Theos-Talk Archives (April 2007 Message tt00100)

Hello Perry
Thank you for both of your postings in reply.

You wrote:
 
The objects do indeed have a history and have changed over the years, 
> however I would argue that the society as it stands today has to 
> uphold the objects as they are today and that is what they are 
> constituently there to do.

As indeed legally it must.

You wrote:
 
> I have never heard HPB state anywhere that the Society was there to 
> only study her writings, if this was the case it should be clearly 
> pointed out to people when they join the society.

and:

> If the society is constitutionally only there to study HPB writings 
> where is this stated?


In these passages it appears you are challenging something which 
wasn't said? If you are referring to what I wrote, nowhere did I 
state that the Society was established only for her writings.

>From my perspective, Theosophy contains at least three components; a 
system of cosmogony and cosmology, a system of ethics and a system of 
thought. 
With regards to the system of thought it demonstrates two extremes; 
one which entraps and enslaves and one which frees and liberates the 
mind. That which enslaves the mind can rightly be termed non-
Theosophical. Dogma, i.e. that which must be believed and 
authoritarianism in all its forms, also constitutes to me that which 
is not Theosophy. 

Moreover, in terms of mindset, perhaps we must ourselves be careful 
that our demand for freedom doesn't become a dogma. Dogma stems from 
fear and perhaps we need to discern within ourselves our motive for 
demanding freedom.

Furthermore with regard to mindset, in Theosophical history we have 
prime examples of the aforementioned two extremes, and all stages in 
between, with the contrast between the liberating mindset of Madame 
Blavatsky and the authoritarian mindsets of Dr Besant, Bishop 
Leadbeater et al.
With this in mind I repeat that "Whilst?freedom is to be strongly 
encouraged it is to be hoped that the essence of  "original" 
Theosophy is not lost."
Sadly, in my experience in the Adyar Society, only a small number of 
members show interest in Madame Blavatsky's writings and mindset 
preferring instead the "simpler", "easier" and authoritarian versions 
of theosophy, much of which to me is not Theosophy. This form of 
authority continues to this day where true freedom of thought and 
expression are sometimes disallowed, as you are only too aware.
The irony of your above challenge is that Madame Blavatsky would have 
encouraged you to speak up as you do whilst those currently in 
positions of authority disallow this.

In addition to the liberating mindset and with respect to the 
cosmogonical and cosmological information, the fact that the adepts 
waited for almost a hundred years to find the most suitable vehicle 
with the most suitable mindset available to share what they obviously 
thought was important information and ways of thinking for humanity, 
surely counts for something in terms of determining what might be 
their version of Theosophy and whether or not this should be "preach
(ed) and popularise(d)" in the Society they helped establish. 
(Mahachohan's "letter", my brackets)

Whilst neither of the above two considerations should ever be 
dogmatised or become the sole purpose of the International 
Theosophical Societies, nonetheless the history and motivation behind 
founding the original Society should perhaps not be so readily 
dismissed simply because it might not have been the way we might have 
wished it to be or because it had to modify its operation later due 
to prejudice, politics and power.

