[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Theosophy -- And Scholars?

Feb 18, 2006 07:43 AM
by carlosaveline cardoso aveline

Dear Sufilight,

Yes, you are right, we do not support scholars in general, but we do accept discussing with scholars, and we also admit their support to the esoteric philosohy, don't we?

We have a common ground with them, if we are a universal philosophy.

HPB debated with them all the time, and she had friendly relations with Thomas Alva Edison, the inventor, with Camille Flammarion, the astronomer, and many other scientists of her day.

To close down "Theosophy for Theosophists only " leads to a wrong perspective of Theosophy as something to be possessed; as something to be believed, without having to deal with "strangers" or "foreigners".

Theosophy does not belong to anyone. To preserve it is NOT to avoid debate, if debate is honest.

Carlos Cardoso Aveline.

M. Sufilight wrote:
> Hallo all,
> My views are:
> I will politely say, that
> If Theosophy in general supports scholars, then I have to say, that I
> disagree with Theosophy.
> from
> M. Sufilight
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Desmontes" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 5:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World Salience, valence, HPB, and scholars
>> From: "kpauljohnson" <>
>> "Here von Egmond is implying, correctly in my view that the previous
>> attitude toward HPB among scholars had generally been that the
>> Masters were figments of fantasy and that therefore HPB herself did
>> not deserve serious attention in terms of studying her sources. Why
>> would Adyar not welcome this? It undermines the unassailable CWL,
>> for one thing. If HPB's Masters are acknowledged by scholars to have
>> been real, then the contrast with CWL's imaginary ones becomes all
>> too glaring."
>> Thank you for your comments. It is nice to see an author entering into
>> dialogue with his community of readers. Personally, with regard to study
>> and
>> research, I tend to take the impartial position of Francis Bacon who
>> states
>> in his essay on Studies, "Read not to contradict and confute; nor to
>> believe
>> and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and
>> consider." Not only do to I apply this wise aphorism to your book "The
>> Masters Revealed", which gives one much to weigh and consider, but also to
>> Theosophical literature in general. Your book provides an excellent
>> service
>> to the Theosophical Community by setting forth intelligently a viewpoint
>> unsanctioned by the official organization. I am of the opinion that an
>> intellegent reader will not give much credence to the extravagent claims
>> of
>> C.W. Leadbeater. Blavatsky on other hand is a force to be reckoned with.
>> Her
>> claims to the supranormal abilities of the Masters are explained in a
>> manner
>> that is rational and to a degree believable. While it is impossible for
>> the
>> discriminating reader to accept uncritically the claims of such abilities,
>> her explanations enable one to retain an open mind with regard to the
>> possilibility while personal experience is lacking.
>> In "The Masters Revealed" you set forth the thesis that "most of these
>> characters were authorities in one or more spiritual traditions; others
>> were
>> accomplished writers. They helped prepare HPB for her mission as a
>> spiritual
>> teacher and/or sponsored the Theosophical Society from behind the scenes.
>> Although their teachings and example affected HPB's development, the
>> extent
>> of their influence was usually secret. In a few cases the argument for
>> their
>> acquaintence with HPB is speculative, but usually the fact of a
>> relationship
>> is well established and the real question is its meaning. Because their
>> 'spiritual status' and psychic powers are inaccessible to historical
>> research, these alleged criteria of 'Mahatmaship' are treated with
>> agnosticism." (p. 14-15) Personally, I see in these few words not only a
>> lack of personal bias but also an abundance of integrity. I also see no
>> conflict between this perspective and HPB's most sober descriptions of the
>> Masters in the Key To Theosophy. To paraphrase (combining the questions
>> and
>> answers), she wrote in substance:
>> "The Masters are neither supernatural beings, nor "myths". If you listen
>> to
>> what people say, you will never have a true conception of them. In the
>> first
>> place, they are living men, born as we are born, and doomed to die like
>> every other mortal. Many miraculous claims are put forth on their behalf
>> and
>> the more we try to set people right, the more absurd do the inventions
>> become. The word "Mahatma" simply means a "great soul." If the title of
>> great is given to a drunken soldier like Alexander, why should we not call
>> those "Great" who have achieved far greater conquests in Nature's secrets,
>> than Alexander ever did on the field of battle? Besides, the term is an
>> Indian and a very old word. We call them "Masters" because they are our
>> teachers; and because from them we have derived all the Theosophical
>> truths,
>> however inadequately some of us may have expressed, and others understood,
>> them. They are men of great learning, whom we term Initiates, and still
>> greater holiness of life. They are not ascetics in the ordinary sense,
>> though they certainly remain apart from the turmoil and strife of your
>> western world." (Sec. 14)
>> Don't lose heart. You may have detractors in various Theosophical
>> Organizations, but if Madame Blavatsky were alive today, we can expect
>> that
>> she would give you her thanks, both for the honesty of your inquiry and
>> also
>> for rescuing the Mahatmas from the fantastic delusions which are
>> perpetuated
>> in their name, something which she sought time and again to accomplish but
>> to little avail as is evident from our modern situation.
>> -Desmond
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Yahoo! Groups Links

Yahoo! Groups Links

Facilite sua vida: Use o Windows Desktop Search e encontre qualquer arquivo ou e-mail em seu PC. Acesse:

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application