Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00048)

> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 15:04:31 -0700
> From: "Jerry Schueler" <gschueler@netgsi.com>
> Subject: Re: Propositions made by HPB, Masters for our

>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 !

What you read and what you learn from others is _by definiiton_
dead letter or exoteric knowledge.
	I  AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS DEFINITION AS
YOU SEE IT.  HENCE IT DOES NOT MEAN MUCH TO ME JUST NOW.

I WOULD OBSERVE THAT IN THE "SECRET DOCTRINE"  HPB HAS EMPLOYED
BOTH "ESOTERIC" AND "OCCULT" TO INDICATE THAT THERE ARE FACTS AND
TEACHINGS CONCERNING THE HIDDEN PLANES OF NATURE AND ACTIONS
WHICH WE ARE STILL UNAWARE OF.  SOME OF THESE SHE EXPOSES FOR US
TO BECOME AWARE OF.

I WOULD SAY THAT IF WE REMAIN IGNORANT OF THOSE THEN WE
DELIBERATELY CONFINE OUR IMAGINATION.

>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.
>

Maybe we can hack this one around some. I find precious little
"science" in Theosophy per se except in the sense of "occult
science" which is a soft science (like psychology) and not a hard
science (like physics).  HPB does provide us with a few tidbits
at the end of Isis, and in a few other places, but its really
more occult science or magic than Theosophy (if we can even agree
to differentiate these). Just what are the "laws" of Theosophy,
or axioms? I am well aware of those given in occult science and
magic, but I am dim where Theosophy is concerned. Is Theosophy a
hard science or soft? If soft, then I must go back to saying that
art has a place in it.

IN THE LIGHT OF NEW FINDINGS IN PHYSICS I WOULD NOT CALL IT A
HARD SCIENCE.  It seems to have changed a great deal since HPB's
days in view of Science's increasing depths of perception.

Science has still to define and explain ether, magnetism,
electricity, atom, force, power, gravity, and a number of things
that it USES but does not GIVE ANY FUNDAMENTAL EXPLANATION AS TO
"CAUSE."

HPB IS NOT INTENT ON GIVING US A MANIPULATIVE KNOWLEDGE OF MAGIC
AND SHE STATED THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT WE ARE NOT YET
ETHICALLY MATURE.

IMHO:  WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND BROTHERHOOD AND HARMLESSNESS.  HENCE
WE ARE NO TRUSTWORTHY.  THE DEEPER AND MORE POWERFUL SECRETS OF
NATURE CAN ONLY BECOME AVAILABLE FOR USE WHEN WE HAVE ACQUIRED
THE DISCRIMINATION THAT LIMITS THEIR USE.
======================================================


>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.
>

Your idea of cohesiveness is your own subjective opinion (dare I
say interpretation?) of their writings. In my opinion, she left
too much out.

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE OBSERVATION OR CONCLUSION THAT IS NOT
SUBJECTIVE.  EVEN THE SO-CALLED "OBJECTIVE" CONCLUSIONS AND
OBSERVATIONS ARE ALL FILTERED THROUGH THE SUBJECTIVE SIDE OF OUR
MINDS.  THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE THAT I AM AWARE OF.
TO ME THIS IS A DEFINITION THAT NEEDS EXPLANATION TO BE MADE USE
OF.
YES, IMHO,  HPB LEFT OUT A GREAT DEAL OF PLAIN EXPLANATION.
HOWEVER I HAVE FOUND THAT A BOOK LIKE THE S.D. or ISIS, REVEALS
PROGRESSIVELY GREATER DEPTH OF EXPLANATION AS ONE STUDIES AND
ASSIMILATES THE INFORMATION THAT IS THERE.  AS A STUDENT I HAVE
FOUND INVARIABLY THAT RESTUDY BRINGS NEW AREAS OF UNDERSTANDING
TO THE SURFACE.  ONE CANNOT USE THE INFORMATION OF "THEOSOPHY"
IMPATIENTLY.
OUR EDUCATION AND THE THEORIES OF SCIENCE WHICH MATERIALIZE ARE
BARRIERS TO UNDERSTANDING THE TEACHINGS OF THEOSOPHY.
========================================================


>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.
>

Yeah, I think we all know your opinion of the neo-Theosophical
writers.  They have the same problem though-as soon as you put
Truth into words, it becomes dead letter (to a fair degree,
anyway).

IF BY "DEAD LETTER" YOU MEAN THAT THERE IS NO LONGER ANY VALUE TO
WHAT IS OFFERED, THEN ON WHAT BASIS WOULD ANY COMMUNICATION EVER
BE MADE TO ANYONE ELSE ?  DO YOU MEAN MIND TO MIND ? DO YOU MEAN
A COMMUNICATION FROM ONE'S "HIGHER SELF ?"

AND IF THERE SHOULD BE ACCURATE COMMUNICATION ON THE INNER AND
INVISIBLE PLANES, THEN SUCH WOULD BE 'SUBJECTIVE' WOULD IT NOT ?

