Jump to content

Blavatsky H.P. - Miscellaneous Notes (17): Difference between revisions

m
no edit summary
(Created page with "{{HPB-CW-header | item title = Miscellaneous Notes | item author = Blavatsky H.P. | volume = 3 | pages = 261 | publications = The Theosophist, Vol. II, No...")
 
mNo edit summary
 
Line 8: Line 8:
  | previous    = Blavatsky H.P. - The British Theosophical Society
  | previous    = Blavatsky H.P. - The British Theosophical Society
  | next        = Blavatsky H.P. - Madame Blavatsky on “The Himalayan Brothers”
  | next        = Blavatsky H.P. - Madame Blavatsky on “The Himalayan Brothers”
  | alternatives = [http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v3/y1881_074.htm KH]
  | alternatives =  
  | translations =  
  | translations =  
}}
}}
Line 15: Line 15:


{{Style P-Title|MISCELLANEOUS NOTES}}
{{Style P-Title|MISCELLANEOUS NOTES}}
{{HPB-CW-comment|view=center|[''The Theosophist'', Vol. II, No. 11, ''Supplement'', August, 1881, p.3]}}
{{Vertical space|}}
{{Vertical space|}}


{{HPB-CW-comment|[In connection with the words of a padri in Ceylon who was trying to misrepresent some of Col. Olcott’s expressions. It appears that he said that each of the Christians had a work to do, namely, to make known the name of Jesus Christ to others, and that it was a work that is especially given to men to do, though God could have given it to angels, who would be very glad to do it.]}}
{{HPB-CW-comment|[In connection with the words of a ''padri'' in Ceylon who was trying to misrepresent some of Col. Olcott’s expressions. It appears that he said that each of the Christians had a work to do, namely, to make known the name of Jesus Christ to others, and that it was a work that is especially given to men to do, ''though God could have given it to angels'', who would be very glad to do it.]}}
{{Vertical space|}}


And a great pity it is that “God” did not do so. It is an administrative mistake of his, as such an act would have proved conducive to more than one beneficent result for us poor mortals, namely: (a) to proving that there were such things as Biblical angels, and (b)—demonstrating to us the existence of their Creator himself—that “personal God” whose being has hitherto remained not only an open question, but an absolutely unprovable tenet. As the matter stands though, such a “hide and seek” policy leads every reasonable and thinking man unprepared to accept assertions upon blind faith to respectfully question the correctness of affirmations as blind when emanating from the well-meaning, but not always impartial, padris. What is true religion for them may be a false one for others. We claim freedom of conscience as the unassailable right of every freeborn man. In the words of d’Holbach:—“If the Christian must have his chimeras, let him at least learn to permit others to form theirs after their fashion.”
And a great pity it is that “God” did not do so. It is an administrative mistake of his, as such an act would have proved conducive to more than one beneficent result for us poor mortals, namely: (a) to proving that there were such things as Biblical angels, and (b)—demonstrating to us the existence of their Creator himself—that “personal God” whose being has hitherto remained not only an open question, but an ''absolutely'' unprovable tenet. As the matter stands though, such a “hide and seek” policy leads every reasonable and thinking man unprepared to accept assertions upon ''blind faith'' to respectfully question the correctness of affirmations as blind when emanating from the well-meaning, but not always impartial, ''padris''. What is true religion for them may be a ''false'' one for others. We claim freedom of conscience as the unassailable right of every freeborn man. In the words of d’Holbach:—“If the Christian must have ''his'' chimeras, let him at least learn to permit others to form theirs after ''their'' fashion.”