Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00086)

Monday, August 18, 2003

Dear G:

If one truly desires to compare philosophies and methods of
presentation, one has to learn the basics of any "philosophy or
"religion."

The objective is to transcend the limits of any language and get
at the actual principles. Older languages employed analogies and
words drawn from still more ancient sources -- some now
inaccessible to us.

But, since wisdom is ONE and unalterable, regardless of age or
place, it can always be recognized by those who have studied its
many forms and alterations, as expressed by those who love it,
and desire to use its wisdom. It is of course from one point of
view "esoteric." In all cases it is knowledge with a moral
component that gives the one who applies it an access to the ONE
TRUTH.

No one will obtain those basics from priests or their
mistranslations of the original words of the prophet or reformer.
Look at the current work among scholars of the Bible in their
search for the oldest MSS and for correct renditions thereof.
Gnostic and other texts have turned up to assist in this.

Today we have The SECRET DOCTRINE and the VOICE OF THE SILENCE
and the KEY TO THEOSOPHY (HPB) . If we who desire to measure
Theosophy with other sacred writings do not know them well we
cannot achieve any secure degree of certainty. We are also
unsafe if we choose "authorities" since we are unable to place
any reliability on their real values. We are then self-condemned
to some level of ignorance or another.

Speculations lead to insecurity and uncertainty, always. How can
we get rid of this unimportant set of impediments?

It is quite true that some sets of priests view Theosophy as a
threat. It reveals TRUTH and impersonality as well as
universality -- which their view conceal. A religion to be true
does not require coercion or compulsion to grasp. It values the
independence of the human mind and therefore it offers
explanations which if true, will draw those desirous of finding
those truths to its explanations. It demands nothing but also
excludes nothing.

Truth is not to be patented, or held aloof from the understanding
of any one. If that is done we can be sure that there are other
than pure motives present. So we ought to be wary.

The THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY (singular or plural) do not HOLD truth.
They present it. Membership confers no advantages but instead it
entails responsibilities. Promulgation is one of these -- and
personal testing and -- exemplification when satisfied.

The "Stanzas of WISDOM (Dzyan)" are self-proving and do not
require . They are a brief statement of evolutionary history.
As H P B says they may be treated as "a new Genesis." And their
logic is at least more inclusive, more focused and direct, on the
whole, superior to those of the speculative theories of the
paleontologists of today.

Best wishes,

Dallas

=======================

-----Original Message-----
From: G E
Sent:	Monday, August 18, 2003 3:08 AM
To:
Subject:	: Mauri and threats to Theosophy


Mauri,

As Bart pointed out I will use another manner to mark my comments
instead of bold.

You wrote:

Ed wrote: <<What Theosophical threat are you talking
about?>>

I'm speculatively referring to what might be called a
"continuation of a threat," (say?), that seems to have surfaced a
while back when the missionaries in India, with the
cooperation of the Coulombs (in the nineteenth century) seem
to have found fault with Theosophy, HPB, etc. In other words,
it has occurred to me (and no one else?) that there might be
some people in some religions that might tend to see some kind
of threat in SOME forms of Theosophy, maybe.

>>>Well I will say this: I had a supervisor who was baptist who
tried to convert me. When he asked about religion and I
mentioned Theosophy he knew about it (basics) because he said
that his church had taught him about the various religions - and
how to argue against them to show that their way was the best.



And, being
rather speculatively inclined, at the moment, I tend to wonder
about what some such religious individuals might actually do
about their perceived threats and competitors (ie, though others
might weightily argue that the Theosophical Movement is so
miniscule in its influence in relation to the mainstream
religions
that they can't see how anybody in their right mind could see
Theosophy threatening or competing in any kind of mainstream
sense).


>>>>>I don't think that any main stream religions have a very
concentrated effort to try to "combat" Theosophy. Then again,
there may be but I just may not know about it.


That is, though the Theosophical Movement, today, might be
seen to be lacking in some sort of "mainstream influence" (in
some sense, possibly?), I can't help thinking that, since
Theosophy does seem to represent, as I see it, an alternative or
choice in the field of "spiritually engaging thought and
activity," (in a sense, potentially?), in general, that there
might
be those who might tend to ... whatever ... That is, I seem to be
currently suffering (if not particularly severely, as I see it,
would you believe?) from a tendency to speculate about such
as how some detractors of Theosophy might go about
detracting (not that I'm beyond reproach, myself, being as
speculatively inclined as I am).



>>>>That, I suppose, would depend on the detractors belief
system. For instance, my savior is the only one and if you don't
believe in him in my way you will go to hell, etc etc. Any
philosophy/religion can be "attacked" with either theological
counterpoints or scholarly counterpoints. Every philosophy has
points that have to be taken on "faith" until they can be proven
otherwise. For instance HPB quotes from sources that have never
conclusively been found (i.e. The Voice of the SIlence, The
Stanzas of Dzyan). While I believe that they are texts that
exist (based on my belief that HPB knew what she was talking
about and had no reason to make them up) - a scholar may argue
that "we have never seen these texts therefore they must be made
up." In the end this type of thing can be done with any belief
system (i.e. who wrote the Bible? since this sutra "appeared"
hundreds of years later is it really the teachings of the Buddha?
etc. etc.) Every belief system can be "attacked" and
has it's detractors. No belief system is impervious because at
the very least some will argue against it's basic tenets (i.e. an
athiest will say there is no God therefore a belief in God is
mistaken at its very root, etc.). So while Theosophy, as well as
any other system, can be "detracted" from - in the end it's up to
the individual to find out what is useful to them and makes them
happy and a better person and helps them grow. Personally I find
the Theosophical presentation of the basic beliefs that seem to
run through all religions useful and compelling.

Speculatively,