Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl00074)

Paul:

>Rich states that participation on theos-l, or at least
>identification as a Theosophist, means that one has an A PRIORI
>attitude that Theosophy is generally true.  I must differ, and
>feel sure that HPB herself would as well.

To accept a priori that it is true would be to express an
shared belief in Theosophy. You are right that such a belief
is not required to be a student, and to discuss Theosophy
on 'theos-l'.

What would be required, if you would undertake a study of it,
is the recognition and acceptance that it consists of a
body of materials, doctrines, concepts, that can be learned,
thought about, and considered.

Unless one can agree that there is such a body of materials
that can be studied, it would be hard to write books on,
talk about, or study Theosophy.

Having studied the subject for many years, it would be
possible for most of us to sit down and outline what would
go into a book that teaches beginning Theosophy. There are
basic ideas that are clear to most of us, even if we don't
all agree on everything. That basic material still has
considerable value to people new to the spiritual, even if
we no longer find it nourishing.

Why do we (the group of writers on theos-l) have such a
problem agreeing that there are definite theosophical
doctrines? Many reasons ... that include:

1. We're unclear in certain areas, a bit fuzzy in remembering
   certain theosophical teachings.

2. We've studied certain writers that are different than HPB
   but claim to expound exactly the same ideas. We want some
   leeway for our favorite writers to be "right".

3. We have strongly-held views that differ from Theosophy
   as we've learned it, and want our ideas to always be heard,
   disliking a study of Theosophy when it differs from us.

4. We enjoy playing trickster or devil's advocate, and enjoy
   getting others riled.

5. We like some of the ideas that we've read, but the
   theosophical scheme of the Mahatmas and of how Theosophy
   was presented through HPB do not appeal to us.

6. We're not really interested in Theosophy, but find this
   forum a good hangout to promote our favorite views.

And there are likely many more ...

>While we *may* have the a priori assumption that
>*theosophy* is generally true, it is quite alien
>to the spirit of HPB to assume a priori that Theosophy --
>the modern expression by her and her successors --
>is generally true.

To either undertake "theosophy" as a personal quest or
"Theosophy" as a form of Jnana Yoga requires some a
priori beliefs and considerable dedication of energy.
But neither must be believed or undertaken as a practice.
It is quite possible to study either the doctrines or
the more generic approach to being a seeker without
having to adopt and incorporate either into one's life.

>Theos-l may or may not be a place where the burden of
>proof is on those who would disagree with HPB.

In an intellectual study of Theosophy, one could be
asked to prove/disprove certain ideas as part of that
study. The same would be true of any study. One would
say: "Here is a body of ideas, for this particular one,
let's see if it's really true or not, and if not so,
we'll change it."

It does not mean "Your idea is wrong until you can
disprove my idea." It rather says "As part of the
study of these theosophical ideas, the idea stands
until or unless there is convincing proof that it
should be changed."

On the one hand, I'm not sure that we can say that
the Mahatmas are so perfect in every possible way that
every idea attributed to them is without error. There
are bound to be mistakes with regard to scientific
matters or even in the writing and communication of
their ideas.

On the other hand, the materials attributed to the
Mahatmas are not a bunch of spiritualist baloney,
to be automatically rejected by every passing theory
in the scientific world, if not rejected out of hand
in their entirety!

There is a middle ground that would hold that the
doctrines from the Mahatmas are solidly based in reality,
and should be subject to careful scrutiny. But there
should be strong and compelling reasons for revision
or modification of the doctrines, something that can
be made clear and obvious to a majority of theosophical
students.

And when or if such revisions should be
made, it should be in the form of amendments, stating
what has been changed and why, and not simply the
replacement of the old ideas. This is because later
students should be afforded the same right to consider
and weigh the differences as our generation has had.

-- Eldon