Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00331)

>Daniel comments:
>
>But the question to ask is whether what Rich is encouraging is REALLY "a
>distraction from the true message of Theosophy."  It could be a distraction but
>again maybe it is not.
>
>Concerning the naturalist Quatrefages:  Since HPB mentions and quotes from his
>works on dozens of pages in the Secret Doctrine, why is it a distraction or
waste
>of time

"waste of time" are your words Daniel

to try to gain *some* background information on this scientist and his
>work?  I would suggest that knowing something about this scientist and his
theories
>might help the student understand (mentally/and-or/intuitionally) more
fully what
>Madame Blavatsky is writing about.  Is this so bad????????

There is nothing bad about it.  It just seems upsidedown.
>
>Another example out of 10,000:  thoughout many of HPB's writings, starting with
>ISIS UNVEILED, we find references to Norse mythology, Odin, Thor, etc.  If the
>reader knows little or nothing about this Norse (Germanic) literature, then
I would
>think that many of HPB's comments and insights might go right over the
student's
>head.  Simply acquainting oneself with the basic knowledge about Norse
mythology
>might help one to understand HPB's text better.  Is this a distraction from the
>true message of Theosophy?

Interestingly, we are at opposite ends again Daniel.  It can be helpful.
Why not look at it the other way round?
Because of THEOSOPHY and HPB, we are now able to understand the basics of
Norse mythology.
Hopefully you agree with this too?

>I personally like to read what HPB writes and I try to understand what she is
>getting at.  But many times I have to educate myself in this or that subject in
>order to appreciate what HPB is writing about.  I believe this is part of
what Rich
>was trying to convey.

That is your approach, and that is fine, but there other ways too.
>
>Tony, if this line of study is a distraction for you, then don't pursue the
>background information but please don't suggest  that because another sincere,
>serious Blavatsky student pursues this line of study that there is something
>"negative", etc. about it.
>
As Rich had called it an argument, and was signing off, and after what Leon
had written to you, it seemed that that was a suitable end to this never
ending discussion.  You called what Leon wrote negative, and you are doing
the same again here.  Why in a discussion is there anything wrong or
un-theosophical in suggesting that it is a distraction, particularly if this
is how it is seen to be?

We just see it differently Daniel.
After what Richard wrote, that he had been teaching the SD for years, the
conclusion was that we are reading/studying different Secret Doctrines.  It
is very interesting.

Why are we seeing different SDs?

SD title-page:

The Secret Doctrine, the synthesis of science, religion and philosophy.

C will say the Secret Doctrine is about science, religion and philosophy.  SD 1.

A will say, it has absolutely nothing to do with science, religion and
philosophy, it is about the synthesis.  SD 2.

It is the conflict of life itself.  How without one can you see the other?
And there are interesting conclusions to be drawn from it on both sides.
And the weakness that is there, but also the strength.

But what about B?
"Fohat is the key in Occultism which opens and demystifies the multiform
symbols and respective allegories in the so-called mythology of every nation
..."

Tony