I DO NOT THINK WE ARE GETTING ANYWHERE.  But this is true, I
think:  no matter what the source of information is we as
CHOOSERS and PERCEIVERS have to employ it with the best of
motives, or else it can become harmful to ourselves and to
others.  Our proposed use is the key to motive.
==================================================



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

No, its not. Its the spirit between the letters thats alive. Its
the inner meaning that the words point to that is alive, not the
writings themselves.
=========================================================
ALL RIGHT - THEN WE ARE SAYING WHAT WE AGREE ON - IT IS THE
MEANING THAT UNDERLIES THOSE WORDS THAT IS IMPORTANT

>I also agree that everything is subject to interpretation. ...
The main
difference is that we >do not depend on "translations." We have
the original statements.
>

Do you see the inconsistancy in your own words here? Your last
line is exactly what a fundamentalist Baptist pastor told me
once. I was not able to explain it to him anymore than I seem to
be getting through to you. Oh well...

MY MEANING IS NOT AS A BAPTIST MIGHT SAY IT - IF I ASSUMED THE
POSITION OF A "PREACHER" IN THEOSOPHY.

I SAID WE DO NOT NEED MODERN INTERPRETATIONS.  WE HAVE HPB'S AND
MASTER'S OWN WORDS TO DEAL WITH - AND EACH ONE OF US CAN FRAME
OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS UPON STUDYING THEM.

WHAT WE AS STUDENTS WRITING AND THINKING AND EXCHANGING OUR IDEAS
ARE DOING, IMO, IS TO TRY TO VERIFY A CONCENSUS OF UNDERSTANDING.
NO MORE.  THERE CAN BE NO "STRAIGHT-JACKET" IN THOUGHT.

WE DO USE OUR OWN WORDS TO FRAME OUR THOUGHTS, AND THEN TRANSFER
THEM TO EACH OTHER FOR CONSIDERATION.  NO OTHER REASON IS USEFUL
IMO.

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


>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 ?"
>

Because today we use new words and phrases which we all tend to
agree with. HPB's terminology is terrible and no longer
meaningful because we all tend to interpret it differently. The
reason that you don't like modern writers is that you don't agree
with their interpretations.

I HAVE BEEN AN EDITOR IN SCIENCE FOR MANY YEARS.  I THINK MOST
SCIENTIFIC TEXT WRITING IS TURGID AND REQUIRES TENACITY AND
INSIGHT TO EXPLORE AND RESOLVE IN ONE'S UNDERSTANDING.

I CANNOT AGREE THAT HPB's TERMINOLOGY IS TERRIBLE FOR THE REASON
OF ITS BEING ECLECTIC.  IF WE DESIRE TO ENTER THE FIELD OF
THEOSOPHICAL LITERATURE, DESCRIPTION, DOCTRINE, THEN WE HAVE TO
LEARN TO ADOPT SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGY THERE.

IF YOU TAKE ANY SCIENCE OR ANY OF THE ARTS, YOU WILL HAVE TO
LEARN THE TERMINOLOGY OR REMAIN OUTSIDE THE PALE OF EXCHANGE OF
THOSE IDEAS.  IMHO EVERYONE OF US MAKES THAT KIND OF CHOICE.
BUT, RESENTMENT AT THE OUTSET SETS UP MORE BARRIERS THAN IT
ELIMINATES.
=================================================

>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.
>

They are indeed alive and well-in our own memories and minds.
Your insistance that no interpreters are needed is outrageous in
the face of your own interpretations of her writings. You seem to
be in denial :-)
I DISAGREE - PERHAPS IT IS A MATTER OF EXPRESSION. BETWEEN US -
TO ME IF WE ARE GOING TO COMMUNICATE WE HAVE TO PUT OUR
UNDERSTANDING INTO OUR WORDS.
I GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID ORIGINALLY:  WE ALL HAVE HPB's AND
MASTER'S OWN EXPRESSIONS TO USE.  THE WRITING OF LATER STUDENTS
MAY ASSIST, JUST AS OUR PRESENT EXCHANGE ASSISTS IN SMOOTHING OUT
THE JAGGED EDGES OF PERSONAL EXPRESSIONS.  BUT, IN MY ESTEEM
THOSE LATER WRITINGS (INCLUDING MINE) CAN ONLY BE ATTEMPTS AT
EXPRESSING SOME OF THE IDEAS THAT ARE ALREADY EXPRESSED BY THEM.
AND THIS IS WHY I RELY ON THE EXCHANGE OF QUOTATIONS, AS
ANOTHER'S CONSIDERATION OF THOSE QUOTATIONS MAY REVEL TO ME THAT
THERE IS SOME DEPTHS THAT I FAILED TO GRASP.
===================================================

>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 ?"
>

I have the same problem.

>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..
>

The "science" are the ideas and theoretical underpinnings of what
we call Theosophy. The "art" is putting the science part into
daily practice.	AGREED

>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
>

I am sure that your homage does not go unnoticed.
Jerry S.