Mar 15, 2009 05:37 PM
by Robert Bruce MacDonald
Thank you for your response. I just wanted to clarify a few things as we often write things quickly in forms such as this and later have to endure people using those hastily scribbled words against us.
>"I don't agree with statement religions are cause of evil. This letter, attributed to Master KH, is in my opinion not an authentic letter, but it is possibly materialized by Blavatsky with her own thoughts. I think religions are cause of great good, but there are some evil side effects. Many good things have bad side effects, we still accept those because good caused is much more than evil."
Irrespective of who wrote this letter, Blavatsky or KH, or a combination of both, I am sure that you are not saying that that the violence of the crusades or the inquisition done in the name of Christ was a good thing. There was no good reason for this sort of brother against brother violence. I assume you are not saying that the violence done by the Church in destroying the native cultures of the New World was a good thing. I assume what you are saying is that the emotional comfort, sense of belonging, and moral direction given by Jesus' teachings within a Christian community is a good thing. I don't think Jesus ever counciled violence of one religion against another, nor do I think the messages of Buddha and the rest were at their heart any different. The violence comes about from man-made dogma imposed on these religious reformers.
>"Another thing is I don't agree with your opinion against Christianity. You say Christians claim divinity exclusively. Perhaps you should read Gita, in which Sri Krishna says 'Give up all religions and surrender me', meaning he was the only God. I have not read Buddha recommending other religion. That means claiming exclusively divinity is the nature of most religions.There are many statements I can bring in defense of Christianity, but I don't have time to write big essay here."
I am not certain that your statement above would be the perspective of very many theosophists. They would tend to say that some aspect of the Logos was speaking through these reformers and depending on what key you were using to read the passage, could be understand at many different levels. A literal translation that their way is the only way because they are the one true god would tend not to make sense within the context of the Gita, or the Bible or any other religious treatise. In fact, logically, no one who had respect for the human institution of religions, would demonize the essence of every religion on earth but their own. This demonstrates gross disrespect and contempt for religious practice in its spiritual essence. Blavatasky, Jesus, Krishna, not any of them would do such a thing.
>"I know huge Theological differences between Christianity and Theosophy. And yet I recommend both Theosophy and Christianity. It is because I see effect on people. If religious/spiritual teaching improves character of people I recommend it, even if there are some inaccuracies. I came across many students of Blavatsky who showed many bad tendencies, and so I don't recommend it. This is irrespective of accuracies or inaccuracies in Blavatsky's writing. These bad tendencies among Blavatskians are admitted by many."
Here, I think you are showing your true motivation for action, and that is you are looking for the good effects in people, I assume ultimately trying to move them forward onto the path. However, you are using the same argument against Blavatsky, that many use against Christianity. Just because some people want to make dogmas out of a teaching whether the teacher be Jesus or Blavatsky, and then go about injuring people in the name of Blavatsky or Jesus, that does not mean that Jesus or Blavatsky are bad. It just means people are filled with ignorance and do not understand the peaceful teachings of both.
>"As far as character assassination is concerned, Blavatsky's character is assassinated very effectively by many. I am not expert in the science of character assassination. There are many types of people. Some are followers and some are researchers. Followers of Blavatsky will assume that she had flawless character and she was beyond making mistakes. Researchers don't think that way. Researcher asks hard questions like "Is the writer truthful while writing it or is she/he writing it with some selfish motive, or is she attacking Christianity because Christians attacked her?" researcher thinks in a different way and he asks hard questions. Researchers are important, though they must try to be as truthful and honest as possible. Followers have their role in the world. When I wrote "I felt that students of Blavatsky are actually degenerated inside.", it was based on observation of some followers of Blavatsky. I won't call somebody bad because he/she does not agree with Leadbeater."
First of all, I think it is important to make a distinction, that being that Blavatsky did not attack Christianity, she welcomed Christians into her organization, an organization where they could remain Christians -- Leadbeater being a prime example of someone who came in a Christian and converted to Buddhism and used what he learned to try and introduce a reformed Christianity to Christian theosophists. The only argument that some theosophists have with that, is that the Church had official standing within the Theosophical Society. If he created the Church outside the Society, few would have a problem with it. Blavatsky did not attack Christians, she attacked the dogma of the Church and its founders, mostly the Roman Church, and she did this because of the affect it had on people. She did not attack the teaching of Jesus. Please do not lay such a charge on her. She would be the first to give merit to Jesus and his disciples. By trying to establish a new church, Leadbeater also was saying that he did not agree with the dogma of any established Church. If so, why start a new one?
The fact that many attack Blavatsky today, is not unlike many attacking Christianity through the early Christian martyrs in Rome and attacking Christ himself by hanging him on a cross. If you make too much of it then you are opening up Jesus to the same charges. In 2000 years, we could come back and see what humanity has to say about Blavastky, my hunch is that there will be a similar respect for her as there is for many today towards Jesus. I think Blavatsky clearly demonstrated this respect for the man by pointing people to Dostoevsky's "The Grand Inquisitor". It is very often the Church that does harm to Christ's message.
As for researchers and followers, the group is not exclusive. Researchers can be followers as well. It can be argued that many researchers follow the dogma of Scientific Materialism. As an engineer, you no doubt must follow the dogma when preparing a paper for other engineers. You cannot start talking about elemental nature spirits and how they affect such and such a process. You must stick to the dogma. Of course, scientific materialism precludes the existence of Spiritual and psychic powers. Consequently, most researchers will be unfair to Blavatsky and to Jesus. If you were to ask such a researcher if Jesus could walk on water, they would smile and say "no, that is a lie told by imaginative disciples." So if you ask most researchers today about the bible, they would say it is myth, lies, and stories for an unprogressed mind. Is that what you believe? It is what researchers say.
Anand, if I understand what you are saying, you are saying that you are introducing your versions of Christianity and Theosophy to others in hopes that it will make them better people. Some Blavatsky followers attack you because of your respect for Leadbeater. Remember, few if any followers of Blavatsky follow Leadbeater as well. The vast majority of these people say nothing to you. Rather than focussing on the few extreme cases, perhaps you should think of the moderate many.
Chat with the whole group, and bring everyone together.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application