Theos-Talk Archives (July 2009 Message tt00080)

After ES members take pledge of obedience in all theosophical matters, it depends on ES head how he/she will use that faith placed by ES members in her. If Blavatsky wanted, she could misuse that pledge and if she wanted she could use that faith only in just manner, the manner in which members' spiritual growth won't be hindered. So, it depends on moral development of ES head how she would use the power she has due to pledge of obedience taken by ES members. But how could Blavatsky imagine that all ES heads in future will show the same high level of moral character?


 
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "robert_b_macd" <robert.b.macdonald@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > We read the pledge differently.  Your inherent distrust of HPB causes you to see in her writings subterfuge.  Blavatsky stresses many times that "blind obedience does not help soul's growth."  You need only read The Key to Theosophy to know this.  So then you see contradiction.  I can only say if you are not reading this with distrust in your heart for a fellow theosophist, you can read it to show that the only thing HPB was trying to do was to get theosophists up off their hands and doing active work - this is not contradiction.
> > 
> 
> I don't accept the idea that members should take one pledge when they did not mean it. If Blavatsky meant obedience to the Higher Self, then it should come in pledge. Rule 7 (a) says "Obedience to the Head of the Section in all Theosophical matters." Here, "all Theosophical matters" is in italics, which means members should particularly give attention that they obey commands of ES head in all Theosophical matters and it means those words are very important obedience in "all Theosophical matters". References from Key to Theosophy don't help here because if Blavatsky did not mean those words in pledge, and if they went there by mistake, she should have changed them in pledge. I don't think she changed those words.
> 
> 
> > Chelas are given the most difficult challenges to follow.  They are told to do certain tasks by their Masters, but it is how they go about doing it that shows their true nature.  The fact that they are asked to do something is not problematic, it is how they go about doing it that is important, not the ends, but the means.  
> >
> 
> 
> > However, if you distrust the Master, don't enter into the relationship to begin with, not that you would ever be asked.
> > 
> > Robert Bruce
> 
> It is not a question of trusting or not trusting the Master. What I am showing is contradictions in Theosophical writing. Theosophy must be consistent in it's actions, writing and speech.
>