Theos-Talk Archives (December 2008 Message tt00128)

One can hardly blame the teacher if the student fails to take the 
trouble to study and understand the lesson. The teacher is not 
required to teach a lie in order to make the lesson more palatable to 
the student. The student learns when he is challenged to expand his 
conscioiusness, to increase his understanding. A case could be made, 
considering the apalling conditions that prevail in the domain of 
humanity, that whatever beliefs have been followed are due for a 
change. Adhering to the old faulty cruel and useless ideology because 
everyone else does is not the way to progress or evolution of 
consciousness. It is just a case of preferring the familiar darkness 
to the unfamiliar light.

Adelasie

On 9 Dec 2008 at 6:25, Anand wrote:

> 
> "This Subba Row will help you [Sinnett] to learn, though his terms 
> �"
> he being an initiated Brahmin and holding to the Brahmanical
> esoteric teaching �" will be different from those of the "Arhat
> Buddhist" terminology". (Letter 60, chronological.)
> 
> "Upasika (Madam B.) and Subba Row, though pupils of the same Master,
> have not followed the same philosophy �" the one is Buddhist 
> and the
> other an Adwaitee." (Letter 120, chronological.)
> 
> These passages perhaps explain incredible confusion which we see in
> Theosophical Society about major ideas. Blavatsky had made many
> anti-God statements, that irritated Christians. As these letters
> suggest, Blavatsky was perhaps following Buddhist terminology, which
> does not recognize existence of God.
> There is very small percentage of humanity which follows Buddhist
> religion. Majority of mankind follows religions which are theist. In
> all major religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism,
> God is most important and central in their philosophies. Majority of
> mankind follows these religions, in which God is central, and denying
> existence of God is considered by them as great sin. Naturally,
> Blavatsky's anti-God Theosophy is rejected and will be rejected by
> humanity. Blavatsky had always been humiliated, ridiculed because of
> her anti-God statements. Theosophy based on Blavatsky's atheist
> terminology won't be accepted by humanity, because people believe in
> philosophies that recognized God as central.
> Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater gave Theosophy, which recognizes
> existence of God and they consider God as central. That makes
> Theosophy of Besant-Leadbeater more acceptable to people.
> Problem is both Blavatsky's atheist Theosophy and Leadbeater's theist
> Theosophy came from the same Theosophical Society and they both
> considered each other as coworkers and yet there is huge difference in
> terminology they use as well as underlying ideas, according to many
> students. That has caused incredible confusion about position of the
> TS about God.
> I think it is extremely important to understand this situation,
> because it appears that philosophical conflicts which we see in TS are
> caused because of these reasons.
> Theosophical Society's first object is to form nucleus of universal
> brotherhood. If we see condition of the followers of Blavatsky, one
> can see that they fight more than loving one another. Not only they
> fight among themselves, but because of their anti-God philosophy they
> set themselves against people of all religions which believe in God,
> and annoy these followers of other religions. How can this help in
> forming universal brotherhood? And if Blavatsky's writing becomes
> cause of nuisance in the world, is there any point in spreading her
> teaching?
> 
> Best
> Anand Gholap
> 
>