Theos-Talk Archives (April 1994 Message tl00045)

This one is by Eldon Tucker

----

     When we gather to hold a conference on Theosophy, there are
only so many different things that we can say and do. Many issues
arise. How do we apply Theosophy in our lives? What things can we
do in our theosophical work to become more effective in spreading
the Teachings? What words and means can we use to make Theosophy
more interesting to the public, to draw attention to it?
     At the recent conference in Krotona, the ideas expressed were
similar to those at the one in 1984. And the basic themes arise in
any theosophical lodge. There are basic questions that we need to
consider, and not many good answers.
     One difference at the recent conference, though, was a growing
sense of acceptance, a feeling of companionship among the partici-
pants. In the past, things have been more aloof, if not hostile.
During a talk now, someone might whisper "How can that guy believe
such a silly thing?" In the past, there might have been anger and
antagonism.
     The growing goodwill among the members of the different
societies comes from meeting, learning about, and coming to know
the members and philosophies of the other groups, information that
was not given out in the past. You could go to some theosophical
group, and they would not tell you, or even their new members, of
the competing theosophical lodge across the street.
     Hopefully the goodwill and free exchange of information and
ideas will last for a long time before it subsides. These things
are cyclic, and the day will come when we go our own ways again.
For now, we are in a time of cooperation.
     Our biggest enemy to this cooperation is the sense of
intolerance. There are others in fundamental disagreement with us.
Our problem is the inability to have a free, friendly exchange of
ideas with them. This intolerance can show up in different ways.
Some are subtle.
     There are several worldviews in the theosophical community.
These represent complete systems of thought about how life works,
from the nature of the universe, our purpose in existence, the
nature of Theosophy, and the inner structure of the universe. It
embraces cycles of manvantaric proportion and things closer to
home, like what happens when we are asleep, or what happens after
we die. There are not just differences among individuals regarding
various points, where all resolves to personal opinion. We have
completely different systems of thought.
     We have one system centered on Blavatsky, Judge, and perhaps
*The Mahatma Letters.* There are also the ULT/Crosby and the Point
Loma/Purucker amplifications. And there are the Besant/Leadbeater
and the Alice Bailey variations. These are but a few of the
systems.
     The intolerance arises when we stick to our worldview, and
just get angry when someone else says something that challenges
some of its basic assumptions. We need to admit that there are
other worldviews, even within our theosophical community, and allow
them free expression. It is not a personal attack when someone else
says something that denies something that we take for granted.
     A good example is regarding the place and purpose of psychic
powers. In the early days of the Theosophical Society, HPB or her
Masters did not teach astral projection or the occult arts. They
had knowledge and experience of them. But they choose not to teach
them or provide clues to help anyone get these powers.
     In certain theosophical worldviews, the cultivation of powers
is considered harmful, and a philosophy that stresses development
of the mind and the spiritual nature is emphasized. From these
worldviews, the Adyar TS has in the past been seen as lost over to
psychism, to the maya of chasing after phenomena. There were a few
individuals like Joy Mills. She was considered ok because of her
extensive study of *The Secret Doctrine,* but most Adyar people were
considered as "lost."
     This has been the attitude in the past, but with the growing
communication between the various groups, the hostility and the
negative stereotypes are going away, and there is more of an open
sense of cooperation and appreciation.
     The dropping of stereotypes needs to be done by everyone if it
is to succeed. Those in the Besant/Leadbeater worldview need to
drop their negative images of other groups. Some of us study the
original Theosophy of Blavatsky. We are not trapped in dusty,
outmoded ideas of Victorian, imperialistic England. There are no
people plotting to assassinate the character of certain figures in
theosophical history. The refusal to accept certain ideas--like
group souls, the deva kingdom, or the seven rays--may not be
because certain people have not read enough Theosophy to appreciate
the brilliance of those ideas. They may, on the contrary, have read
too much Theosophy to find those ideas acceptable.
     When we seek to clarify the theosophical Teachings, it is
important to specify in terms of which context we clarify them.
Which worldview are we describing things in? Failing to do so is
really denying there are other worldviews; it is a subtle intoler-
ance of others, of people that see things differently.
     Some of us may have studied one form of Theosophy, then in
later years came to learn and accept another. We've come to
appreciate how different the belief systems are. For any of us,
though, we must not cling so tightly to our current favorite that
we feel insulted and angered when our basic assumptions are
questioned.
     In a way, it's like some kids sitting, ready to play a board
game. Some are playing one game, according to one set of rules.
Others are playing another game, with different rules. The board
and most of the pieces are the same. When someone playing the other
game does a move, it seems unfair, outrageous, like cheating, when
interpreted in terms of our rules. But it can be understood if we
accept that there are other games, and the other kid's moves were
done fairly, but according to a different game.
     How can our different worldviews peacefully coexist? Not by
repression, where one view is enforced as the standard and all
ideas must be interpreted in its terms. We cannot cause peace by
saying the Besant/Leadbeater or the strictly Blavatsky standard is
in charge, and all communications are interpreted in its terms.
Rather than bring peace, such a move would drive away people and
bring back the rifts between groups.
     We need to work on tolerance in our views. This is not
according to "I said something first so keep quiet and do not argue
with me." Without getting angry, nor questioning the intelligence
or character of anyone, we can politely see that our views are
properly represented too. Our duty is to see that what we know is
clearly and truthfully expressed, that what we know is heard and
not hidden in silence. There may be some idea that we consider as
so true that it goes without question, yet other Theosophists may
consider it outrageously controversial. Or we might find exception
with something that is being discussed.
     Let's relax and lighten up a bit, and not cling too tightly to
our worldviews. And let's see more open discussion of the competing
ideas. When we do not allow the other worldviews a voice, we miss
much, and we shut off communication with our fellow Theosophists.
We have a lot to learn from each other.