Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01270)

JRC:

>> I'd suggest that we need to agree that [Theosophy] ... 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 definite body of doctrines and
>occult truths that can be distinguished from other doctrines".

I was probably too generalizing in my statement, when I said "we".
I was referring to those that might want to study the theosophical
philosophy, as opposed to those that want to talk about their own
views and experiences. I did not mean to include those that either
deplore the ideas, or couldn't care less about them.

>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.

Perhaps my opening statements give that impression. But I go on to
explain that I'd hope to see a serious study of Theosophy
peacefully coexist with discussions based upon disinterest or
disbelief in it.

>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.

True. And there's a certain challenge to meeting in this forum,
with people offering so many ways to challenge and disagree with
one. As long as we don't get bitter, and start calling each other
names, we can learn from our interactions.

>It sounds as though you & three others are starting a list laid
>out along just such lines - which is certainly wonderful - but I
>certainly would not want theos-l to become such a list.

Thanks. You don't have to worry about theos-l becoming that way.
Being completely unmoderated and with so many strong views from
every possible metaphysical approach, they'll never let it happen.
The only viewpoint not represented on theos-l is the
fundamentalist Christian, and the type of scientist that believes
in traditional materialism.

>> 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".

I do think that a line can be drawn, but like any attempt at
drawing a line, there will be a fuzzy gray area where certain
things cannot be known with certainty one way or the other.
I'd rather see more discrimination than drawing a simple line, but
rather seeing things in a graduated spectrum of shades of gray.
This would be the opposite of seeing everything as equally white,
good, true, etc.

I'm not sure of the Adyar/Wheaton ideology, but in both the Point
Loma and ULT approaches there's a definite attempt to acquire an
intellectual understanding of the theosophical doctrines, with a
strong emphasis on the source literature.

>> 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
>privileged above all others.

Yes. If you don't believe there's a body of doctrines, you would
certainly approach the problem differently. It's certain pivotal
ideas like this one upon which whole schools of thought and
approaches to the spiritual are grown. I can see different
branches of the theosophical movement diverging upon differences
like this one.

>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 don't see it as such a big problem. Any system of thought has a
definite body of ideas that it teaches. There's a part of
Theosophy that can be taught as an intellectual study. And there
are deeper layers that cannot be taught in a study class, but must
be self-acquired. These require a living tradition, continual
generations of students that have learned and pass on what they've
understood. This part is something of a paradox, since it must be
both self-acquired although it requires contact with others that
have learned it.

Getting back to your question, I'd say that each generation of
students are responsible to learn the philosophy as best as they
can, to live the life, and to pass on the philosophy as accurately
as they can. If they do it right, it can carry forward many
generations into the future before its inner life is lost.

>I cannot accept that this approach is anything other than simply
>one of many ...  and would never privilege 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.

Yes. They did not do so. They had other objectives. The initial
T.S. objective was to introduce eastern ideas into the western
world. It was later expanded into the three objects that we know
today.

The intent to carry on the doctrines, to live the life, to make a
spiritual practice of Theosophy is something that must arise out
of the theosophical students themselves. It would never work if
the Masters were simply to say that they wanted us to do it. For
western Mysteries to arise, we need, over many generations, to
have the organizations and the participants self-organize and make
it happen. The T.S. was to be the cornerstone of future western
religions; it's up to us to be the masons to build the rest of the
structure.

>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.

This is one interpretation. It is possible to say that HPB and her
teachers were real, and everyone that followed, including Judge,
were second generation and followers of what HPB initiated. My
view, though, is different. I'd find, simply out of logic, that
the Masters would be behind any outgrowth or evolution of the
theosophical movement that aids the bodhisattva ideal, that
carries out the work of compassion that they are dedicated to. And
I'd consider the Masters as behind both Judge, G. de Purucker, and
anyone sincerely working for the cause, regardless of what groups
they happen to belong to.

>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.

That would be true if they were making it up, like a parent
telling a bedtime story to a child. But I don't think they were
making it up. I think they were struggling for the proper language
and terminology to express a philosophy and view of life that was
completely alien to western thought, to express an understanding
that westerners were unprepared to comprehend.

>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.

They could have. And as heads of the Point Loma T.S., they could
have changed the objects as they choose. But apparently it was
their best judgment to keep the objects intact.

>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.

Physically going to Tibet is nice, but the Masters are at work
throughout the world. I expect that there are people assisting
them in every country. What was different between her and many
others was that she was authorized to publicly state that
she represented them, that she was a messenger.

>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.

When the T.S. was formed, there were no defined doctrines, since
HPB had not made her first attempt at expounding the philosophy.
The language for expressing the ideas in English had not yet been
formulated.

