The Theosophists

[Snoopy]

I just don’t see the value in getting embroiled in lengthy exchanges to no end; I've seen that happen with other folk.

The TS seems to have generally appropriated (misappropriated?) Buddhist and Christian (?) terminology and doctrine for whatever ends their founders saw fit. This is my perception based on what I have read on this forum, that’s all. The book merely confirmed it. If that's trash talking, so be it.

s.

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Well I was reading a book on (primarily) Buddhism so I’m not claiming to be reading an original source of Theosophy.

My assessment of Theosophy has not come from those on this forum who do not “know better” but from those who promote and defend it. It appears to me, in my ignorance, to be a dog’s dinner cobbled together by a well dodgy fraud (rather like scientology in that respect, strangely, given their linkage on the Are Theosophy & Anthroposophy Religions? thread.)

There may be precious jewels of Christianity and precious jewels of Buddhism to be found in Theosophy but they appear to me to have been assembled by a jewel thief. Still, whatever floats yer boat...

s.

Hello Snoopy,
You still don't get it do you? It is not altogether surprising considering that now and in the past certain folk have tried to turn Theosophy into a dogmatic religion-as Leadbeater had done.

But the sublime ideal of Theosophy should be universalism. How else can you talk of universal Brotherhood? Religious prejudices should be set aside.

It might appear as a "dog's breakfast" but that is how it is when a groups of people get together with differing views.

Even you, with your Buddhist views, would be welcome at a theosophical meeting.

Scientology calls itself a religion, has a set path, is dogmatic and charges fees.

Neither Anthroposophy or Theosophy are religions, you can study the teachings fro free, they a non-dogmatic there is no set path and no one is going to pester you if you don't turn up to a meeting.

I just made the point that under legal definition you could register the AS and TS.

>Buddhism to be found in Theosophy but they appear to me to have been >assembled by a jewel thief.

Theosophy never claimed to own those truths. As HPB said she just provided the ribbon with which tie up the flowers of wisdom.

Best Wishes,
Br.Bruce

[AndrewX]

Hmm, clearly it seems, that unless I too, decide to WRITE A BOOK (and have I not written several-worth, with my ridiculously long posts and parenthetical comments here at C-R) ... my contributions will be ignored. And yet, the moment I do get published, and get folks to read my opinons - clearly, no matter how inaccurate my conclusions are, or how shoddy my research has been - with publication I become a veritable GOD ... and my `information' becomes wholly accurate - with NO NEED for further verification!

Yes, yes, yes ... do forgive my usual sarcasm, but this just takes the cake. Snoopy, it's a shame. But this is exactly how you make things appear.

Nevermind that you are hearing DIRECTLY from one member of the TS, one former member of the TS, and another person deeply versed in (modern) Theosophical teachings - plus a follower of the Anthroposophical teachings. Nevermind, because clearly you have reached some sort of satori on the subject, now that you have come to the opinions of Lawrence Sutin - which you seem either unwiling, or unable, to elaborate or defend!''

And nevermind, that some of us here are probably QUITE familiar with various Buddhist and/or Hindu schools of thought, or branches of exoteric religion, with various interests - even devotions - which may equal, or eclipse, our interest and devotions to Western forms of (exoteric) religion! For, as we have seen before, as soon as we publicly don the hat - we become experts in the Faith of our (new) choosing, and OUR OWN statements and opinions, like those of Mr. Sutin, no longer need any kind of real support or backing (as those which come from careful research, or the lectio divina which has Thomas has mentioned). No no, I suppose the bottom line might be found by asking a question like, "HOW LONG have you been practicing?" .... or, "HOW OFTEN do you attend services/temple?"

I wonder, if you were writing a research paper, even just a standard term paper for your high school English class (much less for a college course) ... would a teacher consider Mr. Sutin's opinons GOSPEL, and grade your paper with highest marks - as an apt representation of Theosophy's contribution to the understanding of Buddhism and Hinduism in the West?

Or would it just possibly be, that that professor would want a couple more sources ... showing a little less bias, or in the very least, being able to DEFEND these accusations?

