Blavatsky H.P. - Miscellaneous Notes (31): Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{HPB-CW-header | item title = Miscellaneous Notes | item author = Blavatsky H.P. | volume = 6 | pages = 170-171 | publications = Journal of The Theosophi...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| previous = Blavatsky H.P. - Footnotes to “Notes on Modern Egyptian Theosophy” | | previous = Blavatsky H.P. - Footnotes to “Notes on Modern Egyptian Theosophy” | ||
| next = Blavatsky H.P. - The High Water Mark of Modern Philosophy | | next = Blavatsky H.P. - The High Water Mark of Modern Philosophy | ||
| alternatives = | | alternatives = | ||
| translations = | | translations = | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
{{Style P-Title|MISCELLANEOUS NOTES}} | {{Style P-Title|MISCELLANEOUS NOTES}} | ||
[''Journal of The Theosophical Society'', Madras, Vol. I, No. 2, February, 1884, p. 34] | |||
{{Vertical space|}} | {{Vertical space|}} | ||
{{HPB-CW-comment|[In the course of a discussion between the Editor of The Epiphany and H. C. Niblett, Pres., Prayag Psychic Theosophical Society, the following passage occurs in the comments of the Editor: “May we ask you whether ‘we must remain apart in our views,’ is a principle of Theosophy? You regard Christianity as an antiquated and superstitious creed, and we regard the practical side of Theosophy, the side apart from what the term obviously presents, as pernicious. If Theosophists say that this gap must remain as wide as ever, they point to a most woeful state of affairs. Surely they do not aim at that complete ‘equality, fraternity and liberty’ which is aimed at by Christianity.” To this H. P. B. remarks:]}} | {{HPB-CW-comment|[In the course of a discussion between the Editor of ''The Epiphany'' and H. C. Niblett, Pres., Prayag Psychic Theosophical Society, the following passage occurs in the comments of the Editor: “May we ask you whether ‘we ''must'' remain apart in our views,’ is a principle of Theosophy? You regard Christianity as an antiquated and superstitious creed, and we regard the practical side of Theosophy, the side apart from what the term obviously presents, as pernicious. If Theosophists say that this gap must remain as wide as ever, they point to a most woeful state of affairs. Surely they do not aim at that complete ‘equality, fraternity and liberty’ which is aimed at by Christianity.” To this H. P. B. remarks:]}} | ||
{{Vertical space|}} | {{Vertical space|}} | ||
[[File:Hpb_cw_06_170_1.jpg|center|x200px]] | [[File:Hpb_cw_06_170_1.jpg|center|x200px]] | ||
<center>DR. ANNA BONUS KINGSFORD, AET. 38</center> | <center>DR. ANNA BONUS KINGSFORD, AET. 38</center> | ||
<center>Reproduced from Edward Maitland’s work, Anna Kingsford: Her Life, Letters, Diary and Work, | <center>Reproduced from Edward Maitland’s work, ''Anna Kingsford: Her Life, Letters, Diary and Work'', Vol. I, Frontispiece.</center> | ||
{{Vertical space|}} | {{Vertical space|}} | ||
| Line 29: | Line 30: | ||
[[File:Hpb_cw_06_170_2.jpg|center|x200px]] | [[File:Hpb_cw_06_170_2.jpg|center|x200px]] | ||
<center>EDWARD MAITLAND, AET. 70</center> | <center>EDWARD MAITLAND, AET. 70</center> | ||
<center>Reproduced from his work, Anna Kingsford, etc., | <center>Reproduced from his work, ''Anna Kingsford, etc''., Vol. II, facing page 405</center> | ||
{{Vertical space|}} | {{Vertical space|}} | ||
{{Page aside|171}}Most assuredly we do, and much more effectively than “Christianity,” since with us the last word, “liberty,” means what it conveys, i.e., a full and unconditional liberty of conscience in all matters of faith, while in Christianity on the other hand, it becomes a paradox. No one outside of the pale of the Christian church—or even a Christian of a rival denomination, for the matter of that, will ever be regarded as a “Brother” by another orthodox Christian. Setting the laity aside, when we shall be shown the Roman Catholic clergy fraternising and on perfectly equal terms with the Protestants, then will there be time for us to confess—Verily—“See, how these Christians love each other!” Until then, the less said of “equality, fraternity and liberty” in Christianity—the better. | {{Page aside|171}}Most assuredly we do, and much more effectively than “Christianity,” since with us the last word, “liberty,” means what it conveys, ''i.e''., a full and unconditional liberty of conscience in all matters of faith, while in Christianity on the other hand, it becomes a paradox. No one ''outside'' of the pale of the Christian church—or even a Christian of a rival denomination, for the matter of that, will ever be regarded as a “Brother” by another orthodox Christian. Setting the laity aside, when we shall be shown the Roman Catholic clergy ''fraternising'' and on perfectly equal terms with the Protestants, then will there be time for us to confess—Verily—“See, how these Christians love each other!” Until then, the less said of “equality, fraternity and liberty” in Christianity—the better. | ||
Revision as of 12:12, 27 October 2025
Publications: Journal of The Theosophical Society, Madras, Vol. I, No. 2, February, 1884, p. 34
Also at:
In other languages:
170...
MISCELLANEOUS NOTES
[Journal of The Theosophical Society, Madras, Vol. I, No. 2, February, 1884, p. 34]
[In the course of a discussion between the Editor of The Epiphany and H. C. Niblett, Pres., Prayag Psychic Theosophical Society, the following passage occurs in the comments of the Editor: “May we ask you whether ‘we must remain apart in our views,’ is a principle of Theosophy? You regard Christianity as an antiquated and superstitious creed, and we regard the practical side of Theosophy, the side apart from what the term obviously presents, as pernicious. If Theosophists say that this gap must remain as wide as ever, they point to a most woeful state of affairs. Surely they do not aim at that complete ‘equality, fraternity and liberty’ which is aimed at by Christianity.” To this H. P. B. remarks:]
171Most assuredly we do, and much more effectively than “Christianity,” since with us the last word, “liberty,” means what it conveys, i.e., a full and unconditional liberty of conscience in all matters of faith, while in Christianity on the other hand, it becomes a paradox. No one outside of the pale of the Christian church—or even a Christian of a rival denomination, for the matter of that, will ever be regarded as a “Brother” by another orthodox Christian. Setting the laity aside, when we shall be shown the Roman Catholic clergy fraternising and on perfectly equal terms with the Protestants, then will there be time for us to confess—Verily—“See, how these Christians love each other!” Until then, the less said of “equality, fraternity and liberty” in Christianity—the better.