RE: promulgation of theosophy
Jul 29, 2006 05:21 PM
by W.Dallas TenBroeck
7/29/2006 5:05 PM
Re: RE: Promulgation Of Theosophy
Thinking of "CHURCHES."
Delay in getting your posting understood. I'll attempt to show you my
thinking on the subjects you raise. You may not agree with some of them.
Any organization or church is usually set up on specifics.
What will be taught ? To whom will it be taught? Why will it be taught?
Is it any different from other sets of teachings ? other "religions?"
Do we have any examples from the past ? And do we have a 'history' of what
has happened in practice, administration, etc...
Is there any money involved? I observe that THEOSOPHY and money do NOT MIX
Money, property and "power" are found to have been used as 'clubs' to beat
deviants into "submission." Those who secure a hold over these employ them,
usually without the vision of impersonality and universality that UNIVERSAL
THEOSOPHY already shows to be in place, and demands more of same from those
who come closer to its true promulgation.
Who claims to know so much more that they can dictate rules (proved, or
unproved ? ) to others?
Is there by chance a resident selfish desire in some clever Lower-Mind to
rule and be a "dictator?" What is that based on ? What results are hoped
for ? WHY ?
Adherents usually pledge themselves to learn, practice and observe some
printed-word precepts in their lives. Do they truly UNDERSTAND them and
their IMPLICATIONS ?
As I have reviewed the history of many religious bodies, [ and the events of
the past 131 years in the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, and its off-shoots,] I find:
In actual practice they (the members) do as they please (though they may
write and say differently in a public manner). Those in "authority"[
"Officers, etc.,] try to maintain and sustain this power by various
Their members act as they please. Many may dissent from a majority but no
successful attempt is found to be made (using the impersonal range of
universal virtues) for reconciliation.
When things get really "sticky" (money or ownership) there usually is
"expulsion" of those annoying individuals, from the community so far created
and under administration. Split and re-split -- so what is ultimately
THEOSOPHY itself remains unaltered and unchanged. And, from the silly
struggles and verbose arguments of those who support the various factions,
or their own concepts of importance, we secure a review of lower human
character and Kama-Manas in action. What permanence is there ? If one were
able 1,000 years from now to review the "history" of current events, what
conclusions would such an historian reach?
So why pledge ones' self and break the vows, rules of life, and promises the
next day, or the next minute?
THEOSOPHY offers principles to analyse, consider and adopt at the free-will
choosing of every one.
It needs exposure: Those who desire to learn the basic HOW and WHY,
operating in our world and all the time on us, will discover the clues that
give them the tools and ability to discern true from false.
It [THEOSOPHY] speaks of the UNIVERSAL PLAN and RULES -- call that KARMA if
you will. This is set in place when from the first a new Manvantara starts
-- the root CAUSES are the joint and intertwined KARMA of all the Monads (as
"skandhas") that form everything taken as a WHOLE. As a UNITY of UNITS.
Study the 7 principles of Nature and Man and the key will be found to exist
there. [ S D I 157-8; S D II 596 ] We have to do the work for
ourselves. There is no "free lunch."
It asks that individuals seek, study and apply on their own, set their own
curriculum and pace of working, and, not be supervised. Nature and Karma
takes care of results.
The Masters of Wisdom represent those among us (human minds) who have
successfully learned what our World and Universe can teach. Shall we grasp,
or loose this fresh opportunity? They have not "vanished." But as
Nirmanakayas continue their work. They are the true protective "Guardian
Wall" that "shields mankind."
If you consider NATURE and the UNIVERSE as evidence of UNIVERSAL DEITY --
and rules to be primeval, antique and working. Also, as evidence of a
successful harmony welded from an enormous, almost incomprehensible
diversity, you will find the real secret of our world, and universe and
ultimately of our inner selves. What else is "esotericism?" The evidence is
plain and available every where. Have we not to develop the ability to
observe its presence and activity?
Do you propose to graft some small aspect of practise -- so far undefined
-- to this vast educative and evolutionary program successfully under way?
I simply don't think a single life-time is adequate to assemble and then
generate an imitation of what is already working well -- even if we are for
the moment not fully aware of it.
As I see it, It was (and is) part of the Mission of the Masters through HPB
to bring this to our attention. They did not recommend a Church. But they
did recommend promulgating THEOSOPHY
From: Gary Barnhart
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 4:42 PM
Subject: RE: promulgation of theosophy
Having to resend the prior message that this one responds to as the
discussion manager keeps kicking it back to me as being to lengthy, so see
prior emails on this topic in order to get further background on this
July 23, 2006
Dear Dallas, and Friends,
This email is to continue a discussion begun by me and respond to
my friend Dallas.
