Theos-Talk Archives (November 1998 Message tt00491)

>Jerry in the above statement you wrote:
>
>"The really interesting thing here, Dan, is that I am doing the very
>same thing."  By "same thing" do you mean you were doing the very same
>thing as I said I was doing,i.e.,:  "I was writing about *the view of
>Blavatsky and the adepts* as found in their writings"?  I assume this is
>what you mean but just want to clarify this point.
>

Dan, you read and study HPB and then you think that "HPB teaches
so and so" while actually you are assuming that your interpretation is
what she really meant. I am making the same assumption--namely
that my interpretation is what she really meant. I was only able to
realize that we were all making this assumption after interacting
on this list, after seeing how so many of us quote the Source and
yet say such different things.

As far as I know, none of my comments on this list are in conflict
with anything in HPB's writings or in the MLs (at least no more than
a few places. I just posted a conflict with Judge, for example). I
admit that I will occassionally say something that she never mentioned,
but this is simply adding to, not conflicting with. One of the few areas
of conflict is determinism which the last 100 years of physics has
proved to be a false idea.


>Jerry, regarding your comment to the effect:
>
>"I do, however, see many discrepanices between their [HPB/Mahatmas]
>writings and what you, Frank, and Dallas say."
>
>Jerry, it would be most helpful for you to elucidate this statement of
>yours by citing 2 or 3 examples.

Just go back over the postings between Dallas, Frank, and myself
and it should be pretty clear where we are in disagreement. One
of the main areas is karma. Dallas sees it as an-eye-for-an-eye
where causality reigns supreme and every act has its react and
so on ad infinum. For example, if we have any experience in the present,
he thinks that is has to be an effect of a past experience and that the
only reason why we don't know what it was is a lack of knowledge.
This is karma as pure determinism, and I reject it totally.
If logically followed, this pernicious idea says that we will tread
the Wheel of Life forever, because our every act and thought will
necessitate future ones and thus we will always have to have another
future life.  Dallas apparently has never heard of jivamukti (Hindu) or
of liberation-in-a-single-lifetime (Tibetan) which implies the ability to
consume all past karma in an instant, which further implies that something
besides causality is working in our universe. HPB never mentions
the fact of acausal events (she also never said that they don't exist but
she did mention jivamukti).  As for outright conflicts, probably most
are caused by poor terminology found throughout HPB and the MLs.
This poor terminology (monads and souls for two) leads to a great
deal of confusion and misunderstanding.



>....These are just a few of the quotes one could compile from the Mahatma
>Letters and HPB's writings indicating that KH and his esoteric
>associates had an occult/esoteric doctrine and HPB was ordered in her
>writings to give out portions of those teachings.

Exactly. And how does one "give out portions" without picking and
choosing?


>And to illustrate
>those *portions* she brought forth numerous extracts, etc. from world
>religions, mythologies, esoteric studies to illuminate and illustrate
>the Doctrine of her teachers and to show the commonality of various
>ideas in these religions, mythologies, etc.

Which cannot be "proved" in any way and must be taken on faith,
and so far as I know, after 100 years not a single world religion
has agreed with your statement above.  I think that most people
today would agree that there is a certain degree of commonality
among the doctrines of the world's religions. However, those
same people still prefer to think that theirs is better than the
others and very few have left their religion to embrace Theosophy.


> But she did not have to
>cobble together the Esoteric Doctrine.  She had that from her Adept
>Teachers.

Who themselves cobbled it.


>It is obvious (at least to me) that HP Blavatsky relied on her Masters
>for the Esoteric Doctrine.  What could be plainer?

I don't argue with this.


>I'm not asking anyone to blindly believe what Blavatsky and the Mahatmas
>state.  Disbelieve it or reject it if you choose to do so.
>

I agree that Blavatsky got her info from her Adepts, but where do
you suppose they got it from? They culled it from various sources
over many lifetimes and backed it up with lots of personal
experiences. What do you think "wisdom tradition" means?
Or "ear-whispered?" or "linage traditions?"  Occult doctrines
have always been passed down orally and only in modern times
in writing. But great Teachers like Tsongkapa and others have
had the ability to assimilate and synthesize the teachings of
the Masters of the past by creating a nosegay of the very best
ideas. Fortunately for us, many of these Tibetan works are now
available to us in English. But all occult doctrine is safe-garded
and handed down within schools or sects, called esoteric
traditions. And many of these schools teach conflicting ideas
(about sex, for example). HPB's Masters were only one such
school. But I do agree with most of their teachings (sex being a
prominent exception).

Jerry S.