Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00233)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Eldon B Tucker" <eldon@t...> 
wrote:
> On Paul Johnson's mailing list, Bhakti Ananda Goswami mentioned 
that he
> won't be writing for a while, and posted what he says is his final
> theos-talk related piece. He gives the following link:
> 
> http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~muehleb9/thoughtsystems4.html
> 
> Anyone following his series of highly-critical essays might want to 
read
> what he says. It's useful to know what arguments that critics use, 
because
> there's always the change that someone might pose a similar 
question to any
> of us and it would be good if we've thought about the issues 
beforehand, so
> that we can give a thoughtful reply.
> 
> I also went to the home page of the site created by Brigitte/Brian, 
and
> notice the following:
> 
> >If you see any historical information on this website that is in 
> >error, pls. provide evidence and we will change it immediately. 
> >So far, as of Feb. 15, 2003 nobody ever has sent such, which 
> >might be due to the fact that we do double check all incoming 
> >information and use only the best available sources. 
> >
> >-- Eric Wynants
> 
> I think that someone there has a sense of humor.
> 
> Following are some ideas presented by BAG in that piece.
> 
Here is my reply to BAG:

> (1) Theosophists secretly teach atheism while pretending not to. 
BAG is a
> noble monotheist thereby drawing fire from their leaders, bringing 
them into
> the open and exposing them. Daniel Caldwell has been exposed as 
such a
> leader.
> (2) HPB "corrupted, reinterpreted, and misrepresented ancient 
Sanskrit
> sources." She "merged elements of identifiable thought systems, 
resulting in
> non-sense gibberish," and "added white racist Aryan ideas."

She did not create anything.

> 
> I would say that in Theosophy there are a number of key 
philosophical points
> that challenge conventional theism. For someone to fully give 
themselves to
> a theistic practice, though, they cannot allow themselves to 
contemplate and
> understand these key insights into reality and the nature of life. 
The ideas
> may interfere with the Bhakti practice, so such a practitioner has 
to
> maintain a self-imposed blindness to certain areas of thought, 
ignoring or
> dismissing them in order to allow for a stable woldview upon which a
> self-created image of Deity can be imposed and worshiped. 
> 
> It is understandable for someone wholly devoted to that type of 
Path to
> naturally reject, oppose, and dismiss as valueless any approach 
that appears
> to contradict their own, since the moment there is doubt, the 
superstructure
> of faith in one's self-made Image starts to crumble. Theosophical 
ideas are
> challenging to the limitations of conventional theism.
> 
> It is also interesting that Plato was rejected, and his sayings 
dismissed at
> one time as "mere platitudes." Gibber was an alchemist whose words 
were
> called "gibberish," meaning nonsensical, by critics. Hippocrates 
was mocked
> by the coining of the term "hypocrite." Perhaps Blavatsky will one 
day face
> the same fate by some hostile to her message.

She has already faced that and more.



> When we deal with the basic ideas, it is quite clear when someone 
talking
> about the theosophical doctrines has comprehended them, or has only 
just
> skimmed the surface. Sometimes we see arguments over subtle points. 
(And
> there are some extremely subtle understandings that I've found 
there that I
> haven't seen elsewhere, although they seem so obvious at times that 
I can't
> help but expect to come across them everywhere, being originally 
thought out
> by many people that seek a clear understanding of the workings of 
life.)
> 
> There will always be critics of anything new, 

There is nothing NEW.

anything that challenges the
> status quo of established philosophical and religious thought. 
Theosophy
> offers key ideas that presage the future evolution of thought. 
These ideas
> are a threat to established figures in traditional religious 
hierarchies.
> First, the authority of a priestcraft and the necessity of a Priest 
standing
> between someone and their spiritual salvation is challenged. Then,
> incomplete, inferior, cruder ideas about nature and life are 
challenged by
> subtler, innovative thinking.
> 
> Hundreds of years from now, the historians and their conflicting 
views of
> what happened with key figures will be long gone. Attempts to 

I think you need to revisit history and the history of philosophy. 

dismiss new
> waves of innovative thought by attacking the good name of those 
figures will
> not matter. One way or another, however public opinion is swayed by 
people
> with competing vested interests in certain "histories," nothing of 
what any
> of them have said will matter.
> 
> What will matter is the evolution of human thought and the 
deepening of
> insight into Reality and the way that life works. The theosophical 
doctrines
> contain much to offer in this regard, although it may not be 
apparent to
> someone skimming over the books with too-little time devoted to 
reflection
> on what is contained or suggested therein. It doesn't really matter 
who said
> an idea, nor whether credit is given to this book, that author, or 
even some

That's true to an extent. And this is something that modern man has 
gotten away from. The ancients did not always give credit where 
credit was due for a number of reasons. One being that there were 
fewer educated elite, few written documents and the teachers were 
well known as were their school of thought. Rumi, for example, 
literally plaigerized his father's writings. He was not taken to task 
for it, rather he was elevated to the founder of Sufism and the 
whirling dervishes. But now we know where he got all those spiritual 
goodies from.

Netemara
> priest preaching from his pulpit. The important thing is that 
certain ideas
> are truer, closer to the real, superior to what has gone before. 
These ideas
> will eventually win out as more and more people come to understand.
> Established institutions dedicated to preserving the past will fall 
by the
> wayside and we all move forward.
> 
> Keeping this in mind, I think that it's most important to study and 
share
> the deeper insights that we've come across in our theosophical 
studies, and
> let others share what they find of value in what we say. Even so, 
only
> certain things can be said, or we can only speak of the unspeakable 
(that
> beyond words) to a degree, where we can go no further, and must 
limit
> ourselves to one-on-one discussions or even staying silent, knowing 
but
> holding back saying something, knowing it can only be misunderstood.
> 
> -- Eldon