Theos-Talk Archives (July 1996 Message tl00370)

>> From ">Steve Buck <sbuck@pacbell.net>:
>> Newsgroups: alt.theosophy,
>> Subject: supporting dolgurkii

Steve Buck wrote:

>>.... it would appear that
>> Theosophy has taken a turn towards being a religion versus an
>> intellectual tool to open awareness.  Most people will read a popular
>> spiritual doctrine and then simply stop thinking and believe it.  It's
>> as if someone else put it in writing, they understood it, now I read
>> their understanding and don't have to think about it.  I can simply
>> believe what's on paper and my life/beliefs should be secure. 
>> Dolgurkii says "make up your own minds" but after reading spiritual
doctrines,
>> most people have let someone else make up their minds and simply STOP
>> thinking.

Daniel Caldwell responds:

I certainly don't advocate and have never advocated that people should
read Blavatsky's books and "then simply stop thinking and believe" them!
Nor do I advise people to "let someone else make up their minds and simply
STOP thinking."  The List of Suggested Reading on HPB and Theosophy was
compiled and disseminated in the hope that inquirers, new students, etc. 
might find some of the books of interest and would want to read the books.
Let people read the books and decide for themselves what to accept
or what to reject.  I would encourage students to try to UNDERSTAND what 
HPB is writing about. In this approach one does not necessarily agree or
disagree, believe or disbelieve or accept or reject.  Maybe at some later
time, one may be inclined to say, "Yes, I agree." or there may be some
other response.

Steve Buck wrote:
 
>> Caldwells responses to Dolgurkii have been politically correct.  However
>> the overall point of Dolgurkiis postings seems to have been missed.
>> It's very possible and highly probably that Leadbeater and Bailey
>> revised existing Blavatsky documents and published them as facsimile
>> reproductions.  Dolgurkii does not say "they did" he says it is very
>> likely.

Daniel replies:

Is it "highly probable" that Leadbeater or Bailey revised existing Blavatsky
writings and subsequently published them as facsimile reproductions?  In
twenty five years of historical research on HPB and Theosophy, I have never
heard anyone even suggest that Leadbeater or Bailey *might* have done 
such a thing.  As far as I am concerned, it is highly improbable.  If Steve
or Alexis has evidence to support such a contention, please produce it.
Leadbeater and Bailey have been accused of many things, but this is a
new one to me.  My gut reaction would be:  "Nonsense." ( Am I being PC?)

Steve wrote:
 
>> What's been most interesting about the posts is not who is more right
>> but  who makes you think more?  Caldwell has used quotes and common
>> spiritual responses of acceptance to deal with Dolgurkii.  Dolgurkii has
>> composed extensive postings attempting to provide us with an
>> understanding of why and how he has reached his current opinions.  To
>> me, a quote is a nice foundation to fall back on when I don't understand
>>something.

Daniel comments:

I thought Mr. de Zirkoff's comments were very appropriate to the subject
and I wanted to share them.  I quoted from HPB's ISIS UNVEILED because
Alexis has stated that he holds that book in high regard.  HPB's quotes
indicate to me that even in ISIS UNVEILED (not to mention HPB's later
writings) she claimed that the Adepts had a body of teachings, a body
of knowledge.  Do not confuse the issues.  The Adepts may have a body
of knowledge and teachings.  That does not mean that inquirers and
students of Theosophy should blindly believe these teachings.  I would
urge students to try to understand the teachings.  But this does not mean
to stop thinking!  Notice the last paragraph of Mr. de Zirkoff's article:
""In the meantime---and far from any acceptance of ideas on
merely a blind belief---we can investigate the coherence 
of that system of thought, its logical interrelatedness, its
appeal to both reason and intuition, its application in both
great and small ways, and its practical value in relation
to others.  Thereby we may become gradually convinced of the 
truth of the propositions and postulates of the Esoteric
Philosophy, long before the time when it will have become
possible for us to undertake a 'clinical' investigation of the
laws involved therein and to manipulate the forces and
energies of the occult aspects of Nature."

Furthermore, I do NOT believe that HPB was an infallible person.
But based on 25 years of research and study, I believe
she was a very knowledgeable person.  Furthermore, I do NOT
believe in anyone blindly accepting what she or the Masters said.
Furthermore, a student of Theosophy is not required to accept any
teaching of Theosophy. A dogma is something you must believe or
else face the consequences.  In the Christian religion, you must
believe this, that and the other, OR ELSE face various consequences
including going to hell!  If I reject the Theosophical teaching on
rounds and races, what are the consequences?  

Steve wrote:
>> 
>> Dolgurkiis focus has been on the TS, but in his postings he has gone on
>> to say it's not only the TS, but ANY RELIGION that is harmful to society 
>>overall.  Basically, once something has become 'core doctrine", people
>> stop thinking and just believe.  One thing for sure, that's the best way 
>>to control people....

Daniel replies:

Certainly there are harmful, negative aspects to any particular religion.
Especially
when that religion has gained POWER over people. " Do this or believe this or
else face the consequences."  Yet I believe there is a positive side to
religion.
There are many beautiful, uplifting ideas in the various world religions.
Again, if people stop thinking and just believe, I would agree that that is
in the
long run harmful and negative.  But I don't believe HPB and her Adept Teachers
ever advocated "stop thinking and just believe."