Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tt00002)

John:

> You made some interesting comments and have raised some ideas
> which are indeed worth focusing on.

And I've come up with a number of things I'd like to say in reply
to you too. Unfortunately, there were enough of them that I ended
up writing an article, so you won't read them until it gets
published.

> Books in general are simply a collection of the authors thoughts,
> and depending on the power of the author to communicate they can
> themselves (the books) be a world of there own.

Yes, they contain their authors' thoughts, and sometimes those
thoughts are quite a bit more than we're ready for, as in some of
the ideas of KH and M. And books can have more than the author
consciously intended to write, to the extent that it uses symbolic
language, symbolic thought, which can be saturated in extra
meanings.

> Certainly the Secret Doctrine has value in what is printed and
> with careful study any student will find those valuable parts
> where the writer states such things as: "The Ancient Wisdom
> Says..."

Agreed. There are ordinary passages, and some special gems to be
found in the literature, some glimpses into the Depths.

> I am sure we could take such parts and present them more clearly
> but then is this not exactly what Besant/Leadbeater etc.  tried
> to do and in many cases made fundamental mistakes?

They were taking what they had learned and building on it. That's
the same as any of us may do. The problem may be that they did not
continue to ground themselves in further studies, as they started
to write and teach, and so may have drifted away in terminology
and sometimes in basic ideas. And a portion of what they said
came from psychical investigations, which can be unreliable and highly
subjective, a far inferior method of gaining information than the
direct training from Mahatmas with actual knowledge and
experience.

> A worthwhile exercise for the student however but one that must
> be examined not only from an intellectual point of view but also
> from an intuitional as you so rightly point out.

There are, as you suggest, different faculties of understanding
that can be applied to the study, including regular intellectual
study and intuition.

> However the Secret Doctrine was written by a group of authors who
> are far more clever than most anyone reading the Secret Doctrine
> at first realizes.

Yes, there's quite a lot to be found in it. And it's important to
learn to get a feel for the "depth" to various materials, to know
how deep the veins of gold are in them, awaiting mining.

> Read through the Secret Doctrine, and we find that while the
> intellect is busy focused on the points being elucidated by the
> author, if one opens awareness a little more they will see that
> there is another interpretation that is going on in a different
> part of our consciousness...

There are multiple levels to read and understand it at. Some
learning happens in us, almost behind our backs, almost without
our conscious awareness. I'd consider it to be *in addition to* the
intellectual learning, something co-arising rather than being
something *instead of* our ordinary study.

> In fact if we are aware of it we are able to perceive quite a
> different story evolving.  It is this that in my opinion is where
> the real value of the Secret Doctrine lies.

There's value to every level of the learning. Even if we were only
to have an intellectual study, we'd benefit.

> This is, in my opinion a common way that much of the real
> learning goes on.  Much of what is truth is incomprehensible by
> the mind and is easier imparted as a set of symbols which have
> much more meaning to the subconscious or higher mind.

The important term here is *symbolic*. There is, I think, a whole
different way of understanding things in terms of symbolic
thought, and our study of THE SECRET DOCTRINE can help us train in
it.

> Most, if not all the lower mystery schools taught in this manner.
> Of course none of it is any good to us in an incarnation unless
> we of have expanded our own awareness to be able to perceive
> intuition and work in parts of our consciousness beyond simply
> the mind.

There's different ways to train in this. One is in psychological
studies, learning to interpret and understand the language of
dreams. Another is in a study of theosophical doctrines as we
keep having to relearn what we thought we knew and rethink things
freshly each time.

> Thus it is vital that we have also taken to heart what HPB urged
> her students, that is the need to KNOW ONESELF.  That in itself
> is many life times work for most of us.

Another way of putting "self knowledge" is understanding how life
in general and the universe works, since we're microcosms of the
macrocosm. And since we inseparable from the rest of life, as we
learn different things about ourselves, we also learn about
corresponding things in the external world.

> can go from life to life re-reading the same books (or
> thereabouts) but are we any better off? Especially when in a
> different level of consciousness we already KNOW it all.  Far
> better we spend our time bridging the gap between the "lower" and
> "higher" consciousness.

I don't see it as an either/or situation. There may be dry periods
when we put aside the intellectual study and concentrate on other
things. And there are other times when we're deeply enriched by
new ideas and intellectual work. In any case, we're always at work
"bridging the gap", the antaskarana or bridge between higher and
lower manas, the link between the higher self and our ordinary
personal self.

> All that said I also admit that we are not all of the same
> temperament so the above works are not going to appeal to
> everyone.

True. Being of different temperaments is like "phases of life",
only on a bigger scale. We may have an entire lifetime with a
particular slant or bias, fulfilling a particular need, where we
ignore or neglect certain studies and areas of activity.

