Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00200)

Aug 14th 1998

Dear Jerry:

To comment on your comments, allow me to add some notes below yours.

Thanks,        Dallas

> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 12:04 PM
> From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
> Subject: Re: Adepts are Maya

>> Why should any of the Adepts have to manifest to anyone ?
>
>They don't. It is we who need to manifest to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
DALLAS:  According to what I understand, the "Masters" (or Mahatmas) exist
permenently on the "inner planes" of the whole Universe, namely the three
transcendent planes delineated in SD I 200.

In Man's 7-fold nature they correspond to ATMA, BUDDI, MANAS.  In the SD HPB
states several times that these are immortal principles, and they constitue
the Real Man.  Here, on Earth, our personalities are reflections, obscure,
blurred, uncertain as far as our present consciousness when we are awake, is
concerned.  You and othes may say I am in error in this, but if we think
carefully about the Theosophical statements that relate to Consciousness
this may become apparent.

We are therefore "transparent" to the perception of an Adept (Mahatma) who
would only "contact" us as personalities if we had some value in our work,
for humanity.  This to me is made quite plain in the case of Sinnett (as an
example) and can be readily seen if we read MAHATMA LETTERS and LETTERS FROM
HPB TO AP SINNETT.

To our selves, our pesonality. and all its memories and doings and motives
(as an embodied mind that uses a physical and an astral brain) IN THIS LIFE
are important.

But, as I understnd it, it is only when we make a strong effort to raise
ourselves as thought-men out of the personality and its comfortable
limitations. that we are able by strong effort attain to some of the
perceptions of the REal Man -- the ATMA-BUDDHI-MANAS.

For this reason Theosophy says (as I understand it) that we are
"IMMORTALS" -- in that root essence, from which our present "Personality"
derives its being.

We all know that one thing is certain:  this Personality will presently
"die" and be disssolved.  Into what ?  What happens ?  Religions try to
grapple with this, and if one studies many of those one encounters at their
core the same set of root or core ideas.

In order to be brief, let me say that the tenets of Theosophy apply there,
and can be seen to lie at those several roots and cores.  Hence HPB states
that Theosophy s the Root and substratum of all the many World Religions.

But I further add, and in defence of HPB and Theosophy, WE CAN ONLY ASSURE
OURSELVES OF THIS IF WE STUDY WHAT HPB WRITES.

We may have many ideas, and we may have "made contact" earler that our
contact with "Theosophy" as HPB recorded it with some or all of these ideas.
That does not obviate the fact that Theosophy draws all together and can be
used to shortcut much of the tedium of research.
=========================================


>>Suppose that the Adepts have already contacted us, would we be aware of it
>?
>
>Oh, they have. Apparently not.        THIS IS NOT CLEAR.  MEANS WHAT ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
>>Ever since HPB made the presence and actuality of the Adepts known [ ISIS
>II 98-105 ] there have been those who desired to receive actual proofs of
>their presence and nature.
>
>Excuse me Dallas, but I knew of their presence long before I ever heard of
>HPB.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dallas:  EXCELLENT.  Then you must have no problem in checking out the value
of what They and HPB have written.  I am considering to be valid the
certificate of co-authorship of the SECRET DOCTRINE that they gave to Dr.
Hubbe-Schleiden, and which is printed on page 1, of THE PATH, vol. 8 by its
editor Mr. Wm. Q. Judge.
============================================
>>
>>If we have not studied HPB's Theosophy, if we have liked what Annie Besant
>>and Leadbeater and Jinarajadasa and others have written, [among those who
>>claim "successorship" to HPB ] and called Theosophy, in preference to HPB
>we are in a situation of a very unstable nature.

-------------------------------------------------------
>
>I am sorry that you feel this way. It is just this kind of attitude that
has
>resulted in a fragmented TS.
>
DALLAS:

Naturally, for myself, and historically, I do not agree.  Those who chose to
"follow"
A. Besant, etc... are where they are because of that.  As I see it, it is a
repugnance to study that Theosophy that HPB offered.  By some method her
work has been made into a deterrent to them -- it may be that it does not
please them to adopt the conclusions she offers -- is so, why ?  Each has to
answer this to themselves.

Now this cannot be changed by anything I may say.  It is only by testing the
"pudding" that its taste and worth may be learned.  Each one does this.

Hence, I continue to say that if HPB is NOT STUDIED, a real knowledge of
what THEOSOPHY teaches can only be acquired with great difficulty.  It is
all out there as history and fragmented records from antiquity.  But to
re-collect all that one would have to do again what HPB and the Adepts did
in writing ISIS UNVEILED, or something of that nature.  Tha is how I would
express it. I also agree that everyone has to decide what they will do.  I
can only observe that it is a great pity that material has been promulgated
other than HPB's and Masters' Theosophy using that name.  That, to me is the
root of the various divisions (as to form only) which we are currently
confronted with.  In terms of ideas there are no barriers.  The name or
frame we may adopt to label oursleves with has realy no permenent or real
value.  It is only that :  temporary.

