Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00271)

Dear Perry,

I agree that the word theosophy can become a problem--especially when 
one begins to think of the particular brand of theosophy they believe in 
as synonymous with truth. That, is when you comparison to Christianity 
become especially apt.

I like your idea of comparing the ideas without reference to their 
traditions. If this is done without the presupposition that all of the 
writings are consistent with each other, the result might be quite 
interesting. We have done comparative studies, but with full knowledge 
of the traditions each of the writers belong to. This historicity is 
helpful in giving context, but might miss some point one might pickup in 
a comparative study without an historical context.

I also very much like your suggestion that each writer be studied 
according to their own merits. This has been a mantra of mine for 
years--and also my argument as to why Theosophical Organizations ought 
not edit and rewrite books after the authors have died.

Best
Jerry




Perry Coles wrote:

> Hi Daniel, Jerry and All,
> Maybe one of the problems comes from the use of the word `theosophy'.
> As an example in a section on Christianity in a library you will have many different 
> presentations or versions of that religion known as `Christianity'.
> Some writers agree in some areas and completely conflict in others……this is the problem 
> with labels.
>
> Maybe the way `theosophy' needs to be approached is examining and comparing the 
> ideas expressed rather than the labels and connotations that have become attached to the 
> term `theosophy'.
>
> Know one has a monopoly on this term `theosophy' and I think the reality is now it has 
> become a kind of barrier and a stumbling block within the movement.
>
> Some theosophical groups only concentrate on Blavatsky's writings or maybe William Q 
> Judge or the Mahatma letters which is valid within their own mandates.
>
> The Adyar Society as I understand it is simply states the 3 objects as its reason for being 
> and does not hold any writing or writer as being definitive of `true theosophy' and follows 
> that rationale.
>
> Each writer perhaps needs to be approached according to their own merit or lack there of 
> and maybe we need to get away from trying to possess or own this term theosophy or 
> simply associate with certain writers or writings.
>
> Perry
>
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@y...> wrote:
>
>
> > H.P.B. in Volume I of The Secret Doctrine told her readers:
> >
> > ". . . the SECRET DOCTRINE is not a treatise, or a series of vague 
> > theories, but contains all that can be given out to the world in 
> > this century." The Secret Doctrine, 1888, Vol I, p. xxxviii 
> > (original edition) 
> > And a few lines above these two paragraphs, one reads:
> >
> > ". . . But it will take centuries before much more is given from it 
> > [the Secret Archaic Doctrine]. . . . " 
> > Later, HPB wrote:
> >
> > "The Secret Doctrine is the accumulated Wisdom of the Ages, and its 
> > cosmogony alone is the most stupendous and elaborate system. The 
> > facts have actually occupied countless generations of initiated 
> > seers and prophets to marshal, to set down and explain. The flashing 
> > gaze of those seers has penetrated into the very kernel of matter, 
> > and recorded the soul of things there. The [Esoteric] system is no 
> > fancy of one or several isolated individuals. It is the 
> > uninterrupted record covering thousands of generations of Seers 
> > whose respective experiences were made to test and to verify the 
> > teachings of higher and exalted beings, who watched over the 
> > childhood of Humanity. For long ages, the 'Wise Men' of the Fifth 
> > Race had passed their lives in learning by checking, testing, and 
> > verifying in every department of nature the traditions of old by the 
> > independent visions of great adepts; i.e., men who have developed 
> > and perfected their physical, mental, psychic, and spiritual 
> > organisations to the utmost possible degree. No vision of one adept 
> > was accepted till it was checked and confirmed by the visions --- so 
> > obtained as to stand as independent evidence --- of other adepts, 
> > and by centuries of experiences." 
> > [Collated from The Secret Doctrine, Vol. I, pp. 273-274 with some 
> > phrases & sentences silently deleted.]
> >
> > The main tenets of this Esoteric System are given in the pages of 
> > THE SECRET DOCTRINE as well in the thousands of other pages of HPB's 
> > writings.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links