Theos-Talk Archives (February 1997 Message tl00411)

RI
>Still, making ~Theosophy~ mean something other than the
>organization/movement or the Universal ^STheo-sophia^T 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 ^SHPB doctrine,^T 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.)

JHE
Yes, in the realpolitik world of the TS, I'm afraid you are
right, my definitions are quite irrelevant.  The TS, while posing
as an open Organization, does have a very hidden agenda
consisting of a Theosophy that evolved around 1940, and has
remained essentially the same ever since.  This Theosophy is not
HPB doctrine, nor was Theosophy ever defined as such in the Adyar
TS.  Even during HPB's time, there were contending Theosophies
even in the TS: A.P. Sinnett's and T. Subba Row's were the best
known.

But I long ago lost confidence in the TS to be able to recite its
own history with any accuracy and consequently, even to
realistically define itself anymore.  In truth, the TS used to
redefine itself from time to time, and consequently redefined the
"Theosophy" it purports to represent.  In 1875, there were a
group of about 17 spiritualists attending meetings in a New York
apartment because HPB and George Felt both claimed to be able to
produce phenomena and communicate with superior beings.  When the
seventeen founders ran across the word "Theosophy" in Webster's
1875 edition, they read:

     ...wise in the things of God....Supposed intercourse with
     God and the superior spirits, and consequent attainment of
     superhuman knowledge of physical process, as by the theurgic
     operations of some ancient Platonists, or by the chemical
     processes of the German fire philosophers; also a direct as
     distinguished from a revealed, knowledge of God, supposed to
     be obtained by extraordinary illumination; especially, a
     direct insight into the processes of the divine mind, and
     the interior relations of the divine nature.


Now George Felt claimed to have invented such a process to
communicate with the "superior spirits,"  and he promised to
demonstrate it.  So it was proposed to form an organization, and
those present decided to call it the Theosophical Society.  In
case Felt failed to bring home the bacon (and he did), Olcott
felt that he had HPB as a backup and would avail her abilities
for study.  But HPB had other ideas and was hard at work
finishing ISIS UNVEILED, which she had already begun in 1874. In
those early days, there was no object of "world brotherhood," or
the study of comparative religions, and there were no formal
teachings.  Rather, the objects of the TS evolved over a period
of time and when through numerous revisions, the last one being
in 1896.  Our famous first object did not appear until 1878.

I think Blavatsky's intention for the Organizational exposition
of Theosophy is well outlined in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY.  Here she
makes it very clear that the Theosophical Society has teachings
(not dogmas).  Here she ties Theosophy to neo-Platonism, where
she tries to syncretise her "cis-Himalayan" teachings to neo-
Platonism and Eastern philosophy.  But she never intended for her
writings to become Bibles for defining Theosophy.  There writings
were supposed to be her contribution to "the Theosophical
Movement," a concept she believed to exist.

But how did Blavatsky move from an Organization that was
originally interested in communicating with spirits, to one that
had teachings?  Keep in mind that Blavatsky was thrown out of
Adyar in 1885 and moved to London where she tried to re-establish
the Theosophical Society on what she claimed to be the "original
lines."  What were those original lines?  Certainly not what the
seventeen founders had in mind.  Rather, it is what Blavatsky
claimed the Masters had in mind from the beginning.

But this Blavatskian Theosophy is not the Theosophy as understood
by the present organization either.  I don't believe that any
Theosophical organization, including the ULT embraces what
Blavatsky was trying to accomplish from 1886-91.  I believe that
Blavatsky had a free thought progressive philosophical
organization in mind--very much like what you and I thought we
were joining.  Indeed, the Theosophical Society was just that
between 1885 and 1890.  Members had complete freedom to accept or
reject Blavatsky's writings.  Though, in London, most members of
the TS were drawn into it because of Blavatsky.  A.P. Sinnett
complained of this.  He had a competing Lodge in London where he
had his own teachings and claimed to be in contact with the
Masters through a medium who he identifies as "Mary."  But when
the Blavatsky Lodge was established, Sinnett's Lodge lost a lot
of members, because everyone wanted to get to know Blavatsky.
Olcott had his piece of the pie too.  With Blavatsky gone from
India, Olcott depended upon Subba Row to be his new expounder of
Theosophy.  Subba Row indeed began writing and lecturing on a
Theosophy that was critical of HPB's, and caused quite a stir.
He died in 1890.  The only person who was working in cooperation
with Blavatsky at the time was Judge in America.  But even Judge
had his own ideas about Theosophy and published them through his
journal.  Blavatsky seemed to have been comfortable with the
contending Theosophies, and used them as more grist for her mill.
What I'm trying to say is that the Theosophical Society of
Blavatsky's day, in spite of the fact that it had teachings, was
more open to the free and creative thinking than the organization
has even been since.

