Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00512)

April 24th Dear Jerry:

As to references showing divergence in teaching do try and get
the Margaret Thomas book -- It ought to be available at any good
Theosophical Lodge library. No reason to hide it.

There are many comparisons such as you desire to see there.

I would not call HPB and ML "skimpy" -- to me the statements
there are the basis from which we can start. Would you seriously
call either ISIS or the S D "skimpy " ? I am not in the
convincing business. But only point out that there are
differences in the purpose between HPB and the Masters' writings
and those which were issued after HPB's death.

I am also not in the business of recommending "authorities." I
take the responsibility of pointing to uncertainties,
differences, etc., and have to leave it to you, or others to do
the research which I have done, at least in part, to see if what
I say is useful. That cannot be judged sight unseen unless one
is prejudiced. and that state is the only matter that each of us
has to decide each for themselves.

My comments are based on what people write, and where I sense a
difference, I ask about it, and also point to what HPB or Masters
may have said on the subject if it seems divergent to me.

I consider that we all desire to know what THEOSOPHY has to say.
And the only way is to study it, as far as I can see. But it
just like the Protestants considering the dogmas and practices of
the Catholic priesthood in the late middle ages. I mean that the
Protestants went back to the Bible and opened it up to all to
read. The Catholics wanted it hidden from the masses of the
people, as if the Bible was made public, their authority would be
questioned and those same masses would no longer be fearful and
ignorant, and would not bother them with logically inconvenient
questions. This is perhaps not too good an analogy -- except that
in the last month the Inquisition has come in for exposure, and
an apology of some kind has been formally issued. Which does not
restore life or property to the victims or their surviving
families. What would we do without some idea of how Karma
compensates for these things ?

I use this illustration as in the past 100 years the cycle has
accelerated so rapidly in time -- effect following causes -- that
our present Theosophical Movement shows parallels and changes in
thought which compare with those situations that took about 16
centuries to develop in the C. Church. Once those parallels are
grasped, there ought to be clarity from which first: difference
is seen, and then you make the decision as to which aspect of the
source (core) teachings you are going to use for your personal
criterion. [ In a way, the expulsion by Olcott of the whole of
the American Section T S in 1895 is similar to the Anathemas cast
against Origen in 325 AD when the Catholic church abandoned its
close affiliation with Buddhism -- a fact that few know. ( to
preclude questions on this, HPB makes this quite clear in ISIS
UNVEILED.) ]

Well, her we go again, Hope this is of some help. Dal.

>From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
>Date: Thursday, April 23, 1998 5:20 PM
>Subject: Re:The "Eternal Present: and KARMA

>>April 23rd Dear Jerry:
>>No "scathing incitement" of any writer is intended. Alan Bain
>>posts a clear statement recently: All we have is what is
written
>>"about Theosophy." This is true. Our job, as I see it, is to
>>determine what is useful and accurate. SNIP