> Blavatsky and her teachers brought us modern theosophy or
> neo-Platonism as some would call it.  They did there best to keep
> the spark alive and to see it burn on for another 100 years, or
> perhaps longer as best it could, in the hope that it would make a
> difference.

Like anything we do in life, there were multiple motives, intents,
purposes. One was to give a hundred-years push to western culture.
Another was to plant seed ideas for a two-thousand-year cycle. A
third was to open ajar yet another door to the Lessor Mysteries. A
forth to stem the rising tide of materialism (and Spiritualism).
And there were perhaps others as well. We've heard that KH and M
were the only Mahatmas interested in such a project as the T.S.
Perhaps they wanted to make a point that such efforts were worth e
effort, and to encourage their peers to undertake similar efforts?

> Blavatsky had already decided that the Theosophical Society was
> not going to do what she had hoped but at least it was a movement
> that could take some of the ideas on to individuals who had a dim
> spark which was easily re-kindled upon reading her works.  She
> started a different group, as I am sure you all are aware of
> which she hoped would be made up of more dedicate members who
> would see the work continue.

Or perhaps she simple did what she did because she could not help
it. There was work to be done and she simply did what she had to
do. Certainly there would be hope that things would succeed, but
the work is still done, with unwavering love and dedication,
regardless of outcome.

There were different aspects to the work. The aspect dealing with
the Lessor Mysteries had to be rechannelled into the Esoteric
Section and then the Inner Group. The public work and general
dissemination of ideas into the west were still being carried on
by Judge. And Col. Olcott was busy reforming Buddhism and life in
the East.

> Almost a soon as Blavatsky died, and with it the contact between
> humanity and her Adepts the Theosophical Society started to
> disintegrate.

In the public eye it did. Whether it continued for a few more
generations depends upon the particular variant of Theosophy that
you subscribe to. In the Point Loma view, the succession continued
through Judge, Tingley, and Purucker. In the ULT view, it
continued through Crosbie; the Adyar view had yet another lineage.

> Oh yes the numbers of the members increased for a few years but
> that soon changed also.  The society for the next 30 or 40 years
> went through several upheavals and changes.  Teachings which were
> commonly taught for a number of years were later hidden away with
> some embarrassment as it became obvious they were completely
> incorrect and we saw, largely because of these different teaching
> and interpretations much division and splitting of the original
> Theosophical Society.

Sounds like you're talking about the Adyar T.S. The other
Societies had problems of their own as well.

> This has lead to all sorts of confusing teaching for the last 100
> years and we now find our libraries full of these Neo-Blavatsky
> teachings which make some pretty strange claims and
> interpretations of what she actually did teach, which is sad in
> itself as all her teachings are there for anyone to study.

This is one reason why I like to study Purucker, because of his
particular approach in presenting Theosophy. He teaches the
material in a manner that encourages intuitive insight, in
comprehending things without directly being told, and in learning
to get at one's inner source of the Teachings, one's inner
teacher.

> Perhaps it would be clearer if such authors made it clear that
> the books they wrote were simply the outcome of their current
> study and their impressions as they understood them when writing
> the books it would help.

But it's just human nature, and a natural temptation, to use our
own thinking to extrapolate what we've learn, and consider both to
be Theosophy. We could all use better clarity regarding the
dividing line between what we've learn, what we've actually been
told, and our one imagination. The dividing line is not easy,
because the theosophical doctrines are interrelated and things are
continually coming together, getting associated, being found to be
connected in our thoughts. When we put two things together that
we've learned, is that connection an implicit theosophical
teaching that we've been given, or it is our own imagination?

> After all we grow and learn but how often does an author take a
> book off the shelves or out of publication because they have
> grown ad learn that not all it contained was correct.

Yes, we grow and see things differently over time. So it's quite
possible if we wrote a book on Theosophy a decade ago, we might
disagree with it on rereading it today. But for those ideas of
ours based on the actual Ancient Wisdom, I'd suggest, that our
learning and growing *enhances* our previous learning, gives us
more general rules to replace what we've learned before, and left
us feeling we know more of something true, rather than feeling
we've learned something different, something true that replaces
our old, false ideas.

> Now do not get me wrong, I am not anti Theosophical Society or of
> the works of many of its students as I may have given the
> impression of.  The Theosophical Society has changed much in the
> last 40 odd years and has some spark yet left in it that I do
> find worthwhile.

I'm still active in the Adyar T.S., as well as in various other
theosophical activities and projects. Our work and loyalty, I
think, is not to this or any theosophical group as a group, but
rather to the bodhisattva vow, to the inner impulse to make the
spiritual a living reality on this earth.

