Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00171)

Hi Dallas and all,
I am not in anyway suggesting a prescribed way of studying for 
individuals.

I think the issues I am addressing here relate more to the Adyar 
society as it has had issues regarding what is and isn't appropriate 
for lodges and branches to be venue for.

Some say they should allow anything and anything that loosely fits 
being called 'theosophy'.
For example would a Paul Twitchell (Ekankar) study group be allowed 
in a theosophical centre?
If people come in off the street they may leave thinking this then 
represents theosophical teachings.

Healing groups have been another touchy issue many members want to 
use lodges as hands on healing venues.
Are the healers qualified and what if someone has kundalini 
prematurely aroused as a result ?
Is this appropriate use of a theosophical venue?

The big question is if the parameters for what is and isn't 
appropriate material for study in a theosophical centre is so wide 
the TS will simply become some kind of new age society with no 
definable reason for being.
(unless that is its reason for being?)

Is this what the founders intended?

To say the society is there to promote the 1st object is without 
doubt true however this leaves the doors wide open to lodges being 
taken over by all sorts of different activities.
So the issue is more related to what is appropriate use of 
theosophical society lodges.
Are they healing centres?
Are they yoga centres?
Are the Jungian psychology centres?
Are they psychic development centres?

This has been the source of endless bum fighting in branches and imo 
wastes valuable resources and time.
Anyone who's been on a TS committee will be able to relate to this as 
being a problem.

What people do outside the Branch however is their own affair and not 
the business of any anyone.
We are of course at liberty to pursue any line we may choose to.
I don't know if ULT or Pasadena go through these same issues but it 
has been an ongoing issue in the Adyar society.

I'd be interested to here what other think on this.

