Theos-Talk Archives (December 1998 Message tt00085)

In a message dated 11/28/98 6:47:18 PM, Jerry S wrote:

(Leon)
>>The three objects are to be practiced SIMULTANEOUSLY.  There is no "first"
>>this, then that.  Enlightenment comes about through a "synthesis" of all
>>three Natures-- Body, Mind and Spirit.

(Jerry)
>But sometimes trying to help people backfires and hurts them
>more than if they had been left alone. How does one know what
>help is "appropriate" in any given situation (hunger, shelter, etc
>are obvious but on the higher rungs of Maslow's pyramid is
>gets trickier)?  The TV show Angels oftens shows this when
>helping others interfers with their free will. The lower Angels
>want to rush in and help, while the higher Angels realize that
>the person must be allowed to exercise their free will.

Did the above statement, (which you didn't respond to) say anything about
"helping (individual) people"?  Does your lack of understanding of what I
actually said imply that you just like to hear yourself talk, and have nothing
logical to say about a discussion of theosophy, as presented by HPB, except to
spout your own opinions and pre-conceptions?

Sure, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread".  (Are you one of them with
reference to taking on a prodigeous intellect like HPB to argue against?)
But, nevertheless, study and consideration, for purposes of self realization
and understanding of the true nature of reality so as to be "better able to
help and teach others" (the way to find their own Self-realization and gain
some wisdom)--DOES NOT mean to help them in their mundane personal problems.

>>Study and practice requires no self-realization, but only "self devised and
>>self determined efforts. . . with the (correct) end and purpose in view".

>I find this to be a scary concept since there is no way to
>know what "the (correct) end and purpose " is and thus you
>jump to your own conclusions and rush in...

It is only scary to one who does not study and consider the ends and purposes
that HPB says is the reason for such study.  And that is, in essence, "to be
better able to help an teach others the path to their own "self realization",
as well as the fundamental truths leading them to a better understanding of
the nature of reality.  This preliminary "end in view" is clearly implied by
the Three Objects of the Theosophical Movement (which are the basis of the
ultimate end in view. . .  Which is; To influence the final formation of the
actual "Universal Brotherhood of Humanity" (--which may still be, if not in
the next 15, perhaps a hundred or more years away).  Do I have to restate
these Objects here, or can I assume that as a devoted student of theosophy (if
you are such;-) you know them by heart?

>>Self realization, by itself, is not theosophy--nor is it the work and
>>fulfillment of the "Theosophical Movement".

>Without self-realization, Theosophy is no better than any other
>religion. Every world religion, to my knowledge, seeks to help
>humanity, so whats the difference?

All I said was that Self realization, BY ITSELF, without study of the
fundamental truths, and its practice ("living the life" such truths imply)
does not fulfill the goals of the Theosophical Movement.  At best, it leads
only to the emptiness of higher purpose underlying the self-serving choice of
a Pratyika Buddha who goes off into his eternal nirvana--and the rest of the
world be damned.  Theosophy was not given out to us for that purpose, nor for
the purpose of Self-realization, alone--but for the purpose of awakening us to
the Fundamental Truths, (as the Buddha said he was "awake"), and teaching us
how to live and practice the compassionate life of a true Bodhisattva (as he
was, also) with the end result of forming the Nucleus of The Universal
Brotherhood of Humanity.  In fact, with reference to the self, the original
mandate was to "gain a truer realization of the Self--not "self-realization"
per se.

The difference is that theosophy gives us the "scientific" and "philosophical"
basis as well as the means to help people reach a realization of the
Self--which includes, and must rest on, the knowledge of both karma and its
laws, as well as  the understanding that we are eternal beings subject to many
incarnations. . . And, ultimately, individually responsible for the causes of
disharmony of this present world.  disharmonies that we are obligated to
rectify, as best we know how.  Most exoteric religions, without such an
esoteric philosophical and scientific background, (Some a Buddha minded
Bodhisattvas and compassionate Vedantists excepted) are satisfied merely to
help humanity just get along materially in this world until death permanently
takes them to their supposed "realities" of heaven or a hell.  Their idea of
"help" is to give people a dogma that brainwashes them into accepting "God's
will", "original sin", and  "vicarious atonement" as the justification of
their suffering.  The blind leading the blind, so to speak.

