Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00703)

On Sat, 22 Jun 1996 RIhle@aol.com wrote:

> Paul Johnson writes>
>
> >Re: Theosophy as process.  HPB put it this way (pardon my
> >paraphrase); "Theosophy is the philosophy of rational
> >explanation of things, not the specific tenets."  And
> >"Theosophist is as Theosophy does" NOT "Theosophist is as
> >Theosophy *believes*"-- which I take to mean both attaining
> >some level of gnosis and transforming your life accordingly.
> >
> >
>
> Richard Ihle writes>
>
> Welcome back, Paul!  Did anyone mistake you for a local inhabitant?
>
> While you were gone, things on theos-l got better, then got worse, then got
> much worse, then got great for a second, then got far worse than they have
> ever been, then there was a group orgasm, then we realized everyone was
> faking it, then things got worse again. . . .
>
> I think I am in agreement with "theosophy as a process."  More simply,
> however, I am convinced that we have to hold fast to the idea that the
> Society includes both "dictionary definitions" (both small and capital T).
>  Right now it is my perception that John Algeo and others, by seemingly
> pushing for the idea that the ~Theosopical~ in ~The Theosophical Society~
> stands for capital-T = HPB's doctrines, are trying to squeeze the general
> Truth seekers out of the Society completely.
>
> By organizing the Society around THE THREE OBJECTS, it seems clear to me that
> the Founders had the broad epistemological definition (small ~t~) in mind for
> the general membership.  (~theosophy~:  "knowledge derived, at least
> originally, on transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher
> perception.")  By "weeding" the Society of members who do not necessarily
> believe all the "core doctrines" but who are nonetheless willing to consider
> knowledge which comes via theosophical epistemology, John and others (if this
> is indeed their purpose) may be pulling up much of HPB's most worthwhile
> future crop.
>
> Jack Hatfield's letter to the editor (resigning membership) in the latest AT
> may be a harbinger in this regard.  John's answer probably did not give him
> much satisfaction; it certainly did not beg him to stay or anything.  Bill
> Delahunt's article just preceding perhaps sums up the reality better than
> John did:  "If you are not open to the study or consideration of Theosophical
> teachings, then why do you want to be part of the Society whose mission it is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> to teach and promote those ideas?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We are finding new inventions and discoveries. First we had the three
hidden objects and now the teaching aspect.

I always thought that the mission of TS is to pursue any and all
activities focusing on the three objects. If HPB and others felt that
TS's mission were to teach, then TS would have been nameds as
Theosophical School with various levels of certificates, awards and other
artifices to pat the ego of the students. Even the annual six month
intensive study program at Adyar is call School of Wisdom not School of
Theosophy.

Soon you and I may be asked to go through an examination to recertify
that we have *learnt* Theosophy and many of us may flunk it because we
have not understood the official version of Theosophy.

This reminds me of an interesting incident. In one of the east coast 4
year college there was a 3 hour course on Krishnamurti philosophy.
Someone got hold of a copy of the finals paper and showed it to JK. He
looked at it and commented he may flunk it.

Had someone told me that I am going to be *taught* Theosophy, I would not
have become a formal member at all.

We are in very interesting times. Whether all this teaching etc is going
to revive interest or not is yet to be seen.

>
> Did you catch the subtle machination in the second part of the sentence?
>  While we are undoubtedly all open to study etc., where in THE THREE OBJECTS
> does it say anything about a "official mission" to teach and promote HPB's
> ideas?  I can perhaps live with this as the sort of  "quiet understanding" it
> has been for over a hundred years; however, the new fatuous and/or mendacious
> overtness regarding this subject is pretty amazing and depressing.
>
> Anyway, glad you are back.
>
> Godspeed,
>
>
> Richard Ihle
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________________
    Peace to all living beings.

    M K Ramadoss