by John Paul Rolston

In his article, "Yours Till Death and After, H.P.B." William Q. Judge writes that in London he once asked H.P.B. an important question: "What [is] the chance of drawing the people into the Society in view of the enormous disproportion between the number of members and the millions in Europe and America who neither knew of nor cared for it?"

We might well ask the same question today. While in the last few years, two major biographies (by Cranston and Washington) and a host of articles has appeared on H.P.B. (in Gnosis, Smithsonian, Wired, and most recently Tricycle), how many people in the world have heard of H.P. Blavatsky? Of those who have heard of her, how many have any depth of knowledge as to the teachings she delivered last century? As for Mr. Judge and his writings, he is largely unknown today even among a majority of Theosophists! It is easy to feel that the Theosophical effort has failed, or at least that it has lost vitality and relevance today.

Yet H.P.B.'s answer to Mr. Judge's question seems equally applicable then as now:

"When you consider and remember those days in 1875 and after, in which you could not find any people interested in your thoughts, and now look at the wide-spreading influence of theosophical ideas — however labeled — it is not so bad. We are not working merely that people may call themselves Theosophists, but that the doctrines we cherish may affect and leaven the whole mind of this century. This alone can be accomplished by a small earnest band of workers, who work for no human reward, no earthly recognition ... "

While very few in the general population have heard of dear old H.P.B., the ideas she endeavored to inculcate have begun to take root. Daily reports on Near Death Experiences, Out of Body Experiences, a growing acceptance of reincarnation and karma, a shift in scientific thinking toward an appreciation of the intelligence of nature, and the role of consciousness in evolution — all these trends and more show that "Theosophy" (under whatever name) has made and continues to make progress in the world.

We can see that "race mind" is indeed changing before us. In "Another Theosophical Prophecy" William Q. Judge writes, "The Sanskrit language will one day be again the language used by man upon this earth, first in science and in metaphysics, and later on in common life." This was written in 1886, when hardly a person in America had heard the word "karma." Today dozens of Sanskrit words have entered the public vocabulary: yoga, chakra, guru, swami, avatar, mantra, Tantra, Veda and Vedanta, pandit, padma, Buddha, bodhisattva, bhakti, shakti, Krishna, kundalini, maya, mandala, sadhana, shanti, prana, nirvana, deva, akasha, Brahmin, yogi, raja, ayurveda, ashram, vipassana, samadhi, ananda, atman, Mahatma, Mahayana, sutra, puja, and a host of other words and proper names.

In many ways we can see that the Theosophical Movement has been successful. But this is no longer the end of the 19th century, and perhaps the Movement and its needs have changed. It is certainly undeniable that Theosophy has lost the spotlight that it once had during H.P.B.'s lifetime. How, in the pluralistic "global village" of the 20th century, can we best serve our Teachers and their philosophy?

Certainly that is a very personal question. Each individual finds their own strengths and is drawn into what seems to them the most fruitful activities. But three things must hold our attention.

First, it is clear that the Victorian English of H.P.B.'s, William Q. Judge and other founding Theosophists is no longer the vernacular of the masses. The Theosophical teachings very much need effective new statements to keep the message fresh. This does not imply that we throw out the "core" literature which has formed the basis of our teachings. Rather, we need to use those "core" works as a foundation from which to publish short, topical presentations of the teachings in modern language, referring frequently to the original literature for inquirers who seek to go deeper.

Second, the media of communication are different from what they were in H.P.B.'s day. Last century public lectures given by charismatic speakers drew large crowds. Today television, movies and computers have become the major entertainers, and Theosophists have hardly begun to take advantage of these media. The New York ULT hosts a weekly panel discussion carried by a few local t.v. stations, and many Theosophical centers have begun to develop WWW sites, on-line archives of classical Theosophical literature, and one group even hosts a live on-line study class (Theosophy Lodge On-line).