So, please bear all this in mind when you wish to discuss, or have anything to
say about the real cause and nature of theosophy.  We don't need side issues
from exoterically brainwashed "skeptics" to deflect its real purposes and
teachings.  (Especially when "newbie" students are listening in.)

>> If it were, why did HPB waste millions of words on the Secret Doctrine
>> with almost no mention of spiritual practices?  That was left for each
>>individual student to attain through his/her own self devised and self
>>determined efforts.  For that, she gave us
>>the Voice of the Silence, and pointed us to the Tao Te-Ching, the I-Ching,
>>Patanjali, the Dalai Lama and the whole Mahayana Buddhist Canon.  Remember,
>>the Secret Doctrine is the "Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy"
>>Which comes first? -- the chicken or the egg?  Is the Universe empty or
full?
>>Ask HPB.
>
>I have no idea what you are trying to say here

Since the first part of the paragraph is self explanatory, I assume you are
asking about the last two questions.  What I was trying to say there (and
confirmed by your lack of response) is that your "opinions" about theosophy
and the teachings of the Secret Doctrine may be so shallow that you cannot
answer the questions asked.  Those questions are similar to Nagarjuna's query
(with respect to the Universe), when he said, "Is it one or many"--which HPB
answered clearly in the S.D. as well as repeatedly in other of her writings.

>>You don't have to agree.
>
>Well, thats a relief.

I'm glad you feel that way.  But, unfortunately, such polemical disagreements,
as you seem to have with both my and Dallas' statements and claims about
theosophy based on snippets of out-of-context information, and without logical
or verifiable refutation or serious questioning--is both pointless and non-
productive.   If anything, however, as a saving grace, it points out the
inherent strength and irrefutable logic of the theosophical teachings about
karma and reincarnation, in the face of your weak arguments denigrating
theosophy and its teachers (and, by implication, its students).

>> Nor do we have to prove anything.

>That is good, because we can't.

And, that is strictly your opinion--based on a seeming ignorance of the means
to prove (both subjectively and objectively) anything that requires a deep
understanding of the three fundamental principles--that, taken together, in no
way contradicts any principles of modern science, or, for that matter, the
teachings of the Buddha himself.

>>And, there is no such thing as a "true" skeptic when it comes to theosophy.
The >>phrase, "true skeptics" is an oxymoron, since they have "opinions" only,
...

>What you are giving me right here, my friend, is your own opinion.

And, again, that is YOUR opinion. . . Since any real non-opinionated skeptic
should be able to back up his skepticism with logical and consistent counter
arguments based on verifiable knowledge.  What we say about theosophy and the
teachings in the Secret Doctrine (which is its basis) is not "opinion", but
simply the carefully considered conclusions of its knowledgeable author(s) on
subjects that have been deeply "studied, questioned and resolved for many ages
by countless Adepts and Masters by means of long and deep meditation,
introspection and experimentation".

However, we cannot deny that there are many truths hidden in the S.D. that
only the truly "intuitive "advanced" student" can dig out and understand.  (In
fact, the book is so complex, so deep, and so "blinded" intentionally, that it
could take more than 10 to 20 years of continued study and contemplation to
comprehend and correlate its teachings with ALL the physical and "occult"
sciences and philosophical truths it contains and presages.)

