Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00431)

Dear Scribe
Thank you for your comment.

Regards
Nigel

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Scribe" <scribe@...> wrote:
>
> Right on, Nigel! I agree 100%.
> Scribe
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: nhcareyta 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:00 AM
>   Subject: Theos-World Re: The second object of the Adyar 
Theosophical Society
> 
> 
>   Dear Perry and all
> 
>   Perry, thank you for your comments and questions. They provide an 
>   opportunity for dialogue on these matters, for which it is to be 
>   hoped others might contribute.
> 
>   You write, "As I see it, the clock cannot be turned back, when I 
>   first joined the TS, I
>   joined because of the 3 objects (as they are now) this was what I 
saw 
>   the society as being there to promote."
> 
>   Yours was not the mistake. From my perspective, that belonged to 
>   those who changed the second object in 1896.
> 
>   You write, "People have been joining the society for many years 
now 
>   based on this
>   understanding, and as I see it the Society is duty bound to stick 
to 
>   that."
> 
>   Yes, very unfortunately you may be correct. However, more on this 
>   perhaps in a subsequent post.
> 
>   You write,".but if the society is only there to study Blavatsky's 
>   teachers writings, the Mahatma letters and commentaries on them, 
>   where is this clearly stated anywhere by the founders?"
> 
>   Never did they intend for students to only study their teachings. 
>   But some points need to be made here.
>   Of significant importance perhaps, is that the Theosophical 
Society 
>   is so named, a point missed by many. It was not called the 
Eclectic 
>   Spiritual Development Society. It was so named to describe the 
>   intended purpose and operations of the organisation, that being 
>   Theosophy, its study and practice. And its teachings were 
>   intentionally released in a systematic manner over the next 15 or 
so 
>   years.
> 
>   We can debate what Theosophy might be ad infinitum, producing 
quote 
>   upon quote to reinforce our particular opinion, however it is 
>   indisputable to me that there is such a body of information 
termed 
>   Theosophy in the form of teachings to which Madame Blavatsky and 
her 
>   teachers refer and were concerned.
> 
>   As Madame Blavatsky writes in the Key to Theosophy:
> 
>   "ENQUIRER. How do you expect the Fellows of your Society to help 
in 
>   the work? 
>   THEOSOPHIST. First by studying and comprehending the theosophical 
>   doctrines, so that they may teach others, especially the young 
>   people."
> 
>   "Study, comprehend and teach." These are significant words as I 
read 
>   them. As "Fellows" or, as they are now called members, their 
dharma 
>   was to study, comprehend and teach, if they wished to be of 
>   assistance. Study, comprehend and teach what? Theosophical 
doctrines. 
>   It is perhaps important to note that this was published in 1889. 
The 
>   only "theosophical doctrines" per se to which were being referred 
at 
>   that time, in this context, were those primarily of Madame 
Blavatsky 
>   and AP Sinnett. To what others could they possibly have been 
>   referring?
> 
>   She reinforces this idea in the Key to Theosophy by following the 
>   previous statement with, "Secondly, by taking every opportunity 
of 
>   talking to others and explaining to them what Theosophy is, and 
what 
>   it is not; by removing misconceptions and spreading an interest 
in 
>   the subject."
>   With the aforementioned this appears to speak for itself. She 
>   reiterates, "what it (Theosophy) is and what it is not" implying 
it 
>   is something specific.
> 
>   She continues, "Thirdly, by assisting in circulating our 
literature, 
>   by buying books when they have the means, by lending and giving 
them 
>   and by inducing their friends to do so." 
>   The reference to "our literature" and "books" in 1889 must mean 
at 
>   least Isis Unveiled, Occult World, Esoteric Buddhism and the 
Secret 
>   Doctrine and most probably the Voice of the Silence.
> 
>   Perry, you write, ""I personally can't see how the intent (of the 
>   second object) is that much different."
> 
>   The difference is profound from my perspective.
