"from this point of view, all forms of teaching are perfectly correct . . . "
Jan 15, 2003 07:58 AM
by D. H. Caldwell " <firstname.lastname@example.org>
SUBJECT: ". . . from this point of view, all forms of teaching are
perfectly correct for each individual. . . ."
Thanks Phillip for your replies and comments.
There is one or two items I would like to explore further.
"What is one to conclude when a certain person's 'intuition'
completely contradicts another person's 'intuition'? Who's right and
"A good question and one that obviously comes up alot in this
area. The short answer is that everyone is right, and by the same
token everyone is wrong. That is, its all relative to an
individual's stage of unfolded consciousness. We all interpret
through our filters that range from the very dense to the luminous.
Therefore from this point of view, all forms of teaching are
perfectly correct for each individual. They are just forms on our
journey to the formles and the development of true discrimination
and divine reason, or intuition. They are stepping stones that
provide a temporary vehicle of understanding until it must be
destroyed or discarded, and a new more suitable form is
appropriated. Platitudinous perhaps to some of you.
So the intuition for someone polarised in the solar plexus or the
astral body is going to be alot different for someone who is focused
in the heart, or in the mental body. It is relative to their
Let me focus on the following two specific statements you wrote:
"The short answer is that everyone is right, and by the same
token everyone is wrong. That is, its all relative to an
individual's stage of unfolded consciousness."
"Therefore from this point of view, all forms of teaching are
perfectly correct for each individual."
Phillip, I would like to take "this point of view" and see if I can
understand it in relation to what HPB and KH wrote in the two
extracts BELOW. [See the two extracts at the very end of this
So when you write that "from this point of view, all forms of
teaching are perfectly correct for each individual" how do we apply
that to what HPB writes about "the FALSE ideas of a personal God and
a personal, carnalized Saviour"?
Or how do we apply this "point of view" to what KH writes about Mr.
Hume disfiguring the Mahatmas' "sacred philosophy"?
Are you saying that the "leaders" mentioned by HPB in EXTRACT 1 were
right and also wrong. And that dear HPB was also right in what she
said in EXTRACT 1 .... AND she was also wrong?
If "all forms of teaching are PERFECTLY correct for each individual"
then the ideas of a personal God and a personal, carnalized Saviour
were PERFECTLY CORRECT for the individuals referred to by HPB. Is
this what you are trying to tell us?
Furthermore, in light of this "point of view" line of thinking you
advocate, why did you write so strongly against what Nicholas wrote
which I quoted in my last posting. His "take" on the teachings and
Alice Bailey were PERFECTLY CORRECT for him. Right? So why did you
get so bent out of shape and write:
"NW's 'Theosophy's Shadow' article is an example of such sleight of
hand. This is a classic case of projection IMHO, where
undiscriminating and prejudiced minds within the entity of the TS,
dare I say behemoth, attack the very teaching to which they claim to
be devoted. There is a non- recognition of a new phase of the
teaching which the Great Ones are well and truly behind."
Phillip, if you take issue with what Nicholas wrote, then why
don't you also take issue with what HPB and KH wrote in the extracts
". . . A new and rapidly growing danger. . . is threatening . . . the
spread of the pure Esoteric Philosophy and knowledge. . . . I
allude to those charlatanesque imitations of Occultism and
Theosophy. . . . By pandering to the prejudices of people, and
especially by adopting the false ideas of a personal God and a
personal, carnalized Saviour, as the groundwork of their teaching,
the leaders of this 'swindle' (for such it is) are endeavoring to
draw men to them and in particular to turn Theosophists from the true
". . . A close examination will assuredly reveal. . . materials
largely stolen . . . from Theosophical writings. . . [and] distorted
and falsified so as to be palmed off on the unwary as revelations of
new and undreamed of truths. But many will neither have the time nor
the opportunity for such a thorough investigation; and before they
become aware of the imposture they may be led far from the
Truth. . . . Nothing is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth than the
garbled and distorted versions disfigured to suit the prejudices and
tastes of men in general." H. P. Blavatsky, E.S. Instruction No. I.,
"I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by
Mr. H[ume]. I read his three essays or chapters on God (?) cosmogony
and glimpses of the origin of things in general, and had to cross out
nearly all. He makes of us Agnostics!! We do not believe in God
because so far, we have no proof, etc. This is preposterously
ridiculous: if he publishes what I read, I will have H.P.B. or Djual
Khool deny the whole thing; as I cannot permit our sacred philosophy
to be so disfigured. He says that people will not accept the whole
truth; that unless we humour them with a hope that there may be
a 'loving Father and creator of all in heaven' our philosophy will be
rejected a priori. In such a case the less such idiots hear of our
doctrines the better for both. If they do not want the whole truth
and nothing but the truth, they are welcome. But never will they find
us -- (at any rate) -- compromising with, and pandering to public
prejudices." Master Koot Hoomi, The Mahatma Letters, 2nd ed., Letter
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application