Theos-Talk Archives (August 2006 Message tt00013)

<Dear Friends,

War seems to be the passtime of our Age. Battles are being fought on
every front. The battles on the pages of Theos-Talk are a microcosm to
the battles being fought with bullets and bombs elsewhere in the world
today. Perhaps if we could find a way of establishing a Peace within
our own Society, we might see how such a methodology might be esablished
elsewhere.

It is always good to begin with what you can agree on. The following
are a set of axioms that I hope that all members of the Theosophical
Movement might agree on:

1. The truth that the Theosophical Movement (tTM) has no dogmas.>

I would say that if one is not very careful and does not remain 
constantly vigilant about one's own thought processes that this idea of 
being above dogma can easily become a dogma itself.

Instead I would say that tTM is constantly vigilant against the 
insidious creeping of dogmatic thinking.

<2. The truth that tTM puts truth above all.>

A better version of this might be to say that tTM puts it's truth above 
any other.  Truth is relative in this world of ours.  To the extent that 
the TM is a worldly movement made of flesh and blood human beings, its 
truth is relative as well.

<3. The truth that tTM ecourages Universal Brotherhood as a means to self
growth.>

So long as one does not mean that tTM encourages a universal brotherhood 
of only those individuals who all accept and agree with the fundamental 
tenets of tTM as outlined in these 7 "truths," then I tend to agree. 
Self growth must remain Self directed.

<4. The truth that tTM encourages the study of Comparative Religion,
Science, and Philosophy as well as the study of the Laws of Nature and
Powers latent in Man as a means to self growth.>

It would be important to add that the tTM supports and defends the 
diversity of opinion and contrary conclusions that are the natural 
result of each individual's self directed study of comparative religion. 
science, philosophy and the laws of nature and latent powers in man. 

<5. The truth that HPB, WQJ, and the Masters produced a body of work that
provides a particular vocabulary for use in the Movement.>

Yes, a particular vocabulary for the movement is fine, but when this 
vocabulary is demanded as the only particular vocabulary for theosophy 
in general, then I think this "truth" falls on its own sword.

<6. The truth that the Movement's only reason for being is for its own
propogation with the understanding that a search for truth and a
practice of Universal Brotherhood as advanced by the Movement will make
Humanity nobler.>

Personally, I see this "truth" as self-serving propaganda for "Movementist."
The only valid reason for the Movement that I can see is to promote 
theosophical awareness wherever and however it is expressed in the universe.


<7. The truth that all members of the Movement are beholden to protect
the Movement and further its interests to the best of their abilities.>

Again, I see this as a "Movementist truth" not a theosophical truth.

<The Movement must be distinquished from theosophy in general. There can
be theosophists who practice theosophy in its general sense who have
never heard of the Movement or its founders.>

Exactly my point.  This list is a theosophy list.  Perhaps many of the 
arguments that are currently underway would be better served on a 
"Movement" list.  I am tired of seeing people with different expressions 
of theosophy in their heart being railed against by Movementist who 
apparently  do not distinguish their Movement from theosophy and in fact 
seem to put their Movement ahead and to the right of theosophy.

<Just because the writings of HPB, WQJ and the Masters provide the
foundation for discussion within the Movement does not mean there are
not other or even theosophically nobler writers. All that is meant here
is that we have to have a common foundation for discussion and because
of the axioms of the Society that foundation must be the founders for
nobody has the authority to provide any better. This is due to axiom 1.>


I would say that if we broaden our perspective to include the particular 
language and foundation for discussion of others, that we are being 
theosophical.  When we restrict our perspective to exclude the 
particular vocabulary of others and demand that everyone participating 
here in theosophy world use the foundation provided only by HPB and 
Judge, we are being Movementist.

<Here then is the argument that flows from the above axioms. When Olcott
accused HPB of using the authority of the Masters to lend credence to
her opinions as found in the "Prayag Letter", Olcott should have been
ruled out of order according to Axiom 1. His allegation was not
provable so the only reason the members had for agreeing with him at
that time is because they viewed him as an authority on HPB and her
writings. This was in direct oposition to Axiom 1 and consequently
Axiom 7 (through their ignorance). Besant committed the same error
when she accused Judge. Even, if as she says, the Masters put her up to
it, this would be a case of making the Masters the Authority, and
thereby introducing dogma into the Movement. True Masters would have
realised this and not have done it, and if they did it was Besant's duty
to argue against such a course as she had no way of independantly
proving it. What if in either case the Masters had provided testimony
by letter. Such testimony would be believed by some, regarded as fraud
by others. In other words it would have been evidence but not proof as
there would be no way to ultimately verify the letters. The only
verification for each theosophist is his own conscience.

If you believed Besant and or Olcott, you could be accused of creating
authorities and destroying the Movement as founded by HPB and the
Masters. If you tried to argue that HPB and Judge must be put above all
else, again you are creating authorites. Members of the Theosophical
Society should have ruled Besant and Olcott out of order not because
they were right or wrong, that is irrelevant. They should have been
ruled out of order because they undermined the Axioms of the Society
that they were supposed to uphold, thereby paving the way for dogmas to
be introduced into the Movement. The members who did not understand
this are the ones who destroyed the Society by splitting one way or the
other. The battles being fought on the pages of Theos-Talk are not
historical battles, they are moral battles. THERE ARE NO GOOD REASONS
TO LEVEL UNPROVABLE PERSONAL ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ANOTHER THEOSOPHIST.



There is nothing to be won as there are no dogmas at stake, only the
axioms that the Movement was founded upon.

This is a logical analysis of the splitting of the Movement. Most of
the axioms did not have to be used in this analysis althought they might
be valuable in determining where to go from here. Any comments on the
analysis itself or on the axioms are welcome. Any personal attacks will
be viewed as coming from the typical type of agitators that infiltrate
all groups for the purpose of destruction. When you can't argue
logically, smear your opponents (something the Movement was created to
prevent).>


My response is not intended as a personal attack, but you will receive 
my response in the manner that pleases you most.


--bill