Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00372)

From: <gregory@zeta.org.au>

Greg:
> The concept of Received Truth is used by some scholars of religion (like
> me), plus some in the areas studying other ideological systems, to
> describe a system of belief which has been "given" (usually, but not
> always, on the basis of a claim of Divine Authority) by a teacher to
> disciples, and which the disciples are unable to question.

This definition does not fit Theosophy as presented by Blavatsky & her Gurus. The
inability to question is more a case of our lacking the quality or subtlety of awareness
to check for ourselves many of the teachings.

The fact that many (or most) theosophists are uncritical of, and/or devoted to a
particular variety of present-day theosophy is a no brainer. Since when does the majority
of mankind question in depth any ideology? How many academics, for example, are trail
blazers and go against the grain in any of their fields? Is it not the case, especially
in this day and time, that all intellectual, scientific, spiritual and ethical pursuits
are ignored by the majority? Even among those who pursue any discipline, are many
zealots for Truth or any altruistic ideal?

My study of the keynotes of Theosophy as HPB & her Gurus put it forth, says that
individual initiative, critical thinking and selflessness are the linchpins of their path.
The fact that very few theosophists embrace this approach is, again, human nature -- not
some outcome of the teachings or the teachers.

Here is an excerpt from the ISIS preface which outlines the non-authoritarian, free,
beneficent and mentally focused approach of the path of HPB and her Gurus.


"...we came into contact with certain men, endowed with such mysterious powers and such
profound knowledge that we may truly designate them as the sages of the Orient. To their
instructions we lent a ready ear. They showed us that by combining science with religion,
the existence of God and immortality of man's spirit may be demonstrated like a problem of
Euclid. For the first time we received the assurance that the Oriental philosophy has room
for no other faith than an absolute and immovable faith in the omnipotence of man's own
immortal self. We were taught that this omnipotence comes from the kinship of man's spirit
with the Universal Soul -- God! The latter, they said, can never be demonstrated but by
the former. Man-spirit proves God-spirit, as the one drop of water proves a source from
which it must have come. Tell one who had never seen water, that there is an ocean of
water, and he must accept it on faith or reject it altogether. But let one drop fall upon
his hand, and he then has the fact from which all the rest may be inferred. After that he
could by degrees understand that a boundless and fathomless ocean of water existed. Blind
faith would no longer be necessary; he would have supplanted it with KNOWLEDGE. When one
sees mortal man displaying tremendous capabilities, controlling the forces of nature and
opening up to view the world of spirit, the reflective mind is overwhelmed with the
conviction that if one man's spiritual Ego can do this much, the capabilities of the
FATHER SPIRIT must be relatively as much vaster as the whole ocean surpasses the single
drop in volume and potency. Ex nihilo nihil fit; prove the soul of man by its wondrous
powers -- you have proved God! "

Best,

Nicholas