Theos-Talk Archives (February 1997 Message tl00407)

Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes-->
In truth, the Theosophical Society had doctrines (teachings) almost from the
beginning.  This idea of the TS having teachings was probably not in the
minds of the seventeen or so original founders, but it became so through the
writings of Blavatsky and Sinnett through the Mahatmas (regardless of whoever
or whatever you believe or don't believe them to be).  That doctrine was
first formalized in 1883 in  A.P. Sinnett's ESOTERIC BUDDHISM.  Based upon my
numerous readings and readings of the Mahatma Letters and of Blavatsky's
writings, I think that it was Blavatsky's and the Mahatma's intention that
the TS have teachings.

Richard Ihle writes-->
A super-worthy post as usual, Jerry, and as usual, far fuller with better
information than most TPH-published writing.  If I had to accept some
definition of ~Theosophy~ which connected it only to certain teachings, I
might choose yours since it at least includes much more of the “Apocrypha.”

Still, making ~Theosophy~ mean something other than the organization/movement
or the Universal “Theo-sophia” seems to me like the worst idea in
Theosophical history.

For one thing, it immediately generates the problem of what the
~Theosophical~ in ~The Theosophical Society~ really stands for.  It is hardly
likely that those in charge will accept the idea that it is a much broader
small-t definition (e.g., "knowledge which has its base in, or at least
originally derives from, transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or
higher perception") which is intended by the name of the Society.  No.  If
~Theosophy~ means “HPB doctrine,” then ~The Theosophical Society~ is an
organization for the study and promotion of HPB doctrine.  (Your more
inclusive teachings-definition, I am afraid, is irrelevant, realpolitikly
speaking.)

Am I the only one who ever joined the Society thinking that it was an
organization for general Truth-Seekers who are at least willing to consider
knowledge and wisdom which might not have its origin in a scientific
laboratory?  Was and is everyone else a Blavatsky-Seeker?

I don’t think so.  Nevertheless, sincere Truth-Seekers within the Society
~will always~ arrive at HPB’s doorstep, in my opinion, simply because no one
in history has left behind so much quality theosophy to consider.  However,
whatever HPB's intentions were or were not regarding her teachings, she
almost surely would ~not~ have wanted the Society to end up in its present
condition--i.e., not able to attract new generations of Seekers because of
some brainless idea that the Society should only try to attract individuals
who are willing to exclusively clamp themselves from day one into the iron
maiden of THE SECRET DOCTRINE and related writings.

Indeed, I think HPB would have had a conniption if she could have known that
the powers within the Society would someday become so obtuse that they could
no longer appreciate the genius of the original structure:  attract the many;
from the many, attract the few; from the few, attract the fewer still who can
contribute in perhaps new ways.

Gurdjieff, Heindel, Steiner--just a small sample of those who had to leave
the Society in order to make their theosophical contributions.  Why?  Because
~Theosophy~ unofficially equaled specific doctrine even in their day--at
least in the secret ES councils.  Now, of course, there are those who want to
make it official.

This “definition-building” is a very subtle thing, and it has been developing
little by little for a long, long time.  Only two things remain to be
accomplished, in my opinion:  1) a direct official statement that ~Theosophy~
is simply a lexical synonym meaning “HPB-teachings,” and 2) a direct official
statement that these teachings occupy a special place above conventional
scrutiny and debate because they were the special supernatural dispensations
from the special supernatural Mahatmas.

We’re moving closer.  Read the relatively recent,
suddenly-authorized-by-someone, committee-generated "The Theosophical World
View":  "The Theosophical Society, while reserving for each member full
freedom to interpret THOSE TEACHINGS KNOWN AS THEOSOPHY, [caps added] . . .
."  What "teachings" are being referred to here?  The nice, wide range of
teachings Jerry Hejka-Ekins thinks should be defined as ~Theosophy~?  No way.

Take a look at John Algeo's "Viewpoint" column in QUEST/AT.  Here we learn
several interesting things about ourselves as
"more-clearly-defined-Theosophists":  e.g., "Theosophists do not mourn, we do
not grieve at death."  Really?  I mourn.  I grieve at death.  Does that mean
that definitionally speaking I am not really a Theosophist?  No, what it
means is that Algeo now thinks that the TS is something like a political
party with a party platform and with him chosen as one of the few to lead the
rest of us safely and correctly down the otherwise tricky path of capital-T
Theosophical Truth.

But what about "Truth is a pathless land"?  --Oops, I forgot for a second:
 that contribution had to be made OFF-CAMPUS, too, didn't it?

Can anyone think that HPB would have ever wanted the grand term ~Theosophy~
to become an actual synonym for ~just those things~ she was "allowed to give
out" in her brief lifetime?  I cannot imagine it.  "More to come later," she
implied again and again.  HPB wrote a great deal, and there may have been
instances where she herself used the term to mean her specific doctrines;
however, more commonly, when she talked about ~Theosophy~ it was the
Universal, never fully comprehensible ~Theo-sophia~ which seemed to be the
referent--and which her writings were just a humble attempt to partially
communicate.

Can anyone think that HPB ever wanted the ~Theosophical~ in the name of the
~outer~ organization to one day just stand for what she wrote and nothing
more?  No, I think she wanted as broad a "catch basin" as possible.  Thus, I
continue to believe that the Theosophical Society was and still is supposed
to be the general gathering place for any and all individuals who are at
least willing to consider the broad category of knowledge which "has its base
in, or at least originally derives from, transcendental, mystical, or
intuitive insight or higher perception."  This is the catch basin which
caught me, at least.

It is such a paradox, really:  just as the world seems to have become ready,
with its advances in cybernetic communications etc., for a truly
international organization of theosophically inclined Truth-Seekers, the
Theosophical Society puts the finishing touches on a special definition which
can only make it look from every place on the globe even more so like a tired
old cult run for the egoistic benefit of a relatively small number of
not-quite-tired-enough old cultists who are still bull-dogging the official
reins with that special jaw-power which only rigor mortis can impart. . . .

Godspeed,

Richard Ihle