Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00027)

This hasn't come back in about a day, so I'm resending it.

-- Eldon

----

Alexis:

>By "Little Theosophies" i refer to groups whose feelings about their
>group lead them to exclude anyone that doesn't match their paradigm.

This is possible in any group or approach to the spiritual. People
can be so focused upon the dead-letter of their approach that they
fail to see the same life behind different words and forms held
by others. A very good example of this was with Daniel H., a
Christian Fundamentalist, that was writing on theos-l last Autumn.
He would never agree that there could be a valid experience of the
spiritual except in and through his biblical approach.

>I am explicitly referring to th ULT which I consider to be the
>most "Hasidic" of Theosophical groups in the exclusivity.

They tend to stick to the strictest intellectual standards of study
and research of the theosophical literature. Because of this, their
members tend to be the most knowledgable of the three theosophical
groups. On the other hand, they therefore run the greatest risk of
being *only intellectual*. This is a danger, but I know many ULT
members that I would personally consider as good people, awake and
alive to the spiritual, and eager to help the world. One such member
was a co-member of the Point Loma Publications Board, and worked with
me for a number of years to help that organization do as much good as
it could. And in places like Santa Barbara, there are many active
members of college age, not just old folks, or middle-aged, like
Adyar T.S. members and many on theos-l.

>On both this list, and in Theosophy International, people from these
>groups are not in a position to enforce ther exclusivity.

True. Not any more than any other view can dominate the list. There
are perhaps half-a-dozen distinct views of Theosophy and the world
on theos-l, and these views sometimes directly contradict one another.
Pity the poor beginner to Theosophy, wanting to learn about it for
the first time!

>They have every right to be as exclusive as they please within their
>own paradigm but they have no right to impose their ideas on others.

Yes. Some of us may quote HPB or "The Mahatma Letters" and use that
as our proof to others that accept Theosophy the way that we do. Others
would ignore that proof as unconvincing, not accepting Theosophy to be
that way. Some would talk of spirits and of their out of the body
experiences, and use that as proof to others that accept the world the
way that they do. And some people would ignore that proof as unconvincing
to them.

This situation is quite apparent to us, as we participate in the
discussions. The only question is how peacefully can we co-exist?
Can we carry on parallel discussions without having to "set the
record straight" and blow away someone else's views? I'm not sure
that the views will converge. That leaves us with either *conflict*
or *mutual tolerance*. I prefer the latter, although I'll admit that
there would be times where I'd feel called to respond to something,
if too much of what I disagree with has been said. But when I do
reply, I try to be civil and not blast the intelligence or character
of the writers of the ideas I don't like.

>They have every right to express their ideas of course, but
>no right to accuse others of "heresy" or "blasphemy" when they
>are disagreed with.

The terms "heresy" and "blasphemy" may have arose out of a discussion
that was had earlier, where I was mentioning that I thought that one
should respect the sense of the sacred in the hearts of others, even
if one did not like their ideas and the words that they expressed them
in. Someone disagreed with me and the discussion started to diverge.

>>[TI] ... sounds like a good idea to me too. Especially as over
>>the generations the various variants of the original
>>Theosophy get wider apart in what they teach! <frown>

>Eldon, do you grant that I am a sincere person, as sincere in my beliefs and
>perceptions as anyone else? Well if you do, and I hope you do, then you must
>have learned by now that I consider my view of theosophy as possibly the
>most traditional as it is based upon my perceptions of theosophy of the 1875
>- 1880 variety, with no influences from later on.

I grant that you are a sincere person, but think that at times you
could pick the words you express yourself in with greater care. You
can get your ideas across better if you don't start off by getting
people mad at what you say. If you want to bring someone to another
way of thinking, it's much better to paint your ideas in beautiful
colors and dazzle someone with their beauty. That's much better an
approach than to simply tell people how sorry a state that they're
in and how their ideas are totally worthless. It's much more effective
to seduce with beauty than it is to shame and cower people with your
wrath!

