theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Re: What is Theosophy? Answer to Jerry's posting no.26453

May 16, 2005 12:39 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins


Dear Nigel,

Interesting response. Thanks.

I wrote and you replied:

"Yes, defining theosophy is indeed a thorny question. I suggest that the criteria for such a definition might also differ depending upon the context--for instance, whether the definition is in context of a philosophical discussion, spiritual practice, organizing a library etc."

Interesting that you distinguish differences. Would you care to (have time to!) elaborate?


I understand the word "Theosophy" as conotative of a transcendent concept which, therefore cannot be precisely defined, but can be approached via different viewpoints. Notice that HPB writes about Theosophy in different ways. In her article "What is Theosophy?" She engages in a lexicological debate. When she is writing about Theosophy in practice, such as in her article "Let Every Man Prove His Own Work" She writes of Theosophy in terms of altruism. Dallas, has several times written here that Theosophy is synonymous with TRUTH. That is a nice sentiment, and I would not debate him on it. However, such a definition, in my opinion is not helpful. Rather, it invites the danger of thinking that a student of Theosophy is one who has the TRUTH, or is closer to the TRUTH than others who have not studied Theosophy. In "How to Study Theosophy" Bowen quotes HPB as saying that "TRUTH lies beyond any ideas we can formulate or express." She further expresses, according to Bowen, that the study of the Secret Doctrine (which for many students, is the authorative text for so-called Theosophical teachings) is not meant to give a "satisfactory picture of the constitution of the universe" but is meant to "LEAD TOWARD THE TRUTH." So, what I'm trying to get across is that we can think about Theosophy in many ways. We can think about it (and students often do) in terms of a collection of teachings. But that does not mean that the teachings one might enumerate are TRUTH, or even necessarily is representive of TRUTH. We can also think about Theosophy in terms of virtue, or take a lexicological approach. Different approaches can be productive for the accomplishment of different ends. This leads to another question: what approach(es) to Theosophy is most useful for the organization of a library?
You responded to my remark about publishers re-editing "Theosophical Classics:"

This has been another sad episode of TS history. Whatever happened to truth in reporting? Why defend the indefensible when your broader credibility is at risk? In time, the deception will be uncovered. If this occurred in the academic arena, there'd be hell to pay!


Dr. Tillett, in the 1990s published in Theosophical History an important and insightful article, "There is No Religion Higher Than...:Approaching Theosophical History" which identifies examples of what has been edited out in Adyar TS publications and poses the reasons why the publishers would want to edit out this material. I think this article ought to be read by every student of Theosophy.

I wrote:

"If a library has room, and wants to also include later
editions, altered by the publishers, after the author's death, then,
those works should only be added only after the originals are accessed."


You responded:

And these works should be clearly identified by the publisher as modified, with reference to the earlier edition

Which, of course, has not so far happened. But, your remark does raise the question of what is the responsibility of a librarian concerning the disclosure of information?
Best wishes,
Jerry






nhcareyta wrote:

Dear Jerry
Thank you for your response.
You wrote: "Yes, defining theosophy is indeed a thorny question. I suggest that the criteria for such a definition might also differ depending upon the context--for instance, whether the definition is in context of a philosophical discussion, spiritual practice, organizing a library etc."

Interesting that you distinguish differences. Would you care to (have time to!) elaborate?



As understood by me, the general Theosophical, informational system
of Madame Blavatsky and her Mahatmas was never intended to become
belief based. If only, but not only, by virtue of the enormous
number of references HPB used in Isis Unveiled and the Secret
Doctrine alone, and her tangential writing style, it appears she
often used a specific technique which was attempting to broaden and
keep ever open our minds and hearts. It seems this was in part to
avoid the creation of dogmas which might hopefully contribute towards
an ever increasing depth of understanding of the truths and mysteries
of existence.


You responded: "I share your views on this. Notice Blavatsky's description of a Theosophical Library in the Key:

"To collect for the library of our headquarters of Adyar, Madras, (and
by Fellows of their Branches for their local libraries,) all the good
works upon the world's religions that we can. To put into written form
correct information upon the various ancient philosophies, traditions
and legends, and disseminate the same in such practicable ways as the
translation and publication of original works of value, and extracts
from and commentaries upon the same, or the oral instructions of persons
learned in their respective departments." p. 47 (from an actual 1st
edition).

No where does she say that such a library is supposed
to be a collection of her's or other Theosophist's writings. Yet, my
experience has been that Theosophical libraries typically have books of the Theosophical leaders as central to their collection. Translations of works on the world's religions, are secondary, if represented at all. It should be the other way around. Theosophical commentaries should be secondary to the source works."

Fully concur.



For me, their Theosophical information was never intended to contain
the final word or words, to be learned, remembered and regurgitated
in an authoritarian manner, thereby contributing to
dominant, "knowledgeable" leaders and compliant followers.
Unfortunately, numerous later writers and leaders wrote and acted in
such a manner as to establish themselves as authorities and who
additionally either subtly or not so subtly insisted on obedience and
compliance.