So what is the Theosophy of the present Organization?  I believe
that the real tuning point began in 1890.  Annie Besant, who had
joined in May of that year, began to have an almost immediate
influence on the TS.  W.B. Yeats commented, when he resigned in
1890, that the TS was turning into a religion.  He was not
criticizing the doctrines, but the dogma that was evolving under
Besant's influence.  There is a big difference between teachings
and dogma, and Yeats among other saw the changing wind and left
the Society.

By 1895, Besant was already the most prominent member of the TS,
but she was running out of Blavatskian Theosophy to redigest, and
she had no teachings of her own.  Her originality was in
organizing and speaking, not in writing philosophy. So she became
more and more dependent upon C.W. Leadbeater, who was quite good
at coming up with new teachings.  By 1908, all of Besant's
revelations were from Leadbeater's clairvoyance.  Through
Leadbeater's influence, new teachings appeared: the
innergoverment of the world, the coming world teacher, the LCC as
the vehicle for the New Religion etc.  Blavatsky became
represented as the early revelation that predicted in veiled
terms what was to come.  The Theosophy of the 1920's was the new
revelation.  Those who would not accept it were marginalized.
This continued until 1930 when Krishnamurti resigned from the Ts
and dissolved the OSE.

The present organizational definition of Theosophy has its roots
in George Arundale's administration (1934-1945).  He completely
ignored Krishnamurti after 1930, and promoted a series of
campaigns to make Theosophy everything.  This is where the
"Theosophy is everything" idea started.  But I think that
Arundale failed to understand that if Theosophy is everything, it
is nothing.  However, initiations, the ES, the LCC, Co-M
continued behind the scenes, and the ER was established.  So
while Theosophy was presented to be public as anything they
wanted it to be, the old machine established by Leadbeater,
Besant and Arundale, continued to grind away behind the scenes.

RI
>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?

JHE
No. I had no interest in Blavatsky when I joined in 1963.  Like
you, I believed that I was joining a free-thought organization
dedicated to the study of philosophy and comparative religions.
The members of my Lodge gave me Leadbeater to read--so I read
Leadbeater.  But at the time, I was primarily interested in
astrology.  I also bought a copy of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, which I
found fascinating but unreadable.  In truth, part of my
fascination with the book was *because* I found it unreadable,
and that fact led me to resolve to read and understand it.  By
about 1970, I finally began concentrating upon doing that.
Today, I'm more concerned with theosophy in the broader sense.
Currently, our group is studying the CORPUS HERMETICUM.

W.B. Yeats and G.R.S. Mead also joined the organization believing
that it was for general Truth-Seekers.  In those days, it was
just that.  Yeats left in 1890 when Besant began to dogmatise the
Blavatsky Lodge.  Mead hung in until 1908.  Though Leadbeater's
recall into the TS was the last straw for him, the dogmatization
of Theosophy was the underlying issue for him.


RI
>I don^Rt think so.  Nevertheless, sincere Truth-Seekers within
>the Society ~will always~ arrive at HPB^Rs 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.

JHE
I've known many old time Theosophists who never read Blavatsky.
In fact, during the 20's and 30's members were discouraged from
doing so, and encouraged to read the newer material published by
Besant and Leadbeater.  I agree that HPB never wanted her books
to become Theosophical Bibles, but I don't think the TS ever
wanted this either.  Rather, I believe that the vast majority of
TS members are ignorant of HPB's writings, and I would say the
majority of the management too.  The ES is where formal
theosophical study officially takes place (Lodges are left to
their own devices, as you may have noticed), and they decide on
what to do.  All ES members get around to Patanjali's YOGA
APHORISMS, and Collins' LIGHT ON THE PATH.  Before Radha came on
the scene, everyone was reading Taimini books.  Under Radha, they
were reading Sri Ram's writings for awhile.  But lately,
everything has been dead, dead, dead.

