Re: Standard of Truth?
Jan 14, 2003 12:13 PM
by Suzanne " <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Seems to me there are universal aspects (a golden thread) common to
all teachings... only the outer symbols change. High moral and
ethical qualities and standards are the same (universal) in every
culture. High quality love, honesty, truthfulness etc are
universally the same throughout humanity. Are not these qualities
the means to the end result we all seek?
--- In email@example.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> Hi Zack and all of you,
> Thanks for your email.
> I agree a lot with your below views as they seems to be presented.
> But, but. Maybe this below quote and comment could change the views
> In "The Key to Theosophy", published in 1889, H. P. Blavatsky she
also in -
> Section 2 - of that book
> mentiones the very important issue of thought systems:
> "ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case,
> Buddhistic ethics?
> THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no
> particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again, it
> stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is divided
> Exoteric and Esoteric Sections.
> ENQUIRER. What is the difference?
> THEOSOPHIST. The members of the Theosophical Society at large are
> profess whatever religion or philosophy they like, or none if they
> prefer, provided they are in sympathy with, and ready to carry out
> more of the three objects of the Association. The Society is a
> and scientific body for the propagation of the idea of brotherhood
> practical instead of theoretical lines. The Fellows may be
> Mussulmen, Jews or Parsees, Buddhists or Brahmins, Spiritualists or
> Materialists, it does not matter; but every member must be either a
> philanthropist, or a scholar, a searcher into Aryan and other old
> literature, or a psychic student. In short, he has to help, if he
> the carrying out of at least one of the objects of the programme.
> he has no reason for becoming a "Fellow." Such are the majority of
> exoteric Society, composed of "attached" and "unattached" members.
> "attached member" means one who has joined some particular branch
of the T.
> S. An "unattached," one who belongs to the Society at large, has his
> diploma, from the Headquarters (Adyar, Madras), but is connected
> branch or lodge.] These may, or may not, become Theosophists de
> Members they are, by virtue of their having joined the Society; but
> latter cannot make a Theosophist of one who has no sense for the
> fitness of things, or of him who understands Theosophy in his own --
> expression may be used -- sectarian and egotistic way. "Handsome
> handsome does" could be paraphrased in this case and be made to run:
> "Theosophist is, who Theosophy does." ..."
> My view:
> Some belongs in the Esoteric Section. And some not.
> So maybe some of us needs to rethink these statements coming from
> Blavatsky - and - rethink their values in the light of the present
> on this Planet.
> Time also changes the manner in which wisdom teachings are
> dogmatic thinkers cling to "dead-letter" presentation. Or what we
> call "Business as usual".
> Martin Luther King Jr. made the following statement.
> ("I have a dream"; Delivered on the steps at the Lincoln Memorial in
> Washington D.C. on August 28, 1963):
> "It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the
> to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering
> the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an
> invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three
is not an
> end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow
> and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation
> business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in
> until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds
> will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the
bright day of
> justice emerges." http://web66.coled.umn.edu/new/MLK/MLK.html
> (Please do not read the above - using the dead-letter. Try to
relate it to
> the present situation on the globe and maybe also its future.)
> (So maybe, just maybe some western countries - and also some so
> westernized "spiritualists" - should rethink their positions in
> the present - cultural clashes between The Middle East and The
> So why overlook the urgency of the moment ?
> But I do agree. Books are not everything. And a number of the -
> theosophist wheather they be pro-Baileys or not have a tendency to
> their own present Bible (Christian, Hindu, Islamic etc.) with a NEW
> Sometimes it is "The Secret Doctrine" by Blavatsky - and sometimes
it is the
> books or the book-collection delivered by Alice A. Bailey, and
> another choice...
> My view is, that vital questions to ask are the following:
> The question is, which teaching will lift the humanity through the
> century ?
> Which teaching will give the aspirant the NEEDED global
> global perspective, which both Blavatsky and I supports developed
> aspirants "kosas" (or minds).
> Does the present situation allow the teaching to be presented in a
> culturally biased manner?
> Is it a need ? Or is not ?
> How does one avoid cultural bias on this Planet?
