Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00302)

Dear Dallas
You asked

For example: What has the personal performance of any one individual 

Have to do with THEOSOPHY ? I find it ludicrous to use space and     

occupy the Lower Manas with opinions and discussions about CWL, etc...  

Just how long do you think such an individual would last before the 

Living breathing HPB? As I see it, looking back at what was written 

those days, students in the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY had not carefully

studied its doctrines and tenets and were unable to make the kind

of tolerant and cooperative,brotherly decisions that would have

maintained its solidarity. The parable of the "bundle of sticks" 

comes to mind. 

He certainly did not embellish the record of the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

And what he wrote can easily be shown to denigrate HPB's teachings.  

So what is gained?

A: Daniel, It is not HPB's teachings that are being questioned but CWL's, and what is gained is a TS that is not built on sand.  

On this question I would stand nose to nose with HPB, although I imagine she would be by my side as CWL is denigrating HPB's teachings, not mine, as she said

But if any member, his sacred pledges on his word of honour and 

Immortal Self notwithstanding, chooses to continue, after that 

"new birth," with the new man, the vices or defects of his old life,

and to indulge in them still in the Society, then, of course,

he is more than likely to be asked to resign and withdraw; or,

in case of his refusal, to be expelled. We have the strictest 

rules for such emergencies. " [Key, p. 49]



It is not by studying Occultism for selfish ends, for the gratification 

Of one's personal ambition, pride, or vanity, that one can ever reach the true goal: that of helping suffering mankind. Nor is it by studying one single branch of the esoteric philosophy that a man becomes an Occultist, but bystudying, if not mastering, them all. 

"ENQUIRER. Do the members of your Society carry out these precepts? I 

have heard of great dissensions and quarrels among them. 

THEOSOPHIST. Very naturally, since although the reform (in its

present shape) may be called new, the men and women to be reformed are 

the same human, sinning natures as of old. As already said, the earnest 

working members are few; but many are the sincere and well-disposed persons, who 

try their best to live up to the Society's and their own ideals. 

Our duty is to encourage and assist individual fellows in 

self-improvement,intellectual, moral, and spiritual; not to blame or condemn those who fail.

We have, strictly speaking, no right to refuse admission to anyone¯

especially in the Esoteric Section of the Society, wherein "he who 

enters is as one newly born." 

CASS: Dallas, Do we reject Jesus' teachings by rejecting Judas?

Dallas, Are you suggesting that we sweep the dirt under the carpet

so the house looks clean?

Cass

 

 

 


"W.Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jan 12 2005

Re THEOSOPHY and Ethics

Dear P, J and friends:

Please permit me to but in ?

Worship and respect for the words and ideas of a "guru" is natural as the
bond between teacher and pupil is a natural one. In this "gratitude" of the
heart resides. To violate this leaves an indelible scar. 

In my view: To "discuss" is one thing, to "understand" is another. The
first phase ought to lead to the second, and tolerance, good-will and
brotherliness are the watch-words of THEOSOPHY.

I find that HPB in The KEY TO THEOSOPHY offers for consideration: 


OUR DUTY

"THEOSOPHIST. .... Our duty is to keep alive in man his spiritual
intuitions. To oppose and counteract ¯after due investigation and proof of
its irrational nature¯ bigotry in every form, religious, scientific, or
social, and cant above all, whether as religious sectarianism or as belief
in miracles or anything supernatural. 

What we have to do is to seek to obtain knowledge of all the laws of nature,
and to diffuse it. 

To encourage the study of those laws least understood by modern people, the
so-called Occult Sciences, based on the true knowledge of nature, instead
of, as at present, on superstitious beliefs based on blind faith and
authority. Popular folk-lore and traditions, however fanciful at times, when
sifted may lead to the discovery of long-lost, but important, secrets of
nature. 

The Society, therefore, aims at pursuing this line of inquiry, in the hope
of widening the field of scientific and philosophical observation." [Key,
48]

-------------------

These days, I find that there is lack of knowledge of what THEOSOPHY
teaches. I assume when saying this, that HPB is our prime source as agent
for the Masters of Wisdom. If we deny or doubt Them, it is useless to say
anything further. But as always, any teaching has to be tested in our own
Heart for its true spiritual meaning, and before it is adopted.

I consider it a duty to try to place HPB's words before us all today -- as a
basis for our present consideration, not as a lid on discussion or a "final
authority." We are all expected to think about what is offered and see if
it is reasonable and "common sense." 

To my mind, the statements made by her give a nobler and more time-lasting
stature to our exchanges, which otherwise are usually fleeting opinions. 

I ask myself, if I were to look back 50 years hence at what is written
today, how much would still be of real value? 

We are able to look back over 130 years at what HPB placed before us as the
teachings of THEOSOPHY -- by "Masters' Order." [ see Blavatsky: COLLECTED
WORKS, Vol. 1] This may mean nothing to some, but to others it acts as a
stimulus for self-study, and certainly as a basis for spiritual
Self-improvement morally.

