Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00448)

Hello Perry
  In answer to your previous question on how the TS should proceed.  I have thought about this complex question and can only come up with the idea that it would require an awfully powerful individual who would stand up and admit that errors were made in past decisions that reflected in a misunderstanding of the teachings by former leaders.  Of course it would mean that the LCC would have to be abandoned or re-invented as a separate belief system from Theosophy.  Steiner and Bailey have done this and in so doing have created systems that for the most part agree with HPB, but diverge on minor points.  Although I haven't read enough of either to know how minor or major the differences are.
   
  Warm regards
  Cass
   
  
plcoles1 <plcoles1@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
          Hello Nigel,Cass and All,
Thanks for your very interesting posting and by on large I agree.
Your response to my statement :

"If this was what they intended then it should have
been clearly stated in the original objects of the Society."

You wrote :
"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?"

Well ok,perhaps, but the net result was that CWL & AB were able to 
take the Society off in the direction they did and get away with it 
because of this.

Perry

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



         

       
---------------------------------
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]