Theos-Talk Archives (April 1994 Message tl00042)

Hi everyone:

I'd like to say hello to John Shafer and welcome him to the list, and
also to thank him for posting about the inter-Theosophical dialouge.

John S.  (as opposed to John Mead!), this issue of different
theosophical "denominations" has come up here on the list off an on.
Its not a pretty issue and it gets people quite fired up, protecting
their favorite school of thought.  In some respects this is
understandable, but I feel it is a blatant contradiction to the
principles of Theosophy.  So, basically, I was really happy to see the
results of the conference you posted.  On one hand the cynic in me
says, "Its about time people started doing this", and it seems that its
more a digging of oneself out of a hole than any kind of real progress.
On the other hand, the realist in me recognizies the sociological
factors that cause spilits to occur in any type of social organization,
and its very heartening to see different groups of theosophists working
against these forces and trying to seek some type of unity.

Let me comment on the 10 points raised in your post:

<Clarify the teachings> This is absolutely essential.  We can't forget
that the theosophical teachings grew out of Victorian, imperialistic
England.  Since then we have seen two world-wars, the atomic bomb, and
we are now talking to each other around the world on our computers.
Simply stated, things have really changed a lot.  This idea of
clarifying the ideas of theosophy and making them relevant to the
modern mind is probably my MAJOR interest at present.  I am especially
interested in the angle of clarifying the relavance of certain
theosophical teachings towards modern science.  To this end I have
written a book entitled "Beyond the Physical: a Synthesis of Science
and Occultism" which I am going to submit to TPH at Wheaton in a week
or so, once the final editing of the manuscript is finished.

At any rate, this idea of clarifying the theosophical teachings is a
sticky one.  A number of important questions arise immediately:

1.  what interpretation of theosophy are we trying to clarify? For
example, I follow Besant and Leadbeater very strongly, and my book
reflects this.  Other theosophists follow perhaps Blavatsky's
writtings, or G.D.  Prurucker (sp?).  So, who's ideas really
*represent* the "teachings of theosophy".  The difference in the ideas
is a major reason for the splits present right now in the society.
This issue has to be tackled head on and with an open minded courage,
because before we can clarify the teachings, we need to define what
they are.

2.  how shall we clarify them? What are we trying to achieve here? Do
we want to give a slick MTV look to theosophy? Are we trying to make
the ideas respectable to the accepted intellectual establishment? Are
we trying to create a religion? What? What is it we want to say to the
modern world about what theosophy is?

To me, I have found theosophy to be an kindof a Noah's ark of ideas
that science has rejected but are relevant for understanding the hidden
sides of humankind and Nature.  But others do not see this or have the
background in science to see the necessity for such a viewpoint.

I would suggest that a type of historical/sociological/psychological
analysis of the theosophical society would do a lot to clarify what the
TS is.  I mean, the TS evolved in responce to 19th century materialism.
It was a countercultural responce to the accepted society of the day.
Today this society no longer exists.  Today we live in a world of Mega
corporations, today we live in a world where the dominant forces are
still basically completely secular.  We live in a world of tremendous
economic disparity.  We must look at the following in an attempt to
clarify the teachings of theosophy:

1. Why the 19th century created theosophy to begin with.
2. How the world has changed since then.
3. How the TS has changed since then.
4. We must ask: has the TS stayed in step with the world?
Has it lost touch? What?

So, this is a big issue.  No question.  I want to make clear that I'll
do everything in my power to help deal with this issue.

2 <Practice theosophy as a way of self-transformation>

Interestingly, I think that if we undergo the process of
self-transformation that is taught in Theosophy, we don't really
require thesophy as a teaching anymore.  This is kind of like how the
final Greek archon (king), whose name I forget right now, abolished his
archonship so that democracy could proliferate in ancient Athens.  Once
we mature emotionally, psychologicall and spirtually beyond a certain
point, we no longer need any type of dogma as psychological "training
wheels".  This fact must be dealt with by theosophists.

3.  <Balance mind and heart:>

If heart dominates we get an ignorant kind of nebulous emotional
sentimentaility.  If mind dominates we get the sterile kind of world
that we live in today that has been created by a modern science
preoccupied only by quantity and not quality.  The real essence here is
by opening up to *spirit*.  Spirit, which theosophists describe as the
buddhic plane and buddhic body, transcends both mind and emotion and
serves as a force to polarize both.  Therefore, the issue is not to
balance mind and emotion (heart), but to become open to spirit, to
buddhi and allow this force to take over both our mind and our heart.

4.< Participate in theosophical activities with creative energy>

This is actually related to the other points in the list:

6.  < Adapt theosophy to the contemporary world and language:>

7.  <Educate: Develop programs and methods to broadly disseminate
theosophy>

8.  <Involve Youth: Revitalize the theosophical movement with the
presence and energy of young people>

10.  <Reach Out: Encourage a broader outreach of theosophical
activities on both community and worldly levels>

These 5 points all tie together and its misleading to seperate them
thus.  The essence of these five points can be stated this way: how do
we, as theosophists, fit into the world? What is our purpose and what
are our goals? All these 5 points revolve around this central question.
And this comes back to the idea of clarifying the teachings of
theosophy: who are we? what is our self image? and again, how to we fit
into the world?

I think what has happened throughout this century is that theosophy has
become just another cult.  After the death of Blavastsky, things
started to fracture.  The Pasadena branch broke away when Besant became
president, and Steiner spit off in Germany.  And this trend continued
and had crystalized by the end of WW II into the various sects that
exist today.

Frankly, when an organization says "to form a nucleus of universal
brotherhood" but has this kind of history, its simply embarrasing.  I
think we, meaning all theosophists, need to face up to this and deal
with it.  On the other hand, theosophy has had its influence too, as
was recognized by this conferance.  But the question is: does that
influence still exist, or was it merely an effect from days gone by?

And another thing about some of these goals, like pulling in youth, or
adapting theosophy to the modern world.  One thing we definately do NOT
want to do is what desperate middle age people do who are beginging to
realize that they are getting old; they try to regress back to a
youthful posture.  They try to stay up with the latest fashions and
trends, and its simply a silly posture and the youth see through this
kind of stuff.  So, I think the idea of trying to "jazz" theosophy up
and make it look like MTV, or to make it "fun" would be futile and
absurd things to do.

I think we need to recognize that the TS servED a very important
purpose early on, but this purpose is no longer valid.  The TS played a
role in forming the 20th century, but now the 20th century is almost
gone, and so is this role.  The question is: what can we do now?

First, we must evaluate the spotted past of the TSes and hold this
evaluation side by side with the contributions of the TS throughout
this century.  This will help to give us a balanced self image of what
we are right NOW.  Next we must ask: what do we want to become? And
here, what we need to do in answering this question is to be accutely
sensitive to the needs of the modern world.  We not only have to open
up to other spiritual traditions (as item number 5 in the list states),
we have to come down off the high horse of spirtual rightiousness and
be open to the secular world too.  If we continue to go about with a
dogmatic attitude at any level, we might as well just shoot ourselves
now.

So, to wrap this up, I really applaud the effort of the Krotona school
to resolve the divisivness that exists amongst the various sects of
theosophists.  However, if we truely want to affect a change in
theosophy as an institution, we must realize that an institution can
only transform when the individual members of that institution have
undegone personal transformation.

We have before us an exacting task that will requite courage, intellect
and will.  we can ignore the challenge and slowly fade away into
history or we can face up to the challange and grow and survive as a
viable system of thought.

Take care everybody, and again John Shafer, welcome!

Don DeGracia