Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00148)

Brenda: "I've come to the conclusion that this idea of "Source Teachings" is
wrong and I don't really know where it started, but it may become the cause
of lots of dissension. You want to include certain writings within a select
group and by doing so you include certain people in a select group and leave
others out."

HPB herself gives the idea of "source teachings" and warns, as I posted
yesterday, against false prophets within Theosophy giving out their own
warped ideas AS Theosophy itself. Eldon too has been pointing this out very
effectively. No ideas are left out, they are simply pointed out as LATER
than the original stuff. No one can deny that HPB and William Q. Judge were
among the Founders of Theosophy in 1875, and the Mahatma Letters were from
1880-1882. Everything after this is later, and spins off from the original
teachings. Even as a U.L.T. student, I recognize that my hero Robert Crosbie
(the founder of U.L.T.) is a STUDENT and giving his OWN understanding of what
he learned from HPB and WQJ. His writings are not SOURCE Theosophy, neither
are de Purucker's, neither are Leadbetter's. We are not playing favorites
here, you see, we all trace our roots to the same place.

With no source teachings, there is no Source, no direction by which we may
approach the Masters and their School except our own personal wanderings. In
fact, we Westerners first learned about Masters and Theosophy from HPB, and
if we ignore her direction most of us will be really directionless in
Theosophy, and leap from thing to thing, learning very slowly.

Brenda: "This approach is so divisive and judgemental and not at all keeping
with the spirit of theosophy which is to "find the source within." "

It is not divisive, it is unifying. Many of us think Leadbeater was a real
poop and weirdo. But I recognize that most of what he knew, he learned from
HPB and the Masters. His ideas can be traced back to the "source teachings."

Brenda: "Who is more qualified to give a lesson in humility than C.W.L.? I
don't know where anyone's writings can compare with his on such simple
practical lessons and advice."

CWL had many profound reasons to be humble, as we all know given his history.
 Brenda, have you ever come across William Q. Judge and his work? He is
rather practical, but he has one glaring defect in the eyes of many: he held
to the lines laid down by HPB after her death, while most everyone else went
about "developing" the ideas according to their own likes and dislikes and
psychism. Mr. Judge is extremely practical and humble and readable, but most
T.S. people ignore him because Besant declared he was anathema.

Brenda: "If only enough people would practice humility we wouldn't even have
a need to maintain the aloofness of some writers over others."

The idea of Source Teachings is not about arrogance or humility. Source
Teachings is an IDEA, and people are the ones who are arrogant or humble
about it. Many people who recognize the TRUTH of source teachings are very
humble. If I am not among them, that is my problem, not yours.

Brenda: "The beauty and urgency of theosophy is in its wholeness."

Yes, the philosophy of Theosophy is beautiful when it is understand as a
whole, and not adulterated by later, corrupt teachings which destroy the laws
of analogy, correspondences and the sevenfold constitution of Man.

Brenda: "We can't shake off our fellow travellers on the path by denoting
some writings as core or source. They're still there. They have a place
right there in front of you, closer and more familiar to the teachers and the
teaching.... I'm THEIR follower. I can't measure up to them even, let alone
seem to meet and know Kuthumi or Morya."

Brenda, this is the most amazing and disturbing thing I have yet seen you
write. You are setting up a priesthood, where those who are historically
"closer" to the teachers somehow have the right to interpret the teachings
for us.

There are NO INTERMEDIARIES. No one deserves our respect because they have
written books or have ideas or lived a century ago. They desrve our respect
when they are MORAL, ACCURATE, and HOLD TO THE LINES LAID DOWN by the
Masters. Failing this, they are poor guides, and certainly not people to set
up as "closer and more familiar to the teachers and the teaching." We will
all come ot know the Masters by following THEIR teachings and THEIR lines,
not any intermediaries.

Brenda: "I think there's a great mystery about the other kingdoms of nature,
but instead of looking at them as living around us here on this fourth globe,
couldn't we try seeing them as their own kingdom (meaning they are king on
the fifth globe) right ahead of us?"

Huh? Brenda, we know that there are several kingdoms right here in globe D,
namely elementals, minerals, plants, animals, humans, etc. Why would we move
other kingdoms to other globes? They have their own 7-fold and 10-fold
kingdoms, no doubt.

Brenda: "Besides, the Mahatmas do teach "individuality" as a specifically
human trait, so I think "group" goes quite well beside it, as an alternative
sort of existence."

Double Huh. If the Mahatmas teach "one apple," you hear "collective
apples." When the Masters teach "one farmhouse" you hear "condominium."
 Only on that reasoning can I understand the above sentence.

In my mind, whatever the Masters were silent on, on that we don't know Their
opinion. We can have our OWN opinions, and of course we do, but we can't in
good conscience teach our OWN ideas as the Masters ideas, and it is important
to distinguish that "we see through a glass darkly" but They see clearly and
certainly. I too have many ideas how Theosophy and Buddhism overlap, but
those are MY ideas, inspired by the teachings, but I can't run around saying
my ideas ARE the original teachings.

Wow. Scary stuff on this board.

Rich