Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00216)

April 10th 1998

Dear Alan Bain:

Comments noted.

When I quoted from S D [ Theosophy teaches History ] it was not
to emphasize a claim, merely to say that HPB rated the book as
such on behalf of the Ancient Lodge of Adepts which had
contributed so much this cycle in making the information it had
observed, gleaned, and tested; more widely available to a large
reading and thinking public that was now (1880s up to today) so
much freer from constraints as compared (in Europe, and elsewhere
also) to the past 1,000 years or so.

Our problem as students brought up under the current academic
system, is that we were told that our "history" is limited by
decipherable records, and that the ability to decipher them was
very fragmentary (also quite limited to the few scholars who
embraced and had become "authorities" in that field). Further,
that the period in which development could be traced with some
accuracy amounted to about 5 - 7,000 years (back to roughly
5,000 BC)

Current Encyclopedias still opt for the Mesopotamian origins of
Western civilization (which in its current developments and
technological advances pervades our world) and discount the
evidence still available in artifacts and writings of the far
more ancient Chinese and India ones. Such evidence from
antiquity tends to show that civilizations in the past employed
knowledge that was equal to or superior to what we have
rediscovered. In other words civilizations rise and fall
cyclically.

We dig out traces (fossils, artifacts of various kinds) and after
due selection, those who claim pre-eminence in Academic
achievement, erect hypotheses of antiquity based on those
theories, and employ for demonstration and proof such fragments
as they select. I have seen many cases of concealment or of
disparagement in this area, Egyptology and Indology especially.
The treatment of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and the 'Nag Hemadri
Gnostic fragments" are 'case in point; in regard to early
Christianity.

The Chinese and the Indians of antiquity evidently knew a lot
more about engineering in many fields than we even do today.
Mesopotamia must have been a garden with the early irrigation
channels restored. Have you ever flown over Thailand and seen
the marvelous ancient network of canals there ? Perhaps
something like that, and now destroyed.

With all the evidence and coherency in theosophical literature
written by HPB, why not grant that those are, as ideas,
"artifacts" of thought and research, (or even take them to be
evidence of some proofs of theories) which if added to the FACTS
we have, lead to a perception of certain universal concepts that
cement a 'whole' together ?

Are we not offered an opportunity to delve into the causative and
subjective areas (of mind and conception) that are usually
hidden from our direct perception, but which leave hints scattered here
and there, so that those who acquire information about those can
detect them ?

I am trying to say that the realms (or planes) of the astral,
pranic, kamic and manasic (to use Theosophical terms) become
discernable as connecting links between the objective realm of
physical material nature, in which we work and live everyday
(after we "wake up"), and the realm of whatever IT is in us that
is able to PERCEIVE. What is finally the "Watcher" in us? What
is the THINKER ? I do not have answers, but I do have
questions. And I will be so bold as to say that it cannot be a
fortuitous banging of atoms, sub-atomic particles, molecules and
synapses together in the 'brain' that makes this 'chaos' into a
'coherency.' Somewhere this idea of order arising from chaos is
off in its logic. I note that "Chaos theory" tends to resolve
back into "order," mathematically and otherwise in terms of forms
and colors -- infinitely no less, according to the tapes I have
seen. If there was a "Big Bang" to account (theory) for a
'beginning' of the Universe, then what caused the "Big bang ?"
If the awakening occurred as a simultaneity in SPACE at a
specific TIME, then who was this organized ? [ Personally I like
to read the set of stanzas in
S D ( I p. 27-8, from "The Book of Dzyan" ) It acquires a
symmetry over thought time and reflection (to me).

I do not think that the word or idea of the "subjective" is at
all an indication of being either 'mystical' or 'fuzzy;' as
everything we see, do, feel or think is reflexly translated into
emotional and mental impressions (through the brain ?) and
thence into an 'interior center' where, it is posited the Real
man lives. These appear before it as images from the "outside"
world, and choice is made then, and there, dependent on what is
seen, felt, and remembered or anticipated -- in the hope that
such choices will ameliorate the personal future of each
individual for themselves. Am I wrong in this thinking ?

I have worked on this question of the '7 Principles' for years,
trying to understand the implications and evidence offered, and
it seems to be reasonable -- but, that is only to me.

I have thought about immortality of the Spirit/Soul,
reincarnation, karma, a progressive series of causes that
lead from the FIRST CAUSE ( leaving the CAUSELSESS CAUSE aside for the
moment) and the Theosophical philosophy appears to be quite
coherent in that respect. It seems to unite metaphysically those
ideas and also employ them to account for our present situation
and the world that we experience in.

Not everyone likes what Theosophy says, nor do they like sections
of it, while other sections have an appeal, but then, it does not
set out to convert anyone, or to form a congregation of
conformists. From on point of view one might call it an
anarchistic philosophy -- not destructive of self or of others,
but demanding a rigorous acceptance of facts and an equally
strong acceptance of individual responsibility for all choices
one makes. Hence, the moral/ethic aspect of Theosophical
philosophy is the one that appeals to me, as that links the
physical and personal situation that is mine, and which I see
replicated analogetically in others around me, with the
metaphysical world of thinking about 'ultimates.'

It ( Theosophy ) seeks to offer explanations, facts that it has
verified, and expects that a few who are touched by the desire to
prove things for themselves will employ those statements and
ideas and find out if they 'work' and are worthwhile.

I rather like the idea that Theosophy is 'history.' It takes it
out of the realm of "believe, because I (or someone else) claims
it is so." Treating it as such, it seems to me that we can employ
the lattice of its chronology and the tracing of the
interrelations of faiths and religions, philosophies and
sciences, etc., it provides us a base upon which to hang the many
kinds of evidence that we gather.

But I am quite prepared to hear that others believe differently.
And, I can only speak for myself.

 Best wishes,
Dallas

>From: "Dr A M Bain" <guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk>
>Date: Thursday, April 09, 1998 6:21 PM
>Subject: ISIS

>W. Dallas TenBroeck <dalval@nwc.net> writes
>>As to ISIS -- it was my first introduction to Theosophy in
depth,
>>and I was very impressed with its eclecticism. That knowledge
>>and wisdom was world-wide, and also that there were so many
>>similarities between the various faiths, once that one could
>>trace back to origins, was impressive. < SNIP >