Re: How vs. Why - Follow-up
May 13, 1997 09:49 PM
by M K Ramadoss
At 03:10 PM 5/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Titus and all,
>I agree completely with the observation that Theosophy is
>sparse indeed in giving practical guidance to members, and
>rests on a plane of abstractions that isn't very nurturing to
>many people. But this is a problem only if one tries to make a
>complete diet of Theosophy, when it is nutritionally inadequate
>in itself. One needs to supplement it with commitments
>elsewhere to more practical paths. HPB and Olcott chose
>Buddhism; later Adyar leaders chose Liberal Catholicism; I
>choose the very pragmatic Cayce material.
>Some Theosophists (more in the Judge branch of the movement and
>among ES members) regard Theosophy alone as a completely
>fulfilling source of spiritual nourishment. But the majority
>don't, in my observation, combining it with other paths that
>are less topheavy with intellectualism.
>While the sparseness of the daily-useful aspects of Theosophy
>is not a problem for the individual members, who can get those
>needs met elsewhere, it *is* IMO a real problem for the organizations,
>which tend to an ivory-tower attitude. One finds it easier to
>care about and get involved in a group that is doing practical
>good works than a group that is entirely theoretical in focus.
This is a follow-up message to my earlier reply.
I just visited with the Maha-Chohan letter which is considered by every TS
leader from HPB onwards was the most important letter ever received from the
Adept Teachers as it is a communication from the Maha-Chohan ("to whose
insight the future lies like an open page -- K.H.)
It was a response to the two Englishmen - AO Hume and AP Sinnett who did not
clearly understand the goal of Theosophical Society. The Adepts told them
that the true significance of Their attempt to influence the world through
TS was to mould the world towards a larger and truer sense of Brotherhood
than the religions had so far accomplished. (CJ's comment in Letters from
the MW - I Series).
The letter goes on to say "Colonel HSO, who works but to revive Buddhism,
may be regarded as one who labours in the true path of theosophy, far more
than any other man who chooses as his goal the gratification of his own
ardent aspirations for occult knowledge."
"It is not the individual and determined purpose of attaining oneself
Nirvana (the culmination of all knowledge and absolute wisdom) which is
after all only an exalted and glorious *selfishness* -- but the
self-sacrificing pursuit of the best means to lead on the right path our
neighbour, to cause as many of our fellow-creatures as we possibly can to
benefit by it, which constitutes the true Theosophist."
"Rather perish the TS with both its hapless founders than that we should
permit it to become no better than an academy of magic, a hall of occultism."
"And it is we, the humble disciples of these perfect Lamas, who are expected
to allow the TS to drop its noble title, that of Brotherhood of Humanity, to
become a simple school of psychology. No, no, good brothers, you have been
labouring under the mistake too long already."
>From a reading of the above, it is very clear if some one joins the TS with
the expectation of *practical* lessons on topics such as concentration,
meditation, and other psychic and psychological exercises, I am sure there
will be a great disappointment.
I also personally believe that greater interest and activity by individual
members in practical application of Brotherhood in any way we can, is but
sure to make us very sensitive and perceptive as we go along so that we will
be able to detect great opportunities for service and also potential
opportunities to help the needy and downtrodden.
I may be wrong. But this just what I feel.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application