Having read "The Key To Theosophy" several times and other writings
and the Mahatma Letters- letter 10, I understand (I think), the difference
between the church and/or religious sect that makes for humankind an
anthromorpological "fancy god being" for humankind to idolize, worship and
pray to, versus, what is now in the form of a lodge, and societies of
theosophists that teach and promulgate the godhood or higher or immortal
centers (principals) within each human, that is, the X- buddhi-manas
immortal principals or centers; plus that there exist advanced beings
whether they be called masters, adepts, buddhas, nirmanakayas or whatever.
All of those titles being simply titles for stages of placements of the
eternal pilgrim on the road of perfection, growth and development.
Simply by quoting HP Blavatsky and other wonderful teachers, one is
acknowledging "AUTHORITY", that is to say, an authoritative source ( one who
I think we need to somehow get past what I perceive as the AUTHORITY issue,
or examine the authority issue more carefully. Even HPB acknowledged
Authority when she says that she was simply passing on from her teachers
what had been passed to her. There exists a chain of authoritative
teaching within theosophy and to disclaim it is to disclaim its' masters and
teachers in my humble but strongly held view.
Dallas, are you trying to say that HPB and Judge's writings illustrate
the opposition to a church that expounds independent thought, universal
brotherhood, universal ethics, and the divinity within the human itself ?
If that universal church already exists why not call it a church and get
over semantic hang-ups ? I most likely should not have written the
question about and asking why a church organizational form was not used
early on in the modern theosophical movement. Please note that I also said
that the question need not be addressed unless it was pertinent to the
present. Since when does having the word title of being a "church"
necessitate the believing in an anthromorphological god being?
A Buddhists sangha is a church whether officially recognized by a society,
state or government, or the public at large. Our society through common
sense recognizes that metaphysical groups are a religious church group
regardless of the many semantically names we may care to adopt. I am
saying why not call a spade a spade that fits our culture and society and
quit playing games with words to set theosophy apart from everything else as
was thought necessary in HPBs day.
Our buddhi-manas could care less about our lower manas semantics and
intellectual gobbledegook, as it functions in a higher way of intuition,
pictures and symbols, and our semantics are child's play to that.
As an example, The Unitarian Universalism Association , and their
independently structured churches have neither doctrine or creed and yet
they use the word-title of church. Their problem is that they have no core
"teachings" as theosophy has. The contents of teaching is in its'
philosophy and actions and not in its' worldly external title. One can no
longer lump all churches together and call them all, wrong or untrue. The
same can be said of the lodge and societies. Divine wisdom is as Divine
Wisdom does and is greater than any word title.
A church in my area of the earth can no longer be thought of as referring to
a Christian group only. Now, if one prefers the words Religious Group that's
fine also. I am saying that lumping all church-religious groups together as
HPB commonly did in the time of her writing no longer applies to the present
and I do give her credit for her usually being specific in using adjectives
such as Christian before the word church.
What I am trying to put into words is that I do not understand why
theosophy cannot have the same structure, study groups, sections and groups,
as the Lodge, especially the United Lodge of Theosophists, and be called a
Church and even a same type non-profit organization. In my view, and
perception, to acknowledge being a religious church would enhance the
promulgation of theosophy, which in my view is exoteric and esoteric
Buddhism, regardless of the source one may wish to quote or refer back to.
Everything that HPB wrote needs to be taken in context and to quote
parts without seeing the whole ( to the extent possible), can be
misleading. HPB and Judge were in a time and place whereby they were
trying to give out alternative views of mankind and of god ( alayic, mahatic
and fohat), if you please, on a large a scale as possible. When viewed in
context, HPB and her teachers were and still are against what has been and
still is being promulgated by the Holier than Thou Popes, priests, clergy,
bishops of all religious denominations with their authoritative
structure that taught an exterior god being instead of the divinity of the
human and the perfecting ability of the human in becoming more perfect. HPB
and Judge taught the Godhood within the human itself and that's why the
"principals" were taught; to show the higher perfecting centers within
One need only ask oneself, What were the greatest questions that HPB and
Judge addressed? The Secret Doctrine itself addresses the answer in it's
very structure; The evolution of the cosmos and the evolution of humankind.
Those topics are at the very heart of All religious teaching as one asks how
and where do we originate - how did we get here?, what are we doing here ?
where are we heading? and what happens to us and by us while we are on the
journey ? Theosophy promulgates many teachings whether you or I call them
doctrines, creeds or teachings or not. Judge called reincarnation and karma
theosophical "doctrines" and he was correct to do so openly and honestly.
I welcome you responses and appreciate the discussion. Perhaps my geographic
area influences my perceptions and I might think somewhat differently in a
more open minded geographic area, but I am where I am and will blossom where
I am planted for now. It will be interesting to me to hear others views
however I reserve the right to agree to disagree, and I would hope that some
of the responders do not throw in judgments and projections as I have seen
done in this discussion site.
Sincerely, and Namaste,
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application