© 2002 VNN
|
EDITORIAL  What Were They Masters Of? BY H. H. BHAKTI ANANDA GOSWAMI EDITORIAL, Nov 27 (VNN) — Examining The Claims of the Theosophical Masters - Part One VAISHNAVA MASTER H H B.A. GOSWAMI HAS CHALLENGED THE BUDDHIST MASTERS OF THEOSOPHY TO A DEBATE, AND URGENTLY REQUESTS OTHER VAISHNAVA SCHOLARS TO JOIN IN. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE YOUR SCHOLARLY REFUTATIONS OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE THEOSOPHICAL "MAHATMA LETTERS". Hare Krishna! Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga ki jaya! Dear VNN readers, Please accept my humble obeisances. My saragrahi.org series on the history of Buddhism has gotten interrupted again, this time by a very important opportunity to contribute something of lasting value to the effort against the covered atheism and voidism that presents itself as "Gnosis" in the Theosophical Society and related New Age Movement. Please send any comments you have on the below subject to me at bhakti.eohn@verizon.net as soon as possible! Your comments may be helpful in the current academic debate, and with your permission may be posted to some academic research sites. For the debate and direct posting, go to the following sites... site ". Below is the first of a series of research papers I am writing on the atheism, voidism and appropriation of Vaishnava sources by the Theosophical Society (TS) Masters. The teachings of the TS Masters have become foundational in the New Age movement. Since these are essentially impersonal and voidist, but are mixed-up with and sometimes covered-over by flowery Vedic and Vaishnava words, and high-sounding philosophy appropriated from theistic sources, these teachings are particularly subversive for devotees who get caught up in them. I am requesting devotees with a scholarly inclination to contribute to this effort by giving me your comments from the guru, shastra and sadhu of our tradition, to refute the atheistic and voidist, ill-appropriated, and non-sense teachings from Theosophy as they appear in the "Mahatma Letters". Shortly I will post some excerpts from the Mahatma Letters on God. Please send in your scholarly comments immediately, which will be posted along with my commentaries, on a top academic site devoted to the history of ideas. This is a very time-limited opportunity, so please respond quickly! Thanks and Hari bol! Your aspiring servant, Bhakti Ananda Goswami Editor's Note: Passages in italics below are excerpted from postings by members of the "theos-talk" Yahoo e-group. Caps for emphasis in excerpts and quoted material are by Bhakti Ananda Goswami. The Theosophical Masters, originally Koot Hoomi (KH) and Master Morya (M), who are considered by Theosophists and numerous New Age groups to be the authors of the over 100 "Mahatma Letters," have made great claims about their teaching authority in those letters. Others have accepted these Masters' claims to teaching authority as valid, and have thus based their entire world view and life choices on the teachings of these Theosophical (T) masters. For some this has been a life-enriching experience, which has inspired philosophical inquiry, intellectual growth, virtue, altruism, a sense of universal brotherhood and other good things in them. These Theosophists have extracted things from the teachings of the T masters that reinforced their inherent goodness and encouraged their intellectual growth and moral development and intellectual-affective integration on many levels. Such a positive outcome is no doubt what H.P. Blavatsky and others of the Theosophical leaders had in mind at the outset of their mission to create a global order devoted to their esoteric studies. However, some of the central ideas contained in the T Masters' "Mahatma Letters" inspired malevolent, not benevolent people, and through the world-view and life-choices of these ill-motivated people, led to some persistently dangerous global ideologies and tragic outcomes in history. It is a given that the same can be said regarding some ideas contained in the Vedas, or the Bible, etc. For example, in India, the Vedic and Puranic concept of the sacramental social body (daiva varnashrama dharma system) of the self-sacrificed cosmic Purusha (Rig Veda Purusha Sukta hymn) was corrupted by the conscience-less powerful into the oppressive reincarnation-and-karma doctrine-related birth-caste system. As in Protestant Puritanism, a happy privileged life was considered by the elite birth-caste Brahmins to be the result of cosmic favor or su-karma / good karma. Those powerless persons suffering from poverty, etc., were considered unworthy of anything better by virtue of their previous sinfulness and resultant cursed birth / vi-karma or bad karma. Thus this Vedic doctrine interpreted by non-racist