Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01137)

Paul writes,

> While we *may* have
> the a priori assumption that *theosophy* is generally true, it
> is quite alien to the spirit of HPB to assume a priori that
> Theosophy-- the modern expression by her and her successors--
> is generally true.

This is possibly the major source of your frustration, Paul.  This board,
whether by intention or design, caters mostly to the needs of those who are
students of modern Theosophy.  Newcomers sign on to LEARN about the teachings
and attitudes of Theosophy -- modern Theosophy.  (Sadly, little of that is
being discussed).  It is also great to put "Theosophy" in the context of
"theosophy."  If you don't feel terribly committed to Theosophy -- the modern
work of HPB -- this would explain why you often feel excluded, even beat up,
by current Theosophists.

> Rich states that participation on theos-l, or at least
> identification as a Theosophist, means that one has an A PRIORI
> attitude that Theosophy is generally true.  I must differ, and
> feel sure that HPB herself would as well.


This last line is -- forgive me -- bullshit.  HPB was certainly accomodating
to those who didn't think like her, and she welcomed those of ALL viewpoints,
even gross materialists, to publish in *The Theosophist* or *Lucifer.*  But
HPB's best efforts went not to the public at large, or to the Churches, or to
scientists, etc., though she wrote occasionally for them.

HPB's best efforts went to her closest and sincerest students.  The entire
E.S. was formed because HPB couldn't get anything done with the T.S. in
general.  And then she formed the Inner Group of hand-picked students with
whom she poured out the final efforts of her life.  She was always dedicated
to THE FEW.  She said herself, writing to Mr. Judge: "I rather lose the whole
American lot ... than YOU."  She frequently stated that she would gladly give
up the entire T.S. for a handful of devoted, sincere workers.

But it is exceedingly interesting that Paul, one MOST INTERESTED in
prorecting the T.S. from becoming the vehicle of mindless, worshipful HPB
devotees, should quote HPB as an authority, and use her as a rhetorical
device to indicate what is, or should be, normative in Theosophy (or
theosophy, for that matter).

Paul continues:

> PS-- I hope you are joking about my books.  HPB never said the
> adepts were always right, never said anyone could be-- so my
> assertion that a definition of them as infallible simply
> renders them nonexistent is based on capital t Theosophy.

There is another fine example of rhetoric without substance.  No one -- NO
ONE, my friend -- on this list, is claiming that an Adept, or anyone daring
to call themself an Adept, must be ALWAYS right.  This is a tool to conjure
with for pure rhetoric.  It goes on in Congress daily, it is a tired
sophistic tool used even in Socrates time.  It is simply this "Thou shalt
exaggerate thy disuptant's position to make it appear ridiculous.  Thus is
may be dismissed without further examination."

So let us clear the slate and approach the subject as reasonable, educated
men.  The Adepts are NOT infallible, and have no desire to be so regarded.

Is this the same as saying that entire portions of their "secret doctrine,"
that accumulated body of teachings from the ages, assembled by seers in every
land, is false?

No, it is not.  One can be an Adept, and entirely fallible, and still be
taken seriously in the broad outlines of the philosophy.

And while the anthropogenesis prosented in the S.D. vol. II may seem quite
arcane and inscrutable and indefensible to some, it is nevertheless the
centerpiece of HPB's last great tome.  It cannot be dismissed without
dismissing perhaps 8 to 10 years of HPB's labors -- and, we assume, the
labors of her Teachers.  The doctrine is not hinted at, or postulated, it is
directly taught as a central piece of the teachings which were to be handed
out.  The anthropology is by no means completely given, rather, it is
outlined, a few periods examined, very few details.  But the teaching is
unmistakably intended as important and worth quite a few hundred pages of
foolscap.

---continued---