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

Jerry Schueler gives some responses to BAG

Jan 26, 2003 07:14 AM
by D. H. Caldwell " <>

From: Jerry Schueler 

Subject: Some Resonses to BAG

The following are some quick responses to comments made by BAG:

<<<"The recent claim by some Theosophists is that their teachings are 
hidden behind the use of 'blinds,' but what about truth ? 'There is 
no religion higher than the truth' is the Theosophical Society motto! 
What is the moral character of anyone who practices and/or accepts 
deception and lying as a way of life ?" >>>

I suspect that BAG is referring to me here since I have recently been 
trying to point out some of the blinds that Blavatsky used. Occult 
blinds are NOT deceptions or lies. They are esoteric wisdom when it 
is put into exoteric language in order for others with no 
experiential knowledge to understand at least intellectually. Judge 
says that Theosophy is like an ocean, shallow along the surface and 
deep in the center. This is true for all occult schools, and usually 
occult and magical schools have grades where the shallow material is 
given early on in preparation for the deeper learning at the higher 
grades. In effective occult and magical schools such as the Golden 
Dawn and OTO, the lower grades address intellectual knowledge while 
the higher grades address experiential knowledge. Theosophy has no 
grades, and the "core teachings" are written so that anyone can read 
into them according to their own levels of understanding. This is NOT 
deception, but a traditional way to present occult material to the 
general public. The Bible is written the same way, and as Jesus says 
to its readers, "Those who have ears to hear, let them hear" etc. 

<<<"According to the Bhakti Traditions from which Blavatsky borrowed 
many of her terms, dishonesty or duplicity is considered tamasic.>>>>

I doubt that Blavatsky was even aware of Pure Land Buddhism. Anyway, 
her Buddhist terms are largely from the sutrayana and tantrayana of 
Tibetan Buddhism together with a little Dzogchen. She never practiced 
any form of Bhakti, to my knowledge, but Dan, Paul, and other 
historians would know more about that than I do. 

<<<Everything depends on TRUTH, and begins with SELF-TRUTH, which is 
another term for HUMILITY.>>>

Humility is the opposite dualistic pole from conceit, and one must 
believe in an ego to have either. And who even begins to know what 
TRUTH is? As far as I am concerned, "SELF-TRUTH" is that there is no 
self separate from a not-self.

<<< The very concept of scriptural 'blinds', secret societies, and a 
master employing duplicity is unheard of in the Sattvic exoteric 
Bhakti Traditions, in which Godhead is not an elitist, Who is only 
approachable through secret societies, and wants to 'hide.' >>>

Agreed. But the "Sattvic Bhakti Traditions" represent a very tiny 
percentage of Hindu and Buddhist schools where such blinds and 
secrecy is commonplace, and psychologically and socially necessary. 
Many teachings from the Esoteric Tradition are dangerous and need to 
be hidden from those unprepared to receive them. For 
example: "Justice exists only in the human mind, and karma has 
nothing to do with justice" is a dangerous teaching because it can 
lead to much misunderstanding. Another famous one is "Do What Thou 
Wilt is the Whole of the Law." And "Your entire past Karma can be 
consumed in an instant." And especially "I am God." The unitiated 
will misunderstand such teachings and take them in the wrong way, 
which will result in lots of bad karma for them. But these kind of 
teachings are not lies or deceptions, they are true but only when 
properly understood.

<<<Hiding anything is part of the function of MAYA.>>>

There is hiding, and there is hiding. Esoteric teachings are 
ineffable, and cannot be put into words without distortion. So 
anything said of them at all is automatically a lie, a maya. "I am 
God" is a baldface lie if "I" applies to the personality but is 
somewhat true if "I" applies to the nondual Monad (of course, we have 
to define "God" here first). In short, "blinds" are inherent in 
language itself and cannot be avoided.

<<< Human deceit and lying which create illusions ARE 'MAYAVIC'. HPB 
and her MASTERS' use of 'blinds' was pure MAYA-VADA or 'Path of Maya' 
mayavic behavior. She and her Masters were masters of illusion / 
maya, in that they deluded many people with their illusions." >>>

We are all deluded by our own languages. Thoughts themselves are 
distortions of ideas, which are distortions of archetypal images, 
which are distortions of ... etc. etc. In short, it is manas itself 
that distorts Truth, that causes blinds, that requires grades, that 
demands secrecy, and so on. Blavatsky sets up an entire evolutionary 
scheme or model of manvantaric functioning, and if her readers 
believe this all to be "truth" than this perception lies within them, 
not within Blavatsky, who knew very well that all manifestation is 
mayavic illusion. She clearly tells us that a monad is an indivisible 
unit (which is totally ineffable), and then uses the term as if 
compounds were monads, but such "as ifs" are inherent in language, 
and not done to deceive, which would make no sense and serve no 

Jerry S.

[Back to Top]

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