Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01248)

Alexis:

>>These ideas, though, are the most basic and simple of the occult
>>doctrines, and are not being popularized in what I'd consider their
>>pure and accurate form. They could be considered fourth, fifth,
>>or sixth generation Theosophy, which much added and taken away.

>In this connection I'd like to remind you of William of Ockham's
>maxim, which paraphrased say's ;"The simplest answer is usually
>the best answer".

I agree with his maxim, which is reductionism at its best. Don
Degracia made an important point last summer in this regard. While
reductionism carried too far is objectionable, reductionism
carried to its proper limits is really the process of bringing
clarity to a situation.

When I speak of fourth, fifth, or sixth generation Theosophy,
though, I'm not referring to reductionism properly applied to its
doctrines. Consider a group of people sitting in a circle. One
whispers to the next. Each passes on the message, one after the
other, around the circle. By the time the message gets around the
circle, it bears little resemblance to what it started as. This is
what I'm concerned about happening to the theosophical philosophy.

>Perhaps the simplifications, provided they aren't
>over-simplifications, are better, and more prone to comprehension
>than the perhaps over-elaborated "originals".

It's always possible for someone to come up with a further idea on
a subject, or a better way of explaining the idea than before.
Especially when the doctrines where being expressed for the first
time, in a newly-minted terminology, there's plenty of room for
making it easier for the student to understand the materials.

>>Why would I care if the ideas change as they take hold in western
>>society? Because of my belief that they are based upon a Wisdom
>>Tradition, that they are doctrines that express some of the
>>knowledge about life carried by the Mahatmas, Bodhisattvas, and
>>Buddhas, the elect of mankind.

>The problem, as I see it, is that what you're saying here is, as
>you put it, "Because of my belief".  But Eldon, I submit to you
>that belief isn't knowledge, and almost never is.

I use the words "my belief" a lot, because I'm discussing my
personal understanding, in my own words, rather than citing
figures that I would consider authoritative. As to the difference
between belief and knowledge, that's an entirely different topic
of discussion, where much can and has been said. We're both on an
equal basis on theos-l in this regard.

You are stating your beliefs with the assertion that they are
based upon personal experience and knowledge.  I'm also stating
my beliefs, although I'm not making a similar assertion.  You
make be convinced that your beliefs are correct, and based upon
the real way that life works.  I have a similar conviction.
Without either of us resorting to citations from the literature of
the world to back up our statements, how are other readers to
evaluate our ideas?

>The "Mahatmas", Bodhisattva" and "Buddhas" as a putative
>"spiritual hierarchy" ( a term I believe to be an oxymoron) are
>only speculations.

They are speculations in the same sense that the fact the Moon
orbits the Earth, and is an astronomical body in space, is a
speculation. I've had no personal experience of circling it in a
space ship, so I'll have to take science's word for it. The same
holds true to theosophical doctrines that deal with aspects of my
life that are outside my ordinary experience.

It comes down to a matter of authority.  What sources do you
consider authorities? The great sages and seers of the past,
occult teachings and spiritual gurus, scientists, spirit guides,
etc.  -- all these could be considered as sources of information.
You draw upon your sources and I draw upon my sources, and
because the sources are different we end up with different
conclusions.

>They are things you "believe in" but do not "know" to be real.
>They're like "Angels" and "Saints" to the Christians, and I
>personally think, a reflection of humanity's need for a "Deus ex
>Machina" to solve their problems.  This is where we must agree to
>disagree.

There is certainly a lot of myth and fairy tales circulating. You
apparently put most or all of the theosophical doctrines in this
category. I'd disagree. I'd tend to put spirit guides and entities
contacted in psychic realms in the unreliable category. I'd expect
you to disagree. So we see things differently ...

>Much real knowledge about the nature of the human condition has
>been passed down from antiquity, but a "Wisdom Tradition" in a
>religious application of the term, is only speculation.

 From my standpoint, the words "religious application" carries
positive, not negative connotations. As to speculations, I do
some, but try to distinguish when I'm giving my own ideas, rather
than repeating accurately what I've heard from Theosophy.

>Now, to me, personally any "tradition" that leads to the use of
>phrases like "The Elect of Mankind" is deplorable and, obviously,
>elitist by definition.

I fail to see it as deplorable, and perhaps fail to see why it
should be such a bad thing. Anything that requires special
knowledge or training could be elitist, in the positive sense of
the word, since it would be only intended for the few, for the
people that train and prepare themselves. In this regard,
Theosophy is no more elitist than astrophysics or economics.
Someone needs a background of study, preparation, and living the
life to appreciate it, otherwise it's useless metaphysical jargon.

