Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00198)

Dear Pablo
Greetings and thank you for your most interesting post to Daniel. 
I hope you don't mind if I interject a few comments for consideration 
and perhaps discussion.

Your posting presents an all-encompassing, all-embracing attitude 
towards theosophy which promotes the principles of acceptance, 
tolerance and open-mindedness. I have experienced this attitude many 
times with many people in the Adyar Society and appreciate the 
integrity of your sentiments. You mention your primary interest in 
Theos Sophia as a state of consciousness. In this we are alike. On 
one level, I associate this state(s) with some of the abovementioned 
principles.
Your approach also aligns very closely with my preference for all 
individuals to find their own path, in their own way, in their own 
time and where they might feel so inclined, to share this with others 
in an atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect.

In saying this, whilst the principles of tolerance and acceptance are 
entirely commendable ideals in most circumstances, it seems they 
might not always be the most appropriate way to proceed.

Many an unacceptable situation has been avoided or politically 
manipulated in the name of "tolerance." Many a gross 
misrepresentation has been accepted and even promoted under the same 
name.

You mention Bishop Leadbeater. Amongst other unsavoury matters he was 
an unequivocal and pathological purveyor of untruths and 
misrepresentations who, together with Dr Besant, became fantastically 
delusional in his pronouncements. Literally thousands of members who 
left the Adyar Society at the time and since, some of whom gave their 
hearts and souls to the organisation, left due to the organisational 
mandate of tolerance and acceptance towards what was for them, 
utterly unacceptable.

Fear of intolerance, which I am not ascribing to yourself, is no way 
to proceed. It becomes simply another attachment, whether personal or 
institutional.
Truth, honour and integrity are amongst the highest of Theosophical 
principles and if required and where necessary must supplant 
tolerance and acceptance. Not to so do can permit the most outrageous 
injustices. 

Clearly there is a flaw in the ideal of tolerance at all costs, which 
only becomes apparent perhaps when stung by the tail of experience.

"? for a man (organisation) can only think in his worn grooves, and 
unless he has the courage to fill up these and make new ones for 
himself he must perforce travel on the old lines." Mahatma KH to AO 
Hume. (My brackets)

Thank you again for your posting.
Regards
Nigel



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Pablo Sender" <pasender@...> 
wrote:
>
> Dear Daniel
> 
> I think your point is very interesting. I'll offer my point of view 
> on that. 
> To begin with, I'd say the term theosophy has at least three 
> applications:
> 
> 1- theosophy as a state of consciousness (Divine Wisdom).
> 2- theosophy as the universal theosophy (which includes quite 
> different systems taught by those who reached that state of Divine 
> Wisdom, as the Neoplatonists, Boehme, Eckhart, Paracelsus, 
> Swedenborg, etc.)
> 3- Theosophy, as the teachings given through the modern 
theosophical 
> movement.
> 
> What sense of `theosophy' should an "ideal Theosophical Society" be 
> interested in? I think HPB was clearly interested in all of them 
> (I've written an article to The Theosophist about this, with 
several 
> quotations by HPB. It'll be published on September). Therefore in 
> that "ideal TS" its members should not define strictly what 
theosophy 
> is and quarrel about different leaders and their teachings. I'm 
> primarily interested in the first theosophy, the Theo Sophia of 
> Divine Wisdom as a state of consciousness, not as a written 
teaching. 
> And I think the `ideal Theosophical Society' should stress that in 
> its members. The theosophical teachings are no ends in themselves. 
> They are means to awaken the Divine Wisdom.
> 
> If we are sincere, we have to acknowledge that cannot perceive 
> whether there are 7 globes in a Chain, or if there is an 
Anupapadaka 
> plane beyond the Atmic, or anything of that kind. So, on what basis 
> will we decide between the teachings of HPB, Besant, de Purucker, 
> Bailey, etc? Although I enjoy studying the Mahatma Letters, I don't 
> think those contain the true esoteric teaching. Those letters were 
> written to a non-initiate, western, not acquainted with esoteric 
> teachings, and not fitted to esoteric training. How can we think 
the 
> teachings given there are the real teachings given only to the 
> Initiates? There are many statements in those letters saying that 
> many of those teachings were given in a misleading form, etc. 
> 
> I'm not saying the teachings are useless, I'm only saying we cannot 
> rely in them as complete accurately and dogmatize on them, and that 
> is the case of any other theosophical teaching. I don't think the 
> teachings given are the same as those given to the Initiates. Our 
> teachings are to prepare our perception, to grasp the general idea, 
> but the correct details, numbers, etc., are concealed. To put an 
> example, what's the difference for us if there are 7 or 10 races? 
Or 
> even more, what's the difference for us if the spiritual principles 
> are three, or four (as HPB taught later in her esoteric teachings). 
> That might be important to a real occultist, but the important 
thing 
> for us to grasp are the general principles. When we are Initiates, 
we 
> will have the correct information, but our mind will be already 
> trained in that kind of thinking and conception. Therefore, the 
> important thing to me is not so much the information in itself but 
> the development of our intuition when we are trying to perceive and 
> live according to that cosmovision. The teachings, to me, are more 
an 
> exercise than a doctrine, and a serious study is a means.
> I've read some books by HPB, Besant, Leadbeater, de Purucker, 
Judge, 
> and other authors. I've also tried to read some Bailey books but 
they 
> were boring to me. I personally am interested mostly in HPB's and 
> Krishnamurti's teachings, since I think they throw light on each 
> other's teachings in many aspects (I wrote three articles in The 
> Theosophist showing this, with several quotations from both 
authors: 
> Dec. 2004, May 2006 and July 2006). 
> I've then `chosen' some authors, because their form of presenting 
> things are more in tune with me, but I don't declare that that is 
the 
> real theosophy. I remain open and I've found interesting things in 
> others authors as well (for example, some writings of Besant filled 
> some gaps in HPB's teachings as no other author could, and some 
> Leadbeater books answered to some little experiences I had as no 
> other author could). My main parameter to define if some author is 
> theosophical or not, is whether its teachings tend to weaken the 
kama-
> manas (the `I') as a center of consciousness to develop buddhi-
manas 
> or not, because I think that is the sine qua non condition to reach 
> the Divine Wisdom. If in that endeavor the teachings of Alice 
Bailey 
> really help someone in the right direction, then they are valid 
> theosophical teachings for that person.
>