Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00691)

At 04:43 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Now, while many of us have been very busy determining who is smug,
>blasphemous, condescending, etc., it probably should not go unnoticed that
>the Big TS Machine, Algeo Section, just keeps rolling along toward its
>objectives.

Richard, it may astonish and amaze you to know that, except for the
apparently compulsive bitchiness in the above paragraph, I agree with your
comments below almost 100%. Especially regarding your definitions of
"theosophy" and "THEOSOPHY", we may disagree on the efficacy of the SD and
in our interpretations of Buddhism, but what you said below is, as they used
to say, "right-on"!

alexis dolgorukii
>
>The latest edition of THE MESSENGER provides us (no apparant by-line again)
>with "Chapter 10" of ~Theosophy in a New Key~which I believe has been
>recently accepted for TPH publication.  My prediction--and I would like this
>noted--is that this book is not intended to be merely one among many, but
>will sooner or later become "quasi-official" in that it will be sent out as
>part of "new members" materials or something similar.  --Just watch.
>
>Anyway, in the last installment, we learned that the "inner side" to Object
>Three was really *Aim Three*--"to bring together a group of people who are
>informed about the principles of the Wisdom Tradition, who have begun the
>work of self-transformation, and WHO ARE DEDICATED TO COOPERATING WITH THE
>ELDERS AND ASSISTING THEIR WORK [capitals added]."  In Chapter 10 we learn
>about the "capital *T*."
>
>First, let me say I am not at all dismayed that a recent post has added me to
>the "Eldon and Rich T. team."  Eldon is a fine gentleman, and I would be
>proud to stand with him any day no matter how much we disagree.  We *do*,
>however, continue to disagree on this *T* thing, and I think Chapter #10
>shows why I am so concerned with it.
>
>I previously offered a definition of "generic" *theosophy*:  "knowledge which
>has its base in, or at least originally derives from, transcendental,
>mystical, or intuitive insight [or higher perception]"
>
>I previously offered the definition of capitalized *Theosophy*:  "specific
>doctrines, primarily those found in THE SECRET DOCTRINE and a few other
>related writings."
>
>I previously asked the question, "In *The Theosophical Society*, does the
>*Theosophical* refer to the first or second definition?
>
>Eldon, as I remember, elaborated many good points, but he never (correct me
>if I am wrong) specifically answered this question.
>
>But this is a crucial question.  Setting aside the shaky dichotomy of
>"perception vs. brain-based" orientations etc., it is my opinion that the
>second definition is simply not broad enough to include the wide-ranging
>perspectives of the majority of us on this list--I simply don't see that
>Shamans, Magicians, Psychogeneticists, or indeed anyone with a new
>theosophical idea at all can logically call himself or herself a Theosophist
>(member of the Theosophical Society) if the official name implies such a
>doctrinal delimitation.
>
>John Algeo, or whoever the "we" is who seems to speak for the Society in ~New
>Key~, however, seems to have no problem with this.  First, he or she
>generally alludes to *generic theosophy* as "certain ideas, practices, and
>attitudes" found in variety of places (to be fair, there is a pitiful
>dictionary reference offered which refers to it in terms of "mystical
>redemption" etc.).   Second, he or she cites the entry in the HarperCollins
>Dictionary of Religion to define capitalized *Theosophy* as: "The primary
>tenets presented in Blavatsky's modern compendiums of Theosophy [. . .]."
>
>Then, later on, what almost seems like a BIG TRICK reveals itself in the
>answer to Question Eight:
>
>"Theosophy is not mentioned in the Objects, but THE NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION
>[capitals added] is after all the 'Theosophical Society,' and that implies
>that it has something to do with Theosophy [capital *T*, which has just been
>defined as specific doctrine].  [. . .] There is no 'official' Theosophy, but
>there is clearly a body of ideas and PRACTICES [capitals added] called
>Theosophy.  [. . .]"
>
>It now seems that we not only have ideas but *practices* which are official
>enough to get the capital *T*.  To me this provides the basis for utilizing
>the full resources of the Society not only for the promulgation of specific
>doctrines (but not others) but perhaps even also certain "training programs"
>as well--e.g., the "The Masters of the Mind's Eye Program" (E.S. Tech. #5).
>
>Oh well, I suppose I better not get too exorcised about all this because if I
>were in a position to speak for the Society in my version of the ~New Key~, I
>would likewise probably be using all the "subtlety" at my disposal to get the
>official name of the organization to reflect my own definition for
>capitalized *Theosophy*:  "The ineffable Universal of which *theosophy* is
>the attempted articulation."
>
> (--I'd give in, however, and let Eldon and others call the "Core Teachings"
>*The Principal Theosophical Philosophy* if they wanted to.)
>
>The Big TS Machine . . . it just seems to keep rolling no matter who is smug,
>blasphemous, or condescending. . . .
>
>
>Godspeed,
>
>Richard Ihle
>
>
>
>