>It is true that evolution itself (and it matters not whether we
>speak of the evolution of consciousness or the evolution of
>forms) is clearly "elitist", but philosophies shouldn't be so.

But elitism is a fact of nature in every discipline. Even in the
computer field. I was just rereading an ACM document on
publications and copyrights, where it talks about technical
journals not being appealing to the broad membership, and where
therefore a second category of publications would be needed. This
second category would be directed to people that are interested in
the results but don't have the time and background to understand
the specialized language.

>>Annie Besant and the Adyar T.S. did get involved in Indian
>>politics, and there was good that resulted from their efforts.
>>Earlier, Col. Olcott helped reform Buddhism in Sri Lanka,
>>earning himself the status of national hero; he is still held
>>in high regard for the work that he did.

>From an non-Theosophist Indian Point of view, the work of the
>Theosophical Society was primarily political ...  But oddly
>enough, either of these phenomena have little to do with the
>"Wisdom Tradition" to which you refer.

One intent of spreading Theosophy is to awaken people to the
path. Once they're awakened, and their inner life has been set
aflame, the work that they do in the world can vary, depending
upon their karmic circumstances. One form of work is political
reform, another is religious reform. Not everyone is going to
themselves become teachers of the Philosophy.

>>What we need in the western world is the same efforts to
>>apply Theosophy in the world. This includes religious reform
>>as well as social, political, and lifestyle reform (and yes,
>>even a movement towards the gradual introduction of
>>vegetarianism).

>If you choose to be a vegetarian, well and good, more power to
>you.  But to feel called upon to (even "gradually") inflict your
>moral-ethical beliefs (and vegetarianism is only valid IMO as a
>moral-ethical system) on others, no matter how kindly intended,
>is simply oppressive.

But you're not against social reform? Anti-smoking laws, for
instance, protect the health of non-smokers, but the smokers feel
that their rights are being infringed upon. Some people, in their
efforts to reform, don't just offer ideas and moral examples, but
seek to impose their style of conduct upon others. I wouldn't go
this far, not even to change their language to adhere to the
politically correct guidelines.

We agree that it's oppressive to impose moral standards upon
others. People should feel inspired to follow someone's moral
example, not commanded to do what they're told. For the gradual
introduction of vegetarianism, for instance, I'd be for
information and moral example, not for anything that would be
oppressive to non-vegetarians.

>For Theosophy to involve itself in any kind of "reform" whether
>social, political, "lifestyle", or dietary, would make it as
>intrusive and as oppressive as Christianity.  The theosophical
>movement in the West was intended to re-introduce long forgotten
>concepts, and to give interested people new ideas about the
>nature of the Human Condition and that is all it was meant to do.
>No "crusades" on behalf of "the elect of mankind".

I agree that "long forgotten concepts" and "new ideas about the
nature of the human condition" are important gifts to western
society, and the theosophical movement should stress giving them.
But that's the movement in general. Each of us, as individuals, is
free to follow one's individual path to making the world a better
place, and may sometimes be active reformers, rather than being
pundits and conveyers of ideas.

>>What is needed? Brotherhood, including a sense of tolerance
>>for the differing views and lifestyles of others. Unselfishness
>>including the willingness to help others, not by politicians
>>with their hands in your wallet, but by people feeling generous
>>and willing to share what they have on their own initiative.
>>And people setting the example and encouraging others to
>>take self-initiative in their lives, taking personal
>>responsibility to reform themselves economically,
>>psychologically, socially, and spiritually.

>...  optimally that's what SHOULD BE.  But, there are far too
>many people who are not in a position to take personal
>responsibility to "reform" themselves economically,
>psychologically, socially, and spirituality.

True. We must work with our individual circumstances in life, and
sometimes the most basic needs like food and shelter take most of
our times and energies.

>And why is it, I wonder, that you choose to use the term
>"reform"? That would imply that you see some basic "wrongness"
>about the less fortunate.

Nothing wrong. And I don't think we can measure how fortunate a
person is by their external circumstances. We don't necessarily
see into their minds and hearts and realize what kind of life they
really are having.

>You'd feel differently if you got "downsized" and found yourself
>huddled in a doorway.  I'd hate to be a poor Black woman with
>children waiting for some white guy to "feel generous".