There are a minority of members who extol the virtues of
Blavatsky's writings.  I proudly admit to be one of them.  But,
speaking for myself, I don't think the TS should "clamp" itself
to the SD either.  But I do think that the Theosophical grapevine
has done a lot to vilify Blavatsky students like myself and to
misrepresent us as narrow people who try to redefine Theosophy as
Blavatsky only teachings.  If such members exist, who do as TSA
accuses, I have never met one so far.

Rather, I think the reason why the TS is unable to attract new
generations of seekers, is not because of their embracing of
Blavatsky, but because they are unable to any longer define
themselves.  When Blavatsky was a central influence between 1880
and 1890, the TS was growing.  When Besant turned the TS into a
religion between 1890 and 1930, she lost most of the earlier
members, but attracted even more new ones.  But when, Arundale
made Theosophy to be everything, the membership began to drop,
and by the time of his death in 1945, the membership was at is
lowest point.  Jinarajadasa 1946-1953 went back to the pre-
Arundale days and created sort of a Besantine-sans-Krishnamurti
Society that attracted a few more people, but the Society has
remained little changed since then.

I think the TS has long blaimed and misrepresented the "Back to
Blavatsky" rhetoric as a cause of their problems.  They blame the
"Back to Blavskyites" as the cause of disruption in the TS.  But
the "Back to Blavatsky" argument as posed by H.N Stokes in 1918
was not a plea to banish all but Blavatskian Theosophy, but to
banish the growing dogma in the Society--to go back to the
undogmatic days of Blavatsky.  As for people who want to study
Blavatsky, they have never been in the Adyar TS in any numbers--
they know they are not welcome here--so they simply join ULT.
Members of the Adyar TS, like myself who honor Blavatsky, do not
want to clamp the TS to the SD, or to reject all Theosophies but
Blavatsky.  But we do want to return to those days when the TS
was a non dogmatic philosophical organization.  Therefore I
reject Blavatskian dogmatism, Besantian dogmatism, Leadbeaterian
dogmatism, and dogmatic Arundalean noncommitalism.


RI
>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.

JHE
HPB had a special honorary membership status for the few geniuses
who she believed would be make great contributions to the
Theosophical Movement.  Thomas Edison was one who had such an
honorary status.

RI
>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.
JHE
I was not aware that Gurdjieff was ever a member of the TS.  As
for Heindal, I would like to know more about the circumstances
under which he left.  With Steiner, your point is well taken.  He
would not accept or have anything to do with the OSE, and refused
to charter OSE Lodges.  But Besant turned the argument around and
accused Steiner of narrowness and intolerance.

RI
>This ^Sdefinition-building^T 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 ^SHPB-teachings,^T 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.

JHE
Of course the TS will never accept such a "lexical synonym"
because Blavatsky has never been accepted as the end all and be
all in the TS.  As for the "direct official statements"  Since
the days of Besant, that only happens in the ES--and the ES never
publicly speaks for the TS.  All of that is done privately.

RI
>We^Rre 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.

JHE
I think the Theosophical World View was written under the still
prevailing Arundale influence.  Attract the general public with
pretty sounding but next to meaningless statements, and filter
those that stay and show commitment into the ES where the old
dogma still lies and pulls the TS strings.


RI
>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.

JHE
Guess, you better get out your FOR THOSE WHO MOURN pamphlet and
get with it :-)


RI
>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.

JHE
Guite so.  I think she tried to make it clear that she wanted
people to read her writings and go beyond them.

RI
>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.

JHE
This seems to be what she was trying to tell Maude Gonne in that
quote I posted: the catch basin as a lot broader than the Dublin
Theosophists were telling her.

RI
>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. . . .

JHE
And I'm afraid that once rigor mortis has set in, it is far too
late to bring it back.