Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00325)

alpha@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>
> Why should
> it in this case be so difficult to grasp that "The Secret Doctine" in its
> physical body, so to put it, is a book, but that there are 6 other basic
> levels to it.  It would be far more understandable if you said the myth is
> that "The Secret Doctrine" is a book.  In a sense that is the myth.  To see
> it as paper and glue (as you sympathise with Mark - perhaps you don't in
> this) is only looking at the outside.  The illumination must come from
> within.

In a certain sense I understand you, but I also suggest that you may be
projecting your understanding onto the book. I think it is very
interesting to consider just what a creative product (like a book, a
work of art, a film, a song, a statement, any form of thought or
thought/feeling) is. Is it a living entity in the same way that it's
creator is? That's a really interesting question when you open up to
include the wider context of "creation."

What I was trying to say was that there are obviously those who come
close to worshipping the SD, clinging to it, depending on it, instead of
the mystic referent it points to within themselves.

> Relatively speaking, is the history the fact, or the myth?

History is always a limited and biased point of view. It is an idea,
however complex. Its vagueries blend imperceptibly into mythic realms
and the unknown.

> Is Atma fact, or fiction?

Ask a Hindu and they'll say "fact." Ask a Buddhist and they'll say
"fiction."

Mark