Kind regards
Nigel




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@...> wrote:
>
> Hi mkr & Nigel,
> I found this quote here which I think sums it up :
> C.W. IV, p. 470
> "Now our society, as was explained even to the outside public 
> repeatedly, has one general, and several - if not minor, at least 
> less prominent aims. The earnest pursuit of one of the latter - 
> occult science in this case - far from being regarded as the common 
> duty and the work of all, is limited for the reasons given above to 
a 
> very small faction of the Society, its pursuit resting with the 
> personal tastes and aspirations of the members.
> 
>  As to the former - the chief aims of the Theosophical Fraternity - 
> it is hardly necessary to remind any Fellow of what it is. Our 
> fundamental object is Universal Brotherhood, kind feelings and 
moral 
> help proffered to all and every Brother, whatever his creed and 
> views. 
> 
> Based upon the conviction that a Brotherhood of all faiths and 
> denominations, composed of Theists and Atheists, Christians and 
> Gentiles throughout the world, might without anyone surrendering 
his 
> particular opinion be united into one strong Society or Fraternity 
> for mutual help, and having one and the same purpose in view, i.e., 
> the relentless, though at the same time calm and judicious pursuit 
of 
> Truth wherever found, especially in Religion and Science - it is 
the 
> first duty of our Society as a united body to extirpate every weed 
> that overgrows and stifles that truth which only can be one and 
> entire. 
> 
> The best recognized way to make both the psychological and physical 
> sciences, as all sectarian and dogmatic religions, yield their 
> respective verities, is, in construing them, to take the middle 
path 
> between the extremes of opinion."
> 
> I found this quote here along with some other good ones.
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/theosoph.htm
> 
> Perry
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M K Ramadoss" <mkr777@> wrote:
> >
> > Let me interject. In ML, APS was repeatedly told that the first 
and 
> foremost
> > is the Brotherhood of Humanity; not any of the ancient wisdom, or 
> any of the
> > secrets of nature etc. Once we keep an eye on the ball, then 
> everything else
> > should fall into their proper place.
> > 
> > One other thing that I noticed -- why was Pedro referred to as 
> Bishop
> > Oliviera by Nigel?  Has his title got something to do with 
> Theosophy?
> > Wondering?
> > 
> > mkr
> > 
> > On 4/27/07, plcoles1 <plcoles1@> wrote:
> > >
> > >   Hello Nigel,
> > > Thanks for your comments. As I have found with most things 
there 
> are
> > > paradoxes and various shades of grey.
> > >
> > > The objects do indeed have a history and have changed over the 
> years,
> > > however I would argue that the society as it stands today has to
> > > uphold the objects as they are today and that is what they are
> > > constituently there to do.
> > >
> > > I have never heard HPB state anywhere that the Society was 
there 
> to
> > > only study her writings, if this was the case it should be 
clearly
> > > pointed out to people when they join the society.
> > >
> > > When I first joined the society I joined not because of a 
> particular
> > > doctrine but because of an institutional ethos that encouraged
> > > comparative study of philosophy, science and religion free of
> > > dogmatism and I think this is the case for most people.
> > >
> > > If the society is constitutionally only there to study HPB 
> writings
> > > where is this stated?
> > >
> > > Sincerely
> > >
> > > Perry
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Perry and All
> > > > Thank you Perry for bringing this interesting article by 
Bishop
> > > > Oliviera to this forum and for your subsequent comments 
> pertaining
> > > to
> > > > it and to Daniel's pertinent quotes. These can perhaps give 
> rise to
> > > > much consideration on a number of matters.
> > > >
> > > > It is to be hoped that most who have been contributing to this
> > > forum
> > > > for the past few years would agree by now that free, honest 
and
> > > open
> > > > discussion on all matters, in particular those of a 
theosophical
> > > > nature, is paramount if we as individuals are to begin to 
> negotiate
> > > > and ultimately make sense of the labyrinth of 
spirito/religious
> > > ideas
> > > > extant in the world today.
> > > > As mentioned many times by numerous correspondents, the 
required
> > > open
> > > > mind is also vital if we are to become aware of, and confront 
> and
> > > > control our biased perspectives, prejudices and predilections 
> so as
> > > > to begin the process of understanding and knowing matters as 
> they
> > > > really are, rather than simply how we might prefer them to be.
> > > >
> > > > A burning question which continually flares up in the Adyar 
> Society
> > > > to which Pedro belongs, and to which he has addressed his 
> article,
> > > > involves the definition of theosophy/Theosophy.
> > > >
> > > > What has been of great importance to me over many years 
concerns
> > > > whether there are differing versions of theosophy/Theosophy 
and
> > > > whether this really matters. From the perspective of what is
> > > > euphemistically called "original" Theosophy, it clearly does.
> > > >
> > > > When we consider from indisputable history who it was who 
> created
> > > the
> > > > powerful impetus for this "original" Theosophy to re-enter the
> > > > western mindset in the 19th century, it begs the question as 
to
> > > > whether their version might be what they wished to be 
> promulgated,
> > > as
> > > > alluded to in the Mahachohan's quote.
> > > >
> > > > It also begs the question as to whether they wished the 
Society,
> > > > which they asked Madame Blavatsky to establish via Colonel 
> Olcott
> > > and
> > > > others, be a place to study and make extant their version of
> > > > Theosophy. Clearly they did.
> > > >
> > > > From the original by-laws of 1875 clause 2 states; "The 
objects 
> of
> > > > the Society are, to collect and diffuse a knowledge of the 
laws
> > > which
> > > > govern the universe." Whilst to my knowledge there is no
> > > indisputable
> > > > account as to the discussion which led to the actual wording 
of
> > > this
> > > > object, it would be inconceivable that Madame Blavatsky, and
> > > > therefore her teachers, had nothing to do with it and indeed,
> > > knowing
> > > > her character and respected reputation amongst those present, 
> she
> > > > most probably caused the wording to be as such. After all, it 
> was
> > > > solely because of her and her words and actions that people
> > > initially
> > > > became attracted to Theosophy and its ideas in the first 
place.
> > > >
