Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00466)

To all readers,

My name is Aryel Sanat, & I am introducing myself to all of you,  
since I'll be participating in some of the discussions.  For health  
reasons, I may not be able to stay long.  I am particularly  
interested in comments made by a number of you about Krishnamurti &  
his relationship to theosophy & the TS, which strikes me as a central  
issue in the present elections.  I'd like to share with you my five  
cents' worth on the subject, hoping also to learn something in the  
process.  Before I jump in to respond to some comments & issues  
raised on this subject, I'd like to make a brief statement.

My perception is that it is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible,  
to make any sense of what K might mean in a theosophical context  
unless one understands the difference between what I have called  
Theosophy (with a capital T) and theosophy (small t), based on the  
distinction made by HPB & her teachers between "esoteric" and  
"exoteric."  Capital T Theosophy is a system of thought that was  
created around teachings given initially by HPB & her teachers, &  
then further elaborated on by others, both in & out of the TS.  Small  
t theosophy refers to the process of psychological transformation  
that has always been at the center of every single perennial school  
in the world.

So Theosophy & theosophy have some points in common, but they are  
radically different in essence.  When one speaks (in the present  
context) of such things as reincarnation, karma, life after death,  
root races, & the like, one is speaking in Theosophical terms.  When  
one speaks of the psychological rigors implicit in what used to be  
called "initiation" in every single perennial school, one is speaking  
of theosophy.  In this context, anyone engaging in the death of the  
me that theosophy consists of, would be almost certain to understand  
someone who is engaged in Theosophy, which is a system of ideas.  On  
the other hand, someone engaging exclusively in Theosophy might find  
it very hard to understand theosophy.  A Theosophist might find it  
difficult to understand someone trying to convey some of the  
implications of theosophy.  A Theosophist might expect to see his  
ideas & expectations, based mostly on reading books & listening to  
"knowledgeable" people, confirmed in some way or another.  A  
Theosophist might even be shocked to hear what a theosophist might  
say on some subjects.

For instance, a theosophist --- being someone engaged in dying to the  
known --- might shun beliefs of any kind, given that all beliefs can  
become forms of attachment, crutches in important ways.  In the  
process of being a theosophist, she had to face the reality that  
beliefs --- like any other "possessions" of the me --- need to be  
transcended, & are ephemeral.  So when a Theosophist hears this, he  
might be shocked.  Conceivably, he might say things like:  "You mean  
I must not believe in reincarnation?  Preposterous!  You must be crazy!"

According to HPB & her teachers, they were attempting to make the  
world aware of the existence of theosophy throughout the ages.   
Unfortunately, they had a very big problem in being able to  
accomplish this:  The majority of people were of the world, worldly,  
& the last thing these worldly people would be likely to be  
interested in would be for someone to tell them that in order for  
there to be true wisdom/compassion, they had to die to all their  
attachments based on their conditioning.  After all, this is  
precisely what all candidates in the world, for millenia, had to do,  
in every single perennial school we know of.  In Egypt, a candidate  
is said to have been put in a sarcophagus (a coffin) for several days  
on end, so as to face his own mortality, & so as to see directly the  
lack of substance in the candidate's various attachments in "the  
outside world."  This also is part of the purpose of Tibetan lamas  
meditating while sitting on the bones of some formerly wise lama, now  
physically gone:  Meditation under such circumstances brings home the  
point that even if you're very wise & compassionate, important  
components of why people remember you after you die are also gone.   
theosophical realities can be ruthlessly clear about some realities  
of life.

People in "the outside world" don't want to hear about any of this,  
finding it rather loony & "impractical" & even "fantastical."  & if  
such a reaction is true today (when we've been exposed to Buddhism,  
transpersonal psychology, mythology, Krishnamurti, & a great deal  
more), imagine what the reaction would have been in the late 19th  
century, when HPB, at the behest of her teachers, was trying to point  
out the existence & reality of this "other world" to people who were  
snobishly certain that they already knew all that was important to  
know.  For instance, in 1895 (4 years after HPB died) Lord Kelvin  
(whose work is still relevant in the field of physics) made the  
statement that perhaps the Chair of Physics should be closed, since  
everything that needed to be known in physics was already known!  &  
please look at the fact that Lord Kelvin was a particularly smart guy  
of the times.

In such environment of unmitigated hubris, HPB's teachers had no  
other choice than to provide people with something they might be more  
likely to accept.  This is why various "teachings" were presented to  
such an audience, in the hope (perhaps a "forlorn hope," as KH called  
it at one point) that perchance a few would see the importance of  
theosophy, of engaging in a transformative lifestyle.  The  
"teachings" that were given out eventually became known as  
"Theosophy."  These "teachings" were meant all along to provide an  
avenue for the few, to move on to what really mattered to the  
perennial teachers:  transformation of human society through the  
theosophical transformation of individuals.

If you are interested in seeing documentation for these statements  
regarding theosophy & Theosophy, I provide it in part in the  
following two papers, which were presented at the Third Secret  
Doctrine Symposium, held in Oklahoma City in May, 1998.  The first  
paper documents this distinction in the major works of HPB other than  
The Secret Doctrine.  The second paper shows how this distinction is  
critical in order to understand the deeper meaning of The Secret  
Doctrine.  As I pointed out in this second paper, The Secret Doctrine  
is in great part a commentary on The Stanzas of Dzyan, & based on  
what HPB herself says (as quoted in the paper) this ancient  
manuscript would have been called The Stanzas of Zen if HPB had been  
living 50 years later, when the world was more acquainted with the  
word "zen."

The Stanzas, as she points out at the beginning of The Voice of the  
Silence, is the same kind of book that The Voice is.  As she put it:

"The work from which I here translate forms part of the series as  
that from which the "Stanzas" of The Book of Dzyan were taken, on  
which The Secret Doctrine is based."

It should be observed that The Voice of the Silence is strictly a  
book of psychological transformation, not a metaphysical treatise in  
any way, shape, or form.  This is a work of theosophy, not of  
Theosophy.  Of further interest is that it is from these texts that  
HPB derived some of her theosophical "training" under her teachers.   
As she put it, "I know many of these Precepts by heart," suggesting  
that her own theosophical "training" consisted in part on meditating  
on these "Precepts."

In any case, here are the two papers, with fuller documentation of  
the fact that HPB & her teachers made a very clear & vital  
distinction between theosophy & Theosophy.  Usually, they made this  
distinction by calling theosophy "the esoteric teachings," & calling  
Theosophy "the exoteric teachings."  Both have a value.  Without  
Theosophy, many people would never have found out about theosophy.   
So we do need Theosophy, & making this distinction is not a matter of  
putting it down as unessential.  But it is also true that Theosophy  
is not theosophy, & we should be very, very clear about this fact.   
Otherwise, it does not seem possible to have any clarity at all  
regarding K & his place in theosophical history.





>
> I will address specific questions & issues raised by some of you in  
> subsequent messages.
>




> Aryel


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