Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01253)

JRC has brought up some issue that require some very serious consideration.
Some of them of particular interest to me are:

1. Theosophy - Theos-Sophia has not been defined in the Objects. I do not
think it is an oversight. I think it is very deliberate considering the
fact Divine Wisdom or Truth is not something fixed. So Theosophists who
are are all co-students in search of Truth which is not static and fixed
are in search of something that is dynamic. However much anything can be
described in words, it is not the real thing. In addition, due to
tradition and other reasons various words mean different things to
different people. But in the absence of a better medium of communication
and recording, we have the writings of HPB and others.

2. Three Objects of TS: The objects were not put together in great haste.
It evolved over a period of time. From what I have read, one need not
agree with the second and third objects. Just if one is in *sympathy*
with the First Object - Universal Brotherhood is all that is required of
any one who wants to join the Society. This is in total agreement with
what was stated to AP Sinnett in the letter from the Great Master wherein
it was Their intention not to form a school of psychology but to get men
and women who will help in the great idea of Universal Brotherhood.

 From a personal point of view, I have been around TS and Theosophy for
several decades. It is typical to find lodges having lectures on various
Theosophical "Theories" - they are facts for those Brahma Gnanis - but
should be theories until each one of us internally able to verify and
corroborate them. It was decades before I could connect between all these
lectures and the important task at hand. How can one help our fellow
humans in a practical way of implementing the concept of Universal
Brotherhood - each one of in our own way to be best of our understanding?
Again it appears that the fact that more people not being exposed to and
taking interest in Theosophy especially at a time all New Age interest
was increasing may be directly related to all of us including me losing
sight of the First Object and what it stands for. Many of us are doing
our best to best of our knowledge and understanding. But a more concerted
effort is needed to emphasize this important factor and bring it to the
attention of newer members.  Those newer members who join the TS for their
selfish purposes, when such key informationis provided,
may make them decide that TS is not their cup of tea and go elsewhere,
which is ok.

Why am I on this soap box? As I see the background of individuals who are
likely to succeed Nationally and Internationally, a miracle would be
needed to get kind of leaders who are likely to turn things around soon.
If the current trend continues, I am sorry to say, in our life time we
may see the TS to become just a publishing company with lots of assets
in the control of a few (after all litigations are completed and lawyers
plundering much of the assetsF). Even the Great Roman Empire
had its days. Where is it today? It decined and fell into oblivion.

The house is on fire. Let us awake and do something soon.

	....doss



On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, JRC wrote:

> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 21:41:37 -0400
> From: JRC <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <theos-l@vnet.net>
> Subject: Re: Is this a Theosophical List?
>
> 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
>