RE: Standard of Truth?
Jan 15, 2003 04:32 AM
Jan 14 2003
Re: Standard of TRUTH
Regardless of personal opinions, any "standard" will be subject to one
of the two kinds of truth:
1. The ABSOLUTE TRUTH, (as perceived by all Buddhi-Manasic beings
2. RELATIVE TRUTHS (as perceived by the Lower Mind -- Kama-Manas) --
of each individual embodied Ego.
There is no "convincing" of another that is valid. In these matters
there can be no "authorities."
Authorities at best, are the "one eyed" leading the "blind." They
depend on the persuasive explanations they offer, and the hopes they
express (but cannot prove) to secure an audience and eventually a
following and an adherence. Every sect, society, creed, religion or
science seeks to reveal the TRUTH, and every philosopher debates it,
citing now or ancient texts.
What does THEOSOPHY offer and do? Shall we take the declarations made
from the outset by Mme. Blavatsky as a valid base for consideration?
In presenting THEOSOPHY she said she did so on the basis of Wisdom,
accumulated over many millennia, by a Lodge of Adepts who had studied
Nature in her entirety. [S D I 272-3] On their behalf she offered a
portion of this knowledge and a synoptic review of the history of the
formation of our Earth and of the history of Humanity. [See PREFACES
to ISIS UNVEILED and to SECRET DOCTRINE .]
She in no way imposed any of this information on any one but asked
that it be scrutinized minutely. This in itself was exceptional, and
no one was to be coerced by threat or fear into any "acceptance" of
what was offered. In fact if there should be any such "faith"
developed, the individual was warned ahead of time against it. It has
always been proclaimed that there are no "short-cuts" to WISDOM.
Further: "Occultism" and "Esotericism" cannot be bought. The most
severe and difficult barriers had always been, and are always raised
against any casual or self-serving appeal for membership or entrance
into such groups as actually study Nature, and then for the securing
of a key to this repository of our past, our present and the potential
future -- the composition of each Human's own personal nature --
their moral character, as a vital portion of the Universe and his
The one fact is a that every individual will ultimately have to decide
through personal exertion and work what is fair, just, impartial,
universal, and therefore approaches closely to the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
H P B wrote an article, and she titled it: What is Truth? Therein
are an indications of the pearls which we can all find. She says in
The possible truths, hazily perceived in the world of abstraction,
like those inferred from observation and experiment in the world of
matter, are forced upon the profane multitudes, too busy to think for
themselves, under the form of Divine revelation and Scientific
There is no room for absolute truth upon any subject whatsoever, in a
world as finite and conditioned as man is himself. But there are
relative truths, and we have to make the best we can of them.
In every age there have been Sages who had mastered the absolute and
yet could teach but relative truths. For none yet, has, or could have
given out, the whole and the final truth to another man, for every one
of us has to find that final knowledge in himself.
No two minds can be absolutely alike, each has to receive the supreme
illumination through itself, according to its capacity, and from no
human light. The greatest adept living can reveal of the Universal
Truth only so much as the mind he is impressing it upon can
assimilate, and no more.
Polarity is universal, but the polariser lies in our own
consciousness. In proportion as our consciousness is elevated towards
absolute truth, so do we men assimilate it more or less absolutely.
To achieve this, there are two methods: --
1. On the physical plane we may use our mental polariscope; and,
analyzing the properties of each ray, choose the purest.
2. On the plane of spirituality, to reach the Sun of Truth we
must work in dead earnest for the development of our higher nature. We
know that by paralyzing gradually within ourselves the appetites of
the lower personality, and thereby deadening the voice of the purely
physiological mind...which depends upon, the organic brain -- the
animal man in us, may make room for the spiritual; and once aroused
from its latent state, the highest spiritual senses and perceptions
grow in us in proportion, and develop pari passu with the "divine
man." This is what the great adepts, the Yogis in the East and the
Mystics in the West, have always done and are still doing.
These ideas are addressed to Theosophists, or readers who know in
their hearts that Masters of Wisdom do exist, and sense an...absolute
truth...has to be searched for in higher regions.
Absolute Truth is... immovable... the kingdom of absolute truth is not
of this world, while we are too much of it. This superior, spiritual
Truth is a multifaced jewel, the facets of which it is impossible to
perceive all at once.
When the Delphic oracle said: "Man, know thyself," no greater or more
important truth was ever taught. ... Man has to know himself, i.e.,
acquire the inner perceptions which never deceive, before he can
master any absolute truth.
Absolute truth is the symbol of Eternity, and no finite mind can ever
grasp the eternal, hence, no truth in its fulness can ever dawn upon
it. To reach the state during which man sees and senses it, we have to
paralyze the senses of the external man of clay.
First of all, love of truth for its own sake. Then, develop an
impartial, unprejudiced mind, illuminated by pure Spiritual
Consciousness. Observe the doings and the moral attitude...then
discover that exceptional spot on the globe, where TRUTH is the
honoured guest, and LIE and SHAM the ostracised outcasts.
Selfishness is the impassable wall between the personal Self and
impersonal Truth. Selfishness, isolation -- they are the prolific
mother of all human vices. Selfishness kills every noble impulse in
Theosophy is divine knowledge, and knowledge is truth; every true
fact, every sincere word are thus part and parcel of Theosophy.
Theosophy allows a hearing and a fair chance to all. It deems no
views--if sincere--entirely destitute of truth.
Outside a certain highly spiritual and elevated state of mind, during
which Man is at one with the UNIVERSAL MIND--he can get nought on
earth but relative truth, or truths, from whatsoever philosophy or
Concerning the deeper spiritual, and one may almost say religious,
beliefs, no true Theosophist ought to degrade these by subjecting them
to public discussion, but ought rather to treasure and hide them deep
within the sanctuary of his innermost soul. Such beliefs and doctrines
should never be rashly given out, nor ought they to be embodied in any
publication except as hypotheses offered to the consideration of the
thinking portion of mankind. When they transcend a certain limit of
speculation, they had better remain concealed from public view, for
the "evidence of things not seen" is no evidence save to him who sees,
hears, and senses it. It is not to be dragged outside the 'Holy of
Holies," the temple of the impersonal divine Ego, or the indwelling
A ray from the absolute truth can reflect itself only in the pure
mirror of its own flame--our highest SPIRITUAL CONSCIOUSNESS. And how
can the darkness (of illusion) comprehend the LIGHT that shineth in
"Unveil, O Thou who givest sustenance to the Universe, from whom all
proceed, to whom all must return, that face of the True Sun now hidden
by a vase of golden light, that we may see the truth and do our whole
duty on our journey to thy sacred seat." -- Gayatri
Unveil is the cry of the man who is determined to know the truth and
who perceives that something hides it from him. It is hidden by his
own Karmic effects. It is directed to that on which the Universe is
built...mo other than the Self which is in every man.
There is a true Sun of which the visible is a reflection, and in that
is spiritual energy and help. It is interior to each of us -- our
SPIRITUAL CENTER, the imperishable, eternal Monad. Atma-Buddhi.
May these few reflections indicate a "place" where the Dreamer of
dreams ever lives, moving his small Universe in harmony with all the
(A portion of the above are culled from the writings of H P Blavatsky
and Wm. Q Judge.)
From: Zack Lansdowne [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 3:48 AM
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 Besant and
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 different
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
failure: "Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has hitherto
in failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into a sect,
hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible degrees
vitality which living truth alone can impart. You must remember that
our members have been bred and born in some creed or religion, that
more or less of their generation both physically and mentally, and
consequently that their judgment is but too likely to be warped and
unconsciously biased by some or all of these influences. If, then,
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 be
Society will drift off on to some sandbank of thought or another, and
remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die."
That is a very vivid image: "a stranded carcass to moulder and die."
what if the aforementioned danger can be averted? In this case, HPB
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 the
fetters of creeds and dogmas, of social and caste prejudices; it will
down racial and national antipathies and barriers, and will open the
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
"hard-and-fast dogmas of its own" and then become "a stranded carcass
moulder and die"; or it might "burst asunder iron fetters of creeds
dogmas" leading to "the practical realisation of the Brotherhood of
men." Which outcome has occurred?
Next, let us turn to Alice A. Bailey. In "A Treatise on White Magic",
published in 1934, AAB wrote:
"All that is possible for me is to grope for those feeble words which
somewhat clothe the thought. As they clothe it they limit it and I am
of creating new prisoners who must ultimately be released. All books
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
that had become barriers to their spiritual progress. But if her
turn her own books into hard-and-fast dogmas, as many of her readers
done, then they have become prisoners of those books who must be freed
One of the most popular contemporary teachings on spirituality is A
in Miracles (ACIM). As many of you might know, ACIM was channelled
allegedly from the Master Jesus, was first published in 1975, and has
several million copies. Today, more students are probably studying
than the books of HPB and AAB combined. I, myself, led a ACIM study
for many years at the Theosophical Society in Boston. Here, is what
says: "Words are but symbols of symbols. They are thus twice
reality." And yet several ACIM organizations are now fighting each
over the proper interpretation of the ACIM words, with bitter lawsuits
legal attempts to destroy or prevent opposing interpretations from
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 dogma,
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 not
follow the light of another, however reasonable, logical, historical,
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
[Back to Top]
- Re: Standard of Truth?
- From: "Phillip Lindsay <email@example.com>" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application