Theos-Talk Archives (September 2005 Message tt00017)

Pedro,

Thanks for the quotes below from HPB.

First of all, what are you suggesting that these quotations
should tell us? Are you suggesting that what HPB writes
here somehow contradicts or refutes what she and the Masters
have written elsewhere (for example in the extracts I have given
in the last day or two on Theos-Talk).

Furthermore, you write that:

"it becomes difficult to entertain the notion that she would ever 
have accepted the view that her works are either the final word on 
Theosophy or an authority that can never be examined critically."

But who was suggesting that what she has written "can never be 
examined critically" or that her works are "the final word on 
Theosophy." Certainly her works should be examined critically and 
one does that by first reading and studying what she wrote and 
trying to understand what she is attempting to convey.

Pedro, are you suggesting that HPB herself is creating a dogma or 
suggesting that her book THE SECRET DOCTRINE is the final word on 
Theosophy at least for a few centuries to come when she writes:

". . . the SECRET DOCTRINE is not a treatise, or a series of vague 
theories, but contains all that can be given out to the world in 
this century." The Secret Doctrine, 1888, Vol I, p. xxxviii 
(original edition) 

And a few lines above these two paragraphs, one reads:

". . . But it will take centuries before much more is given from it 
[the Secret Archaic Doctrine]. . . . " Italics added.

Again many of her quotes that you give seem to be dealing with the 
Theosophical Society. And as I read her writings as well as the 
Mahatma Letters there is more to all of this than just the 
Theosophical Society.

Notice what HPB writes in first major book in 1877:

". . .we came into contact with certain men, endowed with such 
mysterious powers and such profound knowledge that we may truly 
designate them as the sages of the Orient. To their instructions we 
lent a ready ear." p. vi 

"The work now submitted to public judgment is the fruit of a 
somewhat intimate acquaintance with Eastern adepts and study of 
their science." p. v 

Here she writes about the adepts and their [esoteric or 
theosophical] SCIENCE and profound knowledge. It would appear that 
she was trying over the 17 years of her public career to give 
readers some idea of what that science was all about and something 
of the "profound knowledge" the adepts had. Readers of her works, 
even those who are not members of any Theosophical Society or group, 
are free to accept or reject or simply refrain from accepting or 
rejecting any thing she wrote. Where is dogma in this?

Pedro you are free to reject (if you so desire to do so) what she 
gives as Theosophy. If you choose to believe that she didn't know 
what she was talking about or that the Mahatmas didn't know what 
they were talking about then that is your decision.

All I have been attempting to do is to show in some small way what 
HPB and the Masters taught as found in their writings (1874-1891)on 
certain subjects.

Notice now what Madame Blavatsky wrote in 1890 in the following 
extract. We see that there is more than just the Theosophical 
Society............

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

Acting under the Master's orders I began [in 1887] a new movement in 
the West on the original lines; I founded Lucifer, and the Lodge 
which bears my name. Recognizing the splendid work done at Adyar by 
Colonel Olcott and others to carry out the second of the three 
objects of the T.S., viz., to promote the study of Oriental 
Literature, I was determined to carry out here the two others. All 
know with what success this had been attended. Twice Colonel Olcott 
was asked to come over, and then I learned that I was once more 
wanted in India – at any rate by some. But the invitation came
too 
late; neither would 
my doctor permit it, nor can I, if I would be true to my life-pledge 
and vows, now live at the Headquarters from which the Masters and 
Their spirit are virtually banished. The presence of Their portraits 
will not help; They are a dead letter. The truth is that I can never 
return to India in any other capacity than as Their faithful agent. 
And as, unless They appear among the Council in propria persona 
(which They will certainly never do now), no advice of mine on 
occult lines seems likely to be accepted, as the fact of my 
relations with the Masters is doubted, even totally denied by some; 
and I myself having no right to the Headquarters, what reason is 
there, therefore, for me to live at Adyar?

The fact is this: In my position, half-measures are worse than 
none. People have either to believe entirely in me, or to honestly 
disbelieve. No one, no Theosophist, is compelled to believe, but it 
is worse than useless for people to ask me to help them, if they do 
not believe in me. Here in Europe and America are many who have 
never flinched in their devotion to Theosophy; consequently the 
spread of Theosophy and of the T.S., in the West, during the last 
three years, has been extraordinary. The chief reason for this is 
that I was enabled and encouraged by the devotion of an ever-
increasing number of members to the Cause and to Those who guide it, 
to establish an Esoteric Section, in which I can teach something of 
what I have learned to those who have confidence in me, and who 
prove this confidence by their disinterested work for Theosophy and 
the T.S. For the future, then, it is my intention to devote my life 
and energy to the E.S., and to the teaching of those whose 
confidence I retain. It is useless that I should use the little time 
I have before me to justify myself before those who do not feel sure 
about the real existence of the Masters, only because, 
misunderstanding me, it therefore suits them to suspect me.

