Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00133)

What you are saying about the need to go beyond the writings which are just
an indication of reality behind them has been said time and again about all
literature dealing with spiritual reality whether one considers the
literature as sacred or not.

When you lose sight of it and hang on to the dead letter of the book, we are
no different than the fundamentalist who tries to justify everything in the
world by something that is in the scripture he/she believes in.

Once this fact is kept in mind, nothing becomes sacred. What we are looking
forward is to see the reality first hand and not second or Nth hand.

Krishamurti also repeated told his audience that nothing created by the mind
of man is sacred emphasizing the same point.

My .02

mkr

-------------------

At 07:38 PM 4/7/98 EDT, you wrote:
>
> KPJ>There was great division in the TS before K's defection: in the
> early 20s with the anti-CWL movement, in the 1890s with the Judge
> issue, and before that with conflicts between HPB and Olcott and
> their respective partisans. All K. did in my opinion was to
> point out the nakedness of an emperor that had been unclothed for
> a very long time. >>
>
>It may be that you, KPJ, are about as important a "Messenger" as the TS has
>had in a long time. Your book THE MASTERS REVEALED, in my opinion, did great
>service by perhaps even widening the necessary "division"--i.e., between the
>story-level Theosophists and the actual theosophists--so that it is now much
>easier to see who is who.
>
>Isn't it getting a little late in the day for the TS to wake up and realize
>that the basic idea of theosophy is not merely an academic study of HPB and a
>few others, but rather the cultivation of the mystical/theosophical
>methodology to obtain knowledge not available in any other way? A Seer does
>not really need to read; a Seer simply Sees.
>
>Are there really so few who can partially lift the veil of HPB's Cosmogenesis
>and Anthropogenesis and perceive that, apart from whatever truth it may
>literally contain, it also hides a practical Adept Program for personal
>development of the most important kind?
>
>Aldous Huxley once wrote an article called "Visionary Experience" in which he
>describes the theosophical methodology quite well: "I think that one can say
>that in all the religions, both primitive and developed, light is the sort of
>predominant divine symbol, but the interesting fact is that the symbol is
>based on a psychological fact, that the light of the world, the inner light,
>enlightenment, the clear light of the void in Buddhist literature, all these
>are symbols. But they are also psychological facts. Just as the great
>metaphysical systems--it it seems to me--take their origin in many cases from
>psychological experiences, so again do we see these great primary symbols of
>religious life also take their origin from psychological experiences."
>
>The idea here is that those individuals who helped fashion
>metaphysical/religious systems positing an all-pervading light first ACTUALLY
>EXPERIENCED such a light themselves in a meditative or otherwise "shifted"
>state of consciousness.
>
>". . . take their origin in many cases from psychological experiences."
>--Take their origin from OBSERVING one's own psychological experiences--and
>more importantly--one's own psychomaturational development.
>
>What did HPB or her teachers first observe in her or their psychological
>natures or patterns of deluded-ego development which resulted in the
>ANALOGICAL CREATION of the grand system of Rounds, Root Races, etc.?
>
>In my opinion. if one wants to be an Adept (rather than just find one to
>worship), there is no better place to start than THE SECRET
>DOCTRINE--provided, of course, that one has the discipline to withhold the
>scientific type of judgement and ANALOGIZE BACKWARDS. Perhaps HPB also wrote
>in the " as below, so Above" mode; we, however, it seems to me, must take the
>"as Above (HPB version), so below" to start getting some PRACTICAL ADEPT VALUE
>out of it.
>
>Whether the grand, theosophical analogical creation, including karma,
>reincarnation, and all the rest, is itself "true" is probably really not for
>anyone to say and try to prove; rather, it may be for the few remaining on the
>non-story-level side of the TS "division" to simply See for themselves. . . .
>
>Thank you, KPJ for helping keep the division in the TS nicely open. Maybe you
>should join again just so that there are at least two--you and I--remaining on
>the adventurous side of the division. . . .
>
>Godspeed,
>
>Richard Ihle
>
>