people of benevolent good will could result in a just and peaceful, progressive, unifying social order. However the same doctrine could result in oppression and birth-class slavery when interpreted by racist persons of ill will. In the same way the Christian mission to go out and save people may be the inspiration for either altruistic, benevolent, and socially unifying acts that build non-sectarian human community, or the gospel mission may be misinterpreted as a mandate to forcibly 'convert' humanity in colonial and Muslim jihad-like campaigns. It does not serve the best interests of humanity to ignore the historical relationship between the ideal of the Vedic varnashrama dharma system doctrine and the horrific pathological reality of the birth-caste system. It does not help humanity to ignore the historical reality of the relationship between the doctrine of Christian mission and its perverted manifestation, the doctrine of Euro-American global conquest. In the same way it is not in the best interests of humanity to ignore or to try to cover-up / obscure the historical relationship of certain Theosophical ideas to colonial 'white' Aryan racism, later Nazi aryosophism, and the diffusion of these ideas into various other socially pathological, racist and other scientistic movements. Ideas have history, and even the best of ideas are misunderstood and abused or corrupted over time and distance as they diffuse through various existing thought-systems and languages. Time and circumstance modify ideas. Even when an attempt is made to protect an idea from modification by doctrinalizing it, varying perspectives allow for doctrines to be interpreted in different ways. Thus a non-racist and a racist reading the Purusha Sukta will see different doctrines in it. A doctrine or creed (credo = shraddha), like beauty can exist 'in the eye of the beholder,' as well as codified in documents. As a result, persons of good will and those of ill will can seem to profess the same creed, but the content of the creed, the meaning of the words is not the same for them. The document is the same, the difference being in their perspective. So, while I want to acknowledge at the outset of this series of articles that many people of good-will and altruistic behavior have found and still find inspiration in the Mahatma Letters and Theosophy, as an historian of ideas particularly concerned with religion in relationship to human suffering, human rights and social justice issues, I will be focusing on some of the more problematic teachings in the Mahatma Letters, which have had a pathological social influence through their adoption and interpretation by people of ill-will in the history of the last century plus. "Sÿit was the mission of Madame Blavatsky, under the instructions of those adepts, to give to the world selected portions of that archaic teaching. It should be remembered that an adeptÜA MASTER, IS ONE WHO HAS ACHIEVED IMMORTALITY, and therefore has the power to perceive truth as it is and at will to reflect it without distortion. It is because no one of lesser degree can claim that power always and with certainty that THEIR TESTIMONY MUST BE REGARDED AS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY on all matters of occult doctrine and practice. And here it must be stated unequivocally that from the point of view of the "original programme" of the society, no Theosophical association has any raison d'etre if it does not remain true to the Masters and their teaching. There are some who seem to believe that it is possible to be faithful to the Masters while denying even the theoretical truth of their teaching. This is where the responsibility of the old Theosophical Society is so grave. In his introduction to the Mahatma Letters the writer had occasion to point out in what important particulars that Society showed by its actions a serious divergence from the spirit and letter of the original teaching. That volume proves beyond question that HPB's writings are absolutely consistent with the Masters' teachings, and in nothing is this more clearly discernible than in her exposition of the doctrines relating to the life after death." So to begin with, the Theosophical Masters have been claimed to possess the highest authority, and H. P. Blavatsky has been asserted as their reliable "absolutely consistent" spokesperson. Mahatma Letter #134 - http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-134.htm [Letter from H.P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett. This letter includes a message from Master Morya.] "Sÿit is useless for a member to argue 'I am one of a pure life, I am a teetotaler and an abstainer from meat and vice. All my aspirations are for good, etc.' and he, at the same time, building by his acts and deeds an