You can give a historic context to your views. I like to think of
my ideas as tapping into a *living tradition* that is rooted in
Mahat or the universal mind. That is, I picture my best thinking
as soaring far above what I could come up with in my ordinary
thinking, a visit to greater realms of thought that I'm enabled
to do because of my thought life being rooted in the theosophical
doctrines. I don't associate my viewpoint or stance as based upon
a particular organization or time period, but rather upon an inner,
living process that I nurture within.

>My "cut-off" is particularly intense in 1891 when HPB died. From then
>on I think there has been nothing but variance and revisionism. It
>may be rigid, it may even be limited, but it's hardly heretical.

Okay. You're happy with the particular presentation of Theosophy
as it stood up to that time. For me, the high point would have been
the years when Purucker was actively teaching and writing, since I
feel I've received the greatest spiritual benefit from him, although
he doesn't have the quantity of materials or vastness of depth that
can be found in HPB's works.

>It may interest you to know that while I totally reject CWL, I don't
>reject G de P at all, while i don't agree with everything he says, I
>own, and have read a great many of his books.

Here is one point where you agree with Bee. She also likes de Purucker,
as does Jerry Schueler and a number of others on the list. I find
Purucker as complimenting HPB in a way that is useful to me. Others
may not, and may be satisfied with the works of other writers and
students after HPB's time.

>I do reject the ULT as I find their actions and attitude too
>fundamentalist for me. But that does not mean I reject WQJ, his books
>are some of the best written on later Theosophy. I've even got two
>copies of Robert Crosbie's book and he makes a lot of sense even if
>those who followed him don't.

Each theosophical group has a personality of its own, and appeal to
different temperaments. Not everyone would like the ULT, the Point
Loma T.S., the Adyar T.S., or a theosophical group in general. Judge
was good in the sense that he dealed with very practical matters,
rather than the deeper metaphysics, and was helpful to people in
turning the philosophy into something that could change their lives.
In "Letters that Have Helped Me," for instance, there are a series
of letters where he is corresponding with and helping Jasper N. (if
I remember the name right -- I don't have the book before me).

>I'm a Shaman, and a Healer, and a Psychic, but first and foremost I'm an
>intellectual, I too started with "book learning" but i've moved on.

But as you realize, life is not linear. We may *think* that we have
moved on from a particular thing, only to find ourselves to return
to it years later. When I was in my teens, I was heavily into reading
and studying Theosophy, but soon it lost energy in my life. I went
through perhaps 10 or 15 years of a "dry period" with an interest in
things like Jungian Psychology and Zen Buddhism, and then came back
again, with renewed vigor and inspiration. This time around, I feel a
deep sense of the *genuine* that I can sense was missing in my first
approach to Theosophy, I can feel *something happening* inside myself,
rather than simply *wanting something to happen*, which was my experience
when I was far younger.

>To make what I'm saying totally unequivocal, I will say that I
>believe that everything HPB wrote about attitude and goals is valid,
>about the rest I am totally uncomfortable with some of it, and more
>than a little unsure about much of it. That is all.

As to the literal, dead-letter of the texts, I also feel that something
is lacking. But then I feel I've had the experience of "going beyond
the words" and finding something that really makes sense and is very
special. The words were true, it was just that there are deeper meanings
to them. And with some doctrines I've noticed several layers of meaning,
each one building upon the last, all of them true but each newer one
a bit *more true* than the last.

>I also, as I'm sure you know, think that each person must develop his
>or her own version of any existential philosophy, relying on trust or
>faith in the perceptions of others is, I believe, a very dangerous
>"rubber crutch". likely to fail the person in extremity.

I would agree that each person has to take on the challenge by
themselves. Wisdom is self-acquired, it is not a gift. The words
and initial ideas in the books are only the starting point, a
springboard off of which we can dive to realize truly great insights!
They are not the one-and-only-way to Truth, but I've found them to work
wonders in their application in my life, and feel obligated to work on
sharing what I feel I've been blessed to see and understand.

Best wishes,

-- Eldon