 
materialism or a material conception of things (Theos. Glossary 285).

Therefore, what HPB means by spiritualism and what her critics mean by 
spiritualism are two very different things. Note that in the heading of 
The Theosophist, spiritualism (i.e. her definition of it) is one of the 
"secret sciences." Spiritualism (HPB's definition) is a secret science 
because the true spiritualist perceives from a spiritual level of 
consciousness, as opposed to the material. I believe that HPB's 
definition is (or nearly is) what Anand means when he used below, the 
word "intuition." However, in the nineteenth century, "intuition" did 
not have the spiritual overtones which Anand is putting upon it. 
HPB further quotes a critic for writing that The Theosophist is devoted 
to spiritualism (the critic's definition) "in the hopes that it should 
do us good service among the Spiritualists" (BCW III:221). HPB quickly 
dismisses the criticism by point out that "present day subscribers from 
'Spiritual' quarters have not amounted to four percent of our 
subscription list (BCW III:221). She then distinguishes her definition 
from their's, and points out that her definition "is an insult to their 
[Spiritualist's] belief, and in turn [the Spiritualists] ridicule and 
oppose us" (BCW III:222).

Therefore, HPB's argument is that from her oft repeated use of the term 
"spiritualism" as spiritual perception, The Theosophist is a magazine 
concerning higher knowledge, not "Spiritualism" in the popular sense.


2) The Theosophists neglects the use of Scientific induction. 
HPB counters that "in the face of the many crucial and strictly 
scientific experiments made by our most eminent savants, it would take a 
wiser sage than King Solomon himself, to decide now between fact and 
fiction." As we are all familiar, science is not a oracle of "truth," 
but is a methodology (which HPB calls here "scientific induction") for 
the seeking after truth. In her day, as in ours, scientific theories 
are constantly in a state of evolution and constantly challenged by 
competing theories. 
HPB, therefore, raises the question: "What is truth?" Then examines 
different, so called, sources of "truth":
1. Seership (i.e. spiritual perception) (222)
2. prejudicial society (i.e. popular opinion) (223)
3. "exact Science" (223)
4. Religion and theology (223)

1. Seership. HPB alludes for her example Brutus' vision of his 'evil 
genius" promising to "meet him [and defeat his army] in the planes of 
Philippi" (BCW III:222-23).
she points out that while a true vision to Brutus, it was "but a dream 
to his slaves." She further points out that the insights of Columbus 
(an antipodal continent) and Galileo (the heliocentric system) were 
denied until proven. Actually HPB's example of Columbus is technically 
a poor choice, since Columbus was apparently ignorant of an antipodal 
continent (e.g. America) and thought he had landed in India. However, 
she does make her point. 
2. Prejudicial society. She asks: "Are we to abandon it [i.e. truth] 
to the mercy and judgment of a prejudiced society constantly caught 
trying to subvert that which it does not understand; ever seeking to 
transform sham and hypocrisy into synonyms of 'propriety' and 
'respectability'?" I think her argument speaks for itself for those who 
will hear.

3. Exact science: She here raises the argument about changing 
hypothesis. However, she also warns that scientists, being human, also 
have their "...prejudice and preconception" as any other mortals (223). 
4. Religion and theology: She dismisses with "...her 'seventy-times 
seven' sects, each claiming and none proving its right to the claim of 
truth..." and concludes: "...we decline accepting anything on faith" 
(224). 

This discussion of truth open into the consequent policy of the editors 
of The Theosophist. That the Editors are not responsible for opinions 
of the contributors. HPB concludes that "no mortal man is infallible, 
nor claiming that privilege for ourselves, we open our columns to the 
discussion of every view and opinion, provided is is not proved 
absolutely supernatural."

HPB, at this point distinguishes opinion (society), hypothesis 
(science), and faith (religion) from fact. She states: "Fact is the 
only tribunal we submit to and recognize it without appeal. And before 
that tribunal a Tyndall and an ignoramus stand on a perfect par." In 
other words, no one has a monopoly on truth because of their education 
or scientific training. 
Therefore, HPB is paving the way to make the point that we can discern 
facts by contrasting ideas. She writes: "Contrast alone can enable us 
to appreciate things in their own right value and unless a judge 
compares notes and hears both sides he can hardly come to a correct 
decision." Notice that HPB is not guaranteeing a correct decision. She 
has previously discussed human shortcomings such a prejudice, which 
bring her quote from Horace: "Dum vitant stuli vitia, in contraria 
current (while striving to shun one vice, fool run to its opposite)" 
(225). Basically she is asking her critics to keep an open mind and 
hear all sides of the story. 
> From here, she enters into discussing the consequences of being closed 
minded, i.e. "dogmatic" and argues:

"For one man to demand from another that he shall believe like himself, 
whether in a question of religion or science is supremely unjust and 
despotic. Besides, it is absurd. For it amounts to exacting that the 
brains of the convert, his organs of perception, his whole organization, 
in short, be reconstructed precisely on the model of that of his 
teacher, and that he shall have the same temperament and mental 
faculties as the other has....Mental slavery is the worst of all 
slaveries." 
A solid warning against cult-like behavior where everyone conforms to 
the thinking of the leader.

Her final argument, answering the criticism that the editors do not 
sufficiently exercise their "editorial right of selection." This she 
denies. Rather, she says that the editors do not control and censor The 
Theosophist in such a way as to force their opinions "for recognition 
upon others" (226). She argues:

"To follow every article from a contributor with a Editor's Note 
correcting "his erroneous ideas" would amount to turning our strictly 
impartial journal into a sectarian organ. We decline such an office of 
'Sir Oracle'" (226). 
Further, the defines the Theosophical Society, which The Theosophist 
represents: "an absolute and uncompromising Republic of Conscience, 
preoccupation and narrow-mindedness is science and philosophy have no 
room in it." She denounces this as much much "as dogmatism and bigotry 
in theology" (226). 

Her theme here is one which she often repeats to her critics--that she 
hold truth itself over the various beliefs systems of the world, whether 
they be scientific, philosophical or religious. She aptly closes by 
quoting Hugo: "In the name of RELIGION we protest against all and every 
religion!"

Conclusion. While HPB, in the article, was interested in answering her 
critics, it is also evident that she was also using her answers as an 
opportunity to address her larger reading audience concerning the more 
important and underlying questions of truth, fact, dogmatism, freedom of 
thought, and open mindedness in light of the pitfalls and errors we can 
fall into in our quest for truth. It is also interesting to note how 
carefully HPB avoided putting the spotlight upon herself as an authority 
to be followed, and skillfully made it known that her position as Editor 
did not include the forcing of her opinions upon others. This is a 
position she took through her life, variously as Editor, author and 
teacher, and is evident in her writing and teaching style when she 
appeals to reason (as opposed to authority) by arguing her points based 
upon what is known. She was careful to write from a reference within our 
verifiable experiencs. Even when she wrote about other planes, globes, 
etc. she argued from the world's sacred texts, which were, to a greater 
or lessor extent, available for verification.

Jerry









Anand Gholap wrote:

> Here is Blavatsky's wrong statement.
> ". . . Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at their
> right value; and unless a judge compares notes and hears both sides
> he can hardly come to a correct decision." H.P. Blavatsky, The
> Theosophist, Volume II, July, 1881, p. 218; reprinted in H.P.B.'s
> Collected Writings, Volume III, p. 225.
>
> Intuition knows truth directly. Intuition does not require comparison 
> with other notes and it does not require hearing of both sides. Above 
> quotation of Blavatsky is just one example of how wrong statements 
> Blavatsky made. 
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links