Hello,

Did Theosophy teachings say that with or without a religion, everyone of us will still evolve?

And if one were to take what Geoffrey Hodson wrote in 'Through the Gateway of Death', and Michael Newton's 'The Journey of Souls' seriously, religion is unimportant in between lives.

So why is there a 'Ministry of Religion' in Theosophy teachings (from The Inner Life by CWL). Couldn't the enlighened ones foresee the conflicts among people of different faiths before they reincarnate and found a religion, and that each is claiming that theirs is the only path to salvation? Can one be spiritual and not religous; can one evolve spiritually without a religion?

Thank you.

Yesspiritual,

I agree with Christian. You asked,

"Did Theosophy teachings say that with or without a religion, everyone of us will still evolve?"

--> I do not think this particular question has been addressed in Theosophical literature. However, the answer is yes. Everything in the universe is evolving, even the highest Beings. This evolution is constantly going on, even for humans, whether or not they are members of a religion.

"...religion is unimportant in between lives."

--> I would say no. However, what is your definitoin of religion?

"So why is there a 'Ministry of Religion' in Theosophy teachings...?"

--> I think you are referring to various "committees" the Brotherhood has set up. (Am I right?) According to Theosophy, all of the various world's religions were started by members of the Brotherhood. These religions need ongoing assistance from the Brotherhood, which is why they set up religious committees.

"Couldn't the enlighened ones foresee the conflicts among people of different faiths before they reincarnate and found a religion...?"

--> I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying we should not have religions, in order to avoid inter-religious wars?

"...each is claiming that theirs is the only path to salvation?"

--> The members of the Brotherhood never do this. This is always done by later leaders of a religion — leaders who have lost the original teachings as taught by the Brotherhood member who started that particular religion. (Religions always become degraded as the centuries go by — this is a key Theosophical teaching. Removing the degradations from our religions which have occured over the centuries is a key goal of Theosophy.)

"Can one be spiritual and not religious; can one evolve spiritually without a religion?"

--> Yes and yes. What is your definition of religion?

Theosophy teaches that our spiritual evolution is self-devised, meaning that there is nothing automatic about it. We have to provide the will, motive and content of our spiritual living to evolve spiritually. Since religions provide those already, it is simpler, if we have confidence in the path a religion presents, to take (with or without personal adaptations) their path.

But traditional religious paths are looked askance nowadays, so many prefer to cobble together their own path from anywhere they find it. That is OK, but since it is a unique, personal, one life path, it will be less reliable & weaker than an ancient, well-tested one.

Hi,

My own view on this topic has flip-flopped a few times but I appreciate the 3 responses I received; my understanding is a little clearer now.

what is your definitoin of religion?
My understanding of a religion is an institution that offers its followers an escape path from death or suffering in this world.

Are you saying we should not have religions, in order to avoid inter-religious wars?
What I am interested to know is, why the need for the Adepts to found religion after religion? Is there no non-religious (no deity, no scriptures, no institution) way to teach universal laws, love and compassion? (Why am I thinking of Confucius and Krishnamurti?)

Does anyone know where I can read the section "Mysteries of Buddha" from The Secret Doctrine online?

Thank you.

One place is here:

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/

The Mystery of the Buddha is a sectional heading.

Yesspiritual,

You said,

"My own view on this topic has flip-flopped a few times...."

--> This is a good thing. You are analyzing and updating your belief system. Keep up the good work.

"...religion is an institution that offers its followers an escape path from death or suffering in this world."

--> That is an interesting definition. By your definition, Theosophy and Buddhism are religions. (A lot of Theosophists and Buddhists are not happy with such an idea, but that does not matter.) I only threw this question in, because a lot of people throw the word religion around, without every stopping to think what "religion" really means. By the way, my definition is, a religion is a group of people who participate in religious practices together. Therefore, by my definition, Theosophy is not a religion, some forms of Buddhism are a religion, and other forms of Buddhism are not a religion. I also avoid the word religion as much as possible, and I talk about my "belief system" instead. However, organizations such as the Catholic Church are religions, which is your immediate concern.

"why the need for the Adepts to found religion after religion?"

--> It is very necessary for the Adepts to found religion after religion. One of the fundamental Theosophical teachings is that religions get messed up as the centuries go by. Therefore, the Adepts need to keep coming back, refuting the garbage that has crept into the present religions, and start fresh, new religions. It is a Theosophical axiom that ALL religions eventually become corrupt.

