Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00788)

Jerry,
People who depend on Blavatsky's writing, takes it seriously keep on 
speculating endlessly, keep on discussing and arguing what she means 
and never reach conclusion. It is such a messy way of writing that 
has driven many people crazy. Lucky is a person who does not read 
Blavatsky's writing and does not damage his mind by trying to find 
meaning in that mess.


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >