Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00598)

March 26 2005

Dear M S:

Since U L T is a "name given to thoughts and ideas" it does not provide
"guide lines" concerning "new teachings."

If THEOSOPHY represents a statement of the LAWS AND HISTORY OF NATURE / the
UNIVERSE. It would be reasonable to suggest that any "new teachings" would
be a re-phrasing of the old ones.  

Why wood the whole of Nature / Universe revise its rules and laws every few
years? 

Why would any new exposition require a complete revision?

As I understand it THEOSOPHY is not a matter of sentiment, but is only a
report - a repot on the laws and events that have occurred in the past of
the Universe as we now live in it.  

So as far a I am concerned, novelty is usually a matter of personal liking,
and has to stand the test of impersonal and universal logic and
consideration. HPB in offering a synopsis of THEOSOPHY to us has been most
careful to do exactly that. She in her writings has been explicit and not
vague.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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

P S I find this in The KEY TO THEOSOPHY, 1889, [ pp. 18-20]

"These doctrines belong exclusively to no religion, and are confined
to no society or time. They are the birthright of every human soul. 

Such a thing as orthodoxy must be wrought out by each individual
according to his nature and his needs, and according to his varying
experience. This may explain why those who have imagined Theosophy to be a
new religion have hunted in vain for its creed and its ritual. Its creed is
Loyalty to Truth, and its ritual 'To honour every truth by use.' 

"How little this principle of Universal Brotherhood is understood by
the masses of mankind, how seldom its transcendent importance is recognised,
may be seen in the diversity of opinion and fictitious interpretations
regarding the Theosophical Society. 

This Society was organized on this one principle, the essential
Brotherhood of Man, as herein briefly outlined and imperfectly set forth. 

It has been assailed as Buddhistic and anti-Christian, as though it
could be both these together, when both Buddhism and Christianity, as set
forth by their inspired founders, make brotherhood the one essential of
doctrine and of life.

Theosophy has been also regarded as something new under the sun, or
at best as old mysticism masquerading under a new name. While it is true
that many Societies founded upon, and united to support, the principles of
altruism, or essential brotherhood, have borne various names, it is also
true that many have also been called Theosophic, and with principles and
aims as the present society bearing that name. With these societies, one and
all, the essential doctrine has been the same, and all else has been
incidental, though this does not obviate the fact that many persons are
attracted to the incidentals who overlook or ignore the essentials."

No better or more explicit answer— by a man who is one of our most
esteemed and earnest Theosophists— could be given to your questions. 
 

ENQUIRER. Which system do you prefer or follow, in that case, besides
Buddhistic ethics? 
 
THEOSOPHIST. None, and all. We hold to no religion, as to no
philosophy in particular: we cull the good we find in each. But here, again,
it must be stated that, like all other ancient systems, Theosophy is divided
into Exoteric and Esoteric Sections. 
 

ENQUIRER. What is the difference? 
 
THEOSOPHIST. The members of the Theosophical Society at large are
free to profess whatever religion or philosophy they like, or none if they
so prefer, provided they are in sympathy with, and ready to carry out one or
more of the three objects of the Association. 

The Society is a philanthropic and scientific body for the propagation of
the idea of brotherhood on practical instead of theoretical lines. The
Fellows may be Christians or Mussulmen, Jews or Parsees, Buddhists or
Brahmins, Spiritualists or Materialists, it does not matter; but every
member must be either a philanthropist, or a scholar, a searcher into Aryan
and other old literature, or a psychic student. In short, he has to help, if
he can, in the carrying out of at least one of the objects of the programme.
Otherwise he has no reason for becoming a "Fellow." Such are the majority of
the exoteric Society, composed of "attached" and "unattached" members.
These may, or may not, become Theosophists de facto. Members they are, by
virtue of their having joined the Society; but the latter cannot make a
Theosophist of one who has no sense for the divine fitness of things, or of
him who understands Theosophy in his own —if the expression may be used—
sectarian and egotistic way. "Handsome is, as handsome does" could be
paraphrased in this case and be made to run: "Theosophist is, who Theosophy
does." — Key, pp. 18-20


"Unconcerned about politics; hostile to the insane dreams of
Socialism and Communism, which it abhors--as both are but disguised
conspiracies of brutal force and sluggishness against honest labour the
Society cares but little about the outward human management of the material
world."
HPB --"What are the Theosophists ?" Theost. Oct. 1879, p. 7



"...Work, therefore, to bring about the moral regeneration of the
cultured but far more immoral classes before you attempt to do the same for
our ignorant younger Brethren. The latter was undertaken years ago, and is
carried on to this day, yet with no perceptible good results. It is not
evident that the reason for this lies in the fact that [except] for a few
earnest, sincere and all-sacrificing workers in that field, the great
majority of the volunteers consists of those same frivolous, ultra-selfish
classes, who 'play at charity' and whose ideas of the amelioration of the
physical and moral status of the poor are confined to the hobby that money
and the Bible alone can do it."
HPB -- "The Tidal Wave" Lucifer, Nov. 1889

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

-----Original Message-----
From: M. S 
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 1:11 AM
To: 
Subject: Re: HPB's article entitled KARMIC VISIONS & Frank's relevant
comments


Hallo Leon and all,

My views are:

Thanks for your answer.

I would like to expand a bit upon some of the ideas forwareded
on the possibility of Idries Shah being the 1975 candidate mentioned by 
Blavatsky.

The following quotes makes me wonder about how one actually aught to define 
the words Gupta Vidya?

Could it be, that it is a teaching, which can be taught using many different

methods?

The only requirements being that the methods work so to make the Seeker 
aware of the core message "Gupta Vidya" - namely "Wisdom of the Divine also 
known as Atma".


1.
Blavatsky said in 1888:

"Orthodoxy in Theosophy is a thing neither possible nor desirable. It is 
diversity of opinion, within certain limits, that keeps the Theosophical 
Society a living and a healthy body, its many other ugly features 
notwithstanding. Were it not, also, for the existence of a large amount of 
uncertainty in the minds of students of Theosophy, such healthy divergencies

would be impossible, and the Society would degenerate into a sect, in which 
a narrow and stereotyped creed would take the place of the living and 
breathing spirit of Truth and an ever growing Knowledge."

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-am/hpb-am1.htm

(I question if certain ULT's would understand and respect new teachings when

they stumble upon them. Well I have my doubts.)

CUT