Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00279)

Hello Jerry,
Thanks for your comments.
The library I work in for example puts most 'theosophical' books in 
the Dewey allocation of '299.934' both the Secret doctrine and 
Leadbeater's 'Textbook of theosophy' are in this Dewey designation in 
our library.

Taimni's, Man god and the Universe is in '133' classification. 

Dewey designation can get complicated but I think it holds an 
interesting sort of example of the problem or maybe a better way of 
saying it is the limitation of classifications.
 
The term theosophy is extremely broad and can't have a (TM) next to 
it, however I do think the Mahatma's philosophy or any other writers 
including Leadbeater or anybodies needs to represented accurately as 
they gave it out.

I personally think one way around this issue is to say something 
like "the Mahatma or HPB writings say this and the Leadbeater or 
Besant writings state this or that and then draw a comparison with 
the ideas expressed ect.
 
One thing I think the movement needs to deal with is the effect of 
its own history on itself (if that makes sense) 

I personally think the 3 objects and the democratic model of the 
Adyar TS is still a very good framework.

The problem as I perceive it is in its lack of criticism and 
comparison of statements made by past writers or leaders.

To admit mistakes or to critique ideas espoused by certain past 
members is not a weakness but a virtue and enables a healthy cultural 
dynamic.

In fact a democracy requires the ability to apply healthy and 
reasoned criticism otherwise you don't have a democracy.
Minority voices being allowed to express themselves and to freely be 
heard in a democracy is also a key ingredient.

But in the end majority rules, this is the democratic process.
A constitution or mandate establishes to tone of the institution and 
in the case of the Adyar TS this is the 3 objects.

The Mahatma's teachings differ from those of Leadbeaters and by the 
sound of it some of de Puruckers that is self evident.
Which tradition we find more of a leaning towards is our own choice 
at any particular point in time.

I am trying to work out how this can be done without compromising 
truth in reporting and staying true to the spirit of the movement.
I think we have all been struggling with this.

Regards

Perry    





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