It does not matter if the T S is fragmented or not.  The REAL T.S. cannot be
fragmented because it does not exist on the physical plane, as many believe.
The REAL T S  does exist permanently in the mind and the will of the
Masters.  All physical plane T S es (or ULTs, etc...) are reflections from
that Ideal Akasic plane, and since they are reflections. they are more or
less blurred by the ideas that their current representatives have formulated
here.  It is so dangerous to generalize.  One tends to forget that the
individuality is always free and uses labels and designations often
thoughtlessly.

If one reviews the documentary History of the modern Theosophical Movement
(given, for instance in the book THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT -- 1875-1950 -- $
6.00 --
Published by Theosophy Company, 245 W. 33rd St., Los Angeles, Ca., 90007 )
one willl find what the reasons for the various "splits" are.  They are all
clearly traced.

Continued differences of opinion are the natural result of personal
preferences.  But if anyone desires to find out what THEOSOPHY IS or
TEACHES, where else can they go with assurance except to HPB ?  Why is that
the GITA, the DHAMMAPADA, the TAO-TEH-CHING, the VEDAS, and the UPANISHADS,
etc... are explained and correlated in THE SECRET DOCTRINE (the Original
Edition if 1888).

Those who wrote on Theosophy after HPB's death -- in my esteem have either
adhered to the philosophy as she promulgated it, or have diverged.  There
has been divergence.  Stokes in O. E. LIBRARY CRITIC examined these
impartially.  Margaret Thomas in THEOSOPHY or NEO-THEOSOPHY compares the
differences, so that those who desire to find out what they are can read for
themselves and form their own opinions.

It would be quite wrong in my esteem for me to try to tell anyone how or
what they should adopt as ideas or ways of thinking.  We all have
difficulties deciding what is purely our own independent conclusions, and
what are those we have borrowed, adopted, modified or form-fitted into our
survey of the world, and how we try to fit into it.  That freedom is
entirely individual and is universal.  To try to get others to agree is
futile, for although there may be a lip adherence to forms and rules, the
actual practice is always a matter if independent thought and action.  I
think this is quite clear.  Hence, when some differences of view arise, one
ought to go to the roots and see what principles are involved.  Once we
agree on common grounds, there is rarly room for much difference of
understanding.  Here is where a lot of time is spent.

====================================
>
>>We are curious, but we do not KNOW.
>
>KNOWing or Gnosis comes from direct experience, not from reading
>or studying book, not even HPB's books.
=========================

DALLAS:       TRUE
HPBs writing are assists  not something to be believed in.  If you find me
using them it is because I have personally gone (and am continuing) to go
through this process of analysis and comparison, and for me, they have so
far proved to be the most valuable and comprehensive in their purview.
=========================================

>
>>If for whatever reason we have rejected HPB
>
>Why on Earth do you keep insisting that we have "rejected" HPB??
>If I say thanks to CWL for a few of his ideas that have helped me,
>that does not imply that I have rejected HPB. I also have been
>helped by G de Purucker, James Long and even Judge. As far as
>I am aware, I never even once rejected HPB over this.

===============================================

You may be quite right in what you say, and I may be quite wrong in so broad
a characterization.  If I am wrong accept my apology.

It seems to me that when you compare HPB and later writers, as I say above
they either assist or they do no.  In themselves they do not surpass (in my
esteem) HPB but also (in my esteem) they do not supplant and alter the
prnciples she has offered.

It is like saying that a pupil claims he is better than the Master he has
learned from, without being able to demonstrate parity orsuperiority to that
Master.  If that is true it is an example of pride and a claim to authority,
that not even the Master has ever made.   Are we going to say that the
properties of water or of gold are annoying ? But whether they annoy or not,
they are still true.  Scientists who test Nature for developing what they
think are now perceptions are only uncovering that which has always been
there.  Compare, always compare.
>
>=============================================
>>are we
>>of the opinion that HPB is "dead and
>>gone ?"  It is my conviction that that is the greatest error that we could
>>make.  We are all her "children,"
>
>Gack!! Even she would gack at this one. How about "students" instead
>of children, please.
======================================

Use any word you please, we are all her pupils.  I said children, because it
would be foolish for me to claim parity with HPBs achievements.  And I donot
see any of us presently inarated and concerned in the Theosophical Movement,
who, byt their own writings show anything like her ability or humility.

