Theos-Talk Archives (April 2007 Message tt00111)

Hello Nigel,

My reason for posting Pedro's article originally was because I think 
he makes some very good points and that whether we personally 
appreciate CWL's writings or not we need to realise that others do 
and so we need to take a compassionate and considerate approach.

I think this is why constitutionally the society has no books that 
are considered infallible holy writ.

The spirit of Pedro's article to me seems to express a tolerant and 
respectful approach as you know I have been a strong critic of CWL 
however this does not mean that I don't try and keep an open mind 
towards his writings.

As long as people want to study and explore his writings in the TS 
they are constitutionally free to do so without any interference.
(I am not here suggesting that you said that they shouldn't or arn't)
The object sounds the keynote of the society.
Of course I would love to see HPB's writings more appreciated and 
used in the TS and also have more awareness of the history and 
differences, however it is peoples free choice to study what they 
find helps them realise Brotherhood.

This is my main point.

Perry


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@...> wrote:
>
> 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]
> > >
> >
>