Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01250)

On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote:
> Rich:
>
> [writing to Paul]
>
> >But this is a THEOSOPHICAL list. Most participants are THEOSOPHISTS.
> >This doesn't mean slavish adherence to one or another school of
> >Theosophy, but an A PRIORI attitude that Theosophy is generally true,
> >and worth investigating.
>
> There are several stands that I see people taking. They include:
>
> 1. I know that Theosophy is not true because of my occult experiences,
>    or own scientific studies, etc.
>
> 2. We can never know if Theosophy is true since it deals  with
>    the transcendent and unknowable, but can only have a growing
>    certitude of certain of its fundamental concepts.
>
> 3. I believe that Theosophy is literally true, in every statement
>    of my favorite authors, regardless of their agreement with HPB.
>
> 4. I believe that Theosophy is a body of Mystery Teachings,
>    partially expressed in open language, and partly veiled,
>    behind the words of our theosophical texts.
>
> I'm sure that there are many other positions on Theosophy as well.
> Without requiring anyone to commit to a stand -- pro or con -- on
> Theosophy, I'd suggest that we need to agree that it consists of
> a definite body of doctrines and occult truths. That is, it is
> possible to study Theosophy, recognize what it is, and distinguish
> it from different ideas.
	Why should we need to agree on this particular point? Or rather,
why is this point not simply a number "5" on your list:
	"I believe Theosophy consists of a definate body of doctrines and
occult truths that can be distinguished from other doctrines".
	It appears as though you are taking the positions of others and
framing them into a list ... but then taking your particular perspective
and saying it is more than just another entry on that list, but needs to
be *the* agreed upon perspective for any meaningful discussions to ensue.
I fear, however, that many on the list would not see it as anything other
than another perspective - with no more or less credibility or claim than
the others - and that *were* it to need to be "agreed upon", the list
would likely be very much smaller than it is now. It sounds as though you
& three others are starting a list layed out along just such lines -
which is certainly wonderful - but I certainly would not want theos-l to
become such a list.

> If we were a list dedicated to the study of those doctrines,
> then it would be possible to say that this idea is someone's
> personal opinion, that idea is in accord with the Teachings,
> and the third idea is plausible, but not supported in the
> literature, so we'd need to reserve judgment on it. Each idea
> could be considered as being in accord with (or not in
> accord with) the doctrines.
	It would certainly be more convenient, and perhaps look more like
a calm study group if there was a clearly articulated set of "doctrines"
that everyone agreed were the "Theosophical" doctrines, but it would also
simply become the Internet expression of the Adyar/Wheaton ideology -
both of whom also believe that specific lines can be drawn, on one side
of which are things called "Theosophical doctrines" and on the other side
"not-Theosophical doctrines".

