Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00009)

> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 16:07:15 -0700

Sept 1st 1998

Dear Jerry:

I am not quite sure that get the drift of your observation about the
"science and the art" of Theosophy. I can only offer what I have learned
from them, and suggest that others check out the teachings to verify. I
would hesitate to say that this "misleads" newcomers !
If it is a "science" then I think we owe much of what is offered to HPB and
to the Masters. I therefore employ them as much as possible as a basis for
comment or reply.

Historically there has been much written since the death of HPB that
diverges from the cohesive philosophy, propositions and doctrines that she
and They offered.

If that is so, such writings or opinions, may be called the efforts of
students to try and see if they can apply (as an art) - in reading and
considering those I have not always found evidence of their success. It is
true that is my opinion.

I would not say or the Masters wrote is "dead-letter." I think it is very
much alive.

I also agree that everything is subject to interpretation. Our view of any
science or any art is always subjective. There is nothing we say or do, now
or in the past, or future, that will not be "subjective." The presently
"objective" is well known to be in unstable flux every moment as times
passes by. And views and ideas are always changing.

As I understand it, we are seeking as students, inquiring into the mysteries
of Nature (for which I would say that Theosophy is one of the best available
keys).

Now I would be very much in objection to a classification as a "fundamental
Christian" referring to some faulty interpretation - which is what most
translations of the Bible are. The main difference is that we do not depend
on "translations." We have the original statements.

What is wrong with antiquity ? What is wrong with what may have been
written 75 or 125 years ago ? Why, if is it expressed by someone TODAY,
that some feel it is "better ?"

And let me be thoroughly un-orthodox: I say that HPB and the Masters are
alive and well today - and, also that I cannot prove it physically by either
phenomena or any other way. Only by the direct appeal that can be made by
anyone to their writings and thus find out for themselves if
their philosophy is coherent, alive, and can be used by anyone. No
interpreters are needed.

I can well understand that I often write and speak with great assurance, and
no doubt that is annoying - but what else can I say - coat the statements
with "ifs, ands, and buts ?"

Apparently there are several ways in which "arts" can be applied - and each
has his own area of search, trial and expertise. I am sure that the whole,
if taken together, can be made to adhere into a single vibrating mass of
brotherhood and understanding..

I am not sure if this is a satisfactory answer, but it is all I can think
of. How else can be pay homage to the sacrifices of HPB and of the Masters
if we do not use their works ?

Best wishes,

Dallas

> From: Jerry Schueler
> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 10:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Land Mines and Tibet

>Theosophy is not a matter of opinion, it is a science of applying universal
>principles.
>
>Dallas

Dallas, I just have to jump in here. HPB herself (as I am sure you know)
calls magic (and her theosophy is not much different) both a science
and an art. There is a certain art to Theosophy. Its science is largely
interpretable as we have seen on this list time and again, and our
personal interpretations are based on our degree of art--the subjective
interpretation and application of the science-part of Theosophy. Your
continual insistence on the dead letter of HBP and her Masters writings
gives an erroneous and misleading direction to newbees (IMHO). You
sometimes sound like a fundamentalist Christian telling folks to read
the Bible (I know that you don't intend to come across this way, but I
feel the need to point out to you that you often do). The living spirit
of Theosophy is much more important than the written letter, and the
spirit is gained more via art than science, at least in my experience.

Jerry S.