And let me say at once, to avoid misconception, that my only 
reason for accepting the exoteric direction of European affairs, was 
to save those who really have Theosophy at heart and work for it and 
the Society, from being hampered by those who not only do not care 
for Theosophy, as laid out by the Masters, but are entirely working 
against both, endeavouring to undermine and counteract the influence 
of the good work done, both by open denial of the existence of the 
Masters, by declared and bitter hostility to myself, and also by 
joining forces with the most desperate enemies of our Society.

Half-measures, I repeat, are no longer possible. Either I have 
stated the truth as I know it about the Masters, and teach what I 
have been taught by them, or I have invented both Them and the 
Esoteric Philosophy. There are those among the Esotericists of the 
inner group who say that if I have done the latter, then I must 
myself be a "Master." However it may be, there is no alternative to 
this dilemma.

The only claim, therefore, which India could ever have upon me 
would be strong only in proportion to the activity of the Fellows 
there for Theosophy and their loyalty to the Masters. You should not 
need my presence among you to convince you of the truth of 
Theosophy, any more than your American brothers need it. A 
conviction that wanes when any particular personality is absent is 
no conviction at all. Know, moreover, that any further proof and 
teaching I can give only to the Esoteric Section, and this for the 
following reason: its members are the only ones whom I have the 
right to expel for open disloyalty to their pledge (not to me, 
H.P.B., but to their Higher Self and the Mahatmic aspect of the 
Masters), a privilege 1 cannot exercise with F.T.S.'s at large, yet 
one which is the only means of cutting off a diseased limb from the 
healthy body of the Tree, and thus save it from infection. I can 
care only for those who cannot be swayed by every breath of calumny, 
and every sneer, suspicion, or criticism, whoever it may emanate 
from.

Thenceforth let it be clearly understood that the rest of my 
life is devoted only to those who believe in the Masters, and are 
willing to work for Theosophy as They understand it, and for the 
T.S. on the lines upon which They originally established it.
-------------------------------------------------------

