Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00414)

Hey,

This post is inspired by the following and also by Adelasie's 
question about a new paradigm for dissemination.

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...> 
wrote: (after other things I don't dispute)
> 
>> 
> But because in theosophy we are encouraged away from blind belief 
in any form this tradition of the Adepts is simply there for people 
to examine at the bar of their own reason and completely free to 
accept or reject it as they choose.
> 
> Perry
> 
But I see this as including assumptions, probably unexamined and 
possibly unconscious, that really distort the issue of what is 
problematic about CWL's legacy. When you refer (as in an earlier 
post) to "THIS tradition of THE Adepts" which people are completely 
free "to accept or reject" that very framing destroys the essence of 
intellectual freedom.

As I see it what you are saying is that the doctrines in the 
writings of HPB and the Mahatmas are univocal, and that Besant and 
Leadbeater are speaking in a different voice and pretending that it 
is the same. However, even a cursory examination of the early 
literature of the TS shows discourse at two levels:
1. There are MANY traditions and MANY different schools of adepts 
which HPB and the MLs refer to, argue about, promote, etc. The 
spiritual legacy of humanity is MULTIVOCAL and that is a fact openly 
acknowledged and clearly understood.
2. But at a deeper level there are common doctrinal and historical 
threads linking all these various traditions and schools, a 
perspective which subsequently was called Perennialism.

The problem comes IMO when the two levels are conflated. It is fine 
to acknowledge that HISTORICALLY we have all these diverse and 
conflicting voices contributing to "wisdom" while saying that 
METAHISTORICALLY there is something deeper uniting them. It is also 
fine to be AHISTORICAL in perspective and say it doesn't matter to 
you what the source is in time and space and context because the 
bottom line is how the doctrine affects your own spiritual growth 
and expanding awareness and compassion. What is not fine, IMO, and 
in fact is the fatal curse of the TM, is to take an ANTIHISTORICAL 
stance and to say "it doesn't matter what the evidence shows about 
all the diversity and conflicts within this broad range of human 
spirituality. It really all came from a single civilization in 
Atlantis (or Lemuria, or buried in caves in Tibet, etc.) Yes, HPB 
and MLs talking about cave libraries and Senzar as historical rather 
than metaphorical. But taking all that as factual puts one in the 
position of rejecting history.

If you closely examine the Theosophical literature in HPB's time it 
already can be seen to be highly multivocal. Lots of doctrinal 
changes and evolving perspectives in her own writings and in those 
of her alleged source. Whoever wrote the Mahatma letters, they 
fairly clearly are speaking in multiple voices.

With CWL, on the other hand, he claims to be speaking on behalf of a 
bunch of different sources, BUT THEY ALL SOUND EXACTLY LIKE CWL. 
CWL imposed a univocality that was not present heretofore, making 
Theosophy an orthodoxy in violation of everything HPB stood for. 
But many other kinds of Theosophists have perpetrated the 
univocality myth and used it as a weapon to stifle diversity and 
intellectual freedom.

If there is a new paradigm relevant to all this, to me it is 
MULTIVOCALITY. Think of how people for so long took "the Bible" to 
be one single message from one God with one plan for humanity etc. 
And how now only fundies buy that and everyone with any sense 
understands that it's many different books written from many 
different perspectives. Even the gospels are multivocal; the church 
tried to stifle that by excluding MOST of the diverse voices but 
even the canonical four are multivocal.

Each of the Theosophical organizations tries to impose its own 
version of univocality, in who speaks for Theosophy, who is a real 
Theosophist, what questions are and are not relevant to ask. But in 
the age of the Internet they cannot put the genie back in the 
bottle. Anyone who does a google search on HPB or Theosophy will 
immediately become privy to ALL the diverse perspectives that the 
various organizations want to stifle. 

I will close by drawing a parallel to what is happening with the 
news media in the US, which are increasingly distrusted as 
propaganda tools of the government (say liberals) or the 
imaginary "liberal establishment" by rightwingers. The blogosphere 
is a cacaphony of conflicting voices, but out of this comes truths 
that the univocal "main stream media" would prefer to stifle. For 
example, it has been bloggers who have uncovered the presence of a 
male prostitute with zero journalistic credentials or background, 
working under a pseudonym, welcomed into White House press 
conferences and used as a ringer who can be relied on to 
ask "questions" that are ALWAYS attacks on the administration's 
critics. The main stream media folks have been trying to dismiss 
this discovery by framing it as "mean liberal bloggers persecuting a 
conservative journalist." But it doesn't look like they are going 
to get away with it, not with the guy turning out to have been 
employed by an outfit created by Texas Republicans and to have been 
involved in the felonious outing of a CIA agent who was pursuing 
weapons of mass destruction. Here's a link to a couple of articles 
on all this and what it says about the "news."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
az=view_all&address=102x1241377

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/02/16_theories.html

Bottom line is univocality=authority is the OLD PARADIGM. 
Multivocality=truthseeking is the NEW PARADIGM.

Cheers,

Paul