Theos-Talk Archives (May 2006 Message tt00974)

Dear Friends,

First of all, I would like to say that I am not trying to create a conflict between us. When I say something, is with the only intention to establish a healthy debate, a debate permeated with esteem, a debate that can glorify our relationship. Then, I would like to express my gratitude for all of you that make an efffort to answer my questions with respect and affection. Equally, my special thanks for all of you responsible for this "virtual place", a place so important for me and certainly for many others. 

It is interesting to weave some comments about the repetitive culture that goes establishing itself among us. The Theosophy has never pretended to be a repository of definite statements, ready and finished. Blavatsky always emphasized the evolutional character of the Theosophy. Who says evolution, talking about modifications e transformations, as we can see in various pronouncements of Blavatsky. It seems to me that some friars, repeting religious postures of past reencarnations, try to elevate the Secret Doctrine to the level of Sacred Writings, manufactured by the Divinity itself. So, it is common to hear something like: The Theosophy has responses for all questions of Man, trying to force answers by all means, even maintained by a supposed knowledge like "having studied the inner truths hidden in the Secret Doctrine" - forgetting the simple fact that a doctrine that calls itself  "secret" presupposes mysteries that are not exposed, especially on books.

It is crucial to be alert to not manifest an illimitable ambition, and immensely ridiculous. The Truth is conquered for a gradual effort and an evolutional ascension. All our truths are provisory, mutable and always parcial and Blavatsky certainly is situated in this context - similar to all human being, she is not absolute and imperfections surely occured in her life or works: be as a channel, as a medium or as a tulku representative. There is a great number of quests that remain, and will remain for a long time, without any solution, except in the field of speculation. The Theosophy responds to the fundamentals problems, faced by human being since primordiums: the personal immortality, the invisible planes, the generic problem of fate, the reincarnation and, in some way, to the objectives of existence.

We must remember that these answers, in a variable profundity, are part of the religious and philosophical context of humanity yet, since immemorial times. They were not discovered by Theosophy, in a general sense, nor to Blavatsky with all her subtle communications. What makes the Theosophy something special, in the studies of these questions, is the method that it exerts and the conceptual dynamism the it puts above them. Yes, because until the Theosophy (and Spiritualism as well) the reincarnation, for example, always was a factor of social abuse, generator of misery and conformism, a perfect instrument utilized for the dominant castes of society, with the intention of maintaining the people at a perpetual state of exploration and subservience. With Theosophy, it has passed to be dynamic, progressive and transformer in her social consequences. 

The Theosophical Society was the start point of a process much more profound and ample than the actual. It is necessary that new Bacons and Descartes propound inedited and precised methods, capable to attend the present cultural challenges.

This is an ideal more consentaneous, I think, of the duty of Theosophy, in the context of thought. Its real contribution to the Humanity cultural progress. The Theosophy can not be disconnected to the Present, to the Past or to the Future and, without question, the theosophical knowledge gives us the condition to think with all freedom and independence. A Doctrine of free exame and free thinking, not conditioned to dogmas and mysteries of any kind!

Even the Sacred Writings are opened to the criticism, as they donīt have the pretension of containing the Absolute Truth, being out of a fanatical and alienated concept. Join to this fact that the structure of the theosophical movement is not subordinate to any definite authority, capable of fixing rules and laws of faith, neither to especif controls of what is a theosophical truth or not . Ultimately, we donīt have judges to determine what is doctrinaire. This doesnīt mean the absence of basic criterions to evaluate if a certain ideia is inserted in the fundamental principles of Theosophy or not.

Is about this that, substantially, I am going to comprise in my emails.

Thank you for all,

Carlos Paterson

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