Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00101)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "adelasie" <adelasie@s...> wrote:

As far as I can tell, we 
> are each one doing our best to study, comprehend, and manifest 
> the ancient wisdom teachings as revealed in this cycle by HPB and 
> her co-workers. 

Dear Adelaisie,

There are Theosophists and non-theosophists on this list, and while 
both groups are probably trying their best to study and comprehend 
HPB's writings, only the former approach them as "ancient wisdom 
teachings...revealed in this cycle by HPB." That is, only believers 
regard them *in the terms in which they present themselves* accepting 
all their assumptions and claims. So the non-theosophists aren't out 
to "manifest" the teachings of HPB, simply to study and comprehend 
them. But that doesn't make them enemies of Theosophists.

The distinction between those who try to study and comprehend a body 
of writings as believers, intending to practice them, and those whose 
effort at study and comprehension is more detached and objective, is 
called that between "emic" and "etic" approaches. More on that if 
you are interested.

You wrote:

Those who choose to view her and her writings with 
> skepticism are simply exercising their right to choose how they 
> approach this material. 

As with every other kind of religious writings, there will always be 
those who try to study them objectively without accepting the belief 
system they inculcate, and others who say that it is entirely 
inappropriate, indeed spiritually wrong, to do so. The Bible is the 
most obvious case in point.

Someone posted recently that the correct 
> approach to theosophical study is to read and then to meditate. I 
> would add that putting these teachings to practice in our daily 
lives 
> is also essential.

Of course, that is essential if one is an adherent of the 
Theosophical belief system. But what sort of attitude should such 
adherents adopt toward those who question or reject their beliefs? 
The same outraged antagonism of Christian fundamentalists who can't 
stand seeing the Bible questioned as history?

If we take the statement, "Occultism is altruism," 
> seriously, we have to decide how to express our thoughts in ways 
> that do not attack others or attempt to make them wrong. A key to 
> how to do this is the Golden Rule. Do unto others...But of course 
> you know this.

Frankly, in my experience occultists are the least altruistic people 
in the world. The most arrogant too.

> 
> I would say, however, that defending someone who is unjustly 
> attacked is completely within the realm of the above maxim. 

That avoids the crucial question, what is it to be unjustly 
attacked. Is someone who comes to a different conclusion than one's 
own about a particular historical person, and expresses it in 
writing, thereby guilty of an unjust attack? How do we distinguish 
between an unjust attack and an innocent difference of opinion? 
Doesn't this boil down to whether we approach HPB from a 
fundamentalist POV or not?

I 
> would definitely want to be defended if so attacked. In the case of 
> HPB, I read the running "historical" debates about her validity 
with interest, since they give me a view into the world of 
theosophists of which I was previously ignorant. It seems there are 
those who limit their exposure to the intellectual approach, and who 
therefore miss the true significance of the life and work of this 
remarkable woman.

Steve has commented on the recurring theme here of "I'm superior to 
you because I take the heart approach and yours is purely 
materialistic and intellectual." Is it really impossible to imagine 
that someone could be spiritually and emotionally influenced by HPB, 
appreciative of her impact on his/her life, yet still *fully capable 
of approaching her historically like any other person whose claims 
are not to be taken on faith but subjected to rigorous doubt*? It 
really doesn't have to be oppositional or mutually exclusive. 

> As many times stated, theosophy cannot be understood with the 
> mind alone. 

small t theosophy transcends the mind and words. Big T Theosophy is 
a specific modern movement started by specific people with a specific 
body of literature. Confusing the former with the latter, and 
treating the modern movement as if it is therefore somehow beyond 
historical criticism (indeed, beyond history period), has been 
disastrous for Theosophy in our lifetimes. HPB understood the 
difference; why can't her modern disciples? HPB tolerated and 
encouraged different approaches than her own; why can't her modern 
disciples?

But how can I demand that others accept this 
> statement? They have to find this out for themselves, and of 
> course they will, in time. 

Maybe they have already.

What bothers me now is that such wilfull 
> avoidance of the essential nature of the teaching is like rocks in 
the stream.

Two problems here. First, it is always dangerous to accuse others of 
willfully avoiding something because *we* think it's essential. 
Maybe they're just willfully focusing on what to *them* is 
essential. What about the Golden Rule here? Do you like having 
someone accuse you of willfully avoiding something?

Second problem: what is the essential nature of the teaching, and who 
determines it? Who then has the right to dismiss others as avoiding 
it? Judge called Theosophy an ocean, but it modern discourse it has 
become a tiny stream with very sharply defined banks.

It causes turbulence, and takes attention away from the 
> real purpose of the material. Humanity is in a very difficult cycle 
> right now, and our future hangs in the balance. If we continue to 
try to understand with our intellect alone 

That's really the crucial issue, isn't it? That people who don't 
approach the material as *believers* are thereby assumed to be 
*soulless* in their approach to it. There is a lot of heart and soul 
that goes into the kind of work you dismiss as "intellect alone"-- 
and a lot of empty intellectualizing among those who fantasize that 
their wordspinning is spirituality.

we simply give power to the 
> materialisic age which is coming to a close, retarding evolutionary 
> progress. 

The age that is closing is the Piscean, focused on mystical faith, 
submission to authority, the religious mindset. The new age is that 
of Aquarius and is all about objectivity, useful knowledge, 
intellectual freedom. So say the astrologers. Pisces might call 
Aquarius "materialistic" for being less oriented to blind faith; 
Aquarius would say that science is no less spiritual than religion 
and a lot more beneficial. 

Cheers,

Paul
(rest snipped)