If you did study the S.D. thoroughly, (and were an "intuitive" student) you
would know what I mean by this, as well as the purpose of such "blinds" or
"hints".  (Perhaps to prevent those steeped in "Spiritual Materialism" (Ref:
the book by Chogram Trungpa) from understanding them without the proper
"initiations"--and to ensure their inability to use such occult knowledge for
improper and selfish purposes.  Einstein, judging from his "textbook" use of
the S.D. and the fruits of such study, was apparently, not one of those.
(See:
<A HREF="http://users.aol.com/unIwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
">http://users.aol.com/unIwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html</A>
Therefore, students of theosophy, skeptics, or believers in contrary exoteric
religious teachings should be aware that there's much more in the Secret
Doctrine than meets the eye of the casual or superficial reader--and that
judgement of theosophy from that level has very little validity.  Thus my
claim that only long, deep and concentrated study gives one the "authority" to
speak on the subjects of theosophy without quoting its original teachers.

>>... also "proves" all that was written in the S.D. to be the truth, the
whole truth >>and nothing but the truth.

>Wow! I wish I could share your overjealous enthusiasm. However, you
>still have not convinced me or probably very many others. When you
>take something as big as the SD and state that everything in it has to
>be true, then you are letting yourself in for a great fall someday.

You may think so, but without any really clear understanding of what the S.D.
teaches--(which took me more than 20 years of study, meditation, and careful
consideration--wearing out two copies of the facsimile version of the original
edition, with margin notes filling almost every page, plus reams of analytic
notes and diagrams, along with a thousand questions directed to theosophical
Adepts and advanced Chelas, to fully understand both its exoteric and "hidden"
esoteric teachings, and, in so doing, finding no contradictions anywhere in
its almost 1500 pages)--you are talking through your hat.  It's the "skeptics"
like you that will take the fall, not I.

In all such study (which included all the writings of HPB, WQJ, KH and M) and
starting out as an "agnostic" rather than a dyed in the wool skeptic (who
"disbelieves" everything almost like a religion)--having no opinions or pre-
conceived notions, and with a background in philosophy, science and
engineering--I never found one statement that disagrees with any of the
*verified* or accepted findings of modern and post modern physics, biology,
cosmology, psychology, philosophy or any other scientific or philosophic
discipline.

>> (In this case, about the material world only).  We have yet to
>>prove our ABC theories that "scientifically" explain the fundamental laws
>>on the mental and spiritual planes.  But, they, too, are fully explained
("for
>>the intuitive student") in the S.D.  (Without such intuition, you might as
>>well study Dr. Suess :-)

>No, they are not. Spiritual law is beyond human minds to
>demonstrate one way or another. Not even "intuitive" students
>can "fully explain" material laws let alone spiritual ones. You
>appear to be living in a deterministic world, which is an ivory tower.

Not so--for one who knows and is fully intuitive.  Your assertive negativity
and your belief or disbelief about what humans can know or not know,
demonstrate or not, reminds me of the "classical" scientists who for almost 30
years denied and constantly refuted, in vain, Einstein's theory or relativity
which exploded all the false ideas about physical "reality" that was the
prevailing thought of his time.  Later, Heisenberg's indeterminacy (which was
also presaged in the SD) received the same treatment by the skeptics, who were
similarly proven wrong.

Today, most material laws have been more or less thoroughly explained (as far
as "objective" empirical science can go).  However, it won't be long before
the current materialistic and "physicalist" biases of current science (and of
nay saying skeptics who do not understand the power of the human mind as an
extension of the universal and infinitely wise Mahat, and its direct linkages
to primal Consciousness) will be similarly exposed for the foolish and
brainwashed  non-thinkers that they are.

>>And when that is accomplished, and a final theory results that satisfies
>>all the fundamental principles, as well as correlates with all current
>>scientific theories--experiments will be devised that will prove beyond a
>>shadow of a doubt that the conscious, intelligent universe, and all beings
in it,
>>consist of a marriage of the fields ...
(snip)

>Based upon my knowledge of the fundametal limitations of the human
>mind, I will not hold my breath.

