Theos-Talk Archives (July 2002 Message tt00117)

Dear Friend:

On the subject of early Christianity, I found two good
articles published in the recent issues of FOHAT. Have you
seen them yet ?

Also, as theosophy includes all religions, sciences and
philosophies, it being a continuous and continuing record of
the evolution of life and thought on this Earth (and
elsewhere), H P B had to pay attention to Christianity
because it prevails i the "West" where the new civilization
was being formed and is still forming.

The great need is to abandon hypocrisy and authority. Man
has to learn to think independently base on the concept
that he/she is an IMMORTAL SPIRITUAL SOUL. This is ever
incarnating and ever learning.

Jesus as reformer of Judaism, does not need to have
anything more than an accurate record of his teachings. The
so called history (full of blinds and allegories to keep
truths secret) has been unnecessarily attached to
"Christianity."

But this is what most who have been educated into one or
another sect do not know and are not encouraged to
investigate.

There is a natural inertia there, and it is encouraged by
dogmatism, authority and ritualism. "Sacred" is a kind of
veil used to deny to people the right to inquire into the
nature of the teachings and their origins. Naturally as
Science advances there is conflict. Also, Science, limiting
itself to the superficialities of matter, and failing to
investigate CAUSES has limited its potential to become
all-knowing.

And so it goes. All aspects of theosophy are useful and
worth knowing, even if it is to again prove their worth to
ones' self.

Best wishes,

Dal

===============



-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 2:02 PM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: RE: Christianity its interior worth -- From Adam
to Noah

Hello Dallas,

I certainly agree with you that Theosophy should not be too
consumed
with the study of an ancient Hebrew tribal religion that
presents a
cosmology and anthropology that is far from any modern
mind-set. From
reading ISIS, it is apparent that HPB's sarcasm reflects her
frustration
with having to deal with a Theosophical treatise that
included a debate
with those who held religious claims that humanity should
have gone
beyond long ago.

However, she wrote ISIS because it was necessary to approach
people from
their own level of understanding (or misunderstanding). She
set about
to expose a false and fraudulent system that had taken
control of the
spiritual aspect of society, and unless that goal was
reached, Theosophy
would only become another sect among many. As you say, it
is really
unfortunate that a century has elapsed and we are still
talking about
who the serpent in the Garden was, as though that were a
significant
point for Theosophists to ponder.

It is even more unfortunate that so many in the history of
the Movement
have exchanged Theosophy for various re-hashings of this or
that
religion - a restoration position that came out of the
"Great Awakening"
of the 1800's, but not the teachings of HPB.

If, however, this is not Theosophy as understood by HPB (and
I agree
that it is not), then it is important for those who make
that claim to
define Theosophy more clearly. We should ask first where
the emphasis
of the teaching must be, and if we do not believe that the
focus is the
Bible, then we must be able to support that claim -
especially in light
of the fact that HPB devoted so much time to subjects
derived from
Hebrew scriptures.

I am glad that you see figuring out the (possible) allegory
of Genesis
was not what was important to HPB, and rather than being the
purpose,
such haggling really just served her higher purpose, i.e.,
the
presentation of Theosophy. Unless our goal in looking to
the Bible has
some aim that helps us to present Theosophy in a clearer
light, then
such exegesis is meaningless and futile. It might be fun,
but it sure
ain't Theosophy.

It is for that reason that I question why you would replace
the
teachings of the Hebrew scriptures with those of the
Christians. I
don't see how one is of any more use to Theosophy than the
other, nor do
I see how the Jesus myth is of any greater use than that of
any of the
other crucified or sacrificed savior-gods common to the
solar-myth. I
always wonder what people mean when they talk about the
teachings of
Jesus. You mention Jesus living around 100 B.C. That
person is not the
Jesus of the Gospels of course, and we therefore have NO
record of
anything he ever said. How could we claim to know his
teachings??

On the other hand, if you mean the Jesus of the Gospels, no
one seems to
know who wrote these books or when. They disagree with each
other on
many points, so they are very unreliable (one of HPB's
points), It has
also been pointed out by many researchers that the teachings
in the
Gospels were all extant before Jesus and the Gospel are
therefore
plagiarized, and even if they aren't, the Jesus of the
Gospels is not a
very good role model. He calls the Samaritan woman a "dog"
and casts
demons into swine with no compassion for the fate of the
animals and no
concern for the fact that the animals belonged to some poor
farmer. He
taught terrible eating habits - saying that it didn't matter
what went
into one's mouth. He went into tirades in the church yard
that people
would be arrested for today as an act of vandalism.
(etc.etc.etc.)

As I see it, we cannot really come to focus on Theosophy
until we go
beyond both Judaism and Christianity. It is not a matter of
creating
some Christian form of Theosophy as the neo-theosophists
tried to do
early on, but rather it is a clearing of the field so that
we can
explore this teaching called Theosophy without the trappings
of bogus
religion and pseudo-science.

Carl