On the Liberty to Have Doubts
Feb 14, 2006 04:57 AM
by carlosaveline cardoso aveline
I fully agree that in many cases doubts will indeed be part of the problem.
In other cases, the liberty to question, the ability to doubt, to quest,
will liberate souls from the Vatican Christian Church, or from Liberal
Catholic rituals, from neotheosophy, and so on. In these cases, doubt will
be part of the solution while repressing the doubts will be part of the
I guess doubts should not be repressed per se, in themselves, then. There
is really a passage in the ML in which Masters szay they do not want much
certainty about their existence -- because they will rather stimulate a free
investigation of the mysteries. I can bring that to you. But the shole
pedagogical approach of Masters and HPB depends on liberty to quest for
oneself and thast means a liberty to have doubts.
I will keep it short but this is the paradox I would like to bring on your
deep thoughts below, which I thank you for.
When people have the liberty to doubt, they can also freely SEE truth.
That's why I think the movement has to gain by not having allergic reactions
against anyone who HONESTLY doubt HPB and the Masters. Those who
dishonestly plant skepticism, often using false names and bad power-tricks,
well, these are in an entirely different category, of course. This is the
difference, say, between "Mr. Green" and Paul Johnson, as I see it. I deep
and wide difference between the two, as we can see most clearly by now.
Repressing doubts risks stimulating blind faith. Free minds accept their
ignorance and limitations, for a start, and hence they doubt. And doubting
they decide to search. And searching they sooner or later find the
Instead of repressing doubts as bad things in themselves, people should try
to follow their track, to trace them to their origins, to understand them,
in order to uproot them in the proper way. So doubts can give us the map to
the treasure within.
I believe the Masters critized doubts to specific persons, in specific
situations, and these persons were often disciples on probation, which is a
more complex situation. But in general, the Master and HPB have a lan to
liberate human kind from blind belief, and that, of course, implies
stimulating the liberty to question, to doubt, to say no, etc, to all
Yet words are always limited intruments. They can only be used as metaphors,
and I hope you have the generosity to take the "metaphors" above with a
Sincerere best regards, thanks and -- peace to all beings, Carlos Cardoso
From: "Robert Bruce MacDonald" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Theos-World Doubt and new beliefs, Daniel Caldwell, David Green,
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:11:13 -0700
I am kicking myself for getting drawn back into this, but I think it's
important. I want to introduce the topic of doubt into this discussion
how it might play a role. To begin with HPB makes the following comment on
doubt in "From Keshub to Maestro Wagner":
"If we are answered—as many a time we have been answered—that
notwithstanding all, the Salvationists as well as the New Dispensationists
are doing good, since they help to kindle the fast extinguishing fires of
spirituality in man’s heart, we shall answer that it is not by fencing and
dancing in grotesque attire, that this spirituality can ever be preserved;
nor is it by thrusting one’s own special belief down a neighbour’s throat
that he can ever be convinced of its truth. Smoke also can dim the solar
rays, and it is well known that the most worthless materials, boldly
and energetically stirred, often throw out the densest masses of murky
vapour. Doubt is inseparable from the constitution of man’s reasoning
powers, and few are the men who have never doubted, whatever their
belief; a good proof that few are quite satisfied—say what they may to the
contrary—that it is their creed and not that of their brother which has got
the whole truth. "
Doubt is the natural ally of reason. The inadequacy of a position will in
time be understood by reason and this will lead to doubt. The secret is to
foster that doubt so that the doubter will seek for new answers. HPB
out that you do not change people's minds by ramming your own beliefs down
their throats. Does Daniel realize that his style of flooding leads to a
polarization of positions in his various antagonists over-riding any
feelings of doubt they might have? This stops the natural progression of
growth that was initiated by them bringing the topic up in the first place.
Interfering in people's growth and understanding is what the priest-caste
do. HPB writes further on in the paragraph:
"Men have done their best to veil every beam and to replace it with the
false glare of error and fiction; none more so than bigoted, narrow-minded
theologians and priests of every faith, casuists and perverters through
selfishness. It is against them, never against any religion, or the sincere
belief of any man in whatsoever he chooses, that we have and do protest."
