Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00199)

Nov 13th

Dallas Offers:


"The Astral body is the desire body:  -- stated by AB/CWL


But this is not the original teaching of HPB.  See KEY PP 90,
132, 173; and the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, also the SECRET
DOCTRINE, Vol. II, pp. 590 - 634.

So we have the changes in nomenclature made AFTER HPB had passed
away and was not able to refute or correct these statements - and
so what we call "Theosophy" today has problems - and these are
traceable directly to Annie Besant and C W Leadbeater who made
changes-for whatever reason -and very few students went back to
find out what HPB had taught.

Please.  When I write I do so on my own responsibility.

There seems to be a growing tendency to ascribe to what I write a
"ULT" connection.  I am an "associate" of the ULT but not a
spokesman.

The reason I respect and use what HPB taught is that it is
fundamental to the whole structure of psychology and history that
THEOSOPHY represents, as I see it, myself.  In some measure it is
like saying:  "Don't bother with Euclid, geometry has progressed
far further than his basic work."  Then, what DO WE BASE
OURSELVES ON ?

And then we have those who tell newcomers:  "Don't read HPB, she
is too difficult and you won't understand her."

If we are going to use terms at cross purposes then there will
never be a resolution, but if, historically we change the
alteration of meanings to their source and seek to verify the
accuracy of meaning and intent, then much can be resolved.  But
this requires study and perhaps back-tracking.  But, I would say
it can prove very valuable.  All true scholars have to
re-evaluate their sources and reasonings - look at what is being
currently done with the Bible - and all the changes that have to
be made to put into English the "original" mare able to see them
more accurately.

The teachings that emanated from the Masters of Wisdom ( are we
conceding that as a proposition ? ) through HPB are about 120 or
so years old.  They are in English - a language that we still use
in pretty much the same sense as she and They did.  How are we
going to explain all these changes that have been introduced ?
Is it our intention to introduce further changes because we
presume to think we understand what She and They meant ?  Just
what are our credentials ?  Can we say we have MASTERED all that
They taught ?  Can we write an ISIS UNVEILED or a SECRET
DOCTRINE, or even a KEY TO THEOSOPHY  -- and what about a VOICE
OF THE SILENCE ?

At best we can, as student-teachers, point to the sources from
which we have learned.  What gives us the right to belittle or
denigrate HPB's presentation ?
Have the Masters commissioned us to improve on what they wrote ?
I cannot conceive of anyone making such a claim, and yet I see
evidence of it many times when I read what writers have issued
after HPB died, and she could not refute them.

What is wrong with humbly restudying those teachings and writings
?  Have we been commissioned to deny to others the opportunity of
consulting those teachings by an attitude which we have adopted ?


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


"Belief"  --  Is it not usually a statement of ignorance ?

In another posting today I read " I believe" several times - but
that is not (as I understand it) the method or use of THEOSOPHY.

Theosophy presents propositions and offers a structure and
method, which if studied and used gives coherency - again, that
is as I see it.

Everyone is invited to test it - especially  "its logical
coherency."

No one is expected to believe in it, or to have "faith" in it.

All students of Theosophy are invited to strictly avoid employ
designations or words without explaining the relations of those
ideas (in words) to others.  If I take a long time to exhaust a
subject, it is because of this attempt to explain what I see of
meaning of.

These are a few thoughts that arise today.

Best wishes,

Dallas

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