That's empty, hubristic talk.   What knowledge--other than personal experience
of the limitations of your own mind?  For, how could you know anything about
the extent of the minds of others, or of the Universe?  Or, are you so
omniscient that you can speak as the "Voice of the Silence"--with a profound
knowledge of fundamental truths and all its ramifications?  (Tell that to the
Marines.:-)

>>  And, which act on all planes (analogously and correspondingly) in
conformance
>>with the laws of cycles and periodicity

>Your logic is flawed because no living being has such conformance.

No, but the fundamental law does.  Even so, how do you know what other humans
have or have not?  How about the Buddha when he was alive?  Do you know what
he had--except by hearsay?

But, then, if you carefully read and understand my statements, I was talking
about fundamental principles in relation to the workings of the whole
Conscious Universe ("as above, so below") not the actions of individual
"personalities" within it.  If you can so misinterpret my simple and clear
statement, what makes you think we won't imagine that you can also
misinterpret the (admittedly more complex) statements of HPB and her teachers.

Therefore, I can still state that the Universe must conform perfectly to its
fundamental laws as the basis of its inherent nature.  The only reason that it
goes awry (as we experience it ordinarily) is because of the free willed wrong
choices of undeveloped human minds.  Remember, as theosophy teaches (which we,
as imperfect humans, have no logical reasons to deny)--we are only in the
fifth sub-race of the fifth root-race of this fourth round of the Earth. . .
And Manas, our fifth principle, wont be fully awakened until the next root
race--as the Earth's corresponding "fifth principle" also won't be fully
awakened until its sixth round.

>>Such an irrefutable scientific proof will convince ...

>You are fooling yourself. I will feel very sorry for you when your bubble
>finally pops.

What bubble?  We've done nothing but add the next logical step (explaining the
workings of consciousness fields in relation to material fields) onto to the
basic laws of physics that both Science and the Secret Doctrine have already
confirmed.   You might as well feel sorry for those "ignorant ones" that will
be harmed emotionally and psychically, when their desecrated Earth's "bubble"
pops  and they get all their supportive beliefs wiped away because they
listened to the nay sayers who told them about the non-perfectibility of man,
and the "indeterminacy" of fundamental Law in the universe.  (Only the forms
of matter are indeterminate, and subject to trial and error evolution, not its
laws.)

As WQJ states, "Karma is an undeviating and unerring tendency in the Universe
to restore equilibrium, and it operates incessently".  It is our contention
that his conclusion, based on the fundamental Law of Cycles and Periodicity
(rooted in fundamental spin, and operating consistently through and within
each of the sevel levels of existence from Spirit to Matter)--brooks no
argument.

Because we experience an indeterminacy when we subjectively observe the finest
objective particles on this plane of matter, could very well be the "proof"
that fully determinate, unchanging and eternal consciousness is the ruling
factor in all evolution, and that particulate matter is nothing more than an
illusion of the senses.  This also could prove (contrary to the belief of
current science which presumes that consciousness is an epiphenomena of the
material brain)--that  since conscious observation can affect matter it,
therefore, is prior to, and its laws are the governing root of that matter.
It could also be, that what we are experienced at that small dimension of
observed space, is the illusion that fundamental vibratory space is composed
of "material" particles which, therefore, have been completely misinterpreted
by science--since they are not "solid" at all but follow the laws and
mechanics of the basic wave nature of space rather than classical quantum
mechanics which can deal only with its "material" nature.

Fortunately, some of the more open minded post-quantum physicists,
philosophers and mathematicians (as HPB predicted) have already seen this flaw
in the thinking of materialistic science, and are beginning to reconstruct
their theories that lead them closer to the theosophical principles of the
relationship between consciousness and matter.  (Ref: Amit Goswami, Sheldrake,
Penrose, Hameroff, et al).  Interestingly, my scientific theory of ABC fields
(based on the S.D.) is perfectly in accord with this "new thinking".  (See:
<A HREF="http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/";>http://www.t
ellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/</A> )

>>How can the things talked about on this list have anything to do with
>>developing a "scientific theory" of universal "ACTION" which is the root
>>and cause of karma  and reincarnation?  Such a theory is already developed.

