Re: Theos-World Re: Shearman versus Blavatsky on Theosophy?????
Aug 26, 2005 11:27 AM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Hello Perry,
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.
When I cataloged two Lodge libraries in the 1960s, Theosophy went under
'212' I guess the system has been changed. The problem with Dewey in a
Theosophical library is that half or more of the books are assigned the
same number, so I made my own modification of the system. The
Theosophical University Library in Pasadena dropped the Dewey system and
order the books according to countries: Germanic myth and religion;
Germanic philosophy; Germanic history, and so on through the countries.
In my own collection of some fifteen thousand published items, I'm still
trying to figure it out. For now, I just put Theosophy books in one
section, Theosophy magazines in another, Theosophy pamphlets
alphabetically by author in file cabinets. Each religion has its own
section; Western philosophical works has its own, as does spiritualism,
secret societies etc. At this point, I figure that when we begin
cataloging them, it might be best to simply follow the LOC system, since
they have already assigned numbers to almost everything.
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.
I agree. I personally abhor and avoid the phrase "Theosophy teaches."
There are many theosophies and even more interpretations of them.
One thing I think the movement needs to deal with is the effect of
its own history on itself (if that makes sense)
It makes perfect sense. IMO, the organizations' refusal to examine their
own histories, admit and correct their own mistakes, is the primary
reason for their failure.
I personally think the 3 objects and the democratic model of the
Adyar TS is still a very good framework.
Yes, I just wish that the Adyar TS did not lock the wording of those
objects in their corporation papers. Now they cannot be modified as the
language changes. From 20/20 hindsight, it was a dumb move on the part
of Olcott and Besant. The Point Loma and ULT are still free to make
modifications as needed. The Point Loma (Pasadena) TS has five objects.
The problem as I perceive it is in its lack of criticism and
comparison of statements made by past writers or leaders.
Yes. I've been to meetings which feel more like a Sunday School class.
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.
Yes.
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.
Different organizations have different methods. Point Loma began as a
"spiritual dictatorship." They made no bones about it. Today, the Leader
still makes the final decision, but only after getting input from
everyone. The decisions are usually ones of consensus. ULT never had an
official Leader. But, in real life, some people have more say than
others. The Adyar TS is supposed to be democratic. It is still nominally
a democracy. But in real life, the direction of the organization has
always been determined by a few insiders.
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 three objects, or objectives are supposed to be descriptive of what
the TS is to accomplish. Towards the end of her life, HPB commented that
the TS achieved the second object but failed in the first and third.
This appears to have been part of her reasoning for founding the ES.
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.
Yes. I feel that what a person believes is less important than what a
person becomes because of those beliefs.
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.
I think all of the main writers in all traditions are worth looking at.
But we all have to devise out own approach. I prefer an historical
perspective.
Best
Jerry
Perry Coles wrote:
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
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
