Re: Theos-World Re: Anand Leadbeater-Blavatsky Debate
Mar 16, 2009 11:04 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen
"I know huge Theological differences between Christianity and Theosophy. And yet I recommend both Theosophy and Christianity. "
Thank you Anand, for at least not throwing the work done by H. P. Blavatsky out with the local garbage.
But we have the following from a
HPB letter to A. P. Sionnett - in the fall, 1886:
"That which you have to do, if you would be active and work for the original Masters' Society, would be as follows. Explain to Olcott matters and claim from him and Council, that which you of the L.L. already virtually have: complete autonomy for the European Branches, as many, as there are groups of the same way of thinking. Theosophy was founded as a nucleus for Univ. Brotherhood. So was Christy. The latter was a complete failure and is a sham, only because the R. Latin Church claims infallibility, absolute authority, and will convert by fair or foul means the two other Churches to her way of thinking. So do the other two but in a weaker degree. Now Christianity is the same Theosophy, only in masquerade dresses, this cycle of ours being the carnival period of the greater cycle, that of our sub-race. Don't let us do as the Christians do. Our Society was established to bring together people as searchers after truth, independent thinkers, one having no right to force his opinion on the other: or meddle in his religious views. Therefore we cannot force Mohini and his party to follow "Olcott Blavatsky's" programme; or as a dissenter from it, to drive him out of the Society, since he is a real theosophist in one of the aspects of divine Wisdom "theo-sophia." Now Babaji is quite another thing. He is a liar, a traitor, a selfish ambitious wretch, who first sold us-Olcott and myself, and is now selling his ex-Masters. Against him every true theosophist ought to rise; and those who do not are certainly dangerous and cannot remain in your Society, or any of those who remain true to Master and the original programme. "
And that is just one of many written by H. P. Blavatsky in a similar vein.
There are Mahatma Letters giving the same view, and other theosophists also did so.
So I cannot as a theosophist reconcile the teachings of Christianity with each other.
Yet, I can with H. P. Blavatsky agree upon that there are esoteric or esoteric related content in the four gospels of the New Testament. And they stand as important words coinsiding with the theosophical cause. But the Churches of Christianity are not theosophical at all in ther overall teachings. - One aught to know a tree on its fruit. The same with any given teaching.
- - -
And let us remember that there is a huge difference between "character assassination " and documented criticism of other individuals TEACHINGS, (mind you: not their personalities).
And we cannot presume, that because people call - themselves - theosophists, that they really know and understand anything about what actual theosophical teachings are as they were given by H. P. Blavatsky, Ammonius Saccas, Plotin and others.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 11:52 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Anand Leadbeater-Blavatsky Debate
I agree with some of your points and I disagree with some of your points.
It is true that biographers, historians or readers can't know exactly what made some occultist write what he wrote. Biographers, readers many times speculate about the meaning of what occultist wrote and reasons for that writing.
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.
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 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.
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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application