impassable barrier on the road between himself and us. What have WE, the DISCIPLE of the true arhats, of esoteric Buddhism and of sang-gyas to do with the SHASTERS and orthodox Brahmanism? There are 1001s of thousands of fakirs, sannyasis and sadhus leading the most pure lives, and yet being as they are, ON THE PATH OF ERROR, never having had an opportunity to meet, see or even hear of us. THEIR FOREFATHERS HAVE DRIVEN AWAY THE FOLLOWERS OF THE ONLY TRUE PHILOSOPHY UPON EARTH AWAY FROM INDIA and now, it is not for the latter to come to them but for them to come to us if they want us. Which of them is ready to BECOME A BUDDHIST, a nastika as they call us? None." In this quote, the "shasters" (shastras, holy Sanskrit scriptures) of India are rejected, and the teachings of the T Masters and HPB are clearly identified with Theravadin (Southern or atheistic) Buddhism, centered in Sri Lanka, which was driven out of India during and subsequent to the reign of the Mahayana Buddhist Emperor Ashoka. Ashoka's own Buddhist master had an ashram in Mathura, the ancient capital and educational university 'Vatican city' of royal Krishna-centric Vaishnavism, which the Pure Land tradition of Mahayana Buddhism is closely related to. The form of Buddhism "driven away" from India was that of Sri Lankan-related Theravadin Buddhism. The TS teachings continually merge contradictory Mahayana and Theravadin Buddhist doctrines, especially in their combined use of Nepalese-Tibetan with Sri Lankan sources. However, they seem to contain no appreciation of the intimate historical relationship between Vaishnavism and Pure Land Buddhism, as is apparent from all the Sanskrit Buddhist texts, iconography and interdisciplinary evidence in ancient combined Vaishnava and Pure Land Buddhist centers of worship like Vrindavana-Mathura . Instead of correctly associating the Mahayana doctrines, rites, iconography etc., of Nepalese-Tibetan Buddhism with earlier theistic Krishna-centric Vaishnavism, the TS Masters generally ignore the profoundly important Vaishnava link, and instead focus on the 'esoteric' deconstruction of other-power salvific Buddhist transcendentalism, and watering-down of the theistic associations with 'Hinduism' to re-present Nepalese-Tibetan Buddhism as merely a covered form of Theravada. Of course this campaign of Theosophy reinforced the exoteric-theism-versus-esoteric-atheism dichotomy already in Nepalese-Tibetan Buddhism. Esoteric voidism haunts Mahayana Buddhism in the same way that esoteric atheism haunts 'Hinduism' in the form of extreme impersonal Advaita Vedanta, and esoteric Gnosticism still haunts Christianity in the West. Thus, while claiming a love of India and her sacred traditions, in fact, the Theosophists rejected her authentic traditions of salvific transcendental personalism, the dominant exoteric bhakti traditions of Krishna-Vishnu, Shiva and Devi, to promote a form of exoterically Hindu-ized but esoteric, covered syncretic Buddhism. The T masters were not masters of the corpus of Sanskrit or Southern Indian Dravidian sacred Vishnu, Shiva, Devi and Marugan, etc., literatures. They did not teach about the direct relationship between Pure Land Buddhism and Vaishnavism, and they seemed to know little about the great devotional, salvific traditions of either northern or southern India. They presented themselves as the highest authorities on ancient wisdom, but apparently felt that honoring the sources of their wisdom, the "shasters" that they disdained, was not necessary. Thus they presented their 'own' system of thought, using language and teachings from various shastras without properly representing those texts, or their source, the supreme deity of the Vedas and Puranas, Upanishads, samhitas, temple archana vigraha worship, bhakti hymnology etc. The Eastern teachings of the T masters are a concoction of doctrines drawn principally from Vaishnava and Buddhist sources, and they claim to be the "highest authority" of this "only true philosophy" on Earth. In the below quote, we can see the general attitude that Theosophists have towards the "deity visualizations" of the "high school" level of Tibetan Buddhism, while the no Nama-Rupa (name-form) practice of Zen Buddhism is called the PhD program. It seems in the below, that Blofeld's attitude is the same as that of the Theosophical society teaching on this matter. [caps for emphasis in italicized text throughout this article are mine] Question: Sÿbut what about the 6 or 7 schools of yoga. Did they not cover all the bases? Answer: I am not sure I understand the question, but different schools were developed to meet the needs of different temperaments. In his book Tantric Mysticism in Tibet Blofeld argued that the different schools are like different grades in the public school system. Mantra