You responded: "Yes, this appears to be the case. Further, the Theosophical Organizations have enforced this authority establishing. The evidence of this I point to is the numerous editions of Theosophical books which have been re-edited, not by the authors, but by the publishers. An examination of what has been re-edited, clearly shows (to me at least)that the editing has been done to cover over Theosophical history and to remove information which is now perceived as silly. For instance, CWL's description of Martian civilizations has been removed from The Inner Life."

This has been another sad episode of TS history. Whatever happened to truth in reporting? Why defend the indefensible when your broader credibility is at risk? In time, the deception will be uncovered. If this occurred in the academic arena, there'd be hell to pay!



Finally, although not exhaustively, some of the later writers who
claimed to be representing the Theosophical information of HPB and
her Mahatmas were dramatically misrepresenting and contradicting it
in many areas. This strikes me as being highly dishonourable.
Disagreement and challenge were encouraged by HPB, but to dishonour
her and her teachers' writings through wilful misrepresentation is
disgraceful.


You responded: "That is where, in my mind, the dis-honesty has come in. An author ought to be allowed to stand or fall upon his/her own merits."

Agreed.

You wrote: "For this reason, I advocate that Theosophical works which are put in a Theosophical library, be the editions which the authors were responsible."

Absolutely.

You wrote: "If a library has room, and wants to also include later
editions, altered by the publishers, after the author's death, then,
those works should only be added only after the originals are accessed."

And these works should be clearly identified by the publisher as modified, with reference to the earlier edition

Best wishes
Nigel


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> wrote:


Dear Nigel,

Yes, defining theosophy is indeed a thorny question. I suggest

that the

criteria for such a definition might also differ depending upon the context--for instance, whether the definition is in context of a philosophical discussion, spiritual practice, organizing a library

etc.

As understood by me, the general Theosophical, informational

system

of Madame Blavatsky and her Mahatmas was never intended to become belief based. If only, but not only, by virtue of the enormous number of references HPB used in Isis Unveiled and the Secret Doctrine alone, and her tangential writing style, it appears she often used a specific technique which was attempting to broaden

and

keep ever open our minds and hearts. It seems this was in part to avoid the creation of dogmas which might hopefully contribute

towards

an ever increasing depth of understanding of the truths and

mysteries

of existence.


I share your views on this. Notice Blavatsky's description of a Theosophical Library in the Key:

"To collect for the library of our headquarters of Adyar, Madras,

(and

by Fellows of their Branches for their local libraries,) all the

good

works upon the world's religions that we can. To put into written

form

correct information upon the various ancient philosophies,

traditions

and legends, and disseminate the same in such practicable ways as

the

translation and publication of original works of value, and

extracts

from and commentaries upon the same, or the oral instructions of

persons

learned in their respective departments." p. 47 (from an actual

1st

edition).
Notice that she doesn't say that a Lodge or National library is

first of

all, a collection of works on the world's religions, their

translations

and commentaries. No where does she say that such a library is

supposed

to be a collection of her's or other Theosophist's writings. Yet,

my

experience has been that Theosophical libraries typically have

books of

the Theosophical leaders as central to their collection.

Translations

of works on the world's religions, are secondary, if represented at all. It should be the other way around. Theosophical commentaries should be secondary to the source works.



For me, their Theosophical information was never intended to

contain

the final word or words, to be learned, remembered and

regurgitated

in an authoritarian manner, thereby contributing to dominant, "knowledgeable" leaders and compliant followers. Unfortunately, numerous later writers and leaders wrote and acted

in

such a manner as to establish themselves as authorities and who additionally either subtly or not so subtly insisted on obedience

and

compliance.



Yes, this appears to be the case. Further, the Theosophical Organizations have enforced this authority establishing. The

evidence

of this I point to is the numerous editions of Theosophical books

which

have been re-edited, not by the authors, but by the publishers. An examination of what has been re-edited, clearly shows (to me at

least)

that the editing has been done to cover over Theosophical history

and to

remove information which is now perceived as silly. For instance,

CWL's

description of Martian civilizations has been removed from The

Inner Life.

Finally, although not exhaustively, some of the later writers who claimed to be representing the Theosophical information of HPB and her Mahatmas were dramatically misrepresenting and contradicting

it

in many areas. This strikes me as being highly dishonourable. Disagreement and challenge were encouraged by HPB, but to

dishonour

her and her teachers' writings through wilful misrepresentation is disgraceful.


And it is now the responsibility of the reader to discern the differences between the writings. Later re-editing has obscured

these

differences. That is where, in my mind, the dis-honesty has come

in.

An author ought to be allowed to stand or fall upon his/her own

merits.

For this reason, I advocate that Theosophical works which are put

in a

Theosophical library, be the editions which the authors were responsible. If a library has room, and wants to also include

later

editions, altered by the publishers, after the author's death,

then,

those works should only be added only after the originals are

accessed.

