Hello Dallas,
I suspect that we are not fully connecting in our dialogue concerning
circular thinking and fundamentalism. Perhaps I can best explain by
relating an experience I once had:
About forty years ago a man from the Jehovah Witness religion came to my
door. I invited him in and I questioned him with a great deal of
curiosity about his beliefs. He particularly caught my attention when he
said that the Bible was the "word of God." I questioned him further
and he said that Adam himself wrote part of the Bible, and so did Moses
and others, all through God's guidance. I asked him how he knew that.
He replied that "it says so in the Bible." His reply is an example of
what I mean by "circular reasoning." That is, the argument always
circles back to the original assertion. Another example is St. Thomas
Aquinas' "Unmoved Mover" argument for the existence of God. When
Aristotle proposed that idea as a philosophical argument, it worked.
When St. Tommy appropriated it as a religious argument, it become
circular because the argument was made to simply lead one back to the
original assumption i.e. the existence of God. The truth of any
statementcan only be verified outside of the statement itself. We have
the same problem in Theosophy.
The Masters exist because the "Theosophical Bible," i.e. the canonized
collection of texts which we call "Theosophical" (e.g. writings of
Blavatsky, Judge, Olcott, Mahatmas) attest to this. To my ears, I see no
difference between the Jehovah Witness and the believing Theosophist.
Like those who witness for Jesus, we have witnesses for the Mahatmas.
Your mention of the Hindu Theosophists in India who believe in the
Mahatmas, is a good example. Why do they believe in the Mahatmas?
Because belief in them is a long standing part of their religious
tradition, and the "Theosophical Bible" confirms that belief. Perhaps,
like many Christian mystics, some of these Indian Theosophists have also
had visions.
How does this relate to Paul Johnson's The Masters Revealed? Paul
attempted to discover more about the alleged masters by going outside of
the Theosophical cannon. It has been years since I read his book, but
to my memory, he did conclude that the Masters were (to put it into my
own words) legendary. That is, the reality of the Masters are very much
like what the scholars of higher Biblical criticism concluded about
Jesus: that someone or some ones once lived who became the prototype(s)
for the Jesus we know in the Bible. In other words, that Biblical Jesus
we know has little connection to the actual person or persons in history
who became that Jesus we think we know about. What Paul accomplished
was that he moved the controversy concerning the existence of the
Masters into the realms of an open inquiry--as opposed to circular
arguments used by Christians to promote Jesus and by Theosophists who
promote the Masters.
I submit that what Paul did, will in the long run is good for the
Theosophical Movement, because he attempted to take belief in the
Masters out of the religious mileu, where it has become entangled. Does
this mean that Paul's conclusions were correct? Future scholarship will
answer that. Dan Caldwell has raised lots of good questions, and the
dialogue goes on.
Concerning my remarks that most people can no longer read Blavatsky
because the literacy rate has fallen to the 8th grade level, and that we
need to communicate to others on their level, you replied:
I fully agree that using the terms of technical THEOSOPHY discourages
some.
I also agree that it is our duty to present THEOSOPHY in terms that the
average inquirer understands. But the ability to do this truly lies in
our
study and knowledge of the fundamentals of the great philosophy -- not in
our ignorance.
Yes, I agree that if one is to teach a subject, one must first have a
sufficient understanding of it. I will also add that how the subject is
taught is just as important. As you suggest above, Theosophy is a
philosophy. Or, at least HPB presented it as such. So, it must be
presented as a philosophy. However, in philosophy, words and how they
are used is very important. For instance, to introduce the axioms and
key points in The Secret Doctrine as the "fundamentals of Theosophy" is
in effect presenting Theosophical tenets in the same way that one is
introduced to religious tenets in a Bible school. As I wrote earlier,
The Secret Doctrine is not an exposition of the Secret Doctrine. If
that were so, then the Secret Doctrine would not be secret. Rather, The
Secret Doctrine is a very lengthy philosophical discourse pointing to
and arguing for the existence of a Secret Doctrine. Notice also that
the word "Theosophy" is rarely used in this text. HPB's example is a
good lesson for students of Theosophy, and when presented as she did,
speaks more clearly to this generation then it did to our own pre and
post WW II generations. This is because HPB was in a sense, a post
modernist in a Victorian era, thirty years before the modernist and
seventy years before post-modernism. Perhaps her approach has something
to do with her prediction that the SD will be better understood in the
next century. Well, that next century came and went, and I submit that
only those who were able to kick the Victorian and Modernist binds of
thought were able to better understand her message.
So, what I'm trying to say is: if Theosophy is not a religion, then it
ought not be promulgated as if it were a religion.
Best wishes,
Jerry
W.Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
Oct 19 2004
Dear Jerry:
Many thanks for your careful considerations.
I can see that the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY as a historical body goes through
its perennial throes of adjusting lip-professions (called beliefs and
belief
systems). But it seems to have lost touch with the Core and Source of its
origination. I suppose that could not be helped after 1884/5.
From the outset (when as you will read in the first 150 pages of
"Collected
Works: BLAVATSKY," Vol. I, about HPB starting it under Masters'
directions) the T S had no specific "beliefs," concerning the Masters,
and
enforced none. The KEY covers that very well. Reading the MAHATMA LETTERS
adds to that. In a phrase, it is the essential difference between the
"Heart Doctrine" and "Head Learning."