> 
>   Let's reconsider the wording of the second object, remembering 
Madame 
>   Blavatsky had been and was being instructed by Masters from the 
East. 
>   Let's also remember that these Masters' chiefs waited almost a 
>   century for a suitable vehicle to bring their teachings to the 
West. 
>   Why would they have done that? I will capitalize those parts, 
which 
>   seem to me to be of most significance to the current discussion.
> 
>   Firstly in 1878 the second object read:
>   "The objects of the Society are various.to acquire an intimate 
>   knowledge of natural law.study to develop his latent 
powers.exemplify 
>   the highest morality and religious aspiration.TO MAKE KNOWN AMONG 
>   WESTERN NATIONS.FACTS ABOUT ORIENTAL RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHIES.AND 
>   DISSEMINATE A KNOWLEDGE OF THAT PURE ESOTERIC SYSTEM OF THE 
ARCHAIC 
>   PERIOD,
> 
>   Then in 1891 at the time of her death:
>   "TO PROMOTE THE STUDY OF ARYAN AND OTHER EASTERN LITERATURES, 
>   RELIGIONS, PHILOSOPHIES AND SCIENCES, AND TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR 
>   IMPORTANCE TO HUMANITY."
> 
>   Compare that with the changed version in 1896:
>   "To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy and 
>   science."
> 
>   The key here is one of emphasis. In the 1896 version the original 
>   emphasis is lost. It is no longer based in promoting and making 
known 
>   TO the "Western nations", the "Eastern" and "pure esoteric 
system" or 
>   of "demonstrating their importance."
> 
>   To me as mentioned, the difference is profound and the 
implications 
>   very far-reaching.
> 
>   To continue, Madame Blavatsky certainly used an enormous number 
of 
>   quotes in her works. She also made it very clear that some 
supported 
>   her Theosophical propositions and some certainly did not. 
>   For example, in Isis Unveiled she writes, "But Aristotle was no 
>   trustworthy witness. He misrepresented Plato, and he almost 
>   caricatured the doctrines of Pythagoras." Clearly she found some 
of 
>   Plato's propositions congruous with her specific teachings, but 
not 
>   so those of Aristotle.
> 
>   As Dr James Santucci, professor of religious studies and 
linguistics 
>   at California State University, Fullerton and editor of 
Theosophical 
>   history writes, "Furthermore, it was Blavatsky's contention that 
the 
>   Wisdom could be partially recoverable from a "comparative study 
and 
>   analysis" of selected philosophers, (he lists these philosophers 
as 
>   Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, Porphry, Proclus, Patanjali, and 
>   Shankara) or schools of philosophies (he lists these as the Greek 
>   Mystery Schools, Neo-Platonism, Vedanta, Taoism and Cabalism) and 
the 
>   sacred writings of the great historical religions. (which he 
names as 
>   Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism).
> 
>   Note the word "partially." Because neither jointly nor severally 
do 
>   these represent the holistic Theosophy of Madame Blavatsky and 
her 
>   teachers. 
> 
>   And herein lies what I think to be of such importance. 
> 
>   From previous examination of emphasis and what she accepted as 
>   supportive and what she did not, it is demonstrable that Madame 
>   Blavatsky used references from the Western traditions only to 
>   demonstrate where they were either supportive or not of the 
Eastern 
>   Aryan, Chaldeo, Tibetan tradition, not the other way around. 
> 
>   This distinction is extremely significant to me.
> 
>   The earlier versions of the second object remained mostly the 
same 
>   for almost 18 years. Why was the emphasis changed? After Madame 
>   Blavatsky's death Dr Besant and Bishop Leadbeater were free to 
exert 
>   their influence largely without challenge. Did they wish for it 
to be 
>   changed to a more neutral version to enable a more Western, 
>   ritualistic and perhaps religious influence to have more sway? 
