Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00065)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W.Dallas TenBroeck" 
<dalval14@e...> wrote:


> I don't get your question: "can Theosophy evolve? "
> 
> Also, I would agree with: "It is possible that Theosophy, as a 
teaching,
> adapts 
> itself to the socio-cultural reality of the age to which it is 
presented."  

>Both ISIS UNVEILED and the SECRET DOCTRINE give us all the
> necessary historical clues if we will only read and note them. Is 
that too
> difficult? 
> 
> So to answer: I would say as before
> 
> It depends on what you think THEOSOPHY is, doesn't it?
> 
> To me it {THEOSOPHY} is a statement of LAWS and FACTS.

> Who or what is holding us back? 
> 
> And of course that may not be acceptable as evidence. And my ideas 
may be
> too vague and impractical? If so, what shall I do with them? Had 
I best
> stay quiet? 


Not necessarily. We can continue the dialogue. May I draw your 
attention to the following passage in the Mahatma Letters:


"If M. told you to beware trusting Isis too implicitly, it was 
because he was teaching you truth and fact — and that at the time the 
passage was written we had not yet decided upon teaching the public 
indiscriminately. He gave you several such instances — if you will 
but re-read his letter — adding that were such and such sentences 
written in such a way they would explain facts now merely hinted 
upon, far better." (ML 85B, chronological)


This seems to imply that there was a sense of timing in the Mahatmas' 
decision to give out more teaching, which also implies that the 
teaching given in "Isis" was not complete.

There seems to be further evidence of the above in another passage of 
the Letters: 


"It was H.P.B., who, acting under the orders of Atrya (one whom you 
do not know) was the first to explain in the Spiritualist the 
difference there was between psyche and nous, nefesh and ruach — Soul 
and Spirit. She had to bring the whole arsenal of proofs with her, 
quotations from Paul and Plato, from Plutarch and James, etc., before 
the Spiritualists admitted that the theosophists were right. It was 
then that she was ordered to write Isis — just a year after the 
Society had been founded. And, as there happened such a war over it, 
endless polemics and objections to the effect that there could not be 
in man two souls — we thought it was premature to give the public 
more than they could possibly assimilate, and before they had 
digested the "two souls"; — and thus, the further sub-division of the 
trinity into 7 principles was left unmentioned in Isis. And is it 
because she obeyed our orders, and wrote, purposely veiling some of 
her facts — that now, when we think the time has arrived to give most 
of, if not the whole truth — that she has to be left in the lurch?" 
(ML 81, chronological)

So, between 1877 and 1888, when the SD was published, the teaching 
which was made public was significantly enhanced and expanded upon. 
Please note the expression: "we thought it was premature to give the 
public more than they could possibly assimilate."

Is there a paradox here? The teaching, IN ITSELF, doesn't change, but 
its presentation evolves, adapting to the conditions of the receiving 
public.

Now I think I'll take your hint, Dallas, and stay quiet for a while.


Pedro