Its 3 Objects [The KEY TO THEOSOPHY p. 39] provided enough leeway for all
to
study and contribute their ideas. There never was nor should there by an
"orthodoxy" of any kind. No religion or religious rectitudes and rites,
ceremonies, etc..., were ever envisaged or encouraged. No rigidity of
language was enforced or envisaged.
On the other hand every effort was made between 1875 and 1896 to make
THEOSOPHY easily understood in two main directions: (1)Technically and
logically, and (2) popularly as a moral description of human life and its
probable common objectives. HPB and Judge wrote for these two objectives.
The study of Nature and the Universe, independently, and without prejudice
was its [THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY] adopted method. The exchange of
information
and the comparing of individual conclusions was its great advantage over
other bodies, where dogmatic religious and rigid credal beliefs had
engendered feuds that had crept in to stifle all investigation or creative
and cooperative work.
That unfortunate rigid measurements and censorious reviews developed in
the
T S, caused in it the disorganization and rigidity we sense are there
inherent in its recent and present management.
HPB's language is not that of every swing of the "buzz" phrases in popular
jargons. True. But then who desires to know what truth is ? Is it not
our
duty to make sound philosophy comprehensible by others -- as you
illustrate
in your notes to me? We are the ones who, today, serve as the
"petromas" --
the interpreters [see ISIS II 91-4]
If we (or anyone) are lazy, we wont profit from that great work. We wont
make the effort to read it. [Parallels: Why study Shakespeare, or Latin,
Sanskrit, the Upanishads, the Tao Te King, Plato's dialogues, Greek or
the
Bible, and Aramaic, or Pali, or Mandarin? Why study History, or any of
the
departments of Science? Why verify anything for continuity, rules and
laws
inherent in Nature? The alternative is a rule of individuals in chaos--
neither rhyme nor reason. Is that true Progress? ] Where can we place
our
trust and basis? How d we verify anything?
So why worry about those who are so lazy as not to want to verify and
study.
We open our doors -- and keep them open for those who desire to learn --
and we keep our attention and our minds open to ideas. We are the
perennial
scholars always seeking to verify after testing for truth and
reasonableness.
We talk and discuss them.
Is this dropping (in the case of THEOSOPHY) the one source we can trust?
What else links us to Divine Wisdom and the Masters?
If they (the average) wish to join us in our work, then fine. If they
wish
to fall away into some other more pleasing emotional stew -- we can't help
that. I find it is a great pity that many have closed their doors on HPB
and
the Source writings.
Who really looses? They or we?
I fully agree that using the terms of technical THEOSOPHY discourages
some.
I also agree that it is our duty to present THEOSOPHY in terms that the
average inquirer understands. But the ability to do this truly lies in
our
study and knowledge of the fundamentals of the great philosophy -- not in
our ignorance.
Those of us who are half-learned need to try to get at something more
definite they can rely on. It is natural for many (that is most of us) to
try to defend their positions, but of what ultimate use is that if those
positions are crumbly? Better to avow ignorance and start afresh.
I know you are as aware of this as anyone. And really, I am, in writing
this, I am talking to myself.
If I present the quotes from the past, it is with a view to remind those
who
are not ignorant of those facts, and also to show to newcomers that there
is
a system and deep logic in all theosophical statements.
Consider Mathematics: "The one True Science" -- it crumbles if the 4 basic
rules of arithmetic are forgotten, abused, distorted -- so they are
continually referred to. It is inescapable.
THEOSOPHY has also 4 rules. Those cannot be forgotten or distorted
without
damaging THEOSOPHY irretrievably. The Master wrote that IF IT WAS FALSE
IN
ONE PARTICULAR IT WAS FALSE IN ALL. That is important.
In this manner the philosophy is kept alive. We will never have masses of
adherents -- how many are self energised enough to study?
The T S, and other such bodies, are not money-making or adherent counting
efforts. Ideally they exist to keep doors open for those who want a sound
basic philosophy for living, and a goal that is reasonable for all.
SUPREME PERFECTION is a tall order, but what else is valuable?
There is no illogical, oxymoronish "Personal God." Karma rules justly and
truly. Self-evolution is for all. But we cannot force these concepts on
anyone.
Speaking of TMR -- I ask of what value is it to anyone, student of
THEOSOPHY
or not, to find a supposed expose of personalities said to conceal the
reality of the MASTERS.
Yes, I asked you to look back through the MAHATMA LETTERS and see what
They
said of themselves and their work and daily duties and affairs. Then
consider the --- but I have said enough.
I have registered and re-registered my protest. I am personally disgusted
by the nonsense offered, and I can assure you that after many years
residence (39 since I was a small child) in India, and personal intimacy
with a great section of Hindu society, and intimate friends everywhere
there, there is no actuality to any of that bosh. I defy anyone to go
back
there and retrace the steps of the one who wrote it, to verify them.
I also said: find out from the Hindus (as I have) in India, in the T S or
elsewhere, what they have to say about the Mahatmas. They are not willing
to
deal in such desecration. We in the West can only say: "Ah.... I don't
really know." We have no FIRST-HAND evidence or verification.
Best wishes,
Dallas
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
