Theos-Talk Archives (April 2012 Message tt00152)

A few views...
Interesting article in the below...The following exceprt might be worthwhile contemplating many times.

DOGMATISM IN THEOSOPHY
There is a great likelihood that members of the Society will insist on a certain orthodoxy in our ranks. They are already doing it here and there, and this is a note of warning to draw their attention to the danger. There is no orthodoxy in our Society. Even though nine-tenths of the members believe in Reincarnation, Karma, the sevenfold constitution, and all the rest, and even though its prominent ones are engaged in promulgating these doctrines as well as others, the ranks of the Society must always be kept open, and no one should be told that he is not orthodox or not a good Theosophist because he does not believe in these doctrines. All that anyone is asked to subscribe to is Universal Brotherhood, and its practice in the search for truth. For the efforts of those who are thus promulgating specific ideas are made under the sanction of the second object of the Society, which any one is free to follow or to refuse to follow as he sees fit. One may deny - undogmatically - reincarnation and other doctrines, or may assert belief in a personal or impersonal God, and still be a good member of the Society, provided Universal Brotherhood is subscribed to and put into practice.
http://www.blavatsky.net/theosophy/judge/articles/dogmatism-in-theosophy.htm

Theosophical orthodoxy year 2012 is of course not in existence - people will say. I tend to disagree.

- Because is it not so, that when actual knowledge is abandoned and mere belief promulagted instead, that orthodoxy often reigns supreme?
- Is it not this we again and again are witnessing in the various theosophical organizations and related ones even today year 2012 more than 100 years later than year 1875 and the formation of the Theosophical Society?
- The lack of emphasis on avoiding theosophical orthodoxy - is - it seem a great obstacle to many theosophical organizations these days, when they claim they promote altruism. Is it not?

- Is it not this - in psychological terms - very Subtly - emphasized promulgation of mere Belief in so-called Theosophical doctrines or Esoteric doctrines - more than the promulagtion of actual knowledge based on science, which hampers the spread of the main object of altruism?
- Is it not this lack of understanding of the importance of the Science of Psychology (materialistically and non-materialistically viewed, a Science not a mere belief) - the in the western soil newly arrived Science on the human Mind - and to some also - on ethics, which hampers the spread of altruism on this globe?
And the lack of understanding - the difference between psychologically subtle Sectarian Belief promulgations versus the Absolutely Non-Sectarian promulgations based om altruism - organizationally speaking.

I just ask. 

Let the responsible eminent teachers - so-called  - listen and take care - that Altruism is not being hi-jacked by themselves with their very own Prominent theosophical orthodoxy when they parade on a podium and lecture their local flocks.

Just a few words well meaning as they are, which perhaps are likley to be swiftly thrown into the trashcan by some of the theosophical - fanatics, who continously seem to reject the importance of open-mindedness and a philosophical spirit sought based on a scientific basis.

There is indeed a clear difference in the use of words - when one forwards a more or less scientific hypothesis or theory on the one hand - or - forwards a mere belief or a sectarian doctrine on the other.
Whether in writing or when lecturing from a podium, etc. Or when one promulgate what others have written.

All the above are of course just my views (or hypothetical words). I present them from my heart seeking to promote altruism.
I will gladly change them if someone are able to prove them wrong or irrelevant.


M. Sufilight

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