Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01298)

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996 Richtay@aol.com wrote:

> Responding to JRC, Doss writes,
>
> > 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.
>
> Absolutely.  But the objects defined what was required for membership in the
> Theosophical Society at large.  The net was cast wide, and all were welcome
> to come in who had even a modicum of interest in truth and brotherhood.
	There is, I think, a big mistake here. "Cast the net wide"
implies the purpose of Theosophy was to bring people *to* the "Masters" -
for the purpose of "taking the few" and "throwing back the many". This is
the viewpoint at the core of "Field of Dreams" Theosophy ("If you study
it, they will come"). Underlying it is the thought that it was for
*recruiting* purposes that the TS was begun.
	But it seems equally likely that it was as a *vehicle of service*
that it was formed, and the breadth of the Objects was to give the
central current the widest possible reach.

> This does not mean that belonging to the T.S. by merely accepting the three
> objects brings one particularly close to the minds of the Adepts.
	Ah, I fear this really *does* seem to be the height of arrogance:
Who would actually say they know what "brings one close to the minds of
the Adepts"? - to know such a thing would require being able to grasp the
minds of the Adepts. Fact is, we have *no* idea why the Adepts choose
some people and not others for "personal training". Do you mean to say
you actually understand the *standards by which their choices are made*?!!!
	We do have a glimmering of the standards they used to choose
those who were to help HPB in the formation of the TS - a very specific,
and indeed somewhat small project - but there is no certainty that the
standards for this project are generalizable. At least some of them seem
to be made by looking both at the spiritual and personality qualities of
the person. But are there not hints that they work in virtually every
realm of human endeavor? In "choosing" people work in the field of music,
for instance, almost none of the founders of the TS would have been
"chosen", as it would be *musicians*, not intellectuals, that would be
required ... and musicians have very different personality structures,
and the "training" appropriate to intellectuals (that is now being called
in Theosophical circles "the" training the Masters wish us to do) may not
be at all appropriate for musicians.
	From all accounts, the spiritual kingdom, when it chooses to
interact directly with the human kingdom, does not do so for the purpose
of enlightening a few humans who might be "ready", but does so in a very
project-specific way; the "training" given is given to further the
particular project at hand and not simply for the "personal spiritual
growth" of the "chela", and the intention is to affect widest segment of
humanity in the field of that particular work.
	
> > 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.
>
> Again, no disagreement here.  But the T.S. was an effort to help mankind at
> large, and an effort which K.H. wrote in 1884 was almost a "total failure in
> Europe; partially so in India."
>
> What was done to staunch the tide and try and turn it around?  The E.S. was
> formed (over Olcott's objections).  HPB had an entirely new set of criteria
> for who was to be admitted into that body of students.  And again a new set
> of criteria as to who would belong to the Inner Group.
	HPB did operate with free will. She ran her own ES, and she set
the criteria for those *she wanted to teach*. And its questionable as to
whether she formed it to "staunch the tide and try to turn it around", as
it was a singular failure if that was its intention.

> This wasn't merely elitism.  It was what the Masters required of those who
> wanted to actually approach the Mysteries and study the truths preserved by
> Their lodge over the ages.
	It was HPB's requirements. And those chosen by HPB were not
necessarily chosen by the "Masters" ... whose criteria seem far wider.
*Edison*, for instance, a FTS, who was, according to the ML, "a good deal
protected by M.", was *not* following the "spiritual-intellectual"
approach, and spent little (if any) time pouring over theosophical texts
and meditating. And if he *had* he probably would not have been nearly as
*useful* as he was.

>
> Those who wish to pursue truth -- in whatever way -- and seek brotherhood
> have every right to be called Theosophists.  But those wh fancy themselves
> Theosophical occultists, tulkus, gurus, whatnot, and yet throw out much of
> what the Masters offered us as BEGINNING practice in the Mysteries, are very
> much deluded.  "Theosophists" they surely are -- but so what?  What's in a
> name?
	Certainly deluded by your standards. But your standards are not
those of the Masters.

> The interesting thing is not what to call people, but how to absorb the truth
> as far as possible.  HPB and her Masters offered the T.S. as a possible
> gateway, but we live in flatland if we imagine that all that was required for
> a deep student was to accept a little plank of three Objects and suddently
> find themselves in the midst of the Temple of Wisdom.
>
	Perhaps after you've lived a few more years, withstood a good
deal more of suffering and involved yourself in the lives of "poor orphan
humanity", you'll understand that those Three Objects, and especially the
First, that you look down upon as being on the "flatland" after having
climbed the first three feet up a hill, are really the shadows cast on
the plains ... the shadows of peaks that stretch far above you. And there
may be many a good deal closer to the "Temple of Wisdom" on those peaks
that have never heard of the "spiritual-intellectual path", who don't
even conceive of the "Masters", and who certainly don't believe
themselves above most of the rest of humanity.
								-JRC