Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00280)

>Personally I have not adequately studied what de Puruker has to say in
>commentary on HPB's S D .  I am therefore not well qualified to argue for
or
>against his views.  But I have found HPB's to be consistent.  { What little
>of de Puruker's writings I have read have troubled me, since in those steno
>reports of what he has given, he very often seems to "talk down" to his
>audience, claiming that they neither have the erudition nor the capacity to
>understand what he understands.

OK, but HPB and her Masters do the same thing. They proclaimed that
they only gave out so much of the occult teachings that we the public
were ready for. Its pretty much the same thing.


>I would therefore hesitate to say if his conclusions are right or wrong.


Obviously its a subjective call. Personally, I like him very much.


>But I would strongly urge that you independently correlate what HPB has to
>say in SD ...

G de P has been criticized for following HPB overmuch. He extends
on her techings a little, but not much. Mostly he just elaborates on
what she said.

>
>She (HPB) repeatedly says that both are ONE but in differentiation they
>APPEAR to be separate.  The third, the MIND unites both always, and is
>perhaps the real CAUSE of all manifestation.
>

No perhaps about it.


>What unites and comprehends them ?  Is it not the 3rd evolutionary
factor --
>the MIND.
>

I think it is.


>If the MONAD (Atma-Buddhi) is an eternal/immortal UNIT of force having an
>entitative existence -- as she says, then it is in terms of MATTER totally
>imponderable.  Hence it is incomprehensible except as an ideal, or a
>"logical necessity."  And it is the Mind-faculty that is able to encompass
>this concept.
>

The "monad" when defined as atma-buddhi only lasts for one manvantara.
Everything "entitive" has a beginning and an end according to Buddha.
It is really "incomprehensible" only to the human mind. But consciousness
can go beyond the mind and perceive atma-buddhi directly.


>HPB says in several places that the REAL MATTER is not known to us.  We
have
>no means from this plane to analyze it.  But it can also be thought of.
>

I don't think that "real matter" is known even to modern science. Is it
quarks?
The jury is still out. When science thinks of real matter, it uses quantum
physics, where most things exist in terms of probability waves.


>What then is our present "reality ?"  Is it not that which our present
>mental faculties ( a mix of Buddhi, manas (higher and lower) and Kama
>provide.
>

Our present reality is our worldview and nothing else. As our worldview
changes, so our reality changes.


>What then is our work in this stage of evolution ?  Is it not to try to
>grasp what we can of that which the Masters have offered to us ?
>

Yes. And if we can, to go beyond it.


>Many who have written after HPB's death, trying to offer their
>fellow-students such wisdom as they have acquired seem to also offer their
>views and in some cases these are not "in line" with HPB's own statements
>when these are careful correlated and brought together.
>

It doesn't always make any real difference. For example, I can't recall
his name, but a past president of TSA almost died and later wrote a
book on his experiences (Perkins?). Its a good book and I learned
from it whether it exactly matches HPB or not. The main problem with
HPB is that her terminology is antiquated and obscure by today's standards.
We no longer spell Sanskrit terms like she did. We no longer know what
she means in many places, and in valiant attempts to bring her message
into modern English, we are criticized for not following exactly her letter.
There is no easy answer here, but it seems to me that we have to go
beyond her letter into her spirt if we want to get somewhere.


>In my opinion before any good answer is to be given to your question, each
>one of us ought to set down what WE HAVE FOUND OUT in our own studies of
>HPB's (and Master's) writings.
>

I have found most to be in line with my own worldview, while a few
things (like sex, for example) don't add up and are not born out in my
experiences. I suspect that this is par for the course.


>Its always my opinion in giving my views that those are invariably colored
>by my own personal mix -- and therefore they ought not to be considered as
>anything but a student's views -- seemingly coherent today, but liable to
>modification tomorrow, should I find that I have neglected to consider some
>vital factor.
>

You seem to be saying that your own experiences are worthless. I hope
that I am mis-interpreting you.


>In other words.  We deal with a 7-fold Universe.  Nature contains
>everything.  Nature is a living, dynamic and progressive WHOLE.  When we
>analyze it we, as 7-fold beings using our minds (partially wrapped in
>Kama -- and therefore subject to error) may only see a partial view.
>

We will each continue forever to see only a partial view. What we see
is what we have constructed for ourselves, and everything else does
not exist for us. We have made nature, not the other way around.


>If you think this is "hedging," then you are right.  We have each of us the
>faculty of inherent vision of the TRUE.  But we are going to be expressing
>it in terms of what we have learned and mastered in this personality, in
>this life.  It may, therefore be quite incomplete.
>

Oh, I can guarantee you that words will always be incomplete.


