Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00275)

Hallo Dallas and all,

My views are inserted in the below using ***.

(Dallas: Why not keep this thread at theos-talk? Why post it at BN-study and
Theosophy Study List ?)

from
M. Sufilight


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "W.Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net>
To: <ham>; "Theosophy Study List" <theos-l@list.vnet.net>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 5:48 AM
Subject: ham,RE: Dogmatism and Heresy -- Free Will


August 15 2004

RE: Dogmatism and Heresy -- Free Will

Dear M N O and Friends:


I read your question:

"So do you then consider a good number of Theosophists
as being dogmatic theosophical Pharisees or Heretics ?"


I would offer as a line of thought the following:

If you want to know what THEOSOPHY teaches you cannot find that unless you
are sure of its basic propositions.

You have to study and know Theosophy to apply it accurately.
*** I Agree on that, when we talk about theosophy in general and not
only the ordinary dead-letter Theosophical organisational teachings. ***.



It is unimportant how we consider each other. We ought to have a single
concern: studying and testing THEOSOPHY.
*** No Dallas, that cannot be a quite true formulation. Studying THEOSOPHY,
should
be theosophy in general and not only a few main books. Studying should not
only be
to study books. Is for instance studying sexual relationships not a vital
part of theosophy?
I think you agree. It is important to ask: How do we learn how to learn? ***


And we do not meddle in the lives
or actions of others. We do not have the wisdom to know their motives. In
any case, what they do makes their Karma and not ours, unless we meddle.
*** Many readers only understand "Karma" in a narrow or dogmatic sense.
So why are you referring to it? Some theosophists still dogmatically believe
that their Karmic debts
has to be paid in the next life and not in this. Now tell us if it is Karma
from your former life
when you get a headache because you have been drinking too much the day
before. ***


That which we do inside ourselves involving our own mind and psychic nature
matters primarily and only to us. How we act outwardly will inevitably
affect others.
*** Perhaps. But, if, thoughts affect others, what then?
Compassion and true love seems to be important.***


Theosophy offers universal propositions from which impersonal guidance can
be attained each for themselves. [For the source of those propositions,
please refer to S D I 272 ....]
*** Yes. But if such propositions are being claimed or understood by
Theosophical (main-book) students as facts, - And without They understanding
a great number of them as problematic dogmatic facts, where are we as
theosophical seekers then going? ***


What others may be doing is their affair. As brothers, living and working
together we can not frame any accurate opinion of another's life and
motives.
*** We can raise our voices and be active spiritual workers. ***


If you mean by "Pharisees" those who dogmatize, then the basis for their
dogmatism has to be obtained. THEOSOPHY is not dogmatic it merely exposes
the laws (Karma) and workings (monadic evolution) of Nature (the Universe,
our earth, and that includes ourselves) -- and much of that is still
unknown to us. But we can make a beginning to study them. Theosophy offers
the basic ideas and a method of approach.

*** "Pharisees" are to be understood as those mentioned in The New
Testament,

who when told That they were "Blind" and had to learn higher thinking, still
thought

they could see and knew everything, there was to know about a given subject.
***


So, to "dogmatize" is dangerous, as most of us are usually unaware of the
magnitude of knowledge and selflessness (compassion, and benevolence)
required for any individual spiritual development.

*** My view. To dogmatize is to spread the words about Mavantaras, Pralayas,
Karma and

Reincarnation, "Masters do never get married" and similar stuff in manner
which collects theosophical members almost as sheeps

in a social tribe-like club, where they sit and agree upon issues they do
not really know

whether exists or not, - BUT which they have been told exists. A few main
books

won't help remove their ignorance. Such a promotion is not spiritual
development. It is stagnation.

The audience in 1888 is not the same as the one year 2004. They are less
intellectual and they have a sloppy memory today.

(The book Animal Farm by George Orwell comes to my mind. And The Seven
Commandments with one of them saying, "All animals are created equal."

