RE: Formation of Religions and Karma
Mar 10, 2002 05:25 AM
Saturday, March 09, 2002
Re: formation of Religions and the Karma thereof.
You are absolutely right. Buddhism is technically not a
religion, although called so in the West.
It is a philosophy and a logic of living the best and most moral
kind of life that is possible. It is an application of the
universal law of Evolution and Karma, which gives every part and
portion of the entire Universe the eventual potential of becoming
directly a "Knower of God." A WISE INDIVIDUAL -- a "MASTER OF
If we look at the doctrine of Monads we find that the primordial
Unity on the plane of manifestation of SPIRIT and MATTER ( ATMA
AND BUDDHI ) -- as "Buddhi" is mulla-prakriti or
"root-matter" -- produces entities that undergo to vast process
of evolution so that their "forms" ( Matter ) may be so refined
by moral and ethical choice as to become capable to supporting
the living glory of SPIRIT as an actuality. -- perhaps something
like the Entity that stands behind the SUN of our solar system.
But this can be said of the origins of any great present-day
religion, as they started out (historically, each of them) with a
small group of devotees, and a teacher who was not bound by the
formalities of some set religion into which he (and they) were
Such teachers who appear yuga after yuga, serve to indicate to
their devotees and pupils that the human MIND is free, immortal,
and can improve and evolve itself; and become eventually wholly
spiritual. Any one who reads The SECRET DOCTRINE and the MAHATMA
LETTERS carefully will realize this is a possibility within our
conceptualization and grasp if we will but TRY.
As time passed, those who followed this kind of reform, decided
to formalize it. And, since in most cases, the Teachers had
withdrawn (to enable the pupils and disciples to progress freely
and on their own volition) -- these "successors" (and this is a
uniform observation), then decided to make the task "easier" --
and made some, or all, of the teachings into more rigid tenets.
A "Catechism" was then published, and "council" were called from
time to time to reshape those dogmas and make the tenets even
more rigid. All religions have or are, going through these
But as you say Buddhism alone remain philosophical, and the
establishment of the Sangha (assemblage) of Monks keeps it
flexible and directed at the essential philosophy of "right
livelihood" established by the Buddha.
We can see this has happened in all "religions." Thus they
became un-thinking "faiths," and "blind beliefs," in all
religions. The result, after hundreds of years, has produced
dogmas, a church (or temple) and priests who desire to be
considered learned -- and who ultimately decide there is a good
livelihood to be made in human gullibility, ignorance, inertia,
pleasure loving, and sloth. Considered impersonally every
current "religion" fits this description. Hinduism has at base
the ancient teachings and serves to preserve them -- as I
understand it INTACT. That which the West has been allowed to
contact is purely the rind of the fruit. And even that has been
It is TRUTH at the base, and, thereafter, a progressive dogmatism
and the interposition of punitive measures to be taken with
heretics or protestants that have been instituted in all cults
and sects. But few inquire on joining what those "penalties"
are. Our general sense of morality and fairness has become
overlaid with the influence of moral calluses.
At least, Theosophy, as a philosophy, and as read from the
ORIGINAL TEACHINGS has not reached the stage of a rigid and
dogmatic religion. But since the active study and application of
those ORIGINAL TEACHINGS has and is declared to be "too
difficult," or, "needing interpretation," by the interposition of
"explanations" from a revered Pupil, leader or successor to the
original Teacher, one can see how in the bodies that were called
originally the one, only and united THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, there
is beginning to be seen the existence of imposition in matters of
orthodoxy and controlled action and thinking -- if one desires to
remain "with the club." If this sounds severe, or opinionated.
It is because after many years of study and comparison it seems
to be so (to me). Others may disagree. If the PRINCIPLES are
clear, then who needs interpretations ? Why is it that the
"interpretations" are honored, and the older ORIGINAL TEACHINGS
are more and more remotely set into an almost totally obstructed
background? Ask yourself who did the "interpreter" learn from?
Did he or she ever offer themselves as the sole medium with which
to grasp and understand the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS ?
Better still: Are the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS of Theosophy adequately
universal and impersonal? Are they for any one (who exerts
themselves) ? If so, then why the hesitancy to approach, to
read, to study and to apply ? How else is TRUTH to be secured ?
No one can secure it for us, we have to d the ultimate work --
so why delay ?
Fortunately for all of us the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS are available in
print, on the Internet, and widely disseminated. So those who
desire to approach H P B and the Mahatmas DIRECTLY (as they ought
to be approached) can still do so INDEPENDENTLY.
Best wishes. as always,
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 1:01 PM
Subject: RE: Theos-World Karma
At 10:23 AM 3/8/02 -0800, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>Most religions and priests have stepped between the sufferer and
>the truth and pretend that there is a Personal Ruler - a God -
>that is responsible for their suffering and if appealed to in
>proper way with adequate funds to the intercessing priest all
>be resolved -- or else, when nothing happens -- it is the
>unquestionable "will of a heartless or vengeful God."
A stark contrast is Buddhism with its lack of personal God. And
that is why
it seems to be appealing more and more to the younger thinking
around the world.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application