So would I. But this is not what I was talking about. There are
two forms of responsibility that I've been referring to. One is
for those with a spark of the spiritual to "pass on the fire" to
those in whom it can be lit. And the other is to do in a quite
individual way one's best efforts to brighten the world and help
give expression to the inexpressible.

>Theosophy, as presently formulated, and especially as seen by
>people like you, has absolutely nothings to say to [poor] ...
>people.  Speculative philosophy is only for the well-off.

If someone has the time, they can read books, watch sunsets, read
poetry, listen to uplifting music, and many other things that
don't take much money. True, some don't have the time, or live in
third-world countries where access to such influences is
difficult.

I'm not sure I get your point. No mater what we do to add value to
the world, there will be some people in a position to benefit by
it, and other people that won't. Are you saying that some means of
benefiting others is correct, and approved, and others are
objectionable?

Also, I would not consider the Wisdom Tradition as speculative
philosophy, but rather a more direct approach to the Mysteries
than approaches involving paranormal powers, out-of-the-body
experiences, seeing auras, etc.

>>People are not stupid puppets waiting to be told what to do
>>and think by their political/religious leaders, but get that way
>>out of laziness and because they were never taught to be
>>self-sufficient.

>Don't you realize that there are enormous numbers of people all
>over the world who would give anything to be in a position to
>even think about self-sufficiency? Society, and politics, hasn't
>made puppets out of them, it's made them irrelevant and
>extraneous, and even worse unnecessary and unwanted.

I realize it. As to who is to blame for their (and for our)
conditions, I'll leave it to the sociologists. I'll concentrate on
my self-improvement and my efforts to make some contribution to
the world. I have to content myself to the fact that I cannot fix
everyone's problems, and let the people desiring to work in
politics and economics to concentrate on problems dealing with
politics and economics.

>>But it's been accomplished.  The ideas are accessible now.  It's
>>possible to go into a bookstore or library and find materials,
>>and one can read in the local newspaper of programs and classes
>>to go to, held by many different organizations.  It's in the open
>>now -- but I would submit that the Gnosis is still not available
>>to the common person, because most people can still go through
>>life and not have enough exposure to it to feel an attraction.
>>There's a long way to go before a majority of people find their
>>lives changed by the theosophical movement.

>The "Gnosis", if by it you mean absolute knowledge of what is,
>was, and always will be, and not some putative "ancient wisdom"
>is not, never was, and never will be available in Bookstores.

Not the actual, literal living connection to it. But in terms of
basic introductory ideas pointing people's minds in the right
direction, it's there.

>It's certainly not available in T.S.  Books, and if what I see on
>this list is any example, it hasn't even been defined by most
>Orthodox Theosophists.

I cannot speak for what the average orthodox Theosophist would
know, without getting to know them personally. I suspect that a
certain percentage of them are followers, like we find in any
group. Another percentage, though, I'd suspect are people with a
real spiritual awakening, a spirituality that you seem to discount
because you don't happen to like their beliefs.

>As to the "common person" they are far more absorbed in attaining
>nourishment and shelter than they are in speculative theology,
>and that Eldon is what the kind of Theosophy you preach is:
>Speculative Theology.

But it's only speculative as long as one merely reads and talks
about the words, and doesn't take steps to start a spiritual
practice in their lives. When those steps are taken, it becomes
both a useful tool and actual wisdom about life. The original
literal interpretation of some of the ideas may be left behind,
but the ideas are discovered to be founded upon the reality of
life. You may be rejecting the wine, which I say is quite fine,
because you dislike the color of the bottle!

>Lastly Eldon, I'd like to say this, If you truly believe
>Theosophy to be a "Mystery School" you're going, in time, to be
>sadly disappointed.

I'm not sure that theosophical groups will become such schools,
but I haven't yet given up all hope in this regard. As to
Theosophy itself representing the Mysteries, or the Mystery
Teachings, that is my personal conviction, and since I cannot
prove it to you, you'll have to settle for it being stated as
"Eldon's speculation".

>It isn't, it wasn't and as things are now, it never will be.
>Right now it's just an elitist group of people who gather around
>each other to tell each other how grand they are, and how the
>"Masters" are with them.  They will not be the foundation for new
>religions because hopefully there will be no new religions.  The
>old one's have done quite enough harm thank you.

This may be true of many theosophical branches, but is not, I
think, universally true. And you'd be surprised at how many
genuinely spiritual and awakened individuals you might find begin
content to read books and live a compassionate, thoughtful life,
without once having to talk to spirits nor see auras.

-- Eldon
Member: Gang of Zero