"Is there no non-religious (no deity, no scriptures, no institution) way to teach universal laws, love and compassion?"

--> No. Groups of teachings eventually turn into institutions. Institutions eventually start teaching dogma. This is the natural way of things.

By the way, the question of Theosophy as a future-corrupted institution (The Theosophical Society) need to be addressed. The Theosophical Society is not more immune to corruption than any other institution. We must be keep our eyes open for the appearence of dogma in the Theosphical Society. HPB herself said the Theosophical Society is merely an imperfect organ for the transmittal of the Ancient Wisdom.

Having said that, I must say the Theosophical is quite an unusual appearence in the history of mankind. It is the first attempt by the Mahatmas to directly create such an organization.

I often attend a Buddhist church in Los Angeles, even though I am not a Buddhist. I think there is great benefit in having people congregate and consider teachings from people like Buddha. I think there is also great benefit in being part of a group, because other group members support us emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. However, I have not found a church I am willing to join, because every church I have looked at has oppressive (in my opinion) dogma.

What is your reaction to all of this? Have you been having trouble with organized religion? Do you think a dogma-less, Krishnamurti-like religion is possible?

From the online theosophical glossary:

Note the second latin root - a different way to look at religion. Also you will see that Theosophy is Religion.

Yesspiritual,

I would like to clarify that Nicholas is saying Theosophy is religion, not a religion. There is a difference.

Right Nick.

Yess.. - take a look at this thread:

http://theosophy-forum.com/index.php?showtopic=505&hl=

The Theosophical Society(ies) should be organizations that discuss religious ideas openly (along with philosophical and scientific ideas). It (they) should be organizations that promote Theosophical ideas from Theosophical writings, but not to the exclusion of differing ideas.

There is a big difference between Theosophy, a Theosophical Society, and the Theosophical movement.

Theosophy may indeed be defined as Religion, but I hope we do not allow the societies to become churches.

Hi all,

I remember reading a definition in a book on Sociology. It says that a movement or organisation is considered a religion if it has a Founder, a Scripture, a Congregation or group of followers, and an Institution.

So is Buddhism a religion? That's one question I have been asking for a long time and will do that in a separate thread to find out the TS view on this. Is Theosophy religion or a religion? Ok, I'll read Nickolas' thread to understand this. Will revert.

Thank you.

Yesspiritual,

That is an interesting sociological definition. I think it is good we take a close look at the definition of the word religion. It is a key word in all Theosophical discussions.

Whether Buddhism is a religion or not has been long debated. (Most Buddhists say it is not.) Each one of us must make our own final decision as to our definition of the word religion.

This is exactly the kind of discussion Theosophy wishes to foster. Theosophy emphasizes critical-thinking skills and questioning. The more we use our critical-thinking skills, the more we can take responsibility for our belief systems.

I will take an atheistic tack here for a moment (forgive me) to characterize religion:

Early man personified all of nature's power as "Gods". Religion was the organized response to those gods. If you needed rain, you prayed to the rain god. If there was a pestilence, you made a sacrifice to the goddess of the harvest. If you were invading your neighbor's territory or yours was being invaded, you prayed that your god was more powerful than their's. The fear of death and the hope for an afterlife were key drivers. Religious scriptures addressed these questions, and also questions about the beginnings and the end of our world.

It is important to understand that early man gave validity to their Gods' responses to their supplications and sacrifices. The gods were real, and to think otherwise was to risk disaster. The gods would certainly be offended.

Modern religion can be seen as an extension of this early form of religion.


Now, what's wrong with this definition of religion? Is my atheism wrong? Do the Gods really exist? Is religion justified? Did God speak to Moses through the burning bush? Does the Devil tempt us into sin?

Do we accept the religion of our parents? Is the religion of our people the one true religion, and the others all false?

How do we KNOW? Is there a gnosis? or must we rely on faith?


Note that everything I have asked here could be asked about Theosophy. Did the Masters write to Sinnett? Is what is written in the Secret Doctrine the TRUTH? Does Theosophy answer the BIG questions?


