Theos-Talk Archives (August 2005 Message tt00323)

Hi Jerry,
Its interesting 212 is relating to 'Existence, knowability (I didn't 
even realise that was a word), attributes of God'. 

299 is 'Other religions' and the .93 after is (of eclectic and 
syncretistic origin)

299.934 is Theosophy and 299.935 Anthroposophy 299.936 Scientology
This is from the (DDC 20) Dewey decimal classification.

Regards

Perry


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