By cornering opponents and throwing everything he has at them, Daniel
polarizes his opponents into a particular position thereby making them
unwilling to consider other points. This clouding of the air is exactly
what the priest-cast do with the dogmas they dress their respective
religions in. Instead of being able to progress to loftier and more
universal beliefs within his own religion, he is forced to leave that
community altogether if he has the courage to do so.
The Mahatmas also write on doubt. In ML 129 we read:
'﻿My good friend — Shakespeare said truly that “our doubts are
traitors.” Why should you
doubt or create in your mind ever growing monsters?'
Sometimes doubt betrays us. This type of doubt is usually a trust issue.
Universal Brotherhood is very difficult to practice, it is easy to doubt
sincerity of others. This was the problem between Judge and Besant.
began to doubt Judge, no doubt with the help of Olcott, and the rest as
say is history. Regrettably, Besant was in a position of Occult
responsibility, so her fall was particularly hard. Again, Daniel's style
one where the lack of trust between the various Societies is preyed upon in
order to ensure that there never is established a foundation of trust upon
which to build consensus. At the risk of sounding extreme, does Daniel
realize this is a Jesuitical tactic, keep the various groups separate and
fighting among themselves?
When writing to Sinnett about his upcoming book and its effects on the
Spiritualists, the Master writes (ML 17):
﻿"They will begin by rejecting — nay — vilifying it; but, it will
find its faithful twelve and — the seed thrown by your hand into the soil
speculation will not grow up as a weed. So far may be promised. You are oft
too cautious. You remind too often the reader of your ignorance; and
presenting but as a modest theory that which at the bottom of your heart
know and feel to be an axiom, a primary truth — instead of helping, you but
perplex him and — create doubt."
Now this is a very telling statement. Sinnett is being counselled that in
presenting his arguments in his book, that he should be forceful like he
full confidence in what he is saying. The doubting Spiritualist who picks
up the book and finds what appears to be some doubt in the writer, will
naturally be unpersuaded ultimately by the argument. Why should he move
from one doubtful position to another. Does Daniel realize that this is
effect his books and his website have on the seeker? Remember, people
seeking have to wade through a lot of different systems of thought. If
stop at Theosophy and read a book of letters that councils people it is
to torture cats to death in the name of occult science, what are they to
think? Or if they read a book on a grand occultist whose author is so
unsure of her that he has to insert a few caveats where people argue for a
completely different picture of HPB then it is likely they will move on.
That is not to say that Daniel shouldn't deal with the allegations against
HPB, but there is a place for that. He can present papers at Theosophical
History conferences, etc. that prove the allegations to be false, which
seems to be what he believes.
Again we read ML 117:
﻿"I highly approve of his coming to India, but disapprove as highly
his fancy of bringing Mr.
C.C. Massey here. The result of the latter would be to injure the cause
Distrust and prejudice are contagious."
Does Daniel realize that distrust is contagious? Who do you trust on this
site? If you say anything controversial, you are crucified. I don't think
anyone is here to be attacked, they are here to find a secure environment
like minded individuals where they can discuss things openly and honestly.
If you are afraid to bring up certain topics, then already we've lost. We
should not doubt and distrust the other members of this site, especially if
we want it to work. Make a place where people want to come and comment.
If I wanted to create an agent provocateur against theosophy, I would
someone who fostered distrust among current members and who had a weak
enough position to foster doubt in new members. This would effectively
freeze any further progress along the lines of brotherhood.
Perhaps such an agent would create cynical aliases to further stir things
up. Is this what is happening here? I hope not, but if it walks like a
duck . . . , what are we to think?
Daniel, perhaps it is time to tell us what you know about Green and Hobbes?
I am sure that you would not be betraying any trust in simply providing
evidence of their existence?
Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound
e-mail and attachments.
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.
Yahoo! Groups Links
Ganhe tempo encontrando o arquivo ou e-mail que você precisa com Windows
Desktop Search. Instale agora em http://desktop.msn.com.br
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application