We can see that the question of religion is a very complex social issue and always very emotionally charged. The questions cannot be answered empirically, logically or (generally) from personal experience. The Theosophist's role then, is to look at these aspects of religion (and of itself) and be prepared to enter into dialog with others on them without insisting that one position is right or another wrong. Hopefully we all will learn and grow from the dialog.

Hello,

I came across the following, it's in a letter Master K H wrote to A O Hume:

"“I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that pursue humanity ever since that cause became a power. It is religion under whatever form and in whatsoever nation. … It is belief in God and Gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false pretence of saving them. ”

That he is against 'religion' is unmistakenly clear and strong. I therefore cannot understand why the Adepts find it necessary to found religion after religion.

Perhaps they decided only later that founding religion is the wrong way to go, and chose Krishnamurti as a vehicle to send the message? But CWL went on to found the Liberal Catholic Church (http://www.cwlworld.info/html/liberal_catholic_church.html)!

Thank you.

Adepts do not found religions. The teach spiritual evolution, nature of things & virtue. Only after several generations does the quality of disciples become so poor that priestcraft or human ambition, opinion or other worldly qualities begin to influence the group or organization badly. Then it becomes the uninspired religion They decry.

Hi Nicholas,

I started this topic by asking about the 'Ministry of Religion' in the hierarchy of the Great White Brotherhood. If the Adepts do not found religions, why do they have such a ministry?

Regards

They do not. Leadbeater taught much nonsense.

Hi everybody!

It seems to me Buddha was a member of the Hierarchy, and he started a religion. (Can we say he was a member of the Trans-Himalayan Brotherhood?)

Yesspiritual,

That is a great quote you posted from The Mahatmas Letters:

“I will point out the greatest, the chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that pursue humanity ever since that cause became a power. It is religion under whatever form and in whatsoever nation. … It is belief in God and Gods that makes two-thirds of humanity the slaves of a handful of those who deceive them under the false pretence of saving them. ”

--> It is true that religions always become corrupt as the centuries go by. You are also correct that it is the Mahatmas themselves who start religions. One could conclude that, if the Mahatamas are starting institutions that they themselves describe as being so horrible, they are nothing but hypocrites.

It is a basic Theosophical teaching that all religions become corrupt as the centuries go by. The Mahatamas release a set of teachings, and that set of teaching later becomes corrupt. The Mahatamas must then release a new set of teachings, then THAT set of teaching later becomes corrupt. On and on it goes, in a seemingly endless cycle. (Hopefully, we are making at least a little progress as the centuries go by....)

How, then, do we justify the Mahatmas creating these religions? I do not think the Mahatmas set out to create dogmatic religions. Rather, they set out to create an institutionalized set of teachings -- nothing more, nothing less. However, the inevitable always happens -- non-Mahatama, self-promoting people eventually get in charge of the religion, and then it always goes downhill from there.

Some people say Jesus, Buddha, etc., did not set out to create religions. I say they did, but they did not set out to create dogmatic religions. (and I can also see why people disagree with me.) I see their intention as being an attempt to re-release the Ancient Wisdom into a brand new "institutionalized set of teachings." I see it as a good thing.

Nick, I agree, but add that the Masters did not/do not intend for man to worship them.. They set out to teach, not create a religion. I'm sure they know that their teachings will be corrupted into a dogmatic religion, and that they will likely be worshiped down the road as well. They then periodically reintroduce the teachings to supplant the corrupted former teaching.

Martin Luther.

Could be Luther was an unconscious agent, who did some good - just a guess though.

But here is an Adept's testimony that they do have unconscious agents. Bennett ruffled feathers and was not sweetness and light, which seems to be your idea of the proper function of the Brotherhood and their friends. This is from Mahatma letter 37, if memory serves.

On another thread you were grumbling about the Hitleresque, insulting, demeaning etc. note you detect in HPB & some theosophists regarding Xtianity (like that X of mine). So I figured that if you think that the dominant note of Theosophy towards Xtianity is mean or hostile (a wrong view IMHO) then only words of sweetness & light & support for the status quo is your recommended approach.

Christian,

I was going to give a point by point response, but then thought, this is silly and a waste of time.

Our recurring conflicts are simply based on differing temperments. You do not like HPB's indelicate language. My word choice often irritates you for similar reasons - they are not civil or kind enough.

I think you are too touchy, maybe from the extra psychic sensitivity.

Whatever the case, let us accept our occasional clanging off each other - and move on.

Excellent!