yoga, which is based on the simple repetition of a sound, is the most "elementary" level, whereas tantric Tibetan schools, with their elaborate DEITY VISUALIZATIONS is akin to HIGH SCHOOL. And ZEN IS THE PhD PROGRAM. Blofeld's idea is that not everyone is ready for a PhD. Theosophy teaches that there are planetaries and ascended masters or 'bodhisattvas,' but there is no transcendental Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the source of such beings. In Theosophy the dharma kaya, or ultimate reality, is totally impersonal, and personality only exists in a qualified state in the nirmanya (or sambhogya) kaya. So the TS masters are the highest authorities of the one true philosophy on Earth, and clearly teach a Buddhism that rejects the original transcendentalism of the Vaishnava-related Mahayana Tri Kaya (trinity), in favor of a Sri Lankan and Zen-related form of Theravadin Buddhism. Even so, the "absolute nothing" (see Maseo Abe for example) of orthodox Sri Lankan-related Theravadin Buddhism is not authentically and consistently represented throughout the letters of the Mahatmas. Now we have a general idea of the masters' authority claims, the extent of their shastric knowledge base and the Eastern aspect of their perspective. Their writings are full of thought-forms, language and references, which clearly indicate a European higher education, so Theosophical lore takes this into account. Others (the Hare brothers, etc.) have made textual studies of the Mahatma Letters for internal evidence of their authorship. However, I am not concerned with the Masters' classical Western education in this series of comments on the Mahatma Letters. I am concerned with whether or not the letters accurately represent the Eastern traditions that they have so obviously drawn from. At this point, we come to the question of the claimed relationship between the masters Koot Hoomi, Morya and Madame H.P. Blavatsky, who was considered their absolutely consistent representative. What authority is claimed for her? Is she considered as equally infallible as some Theosophists consider the Masters KH and M? In the below, it is claimed that Madame Blavatsky was actually an incarnation of Serapis, the master of KH and M themselves! "Bear witness!" Who Was the Real H.P.B.? Compiled by Daniel H. Caldwell Published by Blavatsky archives. Online edition copyright "00". "Sÿfrom the above material, it would appear that Serapis, one of the chiefs or chohans of the occult brotherhood, was the superior or teacher of both Master KH and Master M. Furthermore, Serapis (being a nirmanakaya) had taken on his "present incarnation" using the "old body" called H. P. Blavatsky as a instrument for his "life of self-sacrifice." these insights help us to understand more fully the significance of KH's words about H. P. Blavatsky: "after nearly a century of fruitless search, our chiefs had to avail themselves of the only opportunity to send out a European body upon European soil to serve as a connecting linkSÿ." Thus, while HPB was playing at being the student of her Masters KH and M, Theosophists teach that she was actually their master. The whole scheme gets quite convoluted, with the cast of T Masters eventually being credited with human progress in general, through their astounding litany of previous incarnations. Sÿnow is this author saying she copied it verbatim? The voice is based on the Stanzas of Dyzan right? And people have said it here and there that there is no such thing as Senzar language as she called it? Is that right? Well, she gets credit for no other reason than translating the thing into English. And if my memory serves me correctly that she said that she PULLED THIS OUT OF HER MASTER'S (MM) BRAIN WHILE HE WAS TOUCHING HER TEMPLES. And that she had to make his English more fluent. Or was that the other story when she was with him in Tibet? I get the stories confused. But she says clearly that the words of the voice, anyway, are not her own. But it is not proof positive that she did not plagiarize it. The Mahatma Letters are part of the larger body of Theosophical teachings, whose greatest early contributor was Madame HPB / her Masters. There are many claims made about the mystical 'precipitation,' automatic writing or 'channeling' (modern term) of the Masters' teachings through HPB and others. Again I am not as concerned with these issues as I am interested in the use or misuse and misrepresentation of authentic, redacted / corrupted or concocted ancient Eastern source-works. Like Joseph Smith's miraculous translation of the Egyptian "Book of Mormon" tablets, or works claiming to be based on documents about Jesus found in a Tibetan lamasery, or the claimed "Essene gospel" of the bogus modern so-called Essenes, there is a pattern to the emergence