Theos-Talk Archives (October 2001 Message tt00194)

<<<<Diana Eck in her "A New Religious America",mentions religious
tolerance by accepting each religion for what it is. This is
put slightly different with theosophy it seems, that claims
to be the one that knows the "true" origine off "all" religions,
that is really "theosophy".>>>>

Brigitte, I find it extremely interesting, from a psychological standpoint,
that Theosophy is said to somehow know the true origins (and thus, one would
presume, the true teachings) of all of the worlds religions, while at the
same time it is hard to find any two Theosophists who share the same
definition(s) of "Theosophy." If Theosophy can't even define itself to
everyone's satisfaction, then how can it presume to KNOW the fundmamental
teachings of all of the world's religions? My own answer to this, is that
the modern Theosophical Movement does NOT know, but presumably its
originators (HPB's ever-illusive Masters) did know, that such knowledge does
exist, but that it has never been given out publically. The small amount
that has been given out through HPB's writings contains some of this
"origin" material and some that is unique.


<<<<<<<What I wonder also is how this is (from the perspective of the
history of ideas and the underlying message, that is the inner attitude
that creates) works out with theosophy , where the emphasis is "not
so much" on one source, or a God , but more on an elusive
group of beings called Masters , and one has to "wait" till one is ready,
and "they" contact you?
Thank you,
Brigitte>>>

I will answer this in a way that others will possibly object to. But I see
our situation as human beings as been completely reliant on faith for
everything and anything - faith in others, faith in our senses, faith in our
intellect, faith in our logic and reason, faith in intuition, faith in our
spiritual experiences, and so on. I see this as our fundamental human
condition. "Knowledge" and especially "reality" is simply a consensus-based
faith. In the case of the Theosophical "core teachings" one must have faith
in those who first propounded them, who put them together from their own
experiences and cultural outlooks, and who passed them on to us through
Blavatsky. One must also have faith that Blavatsky passed them onto us
correctly. As just one example, look at sex and the strong emphasis given on
its abstinance. Blavatsky was taught that sexual celibacy is "necessary" for
any real spiritual Path. This idea is in total disagreement with many other
spiritual Teachers (including Buddhist Tantricism or Vajrayana), and with my
own experiences. Therefore, I do not see this as a "core teaching" but
rather as a cultural issue in that celibacy possibly helps one at the
beginning stages of the Path, but is not at all essential. This is just one
example of a "linage" teaching that may or may not exist in other equally
valid linages.

As far as "contact" is concerned, most is done esoterically through dreams
and meditations rather than through direct physical contact. Inner "contact"
with Masters is going on all the time - when we are mentally ready/prepared,
their ideas will pour into our minds (of course, we pretty much have to take
this on faith ...).

Jerry S.