But the classic texts of Theosophy have yet to make it to CD-ROM, and there is as yet only the tiniest worldwide network of leading Theosophical thinkers and writers via email. Many older Theosophists are deeply suspicious of technology and the unknown it seems to represent, and this hinders full usage of the Internet and multimedia technology.

Third, Theosophists this century have been in general rather insular. Unlike last century, when H.P.B.'s and Col. Olcott established ties with many philosophical and spiritualistic groups in India and elsewhere, Theosophists today have rarely been exposed to much more than the history and teachings of their own particular "wing" of the Movement (ULT, Pasadena T.S., Point Loma, etc.)

While Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam have made a major impact on Western cultural centers, and while academia has taken a marked interest in Eastern thought, Theosophists have largely wasted opportunities to establish ties and find common ground with other traditions. The teachings of Tibetan Buddhism, Gnosticism, Vedanta, Gurdjieff, Ken Wilber, Marianne Williamson, Satya Sai Baba, to name just a few, have teachings in many ways similar to Theosophy, and yet Theosophists as a whole have not embraced these movements nor sought allies there.

It is certainly true that Theosophy has a somewhat different approach than many of these movements, and sometimes there is an undeniable element of psychism or other dangerous tendencies in new spiritual groups in the West. This is no reason not to seek out the common ground and emphasize the basics that Theosophy and these new groups share. Nearly all of them would accept the three fundamental propositions of our Secret Doctrine, and that alone should be enough to work together in many projects.

Often pride, ignorance, and lack of motivation have sequestered Theosophists, particularly in those Theosophical traditions which have sought to preserve the "core" teachings of Theosophy from being watered down or endangered by syncretism. But open-mindedness coupled with discrimination will show that Theosophy can find allies and host joint projects with groups without being swallowed up by them.

H.P.B.'s expressed the hope in The Key to Theosophy that by the end of the 20th century there would be "a large and accessible literature ready to men's hands [and] a numerous and united body of people." We may as well be frank that a good part of what may be called "Theosophical" literature in the widest sense today has not come from Theosophists, but from Eastern teachers and popular movements trying, with or without success, to absorb and express the perennial philosophy. We must also face the fact that Theosophists were not able to maintain a united body very long after the passing of H.P.B.'s.

But numerous active and healthy centers may in the long run produce even more good than a single united body — especially if those centers recognize one another as helpmates. Therefore it is time we Theosophists recognize the Buddhists, Vedantins, Sufis, and New Age traditions as fully our equals, pursuing the same goals that we pursue, and capable of serving the Masters' plans as fully as we are.

By updating our teachings into modern English, by using modern technology, and by establishing ties with other perennial traditions, Theosophists may carry on H.P.B.'s work even more effectively, and prevent Theosophy from becoming a spiritual source of for fewer and fewer seekers. Let us use any and every means which promulgates the ideas of Theosophy, whether or not the label "Theosophy" will be attached to those efforts.

--- http://www.theos-world.com/archives/authors.html#AUTHOR067

by John Paul Rolston

[Reprinted with permission from Ergates, Autumn 1996.]

Of necessity time rolls on and things change. All of us feel threatened or dismayed at times when we learn that the bedrock upon which we were standing moves beneath our feet. Change is inevitable in the Theosophical Movement, as it is in all things; but the kind of changes we sanction are of the utmost importance.

There are those who would like ULT to hold strictly to The Way Things Have Been-only thus can the Teachings be preserved, they think. This is not only unwise, but fatal. To be truly orthodox is not to maintain the original form or method, but to hold to the original lines laid down. In this case, the lines were laid down for us one hundred years ago by the Masters and Their messengers. We must follow along those lines as things unfold, but we must not remain chained to the singular points on the line at which "our" events occurred, namely the advent of H.P.B., W.Q.J. and Robert Crosbie. We must move forward: static organisms die.

