Theos-Talk Archives (May 1994 Message tl00047)

   Last Sunday I spoke to the Baltimore TS on the chela Babaji,
and was pleased with the lodge's reception of my research and
thoughts.  There were lots of good questions, and one, at the
end, that really made me stop and think.  I'd like to know how
others of you would have responded.  Boris Orszula said "it's
clear that in your investigations you are seeking the truth,
whatever it may turn out to be, and try to be strictly
objective in determining what is credible and what is not.
What then, after all these years of research, do you still find
to be worthwhile in the contemporary Theosophical movement, and
what do you reject?" (Paraphrase)
   Folks said my answer made sense to them, but I felt really
inadequate.  What I said was that the work presently being done
in the movement was effective and appropriate in terms of the
Three Objects, all of which I "believe in"-- i.e. value and
support.  That is, the publications and programs of the
societies really do-- with varying degrees of success-- fulfill
those Objects.  On the other hand, there was a serious failure
to adhere to the motto "No Religion Higher Than Truth" as the
movement had degenerated into a number of factions each of
which believes its own version of the truth and discourages
people from taking seriously anything which conflicts with that
version.  One could go on and on about this-- but I'd prefer to
see someone else pick up on it, and other possible answers to
the question.
   But beneath the question lies an issue which Brenda's kind
message also brings to the foreground-- "how do you feel about
the fact that your research is destructive of people's belief
systems, and what do you think is left standing in the
aftermath of the destruction?"  It may surprise some folks to
know that I have been a Theosophist for 16 years, have
published about 25 articles in various Theosophical journals,
have spoken at conferences and many branch meetings, and for
the first ten of those years was quite orthodox in my views.
So, unlike what Brenda implies, I'm not a historian becoming
interested in Theosophy, but a Theosophist who gradually
stumbled into historical research.  And step by step, the
evidence uncovered in that research took me further and further
from orthodox views of HPB and the Masters, which was very
painful since I was emotionally attached to so many
Theosophists.  When I first gave a "controversial" talk in
London in 1986 (Sufi connections was the topic) I was actually
trembling with fear at the possible reactions.  Jean Overton
Fuller's subsequent charges of an Islamic takeover plot were
even worse than I had imagined!
   Anyhow-- what's the balance sheet of losses and gains for
Theosophy if my forthcoming book is basically correct?  What is
lost is the sense of exclusive exaltation of HPB and the TS as
being THE agent of THE Masters in possession of THE occult
wisdom.  What is gained is a thoroughly documented proof that
HPB had more connections with more advanced adepts in more
different spiritual traditions East and West than has ever been
imagined.  And, in consequence, that her teachings are
clearly based on authentic information from genuine adept
sources.  But the human reality of all this leaves us with the
realization that HPB and the TS were/are AN agent of SOME
Masters in possession of VARIOUS kinds of occult wisdom.  And
some people will be very unhappy with the extent that these
alliances were ever-shifting rather than stable and secure.
   In terms of degrees of admiration and respect for HPB, I was
always considered pretty extreme before I got into this
research, and I still love her and honor her as the person who
has taught me the most.  Moreover, I think people who read the
forthcoming book with an unbiased mind will see that it is VERY
pro-HPB, in spite of being very much a "warts and all"
portrait.
     One more point and then I'll shut up.  Eldon advises
trying to put oneself into the position of one's attacker, and
this is good advice.  In the case of Mark Jaqua, what I surmise
is that he perceives, rightly, that my work is destructive of a
belief system he values.  But then he wrongly assumes that this
means my intentions are destructive and selfish, and that I
have deliberately manipulated the evidence in service of evil
purposes.  On the contrary, although I try to be scrupulously
even-handed, there are lots of instances where I tend to give
HPB the benefit of the doubt.  And most importantly, knowing
the truth about history may be destructive-- of illusions-- but
it can also be liberating and enlightening.  Liberation and
enlightenment are what Theosophy is all about IMHO, and I
am hopeful that most readers will derive more benefit than pain
from the results of my labors.
     Namaste, and thanks to Brenda.