and presentation of esoteric and neo-gnostic spurious 'ancient' source works. These typically are miraculously produced translations of some hidden, lost or obscure text, inscriptions or other revelation, with built-in deniability when it comes to authentication of the source. There is always some reason why the original cannot be produced, so that others can analyze it for authenticity, and compare the original text's 'miraculous translation' for accuracy. In the case of the Mahatma Letters, and the "Stanzas of Dyzan", the problem of authenticity has been avoided by claiming that these writings were produced through the spiritualistic mediumship of HPB. Before her career as a Theosophical revelator of ancient Eastern wisdom in India, she was a medium and conjuror in spiritualist (sŽ ance and medium) circles in America. She was extraordinarily well read, knew several languages, and was a great storyteller and prodigious writer who once ran a writing shop, and was expert in just the skills she would need to take dictation from the invisible masters. Although she seemed to overtly hate Judaism and Christianity, she could also be an outspoken champion for those she considered wronged or oppressed. A complex and brilliant women, HPB commanded respect even from some educated and powerful men, in an age when women were not expected to be the intelligent champions of anything. It should be kept in mind that the social evils that were later to manifest from some of her seeds of thought, were surely not anticipated or desired by her. (I obviously do not accept the idea that she was 'Serapis', and thus an all-knowing master outside of the normal influences of time.) At some point in her conjuring and minor-league mediumship, she 'got religion' so to speak, and embarked on a life-long mission to better the condition of humankind. She was no doubt well motivated, but produced a mixed work that was part genius and part nonsense and trickery. The question is: why should people abandon the study of authentic ancient religious and philosophical source-works to accept her / the Mahatmas' writings as the ultimate authority on the world's hidden mysteries? BTWÜeven if HPB STOLE HER IDEAS and theories from all the ancient and modern teachers of the hidden mysteries (including Hermes, Pythagoras, Plato, Buddha, Lao Tze, Vyasa, Patanjali, etc.)ÜWHY SEND EVERYONE TO THEM to learn new languages and dig it out for themselves, covering the same tracks that Blavatsky didÜwhen all of it was so CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY synthesized in The Secret Doctrine (along with other explanatory writings of HPB and associated scriptural confirmations) in the common language that most everyone of a thoughtful mind in the world today can understand?" Sÿ In any event, I'm satisfied that the ultimate truth, as close as we'll ever get to it (barring faith in the "revelations" of one's favorite guru or god) is in Theosophy's cornerÜwhere INTUITION AND REASON ARE THE ONLY GODS WORTH LISTENING TO . This is the crux of the problem as far as I am concerned. It is a matter of the basic integrity or reliability of the information that has been presented in the Mahatma Letters, and the acknowledged writings of H. P. Blavatsky and the other prominent personalities of the early Theosophical Society and movement. What truth did the Theosophical Masters actually convey? Why should everyone go to the T masters, instead of to the still extant authentic sources? Did the Masters and H. P. Blavatsky always "clearly and accurately" synthesize and represent important ancient teachings and traditions in her work? Or were there serious omissions, contradictions, and other errors? Were some of their representations of ancient traditions seriously flawed, corrupted by extreme bias and/or even actually dishonest? The above current Theosophist's view regarding "the only gods worth listening to," should be compared to the statement below, of Master Koot Hoomi himself. Regarding atheism in the Mahatma Letters... Mahatma Letter No. 10 - http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-10.htm Notes by KH on a "preliminary chapter" headed "God" by Hume, intended to preface an exposition of occult philosophy (abridged). "SÿNEITHER our philosophy nor ourselves BELIEVE IN A GOD, least of all in one whose pronoun necessitates a capital GSÿ.therefore, we deny god both as philosophers and as Buddhists. We know there are planetary and other spiritual lives, and we know there is in our system NO SUCH THING AS GOD, EITHER PERSONAL OR IMPERSONAL. Parabrahm is not a god, but absolute immutable law, and iswar is the effect of avidya and maya, ignorance based upon the great delusion. The word "God" was invented to designate the unknown cause of those effects which man has either