It is one thing to say, "Modern Theosophy helped enormously to familiarize people in the West with the core doctrines of Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, etc. ... as well as the ancient mythologies of the East, with literally thousands of references to original source documents which ONE woman clearly could not have possibly researched on her own - YET, some mistakes were made, and readers have often failed to distinguish between a Universal, esoteric doctrine (portions of which HPB presented and elaborated) ... and an exoteric characterization of these Eastern traditions ... thus resulting, at times, in confusion regarding what Theosophy has to say - about religions both East and West."

It is another thing entirely, to simply come across an opinion such as Sutin's, obviously one which is not supported by any serious consideration (or reading) of HPB's own, firsthand writings (and source materials) ... and then compare this to some rather prejudiced, biased, and uninformed views - reminiscent of those which we can see spammed here at C-R quite frequently ... and conclude, "Aha! Modern Theosophy misrepresents the Eastern traditions, and uses unscrupulous methods to try and gain a following, etc. etc."

Meanwhile, let us sit smugly upon the throne of a real, well-established, mainstream tradition ... which we can say has been much better understood in the past 125+ years (since some of the earliest publications and exposure of these traditions, here in the West - thanks to Theosophy) ... and simply speak down to (or trash talk) those poor unenlightened chaps who do bandy on about their Universalism and `Secret Wisdom' ... all of it being, as any idiot can see - just a bunch of 19th Century parlor tricks, and poor rehashings of legitimate religion aimed at taking in the gullible & credulous!

Well, I admit my frustration, because I feel that I really am ... watching the proverbial ship of fools drifting farther and farther away from the shore. It seems that folks are climbing over each other's backs just to gain a spot on this Titanic of religious traditions & philosophical opinion ... and even as those nice pretty white floating mountains keep popping up on every side, we hear the chant, louder than ever -- "FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!"

Amidst all this madness, when not lamenting our all-but-inevitable fate (and a shared one, because it really is - one big boat) ... there are still those who calmly sit, chanting OM or pondering the verities - even sincerely and devotedly meditating, or so I like to believe. Their meditations creatively visualize a future in which such vessels as the above no longer need visit these well-traveled shores of human ignorance, apathy, materialism and greed ... for lack of even one single passenger, still content with maya, glamor or illusion.

This may be several more cycles around the Wheel, for all of us, but we know that a day is coming not so far into the future, when the trash-talkers, the slanderers and the religiously smug will know HPB (and the Cagliostros of every day) as the Galileos of the 19th and 20th Centuries, arguing before the regular `authorities' ... who always seem to know better, before discovering - or just plain admitting - that THEY WERE WRONG.

There are the wrongs of Suppression, which we are up against today - even much the same as for many thousands of years ... and there are the wrongs of Ignorance, which is even more endemic to the human condition. It has been argued, and on solid ground, that if a person really knows the Good, s/he will do the Good, and this is a complementary type of understanding to the awareness of Truth which is the antidote to ignorance. The extent to which we truly do Good CAN thus be used as a measuring stick ... for how much we really know about Life, the Universe and Everything (not excluding God and Self).

It is the efforts of the unenlightened to actively suppress the Truth, which is so lamentable, and really quite despicable, when seen for what it really is. Ignorance may be a factor in adjusting karma, but a heretic burned is often later discovered to be a genius, a savant or a Sage - persecuted. And when Humanity sends its Greatest of all Saviors to the next world ahead of His time ... I doubt the Lords of Karma of find much humor in it, or take lightly the implications for what burden (or fate) that world is swiftly bringing down upon the collective shoulders (or heads), of its denizens.

Cosmic Aid, both de rigeur and of the Emergency sort, may be brought in to assist our little planet. Will we feel so self-assured and justified in our ill-informed opinions - even a few years hence - if we begin, even if we just BEGIN, to get an inkling of just how RIGHT ON TRACK such great disciples as Helena Petrovna Blavatskaya actually were ... and are?

