Theos-Talk Archives (September 1998 Message tt00238)

Hi Dallas.

Thank you for the further thoughts/insights.

Forgive rather large <snip>:

> I believe that the VOICE OF THE SILENCE and the BHAGAVAD GITA
> make those rules and objectives quite clear.  But, generally they
> do not please the "Lower Self."

That is true. It (the "lower self") creates a merry song and dance at even
the approach of the application of such time-honoured "rules".  Is it not,
after all, the precursor of it's own extinction?

> No one either encourages or discourages, and no one can profit by
> the advance in spiritual discernment of an individual, except
> himself.  No fees or Gurus are engaged in this endeavor, nor can
> money or sacrifice (other than one's own time and effort) bring
> any final results.  One only need read carefully the pages of
> MAHATMA LETTERS to assure one's self of this fact.

It has been said: "Purity of Selfless Motive is Vital in Occultism".  Better
not work at all than work for *personal* benefit/gratification.

> The only reason why we would adjust terms between each other, and
> why I constantly recommend using those employed by the Masters
> and HPB is that they serve to bring precision to our talks, and
> they do not bind any one of us to any particular system.

That is a valid point.

> You ask what I use the phrase "take into account."  I use it
> because some students are in the habit of thinking of HPB as a
> very subordinate kind of intelligence - perhaps as a "chela" -
> and in my esteem that would be a false position, and would seem
> to place the one who holds such an idea arbitrarily on a par with
> her or above her --  in some sense.  She is our teacher, so in
> what way can be assume to know more than she does ?

We can not assume in the slightest that we could possibly know more than the
Entity called "HPB".  We are but learners/enquirers.

>  Are you
> familiar at all with the "Lahiri Letter" that was published
> almost 2 years after HPB's death, and that spoke of corroborative
> evidence concerning HPB's position in the Theosophical work -

No. Any possibility of reproducing an extract for us?

> also, of course, we have in MAHATMA LETTERS the assessment of the
> Mahatmas concerning her worth.

HPB: 100 years of searching the planet to find one such as her. HPB: our
DIRECT Agent etc. etc..

All good wishes,
Paul.


> 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"?
>
>
> Dallas:
>
> > 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 vehicle 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?
>
> Dallas:
>
> > 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?
>
> Dallas:
>
> > 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 writing is done through 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.