Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00507)

May 27th '98

        Quotations offered and "Initiation."

Dear Kim:

"Imitate" is a difficult word to use.  It implies lack of
sincerity in one context, and in another it means complete
respect and a desire to emulate.  So which is it to be ?

The idea posited in Theosophy ( look at ISIS  II  pp. 97 - 103
for instance ) is that there have always been (down the ages) a
band of "Wise Men" who know one another and work in concert with
Nature and the Law of Karma.  They do not "die." At least their
Consciousness is immortal and they are IT.  We too, are immortals
(in essence) but our present "waking" consciousness is broken
(interrupted by periods of unconsciousness which we do not yet
know how to control) by the intervals of sleep, trance,
anesthesia, coma, death and after-death states etc., etc.,  The
reason for this has to be found out.

The concept that Theosophy develops is that we can learn all that
Nature has to offer, and become like the present Masters of
Wisdom are.  The factors: that we lack are a knowledge of Karma,
ethics (I mean real ETHICS), and wisdom about Nature in its
entirety--are not derogatory to either you or me, for we are all
at some stage on the Ladder of Becoming.  The whole of humanity
is "in School."  But not all know it.

So one is not going to be able to "imitate" the Masters of
Wisdom.  One either becomes one, or one remains in one or other
of the lower levels of achievement. But whatever our real station
is, at present, it is always capable of being moved up or down
the "Ladder of Achievement."

To avoid controversy is to make a statement that is reasonable,
logical and presents the Laws one senses to be in operation, so
that all concerned know, as exactly as one can state it, one's
position.  This can be adjusted by one who has superior, or
inferior, or, some other aspect of relevant knowledge, which
needs to be added into the equation.  And that is not
controversy, but learning.  We all learn from each other, and the
question of inferiority/superiority is totally irrelevant.

As to "robotic exchanges," well I guess that one may interpret
them as one chooses.  I would say that it is not sentiment that
is at stake, but knowledge.  If you wish to study psychology or
mathematics, or painting, or music don't you study what has been
made available by those who have shown mastery in those subjects
?  So too in Theosophy.  And in all fields there are geniuses who
make their own rules, and pedants who are masters of memory, but
incapable of generating a creative thought.

All quotations are "out of context."  That is why I give the
source, so that others may check them out for what they can gain
out of them.  It would be awful to try and impose any one view of
the meaning, and especially on people who are endowed with
free-will and the power to seek and learn for themselves.  I have
said before, one can only open doors or windows to vistas with
which one has become familiar, and hope that others may profit
from those.

As I recall, the quotes in question were not solely directed for
your use, but were put in general.  It is good you considered
them.  There was also included a panorama of suggested reading.
Any group of quotations is but a small spoonful of the great
container of all Knowledge.  Without that, one is left talking at
cross purposes.  If you are new to Theosophy and its vistas, then
you need to secure some view of its concepts.  Do you have, or
have you recently read THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY by H.P.Blavatsky ?
That will help.

As said before, and by others, the "Initiations" in the past, as
now, are a slow affair and available only to those who make
themselves proficient, and not for the impatient or the unwary.
The one item that most of our modern academic training leaves out
is the moral equation, the ethics of the Soul.  This is to us
strange, as we assume that information gives power, and we are
able to employ what we remember to benefit ourselves.  Theosophy
takes a diametrically opposite view-point.  It holds that
knowledge is indeed power, and that it ought only be placed in
the hands of those who will unselfishly use it for the benefit of
the whole of humanity.  Therefore the first object of the
Theosophical society was, and is still is,:  UNIVERSAL
BROTHERHOOD.  Without self-control, knowledge of some of Nature's
inner workings is very dangerous -- so we are told.

Please believe me, I am not very knowledgeable in these things,
and only repeat that which I have learned, and found to be
reasonable from the Theosophical sources that I have
investigated.  Go to any school, any university, and you will
find on examination, that the Professors there are investigating
Nature, and aspects that they discover, are already embodied and
operative in Nature.  They repeat to you and me (teach) that
which they have established to be repetitive -- to be Law, in
some form or another.  Based on partial information they also
erect hypotheses and theories which may, or may not be, correct.
We do not boggle over that.  But each one of us is responsible
for study, testing, acceptance and application on our own.

Our lives on re-examination will be found to carry out this
principle in all its ways.  Also if we review the moral aspect of
our lives, we can decide whether we have done well or ill in the
choices we have made.  Theosophy ( and "Initiation") always
invites the applicant. or the aspirant. to investigate himself,
and come to his own conclusions as to his condition.  In ISIS you
will find quite a lot given about Initiation, and with the help
of the Index, it might be a good idea to review those passages.

You may not be satisfied at these answers, but supposing that I
gave you rules, rites, ceremonies and topped that off with a
stiff fee -- would you be better satisfied ?  Could you better
trust such treatment ?  You have to decide for yourself what you
want.  Occultism is not for hire, and no payment in the world
will induce a true "occultist" to divulge what he knows.  Thus I
have been told.

To "avoid controversy and yet fight for the right," is in my
esteem making a statement of the principles of which one is
basing ones' self.  If these are sufficiently universal and
impersonal, there will not be much controversy.
If they are very personal and self-serving, then there will
indeed be a loud explosion and many words that, as Shakespeare
said: "signify nothing."

I hope you don't think I am talking at cross purposes, but that
may be so.

Best wishes,                Dallas.

> Date: Thursday, May 28, 1998 12:15 AM
> From: "Kym Smith" <kymsmith@micron.net>
> Subject: Theosophical Quotations

>Dallas wrote:
>
>>Re:  The "Great Brotherhood"
>
>>Here are some of the "zingers" Mr. Judge offered
>>(as they have impressed me) :
>
>How did they impress you, Dallas?
>
>In what way did these quotations offered by you help explain my
original
>question about what it means to "imitate" the Masters?  Or, is
that not your
>intention here?  If it is not, please explain what is.
>
>There were a few tips offered in the quotes: "avoid controversy"
or "let not
>bitterness come up" or "the way for all Western Theosophists is
through
>H.P.B." or "let the fight be for a cause and not against
anyone."  There was
>also the interesting quote that the great Adepts "might" (?!) be
helping
>each of us.
>
>How does one "avoid controversy" and still fight for what is
right - that
>often goes hand-in-hand?  How does one "let not bitterness come
up" while
>still being a human with human emotions?  HPB expressed what can
definitely
>be termed "bitterness" from time to time in her writings.
>
>I must tell you in order to avoid misunderstanding that I have
the
>impression that some of the quotes you posted such as "let not
bitterness
>come up" or "let the fight be for a cause and not against
anyone" were more
>something YOU wanted to tell me.  No?  The irritation expressed
in my
>e-mails is genuine - I am disturbed by robotic-type exchanges.
>
>Judge's statement "the way for all Western Theosophists is
through HPB" is
>simply not true.  Western Theosophists are not some monolithic,
marching in
>lock-step group of folk - any thinking Western Theosophist would
be aghast
>at such a careless remark.  But, perhaps, it is because the
quotation is
>being taken out of context?  That is the danger with selected
quotations
>passing for truth.
>
>
>Kym