Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00220)

Dallas wrote:

Paul:

> Let us, maybe, continue to explore the question: WHY the
> "*mechanical*
> arrangement"?
>
> ". . . .. the Lotus-seed contains within itself a perfect
> miniature of the
> future plant, which typifies the fact that the spiritual
> prototypes of all
> things exist in the immaterial world before those things become
> materialized
> on Earth. (SD,I, 58).
>
> What is/was the *cause*/seed of "The Secret Doctrine"? Whence/how
> did it
> flower; to become "materialized on Earth"?


Dalas:

> Theosophy is NOT physical, but METAPHYSICAL, even though for us
> to grasp and understand, it needs a physical vehicle.

What is "physical" is "The Secret Doctrine", the Volumes I and II, these
being the vehical of that which is meta-physical (in its seven-ness).

Some refer to the distinction "The Secret Doctrine" (physical vehicle) and
"SD" (meta-physical); S (Secret) D (Doctrine) and S (tanzas) of D (zyan)
etc.

> The difference between these two is so vast that volumes might
> have to be written to make all points absolutely clear.  As
> students strive to learn and work with what is given they find
> that their intuition (Buddhic vision) becomes progressively
> available.  The lower mind has to become "porous" to the meanings
> of the Higher Mind - but first the lower mind has to apprehend
> the presence of this HIGHER MIND internally.  The key is the
> BROTHERHOOD, harmony and generosity to others that is always so
> insisted on.  A morality of sharing and not grabbing.

Well said.

Paul:

> "But you must know and remember one thing: we but follow and
> *servilely copy
> nature* in her works." (Letter VI, ML's).  Is "The Secret
> Doctrine" itself
> a/the servile copy of nature (Masters = Nature)?  If so, what is
> its
> "spiritual prototype"?  A'kasha? Dzyan? Stanzas *of* Dzyan?
> Sen-zar? Senzar?

Dalas:

> Seems like a confusion of terms and ideas which could be cleared
> up by using the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY - HPB under those terms.

Why a "confusion of terms"?  The *different* terms being an attempt to leave
the question open, not to fix an 'answer'; to encourage the enquirer to ask
which is which and why such different terms exist in SD.

Paul:

> Is not to "servilely copy" an exact  - shall we call it
> *mechanical*? -
> process?   [ ML 22 ]

Dallas:

>  I am using the original edition of ML, 1923/1948 reprint.
>
> Consider what is said on ML p. 180,  40-1,  65,  about the use of
> occult powers by the Mahatmas.  P. 51, 4, 8, 157, -the duties and
> work of the Mahatmas.  Their restrictions p. 20.  The destiny
> planned for the T S  p. 23, 20, 24-5.  The work of the FTS  p. 80
> top, 90-1, 144.  On force and Law  pp. 140-1, 160-176,

Thank you.

Paul:

> Can Lipika/Karma be subject to error/deviation?

Dallas:

> The Lipika as described in the S D are the recorders, the
> "scribes" who record in the imperishable Akasa all that happens

Paul:

Can they (it?) err?

SD, I, 103:

The Lipi-ka, from the word lipi, "writing," means literally the
"Scribes."* Mystically, these Divine Beings are connected with Karma, the
Law of Retribution, for they are the Recorders or Annalists who impress on
the (to us) invisible tablets of the Astral Light, "the great
picture-gallery of eternity" —a faithful record of every act, and even
thought, of man, of all that was, is, or ever will be, in the phenomenal
Universe.".

SD, I, 294 (fn):

". . . the *Lipika* and the four Maharajas," the agents of Karma.

Paul:

> Was HPB cutting/shifting/pasting at her own (personal) whim and
> fancy; or
> was she obeying ORDERS?  Was she ORDERED to cut/shift/paste until
> miserable, sick of it, for a reason?  Why could not the *final*
> MSS, once "mechanically arranged", be those as presented to the
> printer for the plates?

Dalas:

> Perhaps she was and perhaps she was not.

Sure.  It's an open question.

>  You have to also take
> into account that HPB to be and work as she did was also an
> Adept - working through the personality we know of as Helena. P.
> Blavatsky.  The two are different, and she used the designation
> HPB to indicate this.  Few seem to have grasped this, But then,
> also, few seem to have studied the 7-fold nature of the Universe
> and Man and grasped what the constitution of an Adept is in
> reality.

What does "also take into account" refer to?  That being an Adept might
affect how writting is done thru the vehicle "H P Blavatsky"? Please
explain. Thanks.

> "Yourself, some fine morning, while poring over its [Journal]
> crooked
> columns with the sharpened wits of a well rested brain, peering
> into what
> you now view as hazy, impalpable speculations, having only the
> consistency
> of vapour, - yourself may, perchance, perceive in them the
> unexpected
> solution of an old, blurred, forgotten "dream" of yours, which
> once
> *recalled* will impress itself in an indelible image upon your
> *outer* from
> your inner memory, to never fade out from it again.  All this is
> possible
> and *may* happen; for our ways *are* the ways of "Madmen"  . .
> ." (Letter
> XLVIII, ML's).

Dallas:

> And if this was said to Sinnett, does it not also apply to us ?

Most certainly (if we are attentive/awake/selfless enough?).

> The MAHATMA LETTERS is full of great and important suggestions.
> The SECRET DOCTRINE makes them clear and expands them.

Best wishes,
Paul.