This is later changed to "All animals are created equal, but some are more
equal than others." - And in the end the pigs (the brainworkers) also starts
to walk on two legs, looking almost human.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm )

***



If you mean by "Heretics," a questioner, or one who has opinions that are
different from those who are orthodox, either in religion or in science, we
can but refer to Webster's Dictionary, which says this word is derived from
the Greek "hairesis" (taking, choice), and relates to "holding an opinion
in opposition to authorized doctrinal standards." In other words a
"heretic" is a free thinker, a questioner, One who dares to inquire into
the accuracy and truthfulness of any dogma or doctrine. He / she may, by
this method, place themselves outside the "congregation," or "church." He
exchanges "faith" and "belief" for his own research.

In this regard all true Theosophists and students of THEOSOPHY are
"heretics."

*** So what is a "dogmatic theosophical heretic"? To me it is a spiritual
theosophical

renegade or charlatan, which continues to promote or teaches theosophical
followers a

dogmatic doctrine in a manner similar to the one I described in my previous
comment.

The Pharisee is the one who do the same - without knowing it or by not being
willing to

regocnize the Truth when it is shown.***



We fearlessly question dogma and doctrines. We demand that truth, if
available, or if concealed, be made known to ourselves and to everyone else.
Seeing the original teachings or statements of a teacher, a reformer or a
prophet, we deem ourselves able to decide what we shall do.
*** I agree. But then one should promote such a view so that all
theosophical

dogmatism (ie. Mavantaras, pralayas, karma, reincarnation, "Masters do never
get married")

are being questioned and not just accepted in a dogmatic and almost
fanatical sense.

Something which still happens today in certain theosophical circles of
noteworthy sizes.***


We need not conform to any social "norms."

*** I bet you have not read that in any of your main books. If so I would
like to know where. ***





Yet to live in "society," we do
not violate its common rules of brotherly relationships. We have
discovered, to some extent that the general rules all observe, are based on
the original rules of friendly and neighborly coexistence, that which are
commonly called the "virtues," and which are detailed in all religions. It
then becomes clear that the very existence of any being shows that nature
needs and desires it to be there. We have no right to interfere in that,
And so, we take into account and tolerate the peaceful and the progressive
growth of every being of any level of intelligence, in our environment, near
and far.

*** Not, that we should not interfere if it is good to do so. ***



Consider the following:

We might attribute certain powers to our "Spiritual Nature." Let us call
it for the moment the "Higher Manas," and say, for example, that the
Mahatmas [Those who are Great Souls] - in whom Manas has fully flowered -
are free because, in the process of their self-development, and because of
their compassionate and dispassionate living, have been trusted by Nature
with a knowledge of the operation of many powers of a spiritual nature.

But we have to also consider what They say of themselves and those "Powers."
Those are locked away, and held inoperative by Them. For example, they have
a greater choice than the average human being over which vehicle of
consciousness they use at any one time, (see S D I 157-8] but this choice
is bound by the Karma of the time, cyclic needs, the people they are
helping, and the environment they are in.

If we read the "Mahatma Letters" to A.P.Sinnett, we find over and over again
that the Mahatmas (Adepts) state They are not free to do what they choose.
They are often limited by the wisdom and greater vision of their own revered
superiors and, more importantly, by Universal Law (Karma) as to what they
can do to help humanity at large, or individuals in particular.

*** Great remark. And that is exactly why I say, that we aught not to read
the Mahatma Letters out of context, and without regard to the time, place
and people they were mainly directed to. ELSE one will do the same as the
man who ate old bread handed to him by the baker. And the man kept saying:
The bread tastes just as good as a newly baked one. - Well even if he knew
it wasn't quite true. But it had been so long since he had tasted new bread,
that he had almost completely forgot the taste of it.
I would say, that what people spiritually need today is not so much Mahatma
Letters as they need to understand, that those who has wisdom can teach
them. Old books and letters can hardly do the same job as new ones and a
real live teacher of quality.



I will stop commenting here. Because I think we need to keep the focus.



from

M. Sufilight wiht peace and love...



***


[cut short by M. Sufilight]





Best wishes,

Dallas

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




-----Original Message-----
From: Mort N. O
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 12:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: ham,

Then I have an opportunity to ask a sort of insider questions:

So do you then consider a good number of Theosophists as being dogmatic
theosophical Pharisees or Heretics ?

And what about the Brainwash issue ?






---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: global-theosophy@adslhome.dk
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-46643K@list.vnet.net