>Indeed it is. Its called the theory of causation. Big deal.

No.  That's only man's interpretation of causation on the plane of matter.  It
is not the causation we speak of--as governed by universal law on the ruling
plane of consciousness.  Karma, as it applies to universal justice or balances
of nature on all its planes or fields of action, has nothing to do with your
opinions of how it works, but is solely limited by the fundamental laws of
causation rooted in the creative plane of spirit or consciousness.  Mundane,
materialistic science has nothing to say about these laws, and in fact, denies
that they or the fields of consciousness in which they are rooted, even exist
as independent entities and/or principles.  What we see or experience on the
material plane--of apparent indeterminacy of these laws--is purely the result
of man's choices, based on ignorance of his true nature which has been
occluded by the materially oriented false conceptions that fills his mind.

>> The way to agree about how karma and reincarnation works is to study the
>>scientific principles--as clearly taught in the S.D.--that determine their
>>action.

>This has been going on for 100 years now, with little result. I don't
>expect much better results during the next 100 years either. The
>only way to come to any real understanding of reincarnation is to
>experience it and remember. And even then your "understanding"
>will consist only of your own interpretation of your own experiences.

So much for nay saying and pessimism about the development of man's mind and
the evolution of his consciousness.  Science has progressed in the past ten
years a thousand fold compared to its growth over the past hundred years.
Judging by that geometric progression, I expect, that in the next few years it
will leap a thousand times further.  How can you expect the knowledge and
wisdom of theosophical truths to progress any slower?  As HPB pointed out,
this is the last cycle in the theosophical movement and the culmination of a
thousand years of work will see its final expression in a few more years, as
both science and theosophy--the accumulation of the knowledge and wisdom in
many, MANY minds--approaches (but can never touch) the asymptote of infinite
knowledge and wisdom.  So, how can any of us be so sure that our individual
personal experience, per se, can tell us anything about the nature of reality?
Understanding reincarnation takes no memory or personal experience, but,
simply, a profound comprehension and extrapolation of fundamental Law.  And,
that takes nothing more than deep study, meditation on, and consideration of
the teachings laid down by HPB in the SD.

>>Alleged theosophists who cannot agree on these ideas, just haven't studied
>>the Secret Doctrine deep enough...

>This is pure bullshit and sounds a lot like the crap that Dallas and Frank
>have put out. You are saying here that anyone who doesn't agree with you
>is not a "real" Theosophist. Whether you intended to say this or not, this
>is what you are saying here. Your fundamentalism is a bit more than I can
take.
>Your compassion and forgiveness of others does not show itself in
>your words.

That's great.  You really have a good argument there.;-)  Frank, Dallas and I
should bow down to your profound wisdom.

But you're wrong (as usual?;-).  I am saying that anyone who hasn't studied
and comprehended the principles and their causes and effects as explained
thoroughly in the Secret Doctrine, cannot be a spokesman for or argue for or
against theosophy in its scientific aspects.  This does not mean that one
cannot be a "true theosophist" who has compassion and forgiveness for the
foibles of the human race, and practices pure altruism in thought and action.
That has nothing to do with the principles of fundamental law, its correlate,
karma, or their actions on the consciousness, mental, astral, or physical
planes.

So, what are you arguing about?  If it's (as it appears) blind and arbitrary
beliefs with no foundations on your part vs. pure science with a foundation in
fundamental Law on ours--you haven't a leg to stand on.   So, watch your
mouth.  You could put your foot in it.  (And then you'd really be sitting on
your bottom.;-)

(HPB and WQJ, wherever they are, would then have a good LOL.:-)

Best regards,

LHM

>