Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00320)

May 10 2005

Re: "Should an "ideal" Theosophical Society study and "promote" all
these books?

Books by Blavatsky, Sinnett, Judge, Besant, Leadbeater, Tingley, G.
de Purucker, Olcott,
Bailey, La Due, Ballard, Roerich, Prophet, Chaney, Steiner, Hodson,
King, Crosbie,
Wadia, Scott, Heindel, Innocente, Shearer, and other "Theosophical"
writers.

As well as books by various yogis, lamas, metaphysicians, Sufis,
spiritualists, psychical 
researchers, kabalists, etc., etc."



Dear Daniel and Friends:


I can only offer an opinion: --

In this inquiry, the basis is very wide. That is a common problem with
categories. 

I believe this question applies more to individuals than to "Societies or
Organizations," since no one requires any kind of "authority" in any way. As
I understand it THEOSOPHY is a fresh attempt to place for consideration an
expression of age-old facts as they are. These, anyone can test and verify
independently.  

I believe that the value of any Lodge, Society, etc. is as a facility that
can be offered to students to secure "original teachings and literature,"
and to meet together to compare and study their individual work and
thoughts. 

No Lodge or society is capable of enforcing any set of beliefs or
procedures, although they may promulgate such regulations. It is up to each
individual to choose the best environment for his work. 

As in all such matters one ought to be able to chose some specifics. 

In my case, I choose to compare in those books the exposition to be found
therein of the what I call "The Three Fundamentals" of the SECRET DOCTRINE -
[ S D , Vol. I, pp. 14 -19 ].  

And to these I offer brief explanations.

Here are:

THREE FUNDAMENTALS of the SECRET DOCTRINE 


1	Deity is Universal.  

[Divisions, known broadly as spiritual, psychic and physical are to be found
everywhere. They merge, when perfected, into a single WHOLE. The word
"Deity," I consider, may be replaced by "Nature," or "Universe." Deity is
generally considered to have three qualities: omnipresence, omniscience and
omnipotence -- no exceptions, no exclusions. ] 


2	Law is Universal.  

[It binds all beings together into a vast family. Universal sensitivity
seeks a harmony of discords, as individuals merge back into the ONE. No one
may impose on, or distort the life of another, without incurring a reaction
from Nature, equal to the effort for "good or evil" generated. "Good" may be
defined as "in accord with impersonal and impartial law." "Evil" is the
reverse -- a breaking of the general Law of fairness and equity for all. It
has been named "Karma." In a "Universe of LAW," there is no "Personal God"
with the power to contravene its Laws. ]


3	The Evolution of Intelligence is Universal.  

[There is no "Creator." All beings (Monads) are "Mind-Souls." They are
immortal, intelligent and perfectible. The closest place to Perfection is
within ones' self. Each of us is a potential "Mahatma" (Great Soul).] 


I next consider the following: Is ...? 


4	Each Individual as an "Immortal Pilgrim."  

[Reincarnation of the deathless Mind-Soul, as a process, is a fact in
Nature. The Mind-Soul stands in the Monad as a bridge between Perfection (or
Spiritual Unity), and many diverse material "Forms." The evolutionary
process comprises the gradual refinement of the material aspect of every
Monad. This "pilgrimage" for us all, at this time, commences with the
rebirth of the Universe -- called a "Manvantara."]


5	Brotherhood as a fact in nature.

[It is based on these three "Fundamentals," when and if they are applied
conscientiously, independently and uniformly by each individual Mind-Soul,
in their own lives at all times.] 


I have noted:


6	The SECRET DOCTRINE provides us with a missing link -- an account
of the History Of Evolution as it has occurred.

7	It provide us with keys enabling us to understand some of the
Esoteric And Secret Laws of Nature. Nature supports us all, and has
established these Laws of Life and of living for all beings, since
immemorial times. Our modern Science is unveiling, proving and testing these
"secrets" in many ways.


Best wishes,

Dallas


=================
 
-----Original Message-----
From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Daniel H. Caldwell
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:39 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Theos-World Should an "ideal" Theosophical Society study and
"promote" all these books?

Should an "ideal", non-dogmatic, all-inclusive
Theosophical Society study and "promote" all
these books?

Books by Blavatsky, Sinnett, Judge, Besant,
Leadbeater, Tingley, G. de Purucker, Olcott,
Bailey, La Due, Ballard, Roerich,
Prophet, Chaney, Steiner, Hodson, King, Crosbie,
Wadia, Scott, Heindel, Innocente, Shearer, and
other "Theosophical" writers.

As well as books by various yogis, lamas,
metaphysicans, sufis, spirtualists, psychical reseachers,
kabalists, etc. etc. etc. etc.

I believe that almost all the above named individuals
have claimed contact with the "Masters" and all
their books could broadly be called "theosophical".

Who is to say what and what is not Theosophy or
Theosophical?

And who is to say what or what is not to be studied
and promoted in a Theosophical Society or group?

The three major Theosophical organizations (TS Adyar,
TS Pasadena and ULT) all feature, study and promote only
certain authors.

Therefore are these three groups being "dogmatic" or in fact
promoting a "fundamentalistic" version of Theosophy by in
fact "limiting" which authors are promoted/studied???

Hopefully some food for thought...

Daniel
http://hpb.cc




 





 
Yahoo! Groups Links