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

Re: Theos-World Does Blavatsky's teaching harm the world?

Dec 09, 2008 07:03 AM
by adelasie

One can hardly blame the teacher if the student fails to take the 
trouble to study and understand the lesson. The teacher is not 
required to teach a lie in order to make the lesson more palatable to 
the student. The student learns when he is challenged to expand his 
conscioiusness, to increase his understanding. A case could be made, 
considering the apalling conditions that prevail in the domain of 
humanity, that whatever beliefs have been followed are due for a 
change. Adhering to the old faulty cruel and useless ideology because 
everyone else does is not the way to progress or evolution of 
consciousness. It is just a case of preferring the familiar darkness 
to the unfamiliar light.


On 9 Dec 2008 at 6:25, Anand wrote:

> "This Subba Row will help you [Sinnett] to learn, though his terms 
> �"
> he being an initiated Brahmin and holding to the Brahmanical
> esoteric teaching �" will be different from those of the "Arhat
> Buddhist" terminology". (Letter 60, chronological.)
> "Upasika (Madam B.) and Subba Row, though pupils of the same Master,
> have not followed the same philosophy �" the one is Buddhist 
> and the
> other an Adwaitee." (Letter 120, chronological.)
> These passages perhaps explain incredible confusion which we see in
> Theosophical Society about major ideas. Blavatsky had made many
> anti-God statements, that irritated Christians. As these letters
> suggest, Blavatsky was perhaps following Buddhist terminology, which
> does not recognize existence of God.
> There is very small percentage of humanity which follows Buddhist
> religion. Majority of mankind follows religions which are theist. In
> all major religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism,
> God is most important and central in their philosophies. Majority of
> mankind follows these religions, in which God is central, and denying
> existence of God is considered by them as great sin. Naturally,
> Blavatsky's anti-God Theosophy is rejected and will be rejected by
> humanity. Blavatsky had always been humiliated, ridiculed because of
> her anti-God statements. Theosophy based on Blavatsky's atheist
> terminology won't be accepted by humanity, because people believe in
> philosophies that recognized God as central.
> Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater gave Theosophy, which recognizes
> existence of God and they consider God as central. That makes
> Theosophy of Besant-Leadbeater more acceptable to people.
> Problem is both Blavatsky's atheist Theosophy and Leadbeater's theist
> Theosophy came from the same Theosophical Society and they both
> considered each other as coworkers and yet there is huge difference in
> terminology they use as well as underlying ideas, according to many
> students. That has caused incredible confusion about position of the
> TS about God.
> I think it is extremely important to understand this situation,
> because it appears that philosophical conflicts which we see in TS are
> caused because of these reasons.
> Theosophical Society's first object is to form nucleus of universal
> brotherhood. If we see condition of the followers of Blavatsky, one
> can see that they fight more than loving one another. Not only they
> fight among themselves, but because of their anti-God philosophy they
> set themselves against people of all religions which believe in God,
> and annoy these followers of other religions. How can this help in
> forming universal brotherhood? And if Blavatsky's writing becomes
> cause of nuisance in the world, is there any point in spreading her
> teaching?
> Best
> Anand Gholap


[Back to Top]

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