Even during the lifetime of H.P.B. events in the world and the turning of the cycle necessitated changes, including changes to the constitution of the T.S. and the original Three Objects. For us today to follow the specific plans, methods, and forms of the old T.S., H.P.B., W.Q.J. or Robert Crosbie, would be foolish. Those were the activities of another time, another cycle. Rather, we must try to ascertain the meaning behind such plans, methods and forms, and adapt them to our time and needs. Surely their methods are of tremendous interest to us, for they are a blueprint of living the life and serving the Cause. At the same time, while principles remain the same, application does not. Short of an unambiguous letter from a Master, we are left to our own reason and our own understanding of the teachings, collectively as an Association.

One may point to the fact that H.P.B. did not appear on the radio or television; so we too could shun the use of media such as television, computers, the Internet, video-taped productions etc. But everyone knows how short-sighted this would be. H.P.B. lived in a different time when certain technologies weren't available. We have the ability to go forward and use new methods.

This idea isn't as obvious or widespread as one might think. Let us examine the books printed and sold by the ULT lodges. We see that we have developed a canon which closed with the death of Mr. Crosbie. No new authors have been printed (under ULT auspices) in 50 years, despite fine recent works by our best students, e.g. The Phoenix Fire Mystery. It is among the most important books in the United States today, quoted by scholars and used in classrooms worldwide. Yet while we sell it, no ULT lodge would agree to print it, and the authors had to turn elsewhere-squandering profits and recognition that would have served ULT well. Likewise with the biography H.P.B. by Sylvia Cranston.

The reasoning behind this situation is clear: to publish new books by authors besides the Founders would be to draw attention away from the Source Teachings, dilute the energy of the Movement, and risk misrepresentation of the philosophy. Who better can teach, we think, than our Teachers? The danger of distraction is very real and not to be played down. And yet, to remain frozen seems equally foolish, particularly as the English language evolves and the Source teachings become harder to understand by new generations. Already many newcomers (those without a good metaphysical background) find our most basic books difficult to grasp.

Some long-time Theosophists may scoff at this notion, and insist that The Ocean of Theosophy, for example, is written in plain, clear English. These Associates may not have had the recent experience of working with the reading public. One newcomer to Theosophy in Oregon, an intelligent fellow holding a Ph.D., complained that the Ocean was written in archaic language and its meaning was opaque to him. Several educated visitors have said the same in San Francisco. For readers who doubt, let us look at the first few pages of The Ocean of Theosophy with the eyes of a newcomer to the lodge.

The third sentence of the Ocean, page one, runs:

For those who do not read Greek-and most people do not, nowadays- this sentence produces a blank. They do not know that theos means god, nor that sophia means wisdom.

On page two we find a series of grammatically complex sentences, beginning with this one:

This sentence, besides being long and complex, contains a host of perplexities for the new student.

Which "religion of the day" is being described? Surely not Buddhism, growing quickly in the West. But what are "promulgated ethics" and what "scientific foundation" is meant? What is "our" science? Would this include homeopathy and acupuncture? Having introduced dozens of students to The Ocean of Theosophy over the course of many years, this writer assures the readers of Ergates that these questions are all too real for the beginner, and require copious explanations from a qualified guide: "In the 19th century x."

This is not to criticize Mr. Judge or the value of The Ocean of Theosophy as a brilliant compendium of the teachings in a remarkably short space; still, it is sad but true that most high-school educated people are not up to the challenge of reading it with any clear understanding of what is being communicated. In short, new introductory books are desperately needed, perhaps composed of extracts of the Founders' easier writings accompanied by explanatory text, while the Ocean perhaps could be used as a mid-level textbook for those with a basic grasp of the teachings-for those who have developed the thirst for knowledge enough to wade through 19th century English.

Certainly, many students who have read this far will have already picked up their pens to write a scathing rebuttal to Ergates re: the above (heretical?) analysis of the accessibility of the Ocean. But do not misunderstand: there is no doubt that the original books are the Source teachings, and we cannot allow ourselves to think that they should quietly slip into the background.

