Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00432)

Art wrote:

> ...Is there something in Theosophical teaching that instructs
>us how to hold truth passionately and yet at the same time
>respect and listen to others who have no intention of
>compromise? Is it possible to be tolerant of those
> you consider intolerant and come out with integrity?

 I think so. Following HPB's example, one would just ignore
the situation, be silent, or just answer in a non inflammatory
way. For example HPB once quoted St. Irenaus' reason for having
four gospels. He said their are four corners of the world, four
directions in space etc., therefore there are four gospels. HPB
commented that such logic can only be answered in silence.

 I live in a smallish town (47,000 people) that used to be
listed in the Guinness book of world records as having the most
churches per capita of any community in the country. Today the
town remains very conservative and reflects all of the religious
right attitudes. Soon after moving here in 1990, I was invited
to attend a Christian discussion group. I stayed with them for
three years. In fact, they met in my office suite for part of
the time. Some of the most interesting and stimulating
discussions of my life came out of that group. Though I was the
only non Christian in that gathering, they were changed by me and
I by them. I still hear from them, and occasionally they come up
to buy books from me.

 The reason why the fellowship was successful however, was
because each of us had something to gain and to share and wished
to dodo. They invited me in because they believed that I could
give them some inside information on occultism and masonry
(products of the Devil you know). I was interested in learning
more intimately about Christianity as it is practiced and
believed in today, and this group had members from several
different sects of Christianity. I shared with them about
theosophy, Masonry, secret societies etc. and they shared with me
their various Christian tenets. We discussed how are lives are
transformed by these ideas, and that is where the discussions
became really exciting.

 The key, I think is motivation. If one enters into such a
discussion just to make points and get out, probably more flames
than fruit will come out of it. But when one come with the
spirit of sharing--not converting--magical things happen.

 By the way, we have a theosophical study group tonight, and
the text for study just happens to be "The Gospel According to
John."

To Eldon:

You quoted me as writing:
JHE>In ~The Inner Life~, a fifty page clairvoyant description of
>the Martian civilization was quietly removed in the edition
>immediately following the 1976 Viking mission to Mars. It
>reminds me of the scene in the movie ~1984~ where undesirable
>historical statements and events and people are removed from the
>official records--thus cease to exist. "

And you answered to Rich:

ET>Someone might argue that although psychical investigations
tend to be unreliable, and although a certain percentage of
materials that are come up with are later shown to be false, this
does not disprove the rest of the materials. Each idea or
"discovery" needs to be considered on its own merits, apart from
the fallible personality of the seer and the seer's other
perceptions. When we reject Leadbeater in totality, without
considering each idea on a point-by-point basis, we are really
refusing dialogue with people that believe in his materials. If
we took a similar attitude to Christians or people of other
beliefs, rejecting their icons and cherished beliefs, they'd
never join us to study Theosophy. People don't see the error of
their ways by being told they hold false beliefs, but they will
accept useful ideas that are presented in a way that accords with
where they are at.

Since you are responding to my statement, I would like to add my
own response to yours here:

 I agree that we can't throw out the baby with the bath
water. As you suggest, one unreliable observation does not
disprove the rest of the observations. Ideally the best way
would be to test each observation. However, clairvoyant
observations are so often untestable. For instance, CWL's
descriptions of Martian cities written in the 1920's could not be
tested until 1976. But now they are testable, and we discovered
that CWL's descriptions did not match the objective observations
of the Viking cameras.

 My point however, was that CWL's clairvoyant observations
are removed from his books as they are shown to be false. This
creates a problem for those who wish to assess CWL's writings--
How can one consider "each idea point by point" when his ideas
are removed from consideration in subsequent editions of his
books every time they are disproven? If CWL makes 100
observations and 98 are proven wrong and removed from his books,
thus leaving two correct observations, does that make CWL a great
clairvoyant, or someone who is correct two- percent of the time?
My point is that if we are to fairly evaluate CWL's ideas "point
by point", they have to be available in the form that he
presented them--not edited of his errors.

 Personally, I would enjoy seeing and participating in a
discussion where we analyze CWL's observations and ideas point by
point.

Pat,

JHE>Yes, she certainly did give credit to DK for those
>teachings, which according to her Autobiography she first
>received in 1918. My point is that she studied those same
>teachings in the ES at Krotona at least two years earlier,

Pat> Interesting, I've never come across this. Is there a
>reference and/or are the papers at the ES available so that
>they could be looked at side by side with AABs writings ?

 The E.S. papers for this era are considered "classified," so
if you went to, say, Wheaton or Adyar, they would not allow you
to see them, unless you were a pledged member of the ES.
However, what was originally ES material eventually became
published in CWL's books such as: ~Man Whence How and Whither~,
theosophical student's familiarity with CWL's books, but not with
the ES material preceding it, many have accused CWL of borrowing
ideas from AAB. With the evidence of the ES materials, it
appears to be more the other way around. There are however, some
things that you can check out for yourself. For instance, CWL
was a member of Subba Row's "inner group" that used to meet on
the tennis courts at Adyar. Look in the final section of a 2nd
or later edition of ~The Esoteric Writings of Subba Row~ and you
will find a section entitled "Unpublished teachings." There are
notes from some of Subba Row's meetings. You will find that TSR
describes the rays and relates Christ and Buddha to the first and
second rays. Though the notes are fragmentary, I think it is
pretty clearly what became AAB's seven ray doctrine as restated
by CWL in the ES material. Please let me know what you think of
Subba Row's teachings in this section, and if you agree with my
assessment.

Jerry Hejka-Ekins
Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu