[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: Standard of Truth?

Jan 15, 2003 04:34 AM
by dalval14

Jan 15 2003

Dear M. and Friends:

You speak of the seemingly iron-clad restrictions of "fundamentals."
And you desire Theosophy and our discussions to be free of those.

There is all the space in the universe for that. But here, we are
discussing the teachings of Theosophy. Elsewhere, other things are to
be discussed with complete freedom.

So those who desire to travel here and there, do so.


Then what standards for common understanding and discussion shall we
adopt? I mean, we who desire to find out if Theosophy has any value?

Shall we say: it is "old," throw it out," -- and whatever truth may
be there, let it go too?"

Try doing that with mathematics, science, engineering, physics,
biology, chemistry, astronautics, economics, public relations, world
affairs, local government, etc...

My query is : why is it that we want the freedom to imagine and fancy
solely in the region of philosophy ? Is it that the rigors of logic
are too irritating? If so, why ? Why do we chafe under the apparent
yoke of :

1. a united spiritual basis of excellence, tolerance, brotherhood and

2. a united active body of Laws, and a LAW of justice and equity that
intelligently binds all living beings to each other --- be they
distant, or within us, to the ultimate degree we can imagine. The
existence of these laws underlie all material forms and give the life.
But we do not know them all.

3. That this vast mass and congeries of living beings progresses --
each individually, and all together as a mass, towards a future that
can only be called Universal Self-consciousness. Nothing is to be
neglected or disposed of. All beings are Immortal Intelligences, and
have the same rights, privileges and goals as all the rest. Thus the
present "savage ignoramus" develops over time into the sage Buddha.
The Atom eventually becomes a Sun and illuminates many others. Every
human is half way along this marvelous, majestic Path to Perfection
and a return to SPIRIT.

Seems to me that Theosophy presents certain basic tenets that are age
old. That they may not be popular is a sorry fact. But does that
make them wrong or useless? It merely says we don't grasp them, and
we are impatient with the time it might take us to grasp them.
Nothing valuable is entirely free. Before learning, we may have a lot
to un-learn.

Doe it make those who proclaim their value to be misleaders of those
who will not think about them ?

That some have done a part of the job ought to encourage others to
try. In this we share.

What is there of any bias in this? All are considered equals because
of the SPIRIT (the ONE ) that is resident in each of them. If
suggested, then it ought to be defined. There is one, or there isn't,
. which?

Who has seriously studied Theosophy ? Who can write an OCEAN OF

But if we can't, then we can all try to learn? Why are we so
impatient ? This is a terrible thing to say, but we are all ignorant
of so many things, our own encouragement ought to be to fill those
gaps and find out if we live in a Universe that has meaning. How do
we secure meaning and purpose for our living?

Something ought to be reviewed here. I say by our discussions we are
making the future. We are churning the ocean of knowledge and
hopefully we will emerge with an idea of the laws and rules that have
been operating there far before our birth. But each of those needs
our confirmation, and our proving them -- to ourselves.

Best wishes,



-----Original Message-----
From: Morten
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 11:27 AM
Subject: Standard of Truth?

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, besides
Buddhistic ethics?

THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no
philosophy in
particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again, it must
stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is divided into
Exoteric and Esoteric Sections.

ENQUIRER. What is the difference?

THEOSOPHIST. The members of the Theosophical Society at large are free
profess whatever religion or philosophy they like, or none if they so
prefer, provided they are in sympathy with, and ready to carry out one
more of the three objects of the Association. The Society is a
and scientific body for the propagation of the idea of brotherhood on
practical instead of theoretical lines. ....
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 --
if the
expression may be used -- sectarian and egotistic way. "Handsome is,
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 presented.
dogmatic thinkers cling to "dead-letter" presentation. Or what we tend
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
moment and
to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering
summer of
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 off
and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation
returns to
business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in
until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of
will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright
day of
justice emerges."
(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 very
westernized "spiritualists" - should rethink their positions in light
the present - cultural clashes between The Middle East and The West.)

So why overlook the urgency of the moment ?
But I do agree. Books are not everything. And a number of the -
newer -
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 perspective. A
global perspective, which both Blavatsky and I supports developed in
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 transportation
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-Bailey
teachers - TODAY - are presented in a culturally biased manner ? Are
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" <>
To: <>
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 Besant
> 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
> 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
sect, set
> 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
> 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,
> 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,
> 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
> 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 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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 by
> future writers.
> 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 sold
> 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 and
> legal attempts to destroy or prevent opposing interpretations from
> 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
> 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
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application