Theos-Talk Archives (June 2002 Message tt00144)

Dear Friends:

Re Religion and religions.

June 24 2002

It seems somewhat pointless to discuss who has originated certain
views concerning religions.

The main point is always what do we ourselves observe and know?

Do we have any concept of those ultimate TRUTHS that rule NATURE
regardless of the labels of politics, nations, tribes, religions,
sects and creeds? If there are differences, then the source of the
differences can no doubt be traced.

If there are similarities, then the question is WHY ?

Here are some of my considerations generated by my familiarity with
Theosophical literature. In this I do not need an "authority" to
direct my thinking. The most crucial premise is that GOD or the DEITY
is omnipresent -- hence is equally present in you, me everyone, and in
everything. No exceptions. If GOD is omnipresent, then the UNIVERSE
is his form and that in undefinable.

The next is that GOD or the DEITY is omniscient. This means that
nothing happens which is not noticed and recorded in any place or at
any time. This supports the idea that Karma or the law of reaction
pervades the UNIVERSE.

The third idea basic to every religion is that GOD is omnipotent, and
moves everything. The Laws of nature and the discoveries of Science
demonstrate this. It is only among men that there is any doubt of
this. Now why is that ?


The common source for all religions no matter how old they are or how
obscure those sources may be is what is (for lack of a better set of
words) TRUTH.

If you have looked at H P B's article WHAT IS TRUTH ? [H P B Articles
Vol. I p. 1.] you will see that she defines two levels: The relative
truth of the things we discuss and seek here in this "material plane"
of gross matter and constantly shifting shapes and opinions, and the
ETERNAL TRUTH -- which can be surmised as an eternal and immovable
background to all existence. And that is quite undefinable using our
present embodied minds, although, we can get close to it by dealing
with metaphysical ideals and ideas.

These two are different. In India, an ancient Sage: MANDUKYA,
devised what might be called a shaving process. He mentally disposed
of everything that CHANGED or was therefore illusion and illusory. He
ended up with a single statement: "Not this, and not that." Implying
thereby that there was a forever concealed "IT" or "THAT" which was
unresolvable and without any qualities which we could seek, discover
and define in our words and terms.

H P B called it the ABSOLUTE in The SECRET DOCTRINE and said it was
immutable and quality-less. Here are some instances: All true
religions bind humanity together and have no exclusiveness -- they do
not separate, nor do they claim uniqueness. If those qualities are
detected, be sure it is the priests who have devised and imposed
them. They have a vested interest in maintaining their business and
imposing their craft on others, and so they have devised methods to
awe the common people, keep them ignorant and make them fearful.
That keeps them from investigating other religions. It also is a
basis for developing blind, mindless hatred and fanaticism.

Krishna in the BHAGAVAD GITA says the same. He calls it there his
SUPREME nature and declares that all the Universes and worlds and all
creatures are derived from that aspect of Himself which is not to be
discovered.

Buddha spoke of pervading illusions -- Maya. And He declared as a
most profound philosopher, that all "things in manifestation" were
COMPOUNDS and hence were illusions in time and space.

However he did not specify what they were in actuality or in reality.
If there were illusions to some they were not illusions to others who
might have superior powers capable of penetrating beyond the most
tenuous or the most resistant of veils of matter or of substance. In
Sanskrit there is a state of substance called SUDDHA SATTVA [ see
THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY p. 311.

She also speaks terms used in ancient Hindu philosophy by the
Brahmins, such as : PARAMPADHATMAVA, bordering on the ABSOLUTE and
"beyond the condition of Spirit."

PARAMPADHA, and then of PARAMARTHA, said to be that "place" or
"plane" of BLISS which is enjoyed by those who attain to Moksha
(Nirvana) ( Gloss p. 249) , and so on.

These terms illustrate the fact (in logic and metaphysics) that true
religion is not only moral rectitude, but includes a very detailed and
scientific analysis of the rules and laws of nature whereby everything
comes into existence and then evolves into the future of a
"perfection" which, while vague, yet encourages every being to work
towards a state in which it is ALL-WISE and ALL-POWERFUL.

