5.10. Attitude of the Bulgarian Philosophers to Master Beinsa Douno

From Cosmochristosophy

Jump to: navigation, search
The Teaching of Master Beinsa Douno is a subject of theological and philosophical analysis. In 1917, the Theologician Daniil Laskov published a couple of articles in the Spiritual Culture newspaper: What is Theosophy and The Attitude of the Bible to the Theosophical spiritism and occultism. In 1922, his book Peter Deunov and His Teaching came out, where the latter was defined as a sum of pagan superstitions, theosophical spiritism and occultism. In 1929, Angel Tomov analyzed the religious and philosophic concepts in the teaching in the Philosopher’s Review journal. He discussed that the teaching could be understood only as a component of the mystic wave of the new epoch, typical for which is the growing interest in spiritism and the advent of Theosophy and various occult schools and mystic societies in the world. Later on, the eminent remkeist Prof. Dimiter Mihalchev published in consecutive issues of the same journal several studies; The Religious and Philosophical Points of View of Peter Deunov (1930) and Against Deunovism as Theosophic Teaching (1931). According to him, it all comes down to pantheistic metaphysics sweeping the masses in mysticism thus wasting their potential with regard to the state and the nation. In 1940, Dr Cyril Cholakov, a psychiatrist, a student of Mihalchev, published three pieces of criticism in the Mental Health journal, qualifying Master Peter Deunov and his thousands of followers in clinical terms. All critical analysis from this period aimed predominantly at the ideal and religious aspects of the teaching, ignoring willingly or unwillingly its Esoteric-Christian basis.

The Marxist philosophy after 1944 examined Master Peter Deunov as a founder of a specific Bulgarian theosophical teaching in the bourgeois society. His followers were defined as people deaf and blind for the sufferings of the epoch. Biased scenarios about an alleged suicide by Peter Deunov were floated, in spite of the existing documentary evidence about pneumonia being the direct cause for his death.

In the late 20th century, certain informal philosophic circles in Bulgaria proposed a method for structural reconstruction in interpreting Master Beinsa Douno’s Word. In their opinion these were structured on a triple dialogue Christ-I-The Other, which made it possible to see them internally and to experience them as Word or as a Moral Event. It is stated that only the structural interpretation makes them scientifically distinct from other esoteric or religious texts, since the morphology of Christ-I-The Other is not to be found in the Orthodox Christian literature, theosophy and Oriental Occultism.

<Previous Page       Next Page>
Personal tools