Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00552)

Dear Alan,

I submit that it is unwise to approach the truth or falsity of a 
proposition (or the value of a line of inquiry) with one's primary 
concern being to avoid accepting any proposition/inquiry that might 
have negative *implications* for our belief system. That is a route 
to nowhere. "If HPB's statements about the Masters weren't all true, 
then her statements on other things might not be all true-- and we 
can't have that, can we? Our primary objective is to maintain the 
position that everything HPB said was true, and if we start asking 
the wrong questions, delving into the wrong sources, then we might be 
led astray into doubt." The problem for a Theosophist who takes this 
approach is that it flies in the face of everything the Theosophical 
movement is supposed to stand for. You wrote:

--- In theos-talk@y..., Alan Williams <alwilli@i...> wrote:
> Quite so, Bart. But upon rejecting them,

What does it mean to "reject them?" To reject the claim that 
everything HPB said about them was true? To *accept* such an 
unproven claim is in violation of the spirit of inquiry that the TS 
was supposedly founded to foster.

whoever they might be, brings
> into question everything else HBP wrote concerning the tradition and
> preservation of the secret doctrine.

And what is wrong with those things being in question? Everything in 
the Bible, Quran, Hindu scriptures, etc. is "in question" 
historically, but that doesn't destroy Christianity, Islam and 
Hinduism.

So shes either telling the truth
> or a great lie. 

That in itself is the BIG LIE-- that it's either all true or all 
false. Anyone who investigates with an open mind will find a mixture 
of truth and fiction. "S/he's either telling the truth or a great 
lie" could also be applied to any other spiritual teacher in 
history. And it would be wrong in every case. 

> When the keystone is removed the arch collapses.

And is the keystone of universal theosophia the specific claims of 
one particular 19th century author? Could the keystone of theosophia 
*possibly* be the truth of one particular person's assertions? What 
arch collapses if we start to doubt that everything HPB said about 
Masters was true? Weren't HPB and Olcott pretty explicit that such 
an approach was anathema in the TS?
Cut
> of the feet, the statue collapses, doubt the masters, doubt HPBs
> Theosopy... and so on.
> 
As if to say "doubt is bad, avoid it at all costs?" What you call 
doubt, I call intellectual freedom and inquiry, and it is of the very 
essence of what the modern Theosophical movement claims to embody and 
encourage. (Hypocritically so, if most adherents take the approach 
that your words appear to encourage.) What you might call "freedom 
from doubt" I would call intellectual death.

Cheers,

Paul

> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Alan
> 
> mailto:alwilli@i...