> I am an active member in my branch in New Zealand.  However I do
> wonder where we are going today as I look around and get quite
> disheartened by what I see.  I also spent around 7 years heavily
> involved in study programs and activities to popularize the
> teachings of the Society but I now find myself looking back and
> re-evaluating what we did.  How many of those people that
> attended those course are still members or even interested? Hard
> to say as 90% of members simply pass through the society,
> hopefully taking something away with them.  What worries me know
> is how much of what we taught was actually not even true?

The Dalai Lama may invite many unprepared people to the Kalichakra
Initiation. The idea is that the exposure plants seeds for future
lifetimes, seeds that will germinate in the appropriate time. We
can't really judge in advance someone's state of readiness. They
may be near a "bifurcation point", and only need the slightest
push from us to flower inwardly. Who's to say? We can only work
out of a love and appreciation for the beauty, wisdom, and other
forms of the spiritual that we are able to express in the world.
Giving theosophical classes is one such expression.

Some are gifted in giving classes, or feel that is a good outlet
for their expressiveness.  They should do classes.  The rest will
end up helping orphan humanity in their own ways, when they
discover what those ways are.

> What is true however is that there are now many groups teaching
> different versions of the Wisdom Tradition.  It is also coming to
> us from all over the place and today perhaps many people are
> getting hints of it, although unknowingly in many of the modern
> movies and television programs that we are presented with.  I
> often find myself wondering how the adepts have chosen to
> influence humanity over the last 23 years and to me one of the
> obvious is through inspiring many of the movies and other shows
> we all see today.

> I am someone who has always had a keen interest in Science
> Fiction and Science Fantasy.  Thus you look at movies like Star
> Wars and the concept of THE FORCE (or perhaps FOHAT?).  Look at
> all the movies about Angles and about the afterlife such as the
> movie GHOST.  Perhaps they are not direct teaching for the
> student but the mass consciousness is certainly changing to more
> of an acceptance about these ideas.

And I've seen various movies on TV with science fiction themes
that do make a good philosophical point. The morals and ethics are
a "hidden track" on the story line. In a way, we need to learn to
program such tracks into everything we do in the world.

> The Adepts (I dislike the term Masters) as I understand them very
> rarely do any work in the physical world and work in the higher
> consciousness.

It may depend upon how developed they are -- where and how they do
their work. The highest may be nearly Bodhisattvas, and perhaps
work in their Nirmanakayas. Lower ones may be little removed from
chelaship, and may walk among us unnoticed.

The term "Masters" has mixed connotations. The association with
Master versus Slave -- e.g. with slavery -- is objectionable.
Another association with someone highly skilled, like a Master of
Arts, or someone Adept in what they do, is fine with me.

> They are therefore much more likely to use there influence to
> inspire the works of the right sort of people.  Why is it that
> the best ideas come while we sleep or in intuitive flashes?

I don't think that the ideas are always specifically directed at
us, but reach us in more wave-like manner. There are certain
thought streams that may originate with the Mahatmas, and if we
tune in with these streams, or harmonize with them, we'll pick up
some of the "general transmissions" and have some unusual
insights. The analogy I'd use here is more like tuning a radio to
a specific station rather than like a two-way phone call.

> While we look on the works of Blavatsky as being something
> special we need to be careful we do not become close minded.

They *are* special, but not exclusively so. If we can discover and
appreciate what is special in them, we can learn to recognize that
*specialness* in other sources. Until there's some appreciation of
the mystery behind the printed words in books like THE SECRET
DOCTRINE, we have no means to evaluate the spiritual authority of
other claimants, except on the say-so of others.

> Certainly the Theosophical Society has initiated a complete new
> era in occult literature there are also many works which predate
> Blavatsky which are worth studying.  After all, all the Secret
> Doctrine tries to do is to re-present to us what is already out
> there (or was out there).  HPB did say that more works would
> become available and be rediscovered over the next several
> hundred years.

The purpose in the study is to cause a certain awakening in
ourselves, to get our inner light set ablaze, to brighten our
fires of mind. The particular book we use to do this is not so
important. If we want to light a campfire, once the blaze is
going, it matters little if we used flint and stone, a matchbook,
or a cigarette lighter. Someone may say, "this is the best way to
light fires," but it would not matter at that point. We're more
concerned with tending the fire, and with finding suitable, dry
tinder to keep it going.

> In the end only our own actions make a difference.  We need to
> act now if we want to make a difference.

Or put another way, in the end only our concrete expressions of
our inner divinity counts in life. Those concrete expressions may
involve interaction with other people, or producing works of art,
or living as a hermit in a cave. What we do is individual, and we
have to discover it ourselves. But *expression* is important,
doing something rather than having good intentions, good dreams
and ideals, else we but make for ourselves a long, happy devachan
and leave the world as dark, sad, and orphaned as before.