Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tt00012)

Daniel:

Your posting regarding the theosophical doctrines is important,
something that is being sometimes attacked, other times forgotten
in the theosophical community.

There are a number of problems that we face. One is that there are
people that do not believe there are definite doctrines, or
perhaps believe that the doctrines are mere fodder for keeping
junior seekers occupied until they've matured enough to renounce
them!

Theosophy is a definite body of thought. It is possible to sit
down and write an introductory book that knowledgable students
would agree represents the basic ideas. When we get to the more
advanced materials, it becomes more difficult to understand them,
and we start to extrapolate or carry things farther with our own
thinking. In this case, we need to take care to say "this is how I
see it" rather than say "this is what Theosophy says".

Unfortunately, we have some that have read or said they've read
the literature, and openly reject it. They may believe there's
nothing to the doctrines, and say "the philosophy is
wrong", the only thing that is real is one's personal spiritual
exploration of life. Or they may say "there is no philosophy,
everyone has their own personal ideas, including Blavatsky, Judge,
myself, and Joe Sixpack."

While it may be good for there to be forums and organizations
dedicated to engaging people of all beliefs, there are definite
limitations to such an approach. One person may repeatedly state
"There are no theosophical doctrines, it's simply a metaphor for
psychological self-work." Another may state "the theosophical
doctrines are merely another religion, yet another superstition to
curse mankind!" A third may state "each of us has his own view on
philosophy, and all are equally true; your HPB quotes count for
nothing."

If we accept that the theosophical doctrines are part of a living
Wisdom Tradition, disseminated in the West by HPB, it would be
reasonable to at least accord it the same status and rights as any
philosophical school of thought, like Platonism, etc.

In an organization or forum where anything goes, where there is no
underlying assumption that Theosophy is a definite system of
thought with doctrines that can be studied and discussed, we spend
far too much time arguing over if Theosophy even exists. New
students may be mislead as to the nature of Theosophy, and not end
up learning much.

Hopefully there can be places where the theosophical doctrines,
explored in an intellectually honest and frank manner, are
considered the "reality check" or basis of study. In these places,
Theosophy can be gone into in a much richer and comprehensive
manner than places where personal psychic experiences or the
relativism of personal opinion reigns.

Even more important, a civil and respectful approach is key to the
study. Because the study is more than a intellectual game, more
than a writing or reading exercise, it is a genuine spiritual
process that stirs us in deep places within, that reminds us of
distant yet real parts of ourselves that have been forgotten for
too long!

We are not in a dog-eat-dog Darwinian evolution of ideas, with a
bitter battle over every little point. Rather, we're learning to
delve into new aspects of mind and of realization that let us
experience life differently.

As we approach the Teachings in our thought, we are dealing with
things sacred, and can sense ourselves approaching our sanctum
santorum, our place of silence and inner radience within.

There's not much we can do about people that don't believe in
Theosophy, except to share whatever we've learned that may benefit
them. The only possible conflict would be with people that openly
teach that the theosophical doctrines don't exist, or that they're
simply fairy tales (e.g. metaphor for psychological or other
purposes). We can't make headway in promoting the Philosophy if
we're always saying "I say it is" to their "I say it isn't".

We need organizations, publications, books, forums where the
basic assumption is that there is actually something true to
Theosophy, and that's a definite subject of study.  We need, at
least for the basic philosophy, the most fundamental teachings, a
definite yardstick (e.g.  source-literature references) to
judge materials, to keep our study from descending into
relativism, a sea of opinions, and a tower of Babel.

How do we solve this problem? Perhaps the two kinds of groups and
approaches can coexist, in equal but different places. In one
place, there's the assumption that Theosophy is whatever you want
it to be, and there's nothing to learn or believe. In the other
place, there's the recognition and respect for the Guruparampara,
the lineage of Teachers, the Wisdom Tradition which reaches us
through the noble work of HPB and many that followed her.
People can participate in one or the other, based upon feeling an
affinity to what is going on, or due to their personal interests
and karma.