Theos-Talk Archives (November 2004 Message tt00348)

Hi Daniel,

First of all we know that the teachings Blavatsky have written are just 
a fragment of the truth. That is also a reason for which the 
Theosophical Society was created with certain objects that we could say arekeys 
for someone that wishes to have a more profound knowledge. At the 
moment one says this is the truth and the only truth without having the 
possibility through a deep understanding to realize the truth that is a 
dogmatic position. Yeah, I am against dogmatic and fundamentalist views.

You don’t want to compare the knowledge and wisdom of a Mahatma and 
it’s level of consciousness with ours. In my writings I am not stimulating 
anybody to close themselves into a certain line of teachings, even if I 
base my studies and researches in many of this teachings. Now part of 
one of your quotes below is related to a very strong theological dogma 
the existence of God. So you made a nice mixing of quotes trying to 
close your point. But I am sure that you know that a Mahatma before to be a 
Mahatma was one inquirer. May be this quote will remind you. 

….The adept is the rare efflorescence of a generation of enquirers; and 
to become one, he must obey the inward impulse of his soul irrespective 
of the prudential considerations of worldly science or sagacity…. M.L. 
Letter II K.H

Blind believes are but stones on the path of one that is a real inquirer, 
unti the inquirer to have the ability know the truth, his duty is no 
more than to inquire, to question every teaching. Because it is only 
through inquire that one will probably reach somewhere. Now to accept 
blindly teachings and to create dogmas around it, should not be an attitude 
of a theosophist. 

Dogma? Faith? These are the right and left pillars of every 
soul-crushing theology. Theosophists have no dogmas, exact no blind faith. 
Theosophists are ever ready to abandon every idea that is proved erroneous 
upon strictly logical deductions; let Spiritualists do the same. Dogmas 
are the toys that amuse and can satisfy but unreasoning children. They 
are the offspring of human speculation and prejudiced fancy. A SOCIETY 
WITHOUT A DOGMA H.P.B CW.

. . . But the Theosophical Society rejects the idea, and not merely for 
the sake of argument, of` having been formed in order “to spread the 
dogmas of the Buddha.” Our mission does not consist in spreading any 
dogmas, whether Buddhist, Vedic or Christian; we are independent of any 
formula, any ritual, any exotericism. Theosophy and Buddhism CW 10 1888 
HPB

The Theosophists who “have neither dogmas nor doctrines to offer” 
(statutes and rules of the Society), help this progress along, as much as 
they are able to; “they are merely seekers, investigators who accept any 
demonstrated truth.”

CW Vol II H.P.B. FINAL REPLY OF A THEOSOPHIST TO MR. ROSSI DE 
JUSTINIANI

Mahatma Letters

...You could count them upon the fingers of your right hand. Your race 
boasts of having liberated in their century, the genius so long 
imprisoned in the narrow vase of dogmatism and intolerance -- the genius of 
knowledge, wisdom and freethought. It says that in their turn ignorant 
prejudice and religious bigotry, bottled up like the wicked Jin of old, 
and sealed up by the Solomons of science rests at the bottom of the sea 
and can never, escaping to the surface again, reign over the world as 
it did in days of old; that the public mind is quite free, in short, and 
ready to accept any demonstrated truth. …

Yet we know something of human nature for the experience of long 
centuries -- aye, ages -- has taught us. And, we know, that so long as 
science has anything to learn, and a shadow of religious dogmatism lingers in 
the hearts of the multitudes, the world's prejudices have to be 
conquered step by step, not at a rush. As hoary antiquity had more than one 
Socrates so the dim Future will give birth to more than one martyr….

K.H. Letter 1

I hope I have made my point more clear but still I leave open the 
possibility of mistakes into my point of view.
 
Erica

"Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com> wrote:

Erica, you write:

"I agree with you, specially on the 
teachings that are concerned about the
Mahatmas, but it is very important 
do not create dogmas. At the moment that
someone excludes everything else and 
says this is the only truth, this will 
be a disfavor for the process of inner 
growing and inquires of every one of us."

So was HPB and KH also guilty of creating
dogmas?

You write:

"At the moment that
someone excludes everything else and 
says this is the only truth...."

Well what about when that "someone"
is HPB or KH?

For example:

KH wrote:

"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."

HPB wrote:

". . . 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 
path."
". . . 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." 

Master M. wrote:

"[Salig Ram is] -- a truly good man -- yet a devotee of another 
error. Not his guru's voice -- his own. The voice of a pure, 
unselfish, earnest soul, absorbed in misguided, misdirected 
mysticism. Add to it a chronic disorder in that portion of the brain 
which responds to clear vision and the secret is soon told: that 
disorder was developed by forced visions; by hatha yog and prolonged 
asceticism. S. Ram is the chief medium and at same time the principal 
magnetic factor, who spreads his disease by infection -- 
unconsciously to himself; who innoculates with his vision all the 
other disciples. There is one general law of vision (physical and 
mental or spiritual) but there is a qualifying special law proving 
that all vision must be determined by the quality or grade of man's 
spirit and soul, and also by the ability to translate divers 
qualities of waves of astral light into consciousness. There is but 
one general law of life, but innumerable laws qualify and determine 
the myriads of forms perceived and of sounds heard. There are those 
who are willingly and others who are unwillingly -- blind. Mediums 
belong to the former, sensitives to the latter. Unless regularly 
initiated and trained -- concerning the spiritual insight of things 
and the supposed revelations made unto man in all ages from Socrates 
down to Swedenborg . . . no self-tutored seer or clairaudient ever 
saw or heard quite correctly."  

This throws doubts on the claims
of a major Radhasoami sect in India that has thousands of followers 
even today.

Or again HPB:

"The publication of many of the facts herein stated has been rendered 
necessary by the wild and fanciful speculation in which many 
Theosophists and students of mysticism have indulged, during the last 
few years, in their endeavour to, as they imagined, work out a 
complete system of thought from the few facts previously communicated 
to them." S.D., original edition, Vol I, p. viii 

Or Master K.H. again: 

"I have also noted, your thoughts about the 'Secret Doctrine.' Be 
assured that what she [HPB] has not annotated from scientific and 
other works, we have given or suggested to her. Every mistake or 
erroneous notion, corrected and explained by her from the works of 
other theosophists was corrected by me, or under my instruction. It 
is a more valuable work than its predecessor, an epitome of occult 
truths that will make it a source of information and instruction for 
the earnest student for long years to come. . . ." Letters from the 
Masters of the Wisdom, Series I, p. 47 


Surely in each of these quotes KH or HPB or M is "excluding"
everything else or at least SOME things and in effect saying
this is the truth or "the only truth" about the matter or subject.

Or they not in effect doing the very thing you say you are against?

Maybe I'm missing your point....

Daniel
http://hpb.cc






Erica Letzerich .'.






		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]