Logically then, the state of mankind is one where they, as THE ETERNAL
PILGRIMS which spring from the primordial and only ONE "GOD-ESSENCE,"
are half way through their pilgrimage. This is our general condition.
We have become endowed with minds. Allegorically, we have eaten of
the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Why is it "forbidden?" It is in
all theogonical mythologies. It is symbolized as a danger, because it
makes us (as mind-beings) able to see we are the link between the
lawless origins of matter in chaos, and, of the ordered perfection of
a UNIVERSE in which LAWS and LAW alone act. -- an IDEAL -- some call
it PERFECTION.

The great teachers and Prophets of past ages all belong to a single
brotherhood -- the Lodge of PERFECTS MEN. That is minds that while
individual have become universal and perceive "god's will" operative
everywhere without any exceptions. The idea of a personal Devil, or
of Satan, as depicted by the church is eliminated as illogical. The
SECRET DOCTRINE explains this and one can trace the information and
logic by going to the INDEX and using it to run down the various
references on this marvelous narrative of the struggles on man's
development into a self-conscious being.

Most of us have been born into families that have, as a community, a
church, or temple, or mosque where those who believe in a set of
tenets -- set by any one of the religions, prevail. Rarely do we
investigate the nature and basis of other religions, so we are unaware
of the similarities and differences that can be found through a
comparative study of them. A moment of though will bring us the idea
that other religions exist because the ONE DEITY permits them to.
They have as much right to their existence as we do. Nothing prevents
us studying them unless it is our laziness, fear, and ignorance --
also to some it is not their idea of "fun."

It is quite reasonable to believe, and then prove that all religions
have a single source.

If brotherhood is the general rule of life, then: the more we know
about our neighbours, the better for all.

One of the traditions among the Jews concerning Jesus is that he
studied for some time with the Buddhist monks who had established a
vihara, or monastery, on the shores of the Sea of Galilee for many
centuries. He then went to Egypt and some traditions point to the
travels he made to India and to Tibet where a record of his visit
exists. [ see accounts given in ISIS UNVEILED ].

It is the priests of the religions that make them separate and isolate
their "flocks" from contact with other faiths. It is priests who
have created the animosity and feuds that cause fanaticism and
irreconcilable blind, mindless anger. Are these virtues? Are they
the teachings of a benevolent and all-supporting, all-wise and
all-creative GOD ?

The study of other religions and beliefs brings us to understand
tolerance, and perhaps we secure a view that indeed all religions come
from a common and single source..

Best wishes,



Dallas

-----Original Message-----
From: Tort33
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 4:34 PM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Cc:
Subject: Re: Adam and Eve: The Temptation

Hello Dallas,

Thanks for the comments. I agree that all religions begin from some
philosophical platform, and then, after the founder has died, there is
an obvious deterioration of the teaching, and this often creates
factions that deviate from the founder's intent. However, that was
not
my point. The question is whether the founders of the world religions
derive their teachings from a common source.

It is obvious that all religions seem to share certain moral and
ethical
principles in common with each other, but as I pointed out, they also
share these principles with humanity as a whole, with or without
religious affiliation. So, these shared moral teachings are really
not
definitive of any particular religion, or for that matter, religion in
general. If we insist on comparing religions on the superficial
level,
i.e. moral teachings common to all, then we are not addressing the
fundamental teaching that gave rise to the particular religion in the
first place. To do this, we have to investigate the teachings of the
founders or at least the premises that first gave rise to that
religion
as a separate entity, a distinct sect.

My observation, as I explained in the last post, is that many
Theosophists are inclined to believe that the great religious
reformers
all preached the same message. I understand this to mean, for
example,
that Jesus and Buddha actually taught the same doctrine, and both have
suffered corruption at the hands their followers and priests. This
seems to be your position as well.

It is precisely this position that I believe to be untenable when
examined carefully by comparing, not the subsequent teachings of
priests
and sectarians, but the original teachings of the founders, such as
Jesus and Buddha. It has always been my position that, although it is
commonly taught in Theosophical circles, I do not believe one can find
any place where HPB advocated this shared principle claimed as
foundational to all the great world religions.

In fact, if one reads Isis Unveiled, the context reveals that
Blavatsky
contends for religious dogma arising out of various opposing
philosophies, and examines the teachings of the leading philosophers
of
different schools to make this point clear. No doubt, the Ancient
Wisdom that HPB and the Masters brought to the West was often
reflected
in any and all religious ideologies, for it was prior to them, but the
religions that we have today, from their inceptions, were not
representative of the Ancient Wisdom,

CUT