Perry

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "W.Dallas TenBroeck" 
<dalval14@e...> wrote:
> Feb 72005
> 
> 
> RE: : HPB, Authority and Theosophy
> 
> Dear P C:
> 
> May I break in to offer and inquire? 
> 
> As I understand it, in THEOSOPHY there are no restrictions as to 
what to
> study, or whose writings to read.
> 
> Have we in any way defined our own interest in THEOSOPHY ? 
> 
> If one desires to know what THEOSOPHY teaches, then where to go?
> 
> We can:
> 
> 1	Either go to the Source we all know of ( HPB and the Masters'
> writings) or
> 
> 2	Wander here and there culling various opinions.
> 
> In either case, we will have to spend time sorting over our 
findings, and
> deciding what are useful and what not. 
> 
> Do we have any sure basis for making such decisions? 
> 
> I have observed in myself that I seem to respond favourably to some 
ideas
> and others may annoy, or appear illogical to me. (Personally, I 
then set to
> work trying to secure a full grasp of what is said or presented. 
That gives
> me a better sense of what is valuable. What then is valuable to 
me ? I
> look for relations to the basic ideas: 
> 
> (1)Universal spiritual immortality. 
> 
> (2) Universal and impersonal cooperative and sensitive Law acting
> impartially everywhere in the world and universe, 
> 
> (3) a progressive scale for the development of intelligence, and a 
grasp of
> the rules of good living, and fairness, and freedom for all 
intelligent
> beings, without exceptions, in a range that I can at present 
grasp: (from
> the sub-atomic to the extra-galactic). 
> 
> (4) I recognize that there are limits of form whereby interaction 
and
> cooperative effort between intelligent beings build structures and 
in those,
> an intelligence is at work, uniting "matter" to "Spiritual 
Consciousness" in
> a harmonious manner. 
> 
> (5) there is evidently a Master Plan that includes all beings 
everywhere. 
> 
> (6) there are sub-divisions of work and programs of development for 
every
> being that is alive in place, and these have been working for 
aeons. 
> 
> (7) Logically there is an "immutable, even 
inscrutable, "background" that
> serves as a unifying synthesis for this diversity, and of 
necessity, it has
> to be involvement-free, as well as a detached "Observer," of all 
that
> proceeds from IT.
> 
> [The best description I have so far found is in the BHAGAVAD GITA, 
where
> Krishna states: "All this universe is pervaded by me in my 
invisible form;
> all things exist in me but I do not exist in them...myself causing 
things to
> exist and supporting them all but dwelling not in them." [Ch. IX, 
v. 4, 5
> -- p. 64]
> 
> Elsewhere [Ch. VIII, v. 20,21 --p. 61] Krishna says: "...there is 
that
> which upon the dissolution of all things else is not destroyed; it 
is
> indivisible, indestructible, and of another nature from the 
visible. That
> called the unmanifested and exhaustless is called the supreme 
goal...it is
> my supreme abode." 
> 
> [Ch. X, v. 20 -=- cp. 73] "I am the Ego which is seated in the 
hearts of
> all beings; I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of all 
existing
> things." 
> 
> Who are "We" who thinks, and may make such decisions about our 
studies?
> 
> The problem as I see it is in each of us: What do we desire to do? 
> 
> Are we serious or merely curious?
> 
> Have we, in our own study, drawn up a series of conclusions? I 
mean, on what
> we wish to know about or to learn?
> 
> How would we go about doing that? 
> 
> In what way is THEOSOPHY different (or the same as) other lines of
> philosophy, or religion, or science? 
> 
> What can we benefit from it?
> 
> Do we know what it offers? 
> 
> Where does it start? In what way is it different or similar to 
other
> systems of religion or philosophy? 
> 
> Important is also: 
> 
> Is THEOSOPHY the property of the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY ? 
> 
> Does anyone benefit from joining the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY? 
> 
> If so, what is or are those special benefits? 
> 
> If one should study THEOSOPHY without being a "member of the 
THEOSOPHICAL
> SOCIETY" what difference does it make to their Karma and the 
continuity of
> their lives? 
> 
> Does anyone need an organization? Next incarnation will the 
THEOSOPHICAL
> SOCIETY still be there? If not, what will exist in its place? How 
will we
> find it then? What links can we set up now for that future? 
> 
> I think and wonder. 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Dallas
> 
> =================
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Perry 
> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 6:03 PM
> To: 
> Subject: Re: HPB, Authority and Theosophy
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Pedro,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> "A question naturally arises: if hers are the one true
> authoritative teachings on Theosophy, is any study and
> investigation of Theosophy possible outside her works
> and her Teachers' letters?"
> 
> 
> This is the key issue in the TS imo.
> 
> To present to the public and members/students the original 
teachings 
> of HPB and the Mahatma's as being the "authoritative teachings on 
> theosophy" to me does not therefore mean we only study these works.
> 
> But rather a comparative study type of approach can be used as HPB 
> does though most of her writings comparing different traditions 
> (religion, philosophy, science) with those of the Mahatma's 
> tradition.
> 
> This is in keeping with the comparative study encouraged in the 
> second object.
> 
> Students are of course allowed to challenge, and pursue any path or 
> point of view they feel a leaning towards as long as it is not 
> imposed on any other student.
> 
> To present the original teachings as be the closest representation 
> of the Ancient Wisdom teachings we have to date, does not therefore 
> and should never mean dogmatic blind belief and acceptance.
> 
> People blindly following and believing HPB and the Mahatma's is 
> still just another blind belief mindset.
> 
> Theosophy in my experience tries to get us out of that mindset and 
> into a free and open mind.
> 
> To point out the differences between theosophy and neo theosophy is 
> to me just a simple educational responsibility.
> 
> People are still at liberty to study any philosophy or tradition 
> they choose.
> 
> However the Mahatma's teachings need to be represented accurately 
> and not confused with other traditions or other teachers points of 
> view.
> 
> 
> Perry 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Pedro Oliveira 
<prmoliveira@y...> 
> wrote:
> > In a crucial letter to Olcott (1888), K.H. wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > "To help you in your present perplexity: H.P.B. has
> > next to no concern with administrative details, and
> > should be kept clear of them, so far as her strong
> > nature can be controlled. But *this you must tell to
> > all:-With occult matters she has everything to do*. We
> > have not abandoned her; she is not `given over to
> > chelas'. She is *our direct agent*."
> > 
> > 
> > In another letter to Dr Hubbe Schleiden (1885), the
> > same Adept wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > "The present is simply to satisfy the Dr. that - "the
> > more proof given the less believed". Let him take my
> > advice and not make these two documents public. It is
> > for his own satisfaction that the undersigned is happy
> > to assure him that *The Secret Doctrine* when ready,
> > will be the triple production of M..., Upasika and the
> > Doctor's most humble servant [K.H.]."
> > 
> > 
> > Such passages clearly establish the solid authority of
> > HPB's writings, more particularly THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
> > 
> > 
> > If one considers, for example, the exchange between T.
> > Subba Row and HPB in "The Theosophist", in the early
> > 1880s, on their different approaches to the
> > clasification of principles in the human constitution,
> > and the fact that the septenary division was the one
> > adopted both in THE SECRET DOCTRINE and THE KEY TO
> > THEOSOPHY, the same consolidation of authority can be
> > seen.
> > 
> > 
> > A question naturally arises: if hers are the one true
> > authoritative teachings on Theosophy, is any study and
> > investigation of Theosophy possible outside her works
> > and her Teachers' letters?
> > 
> > 
> > Pedro 
> > 
> >