Them's Fight'n words (Re: Theosophist vs Real Theosophist)
Aug 13, 1996 02:31 PM
by James S Yungkans
As the "Dust" starts to settle, Paul points to the interesting concept of a
"Theosophist" that I must admit I had not relaized the language barrier
(I.E. " Due to all their ambiguities and complexities, the words
"Theosophy" and "Theosophist" lend themselves to use as weapons") I can
hear in the background, in tones not exactly pleasant, "Yea, Right." An
interesting tidbit is found in "the inner group teachings" of HPB, in a
statement made by her November 12, 1890:
HPB said that The Inner group was the Manas [Buddhi-Manas?]
The E.S. was the Lower Manas [Kama-Manas?]
The T.S. was the Quarternary
This model could explain the "Duality" that Paul talks about when he wrote"
[Of the T.S., or the "Quarternary"]
"The inclusive HPB recognizes theosophy as a
long-standing presence in Western thought, and accords the name
Theosophist to anyone who has an inspiration of his/her own
that leads toward the divine. One could find many, many
passages that would seem to refute once and for all any
limited, exclusive usages of the terms."
[This would relate to any member of the Society, Ref:1879 article]
[Of the E.S., or the "Lower Manas"]
"But on the other hand,
the exclusive HPB says things like "the only real Theosophists
in the TS are in the ES"
[This would coorilate to the 'Oath' requirements of the E.S.]
The "Inner Group" would be HPB's personal 'Chelas', with very exacting
restrictions upon their conduct, who were to be taught "Practical Occultism.
This included, in addition to stict adherence to the E.S. rules,
vegatarianism and chastity (I can here the 'Healthy Sex Life' proponents
having an opinion here.)
While Paul says "There are so many highfalutin' requirements attached to the
term in one text or another", there must be some guideline of what we
accept. Perhaps the problem is an attempt to "Merge" these three levels
into a common definition of "Theosophist." We've lost the concept that one
can be a Theosophist and not be a member of the T.S., as well as there being
T.S. members who are not Theosophists, and that not all Theosophists are
strict HPB proponents!. And just as the Heretic says "of trying to club
each other into verbal submission by debating over who is the true and holy
Theosophist", we could perhaps Say that "No Member shall boast of being [a
Theosophist.]"(E.S. Rule #4). Everyone has to agree with Chuck that "It
gets pretty boring after a while."
What does anyone else have to say to Paul's suggestion "that questioning,
explicitly or implicitly, whether or not someone is a "real Theosophist" be
considered off limits in our discourse." It's interesting how closely Paul
redefines E.S. Rules #5 and #6:
5. No member shall pry into the standing in this section of a [True
Theosophist (Old language: E.S.)], nor shall he uninvited seek to
know if another Theosophist is a [True Theosophist.]...
6. Any [True Theosophist] may, if he chooses, remain unknown as such,
and that desire, if suspected by others, must not be talked about
or referred to.
Unfortunatly, I have to agree with the following exchange:
Liesel: "We have all kinds, and they all lay claim to that title..."
James : "Perhaps a definition for conduct should be defined AND ADHERED
TO for anyone making such a claim. HPB's definition of 1879
might be a good starting point. Should we perhaps form such a
definition here on Theos-L?
Martin: "Why is it that I feel that no such thing will happen on this forum?
Well, lets see if we can prove Liesel wrong (Politely stated, of course),
when he says "I don't see any productive questions or answers or statements,
present or future." Where does this go from here? It's up to Theos-L.
James Scott Yungkans, F.T.S.
P.S. ALAN? Want to shake hands?
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application