Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00448)

robert_b_macd wrote:
> What Path do you follow?
>
> Scholars: Want truth above all! Are willing to wade through lies,
> destroying people's reputations in the mistaken beief that this will
> lead to some kind of truth.
>
> Hagiographers: Put their religious brotherhood above all!  Are willing
> to attack and vilify those individuals and groups who do not follow
> their creed.
>
> Thesophists: Must balance Truth with Universal Brotherhood.  The only
> thing a person owns is his reputation, ideas belong to all.  Protect
> the truth of the only thing with value to the individual, each other's
> reputations.  Only environment in which a true pursuit of truth can be
> practiced.
>
>
>   
Bruce,

Your version of what a theosophists is not my definition.  Though you 
say "Universal Brotherhood," You seem to be talking about a fraternity: 
A group that excludes others based on a commonly held set of beliefs.   
Perhaps you and Carlos and Jerome see yourselves as members of such a 
fraternity, but I am a student of theosophy (at-large) and I do not 
accept your narrow understandings of the 3 objects and what they mean.  
I have in mind a brotherhood that is Universal where no one is 
excluded.  No one.


Does one protect the truth of HPB's reputation by refusing to 
acknowledge that her life was such that she created enemies who would 
themselves lie to discredit her?   That she had such an impact upon 
those around her is a true part of her life and her reputation.  These 
letters are the evidence of that truth.  Would she object to the 
publication of these letters today?   I  think not.  Perhaps she would 
say, "Let people see both sides and decide for themselves who Madame 
Blavatsky really was.  In the centuries to come, Theosophy will not rise 
or fall because of my reputation, but rather it rests upon the ability 
of each student of theosophy to discern the truth for themselves and to 
grant each of their brothers that same opportunity."  Something like 
that is what I think she would say.

It seems that protecting her reputation has become a bit of a religious 
experience in itself.  Hiding the evidence of scandals,  determining 
that others are better off for never having seen them,  in effect 
misrepresenting the truth about HPB's life is no great service to her.  
She herself published /The Talking Image of Urur /.  She later wrote, 
"if Mme. Blavatsky -- presumably the 'Talking Image' -- does not object 
to finding herself represented as a kind of mediumistic poll parrot, why 
should other 'theosophists' object?,"   adding,  "If the first object of 
our Society be not to study one's own self, but to find fault with all 
except that self, then, indeed, the T.S.  is doomed to become -- and it 
already has in certain centres-- a Society for mutual admiration; a fit 
subject for the satire of so acute an observer as we know the author of 
'The Talking Image of Urur' to be."


peace within,


bill







>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>