>I regard all those who have written other than, or after HPB as being in
the
>same condition.  hence, while I might avail myself of their views I would
>not adopt them after much study.
>

When I slowly switched to Theosophy from Chrisitan Science, I carefully
compared HPBs words with those of Eddy. When they didn't match, I
went with Eddy, until my own experiences made me change to HPBs.
It was a gradual process over some years, and at last I became a
Theosophist. But I find myself today doing the same thing to HPB that
I previously did to Eddy--realizing the wrongness of some remarks
or thoughts, that just don't jive with my experiences. I could be wrong,
but I think that this means I am growing.


>For me, to cut the matter short, I would prefer going directly to HPB and
>seeing what she has to say.  I would not do this out of dogmatism or
>fanaticism, but to make use of the so-far most accurate information that
has
>come my way.  It is but natural that others may disagree with me.
>

No, I don't disagree.


>Why not, then, try to apply the 7-fold division of Universal and Human
>"principles" that HPB seems to have adopted ?
>

I do. I have. I will.


>In the first 300 pages of the SD, Vol. 1 she shows, using the Stanzas from
>the BOOK OF DZYAN , how Spirit involves itself progressively during the
>first 3 Rounds into Matter.  I note that the "builders" -- Dhyani Buddhas
>and Dhyan Chohans which once were mind-men, and continue to be MIND BEINGS
>work cooperatively in many diverse ways to bring about this gradual
>immaterialization  so that by the middle of the 4th Round one finds that
the
>time for the next crop of MONADS (which on our Earth are those that come
>over from the Moon-chain) to have MANAS lit up in them.
>

Some of this stuff should not be taken literally. According to Buddhism
(which both HPB and myself accord with) these "builders" are none
other than ourselves. Basically, our own human karma created this
world in all its splendor.


>This process was apparently done some 18,000,000 + years ago.  We are just
>past the mid-way point in this Manvantara.  [ Very few exact figures are
>given to us in the SD.  HPB says that these occult figures are withheld as
>calculations on them might be dangerous and also inconclusive without some
>information we are yet to acquire.  the figures given in SD II 68-70 she
>says are based on the Brahmanical, and if we examine the cycles of time
>indicated there they appear to be based on the figure 60:
>
>as in 60 x 60 = 360;  360 x 60 x 12 = 432,000;  and so on all multiples --
>but she says that those are not the TRUE FIGURES.
>

HPB, like a true magican, played games with numbers and gematria values.
I enjoy doing this too. It stimulates the intuition, and as such is a good
tool to use. But I wouldn't fall on my sword over the exact numbers.


>So we are only given a theoretical sketch of the Rounds, Globes and Races,
>etc....But those of us who are impatient desire to have things fixed in
>time, space and as mental images -- so very often we desire a structure
that
>is quite rigid.  As I see it the danger in that is that we may be starting
>with wrong premises.
>

Its not just that we desire a rigid structure, but rather the human
mind demands such for its sanity. Some kind of structure for our
worldview that will logically explain our experiences is a valid
necessity for mental health.


>By now you must be thinking that I am bewildered myself -- in some ways I
>am.  In others I think the time has not come for the problem to be solved
>entirely, although enough clues have been given for students to do that
when
>they are "ready."
>

We will all do this when ready, I agree.


>Ask yourself what would we do with the information if we were given it.
How
>would it help us ethically ?  would we live better lives, help more people,
>make life easier for the poor and the disadvantaged ?

Questioning our motives is our Theosophical duty.


>There is much in theosophy that explains and reconciles the obscure
>statements made in the earliest texts (such as have come down to us,
usually
>in translation) from every major religion.  That improves our trust in
>Theosophy, if anything.
>

Agreed.

>Next comes the ideas of Karma, reincarnation, our progressive learning, and
>the idea that if the Earth is one of the great Schools of mental and
>psychical adjustment, then the rest of the Universe has in each center of
>Life similar Schools working.  But of what value to us is that information,
>which at best is speculative.
>

Life as a school is valid during the Arc of Ascent, but not during the
Arc of Descent. At the apex of the Arc, we will come to grips
with the occult fact that we never really left in the first place.


>Our work is here and now and concerns itself with our environment and
>circumstances.  Perhaps that is why the First Object of the T S is
Universal
>brotherhood:  -- to establish a nucleus thereof.  We are usually not
totally
>convinced of the importance of that.  Why not ?
>

If we look at history, and at these Theosophical lists, one could submit
that the TS's first object has yet to be met.


>I would hesitate to say that "Globes "A: and "G" represent the kama-manasic
>condition, as HPB herself indicates we are presently on Globe "G" and it is
>here and now that we are dealing each one of us with his or her particular
>mix of Manas-Kama.
>

Globes A and G represent the buddhi-manasic condition, and we are
curently on Globe D.


>... Is this not what Meditation is for ?  Is the response not the
>Intuitions we gather to consider ?
>

Yes.

>Let us
>then open the INDEX to the SD and see if the references there can give us
>more depth.

Lets rather look into our hearts and souls for the depth that we need.

Jerry S.