Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00582)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@A...> 
wrote:

> When you see dogma and fundamentalism why don't you criticize it. 
> By showing only good quotations and conveniently ignoring enormous 
> faults don't you think members are kept in darkness to their 
> detriment. 

If you have a look at the Theos-talk archives you would be able to 
see that my posts do criticize absolute statements and dogmatic 
positions, without necessarily attacking people or the teachings of 
different authors. I don't have a mandate to liberate people from 
darkness. As I said before, I view Theos-talk as a space for 
discussion and dialogue. When it becomes (for some) a tribunal, that 
space is hijacked by separative tendencies that can destroy dialogue 
and understanding (and perhaps the list). 

In this regard, may I remind you (and myself and others) of the 
following passage from THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE?


"False learning is rejected by the Wise, and scattered to the Winds 
by the good Law. Its wheel revolves for all, the humble and the 
proud. The "Doctrine of the Eye" is for the crowd, the "Doctrine of 
the Heart," for the elect. The first repeat in pride: "Behold, I 
know," the last, they who in humbleness have garnered, low 
confess, "thus have I heard". (II, 119) 


> When negative side is shown you don't like it. Facts are facts. Let 
> us face them.

Why negative? Negative according to whom? Are you saying that 
Blavatsky's personal traits (smoking, swearing, non-vegetarian diet, 
etc) were negative? Whatever they were, do you maintain that they 
could ever eclipse the depth, beauty and transformational power of 
the teachings given out to the world through her?

Please, by all means, show me the "facts". So far, whenever you use 
the term "fact" it comes accross as self-referential, that is, 
projections created out of your reactions to the complexity of the 
Wisdom Teaching as taught by HPB. 


> Thanks for Annie Besant's wise passages. They support my views and 
> show how ridiculous dogma is.

Before you stay with your own conclusion, please read again what 
Besant wrote: "But no one in the TS has any authority to lay down 
what people shall think, or not think, on any subject." Do you think 
this passage doesn't apply also to you?


> Another thing is CWL and AB have shown problems in Blavatsky's 
> writing in their usual polite manner. If you have read their 
writings let me know where these have come. Otherwise read again 
carefully in case you want to know them.


They attempted to make complex teachings more available to a wider 
readership, and if they succeeded in this or not is for anyone to 
judge. They may have seen certain topics differently from her, but as 
I said before the essence of their contribution upholds the core 
principles as presented by HPB: the unity of all life, the lawfulness 
of the universe and the evolutionary pilgrimage for every soul 
towards full Self-identity.

But both Besant and CWL remained profoundly grateful to HPB to the 
very end and considered her their teacher. Gratitude is not 
enforceable; in their case it was a profound response from the heart 
to her who had shown them the path to a deeper understanding, to what 
really matters in life: a self-effacing dedication to the spiritual 
good of humanity as a whole. But, who knows, all this could only be 
just my own projections.

regards,
pedro