> 
>   Whatever the reason and whether right or wrong is not the issue 
under 
>   discussion. What is evident is that the Masters' tradition and 
the 
>   Society's original intent became diluted and misrepresented. Its 
>   original teachings also became misrepresented and contradicted. 
> 
>   It seems to me, all of the above supports the contention that 
there 
>   are quite specific teachings with which Madame Blavatsky and her 
>   teachers were concerned. From my perspective the teachings, style 
and 
>   timely release of Madame Blavatsky's works were specifically 
intended 
>   to provide a basis from which we might undertake our study and 
>   apprehension of the authentic Ancient Wisdom. This basis is just 
>   that, a framework or holistic blueprint if you like, considered 
by 
>   Madame Blavatsky and her teachers to be appropriate for the 
Western 
>   mind. 
> 
>   Perry you write, ""If this was what they intended then it should 
have 
>   been clearly
>   stated in the original objects of the Society."
> 
>   Why? What would have been the likely result? Would it not then 
have 
>   been turned into a dogma? Do we have to have everything spelled 
out 
>   so exactly or do we need to read between the lines.
>   If they were trying to keep members from dogmatising 
>   and "absolutising" their work, wouldn't they have used subtleties 
to 
>   guard against this? Wouldn't they have left some things unsaid?
>   In the opening passage in letter 1 of the Mahatma Letters to AP 
>   Sinnett the Mahatma KH writes:
>   "Precisely because the test of the London newspaper would close 
the 
>   mouths of the skeptics - it is unthinkable." 
>   The Masters did not want blind followers. They did not want 
>   religiously devotional devotees. They wanted sensitive, deep and 
>   objective thinkers to study and ponder their doctrines, to keep 
alive 
>   the Eastern esoteric, Aryan, Chaldeo, Tibetan tradition, because 
they 
>   obviously thought it was the most effective for the rational 
western 
>   mind.
> 
>   The ideal Theosophical organisation for me, and perhaps I am in 
the 
>   minority, is one where students study and use Madame Blavatsky 
and 
>   her teachers' Theosophy as a foundational basis from which to 
begin 
>   to inquire into the truths and mysteries of existence. All 
>   scientific, philosophical, spiritual and artistic subjects and 
>   propositions are encouraged and freely raised at the instigation 
of 
>   the students. These are then discussed and compared with her and 
>   their works. Whether they concur or not, at our level of 
awareness, 
>   it perhaps matters little. A rigorous investigation and mind 
>   expansion has occurred whereby her and their teachings have been 
>   included and expressed but not necessarily believed and certainly 
not 
>   insisted upon as holy writ. 
>   At the mundane level, all this must therefore occur in an 
atmosphere 
>   of essential freedom of thought. This essential freedom must 
include 
>   absolute permission to accept or reject her and their teachings 
>   without prejudice.
> 
>   This to me then recognizes and respects the inestimable value of 
>   their extraordinary version of Theosophy and their considerable 
>   sacrifice, both occult and mundane, in bringing it to the modern 
>   world. 
> 
>   Thanks again Perry and I look forward to yours and others' 
>   perspective.
> 
>   Kind regards
>   Nigel
> 
>   --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "plcoles1" <plcoles1@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Hello Cass & Nigel,
>   > I personally can't see how the intent is that much different, 
>   > perhaps I am not seeing something staring me in the face, but 
if 
>   the 
>   > society is only there to study Blavatsky's teachers writings, 
the 
>   > Mahatma letters and commentaries on them, where is this clearly 
>   > stated anywhere by the founders?
>   > 
>   > If this was what they intended then it should have been clearly 
>   > stated in the original objects of the Society.
>   > 
>   > Cheers
>   > 
>   > Perry
>   > 
>   > 
>   > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@> 
wrote:
>   > >
>   > > Hello Perry,
>   > > Why when it has been changed half a dozen times? It shouldn't 
>   > have been changed in the first place should it.? Would you have 
>   > joined if the objects had been the same as the original 
objects? 
