Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00761)

Some comments to Richard:
>I think I am in agreement with "theosophy as a process."
	A process, such as the search for truth, requires
some kind of techniques or practices.  Know any good ones?

>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).
	I agree.

> 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.
	First of all, it seems to me that this happens anyway, sooner
or later.  Very few real truth seekers over the last century have stayed
with the Society.  Most leave to form their own organizations.  Secondly, why
would Algeo want to do this?

>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.
	I am sure that they did, especially in the beginning when
little theosophical literature existed.

>(~theosophy~:  "knowledge derived, at least
>originally, on transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher
>perception.")
	I love this definition.  This is, indeed, the sole reason
for my using magic to map out the Gupta Vidya Model of our planetary
chain.

>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.
	It would seem so.  But again, why?  What is his purpose?

>Jack Hatfield's letter to the editor (resigning membership) in the latest AT
>may be a harbinger in this regard.
	His letter sounded to me like many recent postings on theos-l.

>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?"
	The "theosophical teachings" include both doctrines and
processes.  I have to agree with Delahunt, although it is up to each
individual what to study and how much, and so on.  It is also up to
each individual which Path to tread.  Personally, if I had to find a path
(i.e., suitable techniques) from within the TS literature in order for
my own self-transformation, I would have left the TSs long ago, because
there is nothing there for me.  This is the main difficulty that I have with
"theosophy as process."  I find theosophy great for theory, and for
mental exercises.  But for real spiritual techniques, it is sadly
lacking.  So, I use techniques that I find elsewhere and then use
Theosophy for the theoretical background or worldview in which
to practice and understand them.  In my view, Tibetan Buddhism
offers many more useful techniques for spiritual development
than does Theosophy.  So, while I can agree with "Theosophy
as process" in a theoretical sense, I have been unable to
put this into practice successfully.  Altruism or "good deeds"
are something that we should always be doing as a matter of
course, without thought of reward, and I don't consider as a
technique.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI