Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00286)

"Zack Lansdowne" wrote:

> I think that HPB, AAB, and ACIM are telling us the same thing: 
namely, it is a mistake to turn any written doctrine into a hard-and-
fast dogma, or standard of truth. This message was especially 
emphasized by Krishnamurti who wrote in "Krishnamurti's 
Journal": "One has to be a light to oneself ... To be a light to 
oneself is not to follow the light of another, however reasonable, 
logical, historical, and however convincing." <

Oh, thank you Zack.
Your words and thoughts are so very comforting to me. I hope there 
are more of us out there that think this way.

In addition to your thoughts, I always keep in mind what the great 
Lord Buddha once said, (paraphrasing) never believe anything anyone 
(including himself) tells you until you have experienced "it" for 
yourself. This message, I have found in both of the great works of 
HPB and AAB. 

With deep respect.
Most sincerely,
Suzanne


> There has been much debate in recent days about whose doctrine is 
true: HPB
> versus AAB; ancient Hindu scriptures versus HPB; HPB versus Besant 
and
> Leadbeater. Members on this list have pointed out that there are 
clear
> differences between the writings or doctrines of these various 
authorities.
> 
> Here, I would like to emphasize an area of AGREEMENT among different
> writers.
> 
> In "The Key to Theosophy", published in 1889, H. P. Blavatsky saw 
two
> possible futures for the TS. On the one hand, she described its 
possible
> failure: "Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has 
hitherto ended
> in failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into a 
sect, set up
> hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible 
degrees that
> vitality which living truth alone can impart. You must remember 
that all
> our members have been bred and born in some creed or religion, that 
all are
> more or less of their generation both physically and mentally, and
> consequently that their judgment is but too likely to be warped and
> unconsciously biassed by some or all of these influences. If, 
then, they
> cannot be freed from such inherent bias, or at least taught to 
recognise it
> instantly and so avoid being led away by it, the result can only be 
that the
> Society will drift off on to some sandbank of thought or another, 
and there
> remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die."
> 
> That is a very vivid image: "a stranded carcass to moulder and 
die." But
> what if the aforementioned danger can be averted? In this case, HPB
> predicted: "Then the Society will live on into and through the 
twentieth
> century. It will gradually leaven and permeate the great mass of 
thinking
> and intelligent people with its large-minded and noble ideas of 
Religion,
> Duty, and Philanthropy. Slowly but surely it will burst asunder 
the iron
> fetters of creeds and dogmas, of social and caste prejudices; it 
will break
> down racial and national antipathies and barriers, and will open 
the way to
> the practical realisation of the Brotherhood of all men."
> 
> So, Blavatsky, in 1889, made two quite different predictions for the
> Theosophical Society in the 20th Century: she says that it might 
set up
> "hard-and-fast dogmas of its own" and then become "a stranded 
carcass to
> moulder and die"; or it might "burst asunder iron fetters of creeds 
and
> dogmas" leading to "the practical realisation of the Brotherhood of 
all
> men." Which outcome has occurred?
> 
> Next, let us turn to Alice A. Bailey. In "A Treatise on White 
Magic", first
> published in 1934, AAB wrote:
> 
> "All that is possible for me is to grope for those feeble words 
which will
> somewhat clothe the thought. As they clothe it they limit it and I 
am guilty
> of creating new prisoners who must ultimately be released. All 
books are
> prison houses of ideas."
> 
> Here AAB is pointing out that even her own books are "prison houses 
of
> ideas." The purpose of her books was to free her readers from past 
dogmas
> that had become barriers to their spiritual progress. But if her 
readers
> turn her own books into hard-and-fast dogmas, as many of her 
readers have
> done, then they have become prisoners of those books who must be 
freed by
> future writers.
> 
> One of the most popular contemporary teachings on spirituality is A 
Course
> in Miracles (ACIM). As many of you might know, ACIM was channelled
> allegedly from the Master Jesus, was first published in 1975, and 
has sold
> several million copies. Today, more students are probably studying 
ACIM
> than the books of HPB and AAB combined. I, myself, led a ACIM 
study group
> for many years at the Theosophical Society in Boston. Here, is 
what ACIM
> says: "Words are but symbols of symbols. They are thus twice 
removed from
> reality." And yet several ACIM organizations are now fighting each 
other
> over the proper interpretation of the ACIM words, with bitter 
lawsuits and
> legal attempts to destroy or prevent opposing interpretations from 
even
> being published.
> 
> I think that HPB, AAB, and ACIM are telling us the same thing: 
namely, it
> is a mistake to turn any written doctrine into a hard-and-fast 
dogma, or
> standard of truth. This message was especially emphasized by 
Krishnamurti
> who wrote in "Krishnamurti's Journal":
> "One has to be a light to oneself ... To be a light to oneself is 
not to
> follow the light of another, however reasonable, logical, 
historical, and
> however convincing."
> 
> Zack Lansdowne