For example: What has the personal performance of any one individual have
to do with THEOSOPHY ? I find it ludicrous to use space and occupy the
Lower Manas with opinions and discussions about CWL, etc... 

Just how long do you think such an individual would last before the living
breathing HPB? As I see it, looking back at what was written those days,
students in the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY had not carefully studied its doctrines
and tenets and were unable to make the kind of tolerant and cooperative,
brotherly decisions that would have maintained its solidarity. The parable
of the "bundle of sticks" comes to mind. 

He certainly did not embellish the record of the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY and
what he wrote can easily be shown to denigrate HPB's teachings. So what is
gained?

I find that HPB in The KEY TO THEOSOPHY deals in broad terms with the ethics
of THEOSOPHY -- here are some examples I have been considering:

----------------------------

WHAT ARE BASIC ETHICS ?

"ENQUIRER. But are not the ETHICS of Theosophy identical with those taught
by Buddha? 

THEOSOPHIST. Certainly, because these ethics are the soul of the
Wisdom-Religion, and were once the common property of the initiates of all
nations. But Buddha was the first to embody these lofty ethics in his public
teachings, and to make them the foundation and the very essence of his
public system. 

It is herein that lies the immense difference between exoteric Buddhism and
every other religion. For while in other religions ritualism and dogma hold
the first and most important place, in Buddhism it is the ethics which have
always been the most insisted upon. 

This accounts for the resemblance, amounting almost to identity, between the
ethics of Theosophy and those of the religion of Buddha. 


ENQUIRER. Are there any great points of difference? 

THEOSOPHIST. One great distinction between Theosophy and exoteric
Buddhism is that the latter, represented by the Southern Church, entirely
denies (a) the existence of any Deity, and (b) any conscious post-mortem
life, or even any self-conscious surviving individuality in man. 

Such at least is the teaching of the Siamese sect, now considered as the
purest form of exoteric Buddhism. And it is so, if we refer only to Buddha's
public teachings; the reason for such reticence on his part I will give
further on. 
[see in the Key, pp. 80-2]

But the schools of the Northern Buddhist Church, established in those
countries to which his initiated Arhats retired after the Master's death,
teach all that is now called Theosophical doctrines, because they form part
of the knowledge of the initiates¯ thus proving how the truth has been
sacrificed to the dead-letter by the too-zealous orthodoxy of Southern
Buddhism. But how much grander and more noble, more philosophical and
scientific, even in its dead-letter, is this teaching than that of any other
Church or religion. Yet Theosophy is not Buddhism." [Key, pp. 14-5]



"ENQUIRER. Is the production of such... adepts the aim of Theosophy? 

THEOSOPHIST. Its aims are several; but the most important of all are
those which are likely to lead to the relief of human suffering under any or
every form, moral as well as physical. And we believe the former to be far
more important than the latter. 

THEOSOPHY HAS TO INCULCATE ETHICS; it has to purify the soul, if it would
relieve the physical body, whose ailments, save cases of accidents, are all
hereditary. 

It is not by studying Occultism for selfish ends, for the gratification of
one's personal ambition, pride, or vanity, that one can ever reach the true
goal: that of helping suffering mankind. Nor is it by studying one single
branch of the esoteric philosophy that a man becomes an Occultist, but by
studying, if not mastering, them all. 


ENQUIRER. Is help, then, to reach this most important aim, given only to
those who study the esoteric sciences? 

THEOSOPHIST. Not at all. Every lay member is entitled to general
instruction if he only wants it; but few are willing to become what is
called "working members," and most prefer to remain the drones of Theosophy.


Let it be understood that private research is encouraged in the T. S.,
provided it does not infringe the limit which separates the exoteric from
the esoteric, the blind from the conscious magic." [Key, pp. 24-5]



"The "most cultured and learned" among you regard also Christianity and
every other religion as a relic of ignorance and superstition. 

People begin to believe now, at any rate, in hypnotism, and some¯ even of
the most cultured¯ in Theosophy and phenomena. But who among them, except
preachers and blind fanatics, will confess to a belief in Biblical miracles?
And this is where the point of difference comes in. 

There are very good and pure Theosophists who may believe in the
supernatural, divine miracles included, but no Occultist will do so. 


HIGHEST ETHICS TO BE PRACTISED

For AN OCCULTIST PRACTISES SCIENTIFIC THEOSOPHY, based on accurate knowledge
of Nature's secret workings; but a Theosophist, practising the powers called
abnormal, minus the light of Occultism, will simply tend toward a dangerous
form of mediumship, because, although holding to THEOSOPHY AND ITS HIGHEST
CONCEIVABLE CODE OF ETHICS, he practises it in the dark, on sincere but
blind faith. 