admired or dreaded without understanding them, and SINCE WE CLAIM AND THAT WE ARE ABLE TO PROVE WHAT WE CLAIMÜi.e., the knowledge of that cause and causesÜwe are in a position to maintain THERE IS NO GOD OR GODS BEHIND THEM." Confusion in the master results in confusion in the chela. In the below, the author himself demonstrates why attention should be paid to understanding Eastern thought and traditions, and individual texts and persons, from reliable, historically authentic sources. He profoundly errs in identifying myself (bag) with "Vedantist and Buddhist sectarian and separatist teachings." If he had acquired any knowledge about the subject in general from clear and accurate, reliable sources, he never could have confused me with a "Vedantist." If he had any understanding of the various real-world sources and traditions involved, and had read and understood my biographical sketch on the site where his comment was posted, he would not have confused me with "sectarian and separatist teachings." I am a person who has studied deeply in numerous traditions, having a distinguished history of service in non-sectarian interfaith activism. My own teachings are anything but "separatist." As a shiksha (instructing) master, in a lineage of Vaishnavism from which some of the Masters' / Blavatsky's teachings have been appropriated, I have some familiarity with the Sanskrit terms they used, as found in the real ancient source works. I also have a clear understanding of the differences between some of the various schools of 'Hindu' thought. As a master in a bhakti yoga lineage, it is laughable to hear myself referred to as a "Vedantist" in such a way. Assuming that you agree with the VEDANTIST AND BUDDHIST SECTARIAN AND SEPARATIST TEACHINGS OF BAG AND GS as well as with most popular aspects of modern reductive science (if not any other "religion") -- don't you think that your hatred of HPB (the great initial synthesizer of all these disparate, contradictory, one tracked, and separate religions, sciences and philosophies) has gone much too far, and is, in effect, doing a great disservice to humanity at large? From this point of view, you should be ashamed of yourself. And, maybe, you, and your cohorts should also stop pounding on all us poor, deluded and misled Theosophical "fundamentalists." (Apropos, I wonder if you "separatists" or us "synthesists" have the right to be labeled as such? :-) One of my main criticisms of the Theosophical society teachings is that they misrepresent teachings from genuinely ancient theistic and atheistic sources by appropriating, distorting, re-contexting and misrepresenting them. For instance the Mahatmas' teachings sometimes make use of ideas from Vaishnava traditions, but make no proper reference to the theistic thought systems from which the ideas have been acquired. Thus the cyclic yuga (eon / age) rounds of a finite universe, emanations from Godhead and Shakti, days of Brahma and such ideas are presented without their proper context and meaning. For example, in the authentic Vaishnava sources, the world-age yugas are associated with the yuga avataras of Hari, or Krishna-Vishnu (Amitabha-Lokesvara in Pure Land Buddhism) who is the transcendent Deity, and the source of all spiritual and material realms and worlds (vyuhas and lokas). However the TS masters do not properly present the relationship of the yugas to the transcendental Deity. While there is some emanationism in the masters' doctrines, it is not presented accurately from either the Vaishnava or Vaishnava-related earliest forms of Pure Land Buddhism. Instead, the saving Deities of other-power Pure Land Buddhism are represented more as dependent-arising products of mind and dualism. Outside of 'visualization,' and the highest, subtlest material states, the Deities have no transcendent personal existence in the dharma kaya. But the T masters do not represent Buddhist voidism or Advaita Vedantist impersonalism purely either. Their 'Buddhism' seems a synthesis of Vaishnava doctrines and the teachings of several different traditions of Buddhism. They try to associate their amalgamated Buddhist teachings with Sri Lankan Theravada, Tibetan and Zen Buddhism, this creates a strange brew when the emanationism of Vaishnavism (without its divine source) is added to the mix. When the days of Brahma, etc., are described, the origin of Brahma (Helios Phanes) in the Personality of Godhead (Narayana) is not really stressed. In these and many other cases, the Mahatmas do not deliver to their students a "clear and accurate" synthesis of ancient teachings and scriptures. In fact they seem to have had an agenda to edit out the theistic context and content of the ideas that they used. Thus their product (the Mahatma Letters) appropriates elements from both theistic