Yes, true, we are judged largely according to what we have recognized, understood, believed - and thereby acted upon ... yet this does not give us free license to judge, condemn or even to discriminate - even just in terms of some kind of social status, or CASTE - against those who see things differently.

Buddha taught anatman, or `no soul,' for example. Yes? This is what we are led to believe, as far as exoteric Buddhism is aware ... and so it has become assumed that if the Buddha could speak to us in plain language today, He would deny the Atman as a real, or significant PRINCIPLE of Consciousness (or Being).

Esoteric teachings tell us otherwise. And upon what authority do such teachings rest? Where, when and how have we received them? How do they stand up against the exoteric tradition, insofar as they can be applied ... in short, what has Theosophy to contribute in this area, and how can it be substantiated (if at all)?

Either we are willing to ASK these questions, and hear the response ... or I would suggest that we really don't care about the answers anyway, because our mind is already made up, and we know what we believe, or prefer to believe. This, I point out, may or may not coincide with what is the actual Truth on the matter.

But you see, who cares! Who cares what the Buddha taught, if we aren't even going to apply it, but simply - dig around in our presumed 1st, 2nd & 3rd-hand source materials, and post our own OPINIONS on a discussion forum!

I believe it was the Buddha Shakyamuni Who is supposed to have said, "Cease to hold views." Hmmm, what could that mean?

Did He not also relate a story about a poisoned arrow? When Malunkyaputta asked his Teacher about several deeper, metaphysical issues, the Great One ...

... asked Malunkyaputta to imagine a man who had been wounded by a poisoned arrow. His friends and relatives send for a surgeon but when the surgeon arrives, the wounded man says: 'I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin (priest), or a merchant or a worker...tall, short, or middle height...brown or golden-skinned...whether he lives in such a village or town or city...whether the bow that wounded me was a long bow or a cross bow...' and so on.

The Buddha then explains that before all the wounded man's questions would have been answered he would have died. The Buddha's point is that whilst we speculate on questions such as those above we are missing the main point of his teachings. These are encapsulated in the four noble truths: 'This is suffering', 'this is the origin of suffering', 'this is the cessation of suffering' and 'this is the way that leads to the cessation of suffering'.


He declares that to speculate on such questions is a distraction from what is essential to lead a holy life - it does not lead 'to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana'.

Eventually, as we progress along the road to enlightenment, and assuming we apply the Buddha's moral teachings (or those of the Christ, or of any Great One), we will come to the point - as did Shakyamuni's Arhats - where we do need to understand something of these deeper questions in life. Argument about them now, is largely fruitless, and futile, a complete waste of time. Yet because there are so many who are seeking to discover something of the Mysteries, we may consider ourselves fortunate that several presentations of the Wisdom, or the Ageless Wisdom, have been made available ... during the past ~125 years.

We are encouraged, or even obliged,to look at what has been given us in relation to all else that we have come to believe or understand ... yet, once again, it helps to read the original source, or teachings ... and not rely upon second-hand opinions and poor scholarship for our overall understanding. When people do the latter, it doesn't just give Theosophy a bad name ... it gives the Buddha a bad name, and the same for every other Great Teacher or Sage. For they ALL, every single one, taught their students to QUESTION, and not to swallow what they have heard whole hog.

I quote gain, from the beginning of A Treatise on Cosmic Fire, by the Tibetan Master:

THE LORD BUDDHA HAS SAID

that we must not believe in a thing said merely because it is said; nor traditions because they have been handed down from antiquity; nor rumors, as such; nor writings by sages, because sages wrote them; nor fancies that we may suspect to have been inspired in us by a Deva (that is, in presumed spiritual inspiration); nor from inferences drawn from some haphazard assumption we may have made; nor because of what seems an analogical necessity; nor on the mere authority of our teachers or masters. But we are to believe when the writing, doctrine, or saying is corroborated by our own reason and consciousness. "For this," says he in concluding, "I taught you not to believe merely because you have heard, but when you believed of your consciousness, then to act accordingly and abundantly."

- Secret Doctrine III. 401