Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00225)

Daniel:

>If theosophy is interested in truth...
>Then what do you do as a Theosophist, or an athesist, or deist
>with the likes of one that declared "I am the Truth..." or declared
>that you are either "For me or against me".

I would expect that the statement "I am the Truth" would refer to the
fact that Jesus, or any Guru, was speaking universal truths, speaking
profound philosophy, and expecting his audience to pay careful attention.
It would be silly to take a particular incarnate being and equate that
being with absolute Truth, which by definition transends all things
that can and do exist.

The "for me or against me" argument only applies in polarized situations
where there is a conflict where sides have to be taken. Some religious
(portions of Christianity and the Zoroastarian faith, perhaps) take a
dualistic view of life, with opposing armies of angels and devils battling
for control of the hearts of men.

Because the world is rooted in the spiritual, such conflicts are
only "apparent", and the spiritual always wins out in the end.
But the spiritual winning out is not the same thing as a particular
religious sect achieving universal domination over the thoughtlife of
the world. The spiritual wins when everyone's hearts are opened to it,
and it becomes a power in their lives, *despite their sometimes confused
and rigid beliefs.*

>If the Truth reveals that such separatism is invalid then there
>is no problem...you can carry on with your individualistic
>approach to spiritism with the help of the masters.

Any separatism comes from shutting one's mind and heart off from the
spiritual. It has nothing to do with external acceptance of various
dogmas and mental contructs. The dogmas and mental contructs can often
be the *cause of the separatism.*

>However, if Christ's teachings are valid then individual
>interpretation of the spiritual are nothing but stumbling
>blocks to true maturity if the Light has already been
>established and the Road to Enlightment ushered by the
>only Master that can keep you on the straight and narrow.

The teachings are valid in the exact same sense as ar the Buddha's,
and dozens of other religious teachers. They are exoteric or under
blinds for the masses, to be taken as literal, which acting to hide
the deeper truths for those with eyes to see.

>By what authority or foundation can you declare the Master's
>teaching invalid?

The teachings are not declared invalid, but their literal interpretation
and misunderstanding by the Christian world is rejected. Leaving out
such essentail principles as reincarnation and karma, which may have been
openly taught by the early Christian Fathers, we have an attemt to avoid
the truth that all the Avataras, including Jesus, openly taught.

-- Eldon