and atheistic traditions and corrupts these, forming an attempt to harmonize elements of theistic cosmogonic revelation, with modern watered-down Neo-Vedantism and an equally corrupted form of Neo-Buddhism. By creating such a non-historical hodge-podge of spuriously 'ancient' doctrines from various mis-used sources, the Theosophical teachers render their chelas incapable of clear, accurate, rational thought involving these matters. A basic knowledge of real Indic traditions would have insured that the author of this note did not accuse a Vaishnava bhakti-yogin of teachings that were "Vedantist". Because the masters and other TS writers frequently confounded and merged and misrepresented Indic thought and traditions, Theosophists typically have no real grasp of the most basic truths regarding these real-world traditions. Having accepted HPB's "Reader's Digest-like" condensed version and synthesis of the wisdom traditions, they have cheated themselves out of a more direct and authentic experience of the same. This gets to the personality development and disciplinary aspect of the issue. Why would someone who really wants to understand something, choose not to go to the source and properly discipline themselves in its understanding? Why would a person prefer to speculate about something from the outside, rather than studying it up-close in a scientific, disciplined manner? The problem is that certain kinds of people cannot submit to any real-world authorities and hate to be required to live by rules of conduct and standards of behavior. They don't want to discipline their inquiry into any kind of traditional approach. They don't want to be bothered with the facts that disagree with them, and they don't want to learn anything that requires real discipline or 'surrender.' Such people will typically make-up their own alter-ego authorities to validate themselves and/or give themselves credibility with others. Thus they can play at the humility and surrender game, without ever really submitting themselves for instruction to anyone. As a result we see the endless proliferation of 'humble servants' and 'messengers' of the invisible or conveniently inaccessible masters, who never really require any surrender on 'their' disciple's part. The 'disciple' becomes, as a messenger of their inaccessible master (s), the guru/master of others who really do want a real-world flesh-and-blood authority. Thus the endless innovation and diffusion of new esoteric and occult 'spiritualities' is based on the sincere surrendered following of some people, who blindly submit to those masters who are themselves the 'servants' of only a projected authority-figure of themselves. Meanwhile in the exoteric great religions, real-world masters require real-world surrender, discipline (diksha) and sacrifices from their surrendered students, but in return they deliver the authentic teachings of really ancient and venerable traditions. 'You get what you pay for'...in this case either the intellectual and devotional heritage of centuries, or the concoctions of modern era cheaters. Authentic traditions have exoteric lineages, real examinable ancient scriptures, real ancient histories and preserve the legitimate teachings of their lineages doctrinally. Such traditions are the real guardians of ancient scriptures and wisdom. It takes a lifetime of disciplined study to master even a tiny bit of what such traditions have to offer. But, the proud 'gnostic' who idolizes their own brain will not usually be attracted to a lifetime of study in anything really demanding of them. The proud gnostic concocter would rather be self-educated than to actually plumb the depths of anything through real surrender and disciplined inquiry. The result of such a person's scholarly endeavors usually shows their disdain for previous authorities and scientific methodology; they want 'spirituality' without 'religion.' They want to master science or history or some field without being actually trained in the disciplines of that field. They tend to be masters of everything only in their own opinion, and instead they are not the real masters of anything. They tend to be dabblers, who are venerated as masters by gullible people with a poor fund of knowledge. Now, in my opinion, H. P. Blavatsky and her friends were both dabblers and the masters of something. What they had mastered is on exhibit for all to see in the Mahatma Letters and other primary Theosophical Society writings. It is not that these writings have no value, but one should approach them as what they are, and not confuse them with what they claim to be, the highest authoritative teaching of the only true philosophy on earth. Contact VNN about this story  Send this story to a friend
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
