Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00219)

Jerry S

>> The SD has a timeless quality about it, or is
>>timeless.
>
>In what way? Please expound.

The quote in the last mail:
"Only those who realise how far Intuition soars above the tardy processes of
ratiocinative thought can form the faintest conception of that absolute
Wisdom which transcends the ideas of Time and Space." - fn. pp. 1-2 PROEM.
Does this relate to Atma-Buddhi, Universal Principles?
This also has much to do with the first Object of the Society, and with the
secret doctrine.

You mentioned laya centres.

The first fundamental proposition: "An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless and
Immutable PRINCIPLE....beyond the range and reach of thought....."

Although the SD is about time, it is pervaded by the timeless.

"The Secret Doctrine, is the synthesis ....."   How do we relate synthesis
to time?

What about higher manas in relation to time?

The Mahatmas, when "switched on" are said to be everywhere.

Also, cycles, which on the face of things may seem to be all about lengths
of time, (kali yuga, so many years, etc.), but they also have much to do
with numbers and geometrical shapes, the Platonic solids.
>
>>  What do you mean by scientifically demonstrated?
>
>Her reference to when fleshy human beings began. Her reference
>to giants. Her reference to root races and sub-races. All of these
>things can be checked by archeoglogy and anthropolgy. Her
>idea of laya centers (black and white holes?) and so on can be
>checked by modern science.

Modern science does check some of these things out. To what extent laya
centres is questionable.  If it was taking notice of the secret doctrine and
had an understanding of Karma, and the 7 principles, for example, things
would be very different.    Many scientists are brilliant intellectually,
but it can be still lower manas only, rather than higher manas.  This is not
said of all scientists.
>
>
>> If in the
>>normal sense, it is hard to match it up with: "Indeed it must be remembered
>>that all these Stanzas appeal to the inner faculties rather than to the
>>ordinary comprehension of the physical brain." page 21 PROEM.
>
>There are 7 "keys" to studying the SD, and one, I think, is history.
>Are you saying that nothing in the SD is to be taken literally?

It was that you wrote that the SD is largely historical and should be
capable of being scientifically demonstrated that drew the comments.  As you
say there are 7 keys, but history doesn't seem to be one of them.  History
is just the effects (even though they are in their turn causes), whereas
Theosophy and the SD is in the realm of CAUSE.  If we try and go to the
cause of .... storms (suffering), then things improve.

That we see different meanings, or interpretations, of the same words is all
part of the richness of Theosophy.  But once we begin to say one
interpretation is right to the exclusion of others, then all the splits
start to happen.  The Theosophical Society becomes the Theosophical
Movement.  On the other hand how do we square the rituals of the liberal
catholic church with what is written in the Mahatma Letters?  How do we
square the original SD with the different versions?

Tony