Quite the opposite, the Movement draws its life and vitality from its Founders. Newcomers to a lodge or study group should be made immediately aware of the Founders, their works, and the basic principles of Theosophy.

At the same time, propagation of works by students, if of value to the education of others, seems not only permissible but actually necessary.

While each must make one's own use of the resources our Teachers left, it is extremely helpful that the teachings come to each inquirer in his or her own language and idiom. When we cease interpreting and applying the sources anew for each ever-changing cycle, they become dead, rote, and of purely ritual value. A true student of Theosophy knows the sources, but is able to restate the teachings smoothly and accurately in his or her own words. Why should not the public receive the benefit of this expertise in new printed (or electronic) forms?

Besides the literature which we first hand to newcomers, other aspects of ULT bear scrutiny and perhaps change. What is our platform work like? Do we use the best pedagogical methods to educate our students? Last century, before television and even radio, the lecture was a popular means of entertainment and education. Today, many people feel turned off by hearing a long lecture. Psychologically, it puts the listener in a passive position, "under quarantine" as it were until the question and answer period. Yet much evidence suggests that people learn best when they are active participants, able to be part of the flow of dialogue and contribute to the give and take of proceedings. For this reason some lodges are experimenting with new formats-using a panel of people on the platform where different perspectives can be heard simultaneously; or even giving up the platform altogether and seating the group in a circle or square.

The methods of outreach in ULT could stand examination as well. In this age of technology, ULT is just beginning to try out effective new means of communication. The New York lodge has staged successful ongoing broadcasts on public television, and recorded these panel discussions on video-tape: the tapes are available to any lodge, but many centers do not seem to own the necessary audio-visual equipment. A student in the Kent, Washington group has exerted tremendous effort to put up a "page" on the World Wide Web (an aspect of the Internet), with permission to include Theosophy magazine. This has the potential to reach literally millions of inquirers. Yet most associates do not seem to know how to access the Internet (meaning they are unable to direct others to get there either). Only one or two lodges have a computer system on site, capable of monitoring and directing Theosophical discussion.

It is a bold new world compared to last century, when the teachings were re-presented once more. Things are different in our society in large part because of the efforts of the Teachers and their companions around the globe for over a century. Christian dogmas are fading; the materialistic science criticized in The Secret Doctrine has evolved into newer and slipperier shapes; Eastern religions make deep inroads in the West.

And so it is time to take stock of our successes and failures, as well as the needs of the world. We must not try to hold to the methods of yesteryear, but as far as is possible, determine the movements and work of the Masters and the needs of the cycle today, and strive to help them onward.

We are a living body, and must adapt to the world in which we ourselves have wrought change. What are today's societal needs, what are its problems, blind spots, errors, prejudices? Where and how will we be most effective?

As ULT, we need not confine ourselves to the role of preservers only, passively awaiting those fortunate souls who pass through the golden portals of our lodges. We can be more organized, more focused, more pro-active in meeting the needs we perceive. Should we add to our list of publications? Should we make a map of each nation, target its cities, and set up weekend "seminars" in hotels or schools? Or confine ourselves to mass communication?

Should we increase conferencing and joint projects with other groups, within and without the "Theosophical" movement? How about an annual convention?

How can we best communicate our teachings, within our price range? How can we best preserve our teachings for the future? Etc. etc.

ULT has been extremely successful in much of what it has done. Despite some inflexibility, spiritual pride, and even isolationism, we have kept the original teachings in print and in circulation, by publishing, lecturing, teaching, and studying. Our Associates have and continue to produce (privately) new works illuminating our history, our three objects, our philosophical teachings, and their relevance to modern problems. And we have established centers around the world as nuclei of brotherhood, study, and public inquiry. It is time now, at the end of the current cycle, to evaluate ourselves as critically and fairly as possible and see how we intend to carry out our mission-to the very large and diverse global village of the 21st century.

http://www.theos-world.com/archives/html/tw199611.html#ARTICLE0160