Theos-Talk Archives (January 2009 Message tt00163)

For the sake of clarity Pedro - one should read what she said in context
Cass
THE NEW CYCLE
H. P. Blavatsky 
[La Revue Theosophique, Paris, Vol. I, No. 1, March 21, 1889, pp. 3-13]
[Translated from the French original] 
No initial issue of an orthodox and official Theosophical Journal should be allowed to appear without giving to our readers some information which we deem to be of absolute necessity. 
As a matter of fact, the ideas which people have had until now concerning the Theosophical Society of India, as it is known, are so vague and so varied, that many of our Fellows themselves hold very erroneous opinions on the subject. Nothing could show better the necessity of thoroughly explaining the objective which we strive to attain in a Journal devoted exclusively to Theosophy. Accordingly, before we ask our readers to show an interest in it, or even venture on it, we very definitely owe them certain preliminary explanations. 
What is Theosophy? Why this pretentious name, we are asked at the very outset? When we reply that Theosophy is divine wisdom, or the wisdom of the gods (Theo-sophia), rather than of God, another even more extraordinary objection is made: âAre you not Buddhists? We know that the Buddhists believe neither in one God, nor in many Gods ...â 
Entirely correct. But to begin with we are no more Buddhists than we are Christians, Mohammedans, Jews, Zoroastrians or Brahmanists. Then again, on the subject of the Gods, we hold to the esoteric method of the hyponoia taught by Ammonius Saccas, in other words to the occult meaning of the term. Was it not said by Aristotle: 
The divine essence permeating nature and being diffused throughout the universe which is infinite, what the hoi polloi call the gods, are simply the First Principles ... 
in other words, the creative and intelligent forces of Nature. It does not follow from the fact that Buddhist philosophers recognize and know the nature of these forces, as well as anyone else, that the Society, as a Society, is Buddhist. In its capacity of an abstract body, the Society does not believe in anything, does not accept anything, and does not teach anything. The Society per se cannot and should not have any one religion. Cults, after all, are merely vehicles, more or less material forms, containing a lesser or greater degree of the essence of Truth, which is One and universal. Theosophy is in principle the spiritual as well as the physical science of that Truth, the very essence of deistic and philosophical research. Visible representative of universal Truth - as all religions and philosophies are contained therein, and as each one of them contains in its turn a portion of that Truth - the Society could be no more sectarian, or have more
 preference, or partiality, than an anthropological or a geographical society. Are the latter concerned whether their explorers belong to this or the other religion, as long as everyone of their members carries out his duties courageously? 
If, then, we are asked, as so many times before, whether we are deists or atheists, spiritualists or materialists, idealists or positivists, royalists, republicans, or socialists, we will answer that every one of these views is represented in the Society. And I have merely to repeat what I said exactly ten years ago in a definitive article in The Theosophist, to show how much that which the public thinks about us differs from that which we are in reality.




________________________________
From: Pedro Oliveira <prmoliveira@yahoo.com>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 9 January, 2009 3:00:48 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: TS Adyar's policy or non-policy?


--- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, Drpsionic@.. . wrote:

> I think he would rather it was put on video and broadcast on 
Youtube as that 
> is the new public square. That is always the secret wish of those 
who 
> believe that X is TRUE and all other views are false, evil and 
conducive to bad 
> living, to say nothing of being a Jesuit plot. There is a reason 
why we in the 
> TS have no holy writ, no creedal statements, no Oath of Allegiance 
to 
> Blavatsky and the Masters. It is so that each member can find 
that truth inside 
> himself.
> 
> The idea that anyone should be deprived of access to any material, 
for any 
> reason, is anathema to us, for that very reason. It is not our 
place to 
> control thought, to tell people what is right thinking or worse, 
right belief. We 
> have more than enough people outside the TS willing to do that for 
us.

"In its capacity of an abstract body, the Society does not believe in 
anything, does not accept anything, and does not teach anything."

("The New Cycle" by H. P. Blavatsky,
http://www.austheos .org.au/topics/ thenewcycle. htm)

Pedro


 


      Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox

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