Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00615)

--- In theos-talk@y..., "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...> wrote:
> Dear Eldon and Bhakti Ananda Goswami,
> 
> Yours is the first exchange on this list in a long time that has 
> moved me to want to resubscribe. I see issues that are much 
broader 
> than the synthetic, composite nature of Blavatskian Theosophy, 
indeed 
> that are universal in religious history, in your discussion.
> 
> --- In theos-talk@y..., "Bhakti Ananda Goswami" <bhakti.eohn@v...> 
> wrote:
> IF 
> > WE ARE TRUTH SEEKERS, CAN WE NOT FACE THE TRUTH ABOUT HPB AND HER 
> > LIMITS, AND THE LIMITS OF THE MAHATMA LETTERS ETC ? THE REAL 
VALUE 
> > OF THE EARLY THEOSOPHISTS WORK IS ONLY OBSCURED BY HAGIOGRAPHIC 
> > EFFORTS AND INSISTANCE ON MYSTIFYING THEIR HUMANITY. IT IS 
ENOUGH 
> TO BE A GREATLY GIFTED OR GREATLY MOTIVATED HUMAN BEING.
> 
> Many Christians are outraged by the work of the Jesus Seminar and 
> most others ignore it. They cannot face the truth that Jesus was a 
> greatly gifted or greatly motivated human being, or that his 
> teachings were specific to a time and place and must be understood 
in 
> historical context. He has to be a universal cosmic truthgiver, to 
> satisfy a deep need for absolute certainty in his disciples. Same 
> with HPB, Gurdjieff, Cayce, etc. 
> snip
> > NOT THE ENEMY)
> 
> What I read between the lines-- and perhaps am misreading-- is an 
> implicit juxtaposition between 1) ersatz, composite teachings and 
2) 
> authentic, pure teachings, with a further implication of "mine's 
> better than yours." The problem with that, as I see it, is that 
> *every* tradition is composite, synthetic, built up with layers of 
> accretion over a long time or constructed by a single individual or 
> group over a short time. Either way, we don't have a choice 
between 
> synthetic and authentic-- every spiritual tradition is synthetic.
> 
> Where authenticity comes in, IMO, is in the frank acknowledgment of 
> the synthetic nature of the teaching. Cayceites who insist that 
the 
> Readings are direct transcriptions of the Akashic Record; Baha'is 
who 
> insist that Baha'u'llah's writings are direct words of God; 
> Christians who insist that Jesus is the one and only Son of God 
whose 
> words are the absolute and ultimate truth; Theosophists who insist 
> that HPB's Theosophy is the ancient wisdom tradition from which 
> everything else devolved; ad nauseum are engaged in what David Lane 
> calls genealogical dissociation. That is, denying the actual, 
always 
> complex genealogy of the belief system and pretending that it is 
sui 
> generis, direct truth straight from The Source. I don't think 
> Hinduism or Buddhism are exempt from this behavior pattern, 
although 
> they do tend to a bit more self-honesty about the history of ideas.
> 
> Currently I'm studying the Fourth Way teachings of Gurdjieff et al 
> and finding a similar pattern. Gurdjieff, like HPB, gave a dual 
> message: 1) this teaching is a composite of materials gathered in a 
> lifetime of global travel and contacts in many different traditions
> 2) this teaching is truth itself, ancient spiritual science that 
> trumps all modern science and history, and comes from sources 
> infinitely superior to the sources of modern knowledge. In both 
> cases, the majority of followers blithely ignore the frank honesty 
of 
> message 1 and attach themselves passionately to the mythmaking of 
> message 2. Are HPB and Gurdjieff to be blamed for the way people, 
> given the choice between believing the truth and the lie, almost 
> always prefer the lie? And furiously attack anyone who questions 
it?
> 
> Wondering,
> 
> Paul

**************
Well said Paul. And you need not wonder if the Vedantists and/or 
Avaita people are saying and doing the exact same things, I can 
assure you that they are. I had almost a falling out with them 
because I suggested, nay told them that Ramana Marahshi's teaching 
was a rehash and a continuation of what Patanjali taught. I mean the 
terminology Brahm, Ishvar all the same. But "Oh, No" they said, I did 
not know what I was talking about. They even said that this fine 
south Indian Brahmin did not believe in or was not teaching that 
rebirth existed. I had to find it in his writings to show them he was 
not denying rebirth! I think that they felt that this would somehow 
make of him a dishonest mystic. Dishonest if his role was merely to 
be a divine message, and not an original one! I told them that was 
RUBBISH! Why? Because there is no such thing as original spiritual 
teachings to be had in the first place.

And Paul one thing that the RS gurus did write and say was that the 
Saints did not come to bring a new message, that was not their role. 
Maybe that message did not get across to Theosophists. And besides 
who are they putting into the GIHF or PLM role? Blavatsky with all 
her faults or the White Brotherhood masters, whom you have shown were 
no different from Blavatsky herself. Evidence: she could have and did 
write some of the Mahatma letters. Wow.

Finally, I don't believe that a man or woman has to be THE SOURCE in 
order to transmit light. Light, energy is impersonal, only others 
claim a personality for it. But can't this be attributed to the 
followers, the overly zealous? It did not start with St. Paul, and it 
won't end with him. Why can't we leave this chalked up to human 
nature? No one ever mentions mere human nature as the cause. NOW THAT 
makes me wonder.

Netemara