Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tt00008)

Mar 1st:

Dear David:

Thanks for comments you addressed to "Dara Eklund."  I don't
think she is any more on this line.  So she may not notice them,
but, I could be wrong.

However:  I do not think that either Jerry H. or I am in any way
challenging the fact that some letters are published or are
alleged to be as they are, or seem -- I mean as to an
interpretation of their meaning, not as to the physical
appearance.  J H will speak for himself.

[ Aside:  The whole Judge Case" was built around such a
situation:  What others felt was meant, based on "physical
appearance" only.  They apparently gave little credence or
adequate attention to the meaning and the timeliness of the ideas
contained there.  Also, apparently, they did not seek to find the
significance for Mr. Judge being signaled out as the means for
their transmission to certain selected individuals.  and, in this
connection it ought to be noted that in London, at the "trial of
1894" the documents were not made available to Judge, except
under a process of 'forcing' [Olcott seems to have lied that he
did not have them, and that they had been sent off--A. Besant had
to get him to expose them at the last moment for Mr. Judge to
see--as recorded].  and then, for only a very short time, as he
and J. D. Buck record.  What are the implications ?  A contrived
affair.

My point is, very simply, and because they were CHANNELED -- are
they accurate and true ?  The point is, as all who are fully
aware of the way in which psychic communications can be altered
in transmission [ see OCEAN Chapters 5, 6, 16, 17 ], are these
accurate as to the facts or information transmitted (I do not
mean the physical records)?  Do they follow the earlier trend of
Judge's work and direction ?  Is there any change ?  If so, why ?

Please, it is not only these communications made after Judge's
death that I question.  I look at anything I read with an eye to
match it with something that I have read, studied or reasoned
before.  [ I have collected some important HPB and WQJ's
statements on "Precipitation" and can make them available to you
if you wish as a series of "quotes." ]

My only point in all this is:  Do not take for granted that any
thing is TRUE because of some "authority," or authoritative
"NAME" attached to it.  Also, what is the value of his last words
being:  "There should be calmness.  Hold fast.  Go slow."  ?  Was
there haste or deliberation after his death ?

Consider the way in which things moved within a couple of weeks
of his death, and then consider the results of that change.  As I
said earlier, I am neither a protagonist nor an antagonist.  I
observe, question and ask that my conclusions, if offered, be
checked for their content, not emotionally, but intellectually at
least.

Be it said clearly, and this is my only position:

    I find that Theosophy proves itself to be as wide and deep as
HPB said it was -- not that I have probed so far, but that up to
now I have no cracks and gaps to fill with either "faith," or
'blind belief."   I am not interested in exhuming the past.  I am
concerned with the future.

    I mean that THEOSOPHY ought to be carried forward by all of
us in amity;  and that as many as are interested be given the
chance to find, read, and work with it.

 Certainly, if you take ISIS and the S D together (and add to
them the articles that HPB and Judge wrote) you will have a
survey of world history and the working of the departments of the
world's ecology and inner economy such as no one will find
elsewhere, even speculatively.  Further, it has been bolstered
with historical evidence of the most eclectic and compelling
kind.

The great departure from earlier philosophies and religions such
as have come down to us at the period of 100+ years ago is that
Theosophy points to Karma and the Great LAW of universal equity
that regulates the ETHICAL value of every choice and event.  Let
me add here a brief (for me) 'aside:'

To this must be added the fact that the whole thrust of the
Universe is in a sustained and fully cooperative and entirely
sensitive evolution.  Each 'life-atom" is deemed to be sensitive,
intelligent and immortal, and thus, ought to be considered -- a
conscious and immortal entity.  Thus the least of forms is of
value to the greatest of forms, the "atom" to the KOSMOS.  They
are interdependent and each relies on the others.

Our Universe is not material only, nor are the causes and forces
that move the elements and their combinations, either chancy or
blind.  Nothing could live for long in such a situation.
Therefore Theosophy endorses and demonstrates the presence of LAW
everywhere.  It is not a matter of our pleasure or of our
acceptance, we are in it.

For those who like to use the word and idea "God," IT is
omnipresent.  Present everywhere.  Hence no one and nothing is
"outside of GOD."  Nor is "god" outside of the Universe.  The
Universe is God.  Law is one for all.  This is universal and
antique pantheism.

In any case we are dealing with a time in 1896 -- that is 103
years ago, almost -- and it would be very difficult to say at
this point, looking with our "eyes" at those documents anything
that we could expect another to agree to.  We can only offer our
opinions and then give the reasons for them.   Acceptance or
rejection must be a matter which others take as their personal
positions, and based on their reasonings, over which we have, and
should not expect to have, any control.

As friends, if we are to disagree then let us do so, but let this
not be a basis for slowing down on doing what we can individually
in pushing forward Theosophy in the best way that we know.

                            I do appreciate what you say,  thank
you,                    Dallas