Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00365)

Dear Adelasie,

It has occurred to me that if there were a separate list devoted to 
Theosophical history, all this friction between different agendas 
would be eliminated. But since doctrine and history are so 
intertwined in the case of Theosophy, it's perhaps better that we are 
rubbing shoulders in the same group despite working at cross 
purposes. At least we are coming to understand each other and with 
that hopefully comes some mutual respect. You wrote:

>I did and do say that HPB's writings speak for themselves. I did not 
say that anyone who writes about her is attempting to compete with 
her as a spokeman for spiritual truth.

No, you simply suggested that about *me*, and I assumed you'd feel 
the same about anyone in my shoes.

>I asked, however, why not 
just study what she wrote, instead of intellecually criticizing it,

The main disconnect here seems to be that you perceive the two as 
incompatible, whereas I think they are inevitably intertwined. 
Anyone who jumps into a critical analysis without getting grounded in 
the texts sympathetically can't accomplish much. You have to first 
*appreciate* an author before it's worthwhile to *analyze* his or her 
ideas. But at the same time, simple appreciation with no analysis is 
immature. At some point we (many of us at least) want to graduate 
from the appreciative to the analytical. Which doesn't mean that we 
lose the former as we become involved in the latter.

Ken Wilber makes a useful distinction between rational, pre-rational, 
and transrational. Rational analysis of HPB and Theosophy gets 
repeatedly denounced here. But those who feel this way don't seem to 
distinguish between pre-rational ("I like what I like and don't want 
to analyze it") and transrational ("I've thoroughly analyzed this 
intellectually and still perceive vast depths that remain unplumbed") 
perspectives. The point is, you can't get *beyond* something you 
won't get *into* in the first place. (Nor will analyzing something 
scientifically or historically cause you to lose the ability to be 
inspired by it spiritually.) In Theosophical terms, I see the 
debates on this list rather like this:

Manas: Some of this is true, and some of it isn't.
Kama: You are bad to say that, or even to think such a thing.

The infuriating thing is that kama, which loves what it loves and 
hates/fears what it sees as threatening its interests, dresses up in 
the peacock feathers of altruism. It says "Look at me, I'm buddhi, 
and I'm entitled to look down on manas." Whereas it isn't bnddhi at 
all; it's not transcending opposition or feeling oneness with the 
other or evoking insight. It's motivated by passion and devoid of 
compassion. When buddhi *does* come along, it expresses itself in 
such sentiments as this one, paraphrased from a private email I got 
from a theos-talk subscriber: "Count me among those who believe that 
HPB lied, took drugs, had sex, *and* among those who believe that she 
was the agent of a superhuman brotherhood. I don't see these as 
mutually exclusive." Buddhi unites, kama divides into us and them.

Cheers,

Paul






snip
I have absolutely no fear 
that any contemporary writers will drown out HPB or discourage 
others from reading her writings. I don't believe any such writers 
have the power to do so.

Then what's the point of protesting their good faith efforts to 
understand her and share their findings? What harm are they doing 
even if they're wrong? At least they are helping keep her *alive* in 
humanity's consciousness.

> Theosophy, the eternal ancient teaching, 
represented in our cycle by the writing of HPB, is available for 
those who have earned the karmic right to it, and nobody can 
prevent such aspirants from obtaining and benefitting from it.

And historical investigations of Theosophy are available for those 
who have earned the karmic right to *them*, and nobody *should* try 
to prevent them from being studied appreciatively. But on this list, 
every effort to discuss such matters meets opposition. Why is that? 
Those who want to discuss history don't put others down for wanting 
to discuss doctrines. Why can't we all just get along? 

Cheers,

Paul