> Can an Information Society as the present one with fast
> communication around the globe afford, a wisdom teaching ( a true
> theosophical teaching) which creates cultural bias, and which won't
> it with wisdom?
> How do you really want to present your teaching, and how do you
present it ?
> Is it not so that the teachings of Alice A. Bailey by many pro-
> teachers - TODAY - are presented in a culturally biased manner ?
> books delivered by Alice A. Bailey culturally biased as well ?
> I am open for any idea.
> Feel free to comment or do your best...
> M. Sufilight with peace on earth...and som rugrats looking like
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Zack Lansdowne" <zackl@s...>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:47 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Standard of Truth?
> > There has been much debate in recent days about whose doctrine is
> > versus AAB; ancient Hindu scriptures versus HPB; HPB versus
> > Leadbeater. Members on this list have pointed out that there are
> > differences between the writings or doctrines of these various
> > Here, I would like to emphasize an area of AGREEMENT among
> > writers.
> > In "The Key to Theosophy", published in 1889, H. P. Blavatsky saw
> > possible futures for the TS. On the one hand, she described its
> > failure: "Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has
> > in failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into a
> > hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible
> > vitality which living truth alone can impart. You must remember
> > our members have been bred and born in some creed or religion,
> > more or less of their generation both physically and mentally, and
> > consequently that their judgment is but too likely to be warped
> > unconsciously biassed by some or all of these influences. If,
> > cannot be freed from such inherent bias, or at least taught to
> > instantly and so avoid being led away by it, the result can only
> > Society will drift off on to some sandbank of thought or another,
> > remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die."
> > That is a very vivid image: "a stranded carcass to moulder and
> > what if the aforementioned danger can be averted? In this case,
> > predicted: "Then the Society will live on into and through the
> > century. It will gradually leaven and permeate the great mass of
> > and intelligent people with its large-minded and noble ideas of
> > Duty, and Philanthropy. Slowly but surely it will burst asunder
> > fetters of creeds and dogmas, of social and caste prejudices; it
> > down racial and national antipathies and barriers, and will open
> > the practical realisation of the Brotherhood of all men."
> > So, Blavatsky, in 1889, made two quite different predictions for
> > Theosophical Society in the 20th Century: she says that it might
> > "hard-and-fast dogmas of its own" and then become "a stranded
> > moulder and die"; or it might "burst asunder iron fetters of
> > dogmas" leading to "the practical realisation of the Brotherhood
> > men." Which outcome has occurred?
> > Next, let us turn to Alice A. Bailey. In "A Treatise on White
> > published in 1934, AAB wrote:
> > "All that is possible for me is to grope for those feeble words
> > somewhat clothe the thought. As they clothe it they limit it and
> > of creating new prisoners who must ultimately be released. All
> > prison houses of ideas."
> > Here AAB is pointing out that even her own books are "prison
> > ideas." The purpose of her books was to free her readers from
> > that had become barriers to their spiritual progress. But if her
> > turn her own books into hard-and-fast dogmas, as many of her
> > done, then they have become prisoners of those books who must be
> > future writers.
> > One of the most popular contemporary teachings on spirituality is
> > in Miracles (ACIM). As many of you might know, ACIM was
> > allegedly from the Master Jesus, was first published in 1975, and
> > several million copies. Today, more students are probably
> > than the books of HPB and AAB combined. I, myself, led a ACIM
> > for many years at the Theosophical Society in Boston. Here, is
> > says: "Words are but symbols of symbols. They are thus twice
> > reality." And yet several ACIM organizations are now fighting
> > over the proper interpretation of the ACIM words, with bitter
> > legal attempts to destroy or prevent opposing interpretations
> > being published.
> > I think that HPB, AAB, and ACIM are telling us the same thing:
> > is a mistake to turn any written doctrine into a hard-and-fast
> > standard of truth. This message was especially emphasized by
> > who wrote in "Krishnamurti's Journal":
> > "One has to be a light to oneself ... To be a light to oneself is
> > follow the light of another, however reasonable, logical,
> > however convincing."
> > Zack Lansdowne
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application