=========================================

>
>>?  Are we not HPB's heirs ?  Do we not therefore carry some of the
>>responsibility for its continuity and retransmission ?
>>
>
>I thought that the TSs were doing pretty much just this.


============================================

Then it would change if it put into application the 3 Objects as originally
adopted -- there is all the time in the world for its membes and
well-wishers to enforce this.

What are we waiting for ?

If you and I sense formal limitations, then get out of those bounds and make
sure that all true students have some place to gather to study and help each
other.  The purpose of the TS was just that:  mutual study and help.  No
more.  Formal limits do count or constitute the reality, whic lies in the
philosophy alone.
========================================
>
>>Does not Theosophy, when grasped, eliminate dogmatism, priestcraft,
>>authoritative interpretations, and place us firmly on our own thinking
>>"feet," and make us see that we are responsible for our natures and for
our
>>own Karma.
>
>I only wish that this were true. But dogmatism seems to be alive and well.
>You yourself say that HPB is the only real authority to study, thus
>"authoritative interpretations" are right in your own words, my friend. I
don't know a
>single Theosophist would thinks that their karma is someone else's
responsibility.
>Do you?
>==========================================
DALLAS:

I said: "for me," and, as above, if judged a modification of my position,
HPB is the best source that I have found who draws together all the
scattered threads of thought and puposes that seem to lie at the root of our
investigations -- if one desires to call her an "authority," well and
good -- they have that freedom.  On the other hand, HPB herself repeatedly
(as Daniel Caldwell reminds us) rejected such a claim.  Why should I place
it upon her unwilling head ?

All I say and will continue to say is:  Whom do we know who has provided us
with that kind of survey in bredth and depth that she has ?  I reverence her
work and am indebted to her and all Those who have enabled it.

====================================================
>>It speaks of universal Law and admits on no deviations or exceptions.
>
>Here is one more place where interpretation comes into play. My own
>study of HPB tells me that when she uses the term universe, she means
>only our own solar system of 7 planes. And deviations and exceptions
>are actually built into these laws and allowed at times (its called free
>will).
>
>>It is a moral law ...
>
>Ouch!!  I really wish you wouldn't do this to me. The notion of a
>universal moral law is repugnant to me (I side with Chuck on this
>one). Morality is completely a human invention and, as I have
>already demonstrated in a past article, Kohlberg's moral scale
>clearly indicates that the higher we rise in morality the more
>relative good and evil look to us.

=============================================
DALAS

I know I have misused the word "moral" as it usually means "customary."  But
substitute for that "ethical."  If you desire to still more impersonalize
the concept let me offer the following:

That which is done voluntarily, using ove's free will, in accord with
NATURE'S LAWS is "good," ethical, moral.  Anything that is done in vilation
of NATURE'S LAWS is the reverse.  NATURE'S LAWS is the totality of KARMA, as
I understand it.

The question of individual or personal interpretations of "good," and "bad,"
are always subject to modifications and interpretations. If the concept can
be impersonalized and universalized, then the snags may disappear.

But that also is not final, since anyone has the unfortunate freedom of
seeing "universal and impersonal" as they please -- which puts it into the
realm of illusive sentiment, of feeling and desire -- finally of
selfishness -- and that is KAMA

======================================
>
>
>>Finally that each of us has a conscious "Ray" of the Universal Spirit
>>resident within and this serves us as a tutor if and when we (as personal
>>beings) desire instruction.  It is on this inner, or "spiritual" plane
that
>>the Adepts are UNIVERSALLY alive.
>
>Agreed.
>
>
>>I notice that many seem to have only a vague idea of what constitutes
>>messages or writings from Adepts.  Or, if some are advanced, how to
>>distinguish them from trashy statements.  Is not the proof of their value
>>interior to the writing or message?  Have we the ability to distinguish
>>value from trash ?
>
>One man's trash is another man's value. There are various shades
>or levels of Adepts, and each tries to reach an audience specific to
>his or her Teaching. Just because a teaching doesn't help me, for
>example, it does not conclude that it is trash because it may help
>someone else who is receptive to that idea. Thus I try to respect all
>Teaching and Teachers even though I may not agree with them.
>
>Thanks for your thoughts Dallas. I don't always agree with you, but
>I do enjoy your postings.
======================================

Dear Jerry:

I also value your views as it helps me to make myself clearer (I hope) in
what I write.

I do hope the above clarifies more than it annoys.  I think most differences
are superficial anyway, and as time passes, and as we all exchange our
learning, we share in each other's advances and profit from the many errors
we are still encombered with.  Such is life and progress.

best wishes to you as always,            Dal.
>Jerry S.
>
>
>
>