> For those that don't accept the premise that there is such a
> body of doctrines, we cannot convince them that such an
> approach has merit. But we are then faced with a problem.
> How can we study and teach Theosophy (the body of Mystery
> doctrines) amidst many that deny there is such a thing?
	Ah, but this is only a "problem" if one believes that the "body
of doctrines" perspective is the *true* perspective - that it is
priviledged above all others.
	It seems to me that to *accept* such a notion produces a far
worse "problem" ... *who* is going to define what that "body of
doctrines" is? I cannot accept that this approach is anything other than
simply one of many ... and would never priviledge it above the others
I've seen here as being "more Theosophical" ... for the simple reason
that if *HPB and the Adepts had intended "Theosophy" to be the study of a
specific set of doctrines ... they could have easily *SAID SO* - and the
First Object of the Society would have read "To form a nucleus of humans
devoted to the study of Theosophical Doctrines, that might in the future
form the foundation of a western Mystery School". But they did not do so.
And if they had it would have signalled an intention far different than
that in the Objects they *did* articulate.
	It was the Adepts and HPB that *generated* the Theosophical
impulse ... they were the *creators*. Theosophists may read and
appreciate Judge, or CWL, or G de P, but they were *derivatives*, "down
stream" as it were from the initiating impulse - that is to say, it was
*through* HPB and her link to the Adepts that whatever work they did
became possible. It was *through* her that they came into contact with
the generating current.
	The Adepts had complete freedom and autonomy, and HPB, during her
life, had complete authority - in that they could have generated any
current they wished, and she could have defined it according to her
predilections and choices. If WQJ, or G de P, had evolved Theosophy out
of their own thought, they very well may have defined the First Object as
I stated it above, the Second as the specific study not of comparative
philosophies, religions and sciences, but of the "correlations" between
those things and the "body of doctrines", and would certainly have not
written a Third Object that even vaguely resembled the current one.
	But the Adepts *first* found HPB, and brought in others to help
*her*, they did not choose others to take to Tibet and find HPB to assist
*them*. Her energy-system evidently had an expansiveness capable of
giving expression to their intentions.
	And neither the Adepts nor HPB mentioned "doctrines" in the
formulation of the Objects - which contain a far more inclusive view of
Theosophy than (IMO) the derivatives. Those who wish
to *define* a specific set of "doctrines" have for years had to face
the uncomfortable fact of the Objects - of the fact that the
*originators* of the Theosophical current did *not* define the study of
a specific set of doctrines as what "Theosophy" is, nor required any
such thing as a condition of membership. In fact, those who wish to do
so will usually either try to dismiss the Objects as not relevant to
the discussion of what "real" Theosophy is, or will claim there are
things hidden in the Objects that permit them to find a basis for
their doctrinal claims - witness the "Theosophical World View" now
published next to the Objects in every AT, or the "inner intentions" now
being "discovered" in the Objects by the Wheaton Masters.
	*I* call myself a "Theosophist" because of full agreement with
the motto "There is no religion higher than truth", and because I not
only accept, but pursue, in my own little way, the expression of the
Three Objects in my day to day life. And according to the *Adepts
and HPB*, accepting those Objects is *all* that is required to call
myself a Theosophist, and *expressing them*, according to my own
ethical understanding and predilections, is *called* "Theosophy". I
practice what I consider to be *severely* "traditional Theosophy" -
in fact *so* traditional that to what *now* calls itself
"traditional Theosophy" I often appear radical, to those who wish
to define a specified set of doctrines that are official
"Theosophical" doctrines I am an anarchist, and to those who wish
to impose the study of specific doctrines as conditions for institutional
recognition - hence requiring what the Adepts and HPB *never* required - I
am at best a gadfly and at worst a nightmare.
	And this has reached the point that it is now claimed that I do
not even *accept* "traditional" Theosophy. But, BUT! - *HPB CREATED THE
OBJECTS OF HER SOCIETY, AND *SPECIFICALLY* SAID THAT THEIR ACCEPTANCE WAS
THE *SOLE* REQUIREMENT OF MEMBERSHIP* And those Objects were not simply
her whim, rather, they were powerfully supported by the Adepts -
especially the First Object ... perhaps one of the most unprecedented and
remarkable formulations I've seen in any organization ... and the recent
posting of the Chohan's letter is a good example - no mention of the
study of races and rounds, but an awful lot of talk about "brotherhood".
	While the study of particular "doctrines", or the followers of
specific writers *other* than the Adepts and HPB are certainly activities
that might be pursued *within* the larger Theosophical current, I cannot
see that there is the grounds to make the claim that these activities are
*all* that HPB and the Adepts intended "Theosophy" to be, nor that these
perspectives can somehow be priviledged above others.
	Those that *do* believe this must necessarily continually be
faced with "problems", as the actual Theosophical current seems to
attract quite independent minds, and large parts of the membership will
inevitably either not accept there *is* a specific "body of doctrines",
or will not accept any one person's or faction's definition of
what, precisely, those doctrines *are*. But such problems are not shared
by those who hold views other than the "doctrinal" approach. And neither
I, nor (I suspect) a number of others who hold different views, have any
responsibility to help the "doctrine" perspective out of the problems
necessarily generated by their point of view, nor to define their beliefs
or thoughts as "Theosophical" or "non-Theosophical" according to the
standards set by the "doctrine" view.
							        -JRC