Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00707)

Paul Johnson writes:

>"Source" material is not so much an either/or category as
>rather a series of degrees of distance from the main source--
>which we'd agree is HPB and her teachers.

 To restate my point for the fourth time on this net (doesn't
anybody hear me?), there are probably as many ways to categorize
what is and what is not source material as there are people to do
the categorizing. My concern is that the categorizations used by
the Organizations have the effect of holding one organization as
more valid than another. To avoid this we tried to promote a
historically based general definition of source material that
focuses upon the period before the splits, when this material was
being given out for the first time. Therefore, this period is
common history for everybody.

 Looking at source material in terms of a "series of degrees
of distance from the main source" is a very useful way of looking
at the different writings, and of course, those degrees will
differ with the eye to the viewer. I think this kind of inquiry
is healthy and can bring further insights into the Theosophical
Movement, and I hope to see more of this kind of inquiry. But to
return to my original point: my concern is with the agenda behind
such logic that holds, for instance, that John Algeo is a source
writer but William Q. Judge is not. Such stands are not (IMHO)
constructive to the Theosophical Movement and they trouble me
deeply.

>Not much, but his historical contributions are like our four
>gospels, in that although they give a narrative of events
>rather than a formal doctrinal presentation, they also contain,
>interwoven in the narrative, elements crucial to the
>contemporary Theosophical worldview-- even in the ULT.

 I think we have been down this trail in private
communications before. I agree that Olcott is one of our primary
sources of information concerning the history of the TM. Ialso
agree that Olcott had a tremendous influence in the formation of
the contemporary "Theosophical worldview." However, ~Old Diary
Leaves~ is not the only historical source, nor is it necessarily
the most reliable. These are not Olcott's diaries, but his
memoirs. People have personal motivations for writing memoirs.
Let's face it, all autobiographies are really fiction because
they are not so much about what happened, as they are about what
the writer wishes to think happened, and what that writer wants
you to think had happened. There is a certain arrogance in the
subtitle embrazened in gold foil on the covers of the original
editions of ~Old Diary Leaves~:

 THE............
 TRUE HISTORY
 OF THE.........
 THEOSOPHICAL
 .......SOCIETY

 Though for the first volume, Olcott toned down a bit by
printing on the title page, the sub-title:

 THE TRUE STORY OF
 THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

but by volume two onward, his arrogance re-asserts itself with
the new title page that reads:

 THE ONLY AUTHENTIC HISTORY OF
 THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

Yes, Olcott is an important source, but using him without
consulting the surrounding documents, is not research, but
perpetuating his private myth.

Cheers
Jerry HE