These are the guidelines we have have evolved for Alexandria West.

Of

course, the number of Theosophical books and periodicals are so numerous, they constantly push for attention. And, frankly,

researchers

who have made use of this library has been primarily interested in

the

rare journals and special collections of unpublished material

here.

But, researchers have a different agenda than general inquirers.

So, in

addition to the Theosophical Books and journals from all of the Theosophical Organizations and spin offs, we have a section on mythology, comprising some 1500 volumes alone. That is more books

than

one would find in a typical Lodge library. We also have separate categories for each of the world's religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. The priority is alway first to

obtain

the source works--the sacred scriptures. Then, the commentaries.

We

also have special sections for subjects concerning Eastern and

Western

Esoteric Traditions: Hermeticism, Alchemy, Astrology etc.; Secret Societies: Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Golden Dawn etc.; Western Philosophy; Sciences: Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Oceanography, Archeology, Anthropology, Psychology etc.; History

etc.

Needless to say, we are out of room and looking for a larger

place.

Jerry








nhcareyta wrote:



From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@> Date: Tue May 10, 2005 11:40 pm Subject: Theosophical libraries jjhe@ Send Email




Jerry: you wrote:







Dear Nigel, Perry and all







Perry writes:







Another question maybe is it anybodies role to disallow any
information or writer from being in a theosophical library even if
that information is known to be questionable?

I think there are two questions implied here. 1) Whether or not

an

item
is appropriate for a Theosophical library 2) Whether it is

practical

to
include a certain item in a Theosophical library. The first

question


concerns one's view of what constitutes Theosophy. The second, is

a


matter of space.







Personally, if you showed me a random issue of Penthouse

magazine, I


would probably find something in it which is (I believe) Theosophically
relevant. But, the reality of the matter is that every library has
space limitations. Therefore, specialty library collections, as a
matter of practicality, has to set limits and priorities based

upon


their overall understanding of what Theosophy is.







Jerry




Dear Jerry
Thank you for your posting.
The issue of space is certainly of concern for a small

organisation

such as ours, although I would not wish to use this as an excuse

for

refusing certain books.

For me, your last sentence raises surely the most thorny of all questions for Theosophical students.
There are many and varied perspectives as to "what is Theosophy" which includes "what is theosophy."
I spent no end of time with many others attempting to define

these,

in committee meetings,Lodge and National discussion groups over a period of eighteen years. I understand you have done the same,

only

for many more years.

From my current perspective, and perhaps from mine alone, there

are a

number of matters which deserve consideration.

As understood by me, the general Theosophical, informational

system

of Madame Blavatsky and her Mahatmas was never intended to become belief based. If only, but not only, by virtue of the enormous number of references HPB used in Isis Unveiled and the Secret Doctrine alone, and her tangential writing style, it appears she often used a specific technique which was attempting to broaden

and

keep ever open our minds and hearts. It seems this was in part to avoid the creation of dogmas which might hopefully contribute

towards

an ever increasing depth of understanding of the truths and

mysteries

of existence. For me, their Theosophical information was never intended to

contain

the final word or words, to be learned, remembered and

regurgitated

in an authoritarian manner, thereby contributing to dominant, "knowledgeable" leaders and compliant followers. Unfortunately, numerous later writers and leaders wrote and acted

in

such a manner as to establish themselves as authorities and who additionally either subtly or not so subtly insisted on obedience

and

compliance.

Secondly, HPB and her Mahatmas' wrote about a system which demonstrated a vast, impersonal cosmogonical and cosmological

scheme

of infinite complexity, where Reality was considered "unthinkable

and

unspeakable" by our limited mind.
For me, this system and the approach of its exposure was part of

an

occult process which was often not accepted by certain later

writers

and students who apparently preferred a more simplified,

absolutist

approach with definitive, anthropomorphised cosmic and solar identities and, furthermore, who usually insisted that a + b

always

equalled c.

Finally, although not exhaustively, some of the later writers who claimed to be representing the Theosophical information of HPB and her Mahatmas were dramatically misrepresenting and contradicting

it

in many areas. This strikes me as being highly dishonourable. Disagreement and challenge were encouraged by HPB, but to

dishonour

her and her teachers' writings through wilful misrepresentation is disgraceful.
These are some of the contributing factors which I consider when determining whether certain literature is the authentic

Theosophical

information of HPB and her Mahatmas or whether they might come

under

the much broader heading of theosophy.

Whether Theosophy is authentic theosophy is for each to decide for themselves.
Whether HPB and her teachers are accurate, or at least more

accurate

than not with their information, is also for each to decide.

From my perspective HPB and her teachers have presented a system

of

occult knowledge and a systematised approach to its dissemination

and

verification as far as is possible, which satisfies my Freedom loving, ever inquiring heart and mind, my sense of justice and fairness and my "common" sense.
Up to now for me, certain others have not.
Best wishes
Nigel






Yahoo! Groups Links
















Yahoo! Groups Links












[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application