Theos-Talk Archives (October 1995 Message tl00486)

Eldon:<What we really need, if it would be possible, is a delicate balance
between dogma and doctrine, with people in charge of our organizations
that are trained in the Philosophy and able to apply the wisdom of
Solomon to the organizational problems that arise at times.>

What we really need, it seems to me, is experience, which
means living the teachings rather than just thinking about them. When
we live them, dogma evaporates. But we still need doctrine because
our human mind still has a need to explain/express our experiences
in terms of visual and analytical models that we can understand and
communicate. People "in charge of our organizations" should be
living examples of theosophy.

Eldon:< The study of karate involves training and
practice sessions. The study of Zen involves sitting zazen. And
the study of Theosophy involves awakening the inner teacher and
the sense of the divine in our everyday life; e.g. the approach
to chelaship.>

Exactly! If we all did this, many organizational
problems would disappear. Also, we would be more
tolerant and understanding of folks like JRC.

Eldon:<I would not consider either one as superior to the other in terms
of "revelation", but would carefully consider any differences between
their writings, and judicate in my own mind any apparent conflicts.>

You have mentioned this idea before. Can you give us
one instance for such a conflict? I have read both and am not aware
of any.

Jerry HE:<That would have to be discussed since it represents am assumption
that probably contrasts with those held by the HPB student. >

This brings up a very important issue that goes to very heart
of "source teachings" versus secondary or neo teachings. If Purucker,
or anyone else, expands on HPB without contradicting her, then why
would this cause any problems with "the HPB student?" Are you
of the opinion that if HPB didn't say it, it can't be true? Anything not
spoken by HPB is false? It seems to me that by expanding her 7-globe
4-plane model into a 12-globe 7-plane model, for example, does not
conflict with what HPB says and so where is the problem? This is
especially true in light of the fact that she admitted to holding some
teachings back.

Jerry HE:<>>We examine the differences then make a choice. It's a separate
 choice as to *which* individuals are representatives of the Masters. >

Unfortunately, one can represent the Masters in one subject
while totally screwing up another subject. So, our discrimination must
go farther than that between people; we also need to discriminate
between the writings of the same individual, and yes, I am thinking
about CWL here.

Eldon:< But an understanding of the Teachings,
apart from an initial intellectual study of the general doctrines,
requires some inner development and resulting personal insight.
It's not something that can be argued from an historical standpoint
because it goes beyond what can be written down in a book meant
for public consuption.>

I agree, Eldon. Well said.

Jerry S.