>   > Did you join because you saw a link between your belief system 
and 
>   > theosophy? Unfortunately the 1896 version flies in the face of 
the 
>   > original version and totally distorts the truth of the objects.
>   > > 
>   > > Warm regards
>   > > Cass
>   > > 
>   > > plcoles1 <plcoles1@> wrote:
>   > > Hello Nigel,
>   > > Thanks for raising this as a point of discussion.
>   > > As I see it, the clock cannot be turned back, when I first 
joined 
>   > the TS, I joined because of 
>   > > the 3 objects (as they are now) this was what I saw the 
society 
>   as 
>   > being there to promote.
>   > > People have been joining the society for many years now based 
on 
>   > this understanding, 
>   > > and as I see it the Society is duty bound to stick to that.
>   > > I am interested to hear your perspective.
>   > > 
>   > > Regards
>   > > 
>   > > Perry
>   > > 
>   > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "nhcareyta" <nhcareyta@> 
wrote:
>   > > >
>   > > > Dear all
>   > > > 
>   > > > In light of recent statements and their implications for 
the 
>   > > > Theosophy of Madame Blavatsky and her teachers the 
following 
>   may 
>   > be 
>   > > > of some interest.
>   > > > 
>   > > > At the time of Madame Blavatsky's death in 1891 the second 
>   > object 
>   > > > said nothing about the study of "comparative" religion.
>   > > > 
>   > > > It read:
>   > > > "To promote the study of Aryan and other Eastern 
literatures, 
>   > > > religions, philosophies and sciences, and to demonstrate 
their 
>   > > > importance to Humanity."
>   > > > 
>   > > > The implications are obvious. She was to be the "connecting 
>   > link" 
>   > > > between "esoteric" Tibetan philosophy, elsewhere described 
as 
>   > the 
>   > > > Aryan, Chaldeo Tibetan tradition, and the Western 
traditions. 
>   > > > The passage "...and to demonstrate their importance to 
>   Humanity" 
>   > > > clearly shows that she and her teachers had something 
specific 
>   > they 
>   > > > wanted brought to the West.
>   > > > 
>   > > > This object became diluted only in 1896 when it was changed 
to 
>   > read:
>   > > > "To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy 
and 
>   > > > science."
>   > > > 
>   > > > This permitted her and their dharma to be compromised by 
>   > admitting 
>   > > > all religion and philosophies as equal in value. Whether 
they 
>   > are or 
>   > > > not is a mute point however their wishes were clear.
>   > > > 
>   > > > In fact in 1878 the object read:
>   > > > "The objects of the Society are various.to acquire an 
intimate 
>   > > > knowledge of natural law.study to develop his latent powers.
>   > exemplify 
>   > > > the highest morality and religious aspiration.to make known 
>   > among 
>   > > > western nations.facts about oriental religious 
philosophies.and 
>   > > > disseminate a knowledge of that pure esoteric system of the 
>   > archaic 
>   > > > period, and finally and chiefly, aid in the institution of 
a 
>   > > > Brotherhood of Humanity."
>   > > > 
>   > > > So it can be seen that the later theosophical leaders and 
>   > decision 
>   > > > makers in the Adyar Society, including Dr Besant and Bishop 
>   > > > Leadbeater, changed the object for their own reasons, 
thereby 
>   > > > diluting and diverting the real purpose of the original 
impetus.
>   > > > 
>   > > > It is for each to decide whether this was a wise decision 
or 
>   not 
>   > and 
>   > > > what ramifications flowed from it.
>   > > > 
>   > > > Regards
>   > > > Nigel
>   > > >
>   > > 
>   > > 
>   > > 
>   > > 
>   > > 
>   > > 
>   > > ---------------------------------
>   > > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your 
>   > pocket: mail, news, photos & more. 
>   > > 
>   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > >
>   >
> 
> 
> 
>    
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>