Anyone, Theosophist or Spiritualist, who attempts to cultivate one of the
branches of Occult science¯ e.g., Hypnotism, Mesmerism, or even the secrets
of producing physical phenomena, etc. -- without the knowledge of the
philosophic rationale of those powers, is like a rudderless boat launched on
a stormy ocean. " [Key, pp. 26-7]



PURITY OF LIFE DEMANDED

"Our age is pre-eminently unspiritual and matter of fact. Moreover, there is
the unfamiliar character of Theosophic teachings; the highly abstruse nature
of the doctrines, some of which contradict flatly many of the human vagaries
cherished by sectarians, which have eaten into the very core of popular
beliefs. 

If we add to this the personal efforts and GREAT PURITY OF LIFE EXACTED OF
THOSE WHO WOULD BECOME THE DISCIPLES OF THE INNER CIRCLE, and the very
limited class to which an entirely unselfish code appeals, it will be easy
to perceive the reason why Theosophy is doomed to such slow, up-hill work. 

It is essentially the philosophy of those who suffer, and have lost all hope
of being helped out of the mire of life by any other means. Moreover, the
history of any system of belief or morals, newly introduced into a foreign
soil, shows that its beginnings were impeded by every obstacle that
obscurantism and selfishness could suggest." [Key, pp. 37-8]



"ENQUIRER. Do the members of your Society carry out these precepts? I have
heard of great dissensions and quarrels among them. 

THEOSOPHIST. Very naturally, since although the reform (in its
present shape) may be called new, the men and women to be reformed are the
same human, sinning natures as of old. As already said, the earnest working
members are few; but many are the sincere and well-disposed persons, who try
their best to live up to the Society's and their own ideals. 

Our duty is to encourage and assist individual fellows in self-improvement,
intellectual, moral, and spiritual; not to blame or condemn those who fail.
We have, strictly speaking, no right to refuse admission to anyone¯
especially in the Esoteric Section of the Society, wherein "he who enters is
as one newly born." 

But if any member, his sacred pledges on his word of honour and immortal
Self notwithstanding, chooses to continue, after that "new birth," with the
new man, the vices or defects of his old life, and to indulge in them still
in the Society, then, of course, he is more than likely to be asked to
resign and withdraw; or, in case of his refusal, to be expelled. We have the
strictest rules for such emergencies. " [Key, p. 49]



"ENQUIRER. But if actions on the material plane are unsatisfying, why should
duties, which are such actions, be imperative? 

THEOSOPHIST. First of all, because our philosophy teaches us that
the object of doing our duties to all men and to ourselves the last, is not
the attainment of personal happiness, but of the happiness of others; the
fulfilment of right for the sake of right, not for what it may bring us.
Happiness, or rather contentment, may indeed follow the performance of duty,
but is not and must not be the motive for it. 


ENQUIRER. What do you understand precisely by "duty" in Theosophy? It cannot
be the Christian duties preached by Jesus and his Apostles, since you
recognise neither? 


THEOSOPHIST. You are once more mistaken. What you call "Christian
duties" were inculcated by every great moral and religious Reformer ages
before the Christian era. All that was great, generous, heroic, was, in days
of old, not only talked about and preached from pulpits as in our own time,
but acted upon sometimes by whole nations. 

The history of the Buddhist reform is full of the most noble and most
heroically unselfish acts. "Be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of
another; love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous; not rendering evil for
evil, or railing for railing; but contrariwise, blessing" was practically
carried out by the followers of Buddha, several centuries before Peter. 

The Ethics of Christianity are grand, no doubt; but as undeniably they are
not new, and have originated as "Pagan" duties. 


ENQUIRER. And how would you define these duties, or "duty," in general, as
you understand the term? 

THEOSOPHIST. Duty is that which is due to Humanity, to our
fellow-men, neighbours, family, and especially that which we owe to all
those who are poorer and more helpless than we are ourselves. This is a debt
which, if left unpaid during life, leaves us spiritually insolvent and moral
bankrupts in our next incarnation. Theosophy is the quintessence of duty."
[Key, pp 228-9]

----------------------------


I hope this helps to better define the importance that some place on
theosophical ethics,

Best wishes, 

Dallas

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Perry 
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 7:45 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: A Question for the New Year



Hello Jerry,

you wrote :

"While it might be untidy, and perhaps "unbrotherly" for students to
debate over the meaning HPB or a Mahatma intended in a text, I believe
that it is death to the spirit of the Theosophical Movement if one is 
to merely point to the text as a statement of TRUTH and demean any 
attempts to discuss and bring relevant meanings to that text by calling 
it "mere opinion."

Couldn't agree more, HPB was a great debater and I think would enjoy 
the challenge of being challenged.

This is why guru worship is so anathema to the theosophical process.
Gurus need more than anybody else to be challenged and they should 
expect it from there students if they are genuine.

Blindly followed pronouncements and dogmas that are just believed are 
what churches are about.

Theosophy is something else entirely.

Organizations that block debate are churches.

Perry

CUT




Yahoo! Groups Links








		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

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