Quoted from:
http://theosophy.org/tlodocs/hpb/WhyIDoNotReturnToIndia.htm

Daniel
http://hpb.cc


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "prmoliveira" <prmoliveira@y...> 
wrote:
> As Madame Blavatsky's writings have generated discussion on this 
list 
> recently, perhaps it would be useful, particularly for the sake of 
> those who are not conversant with her writings, to review what she 
> wrote about dogma and orthodoxy. When one reads about her life and 
her 
> personality it becomes difficult to entertain the notion that she 
would 
> ever have accepted the view that her works are either the final 
word on 
> Theosophy or an authority that can never be examined critically. 
(PO)
> 
> 
> "Dogma and authority have ever been the curse of humanity, the 
great 
> extinguishers of light and truth." (H. P. Blavatsky Collected 
Writings, 
> XIV, p. 117)
> 
> "Dogma? Faith? These are the right and left pillars of every soul-
> crushing theology. Theosophists have no dogmas, exact no blind 
faith." 
> (BCW, I, 304)
> 
> "But what are really culture and civilization? Dickens' idea that 
our 
> hearts have benefited as much by macadam as our boots, is more 
original 
> from a literary, than an aphoristical, standpoint. It is not true 
in 
> principle, and it is disproved in nature by the very fact that 
there 
> are far more good-hearted and noble-minded men and women in muddy 
> country villages than there are in macadamised Paris or London. 
Real 
> culture is spiritual. It proceeds from within outwards, and unless 
a 
> person is naturally noble-minded and strives to progress on the 
> spiritual before he does so on the physical or outward plane, such 
> culture and civilization will be no better than whitened 
sepulchres 
> full of dead men's bones and decay. And how can there be any true 
> spiritual and intellectual culture when dogmatic creeds are the 
State 
> religion and enforced under the penalty of the opprobrium of large 
> communities of "believers." No dogmatic creed can be progressive. 
> Unless a dogma is the expression of a universal and proven fact in 
> nature, it is no better than mental and intellectual slavery. One 
who 
> accepts dogmas easily ends by becoming a dogmatist himself. And, 
as 
> Watts has well said: "A dogmatical spirit inclines a man to be 
> censorious of his neighbors. . . . . He is tempted to disdain his 
> correspondents as men of low and dark understandings because they 
do 
> not believe what he does."" (BCW, XII, 272)
> 
> "Student.—Admitting all you say, are not we, as Theosophists,
to 
> welcome every discovery of truth in any field, especially such 
truth as 
> lessens suffering or enlarges the moral sense? 
> 
> Sage.—That is our duty. All truths discovered must be parts of
the 
one 
> Absolute Truth, and so much added to the sum of our outer 
knowledge. 
> There will always be a large number of men who seek for these 
parts of 
> truth, and others who try to alleviate present human misery. They 
each 
> do a great and appointed work that no true Theosophist should 
ignore. 
> And it is also the duty of the latter to make similar efforts when 
> possible, for Theosophy is a dead thing if it is not turned into 
the 
> life. At the same time, no one of us may be the judge of just how 
much 
> or how little our brother is doing in that direction. If he does 
all 
> that he can and knows how to do, he does his whole present duty." 
(BCW, 
> IX, 103)
> 
> "* With the exception of a few agnostics, all the Fellows of the 
outer 
> (exoteric) section of the Theosophical Society, continue to 
profess the 
> respective religion in which they were born, remaining in it and 
> following its dogmas and rituals, just as they did before 
> becoming "Theosophists." Acquainted with our Society as he has 
been for 
> many years, Mr. Solovyov should also know that "Theosophy" is 
not "a 
> religion without definite dogmas," as he expresses it, but is a 
> universal system of philosophy, absolutely without any man-made 
dogmas. 
> Therefore, the Society, as such, remains in its collective whole 
> without participation in the dogmas of any religion, but respects 
both 
> the beliefs and rites pertaining to the faith of each one of its 
> members, belonging as they do to various religious creeds." (BCW, 
XII, 
> 341, footnote)
> 
> "Theosophy, and the rules of its Society if not the embodiment and 
> practical demonstration of the widest tolerance and of the 
broadest 
> Catholicity would be but a farce. Freethought, which in the views 
of 
> the lexicographers is only unbelief "which discards revelation" 
> and "undue boldness of speculation" according to Berkeley, is, in 
the 
> rules of our Society, a sine qua non of true theosophy which being 
> liberty of thought untrammelled searches for and accepts truth, 
and 
> nothing but the truth, sacred to every lover of Wisdom. Hence, 
while 
> laughing at this absurdly sudden change of front, evanescent as it 
is, 
> on the part of several of our Christian contemporaries in our 
favour, 
> we cannot but feel at the same time, indignant at the strenuous 
though 
> fruitless attempts made by the Light of the World to use us, 
> Theosophists, as convenient weapons in its warfare against (if not 
> altogether for "the cure of") Infidelity. It would fain profit by 
the 
> darkness thrown over the heathen word "theosophy" through the 
fanciful 
> etymology it has been given in the Dictionaries compiled by 
> monotheistic lexicographers, and use the term now, as a sledge-
hammer 
> to break the heads of Secularism and Freethought. Against this we 
> protest. We may not be in sympathy with materialism, and may even 
abhor 
> it; yet the Theosophical Society ought never to forget that which 
it 
> owes to Freethinkers. It is to the unceasing efforts of a long 
series 
> of adherents to Freethought—almost every one of whom has been
made 
a 
> martyr to his convictions at the hands of bigotry—that we, in
the 
> present century, owe the very possibility of our existence as an 
> organized body. And the fact that none of us has been or can be 
now 
> roasted alive in Trafalgar Square—to the greater glory of that
God 
to 
> belief in whom Annie Besant is now alleged to have been
converted—
is 
> due to the long battle of Freethought against Superstition and 
dark 
> fanaticism." (BCW, XI, 410)
> 
> "In its capacity of an abstract body, the Society [the TS] does 
not 
> believe in anything, does not accept anything, and does not teach 
> anything." (BCW, XI, 124)
> 
> "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." (BCW, IX, 243-244)
> 
> "Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has hitherto ended 
in 
> failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into a sect, 
set 
> up hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible 
> degrees that vitality which living truth alone can impart. You 
must 
> remember that all our members have been bred and born in some 
creed or 
> religion, that all are more or less of their generation both 
physically 
> and mentally, and consequently that their judgment is but too 
likely to 
> be warped and unconsciously biassed by some or all of these 
influences. 
> If, then, they cannot be freed from such inherent bias, or at 
least 
> taught to recognise it instantly and so avoid being led away by 
it, the 
> result can only be that the Society will drift off on to some 
sandbank 
> of thought or another, and there remain a stranded carcass to 
moulder 
> and die." (The Key to Theosophy, Conclusion)