THEOSOPHY, Vol. 20, No. 3, January, 1932
(Pages 122-124; Size: 9K)
[Article number (15) in this Q&A Department]
IS it not better to teach children some religion, rather than none, even if it is a foolish one? [Note: This same question was answered in a different way in the 13th article of this department.--Compiler]
Would you give a child impure food just because it is food, when by exerting some effort pure food could be obtained? Theosophy, pure food, is always in the world, and the searcher who devotedly and untiringly seeks will make the necessary contact. Are we to sit back complacently and consider our duty done because such and such a philosophy seems fairly logical, and, having a certain moral quality, it surely cannot hurt the child; it may even do him some good? What an attitude of mind! It is mental laziness, indifference, illusion. If a thing seems good we can test it out and prove to our own satisfaction that it is good.
What lies back of the tendency of all men to follow personal leaders, instead of their own best judgment and individual authority? [Note: This same question was answered in a different way in the 13th article of this department.--Compiler]
In a way it is the desire to get something for nothing. We are so involved in just getting along with making a living, with our pursuit of pleasure, with our individual troubles, that we are inclined to accept the ultimatum of a man on matters of philosophy because a desultory glance seems to indicate that he knows what he is talking about. Perhaps he has a charming personality, seems to be doing well, and is pleased and satisfied with himself. What he says must be so, coming as it does from such a successful exponent of the idea. Therefore, we sit at his feet in adulation and take what he hands out for the gospel truth. It is much simpler to let him do the heavy thinking! That is, it is simpler for a time, but there comes disclosure and we find that the idol has clay feet. We shake our heads sadly over the depravity of human nature, are disillusioned for a time; then, seeing another leader who seems worthy, off we rush to worship at his feet for a brief interval. A series of bumps will finally land us at rock bottom and we derive a healthy scepticism, no longer taking everything which looks good for granted. The setting aside of one's own individual judgment in favor of some external "authority" is only Mr. Personal God idea in a human suit of clothes.
Why did Jesus have to take the Karma of the race? Was not that reaping the effect of causes set up by other individuals? [Note: This same question was answered in a different way in the 13th article of this department.--Compiler]
Before learning a foreign language we must have a knowledge of our own in order to progress from the known to the unknown, and in order to help anyone you must have some common basis with him. To aid the people to whom he came, Jesus had to assume a body of that race, and consequently was subject to racial Karma. He did it not for himself, nor because of past causes, but for the benefit of others. No elder brother has to subject himself to the scorn of the ignorant, the selfish aims of the worldly. He knows all that those do whom he comes to aid, and a great deal more. But these elder brothers, such as Jesus, still come, remembering the common identity of all, and they help us as others long ago helped them -- ever pointing out the great truths concerning the destiny of the soul.
Can Theosophy penetrate into any mind, if the person really wants to learn it? [Note: This same question was answered in a different way in the 13th article of this department.--Compiler]
Even a Christ or a Buddha had to make a vow that he would help mankind and keep that vow alive through many incarnations to the ultimate perfecting of a great one. So we too must have the desire for knowledge, and that, not for ourselves, but in order to help those who know still less than we, and keep that desire burning in our hearts. If the earnest desire for unselfish knowledge is constant, how can we fail to learn? Everything may not be clear at once, but it will clarify with right living. And isn't Theosophy that great body of knowledge concerning the laws of nature which is shallow enough at its shores so that it will not overwhelm the understanding of a child, yet great enough in its depths to give the greatest minds their fullest scope?
Is there such a thing as perpetual motion?
Assuredly there is, but we must clearly understand what we mean. Motion, as an aspect of the One Life, must be perpetual in itself; we cannot even think of Life stopping. But we must not identify Motion with its forms any more than the true man with his body. Man is immortal but no one of his forms is everlasting. Evolution is an unfolding from within outward, and as the powers in man are manifested, his form changes. As there is never any stoppage in evolution, this constant change of form is another aspect of perpetual motion. H.P.B. used these words in reference to Fohat, the animating principle, when she described in the Secret Doctrine the first steps in the manifestation of a universe. She says that "the Great Law stops, or rather modifies its perpetual motion on seven invisible points within the area of the manifested universe." So while we see that this inexhaustible force is expressed in every being that is, if we identify that force and that being with their forms, we shall not be able to understand what is meant by perpetual motion. It is not "things" but their principles which move on forever.
What becomes of one who has no further need to incarnate?
Those who have no need to incarnate are those who have learned and mastered every experience possible in this great Cycle. They have earned the right to go on to other planes and states, in much happier conditions. Some no doubt do. But one who has real compassion for those still struggling will never leave so long as there are those who need help. The Masters always stay by and help humanity in every way possible to reach the state of knowledge in which They are.
COMPILER'S NOTE: The following is a separate item which followed the above article but was on the same page. I felt it was useful to include it here:
TRANSMITTERS OF TRUTH
More than one great scholar has stated that there never was a religious founder, whether Aryan, Semitic or Turanian, who had invented a new religion, or revealed a new truth. These founders were all transmitters, not original teachers. They were the authors of new forms and interpretations, while the truths upon which the latter were based were as old as mankind. Selecting one or more of those grand verities -- actualities visible only to the eye of the real Sage and Seer -- out of the many orally revealed to man in the beginning, preserved and perpetuated in the adyta of the temples through initiation, during the MYSTERIES and by personal transmission -- they revealed these truths to the masses. Thus every nation received in its turn some of the said truths, under the veil of its own local and special symbolism; which, as time went on, developed into a more or less philosophical cultus, a Pantheon in mythical disguise.--S.D. I. p. xxxvi.
[Article number (16) in this Q&A Department]
Back to the
complete list of articles.
Back to the full listing containing all of the
"Additional Categories of Articles".