Re: Theos-World Dogmas ...
Nov 28, 2004 08:43 AM
by Erica Letzerich
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
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
CW Vol II H.P.B. FINAL REPLY OF A THEOSOPHIST TO MR. ROSSI DE
...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.
"Daniel H. Caldwell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
"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?
"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
". . . 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
". . . 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
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....
Erica Letzerich .'.
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application