I'd agree, though, that when doctrines are not mentioned, that the
objects are far more inclusive. The more that is left out, the
more people that can be embraced, until we have a lowest common
denominator that "joe sixpack" can feel at home in. Perhaps we
should just sponsor football games? <grin>

>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.

But the doctrines are defined for us, it's just that later writers
and students, including all of us, voice so many differing views
that someone new would have a hard time learning what Theosophy
consists of! While it's true that T.S. membership does not require
any particular belief, that does not mean that Theosophy itself is
anything that we want it to be.

>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 can only hope that they are good students, and don't end up
imposing some misunderstanding upon the general membership! The
attempt to get serious about the teachings is the first sign that
someone has discovered the vein of gold in them, and is seeking to
do something concrete with that knowledge.

>*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.

That motto, adopted from the Maharajah of Beneres (if I remember it
right), is the keynote of a true philosopher, of someone that
loves wisdom. I think that you, I, and perhaps most of the people
on theos-l follow it in their own way.

>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".

The objects are all that you have to accept to be a good T.S.
member, regardless of your belief. I don't think that they say
that anyone's personal views, though, can be called "Theosophy",
without some comparison to what was given us by HPB and her
teachers. You are a fine Theosophist regardless of your
recognition of or belief in its doctrines. This is not changed by
the fact that I might find myself opposing certain ideas you
express, in what I feel is a defense of Theosophy as I know it.

>...  to those who wish to define a specified set of doctrines
>that are official "Theosophical" doctrines I am an anarchist,

Yes, you won't accept the efforts by another student to define
Theosophy, you won't recognize their authority to do so. But I
think that it is a worthwhile effort to organize and present the
philosophy with additional clarity and insight, using modern words
and examples.

You may not recognize this effort as authoritative, but if it is
done right, it will be a reasonable approximation. There is a
definite limitation to the written word, of course, and there will
always be a need for one generation of students *with a living
understanding of the philosophy* to pass it on to the next
generation.

>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.

You'd have trouble with at least one theosophical group in The
Netherlands which requires a year or two of classes and a
demonstrated understanding of the philosophy before being
*invited* to join.

>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*

I understand you as saying that you do not accept there being a
specific body of doctrines or teachings to Theosophy.  I'm not
sure about what percentage of the ideas in theosophical books
that you accept or reject. When those ideas are defined as
traditional Theosophy, do you accept it? Do you believe in
Theosophy in the common and ordinary sense of the term "believe".
If you regard it as a theory or hypothesis, have you tested it and
rejected it in your life? (I'm asking these questions for
clarification of your standpoint.)

Personally, I don't think that the requirements of membership in
the T.S. have much to do with the question of whether the
theosophical philosophy is genuine fragments of the Mystery
Teachings.

>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".

I think that the emphasis has been on a broad approach with a
general appeal. Much of what was presented in "The Secret
Doctrine" and "The Mahatma Letters" goes far beyond what is
necessary to meet the needs of the common person. My concern is
that the Mahatmas may have concluded that the deeper side of what
they have given has fallen on barren soil, and have stopped
actively supporting it. I'd hope that there would be sufficient
interest in the Mysteries in the west for me to be able to see
something come of them in my lifetime, something inspired by the
fragments found in Theosophy.

Since we have different approaches and goals, I'd hope that we
could allow each of us to go after our own "market segments" of
humanity, working in our own ways to improve the lives of people
that we can reach.

>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
>privileged above others.

I'd agree that there is much work for all of us to do, and the
dissemination of the philosophy is but one of the tasks. I don't
think that was their exclusive intent in founding the T.S. The
intent is much simpler: the carrying out of the bodhisattva vow,
the vow to live the life of compassion and to be of benefit to
other sentient beings.

>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*.

Here I see an eventual necessity of a fission in the theosophical
movement, where there are groups following specific approaches
that are difficult to coexist side-by-side.

I don't see, though, any group controlled by a single person's or
faction's definition, but a living understanding of the philosophy
being passed down from one generation to the next. There's a
degree of interpretation that each generation applies, and
periodically, like in major religions, reformers must appear to
reestablish the original thought current and inspiration.

>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.

You certainly avoid a lot of problems by not dealing with the
issue of defining or communicating what Theosophy consists of.
Any time you make a statement though, you either need to say
"this is my personal idea" or "this is what I've learned from
Theosophy."

If you wish to deal with theosophy (with little "t") as process
and approach to life, and ignore Theosophy (with big "T") as
Mystery Teachings and spiritual path, that's your choice. I choose
the other approach and feel responsible to do something in the
world to share what I find of value in it.

-- Eldon