> > > > The wording of this original object is important. "?to 
collect 
> and
> > > > diffuse a knowledge of the laws?" This was the cornerstone 
which
> > > was
> > > > to set the theme for the collection and release of a body of
> > > > knowledge. From the wording, this particular body of 
knowledge 
> was
> > > > already in existence.
> > > >
> > > > Moreover, Colonel Olcott accounts in Old Diary Leaves in the 
> very
> > > > early years, "The Brotherhood plank in which the Society's 
> future
> > > > platform was...(was) not thought of;?"
> > > >
> > > > As the Society evolved it became clear that the aforementioned
> > > biases
> > > > and prejudices began to manifest within the membership
> > > necessitating
> > > > the "brotherhood" object.
> > > >
> > > > As this object was added later, so too were others.
> > > > In 1890, a year before Madame Blavatsky's death there was a 
> second
> > > > object which read; "To promote the study of Aryan and other 
> Eastern
> > > > literatures, religions, philosophies and sciences, and to
> > > demonstrate
> > > > their importance to Humanity."
> > > > Note that this object is in accord with the Adepts
> > > statement, "After
> > > > nearly a century of fruitless search, our chiefs had to avail
> > > > themselves of the only opportunity to send out a European 
body 
> upon
> > > > European soil to serve as a connecting link between that 
country
> > > and
> > > > our own." And, "This state of hers (HPB's) is intimately 
> connected
> > > > with her occult training in Tibet, and due to her being sent 
out
> > > > alone into the world to gradually prepare the way for others."
> > > > The Mahatmas clearly had a specific body of occult knowledge 
to
> > > > share, which was Aryan and Eastern in nature, whilst Madame
> > > Blavatsky
> > > > had a definite and specific role to release it.
> > > >
> > > > Pedro writes that when the Mahatmas and Madame Blavatsky were
> > > > referring to their rejection of God they were writing from
> > > > their "Buddhist perspective". As you point out, orthodox 
Tibetan
> > > > Buddhism has numerous and major differences from the 
Theosophy 
> of
> > > > Madame Blavatsky and her teachers. So the Mahatmas were 
clearly 
> not
> > > > traditional Buddhists and were not in fact writing from that
> > > dogmatic
> > > > mindset.
> > > > Moreover, Madame Blavatsky wrote copiously quoting Buddhism,
> > > Hinduism
> > > > and Vedanta texts to expound this knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > It was 5 years after her death in 1896, when certain western
> > > > influences had begun watering down these "Aryan and Eastern" 
> occult
> > > > teachings that the second object was changed to read; "To 
> encourage
> > > > the study of comparative religion, philosophy and science." 
The
> > > focus
> > > > was now shifting to western style Christianity wherein the
> > > > differences with "original" Theosophy were and are indeed 
stark.
> > > This
> > > > of course culminated in a theosophical church strongly 
> associated
> > > > with the Adyar Theosophical Society which remains as such to 
> this
> > > day.
> > > >
> > > > The "forlorn hope" of the Mahatmas included recognition of the
> > > > probability that despite earnest warnings from them and Madame
> > > > Blavatsky for their occult body of knowledge not to be 
> dogmatised,
> > > > dogma arose in the Adyar Society fuelled by Bishop Leadbeater 
> and
> > > Dr
> > > > Annie Besant's Christianity and their "coming world teacher."
> > > >
> > > > This caused the production of the "Freedom of Thought" 
statement
> > > from
> > > > the General Council in the early 1920's which whilst 
necessary 
> to
> > > > promote tolerance and brotherliness, nevertheless further
> > > contributed
> > > > to the belief that Theosophy included anything and everything 
> of an
> > > > esoteric nature.
> > > >
> > > > Whilst this freedom is to be strongly encouraged it is to be 
> hoped
> > > > that the essence of "original" Theosophy is not lost.
> > > >
> > > > Whether or not Madame Blavatsky and her teachers' knowledge is
> > > > accurate or not, they certainly wished for the Theosophical 
> Society
> > > > to be a vehicle for it.
> > > > She and the Mahatmas certainly encouraged us not to turn 
their 
> body
> > > > of knowledge into yet another dogma. Madame Blavatsky wrote
> > > > tangentially and referred to almost every spirito/religious
> > > tradition
> > > > in her writings to help guard against this occurring. But she 
> and
> > > the
> > > > Mahatmas were earnestly hoping for the sake of humanity we 
would
> > > not
> > > > throw out their hard won knowledge and that we would use their
> > > occult
> > > > words with an ever open and expansive mindset to go beyond, 
into
> > > the
> > > > mystical states of consciousness, wherein definitions 
dissolve 
> and
> > > > Reality beckons.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > Nigel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "plcoles1" <plcoles1@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello All,
> > > > > I have just read Pedro Oliveira's article "Which Theosophy" 
> which
> > > > was
> > > > > published in the magazine "Theosophy in Australia" in March 
> 2006.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.austheos.org.au/magazine/pedro-which-
theosophy.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to say that I am by largely in agreement with Pedro's
> > > > > statements and also with the spirit within which it seems 
to 
> have
> > > > > been written.
> > > > >
> > > > > The theosophical approach is not an ism and certainly is 
not a
> > > > > prescribed pathway it is a journey that will be unique and
> > > > different
> > > > > for each individual.
> > > > >
> > > > > As students and individuals we will all naturally be drawn 
to 
> one
> > > > > school of thought more than another, the theosophic 
approach 
> is
> > > by
> > > > > its very nature eclectic.
> > > > >
> > > > > The way to unity is by way of embracing diversity, yes we 
> need to
> > > > > debate and discuss points of difference but probably more
> > > > importantly
> > > > > we also need to underline the points of intersection and in 
> our
> > > > > hearts hold to that spirit of Brotherhood and Oneness which 
is
> > > the
> > > > > theosophical ideal.
> > > > >
> > > > > We need not become divided into Blavatsky barrackers or
> > > Leadbeater
> > > > > booers.
> > > > >
> > > > > The wheat from the chaff of both can only be sorted out for
> > > > ourselves
> > > > > through our own process and in our own way and time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Pedro for the article it has given me some food for
> > > thought.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perry
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>